2009-10-20
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr Neville Perkins OAM, former member for Macdonnell and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly from 1977 to 1981, accompanied by Mr Abdul Khan. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move the member for Macdonnell have leave of absence for the remainder of these sittings due to ill health in the family.
Motion agreed to.
VOLATILE SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 71)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act 2006 to streamline the administrative and court processes that provide for assessment and compulsory treatment for people at extreme risk as a result of their volatile substance abuse; to broaden the definition of what constitutes a treatment program, to be more responsive to a broader range of clients’ needs; and to extend treatment orders from eight weeks to up to 16 weeks.
When the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act was introduced in 2006, it was the first of its kind in Australia, and remains the only comprehensive legislative approach to volatile substance abuse in the country.
The act was developed through extensive consultation with those communities disproportionately affected by volatile substance abuse, and informed by the work of the Northern Territory Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community.
One of the most debated and contentious parts of the legislation was the arrangements for people to be referred for an assessment for court-mandated treatment. At the time, this was an untested approach to volatile substance abuse with some outspoken critics who objected to the implied erosion of personal freedoms. The act was, therefore, drafted with a number of safeguards in the form of multiple approvals from the responsible minister, with treatment orders being limited to eight weeks, and with treatment being defined as one of a handful of nominated residential treatment facilities.
Three years on, it is apparent the concerns which drove this strong public debate are no longer of such primary concern. So much so, I note some of the strongest opponents to this legislation and, indeed, members of the opposition, are now calling for compulsory treatment arrangements for people with chronic alcohol problems based on the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act.
It is also evident the numbers of requests for assessment for court-ordered treatment far exceeded what was anticipated at commencement, with over 265 referrals received to date, all of which require verification, assessment, and approval or, otherwise, to proceed to formal assessment.
The amendments propose to expedite and streamline this part of the act by assigning the powers and functions currently assigned to me, in Part 3 of the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act 2006, to the Chief Health Officer of the Northern Territory. This is the responsibility which I believe aligns well with the health protection responsibilities of the role.
The bill also revises arrangements for assessing clients and making application to the court for treatment orders through proposed amendments to sections 33 and 34. The multiple approval steps in the act requiring separate approval processes to (1) conduct the assessment, and (2) apply to the court for a treatment order, have been collapsed into a seamless process for approval by the Chief Health Officer, subject to approved assessment guidelines.
Of the 265 referrals, 43 applications have proceeded to the court for consideration of a treatment order. Courts are guided by the assessment information of client’s needs and the available treatment options in the community. Clients before the court are invariably complex, with a multitude of health and social issues that require support as part of addressing their volatile substance abuse. The bill will allow for a broader range of assessments to be considered and to broaden the definition of treatment to include a range and mix of therapeutic, health, diversionary, education, and residential options.
The proposed section 41 amends the period of the order to provide for the option of making orders for up to 16 weeks. The effect of the amendment will be to allow for longer order periods and a broader range of treatment services and options, to be able to be considered to meet the diverse needs of those being referred. The primary consideration of the court in considering applicability of a treatment order continues to be the protection of the person at risk. There are also revised arrangements for when orders need to be varied or amended, as has been required on some occasions and in some circumstances.
In applying the act, there have been some identified ambiguities in sections 37 and 38 relating to the notice of application and the hearing of the application. It is proposed to amend these sections to be more explicit about the sharing of confidential assessment reports and documentation, and the obligation of the person for whom the application is made to attend the hearing.
In summary, this bill aims to ensure the compulsory treatment provisions in the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act are as streamlined and responsive as possible, while still ensuring an appropriate level of checks and balances. The bill ensures a contemporary approach to volatile substance abuse which responds to identified needs of people at high risk.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement accompanying this bill.
Debate adjourned.
RACING AND BETTING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 65)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time. Recently, the Henderson government undertook a review of the Territory’s wagering taxes, including the bookmakers’ turnover tax. The need for such a review arose because the past two years has seen significant changes to the Australian racing industry including taxation, fee, and regulatory developments in other states and territories. For example, most other states have introduced product fees imposed by their racing authorities for the use of race fields by wagering operators such as TABs and bookmakers, with the fee based on the turnover or gross profits of the wagering providers.
More recently, the Tasmanian government passed legislation which authorises the sale of the government-owned totaliser, TOTE Tasmania, and also deregulated the Tasmanian bookmaking industry. Tasmania also seeks to match the Territory’s regulatory regime as the most competitive for corporate bookmakers in Australia. Additionally, it replaces Tasmania’s wagering tax on bookmakers with a $250 000 fixed licence fee subject to CPI indexation.
This is immediately a threat to the Territory’s established bookmaking industry, as the Tasmanian licence fee represents a significantly lower cost than the Territory’s bookmaker tax for most of the Territory’s corporate bookmakers. Consultation with the industry indicated, although corporate bookmakers are very happy with the regulatory arrangement in the Territory, the Tasmanian licensing and regulation arrangements meant most would be forced to relocate from the Territory to Tasmania. This is a significant industry in the Territory. Corporate bookmakers employ around 250 employees in the Territory and paid around $10.5m in Territory taxes last year.
The likelihood of bookmakers leaving the Territory is a significant concern, and left the Henderson government with tough decisions to make. Not only would such a relocation result in a significant loss of tax revenue, but it would cost Territory jobs. It would also result in a loss of support to the local racing industry, both indirectly through the support of events such as the Darwin Cup, but also support such as rent from the lease of office spaces at the Darwin Turf Club.
Faced with this tough decision, there was only one real option for the Henderson government to preserve Territory jobs, retain the industry presence in the Territory, and ensure some future tax revenue is retained. That option is to reform the Territory bookmakers’ turnover tax regime so it remains competitive with a new Tasmanian licensing regime. This was not a decision taken lightly.
To this end, the bill amends the Racing and Betting Act to replace the existing turnover tax with a new profits-based scheme. The bill proposes the new bookmakers’ tax will commence on 1 January 2010, and will be payable on a monthly basis at a rate of 10% of a bookmaker’s gross monthly profits, with the maximum amount of tax payable in a financial year being $250 000, indexed to Darwin’s CPI. For the 2009--10 financial year, the cap will be $125 000 to account for 1 January 2010 commencement date.
Although these measures will significantly reduce tax revenue, inaction would have resulted in most, if not all, corporate bookmakers relocating from the Territory. The Territory would have lost all bookmaking tax revenue, in addition to the lost Territory jobs and damage to the local racing industry.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, before I move to adjourn the debate, I ask the government - in relation to the Licensing Commission report, which reports on taxation revenues - if it would be possible to have the gaming income of the Northern Territory expressed in the way it is traditionally expressed; in volume gambled and those sorts of things.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read first time.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Local Government Grants Commission Act in order to allow the Northern Territory Grants Commissioner until 15 November of each year to provide me, as the Minister for Local Government, with a report of the commission’s activities for the previous financial year.
The commission is established under the Local Government Grants Commission Act and performs the important task of making recommendations to the government on how financial assistance should be distributed to local government bodies in the Territory.
The commission’s report contains valuable information upon which government relies to ensure it continues to make the right decisions for local government in the Territory. The report contains the recommendations made by the commission in relation to the allocation of federal financial assistance grants to councils for the previous financial year, and the allocations for the upcoming financial year. It also includes the methodology used for those allocations, as well as a summary of all inquiries held or investigations carried out by the commission during the year.
The act also requires me to table the report of the commission in the Legislative Assembly, meaning this report is available to any person, and is a valuable source of information for councils and other interested organisations involved with the local government sector.
Currently, the act requires the commission to provide the report to the minister no later than 30 September of each year. The chairperson of the commission, Mr Bob Beadman, has asked me to amend the act so as to allow the commission to provide the report by 15 November of each year. This amendment will align the timing of the reporting requirements of the commission with those of councils under the Local Government Act. This alignment will result in the government receiving the reports of the council and the commission at the same time each year.
Further, when the commission is requesting information from councils for the preparation of its report to me, it will be doing so at a time when councils are more likely to have the information readily available in preparation of their reporting responsibilities under the Local Government Act. This will make life easier for the council and commission staff alike. The benefits of this will be a better informed government, better placed to make decisions concerning the future of local government.
We have also included an amendment omitting the definition of ‘municipal council’, which referred to the definition within the Local Government Act which no longer exists, following the introduction of the new Local Government Act in 2008, as part of the local government reform. Additionally, we have also taken the opportunity to make some minor amendments to update the act’s style, where appropriate, to reflect modern legislative drafting practices. These amendments do not affect the meaning or application of any part of the act.
In conclusion, the amendment to the reporting requirement of section 16 is a sensible one. It will assist the commission to comply with its reporting requirements under the Local Government Grants Commission Act.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I present the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. In accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act, I am pleased to table the 2008-09 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement.
The statement forms part of the 2008-09 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, and presents the Territory’s fiscal performance for the year. The report also satisfies the requirements of the final fiscal results report as set out in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement 2008-09 highlights the seventh consecutive budget surplus under a Labor government. The fiscal outlook of the Territory changed dramatically in 2008-09 due to the global financial crisis. As reflected in the 2009-10 budget, the effect of the global financial crisis on the Territory’s future revenue and the need to maintain investment in infrastructure resulted in a necessary revision to the government’s fiscal strategy. This is the first report which includes an assessment of the financial performance to date against this revised strategy.
The key outcomes of the 2008-09 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report are: cash surplus achieved due to nett timing differences, largely the late receipt of additional Commonwealth revenue, offset by bringing forward some existing Territory commitments; operating surplus maintained providing level of capacity to invest in infrastructure to support growth and the local economy during these turbulent economic times; general government capital spending of $676m, a $121m increase from 2007-08 and 3.5 times the depreciation expense; taxation collections well below the average of the states as the Territory continues to be the lowest-taxing jurisdiction for small and medium business; and nett debt to revenue ratio decreased from 23% in 2007-08 to 20% in 2008-09.
I now turn to more detail to the outcome for the 2008-09 financial year. The 2008-09 outcome of a $136m cash surplus for general government is an increase of $127m from the May 2008 budget. The increase since budget time is largely the result of timing differences associated with additional tied Commonwealth funding, and increased mining royalties offset by the decline in GST revenue and timing of the Territory commitments.
GST revenue decreased by $158m during 2008-09 due to the global financial crisis that affected consumption expenditure in Australia, resulting in a reduced national GST pool available for distribution to the states and territories. This was offset by an increase in mining royalties of $135m due to increases in both price and volumes of commodities produced.
The Territory government was also successful in attracting more Commonwealth funding to the Territory for specific programs, particularly to address Indigenous disadvantage. Tied Commonwealth funding increased by $366m, one-third of which was received in June 2009, primarily made up of $60m for municipal and essential services and $36m for the development and implementation of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan. These funds are expected to be spent over the next three years. Whilst such timing variations are not unusual, the differences in 2008-09 are significantly higher than in previous years. The expenditure of this additional tied Commonwealth funding will have a worsening effect on the 2009-10 and future years, and this effect will be incorporated in the 2009-10 mid-year report.
To reduce the effect on future years, a number of one-off commitments totalling $81.5m were brought forward from 2009-10 to 2008-09. These include: $20m towards the Power and Water Corporation’s ongoing infrastructure program; a one-off grant of $33m for the Palmerston Sporting Complex, a 2008 election commitment; additional one-off funding related to the provision of Indigenous essential services to remote communities of $17m, including the sewerage system in Borroloola; and funding of $10m to Thoroughbred Racing NT.
I now turn to the 2008-09 accrual outcome. The operating surplus of $187m and fiscal balance deficit of $22m are both significant improvements on those budgeted. Again, as with the cash outcome, this is largely due to increased tied Commonwealth funding which will be spent in 2009-10 and future years. The fiscal balance outcome represents the complete picture of government spending as, like the cash outcome, it incorporates the effects of both capital and operational transactions.
Capital investment plays a central role in the government’s fiscal strategy as it is essential for the delivery of government services and contributes to the economic development of the Territory. During the current economic downturn short-term countercyclical increases in infrastructure spending are required to support economic recovery and sustain Territory jobs. The infrastructure spending for 2008-09 was $911m, which is $41m higher than the $870m projected at the time of the 2008-09 Budget, and reflects additional investment in remote areas, schools and roads. This level of investment is contributing to our strong economic growth, forecast to lead the nation in 2008-09, and has supported the 4000 jobs created over the past year.
I now turn to the Territory’s balance sheet for the general government sector. Nett debt for 2008-09 is $837m, $50m lower than the 2007-08 outcome. The improvement is largely the result of the flow-on effect of the improved outcomes flow for 2007-08 and 2008-09. The nett debt to revenue ratio has also reduced to 20%, a slight improvement from the 23% in May 2008 and a significant improvement from the 61% recorded in 2001-02. This improvement is despite the global financial crisis which has affected the valuation of long-term investments held in the Conditions of Service Reserve. During 2008-09 the Conditions of Service Reserve experienced an unrealised loss of $82m as a result of market conditions, and was valued at $345m as at 30 June 2009. However, I am pleased to report recent upward movements in market conditions have resulted in the vast majority of this unrealised loss being reversed by 30 September 2009, with the value now being $395m.
Nett financial liabilities have increased by $369m from the 2007-08 outcome, predominantly as a result of a lower discount rate used to value the Territory’s superannuation liabilities. In accordance with accounting standard requirements, the Territory’s superannuation liability has been re-valued using the 10-year bond rate as at 30 June 2009. Until 2007-08 the 10-year bond rate had been relatively stable; however, with the advent of the credit crisis in 2007-08 and the global financial crisis in 2008-09, the bond rate has fluctuated significantly between reporting periods. It was 5.6% at 30 June 2009 compared with 6.5% at 30 June 2008. This has resulted in a large increase in the estimate of the present value of the Territory’s superannuation liability. Accordingly, the nett financial liabilities to revenue ratio as at 30 June 2009 has increased to 90% from the 87% achieved in 2007-08.
Before I conclude, it is important to note that the 2008-09 financial statement is the second year the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement has been prepared in accordance with the new harmonised accounting standard - AASB1049 –Whole of Government and General Government Sector Financial Reporting and, I am pleased to say, has again resulted in an unqualified audit opinion. The 2008-09 outcome shows this government is committed to managing the Territory’s finances responsibly through this period of economic uncertainty, whilst maintaining our commitment to invest in Territory infrastructure and support Territory jobs and the economy.
The challenge over the next two to three years will be managing the effect of timing differences each year as the cash surplus from 2008-09 flows through to the budget and future years, maintaining a surplus operating balance to support capital investment and limiting the expenditure growth in future years in line with the Territory’s fiscal strategy.
Madam Speaker, I table the 2008-09 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Speaker, I move the Assembly take note of the paper.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Moil Primary School students accompanied by Ms Brenda Kellam and Mrs Rhonda Jones. On behalf of honourable members, I extended to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I also extend a warm welcome to all the students from Moil Primary School. I know they are going to have a great time learning in Parliament House today.
I move intervening business be postponed until after consideration of Government Business Orders of the Day No 2 relating to the ministerial statement on Indigenous Economic Development. This is by agreement with the opposition and Independents in relation to the committee stage of the Hospital Boards Bill.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 19 October 2009.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I reiterate parts of what I spoke about last night. I referred to a book titled The Birth of Plenty, How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created written by William Bernstein in which he outlined the four basics you need for a country or community to generate wealth and sustain it; those four things being private ownership, scientific rationalisation, capital, and an efficient communication and transport system.
I also discussed last night a statement and words expressed by a former ALP member of this House, Dr Peter Toyne, which I will use in the next five minutes, where he stated you cannot keep Aboriginal people in a cultural museum and they have to get out into the real world.
I continue on from last night on page 4 of the minister’s statement, where it says in paragraph 2: ‘Indigenous Territorians earn far less’. And then in paragraph 3: ‘They own far less’.
There has been an issue in recent years but, to generate wealth one needs access to capital. To get access to capital you need something to put up - either a very good idea, extremely good references, or something you are prepared to lose. If you do not have any of those things, then financial institutions worldwide are reluctant to lend money. For people starting businesses, someone has to either give them something or back them for their financial losses should they walk away from any ventures. Therein lies the issue of the first point of generating wealth: private ownership.
I now quote from the fifth paragraph which said:
I agree with that; I do not have a problem with it, and I believe the Aboriginal people of the Territory have to engage in what is going on in mainstream Australia.
I heard an interview on the ABC with Chief Louie, who was in Alice Springs for the recent Indigenous conference held there. Chief Louie was talking about business for First Nations - as he called them – and he made a statement I found very interesting, which actually fits in with the four principles of generating wealth. He said: ‘You cannot have companies and businesses based on race’. He said they had tried it, and it does not seem to work. He said you need to integrate into the business community. I touch on something else someone else said here last night: there is no black, white or in between, there is just the right way to do things.
I was quite impressed with some of the things Chief Louie said, and I mention them in this House because I am hoping the minister might take some of those on board in relation to developing training programs to get the word out to these people. I believe he said there are 100 000 people who live outside Darwin in our regional towns and communities.
I have not heard, in this debate so far, the word ‘entrepreneur’. Actually, I have heard it once, and that was last night, by the member for Barkly, when he spoke about an entrepreneurial young fellow. There is a need to get those messages out there, and get these people understanding how to generate sustainable wealth. It is imperative the government look at ways of not only educating people in numeracy and literacy, but also the fundamentals of generating business.
We move down the page a bit …
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask the member be given an additional 10 minutes.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Further down on page 4, the minister stated:
First, you have to get people out there to explain opportunities, then you have to find out from Aboriginal people what they see as the opportunities and, then, give them some training on how to be an entrepreneur.
One of the major problems at the moment is, to be successful and sustainable in business, there needs to be a commitment. You need to be able to get up in the morning, and turn up, five days, six days, or seven days a week if you are in business. You need to be able to function properly, so you need education. All the governments around Australia and, in fact, the world, are trying to educate their people as fast as they can. There is some debate on how we go about that, but the fact remains, in many communities and rural communities, we have a housing problem.
People have to be able to get a good night’s sleep. When you have overcrowding - and I accept when you have overcrowding and you are trying to get these people to get up in the morning and go to work - if there have been arguments, fighting, drug abuse, and all sorts of terrible things going on in the night, it is hard to get up in the morning.
When we talk about housing, we have to come back to SIHIP, and the failure of this government to get houses on the ground. This is not a housing program, we are talking about an emergency housing program and, in two years, there is not one house completed.
How do we go out there and encourage these people to get into business, or to become entrepreneurs, when it is hard to even get up in the morning? Then people lose motivation, and it is about motivation. Business is about motivating people and finding out what motivates them. In this House last night, the member for Barkly gave us the example of a young man from Bootu Creek who worked hard, got his education, started work, was earning a good income, bought a car, then even wanted to go out, perhaps, and have a look at Collingwood - although I do not know why anyone would want to have a look at Collingwood. Obviously, I am not a supporter. There are some basics you have to get right before you can have the other four issues of wealth creation present in any community, and that is private ownership.
I move to the next page where the minister said:
How do we stimulate these people? How do we get Aboriginal entrepreneurs to create things? There are some great examples of Aboriginal entrepreneurs, and we have to look to those people. How do we get these people to go out, en masse, to motivate and train other people to become entrepreneurial in their thinking?
I move to page 7, where it said:
We have yet to see it:
I thought SIHIP would have fitted into there really well, but we see it is not happening as it should:
Employment and economic development;
These are great statements; however, what we are seeing is more of the same. It is almost like motherhood statements: ‘This is what we are going to do’, ‘We are going to do this’, ‘We are going to do that’, ‘We are going to resolve this’, and ‘We are going to fix that’. However, we do not see how in this document - only more statements and more of the same.
I go to page 12 of the statement, where it said:
Mainstream Australia has been doing this for a long time. There are many people out there who started somewhere. Many have lost time, money, and some have even lost their assets but, at some stage, people have to go out and take calculated risks. They need to understand they might lose something. Therein lies the basic fundamental of being an entrepreneur: you have to go out knowing you have something to lose, which drives you to create. When we talked about creating wealth, people need the four things I spoke about from The Birth of Plenty, How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created.
The next paragraph said:
That is a time-honoured saying. For years, all governments of many persuasions have been saying the same thing. I see, in this document, the government saying, ‘We are going to do more of the same’. I do not see how we are going to motivate these people out there to do the sort of things you need to create wealth.
I move to the next page, and quote from page 13:
It is a great statement, and I believe it is very important everyone has respect, because respect underpins just about everything we do in our life. However, at the end of the day, you need a little more, which I do not see in this section. Someone still has to sign on the dotted line and put up something they have to lose. The international community and money organisations will not lend to people on a whim or a good story. People want to know, because they have been burnt time and time again in the past, that people have something to lose; they have some drive to get up in the morning and go to work and, when things get a little difficult, they do not just pack up and say: ‘Ah well, I have nothing to lose, so I just stay home. I do not get out of bed, or we go somewhere else and do something else’. They walk off and leave whatever it is they started, and leave many people out of pocket.
In any venture in life which requires capital, someone, somewhere, has to pay. There is no such thing as a free ride or a free lunch. People may say: ‘It is not my money, it is not the bank’s money’. But if it is the taxpayers’ money, then the taxpayer pays. For too many years, we have seen people who get all these taxpayer-funded things, and they go out, spend money; they have great plans and ideas but, when it gets too hard, they walk away.
We have to change that, otherwise we go back to page 12 of the statement where it says, if you continue to do the same thing over and over again, you are probably going to get the same result. It is also very close to the definition of insanity: if you keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, then I believe you need to go and talk to someone about your state of mind.
We are required to get out there, train these people and demonstrate to them you have to put up something, you have to have a commitment; and commitment does not come in a couple of minutes, and nor should it only last a couple minutes.
The next section I have highlighted says:
I want to see the government move out there and deal with some of the land councils, and look at creating private ownership in many areas along the same lines other Australians have.
I see a lack of entrepreneurial training, and training in relation to venture capital in this statement. It deals with land ownership, which really needs to be looked at. Basically, we see more of the same through the whole statement. I am about to run out of time, but there are so many notes that show how close this statement is to the past. If we continue to do the same thing over and over again, I do not believe we are going to get a good result for Aboriginal Territorians. I encourage the government to get out there and encourage people to fit in with mainstream Australia, and face the real world.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, your time has expired.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of the statement delivered by the Minister for Regional Development.
Having listened to other members who have participated in this debate yesterday and, again this morning, I heard many broad-brush, sweeping, negative statements which indicate all in Indigenous economic development in the Northern Territory is doom and gloom, and the government is not doing anything. This could not be further from the truth, which is why these debates are so important for local members to be able to throw in their 10 worth, including those who represent bush electorates, where we know there is much movement. There are some very positive achievements, and these types of achievements do not receive recognition.
This is why it is so important, when we look at regional development, to look at individual regions. The opposition seems to have this mindset of talking about the whole of the Territory, in broad-brush, sweeping statements, without taking the opportunity to drill down and see what is happening out there on the ground. It probably has much to do with the fact they do not represent any of the bush electorates, so I suspect they do not know what they are talking about.
The minister has held responsibility for this important portfolio for just over 12 months, which is the same time I have been in my role as the local member for Nhulunbuy, a regional and bush electorate. I share with the minister his, and this government’s, concerns; there is a large segment of people in our society who do not enjoy equal participation in our economy, and Indigenous Territorians are three times more likely to be unemployed than non-Indigenous people.
This scenario is reflected in my electorate. The whole reason for Nhulunbuy’s existence, originally, was a mining community which has provided, for close to 40 years, thousands of well-paid jobs directly and, no doubt, tens of thousands of other employment prospects, indirectly. There have been millions of dollars in export earnings and, yes, millions of dollars in royalties for the benefit of Indigenous people.
However, for a community which is so rich with resources and opportunities, how is it that my Indigenous constituents are so underrepresented in the workforce? If mining has brought benefits to the Northern Territory, then those benefits are spread fairly disproportionately amongst its people. This is why it is so important - in fact, it is critical – as a government, we have a strategy which focuses on how we can engage with Territorians in the economic activity of the Northern Territory. This is to ensure people and communities can be self-reliant and self-determining and Indigenous people, in particular, are encouraged, engaged, and supported to be able to do so, given they make up one-third of our population and, in my electorate, make up half of the population. In other bush electorates, that figure is much higher.
I received a briefing late last month on the draft of the Indigenous Economic Development Strategy 2009-2012, and welcome its delivery at a time when we are witnessing unprecedented progress - and I mean real progress - in policy development and service delivery at a federal and Territory level, to address closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. A Working Future, Territory Growth Towns, Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, A Smart Territory, and Territory 2030, are some of the overarching strategies which are the platforms and catalysts for real change, and a new and much more positive future.
I would have loved to travel to Alice Springs a couple of weeks ago to participate in the Indigenous Economic Development Forum but, unfortunately, I was simply unable to attend. From the Gove region, there were 20 people who made the journey, and most of them Yolngu. Feedback I have received has been extremely positive. Listening to other members addressing this House yesterday and this morning, it seems to have been case it was an extremely positive forum.
The Monday after the forum, two of my constituents, from the homeland community of Nyinyikay, Megan and her mother, Nancy, called in to my office before they travelled back to Nyinyikay. They told me travelling to Alice Springs was the furthest they had ever been from their home, but were so pleased to have made the journey. They said they had learnt so much listening and speaking with others, and were surprised by how many people wanted to speak with them, including the media, to learn what they were doing at Nyinyikay with their cultural tourism business. It literally opened a whole new world for these ladies to discover not only were they successful, but other people had also recognised their success. In fact, the Indian chief - Chief Clarence, I believe his name is - who was one of the keynote speakers from Canada, travelled to Nyinyikay for a visit a couple of days after that, to see firsthand what these Indigenous Territorians were doing in the homeland community of Nyinyikay.
These strategies are real and are happening, though as always, never fast enough. I take this opportunity to highlight some of the very positive things which are occurring in my electorate. All too often, these things which are happening on the ground seem to be overlooked. I mentioned earlier Indigenous people are underrepresented in the mining community of my electorate. However, let me qualify that statement, especially in light of an enormous body of work undertaken by Rio Tinto Alcan and its predecessor, Alcan, which saw a targeted Indigenous employment and training program launched in the year 2000. What is now called the ALERT Program is seeing good success in providing nationally accredited training programs, and seeing participants provided with a high level of support around work readiness, numeracy and literacy, to graduate with a set of new skills and with very real employment prospects on completion of the course.
Notably, the achievements of Rio Tinto Alcan and its ALERT Program have recently been recognised at the Northern Territory Training Awards. Whilst Rio Tinto Alcan is determined to see an increase - a sustained increase - in its Indigenous employment figures, it is simply wrong to assume the mining industry is an industry where all Yolngu people want to, or even aspire to, work. Let us face it, 12-hour working days, in the heat, in a hazardous chemical environment is simply not everyone’s cup of tea.
Many of the Yolngu people I know possess no shortage of talent, skills, and knowledge, and are driven by a certain passion. With that background, and with government support, there have been some real success stories including in the area of ecotourism ventures on homelands. I remember the member for Arnhem speaking yesterday, and she is quite right in acknowledging the land inspires Indigenous people. It is at the heart of their culture, and is at the very core of their being. Anything we can do to support Indigenous people working on country is something we will continue to do.
The minister mentioned in his statement Timmy Burarrwanga and his Bawaka Cultural Tours. This venture was set up by Timmy and his family with good support from the government. Their beautiful and pristine homeland is located on the shores of Port Bradshaw, about one hour’s drive – in a four-wheel-drive - from Nhulunbuy. It was a vision the family had held for many years, which came into being with the mining company’s G3 expansion project some years ago - in 2004, I believe it was - and a need for the company to be able to provide leisure activities for the fly-in, fly-out construction workforce. This venture at Bawaka has been sustained, and grown well beyond the life of Nhulunbuy’s mining expansion project.
I made my first visit to Bawaka in March, and was part of a group of government employees from the Department of Housing and Local Government, who were making the two-day and one-night visit as part of a pilot program which was being delivered: a cross-cultural awareness course. One of the criticisms I hear is those in the government sector who are delivering services to Indigenous people need to have a greater understanding of Indigenous knowledge and culture in order to better communicate with Indigenous clients and be successful in service delivery.
The course was absolutely brilliant, and something I will remember for a very long time. I know those sentiments were shared by all the other participants. Since then, there have been other groups of public servants from the East Arnhem region, including our local police officers, who have attended the course at Bawaka and found it to be extremely worthwhile, with lifelong lessons learnt. Bawaka also caters for tourists who are looking for a cultural experience, including the special Gay’wu Women’s Program, and an insight into Yolngu way of life. With it come visits to beautiful special areas and unique things like collecting bush tucker.
Bawaka’s success has been underpinned by strong support from the Territory government and through Tourism NT. The Yolngu Tourism Hub, located in Nhulunbuy, has provided enormous background support to existing and emerging tourism businesses in north-east Arnhem Land. It was welcome news to learn that, in July of this year, the Australian government, through the Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations, along with Tourism NT, signed a funding agreement to see the continuation of support for the hub for the next two years. Currently, the hub, which has been hosted by the East Arnhem Shire, is going to a tender process to find a new host.
The hub looks after not only Bawaka, but also Nyinyikay, which I mentioned earlier, and supports the very special Rripangu Yirdaki workshops run by master yidaki maker and player, Djalu Gurruwiwi.
A key to providing support to these emerging tourism businesses has been the delivery of the Stepping Stones for Tourism program.
I also mention the success of the Arnhem Weavers business, located at the community of Mapuru near Elcho Island. Its tours, which see tourists from around Australia and overseas, have been running for several years but, in 2007, it sought support from Tourism NT which facilitated delivery of the Stepping Stones program. One of the Arnhem Weavers, one of my constituents, Roslyn, said, and I quote from the September 2007 edition Tourism NT’s indigenous development newsletter:
The Yilpara community is also about to step into the cultural tourism sector, something the people there have aspired to for some time, which is now becoming a reality. When I was there a few weeks ago, I was guided through the new venture, which was a hive of activity getting ready for a group of test tourists, as we call them, in the first weekend in October. This prevented the community’s ability to travel to Alice Springs for the Indigenous Economic Development Forum, because they had these tourists who were coming to the community.
Yilpara also has a very active group of rangers, employed through Yirralka Rangers as part of looking after the massive area which is the Laynhapuy Indigenous Protected Area, some 6900 km2 of land and 630 km of coastline. There are enormous employment opportunities which are very actively being taken up by people who are wanting to work on country; they possess this huge body of knowledge about country.
Another perfect example is the Dhimurru Rangers in Nhulunbuy, who also look after a large Indigenous protected area and, again, provide extensive employment opportunities - not CDEP, but real jobs - through its venture.
Going back to Yilpara, and the Yirralka Rangers, the Miyalk Rangers, or the lady rangers at Yilpara, have played a huge role in the development of this new tourism venture, and I was very impressed by what I saw. I was also impressed with the great sense of pride, ownership, and achievement these people have in seeing these dreams and their aspirations become a reality. I assured these ladies, in the knowledge of how successful similar businesses have been in north-east Arnhem region, there appeared to be no shortage of paying tourists from down south and overseas who would be more than willing to pay to come to their community for a very special experience.
What is notable, about all of these cultural ecotourism ventures, is they are not only successful and sustainable, but they are all located on homelands, and very remote ones. There are, obviously, lessons about what it is that makes these businesses successful and, without a doubt, in each of these communities there is a very strong sense of ownership, achievement, optimism, and confidence. What these do, by way of example, is to provide the confidence to other communities to be able to step forward and see their dreams become a reality. This is what the Indigenous Economic Development Forum did at Alice Springs; it provided a network, positive stories, and encouragement to others who were perhaps just stepping into that realm, or maybe still thinking about it.
Apart from these businesses in homeland communities, there should be confidence about taking on other paid jobs in the community. It is something I know my constituents aspire to. I mentioned it the other day when talking on the Chief Minister’s statement on Growing the Territory. People do aspire to work. Not everyone in our society aspires to work but, by and large, the message I get from my Indigenous constituents is they do aspire to work; to be able to do the jobs in their community where, currently, all too many are being done by non-Indigenous people who fly in and out.
This desire to work comes from people in communities - particularly the older people - who want to see a future for their children, and who also recognise that at the core is the need to recognise education is key to people’s futures. An ability to be able to read and write in English and to be numerate, whilst also - and I have said this previously - recognising their culture is strong, important, and is not in any way compromising what they already have.
To achieve that, we need to provide the right training and support. The literacy and numeracy, so Indigenous people can, in the future, take on roles like teachers, nurses, doctors, pilots, tradesmen, plant operators, administrators, and, as the member for Nelson alluded to yesterday, bakers and hairdressers. Some Indigenous people on communities are doing these jobs, but we need to see more people in these roles.
I share an excerpt from Laynhapuy Homelands’ vision statement, which says:
I also put on the public record it mission statement:
(1) To support the Yolngu members of the Homeland communities serviced by the Association through programs that deliver: maintenance and protection of country and culture; employment, training and economic development opportunities; good standards of communications and infrastructure in the homelands; and, good health, social welfare, community development and educational outcomes.
This vision is not unlike the government’s for Indigenous people, including and especially those on homeland communities. When the Chief Minister and I travelled to the community of Gurrumurru, on 27 July to meet with the mala leaders, these were the very things we talked about. The Chief Minister gave Laynhapuy Homelands and the mala leaders every assurance we were determined to work with them and to share that vision with them.
I also acknowledge the work of Laynhapuy Homelands CEO, Ms Yananymul Mununggurr, who is a dedicated, driven, and passionate woman. She was recognised last year as one of five Territory women for her outstanding achievement in the Territory and for what she does for homeland communities. Laynhapuy Homelands has around 27 homelands it is looking after, which are home to close to a 1000 people. In my dealings as local member, I have much to do with Laynhapuy Homelands, and I have great admiration for its drive.
No one doubts the enormity of the task in front of us. We are faced with turning around some of the entrenched attitudes, which the member for Nelson spoke of; about generational welfare and dependency. What is apparent to me, especially after listening to other members, is the importance of regions and the need for each region to work towards finding regional solutions. This is exactly what the minister meant when he acknowledged a one-size–fits-all approach would not work and, hence, the Indigenous Economic Development Strategy takes a place-based approach.
I had a conversation with one of my constituents recently, a businessman who challenged the need for an Indigenous Economic Development Strategy, in the belief such a strategy should sit under the banner of a broadly regional economic strategy. I had to disagree with him, recognising Indigenous people face unique challenges in economic development and capacity building. However, I also remembered a comment from the former Minister for Indigenous Policy, the member for Macdonnell, who said in this House, some months ago she hoped one day there would be no need for a Minister for Indigenous Policy. I would like to believe, some time in the future - though I suspect it is many years away - we will arrive at a time when there will not be a need for an Indigenous Economic Development Strategy, but just a regional economic development strategy. In the meantime, this government will continue to work in partnership with the Australian government, the private sector, and Indigenous Territorians …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, member for Johnston and Madam Speaker, but I will not need 10 minutes.
… to do everything we can to advance the status of Indigenous people and to close the gap on decade upon decade of disadvantage.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for his statement and his ongoing commitment to our regional areas and all who live there, especially our Indigenous population.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, with the member for Wanguri, I have spent 10 years in this parliament, with an interest in matters pertaining to all Territorians, and listened to a number of statements. Statements were issued and described in my first couple of years by the Country Liberal Party, then in government, and now by the Labor government.
During that time, I have witnessed debates where there was some enthusiasm and belief in what one was doing. I almost did not bother speaking on this, because I have heard it before. I believe one must be inspired and have some passion and honesty if we are really going to take this issue on and leave ourselves at the end of this with a legacy we can be proud of, other than words spoken in parliament.
As I was listening to the words, I noted the member for Nhulunbuy and a couple of the other members from the government, were a little sensitive in response to the comments which have been made by members of the opposition and said: ‘There have been some good things that have happened, and it seems to be quite negative what the opposition is saying’.
There is a first step; a philosophical difference in how economic development occurs. I do not hear from my Labor colleagues a real description of an underlying philosophy. What we see is a description of layer upon layer of activity and endeavour to create the impression, by virtue of programs which are being run, that something is happening which is beneficial to the recipient, the focus of those programs. We do not hear much about the one who is there to be helped by the program; it appears to be an extraordinary level of faith and confidence in programs themselves being the solution. I completely refute that; I do not accept it for a moment. My faith is in people; they have the capacity to get up and make a difference, but programs do little to effect change.
This is a philosophical difference; our arguments come from a different place. If they run contrary to or create the impression they are critical of the position you hold, we need to have a proper discussion on the basis of how economic development occurs, and sustain the argument. You may have a contrary view, but the arguments need to be run, rather than getting precious about negativity and passing it off as not a very sophisticated argument. Nor do I hear much of a description about the underlying philosophy and how that can effect change from honourable members on the government benches.
Once again, it is a focus on programs. I have heard this for 10 years or more. You only have to read program upon program, see money being shovelled into fund programs, then take a tour and look into the faces of the confused, the bewildered, and the dispirited, and wonder how we are going to effect change. Is a new tweak to the program or more money being spent going to bring a spark of light and hope into those who are dispirited and confused in the remote communities?
You can point to all sorts of things – like the spirit of life. You can see people out there who are trying hard, and they are making a go of things, against the odds in many respects. Just recently, we heard story after story during the tour through Central Australia, particularly notable from those who had some degree of understanding of what was going on. Their battle was not with the entrepreneurial spirit, and how you fan that flame, but trying to understand what the next four-wheel drive containing people with clipboards is there for, and how they can help. They seem to be getting in the way, rather than hearing what it is you are trying to do and how they can help you; how they stand alongside you and assist you to get from where you are to another place, rather than standing in front of you and providing all sorts of explanations which bear no connection to where the person was at. It was quite noticeable.
Some understood, to some degree, what was happening. They had made a decision to live in this community, and had lived there for many years. It was a non-Indigenous person who had the capacity to provide some interpretation of what was going on, contrasted with other communities where the same level of help was being provided. Yet, you could see the confusion, the resignation, the bewilderment: ‘What the hell is this about?’ People were coming and asking them questions or offering assistance and talking at them, not to them, and not listening to what they were saying.
It really came to mind when the member for Macdonnell said yesterday in her comments, there was a decision to grow some things – olives, in this particular case. They wanted some jars to help with the project of putting the olives into jars; but that help was not provided. But, I bet you there was a whole range of other help provided to that community, but not the help they needed to take them from where they were to where they would be next; from the known to the unknown. You can have programs, but they are not there to help those who are running them, they are there to help those who need the assistance. It is a bit like saying the operation - as I am hearing from members opposite - has been a success, but I fear the patient is dying. The patient is the one we need to recognise.
How do we bring life into the patient? There are operations being conducted. First, there has to be some recognition it is the person, the individual, who needs to have some motivation. I am very pleased comments have been made in the Chamber, most notably by the member for Fong Lim, regarding the need for welfare reform. It has been echoed through many of the comments. It goes right to the philosophical difference.
You cannot provide education, or stand in front of a class and teach, if they do not want to learn. How do you create the motivation? You cannot offer job and employment programs to those who do not want to work. How do you create the desire to learn and work? You have to create motivation. It is similar to when you have kids and you want to give them some sense of pride and endeavour, the idea of saving, of putting in an effort and getting a reward. You do not just give them money. I did not do that with my kids. I could have given them an allowance, not caring whether they did their jobs or not, and they get the same. It would be a poor parent who would give kids an allowance, whether they did their basic duties or not; that is the purpose of it.
You have to build some capacity, some basic understanding – effort and reward. If you do not have that as a foundation stone or a building block, you have Buckley’s chance of taking it to the next step. It is like trying to have a ladder with no rungs on it - you do not go anywhere. That is the first thing, and is why the issue of welfare reform is so serious. If you cannot reconstruct at that point, you cannot go anywhere, because you have to create the need.
A few years ago, I was at the Alice Springs Telegraph Station, and there was a gentleman who told us a story. He said he was from the Stolen Generations. He was asked his view by someone in the crowd. They were all expecting a story which we often get, the politically correct message, but he said what he believed. He said: ‘I reckon it was good, and I reckon what happened here was the beginnings of the problem we see all through the streets of Alice Springs, across the Territory, and the nation’. Someone asked: ‘What was that?’ He said: ‘When this telegraph station was built, there were Aboriginal people living in the vicinity who came in and, once they came in, there was a change of policy, and they thought they would feed them there, as they had the flour, the tea and the sugar. So they came in. They were there and they then fed them and then they stayed. They had no motivation whatsoever to go anywhere. They stayed there, and then expected to be sustained there’. He said: ‘If you take that food away, or they had to do something to get that food, they would have maintained their dignity, but the dignity disappeared and diminished, and then it morphed into substance abuse, because there was no effort put in, no reward, and the dignity that comes from the taking of a reward is something far more valuable than the money handed out, the program delivered, or the cost of that program’.
He saw the change and described what he saw - the death as a result of this policy. We have heard it described many times, but I do not think we can ignore it. I am particularly struck, as any member would be, my background being on the land, looking at those older Aboriginal men, in particular, walking around dressed as stockmen. It makes me a little sad when I see it because, on one hand, I am warmed to see the dignity with which they wear their hat, their boots, their Wrangler jeans, their checked shirt, and how proud they feel. The sad part is, it is a distant memory when they had real value as a stockman, highly prized in the industry. There was the time way back when that occurred yet, today, years later, they still wear the gear.
That tells us we have to go back somewhere. We have to take the steps to provide the capacity for the level of dignity which comes from recognising effort, and the reward which comes from effort is more valuable than anything. That is the antidote.
Instead, we are talking about a whole level of programs. Fine. Programs, programs, programs. On my trip through Central Australia recently, I saw a program in operation. I have mentioned it before. There were probably seven to nine Aboriginal stockmen, dressed up in their gear, wanting somewhere to go, something to round up, something to do. Someone had come along to them, without any government money, who had recognised they had the capacity and they had interest in the camels: ‘If we could round these camels up, and you could lend some of my gear, and I could show you how to do this, we will round the camels up and then we will take them off to market’. They were involved in something real. This was not very long ago. When Ian Conway turned up, they came out, hoping it would be soon they could round the camels up. ‘How much government money has gone into this, Ian?’ ‘Not a red cent, not a skerrick. I brought my own yards across, I have arranged this myself, because I cannot get any practical help, so I am going to roll my sleeves up and do my bit’.
What was most impressive about this was the bearing of those men who had been involved in the camel muster, and the reward they got; the money in the bank. They were making decisions about how they were going to spend that money. They decided they would buy a vehicle. It was not a huge amount. However, they wanted to be involved in the next exercise. They were standing with their gear on and all they wanted to know was when the next round-up was.
We went and visited the school. There were half as many bureaucrats at the school - two four-heel drives - as there were students. There were six students in the class, a teacher, and two other senior members of the department of Education having a chat in the staffroom. An interesting conversation.
We left the staffroom to walk outside and there was a free-standing besser block wall without any internal support. Someone said: ‘Whilst you are here I need to draw your attention to this wall’. It is the sort of wall you sometimes see in school, where they hit a tennis ball against it, throw a basketball at it and it bounces back, or they hit something over. The wall had been there some time and there was no internal support. Someone, with great concern, raised this with the senior bureaucrat, saying: ’We asked for this to be removed 18 months ago. Why has nothing happened?’ He took it on board: ‘Yes, you are right. We are going to tender that job and it will be fixed’. Two of us went to the wall and you could shake it. Standing within a stone’s throw away were seven to nine stockmen waiting for something to do.
The program will be in place to issue a tender to someone in Alice Springs with a ute, who will drive out and knock the wall down. They have all the right certificates, while those men are watching DVDs. That was the only thing they had planned, but they were waiting for someone, off the sweat of their own brow, because of their compassion and interest, to get their own equipment and help these men do something. Meanwhile, they sit and watch DVDs - Battlestar Gallactica, I believe they were watching - lying around on mattresses, waiting for something to happen. Could they not have been given the opportunity – ‘Hey, you men, we will give you some money to knock that wall over and dump the bricks into the gully’. That could happen, and they could have a little extra money and make some decisions, and feel special. They had been denuded of any opportunity through the delivery of big programs which you talk about here and say the program is doing this, that or the other. What is the intent of it? The fact is, the result of it is nothing.
The operation may be successful - the statement may be lauded - but I fear the patients are dying.
Welfare reform, properly considered and carefully implemented, will effect the necessary motivation and the basic concept of effort and reward. If you do not have that, you do not have any courage to change. You do not have any motivation, desire, or need to change; you stay within your comfort zone. You know that is the case. Look at your own children. It then applies across the board.
There is, therefore, the need to change with welfare reform, then breathing life into the notion of private enterprise and personal endeavour. If you have some courage to make a move, because you have been motivated to do so and you think it is going to be okay, it will. If you put in a bit of effort you will get a reward. You imprint that as a basic concept.
That gives you the courage to take a risk, to do something and say: ‘I reckon if we plant oranges’ – as we saw at Wallace Rockhole. They have an orange grove, and have put much effort into it. It was a government program, so they had everything they needed. They even had a greenhouse, they were off and running. They started to get themselves interested, under the leadership of one of the members of the community, and they got involved in it. It looked good - nice orange trees - but the program changed. The orange trees are still there, but there is no money for any of the efforts or the activities surrounding the training and so on. Great program, but the program changed.
Who can say the operation was a success? We are ticking a few boxes; the government is here to help. The trees are dead - no, they are not dead, but they do not look too flash. But the community spirit has died. That is another project which cost much money. It satisfied someone somewhere, but not the community; the entrepreneurial spirit is damaged.
We went to another community where there is another garden. No one even bothered to get involved in it. Yet, some bloke was trying to whip them into line saying: ‘Come on’. But they had given up being involved in such ‘programs’, because the courage they showed once, twice or three times has not been accompanied with a reward for the confusion.
Everywhere I went I kept hearing about layer upon layer of bureaucracy, and vehicle after vehicle. It leads me to a lasting impression I have of a trip I took to Alice Springs, mid-year, when I took taxi rides all over Alice Springs and to local shopping centres …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with section 77, I move the member be given additional time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, member for Brennan, Madam Speaker, and colleagues. I have spoken about the wall which was wobbling, where you could have, at least, with recognising what programs are for, directed those resources in a way which built some capacity and belief within the community. I have spoken about gardens which have died and stockmen wearing their gear, with memories of things past.
One image I had, on my trip to Alice Springs when I visited shopping centres and asked people to tell me their story - checkout people, people outside, people who made pizzas, taxi drivers, and the people standing in front of the takeaway alcohol store. As I was waiting outside one of the shopping centres, I saw down the road, as I walked, the new Central Land Council building, and I thought it was a very impressive edifice. I did not know what it was to start with - it is a very impressive building. The contrast between what I saw first - two old men dressed as stockmen - and then, a lady, eyes glazed, rocking backwards and forwards and, beside her, her friend who was unconscious on the footpath, at about 2 pm, both roughly the age of my daughter, who is 25.
These girls would have been perhaps 17, 18, 19, 20, I do not know. However, the contrast between what I saw on the footpath and that edifice struck a chord. I do not know what it is, but there is something really wrong. I have seen and heard many things. I have heard statements in here, and I fear we just will continue. But, we cannot continue.
You probably want me to unpack that image and what conclusions I draw. However, the messages I heard were the systems - the bureaucracy, the decision-making processes - are so convoluted and self-serving they do not drive real change to those who most need it. Unless you can deliver real change which is to the benefit of those who most need it - those who do not have voices, or the capacity to find their way from the known to the unknown - then all of our work comes to nothing. It might be a fine building, there may be expensive programs and a belief this new direction is going to produce something but, unless you attend to the underlying deeper issues - as the member for Sanderson quite rightly said – and keep doing the same thing and expecting different results, you are mad.
I am pleased there have been some other people who have contributed to this debate to put on record the need to go a little deeper. A round of applause for the endeavour being displayed in this statement. I do not wish it to fail or anything like that, but I fear if we do not attend to some of the deeper issues – if I am in parliament in another 10 years time and look back over 20 years, I hope we are not just saying the same things. If you are teacher, you cannot really teach and have kids learn if they do not really want to learn. You cannot have a program which is going to create employment opportunities if no one really wants to work. You cannot create that want unless you give the basic concept of effort and reward. We have to start there; it is pretty basic stuff.
I hope what I have said now and what was said previously adds to the register of the things we need to attend to in order to effect real change. Some members on the other side have probably seen more than I have. I do not want to discount my own experiences, because I see it in an urban environment - in Moulden, Gray, and reflected in the communities there. We have some real issues at hand and I wish members of the government well. However, I hope they recognise there is need to dig much deeper, otherwise, I fear, those who have contributed in positive terms to this statement - and only positive terms - with faint regard to the other issues which need to be attended to, will be here in 10 years time saying the same thing, and have what we currently see across the Territory - those who are remote from this parliament suffering, as they suffer now.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement; it has been enlightening to listen to all members who have contributed to the debate.
The Leader of the Opposition said he does not want to be standing here in 10 years time hearing the same rhetoric. When you research and look back over different speeches you have made in parliament, and at the history of Indigenous affairs or regional economic development - I went back, and it is always interesting to look over the old Parliamentary Records at the different debates which have occurred in this parliament - you see a theme arising in them. Some have brought up the same regurgitated, empty rhetoric of the bygone era of the CLP, but there have been many members - I was listening to the member for Port Darwin during his speech. Being here since 2001, we might not have agreed on a number of things, but there is no doubting his passion or conviction, both as the former member for Macdonnell, and one who continues to support and look at what the solutions are to what we all think have been intractable problems for a long time amongst Indigenous people.
In reply to a statement made on 7 March 2002, I stated, from my electorate:
There is a real perception from people who come from the general population, as the member for Nhulunbuy said, that there are Aboriginal people on the ground who do want to change - the leaders, the thinkers of our people do want to change. It is not just our elders, but there is a real change amongst some of our young people, and it is those people we continue to support.
I went on to say:
Many of our communities want to move in that way . If I look at the Arafura electorate - the minister, in previous reports, talked about the fibre-optic cable which has gone from Jabiru to Maningrida and across to Nhulunbuy – and the opportunities the fibre-optic cable provides for those communities, particularly the young people, on many of those remote homelands, with access to virtual schooling and opening up a whole new world for these kids.
If you listen to much of the debate, people often think it is all doom and gloom in our communities. There are problems like everywhere else, but you do not abandon those communities, or the issues, because it is too hard. You do not stand up and talk about them and say – and I pick one area in particular of the welfare reform agenda - that welfare reform is not needed in our urban centres as well as our remote communities. I believe if we are to tell the truth and look at society as a whole, if welfare reform is fault based - and it should be fault based - the Pearson model in Cape York would be a fantastic model and one we should be pursuing.
No one is saying it should not be put in place, but it is not just Aboriginal people who are dependent on welfare in this society. It is a problem nationally and throughout the Northern Territory; not just in remote Aboriginal communities. Yes, it is an issue. However, I have not heard members of the other side talking about that for a long time.
The CLP look to the CDEP program which has worked quite successfully in some communities. I know people have looked at CDEP as a welfare program. It is not. In some areas, it has been looked at as a genuine employment program which has provided a means for regional economic development to happen, and has laid the foundations for many enterprises in those areas to be created and sustained over time.
The Leader of the Opposition was talking about seeing programs come in to some communities - and we have all seen that - and then the goal posts change, and someone leaves, or the program funding is shifted to another priority. We have to ensure we continue and sustain those programs so people can have better working futures, particularly if we look at A Working Future policy as a whole. Aboriginal people’s working futures depend on the government and the public service which delivers the policies and works with the communities to implement those programs. It also ensures the money earmarked for development will be sustained beyond any one individual working with the program or implementing it.
I believe there has been a fundamental shift in the public service and the different agencies which work with those communities. It would be good to see the shift happen across the board; nevertheless, it has happened. All of us can see, within our own electorates, where there has been a fundamental shift in how the public service delivers and implements programs in our communities. I have seen the changes happen from when I became the elected member for Arafura in 2001. Whilst the opposition and others may think they are small changes, they have been fundamental changes. To see what has happened on the ground in those communities; there has been much positive development - not as much as people would like, but we have seen the fabric and structure of communities change.
If we are serious about regional economic development, one area which needs fundamental change - I note the minister’s statement regarding the regions, and I applaud him for his conviction with this – is we have to get our leadership, both in our remote communities - not just within the councils, or the land councils - and within the broader community, amongst parents and the school community. I remember the anxiety I felt, as the former minister for Education, regarding the whole issue of bilingual education, where people felt I was removing Aboriginal people’s rights to language, which was completely wrong. Aboriginal people should always be able to maintain their language and their rights to language. The most fundamental thing is the leadership and the urgency we need to show in education.
The Leader of the Opposition and, I believe, every member talked about – the member for Nhulunbuy - turning around that urgency, and making it happen amongst our parents, our leaders, everyone in the community; to see they have a responsibility, along with the government, to make sure kids go to school every day. If we do not turn around education, we will still be standing here in 10 or 15 years time talking about the same issue. Education is critical; we have to lay the foundations in our youth of today, because they are the leaders of tomorrow. I was only reflecting on this where, in my electorate, there has been a death of a very important leader, and a great sadness is stretching to all parts of Western Arnhem Land with the loss of this leader. With this loss there is a void of who will then go into the position and continue the valuable work and guidance, the teaching, the mentoring, the carrying of those stories and the language? Who is going to do that? That is the challenge continually facing our communities until we can embody and enrich our kids with an education to allow them that choice.
I know Malarndirri McCarthy has said this in the past, and I heard the member for Nelson talk about it yesterday: we have to give our kids an education so they have the opportunity to choose, if they want, to stay in their community, work in a program, and continue to lead within the community. That is fine; but it is that child or young person’s right to do that. If the young person wants to travel outside his or her community and find a job elsewhere, that is also fine, and should not be frowned upon, but should be supported.
Giving a child an education is giving that child the keys to the door, which opens up a world of opportunity for our kids. Whilst we talk about the challenges we have to face in the Northern Territory, I believe, as we, the government, and every member of this parliament, face those challenges, the biggest challenge is to put in the infrastructure to support communities so they can get their kids to school. Education is the greatest opportunity we are going to give children; to have access and equity to a good education, so they are able to make life choices in the future.
With that is a path we need to pursue in regional economic development. The future of our communities, our language, our culture, our land, and looking at the benefits of land for Aboriginal people and how they can get the benefits from their land, lies in education. Gaining an education arms young people with the knowledge they need - not just their Aboriginal knowledge, but also the knowledge which comes through the western education system. The world is changing; it evolves all the time. That is the path the government has to pursue, with bravery and courage, along with the risks.
Members - particularly on this side – meet, talk with, and work with the communities, schools and parents within our electorates. We talk about leadership and education all the time. I believe, at some point, you can sense change coming and, hopefully, we can continue to go down that track. The change I have seen in my own electorate, particularly the agreement the Chief Minister signed with ERA, along with the Jabiru School and Gunbalanya School, to provide a start for those young Binninj - those young Aboriginal kids - in that region to go from school to work transition, so they have the opportunity of not just working within their community, but also to leave the Gunbalanya community to live and work with the work crews on-site at the mine. It is their right to develop and be exposed to the work culture and ethic, and to see outside their community.
Others are choosing not to do that. Many are choosing to be part of the ranger programs, or the land management programs, with Caring for Country - and to see the pride amongst those rangers. All of us could have those programs in our electorates.
After talking to some of the teachers at Gunbalanya and Jabiru schools, they want to know how to integrate those programs as …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, do you mind if I acknowledge these students in the gallery?
Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Moil Primary School students accompanied by Ms Peta Costello, Mrs Shirley Russell, and Ms Tamara Stenhouse. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Arafura.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: They are our future leaders, Madam Speaker. It is always great to see our young people from the schools coming into this parliament.
The agreement the Chief Minister signed with the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Education and Training, and Rob Atkinson, Chief Executive Officer, ERA, and David Patterson, the General Manager, is one which has been supported by not just the government, but also ERA, the schools, and the communities. They are talking about it more and more and wanting more of the young people to be involved in that process. It says to the young people, particularly at Gunbalanya, the momentum is gaining on the ground in the community and, if they go school every day, they can be part of this program, which can be school to work transition. Further down the track, when they do Year 11 or, if they want to, Year 12, there is hope of a job and training. This opportunity was not there before. Some of the tour operators working in or around Kakadu, or Gunbalanya, have approached me to have discussions about how the tourism industry can look at …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move the member be given an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, before I call you again, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Nightcliff Middle School students, accompanied by Mr Dave Poad. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: These students are probably a generation closer than the other school class, to being future members of parliament one day. It is fantastic to see the young people who come in and have a look, and the interest they show.
The agreement between ERA, the government and DET is also being looked at in a positive light by the tourism operators and others within the Kakadu and Gunbalanya region, regarding working with the schools to do school-to-work transition with tourism and in other areas in the Kakadu region, which is fantastic. Whilst we can see there are issues and challenges we have to work towards, it is not just the government which is doing it; private enterprise is now looking at many of these areas and recognising they need to be part of it.
Looking at one community, sometimes, is problematic, because the opportunities are few and far between, when we look at the geographical location of some of our communities. However, if we look at regional economic development from a regional prospective, those things can work and can be sustained. If the commitment is there from the government, private enterprise, the communities, leaders within those communities, and the land councils, to look at and do things differently, and get those things happening, we can shift the view.
I worked with the land council in the 1980s, and I think of the work in the legal section where I worked. The big push was to get back as much Aboriginal land as possible - and the fights through that! Looking at what the role of the land council was then, to how the role has shifted now, has been fundamental. The land councils have shifted in leasing and private home ownership - I have seen that on the Tiwi Islands, and I know the people at Maningrida and Gunbalanya are thinking about it. The change has come through and the land councils are adapting to it. Some of those views are also changing in the government.
I commend the minister on his statement. We can focus on and say nothing has changed, but things have changed. The only thing which has not changed, listening to some of the members opposite - I pointed out the member for Port Darwin, but also the member for Katherine, and the changed views of the member for Fong Lim – is they are views from a bygone era. If the CLP want to be seen as representative, they need to get more in touch about what is happening in those remote communities and have a better relationship.
Sometimes those attitudes can be best summed up - and it is not about being sensitive, or overly sensitive – by the member for Sanderson, and his view on it, when he was saying, ‘those people’ - that rhetoric has gone. Aboriginal people have a huge investment; they are part of the Territory. When you talk about Indigenous or Aboriginal, whether it is regional economic development or education, it is not about putting Aboriginal people in a separate category, and saying ‘those people’, it is saying Aboriginal people have a huge stake in the Territory.
We are Territorians, and we want to see the Territory advance, to prosper and to grow, just as much as anyone else who calls themselves a Territorian and calls this great place home, where we have all chosen to live. We want to see this happen in our regions, and to get beyond the rhetoric of ‘those people’. It is not about being sensitive, it is about treating people with the respect they deserve and the role they play in the future of the Territory.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, at the beginning of my statement I said regional development is a subject which should capture the hearts and minds of everyone in this House, and believe it has captured the hearts of my colleagues in this House.
I am enlightened by the number of contributions we had since yesterday afternoon; 17 members have contributed to this most important statement and, in my three years in this parliament, I have not experienced a statement which has captured members’ hearts. It has been a great moment for me to be a member of this parliament because, regardless of political ideology and political party lines, I have been encouraged by the contributions of all members.
We have a good mix of members in the Legislative Assembly: we have the former member for Solomon with his experience in the federal parliament; the member for Macdonnell, a former ATSIC Commissioner; and members on this side of the House who have been around the traps for a long time. I take seriously the views they have expressed in their contributions.
I take some of the criticisms made by members on the other side; saying it is a motherhood statement, they have heard it all before, it is all words, all program, and there is no real strategy behind this. I take those criticisms on board, and I will go back and work hard on delivering the strategy.
I thank the members on my side of the House, particularly my bush colleagues; I was enlightened by their comments. I know they work hard as local bush members; they get around to their communities, and they have been able to share some fantastic stories about their successes.
The Leader of the Opposition told some of the stories from his recent trip through Central Australia, and it is great he went. As bush members, we probably have many similar stories we could tell about things which get caught up in red tape. This happens not only in the Northern Territory, but through the Commonwealth government’s policies and programs.
But do we just give up? Is it all too hard? Members said they had heard it all before, and it was great the former member for Macdonnell, Neville Perkins, was here, because I am sure during his time as a member in this House, he spoke on many occasions about the same things we spoke about during the statement. But do we give up? Do we say it is all too hard, and put it in the too-hard basket? I am not a member who will give up. I am determined to make a difference, which is why I listened closely to everyone’s contributions. There are many good ideas from both sides of the House which I will take away and work on.
We do not give up. These types of statements will continue to come to this House, and I am sure there will continue to be programs and policies which governments will release, to try to make a difference. We cannot forget the reason we are in this parliament; because we all want to make a difference to the lives of Territorians, no matter where they live.
We use many buzz words during these statements and contributions, some of which were ‘leadership’ and ‘urgency’. But, there is no doubt we are all leaders in our own electorates in the Northern Territory community. We cannot give up; we need to show leadership, and it starts in this Assembly. This is what parliament is all about - the Westminster system. We need to inspire and encourage young people to achieve their dreams, and to find a job. We take it for granted sometimes. There may be many young Indigenous people, young Territorians, living in remote communities, who want a job. We need to develop policy and programs around seeing those young people achieve their dreams.
The shadow spokesman, the member for Braitling, was, generally, very positive, particularly about the Indigenous Economic Development Forum, which was justified because it was a great success. Some people may say it was just another talkfest, but I believe it was more than that. I am looking forward to the report from my department on the outcomes of the forum. Many of the discussions throughout the forum and during the break-out sessions and contributions from the private sector and Indigenous business people will come back to me, and will be put into the strategy. I will take that information away, and it may shape future policy. That is why we have these forums.
There was much good feedback from many of the Indigenous expo exhibitors; they gained much value. As the member for Nhulunbuy said, many of her constituents went down to Alice Springs for the first time, and it was a very valuable experience for them.
The member for Braitling was also very generous in his praise for the Northern Territory government and the East Arnhem fibre-optic project. He said we need more of that type of infrastructure, and roll-out of IT through our remote communities, and I agree. He acknowledged the federal government as being a partner of this, but the federal government was not a partner in the project. I give credit to the partners that were involved: Telstra, Rio Tinto Alcan, and the Northern Land Council. That is a great mix, and a good model of how the private sector and government can work together to really build some important infrastructure in the regions.
I noted also the member for Braitling requested an update on the NT government’s funding for community stores. While I acknowledge the importance of community stores, particularly as a bush member, I am not sure the NT government has any funding responsibility for them. I understand it is the federal government which is doing some great work in licensing the stores, while organisations such as Outback Stores and ALPA are managing the stores, which provide many employment opportunities. I have seen it firsthand in my own electorate, where Outback Stores has done a fantastic job to date. More importantly, as we know through the Northern Territory emergency response, it is also about improving the quality and the pricing of food in some of these remote communities.
I also thank the member for Braitling for sharing his ideas, especially with regard to tax breaks. I inform the House we are working on a tax incentive proposal, business support, and the economic development zones, which I am particularly interested in, as part of our overall strategy. I agree with the member for Braitling’s comments about having land tenure reforms, and the need for welfare reforms along with that; they need to go hand-in-hand.
The Chief Minister highlighted a range of training and employment programs the Territory government supports, including programs in Central Australia, the Barkly, and Eastern and Western Arnhem Land. He also talked about the agreement with ERA at Jabiru, which will lead to jobs and employment opportunities for Indigenous Territorians.
I was particularly interested that he highlighted Newmont’s pre-employment training programs at the Tanami, which is a program close to my heart. I worked there some 10 years ago, when the mine was operated by Normandy Mining Limited, and Robert Champion de Crespigny was a leader and a frontrunner at Normandy. There was movement back in the mid-to late-1990s, where many mining companies wanted to go down the path of being seen as good corporate citizens, and Robert Champion de Crespigny led the way with Normandy. It was my great opportunity to set up the Indigenous Affairs Department at the Granites on behalf of Normandy mines. It is great to see Newmont have taken on the baton and is doing some great things for the Tanami Regional Partnership Agreement, which includes the Northern Territory government.
I am pleased to update the House on the Tanami Regional Partnership Agreement. The Northern Territory government is proud to be part of the agreement, along with the Central Land Council, Newmont Mining, the Australian government, and the Central Desert and Victoria Daly Shires. It was great to be at Yuendumu in October 2008 to sign the agreement.
One of the great outcomes we have seen from the agreement and the work Newmont is doing, is Indigenous employment - this is at the heart of the statement. It is pleasing to see Indigenous employment at Newmont’s mine at the Granites is up around 16% to 18%, which is great news. I have pushed, for quite some time, that we need to focus on the traditional owners who live in the Warlpiri region, the Tanami region, and in places like Yuendumu and Lajamanu.
I met with Paul Davis, from Newmont, who provided a really good update for me about the Yapa crew, an Aboriginal crew which has been set up as a labour pool for contracts at the mines. Paul advised me there were up to 11 Warlpiri people involved in the Yapa crew, with the main aim, as a labour crew, being to look at contracts which are coming up on the mine site and to tender and be successful in getting those contracts.
The other great story coming from the Newmont mines is its fly-in, fly-out contract. The traditional owners at Lajamanu and Yuendumu, through the Kurra Association, are into aeroplanes – a highly expensive form of transport – and have invested their royalty money in purchasing quite a few planes. The business is called Lajamanu Air, and has been successful in securing some of the fly-in/fly-out contract work with the mines, transporting staff from the Granites to Darwin, Katherine, and Alice Springs. It is great to see. In my time, around 10 years ago, the focus was on joint ventures, which has been largely part of the strategy as well as during discussions at the forum. We need businesses from the private sector and Indigenous communities working with traditional owners and the land councils, not only in direct employment - such as the jobs we are seeing delivered through the Yapa crew at the Granites - but also in joint ventures. It is great to see the Warlpiri people take a risk by buying planes and setting up Lajamanu Air, and great to see that risk pay off for them through Newmont Mining providing a fly-in, fly-out contract. There is some great news out there in my electorate as well.
Turning to the member for Port Darwin, he spoke passionately about property rights and land reform. I take much of that in, member for Port Darwin, I respect your experience and knowledge on this particular subject, and also the legal knowledge you have of property rights, and your time as the member for Macdonnell. I know you talk from experience, and thank you for recommending William Bernstein’s book. I do not know whether you lent your copy to the member for Sanderson, but maybe I could borrow it next.
Much of the member for Port Darwin’s contribution was based around land acquisition and the need to move to land development, and I agree with those sentiments. He talked a little about his experience as the member for Macdonnell, and he raised the very important issue of communication and transport. My colleague, the member for Barkly, talked about that in his contribution as well. I thank the member for Port Darwin for his contribution.
The member for Nelson is one of those sceptics, I suppose, and all respect to him. He said he has heard it all before, but you have not heard it from me; this is my first crack at it. I will be looking to you for more advice. I thank you for your contribution; your experience is very much appreciated.
I picked up on his point there are opportunities for many little jobs at the little business end of town in remote communities, and I agree; I believe it is very important point. I believe it was picked up at the Indigenous Economic Development Forum. There were something like 27 exhibitors representing Indigenous businesses and small businesses at the forum, on display to the people of Alice Springs. I believe small business plays a very important role in creating jobs, and there is no reason why that cannot happen in the Indigenous economy.
The other criticism was from the member for Macdonnell, who said it focused too much on the big end of business, the larger projects. I believe they are both right, and it is about getting that mix. I received some feedback from people in Alice Springs who thought there was not enough focus on big business projects. You are not going to please everyone on some of these issues, but I will take those points on board. One of the things the IED strategy focuses on is supporting small business through the Indigenous business development program grants. I believe, in my first contribution, we have been able to show there is some success in this program.
It is also why we provide business support to Indigenous entrepreneurs. I believe it was the member for Sanderson who said he only heard one reference to the word ‘entrepreneur’. In my statement I mentioned, quite a few times, the need to inspire and encourage entrepreneurs in the Indigenous communities. Member for Sanderson, it is something I am acutely aware of, and something I know the strategy is hoping to pick up on.
The member for Daly talked about opportunities which exist for Indigenous Territorians in aquaculture and fisheries, forestry, the arts and construction sector, which is true; we know the jobs are there. He spoke of the opportunities presented by SIHIP, and it has been a topical issue at the last few sittings. The opposition feels it is more of an emergency program; we need to get the homes up and built, which I agree with. However, it is more than just building houses. It involves training opportunities for local people and providing consistent employment opportunities once the houses are built. It sets targets of 20% local employment, which is a very important part of SIHIP.
The Minister for Tourism spoke about the employment opportunities which abound in the tourism sector for Indigenous Territorians. I acknowledge the great work the jointly-funded tourism officers in the NLC and CLC are doing. I know Marie Meredith, at the CLC, gets out and about often. She has done some fantastic work with the people at Black Tank, and through Rainbow Valley. She is getting out there amongst the people and doing well in setting up small tourism ventures. That is a very important part of our approach to our parks, and one of the benefits of joint management.
The member for Katherine mentioned the importance of Aboriginal people having ownership of the programs and businesses they are involved in, and I agree wholeheartedly. The member for Katherine also said the Australian Labor Party deliberately keeps Aboriginal people as an underclass. I am not sure if he was joking, and to be honest, I cannot believe he said it. It beggars belief any political party would deliberately keep Aboriginal people as an underclass. We have a number of Indigenous members on this side of the House, and I know we all work very hard to ensure we close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage.
The member for Fong Lim took us back in time - a bit of a time warp - to when he was the federal member for Solomon, and read us his dissenting statement to his government’s House Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I believe that shows how complex the issue can be. The issue we were debating was the Indigenous Economic Development Strategy, which I approved and put out, but the subject went broader than that, and so it should, because it is such a complex issue. Listening to many of the members, who have been around longer than I have, shows how complex it is.
I thank the member for Macdonnell for sharing her insights, particularly her experiences of being a grassroots politician, someone who grew up in a remote Aboriginal community and who has much to offer this parliament - not only her experiences during that time, but in giving us all a reality check of why we are here. Her insights into the challenges facing Indigenous Territorians in the areas of education, health and housing are, as always, straight to the point, and I appreciate her input.
The member for Arnhem spoke about success stories in her electorate, particularly on Groote Eylandt, such as the Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Enterprises, and the Dugong Beach Resort, and the relationship with GEMCO. Mining is such an important part of the economy in our remote and regional areas, and it is great to see mining companies like GEMCO working with the local community to get some really good business outcomes. It is important we continue to tell people about these successes.
The member for Barkly, as usual, gave a very interesting and entertaining contribution. He spoke about the colonial policies, and about his time as a teacher in remote schools. The students he taught must be really moving ahead because to have a teacher like that must have been a fine thing. He also talked about the integrated transport policy. He talked about the successes, as many of my colleagues on this side of the House did, and the future possibilities of Indigenous Territorians in the …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the minister, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, member for Fannie Bay. The member for Barkly also picked up on including the private sector in the Indigenous Economic Development Strategy, a very important element of that strategy. I always enjoy listening to the member for Barkly, he is very entertaining. Perhaps, one day, member for Barkly, I can join you on a visit Gullajung or Lama Lama Hill, I believe it was called - it was not Blueberry Hill but Lama Lama Hill - on the Robinson River. I will look forward to that trip; it is sure be an entertaining one.
The member for Arafura also talked about the cultural strengths of our Indigenous Territorians. It is a cultural strength we build on and use in promoting the Northern Territory, whether it is through tourism or art, and I believe we undervalue that cultural strength within the Northern Territory in jobs. She also talked about the Arnhem fibre-optic project, the 800 km of optical fibre, with which we are now seeing some fantastic results being delivered in opening up the world to the people of Arnhem Land through information technology. She also spoke about land management, and I know her passion, particularly for the West Arnhem fire abatement project in her electorate. There are plenty of jobs in land management and in the cultural areas for our Indigenous people.
The member for Nhulunbuy spoke about the experiences of her constituents. For the first time many of those people ventured outside their homeland to the desert in Central Australia, and what an experience they had. I was fortunate to have the opportunity of catching up with many of those Eastern Arnhem Yolngu people in Alice Springs, who were blown away with the experience, and the warmth they felt in the centre of Australia.
She spoke about Nyinyikay, one of the homelands, and some of the work being done by her constituents in setting up their own enterprises. She also spoke about the work being done by Rio Tinto Alcan through the ALERT Program, and its recent recognition through the training awards.
I also went to Nhulunbuy earlier this year and met an inspiring man called Timmy Burarrwanga. His tourism venture, on his homeland on the island, where cruise ships which come to Darwin, divert to his homeland island to get a cultural experience from Timmy; is an inspiring story from a young Indigenous man who is going ahead in leaps and bounds.
The economic development of our Indigenous towns has been a long time coming. Towns such as Yuendumu, Barunga, and Maningrida were not established for economic reasons - we must remember that – but, rather, because of political decisions made in the 1940s and 1950s. They were formed as a result of two policies - assimilation and integration - with the purpose of teaching Aboriginal people the citizenship skills required for them to enter mainstream Australian society.
I suppose the old saying is ‘the rest is history’, but, as we all know, this did not happen as smoothly as people had intended. The policies effectively finished in 1972, but the legacy lingered on for another 30 years, before attempts were made to open these towns up and encourage and develop commercial enterprises. It is the Labor Party which is trying to change the way we do business. This change is the biggest policy turnaround since the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. We are talking about moving from the protected and closed environment of welfarism to the commercial world of the economic mainstream.
I have acknowledged the member for Braitling’s comment during his contribution - and it is one I will take on board and talk to my colleagues on this side about - that along with land tenure and economic reform in our Indigenous communities, there must also be welfare reform along with it - one does not go without the other; the two must be together.
A case in point, I believe it was the member for Brennan mentioned the Noel Pearson article in The Australian yesterday. I am watching with much interest, member for Brennan, the movement in Cape York, by people like Noel Pearson, particularly in welfare reform and the need to drive economic and employment opportunities for his people. It is a lesson we can take on board in the Territory, and is one I will. I know it will not be easy, but this government is really up for the challenge. There is no going back; the genie is out of the bottle and change is on its way.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, as the minister for Justice, I present an exposure draft Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Bill 2009, and I table the bill.
The tabling of this draft bill is to allow for public discussion before the government formally introduces legislation in the November sittings. This exposure draft of the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Bill 2009 provides for the disclosure of documents about a property when land is offered for sale, and also for cooling-off periods for sales of residential land.
Our clear intention is to formalise the practice of selling land across the Territory to require the seller to have the contract of sale and all other disclosure documentation available when the land is offered for sale. The disclosure will give prospective buyers the information they need to make an informed decision about a property, so they can enter into a binding contract of sale without delay, and without having to waste time doing a variety of searches on the property, which is currently the case for buyers in the Territory.
The introduction of the bill will bring the Territory in line with other jurisdictions, except Western Australia, which all have vendor disclosure legislation on the sale of land. The reforms will ensure buyers have sufficient information about a property before entering into a contract of sale. The reforms also set out a legislative cooling-off period of four working days.
The information a seller is required to disclose when land is offered for sale includes: the proposed contract of sale; certificate as to title or an extract from the Land Register showing administrative details relating to the land; any registered or unregistered encumbrances on the land; for units and lots under the Unit Titles Act, the Unit Title Schemes Act or Cullen Bay Marina Act, any registered plans, schemes or other document about the unit or lot; a building report stating the extent to which a building on the land is compliant or not with the Building Act.
Required certificates include, but are not limited to, any occupancy permits or approval to occupy on a temporary basis permits; any swimming pool compliance certificates; and, a statement by the vendor as to other known information about the land such as planning information; whether the land is subject to a compulsory acquisition, flooding and seepage information, or if the land is subject to a tenancy.
The proposed bill creates an offence for failing to have the disclosure documents available for inspection when the land is offered for sale. The penalty for not complying is a maximum fine of $13 000. The bill also creates an offence for giving misleading information in a required report or certificate, with the penalty being a maximum fine of $13 000.
Recently, there has been considerable public discussion about gazumping. Gazumping is the term used to describe the situation where the seller of a property accepts a purchase offer having already accepted another offer from another buyer. Gazumping occurs because a buyer’s offer is not legally binding until there is a written contract for the sale of land. The practice of gazumping usually arises in strong housing markets with buoyant property prices. One of the main causes is the time it takes to plough through the paperwork before contracts are exchanged. Most real estate agents are responsible and do the right thing, but there have been reports of gazumping in the Territory. Being gazumped is disappointing and frustrating for buyers trying to enter the property market. It can result in heartache for a buyer who thought they had secured a home.
This bill tabled today will help minimise the potential for gazumping. This bill will require the seller to have the contract of sale and all other disclosure documentation provided when the land is offered for sale. This will significantly reduce the time period between verbal acceptance of an offer and official legal confirmation of an offer.
We know there is a great deal of interest in vendor disclosure legislation. We have consulted with the Law Society and with industry throughout the drafting of this bill. However, we want to ensure the bill has maximum exposure before it is introduced and passes through the Legislative Assembly. By making this draft bill public now, prior to an intended introduction in November, we are ensuring input can be made by interested parties, and this input can be taken into account prior to finalising the bill.
As members will be aware, the government has taken this approach previously with bills, notably, the Care and Protection of Children and Young People Act, and the recent Mandatory Reporting of Domestic Violence legislation.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the draft bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s preparation of this draft version of the bill. It is a little disappointing we are not quite to the stage where we are introducing the bill, but we are getting there, slowly but surely. If it means we have a better bill to be introduced in November, then I understand where the government is coming from.
I have received a number of points raised by the Law Society. It believes this particular draft of the bill could be improved. I worry sometimes, when the legal eagles get together, and start to debate some of these issues from a very legalistic point of view. Sometimes you get two people’s opinion about the same thing which, for the average layperson, confuses the matter. I hope, when this bill is eventually introduced, those issues the Law Society has raised can be satisfied.
I also note the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory made a statement in the paper in relation to this bill. I was a little concerned they, basically, said gazumping did not exist, or there was very little record of it on its files. But, after a question was given to me at the Property Council forum recently, where I said gazumping did exist, I immediately received two e-mails the next day saying, ‘Yes, thank you very much’. In fact, one of them commented that the representative of the company, who asked me the question at the Property Council forum, was the same company which had participated in their bid to buy a property being gazumped. It does exist.
I should also make it known, when I first introduced legislation similar to this, I spent time working with the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, and it supported the legislation I presented. I had a number of meetings and correspondence with the Conveyancing Institute, and it also supported this type of legislation.
It concerns me when statements are being made at the eleventh hour, and we now have some concerns about this type of legislation. This type of legislation has a very real basis, which is the reason I support it: the protection of people, especially, in this case, those who are going to spend a large amount of money on a house - and we know the cost of housing is high. Generally speaking, this is the biggest purchase any person makes in their life; the buying of a house. I believe there needs to be legislation which does protect people. You will never stop people going ahead and doing something reckless entirely, but at least we can ensure we diminish the risk by asking the seller of the house to disclose a certain number of documents which will inform the purchaser of the state of the house.
There has been the argument land comes under a different tradition of selling, called buyer beware, or caveat emptor. You do not tend to do it when you buy a television - if you buy a big plasma television, a guarantee comes with it. When you buy a car, you generally get a guarantee. However, when you buy a house, it is buyer beware. However, a house is a far more important and expensive item than a television or a car.
I believe it is important legislation. I hope people will look at it in that light. It is not an attack on the Real Estate Institute; it is, basically, saying to people out there, this government is concerned there are some cases where people have been gazumped. I know those particular cases and I believe, whilst it is allowed under Territory law, ethically, when you shake hands with someone - and in some cases pay a deposit - simply because you have not signed the final papers, someone can come in over the top and say: ‘That house is mine’. I do not believe it is a fair system. You hope you can take people on their word, but our law as it is, means that is not the case.
The other thing, of course, is to protect people from purchasing a house which may have faults, which have not been disclosed by the seller of the house. As I said at the Property Council, there was a block of land at Humpty Doo on Power Road, which was part of a subdivision developed, I believe, in the 1960s or early 1970s, and there were no houses on those blocks. This young fellow came along and saw a ‘For Sale’ sign on the fence, and asked the real estate agent the state of this land - did it get wet? He was told by the real estate agent it sometimes goes partially under water. He came back in the Wet Season, and not only did he have to drive through water to get to the block, he found the block was about 99% under water, and he had just spent $200 000 for the block.
We could say he should have been more diligent, but the point is, where is the honesty in the person selling the land in the first place? Should that not be taken into account? Should we not ensure the person selling the land has to tell the truth, to the best of their ability?
We all know people, especially young people, can be a little headstrong; I have been down that path myself when I was younger. When you have to purchase something, you sometimes rush in and get excited about it, and think ‘That house will be nice to buy’, then find the house has white ants inside the wall or the bore does not work too often - it runs out in July, and you have to cart water. I believe the legislation we are bringing in today, whilst it may not cover all those circumstances such as whether your bore operates, in general, it will cover most things people are concerned about and, hopefully, we will get good responses to this draft of the bill.
I encourage anyone, including consumers who have experienced being gazumped or have bought land they have been told has certain characteristics only to find out it does not, to put their two bob’s worth into the consultation period for this bill.
I imagine they have until the next sittings in Alice Springs to put forward their amendments. I am grateful the government has at least brought in this bill, but disappointed we are still at the draft stage. However, it is better to have something going forward, than nothing at all.
Motion agreed to; draft bill noted.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Strategic Review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office, September 2009. I present a brief tabling statement.
Section 26 of the Northern Territory Audit Act requires a strategic review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office to be conducted at least once every three years. The last strategic review was conducted in 2006.
Consistent with earlier reviews, arrangements were made for the review to be conducted by a senior member of staff of an interstate Auditor-General’s Office. The terms of reference for the 2009 strategic review were approved by the Administrator of the Northern Territory on the 28 May 2009, and John Viljoen, Assistant Audit-General, Audit Office of New South Wales, was appointed to conduct the review.
I am pleased to report to the House the 2009 strategic review has concluded the NTAGO is performing satisfactorily in a difficult operating environment. The strategic review identified 15 recommendations for improving the operations of the Northern Territory AGO, which are under consideration, and will be discussed in greater depth with the Auditor-General.
One of the findings of the 2009 strategic review noted funding and resourcing constraints. The Territory government has provided strong support to the Auditor-General’s Office through the provision of additional financial resources and capacity. Since the last strategic review in 2006, between 2005-06 and 2008-09, appropriation and cost-recovery revenues of the NT Auditor-General’s office have increased by 21%.
The effect of this additional capacity is evident in the analysis included in the 2009 strategic review by the author of the report. The report highlights a steady increase in annual audit hours from 14 939 hours to 15 754 hours, an increase of 815 hours since 2004-05. The increase of more than 5% in the number of audit hours, coupled with an increase in the audit costs of more than 14% in 2004-05, shows the effect of expanded resources available to the Auditor-General.
The report also highlights an increase in the number of audits completed, with nine end of year audits carried out in 2008-09, compared with seven in 2004-05; and 22 compliance and performance management system audits carried out in 2008-09, compared with 16 in 2004-05. In addition to additional resources for audits, the Territory government also approved a $230 000 capital injection earlier this month.
At the completion of each strategic review, the Auditor-General provides advice to the government regarding the level of resources available to the Auditor-General’s Office in light of the reviews finding. The Auditor-General has expressed to me in writing he is comfortable with the level of resourcing he receives. The government’s practice has been to respond positively to any requests for additional resources from the Auditor-General, as evidenced by the additional resources available and increased activity of his office. Requests by the Auditor-General are assessed as and when they are made, and do not compete with other expenditure priorities. I have asked the Auditor-General to provide me with advice on his office’s resources following his consideration of the strategic review.
I am also pleased to advise the House the 2009 strategic review found only two of the recommendations from the 2006 strategic review require further action, and future audit planning processes are intended to resolve both issues raised.
Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to express my full support to the Auditor-General for his continued independent analysis of governance and accountability on behalf of the parliament, the government, and the Territory community, and in continuing to draw to our attention matters of importance.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Growing our Primary Industries:
Partnerships for Productivity
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory government recognises the growing contribution the primary industry sectors make across the Northern Territory. The primary industry sector continues to play a vital role in underpinning regional development and creating real jobs.
Today, I am pleased to table the report Growing our Primary Industries: Partnerships for Productivity. Along with providing a snapshot of the primary industries sector, it also seeks to articulate the need and provide the basis for a collaborative effort between the government and industry to move forward into an exciting, albeit challenging, future.
Growing our Primary Industries: Partnerships for Productivity is the next step in formulating a plan to ensure we are well-placed to respond to the challenges confronting industry into the future.
We are all aware of the challenges the future holds: no one will be able to escape the expected effects of climate change; water availability and access to suitable land will remain issues; shortages of skilled labour will continue to be a challenge across northern Australia; and there will be an increasing need to produce food while protecting the environment.
From a global perspective, the task of producing enough food to feed ever-increasing populations has never been more important. More than ever before, agricultural production systems in other parts of the world are under increasing pressure to feed more people. We have opportunities to open up new areas for sustainable development. Such opportunities have the potential to not only make a valuable contribution to Australia’s food production, but also provide a stimulus for economic activity and employment in our regional and remote areas. Sustainable growth in our primary industries sector will also assist in broadening our economic base.
There are challenges in driving agribusiness forward in the Territory, as I have noted, but the consequences of not doing so will make the task of developing remote and underutilised areas even more challenging. Increasingly, the nation is looking to the north as water and climate change impact on southern food production areas. We have an opportunity to build on the mosaic of development already under way across the Territory.
With the added pressure of increasing population to our north, the considered, strategic, and sustainable development of primary industries in the Northern Territory is a necessary part of planning for the future. How do we make this happen? Within the next few months, the Territory government will deliver a comprehensive Northern Territory Agribusiness Strategy, which will address and build upon the challenges identified in this report. The Northern Territory Agribusiness Strategy will lay out the way forward for primary industries in the Territory. It will be a comprehensive industry development strategy which will identify ways in which the government, the private sector, and regional communities can work in partnership to grow our primary industries.
My department is responding to the challenges laid out in the report I am tabling today. The Corporate Plan 2009-2012 reflects a continuing commitment to support regional economies through the development of profitable and sustainable primary industries. The corporate plan states sustainable and productive farming practices will be achieved by:
advocating for industry access to land and water resources and infrastructure;
obtaining information for potential investors in agricultural enterprises;
assisting primary producers to access markets; and
undertaking applied research that develops innovative ways of assisting industry.
Applied research is necessary to underpin the ability of our primary industries to achieve sustained growth. Correct application of new land and crop management techniques will lead to increased productivity. Improvements to productivity are the key drivers in modern economies. This government is committed to continue the dialogue with industry, other government agencies, and research partners to ensure our research and development efforts are targeted and relevant to industry needs.
Extension is the means of ensuring uptake of research by industry and is, therefore, an essential element in the development of our primary industries. We understand, without appropriate extension services, the results of our research will not be taken up by industry. In order to maximise the value of our research work, it needs to be accompanied by best practice extension services, which must also include looking for opportunities to provide targeted extension through the innovative use of new technologies.
Perhaps one of the most important and critical elements of our primary industry into the future will be biosecurity: the protection we provide to animals, plants, the environment, and the health of our people from pest and diseases. It is likely to mean taking all efforts to prevent new pests and diseases from becoming established, and controlling and eradicating outbreaks when they occur. Good biosecurity provides confidence to consumers, and is the foundation on which our ability to market our unique Northern Territory produce is based.
We recognise the key role for the government in helping to drive growth in primary industries is participating in relevant research; disseminating the results of that research; and ensuring we have a biosecurity framework in place which will protect the integrity of our production.
I will return to these issues and other requirements which need to be in place for us to maximise our growth potential through productivity increases, as they will be the focus of our Agribusiness strategy. However, at this stage, I believe it is worth providing a broad snapshot of how our various primary industry sectors are currently performing; because that will give some indication of where future growth will come from.
Cattle production is the Northern Territory’s key primary industry sector. It is a key activity in so many of our regional economies, as well as making a substantial contribution to the Territory’s gross state product. The cattle industry sustains jobs for between 1600 and 1900 people, mostly in regional and remote locations.
Our cattle production is based on some of the largest pastoral holdings in the world, ranging from 200 km2 to more than 12 000 km2. We currently carry nearly two million head of cattle on these pastoral holdings. Herd numbers and cattle turn-off have increased significantly over the past 20 years. We have also seen major productivity improvements through enhanced management practices. Currently, 550 000 head of cattle a year are turned-off for finishing and processing into both the interstate and live export markets.
Growth trends for the pastoral industry are very positive into the future, although there will be short-term hurdles along the way. It is expected the industry will inject $365m into the Territory economy this year. This is a continuation of the consistent growth trend of the last five years, which has seen production increase by almost 73%. Producers estimate new infrastructure and more refined management practices will lift the Territory’s overall future cattle carrying capacity and, therefore, its value to the economy.
The live cattle trade took more than 295 000 head of Territory cattle into South-East Asia in 2008, with about 276 000 head going to Indonesia, which means over 90% of our export trade is destined for one market. Whilst it is a robust market, in commercial relationships a number of potential threats confront the trade. For example, Australia’s freedom from Foot and Mouth Disease, or FMD, is valued in Indonesia and supports the Territory’s trade status. However, should Brazil become FMD-free, the Territory will face significant competition.
It is self-evident any significant reduction of live exports to Indonesia would have an immediate and significant impact on the Northern Territory pastoral industry and its supporting businesses in the regions. This would result in a knock-on effect throughout the Territory economy; the Australian market would be unable to take the cattle currently exported to Indonesia.
Nevertheless, despite a downturn in markets from the global financial crisis, the burgeoning middle-class populations in a number of South-East Asian countries are driving increasing levels of consumption. The Territory is strategically placed to be a major supplier.
It is worth noting, in the foreseeable future, the demand for beef in Asia will continue to support the live export trade, as opposed to packaged meat, for a number of reasons:
(1) cold chain storage infrastructure in South-East Asia is still not broadly established enough to enable handling of chilled or frozen meat, particularly in regional centres;
As I have mentioned, over 90% of our live exports are destined to a single market. For that reason, we have been focusing our attention on supporting the establishment of additional markets in South-East Asia.
Establishing new markets in South-East Asia requires a systematic approach, involving an initial evaluation to ensure prime economic market drivers are strong. This must be followed by a thorough education and training program to ensure industry best practice in any new overseas cattle ventures. This systematic approach can only be achieved through high-level coordination between the government and industry, to ensure diplomatic and bureaucratic relations are in place as a foundation to pave the way for pre-commercial education and training, with post-commercial follow-up to an emerging market.
After evaluation of these factors, we are continuing our development efforts into Vietnam. A number of senior government industry department delegations have visited Vietnam over the last couple of years. Last year, a return delegation from Vietnam visited the Territory to gain an understanding and appreciation of our pastoral industry and the live export process. The Vietnamese delegates were then accompanied to Indonesia by senior departmental officers to witness firsthand the professionalism and quality of the feedlot industry in Indonesia.
Territory representatives subsequently brokered a memorandum of cooperation between the Northern Territory Pastoral Industry and the Khanh Hoa Trading and Investment Company. I was pleased to witness the formal signing of the agreement in Nha Trang late last year. Following the signing of an agreement to purchase in Darwin between the North Australia Cattle Company and the Trading and Investment Company of Khanh Hoa Province in the last few weeks, we are now hoping to see the first shipment of cattle to Vietnam before the end of the year. This is an exciting development and an opportunity to grow a new market over time.
In addition to pastoral production, the Territory is also home to a diverse and dynamic horticultural industry. Although the bulk of horticultural production occurs in the Top End and Katherine regions, there are growing pockets of production in other parts of the Territory. We know we have the capacity to expand horticulture in a significant and sustainable way. Mangoes, melons, citrus, and vegetables are the mainstays of the industry in the Top End and Katherine regions. There are also smaller volume crops including Asian vegetables, bananas, rambutan, dragon fruit and other tropical lines. The nursery and cut flower sectors are significant, and turf production is on the rise.
We enjoy an important competitive advantage in our capacity to produce some vegetables and fruits outside the normal southern seasons. For instance, table grapes in the Centre have enjoyed this advantage and have been the mainstay of arid zone horticultural activities for the past 20 years. New growers are testing the feasibility of growing other fruit and vegetable crops in the region, including pumpkins, watermelons, and pomegranates.
These emerging advances in horticultural production in Central Australia have important implications not only for diversification and growth in horticulture, but also for future Indigenous training and employment. The value of horticulture in the Northern Territory has grown significantly in the five years since 2005, when it was worth $99m. The industry is expected to contribute $224m to the Territory’s economy this year; a 126% increase over the last five years, so we must be doing something right.
We know our horticultural industry has the capacity to continue growing, not only by exploiting the natural seasonal advantages we enjoy in the north, but also by opening up new areas of land and focusing our efforts on productivity improvements. The development of a Northern Territory Agribusiness strategy is vital in order to deal effectively with supply chain issues and the identification and development of alternate markets for Territory horticultural produce.
Our broadacre agricultural sector, which is based largely on pasture seed, hay, and fodder production, peanuts and maize, also has potential for expansion. This industry is concentrated in the Top End and Katherine regions, although there is some lucerne production in Central Australia. Hay, fodder, and grain crops are produced in the Top End during the Wet Season, and are harvested mechanically at the start of the Dry Season in April/May. Large-scale peanut and maize crops are produced in Katherine, both at the end of the Wet Season from rain-fed production, and with irrigated production at the end of the Dry Season.
Like other sectors, agricultural field crop production has grown steadily over the last five years. This year, field crops - cereals, hay, and pasture seeds - are expected to contribute $38m to the Territory economy; 153% more than the $15m turnover of 2005. The rise in value was due to high production of hay and fodder crops in the Katherine and Douglas Daly regions to feed live export cattle herds.
A major expansion of peanut and maize production by the Peanut Company of Australia is currently under way in the Katherine area, with the two crops being rotated. Interestingly, experimental crops like tropical wheat are also being tested. It is worth noting research undertaken by the Northern Territory government, over many years, helped the Peanut Company of Australia’s decision to move to the Katherine region. Some 700 ha of peanuts are currently planted, but the company has plans to expand to 5000 ha under irrigation in the near future. This development is dependent on gaining all relevant approvals; this expansion is likely to continue to drive jobs and economic development in the Katherine-Daly region.
The Territory’s forestry industry is developing and growing in importance. Some 30 000 ha of Acacia are being grown on the Tiwi Islands, and a further 6000 ha of African mahogany has been planted in the Douglas Daly region, destined to be used for fine furniture in 15 to 20 years’ time. Despite the companies involved falling victim to difficulties associated with the global financial crisis, these plantings will reap rewards in the future as the world continues to face increasing shortages of quality hardwood.
As I indicated earlier, an overarching and critical element of maintaining productivity and, indeed, the integrity of what we produce in our primary industry sector, is the strength of our biosecurity framework.
Australia enforces some of the strictest quarantine measures in the world, and for very good reason. Australia relies heavily on its livestock, agricultural, and horticultural industries which collectively inject billions of dollars into the national economy and provide employment for thousands of workers in communities across the country.
As an island continent, Australia has largely been protected from the devastating exotic pests and diseases which have become the curse of many other countries throughout the world. The Australian quarantine system takes every possible precaution to guard against exotic incursions, which have the potential to decimate our plant and animal industries.
Quarantine restrictions also apply to pests and diseases which have already found their way into Australia. The Northern Territory, like all other Australian jurisdictions, has its own stringent quarantine laws in place to prevent existing plant and animal diseases from spreading to new areas.
Globalisation also presents significant potential biosecurity challenges for Territory primary producers in the future. Increasing inter-country trade will bring greater risks of pests and diseases entering Australia, and so the proposed Northern Territory Agribusiness Strategy will need to address how we can maintain a dynamic and adaptable biosecurity framework which can adjust quickly to new operating environments and changing threats.
I have indicated there are a number of prerequisites for productivity growth which will need to be addressed by our Agribusiness strategy. Research, extension service delivery, and biosecurity will remain critical issues, but there are other issues which must be considered to maximise productivity.
As a starting point, we need to acknowledge climate change is likely to put downwards pressure on our productivity. Current climate change modelling for the Territory points to increasingly drier conditions in parts of the Territory, coupled with higher temperatures. Rainfall is forecast to decrease in Central Australia, with drought likely to occur more often. In the Top End, average rainfall is forecast to stay the same, and temperatures are projected to increase by at least 1C from 2030.
It has been calculated the Territory’s primary industries will require a productivity growth of 2.2% to meet these climate change challenges. This makes it all the more important for us to carefully examine all the inputs, which go into primary production and market development, in order to extract productivity gains across the board, that is, scrutinising every link in the supply chain from paddock to plate in search of improved efficiencies, then assisting industry to achieve them. Some of the key challenges include infrastructure, market access, Indigenous participation, and the availability of land for agriculture.
With the world approaching a situation where fossil fuels are becoming increasingly expensive, it will become more important to efficiently and effectively move produce from property to consumer. Whether for live animals or fresh fruit and vegetables, the infrastructure required, in terms of roads, rail internodes, or shipping and airfreight infrastructure, will be critical to primary industry development.
In addition to the market development activities mentioned previously, we must recognise the need for infrastructure which allows consistent supply is a prerequisite to development of those markets for Northern Territory produce. Consumers will not support a start-stop supply when our competitors can guarantee consistency, although we will continue to develop opportunities for counter-season production. As we move forward with the industry to secure new markets for our products, we need to know we can deliver.
Another main challenge facing the food production sector, and a critical aspect of the supply chain, particularly in the harvest stage, is the supply of labour. We must work with the huge challenges of regional employment for Indigenous Territorians. Unless we overcome these challenges, we will struggle to fully develop the potential of our primary industries.
With freehold ownership of large tracts of the Northern Territory, an intrinsic link with land and water and its use, and a globally recognised market brand, Indigenous primary production enterprise is a clear prospect for a working future.
Of the 1.3 million km2, which constitutes the Northern Territory, less than 0.5% has been cleared to produce food. Even when the iconic, sensitive, protected, culturally important, richly biodiverse and agronomically inappropriate areas are taken into account, prospective areas suitable for agricultural production remain. Our challenge is to identify and specifically research those areas to ensure the level of knowledge required to bring them into sustainable production is achieved. When access to water, suitable soils, and infrastructure are taken into account, these prospective areas exist in mosaics throughout the Territory.
The opportunities associated with the next stage of the Ord River scheme are a case in point. We will continue to work collaboratively with the Western Australian and Commonwealth governments to ensure a coordinated approach to this development. We are exploring transport, ancillary services, and agricultural opportunities.
But, we must approach expansion of our primary industries while protecting our natural resource base and understanding a development-at-all-costs approach has had dire consequences in other parts of Australia and, indeed, in many regions throughout the world. We will not make the same mistakes which have occurred elsewhere.
The government is currently assessing a wide range of policies and legislation related to natural resource management, and it is under consideration. Our challenge is to protect the environment for future generations while supporting the aspirations and wellbeing of this generation across all regions. Whether it be land clearing, management of water assets, biodiversity protection, or the expected implications of a carbon pollution reduction scheme, it is critical the primary industry sector engage with, and be considered in, the natural resource policy reform agenda.
The Australian government does not plan to include agriculture in this scheme earlier than 2015, and a final decision on coverage of agricultural emissions to be made in 2013. Such a decision will only be made following consultation and work with the industry to identify practical methods for inclusion and to develop reliable and cost-effective methods of emissions estimation and reporting. We remain committed to a considered, evidence-based approach to this important area, which recognises both the benefits and potential impacts. I will continue to promote the importance of our primary industry sectors in representing the best interests for the Territory, particularly as our pastoral industry will remain an export-focused industry.
At the outset, I stated how important our research and development efforts are, and how they will underpin our efforts into the future. I want to address concerns, which are raised from time to time, that our research capacity is somehow reduced. For a jurisdiction of our size, we maintain an outstanding research capacity, but what does change, and always will change, is the prioritisation of our research efforts.
The Primary Industries Group in my department continues as an important research agency. More than 100 staff members are engaged in research, diagnostic, extension, and regulatory activities. We have a nationally-recognised reputation in tropical systems research. It maintains a network of well-managed research and demonstration facilities, where staff and industry conduct applied research and regionally-focused demonstration and extension work aimed at profitable and sustainable primary industries.
The Primary Industries Group is an enthusiastic partner in Australia’s new National Research and Development Framework. The framework brings together state and territory primary industry agencies, research and development corporations, relevant industry groups, and individuals from around the country. The framework was instigated by the national Primary Industries Ministerial Council. It will assist in effective collaborative research outcomes, involving groups of agencies and the research and development corporations capable of tackling specific fields. Agencies from across the country will pool important research skills and resources, and work together to achieve the best results for the nation as a whole. The Territory will benefit from this initiative, as our scientists will be able to further develop their research efforts.
This government is committed to working with the Australian government to set its research priorities based on industry needs and aspirations, and applies for federal funding to match these priorities. The group’s funding applications are guided by a departmental research and development policy and guidelines, designed to ensure all supported research projects are followed through to an appropriate conclusion.
At a Territory level, my department’s Primary Industry Group works closely with key industry groups, including the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association; the Northern Territory Horticultural Association; the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association; and, the Northern Territory Agricultural Association.
Nationally, strong and valuable partnerships have been formed with a range of peak industry representative groups, research and development corporations, including Meat and Livestock Australia; Livecorp; North Australian Beef Research Council; Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation; Horticulture Australia Limited; Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation; Australian Mango Industry Association; Australian Melon Association; Nursery and Garden Industries Australia; and many others.
The Primary Industry Group has embraced the Territory government’s partnership with Charles Darwin University, and this has resulted in many successful projects in the environmental, rangelands, and biosecurity fields.
Our Agribusiness Strategy will no doubt examine opportunities for strengthening our collaborative research efforts. Not only does this bring the benefit of being able to share and pool knowledge, but it will also lead to economies of scale in project design and implementation.
Last year, an independent review of my department’s Primary Industry Group was conducted by an external consultant. This was part of a rolling review program within my department, which has been in place for several years, to identify areas of improvement. The development of this report, and the initiative to develop a comprehensive Agribusiness strategy, are important outcomes of this review. We are determined to ensure the government and industry can go forward in partnership to face the challenges of growing our primary industries. We believe this review was an important step.
I thank industry members who contributed to the review process, and I also recognise the efforts of the staff within the Primary Industry Group, who have gone through the process of restructuring and refocusing, and have embraced the changes in such a positive manner.
I am excited by the work which lies ahead over the coming months, and I know there is enthusiasm for this project within the Primary Industry Group. I am confident there will also be strong support from industry. It is an important task which confronts us. We have an opportunity to provide new economic activity and employment options across the regions of the Territory and, at the same time, make a contribution to feeding people within our borders and beyond.
I trust that members will join me in supporting this statement, and I look forward to returning in the next few months to present our new Agribusiness strategy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing on this statement today which is on a topic that is absolutely vital to the economy of the Northern Territory now and into the future.
The Northern Territory was founded on its primary industries, in particular, its pastoral sector, dating back to the 1800s. In fact, the historic Springvale Station on the outskirts of Katherine was one of the Northern Territory’s first cattle properties, and Springvale Homestead is now the oldest station homestead in the Northern Territory. It continues to contribute to the economy of the Northern Territory through tourism which is, for the lateral thinker, also interlinked with the pastoral sector.
The minister mentioned peanuts in the Katherine region and it is interesting to note Katherine was the original peanut capital of the Northern Territory early last century. The Katherine Museum holds a fine collection of historic peanut memorabilia, and some of the rural roads, in the Florina area, bear the names of some of the Russian peanut farmers from those times. But, enough of the reminiscing.
I wonder at the strategic importance for the minister to table his report today, rather than circulating it with a copy of this statement, albeit, late last night, because, unfortunately, no one has had the benefit of being able to read the report and structure a reply to this statement in a way which reflects the contents of the new report. I am a little disappointed in the minister for Primary Industry for not forwarding a copy of the report. I imagine it would have been available last night. For goodness sake, if it has been tabled today, it would have been available 12 or 14 hours earlier.
I notice you did not bother to mention in your primary industry statement, the primary industries review which was conducted by WalterTurnbull, until the last page of your statement, which surprises me, minister. I thought this rather in-depth review of your department would have featured far more prominently in your statement …
Mr Vatskalis: Page 19?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is what I said; on the last page.
Surely, it must form the basis of the way forward for your department. It is quite clear the review identified many areas within the department which required your attention, as the minister, and also, by extension, your chief executive.
I note there are 16 recommendations outlined in the report by WalterTurnbull, and the vast majority of those outline failings or shortfalls within the minister’s department. Minister, you are responsible for those failings. I analysed those recommendations, and I looked at what the reviewer actually asked you to do within the department. I looked at the verbs, the ‘doing words’, and I came up with one or two of those doing words which implied you were already doing something and the reviewer would like you to continue with them.
However, in something like 14 of those 16 recommendations the doing words implied you were not doing them. The recommendations include: develop a policy; align your strategic and business plans; develop a strategy; strengthen a policy; engage at CE level; establish a forum; develop a research strategy - I believe you get the picture.
As I read through the statement last night, the only references I could find relate to a small number of those recommendations. We are almost 12 months on from the release of the review and there is little evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to suggest the minister has done much at all in addressing those recommendations. The only specific recommendations I can see you have addressed are recommendations 1 and 2, which refer to developing a policy statement on the government’s vision and aligning its strategic and business plans.
By not addressing the other recommendations in this statement, I can only conclude, along with a lack of evidence to the contrary, the minister is yet to move forward on a vast majority of the recommendations. I have heard anecdotal evidence, from people who work in the department that those recommendations are not being acted upon, or are being acted upon far too slowly.
I will speak a little about the pastoral sector. At the outset, I believe the minister has, in part, the right focus on cattle production and our overseas live export markets. It is wise to continue to build upon the early work of the previous CLP government in developing these overseas markets. Recently I was talking about this with people from the pastoral sector, and I recall being told people like Mick Palmer spent a great deal of time in the South-East Asian countries forming and building relationships.
I have mentioned before that I am concerned the minister’s enormous workload prevents him from spending the time really required, time which needs to be invested by …
Mr Conlan: He has a little on his plate.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, he has a little on his plate at the moment.
In working on those markets, there is more which needs to be done, and I know the pastoral sector would like to see more action from the minister in this regard.
We have a strong reliance on Indonesia as a buyer of our live export cattle, I am well aware of the new Vietnam market opening up to the Northern Territory. I am aware the department spends a fair amount of time working on programs and processes involved in maintaining, strengthening, and building those relationships and markets. I hope the minister will continue to scope out new markets, and these are included in the strategies going forward.
As a part of the strategic plan, I would like to see the government - whether it be the current administration or, when this government can no longer hang on to its tenuous grip on power, a newly-formed, dynamic, and forward-looking Country Liberal government - stage incursions into those emerging markets. Very broadly, the first stage might include shipping fat cattle into those countries. Stage 2 might include working with those countries to develop fattening and feedlot techniques which will assist those countries to do their own value-adding and to support their own base economies. Stage 3 might involve lighter weight cattle being shipped in. I understand that is occurring to a greater or lesser degree at the moment.
In my opinion, this should be a rolling program, so there are perhaps three countries involved, in each one of those stages, at the same time. Where there is a country getting fat cattle, another is working with the Territory government to do its value-adding programs, and the third is receiving lightweight cattle, operating with autonomy and far less input from the NT. When country three is receiving lightweight cattle for its feedlots, the NT government is working on country four to begin at Stage 1, and the process goes on. It needs to be a rolling program, and would be a policy position the Country Liberals would take forward when we are in government. We cannot afford to take a haphazard approach to this, so we need to have a strategic plan which has some teeth and achievable outcomes.
Within the horticultural and agricultural sectors there are many issues this government needs to address. First, and foremost, are the issues which stymie development of agricultural land in the Northern Territory, and this also applies to the pastoral sector. I believe it was the member for Nelson who asked the minister for NRETAS a question, during Question Time today, about a couple of properties on the Sturt Plateau, and how difficult and expensive it was for them to submit an EIS to get some land clearing happening. It is a real issue, and this government has its structures askew on how it deals with development within the primary industry sector.
The catch phrase added frequently these days is ‘ecologically sustainable development’ and before the lefties and the rabid greenies come out and try to infer that the Country Liberals want development at any cost, let me say this: all types of development, whether it is agricultural, industrial or any other kind must be assessed with due regard to environmental matters. This means the process of working towards the development must be allowed to take place, and all the matters relating to the process should be critically assessed to determine the validity of the development, in light of the need for it and its potential contribution to the economy of the Northern Territory, and weighed against the environmental cost.
The green fanatics would have us halt all development for the sake of the environment. In so many ways, they are right - you cannot have development without some sort of impact on the environment – then, logically, there must be no development. However, when the fanatics join the real world, they will realise we must have development to live and thrive on this planet; the trick is getting the balance right.
This is where I have a problem with the government’s structures for developing the primary sector. In the phrase: ‘ecologically sustainable development’, the word ‘development’ is a noun, so it is the dominant word in the phrase and relates to what you want to achieve - we want to achieve development. ‘Ecologically sustainable’ is a compound adjective which describes the type of development. We want to achieve development in an ecologically sustainable way. If that is the case, why does the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources not have the lead role in developing the primary sector? It seems incongruous that another department is running the agenda on development in the primary sector.
Let us take a look at two major issues which affect primary development in the Northern Territory - water and land clearing. We know much about land clearing. The government had a moratorium on land clearing in the Daly and then it brought in its land clearing guidelines under the former minister for Environment, the member for Macdonnell. When I raised issues, earlier this year, with the former minister she was genuine about trying to work through those issues and the terrible impost on primary producers brought about by the implementation of those guidelines.
Yet, it seems, since the departure of the member for Macdonnell from the ministerial post, the department has continued to drive the process without any regard to the difficulties it imposes on primary producers. There is a real cost to primary producers through this process, in the form of sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. Listening to the member for Nelson during Question Time today, some may even have to fork out hundreds of thousand of dollars to comply with the EIS requirements of land clearing guidelines. That money is not always available to our cash-strapped farmers; they are doing it tough, like everyone else in the country. If you think, for a moment, farmers can afford to stick their hand in their pocket to the tune of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars so they can clear some land, then you are making an enormous mistake.
When I read in the minister’s statement only 0.5% of the land mass of the Northern Territory is cleared for agricultural purposes, it puts the whole situation into perspective. If there is such an impost on farmers that they have to go to the extent of an EIS, how on earth are we going to grow our agricultural sector in any meaningful way?
Another issue is water and, again, there is an enormous problem with the way NRETAS administers water issues. I am particularly referring to issues with bores in the Mataranka region. I know this will be an issue across the Northern Territory, but I am particularly aware of this because it has been brought to my attention. I know the minister, the member for Stuart, is also aware of this issue. In brief, applicants for water licences for bores must spend, potentially, $100 000 or more in drilling a bore without the guarantee of a licence for that bore. In effect, they have to spend $100 000, drill a hole in the ground and find some water with no guarantee they will actually be able to suck any of the water out of their bore for agricultural purposes. I understand there is not a single jurisdiction in Australia, apart from the Northern Territory, where that happens.
If there is a problem with the legislation which prevents that from happening, I understand it might only be a very small problem with the legislation, if I am instructed correctly, and a change of a couple of words might solve the whole problem. At the moment, I know there are a number of people who are experiencing extreme difficulties with NRETAS in dealing with this. I go back to my original point of why, in heaven’s name, is NRETAS driving primary production in what can and cannot be done?
NRETAS is the lead agency in determining whether primary producers can develop their production capacity, either by virtue of newly-cleared land or a newly-sunk bore. That is like the police, the upholders of the law, also making the law, which is fundamentally wrong. The department of Primary Industry should have the lead role in these matters, taking advice from NRETAS, not the other way around.
The minister spoke in his statement about research and extension services, and a little about biosecurity. In Budget Paper No 3 for 2009-10, on page 221, the estimate for 2008-09 in research, development and extension services in progress is 35 projects. Yet, a centimetre away, in the same document’s estimate for 2009-10, is a drop to 30 projects. Unless there is something wrong with me, it looks like a drop in research and extension projects, not an increase, or even the same commitment to research and outreach. Minister, that makes the paragraph on page 4 of your statement, regarding research and extension, little more than window dressing.
Minister, I am surprised you do not have biosecurity much higher on your list of priorities for the department. I recently spoke to a former police colleague of mine, who has had quite a lot of experience in emergency management and counter-terrorism, and I have also had some training in emergency and disaster management. It was true when I did my training in disaster management, and contemporary thinking still maintains, that biosecurity is the most significant risk to Australia’s security. It is considered so important it is studied and treated as a disaster, in the true sense of the word. Yet the statement gives it only a few superficial and basically meaningless paragraphs, and the budget for this year gives no more importance, no more projects, and, probably, no more dollars spent on it than last year either.
I want to address some of the things this statement barely mentions, or does not mention at all. While the minister’s Labor mates in Canberra, particularly the Prime Minister, contemplate some grandiose self-promoting plan to cut Australia’s carbon emissions, primary producers are seeing their livelihoods disappearing down the drain. It is not in the Ord drain, though, because this government has done little or nothing on it to provide a repository for those livelihoods. I know including primary producers in any form of ETS is off the radar for the next few years, I believe until 2013, but that is not good enough.
Australia and New Zealand are the only countries on this planet which are even contemplating including primary producers in any ETS. Believe me, it will be bad enough for farmers to absorb the increased, indirect costs associated with an ETS, but directly including them in carbon trading, or any other measure to reduce their carbon output, will cripple the industry. This has been the position of cattlemen and horticulturalists; anyone and everyone in the primary sector know that inclusion of the primary producers in any form of ETS will destroy the industry.
The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has to come down off his high horse and look at why other countries are not including primary producers in their proposed ETS schemes. Kevin Rudd, I can assure you, is not the pre-eminent authority on this matter, and he should discard any ideas about inclusion of primary industries in his ETS plans.
I know the ETS is a federal matter, but I expect this House, in particular the minister for Primary Industry, to show some leadership on this issue. I do not believe I have ever heard the minister speak on this matter in the public arena, but he should. He needs to come out publicly and tell pastoralists and farmers his position. Not only that, the minister needs to tell the NT farmers what he has done to support their plight and their position with the federal government. Has the minister come out in support of farmers, has he buckled or will he buckle to party lines, or will he not have the intestinal fortitude to come out and state his position?
This is important, because it goes to the sincerity of the minister in making this statement. On page 2 of his statement, the minister acknowledges the issues with increasing populations and the need to feed the hoards, so how could he in one breath say he acknowledges the food needs of the planet are increasing, but in another breath say he supports the demise of the primary industry sector in Australia, and particularly in the Northern Territory, because it will be included in a flawed ETS. It is time for some leadership from the minister on this. He is in a position to speak to his federal counterparts and make some representations in the federal sphere, outlining his position and the position of pastoralists and farmers in the Northern Territory.
On another front, the minister also needs to show some leadership in relation to the proposed award modernisation in the horticultural sector. The Deputy Leader of the parliamentary Labor Party, Julia Gillard, is moving towards this award modernisation process, and this is another area the minister has been mysteriously quiet on. I do not believe I have heard the minister for Primary Industry in the Northern Territory publicly state his position on that either.
This is an extremely important issue for our primary sector. The proposal for the award modernisation includes: casual loading of up to 25%; penalty rates and allowances; a 38-hour-week, with overtime rates at 1.5 to two times the normal pay rate and, on Sunday, a minimum of four hours at double time. If this were to come in, it would cripple the industry in the Northern Territory, and it will send farmers to the wall. I believe the Deputy Prime Minister does not realise, perhaps because she has no experience in seasonal horticultural or agricultural pursuits, that they are seasonal. When the mangoes need to be picked, they are picked for 10, 12, 14, 15 hours every day, seven days a week, for as long as it takes to get those mangoes off the trees and into sheds. Then they need to be processed through the sheds as well. The horticultural sector, particularly in relation to mangoes, but many other fruits and vegetables which are grown, are seasonal, and do not lend themselves to an ordinary award, like an officer worker, who turns up to work at 8 am and goes home at 4 pm. If the boss asks them to stay on for an hour, they get paid one hour at time-and-a-half, they get 17% leave loading and all the rest of it. Agriculture does not work like that.
I am sick and tired of seeing the government, particularly the federal Labor government, throwing a blanket over certain sectors, or certain issues, and hoping the blanket will fill all the holes and fix all the problems. Unfortunately, we know that simply does not happen. There needs to be a targeted approach, and some sort of common sense injected into these arguments.
Minister, in all good conscience, how can you support a change which would cripple the industry that you describe as a dynamic industry in your statement; the horticultural industry? I can assure you, it will not be so dynamic under this scheme. You need to say where you stand on these issues and specifically what you have done to support the impending plight of our farmers. I received an e-mail from a mango farmer referring to the modernisation and I will leave you with this quote from the e-mail, minister: ‘This will take us out, and probably quite a few others’.
This is not a good sign for the future growth of horticulture and agriculture in the Northern Territory. I believe this is an issue which, in all honesty, seriousness, and with every ounce of sincerity I can muster, needs to be dealt with by the Northern Territory government, through representations to the federal government, to ensure this does not occur. It is tough enough for farmers now, and if this goes through, we will see some terrible things happen within our horticulture industry. We live on the back of our primary producers across Australia, and in the Northern Territory we are no different. We must support our primary producers; they deserve the very best treatment from the government.
I urge the minister, all members, and the Deputy Prime Minister, if she is listening, to reconsider this. This is going to be a tough issue for Northern Territory farmers, and when you combine that with the prospect of primary producers being included in some sort of ETS, I do not know where we will be in two, three, four or five years time - not in a good place.
I thank the minister for bringing it on; it has given me an opportunity to raise some issues which I have become aware of over the last few months. I hope this document, Growing our Primary Industries: Partnerships for Productivity, contains some of the answers to the issues I have raised in my response to his statement this afternoon; but it would have been nice to have had this last night. Nonetheless, that is history.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister asks for support for his statement. I cannot say I support it, other than to say he is getting some things right, but there is still a hell of a lot more that needs to be done.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing on the statement. I wish this had been brought to us before the statement, so we had adequate time to look at it, because this is the book we are being asked to look at and we are being asked to comment on a statement which is referring to the book. It would have been better to refer to this, because opening it up I immediately saw two animals which were not mentioned in the statement - buffaloes and crocodiles. I only commented on what I did not see in the statement, and then find they are in the document called, Growing our Primary Industries: Partnerships for Productivity.
A simple look at the title would mean the government is developing partnerships with the primary industry sector, which should be the very reason the department exists; it is not new. It seems, according to the minister’s statement, the partnerships today are based on three principles: relevant research, disseminating the results of the research, and biosecurity. But is that it?
Surely a partnership with the government which first recognises primary industry as a key part of our economy, and one the government should actively promote, is one of the parts of that partnership. I do not believe the government has been promoting primary industry as well as it could. Also, surely a partnership with the government is not only about the agricultural side of things, but also the human side. Agriculture is not just another industry; for many it is a way of life. This is the side of the industry which is not included in the government’s statement today, and I believe it should be. I will get back to that a little later.
The minister’s statement is broad. It talks about the future of the industry and how we need to produce enough food to feed a growing population. I also believe in partnerships, but I believe in innovation, the science, and that we can develop primary industry and protect the environment. We need to be proactive and listen to the concerns of the industry, not just city-based lobby groups, who seem to have the ear of the government, and the northern suburb voters.
Primary industry creates jobs and feeds people, which is a very good reason for support. The minister for Primary Industry has looked at our main industries, which are basically the pillars of primary industry in the Northern Territory. I thought I would look at those particular industries and see where the partnerships are. If you look at the pastoral industry which, as the minister says, is one of the most important industries in the Northern Territory, the partnership it needs with the government is to try to improve roads; there is no doubt. The minister would know, and I know from travelling around parts of the Northern Territory, if the roads are not up to scratch then you are not going to develop the pastoral industry as well as it could be, because the minister is talking about productivity.
When it comes to land clearing, I am the first to say I do not like seeing the old Tipperary style of land clearing where the bulldozer went through the country and wiped out everything, across creeks and through billabongs - you name it - they kept going. I believe, after all these years, we have some pretty reasonable land clearing controls across the Territory. In the case of the Sturt Plateau, we have best practice committees. We sometimes forget many of our new farmers are well educated, not just at university or agricultural college, but they understand the land, its limitations, and the importance of the environment. Although things may have been done in years gone by, which would not be supported today, I believe, to some extent, we are tipping the balance in the other direction where the environment has become 90% of the reason and development has become 10%. That may not end up being the case but, as I said earlier, if you want to do an EIS, it is going to cost you $100 000, at least ...
Ms Purick: Minimum.
Mr WOOD: Minimum. This does not give one a feeling the government is stepping out of its way or promoting primary industry. In a sense, it is putting some blocks in the road of primary industry.
In relation to which department the land clearing guidelines should be in, land clearing guidelines are going to affect primary producers, which, at the present time, is under the department of Natural Resources and Environment. Obviously, that department wants to protect the environment, otherwise you would not have the department, which is understandable. At the same time, if anyone has read the draft clearing guidelines which are coming out - I am not sure when they will be available for any further comment - one gets the impression that unless a farmer is a brain surgeon or can afford to employ a consultant, you would find it very difficult to fulfil the requirements in the application for land clearing. Not only do you have to count the number of hollow logs, work out the endangered species, but you also get into the business of carbon emissions; it becomes very complicated for someone who wants permission to clear land.
Some of those things are important, but if the department or the government wants farmers to clear land and take all those things into consideration, then it should make much of the information available and help the farmers. It is funny, years ago, if you wanted to grow a crop, the government would send an extension officer to talk to you about growing that crop. Today, the government would say: ‘No, you employ a consultant to get the information from the department, to tell you how to grow the crop’. In other words, the philosophy now is it is not the department’s job to help you; it is for you to find out.
When it comes to where taxpayers’ money is being spent, it is being spent to employ people in these departments to go out and investigate the endangered species, vegetation types, and soil types - all those sorts of things. This information should be freely available to growers or pastoralists so they do not have to go to enormous expense to fill in a land clearing application.
In relation to partnerships, the government should be working with the pastoral industry to look at intensification of farms. We have already seen in the Douglas Daly how there are moves to promote cell grazing where more intensive use of the land has been developed. We have already seen how it has not only improved the pastures in that area, but has also improved the number of cattle being turned-off and, in one case in particular, there is a family that just won the Northern Territory Landcare Award for its work in cell grazing in the Douglas Daly area.
Partnerships in the diversification of pastoral land have been discussed over many years. If we are to look at not only increasing productivity, but also diversifying our primary industry economy, then we need to look at the possibilities for pastoralists to use the land for other purposes. Under the Pastoral Act, I suppose most of the land is to be used for cattle or similar things, but if you want to turn it into irrigated crops, use it for tourism, ecotourism, farm tourism, or have a bed and breakfast, or something like that to contribute to the economy of the station or farm, under the Pastoral Act it is not so simple.
Another partnership the government might look at is helping those buffalo farmers. In the statement, buffaloes did not get a mention but, as most people would know, the small abattoir in Darwin, which was closed down, meant it was very difficult for the buffalo industry to get its animals slaughtered. I know it has been trying to use the Oenpelli abattoir, but word has come back that that particular abattoir will only take the buffalo if it is completely processed there; it will not allow just a kill of the animal. It wants to take the whole animal and process it. I believe some of the buffalo farmers would prefer it to just kill the animal, prepare the basic carcass and take that back. I had word recently that is causing a difficulty too.
There is a whole range of partnerships the government needs to look at in relation to the pastoral industry. I will probably jump around a little, because I do not have much time. The partnerships are not just about the economic side of the pastoral industry. They are also about the social side of the people in the pastoral industry. People working in the bush are part of, you might say, a way of life, rather than just working in a shop, driving a bus in Darwin, or something. For people who live out bush, that is the thing they like to do; it is part of their life, and it is a special sort of life.
Those people face issues, besides isolation and communication. I have just received an e-mail from the NT Isolated Children’s Parents Association, which shows some of the issues these people have to face. It talks about the NT Supplementary Boarding Allowance, the NT Student Book and Application Forms, NT Convey and Subsidy Scheme Assistance, NT Tertiary Fares Reimbursement Scheme, the IT Resources for Middle and Senior Years Distance Education Students, Delivery of Middle Schooling in Rural and Remote NT, Country Areas Program Funding, Telecommunications, School Health Screening and Dental Services, and roads.
Although this is a statement about growing primary industries, you cannot grow primary industries if you do not help the people who work in the industry. It is easy for me to get up and say, productivity of the number of cows on this property should be x, y, and z, but do not take into account there are people and families who live on those properties whose needs must also be given equal emphasis by the government as part of the partnerships. It is not about the pure mechanics of a pastoral property.
The minister touches on horticulture, and I have a background in that area. If you take the figures in the statement, it shows the horticulture industry is increasing; there is no doubt. But when we talk about productivity and feeding more people, as in the statement, I wonder whether the government is prepared to look outside the square. The figures for bananas show there is an increase, but I am interested to know how the banana figures are going to keep going up, in light of the fact we have Panama disease. One of the issues with Panama disease is it has been very difficult, as the government knows, to try to find a suitable variety of bananas which overcomes it.
There was a story on Catalyst, on the ABC, on 16 April 2009, which talked about genetically modified bananas. On 23 April, there was a press release on the ABC talking about the possibility of genetically modified bananas, in relation to producing bananas that would be resistant to Panama disease. I know there has been much talk about, and it is probably a fair way off before it will happen. I ask the government, if it believes in increasing productivity and believes in our horticultural industry, and the only way to produce bananas in the Northern Territory is to go down the path of GM bananas, would it do it?
I have spoken about GM cotton, but when it comes to GM, it is like the world is coming to an end. You get the feeling people think GM is some sort of no, no, and, also that they do not understand what GM is about. GM is a vast area of science, some of which I do not agree with, but some of it I do.
I was reading an article the other day about GM. It said that many people did not like GM because they heard about the fish genes being mixed up with the tomato genes. I am the first to say, this is the sort of stuff I do not want to hear about. But when you know all this GM cotton is a protein gene which is attached to the cotton plant - the same protein people can buy in the hardware store under the name Dipel, an organically approved spray - scientists take the protein, put it in a plant and it kills the heliothis bug. It has: reduced spraying; reduced the carbon footprint, because tractors do not have to go up and down so many times spraying; helped the health of the farmer, because they do not have to use so many poisonous sprays; and has increased productivity. Yet, we seem to have come up against a brick wall, in this parliament, that all GM is bad.
It is like talking to a fundamentalist; everything is bad if you put the word GM in front of it. Yet, the GM trials in Katherine, which were funded by the NT government, showed if you grew it in a certain way, it was environmentally friendly, it only used the same amount of water as peanuts and mangoes - which are being promoted in this book - it only had two sprays, which are the same sprays you use for fleas on your dog.
I hope the government will keep a relatively broad mind when it comes to changes in technology, especially plant technology. We know the damage Panama disease has done to bananas in the Territory, what should have been a thriving industry. Big growers from Kununurra came to Lambells Lagoon, and spent millions on developing bananas, then along comes Panama disease – some people know where it came from, it was introduced into the Northern Territory - which wiped out the bananas at Berry Springs, then moved to Lambells Lagoon and basically wiped them out there.
If we are to move into the future years and produce more and more food for a hungry world, we have to not be shying away or scared of the generalisations that all things are bad. We need to look at them with a clear head, look at the science, be careful by all means, but if the technology is there to allow these things to happen, then we should.
In relation to broad-acre agriculture - peanuts, corn and hay - it is good to see we now have a little happening in the Territory after a long period of time when it dropped off. I was talking to the General Manager of the Peanut Company of Australia who said they did a wheat trial in Katherine - I believe it was this year - which took eight weeks to go from seed to crop. That makes you start to wonder. People are worried about wheat farming in other parts of Australia where there has not been enough rainfall and yet, we seem to be able to grow it in the Northern Territory. Obviously there would be issues about humidity, but there is potential. I have said a number of times that our research should not necessarily be about the big crops. It should be about those sorts of things, looking at whether we can develop markets that the industry would not normally look at. It was interesting to hear there is a possibility of growing wheat in the Northern Territory, especially this far north.
I mentioned GM cotton, and there is the possibility it could come back, with Ord River Stage 3. It will only come back if there is a market, but if there is no market, let us not get too worried about it. If there is a company which wants to grow it, and we know it can be grown successfully, let people have the debate then. But to say cotton should not be grown in the Territory, to me, is very closed logic.
I notice one area which is not mentioned in the statement - the small animal production section, pigs, poultry, and horses, for instance. It is sad to see the pig industry all but finished in the Northern Territory, and it is sad to say the poultry industry is finished. These industries are finished because of the price of feed, and the competition from down south. Again, there is a partnership I believe the government should be looking at. Can we redevelop those industries in the Northern Territory? Can we get cheaper feed?
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Brennan. He is my next door neighbour, so we are like that.
I believe those areas which have dropped off the radar, like pigs and poultry, should be looked at to see whether some of those industries could be brought back, whether we can produce cheaper feed in the Northern Territory to compete with down south. I am not sure, but we need to look at the possibilities.
Another area which does not get much mention, believe it or not, is the horse industry. People might ask if that is actually a primary industry; well, I am not sure what else it is. There are many people who ride horses in the Territory, whether they ride them as stockmen or for sport, it is a good little industry. You imagine all the bridles, saddles, blankets, shoes, nails, feed, medicine, all the gear people wear, from your Akubras to your Wranglers, to who knows what.
The horse industry in the Northern Territory is quite a big industry, relative to the size of the Territory. Go to Freds Pass or the showgrounds in Alice Springs and have a look at the hundreds of people who do show jumping. If you just want to look at the cost of the transporting, there are the horse floats, the hurdles, and bringing up judges from down south. It is a little industry, and sometimes people forget that. Someone over the back there reminded me of the dog industry - showing dogs - where do you put that? What do you call it?
Ms Purick: Dog conformation.
Mr WOOD: Dog conformation is quite a big industry. Imagine the feed, medicines, and all that. When you get to know people in that business, you will find out they are keen and spend much money. When you go to one of these competitions, you find they have flown up three judges from interstate. It is all helping the economy, and it may be a little niche area for the economy, but they are things we should not forget.
Another issue is forestry. I am not necessarily against forestry, but I saw plenty of it when I went out to Ord River Stage 2 or Stage 1. I become concerned when I go down to the Douglas Daly and find that trees have been planted down the contour, which means the water rushes down the contour, runs over the next door neighbour’s pastoral property and causes erosion. There has been much emphasis on the pastoral industry, in relation to the Douglas Daly and erosion, and the way it does things, and then along comes the forestry industry, which tended to get plaudits from the government, and I find they are planting trees in a way that has caused erosion on pastoral properties.
In one case, there was supposed to be a buffer which was not put in. I hope we do not get too carried away with forestry; it is an important industry, but let us make sure it does not use up good soils which are suitable for food and, where it is planted, it does not cause problems in relation to erosion. In the case of Bathurst Island, where the company has gone bung, ensuring the Acacia species does not become a weed, which is a danger with the company folding; if you do not get continual maintenance, some of those forest trees might become more of a problem.
We need to look at horticulture on Aboriginal communities again. I do not believe it is as easy as people make it out to be - having spent a fair part of my life growing vegetables in Aboriginal communities. Unless people are educated and prepared to spend seven-days-a-week - some people think growing a crop is as easy as falling off a log; it is not. If you are going to advance horticulture in Aboriginal communities, you need not only good literacy and numeracy, but also a basic education. You need to understand soils and water, and how plants grow, from a scientific point of view, to ensure you understand what you are doing. We have a long way to go before that happens. There are social issues which can make it hard to have a seven-day-a-week vegetable garden, but we have to work our way through that.
The member for Barkly knows my opinion on prison farms. This is another area for horticulture. It is a business which will both produce and require goods. We have to keep working on the prison farms.
The member for Katherine spoke about water allocation planning - a very interesting issue - where you have to put a bore down before you get water, which seems to be the wrong way around. The way it happens in Litchfield, if you want to apply for land clearing for mangoes, you have to put a bore down and test it to see if you have any water, before you clear the land; which makes sense. But the other way, of having to drill a bore first, pump it and wait to see if they give you permission to have the water, seems the wrong way around. It is a very expensive process. Water allocation planning is happening in the rural area, and is creating quite an interest.
I would like to hear from the minister what he thinks about the emissions trading scheme. He made a statement, during the Cattlemen’s Association Conference, earlier this year in Alice Springs, which I attended, where he basically said: ‘notwithstanding the issue of carbon emissions’ - and never came back to it in his statement; he put it to one side. However, when you read the rest of the statement, there is no mention of what he really thinks should happen regarding emissions trading.
From the figures I have seen, if we are to tax agriculture in the Northern Territory, we are going to kill the live cattle export. They are already going to be affected, as the member for Katherine said, by indirect costs such as fuel, trucks, fertiliser, polypipe. If you put the tax on how much they are supposed to - pardon me, Madam Speaker - fart, it will make it very difficult for that industry to survive. We have to be strong, and the government has to tell the federal government that this is not on. President Obama has not included agriculture in his scheme. He is sensible enough to realise you will kill the industry and we should also follow his example.
One of the other areas of partnership we need with the government - and this is the key, I reckon, for the future – is to really promote and speed up the identification of suitable soils and water in the Northern Territory. When I was at Amanbidji, which is old Kildurk Station, there are massive black soil plains. There are also very good soils at the Sturt Plateau. We need to do the planning - and the minister mentions it in his statement - but we really need to do it now. If we believe this is going to be the part of Australia where agriculture will develop, we need to do it carefully and environmentally sensibly, but we need to do the work now which underpins future expansion. We have to identify good soils and good water, right now. This has happened at the Ord, but we have not done it as much as we should have in the Northern Territory.
Another issue is education; we have to do more when it comes to education. I was at Mistake Creek, which is an Indigenous pastoral property. I know we are talking about Indigenous economic development for the Northern Territory, so I was a little disappointed to find out most of the Aboriginal ringers at Mistake Creek came from Western Australia, they did not come from the Northern Territory, and the rest of them were non-Aboriginal. I believe there are some real issues there, trying to get people who come from that country to work there. I was told that the training was not good enough. If you go to CDU at Katherine, you start at 8 am and you finish at 4.21 pm. Ringers do not work that way, they start at 4.30 am, work to about 12 pm, have a knock-off during the hot time of the day, and start work late in the afternoon. The training has to suit the industry. My daughter went to Mataranka School, which is where she learnt to be a ringer, and she got up at 4.30 am. I do not believe the new system is appropriate.
Lastly, on the education side, I believe we need a degree in tropical horticulture, which could be based in Katherine or Kununurra - I do not care. Both these areas have mainly irrigated crops, and I believe that is what we should be looking at. We currently have certificates or associate diplomas, which are basically trade-type qualifications; we need to lift the standard. Tropical horticulture is a growth area, and we need to ensure we have people from the Northern Territory who can fill those areas of need.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. I believe the partnerships, between the government and the rest of the Territory are important if we are to develop agriculture in the future.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for this statement and, given what my colleague from Katherine said, primary industries are fundamental to the Northern Territory’s economy and also to our future.
On going through the statement, I see it is a little light in many areas, which I will go through, and it is an indication of the gloss, which comes out in government statements, but is not backed up with much substance. Most of it is okay, but there are omissions, which I will go through. I had the chance to speak to some farming and agricultural people today, and a couple of comments off the top were: it was a load of ‘flimflam’, and another fellow said, it was just a load of ‘polly waffle’.
One of the concerns I have with the statement is that it is unbalanced. There are about three and half pages devoted to the pastoral industry, which I have no issue with, but there is about one-and-a-half pages on horticulture, and one and-a-half pages on agriculture. It is almost as if the agriculture and horticulture industries are the poor cousins to the pastoral industry, or that is how the government views them.
There is no mention anywhere in the statement that I can see of new, or possible new farming, that is under way at the moment, or research, or planning for new farming. It does not matter how small, or whether it is a niche market, because we know niche markets can be very successful and can yield great returns for, not only businesses, but for the Territory.
There is no mention of some of the new areas, such as growing cashews and billy goat plums, which are in their infancy, but have had some good track records, albeit troublesome. Billy goat plums are turned into products which are sold down south. Those two products, in particular, are very important because they have involved, in the past, many Aboriginal people and Aboriginal communities which has brought returns to those communities. There is no mention of those kinds of things in the statement.
It is pretty light on the research and development area. There is no real mention about how this is going into the future or the direction of any new initiatives. There is little mention in regards to emissions trading schemes, and I will not go into that in great detail, as that will be covered by some of my other colleagues, but, suffice to say, the rest of the OECD countries think we are pretty mad for including the pastoral industry in the emissions trading scheme.
From reading the statement, and talking with people today, there is a definite lack of leadership. There are many challenges which could be met by effective leadership, but, sadly, that is not present, or it is not indicative, in this statement. It is policy on the run, including this industry. What is happening with the Berrimah Farm? There is no reference to Berrimah Farm, and the shemozzle we have seen over the last couple of years regarding the Planning minister announcing the government wants to turn it into a subdivision. Of course, it has all gone quiet, and we know why, because it has had to undertake environmental studies to work out the extent of the contamination from previous activities.
It does not talk about working with other government agencies, and I believe my colleague from Katherine made the statement that it should be the prime agency for taking primary industries forward, and not to be attacked or undermined by other agencies. I will provide an example which was given to me today from farmers in the Marrakai region. They are Vietnamese farmers, so their literacy in English is not as good as it could be, but a person who was helping them took three weeks to obtain a clearing permit for one of them. They finally got the permit yesterday, which was asked for in July, so it took five months to get a clearing permit. These are serious farmers; they are big farmers, and it is not right that it took five months to get a clearing permit. That is excessive, and it shows they are bogging it down in systems and not trying to help people get ahead at all.
There is no real talk about the future planning for the horticultural and agricultural industries – I will leave the pastoral aside for the time being. Where are the areas identified for the expansion of this industry? We know we have, or previously had, areas in Lambells Lagoon. However, that is being impacted by the growing residential areas. In fact, I have written to the Minister for Planning and Lands about that, because the zoning is for horticultural, yet there are many residential properties. There is the Marrakai, but does it have the supporting infrastructure, such as roads, to support the growing horticultural and agricultural industry? When many of the Asian vegetable marketers want to get their product to market they cannot because of the roads.
There is not much forward planning for horticultural development. There is no consideration given particularly to the identification and allocation of suitable land, and the assessment of water availability and future demand. Those two items, in particular, will test the links between the departments and how well they can work together.
It does not come through in this statement but we need comprehensive land capability mapping and allocation of land which is appropriately resourced for horticultural production, with long-term security, so that sometime in the future, if land is identified, something does not come along and they have to move to another place.
There is no mention of any kind of support to farmers in the beginning of their projects. No mention of any subsidies or incentive programs which may exist. It is sad that I did not see any reference to work by Charles Darwin University, in particular the Katherine Rural College and Mataranka Station and what they do there. The training and educating of people, and encouraging more people into the industry, is crucial to support the industry in its operations. We know we have a skills shortage in the Territory, which goes across all industries. It is disappointing we did not see any reference to the Taminmin High School, and its agricultural program, because they all complement each other and work to take the industry forward.
The priority of a ministerial statement should be a clear statement of the minister’s view or vision of the role of primary industries and the future of the NT. I do not see that coming through in this statement. It talks mostly about what we have now, but not about the future direction or planning, where we are going in the future, and how we are going to do it.
One of my key areas of concern is the research priorities, because research is fundamental to the resolution of problems such as sustainable production and conservation in the Territory. It also provides the objective data to show whether climate change is having the effects predicted. For the last 30 years in the Territory, primary industries research has been an easy target for managers to attack in pursuit of predetermined budget reductions, or to use the words we often hear in the public service today, ‘efficiency dividends’. It is worrying to note that, even in the few developing areas of the top part of the Territory and elsewhere, such as the Ord River, the research is minimal and, what does exist is not directed to environmental issues such as salinity detection or nutrient problems in an irrigated environment.
A great deal of research in the NT is done by the universities, CSIRO and funded groups such as CRCs, which is good, relevant, and will keep going, but it has not always been as targeted as it could have been. Good scientific research will provide the data desperately needed in the NT for the development of rational policies by the government. We need to have good sound research so the government can make rational policies, particularly about primary industries.
I believe the government sometimes has a fundamental misunderstanding of science by expecting definite answers to specific problems in a short time span, which is not how it works; it cannot be done because science does not work that way.
One of the other areas of concern is the laboratories at Berrimah Farm and elsewhere, and how they are working. I hope they are adequately resourced and supported in animal and plant health, soils, and water, because that will be essential to adequately support the work of the department and primary industries.
I believe the priority areas are quite clear: biosecurity and disease identification, environmental monitoring, diagnostic services in research and investigation, and routine diagnostic services for the public. Priority one is the core role, and disease identification maybe intermittent, but acute in times of serious disease outbreaks.
This statement is silent on the role of AQIS and other national laboratories, in relation to the NT laboratories, in the event of a major disease outbreak. This is one area of concern to the industry. There needs to be clear identification of priority services provided by the department within existing resources. For example, there is uncertainty about the future of the department’s post-entry quarantine facility. This facility is not in high demand, although, due to mandatory quarantine requirements for the importation of plants, it provides an essential service which is not adequately replicated elsewhere in our climatic zone. There is considerable demand from growers for chemical residue testing services, and the industry may also benefit from a testing program to encourage and regulate good chemical management practices. However, the Northern Territory government does not currently have National Association of Testing Authorities, or NATA, accreditation, which severely limits the capacity for chemical monitoring and management. I urge the minister to look into that because we will definitely need it if we are going to be successful and keep the Territory and Australia clean.
To put it on the record, and because the minister did not really detail it in his statement, there is value across the board - horticultural, agricultural, and pastoral. The cut flower industry in the Territory is around $18.4m; mango production is one of the more prolific producers at $57.7m; vegetables, which includes the growing area of Asian vegetables, is around $29m; and exotic fruits, like rambutans and custard apples is around $3.5m. The buffalo industry - trying to get statistics was difficult because they pull in crocodiles, poultry, pigs and camels - is around $10.5m; and, as the member for Nelson mentioned, there is a growing interest in the other type of buffaloes, other than the swamp buffaloes, for their milk and cheese. There is an operation at Lambells Lagoon which has struggled with some of the bureaucracy and red-tape, I suppose you call it, in getting approvals to do this. I hope the minister tries to assist that growing business as best he can, so they do not get mucked around too much by these other government agencies.
The statement talks about partnerships with industry, but the government should really be taking a lead role with industry. I am concerned, where it says on the first page:
And there are four bullet points. I was reading the October Business Review 2009, in the NT News, and Frank Peacock, Herron Todd White, used those same words, which looks to me as if the minister has copied it word for word, which I find disappointing.
One of the other challenges which is not listed is marketing, the positioning of the industry, and the competitiveness of the industry.
Much of what is in the statement is fairly general or ‘flimflam’. It states:
Well, of course it is. We are going to have to continue to feed our increasing populations and, perhaps, more so than ever before, we will have to look at having our own food bowls in the Territory, and not relying so much on interstate or overseas products.
As my colleagues have said, it would have been better if we had received this booklet, Growing Our Primary Industries before the statement. When the government starts to develop the NT Agribusiness Strategy, I hope it does it in close association with the industry.
The statement says the corporate plan is:
We know the problems interstate with accessing water and land. But this plan does not detail what the infrastructure is, and there is no real vision of the areas which are going to be allocated for future agricultural and horticultural development and, where, more importantly, the water is going to come from. Where is the water planning to support the agricultural and horticultural industries?
It talked about guiding and assisting plant and animal-based industries through extension services, which is a joke; there are no real extension services offered to industry. I know for sure, which is a shame because, in the past, there used to be good extension services. Farmers and other growers looked to these people to help them develop their businesses and industries.
One of the issues with this statement, is it talks mostly about the big farmers. Yes, they are important, and contribute much to our economy and our livelihoods. But, it does not refer much to the little farmers, who are just as important. The government should also acknowledge the niche farmers, whether they are dealing with plants or animals, because they have an important role in primary industry.
Biosecurity is a big issue, and I am not sure this government takes it seriously. I am not sure if the minister has read the Beale report. If not, I recommend he does, because it is a very important report. I have questioned the minister previously on the sentinel herds we have at Berrimah Farm and elsewhere. These are important, not only to the Territory, but to Australia, because we are at the gateway to Asia, and to many countries which are not free of diseases. It is not only about protecting the Northern Territory, but also protecting the rest of Australia.
On page 5 of the statement it states:
It should be leading the research, not just being a compliant partner. It should be driving the agenda, in association with industry so we are at the forefront of research, not only for the Territory, but for Australia.
I will no go into the pastoral side of it too much, suffice to say, we really need to start looking at the facilities of the holding yards or feedlots. The one on Wishart Road currently holds about 3500 to 4000 head of cattle, and the industry tells me it needs to be about 10 000. If you want the industry to grow, we need to have the facilities to hold the cattle before they go on to the ships. I know there are issues with finding the land and expanding those premises, and that the industry has had discussions with the Land Development Corporation. It needs to keep having those discussions, and the minister needs to be involved, so if they do need to expand their yards, the minister is supporting and pushing them. As I understand, that is one of the issues associated with the business; it is limited a little by the size of its yards.
The global financial crisis has been an issue. More so now, than before, we have to look at these primary industries, which will take us into the future for what we need in the Territory. Primary industries create jobs, wealth, and also have the potential to provide our own food bowl in the Northern Territory. Many of the products and produce in our supermarkets come from interstate, if not overseas, and it is disappointing that the amount of homegrown products in supermarkets in the Territory is decreasing, not increasing. It is about time we started to get back to some basics and promote campaigns such as buy local, eat local, or grow local, eat local.
I went on the show circuit and always visit the primary industry stands because, in the past, they used to be very interesting. Katherine Show was very good, but some of the other shows were very disappointing. We used to showcase our products and our wares, but that is not happening so much anymore, which is disappointing because many people go to agricultural shows to see the agricultural and horticultural products and everything associated with that.
I will leave it there, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not as good a statement as it could have been. There are many areas which need to be improved, and I believe the minister needs to take a more decisive leadership role in pushing and supporting the primary industries forward in the Territory, both in the near and long-term future.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is great to see there are so many people on the other side interested in primary industries – it is revealing. I look across the other side and see a whole range of people who, for years and years, have given their heart and soul to the land, worked their guts out, ploughing the fields, riding horses, and what not – in actual fact, I am being quite sarcastic, because I have gone through the list of people in the government to see who has a little background in the rural industries, and I cannot see one.
The closest I come is our good friend, the member for Barkly who, I believe, involved himself in the rodeo circuit some years ago. I have to admit, rodeos and the rural industry go hand in glove and, I imagine, member for Barkly, there is quite a lot of interaction but you are the lone star of people who have had any interaction with primary industries, on any front, on the other side. Prior to coming to parliament, there is not one member on the other side who has any dealings with primary industries anywhere at all.
It is very sad because, ultimately, if you do not have people within your Caucus who have empathy for farmers, graziers, and producers of all types, it is pretty hard to find a ground where you want to represent and support these people. That is exactly what has happened with the government. In the Northern Territory, for years and years, we have seen the anti-farmer attitude of the current government. We saw it at the start, when the Labor government was first elected, and - it looks like my good friend is leaving the gallery - good to see Luke Bowen, CEO of the NT Cattlemen’s Association, and Rohan Sullivan, President of the NT Cattlemen’s Association, watching this debate. They are great blokes who do a great job supporting the cattle industry in the Northern Territory; they have an empathy with some of the primary industries in the Northern Territory. I imagine they, like me, and members on this side of the Chamber, would be seething at the way the government has handled the primary industry portfolio.
Madam Deputy Speaker, while I am on my feet, can I call your attention to the state of the House?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells. A quorum is present. Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is good to see these guys are so interested in the primary industry statement - they have all turned up to hear some discussion on it. It is good to see the member for Arafura, because we all know how she riled so heavily against the primary industries in her electorate. She has pressed for …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Fong Lim knows he cannot refer to the absence or presence of someone within this Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister, you are correct. Member for Fong Lim, I remind you of that.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hear what you are saying. However, I was saying it is great to see the member for Arafura taking an interest in primary industries, particularly in primary industries which occur within her electorate on the Tiwi Islands, where there is a wonderful timber plantation. We all know the member for Arafura, for years now, has riled against it and had tried on numerous occasions to have that industry shut down, which is an awful shame. As far as industries go, there are not too many industries on the Tiwi Islands of that size and scale, and it would be an awful shame to see those forestry projects closed down. Hopefully, the member for Arafura may have seen the light and is now trying to find the means to see that industry resurrected, back on a sound financial footing, and grow and continue into the future.
As I say, this government has been anti-farmer for the whole time it has been in power. We have seen it, as I was saying earlier on, when it first came into power, one of the first things it did was put a moratorium on land clearing and pumping water from the Daly. Great stuff. We had a whole range of small farmers, mum and dad farmers, go to the Daly River to set up farms and get things going. They were given great concessions by the government at the time when it subdivided those areas. People had caveats on their blocks that they had to do a certain amount of work and put a certain amount of investment into those blocks. But, lo and behold, along came the Labor government and said, no, none of that is going to count, and these poor people have been placed in limbo for a long period of time, not knowing whether they will be able to develop their properties. It is a sad situation.
We see it at the Berrimah Research Station because the …
Ms Lawrie: You are on your own. You do not have one member of the CLP. You are all on your own.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: You do not have one member of the CLP in the Chamber. Where are your mates?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind you of the point of order the Leader of Government Business raised before and maybe you could remind the member for Karama of that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. Treasurer, as you aware, reference to presence or absence of members in the Chamber is not permitted. Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I call your attention to the state of the House.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! It is a breach of standing orders to do the stunt the member for Braitling has just done, which is deliberately leave the House so they can then call a point of order on a quorum.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Braitling did not purposefully do anything, as the minister inferred. I ask you to request the minister to withdraw those comments.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat, member for Fong Lim. I will seek advice from the Deputy Clerk. There is no point of order. It is an assertion that the lack of quorum was deliberately set up. I will be watching closely the movements of members in the House. Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, further to the point of order, the Treasurer stood up and made an unparliamentary comment alleging the member for Braitling had somehow breached standing orders. I ask her to withdraw those comments, please.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Karama raised a point of order. I have said there is no point of order. You have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I raised a separate point of order, being that the Treasurer made unparliamentary remarks about the member for Braitling. It was an offensive remark; she suggested he purposefully left the Chamber in breach of standing orders. I ask you to ask the Treasurer to withdraw those comments.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order. I believe there is confusion here at present because, as I recall, the member for Fong Lim called your attention to the state of the House a second time, or was in the process of doing that. The member for Braitling has gone in and out a number of times. I ask whether we are in the process of determining if we have a quorum at present.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have a quorum. Leader of Government Business, please resume your seat. I do not believe the Treasurer made unparliamentary comments, but I am going to seek advice from the Deputy Clerk.
I stand corrected. Member for Karama, I ask you to withdraw those comments.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is like pulling teeth to get an apology out of the member for Karama.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim knows he needs to direct his comments through the Chair.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Fong Lim, the Leader of Government Business is quite correct. You do need to address your comments through the Chair and, if we could resume, you have the call. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I understand now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to look at you to be able to direct my comments through you.
I will state what I said before: it is like trying to pull teeth getting the member for Karama to apologise for anything, which I believe is very sad, indeed. You would think the member for Karama would be a big enough person to admit when she is wrong. But it does not seem that way at all. She seems to be a person with a thin skin, who is not prepared to face even the most obvious logic.
I digress, but it is a terrible shame, indeed, we have someone of the ilk of the member for Karama sitting in this Chamber.
As I was saying, this government is an anti-farming government. Everything it has done since coming to office has been anti-farmer and anti-pastoralist. We saw the tripling of pastoral fees on pastoral stations soon after it came to government. We saw the moratorium put in place on the Douglas Daly region, and we are now seeing the slow, but determined, closure of the Berrimah Research Facility. A facility which has stood the Territory in good stead over a long period of time. I should add, it is a facility, which we are not even certain is safe to develop as a residential housing area because of contamination and other issues in that area. The minister for Planning is such a cool planner, a person of such limited vision, that she fails to see what is happening before her eyes. We now have to abolish this once great organisation and resource, because the Planning minister has failed to plan, in any substantial way, for the Territory’s housing needs. We see a great facility go down the gurgler, which is a crying shame.
Another big issue, which I believe will impact massively, particularly on cattlemen, but also other pastoralists, is the Rudd government’s crazy move into the area of emissions trading and its carbon pollution reduction scheme, which it seems intent on ramming through the federal parliament. There are many members on both sides who believe carbon emissions need to be curbed. But, I believe there are very few people who believe we should be smashing up our own food production industries in order to meet some ideologically-driven, crazy goal and tax it is going to throw, particularly on farmers. Nowhere else in the world have we seen a carbon tax placed on primary industries and food production. But, in Australia, we are going to see that situation occur if Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong have their way.
Mr Knight: And Malcolm Turnbull.
Dr Burns: And Mr Macfarlane.
Mr TOLLNER: I will take those interjections, because the Coalition is vehemently opposed to seeing carbon tax placed on our agricultural industries. It is on the record saying that. It has not said it is going to support a carbon tax on farmers, graziers, horticulturalists, and those people in the agricultural industries. But, lo and behold, Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong are going to do that. We will be the first country in the world to put a tax on its own food producers - a ridiculous situation.
In something I was reading recently, the minister said there is a range of areas we need to concentrate on, and one of them is food production in the future, because we understand there will be a global food crisis, populations are exploding, there is less arable land, and the world will really have a demand for food. Lo and behold, in Australia, we are going to put a tax on an industry which will be vital to our very survival in the future. Forget the world is going to overheat, we are all going to burn and die, and probably drown in rising sea levels 200 years down the track, but the here and now is we are going to put an axe in the back of our farmers and our graziers - that is a terrible thing.
What do we hear from the government in the Northern Territory, where we are so dependent on, and have such a big demand for, our primary industries? Do we hear of the Chief Minister going to Canberra to talk to Penny Wong and Kevin Rudd saying: ‘You cannot do this, Prime Minister, you cannot do this to our farmers and our cattle producers?’ Do we hear of the Minister for Business or the minister for Primary Industries going there to talk to Martin Ferguson, the federal Resources minister about this, or the federal Agriculture minister, Tony Burke? Do we hear of anyone going to talk to the environmental zealot, Penny Wong, about this? No, we do not. We hear nothing, such is their blind support for the incompetent federal government we have currently, a government which is prepared to risk Australia’s food production for ideological reasons.
There are many areas where we can work to cut carbon emissions and we can do quite a good job. We could do a good job in cutting carbon emissions in the Northern Territory if this government was a little proactive in any particular areas. But, no, they are quite happy to watch Mr Rudd put an axe in the back of farmers, agriculturalists, and graziers. It is a terrible situation.
A few years ago, I had the great honour of being a member of the Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce, which was headed by Bill Heffernan. We were looking at …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I hear the giggles coming from the other side. For the first time in a long time, the federal government had focused on trying to develop agriculture in northern Australia. What do we get from the government? Was there wholehearted support that the federal government was going to wear much of the cost and conduct much of the science to investigate these matters? I believe we put something like $40m into the TRaCK program, Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge research program, went into Charles Darwin University at the time, and the government was quite happy to see Charles Darwin pick up that money. But was there one ounce of support for what Mr Heffernan and that committee was trying to do in the Northern Territory, which was to establish proper science and means to be able to develop more areas of the Northern Territory, the whole of north Australia, for that matter, and maybe produce more feed? No, absolutely not.
The small-minded, little people of this government decided no, the best way they could deal with it was to heckle from the sidelines, exactly the way the minister did then, had a little giggle and said: ‘oh, ho, ho, ho, no, it can never work’. That is the best they can come up with. I remember my opponent in the last Territory election. We had a little debate on the Douglas Daly thing, and he said something along the lines of, you know, we are not going to let people clear trees in the Douglas Daly, or pump from the Douglas Daly because we do not want it to become another Murray River where it will all just dry up. I thought that was bizarre comment, because we do not have farmers sprinkled all along the Douglas Daly, sucking out miles and miles of water, growing rice and cotton and all of those other things. There is absolutely bugger all out there, when it comes to comparisons between what goes on along the Douglas Daly and what goes on along the Murray, absolutely stuff all.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I would like you to reword the last couple of sentences, please. I believe it is completely unparliamentary.
Mr TOLLNER: What part, Madam Speaker, sorry?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you are well aware of the words you said. I believe you need to be a little more parliamentary.
Mr TOLLNER: All right, I will give it a go.
Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps you could just withdraw those comments and then restate the matter.
Mr TOLLNER: I am at a loss, Madam Speaker. I fail to understand which comments you are referring to.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure you can remember. Just withdraw the comments, member for Fong Lim, and continue.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw whatever offensive comments you found, Madam Speaker, and I will replace them with …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move the member be given 10 more minutes to finish his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, thank you, and I thank members for their support.
I know it must be a little difficult at times for members opposite to listen to me. I have the very strong view that the truth hurts. Some of the things I say at times hurts the team on the other side. But I refuse to have a battle of wits with unarmed men. In any case …
A member: Unless you are legless.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Fong Lim, I would like you to direct your comments through the Chair and get back to the matter before us.
Mr TOLLNER: As I was saying, at the last election I had a debate with the former member for Millner. It was a funny thing; we were debating about what we were going to do with the electorate. The presenter at the time, Julia Christiansen - God bless her soul, wonderful lady - came out of left field with a whole range of questions about the Douglas Daly. It did not seem to bother me too much, but I believe it caught the former member for Millner completely off guard, because the member for Millner made two points: ‘We do not want it to become another Murray/Darling problem’, and: ‘Julia, you have to understand’, something along these lines, ‘when it comes to a showdown between …’ I believe he said ‘40 000 fishermen, or 60 000 fishermen and 40 farmers, I tell you who we will pick every time, and it will not be the 40 farmers. We will pick the 40 000 fishermen’.
For a start, I do not believe there are 40 000 fishermen going up that creek, but I understand there are many, and we have to protect the fish stocks for recreational fishermen. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how that cannot be done at the same time as salving some of the concerns of the 40 farmers who are along that creek as well. The attitude of the Labor team can be summed up in that very short interview, because it ran hard on this at the last election. It said the CLP was going to clear-fell the Daly or some nonsense like that. I cannot imagine any one of our candidates or elected members, who said they wanted to clear-fell the Daly. But this was the line the spin doctors in the Labor Party decided was going to win them votes in the northern suburbs, with people whose lives do not actually depend on what they turn off the land. I believe that is a sad indictment.
The list is endless of where this government, and former Labor governments, has failed farmers, pastoralists and horticulturalists. We see the subsiding, receding, or sinking port - whatever you want to call it - but there seems to be no urgency from the government to fix those problems. I imagine somewhere down the line that will impact on some of our primary industries. There is very little support for research for those industries. The government is quite prepared to trash the Berrimah Research Farm, to just throw it away. I have not heard one coherent plan on what it is going to replace it with. My understanding is, it will not be replaced at all. It will be a lost resource to the Northern Territory. Maybe we will buy in expertise from - I do not know - Tasmania, Greenland, maybe England or Saudi Arabia. I do not know where the government intends to get that information which is home spun and produced in the Northern Territory. The government seems intent on pressing ahead to demolish the joint and turn it into houses. I note other colleagues of mine say when they fly over Darwin and look out the window of the plane, there seems to be plenty of land out there, but, no, this government is quite prepared to pick on the farmers - belt the farmers again - and take that resource away from them.
The government members are quite prepared to stick their heads in the sand, ignore the farming, cattle, agricultural, and horticultural lobbies, when it comes to the federal government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme proposals. The zealousness which emanates from the Environment Minister, Penny Wong, and no one seems to be prepared to go to Canberra to argue the case for Territory farmers and cattlemen with her, let alone the Prime Minister. Not one of them is prepared to stick their head up publicly and say they do not support what the federal government is doing. No, they would much rather play politics, slide under their desks, toe the party line, and hide themselves from public scrutiny.
After all, as far as they are concerned, there are only 200-odd members of the cattle industry and they do not carry much of a vote. It is not like the members for Barkly or Stuart’s votes are hanging off them, and certainly not the member for Casuarina, the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Government Business, or the member for Karama. No, their vote does not depend on what the cattlemen have to say, so we will ignore that mob.
The Cattlemen’s Association, by the way, represents 95% of the Northern Territory cattle herd. Last year, it exported in excess of 265 000 cattle overseas, mainly through the Port of Darwin, and mainly to Indonesia. There are more than 2000 jobs indirectly employed in those industries, there are 3000 jobs which support those industries – those other supportive industries. It is something like $400m of direct benefits to the Australian economy, with flow-on benefits of around $800m. But, it does not seem to concern the Territory government that these people are being impacted on by its poor policies, by its anti-farming ideology - none of it concerns them at all.
Instead, we have ministers coming into this joint, like we saw yesterday, talking about Indigenous economic activity and, yet, it has absolutely no plans. We see the dud minister for Housing talking about houses, and he has not built a single house in two years, despite the fact that he got almost $700m. It is all spin; it is all tinsel. Nothing real ever seems to happen from this government. Nothing that it can hang its hat on, and say, we have done this, we have helped out that industry, or we have created something.
No, it is about employing a range of media people and spin doctors upstairs, $9m, I believe, the NT News quoted it is spending every year. Goodness me, imagine an extra $9m going into the health system, houses, or going into the pockets of public servants, which might help out with more than the 2.5% wage increase. But, no, this government is totally devoted to the message, it is not devoted at all to the substance of that message, to what it is planning to do, because nothing ever happens.
It is quite prepared to kick the farmers, the cattlemen, and the horticulturists. We heard this from the members for Goyder and Nelson on this, who both have strong links in the rural area and work in the rural area. Similarly, the Leader of the Opposition makes no bones about telling people he was a farmer.
There are a range of people on this side of the House who have been involved in the rural industries. I came off a cattle property in central Queensland and my brothers are still in the cattle business; but I look around the other side and what do I see? Not much. No empathy or concern for people on the land, just someone to kick, pick on, bleed, and try to reap what they can without giving anything back. It is an awful shame. But that is the lot of this government.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, considering the member for Fong Lim started with me, I feel obliged to reply, and I will put a couple of things on the record.
First, my association with the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory started in 1981, after spending a year in Tennant Creek. I ran and built schools on pastoral properties, I raised a family on great Northern Territory cattle stations and, today, I still have a long affiliation with the pastoral community of the Northern Territory. My work in the ministries has broadened that across the Territory.
You may also be interested to know that over the years I had an association with the Melbourne International Comedy Festival, and trained five class clowns, which was an affiliation between the Melbourne Comedy Festival and secondary schools in the Northern Territory - two national finalists, and one national finalist in 2004 receiving an honourable mention from the Melbourne International Comedy Festival. So, dare I say it, I feel qualified to judge comedy. On judging the performance of the member for Fong Lim, there is a theatrical term, used in the stand-up game, called: ‘dying on stage’. Let me tell you, the judges would not have been impressed with that comedy performance or pseudo-comedy performance, and I will judge it as ‘dying on stage’.
To get back to the real business of government, and to proudly stand up in front of our government, which is represented by five regional and remote seats, that gives us a really good cross-section of the Northern Territory to draw from. The Henderson government recognises the controlled development across the Northern Territory is the key contributor to strengthening and maintaining regional economies.
As mentioned by the Primary Industries minister, cattle production is the Territory’s principal land-based rural industry. Nowhere else, is the cattle industry as important as it is in the Barkly. It was pleasurable and informative to attend the Borroloola, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and the Darwin shows this year. To meet, discuss, and research with primary producers across the Territory on their show days, where they exhibited the fine work they do across the Northern Territory. My electorate travel allows me to travel through some of the best cattle producing lands in the world. Once again, this valuable research is translated through to support our ministers, particularly the minister for Primary Industries, and we work as a team on this side of the House.
Things are looking good for pastoralists in the Barkly. The industry is growing and, with that growth, there are more jobs for young people in the region. Those within the industry also believe there is potential for more growth, particularly as the Territory expands its live trade exports into new markets like Vietnam. In the Barkly, we have some of the best grazing land in the country. However, it is a fragile existence. I have been knocking around the Barkly for three decades, and the years of 2007-08, with some serious Dry Season activity and poor Wet Seasons, life on the land became pretty tough. There was approximately 300 000 head of Barkly cattle de-stocked off the tablelands, off the Barkly, and taken into areas of Queensland to be spelled. We are now in the process of re-stocking. This is an example, in a period of two years out of 30, which shows how fragile the environment can become and how critical this edge is in relation to maintaining and developing our pastoral industry.
With the cattle industry forecast to grow significantly, there will be a huge impact on the Barkly region. Pastoralists in the Barkly are aware of the challenges this presents, and recently met to discuss further development of the Barkly region. Some of the challenges pastoralists recognise, as they discussed the best way forward for the industry included: pasture utilisation; grazing systems; conservation and biodiversity; cost-effectiveness of developing; and strategies to reduce operating costs. It is good to see each of these issues, raised by the industry, have been considered in the report tabled by the minister today. It gives pastoralists in the Barkly great confidence in the future, when they are directly involved in a collaborative effort with the government.
The growth of our cattle industry is also dependent on applying new science and technology to the industry. A good example of this is the research and development, which is taking place in cattle research and rangeland research. A recent discussion, with members of the department of Primary Industries in Tennant Creek, evaluated what benefits a mining town like Tennant Creek can get through partnerships with the pastoral industry. It was interesting to hear about the millions of dollars worth of veterinary products, supplementary feed, and also vehicles which travel through the Territory and parts of our regional areas and …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order Madam Speaker! I notice the clock has started to shift. I also draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells; a quorum is called. A quorum is present. Minister, you have the call.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, there are millions of dollars involved, when we talk about the veterinary products, the supplementary feed, nutritional aids, and also the vehicles which operate our stations. This is great news for a regional town like Tennant Creek, and a great opportunity to get on board. Research and development and technology allows a station to fully utilise available natural pasture, and it allows for significant growth in the number of cattle which can be grazed.
Although the Barkly is a significant contributor to the pastoral industry, I recognise the cattle industry is widely dispersed across the Territory, as are most of our primary industries. While this provides opportunities for social and economic growth in our local regions, it also requires careful planning, to ensure we meet the challenges of providing regional and remote infrastructure and transport services, which are taken for granted elsewhere in Australia. I am sure you agree that the Northern Territory’s unprecedented $1.3bn 2009-10 budget, for infrastructure-related capital works, minor new works, and repairs and maintenance, will play its part and will continue to drive the Territory’s economic development and create and protect Territory jobs. Transport infrastructure will receive a large share of this budget, with $322m going towards Territory roads and national highways, this is an increase of $51m on the 2008-09 budget.
Other road expenditure commitments include a total of $77m for repairs and maintenance, and $19m joint capital works funding for community, beef and mining roads, including the Buntine, Plenty and Tanami Highways, Maryvale Road, and the Wollogorang Road bridge over the McArthur River. In addition, $5m will be spent on road safety initiatives on the Stuart, Barkly, and Victoria Highways; $5m for overtaking lanes between Darwin and Katherine; and $2.2m for level crossing upgrades.
The Commonwealth government’s stimulus package has seen the Northern Territory receive an additional $12m for repairs and maintenance across the National Highway network, and $1.5m for improving safety at black spots on a number of Territory roads.
Cattle production is the Northern Territory’s largest land-based rural industry, and it is a key activity in so many of our regional economies. The Barkly electorate is approximately twice the size of Victoria, and cattle production is extremely important in the region. The cattle stations in the Barkly are, by necessity, some of the biggest cattle properties in the world.
Darwin has long been Australia’s number one port for the export of live cattle, and is now becoming the region’s primary service and supply base for offshore and onshore oil and gas projects, particularly in the Timor Sea. The expansion of the East Arm Port is a key priority of this government. The Commonwealth government’s contribution of $50m will bring a total of $150m to the port extension, and assist with the provision of vital facilities in this important area. The port expansion will double the capacity, with new ship loading facilities, which can accommodate larger ships, more suited to the transportation of bulk resources and commodities, and will reduce costs and boost the competitiveness of Australia’s export gateways.
Trade grew 18% in 2008-09, and is expected to grow by a further 18% in 2009-10. Approximately 365 000 head of live cattle were exported through the Port of Darwin in 2008, with 90% going to Indonesia. The Indonesian market is predicted to double in the next four or five years. Darwin is positioned to play a pivotal role in the nation’s future industrial growth as a significant transport and logistics centre, particularly in the Australasian region. We recognise that, nationally and locally, there are critical challenges for improving the supply chain, and we are working hard within the Territory, and with our interstate and federal colleagues, to improve infrastructure, reform regulations, and undertake effective long-term strategic planning. I know these issues are critical for industry.
The Northern Territory government has a strong transport planning process in place, which focuses on ensuring needs are met and, wherever possible, kept ahead of. In line with this, a number of concentrated strategic transport infrastructure and service plans are being developed by the government in consultation with stakeholders, including the industry and the community. This includes a 10-year infrastructure strategy, which will guide the government’s infrastructure investment, provide a process for forward planning, and provision of advice on priority projects. The strategy will also assist with improving industry certainty and capacity to deliver the ongoing infrastructure program:
a 10-year road strategy to provide a plan for managing the development and operation of the road network into the future, through a planned approach of assessment, prioritisation, and resourcing;
The Northern Territory government is working closely, with our interstate and federal counterparts, to develop a new framework for industry regulation, including single national regulators for heavy vehicles, rail safety and maritime safety. This means the Australian Maritime Safety Authority will become the national safety regulator for commercial shipping in Australian waters. A single national regulator will be established to regulate all vehicles over 4.5 gross tonnes, and a national rail safety regulatory system, the scope and form which is to be considered, will also be established. The aim is to remove inefficiencies, arising from inconsistent jurisdictional requirements, and streamline regulatory arrangements.
While the Northern Territory supports these moves, we are very aware of the need to protect the Northern Territory position and ensure, particularly in the heavy vehicle area, productivity gains and reforms are not lost in the move to national regulation and legislation. The retention of the Northern Territory’s heavy vehicle operating conditions is vital for the ongoing economic development and sustainability of the Territory. We will be closely monitoring the impact and cost of the proposed national regulatory systems, and we will work hard to protect the Territory’s interests as the process moves forward.
The Northern Territory has been playing a role on the national transport and logistics industry scene, through leading the work of the National Workforce Planning and Skills Working Group on behalf of the Australian Transport Council ministers. The group has developed a Draft National Transport and Logistics Industry Workforce Planning and Skills Strategic Action Plan, which is available for industry comment. The strategy will provide a foundation for government and industry to work collaboratively to assist with addressing industry workforce labour and skills issues, in association with Skills Australia and the Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
The National Transport Commission’s website states:
These groups aim to assist industry at the local level by bringing together appropriate government organisations and industry sectors to work together to identify and resolve issues wherever possible. A Northern Territory Workforce Advisory Group has recently been formed and the group has developed an action plan with a number of short- and long-term activities. These activities relate to the advisory group’s identified needs: to raise the profile and image of the industry; to create partnerships and links with schools and education and service providers; and to undertake training and upskilling programs for existing and potential employees. The group will also be undertaking a survey of industry workforce and workplace priorities to assist with informing the development of a longer-term Northern Territory industry workforce strategy.
There are significant challenges ahead of us. We need to stay attuned to every aspect of transport and logistics, reforms, developments, and issues to keep our heads above the global economic recession, and to minimise its impact wherever possible. As I have witnessed over many years in the Barkly, the advantages of growth in primary industries brings enormous benefits to Territorians, particularly those in the more remote regions. It is great to see the Primary Industry minister working so closely with industry to develop a plan for future growth across all sectors of our primary industries.
Madam Speaker, as Transport Minister, I will continue working with my colleagues to ensure we provide the necessary transport logistics to support all our primary industries. As the local member for Barkly, I am excited about the future growth of our primary industries and the benefits growth will bring to people across the Barkly region.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I will speak on this ministerial statement on primary industries, and about concerns I have about a number of things after reading through the report.
First, I will talk about where the minister says there are opportunities to open up new areas for sustainable development in the Territory and that such opportunities have the potential not only to make a valuable contribution to Australia’s food production but also provide a stimulus for economic activity and employment in our regional and remote areas. That is very true; there are many opportunities for our rural and remote communities to get involved in all sorts of primary production.
However, if we look at what is happening at the Douglas Daly; south-east of Katherine, much of which is Aboriginal held property at the moment; and the Ord River, where there is prime land available, we do not see a great deal of haste to develop these properties and this land to help create sustainable development.
It also talks about sustainable growth in the primary industry sector and broadening our economic base. I congratulate the government for figuring out you can broaden your economic base. We have the ability to do all sorts of things but, unfortunately, it does not seem to be happening with as much haste as it could be.
In moving through this statement it states:
With the moratoriums, in the Douglas Daly region, on clearing land and land use, and negotiations to use other good quality, primary production land within the Territory, it says:
I was recently at some briefings, and there is a mosaic of development occurring across the Territory, it is small, but there are great tracts of good quality land which can be opened up.
The issue, in relation to water, is not as easy as some people might think; grabbing water out of the rivers of the Northern Territory and turning it into food production, presents a number of problems. One is the ecological systems required for seafood production, where the water flowing out of those rivers is needed to ensure, for instance, the prawn fishery remains viable and sustainable and is not impacted upon by completely damming rivers. I believe the government could look at a number of weirs, so we keep large areas of water available for primary production, but also allow the rivers to flow, so we do not destroy one industry by trying to create another.
It says in the statement:
We will watch with interest to see what happens. Yesterday, I spoke on another ministerial statement, and said there are many things the government is ‘going to do’. I note in this statement the many things it says it is going to do, yet do not see the how and the why, just: we are going to do this, we are going to do that, we are going to do many things. The next paragraph uses the word ‘will’ many times, which I quote:
I would be impressed if the government could acknowledge the good work which has already been done by many people in the Territory. In the next paragraph it says the:
I note it said ‘a continuing commitment’ – which is a point you could debate for a whole session. But the next paragraph says:
Which indicates, by the use of the language, it has not been happening. The minister might realise that it is happening now. I am hoping it is a poor use of words, and not what the minister believes, because there are many people who have achieved much in the Northern Territory. You only have to look in the report, where it says:
Going back to the paragraph I quoted previously:
And there are a number of things mentioned. It is indicating, by some magical formula, this statement and the government’s supposed 2009-2012 Corporate Plan is going to be the panacea of all the problems in primary industry. For instance, we look at:
advocating for industry access to land and water resources and infrastructure.
That one line begs some comment: ‘advocating for industry access to land’. There are people in the rural area and the farming community of the Northern Territory who, for some time, have been lobbying the government for access to good quality primary production land. My understanding is the government has excellent soil and water maps. Those maps do not seem to be laid over one another, at this point, however, I believe government departments are trying to rectify that problem. But access to good land is not happening as fast as it should be.
People want access to the Stage 2 development on the border of Western Australia and the Northern Territory in relation to the Ord River Scheme where there is ample water and ample good land. People are also trying to gain access to land south of Katherine. There are people in the pastoral industry who are lobbying the federal government, as we speak, and also, I believe, the Territory government, for changes to the Pastoral Act to allow people to utilise some of this pastoral land, for the growing of trees, for instance, and other things, in addition to the running of cattle.
The government needs to have a good look at water resources, and not expect everyone is going to come here and get an enormous amount of water just because we have a high rainfall. That water is required to refill the aquifers, which drain naturally, therefore, we have to be careful how much water we suck out of the rivers.
The next dot point is:
developing and administering biosecurity laws relating to plant and animal health.
which, I believe, is an excellent idea, and I am glad to see the NT government is working with the federal government on those things.
There are a number other things in that corporate plan, however, I will move on to a couple of other issues. It says on page 4:
I note, with interest, the Berrimah Farm seems to be decreasing its amount of experimentation in relation to crops and other grazing practices. I have heard people in the department of Primary Industry are saying: ‘We give that to private enterprise to have people go and do things on private land’. However, when you look at this particular strategy, the government wants to sell off an existing property, Berrimah Farm, for some sort of housing development yet, we still do not know what contamination is on that site and whether the development can go ahead. However, in this statement, we have a supposed commitment from the government to start to do all this stuff, so we can achieve sustained growth. I am sure the Cattlemen’s Association would be grateful for more research on pastoral management.
We go to the next paragraph, which talks about extension, an issue which came up the other day in the public hearing of the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, where the member for Nelson spoke about the lack of extension services available, and how he recalls, over the years, there were very good extension services to share the research information that is available. However …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, can I clarify, are you talking about something that happened in a committee, which is a matter of privilege?
Mr STYLES: No, this was a public hearing, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: But it is a matter before a committee.
Mr STYLES: Sorry?
Madam SPEAKER: It is a matter before a committee; it has not been reported to the parliament.
Mr STYLES: My understanding is …
Madam SPEAKER: It has not been reported to the parliament, and therefore it is a matter of privilege until it is reported to the parliament.
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, my understanding was the hearing was open to the public to come in and make submissions to that committee. If I am out of order, Madam Speaker, I withdraw that information.
Madam SPEAKER: It may well have been open to the public to make submissions, but it has not been reported to the parliament, at this stage, member for Sanderson.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I appreciate your attempting give guidance in this instance. However, it is my understanding that if someone says something in the public domain, any member of this parliament is capable, and able, to reproduce what is said in the public domain, in this House. If the committee resolves something as a result, that is a matter for the committee, it is not …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I appreciate your comments, please resume your seat. Member for Sanderson, I am trying to clarify. There was matter before the Environment committee - I am not a member of that committee - and you had some kind of public witnesses, is that right?
Mr STYLES: That is correct, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: But it has not reported to the parliament.
Mr STYLES: No, but this was discussed at a public session; it was open to the public to come in, and people came in and spoke about various issues. Anyone had the ability to come along and make a submission to that public meeting.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure they were able to do that. Were there other members of the public listening at that time?
Mr STYLES: Yes, there were.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, then I will allow it, but …
Mr STYLES: It was not something discussed with Mr Wood.
Madam SPEAKER: … you need to be very careful in relation to matters that are before a committee, because they need to be reported to the parliament generally. I will be listening carefully to what you have to say.
Mr STYLES: Yes, Madam Speaker, thank you. But I believe we were in a public meeting; there were members of the public, and this matter was discussed openly with the members of the public. Thank you.
Apart from anything anyone else said I am also aware extension services in a number of government departments have been reduced; that is common knowledge amongst the primary industries.
The minister says in the statement that:
I spoke about this yesterday. But I also want to speak about my recent trip to India, with the Australian Rural Leadership Program, where we went to a facility south of Hyderabad, called ICRISAT, or the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
I note we had a presence from the federal government, but, given the Northern Territory has an enormous amount of semi-arid tropics, with some good quality primary industry-type land, it might be good if the government had some input. I asked the people running the institution if it had a great deal of input from the Northern Territory, and they do have dialogue with some people, but not very much. It might assist our primary industry people and our farmers, if the government could look at increasing the dialogue with that group.
The statement talks about cattle production:
I was at a briefing recently where we spoke about cattle; it was all about cattle. One of the greatest problems we face in the Territory is in shifting the cattle, and I quote from the statement - it is a pretty standard figure:
That number of cattle equates to about 16 000 trailers running across the beef roads in outback, rural, and regional Northern Territory. I spoke to the cattle people at the Brunette Downs Races and the Alice Springs Show and they have an issue with the condition of the roads in these rural areas. There does not appear to be a great deal of maintenance done on these roads, and they find the maintenance costs on their trucks are increasing - tyres, springs, and axles are breaking with increased frequency - due to the lack of any maintenance on the roads.
I was in regional Northern Territory recently, and spoke to a gentleman who has been driving graders and fixing roads on stations and cattle properties for 30 years. He told me he has never seen the roads in such a poor condition in the 30 years he has been a grader driver. I believe, that after 30 years, one could be forgiven for saying he is an expert on these roads in the outback of the Northern Territory. The government needs to consider the lack of maintenance currently occurring on the roads that shift all these cattle. The statement says:
I suspect, given it is our largest primary industry and a good contributor to the Northern Territory economy, we need to look after these people and, also, these roads are increasingly being used by tourists, as people spend more time travelling around the Territory enjoying a great place in Australia.
Another aspect of the transport issue is that if we do not keep up the supply to people in Indonesia, and maintain the ability to supply our markets, especially the live cattle trade, we will have serious and significant competition if Brazil comes online and becomes FMD free, which is in this report. This is where we need to have a competitive advantage. We are close to one of our largest markets, which is Indonesia. Brazil is on the other side, but if we cannot produce a consistent supply of quality stock all year round, then we are going to have problems.
At a briefing the other day …
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker and colleagues. We need to ensure the road networks and the supply chain are in the best possible condition. I hope the minister does not believe they are in the best possible condition at the moment, because they are not, and we have a fairly serious problem we need to address.
I go back to something I spoke about last night, in relation to how we generate wealth, and how we assist regional and rural Australian to generate wealth - we need to support them. People go out on a daily basis and fight the elements and hardship, and many of them love what they do and are quite happy to be struggling away, making an enormous contribution to our food supply, our economy, and to the Australian way of life in rural and regional Australia. However, there are times when they need a hand, and they do not need to have all sorts of restraints put on them, for instance, the Emissions Trading Scheme and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme; these are the types of things people are concerned about.
They would also like to be able to do a little more, and it would be great if the government could lobby the federal government in this regard. When you look at some of the tourists, and the extra things they can do - if we are talking about a Carbon Pollution Reduction Schemes – like growing and harvesting of trees in these areas; there are many things we can do with these properties which, at this point in time, are limited. However, with some creative thinking and imagination we can probably get some production of timber and other crops, which will not only assist these people economically, but will also assist the country in producing its own timber, and may place us in a greater export situation, where we can export quality timber, instead of having to import much of it.
I wonder who is out there championing the rural producers. I note this report says many things – ‘this is what we are going to do’ – but, I sincerely hope the government has a plan to actually do stuff, instead of saying, ‘this is what we plan to do’. We have heard it often. There are many things happening, a great deal of consultation and referencing going on, many consultants doing many things, but it would be good to see if they do what they say they are going to do. I look forward to seeing some of those results, which will benefit Territorians and Australians who choose to live out in regional and rural Australia.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, as the Chair of the environment committee, I query, and seek to clarify, what the member for Sanderson talked about, and your ruling, previously.
I understand the hearing held on Friday was conducted to hear the evidence from the Northern Territory Horticultural Association, the EPA, and the NT Cattlemen’s Association, which had put in submissions to the committee. Because the committee’s report has not been compiled, I query whether it contravenes the standing orders for evidence from the committee to come to the parliament before a committee’s report is tabled.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, can I clarify, in your role as the Chair, were these witnesses before a deliberative meeting of the committee?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: It was not a public hearing?
Ms SCRMGOUR: It was a deliberative meeting of the committee to hear evidence from those organisations which had put in a submission to the committee.
Madam SPEAKER: They were witnesses before a deliberative meeting?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: I will ask for a rush of the Hansard to make a decision.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I wanted to clarify this.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, this issue will turn on whether this is a public hearing or not …
Madam SPEAKER: I believe the Chair of the committee has said it was witnesses before a deliberative meeting.
Mr ELFERINK: You also specifically asked her whether it was public, and that was not answered. I would seek an answer in relation to that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, it was not a public hearing in the normal sense - you did not invite members of the public along?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, I was there for part of the meeting, my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, acted as Deputy Chair and then I came in. As I understand, it was a deliberative meeting of the committee to take evidence from those organisations which had put in a submission, member for Port Darwin. I ask for a ruling on whether the member for Sanderson …
Mr ELFERINK: I believe, this turns on Standing Order 274, Madam Speaker. I have always read that standing order with reference to contemplating that evidence made public is a matter of non-public hearings. Standing Order 274 does not make sense if you apply it to public meetings; it only makes sense if it is applied to non-public meetings. If the member for Sanderson has offended Standing Order 274, because of the suggestion of the non-public nature of the meeting, I would like to hear from the Chair of the meeting that it was a non-public meeting. Then we will take the issue from there.
However, I have also just heard from the Chair of the meeting she was not there for the whole meeting. I hope we get something clear from the Chair of the committee at the meeting, or the secretary or whoever, to determine whether it was a public meeting, whether these meetings are generally open to the public, and if Standing Order 274 has been offended, because it was not a public meeting, that is a different issue. I definitely seek clarification on whether the meeting was public. Once we have established that, then we will go from there.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, first, I will ask for a rush of what was said. In relation to the meeting, can I clarify, member for Arafura, was it a normal deliberative meeting, to which you invited witnesses to speak?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It was a deliberative meeting of the committee to hear evidence from those organisations, which had written to the environment committee about issues the committee was investigating. We were hearing and taking evidence from those organisations.
In relation to Standing Order 274, which the member for Port Darwin talked about, it says clearly, if there is authorisation from the committee or committee members for that evidence to go forth, then it can be published. It is not a big deal. I wanted a ruling because it sets precedence for other committees and other evidence, when we are having those meetings, before the committee reports on them and we bring them to the floor of parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, can I clarify, at any point, did the committee invite ordinary members of the general public to attend or only witnesses?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It was only witnesses who were representatives of those associations and organisations which had given submissions.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I acknowledge and thank the member for Arafura for her courtesy in relation to this. She wants to have this matter cleared up so that if it is an error, it is not made again. I accept the spirit in which she advances this particular issue, and I thank her for that. I accept the government’s counsel on this, if there has been a breach.
Madam SPEAKER: In fact, the Speaker’s counsel. Yes, member for Brennan.
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, I was at the meeting from the start. This may either help or confuse, but I remember seeing a public meeting sign outside the door as I entered through the doors, one of those round signs with ‘public environment hearing in progress’. I do not know if that is going to help or …
Ms Scrymgour: Deliberative meeting or public.
Madam SPEAKER: That is a sign, as opposed to the standing orders.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is why I said let us not make a big deal of this to the member for Port Darwin. I wanted to clarify, because we all sit on committees and are bound by the rules of those committees. If we have discussions and take evidence from an organisation or an agency and then come talk about it before the committee has had an opportunity to table its report, if we breach or break the protocols of committees - that is what I am saying. It is not trying to dispute what the member for Sanderson said.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. I will look at the rush, and consider the matters that have come before us. As the Chair of a number of committees myself, in listening to what the member for Sanderson said, it sounded like it was information given by witnesses at a deliberative meeting, which is why I made the original comment. I would like to see the rush, before making a decision.
I believe it is important for all members to understand the importance of privilege before committees, and it is not a reflection on the member for Sanderson. It is very easy to get caught up in these things, in the enthusiasm of a debate. I will wait for the rush before making a decision on that. Are there further speakers in this debate?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, should you be considering some sort of adverse comment, I would like an opportunity, either inside this House or in your office, to make submissions to you in relation to any finding you make in relation to it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I will wait to see the rush and then make some comment.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I again urge that if you are considering some form of adverse finding, I believe you should receive submissions from this side of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I believe I have heard from both sides of the House. Is there someone else who wishes to speak in this debate? Minister for Business.
Dr BURNS: Are you speaking to this debate?
Mr CHANDLER: I am hoping to speak on this debate.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We have an MPI coming on at 7 pm.
Mr Elferink: It is 7.10 pm.
Dr BURNS: The member for …
Madam SPEAKER: It is the government’s side. I called you, Minister for Business. If you wish to speak, speak now. Member for Brennan, resume your seat.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, to ensure my speech is finished in the spirit of courtesy, the member for Port Darwin is speaking about, I will endeavour to finish my remarks by 7.10 pm. We can enter into the MPI. Then, basically, there is one hour and fifty minutes, and if we are efficient in our use of speakers, I believe we can all get there.
Turning to this very important statement - we will adjourn this, and the member for Brennan will have his opportunity to have his input into this important debate. If I could have the clock starting now, Madam Speaker, my point of order is over.
I speak in support of the minister’s statement. The minister has outlined the main challenges of climate change, water availability, skilled labour shortages, environmental protection, and global food shortages. He also said, and undertaken, the government will deliver the Northern Territory Agribusiness Strategy. The 2009-2012 Corporate Plan priorities include: access to land; biosecurity; regulations for use of agriculture and veterinary chemicals; industry extension services; investment; market development; and research.
The statement and report the minister has tabled is comprehensive in the strategies it outlines for primary industries in the Northern Territory, a crucial industry; the very fabric of Northern Territory life, and the fabric of our economy. It has great needs and, as a government, we are endeavouring, and I believe with some demonstrable success, to grow primary industries within the Northern Territory.
My department of Business is committed to working with Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources, as well as NRETAS and Regional Development, to develop the primary industry sector. There are a number of supports, and various services, which the department gives, including recent support for the Northern Territory Seafood Council to produce a marketing strategy for the wild fish and aquaculture sectors. I mentioned in Question Time about the Trade Support Scheme, and grants have been allocated to the activities of livestock exporters and tropical plant growers by the Trade Support Scheme.
Other programs, such as Territory Business Growth, Territory Business Upskills, ecoBiz NT, and Client Management services are all available to NT industry sectors.
ecoBiz NT is another important initiative of our government, and rebates totalling over $45 000 have been allocated to businesses in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing industry sectors. There are a range of examples, including the Australia Barramundi Culture Pty Ltd, for help with its water pumps and aquaculture ponds; and Galaxy Gold Pty Ltd, a Katherine fruit and vegetable grower and distributor, for refrigeration in its storage facility. We also provide services to the primary industry sectors such as industry benchmarks, quarantine issues, economic impact of changes in production, infrastructure, road issues, and a whole range of licensing issues.
The Northern Territory Research and Innovation Board is also active in this area, but, in a way, it is ancillary and accompanies the great work done by the department, in terms of its research, over a very long period of time to support the primary industry sector. The Northern Territory Research and Innovation Grants, totalling $350 000 per annum to researchers, included areas such as: crocodiles; the benefits of removal of feral pigs from tropical landscapes; wetland health in the Barkly Basin; remediation of aquaculture ponds; microbiology and marine sponges in a high-nutrient environment; dynamics of sub-tropical savannahs; the impact of plantation forestry and land clearing in the Daly catchment; - I will come back to that one - and development of a low-cost planned health-imaging system. The 2009 grants are currently going through the processes and I will be approving them when they come to me with the recommendations.
I have had a long-standing interest in the livestock industry, despite what the member for Fong Lim says. I applaud the minister for his fantastic work in working with others, particularly livestock exporters and other Australian agencies, which have opened up cattle exports into Vietnam. This is crucially important, because Indonesia is the main market where we send our cattle, but we need to have more than one basket with all our eggs in. It is important to develop the market in Vietnam and also in the Philippines. To that end, I am hoping to visit the Philippines next year.
I applaud the minister, because when I went and followed up on some of the work which had been done by the minister, he had facilitated at a high ministerial level in Vietnam many of the quarantine issues and other aspects of the shipment of live cattle. It was obvious he enjoyed a great deal of respect amongst the ministry in Vietnam, as well as the higher level of pubic servants who are involved in the negotiations. I commend the minister for his tremendous work in that regard. As he alluded to earlier today, the contract will result in almost 1000 head of cattle being delivered to Vietnam in mid-November.
This is a government which supports primary industries. My view is that primary industries and fisheries is the best portfolio anyone can have; it is fantastic. To some degree, I am envious of the member for Casuarina holding that portfolio, because there are fantastic people, the length and breadth of the Territory, working hard with their skills and knowledge in primary production, and they are a real asset to the Northern Territory.
The member for Fong Lim talked about the Douglas Daly and I will turn to that. I only have a few minutes left and I would like to try to finish as soon as I can, so I would value if I could say what I have to say with little interruption.
I have had a number of portfolios, over the eight or so years this government has been in power, including Primary Industry and Fisheries, Environment and Heritage, and Lands and Planning. In the early time, I took an active interest in the Daly and what was happening there. I remember a public meeting at the auditorium at the museum, where there were many strong feelings about the Daly; about land clearing, the future of the Daly River, and the worth of the Daly to the Northern Territory people. Horticulturists, agriculturalists and pastoralists are key groups, but also a whole range of people who have a legitimate interest in the Daly River. Fishermen have been mentioned, people who live on the Daly River and have done so for many years and, of course, Indigenous people. The Daly is crucial to their lives, stories, beliefs, and they have a legitimate interest in the Daly River – more than legitimate interest, they have a fundamental interest.
I took an active interest, and I read a report commissioned by Professor Wayne Erskine, whose name would be well known in this House. That report showed concerns about the aquatic life system being under threat within the Daly River; about the amount of water which was being drawn out of the Daly, and out of the aquifer in that area; the sustainability of that practice; and large-scale land clearing, which should be a thing of the past in this modern age but is still being engaged in within the Daly.
You only have to look at Tipperary Station, and listen to the stories of the locals on the Daly River who talk about what happened, I believe it was in the 60s and 70s, when it was cleared and the adverse impact that broad-scale clearing of Tipperary had on the Daly River. There are concerns about the river silting up and water flows. Whilst in southern rivers they have a 20-80 rule, so it is 20 for the river flow and 80 for the irrigators, I believe we came up with an 80-20 rule; there should be 80 for the water flow, and 20 for those who are drawing off water from the Daly, erring on the side of caution with this magnificent river system, and basing our decisions on the science.
At that time, a reference group was formed, which was chaired by Mr Rick Farley, who, unfortunately, is now deceased - a man with an incredible amount of respect within the Australian community, especially the farming community. He chaired a group to try to get some consensus around the Daly – an almost impossible task – but people moved on in their beliefs, they moved together, and everyone had to give a little.
It is concerning for me to have the member for Fong Lim come in and espouse views which are really dinosaur views about the Daly: that there should be a continuation of wide-scale land clearing, that it is basically open slather, Bill Heffernan’s open slather, draw as much as you like, fellows, get all the farmers from down south and let us have a party at the Daly, because all our rivers down south have dried up.
I agree with the former member for Millner in what he had to say: we need to be careful about what we do with our rivers and natural assets which belong to the whole Territory, not just a sector of one industry or even one sector within that industry. I am proud to say I was a minister in a number of portfolios and was instrumental in bringing a moratorium to land clearing in the Daly, in bringing some sense about water allocation but, most of all, about monitoring the effects of these activities in the Daly, particularly on the biosystem, using science and adaptive management to determine how much water we can take from the Daly River
Member for Fong Lim, I do not take a backward step from that. I will stand at the end of my parliamentary career, whenever that is, and if people ask: ‘What are some of the things you achieved?’ I will say that, and I will stand proud about it, just as I will stand proud about the road safety initiatives which were introduced when I was the Minister for Transport – controversial, difficult, change – yes, but I believe in the longer term they will be looked upon as positive things; I do not take a backward step from that.
To close on a lighter note, when the member for Katherine was speaking, I could not help thinking of the classic poem titled, Said Hanrahan, by John O’Brien, the nom de plume of PJ Hartigan. Maybe the member for Katherine is having a little too much to do with the member for Sanderson because he has become very negative and, basically, he is a positive sort of a bloke. I will read a couple of excerpts of this poem, and then I will finish, member for Port Darwin:
Moving towards the end of the poem, they have had rain now, the drought has broken; it has pelted rain all day long and it says:
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Port Darwin:
Madam Speaker
It is signed by the member for Port Darwin.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak about a matter of great public importance as described in your introduction. Whilst I am not allowed to refer to the absence or otherwise of members in this House, I would expect government ministers who have carriage of this particular portfolio to be paying a level of attention, which I am not seeing reflected in this House.
The ground has somewhat shifted under my feet, I have to say, Madam Speaker, since I wrote to you this morning about some of my concerns in relation to the infrastructure of Power and Water Corporation. Whilst my speech will still turn on infrastructure, there are several issues which have come to my attention during the course of the day particularly in relation to the Blacktip arrangements. I hope the minister will be in a position to answer some questions which arise out of it. I will start with the issues of infrastructure and work my way to the Blacktip arrangements.
My attention has been drawn to several infrastructure problems starting with the very small and working up. I also have some concerns about the procedural shortcomings of Power and Water and some safety issues which flow from it. I am aware, because of the way Power and Water arranges its power into the marketplace through the network, different sections of the organisation allow for different things to occur, particularly in shopping centres; which have come to my attention and are of grave concern to me.
Occasionally, there will be a private contractor working on a switchboard inside a shop which will suddenly become live because someone in another section of Power and Water has said: ‘Switch on the power to that shop because the new tenant needs power’.
I am aware of four instances where this has occurred and, in each instance, the private contractor has received a shock. This has been reported, as I understand it, through the RISQ system which is the internal auditing system and problem reporting system of Power and Water. It is a matter of grave concern it happens a second time, let alone a third time or a fourth time. I hope the matter has finally been rectified but, if it has not, I am keen to know why it has not been rectified at this stage. It will not be long before a private contractor is killed in the circumstance of a board suddenly electrified whilst working on it simply because the arrangements in Power and Water do not allow for it.
In Katherine, some time in late 2008, I know a transformer ran dry and, whilst I accept this can happen from time to time, I took it upon myself to drive around the streets of Darwin. I left my office and the first transformer I came to was the one at the end of Mitchell Street near the corner of Lambell Terrace. Whilst there was still oil in the reservoir, it was clear the reservoir was leaking oil, and quite an amount of it, because the patch of grass underneath it was not growing because there was so much oil on the ground around that transformer.
There are different types of transformers around town, and you will find many of those are showing signs of leakage. Another example of a transformer leaking a substantial amount of oil is in Chapman Road, Nightcliff, in your electorate, Madam Speaker. Once again, the ground around the base of that transformer is so soaked with oil grass cannot grow there. I am concerned, after quite a cursory drive around town, that I saw numerous transformers showing signs of leakage from their systems; and this is not just normal overflow. They are not pressurised systems in those reservoirs. As I understand it, there is a vent, but they should not be leaking oil, and certainly not to the level of staining and killing the grass underneath these transformers.
What this highlights is these small things visible to me are indicative of a larger problem which I believe exists in Power and Water and, I suspect, has not yet been dealt with. That is the problem of the relationship between upper management and middle management and the staff on the ground. It was not until 2004 staff concerns about the parlous state of the infrastructure of Power and Water was known to government. The reason was, and this became apparent in the Estimates process, the staff of Power and Water wanted, as part of their Enterprise Bargaining negotiations, a review of the infrastructure at Power and Water. This was a few years ago, around 2004 or 2005.
I found it incomprehensible that staff would make part of their Enterprise Bargaining Agreement a review of Power and Water infrastructure. So concerned were the staff at not being listened to by middle management particularly, and a growing opinion that upper management was being insulated by middle management; in fact, upper management was not really paying much attention to what was happening on the ground - and there are several instances of it.
One, which I have referred to the Auditor-General, is in relation to a staff member who was trying to deal with a vibration and found the solution was a generator set, at a cost of about $5000. As it turns out, for other reasons, and there were other issues in relation to that staff member, that option was not taken. As I understand it, the option suggested by that staff member would have fixed the vibration for about $5000, and was ticked off as acceptable by the manufacturer of the particular genset. That staff member ultimately left, moving to other climes, but what became apparent in the process was the fix for the vibration ended up costing in the order of much, much more than $5000; the figure I am hearing is closer to seven figures.
If that has occurred, then there is clearly an issue with communication, no matter what the issue with the staff member. If there is a cost impost as a result of not listening or not paying attention to what staff are saying, as evidenced by the EBA negotiations, as evidenced by this particular situation, and as evidenced by something else I will bring to your attention shortly, minister, then I have some concerns about the relationship and what is happening on the ground in these environments.
Increasingly, staff members of Power and Water are coming to me. I received information from one who simply described herself as: a strong Labor voter, but I am sick of this mob; and they clearly have had it to the back teeth. This person wanted to advise me that we currently have a problem in Darwin city. We are all aware of the power cut we had last week as a result of a power cable being dug up. The advice I have received from this person is the 66kV cable was cut through and there are currently two transformers running on full load, and a third transformer running on minimal road which will trip if you ask it to do any more. This basically means the power to the Darwin CBD is running through transformers which are at their capacity; they cannot do any more. If one of these goes down there is a potential for Darwin CBD power to collapse.
The Casuarina Zone sub-station suffered the same problem. Were it not for the fact there was a last fail-safe after the system had failed so catastrophically that it smashed through every fail-safe but the last one, that something was done. It was only because the last fail-safe held up that Power and Water was able to address the situation as quickly as they did. Staff of Power and Water, I understand, were placed at some risk in relation to instructions they received from middle management, or a middle manager, in relation to how they dealt with that. Fortunately, someone had the mettle to refuse to do what was asked of them and made staff safety the priority in that place.
All of these stories are indicative of an overall concerning malaise. I normally do not mention public servants by name, but this person has requested I do – his name is Maurice McGahey. He recently retired and was presented with a nice gold Citizen watch for his years of service. He also has a history of employment which has been uncomfortable, but I am not going to engage in his personal history. He expressed to me levels of frustration while he worked for the Power and Water Corporation that he has asked me to present this watch to the minister with a jar of petroleum jelly. I assure the minister I am not going any further than describing what he has asked me to present to him - but you can understand what Mr McGahey is suggesting. For people to take that type of action and want their name publicly associated with it, gives you a sense of the level of dissatisfaction the staff have with what is happening in the operations of the organisation, as well as what is happening with government policy.
I now turn to those issues which are of some concern to me and, whilst I cannot lay my fingers on it, I have only just received the Power and Water Annual Report, and here are several issues that arise from it. One is this ongoing issue of how we manage our Power and Water facility.
I turn to the Utilities Commission Annual Report 2008-09. If you read last year’s report it refers to the Blacktip deal which has been struck. This is the gas supply from the Blacktip field which has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, and is way behind schedule. It was supposed to be delivered by January 2009, and there were contracts in place for Blacktip to supply gas, ultimately, to the power station in Darwin. The language from page 19 of last year’s annual report has changed slightly, and I draw members’ attention to page 22 of this year’s annual report from the Utility Commission and I quote: ‘
That is a concern, because somewhere in the contracting processes they have underestimated the amount of gas they need supplied by ENI, and they have contracted for quantities which are under both the high and low level growth scenarios. So we have this situation where Power and Water has wrongly estimated how much gas they need.
Hopefully, with more efficient gensets they will be able to come under those thresholds. But, surely, when we were putting this deal together in the first instance we would have turned our attention, particularly, to the required amounts of gas. To end up underestimating the quantities available under the Blacktip agreement for both the high and low growth scenarios, one has to ask what is going on. Why are we getting it wrong?
What is going to happen is Gasgo, the purchaser, as I understand it, of gas for Power and Water, will now have to go back to ENI and negotiate more gas for both the high and low scenarios until such time as Weddell is up and running and able to go under the threshold. So now we have gas late, we have not bought enough of it, and we have been running on distillate.
This brings me to the next issue: we have been running on distillate. I was advised in the Estimates process, and I cannot quite refer to it, and I am sure I will be able to find it, there would be no substantial cost impost on the purchase of distillate as a result of the penalty arrangements with ENI under the supply contracts. I note that the Director, Judith King, says in the Chairman’s report on page 4 of the annual report:
Good news. Blacktip is referred to again on page 9 of the annual report - well, not so much Blacktip, but:
Natural gas is used for more than 90% of our electricity generation purchased through our wholly owned subsidiary, Gasgo
So that is good.
And this is the part that is of great concern to me. I was told there would be no effective cost to the taxpayer in relation to the deal with ENI because of the penalty clauses, words to that effect. The effect was penalty clauses meant the taxpayer was not going to be out of pocket. I quote from page 57 of the annual report, in the Directors’ report:
I ask government to tell us now how much the taxpayer is footing the bill in relation to costs not covered by damages received from ENI. I urge government to respond to this and tell us tonight.
What this says to me is we have not, and still not, successfully nailed down the management and overall operations of the Power and Water Corporation. Staff are disgruntled to the point they are relying on EBAs to get non-EBA related matters addressed; so disgruntled when they retire they want to be downright rude to their employers by insinuating what they can do with their gold watches; people who describe themselves as Labor Party supporters knocking on my door telling me what is wrong with the Power and Water infrastructure in the Northern Territory. If I drive around the streets I can see a lack of maintenance in Power and Water infrastructure and, when I read the annual report I read many of the key performance indicators have not only not been met, but have been substantially missed.
It is time for this minister and this government to address the overall management of the Power and Water Corporation in relation to its generation systems, purchase of gas, network management, and its human resources issues; otherwise, we will continue to get the KPI results you see in this year’s annual report - so far, a D-minus, minister.
Mr KNIGHT (Essential Services): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will pick up on some of the comments from the shadow spokesperson for Essential Services.
It is strange he wants to move into the area of blaming what has happened with the maintenance culture of Power and Water because, as he would know, or should know, when we contracted Merv Davies, a very experienced person, to conduct an investigation into what happened at Casuarina Zone Substation, he highlighted where we are today goes back decades into the organisation.
He showed back in 1998 a report was commissioned by the CLP, the Merrill Lynch and Fay Richwhite review of the financial performance and commercial value of Power and Water ...
Mr Elferink: If you have nothing new to add to this debate, sit down.
Mr KNIGHT: I sat quietly while you spoke so, if you do not mind …
Mr Elferink: I raised new and interesting things; you are just dribbling the same rubbish.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Deputy Speaker, the report made recommendations which were taken up by the CLP - basically, a preparedness to sell off the organisation - get it into a financial position where it would look more financially attractive to a private buyer, and flog it off. And that is where they moved.
It made a recommendation to sack some 300 staff from the organisation - that was its plan. In response, the CLP introduced measures designed to remove 150 staff and reduce funding to the organisation of some $30m per year each year for three years and, then, maintain the saving to an achievable level. It was the then Minister for Essential Services, Mr Barry Coulter, who told the parliament in 1999 the aim was to axe 150 jobs. He said:
So he was being very noble, he was not going to sack the whole 300, he was only going to sack 150. He went on to say:
The very near future to be sold off. In fact, between 1 July 1998 and 1 July …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. The minister should have people listening to him.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells, please. Thank you, we have a quorum. Minister, you have the call.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Between 1 July 1998 and 1 July 2001, the CLP government reduced the numbers drastically, slashing 114 jobs, from 821 to 707 staff. In 2000, the year before the election, staff numbers fell as low as 690. That is incredible. The great shape the minister spoke about was sacking the hard-working men and women who built and maintained the power and water and sewerage services. The following jobs were slashed by the CLP: 31 technical staff, and these were experienced and highly skilled staff; 22 professional staff, and 78 service workers. We have turned that around.
What happened then was an atmosphere of preparedness for selling off; staff were sacked, and there was preparation to sell; the culture of the organisation was almost one of a departure lounge, a death row, and the culture really broke down. It was only the change of government in 2001 which staved off that sale.
The culture which developed at that time was not immediately recognised. It was this government that put more money into the corporation and invested in the corporation, but the culture had broken down - this is what Merv Davies highlighted. There was a breakdown in management, a breakdown in staff; a culture where there was little reporting of maintenance, and there was a disconnection going on.
There was much criticism from the other side of the House about the union movement throughout that period; but, with its very strong membership in Power and Water, the ETU consistently highlighted concerns about the culture within the organisation. They were, effectively, the canary in the coal mine, highlighting problems, and they put the matter of a review in the EBA; it was the Blanch Review, and that review recommended several things.
One of the most significant was a massive increase in capital expenditure, investment into the organisation. It was this government which initially came out with, I believe it was $1bn and went up to $1.2bn, and now it sits at $1.4bn of capital investment over the five year period. As I highlighted earlier today, we have spent nearly $0.25bn already, improving capital into the organisation. There had also been a significant lag in repairs and maintenance and, again, we approved expenditure for repairs and maintenance into the organisation.
What happened with Casuarina Zone Substation was a series of errors coming from the culture which had developed, and this is what Merv Davies - not me, not the opposition, but an experienced industry expert - said had happened and highlighted the fact there had been a breakdown of communication and reporting and regimes of maintenance - that is what happened at Casuarina Zone Substation - one transformer not serviced and calcifying - that led to a string of errors which resulted in the problem there.
The culture had to change, and that was accepted by senior management headed by Andrew Macrides, and has been driving cultural change within the organisation. It is far easier to spend money buying equipment. It is very difficult to change cultures, and I know Andrew and his senior management have held almost town hall meetings with the staff, all the field staff, getting together in work units, working out better ways of performing their maintenance regimes and asset management.
What also came out of the review was about transfer of knowledge and getting experience. We have a small utility here in the Northern Territory - and thank goodness we did not sell - we can control it; as much as it is problematic for the responsible minister, we do control it. I can be influenced, I can be driven to make change by the general public, not by a corporation they have down south. That is the clear difference.
We are cross-fertilising information; we have workers from other companies coming to the Territory, transferring knowledge and, likewise, we are sending our staff down south to work on equipment, transformers, substations, which Ergon Energy and other companies do every single day. One of the things Merv Davies said when he came up here and we told him we had a zone substation blow up. He said: ‘So what? We have them blowing up all the time’.
We really are a small jurisdiction with a small generation and utility, and a small population; for the utilities down south, these things happen all the time. But they have the experience; they have people working on those zone substations all the time. It is not 30 000 people in Sydney, it would be 300 000 people who go out when a zone substation goes down.
It is something we have been able to change; it had being evolving for decades in Power and Water, and it is something that is recognised and being worked on. I met with the union after the recommendations in the Merv Davies report came out, and I said I will know things have changed in the organisation when union officials stop knocking on my door complaining about what is going on. And that has happened.
There are still things to be done but, largely, the culture has changed, and the work ethic has changed. We are building the organisation, not winding it down to sell it off; we are actually building the organisation and that is a key part of what this government is all about.
The instant expert, the member for Port Darwin, apparently knows everything about transformers and everything about the Power and Water system. We have staff out there doing a good job. We have very ageing infrastructure - it will last if it is maintained, and that is happening. The maintenance regimes are improving and that is why we put that money in; we have boosted repairs and maintenance by 25% throughout Power and Water and have a key focus on preventative maintenance. I know and I trust those staff. They do a good job and they have been through hell in the past and they have been ignored, but that has changed. We recognise the value of field staff and what they do.
As I said, the maintenance regimes have improved. I do not know this gentleman with whom the member for Port Darwin wanted to do some sort of ridiculous undergraduate stunt in the parliament. I certainly value all Power and Water staff and what they do, right across the regions. I have met Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek personnel, and they do a great job. They sometimes work in a very dangerous environment. It is coming up to the Wet Season and we have some very dangerous working conditions, especially for the lineys with lightening strikes and storms which bring trees down on power lines. We sit at home grumbling about Power and Water, but we have lineys out there on the end of ladders trying to get the power back on – it is a very difficult and dangerous situation. When you look at the chain of supply from the gas basin right through to the switch on your light, there are many things that can go wrong, and sometimes do go wrong, in a very volatile environment here in the Northern Territory.
We have invested a great deal of money into Power and Water and that has seen an increase in generation capacity. Weddell Power Station is online and has certainly boosted our capacity, and we are ahead of demand, which is where we need to be. We have improvements at Channel Island; we have Owen Springs in Alice Springs which is nearly ready, and augmentation in the other regional centres. They are continually looking at their assessment management and what they need to do to improve.
With the water supply, it was this government that invested $1.4bn to raise Darwin River Dam. Territorians use a great deal of water, and we have programs to educate people about reducing their water usage, but we are ahead of demand at the moment in our projections for population increase. We have the backup and work being done on Manton Dam to bring that back online, with a qualification that we need to maintain recreational use of Manton Dam; it is part of the lifestyle for water skiers and jet skiers. It is the only facility they can use without being eaten by a crocodile or a shark, so we want to protect that whilst, obviously, having a contingency for the water supply.
Work has been done for many years now on the Warrawi Dam, and we have secured the land at Marrakai. It is very different geology there, and Warrawi is going to be the big catchment area, and that work is continuing. Obviously, you do not build these things if you do not need them. They cost a substantial amount of money, but the planning work has been done and securing the land has been done.
I highlighted the sewerage needs in the Top End: the $60m Darwin sewerage strategy, closing the Larrakeyah outfall and making improvements to other treatment plants across the Darwin area. That investment is key to keeping the organisation going. The Archer Zone Substation is about redundancy, about security of power supply for Palmerston, a growing area with an extra 10 000 or 15 000 people going there in the next few years. We not only have to have capacity but we have to have redundancy and security of supply for those residents.
Another security mechanism we have put in place is the inter-connect with Darwin LNG - that is about protection. We have gas coming from Amadeus now, and also from Blacktip, but it is about having contingencies; if anything happens down the track, it is a long gas line, we have the inter-connect with Darwin LNG to supply gas. If INPEX agrees to come to Darwin, and I know the corporation has their mind to it, we would certainly be looking at opportunities to have some inter-connection with them to provide a second, third or fourth security option for our fuel supply.
In modernising the organisation, one thing the Corporation has done is have a Utilities Commissioner. For far too long governments, both CLP and Labor, have been averse to legitimately introducing appropriate tariffs to provide a funding stream to Power and Water. You cannot starve an organisation and expect it to perform at a high level. For 13 years there were no real increases in revenue from their tariffs, which was, basically, starving the organisation.
The general public wants some reliability but, with reliability, there has to be increased investment. Having an independent Utilities Commissioner to look at capital improvements to the organisation, what it costs to run, and what should be legitimate tariffs into the future, is a very sensible way to go. It would be a ridiculous situation for a politician to set Power and Water prices, because it does not set up a viable and sensible company for the future. Also, guaranteed service level schemes; with Casuarina Zone Substation, we introduced a scheme and it was taken on, but we need guaranteed service level schemes implemented in the Territory so Power and Water maintains high levels of reliability for its service.
I have highlighted many of the points the shadow talked about. I do get quite cranky with the opposition when they run down the staff of the organisation. When they criticise Power and Water, they criticise the 800-odd staff. When they criticise …
Mr Tollner: Criticise the minister because he is such a drongo. He is a ning nong. The minister is hopeless. Guess who the minister is? Is it you?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Mr KNIGHT: … the organisation, they criticise the staff, because the staff are very proud of the work they do, and they believe in the organisation. For the opposition to continually criticise the staff of Power and Water …
Mr Tollner: You lead with your chin all the time …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Mr KNIGHT: … is abhorrent. They try their best. They do not sit in comfortable, air-conditioned offices like this, member for Fong Lim. They are out there doing a hard day’s work in the heat, in very dangerous circumstances, and they should be respected.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, in his Matter of Public Importance, which is the failure of the Territory Labor government to provide effective delivery of power, water, and sewerage services to people in the Northern Territory. This is an all encompassing matter of public importance and perhaps should have been broken down into three parts:
Before I briefly comment on some of the issues in my area and elsewhere in regard to the delivery of Power and Water services, the Power and Water Corporation’s 2009 Annual Report was made available today. I have only had a chance to go through it quickly, but one of the items that jumps out at me - which I am extremely disappointed with and many in the community, if not Power and Water, would be - is their scant regard to safety and how they view their staff.
We all know the key to a successful organisation, whether private sector or public sector is the people on the ground. Yet, in the Chairman’s report, in the very last paragraph, it says:
Who is named, and that is probably fair enough:
That is all they get. It is the same in the Managing Director’s report. Much talk about money, revenue raising, how well they are doing with their networks, etcetera, and the last paragraph:
That is it. That tells you where they rank and how they view their employees in this organisation which delivers one of the key services to our Northern Territory community.
In regard to safety, about two years ago I had the good fortune to be invited to the Power and Water Annual General Meeting which was held at a function room on the Esplanade. The Chairman and Managing Director of the day gave their presentations about how well they were doing with the networks, with the revenue, and power generation, but not once did any of the Power and Water speakers refer to their safety performance or their safety record, or how they valued the performance of their staff, which I found extremely disappointing at the time, and I still find disappointing in this report.
After the formalities at that function I spoke to some of the senior staff - who I see are still listed in the organisational chart, so they are still there - their comments to me were: yes, they had a discussion about that, but they decided not to put it in the presentations by the senior manager because their record and their performance was not really good. That tells me they are quite prepared and quite comfortable sweeping safety performance and how the organisation is run under the carpet, which I find alarming.
In the Chairman’s report, she refers to safety:
What does ‘a successful drive’ mean? How are they going to quantify it? What are the key performance indicators? There is no mention at all in her report of how well they have done in the year.
In the Managing Director’s report, at the end, safety did get a slightly higher rank than the poor employees; he does mention their safety record:
Which is to be commended. But, sadly, they seem to put revenue and money, and budgets ahead of their best and most important asset - their people.
The other thing I find interesting in about three places in the report, is how Territorians know they live in one of the toughest natural environments anywhere in the world:
It is almost like it is an excuse; when things go wrong it is because we live in such a tough environment. Well, I would hate to live anywhere else in the world that is really tough, like South America or in some third world countries that probably have slightly better power supplies than we do here.
I have not had the opportunity to go through the whole report, but I will, and will probably make further comment on it then.
What concerns me is the failure of government to provide an effective and efficient delivery of power across the Northern Territory, but particularly in the Top End.
My colleagues, and others, will highlight the problems we have across the northern suburbs, and I have raised the issue about the rural area previously - that is the large number of power outages, blackouts, brownouts, call them what you like, experienced in the rural area, particularly in the Humpty Doo and the Lambells Lagoon area.
I detailed in the House on 10 June this year the problems experienced in the Thomas and Goode Roads in Humpty Doo. In a period from November to May houses have experienced about 60 outages, ranging from fluctuations, which is power off and immediately back on, to general outages lasting anywhere from a minute to hours. On one day this year households experienced seven outages between 5.30 am and 7.30 am, which affected all the houses in that area.
I have sent letters to the Minister for Essential Services, and I know residents have also; interestingly, it was only after I spoke in this House that one of those residents received an e-mail from the minister that evening, which is exceptionally coincidental. In dealing with the problem in this area, and in Lambells Lagoon, I wrote to the minister, and he did reply, for which I thank him. The reply was: ‘The power supply to rural areas is more prone to outages due to the longer distances between power poles’.
I know that the further down the power line you live the risk of having a slight drop in power supply is greater because of the nature of electricity travelling along the lines. However, the minister says: ‘The supply of electricity over these distances is by overhead conductors, some covering a distance of up to 100 km’. Now, Goode Road and Thomas Road are not 100 km from a transformer or from a main power source, and definitely not 100 km from Darwin Central or Channel Island.
Common causes of outages for these assets include bats, birds, electrical storms, tree branches, planned maintenance and equipment failure. I accept the planned maintenance because Power and Water does do a good job putting notices on gate posts; but bats, birds, electrical storms and tree branches have gone from April/May through to October this year. I do not know what happens in town, but in the rural area from May to October this year it has been the Dry Season, so I find that a little hard to swallow, and so do the residents of that area. Power and Water have said leaves blow onto the insulators - and they may well do - although they have a program of trimming trees under power lines and things of that nature; but I do not accept, and neither do the residents of that area, that it is continually bats and birds causing all of these power outages.
I took the opportunity to do a survey of something like 60 letterbox drops around these areas and I had about a 60% return rate. Anyone who knows anything about marketing will know that is absolutely extraordinary; the best you can hope for is probably 10% to 15%. Much of what was in those returned survey forms is unprintable and I am unable to repeat in this parliament; however, what I can say is, apart from giving information about general electricity onto their blocks and whether they have backup power and things of that nature, all the forms returned to me - all of them - had successive and continual blackouts of power. They have lost equipment ranging from air conditioners, pool pumps, electrical tools, television sets, microwaves to set top boxes. Some people may say they should have power surge protection on their equipment, and some of them probably do, but why should they have to do that? Why should they not expect, given they are paying good money, to have a reliable power supply.
I also asked residents if anyone in their household was dependant on medical equipment of any kind for their health and wellbeing. Yes, there were a couple of households with people who need oxygen, and they were very concerned and very scared because the power was going off so often. One household in particular has aged parents on oxygen and it is a great concern to them when the power goes of so often. This is in the Dry Season. We have not got to the Wet Season yet when we can blame electrical storms and tree branches falling onto power lines.
The Utilities Commissioner was interviewed on ABC radio and one of the residents from this road went on radio to talk about her experiences with the power supply. The Utilities Commissioner said yes, there had been some bad spots, he was not sure why it was happening, he knew there were climatic issues, but he said things like bats are no excuse. So there is no excuse for the power to keep going off continually and regularly in the rural area. And this is just one part of the rural area; there are other parts of the rural area that suffer a completely and absolutely unreliable power supply.
I included in the survey people who ran businesses from home and for other reasons were very dependant on the electricity supply, and there has been a loss of business and loss of data due to the unreliability of power. People get a poor response from Power and Water and poor information from the Minister for Essential Services as to why this is happening. We are seeing an increase in electricity prices across the board, yet we are not seeing the same increase in the delivery of service. It is exceptionally disappointing and I am particularly concerned going into a Wet Season with the potential for electrical storms and cyclones which the scientists and experts tell us we should expect to be of a more intense nature. It is no wonder people buy emergency power supplies and back-up generators. The minister tells us that is what we should do, and perhaps for once we have listened to him and bought a generator to provide back-up supply, which people on my road and I, have done.
I do not have time to talk about problems with water and sewerage services in the rural area and elsewhere in the Territory. Perhaps we will hold that over for another time and another Matter of Public Importance.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a massively important issue, because the government has failed Territorians; they have failed to provide effective delivery of electricity, water and sewerage services to the Northern Territory - that is quite obvious to everyone. The reason they failed to deliver electioncity - I mean, electricity …
A member: This will be a Christmas tape, this one.
Mr TOLLNER: It was electioncity about a year ago as I recall - pardon the slip of the tongue!
This government cannot deliver electricity; they cannot guarantee electricity; fundamentally because the current minister is a complete and abject failure and everything he touches turns to rubble and mess. In fact, there is not much you could point to that he has actually touched at all. We have seen his efforts on housing; he has been sitting on $700m to build houses in remote communities for the last two years, and how many houses has he built?
Ms Purick: None!
Mr TOLLNER: How many?
Ms Purick: Not one.
Mr TOLLNER: None, not one. No, he is a complete failure in that regard. Last year we had the whole power system in Darwin blow up.
A member: The whole power system?
Mr TOLLNER: Practically, the whole power system just blew up. The Casuarina substation collapsed. What was the minister’s response? What did he tell people?
Members: Buy a generator.
Mr TOLLNER: That is how the minister handles these crisis situations. There is only one thing for this situation here, and that is to get rid of the minister. If the Chief Minister had any ticker, if he had any heart, if he had any courage, that is what he would do.
Ms Purick: Gumption.
Mr TOLLNER: Gumption. That is what he would do; he would get rid of this hopeless, incompetent minister we have at the moment running our electricity, water and sewerage systems.
My electorate of Fong Lim has Racecourse Creek or Ludmilla Creek running through it, and right next to that is the Ludmilla Sewerage Farm. We were told about eight years ago that farm would be moved, and they would stop spewing sewerage into our harbour; but we find out years later the government now has no intention of doing anything about that. In fact, it is an excuse to stop the development of the Arafura Harbour project - not that I am particularly in favour of that project.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I cannot say I am particularly in favour of it, but what I am in favour of is seeing the processes followed. I believe people who have big ideas and have the backing to follow those ideas should at least be given the courtesy of having those ideas tested. But, for fear of some sort of electoral backlash this government, as they always do, go into their shell and stop things before they even get a start.
The reason they stopped that project, they told the public, was because the Ludmilla sewage farm is there and they are not going to move it. People in the Territory refer to it as the Poo Shooter. We have seen stories in the newspaper about what they are doing to Buffalo Creek and the amount of sewage flowing in there - people cannot catch fish. I saw a letter yesterday about a bloke who cannot use live bait there because every time he casts a line into the water his bait is dead after a couple of minutes, before he has a chance to reel it in.
Members: Shame!
Mr TOLLNER: That was a letter in yesterday’s paper; it might have even been in today’s paper. People cannot use the waterways. They are being impacted on because of the failure of this government and, in particular, this minister, to do anything.
He jumped up today in Question Time and talked about $1.5bn being spent on Power and Water. You have to ask the question: why are they spending $1.5bn on Power and Water? The reason is quite simple: because they failed to do the work in the lead-up to it. This is why the Casuarina substation blew up or fell to bits; it is why we have seen no action on sewerage; it is why we have water problems now, and we are spending huge dollars to raise the level of Darwin River Dam 1 m or so. It seems to me there is no future planning whatsoever for our water resources, sewerage systems, or electricity systems.
Every time someone turns up to this place with an idea that should be tested, this government is very quick to shoot them down. I remember the 2005 election when a local gentleman did a great deal of work on an idea to build a high-voltage, DV/DC power line between Central Queensland and Darwin …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: That idea was absolutely pilloried by this government …
Dr Burns: By your own party, as well!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Oh really?
Dr Burns: Yes!
Mr TOLLNER: When? I take up the interjection, Madam Deputy Speaker. When was it pilloried by own party?
Dr Burns: I will table the document. How is that?
Mr TOLLNER: I do not recall a time when that idea was pilloried by the party. We may have wanted to test it, do some feasibility studies to see how it would have worked, but I do not believe anyone on this side of the parliament pilloried the idea; we were prepared to float and see how it went.
It is not surprising to me, but must surprise the other team that the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, has called that high-voltage DC project, a project of national significance. The line will be built from central Queensland to Mount Isa and, possibly, to McArthur River Mine. However, because of the head-in-the-sand approach this government has taken, it seems unlikely to go any further than Borroloola.
Anna Bligh has said it is a wonderful project, it will open up mineral provinces in north-west Queensland and allow further development to happen, and it will massively reduce the cost of electricity in Mount Isa and other far-flung places in Queensland.
However, what is the attitude of the Northern Territory government? It is to pillory the idea, to deride it and abuse the people who put it forward. I believe the Chief Minister’s comment at the time was: ‘Who the hell does this bloke think he is? He has a ute and a blue dog, or a blue heeler and a ute. Nobody can take this fellow seriously’.
Dr Burns: Denis Burke did.
Mr TOLLNER: I believe he was referring to the proponent of the project.
Mr Vatskalis: That was Denis Burke.
Mr TOLLNER: In any case, it just demonstrates this government is not prepared to countenance ideas, or countenance people who think and who have plans and designs which would see the Territory move forward. What they are quite prepared to do is try to kick the legs out of ideas - try to abuse and denigrate proponents of those ideas and, at the same time, do absolutely nothing themselves. It is a shameful situation, as I say.
The best this minister can come up with in relation to the power failures is to abuse Territorians, say no one can expect to have a guarantee of power, and if you want that, buy a generator.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Can the member for Fong Lim actually substantiate that claim? Can you substantiate that claim?
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure there was a front page news story about the need to buy a generator to supply power.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, please. There is no point of order.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is up there with the former member for Sanderson who said: ‘Come on, just open a window.’
A member: He did say ‘open a window’.
Mr TOLLNER: You do not need an air conditioner - middle of a Wet Season night - stinking hot - steamy as hell - and the member for Sanderson tells his constituents: ‘Just open a window; you do not actually need electricity.’ That is the attitude of this government. Care factor - nil; we will find some lame excuse; we will blame it on someone else; blame it on John Howard; blame it on former Country Liberal governments. If they could blame things on Robert Menzies, they would. I am sure Robert Menzies let us all down here in some way or another. I am surprised this government has not found a reason to blame Menzies.
Dr Burns: What about the pig iron?
A member: Yes, that will be it. No one is old enough to remember that.
Dr Burns: Here in Darwin, you might just think about that.
Mr TOLLNER: I hear the member for Johnston. He interrupts and interjects, and comes out with these things. He could troll through history, and he could ask who introduced the White Australia Policy. Was it a Labor government that introduced the White Australia Policy? I think it might have been. Who abolished the White Australia Policy? It was a Liberal government.
A member: Who had the first Aboriginal member of parliament?
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely. Who had the first Aboriginal in parliament in the Northern Territory?
Ms Purick: It might have been the Country Liberals.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: No, no, we are the party over here who does not like Aborigines, and they love Aborigines so much they cannot build them a single house, despite the fact that they have had $700m for the last two years …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: … national emergency response. They recognise it is an emergency but they do nothing about it. And guess who is in charge of that?
A member: The member for Daly.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Daly: the same minister who lets the lights go out; the same minister who is responsible for the sewerage outflow into our beautiful harbour; the same minister who will not let you catch a fish in Buffalo Creek; the same minister who wants to cap public servants wages at 2.5%. The list just goes on and on. This fellow is an abject failure.
I have just been handed a CPSU Union News. The CPSU, for those who do not know, is the public service union. And what do you think the public service union has to say about the member for Daly and the way things have been? Let me just read the headline: ‘Gee mum, we get treated like the poor cousins around here’. That is the headline. The CPSU Darwin Office has uncovered a pay discrepancy between Power and Water and NT Public Service staff. If you work in a Power and Water Corporation call centre, credit control or billing department, or service the front counter, you can be paid less than equivalent jobs in the Northern Territory Public Sector. That is how much he loves his staff in Power and Water. He is trying to screw over the public service just as he has with his Power and Water staff.
This minister is a failure, and he deserves to go. If the Chief Minister had any heart at all, if he had any compassion for Territorians, if he could feel the way some Territorians are suffering because of this minister’s failure, if he got out of Darwin and had a look at some of the conditions in Aboriginal communities and saw the way some people are living, he could not possibly live with himself, or let this minister continue in his occupation. This bloke does not deserve a job anywhere in any government. He has proven himself over and over again to be a complete and utter failure.
I call, again, on the Chief Minister to act in the best interest of Territorians and get rid of this absolute yobbo.
Dr BURNS: (Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak on this matter of public importance, and I will focus on the issues raised by the member for Port Darwin in his letter to the Speaker.
Many of the issues, difficulties and challenges around the provision of power, water and sewerage in the Northern Territory revolve around the very challenges we face as a community. In one respect, these challenges are very positive because they are challenges of growth. The Treasurer, the Chief Minister and others have alluded to the growth phase occurring in the Northern Territory. Even the member for Port Darwin alluded to the Access Economics report, which has been published in the last few days, which points to ‘the highest growth in Australia is in the Northern Territory’, and that is a very important aspect. It recently forecast the Territory will achieve 5.2% growth in GST in 2008-09, the highest in all jurisdictions. The ANZ also had a report to that effect.
The other thing, which was highlighted in the Merv Davies report, and it has been debated in this House, is the entrenched culture within Power and Water, not only during the period of this government but stretching back into the CLP days, about the lack of maintenance for crucial infrastructure. Why was that occurring? Because the organisation had been wound down. I refer to the report submitted in January 2009 by Mervyn Davies, which talks about substation maintenance across Darwin:
That is the background we have. Basically, the CLP has a record on this, and we are trying to address those issues. When it was last in office, the CLP cut the heart out of Power and Water resources. Between 1998 and 1999, 114 jobs were slashed. The capacity of Power and Water to deliver its services was impaired by a deliberate policy of the CLP. It was a slash-and-burn approach for delivering essential services, necessitated by poor fiscal management. Not only were jobs slashed, there was pervasive neglect and under-maintenance of essential service assets over many years under the CLP.
This government has put in record amounts of maintenance expenditure to address that issue. Between 2007-08 and 2008-09, repairs and maintenance expenditure increased from $41.3m to $51.8m, an increase of 25%. In delivering Budget 2009-10, the Treasurer announced an allocation of $331.5m to improve power, water and sewerage services in 2009-10, as part of a $1.4bn five-year program for Power and Water. This is a government that is investing; it has received the Davies’ report and we are investing in power and water infrastructure.
Some examples are: $126m for the Weddell power station; $55.7m for the Larrakeyah outfall closure; $52.1m for the Owen Springs Power Station; $30m for Owen Springs to Lovegrove 66kV line; $30m for a new water storage tank at Berrimah; $19.6m to raise the Darwin River Dam wall, and $18.5m for the Lee Point zone substation and 66kV line. These projects will underpin the delivery of essential services in the years to come.
The Treasurer also announced the government will invest $67m in Budget 2009-10 to improve power, water and sewerage services in remote Indigenous communities, including $18.9m for infrastructure. Some programs are: $2.4m for a new grid connection to Yuendumu power station, to replace Yuelamu power station; $1.6m for a new power station at Alpurrurulam; $1.1m to upgrade ground and elevated water storage in Palumpa; $1m to replace the existing elevated water storage and provide additional storage capacity at Warruwi; $650 000 to replace ground level water storage tank at Ramingining; $600 000 to extend the power station and upgrade fuel bunding at Warruwi; $500 000 to equip new production bores at Rittarangu - I hope I have that one right; $450 000 for water sourcing work at Beswick, Barunga, and Alpurrurulam; $420 000 to replace ground level storage tank at Willowra; and $9.35m for other minor new works projects across the Territory.
This is the record of the government. What would the CLP do? We have already had the member for Fong Lim reiterate the failed election promise, which Denis Burke made in 2005, for a transmission line from Queensland to the Northern Territory, which was valued at $1.3bn in 2005. What is it worth today? But he revived it, and according to an ABC news article from 9 September 2008, titled, ‘CLP resurrects Qld-Darwin power line plan’:
The last line of the article says:
I challenge the member for Fong Lim, and the CLP. He said clearly, in an interjection, that it was not true, the assertion it was not party policy was not true. If it is true, and it is still part of the CLP’s policy …
Mr Tollner: I said we would look at it, you drongo. Clean your ears out, mongrels.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Where is it going to get the $1.3bn from? Will it take it out of all those projects I alluded to before? This is policy on the run. This is the member for Fong Lim, standing up in this place, with this stream of consciousness stuff, and he lays all his ideas out there, but there is no responsibility attached; no responsibility to pay for it or to explain it. Is this your policy?
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Johnston is making this up as he goes along. It is a ridiculous diatribe. I do not know where he is getting this information from.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Fong Lim, resume your seat. Minister, I ask you to direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Dr BURNS: At the time John Quiggin, Australian Research Council, Federation Fellow in Economics and Political Science labelled it as: ‘… an uneconomic white elephant …’.
That is what happened in 2005. The economics of it were unproven. We were convinced, and remain convinced, it would have an adverse effect, not only on power prices in the Northern Territory to pay for it, but it would also draw money away from the essential infrastructure upgrades, which I mentioned previously.
When you look back at the CLP history, about how it managed Power and Water resources - I alluded to some of the job cuts they indulged in, or slash-and-burn mentality, and how infrastructure and assets were allowed to run down. Then we had the Darwin to Katherine Transmission Line, which was the subject of an Auditor-General’s report in January 2001. For those who might not be familiar with it, the CLP paid, I believe, $43m for a power line valued at $30m. It must have been: ‘Here it comes; it has $43m for something which is worth $30m’. This is the acumen of this business-type party; a party which tries to paint itself as a great economic manager.
Basically, the Auditor-General said:
It knew the value of the line was much less than $43m, but it still went through. What a waste of taxpayer’s money the CLP government indulged in, in its last days.
But, there is more. I have another good one. The thread through all of this was NT Power. One of the principles of NT Power was none other than Mr Paul Everingham, the same bloke we heard the member for Greatorex laud as the builder of the Northern Territory. Let us give him credit; he did much for the Northern Territory; I am not going to deny it. However, let us hear what ‘Porky’ Everingham had to say about the CLP. I quote from an ABC News Online article posted on 11 September 2002, titled Everingham blasts CLP on competition:
That matter cost the taxpayer - I might say, in our time - $30m. Another $30m of taxpayers’ money squandered, no, not squandered, to settle a court case which had its genesis in the CLP days, that could have been applied to Power and Water infrastructure:
Here is one of the founding fathers of the CLP, labelling it in its latter years as totalitarian. But, there is a reflection of that. Some of the arrogance, which I perceive in members opposite, in some of their offerings, the way they talk, carry themselves, and swagger; I believe the opposition needs to have a good, hard look at itself, and the way it is presenting itself. Territorians are seeing it. Territorians are seeing the arrogance of this opposition; the way members carry themselves, the way they debate, the type of issues, and their conduct in this House. I believe Territorians will judge that.
I hope Territorians will judge the efforts this government is making to invest money in our infrastructure, not only in Darwin, Palmerston, and the major centres, but throughout the Territory in Indigenous communities, and consolidating the Power and Water infrastructure in those communities which are also experiencing incredible growth.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will finish on a positive note. I believe the Power and Water Corporation is positioned to deliver essential services through a comprehensive and record infrastructure investment program valued at $1.4bn over five years. I support the minister, despite what was said on the other side of this House. I believe he has a comprehensive investment strategy in Power and Water, not only in the infrastructure, but also in the people. I commend him for his work. He has further work to do and, I believe, it bodes well for the future that this government is investing in our power and water infrastructure, not running it down for broke.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak about something which is extremely important; something that hits everyone’s hip pockets each and every day - mums and dads, everyone - no one can get away with the price they pay for electricity.
I will speak briefly, but I want to pick up on a couple of technical things. First, I need to pick up on what the member for Johnston said about the money and what has been spent. Since I have been in this House, I have heard the government continually bring up, ‘back when the CLP did this, back when the CLP did that, and they only spent this amount of money on maintenance and so forth’. I put it to you: when the CLP government was in power, a house cost around about $120 000. How much does a house cost today? On maintenance today, you would have to spend about five times the amount of money it spent, even to keep up; five times, because the price of a house was about $120 000, and today, it costs over $500 000 for an average home. Before you talk about dollars, check what the dollars were worth at the time.
The other thing that is often brought up is maintenance. The fact is when Labor came to government in 2001, it had existing infrastructure in place, all it had to do was maintain it. It did not really have to do much more; just grow with the Territory as it grew. It did not have to do any massive infrastructure at the time. It just had to maintain the existing infrastructure. I have heard it brought up time and time again, ‘The CLP did not do much maintenance in its time’. And that may be the fact. Do not use the dollars though, because that does not clearly represent it.
I know there have been reports since that there was a culture within Power and Water which suggested not much was spent on maintenance and so forth, but I put it to you, that, like a car, things get older and as they get older they require more maintenance. It is always brought up that the CLP government, of old, did not do much on maintenance. Eight years ago, the infrastructure was not as old as it is today. In fact, for the last three or four years the CLP government was in power, the infrastructure was not as old as it is today. If we look at today - 10 years later – infrastructure that needed - and I will use a rough estimate - one hour of maintenance for every 1000 hours of service, might need two or three hours of maintenance for every 1000 hours of service today, because it is 10 years older. I am using those figures as a representation - they are not from any report or anything - but I am trying to explain that as equipment gets older, it needs to be maintained more regularly; more needs to be done.
To suggest the CLP, when it was in government, did not do as much maintenance as required is a little mistruth, or a misunderstanding, because the equipment was not as old then as it is today. When you continue to bring up the dollars spent by the CLP government at the time, I put it to you again: what did those dollars buy then, because a house cost $120 000, not $520 000? Today, you would need to spend five times what was spent then, to even match what it could buy then.
I want to talk about the environment. I read in the report there are some things that Power and Water is trying to do to be environmentally friendly. There are a couple of figures which support my argument that they have no right to talk about environmentally friendly initiatives. The KPI target for Channel Island Power Station was 640 kg of CO2 per megawatt hour at 80% output factor. In 2007-08, it achieved 589 kg at 80%. In 2008-09, it rose to 628 kg of CO2 per megawatt hour at 81%. We all know Channel Island is not running at 81% capacity; there are many times when it is much higher, so the true answer is not 628 kg, it could be much more.
It says in 2008-09 major power stations in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek emitted an estimated 945 708 of CO2, up from 872 000. If it was environmentally friendly, it would be aiming to lower that, but I can only put it down to the amount of diesel which is pumped through the power station. While Power and Water continues to pump untreated, or partially treated, waste into the harbour, rivers and creeks, and continues to use diesel to run a gas-powered turbine, it has no right to say it is environmentally conscious.
The mums and dads are paying today for this government’s and minister’s mismanagement. On top of all the other evidence of failures by this minister, now the mums and dads are paying for his mismanagement. I use the car analogy again, when we talk about running out of gas. We all have fuel gauges and we know when the fuel gets lower we fill up the car. I assume that, for quite a while, Power and Water would have been expecting, and have full knowledge of the fact, the gas from Central Australia was running out and they would have to plan to get a new supply of gas. Yet, we seem to have left it until the absolute last moment, instead of acting and planning well and having this all in place.
I heard the Chief Minister say earlier this year that Blacktip was up and running; there were no problems, it is all done, delivered, the whole thing. We know now it is not done. In fact, the gas which is coming through is not at the standard required to run the power station at the moment and it is still running on diesel.
In the Technical Regulations from the Annual Report, 2008-09, from the Utilities Commissioner, he talks about generation capacity - we are talking about management now - I quote from page 21 of the report:
Again, good planning would suggest that you are ready to go. How many years ago was the Channel Island Power Station constructed? Quite a few years ago. I remember when we turned over from the old Stokes Hill Power Station. The thing is, like road infrastructure, land releases, anything else, everything is left to the last moment - until it breaks or causes so many people problems – before the government seems to do something about it. This is just another example of the way it appears to manage.
Regarding gas supply, according to the annual report:
Further evidence of bad planning. It continues:
The Commissioner says in the 2008-09 report:
I will read further:
I will read further:
You already need, and know you need, more gas than the damn contract you signed. What kind of management is that?
It goes on to say many of these things will be put to rest once the Blacktip supply commences, but we know that is yet to happen. We know the gas coming through has not met standards, and, today, Channel Island still runs on diesel.
Then we get back to talking about the environment, and about how Power and Water are working hard to do things better for the environment.
Under Network Reliability - I have to say this - it says:
I wonder when you blame a previous government and I could, perhaps, understand it if there were four, five, six, or seven members on the other side who were part of that government. The fact is there are not. This is a different management team; a strong management team, which will have ideas and real results for the Northern Territory. Unlike what this minister has delivered for Territorians, which is blackness, bad sewerage, lack of power, lack of housing, and so many other things that seem to have fallen apart under his watch.
Madam Speaker, I put it to you, and it has been said before, the Chief Minister should take the only action that would be deemed appropriate and, probably, expected by many Territorians, which is to sack this minister. Mums and dads are going to be hitting it hard come Christmas, when the second lot of Power and Water bills come through. You have to remember, in the first bill, which came out a month or two ago, the charges had not been lifted for the full quarter; it was only partially in that quarter. The next power bill Territorians receive will be for the full quarter at the new charges. We are coming into the hottest part of the year, the build-up, and most people who have air-conditioners find they are using them more than before. The bottom line is, people are going to be hit in the hip pocket, and they are paying because of mismanagement. They are paying because this minister, and this government, has failed to adequately plan for the growth of the Northern Territory and to manage its ageing infrastructure.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I talked about it the other day: when it comes to a power and water system, eight years is an eternity.
If I use my colleague’s comments about a car: if you did not service your car properly over eight years it would be worth nothing. It would have broken down so many times it is not funny, and it would probably have some critical failures. I have a friend in Adelaide who is rebuilding a motor four years after he rebuilt it last time because the bloke does not service it. It is a diesel motor, and he does not service it, and after four years it blows up.
We are talking about critical components, which need regular maintenance programs and an increase in funding to match.
The only excuse you have been using on that side has been, ‘your government, back in your day, the old days’, eight years ago. I am not sure how many times we have to remind the current government it has had eight years to do something. We see eight years of failures, more so than eight years of achievements, unfortunately. Eight years - no wonder the high-voltage switching gear exploded. The high-voltage switching gear at Casuarina must have been hot enough leading up to that incident that you could have cooked eggs on it for a week. That sort of equipment doe not get a little warm, and then a little warmer and, then - bang! - all of a sudden it goes; it gets boiling hot.
I have seen, in this building - this fantastic parliament building - electrical inspectors checking the circuit boards. I am sure it is a yearly thing they do. They come with an infrared camera, take a shot, and look at the buzz boards, so they know whether there is any resistance. They are checking them so there is preventative maintenance, if need be. They are checking, and it will show up as a heated area, if there is a hot spot, resistance, or wear. We are talking about little switch panels, we go past them - the little doors - we all know and have seen them.
You imagine one massive box, and its role is to switch a couple of large cables. Surely, if the infrared gear had been used on that, it might have showed up. That is proactive maintenance. That was the failure. I am sure, in the initial magazine, that came out with it, which described how it is used, it did not say: ‘Every eight to 10 years check me, just in case I am not feeling good’. It would have given periodic maintenance schedules. I am pretty confident the report is pretty condemning on that. That switching gear is still used around Australia and in the Territory. But, when you do not maintain something, or you allow the systems which we work in to become so congested with self-importance, we have failures.
Some time in 2004 - I cannot narrow it down to the exact date; I was not given that much information - there was a dramatic change to some OHS procedures, and these things should occur; you should always be concerned about OHS. But, the scenario, as explained by a Power and Water worker, was that, pre-2004 – the Labor team was in government from 2001 onwards - for $10 000 worth of routine maintenance work, $2000 would go to administrative works, and $8000 would go to physical product and labour to do the maintenance. Post-2004, $2000 to administrative requirements, $4000 to OHS - tick and flick the little paper books, meet all the other requirements - and only $4000 to works and labour. There was not a change in funding, in the routine maintenance, to deal with this change in OHS.
Some of this stuff is important, but some of it is a little too far gone. If you are going to insist certain levels are included, you must match that with funding to ensure you do not lose the service you are providing to the people. It happened; it is real. If any minister on that side wishes to say it did not happen, I would suggest they talk to some of the Power and Water employees at the pub and see how well they come out of it. I am confident that most senior Power and Water workers who have been on the ground - not management, because you do not bother speaking to management half the time, because they will tell you what you guys want to know - you talk to the people on the ground, they will tell you what the story is.
It was meant to be a pretty short talk. I probably have much more to say on Power and Water, because it is a pretty enjoyable topic; I like getting my teeth into that sort of stuff. Having an electrician as a father, growing up around him, I have a reasonable understanding. I also worked amongst essential services officers in remote Central Australia, and had great pleasure in understanding and learning about the remote operations of these facilities.
Madam Speaker, eight years of poor management - the blame sits fairly and squarely with the ministers who hold the responsibility. The blame sits fairly and squarely with this government. Eight years - you have reached nearly one decade – if you can refute that amount of time in charge, I wonder when you will stop blaming someone else. When will you start saying: ‘No, the failings must stand with us’, because, until you accept those failings, you can never get past them and start fixing them. You keep saying: ‘But you had it first’. Well, Adam, Eve and the apple. Madam Speaker, eight years.
Discussion concluded.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, a very special day to celebrate our wonderful teachers is coming up on Friday, 30 October. I take the opportunity to place on the record my gratitude and heartfelt regard for the many teachers throughout my electorate. I acknowledge the principals and their staff in our schools, the ISA staff, the parent volunteers and, of course, the school council representatives for their dedication. Every one of them should be congratulated for the hard work they put in which plays a very important part in our children’s lives. Students are encouraged by their teachers to do their very best to strive in their academic achievements and to learn life skills. Awards are given out not only to the best of the best but, more importantly, to those who try their hardest to do their very best.
I recently attended Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Thamarrurr Catholic School at Wadeye, and was very pleased to assist with presenting Year 8 students with a Bursary Award worth $250 each from the Elisabeth Middleton Foundation for attendance, dedication to school work, and good behaviour – these three qualities had to be acknowledged and attained by students to receive the award.
Helen Cooney, the Principal of the Thamarrurr Catholic School, and her staff do an absolutely fabulous job acknowledging students who commit to hard work and regular attendance which creates self-worth and, in turn, role models for other students.
We all know the curriculum is set in our schools, but there are times when a teacher not only works within the set curriculum but sees opportunities to provide a challenge for students to improve their involvement in and the decision-making about their own learning.
I received a letter earlier in the year from Carolyn Clark, a teacher at Berry Springs Primary School in Year 5/6. She wrote to me for support of the book awards to reward students in her class participating in a Challenge Program. Carolyn introduced the program with the support of the school Principal, Sheila Delahay, to a group of students in her class giving them an opportunity to participate in challenging, enriching, and engaging learning experiences in and outside the school environment. The program is optional and normal class activities are still undertaken; however, Carolyn modifies the participating students’ homework tasks and expectations.
Students achieve points as they complete chosen activities under the various categories; and I am very pleased to show my support by donating book awards to the program. The awards are not easy to come by. Students are required to consistently work hard and accumulate 160 points to qualify. Some examples of activities within the program and part of the class programming include writing and performing a song at the school assembly, and demonstrating highly developed research skills.
Development of research skills has paid off for two very excited students in Ms Clark’s class: Jasmine Aitken and Sophie Rowe have just won the SA and NT Year 5/6 section of the National History Challenge 2009. Jasmine and Sophie researched and produced a presentation PowerPoint on the Ash Wednesday bushfires in South Australia and Victoria, under the competition topic Triumph over Adversity. Their presentation required the topic to be addressed succinctly and show their understanding and use of primary and secondary sources of information for their research. Congratulations to Sophie and Jasmine. I congratulate both Carolyn Clark and to Sheila Delahay for offering the Challenge Program to students at Berry Springs Primary School. I wish all the very best to the students and families involved.
Teachers and parents spend many outside hours fundraising and organising school events which are a very large part of school life; the mums and dads who get involved help to make these events a great success and they are to be applauded for their efforts.
I mentioned last week in my adjournment the very successful Quiz Night held at the Berry Springs Primary School, and I now mention the fantastic Quiz Night which occurred recently at the Douglas Daly Primary School. Congratulations to Corina Reed and the mums who were involved in the success of the Quiz Night at the Douglas Daly Community Hall. I am told around $1400 was raised, although a final figure is yet to be determined, and I will get that very soon. For a very small community school, this amount is certainly an amazing effort.
I move on to Taminmin High School and congratulate Emma Tidswell, Hieng Cao and Stoney Dethmore who were presented with my awards to the school at assembly yesterday.
Again I acknowledge the great work teachers do, and I hope they have a great day on Friday, 30 October. They do experience some difficult circumstances with children. I also pay tribute to those teachers in our remote schools who also experience difficulties living out there. Congratulations to all the teachers.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before I call the next adjournment speech, I wish to clarify a matter of possible breach of privilege in the speech of the member for Sanderson in an earlier debate on Primary Industries.
I have looked at the Hansard and at some details relating to the meeting. I have to say there is a level of confusion amongst the members whether it was a public hearing or whether it was a deliberative meeting with witnesses. However, I have seen the opening statement which implies that it is, in fact, a public meeting of the Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, in which case there is definitely no point of order.
However, I would like to remind you of Standing Order 274 in relation to publication of evidence. In relation to all committee matters, it would be helpful for Chairs of committees to remind members, when they are in committee, what, in fact, the evidence is, and I particularly refer you to Standing Order 274(e):
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, for the second night in a row I wish to discuss the Araluen Cultural Precinct Development Plan 2009-15. As I said last night, there was initially a development plan released and distributed throughout the community then, after a degree of public outcry and criticism, a sticker was affixed to subsequent development plans saying it was a draft. I note some aspects of the plan, in relation to which community consultation feedback is being sought have, in fact, been implemented. It is that in particular which is upsetting so many people in Alice Springs.
Last night, members will recall I talked about the local, non-Indigenous arts community in Alice Springs, and I will not revisit the comments I made. I now wish to raise some concerns provided to me by the Alice Springs Field Naturalists Club which has raised with me its concern about the so-called draft Araluen Development Plan.
It says, and the group advises me, and I know it has attracted considerable attention and concern from the local community, and there has been no consultation with the local community - save one organisation - about the future direction for the Araluen Cultural Precinct. The club’s concern relates to the Natural History Museum which is currently located in the Strehlow Centre. The plan, whether it is a draft or not, refers to some short-term and long-term possibilities. One of the short-term possibilities is:
And a longer-term possibility:
I will read from some of the material the Alice Springs Field Naturalists Club has provided to me today, and it is an interesting background to yet another dimension of the Araluen Arts Centre, as it is commonly known:
About 12 years ago the then Spencer and Gillen Museum occupied a large space centrally located in Alice Plaza. It was relegated to the present, smaller space at Araluen as part of the Museum of Central Australia. It is a great collection, and if people have not seen it, they should. The collection incorporates palaeontology, geology, zoology, including beautifully preserved specimens of local birds, animals and insects and assembled skeletons; all is put together in a wonderful display which provides enjoyment and education to a broad range of locals and visitors to the town. School groups through to professional scientists benefit from it.
There are several concerns but the main concerns of the Alice Springs Field Naturalists Club is this wonderful material does appear to be valued in the Araluen Cultural Precinct Development Plan. The club believes there is a need to maintain a good natural history display as part of the town’s mix of attractions. The club believes it should be valued, that it fits where it is now with other educational collections, and should be easily accessible to all.
The club goes on to advise me, and I am advising the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, that the development plan, on the face of it, wants the material split up: some to the Alice Springs Desert Park and some to an unknown, off-site facility. Obviously, much of the material is fragile. Exhibits on display and stored material all need proper care and maintenance, and to be protected from insects, light, damp and heat. It is asserted by the club and rightly so in my view, and the view of others that Araluen needs to keep its perspective as broad as possible. We all know, and the minister for Arts should know - but his hands-off approach to the plan thus far demonstrates he does not - social history has its place, but not to the exclusion of the natural history collection.
There are a number of social history displays in town such as Adelaide House, the Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame, the Old Telegraph Station, the Residency, the Flying Doctor, and the Transport Museum, to name just a few. The club wishes the minister to consider perhaps building a specially designed on-site facility to house the natural history collection; it should have a bigger space than it currently has and would do justice to the collection. In the alternative, the minister may wish to consider moving social history displays to a more central location closer to similar displays, possibly part of the old gaol, and leave more room for the natural history collection. A wonderful amount of fossil material from Alcoota is not presently on view.
I have quoted parts of a letter I received in relation to this issue from the Alice Springs Field Naturalists Club, and it demonstrates another dimension to the ongoing anger existing in Alice Springs regarding the Araluen Cultural Precinct Development Plan 2009-15. When a number of groups say the consultation has been appalling, surely, even a minister who has previously had a hands-off approach, and a government which has traditionally performed dreadfully in Alice Springs, would think: ‘Oh dear, we have a problem’.
I note the Alice Springs sittings will be later next month and, as an Alice Springs representative, I look forward to it. I urge the minister to get his head around the level of disquiet about the appalling consultation, or lack thereof, which has surrounded the Araluen Cultural Precinct Development Plan; that he meet with various stakeholders including, as I said last night, the non-Indigenous artists sector; he arrange to meet with the Alice Springs Field Naturalists Club; and he get out to speak to other people in Alice Springs, including the Crafts Council and so on, to actually try to get his finger on the pulse. I doubt he will accept my assurance this is a real problem in Alice Springs. As I said last night, when you get piles of Letters to the Editor saying things like ‘Hands off our Araluen’, you know you have a problem.
I should say for the record that not all parts of the development plan are opposed. However, the minister needs to correct where the errors have been; that is, undertake proper consultation all over again, given it has not actually occurred. My own view is he should apologise for providing a plan that is called a draft plan for publication when, in fact, some parts of the plan have already been implemented, such as local, non-Indigenous artists being forced to hang their works in a smaller gallery space with other related problems I mentioned last night. The minister needs to get his head around this and I urge him to do it in the next few weeks.
There is a lack of confidence about this development plan, and when we consider the importance of Araluen in Alice Springs and the importance it has to such a diverse range of people, it behoves the minister to get on a plane and go to Alice Springs and see what he can do to deal with this issue. It requires a level of leadership, and I have reservations as to whether this particular minister is up to the job. However, that will be for others to judge.
As a local member, judging from the criticism and complaints I have received for several weeks there is, no doubt, a problem. I urge the minister to get to Alice Springs and meet with the relevant stakeholders. Do not patronise them and do not be rude. Listen to what they have to say, and do what any minister worth his or her salt would do - change where there are sound arguments to change; apologise for the appalling lack of consultation, and provide some leadership in conjunction with the local people.
I give notice that tomorrow or the next day I will be tabling a petition in relation to Araluen. I understand that that petition is being air bagged from Alice Springs today and I urge the minister to consider the number of signatures on the petition and the contents of it.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak this evening about an appalling incident that occurred in our community just recently, where there was, I am trying to think of a better adjective, but I cannot - an evil, appalling attack on a horse that belongs to Riding for the Disabled - it really was a dreadful thing to read about. I was absolutely horrified, as I had just visited Riding for the Disabled in Palmerston a couple of weeks beforehand to see the enormous work being done not only by Lesley Monro and her committee, but also the private sector which has contributed an enormous amount of time, effort and resources to rebuild the Riding for the Disabled facility, and the excitement amongst the broader community about getting that facility up and running again, providing a tremendous avenue for people with disabilities to engage with horses and have a wonderful facility at Palmerston.
I came away from that meeting totally energised about the strength and the spirit in our community, the way the community was coming together to get Riding for the Disabled up and running again, and there will be a working bee in a couple of weekends time to finish the facility. Then to pick the paper up and read that story, just really made me feel sick.
I have spoken to Lesley Monro and expressed my absolute horror about what has occurred. Those horses used by Riding for the Disabled are very special types of horses. They need to be very placid, they need to be very calm, and they need to be very trusting of people. For some evil individual to attack that horse the way they did - the horse’s name was Jessie - is probably one of the most horrific things I have read or heard about for some time. It was obviously a premeditated, unprovoked, evil attack on a defenceless animal, for what purpose, God above knows.
I am advised a local veterinary clinic has offered to cover all vet bills associated with Jessie’s care; and I also understand Lesley has received calls from all over Australia, and around the world, offering sympathy and financial assistance to look after Jessie. Whilst the attack has shown a side of human nature none of us can understand, the offers of assistance show us many people in our community will not hesitate to offer what assistance they can. I thank all of those who have contacted Riding for the Disabled.
I can assure all members of this House and Territorians, I have spoken to police about this and I want to be kept personally appraised in regard to this investigation, in an appropriate way, because I want to follow this case through the courts and if someone is apprehended and charged see what type of penalty is meted out to a very sick individual who has committed an appalling crime on a defenceless creature that was providing such a wonderful outlet for disabled kids.
It is very sad I have to bring this report to the House, but it is important to let everyone know that all of us in this House support what Riding for the Disabled are doing and will do everything we can to ensure they are up and running and providing the wonderful activities they do for disabled kids.
On a brighter note, I recently went to Driver Primary School to turn the first sod on Driver’s community garden; accompanied by the local member. First, I thank Rob Presswell, the Principal, and all the parents, teachers and students for their time. I especially thank Magdalene Mahomet, the Driver Primary School Chairperson for her time and her children: Ella, 10, Samuel, seven, and Matthew, five, without whose help the first sod would not have been turned. Driver Primary School successfully applied for funding under the Commonwealth government’s Building the Education Revolution grant and received $3m in response to its application. Driver Primary is putting this money to great use; it is expanding the community hall, library and providing more learning space in the form of flexible teaching and learning areas.
Driver Primary School is also an example of how expansion is not just about adding bits and pieces. For example, take the library plans: the expansion includes a meeting room area with large window spaces letting in natural light, and an outdoor area. The expansion of the library will look out onto Driver’s community garden when it is completed. The school’s vision for the garden is to provide students with the opportunity to grow fruit and vegetables, and to incorporate that experience in their teaching. The garden is also planned to include chickens to provide eggs. I advised the principal to have a chat to the member for Nelson on the types and breeds of chickens that provide the most eggs in this particular part of the world - I will have to check with the member for Nelson if he has had a call for his professional advice in that matter.
The school is seeking further funding from other sources to build three or four kitchens in an existing building to enable students to prepare a variety of foods and learn practical skills they can develop further at home, at middle school and at high school.
All of this comes together in a number of ways that show the benefits are greater than simply the sum of all the parts - the students will learn how things grow, how to care for a garden and its soil; they will have the opportunity to prepare and cook food including the eggs, fruit and vegetables from their garden, and some of that food will be sold in the school canteen. This learning experience from growing the food to getting it onto the table shows children how the food their mums and dads buy at the supermarket got there. It can form the basis of lessons on how to plan what you want to grow with an end result in mind, how much of it you will need, and how prices for things are set. It can be used as a tool for engaging children with events around them, for example, why the price of ground coffee might go up if a crop in New Guinea or Timor-Leste fails.
I mentioned the garden at Driver Primary is a community garden, and I understand the first customer for the garden’s carrots may have been found already. The garden will need to be kept well supplied with nutrients. Manure, as we all know, has been used through the ages as a natural source for enriching soil and Riding for the Disabled has an abundance of horses, and Driver Primary will have an abundance of carrots. The exact exchange rate has yet to be set, but I believe all members will join me in wishing Driver Primary School and Riding for the Disabled all the best for their - and this is what they are calling it, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope it is appropriate - Carrots and Poo Enterprise. So, good luck to them all; they are doing a great job.
I also acknowledge the finalists and winners at this year’s NT Training Awards held on Saturday, 12 September at the Darwin Convention Centre. The NT Training Awards honour the Territory’s top apprentices, trainees, Vocational Education and Training students, employers, businesses, VET teachers and trainers, and registered training organisations. The awards highlight business best practice and recognise personal excellence of individuals engaged in VET in the Territory.
The VET sector plays an integral role in skilling and training our workforce which is essential to maintaining economic and social growth in the Territory. The 2009 NT Training Awards comprised 11 awards across student and organisation categories. I try to go to these award nights every year regardless of whether I am the minister or not because, as an ex-apprentice I get great joy out of seeing young people succeed and take pride in the work they do, and the support they get from the businesses which engage them, and the support of their families. It is always an inspirational night and gives you great hope about the future for the Territory. There are some fantastic young people doing great things and achieving great results. There are some wonderful businesses totally dedicated to training the next generation; and there are some fantastic training organisations that put together the training courses. It is always a very positive evening.
I make specific mention of Austin Asche, our former Administrator, who is the Patron of these awards. Austin is not as young as he used to be and after he presents his award he always jumps off the stage; he did it again this year and will be doing it for a few years as a party trick. Austin is a fantastic patron of these awards.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate the names of all the award winners under the various categories, into the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
Student Awards:
I will also respond to a couple of adjournment debates made by the member for Goyder in relation to a shoddy builder situation. There have been recent statements in relation to shoddy builders from the member for Goyder.
The Building Act has provisions for investigations into whether the builder has carried out work in a negligent or incompetent manner, or if the builder is otherwise guilty of professional misconduct. After an investigation is completed, if there is substantial evidence the practitioner has committed an offence, then the Director of Building Control must refer the matter to the Building Practitioners Board for prosecution. Officers from my department are investigating building-related complaints.
I am aware of two builders currently being investigated by my department following complaints from property owners, one in Darwin and the other in Alice Springs. In the case of the builder in Darwin, mentioned by the member for Goyder in the Chamber, there are three separate investigations into this company currently under way. The builder in question is registered by the Building Practitioners Board. To date, statements have been made and other information collated from the three property owners and the builder. The investigation process has to provide natural justice and fairness to both the homeowner and the builder.
Accordingly, each party has been afforded the opportunity to respond to the allegations and statements made. In the case of the family at Nightcliff, the department has helped the family in gaining a builder’s declaration, which will lead to the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy. In all cases, the relationship between the builder and the homeowner has broken down and is now a contractual dispute between the builder and the client.
These are civil matters and fall outside the scope of the Building Act. The DPI will investigate these matters if there is evidence of misconduct or breaches of the act on the part of the builder. If the builder is found to be in breach of the Building Act, he will be referred to the Building Practitioners Board which can prosecute the builder through the court. If the case is proven, then the builder’s licence will be revoked. However, I urge any person who is about to build their own home to ensure they clearly understand the contract before signing and, if in doubt, seek legal advice before signing, and obtain references from previous clients.
In relation to other matters raised by the member for Goyder, I have indicated to her that I am happy to take direct contact, but I want to assure this House that the department is pursuing the requirements of the Building Act in relation to the investigations, and the natural justice provided within that act, and we are taking these complaints seriously. My office was involved in ensuring a formal complaint was lodged when we became aware of the concerns. We do take this matter seriously. The department is pursing the investigations as required of them and, ultimately, a decision is required by the Director of the department to determine whether to refer the matter to the Building Practitioners Board.
A final reminder to urge anyone who is about to start building their own house, before they sign contracts to make sure they clearly understand the contract and, if in doubt, seek legal advice before signing; and they should also obtain references from previous clients.
Just to confirm, there is a whole body of work occurring in the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in Building Advisory Services to ensure the Director of Building Control is in a position to refer the matter, or not, pending the outcome of investigations, to the Building Practitioners Board for prosecution.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay my respects to Mrs Kunmanara Wilson, a senior Pitjantjatjara woman who played a significant role in improving the lives of Indigenous women and children, especially those in remote areas.
I extend my condolences to Kunmanara Wilson’s family and to her many friends in the tristate area of the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia.
Kunmanara Wilson was a deeply respected, senior, law woman and a powerful Ngangkari, a passionate worker, and advocate for Indigenous people in the APY lands. Kunmanara Wilson was intrinsically linked and involved in establishing many services and organisations dedicated to improving the lives of women and children.
She was a driving force behind the establishment of the Pitjantjatjara Homelands Service which evolved into the Nganampa Health Service. She was a family member of the Pitjantjatjara Council and was active in the battle for land rights in the APY region. In the 1970s Kunmanara Wilson was one of the first fully trained senior Aboriginal Health Workers and she maintained an interest in and contributed to the development of health and social services.
Over many years she lobbied state, territory and federal governments about the need for services for Indigenous women such as shelters, family violence, mental health and other services. She was instrumental in advocating for and initiating community control of Aboriginal organisations. Her concern about the conditions facing women and children in remote communities, especially the cross-border regions, led to the establishment of the NPY Women’s Council.
In the mid-1980s she helped establish Congress Alukura in Alice Springs, a women’s health and birthing centre; and Kunmanara Wilson was also active in the fight against alcohol abuse and was prominent in the campaign to restrict the sale of alcohol from the Curtain Springs Roadhouse. She was a strong woman who touched the lives of many people in the Northern Territory and across the country. She was passionate in sharing her knowledge of culture and law, and led 350 women in performing a traditional Inma at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games opening ceremony.
I am told during her illness she was still committed and involved in sharing her immense knowledge and expertise.
I put on the public record that Hon J Wetherell, MP, the South Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation also spoke about Kunmanara Wilson in the South Australian parliament. I believe it is fitting that we also acknowledge this powerful woman and her contribution to the Northern Territory.
I seek leave to place on public record a copy of Kunmanara Wilson’s achievements.
Leave granted.
Kunmanara Wilson
1970s one of the first fully trained senior Aboriginal Health Workers.
Mid to late 1970s a driving force behind the establishment of the Pitjantjatjara Homelands Health Services, a cross-border service for all the small homelands in the central WA/NT/SA region.
1979 founding member of the Pitjantjatjara Council.
Very active in the fight for Land Rights for the APY region and associated Land Rights Act 1979.
1980 called for all women in the cross-border region to meet to discuss land rights and the lack of consultation with women from this region. The outcome of this meeting was the establishment of NPY Women’s Council.
Mid-1980s helped to establish Congress Alukura in Alice Springs, a women’s health and birthing centre.
1988-1998 fought for alcohol sale restrictions from the Curtin Springs roadhouse.
1994 lobbied NT Police for a domestic violence service based at NPY Women’s Council.
2000 led 350 women to perform traditional Inma at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games Opening Ceremony,
2006 spoke out on ABC Lateline about the shocking level of child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities. This led to the NT inquiry into child sexual abuse, The Little Children are Sacred, which led to the Northern Territory Emergency Response.
I congratulate Wurli Wurlinjang Health Service and the President, Ian Woods, and Norman George, the Chair of the StrongBala Committee for an unbelievable and inspiring day. Over the years, there have been many marches in Katherine and not always conducive to improving health outcomes. However, this march was different and was about mending people and building bridges.
The StrongBala community took a big risk with the march, and I suppose they were worried about if no one had turned up. What if people were too shy and intimidated to march down the main street of Katherine? With 20 minutes to go, there were only about 20 people present, then suddenly people started to arrive by foot, by car, by bus, and bike, and even in my case, by plane.
The Djilpin Dancers, ably led and choreographed by internationally known actor, dancer, singer and painter, Tom E Lewis, led the march out of the car park on to Katherine Terrace. For almost 30 minutes, the only arterial link connecting Darwin to the rest of Australia was blocked at Katherine by a mob of men demonstrating their desire to improve their health, and showing their support for each other.
The participants eventually terminated their march at Ryan Park, where a number of us were given the opportunity to say a few words. The member for Lingiari, myself, Norman George, the Mayor, Anne Shepherd, Ian Woods and Jawoyn elder, Lisa Mumbin all provided suitable statements to mark the occasion. However, it was the CEO of AMSANT, Mr John Patterson who really cut to the core of the issue:
Mr Patterson further added that:
After the conclusion of the speeches, we adjourned to the new Men’s Health Centre on the site of the old gun club for the official opening.
I am informed by the CEO of Wurli Wurlinjang that the new Men’s Health Service has seen 131 male patients through its doors in the first week, and 51 of these patients had full adult medical checks. It is very early days yet, but there are positive signs that the new service is working. Mr Ian Woods, the President of Wurli Wurlinjang, said that the StrongBala Clinic will provide culturally appropriate counselling, check ups, education and support for men released from prison, alcohol and drug counselling, promote the role of men in reducing family violence, provide employment preparation activities, and pursue change behaviour activities.
In concluding, I quote the Jawoyn Elder who also spoke there, Lisa Mumbin:
I also acknowledge the member for Katherine. At the time, as we know, he was doing his fundraising walk from Pine Creek to Katherine, and he cut short his fundraising walk to join in the march. I commend him for his efforts.
Turning quickly to my electorate, I place on the public record my congratulations to Jess Sullivan from Mataranka who has won the 2009 Young Territorian Author Award. Jess’ story, Cry Me A River, is the story of a girl who loses her sister. Jess attends the boarding school in Alice Springs at St Philip’s, and has a famous Aunt Rosemary, who has won numerous awards for her children’s book, Tom Tom.
The Katherine School of the Air has had some outstanding entries in the 2009 Dorothea Mackellar Poetry Awards. Both Drago Kalinic from Borroloola and Jayden Wilson from Nelson Springs won awards in their respective categories. Peter Stockwell, Sandy Bauer and Jessica Baker were short-listed in their categories. Congratulations to all these students who are doing an outstanding job and doing great work at the Katherine School of the Air.
Staying with literature, congratulate the Banatjarl Women’s and Children’s Resource Centre at King River in my electorate south of Katherine. The resource centre is used by women’s group from Manyallaluk, Gulin Gulin and Wugularr. The book was developed by the women in conjunction with the Fred Hollows Foundation. This month, the women launched their cook book, Kukambat gundwan daga which stands for ‘Really cooking good food’. The book is full of fabulous recipes and provides step-by-step photographs to assist communities to create tasty and nutritious food for up to 100 people. The recipes are diverse and have a range of food from spaghetti to kangaroo tail stew and are contained in a beautifully presented 80-page book. The launch of the book concluded a cook off by women from the contributing committee, and music by Shellie Morris.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I place on the public record my congratulations to the fantastic team from Barunga, the Arnhem Crows, for winning the Katherine AFL Grand Final last month. I understand a huge crowd turned up to watch the Kalano Bombers and Jilkminggan Blues in the B Division, and the Katherine Kannons and Arnhem Crows in the A Division. The Arnhem Crows won by eight points, and they had Gary Buckenurra, the Hawthorn legend, on hand to present Man of the Match Award to Campbell Wurranarba from Barunga.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I make mention of a few issues within my electorate. The first one I will talk on, which the Minister for Transport might listen in on, is I have some constituents who would seriously like some form of roundabout, or better traffic devices, at the corner of Wishart Road and Woodlake Boulevard. I have watched this intersection for some time, and I have great concerns. We are very lucky – I repeat, very lucky - there have not been any major accidents there, to my knowledge.
In the mornings, the Wishart Road is jammed from tail to top with cars trying to make their way into Darwin for work. It is amplified at this particular intersection, with people coming out of Woodlake Boulevard trying to engage that intersection and get across the traffic. It is an absolute nightmare. It is frightening, to say the least. I wish this government would consider looking into it a bit more. You will find - and I will bring to the House at a later date, if need be, the last response from the minister’s department, which was less than satisfactory, saying at this stage there is no intent to change: ‘We have other plans and we do not think it is important’.
On a much more enjoyable matter, I raised through a letter to the minister, two or three months ago now, the lack of bus seating, particularly sheltered seating, in the suburb of Durack. We have bus stops but, for a long time for whatever reason, there were no bus seats. There were bus stops, no bus seats, no shelter, and we are living in the tropics and it is extremely hot. I am very glad to see, as a result of getting these letters from me, there have been some changes. So, congratulations. The department has done a really good thing for my electorate. We now have several bus seats along the way. One of them is an old concrete one which appeared almost straightaway within a week. I am very grateful and I know my residents are very grateful for that. The other bus seats have since come along the way. We need to go the next step, of course, and provide the appropriate shelter for these people.
It is a new suburb. It is quite surprising there was not appropriate shelter put there. If you go into Farrar, there are two new bus shelters which have been put on Farrar Boulevard. They have the brand new shelters which are compliant for wheelchair access and they look beautiful, but there is not a house anywhere near them. I am glad they are there, but how much use they get could be questionable. I thank the minister for his department taking some action.
It was brought up by the former member for Drysdale. He, as minister failed to get anything done on this matter. I am glad that as the member for Drysdale bringing it to your attention has resulted in some action. We have talked about bad results here, and this is a positive result for my community. I am very pleased to see that happening.
I concur with the sentiments of the Chief Minister in regard to the incident which happened at the Riding for the Disabled - it was an absolutely despicable act. I am sure most people are absolutely gutted by the thought that anyone in this community would be so callous to have done such a sickening act. God bless the police in finding the person who committed that offence - or several people, if that is the case - and hope true justice comes to them and the courts can deal with that. It is a disgusting act.
The Chief Minister was very right. These horses are extremely timid, and very placid. They are lovely creatures and they need to be to work with disabled children. They bring so much joy to disabled children and it is great to see the Darwin branch of RDA back up on its feet and starting to kick some goals. It is gut wrenching to think that some of those goals were undone by some sick, depraved person who felt that was a necessary act. I can understand if they want to get on the horse and ride it around, but to do such an act is disgusting. I hope they are found.
If anyone has some spare time this Saturday, 24 October between 8 am and 12 noon, feel free to pop along to the Palmerston Christian School and join in the working bee - I am sure someone has some extra time around here. They are doing a few jobs there to better their environment for their students. Some of the jobs they are going to be doing is installation of bin holders, installation of a notice board, painting of verandah ceilings, which is a maintenance thing, and some irrigation works and repairs. I will be getting down there myself, and I have done most of that stuff in the past, so I will get back into it.
The last two weekends I have been to the Driver Primary School working bees and have enjoyed getting away from what is apparently a traditional thing where the politician goes along to an event, throws a sod of soil, has a cup of cool water, or a drink and moves onto the next thing. It has been good to get involved and loose some skin off your knuckles and build something that is going to be real for a very long time. I thank Driver Primary School for the opportunity to do such a thing, and I can say the same thing will happen with Palmerston Christian School whereby getting down there and being involved, I would be able to go back and see something that we were able to achieve physically, with our own hands. When you talk about achieving things it is great to know that you had a physical involvement in what happened, and it was a real outcome for the people.
It sounds like a simple thing go along to a working bee, spend a few hours there, but I am sure they need all the help they can get. It is tight monetary wise, so if anyone is available, come along and join in. I am sure they will love to have your help there. For those who need reminding, we had the Palmerston Christian School watching our parliament only the other day.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and do not forget working bees this Saturday, and one at Driver this Sunday.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to talk about a community barbecue that I held on the corner of Mitchell Street and Lambell Terrace the other night to talk to local residents, near the transformer unit which is leaking oil all over Mitchell Street. I have already raised the issue in this House.
We letterboxed about 400 residents in the area, and a dozen or so turned up, which was not a bad little turnout. Needless to say, the main topic of conversation was the old hospital site. Without delving too much into that, I thank residents in the area of Mitchell and Smith Streets, and Lambell Terrace and in Cullen Bay, for the excellent return I received on the survey conducted of the old hospital site. It is clear from those survey responses that a majority would like to retain a large area of parkland, if not all of the area of parkland.
I understand the government’s position is they will want to sell off about 20% of the site to pay for three towers of eight stories each, plus some medium density residential dwellings on the north-eastern corner of the site, at the roundabout at the top of Cullen Bay Drive. That is not being wholly embraced by people there, but it is being received as a somewhat better response than the original plans proposed on the site.
I still have some sympathy with the argument that an iconic building should be built on the site, and the whole site should be dedicated to it. If Paris has its Eiffel Tower and Sydney has the Opera House, then we should have something which is dedicated specifically to something that is uniquely Territorian, and build an industry around that building. I know that John Bonnin of Buzz Caf has a wonderful explanation of how he sees this working, with a business model attached, and I urge the government to revisit that particular approach as well.
The attractive thing about John Bonnin’s view in relation to an iconic building on the site, is his idea to incorporate our magnificent Aboriginal art in the Northern Territory into such an iconic building, and it becomes the centrepiece for Aboriginal art throughout the Northern Territory and the north of Australia, and it becomes a building which is dedicated to the sale and display of these magnificent works of art. His business plan means that the impost on government would not be as profound as one would think in such a development, and it shows a level of passion and a level of understanding about Aboriginal art, and also commercial realities, which I find attractive.
I urge the government to once again reconsider using this site for such a purpose. I have been convinced by the quality of John’s arguments that there is real merit in advancing such an idea. It would be a wonderful use of a very large area of what I consider to be precious open space in Darwin. We do not have huge amounts of open space available, and yet we have this patch of some 20 acres at the top end of Mitchell Street, which is going to be partially developed and partially kept as open space by the government.
I would also like to know what the time frames are in relation to the government’s intended proposal and development of the area. We are being long on draft proposals, short on time frames, and if the adherence to time frames has a yardstick in the Flagstaff Park arrangements, then I suspect these things will tend to get dragged out. I remember, with great flurry, prior to the last election, that the government announced that Flagstaff Park would be developed, and yet it remains completely undeveloped. I ask the minister where we are at with this particular development.
Having said that, it was good to see a reasonable turnout of people. It is nice to talk to people, it is good to do the sausage sizzles on the street corners, and it is nice to get feedback from local residents in the area about their opinions, ranging in all sorts of things, and not only in the domain of the Northern Territory government, but the federal government, local council, and what is happening in the private sector. I enjoy that sort of public contact. I urge people, if they do want to contact me at any time, of course, they can contact me in my office on 8981 4644, or on my mobile 0418 406 400, or contact me at my office at 133 Mitchell Street. I am always happy to have people come and talk to me about whatever issue they have.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their time this evening. I will certainly be having more of these community barbecues in the near future.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Araluen’s adjournment last night, and I take this opportunity to set the record straight on what is happening to the Araluen Cultural Precinct. The Henderson government is committed to growing our arts sector and our fantastic facilities, while making sure that our cultural facilities meet the needs and aspirations of Territorians and our visitors.
In July this year, we released a draft Araluen Cultural Precinct Development Plan. I emphasise that this is a draft plan, open for discussion, and whilst it may have been originally distributed without the word ‘draft’, it was never anything other than open to discussion. The draft plan seeks to deliver key initiatives in regard to arts and tourism industry outcomes. The draft plan suggests staging changes over a seven year time frame, and consists of a range of initiatives which will develop new tourism attractions, while enhancing community usage and access.
Other initiatives, such as the development of social history displays within the Museum of Central Australia, and the implementation of an artist-in-residence are also being considered. The draft plan also suggests a number of modifications to structures and amenities, with a focus on the modernisation and beautification of existing buildings, gardens and public spaces, and the development of areas to better accommodate current functions.
As part of the plan, and linked to the Alice Springs Solar City initiative, a solar air-conditioning plant is being developed for the Araluen Arts Centre. The Northern Territory government has committed $4.5m to this project. Formal written submissions on the draft plan will be accepted until 1 December 2009. Further consultation is being undertaken with the community to discuss the submissions. A session was held in September, and 20 people attended. The next facilitated session will be held on 19 November, when feedback received to date will be discussed to achieve community consensus on the overall plan. I understand that, to date, we have received 14 submissions, and I urge all areas of the Central Australian community to get involved and have their say. A final draft plan incorporating community feedback will then be considered by government.
The member for Araluen had a fair bit to say about the changes made to the Araluen art galleries. Earlier this year, a gallery in the Araluen Art Centre was devoted to the permanent display of the exhibition Origins to Innovations: Aboriginal Art in Central Australia. This permanent exhibition acknowledges the importance of the Aboriginal art movement in Central Australia as a key development in Australian art history and a key component of the Araluen Collection holdings. This decision was also made in response to visitor surveys, which showed that visitors to Araluen want a more in-depth experience and information about Aboriginal art and culture.
This exhibition is the first part of a staged development at the Araluen Cultural Precinct to assist audiences to gain an appreciation of Aboriginal art and culture across all regions and language groups in Central Australia. Increasing tourism audiences and Indigenous employment in the Territory are priorities for the Henderson government, and the new permanent exhibition at the Araluen Art Centre is also a key component of the Moving Alice Ahead strategy.
Visitation to the Araluen Art Centre galleries has increased by approximately 20% since the permanent exhibition opened in March 2009. Visitation to the Araluen Cultural Precinct has increased overall by 37% in the past 12 months, while local visitation has more than doubled. Within its exhibitions program, the Araluen Art Centre specifically aims to reflect a distinctive arts activity, cultural heritage, and artistic values of the Central Australian community. It was with this in mind that, in association with the opening of a permanent exhibition, a further exhibition space, Witchetty’s Exhibition Gallery, was developed to ensure continued community access. The refurbishment of Witchetty’s means that we have increased the available gallery space at Araluen.
I might add here that while the member for Araluen made much about the loss of Gallery 3 to local artists, in fact, Gallery 3 was not used for local exhibitions, and therefore, member for Araluen, local non-Indigenous artists have not been moved out of it. Gallery 3 has always been used to display items from the Araluen Collection or touring exhibitions. To say that this area has been closed to the local art sector is somewhat mischievous. It makes me wonder when the last time the member for Araluen visited the Araluen Cultural Precinct.
In relation to the member for Araluen’s claims about local artists having to pay for or fund volunteers, and I think that is an oxymoron, local exhibitors have always paid a hire fee to use gallery space. In addition, Araluen has three different options for the manning of exhibition spaces. Exhibitors can provide their own staff or volunteers, and handle their own sales. They can provide their own staff and pay a commission to Araluen to process sales, or Araluen can provide staff and handle sales for a commission on exhibition sales.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the aim of the Araluen Arts Centre Exhibition Program is to provide local, national and international visitors to be enthralled, entertained and inspired. The Henderson government is committed to making sure this continues to happen.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Mr Neville Perkins OAM
Mr Neville Perkins OAM
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr Neville Perkins OAM, former member for Macdonnell and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly from 1977 to 1981, accompanied by Mr Abdul Khan. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Macdonnell
Member for Macdonnell
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move the member for Macdonnell have leave of absence for the remainder of these sittings due to ill health in the family.
Motion agreed to.
VOLATILE SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 71)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act 2006 to streamline the administrative and court processes that provide for assessment and compulsory treatment for people at extreme risk as a result of their volatile substance abuse; to broaden the definition of what constitutes a treatment program, to be more responsive to a broader range of clients’ needs; and to extend treatment orders from eight weeks to up to 16 weeks.
When the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act was introduced in 2006, it was the first of its kind in Australia, and remains the only comprehensive legislative approach to volatile substance abuse in the country.
The act was developed through extensive consultation with those communities disproportionately affected by volatile substance abuse, and informed by the work of the Northern Territory Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community.
One of the most debated and contentious parts of the legislation was the arrangements for people to be referred for an assessment for court-mandated treatment. At the time, this was an untested approach to volatile substance abuse with some outspoken critics who objected to the implied erosion of personal freedoms. The act was, therefore, drafted with a number of safeguards in the form of multiple approvals from the responsible minister, with treatment orders being limited to eight weeks, and with treatment being defined as one of a handful of nominated residential treatment facilities.
Three years on, it is apparent the concerns which drove this strong public debate are no longer of such primary concern. So much so, I note some of the strongest opponents to this legislation and, indeed, members of the opposition, are now calling for compulsory treatment arrangements for people with chronic alcohol problems based on the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act.
It is also evident the numbers of requests for assessment for court-ordered treatment far exceeded what was anticipated at commencement, with over 265 referrals received to date, all of which require verification, assessment, and approval or, otherwise, to proceed to formal assessment.
The amendments propose to expedite and streamline this part of the act by assigning the powers and functions currently assigned to me, in Part 3 of the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act 2006, to the Chief Health Officer of the Northern Territory. This is the responsibility which I believe aligns well with the health protection responsibilities of the role.
The bill also revises arrangements for assessing clients and making application to the court for treatment orders through proposed amendments to sections 33 and 34. The multiple approval steps in the act requiring separate approval processes to (1) conduct the assessment, and (2) apply to the court for a treatment order, have been collapsed into a seamless process for approval by the Chief Health Officer, subject to approved assessment guidelines.
Of the 265 referrals, 43 applications have proceeded to the court for consideration of a treatment order. Courts are guided by the assessment information of client’s needs and the available treatment options in the community. Clients before the court are invariably complex, with a multitude of health and social issues that require support as part of addressing their volatile substance abuse. The bill will allow for a broader range of assessments to be considered and to broaden the definition of treatment to include a range and mix of therapeutic, health, diversionary, education, and residential options.
The proposed section 41 amends the period of the order to provide for the option of making orders for up to 16 weeks. The effect of the amendment will be to allow for longer order periods and a broader range of treatment services and options, to be able to be considered to meet the diverse needs of those being referred. The primary consideration of the court in considering applicability of a treatment order continues to be the protection of the person at risk. There are also revised arrangements for when orders need to be varied or amended, as has been required on some occasions and in some circumstances.
In applying the act, there have been some identified ambiguities in sections 37 and 38 relating to the notice of application and the hearing of the application. It is proposed to amend these sections to be more explicit about the sharing of confidential assessment reports and documentation, and the obligation of the person for whom the application is made to attend the hearing.
In summary, this bill aims to ensure the compulsory treatment provisions in the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act are as streamlined and responsive as possible, while still ensuring an appropriate level of checks and balances. The bill ensures a contemporary approach to volatile substance abuse which responds to identified needs of people at high risk.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement accompanying this bill.
Debate adjourned.
RACING AND BETTING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 65)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time. Recently, the Henderson government undertook a review of the Territory’s wagering taxes, including the bookmakers’ turnover tax. The need for such a review arose because the past two years has seen significant changes to the Australian racing industry including taxation, fee, and regulatory developments in other states and territories. For example, most other states have introduced product fees imposed by their racing authorities for the use of race fields by wagering operators such as TABs and bookmakers, with the fee based on the turnover or gross profits of the wagering providers.
More recently, the Tasmanian government passed legislation which authorises the sale of the government-owned totaliser, TOTE Tasmania, and also deregulated the Tasmanian bookmaking industry. Tasmania also seeks to match the Territory’s regulatory regime as the most competitive for corporate bookmakers in Australia. Additionally, it replaces Tasmania’s wagering tax on bookmakers with a $250 000 fixed licence fee subject to CPI indexation.
This is immediately a threat to the Territory’s established bookmaking industry, as the Tasmanian licence fee represents a significantly lower cost than the Territory’s bookmaker tax for most of the Territory’s corporate bookmakers. Consultation with the industry indicated, although corporate bookmakers are very happy with the regulatory arrangement in the Territory, the Tasmanian licensing and regulation arrangements meant most would be forced to relocate from the Territory to Tasmania. This is a significant industry in the Territory. Corporate bookmakers employ around 250 employees in the Territory and paid around $10.5m in Territory taxes last year.
The likelihood of bookmakers leaving the Territory is a significant concern, and left the Henderson government with tough decisions to make. Not only would such a relocation result in a significant loss of tax revenue, but it would cost Territory jobs. It would also result in a loss of support to the local racing industry, both indirectly through the support of events such as the Darwin Cup, but also support such as rent from the lease of office spaces at the Darwin Turf Club.
Faced with this tough decision, there was only one real option for the Henderson government to preserve Territory jobs, retain the industry presence in the Territory, and ensure some future tax revenue is retained. That option is to reform the Territory bookmakers’ turnover tax regime so it remains competitive with a new Tasmanian licensing regime. This was not a decision taken lightly.
To this end, the bill amends the Racing and Betting Act to replace the existing turnover tax with a new profits-based scheme. The bill proposes the new bookmakers’ tax will commence on 1 January 2010, and will be payable on a monthly basis at a rate of 10% of a bookmaker’s gross monthly profits, with the maximum amount of tax payable in a financial year being $250 000, indexed to Darwin’s CPI. For the 2009--10 financial year, the cap will be $125 000 to account for 1 January 2010 commencement date.
Although these measures will significantly reduce tax revenue, inaction would have resulted in most, if not all, corporate bookmakers relocating from the Territory. The Territory would have lost all bookmaking tax revenue, in addition to the lost Territory jobs and damage to the local racing industry.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, before I move to adjourn the debate, I ask the government - in relation to the Licensing Commission report, which reports on taxation revenues - if it would be possible to have the gaming income of the Northern Territory expressed in the way it is traditionally expressed; in volume gambled and those sorts of things.
Debate adjourned.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 73)
(Serial 73)
Bill presented and read first time.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Local Government Grants Commission Act in order to allow the Northern Territory Grants Commissioner until 15 November of each year to provide me, as the Minister for Local Government, with a report of the commission’s activities for the previous financial year.
The commission is established under the Local Government Grants Commission Act and performs the important task of making recommendations to the government on how financial assistance should be distributed to local government bodies in the Territory.
The commission’s report contains valuable information upon which government relies to ensure it continues to make the right decisions for local government in the Territory. The report contains the recommendations made by the commission in relation to the allocation of federal financial assistance grants to councils for the previous financial year, and the allocations for the upcoming financial year. It also includes the methodology used for those allocations, as well as a summary of all inquiries held or investigations carried out by the commission during the year.
The act also requires me to table the report of the commission in the Legislative Assembly, meaning this report is available to any person, and is a valuable source of information for councils and other interested organisations involved with the local government sector.
Currently, the act requires the commission to provide the report to the minister no later than 30 September of each year. The chairperson of the commission, Mr Bob Beadman, has asked me to amend the act so as to allow the commission to provide the report by 15 November of each year. This amendment will align the timing of the reporting requirements of the commission with those of councils under the Local Government Act. This alignment will result in the government receiving the reports of the council and the commission at the same time each year.
Further, when the commission is requesting information from councils for the preparation of its report to me, it will be doing so at a time when councils are more likely to have the information readily available in preparation of their reporting responsibilities under the Local Government Act. This will make life easier for the council and commission staff alike. The benefits of this will be a better informed government, better placed to make decisions concerning the future of local government.
We have also included an amendment omitting the definition of ‘municipal council’, which referred to the definition within the Local Government Act which no longer exists, following the introduction of the new Local Government Act in 2008, as part of the local government reform. Additionally, we have also taken the opportunity to make some minor amendments to update the act’s style, where appropriate, to reflect modern legislative drafting practices. These amendments do not affect the meaning or application of any part of the act.
In conclusion, the amendment to the reporting requirement of section 16 is a sensible one. It will assist the commission to comply with its reporting requirements under the Local Government Grants Commission Act.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned
TABLED PAPER
Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2008-09
Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2008-09
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I present the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. In accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act, I am pleased to table the 2008-09 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement.
The statement forms part of the 2008-09 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, and presents the Territory’s fiscal performance for the year. The report also satisfies the requirements of the final fiscal results report as set out in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement 2008-09 highlights the seventh consecutive budget surplus under a Labor government. The fiscal outlook of the Territory changed dramatically in 2008-09 due to the global financial crisis. As reflected in the 2009-10 budget, the effect of the global financial crisis on the Territory’s future revenue and the need to maintain investment in infrastructure resulted in a necessary revision to the government’s fiscal strategy. This is the first report which includes an assessment of the financial performance to date against this revised strategy.
The key outcomes of the 2008-09 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report are: cash surplus achieved due to nett timing differences, largely the late receipt of additional Commonwealth revenue, offset by bringing forward some existing Territory commitments; operating surplus maintained providing level of capacity to invest in infrastructure to support growth and the local economy during these turbulent economic times; general government capital spending of $676m, a $121m increase from 2007-08 and 3.5 times the depreciation expense; taxation collections well below the average of the states as the Territory continues to be the lowest-taxing jurisdiction for small and medium business; and nett debt to revenue ratio decreased from 23% in 2007-08 to 20% in 2008-09.
I now turn to more detail to the outcome for the 2008-09 financial year. The 2008-09 outcome of a $136m cash surplus for general government is an increase of $127m from the May 2008 budget. The increase since budget time is largely the result of timing differences associated with additional tied Commonwealth funding, and increased mining royalties offset by the decline in GST revenue and timing of the Territory commitments.
GST revenue decreased by $158m during 2008-09 due to the global financial crisis that affected consumption expenditure in Australia, resulting in a reduced national GST pool available for distribution to the states and territories. This was offset by an increase in mining royalties of $135m due to increases in both price and volumes of commodities produced.
The Territory government was also successful in attracting more Commonwealth funding to the Territory for specific programs, particularly to address Indigenous disadvantage. Tied Commonwealth funding increased by $366m, one-third of which was received in June 2009, primarily made up of $60m for municipal and essential services and $36m for the development and implementation of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan. These funds are expected to be spent over the next three years. Whilst such timing variations are not unusual, the differences in 2008-09 are significantly higher than in previous years. The expenditure of this additional tied Commonwealth funding will have a worsening effect on the 2009-10 and future years, and this effect will be incorporated in the 2009-10 mid-year report.
To reduce the effect on future years, a number of one-off commitments totalling $81.5m were brought forward from 2009-10 to 2008-09. These include: $20m towards the Power and Water Corporation’s ongoing infrastructure program; a one-off grant of $33m for the Palmerston Sporting Complex, a 2008 election commitment; additional one-off funding related to the provision of Indigenous essential services to remote communities of $17m, including the sewerage system in Borroloola; and funding of $10m to Thoroughbred Racing NT.
I now turn to the 2008-09 accrual outcome. The operating surplus of $187m and fiscal balance deficit of $22m are both significant improvements on those budgeted. Again, as with the cash outcome, this is largely due to increased tied Commonwealth funding which will be spent in 2009-10 and future years. The fiscal balance outcome represents the complete picture of government spending as, like the cash outcome, it incorporates the effects of both capital and operational transactions.
Capital investment plays a central role in the government’s fiscal strategy as it is essential for the delivery of government services and contributes to the economic development of the Territory. During the current economic downturn short-term countercyclical increases in infrastructure spending are required to support economic recovery and sustain Territory jobs. The infrastructure spending for 2008-09 was $911m, which is $41m higher than the $870m projected at the time of the 2008-09 Budget, and reflects additional investment in remote areas, schools and roads. This level of investment is contributing to our strong economic growth, forecast to lead the nation in 2008-09, and has supported the 4000 jobs created over the past year.
I now turn to the Territory’s balance sheet for the general government sector. Nett debt for 2008-09 is $837m, $50m lower than the 2007-08 outcome. The improvement is largely the result of the flow-on effect of the improved outcomes flow for 2007-08 and 2008-09. The nett debt to revenue ratio has also reduced to 20%, a slight improvement from the 23% in May 2008 and a significant improvement from the 61% recorded in 2001-02. This improvement is despite the global financial crisis which has affected the valuation of long-term investments held in the Conditions of Service Reserve. During 2008-09 the Conditions of Service Reserve experienced an unrealised loss of $82m as a result of market conditions, and was valued at $345m as at 30 June 2009. However, I am pleased to report recent upward movements in market conditions have resulted in the vast majority of this unrealised loss being reversed by 30 September 2009, with the value now being $395m.
Nett financial liabilities have increased by $369m from the 2007-08 outcome, predominantly as a result of a lower discount rate used to value the Territory’s superannuation liabilities. In accordance with accounting standard requirements, the Territory’s superannuation liability has been re-valued using the 10-year bond rate as at 30 June 2009. Until 2007-08 the 10-year bond rate had been relatively stable; however, with the advent of the credit crisis in 2007-08 and the global financial crisis in 2008-09, the bond rate has fluctuated significantly between reporting periods. It was 5.6% at 30 June 2009 compared with 6.5% at 30 June 2008. This has resulted in a large increase in the estimate of the present value of the Territory’s superannuation liability. Accordingly, the nett financial liabilities to revenue ratio as at 30 June 2009 has increased to 90% from the 87% achieved in 2007-08.
Before I conclude, it is important to note that the 2008-09 financial statement is the second year the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement has been prepared in accordance with the new harmonised accounting standard - AASB1049 –Whole of Government and General Government Sector Financial Reporting and, I am pleased to say, has again resulted in an unqualified audit opinion. The 2008-09 outcome shows this government is committed to managing the Territory’s finances responsibly through this period of economic uncertainty, whilst maintaining our commitment to invest in Territory infrastructure and support Territory jobs and the economy.
The challenge over the next two to three years will be managing the effect of timing differences each year as the cash surplus from 2008-09 flows through to the budget and future years, maintaining a surplus operating balance to support capital investment and limiting the expenditure growth in future years in line with the Territory’s fiscal strategy.
Madam Speaker, I table the 2008-09 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Speaker, I move the Assembly take note of the paper.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Moil Primary School students accompanied by Ms Brenda Kellam and Mrs Rhonda Jones. On behalf of honourable members, I extended to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Postponement of Intervening Business
Postponement of Intervening Business
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I also extend a warm welcome to all the students from Moil Primary School. I know they are going to have a great time learning in Parliament House today.
I move intervening business be postponed until after consideration of Government Business Orders of the Day No 2 relating to the ministerial statement on Indigenous Economic Development. This is by agreement with the opposition and Independents in relation to the committee stage of the Hospital Boards Bill.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Statement - Indigenous Economic Development
Note Statement - Indigenous Economic Development
Continued from 19 October 2009.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I reiterate parts of what I spoke about last night. I referred to a book titled The Birth of Plenty, How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created written by William Bernstein in which he outlined the four basics you need for a country or community to generate wealth and sustain it; those four things being private ownership, scientific rationalisation, capital, and an efficient communication and transport system.
I also discussed last night a statement and words expressed by a former ALP member of this House, Dr Peter Toyne, which I will use in the next five minutes, where he stated you cannot keep Aboriginal people in a cultural museum and they have to get out into the real world.
I continue on from last night on page 4 of the minister’s statement, where it says in paragraph 2: ‘Indigenous Territorians earn far less’. And then in paragraph 3: ‘They own far less’.
There has been an issue in recent years but, to generate wealth one needs access to capital. To get access to capital you need something to put up - either a very good idea, extremely good references, or something you are prepared to lose. If you do not have any of those things, then financial institutions worldwide are reluctant to lend money. For people starting businesses, someone has to either give them something or back them for their financial losses should they walk away from any ventures. Therein lies the issue of the first point of generating wealth: private ownership.
I now quote from the fifth paragraph which said:
- Given the Northern Territory’s unique demographics, we simply cannot develop in any meaningful way without economic development for Indigenous Territorians.
I agree with that; I do not have a problem with it, and I believe the Aboriginal people of the Territory have to engage in what is going on in mainstream Australia.
I heard an interview on the ABC with Chief Louie, who was in Alice Springs for the recent Indigenous conference held there. Chief Louie was talking about business for First Nations - as he called them – and he made a statement I found very interesting, which actually fits in with the four principles of generating wealth. He said: ‘You cannot have companies and businesses based on race’. He said they had tried it, and it does not seem to work. He said you need to integrate into the business community. I touch on something else someone else said here last night: there is no black, white or in between, there is just the right way to do things.
I was quite impressed with some of the things Chief Louie said, and I mention them in this House because I am hoping the minister might take some of those on board in relation to developing training programs to get the word out to these people. I believe he said there are 100 000 people who live outside Darwin in our regional towns and communities.
I have not heard, in this debate so far, the word ‘entrepreneur’. Actually, I have heard it once, and that was last night, by the member for Barkly, when he spoke about an entrepreneurial young fellow. There is a need to get those messages out there, and get these people understanding how to generate sustainable wealth. It is imperative the government look at ways of not only educating people in numeracy and literacy, but also the fundamentals of generating business.
We move down the page a bit …
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask the member be given an additional 10 minutes.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Further down on page 4, the minister stated:
- My personal challenge is to contribute in a meaningful and lasting way to this process of development, to act as the voice for regional Territorians within government, and to spread the word about the fantastic opportunities that exist.
First, you have to get people out there to explain opportunities, then you have to find out from Aboriginal people what they see as the opportunities and, then, give them some training on how to be an entrepreneur.
One of the major problems at the moment is, to be successful and sustainable in business, there needs to be a commitment. You need to be able to get up in the morning, and turn up, five days, six days, or seven days a week if you are in business. You need to be able to function properly, so you need education. All the governments around Australia and, in fact, the world, are trying to educate their people as fast as they can. There is some debate on how we go about that, but the fact remains, in many communities and rural communities, we have a housing problem.
People have to be able to get a good night’s sleep. When you have overcrowding - and I accept when you have overcrowding and you are trying to get these people to get up in the morning and go to work - if there have been arguments, fighting, drug abuse, and all sorts of terrible things going on in the night, it is hard to get up in the morning.
When we talk about housing, we have to come back to SIHIP, and the failure of this government to get houses on the ground. This is not a housing program, we are talking about an emergency housing program and, in two years, there is not one house completed.
How do we go out there and encourage these people to get into business, or to become entrepreneurs, when it is hard to even get up in the morning? Then people lose motivation, and it is about motivation. Business is about motivating people and finding out what motivates them. In this House last night, the member for Barkly gave us the example of a young man from Bootu Creek who worked hard, got his education, started work, was earning a good income, bought a car, then even wanted to go out, perhaps, and have a look at Collingwood - although I do not know why anyone would want to have a look at Collingwood. Obviously, I am not a supporter. There are some basics you have to get right before you can have the other four issues of wealth creation present in any community, and that is private ownership.
I move to the next page where the minister said:
- Almost half of all Territorians, some 100 000 people, live outside Darwin in our towns and communities, or at mining sites or on pastoral properties.
How do we stimulate these people? How do we get Aboriginal entrepreneurs to create things? There are some great examples of Aboriginal entrepreneurs, and we have to look to those people. How do we get these people to go out, en masse, to motivate and train other people to become entrepreneurial in their thinking?
I move to page 7, where it said:
- As members would be aware, Madam Speaker, our A Working Future policy has six elements:
We have yet to see it:
I thought SIHIP would have fitted into there really well, but we see it is not happening as it should:
Employment and economic development;
These are great statements; however, what we are seeing is more of the same. It is almost like motherhood statements: ‘This is what we are going to do’, ‘We are going to do this’, ‘We are going to do that’, ‘We are going to resolve this’, and ‘We are going to fix that’. However, we do not see how in this document - only more statements and more of the same.
I go to page 12 of the statement, where it said:
- We need to take more calculated risks and learn from our experiences.
Mainstream Australia has been doing this for a long time. There are many people out there who started somewhere. Many have lost time, money, and some have even lost their assets but, at some stage, people have to go out and take calculated risks. They need to understand they might lose something. Therein lies the basic fundamental of being an entrepreneur: you have to go out knowing you have something to lose, which drives you to create. When we talked about creating wealth, people need the four things I spoke about from The Birth of Plenty, How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created.
The next paragraph said:
- Madam Speaker, as the saying goes, if we continue to do what we have always done, we will continue to get what we have always got.
That is a time-honoured saying. For years, all governments of many persuasions have been saying the same thing. I see, in this document, the government saying, ‘We are going to do more of the same’. I do not see how we are going to motivate these people out there to do the sort of things you need to create wealth.
I move to the next page, and quote from page 13:
- It is our vision that respect will underpin effective and successful business dialogue and develop into long-term commercially sustainable partnerships.
It is a great statement, and I believe it is very important everyone has respect, because respect underpins just about everything we do in our life. However, at the end of the day, you need a little more, which I do not see in this section. Someone still has to sign on the dotted line and put up something they have to lose. The international community and money organisations will not lend to people on a whim or a good story. People want to know, because they have been burnt time and time again in the past, that people have something to lose; they have some drive to get up in the morning and go to work and, when things get a little difficult, they do not just pack up and say: ‘Ah well, I have nothing to lose, so I just stay home. I do not get out of bed, or we go somewhere else and do something else’. They walk off and leave whatever it is they started, and leave many people out of pocket.
In any venture in life which requires capital, someone, somewhere, has to pay. There is no such thing as a free ride or a free lunch. People may say: ‘It is not my money, it is not the bank’s money’. But if it is the taxpayers’ money, then the taxpayer pays. For too many years, we have seen people who get all these taxpayer-funded things, and they go out, spend money; they have great plans and ideas but, when it gets too hard, they walk away.
We have to change that, otherwise we go back to page 12 of the statement where it says, if you continue to do the same thing over and over again, you are probably going to get the same result. It is also very close to the definition of insanity: if you keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, then I believe you need to go and talk to someone about your state of mind.
We are required to get out there, train these people and demonstrate to them you have to put up something, you have to have a commitment; and commitment does not come in a couple of minutes, and nor should it only last a couple minutes.
The next section I have highlighted says:
- … the strategy seeks to equip and empower Indigenous Territorians to take control of their assets, and to make informed choices about the pace and direction of their economic future.
I want to see the government move out there and deal with some of the land councils, and look at creating private ownership in many areas along the same lines other Australians have.
I see a lack of entrepreneurial training, and training in relation to venture capital in this statement. It deals with land ownership, which really needs to be looked at. Basically, we see more of the same through the whole statement. I am about to run out of time, but there are so many notes that show how close this statement is to the past. If we continue to do the same thing over and over again, I do not believe we are going to get a good result for Aboriginal Territorians. I encourage the government to get out there and encourage people to fit in with mainstream Australia, and face the real world.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, your time has expired.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of the statement delivered by the Minister for Regional Development.
Having listened to other members who have participated in this debate yesterday and, again this morning, I heard many broad-brush, sweeping, negative statements which indicate all in Indigenous economic development in the Northern Territory is doom and gloom, and the government is not doing anything. This could not be further from the truth, which is why these debates are so important for local members to be able to throw in their 10 worth, including those who represent bush electorates, where we know there is much movement. There are some very positive achievements, and these types of achievements do not receive recognition.
This is why it is so important, when we look at regional development, to look at individual regions. The opposition seems to have this mindset of talking about the whole of the Territory, in broad-brush, sweeping statements, without taking the opportunity to drill down and see what is happening out there on the ground. It probably has much to do with the fact they do not represent any of the bush electorates, so I suspect they do not know what they are talking about.
The minister has held responsibility for this important portfolio for just over 12 months, which is the same time I have been in my role as the local member for Nhulunbuy, a regional and bush electorate. I share with the minister his, and this government’s, concerns; there is a large segment of people in our society who do not enjoy equal participation in our economy, and Indigenous Territorians are three times more likely to be unemployed than non-Indigenous people.
This scenario is reflected in my electorate. The whole reason for Nhulunbuy’s existence, originally, was a mining community which has provided, for close to 40 years, thousands of well-paid jobs directly and, no doubt, tens of thousands of other employment prospects, indirectly. There have been millions of dollars in export earnings and, yes, millions of dollars in royalties for the benefit of Indigenous people.
However, for a community which is so rich with resources and opportunities, how is it that my Indigenous constituents are so underrepresented in the workforce? If mining has brought benefits to the Northern Territory, then those benefits are spread fairly disproportionately amongst its people. This is why it is so important - in fact, it is critical – as a government, we have a strategy which focuses on how we can engage with Territorians in the economic activity of the Northern Territory. This is to ensure people and communities can be self-reliant and self-determining and Indigenous people, in particular, are encouraged, engaged, and supported to be able to do so, given they make up one-third of our population and, in my electorate, make up half of the population. In other bush electorates, that figure is much higher.
I received a briefing late last month on the draft of the Indigenous Economic Development Strategy 2009-2012, and welcome its delivery at a time when we are witnessing unprecedented progress - and I mean real progress - in policy development and service delivery at a federal and Territory level, to address closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. A Working Future, Territory Growth Towns, Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, A Smart Territory, and Territory 2030, are some of the overarching strategies which are the platforms and catalysts for real change, and a new and much more positive future.
I would have loved to travel to Alice Springs a couple of weeks ago to participate in the Indigenous Economic Development Forum but, unfortunately, I was simply unable to attend. From the Gove region, there were 20 people who made the journey, and most of them Yolngu. Feedback I have received has been extremely positive. Listening to other members addressing this House yesterday and this morning, it seems to have been case it was an extremely positive forum.
The Monday after the forum, two of my constituents, from the homeland community of Nyinyikay, Megan and her mother, Nancy, called in to my office before they travelled back to Nyinyikay. They told me travelling to Alice Springs was the furthest they had ever been from their home, but were so pleased to have made the journey. They said they had learnt so much listening and speaking with others, and were surprised by how many people wanted to speak with them, including the media, to learn what they were doing at Nyinyikay with their cultural tourism business. It literally opened a whole new world for these ladies to discover not only were they successful, but other people had also recognised their success. In fact, the Indian chief - Chief Clarence, I believe his name is - who was one of the keynote speakers from Canada, travelled to Nyinyikay for a visit a couple of days after that, to see firsthand what these Indigenous Territorians were doing in the homeland community of Nyinyikay.
These strategies are real and are happening, though as always, never fast enough. I take this opportunity to highlight some of the very positive things which are occurring in my electorate. All too often, these things which are happening on the ground seem to be overlooked. I mentioned earlier Indigenous people are underrepresented in the mining community of my electorate. However, let me qualify that statement, especially in light of an enormous body of work undertaken by Rio Tinto Alcan and its predecessor, Alcan, which saw a targeted Indigenous employment and training program launched in the year 2000. What is now called the ALERT Program is seeing good success in providing nationally accredited training programs, and seeing participants provided with a high level of support around work readiness, numeracy and literacy, to graduate with a set of new skills and with very real employment prospects on completion of the course.
Notably, the achievements of Rio Tinto Alcan and its ALERT Program have recently been recognised at the Northern Territory Training Awards. Whilst Rio Tinto Alcan is determined to see an increase - a sustained increase - in its Indigenous employment figures, it is simply wrong to assume the mining industry is an industry where all Yolngu people want to, or even aspire to, work. Let us face it, 12-hour working days, in the heat, in a hazardous chemical environment is simply not everyone’s cup of tea.
Many of the Yolngu people I know possess no shortage of talent, skills, and knowledge, and are driven by a certain passion. With that background, and with government support, there have been some real success stories including in the area of ecotourism ventures on homelands. I remember the member for Arnhem speaking yesterday, and she is quite right in acknowledging the land inspires Indigenous people. It is at the heart of their culture, and is at the very core of their being. Anything we can do to support Indigenous people working on country is something we will continue to do.
The minister mentioned in his statement Timmy Burarrwanga and his Bawaka Cultural Tours. This venture was set up by Timmy and his family with good support from the government. Their beautiful and pristine homeland is located on the shores of Port Bradshaw, about one hour’s drive – in a four-wheel-drive - from Nhulunbuy. It was a vision the family had held for many years, which came into being with the mining company’s G3 expansion project some years ago - in 2004, I believe it was - and a need for the company to be able to provide leisure activities for the fly-in, fly-out construction workforce. This venture at Bawaka has been sustained, and grown well beyond the life of Nhulunbuy’s mining expansion project.
I made my first visit to Bawaka in March, and was part of a group of government employees from the Department of Housing and Local Government, who were making the two-day and one-night visit as part of a pilot program which was being delivered: a cross-cultural awareness course. One of the criticisms I hear is those in the government sector who are delivering services to Indigenous people need to have a greater understanding of Indigenous knowledge and culture in order to better communicate with Indigenous clients and be successful in service delivery.
The course was absolutely brilliant, and something I will remember for a very long time. I know those sentiments were shared by all the other participants. Since then, there have been other groups of public servants from the East Arnhem region, including our local police officers, who have attended the course at Bawaka and found it to be extremely worthwhile, with lifelong lessons learnt. Bawaka also caters for tourists who are looking for a cultural experience, including the special Gay’wu Women’s Program, and an insight into Yolngu way of life. With it come visits to beautiful special areas and unique things like collecting bush tucker.
Bawaka’s success has been underpinned by strong support from the Territory government and through Tourism NT. The Yolngu Tourism Hub, located in Nhulunbuy, has provided enormous background support to existing and emerging tourism businesses in north-east Arnhem Land. It was welcome news to learn that, in July of this year, the Australian government, through the Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations, along with Tourism NT, signed a funding agreement to see the continuation of support for the hub for the next two years. Currently, the hub, which has been hosted by the East Arnhem Shire, is going to a tender process to find a new host.
The hub looks after not only Bawaka, but also Nyinyikay, which I mentioned earlier, and supports the very special Rripangu Yirdaki workshops run by master yidaki maker and player, Djalu Gurruwiwi.
A key to providing support to these emerging tourism businesses has been the delivery of the Stepping Stones for Tourism program.
I also mention the success of the Arnhem Weavers business, located at the community of Mapuru near Elcho Island. Its tours, which see tourists from around Australia and overseas, have been running for several years but, in 2007, it sought support from Tourism NT which facilitated delivery of the Stepping Stones program. One of the Arnhem Weavers, one of my constituents, Roslyn, said, and I quote from the September 2007 edition Tourism NT’s indigenous development newsletter:
- Our dreams of making a future for our children is coming true. This is the support we have been working towards.
The Yilpara community is also about to step into the cultural tourism sector, something the people there have aspired to for some time, which is now becoming a reality. When I was there a few weeks ago, I was guided through the new venture, which was a hive of activity getting ready for a group of test tourists, as we call them, in the first weekend in October. This prevented the community’s ability to travel to Alice Springs for the Indigenous Economic Development Forum, because they had these tourists who were coming to the community.
Yilpara also has a very active group of rangers, employed through Yirralka Rangers as part of looking after the massive area which is the Laynhapuy Indigenous Protected Area, some 6900 km2 of land and 630 km of coastline. There are enormous employment opportunities which are very actively being taken up by people who are wanting to work on country; they possess this huge body of knowledge about country.
Another perfect example is the Dhimurru Rangers in Nhulunbuy, who also look after a large Indigenous protected area and, again, provide extensive employment opportunities - not CDEP, but real jobs - through its venture.
Going back to Yilpara, and the Yirralka Rangers, the Miyalk Rangers, or the lady rangers at Yilpara, have played a huge role in the development of this new tourism venture, and I was very impressed by what I saw. I was also impressed with the great sense of pride, ownership, and achievement these people have in seeing these dreams and their aspirations become a reality. I assured these ladies, in the knowledge of how successful similar businesses have been in north-east Arnhem region, there appeared to be no shortage of paying tourists from down south and overseas who would be more than willing to pay to come to their community for a very special experience.
What is notable, about all of these cultural ecotourism ventures, is they are not only successful and sustainable, but they are all located on homelands, and very remote ones. There are, obviously, lessons about what it is that makes these businesses successful and, without a doubt, in each of these communities there is a very strong sense of ownership, achievement, optimism, and confidence. What these do, by way of example, is to provide the confidence to other communities to be able to step forward and see their dreams become a reality. This is what the Indigenous Economic Development Forum did at Alice Springs; it provided a network, positive stories, and encouragement to others who were perhaps just stepping into that realm, or maybe still thinking about it.
Apart from these businesses in homeland communities, there should be confidence about taking on other paid jobs in the community. It is something I know my constituents aspire to. I mentioned it the other day when talking on the Chief Minister’s statement on Growing the Territory. People do aspire to work. Not everyone in our society aspires to work but, by and large, the message I get from my Indigenous constituents is they do aspire to work; to be able to do the jobs in their community where, currently, all too many are being done by non-Indigenous people who fly in and out.
This desire to work comes from people in communities - particularly the older people - who want to see a future for their children, and who also recognise that at the core is the need to recognise education is key to people’s futures. An ability to be able to read and write in English and to be numerate, whilst also - and I have said this previously - recognising their culture is strong, important, and is not in any way compromising what they already have.
To achieve that, we need to provide the right training and support. The literacy and numeracy, so Indigenous people can, in the future, take on roles like teachers, nurses, doctors, pilots, tradesmen, plant operators, administrators, and, as the member for Nelson alluded to yesterday, bakers and hairdressers. Some Indigenous people on communities are doing these jobs, but we need to see more people in these roles.
I share an excerpt from Laynhapuy Homelands’ vision statement, which says:
- To determine our own future, to manage our own affairs, to become self sufficient so the homeland mala (leader) can continue to live in peace and harmony.
I also put on the public record it mission statement:
(1) To support the Yolngu members of the Homeland communities serviced by the Association through programs that deliver: maintenance and protection of country and culture; employment, training and economic development opportunities; good standards of communications and infrastructure in the homelands; and, good health, social welfare, community development and educational outcomes.
This vision is not unlike the government’s for Indigenous people, including and especially those on homeland communities. When the Chief Minister and I travelled to the community of Gurrumurru, on 27 July to meet with the mala leaders, these were the very things we talked about. The Chief Minister gave Laynhapuy Homelands and the mala leaders every assurance we were determined to work with them and to share that vision with them.
I also acknowledge the work of Laynhapuy Homelands CEO, Ms Yananymul Mununggurr, who is a dedicated, driven, and passionate woman. She was recognised last year as one of five Territory women for her outstanding achievement in the Territory and for what she does for homeland communities. Laynhapuy Homelands has around 27 homelands it is looking after, which are home to close to a 1000 people. In my dealings as local member, I have much to do with Laynhapuy Homelands, and I have great admiration for its drive.
No one doubts the enormity of the task in front of us. We are faced with turning around some of the entrenched attitudes, which the member for Nelson spoke of; about generational welfare and dependency. What is apparent to me, especially after listening to other members, is the importance of regions and the need for each region to work towards finding regional solutions. This is exactly what the minister meant when he acknowledged a one-size–fits-all approach would not work and, hence, the Indigenous Economic Development Strategy takes a place-based approach.
I had a conversation with one of my constituents recently, a businessman who challenged the need for an Indigenous Economic Development Strategy, in the belief such a strategy should sit under the banner of a broadly regional economic strategy. I had to disagree with him, recognising Indigenous people face unique challenges in economic development and capacity building. However, I also remembered a comment from the former Minister for Indigenous Policy, the member for Macdonnell, who said in this House, some months ago she hoped one day there would be no need for a Minister for Indigenous Policy. I would like to believe, some time in the future - though I suspect it is many years away - we will arrive at a time when there will not be a need for an Indigenous Economic Development Strategy, but just a regional economic development strategy. In the meantime, this government will continue to work in partnership with the Australian government, the private sector, and Indigenous Territorians …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, member for Johnston and Madam Speaker, but I will not need 10 minutes.
… to do everything we can to advance the status of Indigenous people and to close the gap on decade upon decade of disadvantage.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for his statement and his ongoing commitment to our regional areas and all who live there, especially our Indigenous population.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, with the member for Wanguri, I have spent 10 years in this parliament, with an interest in matters pertaining to all Territorians, and listened to a number of statements. Statements were issued and described in my first couple of years by the Country Liberal Party, then in government, and now by the Labor government.
During that time, I have witnessed debates where there was some enthusiasm and belief in what one was doing. I almost did not bother speaking on this, because I have heard it before. I believe one must be inspired and have some passion and honesty if we are really going to take this issue on and leave ourselves at the end of this with a legacy we can be proud of, other than words spoken in parliament.
As I was listening to the words, I noted the member for Nhulunbuy and a couple of the other members from the government, were a little sensitive in response to the comments which have been made by members of the opposition and said: ‘There have been some good things that have happened, and it seems to be quite negative what the opposition is saying’.
There is a first step; a philosophical difference in how economic development occurs. I do not hear from my Labor colleagues a real description of an underlying philosophy. What we see is a description of layer upon layer of activity and endeavour to create the impression, by virtue of programs which are being run, that something is happening which is beneficial to the recipient, the focus of those programs. We do not hear much about the one who is there to be helped by the program; it appears to be an extraordinary level of faith and confidence in programs themselves being the solution. I completely refute that; I do not accept it for a moment. My faith is in people; they have the capacity to get up and make a difference, but programs do little to effect change.
This is a philosophical difference; our arguments come from a different place. If they run contrary to or create the impression they are critical of the position you hold, we need to have a proper discussion on the basis of how economic development occurs, and sustain the argument. You may have a contrary view, but the arguments need to be run, rather than getting precious about negativity and passing it off as not a very sophisticated argument. Nor do I hear much of a description about the underlying philosophy and how that can effect change from honourable members on the government benches.
Once again, it is a focus on programs. I have heard this for 10 years or more. You only have to read program upon program, see money being shovelled into fund programs, then take a tour and look into the faces of the confused, the bewildered, and the dispirited, and wonder how we are going to effect change. Is a new tweak to the program or more money being spent going to bring a spark of light and hope into those who are dispirited and confused in the remote communities?
You can point to all sorts of things – like the spirit of life. You can see people out there who are trying hard, and they are making a go of things, against the odds in many respects. Just recently, we heard story after story during the tour through Central Australia, particularly notable from those who had some degree of understanding of what was going on. Their battle was not with the entrepreneurial spirit, and how you fan that flame, but trying to understand what the next four-wheel drive containing people with clipboards is there for, and how they can help. They seem to be getting in the way, rather than hearing what it is you are trying to do and how they can help you; how they stand alongside you and assist you to get from where you are to another place, rather than standing in front of you and providing all sorts of explanations which bear no connection to where the person was at. It was quite noticeable.
Some understood, to some degree, what was happening. They had made a decision to live in this community, and had lived there for many years. It was a non-Indigenous person who had the capacity to provide some interpretation of what was going on, contrasted with other communities where the same level of help was being provided. Yet, you could see the confusion, the resignation, the bewilderment: ‘What the hell is this about?’ People were coming and asking them questions or offering assistance and talking at them, not to them, and not listening to what they were saying.
It really came to mind when the member for Macdonnell said yesterday in her comments, there was a decision to grow some things – olives, in this particular case. They wanted some jars to help with the project of putting the olives into jars; but that help was not provided. But, I bet you there was a whole range of other help provided to that community, but not the help they needed to take them from where they were to where they would be next; from the known to the unknown. You can have programs, but they are not there to help those who are running them, they are there to help those who need the assistance. It is a bit like saying the operation - as I am hearing from members opposite - has been a success, but I fear the patient is dying. The patient is the one we need to recognise.
How do we bring life into the patient? There are operations being conducted. First, there has to be some recognition it is the person, the individual, who needs to have some motivation. I am very pleased comments have been made in the Chamber, most notably by the member for Fong Lim, regarding the need for welfare reform. It has been echoed through many of the comments. It goes right to the philosophical difference.
You cannot provide education, or stand in front of a class and teach, if they do not want to learn. How do you create the motivation? You cannot offer job and employment programs to those who do not want to work. How do you create the desire to learn and work? You have to create motivation. It is similar to when you have kids and you want to give them some sense of pride and endeavour, the idea of saving, of putting in an effort and getting a reward. You do not just give them money. I did not do that with my kids. I could have given them an allowance, not caring whether they did their jobs or not, and they get the same. It would be a poor parent who would give kids an allowance, whether they did their basic duties or not; that is the purpose of it.
You have to build some capacity, some basic understanding – effort and reward. If you do not have that as a foundation stone or a building block, you have Buckley’s chance of taking it to the next step. It is like trying to have a ladder with no rungs on it - you do not go anywhere. That is the first thing, and is why the issue of welfare reform is so serious. If you cannot reconstruct at that point, you cannot go anywhere, because you have to create the need.
A few years ago, I was at the Alice Springs Telegraph Station, and there was a gentleman who told us a story. He said he was from the Stolen Generations. He was asked his view by someone in the crowd. They were all expecting a story which we often get, the politically correct message, but he said what he believed. He said: ‘I reckon it was good, and I reckon what happened here was the beginnings of the problem we see all through the streets of Alice Springs, across the Territory, and the nation’. Someone asked: ‘What was that?’ He said: ‘When this telegraph station was built, there were Aboriginal people living in the vicinity who came in and, once they came in, there was a change of policy, and they thought they would feed them there, as they had the flour, the tea and the sugar. So they came in. They were there and they then fed them and then they stayed. They had no motivation whatsoever to go anywhere. They stayed there, and then expected to be sustained there’. He said: ‘If you take that food away, or they had to do something to get that food, they would have maintained their dignity, but the dignity disappeared and diminished, and then it morphed into substance abuse, because there was no effort put in, no reward, and the dignity that comes from the taking of a reward is something far more valuable than the money handed out, the program delivered, or the cost of that program’.
He saw the change and described what he saw - the death as a result of this policy. We have heard it described many times, but I do not think we can ignore it. I am particularly struck, as any member would be, my background being on the land, looking at those older Aboriginal men, in particular, walking around dressed as stockmen. It makes me a little sad when I see it because, on one hand, I am warmed to see the dignity with which they wear their hat, their boots, their Wrangler jeans, their checked shirt, and how proud they feel. The sad part is, it is a distant memory when they had real value as a stockman, highly prized in the industry. There was the time way back when that occurred yet, today, years later, they still wear the gear.
That tells us we have to go back somewhere. We have to take the steps to provide the capacity for the level of dignity which comes from recognising effort, and the reward which comes from effort is more valuable than anything. That is the antidote.
Instead, we are talking about a whole level of programs. Fine. Programs, programs, programs. On my trip through Central Australia recently, I saw a program in operation. I have mentioned it before. There were probably seven to nine Aboriginal stockmen, dressed up in their gear, wanting somewhere to go, something to round up, something to do. Someone had come along to them, without any government money, who had recognised they had the capacity and they had interest in the camels: ‘If we could round these camels up, and you could lend some of my gear, and I could show you how to do this, we will round the camels up and then we will take them off to market’. They were involved in something real. This was not very long ago. When Ian Conway turned up, they came out, hoping it would be soon they could round the camels up. ‘How much government money has gone into this, Ian?’ ‘Not a red cent, not a skerrick. I brought my own yards across, I have arranged this myself, because I cannot get any practical help, so I am going to roll my sleeves up and do my bit’.
What was most impressive about this was the bearing of those men who had been involved in the camel muster, and the reward they got; the money in the bank. They were making decisions about how they were going to spend that money. They decided they would buy a vehicle. It was not a huge amount. However, they wanted to be involved in the next exercise. They were standing with their gear on and all they wanted to know was when the next round-up was.
We went and visited the school. There were half as many bureaucrats at the school - two four-heel drives - as there were students. There were six students in the class, a teacher, and two other senior members of the department of Education having a chat in the staffroom. An interesting conversation.
We left the staffroom to walk outside and there was a free-standing besser block wall without any internal support. Someone said: ‘Whilst you are here I need to draw your attention to this wall’. It is the sort of wall you sometimes see in school, where they hit a tennis ball against it, throw a basketball at it and it bounces back, or they hit something over. The wall had been there some time and there was no internal support. Someone, with great concern, raised this with the senior bureaucrat, saying: ’We asked for this to be removed 18 months ago. Why has nothing happened?’ He took it on board: ‘Yes, you are right. We are going to tender that job and it will be fixed’. Two of us went to the wall and you could shake it. Standing within a stone’s throw away were seven to nine stockmen waiting for something to do.
The program will be in place to issue a tender to someone in Alice Springs with a ute, who will drive out and knock the wall down. They have all the right certificates, while those men are watching DVDs. That was the only thing they had planned, but they were waiting for someone, off the sweat of their own brow, because of their compassion and interest, to get their own equipment and help these men do something. Meanwhile, they sit and watch DVDs - Battlestar Gallactica, I believe they were watching - lying around on mattresses, waiting for something to happen. Could they not have been given the opportunity – ‘Hey, you men, we will give you some money to knock that wall over and dump the bricks into the gully’. That could happen, and they could have a little extra money and make some decisions, and feel special. They had been denuded of any opportunity through the delivery of big programs which you talk about here and say the program is doing this, that or the other. What is the intent of it? The fact is, the result of it is nothing.
The operation may be successful - the statement may be lauded - but I fear the patients are dying.
Welfare reform, properly considered and carefully implemented, will effect the necessary motivation and the basic concept of effort and reward. If you do not have that, you do not have any courage to change. You do not have any motivation, desire, or need to change; you stay within your comfort zone. You know that is the case. Look at your own children. It then applies across the board.
There is, therefore, the need to change with welfare reform, then breathing life into the notion of private enterprise and personal endeavour. If you have some courage to make a move, because you have been motivated to do so and you think it is going to be okay, it will. If you put in a bit of effort you will get a reward. You imprint that as a basic concept.
That gives you the courage to take a risk, to do something and say: ‘I reckon if we plant oranges’ – as we saw at Wallace Rockhole. They have an orange grove, and have put much effort into it. It was a government program, so they had everything they needed. They even had a greenhouse, they were off and running. They started to get themselves interested, under the leadership of one of the members of the community, and they got involved in it. It looked good - nice orange trees - but the program changed. The orange trees are still there, but there is no money for any of the efforts or the activities surrounding the training and so on. Great program, but the program changed.
Who can say the operation was a success? We are ticking a few boxes; the government is here to help. The trees are dead - no, they are not dead, but they do not look too flash. But the community spirit has died. That is another project which cost much money. It satisfied someone somewhere, but not the community; the entrepreneurial spirit is damaged.
We went to another community where there is another garden. No one even bothered to get involved in it. Yet, some bloke was trying to whip them into line saying: ‘Come on’. But they had given up being involved in such ‘programs’, because the courage they showed once, twice or three times has not been accompanied with a reward for the confusion.
Everywhere I went I kept hearing about layer upon layer of bureaucracy, and vehicle after vehicle. It leads me to a lasting impression I have of a trip I took to Alice Springs, mid-year, when I took taxi rides all over Alice Springs and to local shopping centres …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with section 77, I move the member be given additional time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, member for Brennan, Madam Speaker, and colleagues. I have spoken about the wall which was wobbling, where you could have, at least, with recognising what programs are for, directed those resources in a way which built some capacity and belief within the community. I have spoken about gardens which have died and stockmen wearing their gear, with memories of things past.
One image I had, on my trip to Alice Springs when I visited shopping centres and asked people to tell me their story - checkout people, people outside, people who made pizzas, taxi drivers, and the people standing in front of the takeaway alcohol store. As I was waiting outside one of the shopping centres, I saw down the road, as I walked, the new Central Land Council building, and I thought it was a very impressive edifice. I did not know what it was to start with - it is a very impressive building. The contrast between what I saw first - two old men dressed as stockmen - and then, a lady, eyes glazed, rocking backwards and forwards and, beside her, her friend who was unconscious on the footpath, at about 2 pm, both roughly the age of my daughter, who is 25.
These girls would have been perhaps 17, 18, 19, 20, I do not know. However, the contrast between what I saw on the footpath and that edifice struck a chord. I do not know what it is, but there is something really wrong. I have seen and heard many things. I have heard statements in here, and I fear we just will continue. But, we cannot continue.
You probably want me to unpack that image and what conclusions I draw. However, the messages I heard were the systems - the bureaucracy, the decision-making processes - are so convoluted and self-serving they do not drive real change to those who most need it. Unless you can deliver real change which is to the benefit of those who most need it - those who do not have voices, or the capacity to find their way from the known to the unknown - then all of our work comes to nothing. It might be a fine building, there may be expensive programs and a belief this new direction is going to produce something but, unless you attend to the underlying deeper issues - as the member for Sanderson quite rightly said – and keep doing the same thing and expecting different results, you are mad.
I am pleased there have been some other people who have contributed to this debate to put on record the need to go a little deeper. A round of applause for the endeavour being displayed in this statement. I do not wish it to fail or anything like that, but I fear if we do not attend to some of the deeper issues – if I am in parliament in another 10 years time and look back over 20 years, I hope we are not just saying the same things. If you are teacher, you cannot really teach and have kids learn if they do not really want to learn. You cannot have a program which is going to create employment opportunities if no one really wants to work. You cannot create that want unless you give the basic concept of effort and reward. We have to start there; it is pretty basic stuff.
I hope what I have said now and what was said previously adds to the register of the things we need to attend to in order to effect real change. Some members on the other side have probably seen more than I have. I do not want to discount my own experiences, because I see it in an urban environment - in Moulden, Gray, and reflected in the communities there. We have some real issues at hand and I wish members of the government well. However, I hope they recognise there is need to dig much deeper, otherwise, I fear, those who have contributed in positive terms to this statement - and only positive terms - with faint regard to the other issues which need to be attended to, will be here in 10 years time saying the same thing, and have what we currently see across the Territory - those who are remote from this parliament suffering, as they suffer now.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement; it has been enlightening to listen to all members who have contributed to the debate.
The Leader of the Opposition said he does not want to be standing here in 10 years time hearing the same rhetoric. When you research and look back over different speeches you have made in parliament, and at the history of Indigenous affairs or regional economic development - I went back, and it is always interesting to look over the old Parliamentary Records at the different debates which have occurred in this parliament - you see a theme arising in them. Some have brought up the same regurgitated, empty rhetoric of the bygone era of the CLP, but there have been many members - I was listening to the member for Port Darwin during his speech. Being here since 2001, we might not have agreed on a number of things, but there is no doubting his passion or conviction, both as the former member for Macdonnell, and one who continues to support and look at what the solutions are to what we all think have been intractable problems for a long time amongst Indigenous people.
In reply to a statement made on 7 March 2002, I stated, from my electorate:
- Aboriginal people in my electorate, and throughout the Territory, also wish to preserve their culture and their traditional way of life. The leaders and thinkers amongst them want to improve their standard of living in terms of health, education, and real jobs.
There is a real perception from people who come from the general population, as the member for Nhulunbuy said, that there are Aboriginal people on the ground who do want to change - the leaders, the thinkers of our people do want to change. It is not just our elders, but there is a real change amongst some of our young people, and it is those people we continue to support.
I went on to say:
- It is only the narrow-minded and ill-informed who equate Aboriginal traditional culture and value with what they consider to be a rudimentary, nomadic, subsistence economy. Yes, our skills in terms of fishing, hunting, and gathering have, throughout our history, been part and parcel of our lifestyle, and our pride in those skills will remain. But our pride in that regard, and our continued adherence to the beliefs and obligations associated with our dreaming and ceremonies, does not mean that Aboriginal communities cannot develop modern skills - including skills involving the use of state-of-the-art machinery and computer software. These are the type of skills that will be needed to enable Aboriginal enterprises to compete in the mainstream economy.
Many of our communities want to move in that way . If I look at the Arafura electorate - the minister, in previous reports, talked about the fibre-optic cable which has gone from Jabiru to Maningrida and across to Nhulunbuy – and the opportunities the fibre-optic cable provides for those communities, particularly the young people, on many of those remote homelands, with access to virtual schooling and opening up a whole new world for these kids.
If you listen to much of the debate, people often think it is all doom and gloom in our communities. There are problems like everywhere else, but you do not abandon those communities, or the issues, because it is too hard. You do not stand up and talk about them and say – and I pick one area in particular of the welfare reform agenda - that welfare reform is not needed in our urban centres as well as our remote communities. I believe if we are to tell the truth and look at society as a whole, if welfare reform is fault based - and it should be fault based - the Pearson model in Cape York would be a fantastic model and one we should be pursuing.
No one is saying it should not be put in place, but it is not just Aboriginal people who are dependent on welfare in this society. It is a problem nationally and throughout the Northern Territory; not just in remote Aboriginal communities. Yes, it is an issue. However, I have not heard members of the other side talking about that for a long time.
The CLP look to the CDEP program which has worked quite successfully in some communities. I know people have looked at CDEP as a welfare program. It is not. In some areas, it has been looked at as a genuine employment program which has provided a means for regional economic development to happen, and has laid the foundations for many enterprises in those areas to be created and sustained over time.
The Leader of the Opposition was talking about seeing programs come in to some communities - and we have all seen that - and then the goal posts change, and someone leaves, or the program funding is shifted to another priority. We have to ensure we continue and sustain those programs so people can have better working futures, particularly if we look at A Working Future policy as a whole. Aboriginal people’s working futures depend on the government and the public service which delivers the policies and works with the communities to implement those programs. It also ensures the money earmarked for development will be sustained beyond any one individual working with the program or implementing it.
I believe there has been a fundamental shift in the public service and the different agencies which work with those communities. It would be good to see the shift happen across the board; nevertheless, it has happened. All of us can see, within our own electorates, where there has been a fundamental shift in how the public service delivers and implements programs in our communities. I have seen the changes happen from when I became the elected member for Arafura in 2001. Whilst the opposition and others may think they are small changes, they have been fundamental changes. To see what has happened on the ground in those communities; there has been much positive development - not as much as people would like, but we have seen the fabric and structure of communities change.
If we are serious about regional economic development, one area which needs fundamental change - I note the minister’s statement regarding the regions, and I applaud him for his conviction with this – is we have to get our leadership, both in our remote communities - not just within the councils, or the land councils - and within the broader community, amongst parents and the school community. I remember the anxiety I felt, as the former minister for Education, regarding the whole issue of bilingual education, where people felt I was removing Aboriginal people’s rights to language, which was completely wrong. Aboriginal people should always be able to maintain their language and their rights to language. The most fundamental thing is the leadership and the urgency we need to show in education.
The Leader of the Opposition and, I believe, every member talked about – the member for Nhulunbuy - turning around that urgency, and making it happen amongst our parents, our leaders, everyone in the community; to see they have a responsibility, along with the government, to make sure kids go to school every day. If we do not turn around education, we will still be standing here in 10 or 15 years time talking about the same issue. Education is critical; we have to lay the foundations in our youth of today, because they are the leaders of tomorrow. I was only reflecting on this where, in my electorate, there has been a death of a very important leader, and a great sadness is stretching to all parts of Western Arnhem Land with the loss of this leader. With this loss there is a void of who will then go into the position and continue the valuable work and guidance, the teaching, the mentoring, the carrying of those stories and the language? Who is going to do that? That is the challenge continually facing our communities until we can embody and enrich our kids with an education to allow them that choice.
I know Malarndirri McCarthy has said this in the past, and I heard the member for Nelson talk about it yesterday: we have to give our kids an education so they have the opportunity to choose, if they want, to stay in their community, work in a program, and continue to lead within the community. That is fine; but it is that child or young person’s right to do that. If the young person wants to travel outside his or her community and find a job elsewhere, that is also fine, and should not be frowned upon, but should be supported.
Giving a child an education is giving that child the keys to the door, which opens up a world of opportunity for our kids. Whilst we talk about the challenges we have to face in the Northern Territory, I believe, as we, the government, and every member of this parliament, face those challenges, the biggest challenge is to put in the infrastructure to support communities so they can get their kids to school. Education is the greatest opportunity we are going to give children; to have access and equity to a good education, so they are able to make life choices in the future.
With that is a path we need to pursue in regional economic development. The future of our communities, our language, our culture, our land, and looking at the benefits of land for Aboriginal people and how they can get the benefits from their land, lies in education. Gaining an education arms young people with the knowledge they need - not just their Aboriginal knowledge, but also the knowledge which comes through the western education system. The world is changing; it evolves all the time. That is the path the government has to pursue, with bravery and courage, along with the risks.
Members - particularly on this side – meet, talk with, and work with the communities, schools and parents within our electorates. We talk about leadership and education all the time. I believe, at some point, you can sense change coming and, hopefully, we can continue to go down that track. The change I have seen in my own electorate, particularly the agreement the Chief Minister signed with ERA, along with the Jabiru School and Gunbalanya School, to provide a start for those young Binninj - those young Aboriginal kids - in that region to go from school to work transition, so they have the opportunity of not just working within their community, but also to leave the Gunbalanya community to live and work with the work crews on-site at the mine. It is their right to develop and be exposed to the work culture and ethic, and to see outside their community.
Others are choosing not to do that. Many are choosing to be part of the ranger programs, or the land management programs, with Caring for Country - and to see the pride amongst those rangers. All of us could have those programs in our electorates.
After talking to some of the teachers at Gunbalanya and Jabiru schools, they want to know how to integrate those programs as …
_____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, do you mind if I acknowledge these students in the gallery?
Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Moil Primary School students accompanied by Ms Peta Costello, Mrs Shirley Russell, and Ms Tamara Stenhouse. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Arafura.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: They are our future leaders, Madam Speaker. It is always great to see our young people from the schools coming into this parliament.
The agreement the Chief Minister signed with the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Education and Training, and Rob Atkinson, Chief Executive Officer, ERA, and David Patterson, the General Manager, is one which has been supported by not just the government, but also ERA, the schools, and the communities. They are talking about it more and more and wanting more of the young people to be involved in that process. It says to the young people, particularly at Gunbalanya, the momentum is gaining on the ground in the community and, if they go school every day, they can be part of this program, which can be school to work transition. Further down the track, when they do Year 11 or, if they want to, Year 12, there is hope of a job and training. This opportunity was not there before. Some of the tour operators working in or around Kakadu, or Gunbalanya, have approached me to have discussions about how the tourism industry can look at …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move the member be given an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
_______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, before I call you again, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Nightcliff Middle School students, accompanied by Mr Dave Poad. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_______________________
Ms SCRYMGOUR: These students are probably a generation closer than the other school class, to being future members of parliament one day. It is fantastic to see the young people who come in and have a look, and the interest they show.
The agreement between ERA, the government and DET is also being looked at in a positive light by the tourism operators and others within the Kakadu and Gunbalanya region, regarding working with the schools to do school-to-work transition with tourism and in other areas in the Kakadu region, which is fantastic. Whilst we can see there are issues and challenges we have to work towards, it is not just the government which is doing it; private enterprise is now looking at many of these areas and recognising they need to be part of it.
Looking at one community, sometimes, is problematic, because the opportunities are few and far between, when we look at the geographical location of some of our communities. However, if we look at regional economic development from a regional prospective, those things can work and can be sustained. If the commitment is there from the government, private enterprise, the communities, leaders within those communities, and the land councils, to look at and do things differently, and get those things happening, we can shift the view.
I worked with the land council in the 1980s, and I think of the work in the legal section where I worked. The big push was to get back as much Aboriginal land as possible - and the fights through that! Looking at what the role of the land council was then, to how the role has shifted now, has been fundamental. The land councils have shifted in leasing and private home ownership - I have seen that on the Tiwi Islands, and I know the people at Maningrida and Gunbalanya are thinking about it. The change has come through and the land councils are adapting to it. Some of those views are also changing in the government.
I commend the minister on his statement. We can focus on and say nothing has changed, but things have changed. The only thing which has not changed, listening to some of the members opposite - I pointed out the member for Port Darwin, but also the member for Katherine, and the changed views of the member for Fong Lim – is they are views from a bygone era. If the CLP want to be seen as representative, they need to get more in touch about what is happening in those remote communities and have a better relationship.
Sometimes those attitudes can be best summed up - and it is not about being sensitive, or overly sensitive – by the member for Sanderson, and his view on it, when he was saying, ‘those people’ - that rhetoric has gone. Aboriginal people have a huge investment; they are part of the Territory. When you talk about Indigenous or Aboriginal, whether it is regional economic development or education, it is not about putting Aboriginal people in a separate category, and saying ‘those people’, it is saying Aboriginal people have a huge stake in the Territory.
We are Territorians, and we want to see the Territory advance, to prosper and to grow, just as much as anyone else who calls themselves a Territorian and calls this great place home, where we have all chosen to live. We want to see this happen in our regions, and to get beyond the rhetoric of ‘those people’. It is not about being sensitive, it is about treating people with the respect they deserve and the role they play in the future of the Territory.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Note Statement - Indigenous Economic Development
Note Statement - Indigenous Economic Development
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, at the beginning of my statement I said regional development is a subject which should capture the hearts and minds of everyone in this House, and believe it has captured the hearts of my colleagues in this House.
I am enlightened by the number of contributions we had since yesterday afternoon; 17 members have contributed to this most important statement and, in my three years in this parliament, I have not experienced a statement which has captured members’ hearts. It has been a great moment for me to be a member of this parliament because, regardless of political ideology and political party lines, I have been encouraged by the contributions of all members.
We have a good mix of members in the Legislative Assembly: we have the former member for Solomon with his experience in the federal parliament; the member for Macdonnell, a former ATSIC Commissioner; and members on this side of the House who have been around the traps for a long time. I take seriously the views they have expressed in their contributions.
I take some of the criticisms made by members on the other side; saying it is a motherhood statement, they have heard it all before, it is all words, all program, and there is no real strategy behind this. I take those criticisms on board, and I will go back and work hard on delivering the strategy.
I thank the members on my side of the House, particularly my bush colleagues; I was enlightened by their comments. I know they work hard as local bush members; they get around to their communities, and they have been able to share some fantastic stories about their successes.
The Leader of the Opposition told some of the stories from his recent trip through Central Australia, and it is great he went. As bush members, we probably have many similar stories we could tell about things which get caught up in red tape. This happens not only in the Northern Territory, but through the Commonwealth government’s policies and programs.
But do we just give up? Is it all too hard? Members said they had heard it all before, and it was great the former member for Macdonnell, Neville Perkins, was here, because I am sure during his time as a member in this House, he spoke on many occasions about the same things we spoke about during the statement. But do we give up? Do we say it is all too hard, and put it in the too-hard basket? I am not a member who will give up. I am determined to make a difference, which is why I listened closely to everyone’s contributions. There are many good ideas from both sides of the House which I will take away and work on.
We do not give up. These types of statements will continue to come to this House, and I am sure there will continue to be programs and policies which governments will release, to try to make a difference. We cannot forget the reason we are in this parliament; because we all want to make a difference to the lives of Territorians, no matter where they live.
We use many buzz words during these statements and contributions, some of which were ‘leadership’ and ‘urgency’. But, there is no doubt we are all leaders in our own electorates in the Northern Territory community. We cannot give up; we need to show leadership, and it starts in this Assembly. This is what parliament is all about - the Westminster system. We need to inspire and encourage young people to achieve their dreams, and to find a job. We take it for granted sometimes. There may be many young Indigenous people, young Territorians, living in remote communities, who want a job. We need to develop policy and programs around seeing those young people achieve their dreams.
The shadow spokesman, the member for Braitling, was, generally, very positive, particularly about the Indigenous Economic Development Forum, which was justified because it was a great success. Some people may say it was just another talkfest, but I believe it was more than that. I am looking forward to the report from my department on the outcomes of the forum. Many of the discussions throughout the forum and during the break-out sessions and contributions from the private sector and Indigenous business people will come back to me, and will be put into the strategy. I will take that information away, and it may shape future policy. That is why we have these forums.
There was much good feedback from many of the Indigenous expo exhibitors; they gained much value. As the member for Nhulunbuy said, many of her constituents went down to Alice Springs for the first time, and it was a very valuable experience for them.
The member for Braitling was also very generous in his praise for the Northern Territory government and the East Arnhem fibre-optic project. He said we need more of that type of infrastructure, and roll-out of IT through our remote communities, and I agree. He acknowledged the federal government as being a partner of this, but the federal government was not a partner in the project. I give credit to the partners that were involved: Telstra, Rio Tinto Alcan, and the Northern Land Council. That is a great mix, and a good model of how the private sector and government can work together to really build some important infrastructure in the regions.
I noted also the member for Braitling requested an update on the NT government’s funding for community stores. While I acknowledge the importance of community stores, particularly as a bush member, I am not sure the NT government has any funding responsibility for them. I understand it is the federal government which is doing some great work in licensing the stores, while organisations such as Outback Stores and ALPA are managing the stores, which provide many employment opportunities. I have seen it firsthand in my own electorate, where Outback Stores has done a fantastic job to date. More importantly, as we know through the Northern Territory emergency response, it is also about improving the quality and the pricing of food in some of these remote communities.
I also thank the member for Braitling for sharing his ideas, especially with regard to tax breaks. I inform the House we are working on a tax incentive proposal, business support, and the economic development zones, which I am particularly interested in, as part of our overall strategy. I agree with the member for Braitling’s comments about having land tenure reforms, and the need for welfare reforms along with that; they need to go hand-in-hand.
The Chief Minister highlighted a range of training and employment programs the Territory government supports, including programs in Central Australia, the Barkly, and Eastern and Western Arnhem Land. He also talked about the agreement with ERA at Jabiru, which will lead to jobs and employment opportunities for Indigenous Territorians.
I was particularly interested that he highlighted Newmont’s pre-employment training programs at the Tanami, which is a program close to my heart. I worked there some 10 years ago, when the mine was operated by Normandy Mining Limited, and Robert Champion de Crespigny was a leader and a frontrunner at Normandy. There was movement back in the mid-to late-1990s, where many mining companies wanted to go down the path of being seen as good corporate citizens, and Robert Champion de Crespigny led the way with Normandy. It was my great opportunity to set up the Indigenous Affairs Department at the Granites on behalf of Normandy mines. It is great to see Newmont have taken on the baton and is doing some great things for the Tanami Regional Partnership Agreement, which includes the Northern Territory government.
I am pleased to update the House on the Tanami Regional Partnership Agreement. The Northern Territory government is proud to be part of the agreement, along with the Central Land Council, Newmont Mining, the Australian government, and the Central Desert and Victoria Daly Shires. It was great to be at Yuendumu in October 2008 to sign the agreement.
One of the great outcomes we have seen from the agreement and the work Newmont is doing, is Indigenous employment - this is at the heart of the statement. It is pleasing to see Indigenous employment at Newmont’s mine at the Granites is up around 16% to 18%, which is great news. I have pushed, for quite some time, that we need to focus on the traditional owners who live in the Warlpiri region, the Tanami region, and in places like Yuendumu and Lajamanu.
I met with Paul Davis, from Newmont, who provided a really good update for me about the Yapa crew, an Aboriginal crew which has been set up as a labour pool for contracts at the mines. Paul advised me there were up to 11 Warlpiri people involved in the Yapa crew, with the main aim, as a labour crew, being to look at contracts which are coming up on the mine site and to tender and be successful in getting those contracts.
The other great story coming from the Newmont mines is its fly-in, fly-out contract. The traditional owners at Lajamanu and Yuendumu, through the Kurra Association, are into aeroplanes – a highly expensive form of transport – and have invested their royalty money in purchasing quite a few planes. The business is called Lajamanu Air, and has been successful in securing some of the fly-in/fly-out contract work with the mines, transporting staff from the Granites to Darwin, Katherine, and Alice Springs. It is great to see. In my time, around 10 years ago, the focus was on joint ventures, which has been largely part of the strategy as well as during discussions at the forum. We need businesses from the private sector and Indigenous communities working with traditional owners and the land councils, not only in direct employment - such as the jobs we are seeing delivered through the Yapa crew at the Granites - but also in joint ventures. It is great to see the Warlpiri people take a risk by buying planes and setting up Lajamanu Air, and great to see that risk pay off for them through Newmont Mining providing a fly-in, fly-out contract. There is some great news out there in my electorate as well.
Turning to the member for Port Darwin, he spoke passionately about property rights and land reform. I take much of that in, member for Port Darwin, I respect your experience and knowledge on this particular subject, and also the legal knowledge you have of property rights, and your time as the member for Macdonnell. I know you talk from experience, and thank you for recommending William Bernstein’s book. I do not know whether you lent your copy to the member for Sanderson, but maybe I could borrow it next.
Much of the member for Port Darwin’s contribution was based around land acquisition and the need to move to land development, and I agree with those sentiments. He talked a little about his experience as the member for Macdonnell, and he raised the very important issue of communication and transport. My colleague, the member for Barkly, talked about that in his contribution as well. I thank the member for Port Darwin for his contribution.
The member for Nelson is one of those sceptics, I suppose, and all respect to him. He said he has heard it all before, but you have not heard it from me; this is my first crack at it. I will be looking to you for more advice. I thank you for your contribution; your experience is very much appreciated.
I picked up on his point there are opportunities for many little jobs at the little business end of town in remote communities, and I agree; I believe it is very important point. I believe it was picked up at the Indigenous Economic Development Forum. There were something like 27 exhibitors representing Indigenous businesses and small businesses at the forum, on display to the people of Alice Springs. I believe small business plays a very important role in creating jobs, and there is no reason why that cannot happen in the Indigenous economy.
The other criticism was from the member for Macdonnell, who said it focused too much on the big end of business, the larger projects. I believe they are both right, and it is about getting that mix. I received some feedback from people in Alice Springs who thought there was not enough focus on big business projects. You are not going to please everyone on some of these issues, but I will take those points on board. One of the things the IED strategy focuses on is supporting small business through the Indigenous business development program grants. I believe, in my first contribution, we have been able to show there is some success in this program.
It is also why we provide business support to Indigenous entrepreneurs. I believe it was the member for Sanderson who said he only heard one reference to the word ‘entrepreneur’. In my statement I mentioned, quite a few times, the need to inspire and encourage entrepreneurs in the Indigenous communities. Member for Sanderson, it is something I am acutely aware of, and something I know the strategy is hoping to pick up on.
The member for Daly talked about opportunities which exist for Indigenous Territorians in aquaculture and fisheries, forestry, the arts and construction sector, which is true; we know the jobs are there. He spoke of the opportunities presented by SIHIP, and it has been a topical issue at the last few sittings. The opposition feels it is more of an emergency program; we need to get the homes up and built, which I agree with. However, it is more than just building houses. It involves training opportunities for local people and providing consistent employment opportunities once the houses are built. It sets targets of 20% local employment, which is a very important part of SIHIP.
The Minister for Tourism spoke about the employment opportunities which abound in the tourism sector for Indigenous Territorians. I acknowledge the great work the jointly-funded tourism officers in the NLC and CLC are doing. I know Marie Meredith, at the CLC, gets out and about often. She has done some fantastic work with the people at Black Tank, and through Rainbow Valley. She is getting out there amongst the people and doing well in setting up small tourism ventures. That is a very important part of our approach to our parks, and one of the benefits of joint management.
The member for Katherine mentioned the importance of Aboriginal people having ownership of the programs and businesses they are involved in, and I agree wholeheartedly. The member for Katherine also said the Australian Labor Party deliberately keeps Aboriginal people as an underclass. I am not sure if he was joking, and to be honest, I cannot believe he said it. It beggars belief any political party would deliberately keep Aboriginal people as an underclass. We have a number of Indigenous members on this side of the House, and I know we all work very hard to ensure we close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage.
The member for Fong Lim took us back in time - a bit of a time warp - to when he was the federal member for Solomon, and read us his dissenting statement to his government’s House Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I believe that shows how complex the issue can be. The issue we were debating was the Indigenous Economic Development Strategy, which I approved and put out, but the subject went broader than that, and so it should, because it is such a complex issue. Listening to many of the members, who have been around longer than I have, shows how complex it is.
I thank the member for Macdonnell for sharing her insights, particularly her experiences of being a grassroots politician, someone who grew up in a remote Aboriginal community and who has much to offer this parliament - not only her experiences during that time, but in giving us all a reality check of why we are here. Her insights into the challenges facing Indigenous Territorians in the areas of education, health and housing are, as always, straight to the point, and I appreciate her input.
The member for Arnhem spoke about success stories in her electorate, particularly on Groote Eylandt, such as the Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Enterprises, and the Dugong Beach Resort, and the relationship with GEMCO. Mining is such an important part of the economy in our remote and regional areas, and it is great to see mining companies like GEMCO working with the local community to get some really good business outcomes. It is important we continue to tell people about these successes.
The member for Barkly, as usual, gave a very interesting and entertaining contribution. He spoke about the colonial policies, and about his time as a teacher in remote schools. The students he taught must be really moving ahead because to have a teacher like that must have been a fine thing. He also talked about the integrated transport policy. He talked about the successes, as many of my colleagues on this side of the House did, and the future possibilities of Indigenous Territorians in the …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the minister, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, member for Fannie Bay. The member for Barkly also picked up on including the private sector in the Indigenous Economic Development Strategy, a very important element of that strategy. I always enjoy listening to the member for Barkly, he is very entertaining. Perhaps, one day, member for Barkly, I can join you on a visit Gullajung or Lama Lama Hill, I believe it was called - it was not Blueberry Hill but Lama Lama Hill - on the Robinson River. I will look forward to that trip; it is sure be an entertaining one.
The member for Arafura also talked about the cultural strengths of our Indigenous Territorians. It is a cultural strength we build on and use in promoting the Northern Territory, whether it is through tourism or art, and I believe we undervalue that cultural strength within the Northern Territory in jobs. She also talked about the Arnhem fibre-optic project, the 800 km of optical fibre, with which we are now seeing some fantastic results being delivered in opening up the world to the people of Arnhem Land through information technology. She also spoke about land management, and I know her passion, particularly for the West Arnhem fire abatement project in her electorate. There are plenty of jobs in land management and in the cultural areas for our Indigenous people.
The member for Nhulunbuy spoke about the experiences of her constituents. For the first time many of those people ventured outside their homeland to the desert in Central Australia, and what an experience they had. I was fortunate to have the opportunity of catching up with many of those Eastern Arnhem Yolngu people in Alice Springs, who were blown away with the experience, and the warmth they felt in the centre of Australia.
She spoke about Nyinyikay, one of the homelands, and some of the work being done by her constituents in setting up their own enterprises. She also spoke about the work being done by Rio Tinto Alcan through the ALERT Program, and its recent recognition through the training awards.
I also went to Nhulunbuy earlier this year and met an inspiring man called Timmy Burarrwanga. His tourism venture, on his homeland on the island, where cruise ships which come to Darwin, divert to his homeland island to get a cultural experience from Timmy; is an inspiring story from a young Indigenous man who is going ahead in leaps and bounds.
The economic development of our Indigenous towns has been a long time coming. Towns such as Yuendumu, Barunga, and Maningrida were not established for economic reasons - we must remember that – but, rather, because of political decisions made in the 1940s and 1950s. They were formed as a result of two policies - assimilation and integration - with the purpose of teaching Aboriginal people the citizenship skills required for them to enter mainstream Australian society.
I suppose the old saying is ‘the rest is history’, but, as we all know, this did not happen as smoothly as people had intended. The policies effectively finished in 1972, but the legacy lingered on for another 30 years, before attempts were made to open these towns up and encourage and develop commercial enterprises. It is the Labor Party which is trying to change the way we do business. This change is the biggest policy turnaround since the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. We are talking about moving from the protected and closed environment of welfarism to the commercial world of the economic mainstream.
I have acknowledged the member for Braitling’s comment during his contribution - and it is one I will take on board and talk to my colleagues on this side about - that along with land tenure and economic reform in our Indigenous communities, there must also be welfare reform along with it - one does not go without the other; the two must be together.
A case in point, I believe it was the member for Brennan mentioned the Noel Pearson article in The Australian yesterday. I am watching with much interest, member for Brennan, the movement in Cape York, by people like Noel Pearson, particularly in welfare reform and the need to drive economic and employment opportunities for his people. It is a lesson we can take on board in the Territory, and is one I will. I know it will not be easy, but this government is really up for the challenge. There is no going back; the genie is out of the bottle and change is on its way.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPER
Draft Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Bill
Draft Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Bill
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, as the minister for Justice, I present an exposure draft Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Bill 2009, and I table the bill.
The tabling of this draft bill is to allow for public discussion before the government formally introduces legislation in the November sittings. This exposure draft of the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Bill 2009 provides for the disclosure of documents about a property when land is offered for sale, and also for cooling-off periods for sales of residential land.
Our clear intention is to formalise the practice of selling land across the Territory to require the seller to have the contract of sale and all other disclosure documentation available when the land is offered for sale. The disclosure will give prospective buyers the information they need to make an informed decision about a property, so they can enter into a binding contract of sale without delay, and without having to waste time doing a variety of searches on the property, which is currently the case for buyers in the Territory.
The introduction of the bill will bring the Territory in line with other jurisdictions, except Western Australia, which all have vendor disclosure legislation on the sale of land. The reforms will ensure buyers have sufficient information about a property before entering into a contract of sale. The reforms also set out a legislative cooling-off period of four working days.
The information a seller is required to disclose when land is offered for sale includes: the proposed contract of sale; certificate as to title or an extract from the Land Register showing administrative details relating to the land; any registered or unregistered encumbrances on the land; for units and lots under the Unit Titles Act, the Unit Title Schemes Act or Cullen Bay Marina Act, any registered plans, schemes or other document about the unit or lot; a building report stating the extent to which a building on the land is compliant or not with the Building Act.
Required certificates include, but are not limited to, any occupancy permits or approval to occupy on a temporary basis permits; any swimming pool compliance certificates; and, a statement by the vendor as to other known information about the land such as planning information; whether the land is subject to a compulsory acquisition, flooding and seepage information, or if the land is subject to a tenancy.
The proposed bill creates an offence for failing to have the disclosure documents available for inspection when the land is offered for sale. The penalty for not complying is a maximum fine of $13 000. The bill also creates an offence for giving misleading information in a required report or certificate, with the penalty being a maximum fine of $13 000.
Recently, there has been considerable public discussion about gazumping. Gazumping is the term used to describe the situation where the seller of a property accepts a purchase offer having already accepted another offer from another buyer. Gazumping occurs because a buyer’s offer is not legally binding until there is a written contract for the sale of land. The practice of gazumping usually arises in strong housing markets with buoyant property prices. One of the main causes is the time it takes to plough through the paperwork before contracts are exchanged. Most real estate agents are responsible and do the right thing, but there have been reports of gazumping in the Territory. Being gazumped is disappointing and frustrating for buyers trying to enter the property market. It can result in heartache for a buyer who thought they had secured a home.
This bill tabled today will help minimise the potential for gazumping. This bill will require the seller to have the contract of sale and all other disclosure documentation provided when the land is offered for sale. This will significantly reduce the time period between verbal acceptance of an offer and official legal confirmation of an offer.
We know there is a great deal of interest in vendor disclosure legislation. We have consulted with the Law Society and with industry throughout the drafting of this bill. However, we want to ensure the bill has maximum exposure before it is introduced and passes through the Legislative Assembly. By making this draft bill public now, prior to an intended introduction in November, we are ensuring input can be made by interested parties, and this input can be taken into account prior to finalising the bill.
As members will be aware, the government has taken this approach previously with bills, notably, the Care and Protection of Children and Young People Act, and the recent Mandatory Reporting of Domestic Violence legislation.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the draft bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s preparation of this draft version of the bill. It is a little disappointing we are not quite to the stage where we are introducing the bill, but we are getting there, slowly but surely. If it means we have a better bill to be introduced in November, then I understand where the government is coming from.
I have received a number of points raised by the Law Society. It believes this particular draft of the bill could be improved. I worry sometimes, when the legal eagles get together, and start to debate some of these issues from a very legalistic point of view. Sometimes you get two people’s opinion about the same thing which, for the average layperson, confuses the matter. I hope, when this bill is eventually introduced, those issues the Law Society has raised can be satisfied.
I also note the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory made a statement in the paper in relation to this bill. I was a little concerned they, basically, said gazumping did not exist, or there was very little record of it on its files. But, after a question was given to me at the Property Council forum recently, where I said gazumping did exist, I immediately received two e-mails the next day saying, ‘Yes, thank you very much’. In fact, one of them commented that the representative of the company, who asked me the question at the Property Council forum, was the same company which had participated in their bid to buy a property being gazumped. It does exist.
I should also make it known, when I first introduced legislation similar to this, I spent time working with the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, and it supported the legislation I presented. I had a number of meetings and correspondence with the Conveyancing Institute, and it also supported this type of legislation.
It concerns me when statements are being made at the eleventh hour, and we now have some concerns about this type of legislation. This type of legislation has a very real basis, which is the reason I support it: the protection of people, especially, in this case, those who are going to spend a large amount of money on a house - and we know the cost of housing is high. Generally speaking, this is the biggest purchase any person makes in their life; the buying of a house. I believe there needs to be legislation which does protect people. You will never stop people going ahead and doing something reckless entirely, but at least we can ensure we diminish the risk by asking the seller of the house to disclose a certain number of documents which will inform the purchaser of the state of the house.
There has been the argument land comes under a different tradition of selling, called buyer beware, or caveat emptor. You do not tend to do it when you buy a television - if you buy a big plasma television, a guarantee comes with it. When you buy a car, you generally get a guarantee. However, when you buy a house, it is buyer beware. However, a house is a far more important and expensive item than a television or a car.
I believe it is important legislation. I hope people will look at it in that light. It is not an attack on the Real Estate Institute; it is, basically, saying to people out there, this government is concerned there are some cases where people have been gazumped. I know those particular cases and I believe, whilst it is allowed under Territory law, ethically, when you shake hands with someone - and in some cases pay a deposit - simply because you have not signed the final papers, someone can come in over the top and say: ‘That house is mine’. I do not believe it is a fair system. You hope you can take people on their word, but our law as it is, means that is not the case.
The other thing, of course, is to protect people from purchasing a house which may have faults, which have not been disclosed by the seller of the house. As I said at the Property Council, there was a block of land at Humpty Doo on Power Road, which was part of a subdivision developed, I believe, in the 1960s or early 1970s, and there were no houses on those blocks. This young fellow came along and saw a ‘For Sale’ sign on the fence, and asked the real estate agent the state of this land - did it get wet? He was told by the real estate agent it sometimes goes partially under water. He came back in the Wet Season, and not only did he have to drive through water to get to the block, he found the block was about 99% under water, and he had just spent $200 000 for the block.
We could say he should have been more diligent, but the point is, where is the honesty in the person selling the land in the first place? Should that not be taken into account? Should we not ensure the person selling the land has to tell the truth, to the best of their ability?
We all know people, especially young people, can be a little headstrong; I have been down that path myself when I was younger. When you have to purchase something, you sometimes rush in and get excited about it, and think ‘That house will be nice to buy’, then find the house has white ants inside the wall or the bore does not work too often - it runs out in July, and you have to cart water. I believe the legislation we are bringing in today, whilst it may not cover all those circumstances such as whether your bore operates, in general, it will cover most things people are concerned about and, hopefully, we will get good responses to this draft of the bill.
I encourage anyone, including consumers who have experienced being gazumped or have bought land they have been told has certain characteristics only to find out it does not, to put their two bob’s worth into the consultation period for this bill.
I imagine they have until the next sittings in Alice Springs to put forward their amendments. I am grateful the government has at least brought in this bill, but disappointed we are still at the draft stage. However, it is better to have something going forward, than nothing at all.
Motion agreed to; draft bill noted.
TABLED PAPER
Strategic Review of the Northern
Territory Auditor-General’s Office
September 2009
Strategic Review of the Northern
Territory Auditor-General’s Office
September 2009
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Strategic Review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office, September 2009. I present a brief tabling statement.
Section 26 of the Northern Territory Audit Act requires a strategic review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office to be conducted at least once every three years. The last strategic review was conducted in 2006.
Consistent with earlier reviews, arrangements were made for the review to be conducted by a senior member of staff of an interstate Auditor-General’s Office. The terms of reference for the 2009 strategic review were approved by the Administrator of the Northern Territory on the 28 May 2009, and John Viljoen, Assistant Audit-General, Audit Office of New South Wales, was appointed to conduct the review.
I am pleased to report to the House the 2009 strategic review has concluded the NTAGO is performing satisfactorily in a difficult operating environment. The strategic review identified 15 recommendations for improving the operations of the Northern Territory AGO, which are under consideration, and will be discussed in greater depth with the Auditor-General.
One of the findings of the 2009 strategic review noted funding and resourcing constraints. The Territory government has provided strong support to the Auditor-General’s Office through the provision of additional financial resources and capacity. Since the last strategic review in 2006, between 2005-06 and 2008-09, appropriation and cost-recovery revenues of the NT Auditor-General’s office have increased by 21%.
The effect of this additional capacity is evident in the analysis included in the 2009 strategic review by the author of the report. The report highlights a steady increase in annual audit hours from 14 939 hours to 15 754 hours, an increase of 815 hours since 2004-05. The increase of more than 5% in the number of audit hours, coupled with an increase in the audit costs of more than 14% in 2004-05, shows the effect of expanded resources available to the Auditor-General.
The report also highlights an increase in the number of audits completed, with nine end of year audits carried out in 2008-09, compared with seven in 2004-05; and 22 compliance and performance management system audits carried out in 2008-09, compared with 16 in 2004-05. In addition to additional resources for audits, the Territory government also approved a $230 000 capital injection earlier this month.
At the completion of each strategic review, the Auditor-General provides advice to the government regarding the level of resources available to the Auditor-General’s Office in light of the reviews finding. The Auditor-General has expressed to me in writing he is comfortable with the level of resourcing he receives. The government’s practice has been to respond positively to any requests for additional resources from the Auditor-General, as evidenced by the additional resources available and increased activity of his office. Requests by the Auditor-General are assessed as and when they are made, and do not compete with other expenditure priorities. I have asked the Auditor-General to provide me with advice on his office’s resources following his consideration of the strategic review.
I am also pleased to advise the House the 2009 strategic review found only two of the recommendations from the 2006 strategic review require further action, and future audit planning processes are intended to resolve both issues raised.
Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to express my full support to the Auditor-General for his continued independent analysis of governance and accountability on behalf of the parliament, the government, and the Territory community, and in continuing to draw to our attention matters of importance.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Growing our Primary Industries:
Partnerships for Productivity
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory government recognises the growing contribution the primary industry sectors make across the Northern Territory. The primary industry sector continues to play a vital role in underpinning regional development and creating real jobs.
Today, I am pleased to table the report Growing our Primary Industries: Partnerships for Productivity. Along with providing a snapshot of the primary industries sector, it also seeks to articulate the need and provide the basis for a collaborative effort between the government and industry to move forward into an exciting, albeit challenging, future.
Growing our Primary Industries: Partnerships for Productivity is the next step in formulating a plan to ensure we are well-placed to respond to the challenges confronting industry into the future.
We are all aware of the challenges the future holds: no one will be able to escape the expected effects of climate change; water availability and access to suitable land will remain issues; shortages of skilled labour will continue to be a challenge across northern Australia; and there will be an increasing need to produce food while protecting the environment.
From a global perspective, the task of producing enough food to feed ever-increasing populations has never been more important. More than ever before, agricultural production systems in other parts of the world are under increasing pressure to feed more people. We have opportunities to open up new areas for sustainable development. Such opportunities have the potential to not only make a valuable contribution to Australia’s food production, but also provide a stimulus for economic activity and employment in our regional and remote areas. Sustainable growth in our primary industries sector will also assist in broadening our economic base.
There are challenges in driving agribusiness forward in the Territory, as I have noted, but the consequences of not doing so will make the task of developing remote and underutilised areas even more challenging. Increasingly, the nation is looking to the north as water and climate change impact on southern food production areas. We have an opportunity to build on the mosaic of development already under way across the Territory.
With the added pressure of increasing population to our north, the considered, strategic, and sustainable development of primary industries in the Northern Territory is a necessary part of planning for the future. How do we make this happen? Within the next few months, the Territory government will deliver a comprehensive Northern Territory Agribusiness Strategy, which will address and build upon the challenges identified in this report. The Northern Territory Agribusiness Strategy will lay out the way forward for primary industries in the Territory. It will be a comprehensive industry development strategy which will identify ways in which the government, the private sector, and regional communities can work in partnership to grow our primary industries.
My department is responding to the challenges laid out in the report I am tabling today. The Corporate Plan 2009-2012 reflects a continuing commitment to support regional economies through the development of profitable and sustainable primary industries. The corporate plan states sustainable and productive farming practices will be achieved by:
advocating for industry access to land and water resources and infrastructure;
obtaining information for potential investors in agricultural enterprises;
assisting primary producers to access markets; and
undertaking applied research that develops innovative ways of assisting industry.
Applied research is necessary to underpin the ability of our primary industries to achieve sustained growth. Correct application of new land and crop management techniques will lead to increased productivity. Improvements to productivity are the key drivers in modern economies. This government is committed to continue the dialogue with industry, other government agencies, and research partners to ensure our research and development efforts are targeted and relevant to industry needs.
Extension is the means of ensuring uptake of research by industry and is, therefore, an essential element in the development of our primary industries. We understand, without appropriate extension services, the results of our research will not be taken up by industry. In order to maximise the value of our research work, it needs to be accompanied by best practice extension services, which must also include looking for opportunities to provide targeted extension through the innovative use of new technologies.
Perhaps one of the most important and critical elements of our primary industry into the future will be biosecurity: the protection we provide to animals, plants, the environment, and the health of our people from pest and diseases. It is likely to mean taking all efforts to prevent new pests and diseases from becoming established, and controlling and eradicating outbreaks when they occur. Good biosecurity provides confidence to consumers, and is the foundation on which our ability to market our unique Northern Territory produce is based.
We recognise the key role for the government in helping to drive growth in primary industries is participating in relevant research; disseminating the results of that research; and ensuring we have a biosecurity framework in place which will protect the integrity of our production.
I will return to these issues and other requirements which need to be in place for us to maximise our growth potential through productivity increases, as they will be the focus of our Agribusiness strategy. However, at this stage, I believe it is worth providing a broad snapshot of how our various primary industry sectors are currently performing; because that will give some indication of where future growth will come from.
Cattle production is the Northern Territory’s key primary industry sector. It is a key activity in so many of our regional economies, as well as making a substantial contribution to the Territory’s gross state product. The cattle industry sustains jobs for between 1600 and 1900 people, mostly in regional and remote locations.
Our cattle production is based on some of the largest pastoral holdings in the world, ranging from 200 km2 to more than 12 000 km2. We currently carry nearly two million head of cattle on these pastoral holdings. Herd numbers and cattle turn-off have increased significantly over the past 20 years. We have also seen major productivity improvements through enhanced management practices. Currently, 550 000 head of cattle a year are turned-off for finishing and processing into both the interstate and live export markets.
Growth trends for the pastoral industry are very positive into the future, although there will be short-term hurdles along the way. It is expected the industry will inject $365m into the Territory economy this year. This is a continuation of the consistent growth trend of the last five years, which has seen production increase by almost 73%. Producers estimate new infrastructure and more refined management practices will lift the Territory’s overall future cattle carrying capacity and, therefore, its value to the economy.
The live cattle trade took more than 295 000 head of Territory cattle into South-East Asia in 2008, with about 276 000 head going to Indonesia, which means over 90% of our export trade is destined for one market. Whilst it is a robust market, in commercial relationships a number of potential threats confront the trade. For example, Australia’s freedom from Foot and Mouth Disease, or FMD, is valued in Indonesia and supports the Territory’s trade status. However, should Brazil become FMD-free, the Territory will face significant competition.
It is self-evident any significant reduction of live exports to Indonesia would have an immediate and significant impact on the Northern Territory pastoral industry and its supporting businesses in the regions. This would result in a knock-on effect throughout the Territory economy; the Australian market would be unable to take the cattle currently exported to Indonesia.
Nevertheless, despite a downturn in markets from the global financial crisis, the burgeoning middle-class populations in a number of South-East Asian countries are driving increasing levels of consumption. The Territory is strategically placed to be a major supplier.
It is worth noting, in the foreseeable future, the demand for beef in Asia will continue to support the live export trade, as opposed to packaged meat, for a number of reasons:
(1) cold chain storage infrastructure in South-East Asia is still not broadly established enough to enable handling of chilled or frozen meat, particularly in regional centres;
As I have mentioned, over 90% of our live exports are destined to a single market. For that reason, we have been focusing our attention on supporting the establishment of additional markets in South-East Asia.
Establishing new markets in South-East Asia requires a systematic approach, involving an initial evaluation to ensure prime economic market drivers are strong. This must be followed by a thorough education and training program to ensure industry best practice in any new overseas cattle ventures. This systematic approach can only be achieved through high-level coordination between the government and industry, to ensure diplomatic and bureaucratic relations are in place as a foundation to pave the way for pre-commercial education and training, with post-commercial follow-up to an emerging market.
After evaluation of these factors, we are continuing our development efforts into Vietnam. A number of senior government industry department delegations have visited Vietnam over the last couple of years. Last year, a return delegation from Vietnam visited the Territory to gain an understanding and appreciation of our pastoral industry and the live export process. The Vietnamese delegates were then accompanied to Indonesia by senior departmental officers to witness firsthand the professionalism and quality of the feedlot industry in Indonesia.
Territory representatives subsequently brokered a memorandum of cooperation between the Northern Territory Pastoral Industry and the Khanh Hoa Trading and Investment Company. I was pleased to witness the formal signing of the agreement in Nha Trang late last year. Following the signing of an agreement to purchase in Darwin between the North Australia Cattle Company and the Trading and Investment Company of Khanh Hoa Province in the last few weeks, we are now hoping to see the first shipment of cattle to Vietnam before the end of the year. This is an exciting development and an opportunity to grow a new market over time.
In addition to pastoral production, the Territory is also home to a diverse and dynamic horticultural industry. Although the bulk of horticultural production occurs in the Top End and Katherine regions, there are growing pockets of production in other parts of the Territory. We know we have the capacity to expand horticulture in a significant and sustainable way. Mangoes, melons, citrus, and vegetables are the mainstays of the industry in the Top End and Katherine regions. There are also smaller volume crops including Asian vegetables, bananas, rambutan, dragon fruit and other tropical lines. The nursery and cut flower sectors are significant, and turf production is on the rise.
We enjoy an important competitive advantage in our capacity to produce some vegetables and fruits outside the normal southern seasons. For instance, table grapes in the Centre have enjoyed this advantage and have been the mainstay of arid zone horticultural activities for the past 20 years. New growers are testing the feasibility of growing other fruit and vegetable crops in the region, including pumpkins, watermelons, and pomegranates.
These emerging advances in horticultural production in Central Australia have important implications not only for diversification and growth in horticulture, but also for future Indigenous training and employment. The value of horticulture in the Northern Territory has grown significantly in the five years since 2005, when it was worth $99m. The industry is expected to contribute $224m to the Territory’s economy this year; a 126% increase over the last five years, so we must be doing something right.
We know our horticultural industry has the capacity to continue growing, not only by exploiting the natural seasonal advantages we enjoy in the north, but also by opening up new areas of land and focusing our efforts on productivity improvements. The development of a Northern Territory Agribusiness strategy is vital in order to deal effectively with supply chain issues and the identification and development of alternate markets for Territory horticultural produce.
Our broadacre agricultural sector, which is based largely on pasture seed, hay, and fodder production, peanuts and maize, also has potential for expansion. This industry is concentrated in the Top End and Katherine regions, although there is some lucerne production in Central Australia. Hay, fodder, and grain crops are produced in the Top End during the Wet Season, and are harvested mechanically at the start of the Dry Season in April/May. Large-scale peanut and maize crops are produced in Katherine, both at the end of the Wet Season from rain-fed production, and with irrigated production at the end of the Dry Season.
Like other sectors, agricultural field crop production has grown steadily over the last five years. This year, field crops - cereals, hay, and pasture seeds - are expected to contribute $38m to the Territory economy; 153% more than the $15m turnover of 2005. The rise in value was due to high production of hay and fodder crops in the Katherine and Douglas Daly regions to feed live export cattle herds.
A major expansion of peanut and maize production by the Peanut Company of Australia is currently under way in the Katherine area, with the two crops being rotated. Interestingly, experimental crops like tropical wheat are also being tested. It is worth noting research undertaken by the Northern Territory government, over many years, helped the Peanut Company of Australia’s decision to move to the Katherine region. Some 700 ha of peanuts are currently planted, but the company has plans to expand to 5000 ha under irrigation in the near future. This development is dependent on gaining all relevant approvals; this expansion is likely to continue to drive jobs and economic development in the Katherine-Daly region.
The Territory’s forestry industry is developing and growing in importance. Some 30 000 ha of Acacia are being grown on the Tiwi Islands, and a further 6000 ha of African mahogany has been planted in the Douglas Daly region, destined to be used for fine furniture in 15 to 20 years’ time. Despite the companies involved falling victim to difficulties associated with the global financial crisis, these plantings will reap rewards in the future as the world continues to face increasing shortages of quality hardwood.
As I indicated earlier, an overarching and critical element of maintaining productivity and, indeed, the integrity of what we produce in our primary industry sector, is the strength of our biosecurity framework.
Australia enforces some of the strictest quarantine measures in the world, and for very good reason. Australia relies heavily on its livestock, agricultural, and horticultural industries which collectively inject billions of dollars into the national economy and provide employment for thousands of workers in communities across the country.
As an island continent, Australia has largely been protected from the devastating exotic pests and diseases which have become the curse of many other countries throughout the world. The Australian quarantine system takes every possible precaution to guard against exotic incursions, which have the potential to decimate our plant and animal industries.
Quarantine restrictions also apply to pests and diseases which have already found their way into Australia. The Northern Territory, like all other Australian jurisdictions, has its own stringent quarantine laws in place to prevent existing plant and animal diseases from spreading to new areas.
Globalisation also presents significant potential biosecurity challenges for Territory primary producers in the future. Increasing inter-country trade will bring greater risks of pests and diseases entering Australia, and so the proposed Northern Territory Agribusiness Strategy will need to address how we can maintain a dynamic and adaptable biosecurity framework which can adjust quickly to new operating environments and changing threats.
I have indicated there are a number of prerequisites for productivity growth which will need to be addressed by our Agribusiness strategy. Research, extension service delivery, and biosecurity will remain critical issues, but there are other issues which must be considered to maximise productivity.
As a starting point, we need to acknowledge climate change is likely to put downwards pressure on our productivity. Current climate change modelling for the Territory points to increasingly drier conditions in parts of the Territory, coupled with higher temperatures. Rainfall is forecast to decrease in Central Australia, with drought likely to occur more often. In the Top End, average rainfall is forecast to stay the same, and temperatures are projected to increase by at least 1C from 2030.
It has been calculated the Territory’s primary industries will require a productivity growth of 2.2% to meet these climate change challenges. This makes it all the more important for us to carefully examine all the inputs, which go into primary production and market development, in order to extract productivity gains across the board, that is, scrutinising every link in the supply chain from paddock to plate in search of improved efficiencies, then assisting industry to achieve them. Some of the key challenges include infrastructure, market access, Indigenous participation, and the availability of land for agriculture.
With the world approaching a situation where fossil fuels are becoming increasingly expensive, it will become more important to efficiently and effectively move produce from property to consumer. Whether for live animals or fresh fruit and vegetables, the infrastructure required, in terms of roads, rail internodes, or shipping and airfreight infrastructure, will be critical to primary industry development.
In addition to the market development activities mentioned previously, we must recognise the need for infrastructure which allows consistent supply is a prerequisite to development of those markets for Northern Territory produce. Consumers will not support a start-stop supply when our competitors can guarantee consistency, although we will continue to develop opportunities for counter-season production. As we move forward with the industry to secure new markets for our products, we need to know we can deliver.
Another main challenge facing the food production sector, and a critical aspect of the supply chain, particularly in the harvest stage, is the supply of labour. We must work with the huge challenges of regional employment for Indigenous Territorians. Unless we overcome these challenges, we will struggle to fully develop the potential of our primary industries.
With freehold ownership of large tracts of the Northern Territory, an intrinsic link with land and water and its use, and a globally recognised market brand, Indigenous primary production enterprise is a clear prospect for a working future.
Of the 1.3 million km2, which constitutes the Northern Territory, less than 0.5% has been cleared to produce food. Even when the iconic, sensitive, protected, culturally important, richly biodiverse and agronomically inappropriate areas are taken into account, prospective areas suitable for agricultural production remain. Our challenge is to identify and specifically research those areas to ensure the level of knowledge required to bring them into sustainable production is achieved. When access to water, suitable soils, and infrastructure are taken into account, these prospective areas exist in mosaics throughout the Territory.
The opportunities associated with the next stage of the Ord River scheme are a case in point. We will continue to work collaboratively with the Western Australian and Commonwealth governments to ensure a coordinated approach to this development. We are exploring transport, ancillary services, and agricultural opportunities.
But, we must approach expansion of our primary industries while protecting our natural resource base and understanding a development-at-all-costs approach has had dire consequences in other parts of Australia and, indeed, in many regions throughout the world. We will not make the same mistakes which have occurred elsewhere.
The government is currently assessing a wide range of policies and legislation related to natural resource management, and it is under consideration. Our challenge is to protect the environment for future generations while supporting the aspirations and wellbeing of this generation across all regions. Whether it be land clearing, management of water assets, biodiversity protection, or the expected implications of a carbon pollution reduction scheme, it is critical the primary industry sector engage with, and be considered in, the natural resource policy reform agenda.
The Australian government does not plan to include agriculture in this scheme earlier than 2015, and a final decision on coverage of agricultural emissions to be made in 2013. Such a decision will only be made following consultation and work with the industry to identify practical methods for inclusion and to develop reliable and cost-effective methods of emissions estimation and reporting. We remain committed to a considered, evidence-based approach to this important area, which recognises both the benefits and potential impacts. I will continue to promote the importance of our primary industry sectors in representing the best interests for the Territory, particularly as our pastoral industry will remain an export-focused industry.
At the outset, I stated how important our research and development efforts are, and how they will underpin our efforts into the future. I want to address concerns, which are raised from time to time, that our research capacity is somehow reduced. For a jurisdiction of our size, we maintain an outstanding research capacity, but what does change, and always will change, is the prioritisation of our research efforts.
The Primary Industries Group in my department continues as an important research agency. More than 100 staff members are engaged in research, diagnostic, extension, and regulatory activities. We have a nationally-recognised reputation in tropical systems research. It maintains a network of well-managed research and demonstration facilities, where staff and industry conduct applied research and regionally-focused demonstration and extension work aimed at profitable and sustainable primary industries.
The Primary Industries Group is an enthusiastic partner in Australia’s new National Research and Development Framework. The framework brings together state and territory primary industry agencies, research and development corporations, relevant industry groups, and individuals from around the country. The framework was instigated by the national Primary Industries Ministerial Council. It will assist in effective collaborative research outcomes, involving groups of agencies and the research and development corporations capable of tackling specific fields. Agencies from across the country will pool important research skills and resources, and work together to achieve the best results for the nation as a whole. The Territory will benefit from this initiative, as our scientists will be able to further develop their research efforts.
This government is committed to working with the Australian government to set its research priorities based on industry needs and aspirations, and applies for federal funding to match these priorities. The group’s funding applications are guided by a departmental research and development policy and guidelines, designed to ensure all supported research projects are followed through to an appropriate conclusion.
At a Territory level, my department’s Primary Industry Group works closely with key industry groups, including the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association; the Northern Territory Horticultural Association; the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association; and, the Northern Territory Agricultural Association.
Nationally, strong and valuable partnerships have been formed with a range of peak industry representative groups, research and development corporations, including Meat and Livestock Australia; Livecorp; North Australian Beef Research Council; Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation; Horticulture Australia Limited; Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation; Australian Mango Industry Association; Australian Melon Association; Nursery and Garden Industries Australia; and many others.
The Primary Industry Group has embraced the Territory government’s partnership with Charles Darwin University, and this has resulted in many successful projects in the environmental, rangelands, and biosecurity fields.
Our Agribusiness Strategy will no doubt examine opportunities for strengthening our collaborative research efforts. Not only does this bring the benefit of being able to share and pool knowledge, but it will also lead to economies of scale in project design and implementation.
Last year, an independent review of my department’s Primary Industry Group was conducted by an external consultant. This was part of a rolling review program within my department, which has been in place for several years, to identify areas of improvement. The development of this report, and the initiative to develop a comprehensive Agribusiness strategy, are important outcomes of this review. We are determined to ensure the government and industry can go forward in partnership to face the challenges of growing our primary industries. We believe this review was an important step.
I thank industry members who contributed to the review process, and I also recognise the efforts of the staff within the Primary Industry Group, who have gone through the process of restructuring and refocusing, and have embraced the changes in such a positive manner.
I am excited by the work which lies ahead over the coming months, and I know there is enthusiasm for this project within the Primary Industry Group. I am confident there will also be strong support from industry. It is an important task which confronts us. We have an opportunity to provide new economic activity and employment options across the regions of the Territory and, at the same time, make a contribution to feeding people within our borders and beyond.
I trust that members will join me in supporting this statement, and I look forward to returning in the next few months to present our new Agribusiness strategy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing on this statement today which is on a topic that is absolutely vital to the economy of the Northern Territory now and into the future.
The Northern Territory was founded on its primary industries, in particular, its pastoral sector, dating back to the 1800s. In fact, the historic Springvale Station on the outskirts of Katherine was one of the Northern Territory’s first cattle properties, and Springvale Homestead is now the oldest station homestead in the Northern Territory. It continues to contribute to the economy of the Northern Territory through tourism which is, for the lateral thinker, also interlinked with the pastoral sector.
The minister mentioned peanuts in the Katherine region and it is interesting to note Katherine was the original peanut capital of the Northern Territory early last century. The Katherine Museum holds a fine collection of historic peanut memorabilia, and some of the rural roads, in the Florina area, bear the names of some of the Russian peanut farmers from those times. But, enough of the reminiscing.
I wonder at the strategic importance for the minister to table his report today, rather than circulating it with a copy of this statement, albeit, late last night, because, unfortunately, no one has had the benefit of being able to read the report and structure a reply to this statement in a way which reflects the contents of the new report. I am a little disappointed in the minister for Primary Industry for not forwarding a copy of the report. I imagine it would have been available last night. For goodness sake, if it has been tabled today, it would have been available 12 or 14 hours earlier.
I notice you did not bother to mention in your primary industry statement, the primary industries review which was conducted by WalterTurnbull, until the last page of your statement, which surprises me, minister. I thought this rather in-depth review of your department would have featured far more prominently in your statement …
Mr Vatskalis: Page 19?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is what I said; on the last page.
Surely, it must form the basis of the way forward for your department. It is quite clear the review identified many areas within the department which required your attention, as the minister, and also, by extension, your chief executive.
I note there are 16 recommendations outlined in the report by WalterTurnbull, and the vast majority of those outline failings or shortfalls within the minister’s department. Minister, you are responsible for those failings. I analysed those recommendations, and I looked at what the reviewer actually asked you to do within the department. I looked at the verbs, the ‘doing words’, and I came up with one or two of those doing words which implied you were already doing something and the reviewer would like you to continue with them.
However, in something like 14 of those 16 recommendations the doing words implied you were not doing them. The recommendations include: develop a policy; align your strategic and business plans; develop a strategy; strengthen a policy; engage at CE level; establish a forum; develop a research strategy - I believe you get the picture.
As I read through the statement last night, the only references I could find relate to a small number of those recommendations. We are almost 12 months on from the release of the review and there is little evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to suggest the minister has done much at all in addressing those recommendations. The only specific recommendations I can see you have addressed are recommendations 1 and 2, which refer to developing a policy statement on the government’s vision and aligning its strategic and business plans.
By not addressing the other recommendations in this statement, I can only conclude, along with a lack of evidence to the contrary, the minister is yet to move forward on a vast majority of the recommendations. I have heard anecdotal evidence, from people who work in the department that those recommendations are not being acted upon, or are being acted upon far too slowly.
I will speak a little about the pastoral sector. At the outset, I believe the minister has, in part, the right focus on cattle production and our overseas live export markets. It is wise to continue to build upon the early work of the previous CLP government in developing these overseas markets. Recently I was talking about this with people from the pastoral sector, and I recall being told people like Mick Palmer spent a great deal of time in the South-East Asian countries forming and building relationships.
I have mentioned before that I am concerned the minister’s enormous workload prevents him from spending the time really required, time which needs to be invested by …
Mr Conlan: He has a little on his plate.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, he has a little on his plate at the moment.
In working on those markets, there is more which needs to be done, and I know the pastoral sector would like to see more action from the minister in this regard.
We have a strong reliance on Indonesia as a buyer of our live export cattle, I am well aware of the new Vietnam market opening up to the Northern Territory. I am aware the department spends a fair amount of time working on programs and processes involved in maintaining, strengthening, and building those relationships and markets. I hope the minister will continue to scope out new markets, and these are included in the strategies going forward.
As a part of the strategic plan, I would like to see the government - whether it be the current administration or, when this government can no longer hang on to its tenuous grip on power, a newly-formed, dynamic, and forward-looking Country Liberal government - stage incursions into those emerging markets. Very broadly, the first stage might include shipping fat cattle into those countries. Stage 2 might include working with those countries to develop fattening and feedlot techniques which will assist those countries to do their own value-adding and to support their own base economies. Stage 3 might involve lighter weight cattle being shipped in. I understand that is occurring to a greater or lesser degree at the moment.
In my opinion, this should be a rolling program, so there are perhaps three countries involved, in each one of those stages, at the same time. Where there is a country getting fat cattle, another is working with the Territory government to do its value-adding programs, and the third is receiving lightweight cattle, operating with autonomy and far less input from the NT. When country three is receiving lightweight cattle for its feedlots, the NT government is working on country four to begin at Stage 1, and the process goes on. It needs to be a rolling program, and would be a policy position the Country Liberals would take forward when we are in government. We cannot afford to take a haphazard approach to this, so we need to have a strategic plan which has some teeth and achievable outcomes.
Within the horticultural and agricultural sectors there are many issues this government needs to address. First, and foremost, are the issues which stymie development of agricultural land in the Northern Territory, and this also applies to the pastoral sector. I believe it was the member for Nelson who asked the minister for NRETAS a question, during Question Time today, about a couple of properties on the Sturt Plateau, and how difficult and expensive it was for them to submit an EIS to get some land clearing happening. It is a real issue, and this government has its structures askew on how it deals with development within the primary industry sector.
The catch phrase added frequently these days is ‘ecologically sustainable development’ and before the lefties and the rabid greenies come out and try to infer that the Country Liberals want development at any cost, let me say this: all types of development, whether it is agricultural, industrial or any other kind must be assessed with due regard to environmental matters. This means the process of working towards the development must be allowed to take place, and all the matters relating to the process should be critically assessed to determine the validity of the development, in light of the need for it and its potential contribution to the economy of the Northern Territory, and weighed against the environmental cost.
The green fanatics would have us halt all development for the sake of the environment. In so many ways, they are right - you cannot have development without some sort of impact on the environment – then, logically, there must be no development. However, when the fanatics join the real world, they will realise we must have development to live and thrive on this planet; the trick is getting the balance right.
This is where I have a problem with the government’s structures for developing the primary sector. In the phrase: ‘ecologically sustainable development’, the word ‘development’ is a noun, so it is the dominant word in the phrase and relates to what you want to achieve - we want to achieve development. ‘Ecologically sustainable’ is a compound adjective which describes the type of development. We want to achieve development in an ecologically sustainable way. If that is the case, why does the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources not have the lead role in developing the primary sector? It seems incongruous that another department is running the agenda on development in the primary sector.
Let us take a look at two major issues which affect primary development in the Northern Territory - water and land clearing. We know much about land clearing. The government had a moratorium on land clearing in the Daly and then it brought in its land clearing guidelines under the former minister for Environment, the member for Macdonnell. When I raised issues, earlier this year, with the former minister she was genuine about trying to work through those issues and the terrible impost on primary producers brought about by the implementation of those guidelines.
Yet, it seems, since the departure of the member for Macdonnell from the ministerial post, the department has continued to drive the process without any regard to the difficulties it imposes on primary producers. There is a real cost to primary producers through this process, in the form of sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. Listening to the member for Nelson during Question Time today, some may even have to fork out hundreds of thousand of dollars to comply with the EIS requirements of land clearing guidelines. That money is not always available to our cash-strapped farmers; they are doing it tough, like everyone else in the country. If you think, for a moment, farmers can afford to stick their hand in their pocket to the tune of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars so they can clear some land, then you are making an enormous mistake.
When I read in the minister’s statement only 0.5% of the land mass of the Northern Territory is cleared for agricultural purposes, it puts the whole situation into perspective. If there is such an impost on farmers that they have to go to the extent of an EIS, how on earth are we going to grow our agricultural sector in any meaningful way?
Another issue is water and, again, there is an enormous problem with the way NRETAS administers water issues. I am particularly referring to issues with bores in the Mataranka region. I know this will be an issue across the Northern Territory, but I am particularly aware of this because it has been brought to my attention. I know the minister, the member for Stuart, is also aware of this issue. In brief, applicants for water licences for bores must spend, potentially, $100 000 or more in drilling a bore without the guarantee of a licence for that bore. In effect, they have to spend $100 000, drill a hole in the ground and find some water with no guarantee they will actually be able to suck any of the water out of their bore for agricultural purposes. I understand there is not a single jurisdiction in Australia, apart from the Northern Territory, where that happens.
If there is a problem with the legislation which prevents that from happening, I understand it might only be a very small problem with the legislation, if I am instructed correctly, and a change of a couple of words might solve the whole problem. At the moment, I know there are a number of people who are experiencing extreme difficulties with NRETAS in dealing with this. I go back to my original point of why, in heaven’s name, is NRETAS driving primary production in what can and cannot be done?
NRETAS is the lead agency in determining whether primary producers can develop their production capacity, either by virtue of newly-cleared land or a newly-sunk bore. That is like the police, the upholders of the law, also making the law, which is fundamentally wrong. The department of Primary Industry should have the lead role in these matters, taking advice from NRETAS, not the other way around.
The minister spoke in his statement about research and extension services, and a little about biosecurity. In Budget Paper No 3 for 2009-10, on page 221, the estimate for 2008-09 in research, development and extension services in progress is 35 projects. Yet, a centimetre away, in the same document’s estimate for 2009-10, is a drop to 30 projects. Unless there is something wrong with me, it looks like a drop in research and extension projects, not an increase, or even the same commitment to research and outreach. Minister, that makes the paragraph on page 4 of your statement, regarding research and extension, little more than window dressing.
Minister, I am surprised you do not have biosecurity much higher on your list of priorities for the department. I recently spoke to a former police colleague of mine, who has had quite a lot of experience in emergency management and counter-terrorism, and I have also had some training in emergency and disaster management. It was true when I did my training in disaster management, and contemporary thinking still maintains, that biosecurity is the most significant risk to Australia’s security. It is considered so important it is studied and treated as a disaster, in the true sense of the word. Yet the statement gives it only a few superficial and basically meaningless paragraphs, and the budget for this year gives no more importance, no more projects, and, probably, no more dollars spent on it than last year either.
I want to address some of the things this statement barely mentions, or does not mention at all. While the minister’s Labor mates in Canberra, particularly the Prime Minister, contemplate some grandiose self-promoting plan to cut Australia’s carbon emissions, primary producers are seeing their livelihoods disappearing down the drain. It is not in the Ord drain, though, because this government has done little or nothing on it to provide a repository for those livelihoods. I know including primary producers in any form of ETS is off the radar for the next few years, I believe until 2013, but that is not good enough.
Australia and New Zealand are the only countries on this planet which are even contemplating including primary producers in any ETS. Believe me, it will be bad enough for farmers to absorb the increased, indirect costs associated with an ETS, but directly including them in carbon trading, or any other measure to reduce their carbon output, will cripple the industry. This has been the position of cattlemen and horticulturalists; anyone and everyone in the primary sector know that inclusion of the primary producers in any form of ETS will destroy the industry.
The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has to come down off his high horse and look at why other countries are not including primary producers in their proposed ETS schemes. Kevin Rudd, I can assure you, is not the pre-eminent authority on this matter, and he should discard any ideas about inclusion of primary industries in his ETS plans.
I know the ETS is a federal matter, but I expect this House, in particular the minister for Primary Industry, to show some leadership on this issue. I do not believe I have ever heard the minister speak on this matter in the public arena, but he should. He needs to come out publicly and tell pastoralists and farmers his position. Not only that, the minister needs to tell the NT farmers what he has done to support their plight and their position with the federal government. Has the minister come out in support of farmers, has he buckled or will he buckle to party lines, or will he not have the intestinal fortitude to come out and state his position?
This is important, because it goes to the sincerity of the minister in making this statement. On page 2 of his statement, the minister acknowledges the issues with increasing populations and the need to feed the hoards, so how could he in one breath say he acknowledges the food needs of the planet are increasing, but in another breath say he supports the demise of the primary industry sector in Australia, and particularly in the Northern Territory, because it will be included in a flawed ETS. It is time for some leadership from the minister on this. He is in a position to speak to his federal counterparts and make some representations in the federal sphere, outlining his position and the position of pastoralists and farmers in the Northern Territory.
On another front, the minister also needs to show some leadership in relation to the proposed award modernisation in the horticultural sector. The Deputy Leader of the parliamentary Labor Party, Julia Gillard, is moving towards this award modernisation process, and this is another area the minister has been mysteriously quiet on. I do not believe I have heard the minister for Primary Industry in the Northern Territory publicly state his position on that either.
This is an extremely important issue for our primary sector. The proposal for the award modernisation includes: casual loading of up to 25%; penalty rates and allowances; a 38-hour-week, with overtime rates at 1.5 to two times the normal pay rate and, on Sunday, a minimum of four hours at double time. If this were to come in, it would cripple the industry in the Northern Territory, and it will send farmers to the wall. I believe the Deputy Prime Minister does not realise, perhaps because she has no experience in seasonal horticultural or agricultural pursuits, that they are seasonal. When the mangoes need to be picked, they are picked for 10, 12, 14, 15 hours every day, seven days a week, for as long as it takes to get those mangoes off the trees and into sheds. Then they need to be processed through the sheds as well. The horticultural sector, particularly in relation to mangoes, but many other fruits and vegetables which are grown, are seasonal, and do not lend themselves to an ordinary award, like an officer worker, who turns up to work at 8 am and goes home at 4 pm. If the boss asks them to stay on for an hour, they get paid one hour at time-and-a-half, they get 17% leave loading and all the rest of it. Agriculture does not work like that.
I am sick and tired of seeing the government, particularly the federal Labor government, throwing a blanket over certain sectors, or certain issues, and hoping the blanket will fill all the holes and fix all the problems. Unfortunately, we know that simply does not happen. There needs to be a targeted approach, and some sort of common sense injected into these arguments.
Minister, in all good conscience, how can you support a change which would cripple the industry that you describe as a dynamic industry in your statement; the horticultural industry? I can assure you, it will not be so dynamic under this scheme. You need to say where you stand on these issues and specifically what you have done to support the impending plight of our farmers. I received an e-mail from a mango farmer referring to the modernisation and I will leave you with this quote from the e-mail, minister: ‘This will take us out, and probably quite a few others’.
This is not a good sign for the future growth of horticulture and agriculture in the Northern Territory. I believe this is an issue which, in all honesty, seriousness, and with every ounce of sincerity I can muster, needs to be dealt with by the Northern Territory government, through representations to the federal government, to ensure this does not occur. It is tough enough for farmers now, and if this goes through, we will see some terrible things happen within our horticulture industry. We live on the back of our primary producers across Australia, and in the Northern Territory we are no different. We must support our primary producers; they deserve the very best treatment from the government.
I urge the minister, all members, and the Deputy Prime Minister, if she is listening, to reconsider this. This is going to be a tough issue for Northern Territory farmers, and when you combine that with the prospect of primary producers being included in some sort of ETS, I do not know where we will be in two, three, four or five years time - not in a good place.
I thank the minister for bringing it on; it has given me an opportunity to raise some issues which I have become aware of over the last few months. I hope this document, Growing our Primary Industries: Partnerships for Productivity, contains some of the answers to the issues I have raised in my response to his statement this afternoon; but it would have been nice to have had this last night. Nonetheless, that is history.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister asks for support for his statement. I cannot say I support it, other than to say he is getting some things right, but there is still a hell of a lot more that needs to be done.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing on the statement. I wish this had been brought to us before the statement, so we had adequate time to look at it, because this is the book we are being asked to look at and we are being asked to comment on a statement which is referring to the book. It would have been better to refer to this, because opening it up I immediately saw two animals which were not mentioned in the statement - buffaloes and crocodiles. I only commented on what I did not see in the statement, and then find they are in the document called, Growing our Primary Industries: Partnerships for Productivity.
A simple look at the title would mean the government is developing partnerships with the primary industry sector, which should be the very reason the department exists; it is not new. It seems, according to the minister’s statement, the partnerships today are based on three principles: relevant research, disseminating the results of the research, and biosecurity. But is that it?
Surely a partnership with the government which first recognises primary industry as a key part of our economy, and one the government should actively promote, is one of the parts of that partnership. I do not believe the government has been promoting primary industry as well as it could. Also, surely a partnership with the government is not only about the agricultural side of things, but also the human side. Agriculture is not just another industry; for many it is a way of life. This is the side of the industry which is not included in the government’s statement today, and I believe it should be. I will get back to that a little later.
The minister’s statement is broad. It talks about the future of the industry and how we need to produce enough food to feed a growing population. I also believe in partnerships, but I believe in innovation, the science, and that we can develop primary industry and protect the environment. We need to be proactive and listen to the concerns of the industry, not just city-based lobby groups, who seem to have the ear of the government, and the northern suburb voters.
Primary industry creates jobs and feeds people, which is a very good reason for support. The minister for Primary Industry has looked at our main industries, which are basically the pillars of primary industry in the Northern Territory. I thought I would look at those particular industries and see where the partnerships are. If you look at the pastoral industry which, as the minister says, is one of the most important industries in the Northern Territory, the partnership it needs with the government is to try to improve roads; there is no doubt. The minister would know, and I know from travelling around parts of the Northern Territory, if the roads are not up to scratch then you are not going to develop the pastoral industry as well as it could be, because the minister is talking about productivity.
When it comes to land clearing, I am the first to say I do not like seeing the old Tipperary style of land clearing where the bulldozer went through the country and wiped out everything, across creeks and through billabongs - you name it - they kept going. I believe, after all these years, we have some pretty reasonable land clearing controls across the Territory. In the case of the Sturt Plateau, we have best practice committees. We sometimes forget many of our new farmers are well educated, not just at university or agricultural college, but they understand the land, its limitations, and the importance of the environment. Although things may have been done in years gone by, which would not be supported today, I believe, to some extent, we are tipping the balance in the other direction where the environment has become 90% of the reason and development has become 10%. That may not end up being the case but, as I said earlier, if you want to do an EIS, it is going to cost you $100 000, at least ...
Ms Purick: Minimum.
Mr WOOD: Minimum. This does not give one a feeling the government is stepping out of its way or promoting primary industry. In a sense, it is putting some blocks in the road of primary industry.
In relation to which department the land clearing guidelines should be in, land clearing guidelines are going to affect primary producers, which, at the present time, is under the department of Natural Resources and Environment. Obviously, that department wants to protect the environment, otherwise you would not have the department, which is understandable. At the same time, if anyone has read the draft clearing guidelines which are coming out - I am not sure when they will be available for any further comment - one gets the impression that unless a farmer is a brain surgeon or can afford to employ a consultant, you would find it very difficult to fulfil the requirements in the application for land clearing. Not only do you have to count the number of hollow logs, work out the endangered species, but you also get into the business of carbon emissions; it becomes very complicated for someone who wants permission to clear land.
Some of those things are important, but if the department or the government wants farmers to clear land and take all those things into consideration, then it should make much of the information available and help the farmers. It is funny, years ago, if you wanted to grow a crop, the government would send an extension officer to talk to you about growing that crop. Today, the government would say: ‘No, you employ a consultant to get the information from the department, to tell you how to grow the crop’. In other words, the philosophy now is it is not the department’s job to help you; it is for you to find out.
When it comes to where taxpayers’ money is being spent, it is being spent to employ people in these departments to go out and investigate the endangered species, vegetation types, and soil types - all those sorts of things. This information should be freely available to growers or pastoralists so they do not have to go to enormous expense to fill in a land clearing application.
In relation to partnerships, the government should be working with the pastoral industry to look at intensification of farms. We have already seen in the Douglas Daly how there are moves to promote cell grazing where more intensive use of the land has been developed. We have already seen how it has not only improved the pastures in that area, but has also improved the number of cattle being turned-off and, in one case in particular, there is a family that just won the Northern Territory Landcare Award for its work in cell grazing in the Douglas Daly area.
Partnerships in the diversification of pastoral land have been discussed over many years. If we are to look at not only increasing productivity, but also diversifying our primary industry economy, then we need to look at the possibilities for pastoralists to use the land for other purposes. Under the Pastoral Act, I suppose most of the land is to be used for cattle or similar things, but if you want to turn it into irrigated crops, use it for tourism, ecotourism, farm tourism, or have a bed and breakfast, or something like that to contribute to the economy of the station or farm, under the Pastoral Act it is not so simple.
Another partnership the government might look at is helping those buffalo farmers. In the statement, buffaloes did not get a mention but, as most people would know, the small abattoir in Darwin, which was closed down, meant it was very difficult for the buffalo industry to get its animals slaughtered. I know it has been trying to use the Oenpelli abattoir, but word has come back that that particular abattoir will only take the buffalo if it is completely processed there; it will not allow just a kill of the animal. It wants to take the whole animal and process it. I believe some of the buffalo farmers would prefer it to just kill the animal, prepare the basic carcass and take that back. I had word recently that is causing a difficulty too.
There is a whole range of partnerships the government needs to look at in relation to the pastoral industry. I will probably jump around a little, because I do not have much time. The partnerships are not just about the economic side of the pastoral industry. They are also about the social side of the people in the pastoral industry. People working in the bush are part of, you might say, a way of life, rather than just working in a shop, driving a bus in Darwin, or something. For people who live out bush, that is the thing they like to do; it is part of their life, and it is a special sort of life.
Those people face issues, besides isolation and communication. I have just received an e-mail from the NT Isolated Children’s Parents Association, which shows some of the issues these people have to face. It talks about the NT Supplementary Boarding Allowance, the NT Student Book and Application Forms, NT Convey and Subsidy Scheme Assistance, NT Tertiary Fares Reimbursement Scheme, the IT Resources for Middle and Senior Years Distance Education Students, Delivery of Middle Schooling in Rural and Remote NT, Country Areas Program Funding, Telecommunications, School Health Screening and Dental Services, and roads.
Although this is a statement about growing primary industries, you cannot grow primary industries if you do not help the people who work in the industry. It is easy for me to get up and say, productivity of the number of cows on this property should be x, y, and z, but do not take into account there are people and families who live on those properties whose needs must also be given equal emphasis by the government as part of the partnerships. It is not about the pure mechanics of a pastoral property.
The minister touches on horticulture, and I have a background in that area. If you take the figures in the statement, it shows the horticulture industry is increasing; there is no doubt. But when we talk about productivity and feeding more people, as in the statement, I wonder whether the government is prepared to look outside the square. The figures for bananas show there is an increase, but I am interested to know how the banana figures are going to keep going up, in light of the fact we have Panama disease. One of the issues with Panama disease is it has been very difficult, as the government knows, to try to find a suitable variety of bananas which overcomes it.
There was a story on Catalyst, on the ABC, on 16 April 2009, which talked about genetically modified bananas. On 23 April, there was a press release on the ABC talking about the possibility of genetically modified bananas, in relation to producing bananas that would be resistant to Panama disease. I know there has been much talk about, and it is probably a fair way off before it will happen. I ask the government, if it believes in increasing productivity and believes in our horticultural industry, and the only way to produce bananas in the Northern Territory is to go down the path of GM bananas, would it do it?
I have spoken about GM cotton, but when it comes to GM, it is like the world is coming to an end. You get the feeling people think GM is some sort of no, no, and, also that they do not understand what GM is about. GM is a vast area of science, some of which I do not agree with, but some of it I do.
I was reading an article the other day about GM. It said that many people did not like GM because they heard about the fish genes being mixed up with the tomato genes. I am the first to say, this is the sort of stuff I do not want to hear about. But when you know all this GM cotton is a protein gene which is attached to the cotton plant - the same protein people can buy in the hardware store under the name Dipel, an organically approved spray - scientists take the protein, put it in a plant and it kills the heliothis bug. It has: reduced spraying; reduced the carbon footprint, because tractors do not have to go up and down so many times spraying; helped the health of the farmer, because they do not have to use so many poisonous sprays; and has increased productivity. Yet, we seem to have come up against a brick wall, in this parliament, that all GM is bad.
It is like talking to a fundamentalist; everything is bad if you put the word GM in front of it. Yet, the GM trials in Katherine, which were funded by the NT government, showed if you grew it in a certain way, it was environmentally friendly, it only used the same amount of water as peanuts and mangoes - which are being promoted in this book - it only had two sprays, which are the same sprays you use for fleas on your dog.
I hope the government will keep a relatively broad mind when it comes to changes in technology, especially plant technology. We know the damage Panama disease has done to bananas in the Territory, what should have been a thriving industry. Big growers from Kununurra came to Lambells Lagoon, and spent millions on developing bananas, then along comes Panama disease – some people know where it came from, it was introduced into the Northern Territory - which wiped out the bananas at Berry Springs, then moved to Lambells Lagoon and basically wiped them out there.
If we are to move into the future years and produce more and more food for a hungry world, we have to not be shying away or scared of the generalisations that all things are bad. We need to look at them with a clear head, look at the science, be careful by all means, but if the technology is there to allow these things to happen, then we should.
In relation to broad-acre agriculture - peanuts, corn and hay - it is good to see we now have a little happening in the Territory after a long period of time when it dropped off. I was talking to the General Manager of the Peanut Company of Australia who said they did a wheat trial in Katherine - I believe it was this year - which took eight weeks to go from seed to crop. That makes you start to wonder. People are worried about wheat farming in other parts of Australia where there has not been enough rainfall and yet, we seem to be able to grow it in the Northern Territory. Obviously there would be issues about humidity, but there is potential. I have said a number of times that our research should not necessarily be about the big crops. It should be about those sorts of things, looking at whether we can develop markets that the industry would not normally look at. It was interesting to hear there is a possibility of growing wheat in the Northern Territory, especially this far north.
I mentioned GM cotton, and there is the possibility it could come back, with Ord River Stage 3. It will only come back if there is a market, but if there is no market, let us not get too worried about it. If there is a company which wants to grow it, and we know it can be grown successfully, let people have the debate then. But to say cotton should not be grown in the Territory, to me, is very closed logic.
I notice one area which is not mentioned in the statement - the small animal production section, pigs, poultry, and horses, for instance. It is sad to see the pig industry all but finished in the Northern Territory, and it is sad to say the poultry industry is finished. These industries are finished because of the price of feed, and the competition from down south. Again, there is a partnership I believe the government should be looking at. Can we redevelop those industries in the Northern Territory? Can we get cheaper feed?
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Brennan. He is my next door neighbour, so we are like that.
I believe those areas which have dropped off the radar, like pigs and poultry, should be looked at to see whether some of those industries could be brought back, whether we can produce cheaper feed in the Northern Territory to compete with down south. I am not sure, but we need to look at the possibilities.
Another area which does not get much mention, believe it or not, is the horse industry. People might ask if that is actually a primary industry; well, I am not sure what else it is. There are many people who ride horses in the Territory, whether they ride them as stockmen or for sport, it is a good little industry. You imagine all the bridles, saddles, blankets, shoes, nails, feed, medicine, all the gear people wear, from your Akubras to your Wranglers, to who knows what.
The horse industry in the Northern Territory is quite a big industry, relative to the size of the Territory. Go to Freds Pass or the showgrounds in Alice Springs and have a look at the hundreds of people who do show jumping. If you just want to look at the cost of the transporting, there are the horse floats, the hurdles, and bringing up judges from down south. It is a little industry, and sometimes people forget that. Someone over the back there reminded me of the dog industry - showing dogs - where do you put that? What do you call it?
Ms Purick: Dog conformation.
Mr WOOD: Dog conformation is quite a big industry. Imagine the feed, medicines, and all that. When you get to know people in that business, you will find out they are keen and spend much money. When you go to one of these competitions, you find they have flown up three judges from interstate. It is all helping the economy, and it may be a little niche area for the economy, but they are things we should not forget.
Another issue is forestry. I am not necessarily against forestry, but I saw plenty of it when I went out to Ord River Stage 2 or Stage 1. I become concerned when I go down to the Douglas Daly and find that trees have been planted down the contour, which means the water rushes down the contour, runs over the next door neighbour’s pastoral property and causes erosion. There has been much emphasis on the pastoral industry, in relation to the Douglas Daly and erosion, and the way it does things, and then along comes the forestry industry, which tended to get plaudits from the government, and I find they are planting trees in a way that has caused erosion on pastoral properties.
In one case, there was supposed to be a buffer which was not put in. I hope we do not get too carried away with forestry; it is an important industry, but let us make sure it does not use up good soils which are suitable for food and, where it is planted, it does not cause problems in relation to erosion. In the case of Bathurst Island, where the company has gone bung, ensuring the Acacia species does not become a weed, which is a danger with the company folding; if you do not get continual maintenance, some of those forest trees might become more of a problem.
We need to look at horticulture on Aboriginal communities again. I do not believe it is as easy as people make it out to be - having spent a fair part of my life growing vegetables in Aboriginal communities. Unless people are educated and prepared to spend seven-days-a-week - some people think growing a crop is as easy as falling off a log; it is not. If you are going to advance horticulture in Aboriginal communities, you need not only good literacy and numeracy, but also a basic education. You need to understand soils and water, and how plants grow, from a scientific point of view, to ensure you understand what you are doing. We have a long way to go before that happens. There are social issues which can make it hard to have a seven-day-a-week vegetable garden, but we have to work our way through that.
The member for Barkly knows my opinion on prison farms. This is another area for horticulture. It is a business which will both produce and require goods. We have to keep working on the prison farms.
The member for Katherine spoke about water allocation planning - a very interesting issue - where you have to put a bore down before you get water, which seems to be the wrong way around. The way it happens in Litchfield, if you want to apply for land clearing for mangoes, you have to put a bore down and test it to see if you have any water, before you clear the land; which makes sense. But the other way, of having to drill a bore first, pump it and wait to see if they give you permission to have the water, seems the wrong way around. It is a very expensive process. Water allocation planning is happening in the rural area, and is creating quite an interest.
I would like to hear from the minister what he thinks about the emissions trading scheme. He made a statement, during the Cattlemen’s Association Conference, earlier this year in Alice Springs, which I attended, where he basically said: ‘notwithstanding the issue of carbon emissions’ - and never came back to it in his statement; he put it to one side. However, when you read the rest of the statement, there is no mention of what he really thinks should happen regarding emissions trading.
From the figures I have seen, if we are to tax agriculture in the Northern Territory, we are going to kill the live cattle export. They are already going to be affected, as the member for Katherine said, by indirect costs such as fuel, trucks, fertiliser, polypipe. If you put the tax on how much they are supposed to - pardon me, Madam Speaker - fart, it will make it very difficult for that industry to survive. We have to be strong, and the government has to tell the federal government that this is not on. President Obama has not included agriculture in his scheme. He is sensible enough to realise you will kill the industry and we should also follow his example.
One of the other areas of partnership we need with the government - and this is the key, I reckon, for the future – is to really promote and speed up the identification of suitable soils and water in the Northern Territory. When I was at Amanbidji, which is old Kildurk Station, there are massive black soil plains. There are also very good soils at the Sturt Plateau. We need to do the planning - and the minister mentions it in his statement - but we really need to do it now. If we believe this is going to be the part of Australia where agriculture will develop, we need to do it carefully and environmentally sensibly, but we need to do the work now which underpins future expansion. We have to identify good soils and good water, right now. This has happened at the Ord, but we have not done it as much as we should have in the Northern Territory.
Another issue is education; we have to do more when it comes to education. I was at Mistake Creek, which is an Indigenous pastoral property. I know we are talking about Indigenous economic development for the Northern Territory, so I was a little disappointed to find out most of the Aboriginal ringers at Mistake Creek came from Western Australia, they did not come from the Northern Territory, and the rest of them were non-Aboriginal. I believe there are some real issues there, trying to get people who come from that country to work there. I was told that the training was not good enough. If you go to CDU at Katherine, you start at 8 am and you finish at 4.21 pm. Ringers do not work that way, they start at 4.30 am, work to about 12 pm, have a knock-off during the hot time of the day, and start work late in the afternoon. The training has to suit the industry. My daughter went to Mataranka School, which is where she learnt to be a ringer, and she got up at 4.30 am. I do not believe the new system is appropriate.
Lastly, on the education side, I believe we need a degree in tropical horticulture, which could be based in Katherine or Kununurra - I do not care. Both these areas have mainly irrigated crops, and I believe that is what we should be looking at. We currently have certificates or associate diplomas, which are basically trade-type qualifications; we need to lift the standard. Tropical horticulture is a growth area, and we need to ensure we have people from the Northern Territory who can fill those areas of need.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. I believe the partnerships, between the government and the rest of the Territory are important if we are to develop agriculture in the future.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for this statement and, given what my colleague from Katherine said, primary industries are fundamental to the Northern Territory’s economy and also to our future.
On going through the statement, I see it is a little light in many areas, which I will go through, and it is an indication of the gloss, which comes out in government statements, but is not backed up with much substance. Most of it is okay, but there are omissions, which I will go through. I had the chance to speak to some farming and agricultural people today, and a couple of comments off the top were: it was a load of ‘flimflam’, and another fellow said, it was just a load of ‘polly waffle’.
One of the concerns I have with the statement is that it is unbalanced. There are about three and half pages devoted to the pastoral industry, which I have no issue with, but there is about one-and-a-half pages on horticulture, and one and-a-half pages on agriculture. It is almost as if the agriculture and horticulture industries are the poor cousins to the pastoral industry, or that is how the government views them.
There is no mention anywhere in the statement that I can see of new, or possible new farming, that is under way at the moment, or research, or planning for new farming. It does not matter how small, or whether it is a niche market, because we know niche markets can be very successful and can yield great returns for, not only businesses, but for the Territory.
There is no mention of some of the new areas, such as growing cashews and billy goat plums, which are in their infancy, but have had some good track records, albeit troublesome. Billy goat plums are turned into products which are sold down south. Those two products, in particular, are very important because they have involved, in the past, many Aboriginal people and Aboriginal communities which has brought returns to those communities. There is no mention of those kinds of things in the statement.
It is pretty light on the research and development area. There is no real mention about how this is going into the future or the direction of any new initiatives. There is little mention in regards to emissions trading schemes, and I will not go into that in great detail, as that will be covered by some of my other colleagues, but, suffice to say, the rest of the OECD countries think we are pretty mad for including the pastoral industry in the emissions trading scheme.
From reading the statement, and talking with people today, there is a definite lack of leadership. There are many challenges which could be met by effective leadership, but, sadly, that is not present, or it is not indicative, in this statement. It is policy on the run, including this industry. What is happening with the Berrimah Farm? There is no reference to Berrimah Farm, and the shemozzle we have seen over the last couple of years regarding the Planning minister announcing the government wants to turn it into a subdivision. Of course, it has all gone quiet, and we know why, because it has had to undertake environmental studies to work out the extent of the contamination from previous activities.
It does not talk about working with other government agencies, and I believe my colleague from Katherine made the statement that it should be the prime agency for taking primary industries forward, and not to be attacked or undermined by other agencies. I will provide an example which was given to me today from farmers in the Marrakai region. They are Vietnamese farmers, so their literacy in English is not as good as it could be, but a person who was helping them took three weeks to obtain a clearing permit for one of them. They finally got the permit yesterday, which was asked for in July, so it took five months to get a clearing permit. These are serious farmers; they are big farmers, and it is not right that it took five months to get a clearing permit. That is excessive, and it shows they are bogging it down in systems and not trying to help people get ahead at all.
There is no real talk about the future planning for the horticultural and agricultural industries – I will leave the pastoral aside for the time being. Where are the areas identified for the expansion of this industry? We know we have, or previously had, areas in Lambells Lagoon. However, that is being impacted by the growing residential areas. In fact, I have written to the Minister for Planning and Lands about that, because the zoning is for horticultural, yet there are many residential properties. There is the Marrakai, but does it have the supporting infrastructure, such as roads, to support the growing horticultural and agricultural industry? When many of the Asian vegetable marketers want to get their product to market they cannot because of the roads.
There is not much forward planning for horticultural development. There is no consideration given particularly to the identification and allocation of suitable land, and the assessment of water availability and future demand. Those two items, in particular, will test the links between the departments and how well they can work together.
It does not come through in this statement but we need comprehensive land capability mapping and allocation of land which is appropriately resourced for horticultural production, with long-term security, so that sometime in the future, if land is identified, something does not come along and they have to move to another place.
There is no mention of any kind of support to farmers in the beginning of their projects. No mention of any subsidies or incentive programs which may exist. It is sad that I did not see any reference to work by Charles Darwin University, in particular the Katherine Rural College and Mataranka Station and what they do there. The training and educating of people, and encouraging more people into the industry, is crucial to support the industry in its operations. We know we have a skills shortage in the Territory, which goes across all industries. It is disappointing we did not see any reference to the Taminmin High School, and its agricultural program, because they all complement each other and work to take the industry forward.
The priority of a ministerial statement should be a clear statement of the minister’s view or vision of the role of primary industries and the future of the NT. I do not see that coming through in this statement. It talks mostly about what we have now, but not about the future direction or planning, where we are going in the future, and how we are going to do it.
One of my key areas of concern is the research priorities, because research is fundamental to the resolution of problems such as sustainable production and conservation in the Territory. It also provides the objective data to show whether climate change is having the effects predicted. For the last 30 years in the Territory, primary industries research has been an easy target for managers to attack in pursuit of predetermined budget reductions, or to use the words we often hear in the public service today, ‘efficiency dividends’. It is worrying to note that, even in the few developing areas of the top part of the Territory and elsewhere, such as the Ord River, the research is minimal and, what does exist is not directed to environmental issues such as salinity detection or nutrient problems in an irrigated environment.
A great deal of research in the NT is done by the universities, CSIRO and funded groups such as CRCs, which is good, relevant, and will keep going, but it has not always been as targeted as it could have been. Good scientific research will provide the data desperately needed in the NT for the development of rational policies by the government. We need to have good sound research so the government can make rational policies, particularly about primary industries.
I believe the government sometimes has a fundamental misunderstanding of science by expecting definite answers to specific problems in a short time span, which is not how it works; it cannot be done because science does not work that way.
One of the other areas of concern is the laboratories at Berrimah Farm and elsewhere, and how they are working. I hope they are adequately resourced and supported in animal and plant health, soils, and water, because that will be essential to adequately support the work of the department and primary industries.
I believe the priority areas are quite clear: biosecurity and disease identification, environmental monitoring, diagnostic services in research and investigation, and routine diagnostic services for the public. Priority one is the core role, and disease identification maybe intermittent, but acute in times of serious disease outbreaks.
This statement is silent on the role of AQIS and other national laboratories, in relation to the NT laboratories, in the event of a major disease outbreak. This is one area of concern to the industry. There needs to be clear identification of priority services provided by the department within existing resources. For example, there is uncertainty about the future of the department’s post-entry quarantine facility. This facility is not in high demand, although, due to mandatory quarantine requirements for the importation of plants, it provides an essential service which is not adequately replicated elsewhere in our climatic zone. There is considerable demand from growers for chemical residue testing services, and the industry may also benefit from a testing program to encourage and regulate good chemical management practices. However, the Northern Territory government does not currently have National Association of Testing Authorities, or NATA, accreditation, which severely limits the capacity for chemical monitoring and management. I urge the minister to look into that because we will definitely need it if we are going to be successful and keep the Territory and Australia clean.
To put it on the record, and because the minister did not really detail it in his statement, there is value across the board - horticultural, agricultural, and pastoral. The cut flower industry in the Territory is around $18.4m; mango production is one of the more prolific producers at $57.7m; vegetables, which includes the growing area of Asian vegetables, is around $29m; and exotic fruits, like rambutans and custard apples is around $3.5m. The buffalo industry - trying to get statistics was difficult because they pull in crocodiles, poultry, pigs and camels - is around $10.5m; and, as the member for Nelson mentioned, there is a growing interest in the other type of buffaloes, other than the swamp buffaloes, for their milk and cheese. There is an operation at Lambells Lagoon which has struggled with some of the bureaucracy and red-tape, I suppose you call it, in getting approvals to do this. I hope the minister tries to assist that growing business as best he can, so they do not get mucked around too much by these other government agencies.
The statement talks about partnerships with industry, but the government should really be taking a lead role with industry. I am concerned, where it says on the first page:
We are all aware of the challenges the future holds;
And there are four bullet points. I was reading the October Business Review 2009, in the NT News, and Frank Peacock, Herron Todd White, used those same words, which looks to me as if the minister has copied it word for word, which I find disappointing.
One of the other challenges which is not listed is marketing, the positioning of the industry, and the competitiveness of the industry.
Much of what is in the statement is fairly general or ‘flimflam’. It states:
- From a global perspective, the task of producing enough food to feed ever increasing populations has never been more important.
Well, of course it is. We are going to have to continue to feed our increasing populations and, perhaps, more so than ever before, we will have to look at having our own food bowls in the Territory, and not relying so much on interstate or overseas products.
As my colleagues have said, it would have been better if we had received this booklet, Growing Our Primary Industries before the statement. When the government starts to develop the NT Agribusiness Strategy, I hope it does it in close association with the industry.
The statement says the corporate plan is:
- … advocating for industry access to land and water resources and infrastructure.
We know the problems interstate with accessing water and land. But this plan does not detail what the infrastructure is, and there is no real vision of the areas which are going to be allocated for future agricultural and horticultural development and, where, more importantly, the water is going to come from. Where is the water planning to support the agricultural and horticultural industries?
It talked about guiding and assisting plant and animal-based industries through extension services, which is a joke; there are no real extension services offered to industry. I know for sure, which is a shame because, in the past, there used to be good extension services. Farmers and other growers looked to these people to help them develop their businesses and industries.
One of the issues with this statement, is it talks mostly about the big farmers. Yes, they are important, and contribute much to our economy and our livelihoods. But, it does not refer much to the little farmers, who are just as important. The government should also acknowledge the niche farmers, whether they are dealing with plants or animals, because they have an important role in primary industry.
Biosecurity is a big issue, and I am not sure this government takes it seriously. I am not sure if the minister has read the Beale report. If not, I recommend he does, because it is a very important report. I have questioned the minister previously on the sentinel herds we have at Berrimah Farm and elsewhere. These are important, not only to the Territory, but to Australia, because we are at the gateway to Asia, and to many countries which are not free of diseases. It is not only about protecting the Northern Territory, but also protecting the rest of Australia.
On page 5 of the statement it states:
- … recognise that the key role for government in helping to drive growth in primary industries, is participating in relevant research.
It should be leading the research, not just being a compliant partner. It should be driving the agenda, in association with industry so we are at the forefront of research, not only for the Territory, but for Australia.
I will no go into the pastoral side of it too much, suffice to say, we really need to start looking at the facilities of the holding yards or feedlots. The one on Wishart Road currently holds about 3500 to 4000 head of cattle, and the industry tells me it needs to be about 10 000. If you want the industry to grow, we need to have the facilities to hold the cattle before they go on to the ships. I know there are issues with finding the land and expanding those premises, and that the industry has had discussions with the Land Development Corporation. It needs to keep having those discussions, and the minister needs to be involved, so if they do need to expand their yards, the minister is supporting and pushing them. As I understand, that is one of the issues associated with the business; it is limited a little by the size of its yards.
The global financial crisis has been an issue. More so now, than before, we have to look at these primary industries, which will take us into the future for what we need in the Territory. Primary industries create jobs, wealth, and also have the potential to provide our own food bowl in the Northern Territory. Many of the products and produce in our supermarkets come from interstate, if not overseas, and it is disappointing that the amount of homegrown products in supermarkets in the Territory is decreasing, not increasing. It is about time we started to get back to some basics and promote campaigns such as buy local, eat local, or grow local, eat local.
I went on the show circuit and always visit the primary industry stands because, in the past, they used to be very interesting. Katherine Show was very good, but some of the other shows were very disappointing. We used to showcase our products and our wares, but that is not happening so much anymore, which is disappointing because many people go to agricultural shows to see the agricultural and horticultural products and everything associated with that.
I will leave it there, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not as good a statement as it could have been. There are many areas which need to be improved, and I believe the minister needs to take a more decisive leadership role in pushing and supporting the primary industries forward in the Territory, both in the near and long-term future.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is great to see there are so many people on the other side interested in primary industries – it is revealing. I look across the other side and see a whole range of people who, for years and years, have given their heart and soul to the land, worked their guts out, ploughing the fields, riding horses, and what not – in actual fact, I am being quite sarcastic, because I have gone through the list of people in the government to see who has a little background in the rural industries, and I cannot see one.
The closest I come is our good friend, the member for Barkly who, I believe, involved himself in the rodeo circuit some years ago. I have to admit, rodeos and the rural industry go hand in glove and, I imagine, member for Barkly, there is quite a lot of interaction but you are the lone star of people who have had any interaction with primary industries, on any front, on the other side. Prior to coming to parliament, there is not one member on the other side who has any dealings with primary industries anywhere at all.
It is very sad because, ultimately, if you do not have people within your Caucus who have empathy for farmers, graziers, and producers of all types, it is pretty hard to find a ground where you want to represent and support these people. That is exactly what has happened with the government. In the Northern Territory, for years and years, we have seen the anti-farmer attitude of the current government. We saw it at the start, when the Labor government was first elected, and - it looks like my good friend is leaving the gallery - good to see Luke Bowen, CEO of the NT Cattlemen’s Association, and Rohan Sullivan, President of the NT Cattlemen’s Association, watching this debate. They are great blokes who do a great job supporting the cattle industry in the Northern Territory; they have an empathy with some of the primary industries in the Northern Territory. I imagine they, like me, and members on this side of the Chamber, would be seething at the way the government has handled the primary industry portfolio.
Madam Deputy Speaker, while I am on my feet, can I call your attention to the state of the House?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells. A quorum is present. Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is good to see these guys are so interested in the primary industry statement - they have all turned up to hear some discussion on it. It is good to see the member for Arafura, because we all know how she riled so heavily against the primary industries in her electorate. She has pressed for …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Fong Lim knows he cannot refer to the absence or presence of someone within this Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister, you are correct. Member for Fong Lim, I remind you of that.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hear what you are saying. However, I was saying it is great to see the member for Arafura taking an interest in primary industries, particularly in primary industries which occur within her electorate on the Tiwi Islands, where there is a wonderful timber plantation. We all know the member for Arafura, for years now, has riled against it and had tried on numerous occasions to have that industry shut down, which is an awful shame. As far as industries go, there are not too many industries on the Tiwi Islands of that size and scale, and it would be an awful shame to see those forestry projects closed down. Hopefully, the member for Arafura may have seen the light and is now trying to find the means to see that industry resurrected, back on a sound financial footing, and grow and continue into the future.
As I say, this government has been anti-farmer for the whole time it has been in power. We have seen it, as I was saying earlier on, when it first came into power, one of the first things it did was put a moratorium on land clearing and pumping water from the Daly. Great stuff. We had a whole range of small farmers, mum and dad farmers, go to the Daly River to set up farms and get things going. They were given great concessions by the government at the time when it subdivided those areas. People had caveats on their blocks that they had to do a certain amount of work and put a certain amount of investment into those blocks. But, lo and behold, along came the Labor government and said, no, none of that is going to count, and these poor people have been placed in limbo for a long period of time, not knowing whether they will be able to develop their properties. It is a sad situation.
We see it at the Berrimah Research Station because the …
Ms Lawrie: You are on your own. You do not have one member of the CLP. You are all on your own.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: You do not have one member of the CLP in the Chamber. Where are your mates?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind you of the point of order the Leader of Government Business raised before and maybe you could remind the member for Karama of that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. Treasurer, as you aware, reference to presence or absence of members in the Chamber is not permitted. Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I call your attention to the state of the House.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! It is a breach of standing orders to do the stunt the member for Braitling has just done, which is deliberately leave the House so they can then call a point of order on a quorum.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Braitling did not purposefully do anything, as the minister inferred. I ask you to request the minister to withdraw those comments.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat, member for Fong Lim. I will seek advice from the Deputy Clerk. There is no point of order. It is an assertion that the lack of quorum was deliberately set up. I will be watching closely the movements of members in the House. Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, further to the point of order, the Treasurer stood up and made an unparliamentary comment alleging the member for Braitling had somehow breached standing orders. I ask her to withdraw those comments, please.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Karama raised a point of order. I have said there is no point of order. You have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I raised a separate point of order, being that the Treasurer made unparliamentary remarks about the member for Braitling. It was an offensive remark; she suggested he purposefully left the Chamber in breach of standing orders. I ask you to ask the Treasurer to withdraw those comments.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order. I believe there is confusion here at present because, as I recall, the member for Fong Lim called your attention to the state of the House a second time, or was in the process of doing that. The member for Braitling has gone in and out a number of times. I ask whether we are in the process of determining if we have a quorum at present.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have a quorum. Leader of Government Business, please resume your seat. I do not believe the Treasurer made unparliamentary comments, but I am going to seek advice from the Deputy Clerk.
I stand corrected. Member for Karama, I ask you to withdraw those comments.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is like pulling teeth to get an apology out of the member for Karama.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim knows he needs to direct his comments through the Chair.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Fong Lim, the Leader of Government Business is quite correct. You do need to address your comments through the Chair and, if we could resume, you have the call. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I understand now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to look at you to be able to direct my comments through you.
I will state what I said before: it is like trying to pull teeth getting the member for Karama to apologise for anything, which I believe is very sad, indeed. You would think the member for Karama would be a big enough person to admit when she is wrong. But it does not seem that way at all. She seems to be a person with a thin skin, who is not prepared to face even the most obvious logic.
I digress, but it is a terrible shame, indeed, we have someone of the ilk of the member for Karama sitting in this Chamber.
As I was saying, this government is an anti-farming government. Everything it has done since coming to office has been anti-farmer and anti-pastoralist. We saw the tripling of pastoral fees on pastoral stations soon after it came to government. We saw the moratorium put in place on the Douglas Daly region, and we are now seeing the slow, but determined, closure of the Berrimah Research Facility. A facility which has stood the Territory in good stead over a long period of time. I should add, it is a facility, which we are not even certain is safe to develop as a residential housing area because of contamination and other issues in that area. The minister for Planning is such a cool planner, a person of such limited vision, that she fails to see what is happening before her eyes. We now have to abolish this once great organisation and resource, because the Planning minister has failed to plan, in any substantial way, for the Territory’s housing needs. We see a great facility go down the gurgler, which is a crying shame.
Another big issue, which I believe will impact massively, particularly on cattlemen, but also other pastoralists, is the Rudd government’s crazy move into the area of emissions trading and its carbon pollution reduction scheme, which it seems intent on ramming through the federal parliament. There are many members on both sides who believe carbon emissions need to be curbed. But, I believe there are very few people who believe we should be smashing up our own food production industries in order to meet some ideologically-driven, crazy goal and tax it is going to throw, particularly on farmers. Nowhere else in the world have we seen a carbon tax placed on primary industries and food production. But, in Australia, we are going to see that situation occur if Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong have their way.
Mr Knight: And Malcolm Turnbull.
Dr Burns: And Mr Macfarlane.
Mr TOLLNER: I will take those interjections, because the Coalition is vehemently opposed to seeing carbon tax placed on our agricultural industries. It is on the record saying that. It has not said it is going to support a carbon tax on farmers, graziers, horticulturalists, and those people in the agricultural industries. But, lo and behold, Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong are going to do that. We will be the first country in the world to put a tax on its own food producers - a ridiculous situation.
In something I was reading recently, the minister said there is a range of areas we need to concentrate on, and one of them is food production in the future, because we understand there will be a global food crisis, populations are exploding, there is less arable land, and the world will really have a demand for food. Lo and behold, in Australia, we are going to put a tax on an industry which will be vital to our very survival in the future. Forget the world is going to overheat, we are all going to burn and die, and probably drown in rising sea levels 200 years down the track, but the here and now is we are going to put an axe in the back of our farmers and our graziers - that is a terrible thing.
What do we hear from the government in the Northern Territory, where we are so dependent on, and have such a big demand for, our primary industries? Do we hear of the Chief Minister going to Canberra to talk to Penny Wong and Kevin Rudd saying: ‘You cannot do this, Prime Minister, you cannot do this to our farmers and our cattle producers?’ Do we hear of the Minister for Business or the minister for Primary Industries going there to talk to Martin Ferguson, the federal Resources minister about this, or the federal Agriculture minister, Tony Burke? Do we hear of anyone going to talk to the environmental zealot, Penny Wong, about this? No, we do not. We hear nothing, such is their blind support for the incompetent federal government we have currently, a government which is prepared to risk Australia’s food production for ideological reasons.
There are many areas where we can work to cut carbon emissions and we can do quite a good job. We could do a good job in cutting carbon emissions in the Northern Territory if this government was a little proactive in any particular areas. But, no, they are quite happy to watch Mr Rudd put an axe in the back of farmers, agriculturalists, and graziers. It is a terrible situation.
A few years ago, I had the great honour of being a member of the Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce, which was headed by Bill Heffernan. We were looking at …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I hear the giggles coming from the other side. For the first time in a long time, the federal government had focused on trying to develop agriculture in northern Australia. What do we get from the government? Was there wholehearted support that the federal government was going to wear much of the cost and conduct much of the science to investigate these matters? I believe we put something like $40m into the TRaCK program, Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge research program, went into Charles Darwin University at the time, and the government was quite happy to see Charles Darwin pick up that money. But was there one ounce of support for what Mr Heffernan and that committee was trying to do in the Northern Territory, which was to establish proper science and means to be able to develop more areas of the Northern Territory, the whole of north Australia, for that matter, and maybe produce more feed? No, absolutely not.
The small-minded, little people of this government decided no, the best way they could deal with it was to heckle from the sidelines, exactly the way the minister did then, had a little giggle and said: ‘oh, ho, ho, ho, no, it can never work’. That is the best they can come up with. I remember my opponent in the last Territory election. We had a little debate on the Douglas Daly thing, and he said something along the lines of, you know, we are not going to let people clear trees in the Douglas Daly, or pump from the Douglas Daly because we do not want it to become another Murray River where it will all just dry up. I thought that was bizarre comment, because we do not have farmers sprinkled all along the Douglas Daly, sucking out miles and miles of water, growing rice and cotton and all of those other things. There is absolutely bugger all out there, when it comes to comparisons between what goes on along the Douglas Daly and what goes on along the Murray, absolutely stuff all.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I would like you to reword the last couple of sentences, please. I believe it is completely unparliamentary.
Mr TOLLNER: What part, Madam Speaker, sorry?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you are well aware of the words you said. I believe you need to be a little more parliamentary.
Mr TOLLNER: All right, I will give it a go.
Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps you could just withdraw those comments and then restate the matter.
Mr TOLLNER: I am at a loss, Madam Speaker. I fail to understand which comments you are referring to.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure you can remember. Just withdraw the comments, member for Fong Lim, and continue.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw whatever offensive comments you found, Madam Speaker, and I will replace them with …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move the member be given 10 more minutes to finish his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, thank you, and I thank members for their support.
I know it must be a little difficult at times for members opposite to listen to me. I have the very strong view that the truth hurts. Some of the things I say at times hurts the team on the other side. But I refuse to have a battle of wits with unarmed men. In any case …
A member: Unless you are legless.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Fong Lim, I would like you to direct your comments through the Chair and get back to the matter before us.
Mr TOLLNER: As I was saying, at the last election I had a debate with the former member for Millner. It was a funny thing; we were debating about what we were going to do with the electorate. The presenter at the time, Julia Christiansen - God bless her soul, wonderful lady - came out of left field with a whole range of questions about the Douglas Daly. It did not seem to bother me too much, but I believe it caught the former member for Millner completely off guard, because the member for Millner made two points: ‘We do not want it to become another Murray/Darling problem’, and: ‘Julia, you have to understand’, something along these lines, ‘when it comes to a showdown between …’ I believe he said ‘40 000 fishermen, or 60 000 fishermen and 40 farmers, I tell you who we will pick every time, and it will not be the 40 farmers. We will pick the 40 000 fishermen’.
For a start, I do not believe there are 40 000 fishermen going up that creek, but I understand there are many, and we have to protect the fish stocks for recreational fishermen. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how that cannot be done at the same time as salving some of the concerns of the 40 farmers who are along that creek as well. The attitude of the Labor team can be summed up in that very short interview, because it ran hard on this at the last election. It said the CLP was going to clear-fell the Daly or some nonsense like that. I cannot imagine any one of our candidates or elected members, who said they wanted to clear-fell the Daly. But this was the line the spin doctors in the Labor Party decided was going to win them votes in the northern suburbs, with people whose lives do not actually depend on what they turn off the land. I believe that is a sad indictment.
The list is endless of where this government, and former Labor governments, has failed farmers, pastoralists and horticulturalists. We see the subsiding, receding, or sinking port - whatever you want to call it - but there seems to be no urgency from the government to fix those problems. I imagine somewhere down the line that will impact on some of our primary industries. There is very little support for research for those industries. The government is quite prepared to trash the Berrimah Research Farm, to just throw it away. I have not heard one coherent plan on what it is going to replace it with. My understanding is, it will not be replaced at all. It will be a lost resource to the Northern Territory. Maybe we will buy in expertise from - I do not know - Tasmania, Greenland, maybe England or Saudi Arabia. I do not know where the government intends to get that information which is home spun and produced in the Northern Territory. The government seems intent on pressing ahead to demolish the joint and turn it into houses. I note other colleagues of mine say when they fly over Darwin and look out the window of the plane, there seems to be plenty of land out there, but, no, this government is quite prepared to pick on the farmers - belt the farmers again - and take that resource away from them.
The government members are quite prepared to stick their heads in the sand, ignore the farming, cattle, agricultural, and horticultural lobbies, when it comes to the federal government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme proposals. The zealousness which emanates from the Environment Minister, Penny Wong, and no one seems to be prepared to go to Canberra to argue the case for Territory farmers and cattlemen with her, let alone the Prime Minister. Not one of them is prepared to stick their head up publicly and say they do not support what the federal government is doing. No, they would much rather play politics, slide under their desks, toe the party line, and hide themselves from public scrutiny.
After all, as far as they are concerned, there are only 200-odd members of the cattle industry and they do not carry much of a vote. It is not like the members for Barkly or Stuart’s votes are hanging off them, and certainly not the member for Casuarina, the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Government Business, or the member for Karama. No, their vote does not depend on what the cattlemen have to say, so we will ignore that mob.
The Cattlemen’s Association, by the way, represents 95% of the Northern Territory cattle herd. Last year, it exported in excess of 265 000 cattle overseas, mainly through the Port of Darwin, and mainly to Indonesia. There are more than 2000 jobs indirectly employed in those industries, there are 3000 jobs which support those industries – those other supportive industries. It is something like $400m of direct benefits to the Australian economy, with flow-on benefits of around $800m. But, it does not seem to concern the Territory government that these people are being impacted on by its poor policies, by its anti-farming ideology - none of it concerns them at all.
Instead, we have ministers coming into this joint, like we saw yesterday, talking about Indigenous economic activity and, yet, it has absolutely no plans. We see the dud minister for Housing talking about houses, and he has not built a single house in two years, despite the fact that he got almost $700m. It is all spin; it is all tinsel. Nothing real ever seems to happen from this government. Nothing that it can hang its hat on, and say, we have done this, we have helped out that industry, or we have created something.
No, it is about employing a range of media people and spin doctors upstairs, $9m, I believe, the NT News quoted it is spending every year. Goodness me, imagine an extra $9m going into the health system, houses, or going into the pockets of public servants, which might help out with more than the 2.5% wage increase. But, no, this government is totally devoted to the message, it is not devoted at all to the substance of that message, to what it is planning to do, because nothing ever happens.
It is quite prepared to kick the farmers, the cattlemen, and the horticulturists. We heard this from the members for Goyder and Nelson on this, who both have strong links in the rural area and work in the rural area. Similarly, the Leader of the Opposition makes no bones about telling people he was a farmer.
There are a range of people on this side of the House who have been involved in the rural industries. I came off a cattle property in central Queensland and my brothers are still in the cattle business; but I look around the other side and what do I see? Not much. No empathy or concern for people on the land, just someone to kick, pick on, bleed, and try to reap what they can without giving anything back. It is an awful shame. But that is the lot of this government.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, considering the member for Fong Lim started with me, I feel obliged to reply, and I will put a couple of things on the record.
First, my association with the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory started in 1981, after spending a year in Tennant Creek. I ran and built schools on pastoral properties, I raised a family on great Northern Territory cattle stations and, today, I still have a long affiliation with the pastoral community of the Northern Territory. My work in the ministries has broadened that across the Territory.
You may also be interested to know that over the years I had an association with the Melbourne International Comedy Festival, and trained five class clowns, which was an affiliation between the Melbourne Comedy Festival and secondary schools in the Northern Territory - two national finalists, and one national finalist in 2004 receiving an honourable mention from the Melbourne International Comedy Festival. So, dare I say it, I feel qualified to judge comedy. On judging the performance of the member for Fong Lim, there is a theatrical term, used in the stand-up game, called: ‘dying on stage’. Let me tell you, the judges would not have been impressed with that comedy performance or pseudo-comedy performance, and I will judge it as ‘dying on stage’.
To get back to the real business of government, and to proudly stand up in front of our government, which is represented by five regional and remote seats, that gives us a really good cross-section of the Northern Territory to draw from. The Henderson government recognises the controlled development across the Northern Territory is the key contributor to strengthening and maintaining regional economies.
As mentioned by the Primary Industries minister, cattle production is the Territory’s principal land-based rural industry. Nowhere else, is the cattle industry as important as it is in the Barkly. It was pleasurable and informative to attend the Borroloola, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and the Darwin shows this year. To meet, discuss, and research with primary producers across the Territory on their show days, where they exhibited the fine work they do across the Northern Territory. My electorate travel allows me to travel through some of the best cattle producing lands in the world. Once again, this valuable research is translated through to support our ministers, particularly the minister for Primary Industries, and we work as a team on this side of the House.
Things are looking good for pastoralists in the Barkly. The industry is growing and, with that growth, there are more jobs for young people in the region. Those within the industry also believe there is potential for more growth, particularly as the Territory expands its live trade exports into new markets like Vietnam. In the Barkly, we have some of the best grazing land in the country. However, it is a fragile existence. I have been knocking around the Barkly for three decades, and the years of 2007-08, with some serious Dry Season activity and poor Wet Seasons, life on the land became pretty tough. There was approximately 300 000 head of Barkly cattle de-stocked off the tablelands, off the Barkly, and taken into areas of Queensland to be spelled. We are now in the process of re-stocking. This is an example, in a period of two years out of 30, which shows how fragile the environment can become and how critical this edge is in relation to maintaining and developing our pastoral industry.
With the cattle industry forecast to grow significantly, there will be a huge impact on the Barkly region. Pastoralists in the Barkly are aware of the challenges this presents, and recently met to discuss further development of the Barkly region. Some of the challenges pastoralists recognise, as they discussed the best way forward for the industry included: pasture utilisation; grazing systems; conservation and biodiversity; cost-effectiveness of developing; and strategies to reduce operating costs. It is good to see each of these issues, raised by the industry, have been considered in the report tabled by the minister today. It gives pastoralists in the Barkly great confidence in the future, when they are directly involved in a collaborative effort with the government.
The growth of our cattle industry is also dependent on applying new science and technology to the industry. A good example of this is the research and development, which is taking place in cattle research and rangeland research. A recent discussion, with members of the department of Primary Industries in Tennant Creek, evaluated what benefits a mining town like Tennant Creek can get through partnerships with the pastoral industry. It was interesting to hear about the millions of dollars worth of veterinary products, supplementary feed, and also vehicles which travel through the Territory and parts of our regional areas and …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order Madam Speaker! I notice the clock has started to shift. I also draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells; a quorum is called. A quorum is present. Minister, you have the call.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, there are millions of dollars involved, when we talk about the veterinary products, the supplementary feed, nutritional aids, and also the vehicles which operate our stations. This is great news for a regional town like Tennant Creek, and a great opportunity to get on board. Research and development and technology allows a station to fully utilise available natural pasture, and it allows for significant growth in the number of cattle which can be grazed.
Although the Barkly is a significant contributor to the pastoral industry, I recognise the cattle industry is widely dispersed across the Territory, as are most of our primary industries. While this provides opportunities for social and economic growth in our local regions, it also requires careful planning, to ensure we meet the challenges of providing regional and remote infrastructure and transport services, which are taken for granted elsewhere in Australia. I am sure you agree that the Northern Territory’s unprecedented $1.3bn 2009-10 budget, for infrastructure-related capital works, minor new works, and repairs and maintenance, will play its part and will continue to drive the Territory’s economic development and create and protect Territory jobs. Transport infrastructure will receive a large share of this budget, with $322m going towards Territory roads and national highways, this is an increase of $51m on the 2008-09 budget.
Other road expenditure commitments include a total of $77m for repairs and maintenance, and $19m joint capital works funding for community, beef and mining roads, including the Buntine, Plenty and Tanami Highways, Maryvale Road, and the Wollogorang Road bridge over the McArthur River. In addition, $5m will be spent on road safety initiatives on the Stuart, Barkly, and Victoria Highways; $5m for overtaking lanes between Darwin and Katherine; and $2.2m for level crossing upgrades.
The Commonwealth government’s stimulus package has seen the Northern Territory receive an additional $12m for repairs and maintenance across the National Highway network, and $1.5m for improving safety at black spots on a number of Territory roads.
Cattle production is the Northern Territory’s largest land-based rural industry, and it is a key activity in so many of our regional economies. The Barkly electorate is approximately twice the size of Victoria, and cattle production is extremely important in the region. The cattle stations in the Barkly are, by necessity, some of the biggest cattle properties in the world.
Darwin has long been Australia’s number one port for the export of live cattle, and is now becoming the region’s primary service and supply base for offshore and onshore oil and gas projects, particularly in the Timor Sea. The expansion of the East Arm Port is a key priority of this government. The Commonwealth government’s contribution of $50m will bring a total of $150m to the port extension, and assist with the provision of vital facilities in this important area. The port expansion will double the capacity, with new ship loading facilities, which can accommodate larger ships, more suited to the transportation of bulk resources and commodities, and will reduce costs and boost the competitiveness of Australia’s export gateways.
Trade grew 18% in 2008-09, and is expected to grow by a further 18% in 2009-10. Approximately 365 000 head of live cattle were exported through the Port of Darwin in 2008, with 90% going to Indonesia. The Indonesian market is predicted to double in the next four or five years. Darwin is positioned to play a pivotal role in the nation’s future industrial growth as a significant transport and logistics centre, particularly in the Australasian region. We recognise that, nationally and locally, there are critical challenges for improving the supply chain, and we are working hard within the Territory, and with our interstate and federal colleagues, to improve infrastructure, reform regulations, and undertake effective long-term strategic planning. I know these issues are critical for industry.
The Northern Territory government has a strong transport planning process in place, which focuses on ensuring needs are met and, wherever possible, kept ahead of. In line with this, a number of concentrated strategic transport infrastructure and service plans are being developed by the government in consultation with stakeholders, including the industry and the community. This includes a 10-year infrastructure strategy, which will guide the government’s infrastructure investment, provide a process for forward planning, and provision of advice on priority projects. The strategy will also assist with improving industry certainty and capacity to deliver the ongoing infrastructure program:
a 10-year road strategy to provide a plan for managing the development and operation of the road network into the future, through a planned approach of assessment, prioritisation, and resourcing;
The Northern Territory government is working closely, with our interstate and federal counterparts, to develop a new framework for industry regulation, including single national regulators for heavy vehicles, rail safety and maritime safety. This means the Australian Maritime Safety Authority will become the national safety regulator for commercial shipping in Australian waters. A single national regulator will be established to regulate all vehicles over 4.5 gross tonnes, and a national rail safety regulatory system, the scope and form which is to be considered, will also be established. The aim is to remove inefficiencies, arising from inconsistent jurisdictional requirements, and streamline regulatory arrangements.
While the Northern Territory supports these moves, we are very aware of the need to protect the Northern Territory position and ensure, particularly in the heavy vehicle area, productivity gains and reforms are not lost in the move to national regulation and legislation. The retention of the Northern Territory’s heavy vehicle operating conditions is vital for the ongoing economic development and sustainability of the Territory. We will be closely monitoring the impact and cost of the proposed national regulatory systems, and we will work hard to protect the Territory’s interests as the process moves forward.
The Northern Territory has been playing a role on the national transport and logistics industry scene, through leading the work of the National Workforce Planning and Skills Working Group on behalf of the Australian Transport Council ministers. The group has developed a Draft National Transport and Logistics Industry Workforce Planning and Skills Strategic Action Plan, which is available for industry comment. The strategy will provide a foundation for government and industry to work collaboratively to assist with addressing industry workforce labour and skills issues, in association with Skills Australia and the Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
The National Transport Commission’s website states:
- A key initiative of the National Workforce Planning and Skills Working Group has been the formation of State and Territory Transport and Logistics Workforce Advisory Groups.
These groups aim to assist industry at the local level by bringing together appropriate government organisations and industry sectors to work together to identify and resolve issues wherever possible. A Northern Territory Workforce Advisory Group has recently been formed and the group has developed an action plan with a number of short- and long-term activities. These activities relate to the advisory group’s identified needs: to raise the profile and image of the industry; to create partnerships and links with schools and education and service providers; and to undertake training and upskilling programs for existing and potential employees. The group will also be undertaking a survey of industry workforce and workplace priorities to assist with informing the development of a longer-term Northern Territory industry workforce strategy.
There are significant challenges ahead of us. We need to stay attuned to every aspect of transport and logistics, reforms, developments, and issues to keep our heads above the global economic recession, and to minimise its impact wherever possible. As I have witnessed over many years in the Barkly, the advantages of growth in primary industries brings enormous benefits to Territorians, particularly those in the more remote regions. It is great to see the Primary Industry minister working so closely with industry to develop a plan for future growth across all sectors of our primary industries.
Madam Speaker, as Transport Minister, I will continue working with my colleagues to ensure we provide the necessary transport logistics to support all our primary industries. As the local member for Barkly, I am excited about the future growth of our primary industries and the benefits growth will bring to people across the Barkly region.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I will speak on this ministerial statement on primary industries, and about concerns I have about a number of things after reading through the report.
First, I will talk about where the minister says there are opportunities to open up new areas for sustainable development in the Territory and that such opportunities have the potential not only to make a valuable contribution to Australia’s food production but also provide a stimulus for economic activity and employment in our regional and remote areas. That is very true; there are many opportunities for our rural and remote communities to get involved in all sorts of primary production.
However, if we look at what is happening at the Douglas Daly; south-east of Katherine, much of which is Aboriginal held property at the moment; and the Ord River, where there is prime land available, we do not see a great deal of haste to develop these properties and this land to help create sustainable development.
It also talks about sustainable growth in the primary industry sector and broadening our economic base. I congratulate the government for figuring out you can broaden your economic base. We have the ability to do all sorts of things but, unfortunately, it does not seem to be happening with as much haste as it could be.
In moving through this statement it states:
- … challenges in driving agribusiness forward in the Territory.
With the moratoriums, in the Douglas Daly region, on clearing land and land use, and negotiations to use other good quality, primary production land within the Territory, it says:
- Increasingly, the nation is looking to the north, as water and climate change impact on southern food production areas. We have the opportunity to build on the mosaic of development already under way across the Territory.
I was recently at some briefings, and there is a mosaic of development occurring across the Territory, it is small, but there are great tracts of good quality land which can be opened up.
The issue, in relation to water, is not as easy as some people might think; grabbing water out of the rivers of the Northern Territory and turning it into food production, presents a number of problems. One is the ecological systems required for seafood production, where the water flowing out of those rivers is needed to ensure, for instance, the prawn fishery remains viable and sustainable and is not impacted upon by completely damming rivers. I believe the government could look at a number of weirs, so we keep large areas of water available for primary production, but also allow the rivers to flow, so we do not destroy one industry by trying to create another.
It says in the statement:
- … within the next few months, the Territory government will deliver a comprehensive NT Agribusiness Strategy which will address and build upon the challenges identified in this report.
We will watch with interest to see what happens. Yesterday, I spoke on another ministerial statement, and said there are many things the government is ‘going to do’. I note in this statement the many things it says it is going to do, yet do not see the how and the why, just: we are going to do this, we are going to do that, we are going to do many things. The next paragraph uses the word ‘will’ many times, which I quote:
- Our NT Agribusiness Strategy will clearly lay out the way forward for primary industries here in the Territory. It will be a comprehensive industry development strategy that will identify ways in which government, the private sector, and rural communities can work in partnership to grow our primary industries.
I would be impressed if the government could acknowledge the good work which has already been done by many people in the Territory. In the next paragraph it says the:
… 2009-12 Corporate Plan reflects a continuing commitment to support regional economies through the development of profitable and sustainable primary industries.
I note it said ‘a continuing commitment’ – which is a point you could debate for a whole session. But the next paragraph says:
- The Corporate Plan states that sustainable and productive farming practices will be achieved by: …
Which indicates, by the use of the language, it has not been happening. The minister might realise that it is happening now. I am hoping it is a poor use of words, and not what the minister believes, because there are many people who have achieved much in the Northern Territory. You only have to look in the report, where it says:
- … a continuation of the consistent growth trend of the last five years which has seen production increase by almost 73% over the period.
Going back to the paragraph I quoted previously:
- The Corporate Plan states sustainable and productive farming practices will be achieved by: …
And there are a number of things mentioned. It is indicating, by some magical formula, this statement and the government’s supposed 2009-2012 Corporate Plan is going to be the panacea of all the problems in primary industry. For instance, we look at:
advocating for industry access to land and water resources and infrastructure.
That one line begs some comment: ‘advocating for industry access to land’. There are people in the rural area and the farming community of the Northern Territory who, for some time, have been lobbying the government for access to good quality primary production land. My understanding is the government has excellent soil and water maps. Those maps do not seem to be laid over one another, at this point, however, I believe government departments are trying to rectify that problem. But access to good land is not happening as fast as it should be.
People want access to the Stage 2 development on the border of Western Australia and the Northern Territory in relation to the Ord River Scheme where there is ample water and ample good land. People are also trying to gain access to land south of Katherine. There are people in the pastoral industry who are lobbying the federal government, as we speak, and also, I believe, the Territory government, for changes to the Pastoral Act to allow people to utilise some of this pastoral land, for the growing of trees, for instance, and other things, in addition to the running of cattle.
The government needs to have a good look at water resources, and not expect everyone is going to come here and get an enormous amount of water just because we have a high rainfall. That water is required to refill the aquifers, which drain naturally, therefore, we have to be careful how much water we suck out of the rivers.
The next dot point is:
developing and administering biosecurity laws relating to plant and animal health.
which, I believe, is an excellent idea, and I am glad to see the NT government is working with the federal government on those things.
There are a number other things in that corporate plan, however, I will move on to a couple of other issues. It says on page 4:
- … applied research is necessary to underpin the ability of our primary industries to achieve sustained growth.
I note, with interest, the Berrimah Farm seems to be decreasing its amount of experimentation in relation to crops and other grazing practices. I have heard people in the department of Primary Industry are saying: ‘We give that to private enterprise to have people go and do things on private land’. However, when you look at this particular strategy, the government wants to sell off an existing property, Berrimah Farm, for some sort of housing development yet, we still do not know what contamination is on that site and whether the development can go ahead. However, in this statement, we have a supposed commitment from the government to start to do all this stuff, so we can achieve sustained growth. I am sure the Cattlemen’s Association would be grateful for more research on pastoral management.
We go to the next paragraph, which talks about extension, an issue which came up the other day in the public hearing of the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, where the member for Nelson spoke about the lack of extension services available, and how he recalls, over the years, there were very good extension services to share the research information that is available. However …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, can I clarify, are you talking about something that happened in a committee, which is a matter of privilege?
Mr STYLES: No, this was a public hearing, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: But it is a matter before a committee.
Mr STYLES: Sorry?
Madam SPEAKER: It is a matter before a committee; it has not been reported to the parliament.
Mr STYLES: My understanding is …
Madam SPEAKER: It has not been reported to the parliament, and therefore it is a matter of privilege until it is reported to the parliament.
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, my understanding was the hearing was open to the public to come in and make submissions to that committee. If I am out of order, Madam Speaker, I withdraw that information.
Madam SPEAKER: It may well have been open to the public to make submissions, but it has not been reported to the parliament, at this stage, member for Sanderson.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I appreciate your attempting give guidance in this instance. However, it is my understanding that if someone says something in the public domain, any member of this parliament is capable, and able, to reproduce what is said in the public domain, in this House. If the committee resolves something as a result, that is a matter for the committee, it is not …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I appreciate your comments, please resume your seat. Member for Sanderson, I am trying to clarify. There was matter before the Environment committee - I am not a member of that committee - and you had some kind of public witnesses, is that right?
Mr STYLES: That is correct, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: But it has not reported to the parliament.
Mr STYLES: No, but this was discussed at a public session; it was open to the public to come in, and people came in and spoke about various issues. Anyone had the ability to come along and make a submission to that public meeting.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sure they were able to do that. Were there other members of the public listening at that time?
Mr STYLES: Yes, there were.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, then I will allow it, but …
Mr STYLES: It was not something discussed with Mr Wood.
Madam SPEAKER: … you need to be very careful in relation to matters that are before a committee, because they need to be reported to the parliament generally. I will be listening carefully to what you have to say.
Mr STYLES: Yes, Madam Speaker, thank you. But I believe we were in a public meeting; there were members of the public, and this matter was discussed openly with the members of the public. Thank you.
Apart from anything anyone else said I am also aware extension services in a number of government departments have been reduced; that is common knowledge amongst the primary industries.
The minister says in the statement that:
- … we …
- … recognise that the key role for the government in helping to drive growth in primary industries is participating in relevant research, disseminating the results of that research, and ensuring that we have a biosecurity framework in place that will protect the integrity of our production.
I spoke about this yesterday. But I also want to speak about my recent trip to India, with the Australian Rural Leadership Program, where we went to a facility south of Hyderabad, called ICRISAT, or the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
I note we had a presence from the federal government, but, given the Northern Territory has an enormous amount of semi-arid tropics, with some good quality primary industry-type land, it might be good if the government had some input. I asked the people running the institution if it had a great deal of input from the Northern Territory, and they do have dialogue with some people, but not very much. It might assist our primary industry people and our farmers, if the government could look at increasing the dialogue with that group.
The statement talks about cattle production:
- Cattle production is, of course, the Northern Territory’s primary industry sector.
I was at a briefing recently where we spoke about cattle; it was all about cattle. One of the greatest problems we face in the Territory is in shifting the cattle, and I quote from the statement - it is a pretty standard figure:
- … 550 000 head of cattle a year are turned-off for finishing and processing into both the interstate and live export markets.
That number of cattle equates to about 16 000 trailers running across the beef roads in outback, rural, and regional Northern Territory. I spoke to the cattle people at the Brunette Downs Races and the Alice Springs Show and they have an issue with the condition of the roads in these rural areas. There does not appear to be a great deal of maintenance done on these roads, and they find the maintenance costs on their trucks are increasing - tyres, springs, and axles are breaking with increased frequency - due to the lack of any maintenance on the roads.
I was in regional Northern Territory recently, and spoke to a gentleman who has been driving graders and fixing roads on stations and cattle properties for 30 years. He told me he has never seen the roads in such a poor condition in the 30 years he has been a grader driver. I believe, that after 30 years, one could be forgiven for saying he is an expert on these roads in the outback of the Northern Territory. The government needs to consider the lack of maintenance currently occurring on the roads that shift all these cattle. The statement says:
- It is expected that the industry will inject $365m into the Territory economy this year.
I suspect, given it is our largest primary industry and a good contributor to the Northern Territory economy, we need to look after these people and, also, these roads are increasingly being used by tourists, as people spend more time travelling around the Territory enjoying a great place in Australia.
Another aspect of the transport issue is that if we do not keep up the supply to people in Indonesia, and maintain the ability to supply our markets, especially the live cattle trade, we will have serious and significant competition if Brazil comes online and becomes FMD free, which is in this report. This is where we need to have a competitive advantage. We are close to one of our largest markets, which is Indonesia. Brazil is on the other side, but if we cannot produce a consistent supply of quality stock all year round, then we are going to have problems.
At a briefing the other day …
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker and colleagues. We need to ensure the road networks and the supply chain are in the best possible condition. I hope the minister does not believe they are in the best possible condition at the moment, because they are not, and we have a fairly serious problem we need to address.
I go back to something I spoke about last night, in relation to how we generate wealth, and how we assist regional and rural Australian to generate wealth - we need to support them. People go out on a daily basis and fight the elements and hardship, and many of them love what they do and are quite happy to be struggling away, making an enormous contribution to our food supply, our economy, and to the Australian way of life in rural and regional Australia. However, there are times when they need a hand, and they do not need to have all sorts of restraints put on them, for instance, the Emissions Trading Scheme and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme; these are the types of things people are concerned about.
They would also like to be able to do a little more, and it would be great if the government could lobby the federal government in this regard. When you look at some of the tourists, and the extra things they can do - if we are talking about a Carbon Pollution Reduction Schemes – like growing and harvesting of trees in these areas; there are many things we can do with these properties which, at this point in time, are limited. However, with some creative thinking and imagination we can probably get some production of timber and other crops, which will not only assist these people economically, but will also assist the country in producing its own timber, and may place us in a greater export situation, where we can export quality timber, instead of having to import much of it.
I wonder who is out there championing the rural producers. I note this report says many things – ‘this is what we are going to do’ – but, I sincerely hope the government has a plan to actually do stuff, instead of saying, ‘this is what we plan to do’. We have heard it often. There are many things happening, a great deal of consultation and referencing going on, many consultants doing many things, but it would be good to see if they do what they say they are going to do. I look forward to seeing some of those results, which will benefit Territorians and Australians who choose to live out in regional and rural Australia.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, as the Chair of the environment committee, I query, and seek to clarify, what the member for Sanderson talked about, and your ruling, previously.
I understand the hearing held on Friday was conducted to hear the evidence from the Northern Territory Horticultural Association, the EPA, and the NT Cattlemen’s Association, which had put in submissions to the committee. Because the committee’s report has not been compiled, I query whether it contravenes the standing orders for evidence from the committee to come to the parliament before a committee’s report is tabled.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, can I clarify, in your role as the Chair, were these witnesses before a deliberative meeting of the committee?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: It was not a public hearing?
Ms SCRMGOUR: It was a deliberative meeting of the committee to hear evidence from those organisations which had put in a submission to the committee.
Madam SPEAKER: They were witnesses before a deliberative meeting?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: I will ask for a rush of the Hansard to make a decision.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I wanted to clarify this.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, this issue will turn on whether this is a public hearing or not …
Madam SPEAKER: I believe the Chair of the committee has said it was witnesses before a deliberative meeting.
Mr ELFERINK: You also specifically asked her whether it was public, and that was not answered. I would seek an answer in relation to that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, it was not a public hearing in the normal sense - you did not invite members of the public along?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, I was there for part of the meeting, my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, acted as Deputy Chair and then I came in. As I understand, it was a deliberative meeting of the committee to take evidence from those organisations which had put in a submission, member for Port Darwin. I ask for a ruling on whether the member for Sanderson …
Mr ELFERINK: I believe, this turns on Standing Order 274, Madam Speaker. I have always read that standing order with reference to contemplating that evidence made public is a matter of non-public hearings. Standing Order 274 does not make sense if you apply it to public meetings; it only makes sense if it is applied to non-public meetings. If the member for Sanderson has offended Standing Order 274, because of the suggestion of the non-public nature of the meeting, I would like to hear from the Chair of the meeting that it was a non-public meeting. Then we will take the issue from there.
However, I have also just heard from the Chair of the meeting she was not there for the whole meeting. I hope we get something clear from the Chair of the committee at the meeting, or the secretary or whoever, to determine whether it was a public meeting, whether these meetings are generally open to the public, and if Standing Order 274 has been offended, because it was not a public meeting, that is a different issue. I definitely seek clarification on whether the meeting was public. Once we have established that, then we will go from there.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, first, I will ask for a rush of what was said. In relation to the meeting, can I clarify, member for Arafura, was it a normal deliberative meeting, to which you invited witnesses to speak?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It was a deliberative meeting of the committee to hear evidence from those organisations, which had written to the environment committee about issues the committee was investigating. We were hearing and taking evidence from those organisations.
In relation to Standing Order 274, which the member for Port Darwin talked about, it says clearly, if there is authorisation from the committee or committee members for that evidence to go forth, then it can be published. It is not a big deal. I wanted a ruling because it sets precedence for other committees and other evidence, when we are having those meetings, before the committee reports on them and we bring them to the floor of parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura, can I clarify, at any point, did the committee invite ordinary members of the general public to attend or only witnesses?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It was only witnesses who were representatives of those associations and organisations which had given submissions.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I acknowledge and thank the member for Arafura for her courtesy in relation to this. She wants to have this matter cleared up so that if it is an error, it is not made again. I accept the spirit in which she advances this particular issue, and I thank her for that. I accept the government’s counsel on this, if there has been a breach.
Madam SPEAKER: In fact, the Speaker’s counsel. Yes, member for Brennan.
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, I was at the meeting from the start. This may either help or confuse, but I remember seeing a public meeting sign outside the door as I entered through the doors, one of those round signs with ‘public environment hearing in progress’. I do not know if that is going to help or …
Ms Scrymgour: Deliberative meeting or public.
Madam SPEAKER: That is a sign, as opposed to the standing orders.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is why I said let us not make a big deal of this to the member for Port Darwin. I wanted to clarify, because we all sit on committees and are bound by the rules of those committees. If we have discussions and take evidence from an organisation or an agency and then come talk about it before the committee has had an opportunity to table its report, if we breach or break the protocols of committees - that is what I am saying. It is not trying to dispute what the member for Sanderson said.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. I will look at the rush, and consider the matters that have come before us. As the Chair of a number of committees myself, in listening to what the member for Sanderson said, it sounded like it was information given by witnesses at a deliberative meeting, which is why I made the original comment. I would like to see the rush, before making a decision.
I believe it is important for all members to understand the importance of privilege before committees, and it is not a reflection on the member for Sanderson. It is very easy to get caught up in these things, in the enthusiasm of a debate. I will wait for the rush before making a decision on that. Are there further speakers in this debate?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, should you be considering some sort of adverse comment, I would like an opportunity, either inside this House or in your office, to make submissions to you in relation to any finding you make in relation to it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I will wait to see the rush and then make some comment.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I again urge that if you are considering some form of adverse finding, I believe you should receive submissions from this side of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I believe I have heard from both sides of the House. Is there someone else who wishes to speak in this debate? Minister for Business.
Dr BURNS: Are you speaking to this debate?
Mr CHANDLER: I am hoping to speak on this debate.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We have an MPI coming on at 7 pm.
Mr Elferink: It is 7.10 pm.
Dr BURNS: The member for …
Madam SPEAKER: It is the government’s side. I called you, Minister for Business. If you wish to speak, speak now. Member for Brennan, resume your seat.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, to ensure my speech is finished in the spirit of courtesy, the member for Port Darwin is speaking about, I will endeavour to finish my remarks by 7.10 pm. We can enter into the MPI. Then, basically, there is one hour and fifty minutes, and if we are efficient in our use of speakers, I believe we can all get there.
Turning to this very important statement - we will adjourn this, and the member for Brennan will have his opportunity to have his input into this important debate. If I could have the clock starting now, Madam Speaker, my point of order is over.
I speak in support of the minister’s statement. The minister has outlined the main challenges of climate change, water availability, skilled labour shortages, environmental protection, and global food shortages. He also said, and undertaken, the government will deliver the Northern Territory Agribusiness Strategy. The 2009-2012 Corporate Plan priorities include: access to land; biosecurity; regulations for use of agriculture and veterinary chemicals; industry extension services; investment; market development; and research.
The statement and report the minister has tabled is comprehensive in the strategies it outlines for primary industries in the Northern Territory, a crucial industry; the very fabric of Northern Territory life, and the fabric of our economy. It has great needs and, as a government, we are endeavouring, and I believe with some demonstrable success, to grow primary industries within the Northern Territory.
My department of Business is committed to working with Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources, as well as NRETAS and Regional Development, to develop the primary industry sector. There are a number of supports, and various services, which the department gives, including recent support for the Northern Territory Seafood Council to produce a marketing strategy for the wild fish and aquaculture sectors. I mentioned in Question Time about the Trade Support Scheme, and grants have been allocated to the activities of livestock exporters and tropical plant growers by the Trade Support Scheme.
Other programs, such as Territory Business Growth, Territory Business Upskills, ecoBiz NT, and Client Management services are all available to NT industry sectors.
ecoBiz NT is another important initiative of our government, and rebates totalling over $45 000 have been allocated to businesses in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing industry sectors. There are a range of examples, including the Australia Barramundi Culture Pty Ltd, for help with its water pumps and aquaculture ponds; and Galaxy Gold Pty Ltd, a Katherine fruit and vegetable grower and distributor, for refrigeration in its storage facility. We also provide services to the primary industry sectors such as industry benchmarks, quarantine issues, economic impact of changes in production, infrastructure, road issues, and a whole range of licensing issues.
The Northern Territory Research and Innovation Board is also active in this area, but, in a way, it is ancillary and accompanies the great work done by the department, in terms of its research, over a very long period of time to support the primary industry sector. The Northern Territory Research and Innovation Grants, totalling $350 000 per annum to researchers, included areas such as: crocodiles; the benefits of removal of feral pigs from tropical landscapes; wetland health in the Barkly Basin; remediation of aquaculture ponds; microbiology and marine sponges in a high-nutrient environment; dynamics of sub-tropical savannahs; the impact of plantation forestry and land clearing in the Daly catchment; - I will come back to that one - and development of a low-cost planned health-imaging system. The 2009 grants are currently going through the processes and I will be approving them when they come to me with the recommendations.
I have had a long-standing interest in the livestock industry, despite what the member for Fong Lim says. I applaud the minister for his fantastic work in working with others, particularly livestock exporters and other Australian agencies, which have opened up cattle exports into Vietnam. This is crucially important, because Indonesia is the main market where we send our cattle, but we need to have more than one basket with all our eggs in. It is important to develop the market in Vietnam and also in the Philippines. To that end, I am hoping to visit the Philippines next year.
I applaud the minister, because when I went and followed up on some of the work which had been done by the minister, he had facilitated at a high ministerial level in Vietnam many of the quarantine issues and other aspects of the shipment of live cattle. It was obvious he enjoyed a great deal of respect amongst the ministry in Vietnam, as well as the higher level of pubic servants who are involved in the negotiations. I commend the minister for his tremendous work in that regard. As he alluded to earlier today, the contract will result in almost 1000 head of cattle being delivered to Vietnam in mid-November.
This is a government which supports primary industries. My view is that primary industries and fisheries is the best portfolio anyone can have; it is fantastic. To some degree, I am envious of the member for Casuarina holding that portfolio, because there are fantastic people, the length and breadth of the Territory, working hard with their skills and knowledge in primary production, and they are a real asset to the Northern Territory.
The member for Fong Lim talked about the Douglas Daly and I will turn to that. I only have a few minutes left and I would like to try to finish as soon as I can, so I would value if I could say what I have to say with little interruption.
I have had a number of portfolios, over the eight or so years this government has been in power, including Primary Industry and Fisheries, Environment and Heritage, and Lands and Planning. In the early time, I took an active interest in the Daly and what was happening there. I remember a public meeting at the auditorium at the museum, where there were many strong feelings about the Daly; about land clearing, the future of the Daly River, and the worth of the Daly to the Northern Territory people. Horticulturists, agriculturalists and pastoralists are key groups, but also a whole range of people who have a legitimate interest in the Daly River. Fishermen have been mentioned, people who live on the Daly River and have done so for many years and, of course, Indigenous people. The Daly is crucial to their lives, stories, beliefs, and they have a legitimate interest in the Daly River – more than legitimate interest, they have a fundamental interest.
I took an active interest, and I read a report commissioned by Professor Wayne Erskine, whose name would be well known in this House. That report showed concerns about the aquatic life system being under threat within the Daly River; about the amount of water which was being drawn out of the Daly, and out of the aquifer in that area; the sustainability of that practice; and large-scale land clearing, which should be a thing of the past in this modern age but is still being engaged in within the Daly.
You only have to look at Tipperary Station, and listen to the stories of the locals on the Daly River who talk about what happened, I believe it was in the 60s and 70s, when it was cleared and the adverse impact that broad-scale clearing of Tipperary had on the Daly River. There are concerns about the river silting up and water flows. Whilst in southern rivers they have a 20-80 rule, so it is 20 for the river flow and 80 for the irrigators, I believe we came up with an 80-20 rule; there should be 80 for the water flow, and 20 for those who are drawing off water from the Daly, erring on the side of caution with this magnificent river system, and basing our decisions on the science.
At that time, a reference group was formed, which was chaired by Mr Rick Farley, who, unfortunately, is now deceased - a man with an incredible amount of respect within the Australian community, especially the farming community. He chaired a group to try to get some consensus around the Daly – an almost impossible task – but people moved on in their beliefs, they moved together, and everyone had to give a little.
It is concerning for me to have the member for Fong Lim come in and espouse views which are really dinosaur views about the Daly: that there should be a continuation of wide-scale land clearing, that it is basically open slather, Bill Heffernan’s open slather, draw as much as you like, fellows, get all the farmers from down south and let us have a party at the Daly, because all our rivers down south have dried up.
I agree with the former member for Millner in what he had to say: we need to be careful about what we do with our rivers and natural assets which belong to the whole Territory, not just a sector of one industry or even one sector within that industry. I am proud to say I was a minister in a number of portfolios and was instrumental in bringing a moratorium to land clearing in the Daly, in bringing some sense about water allocation but, most of all, about monitoring the effects of these activities in the Daly, particularly on the biosystem, using science and adaptive management to determine how much water we can take from the Daly River
Member for Fong Lim, I do not take a backward step from that. I will stand at the end of my parliamentary career, whenever that is, and if people ask: ‘What are some of the things you achieved?’ I will say that, and I will stand proud about it, just as I will stand proud about the road safety initiatives which were introduced when I was the Minister for Transport – controversial, difficult, change – yes, but I believe in the longer term they will be looked upon as positive things; I do not take a backward step from that.
To close on a lighter note, when the member for Katherine was speaking, I could not help thinking of the classic poem titled, Said Hanrahan, by John O’Brien, the nom de plume of PJ Hartigan. Maybe the member for Katherine is having a little too much to do with the member for Sanderson because he has become very negative and, basically, he is a positive sort of a bloke. I will read a couple of excerpts of this poem, and then I will finish, member for Port Darwin:
- We’ll all be rooned, said Hanrahan
In accents most forlorn,
Outside the church, ere Mass began,
One frosty Sunday morn.
The congregation stood about
Coat-collars to the ears,
And talked of stock, and crops, and drought
As it had done for years.
It’s looking crook, said Daniel Croke;
Bedad, it’s cruke me lad,
For never since the banks went broke
Has seasons been so bad.
… And so around the chorus ran,
It’s keepin’ dry, no doubt.
We’ll all be rooned’, said Hanrahan,
Before the year is out.
Moving towards the end of the poem, they have had rain now, the drought has broken; it has pelted rain all day long and it says:
- And every creek a banker ran,
And dams filled overtop;
We’ll all be rooned, said Hanrahan,
If this rain doesn’t stop.
And stop it did, in God’s good time;
And spring came in to fold
A mantle o’er the hills sublime
Of green and pink and gold.
And days went by on dancing feet,
With harvest-hopes immense,
And laughing eyes beheld the wheat
Nid-nodding o’er the fence.
And, oh, the smiles on every face,
As happy lad and lass
Through grass knee-deep on Casey’s place
Went riding down to Mass.
While round the church in clothes genteel
Discoursed the men of mark,
And each man squatted on his heel,
And chewed his piece of bark.
There’ll be bush-fires for sure, me man,
There will, without a doubt;
We’ll all be rooned, said Hanrahan,
Before the year is out.
Debate adjourned.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Government Failure to Deliver Essential
Services to the Northern Territory
Government Failure to Deliver Essential
Services to the Northern Territory
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Port Darwin:
Madam Speaker
- I propose for discussion this day the following definite Matter of Public Importance: the failure of the Territory Labor government to provide for effective delivery of power, water and sewerage services to the people of the Northern Territory.
It is signed by the member for Port Darwin.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak about a matter of great public importance as described in your introduction. Whilst I am not allowed to refer to the absence or otherwise of members in this House, I would expect government ministers who have carriage of this particular portfolio to be paying a level of attention, which I am not seeing reflected in this House.
The ground has somewhat shifted under my feet, I have to say, Madam Speaker, since I wrote to you this morning about some of my concerns in relation to the infrastructure of Power and Water Corporation. Whilst my speech will still turn on infrastructure, there are several issues which have come to my attention during the course of the day particularly in relation to the Blacktip arrangements. I hope the minister will be in a position to answer some questions which arise out of it. I will start with the issues of infrastructure and work my way to the Blacktip arrangements.
My attention has been drawn to several infrastructure problems starting with the very small and working up. I also have some concerns about the procedural shortcomings of Power and Water and some safety issues which flow from it. I am aware, because of the way Power and Water arranges its power into the marketplace through the network, different sections of the organisation allow for different things to occur, particularly in shopping centres; which have come to my attention and are of grave concern to me.
Occasionally, there will be a private contractor working on a switchboard inside a shop which will suddenly become live because someone in another section of Power and Water has said: ‘Switch on the power to that shop because the new tenant needs power’.
I am aware of four instances where this has occurred and, in each instance, the private contractor has received a shock. This has been reported, as I understand it, through the RISQ system which is the internal auditing system and problem reporting system of Power and Water. It is a matter of grave concern it happens a second time, let alone a third time or a fourth time. I hope the matter has finally been rectified but, if it has not, I am keen to know why it has not been rectified at this stage. It will not be long before a private contractor is killed in the circumstance of a board suddenly electrified whilst working on it simply because the arrangements in Power and Water do not allow for it.
In Katherine, some time in late 2008, I know a transformer ran dry and, whilst I accept this can happen from time to time, I took it upon myself to drive around the streets of Darwin. I left my office and the first transformer I came to was the one at the end of Mitchell Street near the corner of Lambell Terrace. Whilst there was still oil in the reservoir, it was clear the reservoir was leaking oil, and quite an amount of it, because the patch of grass underneath it was not growing because there was so much oil on the ground around that transformer.
There are different types of transformers around town, and you will find many of those are showing signs of leakage. Another example of a transformer leaking a substantial amount of oil is in Chapman Road, Nightcliff, in your electorate, Madam Speaker. Once again, the ground around the base of that transformer is so soaked with oil grass cannot grow there. I am concerned, after quite a cursory drive around town, that I saw numerous transformers showing signs of leakage from their systems; and this is not just normal overflow. They are not pressurised systems in those reservoirs. As I understand it, there is a vent, but they should not be leaking oil, and certainly not to the level of staining and killing the grass underneath these transformers.
What this highlights is these small things visible to me are indicative of a larger problem which I believe exists in Power and Water and, I suspect, has not yet been dealt with. That is the problem of the relationship between upper management and middle management and the staff on the ground. It was not until 2004 staff concerns about the parlous state of the infrastructure of Power and Water was known to government. The reason was, and this became apparent in the Estimates process, the staff of Power and Water wanted, as part of their Enterprise Bargaining negotiations, a review of the infrastructure at Power and Water. This was a few years ago, around 2004 or 2005.
I found it incomprehensible that staff would make part of their Enterprise Bargaining Agreement a review of Power and Water infrastructure. So concerned were the staff at not being listened to by middle management particularly, and a growing opinion that upper management was being insulated by middle management; in fact, upper management was not really paying much attention to what was happening on the ground - and there are several instances of it.
One, which I have referred to the Auditor-General, is in relation to a staff member who was trying to deal with a vibration and found the solution was a generator set, at a cost of about $5000. As it turns out, for other reasons, and there were other issues in relation to that staff member, that option was not taken. As I understand it, the option suggested by that staff member would have fixed the vibration for about $5000, and was ticked off as acceptable by the manufacturer of the particular genset. That staff member ultimately left, moving to other climes, but what became apparent in the process was the fix for the vibration ended up costing in the order of much, much more than $5000; the figure I am hearing is closer to seven figures.
If that has occurred, then there is clearly an issue with communication, no matter what the issue with the staff member. If there is a cost impost as a result of not listening or not paying attention to what staff are saying, as evidenced by the EBA negotiations, as evidenced by this particular situation, and as evidenced by something else I will bring to your attention shortly, minister, then I have some concerns about the relationship and what is happening on the ground in these environments.
Increasingly, staff members of Power and Water are coming to me. I received information from one who simply described herself as: a strong Labor voter, but I am sick of this mob; and they clearly have had it to the back teeth. This person wanted to advise me that we currently have a problem in Darwin city. We are all aware of the power cut we had last week as a result of a power cable being dug up. The advice I have received from this person is the 66kV cable was cut through and there are currently two transformers running on full load, and a third transformer running on minimal road which will trip if you ask it to do any more. This basically means the power to the Darwin CBD is running through transformers which are at their capacity; they cannot do any more. If one of these goes down there is a potential for Darwin CBD power to collapse.
The Casuarina Zone sub-station suffered the same problem. Were it not for the fact there was a last fail-safe after the system had failed so catastrophically that it smashed through every fail-safe but the last one, that something was done. It was only because the last fail-safe held up that Power and Water was able to address the situation as quickly as they did. Staff of Power and Water, I understand, were placed at some risk in relation to instructions they received from middle management, or a middle manager, in relation to how they dealt with that. Fortunately, someone had the mettle to refuse to do what was asked of them and made staff safety the priority in that place.
All of these stories are indicative of an overall concerning malaise. I normally do not mention public servants by name, but this person has requested I do – his name is Maurice McGahey. He recently retired and was presented with a nice gold Citizen watch for his years of service. He also has a history of employment which has been uncomfortable, but I am not going to engage in his personal history. He expressed to me levels of frustration while he worked for the Power and Water Corporation that he has asked me to present this watch to the minister with a jar of petroleum jelly. I assure the minister I am not going any further than describing what he has asked me to present to him - but you can understand what Mr McGahey is suggesting. For people to take that type of action and want their name publicly associated with it, gives you a sense of the level of dissatisfaction the staff have with what is happening in the operations of the organisation, as well as what is happening with government policy.
I now turn to those issues which are of some concern to me and, whilst I cannot lay my fingers on it, I have only just received the Power and Water Annual Report, and here are several issues that arise from it. One is this ongoing issue of how we manage our Power and Water facility.
I turn to the Utilities Commission Annual Report 2008-09. If you read last year’s report it refers to the Blacktip deal which has been struck. This is the gas supply from the Blacktip field which has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, and is way behind schedule. It was supposed to be delivered by January 2009, and there were contracts in place for Blacktip to supply gas, ultimately, to the power station in Darwin. The language from page 19 of last year’s annual report has changed slightly, and I draw members’ attention to page 22 of this year’s annual report from the Utility Commission and I quote: ‘
- The Commission estimated that projected gas requirements would marginally exceed the contract quantities available under the Blacktip agreement, under both the high and low growth scenarios. However, the Commission noted that the projected shortfall could be somewhat alleviated if Power and Water’s average plant efficiency improved with the commencement of the new Weddell and Owen Springs power stations.
That is a concern, because somewhere in the contracting processes they have underestimated the amount of gas they need supplied by ENI, and they have contracted for quantities which are under both the high and low level growth scenarios. So we have this situation where Power and Water has wrongly estimated how much gas they need.
Hopefully, with more efficient gensets they will be able to come under those thresholds. But, surely, when we were putting this deal together in the first instance we would have turned our attention, particularly, to the required amounts of gas. To end up underestimating the quantities available under the Blacktip agreement for both the high and low growth scenarios, one has to ask what is going on. Why are we getting it wrong?
What is going to happen is Gasgo, the purchaser, as I understand it, of gas for Power and Water, will now have to go back to ENI and negotiate more gas for both the high and low scenarios until such time as Weddell is up and running and able to go under the threshold. So now we have gas late, we have not bought enough of it, and we have been running on distillate.
This brings me to the next issue: we have been running on distillate. I was advised in the Estimates process, and I cannot quite refer to it, and I am sure I will be able to find it, there would be no substantial cost impost on the purchase of distillate as a result of the penalty arrangements with ENI under the supply contracts. I note that the Director, Judith King, says in the Chairman’s report on page 4 of the annual report:
- Contingency arrangements require the supply of costly distillate but since then an interconnect gas pipeline has been established with ConocoPhillips plant at Wickham Point for the supply of backup gas until Blacktip is secured.
Good news. Blacktip is referred to again on page 9 of the annual report - well, not so much Blacktip, but:
Natural gas is used for more than 90% of our electricity generation purchased through our wholly owned subsidiary, Gasgo
So that is good.
And this is the part that is of great concern to me. I was told there would be no effective cost to the taxpayer in relation to the deal with ENI because of the penalty clauses, words to that effect. The effect was penalty clauses meant the taxpayer was not going to be out of pocket. I quote from page 57 of the annual report, in the Directors’ report:
- … ENI Australia BV (Eni) was contracted to deliver first to specification gas from the Blacktip field from 1 January 2009, replacing supply from the declining Amadeus Basin. ENI now estimates that the first gas will be delivered from the end of September 2009.
I ask government to tell us now how much the taxpayer is footing the bill in relation to costs not covered by damages received from ENI. I urge government to respond to this and tell us tonight.
What this says to me is we have not, and still not, successfully nailed down the management and overall operations of the Power and Water Corporation. Staff are disgruntled to the point they are relying on EBAs to get non-EBA related matters addressed; so disgruntled when they retire they want to be downright rude to their employers by insinuating what they can do with their gold watches; people who describe themselves as Labor Party supporters knocking on my door telling me what is wrong with the Power and Water infrastructure in the Northern Territory. If I drive around the streets I can see a lack of maintenance in Power and Water infrastructure and, when I read the annual report I read many of the key performance indicators have not only not been met, but have been substantially missed.
It is time for this minister and this government to address the overall management of the Power and Water Corporation in relation to its generation systems, purchase of gas, network management, and its human resources issues; otherwise, we will continue to get the KPI results you see in this year’s annual report - so far, a D-minus, minister.
Mr KNIGHT (Essential Services): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will pick up on some of the comments from the shadow spokesperson for Essential Services.
It is strange he wants to move into the area of blaming what has happened with the maintenance culture of Power and Water because, as he would know, or should know, when we contracted Merv Davies, a very experienced person, to conduct an investigation into what happened at Casuarina Zone Substation, he highlighted where we are today goes back decades into the organisation.
He showed back in 1998 a report was commissioned by the CLP, the Merrill Lynch and Fay Richwhite review of the financial performance and commercial value of Power and Water ...
Mr Elferink: If you have nothing new to add to this debate, sit down.
Mr KNIGHT: I sat quietly while you spoke so, if you do not mind …
Mr Elferink: I raised new and interesting things; you are just dribbling the same rubbish.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Deputy Speaker, the report made recommendations which were taken up by the CLP - basically, a preparedness to sell off the organisation - get it into a financial position where it would look more financially attractive to a private buyer, and flog it off. And that is where they moved.
It made a recommendation to sack some 300 staff from the organisation - that was its plan. In response, the CLP introduced measures designed to remove 150 staff and reduce funding to the organisation of some $30m per year each year for three years and, then, maintain the saving to an achievable level. It was the then Minister for Essential Services, Mr Barry Coulter, who told the parliament in 1999 the aim was to axe 150 jobs. He said:
- You will recall that consultants last year suggested 300 jobs should disappear instantly. We plan to save at least half of them …
So he was being very noble, he was not going to sack the whole 300, he was only going to sack 150. He went on to say:
- We believe the Power and Water Authority will be in great shape in the very near future.
The very near future to be sold off. In fact, between 1 July 1998 and 1 July …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. The minister should have people listening to him.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells, please. Thank you, we have a quorum. Minister, you have the call.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Between 1 July 1998 and 1 July 2001, the CLP government reduced the numbers drastically, slashing 114 jobs, from 821 to 707 staff. In 2000, the year before the election, staff numbers fell as low as 690. That is incredible. The great shape the minister spoke about was sacking the hard-working men and women who built and maintained the power and water and sewerage services. The following jobs were slashed by the CLP: 31 technical staff, and these were experienced and highly skilled staff; 22 professional staff, and 78 service workers. We have turned that around.
What happened then was an atmosphere of preparedness for selling off; staff were sacked, and there was preparation to sell; the culture of the organisation was almost one of a departure lounge, a death row, and the culture really broke down. It was only the change of government in 2001 which staved off that sale.
The culture which developed at that time was not immediately recognised. It was this government that put more money into the corporation and invested in the corporation, but the culture had broken down - this is what Merv Davies highlighted. There was a breakdown in management, a breakdown in staff; a culture where there was little reporting of maintenance, and there was a disconnection going on.
There was much criticism from the other side of the House about the union movement throughout that period; but, with its very strong membership in Power and Water, the ETU consistently highlighted concerns about the culture within the organisation. They were, effectively, the canary in the coal mine, highlighting problems, and they put the matter of a review in the EBA; it was the Blanch Review, and that review recommended several things.
One of the most significant was a massive increase in capital expenditure, investment into the organisation. It was this government which initially came out with, I believe it was $1bn and went up to $1.2bn, and now it sits at $1.4bn of capital investment over the five year period. As I highlighted earlier today, we have spent nearly $0.25bn already, improving capital into the organisation. There had also been a significant lag in repairs and maintenance and, again, we approved expenditure for repairs and maintenance into the organisation.
What happened with Casuarina Zone Substation was a series of errors coming from the culture which had developed, and this is what Merv Davies - not me, not the opposition, but an experienced industry expert - said had happened and highlighted the fact there had been a breakdown of communication and reporting and regimes of maintenance - that is what happened at Casuarina Zone Substation - one transformer not serviced and calcifying - that led to a string of errors which resulted in the problem there.
The culture had to change, and that was accepted by senior management headed by Andrew Macrides, and has been driving cultural change within the organisation. It is far easier to spend money buying equipment. It is very difficult to change cultures, and I know Andrew and his senior management have held almost town hall meetings with the staff, all the field staff, getting together in work units, working out better ways of performing their maintenance regimes and asset management.
What also came out of the review was about transfer of knowledge and getting experience. We have a small utility here in the Northern Territory - and thank goodness we did not sell - we can control it; as much as it is problematic for the responsible minister, we do control it. I can be influenced, I can be driven to make change by the general public, not by a corporation they have down south. That is the clear difference.
We are cross-fertilising information; we have workers from other companies coming to the Territory, transferring knowledge and, likewise, we are sending our staff down south to work on equipment, transformers, substations, which Ergon Energy and other companies do every single day. One of the things Merv Davies said when he came up here and we told him we had a zone substation blow up. He said: ‘So what? We have them blowing up all the time’.
We really are a small jurisdiction with a small generation and utility, and a small population; for the utilities down south, these things happen all the time. But they have the experience; they have people working on those zone substations all the time. It is not 30 000 people in Sydney, it would be 300 000 people who go out when a zone substation goes down.
It is something we have been able to change; it had being evolving for decades in Power and Water, and it is something that is recognised and being worked on. I met with the union after the recommendations in the Merv Davies report came out, and I said I will know things have changed in the organisation when union officials stop knocking on my door complaining about what is going on. And that has happened.
There are still things to be done but, largely, the culture has changed, and the work ethic has changed. We are building the organisation, not winding it down to sell it off; we are actually building the organisation and that is a key part of what this government is all about.
The instant expert, the member for Port Darwin, apparently knows everything about transformers and everything about the Power and Water system. We have staff out there doing a good job. We have very ageing infrastructure - it will last if it is maintained, and that is happening. The maintenance regimes are improving and that is why we put that money in; we have boosted repairs and maintenance by 25% throughout Power and Water and have a key focus on preventative maintenance. I know and I trust those staff. They do a good job and they have been through hell in the past and they have been ignored, but that has changed. We recognise the value of field staff and what they do.
As I said, the maintenance regimes have improved. I do not know this gentleman with whom the member for Port Darwin wanted to do some sort of ridiculous undergraduate stunt in the parliament. I certainly value all Power and Water staff and what they do, right across the regions. I have met Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek personnel, and they do a great job. They sometimes work in a very dangerous environment. It is coming up to the Wet Season and we have some very dangerous working conditions, especially for the lineys with lightening strikes and storms which bring trees down on power lines. We sit at home grumbling about Power and Water, but we have lineys out there on the end of ladders trying to get the power back on – it is a very difficult and dangerous situation. When you look at the chain of supply from the gas basin right through to the switch on your light, there are many things that can go wrong, and sometimes do go wrong, in a very volatile environment here in the Northern Territory.
We have invested a great deal of money into Power and Water and that has seen an increase in generation capacity. Weddell Power Station is online and has certainly boosted our capacity, and we are ahead of demand, which is where we need to be. We have improvements at Channel Island; we have Owen Springs in Alice Springs which is nearly ready, and augmentation in the other regional centres. They are continually looking at their assessment management and what they need to do to improve.
With the water supply, it was this government that invested $1.4bn to raise Darwin River Dam. Territorians use a great deal of water, and we have programs to educate people about reducing their water usage, but we are ahead of demand at the moment in our projections for population increase. We have the backup and work being done on Manton Dam to bring that back online, with a qualification that we need to maintain recreational use of Manton Dam; it is part of the lifestyle for water skiers and jet skiers. It is the only facility they can use without being eaten by a crocodile or a shark, so we want to protect that whilst, obviously, having a contingency for the water supply.
Work has been done for many years now on the Warrawi Dam, and we have secured the land at Marrakai. It is very different geology there, and Warrawi is going to be the big catchment area, and that work is continuing. Obviously, you do not build these things if you do not need them. They cost a substantial amount of money, but the planning work has been done and securing the land has been done.
I highlighted the sewerage needs in the Top End: the $60m Darwin sewerage strategy, closing the Larrakeyah outfall and making improvements to other treatment plants across the Darwin area. That investment is key to keeping the organisation going. The Archer Zone Substation is about redundancy, about security of power supply for Palmerston, a growing area with an extra 10 000 or 15 000 people going there in the next few years. We not only have to have capacity but we have to have redundancy and security of supply for those residents.
Another security mechanism we have put in place is the inter-connect with Darwin LNG - that is about protection. We have gas coming from Amadeus now, and also from Blacktip, but it is about having contingencies; if anything happens down the track, it is a long gas line, we have the inter-connect with Darwin LNG to supply gas. If INPEX agrees to come to Darwin, and I know the corporation has their mind to it, we would certainly be looking at opportunities to have some inter-connection with them to provide a second, third or fourth security option for our fuel supply.
In modernising the organisation, one thing the Corporation has done is have a Utilities Commissioner. For far too long governments, both CLP and Labor, have been averse to legitimately introducing appropriate tariffs to provide a funding stream to Power and Water. You cannot starve an organisation and expect it to perform at a high level. For 13 years there were no real increases in revenue from their tariffs, which was, basically, starving the organisation.
The general public wants some reliability but, with reliability, there has to be increased investment. Having an independent Utilities Commissioner to look at capital improvements to the organisation, what it costs to run, and what should be legitimate tariffs into the future, is a very sensible way to go. It would be a ridiculous situation for a politician to set Power and Water prices, because it does not set up a viable and sensible company for the future. Also, guaranteed service level schemes; with Casuarina Zone Substation, we introduced a scheme and it was taken on, but we need guaranteed service level schemes implemented in the Territory so Power and Water maintains high levels of reliability for its service.
I have highlighted many of the points the shadow talked about. I do get quite cranky with the opposition when they run down the staff of the organisation. When they criticise Power and Water, they criticise the 800-odd staff. When they criticise …
Mr Tollner: Criticise the minister because he is such a drongo. He is a ning nong. The minister is hopeless. Guess who the minister is? Is it you?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Mr KNIGHT: … the organisation, they criticise the staff, because the staff are very proud of the work they do, and they believe in the organisation. For the opposition to continually criticise the staff of Power and Water …
Mr Tollner: You lead with your chin all the time …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Mr KNIGHT: … is abhorrent. They try their best. They do not sit in comfortable, air-conditioned offices like this, member for Fong Lim. They are out there doing a hard day’s work in the heat, in very dangerous circumstances, and they should be respected.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, in his Matter of Public Importance, which is the failure of the Territory Labor government to provide effective delivery of power, water, and sewerage services to people in the Northern Territory. This is an all encompassing matter of public importance and perhaps should have been broken down into three parts:
- (1) their failure to deliver effective power;
- (2) their failure to deliver effective and efficient water systems, and planning for the future; and
(3) their failure to plan for effective and efficient sewerage systems into the future for the people of the Northern Territory.
Before I briefly comment on some of the issues in my area and elsewhere in regard to the delivery of Power and Water services, the Power and Water Corporation’s 2009 Annual Report was made available today. I have only had a chance to go through it quickly, but one of the items that jumps out at me - which I am extremely disappointed with and many in the community, if not Power and Water, would be - is their scant regard to safety and how they view their staff.
We all know the key to a successful organisation, whether private sector or public sector is the people on the ground. Yet, in the Chairman’s report, in the very last paragraph, it says:
- Finally to the Managing Director, Andrew Macrides …
Who is named, and that is probably fair enough:
- … and all management and employees, I convey my thanks and thanks of the Board.
That is all they get. It is the same in the Managing Director’s report. Much talk about money, revenue raising, how well they are doing with their networks, etcetera, and the last paragraph:
- On behalf of management, I thank all Power and Water employees for their commitment and dedication to the task they have been set.
That is it. That tells you where they rank and how they view their employees in this organisation which delivers one of the key services to our Northern Territory community.
In regard to safety, about two years ago I had the good fortune to be invited to the Power and Water Annual General Meeting which was held at a function room on the Esplanade. The Chairman and Managing Director of the day gave their presentations about how well they were doing with the networks, with the revenue, and power generation, but not once did any of the Power and Water speakers refer to their safety performance or their safety record, or how they valued the performance of their staff, which I found extremely disappointing at the time, and I still find disappointing in this report.
After the formalities at that function I spoke to some of the senior staff - who I see are still listed in the organisational chart, so they are still there - their comments to me were: yes, they had a discussion about that, but they decided not to put it in the presentations by the senior manager because their record and their performance was not really good. That tells me they are quite prepared and quite comfortable sweeping safety performance and how the organisation is run under the carpet, which I find alarming.
In the Chairman’s report, she refers to safety:
- a successful drive to advance the safety culture across employees and management for the whole organisation.
What does ‘a successful drive’ mean? How are they going to quantify it? What are the key performance indicators? There is no mention at all in her report of how well they have done in the year.
In the Managing Director’s report, at the end, safety did get a slightly higher rank than the poor employees; he does mention their safety record:
- Power and Water’s safety record improved in 2008-09 with a 31 percent reduction in lost time injuries, for the second year running …
- In just two years we have brought lost time injuries from 23 down to nine, but our goal is Zero Harm and we continue to strive for this target.
Which is to be commended. But, sadly, they seem to put revenue and money, and budgets ahead of their best and most important asset - their people.
The other thing I find interesting in about three places in the report, is how Territorians know they live in one of the toughest natural environments anywhere in the world:
- The Northern Territory experiences extreme and diverse environmental conditions, which present Power and Water with significant challenges in providing, maintaining and improving assets’.
It is almost like it is an excuse; when things go wrong it is because we live in such a tough environment. Well, I would hate to live anywhere else in the world that is really tough, like South America or in some third world countries that probably have slightly better power supplies than we do here.
I have not had the opportunity to go through the whole report, but I will, and will probably make further comment on it then.
What concerns me is the failure of government to provide an effective and efficient delivery of power across the Northern Territory, but particularly in the Top End.
My colleagues, and others, will highlight the problems we have across the northern suburbs, and I have raised the issue about the rural area previously - that is the large number of power outages, blackouts, brownouts, call them what you like, experienced in the rural area, particularly in the Humpty Doo and the Lambells Lagoon area.
I detailed in the House on 10 June this year the problems experienced in the Thomas and Goode Roads in Humpty Doo. In a period from November to May houses have experienced about 60 outages, ranging from fluctuations, which is power off and immediately back on, to general outages lasting anywhere from a minute to hours. On one day this year households experienced seven outages between 5.30 am and 7.30 am, which affected all the houses in that area.
I have sent letters to the Minister for Essential Services, and I know residents have also; interestingly, it was only after I spoke in this House that one of those residents received an e-mail from the minister that evening, which is exceptionally coincidental. In dealing with the problem in this area, and in Lambells Lagoon, I wrote to the minister, and he did reply, for which I thank him. The reply was: ‘The power supply to rural areas is more prone to outages due to the longer distances between power poles’.
I know that the further down the power line you live the risk of having a slight drop in power supply is greater because of the nature of electricity travelling along the lines. However, the minister says: ‘The supply of electricity over these distances is by overhead conductors, some covering a distance of up to 100 km’. Now, Goode Road and Thomas Road are not 100 km from a transformer or from a main power source, and definitely not 100 km from Darwin Central or Channel Island.
Common causes of outages for these assets include bats, birds, electrical storms, tree branches, planned maintenance and equipment failure. I accept the planned maintenance because Power and Water does do a good job putting notices on gate posts; but bats, birds, electrical storms and tree branches have gone from April/May through to October this year. I do not know what happens in town, but in the rural area from May to October this year it has been the Dry Season, so I find that a little hard to swallow, and so do the residents of that area. Power and Water have said leaves blow onto the insulators - and they may well do - although they have a program of trimming trees under power lines and things of that nature; but I do not accept, and neither do the residents of that area, that it is continually bats and birds causing all of these power outages.
I took the opportunity to do a survey of something like 60 letterbox drops around these areas and I had about a 60% return rate. Anyone who knows anything about marketing will know that is absolutely extraordinary; the best you can hope for is probably 10% to 15%. Much of what was in those returned survey forms is unprintable and I am unable to repeat in this parliament; however, what I can say is, apart from giving information about general electricity onto their blocks and whether they have backup power and things of that nature, all the forms returned to me - all of them - had successive and continual blackouts of power. They have lost equipment ranging from air conditioners, pool pumps, electrical tools, television sets, microwaves to set top boxes. Some people may say they should have power surge protection on their equipment, and some of them probably do, but why should they have to do that? Why should they not expect, given they are paying good money, to have a reliable power supply.
I also asked residents if anyone in their household was dependant on medical equipment of any kind for their health and wellbeing. Yes, there were a couple of households with people who need oxygen, and they were very concerned and very scared because the power was going off so often. One household in particular has aged parents on oxygen and it is a great concern to them when the power goes of so often. This is in the Dry Season. We have not got to the Wet Season yet when we can blame electrical storms and tree branches falling onto power lines.
The Utilities Commissioner was interviewed on ABC radio and one of the residents from this road went on radio to talk about her experiences with the power supply. The Utilities Commissioner said yes, there had been some bad spots, he was not sure why it was happening, he knew there were climatic issues, but he said things like bats are no excuse. So there is no excuse for the power to keep going off continually and regularly in the rural area. And this is just one part of the rural area; there are other parts of the rural area that suffer a completely and absolutely unreliable power supply.
I included in the survey people who ran businesses from home and for other reasons were very dependant on the electricity supply, and there has been a loss of business and loss of data due to the unreliability of power. People get a poor response from Power and Water and poor information from the Minister for Essential Services as to why this is happening. We are seeing an increase in electricity prices across the board, yet we are not seeing the same increase in the delivery of service. It is exceptionally disappointing and I am particularly concerned going into a Wet Season with the potential for electrical storms and cyclones which the scientists and experts tell us we should expect to be of a more intense nature. It is no wonder people buy emergency power supplies and back-up generators. The minister tells us that is what we should do, and perhaps for once we have listened to him and bought a generator to provide back-up supply, which people on my road and I, have done.
I do not have time to talk about problems with water and sewerage services in the rural area and elsewhere in the Territory. Perhaps we will hold that over for another time and another Matter of Public Importance.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a massively important issue, because the government has failed Territorians; they have failed to provide effective delivery of electricity, water and sewerage services to the Northern Territory - that is quite obvious to everyone. The reason they failed to deliver electioncity - I mean, electricity …
A member: This will be a Christmas tape, this one.
Mr TOLLNER: It was electioncity about a year ago as I recall - pardon the slip of the tongue!
This government cannot deliver electricity; they cannot guarantee electricity; fundamentally because the current minister is a complete and abject failure and everything he touches turns to rubble and mess. In fact, there is not much you could point to that he has actually touched at all. We have seen his efforts on housing; he has been sitting on $700m to build houses in remote communities for the last two years, and how many houses has he built?
Ms Purick: None!
Mr TOLLNER: How many?
Ms Purick: Not one.
Mr TOLLNER: None, not one. No, he is a complete failure in that regard. Last year we had the whole power system in Darwin blow up.
A member: The whole power system?
Mr TOLLNER: Practically, the whole power system just blew up. The Casuarina substation collapsed. What was the minister’s response? What did he tell people?
Members: Buy a generator.
Mr TOLLNER: That is how the minister handles these crisis situations. There is only one thing for this situation here, and that is to get rid of the minister. If the Chief Minister had any ticker, if he had any heart, if he had any courage, that is what he would do.
Ms Purick: Gumption.
Mr TOLLNER: Gumption. That is what he would do; he would get rid of this hopeless, incompetent minister we have at the moment running our electricity, water and sewerage systems.
My electorate of Fong Lim has Racecourse Creek or Ludmilla Creek running through it, and right next to that is the Ludmilla Sewerage Farm. We were told about eight years ago that farm would be moved, and they would stop spewing sewerage into our harbour; but we find out years later the government now has no intention of doing anything about that. In fact, it is an excuse to stop the development of the Arafura Harbour project - not that I am particularly in favour of that project.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I cannot say I am particularly in favour of it, but what I am in favour of is seeing the processes followed. I believe people who have big ideas and have the backing to follow those ideas should at least be given the courtesy of having those ideas tested. But, for fear of some sort of electoral backlash this government, as they always do, go into their shell and stop things before they even get a start.
The reason they stopped that project, they told the public, was because the Ludmilla sewage farm is there and they are not going to move it. People in the Territory refer to it as the Poo Shooter. We have seen stories in the newspaper about what they are doing to Buffalo Creek and the amount of sewage flowing in there - people cannot catch fish. I saw a letter yesterday about a bloke who cannot use live bait there because every time he casts a line into the water his bait is dead after a couple of minutes, before he has a chance to reel it in.
Members: Shame!
Mr TOLLNER: That was a letter in yesterday’s paper; it might have even been in today’s paper. People cannot use the waterways. They are being impacted on because of the failure of this government and, in particular, this minister, to do anything.
He jumped up today in Question Time and talked about $1.5bn being spent on Power and Water. You have to ask the question: why are they spending $1.5bn on Power and Water? The reason is quite simple: because they failed to do the work in the lead-up to it. This is why the Casuarina substation blew up or fell to bits; it is why we have seen no action on sewerage; it is why we have water problems now, and we are spending huge dollars to raise the level of Darwin River Dam 1 m or so. It seems to me there is no future planning whatsoever for our water resources, sewerage systems, or electricity systems.
Every time someone turns up to this place with an idea that should be tested, this government is very quick to shoot them down. I remember the 2005 election when a local gentleman did a great deal of work on an idea to build a high-voltage, DV/DC power line between Central Queensland and Darwin …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: That idea was absolutely pilloried by this government …
Dr Burns: By your own party, as well!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Oh really?
Dr Burns: Yes!
Mr TOLLNER: When? I take up the interjection, Madam Deputy Speaker. When was it pilloried by own party?
Dr Burns: I will table the document. How is that?
Mr TOLLNER: I do not recall a time when that idea was pilloried by the party. We may have wanted to test it, do some feasibility studies to see how it would have worked, but I do not believe anyone on this side of the parliament pilloried the idea; we were prepared to float and see how it went.
It is not surprising to me, but must surprise the other team that the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, has called that high-voltage DC project, a project of national significance. The line will be built from central Queensland to Mount Isa and, possibly, to McArthur River Mine. However, because of the head-in-the-sand approach this government has taken, it seems unlikely to go any further than Borroloola.
Anna Bligh has said it is a wonderful project, it will open up mineral provinces in north-west Queensland and allow further development to happen, and it will massively reduce the cost of electricity in Mount Isa and other far-flung places in Queensland.
However, what is the attitude of the Northern Territory government? It is to pillory the idea, to deride it and abuse the people who put it forward. I believe the Chief Minister’s comment at the time was: ‘Who the hell does this bloke think he is? He has a ute and a blue dog, or a blue heeler and a ute. Nobody can take this fellow seriously’.
Dr Burns: Denis Burke did.
Mr TOLLNER: I believe he was referring to the proponent of the project.
Mr Vatskalis: That was Denis Burke.
Mr TOLLNER: In any case, it just demonstrates this government is not prepared to countenance ideas, or countenance people who think and who have plans and designs which would see the Territory move forward. What they are quite prepared to do is try to kick the legs out of ideas - try to abuse and denigrate proponents of those ideas and, at the same time, do absolutely nothing themselves. It is a shameful situation, as I say.
The best this minister can come up with in relation to the power failures is to abuse Territorians, say no one can expect to have a guarantee of power, and if you want that, buy a generator.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Can the member for Fong Lim actually substantiate that claim? Can you substantiate that claim?
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure there was a front page news story about the need to buy a generator to supply power.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, please. There is no point of order.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is up there with the former member for Sanderson who said: ‘Come on, just open a window.’
A member: He did say ‘open a window’.
Mr TOLLNER: You do not need an air conditioner - middle of a Wet Season night - stinking hot - steamy as hell - and the member for Sanderson tells his constituents: ‘Just open a window; you do not actually need electricity.’ That is the attitude of this government. Care factor - nil; we will find some lame excuse; we will blame it on someone else; blame it on John Howard; blame it on former Country Liberal governments. If they could blame things on Robert Menzies, they would. I am sure Robert Menzies let us all down here in some way or another. I am surprised this government has not found a reason to blame Menzies.
Dr Burns: What about the pig iron?
A member: Yes, that will be it. No one is old enough to remember that.
Dr Burns: Here in Darwin, you might just think about that.
Mr TOLLNER: I hear the member for Johnston. He interrupts and interjects, and comes out with these things. He could troll through history, and he could ask who introduced the White Australia Policy. Was it a Labor government that introduced the White Australia Policy? I think it might have been. Who abolished the White Australia Policy? It was a Liberal government.
A member: Who had the first Aboriginal member of parliament?
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely. Who had the first Aboriginal in parliament in the Northern Territory?
Ms Purick: It might have been the Country Liberals.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: No, no, we are the party over here who does not like Aborigines, and they love Aborigines so much they cannot build them a single house, despite the fact that they have had $700m for the last two years …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: … national emergency response. They recognise it is an emergency but they do nothing about it. And guess who is in charge of that?
A member: The member for Daly.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Daly: the same minister who lets the lights go out; the same minister who is responsible for the sewerage outflow into our beautiful harbour; the same minister who will not let you catch a fish in Buffalo Creek; the same minister who wants to cap public servants wages at 2.5%. The list just goes on and on. This fellow is an abject failure.
I have just been handed a CPSU Union News. The CPSU, for those who do not know, is the public service union. And what do you think the public service union has to say about the member for Daly and the way things have been? Let me just read the headline: ‘Gee mum, we get treated like the poor cousins around here’. That is the headline. The CPSU Darwin Office has uncovered a pay discrepancy between Power and Water and NT Public Service staff. If you work in a Power and Water Corporation call centre, credit control or billing department, or service the front counter, you can be paid less than equivalent jobs in the Northern Territory Public Sector. That is how much he loves his staff in Power and Water. He is trying to screw over the public service just as he has with his Power and Water staff.
This minister is a failure, and he deserves to go. If the Chief Minister had any heart at all, if he had any compassion for Territorians, if he could feel the way some Territorians are suffering because of this minister’s failure, if he got out of Darwin and had a look at some of the conditions in Aboriginal communities and saw the way some people are living, he could not possibly live with himself, or let this minister continue in his occupation. This bloke does not deserve a job anywhere in any government. He has proven himself over and over again to be a complete and utter failure.
I call, again, on the Chief Minister to act in the best interest of Territorians and get rid of this absolute yobbo.
Dr BURNS: (Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak on this matter of public importance, and I will focus on the issues raised by the member for Port Darwin in his letter to the Speaker.
Many of the issues, difficulties and challenges around the provision of power, water and sewerage in the Northern Territory revolve around the very challenges we face as a community. In one respect, these challenges are very positive because they are challenges of growth. The Treasurer, the Chief Minister and others have alluded to the growth phase occurring in the Northern Territory. Even the member for Port Darwin alluded to the Access Economics report, which has been published in the last few days, which points to ‘the highest growth in Australia is in the Northern Territory’, and that is a very important aspect. It recently forecast the Territory will achieve 5.2% growth in GST in 2008-09, the highest in all jurisdictions. The ANZ also had a report to that effect.
The other thing, which was highlighted in the Merv Davies report, and it has been debated in this House, is the entrenched culture within Power and Water, not only during the period of this government but stretching back into the CLP days, about the lack of maintenance for crucial infrastructure. Why was that occurring? Because the organisation had been wound down. I refer to the report submitted in January 2009 by Mervyn Davies, which talks about substation maintenance across Darwin:
- Over a period of decades the approach to substation maintenance across Darwin has shifted from what was originally a very traditional approach involving routine preventative maintenance as the dominant task type, to one which is now a minimalist approach, dominated by corrective and breakdown tasks.
This shift is considered to have come about as the inevitable outcome of attempts by those responsible for delivering maintenance to cope with competing demands and budget constraints, in an environment which required little or no systemic reporting of either asset condition or maintenance works delivery, and an asset and works management system that so poorly served a demoralised the delivery workforce that it was eventually switched off.
That is the background we have. Basically, the CLP has a record on this, and we are trying to address those issues. When it was last in office, the CLP cut the heart out of Power and Water resources. Between 1998 and 1999, 114 jobs were slashed. The capacity of Power and Water to deliver its services was impaired by a deliberate policy of the CLP. It was a slash-and-burn approach for delivering essential services, necessitated by poor fiscal management. Not only were jobs slashed, there was pervasive neglect and under-maintenance of essential service assets over many years under the CLP.
This government has put in record amounts of maintenance expenditure to address that issue. Between 2007-08 and 2008-09, repairs and maintenance expenditure increased from $41.3m to $51.8m, an increase of 25%. In delivering Budget 2009-10, the Treasurer announced an allocation of $331.5m to improve power, water and sewerage services in 2009-10, as part of a $1.4bn five-year program for Power and Water. This is a government that is investing; it has received the Davies’ report and we are investing in power and water infrastructure.
Some examples are: $126m for the Weddell power station; $55.7m for the Larrakeyah outfall closure; $52.1m for the Owen Springs Power Station; $30m for Owen Springs to Lovegrove 66kV line; $30m for a new water storage tank at Berrimah; $19.6m to raise the Darwin River Dam wall, and $18.5m for the Lee Point zone substation and 66kV line. These projects will underpin the delivery of essential services in the years to come.
The Treasurer also announced the government will invest $67m in Budget 2009-10 to improve power, water and sewerage services in remote Indigenous communities, including $18.9m for infrastructure. Some programs are: $2.4m for a new grid connection to Yuendumu power station, to replace Yuelamu power station; $1.6m for a new power station at Alpurrurulam; $1.1m to upgrade ground and elevated water storage in Palumpa; $1m to replace the existing elevated water storage and provide additional storage capacity at Warruwi; $650 000 to replace ground level water storage tank at Ramingining; $600 000 to extend the power station and upgrade fuel bunding at Warruwi; $500 000 to equip new production bores at Rittarangu - I hope I have that one right; $450 000 for water sourcing work at Beswick, Barunga, and Alpurrurulam; $420 000 to replace ground level storage tank at Willowra; and $9.35m for other minor new works projects across the Territory.
This is the record of the government. What would the CLP do? We have already had the member for Fong Lim reiterate the failed election promise, which Denis Burke made in 2005, for a transmission line from Queensland to the Northern Territory, which was valued at $1.3bn in 2005. What is it worth today? But he revived it, and according to an ABC news article from 9 September 2008, titled, ‘CLP resurrects Qld-Darwin power line plan’:
- Former CLP leader Denis Burke launched the proposal three weeks out from the 2005 election. It was ridiculed by Labor and was abandoned by the CLP after it was defeated that year.
Mr Tollner told the Northern Territory parliament during his maiden speech that the proposal should be revisited in the light of high power prices.
‘Most people here today, I think, would be quite surprised to learn that the high voltage power line that was proposed to be built from central Queensland to Darwin looks very likely to get up to at least Mt Isa’, he said. It is being heralded …
- … by Queensland premier, Anna Bligh as a development that will greatly reduce electricity costs in north-west Queensland.
The last line of the article says:
The CLP says Mr Tollner’s position is not party policy.
I challenge the member for Fong Lim, and the CLP. He said clearly, in an interjection, that it was not true, the assertion it was not party policy was not true. If it is true, and it is still part of the CLP’s policy …
Mr Tollner: I said we would look at it, you drongo. Clean your ears out, mongrels.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Where is it going to get the $1.3bn from? Will it take it out of all those projects I alluded to before? This is policy on the run. This is the member for Fong Lim, standing up in this place, with this stream of consciousness stuff, and he lays all his ideas out there, but there is no responsibility attached; no responsibility to pay for it or to explain it. Is this your policy?
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Johnston is making this up as he goes along. It is a ridiculous diatribe. I do not know where he is getting this information from.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Fong Lim, resume your seat. Minister, I ask you to direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Dr BURNS: At the time John Quiggin, Australian Research Council, Federation Fellow in Economics and Political Science labelled it as: ‘… an uneconomic white elephant …’.
That is what happened in 2005. The economics of it were unproven. We were convinced, and remain convinced, it would have an adverse effect, not only on power prices in the Northern Territory to pay for it, but it would also draw money away from the essential infrastructure upgrades, which I mentioned previously.
When you look back at the CLP history, about how it managed Power and Water resources - I alluded to some of the job cuts they indulged in, or slash-and-burn mentality, and how infrastructure and assets were allowed to run down. Then we had the Darwin to Katherine Transmission Line, which was the subject of an Auditor-General’s report in January 2001. For those who might not be familiar with it, the CLP paid, I believe, $43m for a power line valued at $30m. It must have been: ‘Here it comes; it has $43m for something which is worth $30m’. This is the acumen of this business-type party; a party which tries to paint itself as a great economic manager.
Basically, the Auditor-General said:
- The $43m settlement was a negotiated position which the government recognised was greater than their estimates of the value of the line.
It knew the value of the line was much less than $43m, but it still went through. What a waste of taxpayer’s money the CLP government indulged in, in its last days.
But, there is more. I have another good one. The thread through all of this was NT Power. One of the principles of NT Power was none other than Mr Paul Everingham, the same bloke we heard the member for Greatorex laud as the builder of the Northern Territory. Let us give him credit; he did much for the Northern Territory; I am not going to deny it. However, let us hear what ‘Porky’ Everingham had to say about the CLP. I quote from an ABC News Online article posted on 11 September 2002, titled Everingham blasts CLP on competition:
The CLP’s first Northern Territory Chief Minister, Paul Everingham, says he is disgusted with what he says was the anti-competitive behaviour of former CLP governments. He has also labelled the previous government as totalitarian.
Mr Everingham is the Chairman of NT Power, the Territory’s only independent power company, which this week closed its doors because it was unable to access a gas source.
That matter cost the taxpayer - I might say, in our time - $30m. Another $30m of taxpayers’ money squandered, no, not squandered, to settle a court case which had its genesis in the CLP days, that could have been applied to Power and Water infrastructure:
- He says legislation introduced by previous CLP governments is also to blame for the company’s inability to survive in the market.
‘The CLP government was diabolical in the way it treated competition’, he said. ‘As far as I am concerned it was not even a socialist government, it was a totalitarian government’[.
Here is one of the founding fathers of the CLP, labelling it in its latter years as totalitarian. But, there is a reflection of that. Some of the arrogance, which I perceive in members opposite, in some of their offerings, the way they talk, carry themselves, and swagger; I believe the opposition needs to have a good, hard look at itself, and the way it is presenting itself. Territorians are seeing it. Territorians are seeing the arrogance of this opposition; the way members carry themselves, the way they debate, the type of issues, and their conduct in this House. I believe Territorians will judge that.
I hope Territorians will judge the efforts this government is making to invest money in our infrastructure, not only in Darwin, Palmerston, and the major centres, but throughout the Territory in Indigenous communities, and consolidating the Power and Water infrastructure in those communities which are also experiencing incredible growth.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will finish on a positive note. I believe the Power and Water Corporation is positioned to deliver essential services through a comprehensive and record infrastructure investment program valued at $1.4bn over five years. I support the minister, despite what was said on the other side of this House. I believe he has a comprehensive investment strategy in Power and Water, not only in the infrastructure, but also in the people. I commend him for his work. He has further work to do and, I believe, it bodes well for the future that this government is investing in our power and water infrastructure, not running it down for broke.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak about something which is extremely important; something that hits everyone’s hip pockets each and every day - mums and dads, everyone - no one can get away with the price they pay for electricity.
I will speak briefly, but I want to pick up on a couple of technical things. First, I need to pick up on what the member for Johnston said about the money and what has been spent. Since I have been in this House, I have heard the government continually bring up, ‘back when the CLP did this, back when the CLP did that, and they only spent this amount of money on maintenance and so forth’. I put it to you: when the CLP government was in power, a house cost around about $120 000. How much does a house cost today? On maintenance today, you would have to spend about five times the amount of money it spent, even to keep up; five times, because the price of a house was about $120 000, and today, it costs over $500 000 for an average home. Before you talk about dollars, check what the dollars were worth at the time.
The other thing that is often brought up is maintenance. The fact is when Labor came to government in 2001, it had existing infrastructure in place, all it had to do was maintain it. It did not really have to do much more; just grow with the Territory as it grew. It did not have to do any massive infrastructure at the time. It just had to maintain the existing infrastructure. I have heard it brought up time and time again, ‘The CLP did not do much maintenance in its time’. And that may be the fact. Do not use the dollars though, because that does not clearly represent it.
I know there have been reports since that there was a culture within Power and Water which suggested not much was spent on maintenance and so forth, but I put it to you, that, like a car, things get older and as they get older they require more maintenance. It is always brought up that the CLP government, of old, did not do much on maintenance. Eight years ago, the infrastructure was not as old as it is today. In fact, for the last three or four years the CLP government was in power, the infrastructure was not as old as it is today. If we look at today - 10 years later – infrastructure that needed - and I will use a rough estimate - one hour of maintenance for every 1000 hours of service, might need two or three hours of maintenance for every 1000 hours of service today, because it is 10 years older. I am using those figures as a representation - they are not from any report or anything - but I am trying to explain that as equipment gets older, it needs to be maintained more regularly; more needs to be done.
To suggest the CLP, when it was in government, did not do as much maintenance as required is a little mistruth, or a misunderstanding, because the equipment was not as old then as it is today. When you continue to bring up the dollars spent by the CLP government at the time, I put it to you again: what did those dollars buy then, because a house cost $120 000, not $520 000? Today, you would need to spend five times what was spent then, to even match what it could buy then.
I want to talk about the environment. I read in the report there are some things that Power and Water is trying to do to be environmentally friendly. There are a couple of figures which support my argument that they have no right to talk about environmentally friendly initiatives. The KPI target for Channel Island Power Station was 640 kg of CO2 per megawatt hour at 80% output factor. In 2007-08, it achieved 589 kg at 80%. In 2008-09, it rose to 628 kg of CO2 per megawatt hour at 81%. We all know Channel Island is not running at 81% capacity; there are many times when it is much higher, so the true answer is not 628 kg, it could be much more.
It says in 2008-09 major power stations in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek emitted an estimated 945 708 of CO2, up from 872 000. If it was environmentally friendly, it would be aiming to lower that, but I can only put it down to the amount of diesel which is pumped through the power station. While Power and Water continues to pump untreated, or partially treated, waste into the harbour, rivers and creeks, and continues to use diesel to run a gas-powered turbine, it has no right to say it is environmentally conscious.
The mums and dads are paying today for this government’s and minister’s mismanagement. On top of all the other evidence of failures by this minister, now the mums and dads are paying for his mismanagement. I use the car analogy again, when we talk about running out of gas. We all have fuel gauges and we know when the fuel gets lower we fill up the car. I assume that, for quite a while, Power and Water would have been expecting, and have full knowledge of the fact, the gas from Central Australia was running out and they would have to plan to get a new supply of gas. Yet, we seem to have left it until the absolute last moment, instead of acting and planning well and having this all in place.
I heard the Chief Minister say earlier this year that Blacktip was up and running; there were no problems, it is all done, delivered, the whole thing. We know now it is not done. In fact, the gas which is coming through is not at the standard required to run the power station at the moment and it is still running on diesel.
In the Technical Regulations from the Annual Report, 2008-09, from the Utilities Commissioner, he talks about generation capacity - we are talking about management now - I quote from page 21 of the report:
- In the Darwin-Katherine regulated system, both under the Commission’s high and low demand growth scenarios, the Commission has forecast significant shortfalls in capacity. The service provider has advised it is investing in generation capacity to avoid such shortfalls.
Again, good planning would suggest that you are ready to go. How many years ago was the Channel Island Power Station constructed? Quite a few years ago. I remember when we turned over from the old Stokes Hill Power Station. The thing is, like road infrastructure, land releases, anything else, everything is left to the last moment - until it breaks or causes so many people problems – before the government seems to do something about it. This is just another example of the way it appears to manage.
Regarding gas supply, according to the annual report:
- Gas availability in the medium-term remains adequate but continues to be stretched until the first supply of gas from the Blacktip field becomes available.
Further evidence of bad planning. It continues:
- To reduce its exposure to diesel consumption, during 2007-08 Power and Water entered into a contract with ConocoPhillips to receive supplementary gas from the Bayu-Undan gas field, via the Darwin LNG facilities at Wickham Point.
The Commissioner says in the 2008-09 report:
- … supplies under the existing gas contract were expected to be insufficient to meet Power and Water’s gas supply …
I will read further:
- … and use of diesel was expected to be necessary, particularly to meet intra-day peaks. The need to use diesel was to be mitigated by supplies made available on a ‘reasonable endeavours’ basis by the Amadeus gas producers, and a contingency gas supply contract was signed with ConocoPhillips for gas from the Bayu-Undan LNG plant. For 2009-10, contract quantities scheduled to be available under the Blacktip agreement were expected to be adequate to meet gas supply requirements, provided supply matched contract quantities.
I will read further:
- The Commission estimated that projected gas requirements would marginally exceed the contract quantities available under the Blacktip agreement …
You already need, and know you need, more gas than the damn contract you signed. What kind of management is that?
It goes on to say many of these things will be put to rest once the Blacktip supply commences, but we know that is yet to happen. We know the gas coming through has not met standards, and, today, Channel Island still runs on diesel.
Then we get back to talking about the environment, and about how Power and Water are working hard to do things better for the environment.
Under Network Reliability - I have to say this - it says:
- The management of power system reliability has been given specific focus by the supply interruptions customers experienced in September and October 2008 as a result of events at the Casuarina substation …
I wonder when you blame a previous government and I could, perhaps, understand it if there were four, five, six, or seven members on the other side who were part of that government. The fact is there are not. This is a different management team; a strong management team, which will have ideas and real results for the Northern Territory. Unlike what this minister has delivered for Territorians, which is blackness, bad sewerage, lack of power, lack of housing, and so many other things that seem to have fallen apart under his watch.
Madam Speaker, I put it to you, and it has been said before, the Chief Minister should take the only action that would be deemed appropriate and, probably, expected by many Territorians, which is to sack this minister. Mums and dads are going to be hitting it hard come Christmas, when the second lot of Power and Water bills come through. You have to remember, in the first bill, which came out a month or two ago, the charges had not been lifted for the full quarter; it was only partially in that quarter. The next power bill Territorians receive will be for the full quarter at the new charges. We are coming into the hottest part of the year, the build-up, and most people who have air-conditioners find they are using them more than before. The bottom line is, people are going to be hit in the hip pocket, and they are paying because of mismanagement. They are paying because this minister, and this government, has failed to adequately plan for the growth of the Northern Territory and to manage its ageing infrastructure.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I talked about it the other day: when it comes to a power and water system, eight years is an eternity.
If I use my colleague’s comments about a car: if you did not service your car properly over eight years it would be worth nothing. It would have broken down so many times it is not funny, and it would probably have some critical failures. I have a friend in Adelaide who is rebuilding a motor four years after he rebuilt it last time because the bloke does not service it. It is a diesel motor, and he does not service it, and after four years it blows up.
We are talking about critical components, which need regular maintenance programs and an increase in funding to match.
The only excuse you have been using on that side has been, ‘your government, back in your day, the old days’, eight years ago. I am not sure how many times we have to remind the current government it has had eight years to do something. We see eight years of failures, more so than eight years of achievements, unfortunately. Eight years - no wonder the high-voltage switching gear exploded. The high-voltage switching gear at Casuarina must have been hot enough leading up to that incident that you could have cooked eggs on it for a week. That sort of equipment doe not get a little warm, and then a little warmer and, then - bang! - all of a sudden it goes; it gets boiling hot.
I have seen, in this building - this fantastic parliament building - electrical inspectors checking the circuit boards. I am sure it is a yearly thing they do. They come with an infrared camera, take a shot, and look at the buzz boards, so they know whether there is any resistance. They are checking them so there is preventative maintenance, if need be. They are checking, and it will show up as a heated area, if there is a hot spot, resistance, or wear. We are talking about little switch panels, we go past them - the little doors - we all know and have seen them.
You imagine one massive box, and its role is to switch a couple of large cables. Surely, if the infrared gear had been used on that, it might have showed up. That is proactive maintenance. That was the failure. I am sure, in the initial magazine, that came out with it, which described how it is used, it did not say: ‘Every eight to 10 years check me, just in case I am not feeling good’. It would have given periodic maintenance schedules. I am pretty confident the report is pretty condemning on that. That switching gear is still used around Australia and in the Territory. But, when you do not maintain something, or you allow the systems which we work in to become so congested with self-importance, we have failures.
Some time in 2004 - I cannot narrow it down to the exact date; I was not given that much information - there was a dramatic change to some OHS procedures, and these things should occur; you should always be concerned about OHS. But, the scenario, as explained by a Power and Water worker, was that, pre-2004 – the Labor team was in government from 2001 onwards - for $10 000 worth of routine maintenance work, $2000 would go to administrative works, and $8000 would go to physical product and labour to do the maintenance. Post-2004, $2000 to administrative requirements, $4000 to OHS - tick and flick the little paper books, meet all the other requirements - and only $4000 to works and labour. There was not a change in funding, in the routine maintenance, to deal with this change in OHS.
Some of this stuff is important, but some of it is a little too far gone. If you are going to insist certain levels are included, you must match that with funding to ensure you do not lose the service you are providing to the people. It happened; it is real. If any minister on that side wishes to say it did not happen, I would suggest they talk to some of the Power and Water employees at the pub and see how well they come out of it. I am confident that most senior Power and Water workers who have been on the ground - not management, because you do not bother speaking to management half the time, because they will tell you what you guys want to know - you talk to the people on the ground, they will tell you what the story is.
It was meant to be a pretty short talk. I probably have much more to say on Power and Water, because it is a pretty enjoyable topic; I like getting my teeth into that sort of stuff. Having an electrician as a father, growing up around him, I have a reasonable understanding. I also worked amongst essential services officers in remote Central Australia, and had great pleasure in understanding and learning about the remote operations of these facilities.
Madam Speaker, eight years of poor management - the blame sits fairly and squarely with the ministers who hold the responsibility. The blame sits fairly and squarely with this government. Eight years - you have reached nearly one decade – if you can refute that amount of time in charge, I wonder when you will stop blaming someone else. When will you start saying: ‘No, the failings must stand with us’, because, until you accept those failings, you can never get past them and start fixing them. You keep saying: ‘But you had it first’. Well, Adam, Eve and the apple. Madam Speaker, eight years.
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, a very special day to celebrate our wonderful teachers is coming up on Friday, 30 October. I take the opportunity to place on the record my gratitude and heartfelt regard for the many teachers throughout my electorate. I acknowledge the principals and their staff in our schools, the ISA staff, the parent volunteers and, of course, the school council representatives for their dedication. Every one of them should be congratulated for the hard work they put in which plays a very important part in our children’s lives. Students are encouraged by their teachers to do their very best to strive in their academic achievements and to learn life skills. Awards are given out not only to the best of the best but, more importantly, to those who try their hardest to do their very best.
I recently attended Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Thamarrurr Catholic School at Wadeye, and was very pleased to assist with presenting Year 8 students with a Bursary Award worth $250 each from the Elisabeth Middleton Foundation for attendance, dedication to school work, and good behaviour – these three qualities had to be acknowledged and attained by students to receive the award.
Helen Cooney, the Principal of the Thamarrurr Catholic School, and her staff do an absolutely fabulous job acknowledging students who commit to hard work and regular attendance which creates self-worth and, in turn, role models for other students.
We all know the curriculum is set in our schools, but there are times when a teacher not only works within the set curriculum but sees opportunities to provide a challenge for students to improve their involvement in and the decision-making about their own learning.
I received a letter earlier in the year from Carolyn Clark, a teacher at Berry Springs Primary School in Year 5/6. She wrote to me for support of the book awards to reward students in her class participating in a Challenge Program. Carolyn introduced the program with the support of the school Principal, Sheila Delahay, to a group of students in her class giving them an opportunity to participate in challenging, enriching, and engaging learning experiences in and outside the school environment. The program is optional and normal class activities are still undertaken; however, Carolyn modifies the participating students’ homework tasks and expectations.
Students achieve points as they complete chosen activities under the various categories; and I am very pleased to show my support by donating book awards to the program. The awards are not easy to come by. Students are required to consistently work hard and accumulate 160 points to qualify. Some examples of activities within the program and part of the class programming include writing and performing a song at the school assembly, and demonstrating highly developed research skills.
Development of research skills has paid off for two very excited students in Ms Clark’s class: Jasmine Aitken and Sophie Rowe have just won the SA and NT Year 5/6 section of the National History Challenge 2009. Jasmine and Sophie researched and produced a presentation PowerPoint on the Ash Wednesday bushfires in South Australia and Victoria, under the competition topic Triumph over Adversity. Their presentation required the topic to be addressed succinctly and show their understanding and use of primary and secondary sources of information for their research. Congratulations to Sophie and Jasmine. I congratulate both Carolyn Clark and to Sheila Delahay for offering the Challenge Program to students at Berry Springs Primary School. I wish all the very best to the students and families involved.
Teachers and parents spend many outside hours fundraising and organising school events which are a very large part of school life; the mums and dads who get involved help to make these events a great success and they are to be applauded for their efforts.
I mentioned last week in my adjournment the very successful Quiz Night held at the Berry Springs Primary School, and I now mention the fantastic Quiz Night which occurred recently at the Douglas Daly Primary School. Congratulations to Corina Reed and the mums who were involved in the success of the Quiz Night at the Douglas Daly Community Hall. I am told around $1400 was raised, although a final figure is yet to be determined, and I will get that very soon. For a very small community school, this amount is certainly an amazing effort.
I move on to Taminmin High School and congratulate Emma Tidswell, Hieng Cao and Stoney Dethmore who were presented with my awards to the school at assembly yesterday.
Again I acknowledge the great work teachers do, and I hope they have a great day on Friday, 30 October. They do experience some difficult circumstances with children. I also pay tribute to those teachers in our remote schools who also experience difficulties living out there. Congratulations to all the teachers.
___________________________
Statement by Speaker
Reporting of Committee Deliberations
Reporting of Committee Deliberations
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before I call the next adjournment speech, I wish to clarify a matter of possible breach of privilege in the speech of the member for Sanderson in an earlier debate on Primary Industries.
I have looked at the Hansard and at some details relating to the meeting. I have to say there is a level of confusion amongst the members whether it was a public hearing or whether it was a deliberative meeting with witnesses. However, I have seen the opening statement which implies that it is, in fact, a public meeting of the Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, in which case there is definitely no point of order.
However, I would like to remind you of Standing Order 274 in relation to publication of evidence. In relation to all committee matters, it would be helpful for Chairs of committees to remind members, when they are in committee, what, in fact, the evidence is, and I particularly refer you to Standing Order 274(e):
- Evidence taken by documents presented to the minutes of proceedings and reports of a committee that are not been reported to the Assembly shall not, unless authorised by the Assembly or the Committee, be disclosed or published by any member of such committee or by any other person.
___________________________
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, for the second night in a row I wish to discuss the Araluen Cultural Precinct Development Plan 2009-15. As I said last night, there was initially a development plan released and distributed throughout the community then, after a degree of public outcry and criticism, a sticker was affixed to subsequent development plans saying it was a draft. I note some aspects of the plan, in relation to which community consultation feedback is being sought have, in fact, been implemented. It is that in particular which is upsetting so many people in Alice Springs.
Last night, members will recall I talked about the local, non-Indigenous arts community in Alice Springs, and I will not revisit the comments I made. I now wish to raise some concerns provided to me by the Alice Springs Field Naturalists Club which has raised with me its concern about the so-called draft Araluen Development Plan.
It says, and the group advises me, and I know it has attracted considerable attention and concern from the local community, and there has been no consultation with the local community - save one organisation - about the future direction for the Araluen Cultural Precinct. The club’s concern relates to the Natural History Museum which is currently located in the Strehlow Centre. The plan, whether it is a draft or not, refers to some short-term and long-term possibilities. One of the short-term possibilities is:
- Movement of some material from the Museum of Central Australia to the Alice Springs Desert Park for display.
And a longer-term possibility:
- Secure an off site facility for the display and storage of Museum of Central Australia natural history collections.
I will read from some of the material the Alice Springs Field Naturalists Club has provided to me today, and it is an interesting background to yet another dimension of the Araluen Arts Centre, as it is commonly known:
About 12 years ago the then Spencer and Gillen Museum occupied a large space centrally located in Alice Plaza. It was relegated to the present, smaller space at Araluen as part of the Museum of Central Australia. It is a great collection, and if people have not seen it, they should. The collection incorporates palaeontology, geology, zoology, including beautifully preserved specimens of local birds, animals and insects and assembled skeletons; all is put together in a wonderful display which provides enjoyment and education to a broad range of locals and visitors to the town. School groups through to professional scientists benefit from it.
There are several concerns but the main concerns of the Alice Springs Field Naturalists Club is this wonderful material does appear to be valued in the Araluen Cultural Precinct Development Plan. The club believes there is a need to maintain a good natural history display as part of the town’s mix of attractions. The club believes it should be valued, that it fits where it is now with other educational collections, and should be easily accessible to all.
The club goes on to advise me, and I am advising the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, that the development plan, on the face of it, wants the material split up: some to the Alice Springs Desert Park and some to an unknown, off-site facility. Obviously, much of the material is fragile. Exhibits on display and stored material all need proper care and maintenance, and to be protected from insects, light, damp and heat. It is asserted by the club and rightly so in my view, and the view of others that Araluen needs to keep its perspective as broad as possible. We all know, and the minister for Arts should know - but his hands-off approach to the plan thus far demonstrates he does not - social history has its place, but not to the exclusion of the natural history collection.
There are a number of social history displays in town such as Adelaide House, the Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame, the Old Telegraph Station, the Residency, the Flying Doctor, and the Transport Museum, to name just a few. The club wishes the minister to consider perhaps building a specially designed on-site facility to house the natural history collection; it should have a bigger space than it currently has and would do justice to the collection. In the alternative, the minister may wish to consider moving social history displays to a more central location closer to similar displays, possibly part of the old gaol, and leave more room for the natural history collection. A wonderful amount of fossil material from Alcoota is not presently on view.
I have quoted parts of a letter I received in relation to this issue from the Alice Springs Field Naturalists Club, and it demonstrates another dimension to the ongoing anger existing in Alice Springs regarding the Araluen Cultural Precinct Development Plan 2009-15. When a number of groups say the consultation has been appalling, surely, even a minister who has previously had a hands-off approach, and a government which has traditionally performed dreadfully in Alice Springs, would think: ‘Oh dear, we have a problem’.
I note the Alice Springs sittings will be later next month and, as an Alice Springs representative, I look forward to it. I urge the minister to get his head around the level of disquiet about the appalling consultation, or lack thereof, which has surrounded the Araluen Cultural Precinct Development Plan; that he meet with various stakeholders including, as I said last night, the non-Indigenous artists sector; he arrange to meet with the Alice Springs Field Naturalists Club; and he get out to speak to other people in Alice Springs, including the Crafts Council and so on, to actually try to get his finger on the pulse. I doubt he will accept my assurance this is a real problem in Alice Springs. As I said last night, when you get piles of Letters to the Editor saying things like ‘Hands off our Araluen’, you know you have a problem.
I should say for the record that not all parts of the development plan are opposed. However, the minister needs to correct where the errors have been; that is, undertake proper consultation all over again, given it has not actually occurred. My own view is he should apologise for providing a plan that is called a draft plan for publication when, in fact, some parts of the plan have already been implemented, such as local, non-Indigenous artists being forced to hang their works in a smaller gallery space with other related problems I mentioned last night. The minister needs to get his head around this and I urge him to do it in the next few weeks.
There is a lack of confidence about this development plan, and when we consider the importance of Araluen in Alice Springs and the importance it has to such a diverse range of people, it behoves the minister to get on a plane and go to Alice Springs and see what he can do to deal with this issue. It requires a level of leadership, and I have reservations as to whether this particular minister is up to the job. However, that will be for others to judge.
As a local member, judging from the criticism and complaints I have received for several weeks there is, no doubt, a problem. I urge the minister to get to Alice Springs and meet with the relevant stakeholders. Do not patronise them and do not be rude. Listen to what they have to say, and do what any minister worth his or her salt would do - change where there are sound arguments to change; apologise for the appalling lack of consultation, and provide some leadership in conjunction with the local people.
I give notice that tomorrow or the next day I will be tabling a petition in relation to Araluen. I understand that that petition is being air bagged from Alice Springs today and I urge the minister to consider the number of signatures on the petition and the contents of it.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak this evening about an appalling incident that occurred in our community just recently, where there was, I am trying to think of a better adjective, but I cannot - an evil, appalling attack on a horse that belongs to Riding for the Disabled - it really was a dreadful thing to read about. I was absolutely horrified, as I had just visited Riding for the Disabled in Palmerston a couple of weeks beforehand to see the enormous work being done not only by Lesley Monro and her committee, but also the private sector which has contributed an enormous amount of time, effort and resources to rebuild the Riding for the Disabled facility, and the excitement amongst the broader community about getting that facility up and running again, providing a tremendous avenue for people with disabilities to engage with horses and have a wonderful facility at Palmerston.
I came away from that meeting totally energised about the strength and the spirit in our community, the way the community was coming together to get Riding for the Disabled up and running again, and there will be a working bee in a couple of weekends time to finish the facility. Then to pick the paper up and read that story, just really made me feel sick.
I have spoken to Lesley Monro and expressed my absolute horror about what has occurred. Those horses used by Riding for the Disabled are very special types of horses. They need to be very placid, they need to be very calm, and they need to be very trusting of people. For some evil individual to attack that horse the way they did - the horse’s name was Jessie - is probably one of the most horrific things I have read or heard about for some time. It was obviously a premeditated, unprovoked, evil attack on a defenceless animal, for what purpose, God above knows.
I am advised a local veterinary clinic has offered to cover all vet bills associated with Jessie’s care; and I also understand Lesley has received calls from all over Australia, and around the world, offering sympathy and financial assistance to look after Jessie. Whilst the attack has shown a side of human nature none of us can understand, the offers of assistance show us many people in our community will not hesitate to offer what assistance they can. I thank all of those who have contacted Riding for the Disabled.
I can assure all members of this House and Territorians, I have spoken to police about this and I want to be kept personally appraised in regard to this investigation, in an appropriate way, because I want to follow this case through the courts and if someone is apprehended and charged see what type of penalty is meted out to a very sick individual who has committed an appalling crime on a defenceless creature that was providing such a wonderful outlet for disabled kids.
It is very sad I have to bring this report to the House, but it is important to let everyone know that all of us in this House support what Riding for the Disabled are doing and will do everything we can to ensure they are up and running and providing the wonderful activities they do for disabled kids.
On a brighter note, I recently went to Driver Primary School to turn the first sod on Driver’s community garden; accompanied by the local member. First, I thank Rob Presswell, the Principal, and all the parents, teachers and students for their time. I especially thank Magdalene Mahomet, the Driver Primary School Chairperson for her time and her children: Ella, 10, Samuel, seven, and Matthew, five, without whose help the first sod would not have been turned. Driver Primary School successfully applied for funding under the Commonwealth government’s Building the Education Revolution grant and received $3m in response to its application. Driver Primary is putting this money to great use; it is expanding the community hall, library and providing more learning space in the form of flexible teaching and learning areas.
Driver Primary School is also an example of how expansion is not just about adding bits and pieces. For example, take the library plans: the expansion includes a meeting room area with large window spaces letting in natural light, and an outdoor area. The expansion of the library will look out onto Driver’s community garden when it is completed. The school’s vision for the garden is to provide students with the opportunity to grow fruit and vegetables, and to incorporate that experience in their teaching. The garden is also planned to include chickens to provide eggs. I advised the principal to have a chat to the member for Nelson on the types and breeds of chickens that provide the most eggs in this particular part of the world - I will have to check with the member for Nelson if he has had a call for his professional advice in that matter.
The school is seeking further funding from other sources to build three or four kitchens in an existing building to enable students to prepare a variety of foods and learn practical skills they can develop further at home, at middle school and at high school.
All of this comes together in a number of ways that show the benefits are greater than simply the sum of all the parts - the students will learn how things grow, how to care for a garden and its soil; they will have the opportunity to prepare and cook food including the eggs, fruit and vegetables from their garden, and some of that food will be sold in the school canteen. This learning experience from growing the food to getting it onto the table shows children how the food their mums and dads buy at the supermarket got there. It can form the basis of lessons on how to plan what you want to grow with an end result in mind, how much of it you will need, and how prices for things are set. It can be used as a tool for engaging children with events around them, for example, why the price of ground coffee might go up if a crop in New Guinea or Timor-Leste fails.
I mentioned the garden at Driver Primary is a community garden, and I understand the first customer for the garden’s carrots may have been found already. The garden will need to be kept well supplied with nutrients. Manure, as we all know, has been used through the ages as a natural source for enriching soil and Riding for the Disabled has an abundance of horses, and Driver Primary will have an abundance of carrots. The exact exchange rate has yet to be set, but I believe all members will join me in wishing Driver Primary School and Riding for the Disabled all the best for their - and this is what they are calling it, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope it is appropriate - Carrots and Poo Enterprise. So, good luck to them all; they are doing a great job.
I also acknowledge the finalists and winners at this year’s NT Training Awards held on Saturday, 12 September at the Darwin Convention Centre. The NT Training Awards honour the Territory’s top apprentices, trainees, Vocational Education and Training students, employers, businesses, VET teachers and trainers, and registered training organisations. The awards highlight business best practice and recognise personal excellence of individuals engaged in VET in the Territory.
The VET sector plays an integral role in skilling and training our workforce which is essential to maintaining economic and social growth in the Territory. The 2009 NT Training Awards comprised 11 awards across student and organisation categories. I try to go to these award nights every year regardless of whether I am the minister or not because, as an ex-apprentice I get great joy out of seeing young people succeed and take pride in the work they do, and the support they get from the businesses which engage them, and the support of their families. It is always an inspirational night and gives you great hope about the future for the Territory. There are some fantastic young people doing great things and achieving great results. There are some wonderful businesses totally dedicated to training the next generation; and there are some fantastic training organisations that put together the training courses. It is always a very positive evening.
I make specific mention of Austin Asche, our former Administrator, who is the Patron of these awards. Austin is not as young as he used to be and after he presents his award he always jumps off the stage; he did it again this year and will be doing it for a few years as a party trick. Austin is a fantastic patron of these awards.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate the names of all the award winners under the various categories, into the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
Student Awards:
- VET in Schools Student of the Year
Awarded to a school student who has proven commitment to being the best they can be in their Vocational Education and Training in Schools program – Award sponsored by McArthur River Mining
Finalists – Ms Rhiana Powers and Mr Corey Turner-Whittaker
Runner-up – Mr Bryce McIntyre
Winner – Mr Kirsten Hunter – Certificate II in Sport and Recreation, Katherine High School
School Based Apprentice or Trainee of the Year
Awarded to a student undertaking a school-based apprenticeship or traineeship. They must demonstrate excellence in their commitment towards their training – Award sponsored by Group Training NT
Finalists – Ms Kaitlin Joy Carter and Ms Kiah Peters
Runner-up – Ms Bianca Erlandson
Winner – Mr Jarrod Benton – Certificate II in Conservation and Land Management Administration
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Student of the Year
Awarded to an individual who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is undertaking an apprenticeship, traineeship or is a vocational student. They must demonstrate excellence in their commitment towards their training – Awards sponsored by Australian Apprenticeships NT
Runner-up – Mr Anthony Lew-Fatt
Winner – Mr Richard Baker – Certificate IV in Transport and Distribution (Aviation Flight Operations/Helicopter)
Vocational Student of the Year
Awarded to an individual who is carrying out an accredited course with a registered training organisation on a full or part-time basis. They must demonstrate excellence in their commitment towards their training – Awards jointly sponsored by Chamber of Commerce NT and Australian Council for Private Education and Training
Finalist and Winner – Ms Samantha Ziegler – Certificate III in Business, Nhulunbuy High School
Trainee of the Year
Awarded to a trainee who has demonstrated outstanding commitment and achievement in their studies – Award sponsored by Australia Post
Finalist – Ms Ayla Bragg
Runner-up – Ms Katharina Gerste
Winner – Mr Heath Wheeler – Certificate IV Transport Logistics (Rail Operations)
Employer: Genesee & Wyoming Australia
Austin Asche Apprentice of the Year
Awarded to an apprentice who has demonstrated outstanding achievement throughout their apprenticeship – Award sponsored by DEEWR
Finalists - Mr Adam Thrift, Mr Daniel Frost, Mr Erol Good
Runner-up - Mr Damien Clarke
Winner – Mr Raymond Brown – Certificate III in Carpentry
Employer: Patrick Brown Pty Ltd
Organisation Awards:
VET Teacher/Trainer of the Year Award
Awarded to an individual who demonstrates outstanding achievements in all aspects of the delivery of Vocational Education and Training – sponsored by Mr Richard Ryan AO
Finalist – Mr David Barnes
Runner-up - Ms Angela Pattison
Winner – Ms Marlene Organ, Nhulunbuy High School
Training Initiative Award
Recognises a leading edge initiative, program or product developed and implemented for the purpose of providing high quality Vocational Education and Training – sponsored by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Finalists – Australia Post Northern Territory, Rural Industry Training & Extension Limited, Laynhapuy Homelands Community Training Unit, Charles Darwin University and Centralian Senior Secondary College
Runner-up –Northern Territory Police, Fire & Emergency Services in partnership with Group Training NT for their Aboriginal Community Police Officer Program
Winner – Rio Tinto Alcan for their ALERT Program
VET in Schools Excellence Award
This award recognises an outstanding program, which delivers Vocational Education and Training to school students – Sponsored by ConocoPhillips
Finalists – Casuarina Secondary College Council Inc and Nhulunbuy High School
Runner-up – Charles Darwin University for their delivery of flexible programs in unique and innovative ways that meet the needs of individual schools and students across the NT
Winner – Taminmin High School for their Remote Training Program
Employer of the Year
This award recognises a medium to large business enterprise that has achieved excellence in the provision of training to its employees – Sponsored by Southern Cross Television
Finalists - Genesee & Wyoming Australia, Universal Engineering (NT) Pty Ltd
Runner-up – Traditional Credit Union Ltd
Winner – Hastings Deering (Australia) Ltd
Training Provider of the Year
This award recognises a registered training organisation that demonstrates outstanding achievements in all aspects of the delivery of Vocational Education and Training – Sponsored by the Royal Australian Navy in the North
Runner-up – Taminmin High School
Winner – Charles Darwin University
- Dear Peter
Thank you for your letter of 19 August 2009 in which you raised the concerns of a constituent regarding the state of vacant Crown Land at the end of Buscall Avenue, which adjourns Paterson Park and residential housing on Maurice Terrace.
Officers of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure regularly patrol this area to monitor dumping on the site and undertake maintenance cleanup where required.
On 19 August 2009, a contractor of the department conducted a cleanup of the creek and the land at the rear of Maurice Terrace. The contractor also removed all rubbish, car bodies and caravans from a former squatters’ camp on the property between 17 and 19 August 2009.
In regards to your concerns relating to the fire management in the Mitchell Creek vicinity, the department maintains fire breaks as prescribed by the Fire and Emergencies Act on all Crown land adjourning residential areas in Palmerston.
On 15 May 2009, the NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services conducted a fuel reduction burn on Lot 4250, where it adjourns residential property. Lot 4640 Town of Palmerston, which also adjourns residential properties in Gunn, is held under Crown Lease 1662 by Delphin Chase Pty Ltd, and a low cavity plan is attached.
Fire management in this area is the responsibility of the lessee, however, I am advised the necessary fire breaks are also in place on this lot. As you would be aware, Lot 4250 is the site for the future suburb of Johnston.
In the planning for Johnston, a corridor is to be created to protect Mitchell Creek. Officers of the department will continue to monitor this area, including the creek line, and take remedial action should issues such as litter, illegal camping or increased fuel loads be identified.
Yours sincerely
Delia Lawrie.
I will also respond to a couple of adjournment debates made by the member for Goyder in relation to a shoddy builder situation. There have been recent statements in relation to shoddy builders from the member for Goyder.
The Building Act has provisions for investigations into whether the builder has carried out work in a negligent or incompetent manner, or if the builder is otherwise guilty of professional misconduct. After an investigation is completed, if there is substantial evidence the practitioner has committed an offence, then the Director of Building Control must refer the matter to the Building Practitioners Board for prosecution. Officers from my department are investigating building-related complaints.
I am aware of two builders currently being investigated by my department following complaints from property owners, one in Darwin and the other in Alice Springs. In the case of the builder in Darwin, mentioned by the member for Goyder in the Chamber, there are three separate investigations into this company currently under way. The builder in question is registered by the Building Practitioners Board. To date, statements have been made and other information collated from the three property owners and the builder. The investigation process has to provide natural justice and fairness to both the homeowner and the builder.
Accordingly, each party has been afforded the opportunity to respond to the allegations and statements made. In the case of the family at Nightcliff, the department has helped the family in gaining a builder’s declaration, which will lead to the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy. In all cases, the relationship between the builder and the homeowner has broken down and is now a contractual dispute between the builder and the client.
These are civil matters and fall outside the scope of the Building Act. The DPI will investigate these matters if there is evidence of misconduct or breaches of the act on the part of the builder. If the builder is found to be in breach of the Building Act, he will be referred to the Building Practitioners Board which can prosecute the builder through the court. If the case is proven, then the builder’s licence will be revoked. However, I urge any person who is about to build their own home to ensure they clearly understand the contract before signing and, if in doubt, seek legal advice before signing, and obtain references from previous clients.
In relation to other matters raised by the member for Goyder, I have indicated to her that I am happy to take direct contact, but I want to assure this House that the department is pursuing the requirements of the Building Act in relation to the investigations, and the natural justice provided within that act, and we are taking these complaints seriously. My office was involved in ensuring a formal complaint was lodged when we became aware of the concerns. We do take this matter seriously. The department is pursing the investigations as required of them and, ultimately, a decision is required by the Director of the department to determine whether to refer the matter to the Building Practitioners Board.
A final reminder to urge anyone who is about to start building their own house, before they sign contracts to make sure they clearly understand the contract and, if in doubt, seek legal advice before signing; and they should also obtain references from previous clients.
Just to confirm, there is a whole body of work occurring in the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in Building Advisory Services to ensure the Director of Building Control is in a position to refer the matter, or not, pending the outcome of investigations, to the Building Practitioners Board for prosecution.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay my respects to Mrs Kunmanara Wilson, a senior Pitjantjatjara woman who played a significant role in improving the lives of Indigenous women and children, especially those in remote areas.
I extend my condolences to Kunmanara Wilson’s family and to her many friends in the tristate area of the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia.
Kunmanara Wilson was a deeply respected, senior, law woman and a powerful Ngangkari, a passionate worker, and advocate for Indigenous people in the APY lands. Kunmanara Wilson was intrinsically linked and involved in establishing many services and organisations dedicated to improving the lives of women and children.
She was a driving force behind the establishment of the Pitjantjatjara Homelands Service which evolved into the Nganampa Health Service. She was a family member of the Pitjantjatjara Council and was active in the battle for land rights in the APY region. In the 1970s Kunmanara Wilson was one of the first fully trained senior Aboriginal Health Workers and she maintained an interest in and contributed to the development of health and social services.
Over many years she lobbied state, territory and federal governments about the need for services for Indigenous women such as shelters, family violence, mental health and other services. She was instrumental in advocating for and initiating community control of Aboriginal organisations. Her concern about the conditions facing women and children in remote communities, especially the cross-border regions, led to the establishment of the NPY Women’s Council.
In the mid-1980s she helped establish Congress Alukura in Alice Springs, a women’s health and birthing centre; and Kunmanara Wilson was also active in the fight against alcohol abuse and was prominent in the campaign to restrict the sale of alcohol from the Curtain Springs Roadhouse. She was a strong woman who touched the lives of many people in the Northern Territory and across the country. She was passionate in sharing her knowledge of culture and law, and led 350 women in performing a traditional Inma at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games opening ceremony.
I am told during her illness she was still committed and involved in sharing her immense knowledge and expertise.
I put on the public record that Hon J Wetherell, MP, the South Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation also spoke about Kunmanara Wilson in the South Australian parliament. I believe it is fitting that we also acknowledge this powerful woman and her contribution to the Northern Territory.
I seek leave to place on public record a copy of Kunmanara Wilson’s achievements.
Leave granted.
Kunmanara Wilson
1970s one of the first fully trained senior Aboriginal Health Workers.
Mid to late 1970s a driving force behind the establishment of the Pitjantjatjara Homelands Health Services, a cross-border service for all the small homelands in the central WA/NT/SA region.
1979 founding member of the Pitjantjatjara Council.
Very active in the fight for Land Rights for the APY region and associated Land Rights Act 1979.
1980 called for all women in the cross-border region to meet to discuss land rights and the lack of consultation with women from this region. The outcome of this meeting was the establishment of NPY Women’s Council.
Mid-1980s helped to establish Congress Alukura in Alice Springs, a women’s health and birthing centre.
1988-1998 fought for alcohol sale restrictions from the Curtin Springs roadhouse.
1994 lobbied NT Police for a domestic violence service based at NPY Women’s Council.
2000 led 350 women to perform traditional Inma at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games Opening Ceremony,
2006 spoke out on ABC Lateline about the shocking level of child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities. This led to the NT inquiry into child sexual abuse, The Little Children are Sacred, which led to the Northern Territory Emergency Response.
- Kunmanara Wilson was also a frequent guest at many conferences and meetings throughout Australian and overseas as people sought her immense knowledge and expertise.
I congratulate Wurli Wurlinjang Health Service and the President, Ian Woods, and Norman George, the Chair of the StrongBala Committee for an unbelievable and inspiring day. Over the years, there have been many marches in Katherine and not always conducive to improving health outcomes. However, this march was different and was about mending people and building bridges.
The StrongBala community took a big risk with the march, and I suppose they were worried about if no one had turned up. What if people were too shy and intimidated to march down the main street of Katherine? With 20 minutes to go, there were only about 20 people present, then suddenly people started to arrive by foot, by car, by bus, and bike, and even in my case, by plane.
The Djilpin Dancers, ably led and choreographed by internationally known actor, dancer, singer and painter, Tom E Lewis, led the march out of the car park on to Katherine Terrace. For almost 30 minutes, the only arterial link connecting Darwin to the rest of Australia was blocked at Katherine by a mob of men demonstrating their desire to improve their health, and showing their support for each other.
The participants eventually terminated their march at Ryan Park, where a number of us were given the opportunity to say a few words. The member for Lingiari, myself, Norman George, the Mayor, Anne Shepherd, Ian Woods and Jawoyn elder, Lisa Mumbin all provided suitable statements to mark the occasion. However, it was the CEO of AMSANT, Mr John Patterson who really cut to the core of the issue:
- For many years, it has been too easy to blame others. It has been too easy to blame the white man, or to blame dope and grog, or to blame governments, and welfare officers and policemen.
They may be players in the scene, but what lies at the centre of our situation, from personal health through to community harmony, is the role we play as Aboriginal men.
Mr Patterson further added that:
- We have drawn a line in the sand, and we are taking for the first time our ideas and issues into the streets. We are standing up as proud Aboriginal men who recognise our failings but who reject the stereotypes that have been thrust onto us, not the least by the Northern Territory Emergency Response.
After the conclusion of the speeches, we adjourned to the new Men’s Health Centre on the site of the old gun club for the official opening.
I am informed by the CEO of Wurli Wurlinjang that the new Men’s Health Service has seen 131 male patients through its doors in the first week, and 51 of these patients had full adult medical checks. It is very early days yet, but there are positive signs that the new service is working. Mr Ian Woods, the President of Wurli Wurlinjang, said that the StrongBala Clinic will provide culturally appropriate counselling, check ups, education and support for men released from prison, alcohol and drug counselling, promote the role of men in reducing family violence, provide employment preparation activities, and pursue change behaviour activities.
In concluding, I quote the Jawoyn Elder who also spoke there, Lisa Mumbin:
- The stand men have taken in Katherine by establishing the Wurli Wurlinjang Katherine StrongBala Male Healthy 4 Life Program, where men can go to seek culturally appropriate medical treatment by male Aboriginal health workers and doctors is long overdue.
This is also a men’s place, a place where men can meet and support each other and access other programs and deserves the support of the whole community.
We women know that there are a number of health related programs for women, however there has not been many specific Men’s health programs in Katherine until now. We are very happy that the StrongBala Male Healthy 4 Life Program has been set up and we support our men in their endeavours.
I also acknowledge the member for Katherine. At the time, as we know, he was doing his fundraising walk from Pine Creek to Katherine, and he cut short his fundraising walk to join in the march. I commend him for his efforts.
Turning quickly to my electorate, I place on the public record my congratulations to Jess Sullivan from Mataranka who has won the 2009 Young Territorian Author Award. Jess’ story, Cry Me A River, is the story of a girl who loses her sister. Jess attends the boarding school in Alice Springs at St Philip’s, and has a famous Aunt Rosemary, who has won numerous awards for her children’s book, Tom Tom.
The Katherine School of the Air has had some outstanding entries in the 2009 Dorothea Mackellar Poetry Awards. Both Drago Kalinic from Borroloola and Jayden Wilson from Nelson Springs won awards in their respective categories. Peter Stockwell, Sandy Bauer and Jessica Baker were short-listed in their categories. Congratulations to all these students who are doing an outstanding job and doing great work at the Katherine School of the Air.
Staying with literature, congratulate the Banatjarl Women’s and Children’s Resource Centre at King River in my electorate south of Katherine. The resource centre is used by women’s group from Manyallaluk, Gulin Gulin and Wugularr. The book was developed by the women in conjunction with the Fred Hollows Foundation. This month, the women launched their cook book, Kukambat gundwan daga which stands for ‘Really cooking good food’. The book is full of fabulous recipes and provides step-by-step photographs to assist communities to create tasty and nutritious food for up to 100 people. The recipes are diverse and have a range of food from spaghetti to kangaroo tail stew and are contained in a beautifully presented 80-page book. The launch of the book concluded a cook off by women from the contributing committee, and music by Shellie Morris.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I place on the public record my congratulations to the fantastic team from Barunga, the Arnhem Crows, for winning the Katherine AFL Grand Final last month. I understand a huge crowd turned up to watch the Kalano Bombers and Jilkminggan Blues in the B Division, and the Katherine Kannons and Arnhem Crows in the A Division. The Arnhem Crows won by eight points, and they had Gary Buckenurra, the Hawthorn legend, on hand to present Man of the Match Award to Campbell Wurranarba from Barunga.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I make mention of a few issues within my electorate. The first one I will talk on, which the Minister for Transport might listen in on, is I have some constituents who would seriously like some form of roundabout, or better traffic devices, at the corner of Wishart Road and Woodlake Boulevard. I have watched this intersection for some time, and I have great concerns. We are very lucky – I repeat, very lucky - there have not been any major accidents there, to my knowledge.
In the mornings, the Wishart Road is jammed from tail to top with cars trying to make their way into Darwin for work. It is amplified at this particular intersection, with people coming out of Woodlake Boulevard trying to engage that intersection and get across the traffic. It is an absolute nightmare. It is frightening, to say the least. I wish this government would consider looking into it a bit more. You will find - and I will bring to the House at a later date, if need be, the last response from the minister’s department, which was less than satisfactory, saying at this stage there is no intent to change: ‘We have other plans and we do not think it is important’.
On a much more enjoyable matter, I raised through a letter to the minister, two or three months ago now, the lack of bus seating, particularly sheltered seating, in the suburb of Durack. We have bus stops but, for a long time for whatever reason, there were no bus seats. There were bus stops, no bus seats, no shelter, and we are living in the tropics and it is extremely hot. I am very glad to see, as a result of getting these letters from me, there have been some changes. So, congratulations. The department has done a really good thing for my electorate. We now have several bus seats along the way. One of them is an old concrete one which appeared almost straightaway within a week. I am very grateful and I know my residents are very grateful for that. The other bus seats have since come along the way. We need to go the next step, of course, and provide the appropriate shelter for these people.
It is a new suburb. It is quite surprising there was not appropriate shelter put there. If you go into Farrar, there are two new bus shelters which have been put on Farrar Boulevard. They have the brand new shelters which are compliant for wheelchair access and they look beautiful, but there is not a house anywhere near them. I am glad they are there, but how much use they get could be questionable. I thank the minister for his department taking some action.
It was brought up by the former member for Drysdale. He, as minister failed to get anything done on this matter. I am glad that as the member for Drysdale bringing it to your attention has resulted in some action. We have talked about bad results here, and this is a positive result for my community. I am very pleased to see that happening.
I concur with the sentiments of the Chief Minister in regard to the incident which happened at the Riding for the Disabled - it was an absolutely despicable act. I am sure most people are absolutely gutted by the thought that anyone in this community would be so callous to have done such a sickening act. God bless the police in finding the person who committed that offence - or several people, if that is the case - and hope true justice comes to them and the courts can deal with that. It is a disgusting act.
The Chief Minister was very right. These horses are extremely timid, and very placid. They are lovely creatures and they need to be to work with disabled children. They bring so much joy to disabled children and it is great to see the Darwin branch of RDA back up on its feet and starting to kick some goals. It is gut wrenching to think that some of those goals were undone by some sick, depraved person who felt that was a necessary act. I can understand if they want to get on the horse and ride it around, but to do such an act is disgusting. I hope they are found.
If anyone has some spare time this Saturday, 24 October between 8 am and 12 noon, feel free to pop along to the Palmerston Christian School and join in the working bee - I am sure someone has some extra time around here. They are doing a few jobs there to better their environment for their students. Some of the jobs they are going to be doing is installation of bin holders, installation of a notice board, painting of verandah ceilings, which is a maintenance thing, and some irrigation works and repairs. I will be getting down there myself, and I have done most of that stuff in the past, so I will get back into it.
The last two weekends I have been to the Driver Primary School working bees and have enjoyed getting away from what is apparently a traditional thing where the politician goes along to an event, throws a sod of soil, has a cup of cool water, or a drink and moves onto the next thing. It has been good to get involved and loose some skin off your knuckles and build something that is going to be real for a very long time. I thank Driver Primary School for the opportunity to do such a thing, and I can say the same thing will happen with Palmerston Christian School whereby getting down there and being involved, I would be able to go back and see something that we were able to achieve physically, with our own hands. When you talk about achieving things it is great to know that you had a physical involvement in what happened, and it was a real outcome for the people.
It sounds like a simple thing go along to a working bee, spend a few hours there, but I am sure they need all the help they can get. It is tight monetary wise, so if anyone is available, come along and join in. I am sure they will love to have your help there. For those who need reminding, we had the Palmerston Christian School watching our parliament only the other day.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and do not forget working bees this Saturday, and one at Driver this Sunday.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to talk about a community barbecue that I held on the corner of Mitchell Street and Lambell Terrace the other night to talk to local residents, near the transformer unit which is leaking oil all over Mitchell Street. I have already raised the issue in this House.
We letterboxed about 400 residents in the area, and a dozen or so turned up, which was not a bad little turnout. Needless to say, the main topic of conversation was the old hospital site. Without delving too much into that, I thank residents in the area of Mitchell and Smith Streets, and Lambell Terrace and in Cullen Bay, for the excellent return I received on the survey conducted of the old hospital site. It is clear from those survey responses that a majority would like to retain a large area of parkland, if not all of the area of parkland.
I understand the government’s position is they will want to sell off about 20% of the site to pay for three towers of eight stories each, plus some medium density residential dwellings on the north-eastern corner of the site, at the roundabout at the top of Cullen Bay Drive. That is not being wholly embraced by people there, but it is being received as a somewhat better response than the original plans proposed on the site.
I still have some sympathy with the argument that an iconic building should be built on the site, and the whole site should be dedicated to it. If Paris has its Eiffel Tower and Sydney has the Opera House, then we should have something which is dedicated specifically to something that is uniquely Territorian, and build an industry around that building. I know that John Bonnin of Buzz Caf has a wonderful explanation of how he sees this working, with a business model attached, and I urge the government to revisit that particular approach as well.
The attractive thing about John Bonnin’s view in relation to an iconic building on the site, is his idea to incorporate our magnificent Aboriginal art in the Northern Territory into such an iconic building, and it becomes the centrepiece for Aboriginal art throughout the Northern Territory and the north of Australia, and it becomes a building which is dedicated to the sale and display of these magnificent works of art. His business plan means that the impost on government would not be as profound as one would think in such a development, and it shows a level of passion and a level of understanding about Aboriginal art, and also commercial realities, which I find attractive.
I urge the government to once again reconsider using this site for such a purpose. I have been convinced by the quality of John’s arguments that there is real merit in advancing such an idea. It would be a wonderful use of a very large area of what I consider to be precious open space in Darwin. We do not have huge amounts of open space available, and yet we have this patch of some 20 acres at the top end of Mitchell Street, which is going to be partially developed and partially kept as open space by the government.
I would also like to know what the time frames are in relation to the government’s intended proposal and development of the area. We are being long on draft proposals, short on time frames, and if the adherence to time frames has a yardstick in the Flagstaff Park arrangements, then I suspect these things will tend to get dragged out. I remember, with great flurry, prior to the last election, that the government announced that Flagstaff Park would be developed, and yet it remains completely undeveloped. I ask the minister where we are at with this particular development.
Having said that, it was good to see a reasonable turnout of people. It is nice to talk to people, it is good to do the sausage sizzles on the street corners, and it is nice to get feedback from local residents in the area about their opinions, ranging in all sorts of things, and not only in the domain of the Northern Territory government, but the federal government, local council, and what is happening in the private sector. I enjoy that sort of public contact. I urge people, if they do want to contact me at any time, of course, they can contact me in my office on 8981 4644, or on my mobile 0418 406 400, or contact me at my office at 133 Mitchell Street. I am always happy to have people come and talk to me about whatever issue they have.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their time this evening. I will certainly be having more of these community barbecues in the near future.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Araluen’s adjournment last night, and I take this opportunity to set the record straight on what is happening to the Araluen Cultural Precinct. The Henderson government is committed to growing our arts sector and our fantastic facilities, while making sure that our cultural facilities meet the needs and aspirations of Territorians and our visitors.
In July this year, we released a draft Araluen Cultural Precinct Development Plan. I emphasise that this is a draft plan, open for discussion, and whilst it may have been originally distributed without the word ‘draft’, it was never anything other than open to discussion. The draft plan seeks to deliver key initiatives in regard to arts and tourism industry outcomes. The draft plan suggests staging changes over a seven year time frame, and consists of a range of initiatives which will develop new tourism attractions, while enhancing community usage and access.
Other initiatives, such as the development of social history displays within the Museum of Central Australia, and the implementation of an artist-in-residence are also being considered. The draft plan also suggests a number of modifications to structures and amenities, with a focus on the modernisation and beautification of existing buildings, gardens and public spaces, and the development of areas to better accommodate current functions.
As part of the plan, and linked to the Alice Springs Solar City initiative, a solar air-conditioning plant is being developed for the Araluen Arts Centre. The Northern Territory government has committed $4.5m to this project. Formal written submissions on the draft plan will be accepted until 1 December 2009. Further consultation is being undertaken with the community to discuss the submissions. A session was held in September, and 20 people attended. The next facilitated session will be held on 19 November, when feedback received to date will be discussed to achieve community consensus on the overall plan. I understand that, to date, we have received 14 submissions, and I urge all areas of the Central Australian community to get involved and have their say. A final draft plan incorporating community feedback will then be considered by government.
The member for Araluen had a fair bit to say about the changes made to the Araluen art galleries. Earlier this year, a gallery in the Araluen Art Centre was devoted to the permanent display of the exhibition Origins to Innovations: Aboriginal Art in Central Australia. This permanent exhibition acknowledges the importance of the Aboriginal art movement in Central Australia as a key development in Australian art history and a key component of the Araluen Collection holdings. This decision was also made in response to visitor surveys, which showed that visitors to Araluen want a more in-depth experience and information about Aboriginal art and culture.
This exhibition is the first part of a staged development at the Araluen Cultural Precinct to assist audiences to gain an appreciation of Aboriginal art and culture across all regions and language groups in Central Australia. Increasing tourism audiences and Indigenous employment in the Territory are priorities for the Henderson government, and the new permanent exhibition at the Araluen Art Centre is also a key component of the Moving Alice Ahead strategy.
Visitation to the Araluen Art Centre galleries has increased by approximately 20% since the permanent exhibition opened in March 2009. Visitation to the Araluen Cultural Precinct has increased overall by 37% in the past 12 months, while local visitation has more than doubled. Within its exhibitions program, the Araluen Art Centre specifically aims to reflect a distinctive arts activity, cultural heritage, and artistic values of the Central Australian community. It was with this in mind that, in association with the opening of a permanent exhibition, a further exhibition space, Witchetty’s Exhibition Gallery, was developed to ensure continued community access. The refurbishment of Witchetty’s means that we have increased the available gallery space at Araluen.
I might add here that while the member for Araluen made much about the loss of Gallery 3 to local artists, in fact, Gallery 3 was not used for local exhibitions, and therefore, member for Araluen, local non-Indigenous artists have not been moved out of it. Gallery 3 has always been used to display items from the Araluen Collection or touring exhibitions. To say that this area has been closed to the local art sector is somewhat mischievous. It makes me wonder when the last time the member for Araluen visited the Araluen Cultural Precinct.
In relation to the member for Araluen’s claims about local artists having to pay for or fund volunteers, and I think that is an oxymoron, local exhibitors have always paid a hire fee to use gallery space. In addition, Araluen has three different options for the manning of exhibition spaces. Exhibitors can provide their own staff or volunteers, and handle their own sales. They can provide their own staff and pay a commission to Araluen to process sales, or Araluen can provide staff and handle sales for a commission on exhibition sales.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the aim of the Araluen Arts Centre Exhibition Program is to provide local, national and international visitors to be enthralled, entertained and inspired. The Henderson government is committed to making sure this continues to happen.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016