2008-09-17
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Kormilda College students, accompanied by Ms Michelle Jones. On behalf of all honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I present a report detailing my government’s commitments following the High Court’s decision on the Blue Mud Bay matter. I spoke extensively during the election campaign on this issue and I am reiterating this position to the House today.
The High Court handed down its decision on 30 July 2008. There are two significant implications to commercial and recreational fishing in tidal waters over Aboriginal lands. Tidal waters over Aboriginal lands comprise approximately 80% of the Northern Territory coastline; and parts of our rivers, such as the Daly and the Finniss. The most significant implication from the decision is that the High Court confirms that the Fisheries Act has application in these tidal waters. This means that Northern Territory police and fisheries officers can fully enforce all Fisheries Regulations such as bag limits, closure lines, and gear restrictions in all Northern Territory waters. This is welcome news and removes the uncertainty that has existed since the full Federal Court decision on the matter in March last year.
The other significant implication of the High Court decision is confirmation that both commercial and recreational fishers who wish to undertake fishing activities in tidal waters over Aboriginal land require permission from traditional owners.
I am pleased to advise that the temporary fishing permits that were put in place following the Federal Court decision last year, continue to apply for at least 12 months after the High Court decision. This will enable long-term arrangements to be negotiated and agreed between all relevant stakeholders, including the Northern Land Council, Tiwi Land Council, the Anindilyakwa Land Council, the Seafood Council, and the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory. My government has not simply sat around waiting for the High Court decision. It has continued to engage with stakeholders on this issue. When I met stakeholders on the day of the decision, the feedback was that there is a firm basis for a sensible negotiated outcome.
The High Court decision presents opportunities and challenges, and I have a practical plan to reach agreement with the relevant parties. The plan should guarantee:
the capacity for recreational fishers to continue fishing on affected waters without charge or the need for an individual fishing permit;
appropriate arrangements for commercial fishing and the protection of fishing stocks;
economic development opportunities for Indigenous Territorians, and
any necessary resource management and regulatory changes required as a result of such agreements
The decision of the High Court in the Blue Mud Bay matter has clarified that the Fisheries Act applies to all Territory waters and at the same time has presented opportunities and challenges. The strong commitments of stakeholders to address the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities will result in an outcome of benefit to all Territorians.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement. It is a very important matter that sits before this community to be resolved so that we can find a way through this. I acknowledge that a decision has been made in the High Court. I also acknowledge that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act sits in the federal parliament. As a consequence of the challenge in terms of that act, there has now been a change in tenure regarding the access to waterways. That has significant implications, not just in the Territory, but nationally. And it is a far higher order issue than I think the Chief Minister has recognised and acknowledged in his comments. It does warrant some level of serious leadership to ensure that we do cut a way through this because the implications of these are very significant in terms of the relationships of people within the Northern Territory.
It goes right through to Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of this nation, to adjudicate on this so we can find a way through this. We do not want to construct obstacles; instead we should be building bridges to find ways forward. I will be calling upon the Chief Minister to ensure that the federal government is brought to bear on this so that this community can solve these matters in a way that advances our joint interests. This does change the very nature of the tenure of land and access for all Territorians. It is not just those who are sitting together now and stakeholders being consulted and talked about. We talk about new laws that you, Chief Minister, say that there is now the capacity to enforce. Is there, in fact, the capacity to enforce the law? Is there the genuine resourcing capacity to enforce this law? If you cannot enforce a law, there is no point in having one, because you then lose respect for the law. We need to have the genuine capacity to enforce, and I think it falls over on that ground ...
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I welcome the Chief Minister’s report. I said in this parliament some time ago when this issue first came up that I thought our government should have taken the lead and started the ball rolling. We should have commenced discussions with the traditional landowners to find a way around the need for permits simply by coming up with an agreement signed by all parties, irrespective of what the High Court finally said. That is what Territorians would have expected of our government - take the lead, talk to the community, talk to the Aboriginal people who own the coastline in the Northern Territory. I am sure, with goodwill, we could have come up with a homegrown agreement, which would have satisfied both sides of the argument.
As it is, we have some really practical issues. This is not just about fishing. This is about the right of a person who is not a traditional owner of that land to travel on that water, to be in that water. I see practical problems such as driving between Melville and Bathurst Islands. What is the low water tide mark; when is it high tide? How do you actually define it? How does someone know that? Will it create tension? For instance, people who drive past in a boat between the low water mark and the high water mark, in theory, require a permit. How far up the Daly River is the high water or low water mark? Does that mean all people who travel on the Daly River require a permit - not just to fish, but just to take their boat along that water?
I hoped we could have sat down and knuckled out some of these issues as a Territory, with Territorians involved, and come up with a homegrown decision. Whether that can still happen, I do not know. That is really where the answer lies. Let us fix it ourselves, not worry about some court in Canberra sorting it out.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I pick up on the comments from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, this will require leadership to actually get a win/win/win outcome for the people of the Northern Territory and the commercial fishing industry. I am very much heartened by the immediate announcement of the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Mr Wali Wunungmurra, who said that he believed we could achieve a negotiated outcome that was a win/win outcome.
The member for Nelson talked about goodwill. I congratulate AFANT, the Seafood Council and the Northern, Tiwi and Anindilyakwa Land Councils, who have entered into this with goodwill. There is goodwill to find a negotiated outcome. I am determined to provide the leadership, with all parties concerned, to reach a Territory solution to an act of the Commonwealth parliament that only applies in the Northern Territory. I hope the opposition does not play politics with it.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, on 25 October this year, a very important event in history of the Territory will take place: the election of shire councillors for our eight new shire councils. At the same time, our mini-shires - the Coomalie Community Government Council and the Wagait Shire Council - will also have their elections, as will the Litchfield Shire Council.
There has been much debate in this parliament and across the Territory about local government reform. However, there has been a clear agreement on the need for change. The fundamental driver of that change has been the need for improved efficiency and effectiveness of local government at the local level, and to improve service delivery to local residents.
We are well on track in meeting that objective and, day-by-day, we are seeing the improvements and outcomes unfold. Our reform plan, implemented in conjunction with the Local Government Advisory Board, includes establishing the new shires, shire staffing, establishing the new draft business plans, letting the shires establish their corporate identity and business systems, and allowing residents to become familiar with the new wards within each shire.
The ward boundaries are the product of local people, developed on the advice of community representatives on our community-based local government transition committees. However, they have been designed around communities of interest, service delivery alliance, local geographic and cultural considerations, and represent a best fit of all those factors. Most importantly, the wards have been designed and named by local people.
The elections will be conducted by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission and nominations for the election will close on 2 October. I call on all Territorians to support this important step forward. Being involved will help to establish and shape a strong third tier of government, delivering improved services to Territorians, especially those out bush.
Election awareness is, of course, critically important, and a working group consisting of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, and the Department of Local Government and Housing has been working to coordinate and develop election awareness and education material for the inaugural shire elections. Candidate kits for people interested in nominating for election have also been prepared and are available from shire offices.
Most recently, shire and departmental staff have been busily working promoting awareness of elections in affected communities using a range of communication tools. I am looking forward to the strong community participation in the first elections of our new shire councils.
The election of the shire councillors will see our Local Government reform coming of age as elected councillors take over from the interim shire council committees which have been providing advice to the staff of our eight new shires following the introduction of the revised Local Government Act on 1 July this year.
Shire councillors will be elected to councils operating within the next round of council elections in March 2012. From that time, all council elections across the Territory will be scheduled for that same time, with all councils being elected for a fixed term of four years.
Newly elected shire councillors will, of course, be offered ongoing training support as part of our commitment to strong local government in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I urge local people to stand for election. I ask all members in this House to encourage Territorians within their electorates to stand for election.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for his report this morning on Local Government. Yes, it will be good that the shires will come of age, if that is possible, on 25 October when the shire elections take place. I do stand with the member for Daly in encouraging the right people to nominate for elected positions within all the shire councils. It is imperative that people who have an interest, have a drive, have a real want to help their community, nominate for elected positions within the councils.
However, the minister has alluded that everything is sailing along quite smoothly as far as the implementation of the shires is going, and on that basis I cannot really support his statement that the shires will come of age, so to speak, when the elections are over.
I am just wondering whether the minister is aware of all the problems that are still occurring within the makeup of the new shires as far as staffing goes. I can advise that there are many paid positions within the shires that remain unfilled; we are simply unable to fill those positions. I can only imagine that the reason for that is that the Northern Territory has difficulty attracting quality people to come to positions like that, and the government is failing in its duty and obligation to provide an environment where quality people will make themselves available for those positions.
Also, in relation to staffing, I am aware that people have resigned from positions within the local government council, and that those positions are adding to the problems we have with staffing at the present time.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report. I, too, hope that as many people as possible will stand for election. I congratulate Litchfield Shire Council which, with the help of a government grant, has put out a pamphlet encouraging people to stand at the next election. I see in today’s paper also advertising for a workshop next weekend for any candidates who would like to find out more about the council. I encourage everyone to stand who would like to be involved in local government.
I also support reform, but I feel that this reform, as was reflected in the anger of the people in the Litchfield Shire, is driven by the government which simply thinks it knows best. This election is a classic example where it has not trusted the people of the Territory to have their own democratically elected council. I heard the minister say that could not happen. It happened in Queensland, and Queensland did not make more noise about local government reform than we did in the Northern Territory.
The one thing they did have was that when the old councils closed down, a democratically elected council existed from day one. Here we are about four months down the track, when the government’s unelected officials, when the government’s department, when the CEOs and all those sorts of people who have never been employed by an elected council, are running these councils as if that is the way it should be. Well, it should not be that way.
They are responsible, especially the CEOs and all those people, to an elected body. We have worked in reverse, and I think it is a great shame. I know that you cannot change these things, and the government should be brought to task on that. It should support democratic principles and processes, and not just ignore them for the sake of expediency.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for, I guess, their partial support. The member for Katherine started off well.
This has been an extremely ambitious project and a much needed project. I will repeat what I said yesterday: this has been a gutsy move by this government to fix a problem which everyone else has shied away from. We have heard about reform, reform, reform, but they have offered no sort of solution. This government has taken a bold step and actually done it.
I encourage greater participation. It is time to move on. Those structures are in place. We have legislation for a new Local Government Act and it is time to work with those employees and those elected members, and I certainly will be.
Member for Katherine, one of key factors in this reform was about attracting better quality and getting some better conditions for employees,. This was the fundamental reason for doing this reform: To attract better quality people into the local government sphere, and we will also be growing our own.
I acknowledge the great work of the previous Local Government ministers, Jack Ah Kit and Elliot McAdam, for all their vision and effort.
Member for Nelson, you knock, knock, knock. You are a bit like Woody the Woodpecker, knocking, knocking, knocking.
Mr Wood: Yes, that is all right, but the end does not justify the means, minister.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, today I will report to the House on this government’s success in expanding renal services across the Territory.
Tackling renal disease is one of this government’s key health priorities. The Territory has the highest incidence of end stage renal disease in Australia and we have taken big steps to address the problem. In our first term of government we made a substantial investment in renal services with approximately $21m recurrent. This enabled us to establish new facilities in Tennant Creek, Katherine and Palmerston, and increased specialist medical and nursing staff across the Territory. This had led to a significant improvement in the survival rates of renal clients on dialysis which is now equivalent to the national average.
To further guide the development of renal services, we introduced the Northern Territory Renal Services Strategy 2005-09. This strategy provides pathways for the planned and coordinated growth, development and improvement of renal services. We have embarked on an ambitious program of expansion to get the balance right between prevention, early identification of disease, early intervention and access to renal dialysis treatment for end stage renal disease.
In Budget 2007-08 this government made a major commitment with $24.4m over four years to tackle renal disease. Prevention and early intervention has been supported with extra resources for primary health care. Six new chronic disease nurse positions have been introduced and are providing case management and support to patients to prevent the onset of end stage kidney disease.
The majority of renal patients are from remote communities and face serious social disruption by being compelled to relocate to major centres for treatment. We have therefore focused our efforts on providing these essential services closer to home.
All new remote health centres and upgrades to health centres, where possible, make provision for renal dialysis. These facilities make it possible for people to self-manage their dialysis in their own community. We are now taking a major step forward in expanding dialysis options in Central Australia with the opening of the Alice Springs self-care training facilities.
Construction of the new $270 000 facility was completed earlier this year and complements the range of services available at the Flynn Drive Renal Unit. I look forward to visiting this unit next week for the official opening.
This facility has dedicated staff to train and support patients to become accomplished in their own dialysis. Once independent in their treatment, the patients are able to return to home and continue dialysis in their community. Regular support is provided to self-care patients in their communities with onsite visits from renal staff and access to telephone hotline service.
Self-care facilities are now available in communities across the Territory ranging from the Tiwi Islands to Maningrida, Galiwinku, Ramingining and Groote Eylandt, and Santa Teresa and Ti Tree in Central Australia to name a few. Preliminary assessments have been conducted for home dialysis facilities in Hermannsburg and Ali Curung. In addition, the Australian government has provided capital funding for up to six relocatable, two station, self - care facilities in remote communities. Negotiations are taking place with specific communities for these units. I look forward to updating the House with progress in the near future.
Finally, we are expanding satellite renal dialysis units. Progress is being made for the development of a new eight station facility, in collaboration with industry, in Alice Springs. This facility will cater for up to 32 patients and will greatly enhance service options in Central Australia.
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt renal disease is a major health issue affecting families and communities. We are taking bold steps and extra resources and partnerships with government, industry and communities to tackle the disease, and provide safe and sustainable services across the Northern Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I recognise the good work done in the renal area. However, I get the feeling that the good work in this area would continue whether the minister had any input or not. How can you believe anything this minister says? How can you believe anything this minister says in this House in view of recent events, particularly in light of the last seven or eight days? He has failed in his duties as Health minister and he has failed in his duties in his previous job as Police minister …
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Do you know what they called him in the police service, Madam Speaker?
Mr Tollner: No, what did they call him?
Mr CONLAN: They call him the emperor, Emperor Burns. So how can you believe anything this minister says? His credibility is absolutely shot to pieces.
What about nursing numbers in the Territory? The minister has put out a media release - 2006 ‘the health system in good shape’. All the other media releases he has put out in the last couple of years talk up the nursing numbers in the Northern Territory. And what do we have? We have a coroner’s report that highlights a massive nursing staffing crisis, critical shortages at the Royal Darwin Hospital. How can you believe anything this minister says?
This minister and his political appointments, that is the CEO and the Acute Care boss, Peter Campos, all three of them should go. It is really Huey, Dewey and Louie running the Northern Territory health system.
Mr Henderson: That is offence. You are a grub.
Mr CONLAN: But that is not taking away from the good work that is … You should be ashamed of yourself. You have no backbone to stand up and sack your Health minister.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: On 10 August, you said …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I was going to ignore the diatribe of 8HA over there, but there is one issue I will pick up on about political appointments. It is a disgrace for the member for Greatorex to say that. There is a process for appointments to the public service. That is offensive.. There are no political appointments in regard to what he said.
I will move on because renal services are very important to a lot of Territorians, particularly those who are in the bush.
Why the member for Greatorex wanted to throw all this dust in the air is the simple fact that under the CLP renal services were curtailed to Alice Springs and Darwin. They had an ideological position of not having outreach renal services. The former shadow, Dr Richard Lim, admitted that in this House. To his credit, he said: ‘I was wrong; we were wrong’. It is about time the member for Greatorex stood up and acknowledged that and the good work that this government has done in this particular area.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Gaming Machine Act and the Gaming Machine Regulations. It is the first in a series of staged amendments for the reform of the community gaming machine sector. This bill sets a cap on the total number of community gaming machines in the Northern Territory. It also revises the taxation arrangements which apply to clubs and hotels in relation to community gaming machines.
Further reforms of the community gaming machine sector will see the introduction of a regulated trading scheme for licences within the capped pool of machines. These reforms will ensure fairness to licensees and restore the balance back to the community.
On 18 July 2008, I announced that there would be a cap of 1190 gaming machines in the Northern Territory. This bill gives legislative effect to that announcement. The government has chosen to set a cap on the number of gaming machines, as the number of machines has more than doubled since 1996 when the machines were introduced to the Northern Territory. In the 10-year period between 1998 and 2008, the number of gaming machines in hotels has almost tripled. Hotels on Mitchell Street, in the middle of Darwin, experienced a significant part of that growth.
Meanwhile, there is growing concern in the community about the impact of community gaming machines on individuals and on society as a whole. Community service providers, such as Amity, which deal with people suffering the consequences of gambling problems have also expressed concern about the increase in machine numbers in hotels and clubs. These community service providers have consistently pointed out the burden that problem gambling imposes on individuals and their families.
Problem gambling is also tied to a variety of social problems including domestic violence, child neglect and drug and alcohol abuse. Over the years, the media has picked up and recorded many instances of individual difficulty.
These are real problems that government is addressing through greater regulatory management. The government has sought to offset the impact of gaming machines on the community through the Community Benefit Fund, which provides that a percentage of machine profits be redirected from hotel licensees with gaming machine licences back into the community. However, it is clear that this kind of management is not enough.
All other jurisdictions in Australia have sought to manage gaming machines through setting caps on the number of machines and introducing trading systems schemes whereby interested licensees can trade machines in a regulated environment. This has proved successful in managing gaming. The system provides certainty for the community that there will be no increase in overall gaming machine numbers on licensed premises, while still allowing business to operate and trade their machines for legitimate profit.
There is potential for a concerning increase in the number of gaming machines in the Northern Territory if nothing is done. Currently, the Gaming Machine Act allows clubs and hotels to apply for a maximum number of machines within each particular category. If all the clubs and hotels decided to apply for their eligible maximum number of machines, we could see a further 1000 machines made available in the Northern Territory.
Whilst the Licensing Commission is required to consider the merit of the application against the set of criteria, including a community impact assessment, this process means that not all applications for further machines or for gaming machine licences would necessarily be successful. Without some mechanism to manage the numbers of community gaming machines, we could end up with significantly more machines in the Northern Territory and a concerning increase in harm.
This government has sought to respond to the growing concern about the current scheme by implementing a cap on the number of gaming machines. As I announced, that number is 1190 machines, being the number of machines currently within the community. At this stage, there are no current applications formally lodged with the Director of Licensing.
The bill, which includes the amendments to the regulations, provides for the cap to take effect from 18 July 2008, the date government announced a cap on gaming machine numbers.
In addition to the amendments already discussed, this bill provides that regulations can be made to cap the total number of gaming machines in particular parts of the Territory, and to impose any restriction, or combination of restrictions, on gaming machine numbers. At this stage, there are no regulations arising from these provisions. The amendments simply provide a tool by which the Licensing Commission can manage the trading scheme intended to be introduced in the future. Government will conduct extensive negotiations with all stakeholders before bringing in any further amendments.
Importantly, the bill also makes provision for the Licensing Commission to reject, without further inquiry, any application for either a gaming machine licence or for an increase in the number of gaming machines authorised for use under a gaming machine licence, if it would result in the cap of 1190 machines being breached. This power does not currently exist in the Gaming Machine Act, and will enable the Licensing Commission to lawfully maintain the cap of 1190 machines.
This bill also revises the taxation rates that apply to clubs and hotels in relation to gaming machine revenue. Clubs and hotels will no longer have separate taxation rates that apply to each type of premises, and both will now be subject to uniform rates. The rates have been revised so that clubs and hotels will be subject to a tiered gaming machine tax rate, depending on each venue’s gross monthly profit. The lowest rate of 12.91% will apply to gross monthly profits of up to $10 000 with the rate rising to 22.91% for profits from $10 001 up to $100 000; 32.91% for profits between $100 001 and $200 000; peaking at 42.91% for venues with profits over $200 000.
While there will be an initial loss in revenue to the government from the new taxation regime this could be partly offset, in time, with the introduction of the new trading scheme. The details for the trading of machines have not yet been finalised, but will be following consultation with the industry and will include appropriate taxation and levies on trading entities that trade their gaming machines. This will ensure that the profits from the gaming machine sector will continue to be put to good use across the Territory.
Madam Speaker: I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Ms ANDERSON (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, today I outline a visionary plan for the Territory, a plan that involves all Territorians, a plan that has its origins in the oldest living culture and the environment that has sustained that culture; a plan that will protect and enhance the country and its people from one end of the Territory to the other.
In southern states, little remains of original vegetation. Natural resources, especially water, have been greatly over-allocated and over-used. Governments in these jurisdictions are now trying to protect and restore the last remnants of native vegetation and buy back scarce land and water for conservation purposes.
The Territory, fortunately, is not yet in such a difficult position. We have the chance to develop the kinds of approaches that southern states might, in hindsight, wish they had used 100 years ago to balance economic and social development with long-term sustainable agricultural, pastoral, tourism and mining industries. We can have a Territory richer with healthy people and healthy country.
Fundamental to realising this opportunity is to recognise that the natural systems that underpin our wellbeing function on a large scale. If we make decisions which sever or alter important connections in the landscape, then effects will be felt in terms of lower productivity in our primary industries and fisheries, less secure water resources, or declining numbers of wildlife.
Whole-of-landscape approaches are now being developed worldwide as scientists realise, for example, that the connections between protected areas are as important as the areas themselves. They allow species to re-establish themselves after local disasters such as bushfires or drought preventing the local extinctions that, over the longer term, add up to larger scale species loss.
In essence, managing our environment at this landscape scale builds resilience in our natural systems and the capacity to adjust and adapt to change rather than lose critical ecosystem servers or, worse still, see the collapse of functioning eco-systems. Managing for landscape health will be particularly important as the effects of climate change take hold. Global warming will put further pressure on species in isolated reserves, and north-south connections between reserves will become more and more important.
Few places in the world, and even fewer developed countries, have the chance to establish whole-of-landscape conservation and make such approaches genuinely work. By that I mean approaches to economic development which are scientifically grounded and simultaneously drive industrial, agricultural conservation and culture growth in the regions, while ensuring that there is enough land, water, vegetation and wildlife for the benefit of generations to come.
At the last election the government announced the development of a visionary concept that will, over time, create a Territory where many of our major conservation areas are buffered and connected in the wider landscape. The Arafura to Alice project will help get everyone working together to link public and private conservation efforts on a large scale.
Several similar farsighted projects already exist in the world, most notably Yellowstone to Yukon in the United States and Canada, and the Alps to Atherton project on the east coast of Australia. This new way of addressing threatening processes on landscape scale, in collaboration with communities, is a very good example of true sustainable development. It achieves environmental, social and economic benefits for all communities involved.
I have already described the need for landscape scale conservation. Through Arafura to Alice, government is also responding to the growing movement by non-government players who want a significant and active role in conservation. There are, for example, more than 30 Indigenous ranger groups established across the Territory and hundreds of Indigenous Territorians supplying both Indigenous and scientific knowledge to land management. on established parks, but mostly on Aboriginal freehold land.
A number of groups have taken the next step, establishing Indigenous Protected Areas, or IPAs, on their land to bring a higher level of conservation planning and practice to bear. There is now good evidence that working rangers are healthier. Recent research has found that Indigenous people involved in management of natural and cultural resources are healthier than those who are not.
Many other groups are also becoming active participants in conservation. Philanthropic organisations such as Bush Heritage and Australian Nature Conservancy are increasingly looking to the Northern Territory to invest.
Conservation in the 21st century will not be just about parks as we have come to know them. Our parks will become the backbone for broader collaborative effort involving other players. For government the choice is clear - we can either watch on the sideline while all this happens or we can provide the leadership needed to coordinate all our efforts for a common goal. Through Arafura to Alice we are providing that leadership with a bold plan.
The Arafura to Alice project will be enriched by another dimension because it will emphasise cultural landscapes linking some of our iconic landscapes from north to south. The link will build pride in cultures, help develop tourism and assist with renewal of isolated regions.
The area between the Arafura Sea and the South Australian border holds some of the greatest natural and cultural treasures in the world. It is home to great artists – many are more famous overseas than in the Territory or Australia. It holds some of the oldest rock art in the world and many of the world’s oldest surviving cultures. The region is filled with ancient stories and songs which are at least as beautiful and multilayered as any in the world. Unfortunately, the area is also home to some of Australia’s most disadvantaged and least understood people and some of the nation’s most inadequate infrastructure.
Many important historical stories run through the landscape along this route, and important nation building events, such as the construction of the Overland Telegraph and the defence of Australia during World War II. The area is a stunning and beautiful home to unique and famous flora and fauna, including iconic animals such as the red kangaroos, crocodiles and bilbies. However, many plant and animal communities are under threat from feral animals, climate change and other factors.
Arafura to Alice builds on the potential of this area while addressing the disadvantage, and reduces the threats. At first glance, this project may seem too large to be realistic or to be on such a scale as to be highly expensive. As with many truly environmentally, economically and socially sustainable projects, Arafura to Alice is essentially a project based on education, partnerships, mutual respect and economic self-interest.
The Arafura to Alice link is large-scale and visionary, and will probably take more than a decade to complete. However, I will commit to achieving at least 50% of the link within four years using the $1.8m allocated to this project by the Henderson government.
We can go the distance to achieve the best in a truly Territorian way. This will be achieved without any compulsory purchases. I want to emphasise that Arafura to Alice is about helping landholders manage conservation on their own land. It is about supporting voluntary efforts, not prescribing ‘one size fits all’ management.
National parks have been the mainstay of conservation in Australia for the past century. In southern states, as I said earlier, where the aim is to preserve what is left, this is a good way to go. The Henderson government will continue to grow and develop our fantastic and famous national parks system. In the Territory, our national parks are increasingly being complemented by Indigenous Protected Areas and privately owned conservation reserves such as Newhaven Station. It is important that these developments are aligned to deliver the best conservation outcomes.
Private conservation groups are now in a position to invest many millions of dollars in the Territory, and this has already begun. It is highly likely that more large purchases for conservation will be made over the next few years. Indigenous Protected Areas continue to grow and gain momentum; large areas of the Tanami Desert are likely to be protected in IPAs. These will be important building blocks for Arafura to Alice.
Indigenous people can become involved especially through the future development of Indigenous Protected Areas which can attract federal funding to supplement support from the Territory. We will be working with Indigenous groups to assess the development of IPAs.
Many pastoralists have also expressed interests in conservation work and several have employed conservation managers as they realise that conservation and pastoralism often work well together. We will be talking to pastoralists about how we can work together for mutual benefit.
This concept, being national and on a large scale, will very likely attract federal funding for many groups. And, because the concept integrates Indigenous culture development and conservation, I believe it will, be very attractive to philanthropic funding. Local government and local business are likely to support the concept because it helps bring tourism and money to regional economies. Existing roads overlay most of the route. No road sealing will be required as the dirt road experience will help differentiate the experience from the traditional Stuart Highway experience.
Some parts are accessible right now. Other areas are remote and the stories yet to be well heard. Some parts are best left undisturbed. We will strike the right balance between access and protection of culture and country. At some time in the future, accessing the Arafura to Alice corridor will become one of the most exciting journeys left on earth - a great way to travel through the Territory and the centre of national cultural and ecological consciousness for all Australians.
The corridor will be achieved by connecting the following Territory icons: Cobourg National Park with Kakadu National Park and Nitmiluk National Park, which are already connected to each other. This corridor will be negotiated with traditional owners.
Heading south, the next step, geographically, will be to connect Nitmiluk with Gregory National Park by negotiating corridors with pastoral leaseholders and landowners. Two very large Indigenous Protected Areas are being developed in the Tanami Desert. These will be connected north to Gregory National Park and south to Newhaven Station, and West MacDonnell Ranges National Park through covenants and other negotiated agreements with landowners. Little used stock routes will also be considered for development as conservation reserves.
In the longer term, links will also be made to the Simpson Desert in the east and Uluru in the west. A link will also be developed between Kakadu and Darwin, while negotiating covenants with landholders to develop links between the existing networks of national parks.
This approach fits perfectly with the parks and biodiversity framework and it will be complemented by a new biodiversity conservation strategy and natural resources framework for the Northern Territory, which I will soon announce. I will work with my colleague, the Minister for Arts and Museums, to ensure this eco-cultural link integrates with the Building our Museums Sector 10-year vision.
Education and interpretation will be a key part of the Arafura to Alice project. Digital functions such as web downloads, MP3 or even relatively basic CD or DVD delivery, makes the connection between places and people and people and places easier every year, and these will be used to help people enjoy the eco-link. Content will be a critical element. The vast resources of the Northern Territory Archives, libraries and the Strehlow Research Centre will be used and local production coordinated through the Film Office.
The first step of this process will be the Red Centre Way Visitor Centre. This new approach to interpretation will help reinforce the Territory as the heart of the outback through a multicultural and visionary approach.
A project coordinator will very soon be employed. The coordinator will identify first steps and help establish local working teams. These teams will be made up of people from the communities involved, from government, conservation groups, non-government groups - such as the Cattlemen’s Association, World Wildlife Fund scientists, Cooperative Research Centres and Indigenous groups. These groups will drive the project and champion it at a local level. Possible groups include Darwin to Kakadu eco-links groups, northern eco-links groups and desert eco-links groups.
Madam Speaker, we are inviting new partners to help us achieve the vision. I invite all parliamentarians to help involve their constituents in this visionary project and this collaborate approach. At a national level, I will meet with my parliamentary colleagues in South Australia and the federal government with a view to extending this project right through to Adelaide, creating a true new Australian national icon.
Madam Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement - a statement that, in principle, sounds fine but lacks the detail required to make an informed decision to either support or not support the proposal. As it stands, the proposal is way too vague to support in its current form.
The concept of eco-links is interesting and it poses the question: why could this process not be used to develop Glyde Point?
This government has very quickly changed its opinion on Glyde Point, using the notion that the area was too valuable from an environmental perspective. I question, then, why this same approach could not have been applied to the Gunn Point/Glyde Point area to allow measured development? The point is, if the government thinks it can provide an eco-link the length and breadth of the Territory, surely a smaller scale version could have been used to provide the environmental/economic development balance so many are looking for.
Why could valuable pockets of the rainforest not be protected in the same way? If eco-links are the answer to protecting our environment, our wildlife and delicate eco-system, why could eco-links not provide the necessary protection, even in a developed area? In fact, had the concept been applied to Glyde Point, it could have been carefully used as a showcase and any lessons learned could help drive the broader picture or vision for an eco-link across the Northern Territory.
It is important to note that the concept itself may have some merit, but I honestly question if there is any ulterior motive here.
I apologise if I sound like I am forming a conspiracy theory; however, the true lack of detail is the driving force behind these thoughts - the lack of detail and, indeed, the lack of funding. The fact is the minister may have a visionary idea, but she is let down by the government’s contribution to the project. $1.8m must be seen as a token effort by the minister and may provide some level of insight into the government’s support for her concept.
$1.8m is equal to $450 000 per year over four years. That is barely enough to buy a couple of housing blocks in Palmerston - if you can get them. How in the world does the government think it is going to deliver a corridor of land from the Arafura Sea to the South Australian border with $1.8m?
I note the issue of global warming has been raised in this statement. I am always interested in people’s views on the matter. One gentleman I was speaking to in the rural area recently said he was looking forward to global warming on his rural block in Bees Creek because it may end up a waterfront development, and he could see real advantages to that.
I welcome the news of Indigenous rangers being involved. Indigenous employment opportunities are rare in the more remote regions of the Northern Territory, but that fact alone begs the question: will the Northern Land Council be involved through a joint management arrangement with this process?
The details or, rather the lack of details, provided here makes it very difficult for this side of the House to provide an open endorsement of the plan. What evidence supports this concept? And will this evidence be tabled in parliament?
I note in the statement the words: ‘We will strike a right balance between access and protection of culture and country’. That balance needs fleshing out, ensuring all stakeholders have input. I also note the term ‘negotiate’ is mentioned often when dealing with landowners, but also that no compulsory acquisitions will be made to complete the process. What happens when the negotiations break down? What happens when the entire link is blocked due to one landowner wanting more than the government is willing to provide? Will the land then be compulsorily acquired? But hang on, I forgot the budget is only $1.8m - that surely rules out compulsory land acquisitions.
I also note little used stock routes may be considered. A little used stock route today may be a heavily used route tomorrow depending on a number of factors, including seasonal changes and the need to feed the world, of course. What happens if a corridor of land is taken over now, only to find out later it is needed for stock use?
The problem is there are too many unanswered questions in this document, and I sincerely worry that this government intends to rely very much on the goodness of people and their willingness to negotiate to make this link a reality.
I note it is hoped that communities, government and conservation groups, non-government groups, the Cattlemen’s Association, WWF scientists and Indigenous groups will all come onboard and champion this project. This government does not have a good track record in consulting and negotiating with our community. A case in point: the local government debacle.
I worry that, today, we are spending valuable time talking about a concept, with little more to go on than a cleverly worded media release, when we should be spending our time on dealing with the issues our community demanded of us during the election campaign.
The environment is very important, and I make no apologies for that. It is my opinion that a concept like this, while in principle sounds fine, is nothing but a deviation from the important and pressing matters at hand.
In its current form, Madam Speaker, I cannot support this initiative.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement.
The Northern Territory is a unique environment. It has an amazing variety of plants, wildlife and wildscapes that help define us as Territorians, and it also sustains our tourism industry and provides us with great camping and fishing areas. The Henderson government is working hard to develop fresh ideas that deliver real results in environmental management.
We know that climate change is real. We are experiencing more drought, bushfires and extreme weather events than ever before. We all need to do more to reduce the pace of climate change and protect the environment that supports us. The sustainable management of our natural assets is critical to the social and economic wellbeing of our community as well as the environment.
In a world where natural places are fast disappearing, we have an unparalleled opportunity to get it right. We are in a position to balance the economic and social development of the Territory. This government has made decisions about getting the science right. We need to learn from the lessons of other states and ensure that the right environmental framework is in place for the continued growth of the Territory’s economy.
The announcement of $1.8m by the Henderson government for the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks is good news for the environment and will take us some way to striking this balance. The Arafura to Alice EcoLinks proposal connects the Territory’s parks and conservation areas from the tropical savannahs of the Top End to the deserts of Central Australia.
This project will provide an approach to economic development that will balance industry, agriculture, conservation and cultural growth whilst ensuring there is enough land, water, vegetation and wildlife for the benefit of generations to come.
Most importantly, this project will be grounded in sound scientific evidence. This is an important point. Ensuring that environmental projects are supported by scientific evidence is crucial to the success of any sound environmental project. For example, a continuing moratorium on land clearing in the Daly River catchment until land and water research has been finalised. We recognise a lot of research has already been achieved, but further scientific research is critical in order to make an informed decision on further development in the region.
Rushing ahead with projects without proper scientific evidence, purely for political point scoring, is a sure fire way to make irrevocable mistakes. Fortunately, unlike the southern states that made all these mistakes many years ago, we have the unique opportunity to get it right in the Territory. Even though it will take some time, our environmental projects will be supported by sound scientific evidence. We are not here to score political points, we are here to get it right.
The Arafura to Alice project is also responding to the growing movement of non-government players who want a significant role in preserving our natural environment. As we heard earlier, there are more than 30 Indigenous ranger groups established across the Territory with hundreds of Indigenous Territorians applying both Indigenous and scientific knowledge to land management.
For example, the Wagiman-Guwardagun Rangers in the Upper Daly region have been attending to the land’s cultural and environmental needs, officially, since 2003. In 2006, 12 rangers graduated with qualifications in Resource Management from Charles Darwin University and have completed a Conservation and Land Management Course. The rangers undertake a variety of duties including weed control and cane toad trapping, through to feral animal surveying, fencing and fire management. The Wagiman is keenly observed by the rangers, as are the inhabitants, through water monitoring and fish, crocodile, pig-nosed and long-nosed turtle surveys.
As well as protecting sacred sites, the rangers also run cultural and cross-cultural training camps. Business opportunities such as soap making, establishing a cattle enterprise, pet meat contracting and leasing part of their land trust are also being developed. In fact, the Wagiman-Guwardagun Rangers took out the 2006 National Landcare Indigenous Award. I would like to congratulate them on that.; this is another example of striking a balance towards economic and social development in the Territory.
The Henderson government will continue to support successful Indigenous ranger programs, marine rangers and joint management in parks. We have created more than 16 new Indigenous rangers and trainees and 60 projects involving 35 Indigenous people in casual paid work - real jobs on country.
The Arafura to Alice project is visionary because of its scale and its potential to link private and public investment in the environment. The concept of whole-of-landscape management is welcomed. We need to be thinking on a grand scale in order to give our native plant and animal species the best chance of survival.
The minister described this as ‘environmental resilience’. With large green corridors set aside, we provide the necessary connection between habitats to allow for the movement of animals when local conditions change through man-made and natural causes. An important aspect of the eco-link is that it will be achieved without any compulsory land purchases. The environmental outcomes this project will deliver will be achieved through building relationships and providing assistance to land managers.
We know that the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks is a visionary project and that it will take more than a decade to complete. However, I am committed to achieving this and I am committed to grounding this in sound environmental evidence. We are committed to get it right.
As someone who has spent five years around Timber Creek, around the Gregory National Park, I welcome the minister’s commitment in that area. It is a great area of the Territory, a unique area of the Territory, and having those animal pathways is important.
I know the Indigenous rangers, especially the female rangers around Timber Creek, are striding ahead. They have a good program operating there and the involvement and knowledge of those rangers will benefit us into the future. It always seems to be the ladies in the communities who drive a lot of this new ingenuity. The ladies within the ranger group at Pine Creek, the Wagiman Rangers, have a great deal of enterprise. I have been to many stalls and markets where they sell their soaps made from natural products, including weeds. It is encouraging to see all that happening.
The ranger program at Port Keats is operating very successfully. It has people back on country, keeping an eye on what is going on with weeds and disease, through projects which have been given to them by AQIS, and coastal protection as well. They do a great job.
This is, as I say, a unique project. It will be heartily welcomed by pastoralists, by traditional owners, by people within the region across the Northern Territory because it does exactly what the minister said - it links those areas.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to hearing further reports about this project. I will be encouraging parties that I come into contact with to come onboard.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Kormilda College students, accompanied by Mr Ryan Woolfe and Mrs Debra Shannon. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement.
It says at the very beginning that it is a plan that will involve all Territorians. If that is the intention, I hope that it does involve all Territorians and that includes business Territorians as well as community people.
The member for Daly also said that you have to get it right. I could not agree more with that, and the only way it is going to be right is if there is proper and full consultation and planning, and many decisions based on science.
In the statement, the minister talks about the number of artists and there is the oldest rock art in the world, etcetera. That is all good but I do not see a lot of reference to the environmental components of what this statement is purporting to protect and to advance.
It says the area is stunningly beautiful. I guess some parts of it are, but I am not sure that all of it is ‘stunningly beautiful’. Famous flora and fauna, iconic animals - I think the word ‘iconic’ is a little over used - but red kangaroos, crocodiles, bilbies - I am sure there are many other species of animals and insects that warrant a mention rather than just those which are trotted out all the time.
One thing that the statement does not address, which is of concern to me, is it is one thing to have a green belt or a link from the Arafura to the Alice, but there is no mention of the problem animals and plants in these areas. There is no mention of how they are going to deal with feral animals. which we know there are in enormous numbers from one side of the Territory to the other, including donkeys, camels, goats and rabbits and also feral weeds.
There is an enormous problem, particularly in Central Australia, with feral weeds and introduced pastures that have gone wild. I know that the government does work, in some way, to try to eradicate these weeds or at least to bring them under control. However, we know what weeds are like and one years seeding is seven years weeding and. Of course, it is much more than that in the rural and remote areas of the Territory.
It is a large project and I wish the minister well with it. However, I do not think it is going to be that easy to achieve. It talks about partnerships and economic self-interest, but I am not quite sure who that is meant to be targeting.
Yes, the amount of money allocated is only $1.8m. I see later in the statement they are going to put on a manager to oversee the project, so I guess some of that money is paying for that position. My suspicion is that we will get a consultant in, as we often do for these kind of things, so that they can look at what the government should do, rather than what the government agencies should be doing or given a chance to do.
It says here this will be achieved without any compulsory purchases, which sends alarm bells going off in my head. It means that they have thought that they might have to do compulsory purchases of properties. I would be very suspicious of that if I was living in a very remote part of the Northern Territory.
There is reference in the statement that private conservation groups are now in a position to invest millions of dollars in the Territory. Well, why are they not already in the Territory? If they are so keen to come to the Northern Territory, why are they not already having discussions with the government and others? If they are, where is the information and the detail in regard to that?
This is, obviously, going from the top to the bottom of the Northern Territory. As we know, we are going into a system of super shires, but there does not seem to be any real reference to how it will impact on the shires and how they go about their business. It is also basing its program on getting funding from the Commonwealth, but it does not actually give any details as to how successful they believe this will be, given that we compete with every other state for conservation and environmental type of funding.
It says existing roads overlap most of the route – well, that is good - and no road sealing will be required. That is good because there are probably not many people, or they probably do not have the money to do the sealing of the roads. However, what concerns me is there seems to be a promotion of utilising our dirt roads. We know how useless some of our tourists are with regard to their driving experience on dirt roads, and that raises concerns also in regards to the safety aspects of promoting dirt road experiences in the Northern Territory.
I said at the beginning of the statement that there needs to be proper and full consultation, not only with community land councils, but also with industry groups. If we are talking about going from the Arafura to the border, we are talking about 3000 km or perhaps 3000 miles. The mines minister who, unfortunately, is not in the parliament at the moment, is great on promoting the Northern Territory’s …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, you are not allowed to refer to the presence or absence of a member. I ask you to withdraw that.
Ms PURICK: Sorry, Madam Speaker. The government is keen to promote the Northern Territory as an exploration destination. This eco-link is going to traverse exploration licences.
I do not think there has been any consideration as to what legal implication this has for the explorers given that they are legally liable, under their licence, for anything that happens on their leases. Is the government proposing compulsory take back of those exploration licences? Which would be rather foolish given that, on one hand, government is promoting us as a place to do business for exploration but, on the other hand, it looks like they might be taking away some of the ground that is relatively under-explored.
That is another component of the mines department and the mines minister that a large track of our land is under explored for the minerals that we know, potentially, are there. There is no statement of the impact this is going to have on that industry, and I do not see that industry being referenced in this statement at all as being one of the groups that they should consult with.
Towards the latter part of the statement, it talks about the new biodiversity conservation strategy and a new natural resources framework for the Northern Territory, which the minister is going to announce soon. That is all well and good, but I want to know whether these two new strategies and frameworks fit with the existing parks and conservation master plan and also the existing marine strategy, which the government has taken many years to develop and get out in to the public domain. Are they going to be complementary or are they going to be superseding it?
The minister said that she will be announcing it soon, but is she announcing the fact that they are going to develop these new frameworks, or is she announcing the fact that they have actually been done? It is a bit unclear.
Whilst there are some components of the statement that have merit, there is an awful lot of work that needs to be done that involves all Territorians, the community, as well as industry.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this important and, visionary initiative which will see the establishment of the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks, a long-term project which will deliver on many fronts.
Today, I would particularly like to talk about some of the excellent conservation efforts of the north-eastern end of the proposed EcoLinks, namely in my electorate of Nhulunbuy, which adjoins north-east Arnhem Land and the Arafura Sea. Perhaps, in years to come, the proposed corridor may even sweep up wide to the east and could become the Alice to Arnhem to Arafura link, who knows?
I have a few stories to share, but I will start with the point that the minister made about Indigenous rangers and the enormous contribution they can and do make to the management of natural resources.
Forgive me, for I am Balanda, or non-Indigenous, and may not express this as eloquently as my Yolngu counterparts, but I will try.
As the traditional owners, Indigenous rangers have a knowledge base which stretches back thousands of years, a knowledge base which links inextricably, not only with land and sea and every creature and every object in it, but the people and their culture, their stories, their art, their songs. It is their history, their present and their future. Who better to look after and manage and protect these areas than traditional owners, certainly in my electorate?
Dhimurru Aboriginal Land Management Corporation was established in Nhulunbuy in 1992. Specifically, their objects are:
I quote further:
Since those beginnings in 1992, Dhimurru’s work has grown dramatically. From an initial four rangers and one office administrator, Dhimurru now employs 16 people, 12 of whom are Yolngu, are and engaged mainly as rangers, but also cultural advisers. Fundamental to training is a two-way philosophy, whereby the two rangers posted to Nhulunbuy with Parks and Wildlife are as much involved with learning traditional land management practices as they are teaching Yolngu about western scientific-based principles.
Dhimurru currently manages an area of over 100 000 ha, and they manage it with a total of 16 contracts. Their work is spread across three key areas of operations: sea/country, Indigenous protected areas, or IPAs, and the yellow crazy ant eradication program. Such is the growth of their operations that larger premises have become necessary, and this has been made possible by a federal contribution of more than $3m and the donation of land by Rio Tinto Alcan within the town lease area.
Dhimurru’s work over the years with rescuing sea turtles and dugongs along the coast of Cape Arnhem has earned them recognition at national level, not the least of which is a nomination for this year’s National Landcare Awards, to be announced in Canberra on 23 October. This is not the first time that Dhimurru has been nominated for land care awards.
Dhimurru also supports ecotourism, which sees a growing number of small groups of paying tourists come to Nhulunbuy through Australian Conservation Volunteers and the World Wildlife Fund. The tourists learn about Yolngu culture and land and sea management and actively participate in turtle rescue and the annual Dry Season clean-up of Cape Arnhem beaches, which become littered with sea debris from foreign vessels.
The work of Dhimurru provides an ideal role model for other groups along the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks. Caring for country; preserving and promoting cultural heritage; building cultural pride; providing employment and training opportunities; developing tourism potential while carefully managing a clear line between sustainable access and protection.
I would also like to speak about Yirralka Rangers, who look after the IPA area which comes under the jurisdiction of Laynhapuy Homelands Association Inc, also based in north-east Arnhem Land. Their operation philosophy mirrors that of Dhimurru. However, Yirralka Rangers have a much larger area of land and sea country: some 600 000 ha bordered by 640 km of coastline. Numerous small homeland communities are dotted amongst vast areas of land which are largely undisturbed.
More than 50 people are employed with Yirralka Rangers, including a number of women. Increased employment opportunities have arisen as a result of the federal government intervention which, for many, is a more attractive option than CDEP. At least half of the rangers with Yirralka are on salary and in real jobs.
Yirralka Rangers, like Dhimurru, are also actively exploring sustainable economic opportunities. The recent Blue Mud Bay case decision by the High Court, which recognises rightful Yolngu ownership of the inter-tidal zone, gives not only the Yirralka Rangers, but all Indigenous people living on land which adjoins 80% of the Territory’s coastline, some confidence about their future economic opportunities and self determination.
Yirralka Rangers are actively involved in a two way learning and teaching program, and in June of this year I had an invitation to visit the rangers at a special training workshop. The workshop was held just outside the picturesque community of Garrthalala, about a three hour drive from Nhulunbuy. Rangers and community members, including children, had come together for a special three day camp and workshop to talk about and record traditional fire management practices. It was truly a memorable event, not the least of which was the welcome that I and the former Environment minister, received as a special smoking cleansing ceremony held to welcome us to country.
What struck me was the breadth of community involvement. Not just the rangers, but older men and women from neighbouring communities who shared their knowledge, not only of fire but knowledge of seasons and hunting practices, knowledge of fauna and flora and all the different names that went with it.
My escort, the NT Parks and Wildlife ranger who drove me there, made the very salient point: why did he need to teach these people about the Latin botanical names of plants when Yolngu already had names for them?
Ethno-botany, which links natural and cultural resources, is another important element of conservation and one which, I hope, will be captured in the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks. As an example from the Yolngu people of my region, in 1995 members of the Rirratjingu clan collaborated with NT Parks and Wildlife to produce the book, Rirratjingu Ethno-Botany: Aboriginal Plant Use from Yirrkala, Arnhem Land, Australia. It captures Rirratjingu plant names and uses, plants used for foods, plants used for implements and weapons, plants used for material culture, and plants used for medicine. I certainly treasure my copy of that book which is now out of print.
The minister mentioned in her statement that many other groups are also becoming active participants in conservation. I also know that organisations like Dhimurru and Yirralka Rangers actively engage in partnerships which are mutually rewarding. Some of the obvious ones include the various government organisations at both Territory and federal level, not the least of which is AQIS and Australian Customs but, also in the East Arnhem region, mining company Rio Tinto Alcan has a role to play in these partnerships.
When bauxite mining commenced in the early 1970s a clear understanding was reached with traditional owners that native vegetation would be restored when mining was completed. Re-vegetation techniques, techniques developed over the years with the key involvement of local clans, have been recognised as world’s best practice.
Traditional owners continue to be involved in seed collection and storage, so that immediately prior to the Wet Season, seeds are broadcast mechanically to mined out areas which have been prepared for re-vegetation. Whilst seeds are collected from some of the re-vegetated areas, homeland communities have also been involved in collection of certain seed species on their land, as has Yirrkala land care.
This work has provided employment to Yolngu for more than 35 years and will continue for as long as mining continues. While seed collection methods have improved and have been made easier, it does remain a fairly manual task. Eventually, when bauxite reserves at Nhulunbuy have been exhausted, estimated to be in the next 25 years or so, the old mine site will be returned to traditional owners with new re-generated woodland forest, the oldest of which is now 36 years old.
While I have spoken about the good news stories and initiatives around important conservation efforts from my electorate, I would like to think that they highlight as examples, the good work and the goodwill which has seen some great results and benefits for all of the people who live there. I have absolutely no doubt that there are similar good news stories from all around the Territory
I see the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks providing a framework to see conservation efforts developed, supported and consolidated on a large scale for our future and for the benefit not only of Territorians, but for all people and for many generations to come.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement and give it my full support.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also welcome the minister’s statement. The concept of eco-links – I must admit I can only find the word in the case of the Northern Territory. When I ‘Googled’ it, it does not exist; obviously, it is a name that has been thought up for the Northern Territory - it conjures up various concepts, and that is where I am not sure where we are going at the present time.
I had a look at the Alpine to Atherton eco-link and at the Yellowstone to Yukon initiative – apparently they call it the Y to Y conservation initiative. Obviously they are not quite the same because they have different concepts behind their being. I notice the Alpine to Atherton initiative talks about in the event of a sufficient increase in warming of the earth there is a likelihood that some of the animals might move along this corridor to escape the increased warming. I do not know what the scientific basis of that is, but that is one of the areas that worries me a little with this.
For instance, a wildlife corridor was planned in Litchfield Shire; I am not sure where that concept has gone in the development of the Litchfield Shire. I was a supporter of that concept , and that is one of the reasons I was always a supporter of removing wetlands and rivers from subdivisions. Now, that is on a fairly localised basis, but the concept was that you had an entity, such as a creek or a river, and you tried to protect that as an entire entity. There was some logic in that you knew that fish moved up and down, there were macro-invertebrates that moved up and down, there were a whole range of factors that made up a river or a creek. By trying to retain that as a unit, there was a much better chance of protecting that wetland or that creek.
My difficulty with this is that I have a – I will pull out a map. Madam Speaker, I know that you know my opinion of maps and why we should have some IT screens in this parliament, but …
Mr Knight: Can you table that?
Mr WOOD: No, it cost me money. You have to get your own.
I read this last night and I thought: ‘What am I looking at? I can hear it. I cannot see it’, and if there is one thing that really needed some clarity, especially in the form of a map, then it was having something like this. Until you have a look at that, you do not really understand the concept the government is putting forward.
I am all for visions – I spoke the other day about visions in planning – and it is a vision. However, at the moment, that is exactly what it is and it needs some questioning. It needs a more in-depth analysis before I can say this is a fantastic thing. I understand though this is the first statement the government has made on it, except during the election.
It is obvious that you can go to the Cobourg Peninsula down through Kakadu; your difficulty would be going from Nitmiluk across to Gregory; there are some passages through there but there are quite a few pastoral properties and there are things like highways and byways in the road there. Then you can go from Gregory National Park pretty well all the way through Aboriginal land until you nearly get to Alice Springs.
That is fine. The sense of vision is there. The concept might be there, but we need to ask some questions because that is part of the reason we are in parliament, to see whether what has been put forward has some validity.
One of the things I ask is: what is the scientific basis for this eco-link? If it is about landscapes, that is fine - that is not necessarily environmental in the sense of the living environment. That is, you might say, the static environment. Is it about that? Is there some sort of link between the tropical flora and fauna and desert flora and fauna that needs to be maintained? Is that corridor achieving anything? Does that corridor have some sense? Does some animal that lives in the Tanami need to move all the way through north of the Victoria River or something? I do not know. What is the scientific basis behind having a corridor? Because really that is what it is.. The government needs to come back to parliament with some more detail on the vision.
Then you are going to have basic questions the member for Goyder asked. If this is not a park - in other words we are not creating a whole range of national parks - we have this - .I don’t know what you are going to call it - some land that is not a park nor just normal freehold land; it is Aboriginal land but it has a layer above it that is going to say it is included in this Arafura to Alice EcoLinks. How do you classify this land that is not a national park, but is not exactly private, freehold or Aboriginal? Where do we classify it?
If we have another classification for it, what will be the limitations on its use? Many of the parcels of land that are Aboriginal land in the Tanami, and south of that, were cattle stations. There may be Aboriginal communities that would like to run their land as cattle stations. Will that conflict with the concept of this eco-link? If there is mining, how will mining fit in to this as well - or any other forms of development?
They are some of the questions we need to ask from a practical point of view. What I am getting at is: will this inhibit development? I know the minister said it will create some employment through rangers and in tourism, but will it, on the other hand, will it mean some other development will not occur?
The minister said there will not be the bituminising of roads as part of this concept. Will that mean that roads that probably should be bituminised will not be just to keep the feeling of the outback experience? When, in actual fact, it is probably about time the road was upgraded because it is a terrible road. We need to look at some of these practical issues. What will be the cost to maintain this? Who will have to maintain it?
The member for Goyder raised some very important issues; that is, if it is an eco-link, then you do not want weeds, cane toads, camels and horses and all those sorts of things. What will be the constraints on maintaining this land? The same conditions as a national park? Or would you prefer to have no donkeys, goats, horses, camels, gamba grass, buffel grass, or cane toads - all those wonderful things which inhabit the Northern Territory? Will there be a requirement to spend money on making sure those pests are not in this eco-link, so it is truly a conservation area?
I am not saying this is not a good vision. It obviously has potential. I am all for preserving the environment, but I should say that the Northern Territory, thank heavens, is blessed with some of the biggest national parks in Australia. We are one part of Australia that, at least, has not gone out of its way to lock areas up. I say lock areas not in the sense that you cannot get in there, but at least we have protected those areas. One of the reasons I supported the government’s move to have these management plans with both Indigenous people and Parks and Wildlife was that, in some cases, it expanded our national parks base. The classic example is the Gregory National Park.
I am looking at this map to see if it shows - I am not sure if it is finished yet; this one does not show it – but the land in the Gregory National Park at the moment is split into two sections; one is a narrow section near the Victoria River roadhouse, and the other section is down towards Timber Creek. Part of the joint management agreement was that the section of land in between, which is Aboriginal land, would combine those two sections of Gregory National Park into a much larger national park, and that would be great. So we do have, at least, a good record on maintaining some of our really beautiful areas in their natural state. We do that because we have some scientific basis behind it.
I am not sure how you are going to classify this. Is it going to be in the same classification as a national park, or what? And what sort of rules and regulations will run that? That needs to be clearer, because you could argue it would be better if we made more national parks and put our efforts into maintaining those in a pristine condition and got rid of all the pests in those specific areas. Or should we try to take on, what you admit, is a pretty big piece of country? From Alice to Arafura is a lot of country.
We need to make sure that this vision is practical, that we can actually do things, we can actually maintain it in the vision you are looking for. Or, is it going to be so big that we simply do not have the funds to maintain it properly, and would we be better to simply put our efforts into national parks and leave the rest of the Territory as it is at the present time?
I will finish by saying: ‘Yes, a good vision. It has many pluses, but it has many questions. It would be silly for me to say: ‘Yes, I am 100% behind this’ until I know a lot more detail. I ask the minister, knowing that she is talking about a 10-year plan, to at least come back to the parliament with much more detail covering some of the issues that have been raised here by members of parliament, so that we can assess it again.
I believe it does need more approaches out in the community, and as the member for Goyder said, not just various vested interests, but sometimes some of the business groups, the community as a whole, just to see what people think. If you really want this to work, then you need the community to support it, and I think they would like to see the nuts and bolts of how it will actually operate in the real world, not just on a piece of paper.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement. I will be interested to hear her comments at the end of the debate.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the member for Macdonnell, the Environment minister’s first statement to the House. I congratulate the minister on her first statement to the House.
The Territory has some of the greatest parks in Australia, if not the world. The parks in Cobourg, Nitmiluk, Kakadu and Uluru and Kata Tjuta are conservation icons admired around the world. They are remote, unique, unspoiled and epitomise the vast sweep of the Northern Territory, from the saltwater of the Top End to the desert of the Centre. However, as environmentally valuable and physically dramatic as our parks are, we know our vast Territory has more largely unspoiled wilderness to offer - areas rich in biodiversity.
Our relatively small and dispersed population, which so often presents us with challenges may, in fact, prove to be an asset as the planet struggles to come to grips with climate change. Fortunately, the Territory is one of the few remaining regions in the world with broad scale eco-systems which have avoided the worst of the ecological damage wrought elsewhere in Australia.
The good news is that the Territory has the most intact native vegetation of all Australian states and territories. Our native vegetation has not been significantly affected by intense land use pressure. The limited removal of native vegetation has been largely restricted to areas like the Darwin coastal area, the Daly basin, Pine Creek and Sturt Plateau bioregions in the north, and parts of the MacDonnell Ranges in the south.
It is critical that we maintain a careful approach to land use planning in the future to ensure sustainable land use and the conservation of the values of existing vegetation. There is no doubt that the Territory is in a better position than most places in Australia to address the ecological changes likely to be presented by climate change. We only have to look at the news broadcasts on most evenings to see the concerns of our southern brothers and sisters in regards to the Murray-Darling Rivers. We look at the water supply and the lack of water in the regions to the south, then look at our place here in the Northern Territory and appreciate the incredible resources we have, the natural resources, our living river systems, our biodiversity, our plants and animals.
I say to the minister that this 10-year vision has to be about: (1) protecting and preserving what we already have, but (2) allowing future generations the opportunity to see it for themselves.
The way the population is growing in the Northern Territory and the way that development is growing, we know that there has to be an area of the Territory that needs to be preserved so that it is there for future generations, and for those around Australia who want to come and have a look at the Northern Territory, and who may want to look not only at national parks – or as the member for Nelson says – stay in national parks and view the national parks But they may now have an opportunity to travel through this eco-corridor.
It will be dependent on every single person across the Northern Territory who is involved with the environment, with conservation, with the biodiverse nature of conservation, and the whole area of plants and animals and scientific research; all those people involved in these areas need to contribute to the way this vision can take shape over the coming decade. It can be about a longer lasting process and a beauty of what we in the Northern Territory can offer beyond our wonderful national parks which are on display every day for everyone. This is about tracking down from the Arafura Sea, – the glorious Arafura Sea to the Red Centre desert.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, would you mind if I interrupt you as you are talking about the beautiful Arafura Sea?
I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 7, 8 and 9 Maningrida Community Education Centre students, accompanied by Ms Tina Daglas. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms McCARTHY: A huge welcome to the students from the Arafura Sea.
The EcoLinks, as it begins from the north and works its way down to the south, also passes through the incredible country of Arnhem Land. I have to put my voice to this statement in regards to the many ranger groups we have in the Arnhem region. I highlight, in particular, the Yugul Mangi Women Rangers, who do a terrific job in the Ngukurr region.
This is a group of women who go out on boats, monitor the waterways, not only checking any nets, checking the fish, checking out the crocodiles and the crocodile eggs, but they also keep an eye on illegal immigrants or illegal fishermen who come into the waterways; we have had people come up as far as Ngukurr and Roper Bar. These women rangers are just one part of the whole mass of 30 groups of rangers across the Top End who are contributing to a way of life for people in the regions.
These EcoLinks, while not a panacea for supporting employment, etcetera, is a part of what can be a huge vision for these rangers in the region to know that there is an extra attachment to their work and to their interests in preserving what they can see is important country – country that tells stories, that has a story, and every place is special.
There is no doubting that our great national parks are the cornerstone of our conservation efforts. If we are serious about preserving more of our biodiversity, it will require us using more than just our great parks. That is why the government announced our EcoLinks initiative before the last election. The Arafura to Alice EcoLinks strategy aims to cast our protective environmental web over more than just our parks. The strategy will effectively make our parks the spine of a broader conservation zone.
While the Territory government has committed $1.8m to the initiative over the next three years, this initiative has the potential to attract conservation dollars from sources outside the Territory. It opens up the prospect of engaging more people, not only Indigenous Territorians but pastoralists and also conservation volunteers, who join the effort of conserving our environment for the future.
One of the areas that I saw within the statement is the discussion about stock routes. For many of us who have had some attachment to the cattle industry, those stock routes are well and truly there. They have stories of their own. They have become a bit dusty and overgrown with grass and weed, but they have a story that dates back to, their history and the relationship between Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people in being able to muster cattle.
Minister, I believe that the focus for those stock routes is a really special one - you really can hit on something quite strong there. With the pastoral industry and the history of Aboriginal stockmen, you will find a great deal of passion from people who may wish to contribute to that vision about the stock routes. I urge you, minister, to take that further into consideration.
The unique Territory wildlife like the Gouldian finch and the bilby are regarded to be particularly at risk from climate change. Scientific assessments of global warming appear to lend ever increasing credence to the ecological axiom ‘adapt, migrate or die’. Experts seem to accept that species already at the brink will be forced in one of these three directions as global warming progresses. A bio-geographic expanse like our Arafura to Alice EcoLinks would appear to provide the capacity for adaptive responses with the capacity also to help populations of plants and animals to survive.
My colleague, the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, said she would like to see the concept extended to Adelaide. That is really interesting. We already have the Ghan coming from Adelaide to Darwin. Why not look at it from a conservation point of view, minister? We can have an eco-link that not only stretches from Arafura but goes all the way through the Centre to Adelaide. As the member for Nelson says, it is a massive plan. You need to have some sense of the reason behind such a plan, but I do not think that question or those concerns should baulk or stop the vision in any way. It is about enhancing the vision.
Important questions are being asked; the scientific link and the constraints of maintaining this land and that corridor. They are important questions but, at the same time, let us not be afraid to take on something new and very creative.. We are very creative and we can feel proud of driving a new direction where we show off the landscape and at the same time preserve it and allow employment to be a strong part of it in those areas where the corridor extends.
When I spoke of the Yugul Mangi Rangers, I would like to share with the parliament that the Indigenous Protected Areas are a strong component of this statement. In the Groote Eylandt region we have the Anindilyakwa Land Council Rangers who also have a protected sea area around Groote Eylandt. It is a terrific arrangement for the Anindilyakwa people, not only in preserving and caring for country which is fundamental to what these ranger groups are about, it is also about the passing on of knowledge of the area and sharing the knowledge of the area with those who come; non-Aboriginal people who are either living on Groote or those who come to visit at the newly established Dugong Beach resort.
The Indigenous Protected Areas scheme is an important one. The program is important for the Groote Eylandt people. I believe you will, minister, have some contributions from Arnhem and the east Arnhem region where that sense of strength about looking after country and culture is very strong.
Madam Speaker, I commend your statement to the House.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, first I acknowledge the students from Maningrida, a very important part of the Northern Territory. I know with my regional development hat, we are doing some fantastic work there which will lead to further jobs, particularly for the students we see here today.
I am very pleased to speak in support of the Minister for Parks and Wildlife’s first statement on the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks project. This is, indeed, a visionary project.
We often hear from the other side of the House that we do not have any vision as a government. This statement today shows that we do have a vision, particularly our Minister for Parks and Wildlife. It incorporates so many important elements and ideas that will have an impact on current and future generations, from conservation to climate change, from regional development to social inclusion, and the preservation of an ancient culture and knowledge.
I must confess to having a particular interest in the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks. I have listened to the minister outline the route. I have even looked at the member for Nelson’s map and I have sketched a few lines on my own map of the Northern Territory. By my rough estimates, the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks is approximately 1800 km long, of which around 1200 km runs through my electorate of Stuart.
The eco-link enters the electorate of Stuart at the Nitmiluk National Park in the north, and exits through Newhaven Station in the south. Between these two magnificent conservation zones - one public, one private - the eco-link encompasses some remarkable country and land that few people apart from pastoralists, traditional owners, adventurous tourists and, on the odd occasion, politicians like myself, have had the privilege to travel. It includes the Gregory National Park, an area of some 13 000 km2 known for its spectacular ranges and gorges, and it takes in the northern Tanami Indigenous Protected Area - 40 000 km2 of wetlands, plains, subtropical savannah and desert, which has been identified as a biodiversity conservation hot spot.
In my portfolio of Regional Development, the usual emphasis is on job creation, infrastructure development, increased tourism, and enhanced facilities. These are laudable objectives and in line with government policy. However, I want to approach the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks project from a different direction - one that focuses on the use of ideas and positive interactions as tools of regional development.
There are not too many of these links in the world; where they do exist, they tend to be in politically stable countries. It would be difficult to envisage such a concept being established in Africa or South America, for obvious reasons. Because of their rarity, they tend to attract national and international interest; they generate excitement in the worlds of conservation and philanthropy.
There will be flow-on effects that will be of benefit to the Northern Territory. I am not just talking about financial benefits, but the creation of conditions in an environment that attracts scientists. This can lead to most unexpected outcomes; for example, the West Arnhem Fire and Management Agreement. This is a greenhouse gas abatement project funded by Darwin LNG, a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips, which is paying $1m a year for 17 years to reduce emissions from savannah fires in the West Arnhem region. The project was facilitated by the Northern Territory government, the Northern Land Council, the NT Bushfires Council and the Tropical Savannas Collaborative Research Centre, and has as its partners: the Wardekken Association, the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation, the Mimarl Rangers, the Jawoyn Association and Demed Association. Shining a spotlight on the vastness of the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks may well result in similar flow-on effects.
We should never forget there has been a north-south sharing of knowledge along the route of the eco-link for many thousands of years. There are dreaming stories that flow from south to north. There are also ancient trading routes that were disrupted in the last century.
For the EcoLinks to work effectively, new relationships will have to be developed between various landholding entities – national parks, conservationists, pastoralists, and Aboriginal landholders will have to work together. Neither party will be able to work in isolation; they will all be connected.
With the depopulation of rural and remote Australia over the past 20 years, many traditional land management practices have broken down. One result is the spread of introduced species, which often has a very negative impact on the environment. The Eco-links may be able to arrest this decline in land management by fostering re-establishment of a presence in remote areas. This presence will mean new skills will have to learnt or old skills re-taught.
I referred earlier to the Northern Tanami Indigenous Protected Areas. This area is a haven for threatened species of birds, mammals, reptiles and plants, while the arid zone wetlands provide breeding habitats for wallabies, emus and colonies of migratory birds.
The region’s eco-systems are the result of generations of traditional owners caring for country. An additional benefit of the declaration of the Northern Tanami IPA last year is the development of a range of employment and training opportunities for local communities. Today, the Northern Tanami IPA is managed from Lajamanu in my electorate and sees the Wulaign Rangers tackling threats such as weeds and feral animals, while incorporating ancient land management practices.
I place on the record my appreciation and admiration for the Wulaign Rangers, which were originally established by the Central Land Council and the Wulaign Outstations Resource Centre.
One criticism that could be aimed at the north-south eco-links project is that it already exists in the form of the Stuart Highway or the railway corridor. Both these transport links traverse the diverse range of country, not dissimilar to that proposed for the EcoLinks. Starting from the north, we begin in a tropical climate and end up in a temperate zone. We travel over creeks and streams, grasslands and woodlands, deserts and semi deserts. In fact, much of the country is the same as the EcoLinks, but is it? The first difference between the EcoLinks and the Stuart Highway is that the latter is a modern transport link, with all the associated benefits and comforts, the picnic spots, motels, hotels, the occasional supermarket and numerous places to fill the esky with ice.
The EcoLinks, on the other hand, will be a reminder of the times gone by, a less sophisticated era with fewer comforts and greater challenges. Over time, it would become an experience, a must-see and a must-do. As well as attracting tourists to the Territory, it has the added benefit of easing pressure on existing tourist attractions.
Madam Speaker, the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks is a tremendous initiative and I am pleased to support it.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I commend minister Anderson …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, can I just ask you not to refer to the minister by her name like that. It is the Minister for Parks and Wildlife in this instance.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, I commend the minister and the government’s visionary plan to link the conservation of our natural systems with sustainable economic land use management and practices. I would like to reiterate the key word - ‘vision’. The Arafura to Alice EcoLinks Project represents a new strategy for fusing public and private conservation efforts in a whole-of-landscape approach for the sustainable future of Northern Territory eco-systems.
I would like to highlight the nature of fusing public and private interests which was not fully highlighted in this morning’s speeches. Arafura to Alice will establish the present and future natural corridors that will maintain ecological pathways for the protection and generation of our flora and fauna while supporting intertwined economic enterprises reflecting pastoral, mining, tourism and construction. Corridors should not fence us in. The semantics of a corridor should remain open.
A whole-of-landscape approach in collaboration with regional communities represents an innovative knowledge application, based on both scientific and Indigenous intellectual capital. I refer the members to the word ‘vision’ and the fusion of public and private interests and the outcome of a combination of scientific and Indigenous intellectual capital.
For the Barkly region, the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks Project will provide social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits with a capacity for directly involving Indigenous people from both regional and remote areas in the management of natural and cultural resources. I highlight ‘cultural resources’.
I ask: who better to involve in the management of our natural resources than the Indigenous people of this country who have intricate knowledge and understanding of our eco-systems and, by way of modern physical association with the land, are living in remote communities on and around the very corridors we are now endeavouring to protect and preserve.
Inclusion of Indigenous people, while recognising and acknowledging Indigenous traditional knowledge about those eco-systems involved, will complement training to employment initiatives for mainstream jobs in land management, in addition to providing the unique cultural links to landscapes that will support both the scientific community and eco-tourism opportunities.
We should not be hemmed in, once again, with the traditional application of employment. A trained ranger is a trained ranger, and that ranger can work in the Northern Territory, on the Great Barrier Reef or in a national park in the Yukon. That is the outcome we are striving for and, if that involves Indigenous youth, then we are 100% behind it.
The Arafura to Alice EcoLinks offers remote communities capacity building and structures to participate in both protecting and showcasing country. It translates into cultural responsibility and employment for future generations. I believe this situation gives the elders a new base for traditional teaching for a new generation of complex youth. This is a whole new vision and a whole new platform which, I believe, offers great hope.
Making education exciting, meaningful and relevant in a remote area context has always been challenging. However, directly linking education and training programs to real world opportunities while incorporating the knowledge and respect of elders, certainly supports an opportunity for improved engagement, participation and outcomes.
We have heard much this morning about sea rangers. Borroloola on the Gulf coast represents another area that is promoting a sea ranger project. This project developing social, cultural and environmental initiatives directly protects country, monitors marine eco-systems, manages fishing areas, and supports tourism. It directly dovetails into the vision of the minister’s Arafura to Alice EcoLinks project.
This represents a community-based project that supports social and cultural movement of people back on to traditional lands and into the sea, and it possesses enormous potential to links with the local school in offering staged and targeted studies, training, and employment for students who do not wish to leave their home community. An initiative such as a ranger program has the capacity for offering youth identified as at risk a real and meaningful opportunity to reconnect with their culture through positive learning experiences.
In terms of positive school programs, great opportunities and Return to Country, youth such as I have described will be removed from the daily pressures that currently exist for many in Borroloola relating to homelessness, boredom and substance abuse. A disengaged 15-year-old young person living in Borroloola in 2008 is a complex individual and often falls under peer pressure and negative influences, as it is hard to make sense of things and to see light at the end of the tunnel.
School education to re-engage such a teenager, offering accredited training that would facilitate a position into work experience, work placement, and eventually a real job, not only provides the X factor for attendance at school and participation, but also the deep and powerful intrinsic nature of engagement provided by reconnection with country, culture and law in a mentored environment.
In the southern Barkly, major expanses of protected country featuring the Devil’s Marbles, the Davenport Ranges and other arid zone environments are renowned and feature as a geographic centrepoint for Barkly tourism. Such areas also represent traditional country for the many small remote communities nestled around them.
The local Indigenous communities of Epenarra, Canteen Creek, Murray Downs, Mungkarta and Kalinjarri all reside on the edge of the big reserved ecological corridors, possessing the cultural links to the landscapes that offer Indigenous heritage and land management knowledge; tourism potential and a local labour force for maintenance of the areas, and management of feral animals and weed control. In this part of the Barkly, we are looking at direct partnership opportunities with pastoralists, and that is a great future. The Arafura to Alice EcoLinks corridor represents partnerships with communities, communities working together on common ground. This will spotlight a national culture and ecological consciousness for all Australians and, in relation to future tourism potential, highlight our preserved natural eco-systems to the rest of the world.
In the Barkly, we do not need to travel the world as the world comes to us on a regular basis in the form of tourism. What better value adding could there be than for both national and international tourists to travel the corridors of the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks project and interact with Indigenous people and Indigenous youth born and raised on country and actively engaged in the management and preservation of such land, including maintenance of the Dreaming?
The minister has a very special attachment to such a project because the minister understands about Dreaming, and I believe it would be in the interests of all members of this House to take an interest in that concept and what it represents for such a visionary project.
The Arafura to Alice EcoLinks project represents a long-term initiative that will consolidate knowledge and experience in a staged development. It offers hope to new generations of both regional and remote communities of the Northern Territory, and I would like to mention the Barkly. Capital investment by the government for the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks project represents an innovative approach to ecology through the application of Indigenous cultural knowledge, voluntary conservation efforts, and industry for long-term sustainability of our natural resources for generations to come. Madam Speaker, I believe this must be applauded.
Mr VATKALIS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, the Minister for Parks and Wildlife and her statement about eco-links.
Reading about eco-links and the way it is proposed brings back memories from my days when I was at Murdoch University in Western Australia studying Environmental Science. I remember well one of the textbooks, Ecology by Ehrlich, one of the well-known writers and promoters of ecology in the world, referring to a very similar program that is widely used in Europe and other countries.
To give you an example, let me take you back to Western Australia where I arrived in 1983.. For me, WA was totally different as I came from a very mountainous country with forests, rivers and lake.,. I was really impressed with the lack of mountains and the vast expanses of totally clear land. In the 1950’s, after people came back from the war, the then governments of Australia and Western Australia promoted the clearing of land and the allocation of blocks; when I am referring to blocks, I am talking about land of quite a few thousand acres in area, for growing wheat.
I was taking a trip one day by train to Wongan Hills, and I could not believe my eyes when the train was crossing a plain that was totally empty of trees. I well remember that wheat was harvested and there was a flock of about 30 or 40 sheep and all of them, in the middle of the day, were under one single tree in the middle of this vast expanse of vacant land trying to protect themselves from the sun. Of course, one of the issues that has arisen by removing this natural vegetation, was not only the salination of the areas, and as a result people had to withdraw from their land and stop farming, but also the disappearance of a large number of species of fauna and flora.
A few years later when some of these events became evident in Western Australia, people actively wanted to bring back some of the birds, animals, flowers, plants that had disappeared. Farmers without any urging by the then government, decided to do something very similar to what my colleague proposed today - to create corridors for wildlife to return, for wildlife to start breeding and for the species that had disappeared many years ago to reappear.
In Ehrlich’s book, he describes the harsh reality that wildlife, especially birds and animals, ,will hesitate to cross an open space unless there is a protected pathway for migration, even for breeding purposes. This is a well-known fact.
The same thing will happen with some of the plants. They have more opportunity to grow and become established in areas that have been already somehow prepared for this expansion, rather than the vast areas. We see this in places where there are huge road networks. Much of the fauna will not cross the empty roads, or if they try to cross, most of the time, they find themselves flat on the bitumen, squashed by big trucks or cars. You can see that even here in the Territory on Dick Ward Drive, sometimes driving to work I see quolls and small animals on the road.
Proposing the eco-link in the Northern Territory I think is a significant step to promote our eco system. The Northern Territory is a vast expanse, 1.5m km, about 2000 km long and about 1000 km wide with unique eco-systems and climates, from the tropical north to the semi-arid in the Barkly, down to the arid environments of Alice Springs and surroundings. Every single eco-system has unique flora and fauna and every single one of these eco-systems are adapted to this environment, so we can say we have a number of different eco-systems in the Northern Territory.
Within each of these climatic environments we have pockets of eco-systems which are there because they have been separated through anthropogenic means. People cleared the land of its grasses to plant pastures, and also cleared for roads and mining operations. As a result we have isolated pockets of fauna far away from other pockets like species. . These can be divided by 100 m or by kilometres due to the actions of humans or, in some cases, the climate. So, trying to bring those two together and re-establish the links between the different eco-systems in an environment, is a unique opportunity for us to act now and promote and support the ecology of the Northern Territory.
The reality is, if we continue to keep these areas divided, the smaller the population of an animal or a plant in a particular area, the more likely this population is to become extinct through inbreeding or through accidental means. Fire in a small pocket of vegetation can destroy some of these plants and the ones that remain will not be sufficient to repopulate and re-establish a colony of that rare plant in the area. We have to provide the opportunity for these rare birds or animals, in case of emergency, to be able to escape, protected, from one area to another. We have to make ensure that these proper and distinct populations, living in two different pockets, can actually get together for breeding purposes so we have a bigger variation and thus better protection of the species for their survival in the future.
What is proposed here is not only about creating corridors between different pockets of fauna and flora, but connecting the different areas, through the different environments, and utilising the traditional knowledge of people who have been living in these areas for thousands of years. In some cases these people know better than some of our scientists who have been trained in Europe or America or in South Australia. These people know the best way to connect, to preserve and link these areas by different means.
The question regarding acquisition of land was asked. No. We do not have to acquire land. Are you going to compensate pastoral property owners for what you are doing? No. The reality is, you do not have to compulsorily acquire land because you can still have pockets and corridors in the same place. In some cases pastoralists and farmers are very keen to re-establish these corridors because they have seen the problems when they clear a vast expanse of land without providing any protection for the wildlife and, in some cases, providing protection for their own animals. In some areas, especially in the Barkly when it is the windy time of the year, you have poor cattle in the middle of a field in cold weather. By planting a row of trees you can provide protection for your animals, and at the same time provide a corridor for wildlife to cross from one pocket to the other.
The other point to consider is being able to drive from Arafura to Alice or from Borroloola to Keep River and see a continuous strip of national parks and vegetated areas rather than seeing national park, desert, pastoral properties with nothing on them, national park, desert with nothing on it for various reasons. I have seen it before, and I will see it again.
If you drive to Alice Springs, in particular, especially after a big fire, you get tired driving on a flat road looking at nothing else but flat, empty terrain. Promoting this eco-link the way it is being promoted here is not only good for the environment, for the fauna and the flora, it is not only good for our national parks and traditional owners, it is also very good for our tourists.
As Tourism minister, I have been promoting our environment as a unique pristine environment, around the world. I have been in China telling them that it is the only place in the world you will drive 2000 km and most likely see only 50 cars. It is the only place in the world where you can see for miles without anything obstructing your vision. We do not have pollution, unless, of course, there is a fire. It is the only place in the world when you turn your eyes to the sky at night you see a multitude of stars - more than you have ever seen before in your life. Also I said, it is the only place in the world where you see plants that have existed in this place for millions of years because our environment has remained unchanged. This is the place where you see unique birds and animals that you do not see any where else in the world.
In addition, we can work in close cooperation with the pastoralists, the farmers and conservation organisations. We have a number of workers in these organisations who have acquired old pastoral leases and they have closed them down as pastoral properties because they want to protect a particular species of bird or animal. We have some of these parks in the east of the Territory, near Borroloola.
There were some attempts to buy some of these pastoral properties near Alice Springs and some to the west of the Northern Territory. This is for us, an opportunity to utilise these attempts by conservation organisations, together with our Parks and Wildlife, to establish these natural links to preserve our unique environment, fauna and flora. It is not the amount of money you spend to do it, because I do not think we will be able to acquire the land ourselves to create the link in a perceived period of time. But if we work together with pastoralists and the public, we have a common interest to preserve our environment and I think we can do that very quickly. In some cases, rather than paying to acquire vast tracts of land, the money will be better allocated to provide assistance to these people who want to come onboard and help us establish the eco-link.
How we are going to do it and help people to establish some of the areas is very innovative. Many people do not want $1000, or $10 000 to do something; people need guidance, support and the scientific knowledge of how to do something and do it right so it will last for years to come. Many people also want to ensure that they leave behind a legacy; they do not want to leave a legacy of the biggest pastoral property in the Territory. Some people can leave a legacy that says: ‘On my property, the Gouldian finch survived. On my property, that unique flower still survives despite the fact that it was under threat many years ago’. Many people are proud of things you can see on their properties.
I have been to properties where people show, quite proudly, the unique birds and animals that live there, despite the fact they had thousands of people on this property, and they can coexist and work together. We can work together. After all, every time one of these birds or plants becomes extinct, our world becomes poorer; there are birds that have survived for millions of years and, through our actions in 100 years, we have caused their extinction.
I congratulate my colleague for her proposal. It is an excellent proposal. One suggestion I would make: if we do not tell the public what we are doing, they will not know, so I suggest we develop some promotion material to give to the people we are going to work with, but also to the people around Australia, to tell them that the Territory is not only famous for Kakadu and Uluru, but also famous for the attempts and efforts we make to preserve our unique environment, wildlife and flower..
Some of the photographs of the Gouldian in this pamphlet are fantastic and every time I see them, I see something new. Therefore, the more we do – and, as you know a picture speaks more than 1000 words - people will see and realise the effort we made, and people will come onboard and assist us in what we are trying to achieve.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister once again. It is a small idea, but has enormous impact on our environment, our flora and our fauna.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks project.
This brought back many memories to me when we combined and brought together all the departments dealing with natural resources, environment and heritage into one fantastic department. We have scientists and people in the museum areas who add to the level of expertise.
I do want to touch on the important area of water. Over many years, water has been greatly over-allocated and over-used.
It was a privilege to work with Ian Lancaster, Director of the Water Resource Branch within Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts and an expert in his field. Ian and I went to a number of meetings with the then federal Minister for the Environment, Malcolm Turnbull – now federal Leader of the Opposition as of yesterday. We looked at skills sets and noted that one skill set that is disappearing right across Australia is hydrologists. We need skilled and experienced hydrologists, particularly in places like Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia. We need to retain those experts across Australia. Malcolm Turnbull was trying to poach Ian Lancaster but we would not let him!
Water is a major issue, and dominated national debates, because of the terrible droughts we have seen continue to hit hard in southern Australia. The community wants action, and politicians of all persuasions are taking note of that ongoing debate. Over the last year or two the focus has been on northern Australia because southern states are seeing the Northern Territory, as water drenched. Given the droughts down south, they believe our water should be channelled to look after those drought-affected areas. However, we should not presume that the water debate will be confined to those regions most affected by the current water crisis.
Our tropical rivers and groundwater systems contain roughly 70% of Australia’s freshwater resources, and we directly use only a very small proportion. It is no exaggeration to say that north Australian rivers and water resources are increasingly becoming the envy of the rest of Australia, and herein lies the dilemma of scarcity and opportunity. To some, the water crisis of southern Australia, coupled with climate change, provides the opportunity to go north and irrigate, or to realise lofty dreams of piping the wasted water of the north down south where it is really needed, but to others, water is perceived differently. The continued availability of water is understood in different ways.
Water is of enormous significance to Aboriginal people, far beyond its simple use for drinking and bathing. It is a pre-eminent focus in creation accounts of the origins of the traditional lands and seas amongst every Aboriginal group in the north and the south. Water has also been a focus for conflict.
In terms of north Australia, with the increased contact with non-Aboriginal people moving across the continent and the pastoral areas increasing, it was Aboriginal people with their encyclopaedic knowledge of their land who often worked with pastoralists, or pointed pastoralists to permanent water sources. Indeed, all of our major stock routes - and anyone who has been out bush has seen those stock routes – were initially pioneered by Aboriginal stockmen and women. However, as pastoralism became entrenched, we all know the history where Aboriginal people felt, and were, increasingly excluded from their water sources.
Ceremonial grounds were supplanted by homesteads built at some of these permanent waterholes. Introduced animals and plants, fed by traditionally-owned water sources, caused widespread, in many cases, drastic changes to the environment and availability of traditional foods.
In my contact and discussions with the pastoral industry, or the Cattlemen’s Association, they have placed a major focus, and have shifted their focus, to come up with their adaptive management framework into land management – a lot of work has gone into that. The Cattlemen’s Association and people should be applauded, because there was a major shift from how they saw the environment and looked after the environment to one where they have put in place quite a strong, adaptive management framework so that they could deal with things like water and weeds, and what was happening in the changes to the environment.
North Australia is unique. We have many river catchments where ecological processes continue to operate to connect headwaters with floodplains, wetlands, estuaries and the coast, as the minister points out in her statement. The connections between ground and surface water remain largely intact. The strong ecological connections support many goods and services provided to north Australians - clean water, a vibrant tourism industry, great recreational opportunities and productive coastal fisheries and pastoral lands. For all of us who call the Territory ‘home’, our rivers are intrinsically part of our identity.
The minister’s statement also points out the importance of land management. Kakadu, in my electorate is an environment with a quite fragile biodiversity. All the recent research, nationally and internationally, is showing that Kakadu National Park will be impacted by climate change and we will see rising sea levels and the flooding. Recently, in 2006 we saw the floods in Kakadu; the community of Oenpelli was flooded for the first time in over 100 years. There the increasing threat of cyclones. Those are threats say to us, that climate change is a major issue and one on which we need a greater focus on.
Minister, I am aware of the ranger programs run by your department. I believe they are a fantastic because we are starting to educate our young people and involve them in land care and management. The Parks and Wildlife department does a great job nurturing them, particularly the young ones. The junior ranger program is not just a Darwin-based program; it is also in Alice Springs. I know some of the park rangers want to see it in more of our regional and remote communities. We have seen the success of our sea and land management rangers. Every member with a bush electorate has those ranger groups as part of the landscape.
Those ranger groups are male and female. The member for Arnhem spoke very passionately about the Yugul Mangi, the female rangers like Cherry Daniels,and they play a fantastic role. The rangers at Wadeye are the Thamarrurr Rangers. In my own electorate I often talk about the Djelk Rangers, who have done some fantastic work.
One of the programs that is in place in my electorate of West Arnhem is the West Arnhem Fire Management Agreement, which was the first agreement that brought in corporate sponsorship to a fire management agreement and looked at bringing together and offsetting carbon emissions in terms of bushfires. The West Arnhem Fire Management Agreement involves traditional owners from many different groups including some of the groups from Land Care from the western and central Arnhem Land areas - one of those groups comes from the member for Arnhem’s area - that have banded together to reinstate traditional land and fire management practices.
Catalyst, which was shown on ABC last year, showed how that agreement unites the skills and energies of western scientists and Aboriginal holders of traditional knowledge in working with a major gas company to produce greenhouse gas trading benefits which, effectively, balance emissions from 20 000 vehicles or 100 000 tonnes of greenhouse gas a year, with traditional land management practices. That was the first agreement ever.
The Australian Greenhouse Office was quite excited about that agreement. It is something Aboriginal people, with their country, do want to preserve and conserve it and these are some of the economic benefits. As I said in my speech yesterday, not every Aboriginal group or community has a mine or the potential to have a mine near them. Land management, however, and reaping the benefits of getting private investment with government, with Aboriginal groups, can happen and create jobs with the outcome of protecting country.
As the minister says, she is from the environment, and it is very important for us that we do not see short-term fixes that are so often locked into with this debate. It is important that Aboriginal people who are from the land, from the environment, are central and part of any development that we see going forward to creating a better Territory, because looking after the environment benefits everybody.
It is probably the one area that can go a long way in terms of reconciliation. It allows for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, the experts, the scientists - the white scientists who I see flocking out to work with the different Aboriginal groups in west Arnhem - it happens in all our regions; to have white, mainstream scientists working with Aboriginal people, building on those two knowledge systems and bringing them together is a fantastic thing. It is about all of us caring and looking after country.
Madam Speaker, the statement on eco-links and making that our vision for the way forward has a lot of support..
Ms ANDERSON (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, I congratulate and thank my colleagues on this side of the House for being visionary, constructive and allowing themselves to dream about being different and of allowing the Northern Territory to become a food bowl. We do live in a food bowl because of the different cultures and the fact that we have such different fauna and flora. When I say we live in a food bowl, it is about the different animals we have, and how we all come together as Territorians.
I have heard calls for more detail, and a few doubts, about whether we can implement such a large concept. That is fair enough, because this is a new plan. We have to do more and listen to people. We do not pretend otherwise. It is a new plan. It is about consultation, it is about being informed and informing. It is not just about informing you, our parliamentary colleagues, but informing the public, that is the people from Arafura to Alice Springs.
I want to talk about some of the doubts that some people have in their minds in speaking to my statement today, and reiterate that we know we are facing periods of change with global warming. We also know that parks alone cannot protect certain animals and plants unless we manage the wider landscape. There is a clear problem we need to address.
There are also opportunities. For example, there are Indigenous groups already working on country and this is where I come back to say: Let us take risks, let us be different because we are Territorians, we are different. We are different to those people who live in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. We are Territorians, a multicultural society. We are a food bowl, not just in a culture but also in the flora and fauna that we have in the Northern Territory.
There are pastoralists investing in conservation and there are conservation groups purchasing land for conservation. What we need is a plan to connect the problem with opportunity. That is what Arafura to Alice EcoLinks will do. The member for Arnhem captured the sentiment behind Arafura to Alice EcoLinks very well: we should not be afraid to take on something new and creative.
The member for Brennan has suggested this plan is a deviation from the main matters at hand. It is okay for him to have that thought, but it is not an either/or situation - we can have visionary long-term projects and address the short-term issues on a day-to day-basis. As they say in America, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
The member for Brennan also said that consultation with all groups will be necessary, and I agree. I reiterate we are specifically interested in engaging with the public, so there will be consultation. I can guarantee, as the minister, I will make sure there is consultation - focused and serious consultation. We will focus on this project having community support all the way through. We need to take the people with us. This is not a journey that we can have alone; it has to be a journey of all Territorians from Arafura to Alice Springs.
The member for Goyder has raised issues of compulsory acquisition. I could not have been any clearer in the statement. This is a program to support voluntary conservation efforts, so there will not be any compulsory acquisitions. The member for Goyder also stressed the need for consultation with all the relevant groups. This was detailed in the statement but, if the member for Goyder would like a further briefing, then I would be happy to organise one - not in a bad way, it is very serious. Like statehood, this requires bipartisan support - not just with parliamentary colleagues but with all Territorians.
The member for Goyder also questioned the capacity of private organisations to upgrade conservation areas. I inform the member that groups already exist in the Territory and they are doing wonderful work at places like Newhaven Station, which is in, the member for Stuart’s electorate, which is west of Alice Springs.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge my grandfather, Tjampu, Harry Nelson, sitting at the back, who is also from that area.
And this is happening right now; through Arafura to Alice, we can grow this effort. It is about bringing pastoralists, conservationists, Indigenous people and government together. This is the journey of all Territorians.
I welcome the comments from the member for Nelson. The member for Nelson really speaks from his heart. He is a real conservationist and naturalist and is interested in Indigenous issues as well. I thank him for his comments. On detail, I am wondering if we can sit down together and have the opportunity to ensure that we listen to you and go through the details at a later stage, instead of doing it in my reply to you, member for Nelson. I also agree with the member for Nelson that opening up new areas must not occur at the expense of existing parks. He has my firm undertaking that this will not occur.
I have heard some wonderful contributions from members about Indigenous ranger groups. They are truly an inspiration to all of us and I hope they draw a little more inspiration from the support received in this House for their great work. I thank my colleagues.
Madam Speaker, this statement was the first step in a long journey. I urge members opposite to join me in that journey with goodwill and an open mind for the benefit of future generations.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Ms McCARTHY (Statehood): Madam Speaker, in this the 30th anniversary year of self-government, I share with the people of the Northern Territory the progress of the Northern Territory parliament towards statehood. Before I begin I would like to acknowledge the presence of Harry Nelson, a member of the Statehood Steering Committee, and the Executive Officer, Carolynne James.
Thirty years ago, we were granted self-government by an act of the Commonwealth. Ten years ago, the people of the Northern Territory voted ‘no’ to statehood, just over 51% voted no. As I have stated in this House on previous occasions, people voted no largely because they felt excluded and uninformed of what the process was all about.
The Statehood Steering Committee, which reports to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee of the parliament, has spent the past 3 years educating and informing Territorians about statehood. It is a bipartisan process of the Northern Territory parliament, and I take this opportunity to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his role in ensuring such a positive and constructive partnership with the Henderson Labor government.
I also welcome the member for Nightcliff, the member for Fannie Bay, the member for Brennan, and the member for Goyder, who was a Statehood Steering Committee member prior to becoming a parliamentarian. I welcome you to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
We have learned a valuable lesson from 1998, and that is, we, as the political representatives, must rise above politics if we are to ensure the future for the children of the Northern Territory in becoming the seventh state in the Australian federation.
In studying our constitutional status, I have come to explore the deeper reality of what it means to the ordinary Territory person; to the business owner working long hours to cover their overheads and pay their staff; to the bus driver who transports schoolchildren every day to and from school; to the long grasser who chooses between the beach camp or airport camp to rest for the night; or the CDEP worker who has to choose between travelling to town for a music concert with the family or wait until next time; to the new refugees from Africa or Asia, who are trying to settle into their new country; and to the pastoralists who have to decide how many trailers they need to transport the cattle for export. Do not forget the mango growers who struggle for hired hands, and the artist who immerses him or herself in their work of art, or the able or disabled athletes, determined to excel in their sporting dreams.
How do we as a parliament tap into the lives of each of these diverse Territorians about our right to join our fellow Australians across the country as full citizens in this country? How do we as a parliament overcome the legacy of a failed attempt and renew and reinvigorate hearts to believe in it again?
On 21 June 2007, the then Howard government announced its federal intervention into the Northern Territory. It changed dramatically the lives of thousands of Aboriginal people - Territorians - immediately. I say to the House, put aside for now the rights and wrongs about the intervention, and put aside even the reasons for it. Just reflect on this: if ever we needed to be reminded of our constitutional vulnerability as Australian citizens, then surely the intervention has done just that - reminded us, as parliamentarians, that we have some serious work ahead of us in tackling our constitutional inequality. Many Aboriginal people have approached me with an even greater understanding of their own constitutional vulnerability because of the intervention. We already knew the Territory constitutional power was limited under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. The actions of June last year further restricted the Territory’s capacity to address its own problems.
The Commonwealth has treated Territory law in a way that could not happen in a state. In reflecting on the reasons for the intervention on 21 June 2007, the former Prime Minister said: ‘Why just in the Northern Territory and why only now? Because we can, given our constitutional powers’. That was in the Sydney Morning Herald online on 26 June 2007. Because they can, Madam Deputy Speaker, because they can.
It is the Northern Territory government’s intention that our ongoing commitment to statehood should also aim to heal the rifts that came from these recent actions and let us reconcile our role in a federal system of government, at the same time as we look to statehood as an important part of our ongoing program for reconciliation between Aboriginal and all other Territorians.
The challenge for this parliament is how do we plan for the future, where the rights of each and every Territorian is guaranteed to live a full life with access to opportunities, not at the expense of one’s cultural identity or religious beliefs or even their geographic location. We have the opportunity in the Northern Territory to do what our constitutional forefathers could never do, and that is to write a new constitution for a new state that recognises and respects the men and women of the Northern Territory, black and white, refugees, mango growers, and pastoralists.
In the words of the Statehood Steering Committee campaign, ‘Walking Together Towards Statehood’, is very appropriate. For the people who read or hear this speech, even they may feel some affinity with such searching. Is this dream of constitutional equality a dream shared by others? Has it become a recurring dream, a fixated dream, an obsessive dream that no one wants to know about? Will it be known only as this elusive dream, where many have tried and failed?
It is when we here in this House believe we are worthy to join our brothers and sisters at the seat of Federation as equal citizens, not second class citizens, only then will other parliaments across the country believe in it too – I mean really believe in it. Do we believe we should be equal citizens under the Australian Constitution? A simple yes or no.
Forget about the constitutional passages, the legal jargon, the hundreds of pages to read, and goodness me, do not get bogged down thinking about the numbers of senators or trying to intellectualise like a game of chess who moves where in the Upper and Lower House of the Commonwealth if we enter as a state. Speak with your hearts and let the people decide.
Members of the parliament, think about this some more while I turn to the statistical reality of our status under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. Under the Australian Constitution, the Commonwealth parliament has a very broad paper to determine the future of any new state using section 121 of the Constitution. The Constitution says at section 121:
There has been considerable academic and political speculation concerning the meaning and interpretation of section 121, but until a new state comes into existence it will remain untested, that is until now. It is now that we will in the Northern Territory have the opportunity to become the seventh state in the Australian Federation.
It would appear from a simple reading of the Australian Constitution that it is open to the Commonwealth to decide that the only term and condition would be absolute equality with the existing states. Indeed, the Northern Territory government may seek the Commonwealth to agree to such a proposal in the first instance, however, we are also aware that previous discussions between the Territory and the Commonwealth indicate the Commonwealth may wish to impose some terms and conditions other than absolute equality with the existing states, which may differentiate the Northern Territory from the original states.
The Northern Territory public should be able to discuss this prospect in an open and informed way. However, what is clear is that many people across the Northern Territory want eventual equality.
As I have mentioned in the past, the Commonwealth has expressed reservations on statehood for two reasons. First, the Commonwealth has sought a stronger demonstration of the Northern Territory’s desire for statehood. At the 1998 Referendum, the Commonwealth had not prepared a formal policy position of its own on the terms and conditions of statehood for the Territory. Rather, it indicated it would take an interest and be informed by what the Northern Territory might put forward.
Can the people of the Northern Territory really be expected to demonstrate support for statehood without knowing what the Commonwealth’s policy position is on what the new state would look like? Some Territorians, who, for example, indicate support for statehood only on the same constitutional basis as the existing states, may withhold agreement all together if the model is unknown …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. We have to ring the bells because there are not enough people to form a quorum, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells. We now have a quorum. Please continue, minister.
Ms McCARTHY: Some Territorians who, for example indicate support for statehood only on the same constitutional basis as the existing states may withhold agreement altogether if the model is unknown. But they may be swayed if the compelling argument is put from a model with initial unequal entry along with the later guarantees of equality.
The Statehood Steering Committee has argued to both the Territory government as well as to the Commonwealth House of Representatives Committee of Inquiry that this is the key dilemma to the future success of a statehood referendum. During 2006, the Statehood Steering Committee wrote to the Territory government expressing this view, as well as making a submission along the same lines to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Inquiry into the Federal Implications of Northern Territory Statehood. The House of Representatives committee has recognised this dilemma and has made a single, clear recommendation to the Commonwealth government which was:
This recommendation is vital. The Commonwealth committee inquiry recognises the stalemate which the federal government must break. The Commonwealth must make clear which roles and responsibilities come to the Territory upon statehood, and which will remain with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth government’s response to the 2007 inquiry is still outstanding. We will be pressing the federal government, seeking the release of the Commonwealth’s response as the first step in discussions on terms and conditions. The Northern Territory parliament sees statehood as inevitable. However, statehood will not just happen. The Australian government has said it supports statehood. Nonetheless, Territorians need to work hard to overcome any reservations the Commonwealth may have.
Despite the election of a federal Labor government, there will still be a need to demonstrate we are ready and have earned our constitutional place. I am pleased to point out that the new federal government is encouraging the statehood process.
In June this year, the federal Territory’s minister, Bob Debus, joined and co-launched the Statehood Committee’s ‘Walking Together Towards Statehood’ campaign. At this event, the federal minister committed to active engagement and dialogue with the Territory government on outstanding federal issues. As any constitutional student is aware, statehood potentially changes the current makeup of the Commonwealth parliament. If there will be more Territory senators, it will mean more representatives under the nexus provision of the Australian Constitution.
Getting the Commonwealth to act in our favour may not be easy. The move toward statehood is something that needs groundwork from the Statehood Steering Committee. It also requires a helping hand from government. But government must avoid a heavy-handed approach. The Statehood Steering Committee has a crucial community role in educating people, discussing statehood and consulting independently of government.
Some may say the government must keep out of statehood altogether to let the committee get on with its work. The committee’s role in work is not in doubt - the committee’s work is separate and essential work. If we are to seriously advance statehood, there are also distinct roles for the Northern Territory government and this parliament along the road to statehood. I pay tribute to all the pioneers of statehood.
I pay particular tribute to Harold Nelson, the early-day Harold Nelson who took the fight to the Commonwealth in order to obtain that first House of Representatives seat in Commonwealth parliament in 1922. However, despite this historic event, Mr Nelson’s work remains unfinished because we know that, unlike a state, the Northern Territory still has no constitutionally entrenched right whatsoever to any representation in the Australian parliament. At the national level, our representation remains at the pleasure of the Commonwealth parliament of the day. Our self-government attained 30 years ago remains today a limited construct, with the Legislative Assembly vulnerable to dissolution by the Commonwealth government without consent or consultation with the Northern Territory people, hence the continued push for statehood in the 1980s by then Chief Minister, Steve Hatton.
In 1986, the Hatton government had adopted three broad statehood objectives. These were:
1. constitutional equality with the existing states;
Of these goals, only the third has been realised in the subsequent 22-year period and, even then, while the Territory is treated the same as the states in terms of financial arrangements, the existing arrangements with the Commonwealth mean that the Territory and the states may be held hostage to a range of agendas dictated by the Commonwealth. The first two goals expressed in 1986 are goals shared by the Territory government in 2008.
A central theme of my statement today is learning from the past. We know that constitutional change in Australia takes a very long time. We also know that if people feel rushed or bullied, they will react against it. Setting targets and end dates can be perilous, but also may be a necessary objective in what could otherwise end up being a process that could just meander on for several more generations.
This leads to what the government is doing now. First, the Northern Territory government is taking its message to Canberra and to the nation. The government, together with the opposition and the steering committee, will soon visit Canberra to promote interest in statehood and specifically request federal government action. One clear message we will be taking to Canberra is that the Territory should, ultimately, be an equal state in the Federation. However, there are two other messages we need to impress upon our national colleagues. First, statehood for the Northern Territory completes the Federation and embodies the vision set in place over 100 years ago. As the seventh state of Australia, we will break free of our outdated Territory status. Over the last 100 years, Territorians have proven themselves and earned the right to operate with the same state autonomy available to other Australians.
The time for statehood is now. The Northern Territory, with its population and economic growth, is taking the lead in the development of Australia’s north. The Territory government takes a preliminary view that equality must be the platform for entry into the Federation as a new state. It is a view shared by this parliament. The people of the Northern Territory do not deserve anything less. People who ask if that means 12 new Territory Senators from day one, should be assured we are talking about equality in the foundations of statehood. We must not be so nave as to think we can negotiate on an all or nothing basis, but we must also stay strong to our principles. Maybe the Territory, as a new state, may not start off with immediate absolutely equality, but it is about eventual equality.
If we get the process right, we should kick off statehood with the confidence and understanding that eventual equality is built into the foundation as a guarantee to future generations, so that the Northern Territory transitions to full equal status relatively soon.
The previous Legislative Assembly sessional committee identified two concurrent forces of action for a grant of statehood. The first was the preparation and adoption by Territorians of a constitution for the new state, and the second was the negotiation of a memorandum of understanding between the Territory government and the Commonwealth government on the terms and conditions of the new state for the Commonwealth parliament to implement under section 121 of the Australian Constitution.
The government today recommits the Northern Territory to that process. These actions should be concurrent, so while we develop a constitution the Territory and the Commonwealth must be discussing the terms and conditions of entering this state.
The outcome from the process should be a draft Commonwealth/Territory memorandum of understanding or informal agreement between the two governments on all these issues. It is critical so that on the day the next statehood referendum takes place, Territorians will be voting for or against statehood, knowing the proposed content of the future state constitution and, most importantly, the terms and conditions upon which statehood is made available to the Northern Territory. It was the terms and conditions that were not available in the 1998 referendum.
To deliver these outcomes, key tasks are required that need to commence right now. I am pleased to announce that the Northern Territory government will undertake a project to identify positions and implications of statehood matters within the Northern Territory. Some of the key issues that have been identified previously are: financial arrangements; uranium mining; national parks; Aboriginal land; island territories; representation; trade and commerce; industrial relations; executive powers and the head of state; as well as the process for giving effect to statehood.
The second task for the Northern Territory government will be to urge the Commonwealth to establish a Commonwealth interdepartmental committee to consider these matters.
I am also pleased to announce that, in 2009, the Statehood Steering Committee will commence specific consultations, asking Territory residents their views on the future control of these matters upon statehood. These consultations will be called Constitutional Workshops. They differ from the previous education and awareness activities undertaken by the committee in the past 3 years. These workshops will ask for and record specific views and feedback on statehood issues, including the potential content of the constitution and preferences on Commonwealth terms and conditions. The workshops will be well advertised, open to all Territorians and provided in as many parts of the Territory as possible. The committee’s goal is to make sure that the public is well informed about statehood and feels comfortable to make an informed decision on statehood issues.
The outcomes of the workshops will be threefold:
1. to hear from as many Territorians as possible about statehood at a grassroots level;
I must point out that these dates are dependent on the Commonwealth coming to the party. We are not going to experience the pain of another referendum like 1998 in the absence of knowing the terms and conditions of statehood.
Whether we reach the 2011 target date is up to each and every one of us, and we must be active in our communities.
I make special mention of the four Aboriginal land councils – the Northern Land Council, the Central Land Council, Tiwi Land Council and Anindilyakwa Land Council. Your knowledge and passion in the pursuit of a better life for the Territory’s Indigenous population will be essential in the workshops in communities across the Northern Territory, and I look forward to your input on how these workshops should be undertaken.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the federal Labor government are under no illusion about the need for constitutional recognition for Aboriginal Australians. This was evident at the gathering in Yirrkala a few months ago for the Rudd Community Cabinet. I say to the Prime Minister: while we in the Northern Territory will do all we can to advance our process towards statehood, there must be serious discussion at the highest levels in Canberra also, for we will not be kept busy here for the sake of just being busy on statehood.
As I mused earlier, is statehood an elusive dream? No, it is not. Too many people have given so much, and will give even more this next 18 months, as we embark on the workshops leading up to the Constitutional Convention. A national campaign strategy will also be run in parallel to the Territory-wide workshops.
All 25 members of this Assembly have a role to play. All members must energise our communities to encourage effective democracy and fairness in our walk together towards statehood. I say to all here, the members of the 11th Parliament of the Northern Territory, your leadership role in your respective electorates in the next 18 months, will be an important one as constitutional workshops occur across the Territory.
I also remind this House of the 3 years of work undertaken by the Statehood Steering Committee members. I thank each and every Statehood Steering Committee member for their ongoing commitment and dedication to statehood and it is, indeed, an honour to work with you.
I also thank the staff of the Statehood Secretariat, in particular Nora Kempster, who has continuously travelled and will continue to travel across the Northern Territory with the education and awareness campaign. I say thank you, Nora, for your absolute dedication to the process towards statehood. To Marise Riddell and Poppy Lelekis, thank you for the tremendous work you have put into the July campaign for the 30th Anniversary of Statehood. I am encouraged by your efforts and your team efforts of continuing on this path.
I also take this opportunity to thank two people who left the committee earlier this year, the former Co-Chair, Sue Bradley and former Executive Officer, Michael Tatham. Both Sue and Michael can be proud of the strong foundations they have built in their respective roles on the Statehood Steering Committee. I know they wish the new Co-Chair, Fran Kilgariff, and new Executive Officer, Carolynne James, all the best in this next 18 months of important work leading up to the Constitutional Convention in 2010.
Madam Speaker, I say, in closing, that this is about harnessing the hearts of our fellow Australians around the country to encourage us to join them at the seat of Federation as the seventh state in the Federation.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Statehood for her statement and support her in all the comments that have been put before the House today.
I agree. It is now a matter of getting on with some serious action and our biggest challenge is not going to be the people of the Northern Territory. Our biggest challenge is going to be the people in the southern states, particularly in some strange place called Canberra, where a species inhabits some of the year. That is the biggest challenge, getting the federal politicians to fully understand what statehood means and what it means to the Northern Territory.
Like the minister, whilst I was not born in the Northern Territory, I grew up here and I share the vision with the minister for us to get the grant of statehood and bring fairness and equity to the Northern Territory, which we currently do not have.
I was around when self-government was granted to the Northern Territory and there are probably only a few members in the parliament who were around at that time. I was also around when we had the first push for statehood under the then Chief Minister, Steve Hatton, which involved going on show circuits and having major displays. That was our first public foray and it was reasonably successful at the time, albeit many people did not fully understand the implications of statehood.
I was also around, as was the minister, for the second push involved for statehood, which also included the convention in which I was a participant. Whilst it was well intentioned, it was probably not managed as well as it could have been.
I have seen firsthand, as have members of this parliament, how the Commonwealth has at times treated the Northern Territory with distain and, some would argue, disrespect.
We have had the famous overturning of our Northern Territory legislation, the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, and all that has fallen out of that. Some time before that, some members in the House may recall that we also had other Northern Territory legislation overridden by the Commonwealth, which was the proposal to put a mitigation dam in the Charles River, so that the Todd River did not flood all the time. The minister may recall that, that was the Heritage Act which was enacted to override the Northern Territory government at that time.
Of course, we have seen the upheaval and the controversy around the proposal for a low level nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory and, more recently, the intervention.
What is more, apart from those things that have gone by us, which is in the past and we have to move forward, is that the Commonwealth at any point in time can dissolve this parliament - a parliament that has been elected by the people. Quite frankly, I do not think that is good enough for the people of the Northern Territory. There are many things that we do not control as a consequence of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and the fact that we are only a self governing territory. It is time now that the Northern Territory was granted statehood and given full rights to manage our own affairs. What is within our borders and land management issues should be the purview of this parliament.
We do a lot of administrative work for the Commonwealth and yet we are not receiving some of the benefits from the work that we do. Classic amongst this is Ashmore and Cartier Islands where the Northern Territory handles all the administration, but we do not get any of the direct benefits from the activities in that area.
We are treated as second class citizens. The time has come, as the minister has outlined, for us to have fairness and equity; to put aside some of the differences that may have existed in the past between us and the Commonwealth and, perhaps, between industry and land councils as well as between the different sides of politics. Yes, we learn from the past but it is now time for us to move forward in a cohesive manner. It is not going to be an easy task. We know that. We know there will be items we will not be able to agree on, we know there is going to be a fairly difficult and complicated transfer, patriation of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act to the Northern Territory. It is a matter now of getting down and trying to work through our differences.
We know there will be issues with some of the other legislation; there are approximately 29 pieces of legislation that either pertain fully to the Northern Territory or pertain in part to the Northern Territory that have to be negotiated across to the Northern Territory parliament on the granting of statehood.
We know that representation is going to be a stickler, as well, particularly with the Commonwealth and those curious beasts that reside in Canberra. Again, it is about fairness and equity. We have to work on those issues and with those curious beasts to try to get proper and fair representation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister on her statement. I know on our side of the parliament we do believe it has bipartisan support. We have to work together, not only with our fellow Territorians but also to get it into the thick heads of those federal parliamentarians that it is time for us to have statehood.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support the Minister for Statehood’s first ministerial statement. Congratulations. It is an extremely important topic.
Statehood has been on the agenda for many years, as far back as 1947 when it was mentioned as a goal in the launch edition of the Centralian Advocate newspaper. It has not only been on the Territory’s agenda but also the Commonwealth’s. Even then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, indicated that statehood was only a few short years away.
Much work was achieved in the late 1980s and early 1990s culminating in the 1998 referendum. While the result deferred the process of statehood, it has not defeated it. What that result clearly demonstrated, is that we have to bring the people of the Northern Territory with us if we wish to achieve the goal of statehood. That is the most important step in this process; only by energising and educating people to the potential benefits of becoming a state can we establish a general consensus for change.
It is a big step. No one is pretending otherwise. There are major legal, social and constitutional implications. Importantly, two years ago, in September 2006 the then Chief Minister created the portfolio of Minister for Statehood to help guide this process. It was pleasing to see the Opposition Leader followed suit and appointed a shadow minister for Statehood, the member for Blain.
Much work has been undertaken by many people over the years in an effort to attain statehood for the Territory. It is vital that we learn from the experiences of the past. The minister mentioned that statehood will not just happen by default, nor should it. It is up to the Territory government to continue providing support to the Statehood Steering Committee so they can get on with the job of educating and communicating with Territorians about all aspects of the Territory becoming a state.
Statehood will only happen if the people of the Northern Territory want it. I look forward to being involved personally and recognise that when steps are taken to implement statehood the Attorney-General will have an active role in the process of providing advice to government. We need to engage with the Commonwealth to ensure the terms and conditions of statehood suit us. I am pleased to note the minister’s views on the positive engagement and encouragement provided by the federal government on this issue.
Today is an appropriate day to be debating the issue; the day Senator Brown re-introduced his bill regarding euthanasia. Putting the very important subject matter that is within that bill to one side, it is important to remember that the original incarnation of this bill aimed to automatically re-impose legislation upon the Territory with no consultation as to its effect and implications for Territorians.
Whilst I acknowledge Senator Brown’s current amendments to this bill, federal parliament makes very important legal changes like this for one reason - it can. Federal politicians, if they so choose, can use the Territory as an experimental petri dish. Federal imposition remains a constant shadow over our heads as long as we remain a Territory. It is a basic fact - and I am not saying this in any partisan way - that Territorians will never have the final say in policy directions of laws in this jurisdiction. That needs to change.
Our law-making powers are not guaranteed like those of the Commonwealth and can be taken away by the Commonwealth should it decide to do so. Freedom to legislate is of fundamental importance. We have seen several examples, both here and in the ACT, where the Commonwealth can intervene and laws passed by Assemblies can be overturned - or laws that may have been passed were not, simply because the Commonwealth indicated they were not immediately moved to overturn them. At heart, we do not have the same rights as people in the states. This includes our role and contribution to the content of the very basis of our democracy - the constitution.
Territorian votes in a referendum have less value as they are not counted to determine whether a majority of states have agreed to a referendum proposal. Until 1977, Territorians did not even have the right to vote in a referendum and, for many years, did not have a say in changes to the Australian Constitution. Statehood means that Territorians will finally have equality and a clear legislative ability without Commonwealth interference, and a guaranteed future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the minister for setting out how far we have come, how far we have to go, and what steps will take us there. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened with interest to the Health minister and his comments in relation to statehood. There is a part of his statement that I wish to pick up on.
It is interesting - and I suspect not many Territorians or many Australians realise this - that the Australian Constitution is a bill or an act of the British parliament. It is England which passed the Australian Constitution Act, and it was England that constituted Australia as a self-governing federation as a result of a long and drawn-out process in which Australian citizens took their colonies and submitted to the Crown, and to the British parliament, that those colonies should be combined into a Commonwealth of colonies under a particular set of arrangements. They went to England with a proposal in mind, and that proposal became the Constitution of Australia.
The Northern Territory does have a constitution. The constitution of the Northern Territory is the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act (Commonwealth) 1978. This legislation constitutes us as a self-governing Territory. That is really at the heart of this particular argument.
I would be impressed if our political masters in Canberra were to subordinate themselves to England today in such a way as to accept a decision to - for argument’s sake - repeal legislation that the English do not like in Australia. I suspect that if the British parliament and the Commons and the Lords conspired to take away our constitutional rights by repealing legislation that establishes the Constitution of Australia, we would be a republic in about 25 seconds of that announcement being made. Australia would not stomach nor tolerate such an outrageous imposition of legislative authority from such a far-flung place, and such a remote society as England, as compared to ours today.
Let us place that into the context in which Canberra, with relentless and dreadful disregard, quite happily turns over legislation and interferes in our jurisdiction in ways that would be unconstitutional in this country, and we have to stomach it. I get very passionate about this particular issue, because I actually have a mandate of the people of the Northern Territory to stand here and make laws on their behalf. The quality of that mandate is not diminished by the fact that our electorates are smaller here. The quality of that mandate is not diminished by any other factor than some legislative instrument that presides over us from afar. If the quality of the mandate of the Prime Minister of Australia was diminished by England, he would be screaming from the rafters, and I would join him as part of the chorus of 20 million people who would tell England to go and stick it right up their nose.
For some reason, where they would be so precious in such circumstances, they are not so precious in these circumstances to inflict upon us a treatment that they would find unacceptable, and they do it very readily and with little regard to the outcomes of that decision. I heard the Minister for Health makes his observations in relation to the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, and I will not enter into the debate about the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act because there is a more fundamental and important principle underlying this - and that is our right to make that decision.
I note that when Senator Bob Brown, of the Australian Greens, recently introduced a bill to overturn the effect of the Andrews bill, which amended self-government legislation, all self-government legislation in Australia, to the effect that self-governing territories, be they Norfolk Island, the Australian Capital Territory, or the Northern Territory, cannot legislate in relation to the issue of voluntary euthanasia. That bill by Senator Brown will have the effect, and only the effect, of repealing the Andrews bill which put those terms into place.
I checked that very carefully. I read the legislation, and I thought: Hurrah! I could actually agree with Senator Bob Brown on something. What an unusual circumstance. However, I do agree with the senator, not because I support euthanasia particularly, but rather because he is attempting to remit to this House the capacity for us to fully and freely exercise the mandate which we have been given by the people who voted for us in the Northern Territory. That I support.
The bill that Bob Brown introduced went off to a Senate Committee, as so many Senate bills do for some investigation, and a very nasty side effect has been identified, which I am very surprised that the minister has not mentioned to date. Because that bill was remitted to the Senate committee it invited comments from the public. I was always under the impression, as were so many other Territorians, that section 109 of the Australian Constitution dealing with inconsistent legislation between the states and the Commonwealth, applied to the Northern Territory.
Section 109 of the Constitution basically says where a state law and a Commonwealth law are at odds with each other, the Commonwealth law, I think the language goes something like ‘shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency only’, which means where there is a Commonwealth law that overrides a state law, and there is an inconsistency between that Commonwealth law and that state law, the state law is nullified, or held in abeyance, it is not even nullified, to the extent of the inconsistency only. So should the Commonwealth law change, the state law on the statutory books would then be resurrected by virtue of the fact that the inconsistency had disappeared.
I was always under the impression, and I recently checked again, that the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act is still in our statute books. I was always under the impression that section 109 would apply to us. However, section 109 says: ‘When a law of a state is inconsistent …’
Section 109 refers to states, not territories, and that is a very serious complication – I did some homework on this – the University of New South Wales Centre for Public Law, Professor George Williams and Andrew Lynch made a submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Brown bill and they made an observation, and I will quote that observation:
Now, it took me a while to figure out what they were talking about. The reference is to a rather arcane doctrine and that is called the doctrine of repugnancy. The doctrine of repugnancy comes out of the time when the superior legislature in the British Empire had ascendency over all other subordinate legislatures. So, consequently, if India legislated something which was inconsistent with a decision made inside the Palace of Westminster, the effect was that the Indian legislation was nullified, because it was repugnant to the legislation passed by the Commons and the Lords.
That is different to the parameters of section 109 of the Constitution and it is different in this important way. It is that the courts of time held by the Privy Council, as I understand it, said that the doctrine of repugnancy had the effect of actually nullifying or rendering completely void or, more importantly, repealing the legislation made by the subordinate legislature. The effect of that then is that the subordinate legislation is repealed. It is gone. It is expunged.
Because section 109 of the Australian Constitution does not apply to the Territory and its arrangements with the Commonwealth, it therefore reasonably defaults back to the doctrine of repugnancy. There is now an extremely large question mark hanging over the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act as a consequence of the operation of the doctrine of repugnancy.
I had cause to speak to one of the authors of that particular submission, Professor Williams. I was concerned that Professor Williams said that case law on the retrospective nature of the doctrine of repugnancy is next to non-existent, so it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act has effectively been rendered permanently inoperable. Consequently, it is unclear as to whether the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act actually operates or not, but all of the expert opinions that I have seen on this particular issue, suggest that in every likelihood it is.
The reason this is important is that this now raises another issue for us in the Northern Territory, because we can now compare our self-government act to the self-government act which operates in the Australian Capital Territory. That self-government act has a provision in it which, although not mirroring the effects of section 109 of the Australian Constitution, does have the effect of interpreting legislation in such a way that when there is an inconsistency with the federal legislature, the Australian Capital Territory’s legislation is not nullified.
As a consequence, we are not first class citizens in this country. We are not second class citizens in this country. We are third class citizens and we are third class politicians. The reason that we are third class politicians is because if we pass a law and Canberra passes a law which contradicts it, our law is expunged. If Canberra passes a law - and I am talking about the Legislative Assembly of the ACT - and it is inconsistent with federal law, at least it is not expunged, it is merely held in abeyance.
I have commenced discussions with the Senator for the Northern Territory, Senator Nigel Scullion, on this particular issue. We are going to have ongoing discussions in relation to this because it opens the opportunity to amend the constitution of the Northern Territory, which is the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act in its current form.
The capacity to change and amend the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, to enhance it in a whole bunch of ways, may be something that we, as legislators, want to visit over time because it actually provides us with a back door to enhance the quality of the rights we have available to us. So, rather than relying necessarily on the operation of section 121 of the Australian Constitution, we can start to enhance our constitutional strength by at least looking at the legislation that constitutes us as an operational jurisdiction at the moment.
Consequently, there is any number of things that we might want to look at in terms of improved circumstances and seeing if we can, through some bipartisan process, actually talk to each other about going to the federal government and, over time, improving the quality of the self-government act with amendments as we approach statehood.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that may be the piecemeal way of approaching the issue, but for somebody who has been a second and now third class citizen in the country in which he lives for the entire time he has lived in this country, I am prepared to desperately apply almost any approach to improve the quality of my citizenship, which is substantially diminished by the current administrative arrangements here in the Northern Territory.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish I could speak so eloquently, but this will be short. I congratulate the minister for her ministerial statement today.
I appreciate the opportunity to use a bipartisan approach, it is very refreshing. I appreciate the opportunity to be involved in making history and, more importantly, achieving equality for all Territorians.
Equality is important for many reasons, no more so than this House’s ability to make laws for Territorians without fear of intervention from the Commonwealth. The member for Goyder touched on the difficulties we may face in Canberra. Let me tell you, the member for Fannie Bay and I are already working on a plan of influence, you might say.
At the moment our legislation is toyed with by some southern senator. This strikes at the very heart of the issue. I recall the legislation in regard to voluntary euthanasia and no matter what side of the fence you sit on that argument, the fact is that another jurisdiction toyed with our legislation. Until we can all stand here with the absolute certainty that what happens here, stays here and cannot be tampered with, this bipartisan support will not end.
Freedom to introduce laws, to ensure good governance is very important to everyone in this room. I look forward to working with the committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the minister for taking Statehood forward into the future.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the statement by the Minister for Statehood. Her statement is a clear indication of her passion and how the drive is about moving all Territorians forward. It is about the rights of Territorians, it is about protecting the rights of Territorians, not just in the present day but Territorians in the future.
This is such an important issue for the Territory, it goes to the very heart of who we are as Territorians.
As I said earlier in my statement on the eco-link, we are a bowl, a fruit salad bowl - we have Greeks, Asians, Aboriginals, old Territorians, young Territorians, we really are a multicultural society. It is a journey of recognising our rights, a journey of involvement, and statehood will mould us altogether as the seventh state.
I pay tribute to the Minister for Statehood. She deserves great credit for the fantastic work she has done in bringing the statehood issue back onto the local and national agenda in such an inclusive and informed manner. She will do a marvellous job as the Minister for Statehood in the future. She is young and the future is hers and every person her age, and it is good to see young people driving the Territory into a new light. She is also doing it with the full support of her Chief Minister and the Labor team.
I thank the Chief Minister for his comments on statehood. The Chief Minister spent time in his Address-in-Reply to the Administrator reiterating his personal commitment, and the commitment of this government, to achieving statehood. That binds the Chief Minister with the Minister for Statehood, members on this side, the bipartisan approach we have had from the opposition as leaders and duly elected members of the Legislative Assembly. We are the drivers of statehood, carrying Territorians of the past, present and future, with us and having one vision: striving to ensure that we maintain our rights as the seventh state.
I acknowledge the bipartisan approach that has been taken, to date, by the opposition and, in particular, the Leader of the Opposition. As the minister stated, without a bipartisan approach, statehood will not occur. I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for his support and his commitment to a vision of unity and people walking together on this journey. This is not about whether you are in the Labor Party or the CLP. This is fighting for the rights of Territorians. That is why bipartisanship is appreciated.
I now pick up on some of the key points raised by the minister in her statement and express my support for them.
First, the minister said we are committed to statehood but we will not do it in the divisive way it was attempted in the past - an act that set back the process many years. I remember that time. I was one of the people, with my grandfather, Harry Nelson, who is sitting in the gallery today, and others from the Central Land Council area who took up the fight with the then Northern Territory government because there was lack of consultation and lack of involvement. We felt, as Indigenous people, that we were not involved in the decision-making or part of walking this journey together. That is partly why we protested against it.
I strongly support this point: we need to involve everyone in the statehood process and not leave anyone behind. That is the key point here. If we stop talking to people and not involving everyone - whether they be Indigenous people or other groups - then we will get the blockade we had back then.
The minister’s message is very clear: she will consult with everybody. There will be workshops to make sure that everyone is included, and she wants everyone to feel included in this journey.
Second, the minister said the Statehood Steering Committee has a crucial community role in educating people, discussing statehood, and consulting independently of government. That has been highlighted. The independence of the steering committee is very important so people know there is no connection or involvement from either side of government,, or anyone else, driving statehood. I commend the government and the minister for that.
Third, the minister said we know that constitutional change in Australia takes a long time. We also know if people feel rushed or bullied, they will react against that, but I think Territorians are prepared for that long journey now. When we have people like the Minister for Statehood at the front, the Opposition Leader, members of the steering committee and the member for Goyder as shadow minister for statehood, I think Territorians feel confident that our rights will be looked after. And that is crucial to Aboriginal people understand statehood, as well. I believe Aboriginal people have felt left out and feel they do not understanding it, therefore they say: if we are not informed and we do not know what is going on, then we do not want to be part of it.
The initiatives that the steering committee has taken in education strategies and making sure that everyone is involved, minister, is a key driver in people feeling informed, and they will follow. People can see, through the education strategies and the meetings being planned and prepared, that they are being included, and I think there will be high level of participation in these meetings.
Minister, as the Minister for Central Australia, and speaker of several Aboriginal languages, I will commit to you and the steering committee that, wherever I can help with my language skills, and as the Minister for Central Australia, I will do so.
It is very important that the key message of where statehood is going and our rights as Territorians is given to Indigenous people in their own language so they feel fully informed and know we are travelling the road to achieving this goal together.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement to the House.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on our journey to becoming the seventh state of Australia. This journey is critical to our future, our identity, and to the evolution of the Territory as a modern, independent state.
It is a journey that started, nearly 100 years ago with the loss of representation in 1911. That was when the land we know as the Northern Territory was excised from South Australia and came under Commonwealth control. Our identity and the reputation of Territorians as having a fierce, independent spirit was forged during those times, by our early Territorians who took strident action against taxation without that representation. We do not like being told what to do by people down south, and that is an attitude I think is still common today. Our independent spirit has helped build this place and forged our identity.
The story of the demise of the controversial Administrator, John Gilruth, shortly after World War I, helped illustrate this emerging identity. I thank Alan Powell and Frank Alcorta. Their work informed some of my comments on Gilruth and our early Territorians and is a story I am sure has been told in this House before.
The Darwin Rebellion has been compared to the Rum Rebellion and the Eureka Stockade, and it all started with what an official from down south might perceive as a trivial issue.
In 1918, everyone celebrated the end of the war, and it seemed only fair that the women working in the state hotels should have a few hours off to join the celebrations. Everyone down at the pub thought it was a good idea and they were more than happy to dine somewhere else. However, Gilruth in his wisdom, refused to grant leave - the women took it anyway - and when they came to work the next day, they found themselves locked out by order of the Administrator.
Closing a pub is never a good idea, especially when alcohol prices are already a problem and kept rising. A closed pub with expensive beer led to a significantly angry crowd of between 400 and 1000 people - depending on the reports you read - marching from Parap to Government House. When they arrived, Mr Gilruth did not help his case by releasing a statement declaring he was answerable only to the federal minister; he did not recognise the citizens of Darwin as having any authority over him. A red rag to a bull, you could say. To his credit, he came out after a few minutes and repeated his statement to the crowd, in person. However, his courage backfired. The crowd swarmed him and, although he managed to escape, windows were broken and his effigy was burnt.
The story has a postscript. Gilruth admitted in a letter to the Prime Minister that he knew reducing the price of beer would have ensured a peaceful end to the march, but he decided against it - because Treasury would not have been pleased.
There are a couple of lessons from the Darwin Rebellion: always watch the price of beer, limit the power of Treasury and, most importantly, Territorians should govern themselves. Their fight, independent spirit and sheer bloody mindness has been passed down the generations. I know I carry a responsibility to continue that fight, not just as a fourth generation Territorian, but as a member of this Legislative Assembly.
We are here today as members in this Chamber under a self-government act that is limited in its ability to allow us to govern ourselves. We are aware of its limitations because we have had our laws overturned. All members in this House would agree that a fierce independent spirit still exists in the Northern Territory; the member for Nelson is living proof of that. Despite this spirit, the last step on this journey, the one to statehood, has been our most difficult.
The member for Arnhem explained that people voted no largely because they felt excluded and uninformed. In tackling the problem of exclusion, in trying to inform people about statehood we must understand why Territorians might feel we are not ready to take the last step.
There are three reasons I believe this last step has been our most difficult. We have struggled to accept that we have the confidence and ability to engage with the rest of Australia on an equal footing. We have struggled to accept that we have the ability to engage in our region as a full partner in the Australian Commonwealth. We have struggled to accept we have the maturity to govern ourselves and control our future.
In a nutshell, these are the reasons why, I feel, the majority of Territorians felt we were not ready to take that last hard step in 1998. Perhaps they were right. But we have moved on since then. We now have one of the nation’s strongest and most vibrant economies. We have a steadily growing population. We are now a key player in our region, respected and self assured. We have one of the nation’s great lifestyles. In short, we have matured and we have grown. While the vote did not lose by much last time, lose it did. But as this country’s journey to federation at the turn of the last century, independence is never easy, and it rarely happens without setbacks.
The next time the Territory votes, we must not settle for just winning. We need to have garnered massive support right across the Northern Territory. That is why the task of the Statehood Steering Committee is so vital; that is why their work in engaging Territorians is so vital.
I take this opportunity to recognise the efforts of previous members on the Legal and Constitutional Committee: James Burke, Fay Miller, the member for Stuart and the member for Blain. And last, but not least, the member for Arnhem, whose work as Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee and now as the Minister for Statehood, has been instrumental in leading this process. I look forward to working with the member for Goyder, the member for Brennan, the member for Arnhem and the member for Nightcliff on the new Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee.
From this parliamentary committee, three members are elected to be on the 19 strong, Statehood Steering Committee. Before the last election, the member for Goyder was an important member of the Statehood Steering Committee and she will continue her work in a different role and I look forward to working with her, the member for Arnhem and all other members of the Statehood Steering Committee.
We have important work ahead of us and it is work that we can not take lightly. We are new shoulders at a wheel that has been pushed for nearly 100 years. Over the next 18 months the work of the Statehood Steering Committee will change direction - from a focus on education and information distribution to active discussion with Territorians through constitutional workshops.
The focus will be about what type of state we want to be apart of. The discussion needs to be broad, taking in all Territorians, from people versed in constitutional law to those with a passion for the Territory, who believe we should be the best we can be.
It is important that these meetings are robust, that they are well attended and that everyone has a chance to have their say. I am sure there will be lively debate at times, but the purpose of these workshops is to listen and learn, not to criticise anyone’s opinion, but to encourage all to participate fully. The workshops will start early next year and run right through until the end of the year. Our journey to statehood needs to be driven by the community and it needs to be supported by the community.
I have spoken with the member for Arnhem, and, other members of the constitutional committee agree that as we change step from education to active discussion we need to make sure we involve young Territorians, not just those over 18 with the right to vote today, but our young Territorians now in high school and middle school. We need to respect and include their thoughts in our journey to statehood. They should be a part of the shaping of our and their future.
Statehood will only work if it is genuinely wanted by a large majority of Territorians and genuinely supported by all political parties. The 25 members of Legislative Assembly are some of our most important community leaders. I encourage all members of this Chamber to get behind these workshops; to encourage their constituents to attend and to back this consultative and inclusive approach. The Statehood Secretariat is happy to work with you if you want to organise meetings in your own areas with local schools, seniors groups, community organisations or the general community. Collaboration is the key. For example, I would be very happy to work with the member for Port Darwin to get community members in our two electorates to meetings and even create specific communities of our own.
This change of approach needs to be matched by a new way of engaging with other Australians, both in Canberra and with ordinary Australians around the country: a decision of the Territory’s transition to statehood be made by all Australians. If the denial of representation started our drive for self determination, then surely a quality of independence of other states should be enough motivation for us now. In other words, we are Australian and should have the rights and independent governance all other Australians take for granted.
We should not be content with the facsimile of independence, some might say, that the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act provides today. Gilruth learned a harsh lesson about the independence of Territorians 90-odd years ago. We are still an independent mob, but unlike those early days, we now look outward and engage confidently with a rapidly changing world. Our constitutional arrangements must reflect this independence and they must reflect our place in the world.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with all members on our journey from a territory to a state. I commend the statement to the House.
Members: Hear! Hear!
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am in whole-hearted support of the Minister for Statehood’s statement in the House today. I am fully aware, listening to the debates of the total, on-going bipartisan commitment to statehood. I thank all members of this House for that bipartisan commitment. As the member for Fannie Bay so eloquently said in the preceding speech, without total bipartisan political support for statehood across the Northern Territory, we are doomed not to achieve what we aspire to. It is fantastic to hear this continued bipartisan support.
Statehood means Territorians will enjoy the same political and constitutional right as other Australians - the right to govern ourselves. We are elected to this parliament. We have just recently had an election in the Northern Territory and our constituents, who put that faith in us to represent them here, to make laws for the people of the Northern Territory, have every confidence in this parliament to make good laws and govern well. They do not want to be represented and over-ruled by politicians in Canberra who have absolutely no connection or affiliation with this place.
That is not why we are elected to this parliament. Whether it is in the member for Macdonnell’s home communities of Papunya and Hermannsburg, or my communities of Wanguri and Leanyer, those people do not want people sitting in Canberra making laws, over-turning laws passed in this House by members of parliament who have been elected in the Northern Territory.
It is a very simple equation to put to Territorians. It is simple in that terminology and understanding, but obviously very complicated in terms of the constitutional issues that need to be addressed: the terms and conditions for the Northern Territory to become a state. This debate has to be generated from within the people of the Northern Territory and demanded by the people of the Northern Territory.
Currently, we do not have the same level of decision-making as our cousins in the states. The reality is, constitutionally, we are second-class citizens. When we think about not this parliament, but the people of the Northern Territory, it is the people of the Northern Territory who are, constitutionally within the Federation of Australia, second-class citizens.
I find that offensive because Territorians create, deliver and contribute so much to the great nation of Australia. That our citizens should be constitutionally second-class, given all that we contribute to this great nation of Australia, is offensive. Look at the professional people who live and work amongst us. We have some of the best professional people in the country - doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, scientists; you can run through all the professions – constitutionally, they are second-class citizens compared to their colleagues in the other states.
Look at our Indigenous people in the Northern Territory, custodians of a 40 000-year-old - maybe longer - living culture; creators of globally renowned and highly sought-after arts; custodians and carers of over half of the land mass of the Northern Territory. Our Indigenous Territorians, constitutionally, are second-class citizens of this country compared to their cousins who live across the border in South Australia and Western Australia and have fewer constitutional rights. It is offensive.
Look at our business people, some of whom are the greatest business people in Australia. Why are the people who are running the major mining companies in the Northern Territory second class, compared to other people?
It is an absolute absurdity as to why, in 2008, Territorians cannot take their place as constitutional equals with our cousins, our brothers, our sisters, the family of the rest of the Australian population. It is also illogical, as well as offensive.
One group of Australians, say, the residents of Kununurra get to vote in a constitution referendum and they have twice the votes as somebody in Timber Creek just across the border. It is absolutely illogical. Why does a soldier based at Laverack Barracks in Townsville have a greater constitutional status, as a citizen, than a soldier at Robertson Barracks in Palmerston? It does not make any sense; it is absolutely illogical. This issue should be resolved in the near to immediate future.
However, I think all we agree - and this is not being political – that the attempt we made a decade ago, obviously did not work. The majority of people voted against that and, in spite of support from both sides of politics, there were clear messages to both sides of politics regarding the way it was attempted last time. When you look at the booth-by-booth results, as to the referendum question that was put 10 years ago, for the CLP heartland, the question was lost in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine - centres of CLP support since the birth of the party.
For the Labor Party, the question went down in every single one of the predominantly Indigenous electorates. On both our sides, we all lost the opportunity in the way the question was put and the climate in which the question was put the last time. Neither political party came out of it unscathed. Look at some of the booth-by-booth results in the northern suburbs of Darwin as well. It is quite fascinating to go to the Electoral Commission website - all the data is still there - and look booth-by-booth at what did happen with that question across the Northern Territory.
In the Labor heartland and the CLP heartland, essentially, the vote was reflected. It was lost because a majority of Territorians did not trust the politicians. That was why it was lost; it came down to the trust equation. The age-old Australian suspicion of authority and power came through, and the majority of Territorians who voted no did not trust the politicians and the body politic of the day in what they being asked to do and decided that they would continue to trust the Australian parliament in Canberra over this parliament here. It came down to a trust equation, and I believe, fundamentally, there has to be a different climate this time.
The people who go to the polls, whenever they go to the polls to vote on the referendum, have to feel that they trust the people in this parliament to take those issues forward to take that big step. That is why the next campaign has to be a genuine push from the people of the Territory. It must be a grassroots community campaign for statehood; it was a grassroots community campaign that delivered the no vote for statehood. We must have a grassroots community campaign demanding statehood and calling for statehood. That is where we have to move to.
I believe one of the great failures of the 1998 campaign was the lack of an articulated Commonwealth position on statehood. Territorians were asked to vote to be granted statehood, but what were the terms and conditions of the Commonwealth government and parliament’s grant of statehood? What were those terms and conditions going to be? Those questions were not answered, so Territorians went to the polling booth, not really understanding what they were voting for. Those issues have to be addressed and determined well before the question is put next time so Territorians really understand what it is they are voting for.
I am still being asked, when I talk about statehood to constituents of the Northern Territory: ‘Won’t we be worse off? Won’t they take money from us?’ I am astounded at the number of times I am asked that question. Fundamentally, people do not understand that since, I think it was February 1996, we have been treated, through the Grants Commission, as an equivalent to the states. People somehow think if we are going to become a state, we are going to be worse off financially, and we do not want a bar of that.
The terms and conditions for statehood have to be defined and determined before we ask the question again. Quite clearly, one of the significant tasks of the Statehood Steering Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of this Northern Territory parliament, is to win the hearts and minds of both sides of politics in Canberra in the campaign for statehood.
It is a grant of the Commonwealth parliament that admits us into the Federation as a state. So, ultimately, we have to convince all sides. It is a complex political scenario in Canberra now, where you have the Greens in the Senate, you have two independents, and you have the traditional parties - the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals. We have a complex environment in Canberra where must win the hearts and minds of federal representatives, at a political level, as to why the Northern Territory should be granted statehood, and the terms and conditions.
I have spoken with the Minister for Statehood about this on many occasions. We, as a parliament, and I know the Steering Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee are going to work this out; we actually have to go to Canberra and lobby room by lobby room, door by door, party room by party room articulate our case for statehood, . That is going to be a big body of work for me as Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, as well.
I have had a number of discussions with the Prime Minister about statehood and, in principle he supports statehood for the Northern Territory, as long as it is overwhelmingly supported in the Northern Territory and those terms and conditions, those issues, are identified and determined.
Given that we are politicians and we all understand the numbers game and how numbers work, ultimately, it is going to come down to the number of senators, I believe, in regards to the terms and conditions for the grant of statehood by the Commonwealth parliament. That is an issue that we have to work through.
As well as the Territory having rights, we also have to be pragmatic and understand that there is a political side to this, and we have to be mature enough to be able to engage with our Canberra colleagues on this question. At the end of the day, politics is about vision and aspirations and a belief in a better place and a better world for the citizens we represent. But, as politicians, we understand that it has to be politically achievable, it has to be delivered with regard to the numbers in the parliaments, and that is a body of work we need to do. For it to be politically achievable it must be bipartisan and bipartisan not only in this parliament, but also in the Commonwealth parliament.
Our constitutional development toward statehood is certainly necessary. I find it, as I said, offensive that Territorians do not have the same rights politically and constitutionally as other Australians. It is totally illogical that we don’t, but I do not believe it is inevitable. We have to get this right. A vote for statehood cannot merely be assumed. It must be won through sensible and rational arguments. Statehood cannot be something that benefits sectional interests or narrow groupings. It must benefit all Territorians, and it must be supported by a substantial majority.
I do not think we would get a grant of statehood if last time 51% said no and next time 51% said yes. I think if it is 51%, 52% or 55% of the vote we will not get there. We need 80% to 90% support for statehood.
So there is much work to be done. It needs to be methodical and it needs to be diligent. We, as members of this parliament, need to encourage, as the member for Fannie Bay said, people to come to the workshops and really engage, and this, will be hard. We know Territorians lead very busy lives, they are working, they are delivering for their families and they are engaged in communities. For our Indigenous Territorians, many people are struggling from day-to-day. This a very busy and complex world that we live in and people, apart from the time they are asleep, are living and working and playing very hard. Trying to engage Territorians on the importance of statehood, and cut through on those issues, is a hard thing to do. That is why the work needs to be methodical and diligent.
I congratulate the work of the Statehood Steering Committee. I know most of the people on the committee personally and they are committed to statehood, they are hard-working and they are visionary. It will be hard work to get out there across the Territory and put this case. I thank each and every one of those 19 people and congratulate them on the work they are doing.
The constitutional workshops to be rolled out are a big step forward. Let us, through those constitutional workshops, have the debate about the terms and conditions for statehood and what Territorians would agree to, and put those issues on the table, outside the political environment, and move those issues forward.
I also thank the new Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of this House. We have some new members to the parliament on this committee and it is a bipartisan committee. In spite of all of the argy bargy that goes on in here, and it has been a very robust start to the 11th Assembly of the Northern Territory, it is good to see that we can have the arguments on issues of substance that we have to have. However, we need to put the political issues aside, for the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory, whilst we work with them to progress the citizens of the Northern Territory to be equal before the constitution with the rest of Australia.
I thank the Statehood Secretariat staff who contribute so much to the running of the Statehood Steering Committee: Nora Kempster, Marise Riddell, Poppy Lelekis and Carolynne James – all of those people – and some of them are in the gallery. They do an enormous amount of work with the Steering Committee, and I thank you for your commitment to statehood.
This is a very exciting time. I have lived in the Northern Territory for just over 25 years now; my children were born here and my wife is from here. This is the best place on earth to raise a family. I believe the Territory has come a long way since I first came here. There are many members in this parliament who were born here. I can only talk about my experience over the half of my life I have lived here.
The maturity of this place is shown by the fact that we are coming together - whether it is people from Central Australia, the Top End, Indigenous, non-Indigenous - that multicultural aspect is there. This is a much more mature body politic than it was 25 years ago. Our time is coming. We can work through those issues. We can present a united case to Canberra and we can convince our colleagues in Canberra.
I am very hopeful, with the work of the Statehood Steering Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the bipartisan support of everybody in this House, we can achieve the dream of statehood.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister on her statement. I thank the minister for her absolute commitment, contribution, dedication and belief in statehood. She is doing a fantastic job and is absolutely the right person in my Cabinet to take this forward.
Members: Hear! Hear!
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I would like to add a few comments to this statement. I congratulate the minister and the committee for bringing it forward. It is carried by the minister, but I am sure she would acknowledge it is the committee that is really driving this. It is a bipartisan approach, and that is the way I treat this very important subject.
My experience with the statehood debate goes back to the 1998 vote when I was living at Timber Creek. When it went down, people, friends of mine from interstate were asking the question: ‘What happened?’ I believe it was a question of maturity and, far from us saying we were not ready for it, we were saying we understood what was required but we were not going to accept something we were not comfortable with. The model developed did not have the support of people and they were not going to accept what was put forward. At that point, the Territory was a very mature jurisdiction and they were saying they wanted to get it right and to have something that could go forward to the Commonwealth parliament to gain statehood. It was something that I was proud of the Territory for doing; they did not accept an inferior type of model.
Around the communities to which I travelled at the time, because it was done during the federal election, from my memory, there was a great deal of confusion out bush. People really did not know what it all meant, what it was all about, what they were voting for. A member of the Timber Creek community was chosen to be part of the conference which developed the model. I do not think she was from our side of politics, but she was contacting the organisation I worked for, asking for advice because people came to Darwin to participate in this conference and were given a set of books the night before the start of conference, and expected to make decisions. So, that person, who supported statehood very strongly, was very confused about the process undertaken.
This approach of steady, solid work going on through the communities really is the way to go. I must acknowledge the work of my current electorate officer, Sharon McAlear, who is a passionate supporter of statehood. She was born in the Territory and she really wants to see it through. She works on the stalls and goes to all the shows. Any chance she gets to talk about it, she certainly does.
As I said, people from interstate ask me what happened. When I travel, people recognise the Territory as being a legitimate jurisdiction; it promotes itself, you do business with the government and other bodies in the Territory, and it is generally seen, in other parts of Australia, as a legitimate jurisdiction. So, in time, it would follow that they would be supportive of the Territory having legitimacy within the Federation.
At a personal level, I will be trying to get my friends and family from interstate, and any fellow parliamentarians I come into contact with, giving them statehood badges from the Territory and making them aware of where we want to go and why they should also spread the message that the Northern Territory is ready for statehood, that we are working at producing a model and will be taking it to the Commonwealth government to seek recognition within the Commonwealth.
It is worthwhile remembering, that Federation was a long and arduous process. At the time of Federation, Western Australia was not a part of the original states. It was in the constitution if they wanted to come in and, from my recollection, New Zealand was as well. There has been an evolution of governance within Australia, and this is another part of it. The whole debate about becoming a republic is all part of that evolution of Australia standing on its own two feet, and that is reflected in the Northern Territory wanting to stand on its own two feet and have some real legitimacy.
Recently, there was discussion about the flag and whether we should have the Union Jack in the corner of our flag. What I was looking at in the flag was the Commonwealth star which is made up of seven points: six for the states and one for the territories. I am wondering, if we become a state, do we get our own star? It would give us more legitimacy, and we could see where we actually sit on the Australian flag.
It is little things like that. When you watch the weather on the news, sometimes we are on, sometimes we are off. In reports about the economic development of Australia or anything like that, sometimes we are on, sometimes we are off. We are sometimes treated in very different ways because of our status as a territory.
With this move ahead to statehood, I will, at every opportunity - at ministerial council meetings or visits to interstate parliaments and the Commonwealth parliament - be lobbying fellow parliamentarians about our desire and readiness to become a state, and try to get those members, whether they be in state parliament or federal parliament, to come on board. They come here and they enjoy their time here; they realise we do a lot for the economy of Australia and we should be given some legitimacy. We are a very legitimate jurisdiction. We engage, not only interstate, but at a regional level. The Minister for Asian Relations is often out of the country talking with other governments and businesses, and when those businesses come to the Northern Territory, they engage with the Northern Territory government, whoever it may be at the time. We are treated as a legitimate government, a legitimate jurisdiction, and we just need to go that extra step forward.
The last referendum was quite contentious. The Chief Minister has just talked about the actual vote, and the numbers were very strange,. Some places, you would think, are more conservative than others, but it was strange the way the votes went. People were really split down the middle; it cut across gender lines, age groups, ethnic groups, and it should not have been that way. We should all be moving together with this debate. We should not be divided on it.
It is not about the politics. It is about us, the people of the Northern Territory, having some legitimacy as we move forward; we cannot accept that we will be a Territory for the rest of our time. The Territory is ready. It has a larger population than Tasmania and Western Australia when they came into the Federation. The Territory’s population is growing, and growing very quickly. As Territorians, whether you have been here a month or your whole life, we need that recognition.
I congratulate the minister on her efforts, and I encourage the committee to keep on with their work.
There are many people, I am sure, who would want to become ambassadors, who want to talk to their families who live in southern states, or friends who come to visit, to get the message and go back and tell other people: their parliamentary colleagues, their workmates or their business colleagues, that the Northern Territory is ready. That the Territory will be going to the Commonwealth parliament to ask for legitimate recognition as the next state.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister, and I look forward to further updates.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I support this very important statement. I acknowledge you, member for Arnhem, Minister for Statehood, for bringing this statement forward at this time, and the Chief Minister for his comments that reinforced the need to take a bipartisan approach in this. I acknowledge those who are listening to our debate here, who support the important work of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Statehood Steering Committee.
It is good to be in the company of those who are close to this activity, to monitor it and to see whether we are going through the motions or whether we are going somewhere. I was elected in 1999, the same time as the member for Wanguri, the Chief Minister, the same day, in fact. The first day I entered the parliament, I was given the position by my colleagues on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. That was some time ago, and I have been to many, many meetings. We have had a number of talks in this parliament, and not a lot has changed.
There was a referendum; we commented on that. I came into the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the aftermath of that referendum, and we spent about four-and-a-half years talking about that and where we would go now. There was a change of government and now we are resetting the agenda and we are working towards it. I do not think we need to convince each other that statehood is something we desire. The arguments are sound. It is a legitimate call now.
Our immediate task is to let people understand what it is. When you put the simple argument to any Territorian, in fact any Australian, they accept the logic of the argument. How could this great nation have within it a group who are, in many ways regarded as a state but, in fact, constitutionally inferior? That needs to be corrected.
The argument – I have heard it in the comments that have been made in the Chamber – is compelling. However, we do not need to convince each other as much as we need to convince Canberra, because we could continue talking in here for the next 10, 15, 20 years and make not a jot of difference to those who hold our destiny in their hands and that is, the federal parliament. It is a Commonwealth act.
Consider it this way. If the opposition were to raise a proposition and present a bill to the Territory parliament - and I do not recall in my time any bill proposed by the opposition which has been accepted by the government because there are all sorts of issues attached to accepting what comes from the opposition - in a very similar way, for the Territory to propose to the Commonwealth that we become the next state, it has a lot of complications in the minds of those who are going to give that consent. The power is in their hands. How we move their hand is the issue. Not to continue our arguments and discussions amongst each other. It is edifying to some degree, but how do we move the hand of the one who has the power to change our constitutional status? That is the challenge.
The first part of is to ensure that our community understands it. We can keep that fire going for some time, but you cannot keep it going indefinitely. We need to keep that dialogue going because there are issues that come and go and attract people’s attention and hold it for some time, and then fade away.
It is difficult to maintain a strong position on statehood in the wider community, because it is abstract. That is why reaching the schools to help them understand their status and their rights and responsibilities as Australian citizens and the constitutional deficiency in the Northern Territory is so important. It is very important that schools be supported through good curriculum material and presentations from MLAs to keep that message going. We have an obligation to keep talking about it. If it is left to others, if it is left just to the committee, we will not have enough energy to keep the fire going. We all need to be involved in it, all saying it, all taking the opportunity, putting it in your newsletters, keeping it going – keep banging the drum, about that initiative. I am very pleased this initiative has been devised, that we go to Canberra and make a noise there - bang the drum in Canberra.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS: If we do not bang the drum in Canberra and mean what we say, we will just be making noises and no one will listen to us. It is like kids playing outside. No one is going to take us seriously. So we really have to ramp it up and recognise we have a serious fight on our hands. That fight is to prevail upon those in Canberra who have the power in their hands to make that decision. How do we move the hand? That is the issue.
The argument is compelling, but how do we move the hand of the one who has the power - the federal parliament. Words have been spoken, again and again. I have heard Malcolm Fraser’s name being mentioned here. He made assurances. There have been assurances forever and a day about this. It is like a kid going to a parent and saying: ‘Can we? Can we? Can we?’ ‘Yes, you can, but just not yet. Not just yet. Why don’t you just go away?’ ‘But we are really serious’. ‘Well, just go away and do this, that and the other, then come back’. Then you come back and they say: ‘Oh, very good, you are nearly there, but you should go off and do this, this and this’ – and it goes on for 20 or 30 years.
We have to recognise what is going on. Here is an opportunity to cut through and go to Canberra. Those who go to Canberra from this Chamber and those who go to support us, our obligation is to make a noise and continue that fight and take it to Canberra. Do not for a moment forget - they have the power. We have to be able to present the case in such a way that their hand is moved.
Two things, lobbying when we get there, but behind that lobbying is a sustained energy in our own communities. Each MLA, 25 seats in here, has a job to do in our own communities to keep that fire burning, to maintain that energy to back-up our efforts in Canberra.
I am pleased to hear the member for Daly talking about the opportunity he has to speak to those who come from interstate, to tell them our story. Just keep it going. Tell them all. They have probably all left now because the build up has started. But you wait. Next Dry Season they all will be coming back, and when they come, tell them our story. Tell them again and again and again. It is simple as that. That is our job. The Statehood Steering Committee: keep up the good work. It is a difficult road because it seems to be a long and winding road.
We had an opportunity when the euthanasia issue was raised by Senator Brown. I was disappointed that opportunity was not taken by government, to recognise behind that euthanasia proposition was the issue of statehood, not euthanasia. I am not a supporter of euthanasia. I am happy to say that, but behind it was the capacity for this parliament to make a decision that reflects the will of its people. That was the underlying issue. If you did a bit of work you could see that was the story behind the story; Senator Brown recognised that. There was an opportunity.
When we see these opportunities we must bang that drum again. Without going into the contentious political aspects of the nuclear waste facility, we have a similar story there: an opportunity to bang that drum; recognising the constitutional inferiority the Territory has compared to South Australia, for example. There is an opportunity to bang the drum together. Let us separate the politics from the underlying constitutional issue. Bang that drum and do not be distracted or fall into the temptation of playing politics alone and forgetting the underlying message - the constitutional inferiority deficiency. Bang that drum - as Australians we have an obligation to do that.
If all the talk and passion from the Steve Hattons and John Baileys, and those who have gone before us, is to come to anything, we have to take the baton which has fallen to us and we have to run with it - and continue to bang that drum, here in our community and in Canberra
Madam Speaker, I support the statement.
Ms McCARTHY (Statehood): Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to the statement.
I will begin with the Leader of the Opposition as the final speaker. Bang that drum, Leader of the Opposition, I like it. I believe we will be taking that. I am sure the staff who are listening from the secretariat will take on that on board, too. I like it very much. Your comments regarding how we move the hand of the one who has the power to change our constitutional status - I believe the answer is - we do it together. We do it together, we stay together. We stick together as the people, one people of the Northern Territory who are one voice in Canberra. That is how we have to do it.
That will be the next step for us as we prepare for the national strategy and we embark on the trip to Canberra in November to visit both houses of parliament. I will be pleased to report in the New Year on how that one voice in Canberra went, banging that drum, Leader of the Opposition.
The Member for Goyder and shadow for statehood - you are right - the biggest challenge is getting the southern states, Canberra in particular, to support us. It is our southern counterparts and people across Australia we have to tap into. I use the words ‘harness the hearts’ of our fellow Australians because that is what we must do.
As the member for Daly said, it is through tapping into the expertise and networks of our own ambassadors - the well-known Territory personalities such as our footballers and high profile athletes who live in Sydney, Victoria and Queensland - that we ‘harness the hearts’ of fellow Australians who, we hope, will ask their local politicians: ‘How come you are not listening to the people of the Northern Territory? Why are they not full citizens of this country like we are?’
The member for Johnston spoke about statehood being on the agenda since 1948. The member for Johnston raised some important issues regarding the need to have the same rights and the fact we have only half a vote in the referendums.
Member for Port Darwin, I was interested to hear your knowledge of England …
Mr Elferink: Ah, just making it up.
Ms McCARTHY: Sorry, what was that?
Mr Elferink: I was just making it up.
Ms McCARTHY: Oh, goodness, I will have to check it now. Carolynne is in the gallery; she will double check. It was a real eye-opener to look at the relationship with the Australian Constitution as an act of the British parliament - I thought that was interesting - and the relationship we have with England as a country, and the relationship our federal parliament has with us.
I was very pleased to hear the member for Fannie Bay, who was the speaker after you, offer bipartisan support …
Mr Elferink: Already been accepted. We have an appointment to meet tomorrow.
Ms McCARTHY: Excellent. … of working together with the workshops that will be occurring across the Territory. It is that kind of relationship, the bipartisan support outside this Chamber in the communities, in the electorates, where you can be part of the education and awareness program for statehood - and yourselves, ambassadors. Thank you.
Member for Brennan, I welcome your contribution and look forward to working closely with you on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The trip to Canberra will be a special one for those of us who are able to go.
To the member for Macdonnell, it is a journey of recognising our rights. How right is that? Your observations and storytelling of what it was like in 1998 and how the people felt, is valid. That is part of the reason we need to have these workshops, because Aboriginal people, in particular, voted no because they felt excluded and did not understand. The importance of interpretation, the use of language, the use of pictures, the way we describe it, enables all people to understand - whether they are Aboriginal, from non-English-speaking background, refugees or ordinary Territorians. Governance is not the easiest issue to talk about.
The Statehood Steering Committee, the Secretariat, my role as minister, and my staff, acknowledge the enormity of the task before us, but we also embrace it, being completely aware that we do not have a select audience. Everyone is our audience and we have to encourage every single person across the Northern Territory, from the age of 15 upwards. As the member for Fannie Bay said, we must not forget the youth because they are the ones who are going to be the future leaders of the Northern Territory.
Chief Minister, I appreciate your support and your confidence in my ability to continue in this role. The issue that needs to be kept out in the community is: the votes of Territorians, who elect every member in this House and expect their vote to be accepted and solid, can be overturned by one single member of parliament in Canberra.
Member for Daly, you spoke about being in Timber Creek at the time of the vote, and the confusion in the bush, and I take that on board. The workshops will be very much a part of the open dialogue and inclusive process. However, it requires the effort of every single person in this House.
Madam Speaker, I thank every member who contributed, and all those members who are very much a part of statehood. This parliament accepts we are walking together toward statehood.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Port Darwin.
Madam Speaker,
Yours sincerely
Member for Port Darwin
Is the proposal supported? It is supported.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, today I speak to a matter which is of great importance to the people of Port Darwin, to the people of Darwin generally and, ultimately, to all people of the Northern Territory.
Port Darwin is a city built not on a riverbank or in some central location. Port Darwin is built on a cul-de-sac at the end of the peninsula which the Stuart Highway enters through Daly Street with the major thoroughfares of the Esplanade, Mitchell Street, Smith Street, Cavenagh Street, Wood Street and McMinn Street.
This cul-de-sac has to compete directly with other parts of the community and other commercial centres which are, frankly, better located. For argument’s sake, if you look at Casuarina Shopping Square, it is located centrally with the suburbs radiating out around it in all directions. Port Darwin does not have that privilege, so running a commercial enterprise or a shop in Port Darwin is a difficult thing to do because the vast majority of people, the population centres, are at Palmerston or in the northern suburbs. However, as a place to live, Darwin is growing in size.
Running a small business in this area is difficult and demonstrates the difficult situation Darwin is in. I would like to see a Darwin CBD which is attractive to the people not only in the northern suburbs and Palmerston, but beyond. Sadly, there is little in Darwin to attract many people. There are many reasons for this, and if you drill into the causes you will find it has to do with the planning of Darwin city and. As I have called for previously in this House, it is time to create a master plan to enable Port Darwin to develop effectively.
I suggest this master plan starts looking at Port Darwin from 50 m underground and works its way up. Rather than what is being tendered for at the moment, I am talking something more fundamental in terms of what it is trying to achieve. We live in a changing world which has to be captured in the master plan in a way the current planning processes do not.
I am talking about capturing absolutely everyone to find what Darwin’s CBD should look like. I have mentioned before we should be talking to the Education and the Health departments and to all departments and not restricting ourselves to Darwin itself or even the Northern Territory, but casting a net much wider to come up with a plan which has a coherent philosophy.
Let me give you some examples of the sorts of things we might consider. By way of interjection, I kept asking about the schools. What about the schools? The minister quite rightly pointed out the middle school which has been built on Bullocky Point, but it was not to that I was referring. I was referring to primary schools particularly, because in the planning processes we have, we do not seem to anticipate the number of primary schoolchildren who will come out of the increasing numbers of tall buildings being built. People are being encouraged to come back into the CBD to give it life, and I agree with that. However, we are not planning for primary schools to be built in the CBD.
We have Larrakeyah Primary School, for argument’s sake, and St Mary’s is another example, and there is Stuart Park. But if we keep building a vertical city, and the chances are this city will keep growing, perhaps exponentially as time passes, where are we going to put primary schools of the future, and even high schools of the future? It would be wonderful if we had a master plan that actually suggested, as part of its planning process, a capacity to have a school in one of these tall buildings.
This would not be normal and you would not see it immediately recognised as something you would expect to see in Darwin. I believe we have Canberra to change the way we think and perhaps there is room to start saying to the Health department that if you are going to provide health services, especially outpatient services and those sorts of things, they may well be located on the first or second floor of one of these tall buildings. I am not saying it has to happen, but what I am saying is we have to start thinking outside of the box.
A city is, and should be, a reflection of the people who live there and their hopes and their aspirations. I hope we capture in our planning processes in this city, a philosophy of who we are and our relaxed lifestyle. The concrete tunnels of New York express what New York is about. They say they are in your face, they are aggressive, this is about making money, this is what we are, and it suits New York. If you look at Paris, Paris has deliberately avoided that sort of planning. They are very careful to capture the highlight of French culture from a couple of hundred years ago. If you travel up the Champs-lyses even today, which is the main artery of Paris, you will not see tall buildings, with the exception of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. Paris wants to talk to and tell the story about its people.
The philosophy that Darwin should capture should be the philosophy of Darwin’s people. Darwin is about being relaxed, being comfortable, enjoying your lifestyle, being a little quirky and odd occasionally. Let us find a way to capture that in our master plan. To create concrete canyons, which is occurring at the end of Woods Street and Cardona Court, is not in keeping with the character and the flavour of Darwin.
I am going to go out on a limb here but, in my opinion, Synergy Square is neither ‘synergous’ nor ‘square’. Quite frankly, it is an awful piece of central business district planning. Cardona Court is an alley and, because of the number of letter office boxes, there is always rubbish in that area; and there is another high rise, almost completed, on the corner of Cardona Court and Woods Street. I have seen the plans of a new high rise development proposed for 29 and 31 Woods Street and have reservations about some aspects of them. However, they are probably better than Synergy Square.
The problem is, because of the awful planning of Synergy Square, the new developer will probably struggle to get that development approved. Why? Because the concentration of high density living in that area will make it extremely difficult for access, egress, cleanliness, and even off street car parking to be maintained. I suspect Cardona Court/Synergy Square is one of the finest examples available of how not to plan for Darwin.
However, we did get it right in Darwin, and with a much older building - the Marrakai Apartments. Marrakai is set back on the block, it is at an angle and there is lots of space around it. My only criticism is the alienating aspect of the front fence as you travel along the street: outside you are presented with a large brick wall. I understand the need for security, but it would be wonderful if you could see through the fence to the lush gardens beyond. The layout of Marrakai Apartments on that block, I think, is well done.
I could be critical to a greater or lesser degree, of every building in town. If I took a check sheet and ticked off buildings on a scale of one to 10, none would score 10 in my opinion, and none would score one; they would all be in between for different reasons. It is that human philosophy which is absent from Darwin’s planning scheme at the moment
Alain de Botton, an English philosopher, recently wrote a book about architecture and the nature of architecture, and captured in that book was a thread that percolated through all of his studies, all the way through Baroque architecture, even pre-Christian architecture, leading through the Rococo styles to 20th century architecture, as expressed through the works of people like Antonio Gaudi. All the way through that book you can feel what he is talking about: the necessity for a psychological/spiritual link, if you like, with the architecture in the environment.
When I call for a master plan, I want to capture that spirit for the people of Darwin. I want to capture something that says ‘trees’. Surely, if there is one thing Darwin stands for it is the need we have for trees. For some reason, we have so many buildings which go all the way to their boundaries. I like development; I am from a side of politics that has always liked development. However, development can be done well or it can be done badly. I also state on the record now that I have no objection to ‘tall’. Tall does not offend me, particularly in the CBD, depending on the environment it is in. Tall is a necessary aspect of inner cities and, I suspect, tall will become even more necessary as oil becomes an increasing reality in our world.
If we are going to do tall and we are going to put people in tall, all the more reason to get the philosophy of what we are doing right. This means practical thoughts, practical decisions, and practical solutions being brought to bear. We have to get the fundamentals right. Let us ensure that the power that we supply to these buildings in our CBD is reliable, even in times of cyclones. The power along Mitchell Street West is still hanging off power poles and box girders, which I have seen blow over in cyclones.
Let us ensure that we get the water supply right. I am not talking about making sure it is clean when it runs out the tap; let us ensure that the source is reliable. Let us ensure that our disposal of sewage is done correctly. We all know the arguments we have had about the poo shooter. Ultimately, it will be dealt with. I believe the date is 2010 - not soon enough in my opinion. We need to get those fundamentals right, and we need to start talking about a master plan that starts underground.
Some time ago it was proposed, I think by the former minister for Lands, Tim Baldwin, that part of this State Square development be a very large underground car park which serviced the whole CBD. You would come in from Palmerston driving along, I think it was Bennett Street - I cannot quite remember how it was going to be done - and drive into a huge underground car park which was several stories deep. This was an attempt to deal with the inherent car parking problems which the cul-de-sac, the peninsula of Darwin, creates.
If you look at the solutions for car parking so far in Darwin, there is West Lane. People have become used to that; it is actually quite discreetly tucked away, but it is overworked. Then, we have the Chinatown car park, which is another one that scores extremely low, in my opinion of architecture in Darwin. Surely, as a modern city, we can do better than straightforward concrete with cyclone mesh out the front. It is a really poor outcome for the people who would have to live in this organic environment, which is what a city must be. A city must capture the nature of its people, and the people must be comfortable living in the city.
Planning also includes other things. Ross Finocchiaro, during a recent government sponsored forum - I am glad they have these forums; I wish more would come from them – quite bravely made the observation that if we are going to maintain a safe city, then we have to have planning processes which capture things like proper policing. We have to ensure that the drunks and the panhandlers - to use an old phrase – who are on our streets are dealt with. We are talking about creating a city which is bicycle friendly - where are the bike paths? We are talking about making a city which is friendly to the people who live there, yet, it is not friendly at four o’clock in the morning in Mitchell Street. All of these things need to be addressed. The current planning process is incapable of casting such a wide net.
Sadly, the Development Consent Authority has almost become an organisation which ticks off on a check list. It says to itself: ‘Okay, here is the planning scheme, this is what is proposed by the developer: it is a cube, it goes right to the footpath all the way around’. Tick, tick, tick. It passes everything through the plan: that is fine, we will let that one go. Yet, the next developer may have something perfectly acceptable and perfectly useful but it does not quite comply with the planning scheme so they cannot do it.
This then leads into the murky area of merit. I understand the minister’s predicament about merit because, as time passes, the pendulum swings to: ‘Let us have a merit-based system’, then it swings back to: ‘No, we can’t have a merit-based system, we have to lock down on the planning scheme, and as long as everyone Canberra understands what is happening, they will stay within those parameters’. But swinging between those two positions produces outcomes which are poor on both extremes of the pendulum.
It would be nice to see merit better defined. From the advice I have received from people engaged in this process, there is a capacity to define merit more accurately than currently done. I also understand, even where the DCA does bite the bullet and reject a project, an appeal to the tribunal still leads to outcomes which are frustrating for many people.
We are never ever going to have a planning scheme in the Northern Territory which will make everybody happy. It has to be one of the most divisive issues that government, or councils have to face. It is one of the issues that will continue to drive division, which is why I am arguing for a master plan which takes in all of these issues. I am not saying to the government: ‘Stop what you are doing, it has to stop now’. Of course you have to keep going, it is still a growing city.
What I am saying to government is: ‘Whilst the opportunity is still available to us, before the next set of tall buildings come along, before the next major structural changes start happening to the CBD, let us create a master plan, let us spend some real money on obtaining a master plan which takes in all of these issues and speaks as broadly and widely as it can to the community.’
Let us give it a couple of years, but really drive and impel the search onward. We will have to live within the awkward system we have at the moment but, at the end of it, when we finally come out with a master plan for Darwin City, we will have something capturing the philosophy that is Darwin. Something that makes Darwin an attractive place to come. People who come here will say: ‘I know I am in Darwin. I am not in Paris, or New York, or Cairns. I am in Darwin and I am here to enjoy things which are quintessentially Darwin’.
Madam Speaker, if you do it from the ground up, and you do it with the right people, the smart people and you take as many people as you can with you, ultimately you will end up with a master plan which will build one of the most beautiful cities in south-east Asia.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, Darwin is uniquely positioned to take advantage of the many opportunities that are unfolding in our region. To understand Darwin, to understand the plan of Darwin, I believe, as Planning minister, is to understand our history, how we developed as a city, and ensure that the city in its development acknowledges that history and to also understand our future growth and where we sit within the region and within our great Territory.
As Planning minister, in a planning sense we see cycles, 10-year cycles. You should update your key master plan, which is your planning scheme documents, around the CBD, in this instance the CBD of Darwin, and when I became Planning minister the cycle was nearing the time to refresh and renew the plans.
The planning scheme had been under a great deal of consultation, about seven years’ worth of consultation, when I became Planning minister. One of the first things I did was implement a planning scheme to provide consistency across the Territory, then immediately proceed to the plan for the Darwin CBD. I know the member for Port Darwin wants us to take a couple of years, but this is a process we have already started and we are more than halfway through the process. It does take a while to get the planning for the CBD right with all the stakeholders who need to be included in the planning and all the expertise you need to bring to bear on that planning.
I guess the member for Port Darwin is debating in a reality where it all began the day he was elected to this Chamber. Well, I can inform the House that it all began more than a year ago, when I embarked on the planning process, the master plan for our CBD. The planning process commenced in a consultative forum, it was a combined body of work between the Darwin City Council and the Northern Territory government. Intrinsically, we have to have the local government tier of government at the table when we are dealing with and discussing what our city will look like. Quite appropriately, local government is a major stakeholder in that debate and discussion. As Planning minister, I am committed to working with the Lord Mayor and the aldermen and the technical officers of council to ensure that we have a cohesive and comprehensive approach to planning.
I know the member for Port Darwin has his views about Synergy Square. To him it is an eyesore; to him it does not work. To the many people who live there, they are enjoying the place. It is horses for courses in terms of architectural design.
We heard the member for Port Darwin talk about the great architects and I am a fan of Antoni Gaudi. I have been to Barcelona. I have seen his work. I am a fan of the architecture I saw in a great many cities. But we are very different. We are a tropical city in the South East Asian region and we need to design and plan a city appropriate to that region.
We had a Darwin CBD Planning Forum in April last year, which was combined Darwin City Council/Northern Territory government sponsored, and it was extremely successful. As Planning minister I appointed an Urban Design Advisory Panel because we did not have a body of experts to advise on urban design. The panel is chaired by Professor Rob Adams, who is internationally renowned and has won many awards.
Professor Adams was responsible for the 25-year redesign of the city of Melbourne, and those of us who know Melbourne know it is a very different city today than 25 years ago. It was about bringing life back into the city of Melbourne. It was about opening the city up to the people. It was about bringing people back into the city to live, so it was also about lifestyle, recreation and enjoyment. It was about invigorating old wastelands and no-go zones into what are now interactive, open, recreation and mixed-use areas.
The Urban Design Advisory Panel consists of interstate and local Territory experts in architecture, property development, and urban landscape design, as well as technical expertise from Darwin City Council and Northern Territory government in technical and planning areas. The UDAP will also deal with issues that arise between major urban overhauls and planning.
UDAP was brought together to advise us on the outcomes of the Urban Design Planning Forum Day for our city, which could not be agreed upon. However, there were things that were agreed. For example: the trees - planting more trees in our city streets, creating shaded boulevards akin to what we have in Cavanagh Street. We incorporated the Darwin City Council’s landscape master plan to ensure all future buildings have awnings and 75% interactive streetscape so you will not see a city of blank walls, but actually see the interaction occurring at the base level of those buildings.
The issues discussed at the forum were: how our city should function; how we achieve better building designs in the CBD, and how to improve our streets, paths and other open spaces. The forum brought together many people: government, council, residents, users of the CBD, property developers, the general public, as well as people involved in the Planning Action Network, who are great advocates for the improvement of our city.
I will present the outcomes of the forum as amendments to the Planning Scheme which will enshrine them in the planning principles which must be adhered to. So awnings, the 75% interactive streetscapes, the greening of Darwin through tree planting etcetera, is coming into the Planning Scheme.
We knew the hardest nut to crack would be the issue of building heights and the area lots, the volumetric control of those buildings. These could not be agreed to at the forum, so I have referred them to UDAP. Bear in mind that UDAP is a body of both interstate and Territory experts supported by technical and planning advice from the Northern Territory government and Darwin City Council.
The panel had deliberated since the planning forum last April. In March of this year, they brought me a series of recommendations concerning building heights and volumetric controls - the key issues we are confronted with in development of the city.
Those recommendations I have made public because, as Planning minister, I wanted community feedback on those recommendations - they are important to our future growth. It is recommended that building heights be limited to 90 meters above ground level within the core of our CBD which is bounded by McMinn Street, Daly Street, Mitchell Street and Bennett Street; and on the perimeter, protecting the Esplanade etcetera, the heights would go down to 36 meters around that core.
The panel also made recommendations on volumetric controls for the buildings. That is, how you design buildings to capture the prevailing sea breezes without a series of block walls which create the concrete canyons seen in other cities. It also dealt with the environmental and sustainable design of buildings for a tropical environment.
Controversial as UDAP recommendations have been, they are critically important to work on as a blueprint of what our city will become. The member of Port Darwin said it is a two-year process. We are already about 18 months into this master plan process, and I am hopeful we will be finished by the end of this year.
I have selected a small group of people from UDAP headed by the Darwin manager of Lang O’Rourke, Dick Goit, who will meet with all the stakeholders - people who are affected by potential changes to the planning controls - to listen to them and consider their views on what UDAP proposes in its recommendations, and the outcomes can be seen as genuinely independent.
I sincerely ask the CLP to put forward their views, to give us a legitimate, fair dinkum response to those UDAP recommendations. That has not happened yet and I look forward to hearing the opposition’s response to the recommendations. I have also invited the member for Nelson to respond to those UDAP recommendations. If you want to have a buy-in to the master plan, to how our city will be designed around those planning scheme principals, UDAP’s recommendations are the buy-in to that process.
After the recommendations have been tested by Dick Goit and his team, they will make further recommendations to me as Planning minister, which I will take to Cabinet. They will then become formal recommendations that go on public exhibition as amendments to the Planning Scheme. We will then go into a far more formal consultative process.
I hope to have the current round of consultations from Dick Goit and his team by the end of November, and then we will have formally proposed amendments to the planning scheme to consider, and early next year we will have a contemporary plan for our CBD. Yes, it will deal with the issue of special merit, which has been contentious, and I have put an interim development control order over the city so that the special merit cannot be used in the interim to break through currently approved planning heights.
Regarding the broader issues of people living in the city and how that impacts on education, I note the member for Port Darwin recognised the additional school facilities we have put into the Port Darwin feeder area. The Department of Education is separately looking at future growth projections for the Darwin CBD and how that impacts on any infrastructure planning the department would be undertaking.
In the past, both city and broader area schools have accepted enrolments from outside their feeder areas, which affect their enrolments. For example, at Larrakeyah Primary School, 22% of the students come from outside the Larrakeyah feeder area. Parap Primary School is at 75% capacity, Stuart Park Primary School is at 78% capacity and Ludmilla Primary School is as low as 44% capacity. That shows the capacity currently existing within those primary schools. And we have the new Darwin Middle School. The Department of Education is looking at those future growth projections - bearing in mind, we take data from the ABS figures regarding the number of children living in those inner city apartments.
In terms of the infrastructure, the government is already quite a way down the path of a five-year program of infrastructure for Darwin. It is not work we have to do; it is work we are midway through. This is a $1bn five-year program which started last financial year; which is power, water and sewerage services to progress the Territory. The $1bn program consists of $769m capital and $243.9m for repairs and maintenance.
Power and Water currently has a range of projects to increase water needs. These include raising the level of Darwin River Dam, which will increase water supply by about 20% storage in the dam and water capital works forecast include an estimated $125.9m over the next five years.
Are we getting on with the planning and the essential infrastructures for the city? Yes, we are. We are spending the money in capital works to build the infrastructure our city needs for its growth.
The replacement of overhead power lines with underground cables is progressing well throughout our suburbs. Your electorate of Nightcliff, Madam Speaker, was the first of the old suburbs to be done, and that program is continuing to roll out, providing the security we need in those storm and cyclone periods.
New zone substations are planned for Darwin city at East Arm, Lee Point, Palmerston, Marrakai near Weddell, and in Alice Springs as well. These will ensure our power networks capital works forecast include approximately $240m over the next five years to deal with our power capacity for growth.
Works have already commenced and a program is in place to close the Larrakeyah sewage outfall. The project is reducing the potential environmental impact by eliminating untreated sewage discharge into the harbour. Over the next four years, $35m will be spent on diversion works to redirect the sewage from the Larrakeyah catchment to the Dinah Beach trunk sewer; upgrading the Ludmilla Waste Water Treatment Plant and constructing a second pipe to deliver effluent to and extend the East Point outfall. Works completed already on this project include a new trunk sewer in Mitchell Street and Dinah Beach, a new sewerage pumping station at Dinah Beach, upgrades to the Parap trunk sewer and upgrades to various facilities at the Ludmilla Waste Water Treatment Plant. We are already in the essential services upgrade program, including shutting down the Larrakeyah sewage outfall which has been in operation for more than 40 years. If only this work had started two decades ago.
Regarding a growing population and the essential aspects in the Darwin CBD of having new recreation and open space areas for people to enjoy, we, have announced our plans. In July this year, we commenced development of a 4.6 ha of parkland worth about $6m in investment at Flagstaff Park at the top of Cullen Bay. The park will allow Territory families and tourists to enjoy our great lifestyle and will be an asset to the people of Darwin and the tourism industry; a walkway down from Nurses Walk will connect to the popular Mindil Beach Markets and the new resort being developed by SKYCITY Casino.
I am interested to have the CLP’s views on the old hospital site because they had earmarked it for development. In stark contrast, Labor has earmarked the old hospital site predominantly for parkland. We believe this is essential to creating ribbons of green around our city. We already have the Esplanade which will link with parkland at the old hospital site and Flagstaff Park, then through the Botanic Gardens with more parkland, and at the old Stuart Park Tank Farm, connecting with the magnificent recreation area of our waterfront.
If you are living in the city and looking for family recreation, you cannot beat the $1.5bn Darwin City Waterfront development. Apart from the magnificent Convention Centre which has already opened and is being enjoyed by people, who, for example, went to the Boat and Leisure Show in August, and was a massive success with something like 9000 visitors; we have completed the sea wall, the boating lagoon and beach, and the wave lagoon is on track for completion later this year. Landscaping of the public parklands will be completed to coincide with the opening of two hotels and a multilevel car park early next year.
We are already a significant way through creating a dynamic tropical city where we see mixed-use commercial and residential areas and a vibrant restaurant precinct. We are getting the connections right between the waterfront and the CBD with the Smith Street connection and we are working on shared plans with Darwin City Council, which is critical to getting our State Square redesigned - shared visions between council and the Northern Territory government.
We are ensuring with the master plan that the horse does not bolt in terms of how buildings can be built in the CBD. As Planning minister I was asked a question by the member for Port Darwin tonight - I am not prepared to wait two years to change the Planning Scheme to know what the development of our city will look like during this massive phase of growth. It is important we act now so we can be confident about our tropical city: what the heights will be, what the area lot size for the buildings will be, the volumetric controls, the awnings, the setbacks, the landscaping, the planting of trees, where the parks around the city will be – all that work has been undertaken by the Territory government. We are nearing the end of the work to enshrine the changes to the Planning Scheme.
To protect the city in the interim, I put in the Interim Development Control Orders to ensure that special merit could not be used to break through what is conventional agreed planning as we have it today. So we have an Interim Development Control Order there to protect the city, and we are on the verge of changing the Planning Scheme for our contemporary city which captures the desires and visions of not just the Northern Territory government, but the people who took the time to attend that Urban Planning Forum in April last year - the people who live, work and play in our city, the people who said, as a community, what they want our city to look like.
We have taken on board their views, and we have taken onboard their suggestions. I will be changing the Planning Scheme. I will be making those changes early next year when we finish the last two important phases of public and stakeholder consultation. The first is under way and due to finish in November. The second will be the formal amendments to the Planning Scheme’s public consultation period, which will occur early next year. So, do we have a plan? Yes, we do. We are extremely close to amending the Planning Scheme to renew the plan.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I hear what the minister has to say and I agree that CBD planning is a serious issue that needs very careful consideration and, excuse the pun, serious and good planning. However, it is not just restricted to the CBD and it extends beyond the boundaries of the city area. Darwin does need a good plan, and …
Ms Lawrie: This is about the CBD, the MPI. All right, discuss the entire area, but it is about the CBD.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The honourable member is very concerned about this kind of behaviour from other members in different debates. I draw your attention to that, and the hypocrisy of that member over there.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order. Very clearly this is an MPI specifically about a master plan for Darwin CBD. The shadow minister for Planning starts talking beyond the CBD. If it was a debate about beyond the CBD, I would have had a much broader contribution. I stuck to the CBD.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, there is no point of order.
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, this is symptomatic of the government’s problem. They are very myopic in their thinking and their vision of it just being on the Darwin CBD, but they are forgetting that the majority of people from the rural area, from Palmerston and beyond, drive on the roads into the CBD. So whilst it may appear it is just CBD planning, it does extend further and does not stop at Daly Street bridge and focusing inwards.
The problem extends out into the rural area. Our roads are congested. Anyone who comes in from the rural area and Palmerston will attest there is in excess of 30 000 to 40 000 cars coming in between one and 1 hours in the morning. We have serious congestion coming into the CBD, notably in Bennett Street, and there does not appear to be any planning to resolve these problems, given that there is more high density living planned for Darwin and the CBD.
It also appears that there is not a lot of planning for green belts in the Darwin or CBD. I have mentioned the traffic. This in itself will create issues on the greenness of our city and will be exacerbated with more cars on the road because our public transport system, quite frankly, is not up to scratch. Fewer people will probably use the public transport system because it is not reliable and the time tables do not suit people in the rural area.
If we go further out with the roads system, we have some serious issues at the BP Palms intersection. I know there is an enormous problem with the traffic flows into the city, primarily the problem of lights at the intersection. The traffic backs up not only from BP Palms to the Palmerston intersection, but right back to the Howard Springs lights. That is contributing to some of the frustrations on the roads by rural and Palmerston residents as they converge at that main Y junction intersection. What used to take 20 minutes getting into the city from Howard Springs turnoff is now taking 40 minutes, which is impacting on the rural residents’ lifestyle. The government is hot to trot on lifestyle but I put to you that it is about lifestyle for urban people, not rural people’s lifestyles.
What we could be looking at is better planning for areas such as Virginia Road and also Bees Creek Road coming onto the Stuart Highway. There could be quite inexpensive slip lanes put in to make it not only safer but create better traffic flow coming onto the highway. A couple of years ago, and people who travel to the rural area on a regular basis would know, that the slipway type of complex was put in quite quickly and efficiently at the Tulagi Road/Stuart Highway intersection to accommodate our army friends coming onto the Stuart Highway from Robertson Army Barracks. If it is good enough for our army friends, then it should be good enough for the rural residents to have safe entrances to the Stuart Highway.
One of the other issues I would like to raise in regards to planning, because it will impact on how people go about their business in the CBD - I just have to make sure I put CBD in there so I still within the MPI’s parameters - is the Berrimah Farm. I have raised this previously but it is an important issue because located within the Berrimah Farm complex is a not-for-profit organisation and business that is very important to the future of the Northern Territory’s oil and gas industry, which this government is also very keen to promote and takes credit for a lot of what happens. This is the Northern Australian Safety Centre and it is on land towards the back part of Berrimah Farm; it is excised from the farm and they have been told they will have to go.
This is the main training centre for the offshore oil and gas industry and the mining industry. They have the Helicopter Underwater Escape Training course there, HUET, and if we are to have more offshore operations utilising Darwin as the supply base, then we are going to need this kind of service facility. They have been told by government they cannot have the land excised. There will be no compensation even though that not-for-profit organisation has committed a substantial amount of money in that complex to train not only Northern Territory private enterprise, but they also assist with the training of the Northern Territory Fire Service officers.
There is nowhere else in the Northern Territory that provides fire training and there is no other fire training ground. If this complex closes because a new location cannot be found, this training will go interstate. It will probably put about half a dozen people out of work, plus it will take an enormous amount of expenditure and money out of the Northern Territory. They would most likely go to places like Perth, which is one of our major competitors for the offshore oil and gas industry servicing, or maybe go to Singapore or Tasmania where they have similar kinds of fire training grounds.
This organisation is celebrating 20 years in the Northern Territory and it would be a shame to see their needs, and the services they deliver to the business and public sector service community, go unnoticed - and they are basically chucked out. They have a guarantee until about 2011, but given the infrastructure at this base, they are going to need more time than that. I cannot see any logical reason why their complex cannot be given an excise so they can continue their operations for the benefit not only of the business community but also the Northern Territory government.
In regards to planning, there may well be people from the CBD who relocate to this new proposed Berrimah Farm complex. I have previously mentioned the history of Berrimah Farm, and for the benefit of members, I bring to their attention the fact that activities on Berrimah Farm have involved the use of copper, chromium and arsenic. These chemicals, or minerals, are very mobile when they get into the ground, particularly copper. They are very persistent in the soil and they are soluble. They will get into the waterways. In all the planning announcements the government has made in regard to this complex, there has been no mention of the potential contamination of the soils and how they are going to address these serious environmental issues. These chemicals do not combine easily with other things to make stable complexes.
It is a serious issue, and I bring it to the House’s attention, and I hope that something is done about it. There are people who live in Darwin today who lived on Berrimah Farm when it was a proper research farm, and they know the location of these former exercises and activities. If we look at the recent example in a southern state where a development was put on old landfill and the ensuing problems with the health and safety of the people caused by methane gas, then we need to look at this kind of planning exercise very carefully.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude, but I will say the CBD planning area extends beyond the borders of the Daly Street bridge.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will be talking on the CBD, but I had a chuckle today when I saw the Chief Minister on television announcing Harbour Town is coming to town – 120 shops. Where is it going to be put? It is going to be put out opposite Harvey Norman, on the block of land that used to have the mini-golf course. I laugh because not so long ago, a developer wanted to put a shopping centre at Coolalinga.
I would like to quote from the minister who wrote to Maureen Coleman, who was the CLP candidate standing against me. The minister said:
This was the shopping centre at Coolalinga:
Well, 120 shops on the Stuart Highway opposite Harvey Norman is not going to cause some issues regarding traffic? I beg to differ. It seems there are rules for one part of the world and other rules for another part of the world.
The one issue we are missing in this debate is the number of empty shops in the CBD. Just walk around Darwin. The best time to walk around is at night, and look at some of the plazas - they are empty and they have been empty for years. And the government praises a developer for putting 120 fancy shops out at Berrimah. Here we are building a residential city - because that is what we are doing with all these high-rise units - and we do not have the commercial facilities to go with them. Why have we not attracted Harbour Town into the Darwin CBD? Beats me.
If we want to have a vibrant heart, we also have to have a vibrant commercial centre - and you do not get that when you walk up the mall at 6.30 pm. I walked up there the other night and there were about three people at the Vic and a couple sitting at the new noodle shop. It was dead - except for a few people checking out the ATM.
There are parts of the city which are dead and there are parts of the city where there is empty shop after empty shop. As you go up the mall on the right hand side before the Galleria, there is building there which is practically empty. There is hardly anyone in there, and there are other shops around the Darwin CBD which are exactly the same. Whilst the government might praise the developer for coming to the Berrimah area, it really should have been looking at seeing whether they could have attracted that developer into the heart of Darwin and made Darwin a more vibrant city.
Be that as it may, I thank the minister for her response and for her offer to be part of a forum which looks at these issues. Whether government will take notice of some alternative points of view, I do not know, but I thank the minister for her offer and I will be taking it up.
We have to deal with the city as it is right now, and we need to look at it and ask: ‘Why is this master plan not in operation right now?’ I also have a copy of this Darwin Urban Design Advisory Panel report for the Minister for Planning and Lands. It was interesting reading a section of it. It said, as part of the introduction:
The minister talked about the idea of a green city; something that the Darwin City Council has put forward. I cannot believe people say something when, in reality, does not work. Go down Knuckey Street and have a look at the trees - if there are any outside the Mantra or Evolution. Evolution is built out over the footpath. It is not a matter of awnings; the whole building is built over the footpath and any tree would have to grow at a 60 angle and would not be the sort of tree that would shade Knuckey Street.
The minister says we need to look at a 10-year planning scheme and every 10 years we renew it. But what is missing - and this is about the whole of the Darwin region - you must, first of all, have a vision. If you do not have the vision, then you get nowhere. The vision stays forever, the planning schemes change, the micro changes, but stick within the vision.
For instance, Alice Springs has a vision that no buildings be over a certain height. Why? Because they have, cleverly, decided that the height would ruin the landscape, they have used hills - whether it was for sacred sites originally, or whether it might have been silly to build houses on previously rocky hills - whatever it is, Alice Springs has a real character of its own. It has protected geographical and cultural features; it has protected the heights so that you can still see the MacDonnell Ranges. So someone had a vision and, for better or worse, at least that vision is retained.
There will be new suburbs, but the overall vision stays, and that is exactly what Darwin had. The vision, I thought, was a strong visual connection to the beauty of Darwin Harbour and maintenance of open breeze corridors. That alone is a pretty good vision for Darwin, that is why we have high-rise so we can look at the sea, so we can have a view, otherwise, why bother going up? Some people enjoy living in a high-rise, partly because they have a view, but if that $400 000 or $500 000 or $600 000 apartment’s view is blocked because the planning system in Darwin allows for another 30-storey building to go up next to it, you are not going to be happy.
There is a building going up right against what, I think was the car park for Admiralty House on the corner of Knuckey and Mitchell Streets next to one of our first high-rise apartment buildings. The people there who did have a nice view of Darwin Harbour are soon going to lose that view, and I do not think they are particularly happy. We need to be taking that into account. There is nothing wrong with high-rise. I know the minister talks about heights but I do not think height is such a problem. It is the density of these high buildings in the city that is the problem.
The minister also said to get around that they are looking at this development of high-rise from boundary to boundary. If you get hold of this report, you will see at Attachment C that up to about 13 m you can have the entire block of land covered by the building, then if you go up higher you come in, a bit higher you come in, and when you get to the main part of the building, you have to be a maximum of 20 m away from the neighbouring block. That is an improvement.
The problem is the bottom ‘landscaping’ is total building. We are still putting 500 people on this little area of land, say 1400 m2 in size, but we are not putting the green we talked about anywhere. We should be separating these big buildings with green, open space, where kids can come down to the ground floor and people can walk around the building, and be part of the community, mixing with their neighbours. We can have high-rise buildings that are separated.
We have to make a bigger effort if we really believe the city is going to be tropical, to have much more space between our tall buildings and much more greenery to separate them. We could do better, but at the moment, unfortunately, we are just getting a concrete jungle.
The other issue that we have not really touched on is transport. There is an argument about having Darwin CBD as a residential area, - and I do not have a problem with that - which means people do not have to go far to work. Well, that is all right as long as you have work in town. The other factor is people do move from the Darwin CBD, they go on holidays, they go to Casuarina, and that is why we do not have a big shopping centre in the CBD, or they go to the rural area, or to Palmerston. So there is the issue of how much traffic the Darwin peninsula can hold.
We should be putting more effort into alternative forms of transport into town. The rail link - before the land is built on, before it becomes too difficult - should be built from Palmerston to Darwin. That should be a priority right now. Do not wait. I do not care whether it costs a few dollars because in the long term, it will be a saving for the city. If you leave it longer, it will cost more money. Build it. It is not hard. It is a railway line. They built them in the 1880s across the west of America, out past the Indians and through the desert and over the Rockies - and we cannot build about 10 km from Palmerston to Darwin. Then we could extend it to Humpty Doo and put a railway station at Acacia Hills, and people from Pine Creek, Katherine and Adelaide River could come on a daily rail into town.
Come on, let us try! It is not hard. Vision. It is vision. That is what people in the early days in America - you do not need to go to America - go to my old city of Melbourne. They built railway lines spreading all over the city before anyone was there, except a few farms, and they still use them today. In fact I think they are building more of them; Melbourne is putting on 60 new trams and 20 new trains because they are expanding their public transport system. We should be thinking that way. Buses are nice, but they are not the only solution. You could move a lot more people on a train than you can on a bus and that is the advantages of trains.
So we really have to start thinking outside the square – we have to get up and do things - now. We have talked about this long enough, we have to do something now, otherwise the traffic problems will get worse and worse.
In relation to issues about heights and the control order over heights which the minister mentioned. Something which has been raised with me is the peculiarity of building heights in the old Darwin railway station area, which is down the bottom of the escarpment near Perkins Shipping. There are quite low height restrictions in that area. I would have thought people down the bottom of the hill would be allowed a fairly large height because they are not blocking anyone. But for some reason taller buildings are allowed up on the high country and only shorter buildings are permitted on the lower country.
The government has told the developers that is the height they have to have there – it is about 35 m. They have exempted themselves from two large buildings which will eventually go near the Navy Depot right on the sea, as part of the waterfront development, which are 33-storey buildings. It seems we have one rule for one part of Darwin and, about 100 m further over, you have a different rule for the government’s waterfront development. I am interested to know why the government has exempted itself from a height restriction on some building developments down towards the wharf and not on its own development.
I know people talk about the Convention Centre, I have been down there and I think it is over-rated. It is a great convention centre to have, It is important for Darwin, but it is not – I will use the word people do not like – ‘iconic’.. That is what disappoints me. We needed something that said: ‘This is Darwin’. This convention centre is a convention centre. You sit around a circle and listen to a speaker and you have lots of IT equipment. In the end that is what it is about, but it really does not sell Darwin as it could have. And that is what we have missed, again - an opportunity to say this is Darwin and this is something to be proud of. It is great and we need it, but we could have done better. We did not have the vision.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin for the substance of his matter of public importance, but, not the opinion expressed of failure and ad hoc planning by this government.
The member for Port Darwin and I share electoral boundaries and we share constituents with similar issues and ideas. There is undoubted interest in my electorate in the issues of CBD planning. The CBD may be in the Port Darwin electorate, but people in Parap, Fannie Bay and Stuart Park are interested in a better CBD.
We are a growing city. We have exciting developments in the heart of Darwin and, while we have done a lot, there is still much more we can do. There is no doubt we can do things better at times. That was a message from the last election.
Let us take a step back from what the member for Port Darwin has said. His concerns are perhaps reasonable for a member of the opposition, but they are not truly reflective of the concerns that have been expressed to me by people living in Parap, Fannie Bay or Stuart Park.
Many people in my electorate are positive about the future of Darwin. The Darwin CBD has come alive in recent years with better restaurants, shops, bars and entertainment - it is a vibrant cosmopolitan city. An important component of this has been the increase in CBD living - new apartments.
Both Darwin City Council and the Northern Territory government can take some of the credit for overseeing the burst of energy in our city over recent years. I am the youngest member of this House but I am still a year or two older than the average age of Territorians. I have lived in a unit in our CBD. In fact, I lived opposite the old hospital site, which I knew better as my original university campus. Living in a unit in our CBD is a lifestyle choice of many and I have many friends and family who have made that lifestyle choice. It is the accommodation choice for both Territory locals and young people who have come from interstate to take advantage of our growing economy to further their careers. I can assure members the last thing many of these people want to do at this stage of their lives is mow a lawn.
Eleven hundred units have been approved recently in the CBD with 200 more going through the planning process. In terms of future planning for the CBD it is important to note there are fewer people per household in these units than a suburban household. However, it is important we plan for the 1400 units going up. It is the equivalent of the population of a whole new suburb like Bellamack. That is why we are planning in areas like education, essential services, public open spaces and parks, transport and planning processes.
Mr Elferink: No, no, I am talking about something bigger than this. It is more global than this.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: I understand what you are saying, but it is not quite what I am on about.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Fannie Bay has the call.
Mr GUNNER: We have a fantastic new middle school and the Principal, Marcus Dixon, and the school Chair, Monica van den Nieuwenhof, are doing a great job. However, while the new middle school has created extra classroom capacity in our inner suburban primary schools, we are aware there is growing demand on primary schools like Larrakeyah, Parap and Stuart Park. That is why the Department of Education and Training is looking at what our schools may need in the future and they have commenced the development of - excuse the title - a Greater Darwin Strategic Infrastructure Plan.
The Larrakeyah macerator is an issue that has been raised frequently in this House and government is working towards closing the outfall. While we are doing it and it is happening now, the opposition should be very careful with their words, especially during the election. They said they would accelerate the Lameroo outfall but they did not mentioned time frames and they promised no extra money for it; in fact, they said they would do it within existing resources. Which leaves a very important question unanswered: what would they have scrapped to pay for it? The member for Port Darwin has already added hundreds of millions of dollars to the Power and Water bill by saying the CLP will build a new dam, but he has not nominated the river he will dam …
Mr Elferink: Yes I have. I said the Marrakai dam over the Adelaide River.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: Goodness gracious, that has been identified and purchased for ages. Whoever writes this stuff for you should do some homework.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin. Member for Fannie Bay, you have the call.
Mr GUNNER: Rather than the talk happening on that side of the Chamber, this government is acting. We are increasing the capacity of the Darwin River Dam by 20%. We are not currently facing water shortages …
Ms Purick: That is not CBD, the dam.
… especially compared to southern cities. We are planning to increase our supply.
Member for Goyder, I am talking more about the CBD than you did during your contribution.
Mr GUNNER: We are probably doing as much as any other city to increase our water supply.
I have already spoken in this House about our investment in Darwin’s wonderful outdoor lifestyle with a plan for our city to live and breathe, surrounded by parkland and rivers of green that connect the CBD to our suburbs …
Mr Wood: Parkland? The escarpment is covered in buildings.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, cease interjecting!
Mr GUNNER: … starting at Flagstaff Park. It will continue with a corridor of green through the old tank farm site and, we said quite clearly, there will be parkland on the old hospital site. Importantly, we are making sure these parks are connected by new and better bike parks and boardwalks. To keep our parks and open spaces the best they can be we need to make sure they are used and are popular. Connecting them properly is the best way to do that.
On public transport, which is a big issue in my electorate, the government has announced a $13.4m upgrade to bus services: more buses, more routes and free buses for seniors and students. It was welcomed in my electorate.
During the campaign, the member for Port Darwin promised that the CLP would be making some big announcements on public transport, but they have not. I have not seen it. We waited, but they have not made an announcement. They have no plan for public transport …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! The member for Fannie Bay has the call. Member for Port Darwin and Leader of Government Business, cease interjecting.
Mr GUNNER: Madam Speaker, we have a plan for public transport – more buses, more routes, and free buses for students and seniors.
Earlier the minister for Planning spoke about our planning changes. They are important changes; they are following an important process. The minister held a planning forum 18 months ago to put these issues on the table. This is long before the CLP had even recognised that the issue existed. Planning is a complex area, not least because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Aspects of good planning are subjective. There is a range of community members and groups which have very different views on which direction Darwin should head. The planning forum was the best way of bringing these groups together and thrashing out the issues. The establishment of the Urban Design Advisory Panel is a proactive and proper way to ensure the community is involved in planning decisions.
The government has scrapped the special merit provision of the planning approvals process. Special merit was brought in by the CLP and it allowed developers to apply for special consideration to develop outside approval guidelines, such as height guidelines. We have not yet heard whether the CLP still supports special merit.
Mr Elferink: You just heard me. I just stood up and settled this. I talked about it.
Ms Lawrie: Oh, weasel words.
Mr Elferink: No, I just talked about it, for God’s sake. If the guy is going to come in here and talk, then he should listen to what I said.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting. Leader of Government Business, the member for Fannie Bay has the call – cease interjecting.
Mr GUNNER: The member for Port Darwin did not make clear the CLP’s position on special merit. We can only assume, as a member of the previous CLP government, he supported special merit …
Mr Elferink: Goodness gracious me! This is the problem with turning up with a pre-prepared speech.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Ms Carney: Yes, it does not fit the speech he gave.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, cease interjecting.
Mr GUNNER: It is quite clear that the CLP has not changed its position on special merit. The member for Port Darwin did not make his position clear. If you do not have a position on special merit, you cannot have a planning policy.
When the member Port Darwin spoke in the adjournment last night, I was bemused by the CLP approach to water-based recreation. The member for Port Darwin was outraged by the possibility the wave pool in his electorate will be cheap. As the local member for many families in Parap, Fannie Bay and Stuart Park, I have to say they are looking forward to the wave pool and would prefer it to be as cheap as possible.
It was an interesting policy position outlined by the member for Port Darwin. He is against taxpayers putting contributions towards the wave pool entry costs because not all taxpayers will use it. I believe community infrastructure is important. In my electorate that would include council assets like the Parap pool. I believe council and governments have a responsibility to provide community infrastructure. Not all taxpayers use the Leanyer Recreation Water Park, and taxpayers subsidise that 100%. Taking the CLP position on the wave pool to its logical conclusion, the CLP would be willing to charge entry for the Leanyer Recreation Water Park. I believe that would be a serious mistake.
In my maiden speech, I spoke about our opportunity to plan for our future, to protect what is best about this place and to make what is best even better. I spoke about more parks, free buses, better bike paths, about our planned ribbons of green connecting our CBD to our suburbs, and our plans for better boardwalks along our harbour. The harbour is what I would like to talk further about tonight.
We have a fantastic harbour. It is a place we go for a quiet drink, a bite to eat, to catch up with mates. Our restaurants, cafes and pubs have their backs to our harbour. On a Friday night at The Deck, patrons look out on a road. On Sunday morning at the Cool Spot, you see more road than harbour. Better outdoor dining options – and more of them - to take advantage of our great harbour is what we need. This is something the government can work on with council, which controls most of the land surrounding our harbour.
We should note that industry has the ability to address what is a clear demand in Darwin: hotels on the Esplanade that deliver an experience of fine dining or a casual breakfast, a quiet drink or a morning coffee, with a view of our harbour you cannot get on Mitchell Street. This is something I know locals and tourists alike would love. It is something that would add to our great lifestyle, and would preserve those qualities I have talked about before. The call is to convince generations of families in my electorate that this was the best place in Australia to live and raise a family.
Madam Speaker, the government has a comprehensive approach to planning. A booming economy and population has given us challenges, and we are responding to them.
Discussion concluded.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, today I speak about the recent elections and to thank all the people who have been instrumental in my re-election as the member for Casuarina. Being here today as a third time member of the Northern Territory parliament is something I never imagined when I was growing up in my mother country, Greece.
Politics is something that was always in my blood, perhaps due to the difficult and challenging political times I lived through during my youth. As a young man, I became involved in student politics, but my path to politics in Australia started that fateful afternoon before Christmas Eve in 1981 when I met for the first time a young Australian woman, Linda Cotton, who later became my wife and the reason I migrated to Australia.
I came to Australia in January 1983, and by May 1983 I was a member of the Labor Party. In 1986, I was preselected for the seat of Clontarf, a blue ribbon Liberal seat that gave me my first taste of political battle and, despite the fact that I did not win the seat, the whole affair provided me with valuable experience. Kim Beazley launched my campaign and it was at this time in Perth that I came to know parliamentarians such as Stephen Smith, Chris Evans and others who are currently members of the federal parliament and Cabinet.
When I met my second wife, Margaret, I told her jokingly that I would take her places, and I did - first to Port Hedland, and later to Darwin. Our stint in Darwin was supposed to be only for a three-year period, but I suppose this is a story you hear many times here in the Territory. It did not take long for me to become once again involved with the Labor Party, and I found myself as one of the founding members of the Millner branch and working in Paul Henderson’s campaign for Nightcliff.
I was told the Territory was different from the rest of Australia, and I could see this. This was the place that had not only a can-do but also an ‘anything goes’ attitude; a strange political system with a right wing government which had socialist tendencies where government money financed private ventures: you may remember the Darwin Joinery, the Sheraton, and the abolition of local government to create a company town in Yulara.
The downturn of the economy and the increasing arrogance of the CLP government helped me make my decision to put my hand up to for pre-selection for Casuarina for the 2001 elections. I was absolutely thrilled to be chosen by the people of Casuarina as their representative for 2001, and later 2005.
In 2008 I was chosen again by the people of Casuarina to be their representative, and I want to say to my constituents that I am privileged, humbled and honoured to represent you in parliament. I thank you once again for placing your trust in me and electing me to represent you for a third term. I assure you that I will continue to work hard to assist all the people in Casuarina and to deliver on the commitments made by my government. I thoroughly enjoy engaging with my constituents and community groups within my electorate, with regular visits to community schools, childcare centres, seniors’ villages, aged care complexes, shopping centres, and sporting clubs, because it is the people I meet and the assistance I can provide my constituents that makes me want to continue to be your local member.
I am proud of the many achievements made in the Casuarina electorate over the past few years. I am extremely excited and look forward to deliver on my promises to the residents of Alawa, Brinkin, Nakara and Tiwi over the next four years: the $5m upgrade for Casuarina Senior College; $3m upgrade for Dripstone Middle School; the Police Beat Shopfront at Casuarina Square, backed up with the CCTV; $2m each for further upgrades to Alawa and Nakara Primary Schools Stage 2; and the Leanyer Recreation Park upgrade Stage 2, including water slides and kiosk.
The electorate of Casuarina is truly representative of the Territory - 25% of the population is overseas born. There is a mix of public servants, subcontractors, small business operators and private business employees. Among other things, the electorate is home to Casuarina Shopping Square, the Territory’s largest shopping centre and, of course, the Casuarina Coastal Reserve, the most visited reserve in Australia. Within the electorate, a number of suburbs such as Alawa and Tiwi are undergoing a demographic transformation with young families with children now replacing older families.
I was particularly pleased to see my 2005 election promises become a reality with the completion of the Stage 1 upgrades and renovations for Nakara and Alawa Primary Schools. These schools were built in the 1970s and had not received any substantial amount of money for renovations in the past 30 years. They were in urgent need of attention, and I am pleased to say that our government provided this attention. Part of my new election promises is to provide Nakara and Alawa Primary Schools and Dripstone Middle School with funding to enable further enhancing of these schools for our children. This will make them among the most modern schools in the Territory.
Our government also cares for the ever-increasing number of aged Territorians who have decided to retire here, or came here to be close to their families. The Masonic Retirement Village in the suburb of Tiwi is now complemented by the extension of the Masonic Nursing Home next door. The new facility which is currently being completed is built on 2.4 ha of land granted by our government. The Masonic Foundation extension will be completed very soon. The facility includes an additional 45 aged care beds, 35 retirement homes and 12 units. It not only caters for senior Territorians, but also alleviates the local shortage of beds and homes for our aged Territorians. The facility is located close to the Royal Darwin and Private Hospitals.
We have achieved much in the past three years, and Casuarina has its fair share of government funding initiatives. However, there is more to be done. In the next four years our government will continue to provide funding for school upgrades, improve lighting and additional recreational facilities around the Casuarina Coastal Reserve and Leanyer Recreational Park to cater for tourists, visitors and locals, and finalise the installation of low impact lights at the Nakara Park oval.
As the recent election has shown, there are no safe seats anymore and no one can bask in past glories. The seats are won in the streets and not sitting in offices. Promises contribute to a successful campaign, but they do not win elections. In the past three years I have worked very hard to deliver on promises made for Casuarina, but I have also worked very hard doorknocking every house, in every street, in every suburb in my electorate because I feel the best place to gain the confidence of my electorate is on the doorstep.
In addition to this, a great support team helps enormously, not only during the campaign and on election day, but for the entire four-year term. I have a fantastic support team to thank for the long hours they spent in my electoral office and at the polling booths: Ms Natasha Fyles, my campaign manager and her assistant, Kirby Lawler, worked tirelessly; Mr Andrew Fyles, a very dear friend and long-term member of the Labor party and his wife, Cheryl, for their continued support, encouragement and assistance; Debbie Rowland, my electorate officer, and her family - Ted, Simone and Candice - for always being there when I needed them, and the many people who endorsed me as a candidate, supported me through the campaign and provided me with much needed assistance.
A huge thank you to Barry, Carol, Mona, Andrew, Maureen and Simone for your support with lovely messages of endorsement. Thank you to David, Matthew, Steven, Shaun and Gary for assisting Andrew and for being part of his poster erecting team. I especially thank David Neville who spent many hours of his holidays letterboxing and assisting the team. To all my letterboxing teams, a huge thank you for being available whenever you were called. I thank my election booth set-up teams, scrutineers and election day helpers. To all my sponsors, thank you for your continuous generosity and support. To all my friends, and everyone who sent me their best wishes, cards, faxes and e-mails during the campaign: your kindness and thoughts are much appreciated, and it makes the job even more rewarding. At the risk of leaving someone out, thank you to all those people who helped in any way they could.
Most of all, of course, my family. My eldest son, Alexander, who is usually a rock by my side, was very disappointed that he could not be here to help me due to his commitment at university in Perth. My youngest son, Michael, my father-in-law, Ivor Moss, who came from Perth to help in my campaign and, most of all my wife, Margaret, who supported me, guided me and cared for me prior to, during and post election campaign. She is my wonderful wife and dear friend. Thank you, Margaret.
To everyone who assisted me in any way, your personal support and involvement meant a great deal to me and my family and certainly contributed significantly to our stunning win in Casuarina.
I would particularly like to thank this country and this Territory. I would like to thank Australia, a country which gave me, a first generation migrant with a strong accent, but an even stronger work ethic and loyalty the opportunity to be educated, get jobs, find many friends and a great family. I also thank the Territory that has been our home for the past 13 years and which has provided me with a unique opportunity to become a member of the Territory parliament and a minister of the Crown. Once again, from the bottom of my heart, I thank you all.
I close my adjournment with a small speech about four teachers who are retiring this week from Nakara Primary School.
Sandra Poffley began her working life in the Northern Territory as a teacher at Nightcliff Primary School and Darwin High School. This year, after 28 years at Nakara Primary School, she is retiring. Sandra worked at Nakara, first as an Administrative Officer 2, then all the way up to Administrative Officer 5 - Administration Manager Registrar. Sandra’s plans for the future include painting, travelling, gardening and other activities that she did not have time to do in the past.
Betty Ruch first worked in the Department of Education at Warrego Primary School, Tennant Creek, in the 1970s. Following the family’s move to Darwin, Betty secured an Administrative Officer 2 position at Nakara Primary School, where she has worked until retiring in September this year. Betty and her husband are moving to Queensland where Betty plans to do volunteer work.
Anne Jackson started her teaching career in 1974 at various primary schools around Darwin. She transferred to Nakara Preschool in 1992 where she continued to teach for the next 16 years. This year, Anne retired from teaching and she too plans to move to Queensland and do more travelling.
Bronwyn Reif began her teaching career in the Northern Territory in 1979. In 1989, Bronwyn was appointed to Nakara Primary School as a teacher in the upper primary section. She soon moved into the position of Librarian, which she held for the following 19 years. This week Bronwyn also retires and plans to move interstate.
Sandra, Betty, Anne and Bronwyn: your work at Nakara Primary School is much appreciated. Hundreds of students have been taught by you and they know you and said a big ‘thank you’ for the work you have done for young Territorians at Nakara Primary School.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I draw the attention of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to the death of a New Zealand police officer killed whilst on duty at 1.45 am Thursday, 11 September 2008, whilst conducting covert operations in Mangere. Sergeant Don Wilkinson, 46, of Waimauku, West Auckland, is the 28th New Zealand police officer killed in the line of duty. It is without doubt his family, friends, and colleagues are deeply shocked and mourning his passing.
Sergeant Wilkinson was not alone at the time he was killed. Sergeant Wilkinson and his colleague were chased whilst on foot by offenders in a vehicle over a 75 meter distance before Sergeant Wilkinson was shot in the chest, which resulted in his death. His partner was beaten and shot several times, but continues to improve and remains in hospital in a serious condition.
As a former Northern Territory police officer, I truly understand the danger involved in the line of duty. I understand the deep hurt the loss would be causing. I hope you will join with me passing deep sympathy to his family: mother, Beverly Lawrie, friends and colleagues of the New Zealand Police Force. Members let it be noted.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): I was being a bit cheeky then. I did not deserve the call, but I thank the member for Stuart for his tolerance.
Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that I was suddenly caught by what the member for Drysdale had to say because it reminded me of a police officer I used to work with. In fact, when he came out on the road in Alice Springs I think I was one of his first senior partners. He was a decent bloke, a really good bloke, his name was Glen Huitson. Sadly, he was murdered on duty a few years ago. Every time I hear of a police officer dying on duty, I think of Glen’s family and how they suffered after he died. If there was somebody who fulfilled the truism: only the good die young, it was Glen Huitson. My condolences, and feelings and thoughts go to the family of the police officer who was killed in New Zealand.
I also speak on another issue - the issue of planning. I know the member for Nelson has a reputation for banging on about planning but I appreciate why he does that. This is a much more specific issue. It is not the global issue I was talking about earlier. This very specific issue is previously the absurd location of the so-called secure taxi rank in Mitchell Street, opposite 79 Mitchell Street, where there are several blocks of units.
At the time this taxi rank was announced by the minister for Planning absolutely no one had been consulted. It is my understanding, with the exception of the cinema, no one wanted the taxi rank - including the Taxi Council - in that particular location. From the taxis’ perspective, it is in the wrong lane, facing the wrong way. From the local residents’ perspective, the most deserving voice in this argument, because they have to put up with the noise this taxi rank generates, it has proven every bit as disastrous as people predicted.
Drunks accumulate around this taxi rank in the early hours of the morning and, whilst I support the need to have a taxi rank in Mitchell Street, particularly at four o’clock in the morning, the right place to put it is not in front of residential flats. Whilst the security officers are there, I am advised, there is merely the issue of noise, which upsets many residents and keeps them awake. They know they live in a city, and near pubs, so they expect a certain amount of noise. However, the noise that is generated by drunks at 4 am when they are congregating in large numbers is unpleasant to the ear and unpleasant for the people who have to put up with that noise.
On top of that, when the security guards knock off work the violence, for which Mitchell Street, sadly, has become synonymous, breaks out. Not only do people have to put up with noise, they then have to put up with the violence, the fights and the abuse that is so often associated with Mitchell Street - and the language is horrible. The better location for the taxi rank would have been in front of the Darwin Entertainment Centre. , It would have been on the right side of the road so taxis picking up clients could get out of town easily and quickly by going straight down towards the Daly Street lights. People who live in the residences at 79 Mitchell Street would not have to put up with all of the noise, the fighting, and the urinating and defecating that occurs in front of their units. It is not a tall fence in front of those units.
These units are not occupied by rich people, and they are not the cutting edge of modern architecture. They are fairly basic units and provide some of the cheapest accommodation in Darwin. However, they were there first in this instance, and the decision to put the taxi rank there was predicted to be a disaster, and has turned out to be a disaster for the residents who live there. There are many aged people and pensioners who live in those units and, whilst their lives were disrupted before by the growing city around them, the deliberate decision to put the taxi rank at that location has proven to be a curse which they should not have to bear.
I call upon the minister for Planning to move it where it should be - further down the road in front of DEC - where there is an appropriate slip lane.
I also turn my attention tonight to another issue which has been percolating for some time. The issue of small and medium-sized craft pontoons, and places for these craft to go, which are not in privately run or corporate body run marinas around town. It may come as a surprise to many members in this Chamber that outside of the marinas in this town – Cullen Bay, the Duck Pond, Dinah Beach - there are very few places for small to medium-sized craft to tie up. The problem at the moment - and I am not going to engage myself in a battle between users of a particular marina and the body corporate - is the body corporate at Cullen Bay has made certain decisions about what they are going to charge commercial operators using the marina and the lock.
That decision has meant that many of the commercial operators no longer see it as viable to use the Cullen Bay marina, so they have to look for moorings and places to berth outside the existing marinas, and those places are few and far between. The one at Cullen Bay that is available and that does, as I understand it, belong to the government, is the pontoon at which several of these operators now have to tie up. That pontoon is too small and is in desperate need of maintenance. The information I have received is it almost sank recently; it took on a lot of water and had to be pumped out. Apparently they do not know where the water is getting into it, and so they have to continue to maintain it.
The government provides roads for commercial trucks to drive on; it provides airstrips for commercial aeroplanes to land on, especially in remote communities. It is not absurd to suggest the government should also play a role in providing places for commercial operators to tie up at apart from the privately-owned marinas. The government has a report in its possession, which it received some time ago, and the government has been sitting on that report. That report made several recommendations as to where a small to medium-size public vessel mooring station or marina could be built. Cullen Bay and Stokes Hill Wharf were areas suggested.
The government’s decision to sit on that report was because they do not want to spend money on infrastructure – there is nothing particularly new in that and, in their defence, they have started to realise they do need to do that. However, the government should not be sitting on this report, and they should be finding a place to build a marina so small to medium-size operators, tourist operators, the people who breathe the life and soul into the tourism industry, particularly the fishing industry and the sightseeing industry in Darwin Harbour, can have a place where they can ply their trade with reasonable fees attached.
This is now becoming a matter of some urgency. It is important and urgent that the government, this year, find the money to build a proper pontoon at a location which is sensible for the people who need to use those pontoons. If need be, one suggestion I will make, is you repair and extend the existing pontoon at Cullen Bay. You drive in a few more piles and you extend it so that the operators, who have to compete with Customs and private boats coming into Darwin, can get some place to ply their trade without exorbitant lock fees and having to use places where they are going to be rendered unviable or simply made unwelcome.
The government should not sit on this report. The government should find the money to do this, because this is the basic bread and butter stuff of building the infrastructure of any community. We talk about roads, and everyone acknowledges we have to build roads. We talk about airstrips in remote communities in particular, and there is no problem; the government is happy to build airstrips in remote communities and maintain them. In fact, it is the federal government, through the Defence budget which, I think, maintains the airstrip in Darwin used by commercial aircraft. So it should be for vessels on the sea. If it is good for vehicles of the air and land, it is good for vehicles of the sea to also get infrastructure to support them so they can go about their business in an effective way.
It is not good enough for the government to sit on these reports. It is not good enough that the government merely shrugs its shoulders and says: ‘I am not going to do anything about that’. And it is not good enough for these people who are the heart and soul of the Darwin Harbour tourism industry being left like shags on a rock because the government decides the report it has commissioned means that it has to spend too much money.
Basic infrastructure, the basic nuts and bolts of how our community works is a government responsibility. It is with roads, it is with airports, and so it should be with berthing arrangements. These operators do not expect this to be free, but they certainly expect to have a reasonable tariff applied to what they are offered. That is an argument they want to have because, at the moment, they have almost nowhere to go.
It would be a shame, for want of a desire to expend money on the part of this government that these people go out of business or shift their businesses interstate. I am aware there are a couple of operators who are looking at taking their businesses interstate, albeit reluctantly, because the infrastructure I am calling for here is actually being provided as, a matter of course, in other places.
This is an issue of spending priorities and I submit to the members of this House that these priorities have been abandoned for more fanciful pursuits by this government.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk briefly tonight about the election campaign in my electorate of Stuart and to say thank you to people who supported me during the campaign.
As I said in my Address-in-Reply to the Administrator’s speech last week, this was my first full election. I was elected in 2006 at a by-election, so for me this was a first full election campaign and it was much different. Obviously, with a by-election you enjoy the full support of your party and other members and colleagues, but this time around it was certainly a challenging one, given the redistribution of my electorate of Stuart.
This year the travel I undertook over the 14 days was enormous, stretching from Pine Creek, Barunga, Beswick, Kybrook Farm, across to Timber Creek, Mataranka, down the western side of the Northern Territory, and it meant I spent many days and hours in the car. I would not have been able to do it without the help of a lot of people and it is those people I acknowledge tonight in my adjournment speech.
First, to the Labor Party of which I have been a member for the last 15 years: I thank them for their trust and their support, not only in the by-election, but also re-election this year. Thank you to Paul Henderson, our Chief Minister, and my colleagues, for electing me not only as a Caucus member, but electing me to Cabinet. It is truly an honour that I treasure and I will look back on in my retirement with much pride. I also thank the many supporters in the communities, and the many family members who helped on the day.
To those people who voted for me, without their vote I would not be here now, so thank you to all those people in all those communities in my electorate. Also to those people who may not have voted for me this time, I certainly honour a pledge today that I will work hard for everyone, no matter what their political affiliation or which way they voted.
Particularly to my family, it is a big commitment for all our families. As members of parliament we spend a lot of time away from home. I think it is even harder for bush members, not only during the campaign but as we look forward to the next four years and being in Cabinet. Without the support of my wife, Rebecca, my three boys and the extended family, my brothers, sisters and my father, it would be a lot harder than it is already. I place their names on the public record and thank them for their support and understanding.
There are a few people who helped in the campaign whom I acknowledge: Uncle Polly, Andrew, Eddie, Sean, Jack, Kirk, a lot of people in the Top End of my electorate who did the hard yards, a lot of travel and were there for me at the remote polling booths in the Top End. Thank you very much for your support. Without you it would have been even harder. Through the centre, there are people such as McGill, Strackie, Matthew, Vince, John, Robin Jabinunga, Norbert and Tracy, Kirk, Sean and Joe and also Alison and Barbara, or Malarndirri. Without their support, it would have been impossible.
With all bush campaigns there are many good stories that you reflect on and have a good laugh about. From my electorate of Stuart there is no shortage of stories of the feral animals, particularly feral horses and the donkeys in the area of Kalkarindji. They certainly had affection for many of the corflutes! So a lot of fun and stories there.
I acknowledge the new communities in my electorate. I was able to spend time in the top part of my electorate meeting people and visiting communities that were new to the Stuart. It was great to have the opportunity to catch up with some of the people who are now part of my huge electorate. Everyone was very welcoming and I was delighted with the time people took to show me around and talk to me about what is happening in their communities. I especially enjoyed lunch with members of the Barunga community, a barbecue with the Wugularr residents and the tour of Manyallaluk.
I was most impressed by the Barunga community. It really is a model community. My colleague, the member for Arnhem, was very disappointed to lose them and I can understand why because the general appearance of the community is fantastic. I look forward to spending more time up there and working with the Barunga residents. I especially thank Old Man Jack from Bulla. He spent an afternoon showing me around the community and pointing out with much pride the new works and developments going on. Old Man Jack is a fantastic asset to the Bulla community and, indeed, the region.
I was also lucky to be in Katherine for another successful Katherine Show. This is one of the biggest regional events in Katherine for the year and it was a good time to meet with people from the region. It was my first Katherine show and I was impressed by the way the show was organised and the numbers of people who attended. It is a true regional country show.
The show’s President, Adrian Creighton, and the large group of volunteers all helped to make the 2008 Katherine Show an outstanding success and they are all to be congratulated. I was pleased once again to sponsor the Brahman Cutout Prize and proud to say the winners were: Verity Hall with first prize; the Katherine South After School Care with the second prize; and Joseph Gazey with third prize. I spent a pleasant evening at the Brahman dinner in Katherine which was held at the CDU rural campus. The night was fantastic. There was great food and plenty of great dancing, as well as the Brahman Cattle awards. I congratulate the Bunda Brahman stud run by Reg and Janelle Underwood and their family. They won a host of awards including the Most Successful Exhibitor Award and Junior Champion Heifer with Bunda Nicole.
Moving to Pine Creek, I spent an enjoyable morning catching up with Robert Liddy, Veronica Birrell and Des Grainer to find out what was happening at Kybrook Farm. I was very impressed with Brenda Huddleston’s new business ‘Langawarin’. Brenda produces bush medicine soap, which I think the member for Daly mentioned today, and has been selling them at the Darwin markets. If you are ever down that way, keep an eye out for them.
After 31 years and one month, Pine Creek says goodbye to long time resident, Elaine Gano. Elaine worked for the Pine Creek Council and was a wonderful community supporter and will be sorely missed as she moves to New South Wales to be near her daughters.
Pine Creek also recently celebrated its 25th Moline Golf Classic which has the distinction of being the longest running golf competition in the Northern Territory. It is great to see the Pine Creek community so involved in many fantastic events throughout the year, one of which is the Pine Creek festival which finished with a spectacular concert by the Darwin Symphony Orchestra in the park. It was a free concert put on for the community with the principle sponsors being GBS Gold. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend as it was election night, but I have heard it was a fantastic night and well attended by the Pine Creek and Katherine communities, as well as tourists who were pleasantly surprised to see the DSO outback style. Well over 700 people attended. Well done to all those involved in the organisation of this great event. I look forward to getting to it next year.
In Mataranka, congratulations go to Bradley and Michael Lewis, who have just returned from Norway after attending the International Children’s Conference for the Environment. One thousand children attended from 100 countries to discuss water, biodiversity, energy and consumption.
On a sadder note, I extend my sincere sympathy to the Fishlock family on the tragic loss of Duane, who was killed in a helicopter accident at the Mataranka showgrounds the 23 August 2008. Duane and his wife, Jane, own a number of businesses, including a cattle station called Stuart Downs, 70 km south of Katherine. Duane was also a well-known Territory identity and will be remembered for his rodeo company, Norstock, and his contribution to the sport of rodeo. Duane and Jane had been huge supporters of the Mataranka and Katherine communities and his loss would be felt by both of them. This is a very sad time for the Fishlock family and my thoughts are with them, particular Jane and the children - Cody, Simone, Taylor, Ben and Troy.
The Top End Region Primary School Art Competition was held during the last parliamentary sittings at Parliament House and it was fantastic to see art from around the region on display in the foyer. I congratulate Kalkaringi students: Katrina Ketchup, Shania Smiler, Ricarda Edwards and Patricia Lacy, who won second prize for their art work titled Community Leadership and Kids Like Going to School at Kalkaringi. Also, congratulations to the Katherine School of the Air student, Christopher Summerhill, who won the People’s Choice Award with his painting which represents the eyes of an Aboriginal elder. Well done to Christopher.
There are many more communities and towns that are new to my electorate, and I will be endeavouring to visit them in the near future so I can update this parliament with the fantastic things happening in the Katherine region.
Turning to the central region of my electorate, I congratulate the Anmatjere men who participated in the Certificate II in Rural Operations course in Ti Tree: Freddy Pepperill, Kim Brown, Carl Bevan, Dan Pepperill, Rodney Campbell, Tony Scrutton, Halen Foster, Malcolm Ross, Terry Pananka, Henry Ross, Dwayne Allan, Paul Janima, Michael Allan and Nigel Cook. Well done to all of those men. I normally visit there as I am driving to Ti Tree, and I know all of those men are fantastic role models for the communities around Ti Tree and I look forward to assisting them into jobs in the horticultural industry in the future. Congratulations to all of those men, and keep up the good work.
I also recently attended the Batchelor Institute Graduation in Alice Springs and I congratulate the constituents from my electorate who received certificates:
Madam Deputy Speaker, well done to all those students. Many of them are mature-age students, so it goes to show you are never too old to learn.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I place on the Parliamentary Record an issue that affects both the residents of Katherine and Nhulunbuy, and medical staff of the Katherine and Gove Hospitals. It has become apparent that the RDH has had some serious issues in relation to staffing. Finally, the minister has acknowledged what we have all known for a long time. It does not take a brain surgeon to figure out there is a staffing crisis amongst nurses at Royal Darwin Hospital.
There has been years of anecdotal evidence to suggest there were serious staffing issues in hospitals all over the Territory. Why it has taken an adverse coronial finding for the minister to sit up and take notice beggars belief. I suggest to the Minister for Health, where there is smoke, there is fire. I cannot understand why the minister has not sought out the source of the smoke that has been billowing from our hospitals for years.
Whilst this issue has been questioned and debated in no small way since the release of the recent Coroner’s report into the death of a patient at RDH, there will come a time when the government will have to stop sitting on its hands and address some of the underlying causes of staff issues; that is attracting and maintaining quality staff, not only nurses but other professional and semi-professional employees in a variety of departments within the Northern Territory government.
RDH is not alone in its plight. Both the Katherine and Gove Hospitals are also experiencing issues with staff. Today, I am not going to harp on issues which are both widely known and previously debated in this House. However, this issue relates in no small way to the overall failings of the NT health system and the government’s complicity in that failure.
The doctors and nurses I know are professional, dedicated, committed and hard-working people. I believe an individual working with people’s health must possess an amazing amount of compassion and devotion to the patients under their care. I take my hat off to them for I do not believe that I possess the patience they do. Often our doctors and nurses work very long hours on the basis of goodwill alone. I frequently said to my former police colleagues that the police force survives on goodwill of the members on the ground, and the organisation would implode if it were not for the dedicated individuals and teams that make a flawed system work. I strongly suspect that our hospital system survives on much the same basis. That is not the issue today; that will be for another time.
In looking at the staffing issues, there is a widely held belief amongst doctors that the Territory is a great training venue. Across the Territory a large proportion of patients, specifically in Gove and Katherine, are Indigenous patients who present with advanced morbidity, major trauma and other life threatening emergencies needing stabilisation before aerial evacuation to Darwin. As a result of their very nature as training venues, the Katherine and Gove Hospitals attract younger, less experienced doctors. These doctors are those dedicated, caring people I alluded to earlier. Our doctors, particularly our junior doctors, need as much support as possible. However, that support is limited. Senior doctors are either rare or unavailable due to their own workload commitments.
There is a system by which junior doctors can receive real time support and advice from their senior and more experienced colleagues. Part of that system involves the junior doctor calling a senior doctor on the phone, usually to the Royal Darwin Hospital. I have been advised that junior doctors in our regional hospitals often have trouble getting a more senior doctor on the phone immediately. Messages are left, but it can often be a matter of hours before the call is returned. When the call is returned, the attitude has been reported as condescending. ‘You do not have the facilities in Katherine, so just send them to Darwin’, is the response that has been received more than once. It is appalling that the only advice a junior doctor can get is: send the patient to Darwin. Not that I blame the doctors.
Like many other professionals, doctors have extremely hefty workloads. Take a doctor rostered on duty in Accident and Emergency in Katherine on a Friday night. Nights like this could produce numerous patients presenting with serious injuries. No wonder the waiting time is measured in hours. A similar situation occurs frequently in all Territory hospitals. So, you would think the Territory government would jump at the chance to have a ready supply of senior doctors available to train the younger ones. But no, not this government.
In 2003, the PROSPECT project was spawned. PROSPECT stands for Providing Remote On Site Skills, Procedural Education and Clinical Training. The project was an initiative of the Royal College of Australasian Surgeons as an extension of other rural initiatives which were in place. The program involves clinical instructors from the ranks of semi-retired health professionals travelling to Katherine and Gove Hospitals. Disciplines represented amongst these professionals included orthopaedic and general surgeons, obstetricians, gynaecologists and anaesthetists. These clinical instructors spent a period of four weeks in the Territory at any one time; two weeks each at Gove and Katherine Hospitals. Over a period of a year we could have senior, experienced, clinical instructors in our regional hospitals for between 40 and 48 weeks. Up until now this has been the case, but in 2008 this initiative has been let slide by the Territory Labor government and its federal cohorts in Canberra.
The PROSPECT project was in receipt of a fixed term funding arrangement. The funding was jointly provided by the federal and Northern Territory governments. Its inception occurred during the term of the previous federal government, a government which was obviously insightful and proactive in providing a cost-effective adjunct to programs such as the Medical Specialist Outreach Assistance Program. Yet, within seven months of federal Labor coming to power, common sense has been thrown out the window.
Some might ask why have this project running if there are other outreach programs? Good question. This project is very cheap, and I mean cheap, to operate, and relies again, on the goodwill of medical personnel. These semi-retired doctors donate their time to come from all over Australia to help their colleagues in regional centres where clinical training is lacking. On top of that, they provide an extra set of hands in busy times. I know their input is considered invaluable.
These visiting doctors provide their services pro bono. The only cost to the government is in the form of airfares and, in some cases, accommodation. The cost of getting these experts to the Northern Territory is not $1m, not even $0.5m, not even $200 000. The total cost per year for this service is a measly $110 000. Yes, $110 000. So, for the sake of a token amount, the NT government has access to senior specialists who are willing to come here for nothing and work alongside our own medical personnel providing high level training and assistance. Why, for goodness sake, did the Territory Labor government not lobby its federal counterparts to keep this program alive? For that matter, why did the NT government not take the reins and fund this program on its own? The party, paid for by the Territory taxpayers at the opening of the Convention Centre, would have paid for a further five years of this program.
At the beginning of this submission to the House, I mentioned there are underlying causes in attracting and maintaining quality staff. It is widely held that salary and conditions attract a person to a job, but it is the intangible that keep them in that job. Not that I am suggesting that money is a driving force for our doctors, for they are truly attracted to their profession by the good they can do in our community. Nor am I suggesting that the NT leads the way in offering more than competitive salaries, but all employers must be cognisant of the need to address the intangible.
The issue of ongoing training and support is one of those intangibles. Doctors need to undertake a wide variety of inservice training throughout their careers. For junior medical staff, what better opportunity to have real time, onsite training than through the PROSPECT program? The lack of training availability in this area contributes greatly to both the attrition rate and the difficulty in attracting staff in the Northern Territory. Staff who do not feel supported will simply not stay. They will move on to greener pastures, and there are greener pastures out there.
Also, those disaffected doctors talk to their interstate colleagues, and you can imagine the tenor of their conversation does not go along the lines of: ‘Come to the Territory, you will get great support and training here’. That goes to the crux of the problem. It is high time the government stops sitting on its hands. It is high time the government got its priorities right.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this situation is simply not acceptable for the people of the Northern Territory, they deserve better.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to a Territorian who has served our community for more than three decades, and there are some links to the Assembly as well.
Mrs Di Trimble has today said farewell to her colleagues at the Power and Water Corporation after a career spanning 36 years. All of us in this House will agree such a long career deserves our recognition and our thanks.
As Mrs Trimble celebrates her retirement tonight with friends, I take this opportunity to recount some of her story for the Parliamentary Record. A fourth generation Territorian, Di is a descendant of the Sue Wah Chin family. Her father, Ray, was the Clerk of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. She joined what was then the Department of the Northern Territory in 1972. Following Cyclone Tracy, Di was amongst the government Corporate Services personnel relocated to Brisbane from 1975 to 1977 for the rebuilding of the department’s recruitment, payroll and registry services during Darwin’s reconstruction stage. In Mrs Trimble’s words ‘some holiday camp’.
From 1978 to 1987 Mrs Trimble worked in personnel and payroll in the Northern Territory Electricity Commission and stayed on when it became the Power and Water Authority in 1987. Mrs Trimble initially continued in her role in personnel and was promoted to Industrial Relations Policy Officer in 1999. In 2002, the Power and Water Authority was transformed into the Power and Water Corporation. Most recently, Mrs Trimble has played a key role as an Employment Services consultant and her knowledge and expertise has proven invaluable in negotiating workplace agreements.
In a brief e-mail to her colleagues marking her retirement, Mrs Trimble farewells Power and Water as a great organisation to work for and facing new challenges every day within the Utilities industry. I am sure Mrs Trimble will be sadly missed by her colleagues up and down the track.
I know members join me in acknowledging Mrs Trimble’s 36 years’ of service to the people of the Northern Territory, and wish her all the best in her well deserved retirement.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Kormilda College students, accompanied by Ms Michelle Jones. On behalf of all honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Blue Mud Bay – Decision of the High Court
Blue Mud Bay – Decision of the High Court
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I present a report detailing my government’s commitments following the High Court’s decision on the Blue Mud Bay matter. I spoke extensively during the election campaign on this issue and I am reiterating this position to the House today.
The High Court handed down its decision on 30 July 2008. There are two significant implications to commercial and recreational fishing in tidal waters over Aboriginal lands. Tidal waters over Aboriginal lands comprise approximately 80% of the Northern Territory coastline; and parts of our rivers, such as the Daly and the Finniss. The most significant implication from the decision is that the High Court confirms that the Fisheries Act has application in these tidal waters. This means that Northern Territory police and fisheries officers can fully enforce all Fisheries Regulations such as bag limits, closure lines, and gear restrictions in all Northern Territory waters. This is welcome news and removes the uncertainty that has existed since the full Federal Court decision on the matter in March last year.
The other significant implication of the High Court decision is confirmation that both commercial and recreational fishers who wish to undertake fishing activities in tidal waters over Aboriginal land require permission from traditional owners.
I am pleased to advise that the temporary fishing permits that were put in place following the Federal Court decision last year, continue to apply for at least 12 months after the High Court decision. This will enable long-term arrangements to be negotiated and agreed between all relevant stakeholders, including the Northern Land Council, Tiwi Land Council, the Anindilyakwa Land Council, the Seafood Council, and the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory. My government has not simply sat around waiting for the High Court decision. It has continued to engage with stakeholders on this issue. When I met stakeholders on the day of the decision, the feedback was that there is a firm basis for a sensible negotiated outcome.
The High Court decision presents opportunities and challenges, and I have a practical plan to reach agreement with the relevant parties. The plan should guarantee:
the capacity for recreational fishers to continue fishing on affected waters without charge or the need for an individual fishing permit;
appropriate arrangements for commercial fishing and the protection of fishing stocks;
economic development opportunities for Indigenous Territorians, and
any necessary resource management and regulatory changes required as a result of such agreements
The decision of the High Court in the Blue Mud Bay matter has clarified that the Fisheries Act applies to all Territory waters and at the same time has presented opportunities and challenges. The strong commitments of stakeholders to address the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities will result in an outcome of benefit to all Territorians.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement. It is a very important matter that sits before this community to be resolved so that we can find a way through this. I acknowledge that a decision has been made in the High Court. I also acknowledge that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act sits in the federal parliament. As a consequence of the challenge in terms of that act, there has now been a change in tenure regarding the access to waterways. That has significant implications, not just in the Territory, but nationally. And it is a far higher order issue than I think the Chief Minister has recognised and acknowledged in his comments. It does warrant some level of serious leadership to ensure that we do cut a way through this because the implications of these are very significant in terms of the relationships of people within the Northern Territory.
It goes right through to Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of this nation, to adjudicate on this so we can find a way through this. We do not want to construct obstacles; instead we should be building bridges to find ways forward. I will be calling upon the Chief Minister to ensure that the federal government is brought to bear on this so that this community can solve these matters in a way that advances our joint interests. This does change the very nature of the tenure of land and access for all Territorians. It is not just those who are sitting together now and stakeholders being consulted and talked about. We talk about new laws that you, Chief Minister, say that there is now the capacity to enforce. Is there, in fact, the capacity to enforce the law? Is there the genuine resourcing capacity to enforce this law? If you cannot enforce a law, there is no point in having one, because you then lose respect for the law. We need to have the genuine capacity to enforce, and I think it falls over on that ground ...
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I welcome the Chief Minister’s report. I said in this parliament some time ago when this issue first came up that I thought our government should have taken the lead and started the ball rolling. We should have commenced discussions with the traditional landowners to find a way around the need for permits simply by coming up with an agreement signed by all parties, irrespective of what the High Court finally said. That is what Territorians would have expected of our government - take the lead, talk to the community, talk to the Aboriginal people who own the coastline in the Northern Territory. I am sure, with goodwill, we could have come up with a homegrown agreement, which would have satisfied both sides of the argument.
As it is, we have some really practical issues. This is not just about fishing. This is about the right of a person who is not a traditional owner of that land to travel on that water, to be in that water. I see practical problems such as driving between Melville and Bathurst Islands. What is the low water tide mark; when is it high tide? How do you actually define it? How does someone know that? Will it create tension? For instance, people who drive past in a boat between the low water mark and the high water mark, in theory, require a permit. How far up the Daly River is the high water or low water mark? Does that mean all people who travel on the Daly River require a permit - not just to fish, but just to take their boat along that water?
I hoped we could have sat down and knuckled out some of these issues as a Territory, with Territorians involved, and come up with a homegrown decision. Whether that can still happen, I do not know. That is really where the answer lies. Let us fix it ourselves, not worry about some court in Canberra sorting it out.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I pick up on the comments from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, this will require leadership to actually get a win/win/win outcome for the people of the Northern Territory and the commercial fishing industry. I am very much heartened by the immediate announcement of the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Mr Wali Wunungmurra, who said that he believed we could achieve a negotiated outcome that was a win/win outcome.
The member for Nelson talked about goodwill. I congratulate AFANT, the Seafood Council and the Northern, Tiwi and Anindilyakwa Land Councils, who have entered into this with goodwill. There is goodwill to find a negotiated outcome. I am determined to provide the leadership, with all parties concerned, to reach a Territory solution to an act of the Commonwealth parliament that only applies in the Northern Territory. I hope the opposition does not play politics with it.
Shire Council Elections
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, on 25 October this year, a very important event in history of the Territory will take place: the election of shire councillors for our eight new shire councils. At the same time, our mini-shires - the Coomalie Community Government Council and the Wagait Shire Council - will also have their elections, as will the Litchfield Shire Council.
There has been much debate in this parliament and across the Territory about local government reform. However, there has been a clear agreement on the need for change. The fundamental driver of that change has been the need for improved efficiency and effectiveness of local government at the local level, and to improve service delivery to local residents.
We are well on track in meeting that objective and, day-by-day, we are seeing the improvements and outcomes unfold. Our reform plan, implemented in conjunction with the Local Government Advisory Board, includes establishing the new shires, shire staffing, establishing the new draft business plans, letting the shires establish their corporate identity and business systems, and allowing residents to become familiar with the new wards within each shire.
The ward boundaries are the product of local people, developed on the advice of community representatives on our community-based local government transition committees. However, they have been designed around communities of interest, service delivery alliance, local geographic and cultural considerations, and represent a best fit of all those factors. Most importantly, the wards have been designed and named by local people.
The elections will be conducted by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission and nominations for the election will close on 2 October. I call on all Territorians to support this important step forward. Being involved will help to establish and shape a strong third tier of government, delivering improved services to Territorians, especially those out bush.
Election awareness is, of course, critically important, and a working group consisting of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, and the Department of Local Government and Housing has been working to coordinate and develop election awareness and education material for the inaugural shire elections. Candidate kits for people interested in nominating for election have also been prepared and are available from shire offices.
Most recently, shire and departmental staff have been busily working promoting awareness of elections in affected communities using a range of communication tools. I am looking forward to the strong community participation in the first elections of our new shire councils.
The election of the shire councillors will see our Local Government reform coming of age as elected councillors take over from the interim shire council committees which have been providing advice to the staff of our eight new shires following the introduction of the revised Local Government Act on 1 July this year.
Shire councillors will be elected to councils operating within the next round of council elections in March 2012. From that time, all council elections across the Territory will be scheduled for that same time, with all councils being elected for a fixed term of four years.
Newly elected shire councillors will, of course, be offered ongoing training support as part of our commitment to strong local government in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I urge local people to stand for election. I ask all members in this House to encourage Territorians within their electorates to stand for election.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for his report this morning on Local Government. Yes, it will be good that the shires will come of age, if that is possible, on 25 October when the shire elections take place. I do stand with the member for Daly in encouraging the right people to nominate for elected positions within all the shire councils. It is imperative that people who have an interest, have a drive, have a real want to help their community, nominate for elected positions within the councils.
However, the minister has alluded that everything is sailing along quite smoothly as far as the implementation of the shires is going, and on that basis I cannot really support his statement that the shires will come of age, so to speak, when the elections are over.
I am just wondering whether the minister is aware of all the problems that are still occurring within the makeup of the new shires as far as staffing goes. I can advise that there are many paid positions within the shires that remain unfilled; we are simply unable to fill those positions. I can only imagine that the reason for that is that the Northern Territory has difficulty attracting quality people to come to positions like that, and the government is failing in its duty and obligation to provide an environment where quality people will make themselves available for those positions.
Also, in relation to staffing, I am aware that people have resigned from positions within the local government council, and that those positions are adding to the problems we have with staffing at the present time.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report. I, too, hope that as many people as possible will stand for election. I congratulate Litchfield Shire Council which, with the help of a government grant, has put out a pamphlet encouraging people to stand at the next election. I see in today’s paper also advertising for a workshop next weekend for any candidates who would like to find out more about the council. I encourage everyone to stand who would like to be involved in local government.
I also support reform, but I feel that this reform, as was reflected in the anger of the people in the Litchfield Shire, is driven by the government which simply thinks it knows best. This election is a classic example where it has not trusted the people of the Territory to have their own democratically elected council. I heard the minister say that could not happen. It happened in Queensland, and Queensland did not make more noise about local government reform than we did in the Northern Territory.
The one thing they did have was that when the old councils closed down, a democratically elected council existed from day one. Here we are about four months down the track, when the government’s unelected officials, when the government’s department, when the CEOs and all those sorts of people who have never been employed by an elected council, are running these councils as if that is the way it should be. Well, it should not be that way.
They are responsible, especially the CEOs and all those people, to an elected body. We have worked in reverse, and I think it is a great shame. I know that you cannot change these things, and the government should be brought to task on that. It should support democratic principles and processes, and not just ignore them for the sake of expediency.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for, I guess, their partial support. The member for Katherine started off well.
This has been an extremely ambitious project and a much needed project. I will repeat what I said yesterday: this has been a gutsy move by this government to fix a problem which everyone else has shied away from. We have heard about reform, reform, reform, but they have offered no sort of solution. This government has taken a bold step and actually done it.
I encourage greater participation. It is time to move on. Those structures are in place. We have legislation for a new Local Government Act and it is time to work with those employees and those elected members, and I certainly will be.
Member for Katherine, one of key factors in this reform was about attracting better quality and getting some better conditions for employees,. This was the fundamental reason for doing this reform: To attract better quality people into the local government sphere, and we will also be growing our own.
I acknowledge the great work of the previous Local Government ministers, Jack Ah Kit and Elliot McAdam, for all their vision and effort.
Member for Nelson, you knock, knock, knock. You are a bit like Woody the Woodpecker, knocking, knocking, knocking.
Mr Wood: Yes, that is all right, but the end does not justify the means, minister.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Renal Services - Expansion
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, today I will report to the House on this government’s success in expanding renal services across the Territory.
Tackling renal disease is one of this government’s key health priorities. The Territory has the highest incidence of end stage renal disease in Australia and we have taken big steps to address the problem. In our first term of government we made a substantial investment in renal services with approximately $21m recurrent. This enabled us to establish new facilities in Tennant Creek, Katherine and Palmerston, and increased specialist medical and nursing staff across the Territory. This had led to a significant improvement in the survival rates of renal clients on dialysis which is now equivalent to the national average.
To further guide the development of renal services, we introduced the Northern Territory Renal Services Strategy 2005-09. This strategy provides pathways for the planned and coordinated growth, development and improvement of renal services. We have embarked on an ambitious program of expansion to get the balance right between prevention, early identification of disease, early intervention and access to renal dialysis treatment for end stage renal disease.
In Budget 2007-08 this government made a major commitment with $24.4m over four years to tackle renal disease. Prevention and early intervention has been supported with extra resources for primary health care. Six new chronic disease nurse positions have been introduced and are providing case management and support to patients to prevent the onset of end stage kidney disease.
The majority of renal patients are from remote communities and face serious social disruption by being compelled to relocate to major centres for treatment. We have therefore focused our efforts on providing these essential services closer to home.
All new remote health centres and upgrades to health centres, where possible, make provision for renal dialysis. These facilities make it possible for people to self-manage their dialysis in their own community. We are now taking a major step forward in expanding dialysis options in Central Australia with the opening of the Alice Springs self-care training facilities.
Construction of the new $270 000 facility was completed earlier this year and complements the range of services available at the Flynn Drive Renal Unit. I look forward to visiting this unit next week for the official opening.
This facility has dedicated staff to train and support patients to become accomplished in their own dialysis. Once independent in their treatment, the patients are able to return to home and continue dialysis in their community. Regular support is provided to self-care patients in their communities with onsite visits from renal staff and access to telephone hotline service.
Self-care facilities are now available in communities across the Territory ranging from the Tiwi Islands to Maningrida, Galiwinku, Ramingining and Groote Eylandt, and Santa Teresa and Ti Tree in Central Australia to name a few. Preliminary assessments have been conducted for home dialysis facilities in Hermannsburg and Ali Curung. In addition, the Australian government has provided capital funding for up to six relocatable, two station, self - care facilities in remote communities. Negotiations are taking place with specific communities for these units. I look forward to updating the House with progress in the near future.
Finally, we are expanding satellite renal dialysis units. Progress is being made for the development of a new eight station facility, in collaboration with industry, in Alice Springs. This facility will cater for up to 32 patients and will greatly enhance service options in Central Australia.
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt renal disease is a major health issue affecting families and communities. We are taking bold steps and extra resources and partnerships with government, industry and communities to tackle the disease, and provide safe and sustainable services across the Northern Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I recognise the good work done in the renal area. However, I get the feeling that the good work in this area would continue whether the minister had any input or not. How can you believe anything this minister says? How can you believe anything this minister says in this House in view of recent events, particularly in light of the last seven or eight days? He has failed in his duties as Health minister and he has failed in his duties in his previous job as Police minister …
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Do you know what they called him in the police service, Madam Speaker?
Mr Tollner: No, what did they call him?
Mr CONLAN: They call him the emperor, Emperor Burns. So how can you believe anything this minister says? His credibility is absolutely shot to pieces.
What about nursing numbers in the Territory? The minister has put out a media release - 2006 ‘the health system in good shape’. All the other media releases he has put out in the last couple of years talk up the nursing numbers in the Northern Territory. And what do we have? We have a coroner’s report that highlights a massive nursing staffing crisis, critical shortages at the Royal Darwin Hospital. How can you believe anything this minister says?
This minister and his political appointments, that is the CEO and the Acute Care boss, Peter Campos, all three of them should go. It is really Huey, Dewey and Louie running the Northern Territory health system.
Mr Henderson: That is offence. You are a grub.
Mr CONLAN: But that is not taking away from the good work that is … You should be ashamed of yourself. You have no backbone to stand up and sack your Health minister.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr CONLAN: On 10 August, you said …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I was going to ignore the diatribe of 8HA over there, but there is one issue I will pick up on about political appointments. It is a disgrace for the member for Greatorex to say that. There is a process for appointments to the public service. That is offensive.. There are no political appointments in regard to what he said.
I will move on because renal services are very important to a lot of Territorians, particularly those who are in the bush.
Why the member for Greatorex wanted to throw all this dust in the air is the simple fact that under the CLP renal services were curtailed to Alice Springs and Darwin. They had an ideological position of not having outreach renal services. The former shadow, Dr Richard Lim, admitted that in this House. To his credit, he said: ‘I was wrong; we were wrong’. It is about time the member for Greatorex stood up and acknowledged that and the good work that this government has done in this particular area.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
GAMING MACHINE AMENDMENT (ANTI-PROLIFERATION) BILL
(Serial 8)
(Serial 8)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Gaming Machine Act and the Gaming Machine Regulations. It is the first in a series of staged amendments for the reform of the community gaming machine sector. This bill sets a cap on the total number of community gaming machines in the Northern Territory. It also revises the taxation arrangements which apply to clubs and hotels in relation to community gaming machines.
Further reforms of the community gaming machine sector will see the introduction of a regulated trading scheme for licences within the capped pool of machines. These reforms will ensure fairness to licensees and restore the balance back to the community.
On 18 July 2008, I announced that there would be a cap of 1190 gaming machines in the Northern Territory. This bill gives legislative effect to that announcement. The government has chosen to set a cap on the number of gaming machines, as the number of machines has more than doubled since 1996 when the machines were introduced to the Northern Territory. In the 10-year period between 1998 and 2008, the number of gaming machines in hotels has almost tripled. Hotels on Mitchell Street, in the middle of Darwin, experienced a significant part of that growth.
Meanwhile, there is growing concern in the community about the impact of community gaming machines on individuals and on society as a whole. Community service providers, such as Amity, which deal with people suffering the consequences of gambling problems have also expressed concern about the increase in machine numbers in hotels and clubs. These community service providers have consistently pointed out the burden that problem gambling imposes on individuals and their families.
Problem gambling is also tied to a variety of social problems including domestic violence, child neglect and drug and alcohol abuse. Over the years, the media has picked up and recorded many instances of individual difficulty.
These are real problems that government is addressing through greater regulatory management. The government has sought to offset the impact of gaming machines on the community through the Community Benefit Fund, which provides that a percentage of machine profits be redirected from hotel licensees with gaming machine licences back into the community. However, it is clear that this kind of management is not enough.
All other jurisdictions in Australia have sought to manage gaming machines through setting caps on the number of machines and introducing trading systems schemes whereby interested licensees can trade machines in a regulated environment. This has proved successful in managing gaming. The system provides certainty for the community that there will be no increase in overall gaming machine numbers on licensed premises, while still allowing business to operate and trade their machines for legitimate profit.
There is potential for a concerning increase in the number of gaming machines in the Northern Territory if nothing is done. Currently, the Gaming Machine Act allows clubs and hotels to apply for a maximum number of machines within each particular category. If all the clubs and hotels decided to apply for their eligible maximum number of machines, we could see a further 1000 machines made available in the Northern Territory.
Whilst the Licensing Commission is required to consider the merit of the application against the set of criteria, including a community impact assessment, this process means that not all applications for further machines or for gaming machine licences would necessarily be successful. Without some mechanism to manage the numbers of community gaming machines, we could end up with significantly more machines in the Northern Territory and a concerning increase in harm.
This government has sought to respond to the growing concern about the current scheme by implementing a cap on the number of gaming machines. As I announced, that number is 1190 machines, being the number of machines currently within the community. At this stage, there are no current applications formally lodged with the Director of Licensing.
The bill, which includes the amendments to the regulations, provides for the cap to take effect from 18 July 2008, the date government announced a cap on gaming machine numbers.
In addition to the amendments already discussed, this bill provides that regulations can be made to cap the total number of gaming machines in particular parts of the Territory, and to impose any restriction, or combination of restrictions, on gaming machine numbers. At this stage, there are no regulations arising from these provisions. The amendments simply provide a tool by which the Licensing Commission can manage the trading scheme intended to be introduced in the future. Government will conduct extensive negotiations with all stakeholders before bringing in any further amendments.
Importantly, the bill also makes provision for the Licensing Commission to reject, without further inquiry, any application for either a gaming machine licence or for an increase in the number of gaming machines authorised for use under a gaming machine licence, if it would result in the cap of 1190 machines being breached. This power does not currently exist in the Gaming Machine Act, and will enable the Licensing Commission to lawfully maintain the cap of 1190 machines.
This bill also revises the taxation rates that apply to clubs and hotels in relation to gaming machine revenue. Clubs and hotels will no longer have separate taxation rates that apply to each type of premises, and both will now be subject to uniform rates. The rates have been revised so that clubs and hotels will be subject to a tiered gaming machine tax rate, depending on each venue’s gross monthly profit. The lowest rate of 12.91% will apply to gross monthly profits of up to $10 000 with the rate rising to 22.91% for profits from $10 001 up to $100 000; 32.91% for profits between $100 001 and $200 000; peaking at 42.91% for venues with profits over $200 000.
While there will be an initial loss in revenue to the government from the new taxation regime this could be partly offset, in time, with the introduction of the new trading scheme. The details for the trading of machines have not yet been finalised, but will be following consultation with the industry and will include appropriate taxation and levies on trading entities that trade their gaming machines. This will ensure that the profits from the gaming machine sector will continue to be put to good use across the Territory.
Madam Speaker: I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Arafura to Alice – EcoLinks Project
Arafura to Alice – EcoLinks Project
Ms ANDERSON (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, today I outline a visionary plan for the Territory, a plan that involves all Territorians, a plan that has its origins in the oldest living culture and the environment that has sustained that culture; a plan that will protect and enhance the country and its people from one end of the Territory to the other.
In southern states, little remains of original vegetation. Natural resources, especially water, have been greatly over-allocated and over-used. Governments in these jurisdictions are now trying to protect and restore the last remnants of native vegetation and buy back scarce land and water for conservation purposes.
The Territory, fortunately, is not yet in such a difficult position. We have the chance to develop the kinds of approaches that southern states might, in hindsight, wish they had used 100 years ago to balance economic and social development with long-term sustainable agricultural, pastoral, tourism and mining industries. We can have a Territory richer with healthy people and healthy country.
Fundamental to realising this opportunity is to recognise that the natural systems that underpin our wellbeing function on a large scale. If we make decisions which sever or alter important connections in the landscape, then effects will be felt in terms of lower productivity in our primary industries and fisheries, less secure water resources, or declining numbers of wildlife.
Whole-of-landscape approaches are now being developed worldwide as scientists realise, for example, that the connections between protected areas are as important as the areas themselves. They allow species to re-establish themselves after local disasters such as bushfires or drought preventing the local extinctions that, over the longer term, add up to larger scale species loss.
In essence, managing our environment at this landscape scale builds resilience in our natural systems and the capacity to adjust and adapt to change rather than lose critical ecosystem servers or, worse still, see the collapse of functioning eco-systems. Managing for landscape health will be particularly important as the effects of climate change take hold. Global warming will put further pressure on species in isolated reserves, and north-south connections between reserves will become more and more important.
Few places in the world, and even fewer developed countries, have the chance to establish whole-of-landscape conservation and make such approaches genuinely work. By that I mean approaches to economic development which are scientifically grounded and simultaneously drive industrial, agricultural conservation and culture growth in the regions, while ensuring that there is enough land, water, vegetation and wildlife for the benefit of generations to come.
At the last election the government announced the development of a visionary concept that will, over time, create a Territory where many of our major conservation areas are buffered and connected in the wider landscape. The Arafura to Alice project will help get everyone working together to link public and private conservation efforts on a large scale.
Several similar farsighted projects already exist in the world, most notably Yellowstone to Yukon in the United States and Canada, and the Alps to Atherton project on the east coast of Australia. This new way of addressing threatening processes on landscape scale, in collaboration with communities, is a very good example of true sustainable development. It achieves environmental, social and economic benefits for all communities involved.
I have already described the need for landscape scale conservation. Through Arafura to Alice, government is also responding to the growing movement by non-government players who want a significant and active role in conservation. There are, for example, more than 30 Indigenous ranger groups established across the Territory and hundreds of Indigenous Territorians supplying both Indigenous and scientific knowledge to land management. on established parks, but mostly on Aboriginal freehold land.
A number of groups have taken the next step, establishing Indigenous Protected Areas, or IPAs, on their land to bring a higher level of conservation planning and practice to bear. There is now good evidence that working rangers are healthier. Recent research has found that Indigenous people involved in management of natural and cultural resources are healthier than those who are not.
Many other groups are also becoming active participants in conservation. Philanthropic organisations such as Bush Heritage and Australian Nature Conservancy are increasingly looking to the Northern Territory to invest.
Conservation in the 21st century will not be just about parks as we have come to know them. Our parks will become the backbone for broader collaborative effort involving other players. For government the choice is clear - we can either watch on the sideline while all this happens or we can provide the leadership needed to coordinate all our efforts for a common goal. Through Arafura to Alice we are providing that leadership with a bold plan.
The Arafura to Alice project will be enriched by another dimension because it will emphasise cultural landscapes linking some of our iconic landscapes from north to south. The link will build pride in cultures, help develop tourism and assist with renewal of isolated regions.
The area between the Arafura Sea and the South Australian border holds some of the greatest natural and cultural treasures in the world. It is home to great artists – many are more famous overseas than in the Territory or Australia. It holds some of the oldest rock art in the world and many of the world’s oldest surviving cultures. The region is filled with ancient stories and songs which are at least as beautiful and multilayered as any in the world. Unfortunately, the area is also home to some of Australia’s most disadvantaged and least understood people and some of the nation’s most inadequate infrastructure.
Many important historical stories run through the landscape along this route, and important nation building events, such as the construction of the Overland Telegraph and the defence of Australia during World War II. The area is a stunning and beautiful home to unique and famous flora and fauna, including iconic animals such as the red kangaroos, crocodiles and bilbies. However, many plant and animal communities are under threat from feral animals, climate change and other factors.
Arafura to Alice builds on the potential of this area while addressing the disadvantage, and reduces the threats. At first glance, this project may seem too large to be realistic or to be on such a scale as to be highly expensive. As with many truly environmentally, economically and socially sustainable projects, Arafura to Alice is essentially a project based on education, partnerships, mutual respect and economic self-interest.
The Arafura to Alice link is large-scale and visionary, and will probably take more than a decade to complete. However, I will commit to achieving at least 50% of the link within four years using the $1.8m allocated to this project by the Henderson government.
We can go the distance to achieve the best in a truly Territorian way. This will be achieved without any compulsory purchases. I want to emphasise that Arafura to Alice is about helping landholders manage conservation on their own land. It is about supporting voluntary efforts, not prescribing ‘one size fits all’ management.
National parks have been the mainstay of conservation in Australia for the past century. In southern states, as I said earlier, where the aim is to preserve what is left, this is a good way to go. The Henderson government will continue to grow and develop our fantastic and famous national parks system. In the Territory, our national parks are increasingly being complemented by Indigenous Protected Areas and privately owned conservation reserves such as Newhaven Station. It is important that these developments are aligned to deliver the best conservation outcomes.
Private conservation groups are now in a position to invest many millions of dollars in the Territory, and this has already begun. It is highly likely that more large purchases for conservation will be made over the next few years. Indigenous Protected Areas continue to grow and gain momentum; large areas of the Tanami Desert are likely to be protected in IPAs. These will be important building blocks for Arafura to Alice.
Indigenous people can become involved especially through the future development of Indigenous Protected Areas which can attract federal funding to supplement support from the Territory. We will be working with Indigenous groups to assess the development of IPAs.
Many pastoralists have also expressed interests in conservation work and several have employed conservation managers as they realise that conservation and pastoralism often work well together. We will be talking to pastoralists about how we can work together for mutual benefit.
This concept, being national and on a large scale, will very likely attract federal funding for many groups. And, because the concept integrates Indigenous culture development and conservation, I believe it will, be very attractive to philanthropic funding. Local government and local business are likely to support the concept because it helps bring tourism and money to regional economies. Existing roads overlay most of the route. No road sealing will be required as the dirt road experience will help differentiate the experience from the traditional Stuart Highway experience.
Some parts are accessible right now. Other areas are remote and the stories yet to be well heard. Some parts are best left undisturbed. We will strike the right balance between access and protection of culture and country. At some time in the future, accessing the Arafura to Alice corridor will become one of the most exciting journeys left on earth - a great way to travel through the Territory and the centre of national cultural and ecological consciousness for all Australians.
The corridor will be achieved by connecting the following Territory icons: Cobourg National Park with Kakadu National Park and Nitmiluk National Park, which are already connected to each other. This corridor will be negotiated with traditional owners.
Heading south, the next step, geographically, will be to connect Nitmiluk with Gregory National Park by negotiating corridors with pastoral leaseholders and landowners. Two very large Indigenous Protected Areas are being developed in the Tanami Desert. These will be connected north to Gregory National Park and south to Newhaven Station, and West MacDonnell Ranges National Park through covenants and other negotiated agreements with landowners. Little used stock routes will also be considered for development as conservation reserves.
In the longer term, links will also be made to the Simpson Desert in the east and Uluru in the west. A link will also be developed between Kakadu and Darwin, while negotiating covenants with landholders to develop links between the existing networks of national parks.
This approach fits perfectly with the parks and biodiversity framework and it will be complemented by a new biodiversity conservation strategy and natural resources framework for the Northern Territory, which I will soon announce. I will work with my colleague, the Minister for Arts and Museums, to ensure this eco-cultural link integrates with the Building our Museums Sector 10-year vision.
Education and interpretation will be a key part of the Arafura to Alice project. Digital functions such as web downloads, MP3 or even relatively basic CD or DVD delivery, makes the connection between places and people and people and places easier every year, and these will be used to help people enjoy the eco-link. Content will be a critical element. The vast resources of the Northern Territory Archives, libraries and the Strehlow Research Centre will be used and local production coordinated through the Film Office.
The first step of this process will be the Red Centre Way Visitor Centre. This new approach to interpretation will help reinforce the Territory as the heart of the outback through a multicultural and visionary approach.
A project coordinator will very soon be employed. The coordinator will identify first steps and help establish local working teams. These teams will be made up of people from the communities involved, from government, conservation groups, non-government groups - such as the Cattlemen’s Association, World Wildlife Fund scientists, Cooperative Research Centres and Indigenous groups. These groups will drive the project and champion it at a local level. Possible groups include Darwin to Kakadu eco-links groups, northern eco-links groups and desert eco-links groups.
Madam Speaker, we are inviting new partners to help us achieve the vision. I invite all parliamentarians to help involve their constituents in this visionary project and this collaborate approach. At a national level, I will meet with my parliamentary colleagues in South Australia and the federal government with a view to extending this project right through to Adelaide, creating a true new Australian national icon.
Madam Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement - a statement that, in principle, sounds fine but lacks the detail required to make an informed decision to either support or not support the proposal. As it stands, the proposal is way too vague to support in its current form.
The concept of eco-links is interesting and it poses the question: why could this process not be used to develop Glyde Point?
This government has very quickly changed its opinion on Glyde Point, using the notion that the area was too valuable from an environmental perspective. I question, then, why this same approach could not have been applied to the Gunn Point/Glyde Point area to allow measured development? The point is, if the government thinks it can provide an eco-link the length and breadth of the Territory, surely a smaller scale version could have been used to provide the environmental/economic development balance so many are looking for.
Why could valuable pockets of the rainforest not be protected in the same way? If eco-links are the answer to protecting our environment, our wildlife and delicate eco-system, why could eco-links not provide the necessary protection, even in a developed area? In fact, had the concept been applied to Glyde Point, it could have been carefully used as a showcase and any lessons learned could help drive the broader picture or vision for an eco-link across the Northern Territory.
It is important to note that the concept itself may have some merit, but I honestly question if there is any ulterior motive here.
I apologise if I sound like I am forming a conspiracy theory; however, the true lack of detail is the driving force behind these thoughts - the lack of detail and, indeed, the lack of funding. The fact is the minister may have a visionary idea, but she is let down by the government’s contribution to the project. $1.8m must be seen as a token effort by the minister and may provide some level of insight into the government’s support for her concept.
$1.8m is equal to $450 000 per year over four years. That is barely enough to buy a couple of housing blocks in Palmerston - if you can get them. How in the world does the government think it is going to deliver a corridor of land from the Arafura Sea to the South Australian border with $1.8m?
I note the issue of global warming has been raised in this statement. I am always interested in people’s views on the matter. One gentleman I was speaking to in the rural area recently said he was looking forward to global warming on his rural block in Bees Creek because it may end up a waterfront development, and he could see real advantages to that.
I welcome the news of Indigenous rangers being involved. Indigenous employment opportunities are rare in the more remote regions of the Northern Territory, but that fact alone begs the question: will the Northern Land Council be involved through a joint management arrangement with this process?
The details or, rather the lack of details, provided here makes it very difficult for this side of the House to provide an open endorsement of the plan. What evidence supports this concept? And will this evidence be tabled in parliament?
I note in the statement the words: ‘We will strike a right balance between access and protection of culture and country’. That balance needs fleshing out, ensuring all stakeholders have input. I also note the term ‘negotiate’ is mentioned often when dealing with landowners, but also that no compulsory acquisitions will be made to complete the process. What happens when the negotiations break down? What happens when the entire link is blocked due to one landowner wanting more than the government is willing to provide? Will the land then be compulsorily acquired? But hang on, I forgot the budget is only $1.8m - that surely rules out compulsory land acquisitions.
I also note little used stock routes may be considered. A little used stock route today may be a heavily used route tomorrow depending on a number of factors, including seasonal changes and the need to feed the world, of course. What happens if a corridor of land is taken over now, only to find out later it is needed for stock use?
The problem is there are too many unanswered questions in this document, and I sincerely worry that this government intends to rely very much on the goodness of people and their willingness to negotiate to make this link a reality.
I note it is hoped that communities, government and conservation groups, non-government groups, the Cattlemen’s Association, WWF scientists and Indigenous groups will all come onboard and champion this project. This government does not have a good track record in consulting and negotiating with our community. A case in point: the local government debacle.
I worry that, today, we are spending valuable time talking about a concept, with little more to go on than a cleverly worded media release, when we should be spending our time on dealing with the issues our community demanded of us during the election campaign.
The environment is very important, and I make no apologies for that. It is my opinion that a concept like this, while in principle sounds fine, is nothing but a deviation from the important and pressing matters at hand.
In its current form, Madam Speaker, I cannot support this initiative.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement.
The Northern Territory is a unique environment. It has an amazing variety of plants, wildlife and wildscapes that help define us as Territorians, and it also sustains our tourism industry and provides us with great camping and fishing areas. The Henderson government is working hard to develop fresh ideas that deliver real results in environmental management.
We know that climate change is real. We are experiencing more drought, bushfires and extreme weather events than ever before. We all need to do more to reduce the pace of climate change and protect the environment that supports us. The sustainable management of our natural assets is critical to the social and economic wellbeing of our community as well as the environment.
In a world where natural places are fast disappearing, we have an unparalleled opportunity to get it right. We are in a position to balance the economic and social development of the Territory. This government has made decisions about getting the science right. We need to learn from the lessons of other states and ensure that the right environmental framework is in place for the continued growth of the Territory’s economy.
The announcement of $1.8m by the Henderson government for the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks is good news for the environment and will take us some way to striking this balance. The Arafura to Alice EcoLinks proposal connects the Territory’s parks and conservation areas from the tropical savannahs of the Top End to the deserts of Central Australia.
This project will provide an approach to economic development that will balance industry, agriculture, conservation and cultural growth whilst ensuring there is enough land, water, vegetation and wildlife for the benefit of generations to come.
Most importantly, this project will be grounded in sound scientific evidence. This is an important point. Ensuring that environmental projects are supported by scientific evidence is crucial to the success of any sound environmental project. For example, a continuing moratorium on land clearing in the Daly River catchment until land and water research has been finalised. We recognise a lot of research has already been achieved, but further scientific research is critical in order to make an informed decision on further development in the region.
Rushing ahead with projects without proper scientific evidence, purely for political point scoring, is a sure fire way to make irrevocable mistakes. Fortunately, unlike the southern states that made all these mistakes many years ago, we have the unique opportunity to get it right in the Territory. Even though it will take some time, our environmental projects will be supported by sound scientific evidence. We are not here to score political points, we are here to get it right.
The Arafura to Alice project is also responding to the growing movement of non-government players who want a significant role in preserving our natural environment. As we heard earlier, there are more than 30 Indigenous ranger groups established across the Territory with hundreds of Indigenous Territorians applying both Indigenous and scientific knowledge to land management.
For example, the Wagiman-Guwardagun Rangers in the Upper Daly region have been attending to the land’s cultural and environmental needs, officially, since 2003. In 2006, 12 rangers graduated with qualifications in Resource Management from Charles Darwin University and have completed a Conservation and Land Management Course. The rangers undertake a variety of duties including weed control and cane toad trapping, through to feral animal surveying, fencing and fire management. The Wagiman is keenly observed by the rangers, as are the inhabitants, through water monitoring and fish, crocodile, pig-nosed and long-nosed turtle surveys.
As well as protecting sacred sites, the rangers also run cultural and cross-cultural training camps. Business opportunities such as soap making, establishing a cattle enterprise, pet meat contracting and leasing part of their land trust are also being developed. In fact, the Wagiman-Guwardagun Rangers took out the 2006 National Landcare Indigenous Award. I would like to congratulate them on that.; this is another example of striking a balance towards economic and social development in the Territory.
The Henderson government will continue to support successful Indigenous ranger programs, marine rangers and joint management in parks. We have created more than 16 new Indigenous rangers and trainees and 60 projects involving 35 Indigenous people in casual paid work - real jobs on country.
The Arafura to Alice project is visionary because of its scale and its potential to link private and public investment in the environment. The concept of whole-of-landscape management is welcomed. We need to be thinking on a grand scale in order to give our native plant and animal species the best chance of survival.
The minister described this as ‘environmental resilience’. With large green corridors set aside, we provide the necessary connection between habitats to allow for the movement of animals when local conditions change through man-made and natural causes. An important aspect of the eco-link is that it will be achieved without any compulsory land purchases. The environmental outcomes this project will deliver will be achieved through building relationships and providing assistance to land managers.
We know that the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks is a visionary project and that it will take more than a decade to complete. However, I am committed to achieving this and I am committed to grounding this in sound environmental evidence. We are committed to get it right.
As someone who has spent five years around Timber Creek, around the Gregory National Park, I welcome the minister’s commitment in that area. It is a great area of the Territory, a unique area of the Territory, and having those animal pathways is important.
I know the Indigenous rangers, especially the female rangers around Timber Creek, are striding ahead. They have a good program operating there and the involvement and knowledge of those rangers will benefit us into the future. It always seems to be the ladies in the communities who drive a lot of this new ingenuity. The ladies within the ranger group at Pine Creek, the Wagiman Rangers, have a great deal of enterprise. I have been to many stalls and markets where they sell their soaps made from natural products, including weeds. It is encouraging to see all that happening.
The ranger program at Port Keats is operating very successfully. It has people back on country, keeping an eye on what is going on with weeds and disease, through projects which have been given to them by AQIS, and coastal protection as well. They do a great job.
This is, as I say, a unique project. It will be heartily welcomed by pastoralists, by traditional owners, by people within the region across the Northern Territory because it does exactly what the minister said - it links those areas.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to hearing further reports about this project. I will be encouraging parties that I come into contact with to come onboard.
___________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Kormilda College students, accompanied by Mr Ryan Woolfe and Mrs Debra Shannon. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement.
It says at the very beginning that it is a plan that will involve all Territorians. If that is the intention, I hope that it does involve all Territorians and that includes business Territorians as well as community people.
The member for Daly also said that you have to get it right. I could not agree more with that, and the only way it is going to be right is if there is proper and full consultation and planning, and many decisions based on science.
In the statement, the minister talks about the number of artists and there is the oldest rock art in the world, etcetera. That is all good but I do not see a lot of reference to the environmental components of what this statement is purporting to protect and to advance.
It says the area is stunningly beautiful. I guess some parts of it are, but I am not sure that all of it is ‘stunningly beautiful’. Famous flora and fauna, iconic animals - I think the word ‘iconic’ is a little over used - but red kangaroos, crocodiles, bilbies - I am sure there are many other species of animals and insects that warrant a mention rather than just those which are trotted out all the time.
One thing that the statement does not address, which is of concern to me, is it is one thing to have a green belt or a link from the Arafura to the Alice, but there is no mention of the problem animals and plants in these areas. There is no mention of how they are going to deal with feral animals. which we know there are in enormous numbers from one side of the Territory to the other, including donkeys, camels, goats and rabbits and also feral weeds.
There is an enormous problem, particularly in Central Australia, with feral weeds and introduced pastures that have gone wild. I know that the government does work, in some way, to try to eradicate these weeds or at least to bring them under control. However, we know what weeds are like and one years seeding is seven years weeding and. Of course, it is much more than that in the rural and remote areas of the Territory.
It is a large project and I wish the minister well with it. However, I do not think it is going to be that easy to achieve. It talks about partnerships and economic self-interest, but I am not quite sure who that is meant to be targeting.
Yes, the amount of money allocated is only $1.8m. I see later in the statement they are going to put on a manager to oversee the project, so I guess some of that money is paying for that position. My suspicion is that we will get a consultant in, as we often do for these kind of things, so that they can look at what the government should do, rather than what the government agencies should be doing or given a chance to do.
It says here this will be achieved without any compulsory purchases, which sends alarm bells going off in my head. It means that they have thought that they might have to do compulsory purchases of properties. I would be very suspicious of that if I was living in a very remote part of the Northern Territory.
There is reference in the statement that private conservation groups are now in a position to invest millions of dollars in the Territory. Well, why are they not already in the Territory? If they are so keen to come to the Northern Territory, why are they not already having discussions with the government and others? If they are, where is the information and the detail in regard to that?
This is, obviously, going from the top to the bottom of the Northern Territory. As we know, we are going into a system of super shires, but there does not seem to be any real reference to how it will impact on the shires and how they go about their business. It is also basing its program on getting funding from the Commonwealth, but it does not actually give any details as to how successful they believe this will be, given that we compete with every other state for conservation and environmental type of funding.
It says existing roads overlap most of the route – well, that is good - and no road sealing will be required. That is good because there are probably not many people, or they probably do not have the money to do the sealing of the roads. However, what concerns me is there seems to be a promotion of utilising our dirt roads. We know how useless some of our tourists are with regard to their driving experience on dirt roads, and that raises concerns also in regards to the safety aspects of promoting dirt road experiences in the Northern Territory.
I said at the beginning of the statement that there needs to be proper and full consultation, not only with community land councils, but also with industry groups. If we are talking about going from the Arafura to the border, we are talking about 3000 km or perhaps 3000 miles. The mines minister who, unfortunately, is not in the parliament at the moment, is great on promoting the Northern Territory’s …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, you are not allowed to refer to the presence or absence of a member. I ask you to withdraw that.
Ms PURICK: Sorry, Madam Speaker. The government is keen to promote the Northern Territory as an exploration destination. This eco-link is going to traverse exploration licences.
I do not think there has been any consideration as to what legal implication this has for the explorers given that they are legally liable, under their licence, for anything that happens on their leases. Is the government proposing compulsory take back of those exploration licences? Which would be rather foolish given that, on one hand, government is promoting us as a place to do business for exploration but, on the other hand, it looks like they might be taking away some of the ground that is relatively under-explored.
That is another component of the mines department and the mines minister that a large track of our land is under explored for the minerals that we know, potentially, are there. There is no statement of the impact this is going to have on that industry, and I do not see that industry being referenced in this statement at all as being one of the groups that they should consult with.
Towards the latter part of the statement, it talks about the new biodiversity conservation strategy and a new natural resources framework for the Northern Territory, which the minister is going to announce soon. That is all well and good, but I want to know whether these two new strategies and frameworks fit with the existing parks and conservation master plan and also the existing marine strategy, which the government has taken many years to develop and get out in to the public domain. Are they going to be complementary or are they going to be superseding it?
The minister said that she will be announcing it soon, but is she announcing the fact that they are going to develop these new frameworks, or is she announcing the fact that they have actually been done? It is a bit unclear.
Whilst there are some components of the statement that have merit, there is an awful lot of work that needs to be done that involves all Territorians, the community, as well as industry.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this important and, visionary initiative which will see the establishment of the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks, a long-term project which will deliver on many fronts.
Today, I would particularly like to talk about some of the excellent conservation efforts of the north-eastern end of the proposed EcoLinks, namely in my electorate of Nhulunbuy, which adjoins north-east Arnhem Land and the Arafura Sea. Perhaps, in years to come, the proposed corridor may even sweep up wide to the east and could become the Alice to Arnhem to Arafura link, who knows?
I have a few stories to share, but I will start with the point that the minister made about Indigenous rangers and the enormous contribution they can and do make to the management of natural resources.
Forgive me, for I am Balanda, or non-Indigenous, and may not express this as eloquently as my Yolngu counterparts, but I will try.
As the traditional owners, Indigenous rangers have a knowledge base which stretches back thousands of years, a knowledge base which links inextricably, not only with land and sea and every creature and every object in it, but the people and their culture, their stories, their art, their songs. It is their history, their present and their future. Who better to look after and manage and protect these areas than traditional owners, certainly in my electorate?
Dhimurru Aboriginal Land Management Corporation was established in Nhulunbuy in 1992. Specifically, their objects are:
• to facilitate the protection, conservation and sustainable management of natural and cultural resource values, concentrating on those areas which are subject to recreational use; and
• to effectively manage natural and cultural resources based on Yolngu control and a community-based approach to planning.
I quote further:
- In initiating Dhimurru, traditional Yolngu landowners recognised the urgent need for planned, sustainable and culturally appropriately management of the recreation areas as the township of Nhulunbuy developed and visitor numbers increased. They strongly asserted that access to their land would in the future be contingent upon such management.
Since those beginnings in 1992, Dhimurru’s work has grown dramatically. From an initial four rangers and one office administrator, Dhimurru now employs 16 people, 12 of whom are Yolngu, are and engaged mainly as rangers, but also cultural advisers. Fundamental to training is a two-way philosophy, whereby the two rangers posted to Nhulunbuy with Parks and Wildlife are as much involved with learning traditional land management practices as they are teaching Yolngu about western scientific-based principles.
Dhimurru currently manages an area of over 100 000 ha, and they manage it with a total of 16 contracts. Their work is spread across three key areas of operations: sea/country, Indigenous protected areas, or IPAs, and the yellow crazy ant eradication program. Such is the growth of their operations that larger premises have become necessary, and this has been made possible by a federal contribution of more than $3m and the donation of land by Rio Tinto Alcan within the town lease area.
Dhimurru’s work over the years with rescuing sea turtles and dugongs along the coast of Cape Arnhem has earned them recognition at national level, not the least of which is a nomination for this year’s National Landcare Awards, to be announced in Canberra on 23 October. This is not the first time that Dhimurru has been nominated for land care awards.
Dhimurru also supports ecotourism, which sees a growing number of small groups of paying tourists come to Nhulunbuy through Australian Conservation Volunteers and the World Wildlife Fund. The tourists learn about Yolngu culture and land and sea management and actively participate in turtle rescue and the annual Dry Season clean-up of Cape Arnhem beaches, which become littered with sea debris from foreign vessels.
The work of Dhimurru provides an ideal role model for other groups along the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks. Caring for country; preserving and promoting cultural heritage; building cultural pride; providing employment and training opportunities; developing tourism potential while carefully managing a clear line between sustainable access and protection.
I would also like to speak about Yirralka Rangers, who look after the IPA area which comes under the jurisdiction of Laynhapuy Homelands Association Inc, also based in north-east Arnhem Land. Their operation philosophy mirrors that of Dhimurru. However, Yirralka Rangers have a much larger area of land and sea country: some 600 000 ha bordered by 640 km of coastline. Numerous small homeland communities are dotted amongst vast areas of land which are largely undisturbed.
More than 50 people are employed with Yirralka Rangers, including a number of women. Increased employment opportunities have arisen as a result of the federal government intervention which, for many, is a more attractive option than CDEP. At least half of the rangers with Yirralka are on salary and in real jobs.
Yirralka Rangers, like Dhimurru, are also actively exploring sustainable economic opportunities. The recent Blue Mud Bay case decision by the High Court, which recognises rightful Yolngu ownership of the inter-tidal zone, gives not only the Yirralka Rangers, but all Indigenous people living on land which adjoins 80% of the Territory’s coastline, some confidence about their future economic opportunities and self determination.
Yirralka Rangers are actively involved in a two way learning and teaching program, and in June of this year I had an invitation to visit the rangers at a special training workshop. The workshop was held just outside the picturesque community of Garrthalala, about a three hour drive from Nhulunbuy. Rangers and community members, including children, had come together for a special three day camp and workshop to talk about and record traditional fire management practices. It was truly a memorable event, not the least of which was the welcome that I and the former Environment minister, received as a special smoking cleansing ceremony held to welcome us to country.
What struck me was the breadth of community involvement. Not just the rangers, but older men and women from neighbouring communities who shared their knowledge, not only of fire but knowledge of seasons and hunting practices, knowledge of fauna and flora and all the different names that went with it.
My escort, the NT Parks and Wildlife ranger who drove me there, made the very salient point: why did he need to teach these people about the Latin botanical names of plants when Yolngu already had names for them?
Ethno-botany, which links natural and cultural resources, is another important element of conservation and one which, I hope, will be captured in the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks. As an example from the Yolngu people of my region, in 1995 members of the Rirratjingu clan collaborated with NT Parks and Wildlife to produce the book, Rirratjingu Ethno-Botany: Aboriginal Plant Use from Yirrkala, Arnhem Land, Australia. It captures Rirratjingu plant names and uses, plants used for foods, plants used for implements and weapons, plants used for material culture, and plants used for medicine. I certainly treasure my copy of that book which is now out of print.
The minister mentioned in her statement that many other groups are also becoming active participants in conservation. I also know that organisations like Dhimurru and Yirralka Rangers actively engage in partnerships which are mutually rewarding. Some of the obvious ones include the various government organisations at both Territory and federal level, not the least of which is AQIS and Australian Customs but, also in the East Arnhem region, mining company Rio Tinto Alcan has a role to play in these partnerships.
When bauxite mining commenced in the early 1970s a clear understanding was reached with traditional owners that native vegetation would be restored when mining was completed. Re-vegetation techniques, techniques developed over the years with the key involvement of local clans, have been recognised as world’s best practice.
Traditional owners continue to be involved in seed collection and storage, so that immediately prior to the Wet Season, seeds are broadcast mechanically to mined out areas which have been prepared for re-vegetation. Whilst seeds are collected from some of the re-vegetated areas, homeland communities have also been involved in collection of certain seed species on their land, as has Yirrkala land care.
This work has provided employment to Yolngu for more than 35 years and will continue for as long as mining continues. While seed collection methods have improved and have been made easier, it does remain a fairly manual task. Eventually, when bauxite reserves at Nhulunbuy have been exhausted, estimated to be in the next 25 years or so, the old mine site will be returned to traditional owners with new re-generated woodland forest, the oldest of which is now 36 years old.
While I have spoken about the good news stories and initiatives around important conservation efforts from my electorate, I would like to think that they highlight as examples, the good work and the goodwill which has seen some great results and benefits for all of the people who live there. I have absolutely no doubt that there are similar good news stories from all around the Territory
I see the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks providing a framework to see conservation efforts developed, supported and consolidated on a large scale for our future and for the benefit not only of Territorians, but for all people and for many generations to come.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement and give it my full support.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also welcome the minister’s statement. The concept of eco-links – I must admit I can only find the word in the case of the Northern Territory. When I ‘Googled’ it, it does not exist; obviously, it is a name that has been thought up for the Northern Territory - it conjures up various concepts, and that is where I am not sure where we are going at the present time.
I had a look at the Alpine to Atherton eco-link and at the Yellowstone to Yukon initiative – apparently they call it the Y to Y conservation initiative. Obviously they are not quite the same because they have different concepts behind their being. I notice the Alpine to Atherton initiative talks about in the event of a sufficient increase in warming of the earth there is a likelihood that some of the animals might move along this corridor to escape the increased warming. I do not know what the scientific basis of that is, but that is one of the areas that worries me a little with this.
For instance, a wildlife corridor was planned in Litchfield Shire; I am not sure where that concept has gone in the development of the Litchfield Shire. I was a supporter of that concept , and that is one of the reasons I was always a supporter of removing wetlands and rivers from subdivisions. Now, that is on a fairly localised basis, but the concept was that you had an entity, such as a creek or a river, and you tried to protect that as an entire entity. There was some logic in that you knew that fish moved up and down, there were macro-invertebrates that moved up and down, there were a whole range of factors that made up a river or a creek. By trying to retain that as a unit, there was a much better chance of protecting that wetland or that creek.
My difficulty with this is that I have a – I will pull out a map. Madam Speaker, I know that you know my opinion of maps and why we should have some IT screens in this parliament, but …
Mr Knight: Can you table that?
Mr WOOD: No, it cost me money. You have to get your own.
I read this last night and I thought: ‘What am I looking at? I can hear it. I cannot see it’, and if there is one thing that really needed some clarity, especially in the form of a map, then it was having something like this. Until you have a look at that, you do not really understand the concept the government is putting forward.
I am all for visions – I spoke the other day about visions in planning – and it is a vision. However, at the moment, that is exactly what it is and it needs some questioning. It needs a more in-depth analysis before I can say this is a fantastic thing. I understand though this is the first statement the government has made on it, except during the election.
It is obvious that you can go to the Cobourg Peninsula down through Kakadu; your difficulty would be going from Nitmiluk across to Gregory; there are some passages through there but there are quite a few pastoral properties and there are things like highways and byways in the road there. Then you can go from Gregory National Park pretty well all the way through Aboriginal land until you nearly get to Alice Springs.
That is fine. The sense of vision is there. The concept might be there, but we need to ask some questions because that is part of the reason we are in parliament, to see whether what has been put forward has some validity.
One of the things I ask is: what is the scientific basis for this eco-link? If it is about landscapes, that is fine - that is not necessarily environmental in the sense of the living environment. That is, you might say, the static environment. Is it about that? Is there some sort of link between the tropical flora and fauna and desert flora and fauna that needs to be maintained? Is that corridor achieving anything? Does that corridor have some sense? Does some animal that lives in the Tanami need to move all the way through north of the Victoria River or something? I do not know. What is the scientific basis behind having a corridor? Because really that is what it is.. The government needs to come back to parliament with some more detail on the vision.
Then you are going to have basic questions the member for Goyder asked. If this is not a park - in other words we are not creating a whole range of national parks - we have this - .I don’t know what you are going to call it - some land that is not a park nor just normal freehold land; it is Aboriginal land but it has a layer above it that is going to say it is included in this Arafura to Alice EcoLinks. How do you classify this land that is not a national park, but is not exactly private, freehold or Aboriginal? Where do we classify it?
If we have another classification for it, what will be the limitations on its use? Many of the parcels of land that are Aboriginal land in the Tanami, and south of that, were cattle stations. There may be Aboriginal communities that would like to run their land as cattle stations. Will that conflict with the concept of this eco-link? If there is mining, how will mining fit in to this as well - or any other forms of development?
They are some of the questions we need to ask from a practical point of view. What I am getting at is: will this inhibit development? I know the minister said it will create some employment through rangers and in tourism, but will it, on the other hand, will it mean some other development will not occur?
The minister said there will not be the bituminising of roads as part of this concept. Will that mean that roads that probably should be bituminised will not be just to keep the feeling of the outback experience? When, in actual fact, it is probably about time the road was upgraded because it is a terrible road. We need to look at some of these practical issues. What will be the cost to maintain this? Who will have to maintain it?
The member for Goyder raised some very important issues; that is, if it is an eco-link, then you do not want weeds, cane toads, camels and horses and all those sorts of things. What will be the constraints on maintaining this land? The same conditions as a national park? Or would you prefer to have no donkeys, goats, horses, camels, gamba grass, buffel grass, or cane toads - all those wonderful things which inhabit the Northern Territory? Will there be a requirement to spend money on making sure those pests are not in this eco-link, so it is truly a conservation area?
I am not saying this is not a good vision. It obviously has potential. I am all for preserving the environment, but I should say that the Northern Territory, thank heavens, is blessed with some of the biggest national parks in Australia. We are one part of Australia that, at least, has not gone out of its way to lock areas up. I say lock areas not in the sense that you cannot get in there, but at least we have protected those areas. One of the reasons I supported the government’s move to have these management plans with both Indigenous people and Parks and Wildlife was that, in some cases, it expanded our national parks base. The classic example is the Gregory National Park.
I am looking at this map to see if it shows - I am not sure if it is finished yet; this one does not show it – but the land in the Gregory National Park at the moment is split into two sections; one is a narrow section near the Victoria River roadhouse, and the other section is down towards Timber Creek. Part of the joint management agreement was that the section of land in between, which is Aboriginal land, would combine those two sections of Gregory National Park into a much larger national park, and that would be great. So we do have, at least, a good record on maintaining some of our really beautiful areas in their natural state. We do that because we have some scientific basis behind it.
I am not sure how you are going to classify this. Is it going to be in the same classification as a national park, or what? And what sort of rules and regulations will run that? That needs to be clearer, because you could argue it would be better if we made more national parks and put our efforts into maintaining those in a pristine condition and got rid of all the pests in those specific areas. Or should we try to take on, what you admit, is a pretty big piece of country? From Alice to Arafura is a lot of country.
We need to make sure that this vision is practical, that we can actually do things, we can actually maintain it in the vision you are looking for. Or, is it going to be so big that we simply do not have the funds to maintain it properly, and would we be better to simply put our efforts into national parks and leave the rest of the Territory as it is at the present time?
I will finish by saying: ‘Yes, a good vision. It has many pluses, but it has many questions. It would be silly for me to say: ‘Yes, I am 100% behind this’ until I know a lot more detail. I ask the minister, knowing that she is talking about a 10-year plan, to at least come back to the parliament with much more detail covering some of the issues that have been raised here by members of parliament, so that we can assess it again.
I believe it does need more approaches out in the community, and as the member for Goyder said, not just various vested interests, but sometimes some of the business groups, the community as a whole, just to see what people think. If you really want this to work, then you need the community to support it, and I think they would like to see the nuts and bolts of how it will actually operate in the real world, not just on a piece of paper.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement. I will be interested to hear her comments at the end of the debate.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the member for Macdonnell, the Environment minister’s first statement to the House. I congratulate the minister on her first statement to the House.
The Territory has some of the greatest parks in Australia, if not the world. The parks in Cobourg, Nitmiluk, Kakadu and Uluru and Kata Tjuta are conservation icons admired around the world. They are remote, unique, unspoiled and epitomise the vast sweep of the Northern Territory, from the saltwater of the Top End to the desert of the Centre. However, as environmentally valuable and physically dramatic as our parks are, we know our vast Territory has more largely unspoiled wilderness to offer - areas rich in biodiversity.
Our relatively small and dispersed population, which so often presents us with challenges may, in fact, prove to be an asset as the planet struggles to come to grips with climate change. Fortunately, the Territory is one of the few remaining regions in the world with broad scale eco-systems which have avoided the worst of the ecological damage wrought elsewhere in Australia.
The good news is that the Territory has the most intact native vegetation of all Australian states and territories. Our native vegetation has not been significantly affected by intense land use pressure. The limited removal of native vegetation has been largely restricted to areas like the Darwin coastal area, the Daly basin, Pine Creek and Sturt Plateau bioregions in the north, and parts of the MacDonnell Ranges in the south.
It is critical that we maintain a careful approach to land use planning in the future to ensure sustainable land use and the conservation of the values of existing vegetation. There is no doubt that the Territory is in a better position than most places in Australia to address the ecological changes likely to be presented by climate change. We only have to look at the news broadcasts on most evenings to see the concerns of our southern brothers and sisters in regards to the Murray-Darling Rivers. We look at the water supply and the lack of water in the regions to the south, then look at our place here in the Northern Territory and appreciate the incredible resources we have, the natural resources, our living river systems, our biodiversity, our plants and animals.
I say to the minister that this 10-year vision has to be about: (1) protecting and preserving what we already have, but (2) allowing future generations the opportunity to see it for themselves.
The way the population is growing in the Northern Territory and the way that development is growing, we know that there has to be an area of the Territory that needs to be preserved so that it is there for future generations, and for those around Australia who want to come and have a look at the Northern Territory, and who may want to look not only at national parks – or as the member for Nelson says – stay in national parks and view the national parks But they may now have an opportunity to travel through this eco-corridor.
It will be dependent on every single person across the Northern Territory who is involved with the environment, with conservation, with the biodiverse nature of conservation, and the whole area of plants and animals and scientific research; all those people involved in these areas need to contribute to the way this vision can take shape over the coming decade. It can be about a longer lasting process and a beauty of what we in the Northern Territory can offer beyond our wonderful national parks which are on display every day for everyone. This is about tracking down from the Arafura Sea, – the glorious Arafura Sea to the Red Centre desert.
____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, would you mind if I interrupt you as you are talking about the beautiful Arafura Sea?
I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 7, 8 and 9 Maningrida Community Education Centre students, accompanied by Ms Tina Daglas. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Ms McCARTHY: A huge welcome to the students from the Arafura Sea.
The EcoLinks, as it begins from the north and works its way down to the south, also passes through the incredible country of Arnhem Land. I have to put my voice to this statement in regards to the many ranger groups we have in the Arnhem region. I highlight, in particular, the Yugul Mangi Women Rangers, who do a terrific job in the Ngukurr region.
This is a group of women who go out on boats, monitor the waterways, not only checking any nets, checking the fish, checking out the crocodiles and the crocodile eggs, but they also keep an eye on illegal immigrants or illegal fishermen who come into the waterways; we have had people come up as far as Ngukurr and Roper Bar. These women rangers are just one part of the whole mass of 30 groups of rangers across the Top End who are contributing to a way of life for people in the regions.
These EcoLinks, while not a panacea for supporting employment, etcetera, is a part of what can be a huge vision for these rangers in the region to know that there is an extra attachment to their work and to their interests in preserving what they can see is important country – country that tells stories, that has a story, and every place is special.
There is no doubting that our great national parks are the cornerstone of our conservation efforts. If we are serious about preserving more of our biodiversity, it will require us using more than just our great parks. That is why the government announced our EcoLinks initiative before the last election. The Arafura to Alice EcoLinks strategy aims to cast our protective environmental web over more than just our parks. The strategy will effectively make our parks the spine of a broader conservation zone.
While the Territory government has committed $1.8m to the initiative over the next three years, this initiative has the potential to attract conservation dollars from sources outside the Territory. It opens up the prospect of engaging more people, not only Indigenous Territorians but pastoralists and also conservation volunteers, who join the effort of conserving our environment for the future.
One of the areas that I saw within the statement is the discussion about stock routes. For many of us who have had some attachment to the cattle industry, those stock routes are well and truly there. They have stories of their own. They have become a bit dusty and overgrown with grass and weed, but they have a story that dates back to, their history and the relationship between Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people in being able to muster cattle.
Minister, I believe that the focus for those stock routes is a really special one - you really can hit on something quite strong there. With the pastoral industry and the history of Aboriginal stockmen, you will find a great deal of passion from people who may wish to contribute to that vision about the stock routes. I urge you, minister, to take that further into consideration.
The unique Territory wildlife like the Gouldian finch and the bilby are regarded to be particularly at risk from climate change. Scientific assessments of global warming appear to lend ever increasing credence to the ecological axiom ‘adapt, migrate or die’. Experts seem to accept that species already at the brink will be forced in one of these three directions as global warming progresses. A bio-geographic expanse like our Arafura to Alice EcoLinks would appear to provide the capacity for adaptive responses with the capacity also to help populations of plants and animals to survive.
My colleague, the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, said she would like to see the concept extended to Adelaide. That is really interesting. We already have the Ghan coming from Adelaide to Darwin. Why not look at it from a conservation point of view, minister? We can have an eco-link that not only stretches from Arafura but goes all the way through the Centre to Adelaide. As the member for Nelson says, it is a massive plan. You need to have some sense of the reason behind such a plan, but I do not think that question or those concerns should baulk or stop the vision in any way. It is about enhancing the vision.
Important questions are being asked; the scientific link and the constraints of maintaining this land and that corridor. They are important questions but, at the same time, let us not be afraid to take on something new and very creative.. We are very creative and we can feel proud of driving a new direction where we show off the landscape and at the same time preserve it and allow employment to be a strong part of it in those areas where the corridor extends.
When I spoke of the Yugul Mangi Rangers, I would like to share with the parliament that the Indigenous Protected Areas are a strong component of this statement. In the Groote Eylandt region we have the Anindilyakwa Land Council Rangers who also have a protected sea area around Groote Eylandt. It is a terrific arrangement for the Anindilyakwa people, not only in preserving and caring for country which is fundamental to what these ranger groups are about, it is also about the passing on of knowledge of the area and sharing the knowledge of the area with those who come; non-Aboriginal people who are either living on Groote or those who come to visit at the newly established Dugong Beach resort.
The Indigenous Protected Areas scheme is an important one. The program is important for the Groote Eylandt people. I believe you will, minister, have some contributions from Arnhem and the east Arnhem region where that sense of strength about looking after country and culture is very strong.
Madam Speaker, I commend your statement to the House.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, first I acknowledge the students from Maningrida, a very important part of the Northern Territory. I know with my regional development hat, we are doing some fantastic work there which will lead to further jobs, particularly for the students we see here today.
I am very pleased to speak in support of the Minister for Parks and Wildlife’s first statement on the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks project. This is, indeed, a visionary project.
We often hear from the other side of the House that we do not have any vision as a government. This statement today shows that we do have a vision, particularly our Minister for Parks and Wildlife. It incorporates so many important elements and ideas that will have an impact on current and future generations, from conservation to climate change, from regional development to social inclusion, and the preservation of an ancient culture and knowledge.
I must confess to having a particular interest in the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks. I have listened to the minister outline the route. I have even looked at the member for Nelson’s map and I have sketched a few lines on my own map of the Northern Territory. By my rough estimates, the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks is approximately 1800 km long, of which around 1200 km runs through my electorate of Stuart.
The eco-link enters the electorate of Stuart at the Nitmiluk National Park in the north, and exits through Newhaven Station in the south. Between these two magnificent conservation zones - one public, one private - the eco-link encompasses some remarkable country and land that few people apart from pastoralists, traditional owners, adventurous tourists and, on the odd occasion, politicians like myself, have had the privilege to travel. It includes the Gregory National Park, an area of some 13 000 km2 known for its spectacular ranges and gorges, and it takes in the northern Tanami Indigenous Protected Area - 40 000 km2 of wetlands, plains, subtropical savannah and desert, which has been identified as a biodiversity conservation hot spot.
In my portfolio of Regional Development, the usual emphasis is on job creation, infrastructure development, increased tourism, and enhanced facilities. These are laudable objectives and in line with government policy. However, I want to approach the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks project from a different direction - one that focuses on the use of ideas and positive interactions as tools of regional development.
There are not too many of these links in the world; where they do exist, they tend to be in politically stable countries. It would be difficult to envisage such a concept being established in Africa or South America, for obvious reasons. Because of their rarity, they tend to attract national and international interest; they generate excitement in the worlds of conservation and philanthropy.
There will be flow-on effects that will be of benefit to the Northern Territory. I am not just talking about financial benefits, but the creation of conditions in an environment that attracts scientists. This can lead to most unexpected outcomes; for example, the West Arnhem Fire and Management Agreement. This is a greenhouse gas abatement project funded by Darwin LNG, a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips, which is paying $1m a year for 17 years to reduce emissions from savannah fires in the West Arnhem region. The project was facilitated by the Northern Territory government, the Northern Land Council, the NT Bushfires Council and the Tropical Savannas Collaborative Research Centre, and has as its partners: the Wardekken Association, the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation, the Mimarl Rangers, the Jawoyn Association and Demed Association. Shining a spotlight on the vastness of the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks may well result in similar flow-on effects.
We should never forget there has been a north-south sharing of knowledge along the route of the eco-link for many thousands of years. There are dreaming stories that flow from south to north. There are also ancient trading routes that were disrupted in the last century.
For the EcoLinks to work effectively, new relationships will have to be developed between various landholding entities – national parks, conservationists, pastoralists, and Aboriginal landholders will have to work together. Neither party will be able to work in isolation; they will all be connected.
With the depopulation of rural and remote Australia over the past 20 years, many traditional land management practices have broken down. One result is the spread of introduced species, which often has a very negative impact on the environment. The Eco-links may be able to arrest this decline in land management by fostering re-establishment of a presence in remote areas. This presence will mean new skills will have to learnt or old skills re-taught.
I referred earlier to the Northern Tanami Indigenous Protected Areas. This area is a haven for threatened species of birds, mammals, reptiles and plants, while the arid zone wetlands provide breeding habitats for wallabies, emus and colonies of migratory birds.
The region’s eco-systems are the result of generations of traditional owners caring for country. An additional benefit of the declaration of the Northern Tanami IPA last year is the development of a range of employment and training opportunities for local communities. Today, the Northern Tanami IPA is managed from Lajamanu in my electorate and sees the Wulaign Rangers tackling threats such as weeds and feral animals, while incorporating ancient land management practices.
I place on the record my appreciation and admiration for the Wulaign Rangers, which were originally established by the Central Land Council and the Wulaign Outstations Resource Centre.
One criticism that could be aimed at the north-south eco-links project is that it already exists in the form of the Stuart Highway or the railway corridor. Both these transport links traverse the diverse range of country, not dissimilar to that proposed for the EcoLinks. Starting from the north, we begin in a tropical climate and end up in a temperate zone. We travel over creeks and streams, grasslands and woodlands, deserts and semi deserts. In fact, much of the country is the same as the EcoLinks, but is it? The first difference between the EcoLinks and the Stuart Highway is that the latter is a modern transport link, with all the associated benefits and comforts, the picnic spots, motels, hotels, the occasional supermarket and numerous places to fill the esky with ice.
The EcoLinks, on the other hand, will be a reminder of the times gone by, a less sophisticated era with fewer comforts and greater challenges. Over time, it would become an experience, a must-see and a must-do. As well as attracting tourists to the Territory, it has the added benefit of easing pressure on existing tourist attractions.
Madam Speaker, the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks is a tremendous initiative and I am pleased to support it.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Note Statement – Arafura to Alice – EcoLinks Project
Note Statement – Arafura to Alice – EcoLinks Project
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I commend minister Anderson …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, can I just ask you not to refer to the minister by her name like that. It is the Minister for Parks and Wildlife in this instance.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, I commend the minister and the government’s visionary plan to link the conservation of our natural systems with sustainable economic land use management and practices. I would like to reiterate the key word - ‘vision’. The Arafura to Alice EcoLinks Project represents a new strategy for fusing public and private conservation efforts in a whole-of-landscape approach for the sustainable future of Northern Territory eco-systems.
I would like to highlight the nature of fusing public and private interests which was not fully highlighted in this morning’s speeches. Arafura to Alice will establish the present and future natural corridors that will maintain ecological pathways for the protection and generation of our flora and fauna while supporting intertwined economic enterprises reflecting pastoral, mining, tourism and construction. Corridors should not fence us in. The semantics of a corridor should remain open.
A whole-of-landscape approach in collaboration with regional communities represents an innovative knowledge application, based on both scientific and Indigenous intellectual capital. I refer the members to the word ‘vision’ and the fusion of public and private interests and the outcome of a combination of scientific and Indigenous intellectual capital.
For the Barkly region, the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks Project will provide social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits with a capacity for directly involving Indigenous people from both regional and remote areas in the management of natural and cultural resources. I highlight ‘cultural resources’.
I ask: who better to involve in the management of our natural resources than the Indigenous people of this country who have intricate knowledge and understanding of our eco-systems and, by way of modern physical association with the land, are living in remote communities on and around the very corridors we are now endeavouring to protect and preserve.
Inclusion of Indigenous people, while recognising and acknowledging Indigenous traditional knowledge about those eco-systems involved, will complement training to employment initiatives for mainstream jobs in land management, in addition to providing the unique cultural links to landscapes that will support both the scientific community and eco-tourism opportunities.
We should not be hemmed in, once again, with the traditional application of employment. A trained ranger is a trained ranger, and that ranger can work in the Northern Territory, on the Great Barrier Reef or in a national park in the Yukon. That is the outcome we are striving for and, if that involves Indigenous youth, then we are 100% behind it.
The Arafura to Alice EcoLinks offers remote communities capacity building and structures to participate in both protecting and showcasing country. It translates into cultural responsibility and employment for future generations. I believe this situation gives the elders a new base for traditional teaching for a new generation of complex youth. This is a whole new vision and a whole new platform which, I believe, offers great hope.
Making education exciting, meaningful and relevant in a remote area context has always been challenging. However, directly linking education and training programs to real world opportunities while incorporating the knowledge and respect of elders, certainly supports an opportunity for improved engagement, participation and outcomes.
We have heard much this morning about sea rangers. Borroloola on the Gulf coast represents another area that is promoting a sea ranger project. This project developing social, cultural and environmental initiatives directly protects country, monitors marine eco-systems, manages fishing areas, and supports tourism. It directly dovetails into the vision of the minister’s Arafura to Alice EcoLinks project.
This represents a community-based project that supports social and cultural movement of people back on to traditional lands and into the sea, and it possesses enormous potential to links with the local school in offering staged and targeted studies, training, and employment for students who do not wish to leave their home community. An initiative such as a ranger program has the capacity for offering youth identified as at risk a real and meaningful opportunity to reconnect with their culture through positive learning experiences.
In terms of positive school programs, great opportunities and Return to Country, youth such as I have described will be removed from the daily pressures that currently exist for many in Borroloola relating to homelessness, boredom and substance abuse. A disengaged 15-year-old young person living in Borroloola in 2008 is a complex individual and often falls under peer pressure and negative influences, as it is hard to make sense of things and to see light at the end of the tunnel.
School education to re-engage such a teenager, offering accredited training that would facilitate a position into work experience, work placement, and eventually a real job, not only provides the X factor for attendance at school and participation, but also the deep and powerful intrinsic nature of engagement provided by reconnection with country, culture and law in a mentored environment.
In the southern Barkly, major expanses of protected country featuring the Devil’s Marbles, the Davenport Ranges and other arid zone environments are renowned and feature as a geographic centrepoint for Barkly tourism. Such areas also represent traditional country for the many small remote communities nestled around them.
The local Indigenous communities of Epenarra, Canteen Creek, Murray Downs, Mungkarta and Kalinjarri all reside on the edge of the big reserved ecological corridors, possessing the cultural links to the landscapes that offer Indigenous heritage and land management knowledge; tourism potential and a local labour force for maintenance of the areas, and management of feral animals and weed control. In this part of the Barkly, we are looking at direct partnership opportunities with pastoralists, and that is a great future. The Arafura to Alice EcoLinks corridor represents partnerships with communities, communities working together on common ground. This will spotlight a national culture and ecological consciousness for all Australians and, in relation to future tourism potential, highlight our preserved natural eco-systems to the rest of the world.
In the Barkly, we do not need to travel the world as the world comes to us on a regular basis in the form of tourism. What better value adding could there be than for both national and international tourists to travel the corridors of the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks project and interact with Indigenous people and Indigenous youth born and raised on country and actively engaged in the management and preservation of such land, including maintenance of the Dreaming?
The minister has a very special attachment to such a project because the minister understands about Dreaming, and I believe it would be in the interests of all members of this House to take an interest in that concept and what it represents for such a visionary project.
The Arafura to Alice EcoLinks project represents a long-term initiative that will consolidate knowledge and experience in a staged development. It offers hope to new generations of both regional and remote communities of the Northern Territory, and I would like to mention the Barkly. Capital investment by the government for the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks project represents an innovative approach to ecology through the application of Indigenous cultural knowledge, voluntary conservation efforts, and industry for long-term sustainability of our natural resources for generations to come. Madam Speaker, I believe this must be applauded.
Mr VATKALIS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, the Minister for Parks and Wildlife and her statement about eco-links.
Reading about eco-links and the way it is proposed brings back memories from my days when I was at Murdoch University in Western Australia studying Environmental Science. I remember well one of the textbooks, Ecology by Ehrlich, one of the well-known writers and promoters of ecology in the world, referring to a very similar program that is widely used in Europe and other countries.
To give you an example, let me take you back to Western Australia where I arrived in 1983.. For me, WA was totally different as I came from a very mountainous country with forests, rivers and lake.,. I was really impressed with the lack of mountains and the vast expanses of totally clear land. In the 1950’s, after people came back from the war, the then governments of Australia and Western Australia promoted the clearing of land and the allocation of blocks; when I am referring to blocks, I am talking about land of quite a few thousand acres in area, for growing wheat.
I was taking a trip one day by train to Wongan Hills, and I could not believe my eyes when the train was crossing a plain that was totally empty of trees. I well remember that wheat was harvested and there was a flock of about 30 or 40 sheep and all of them, in the middle of the day, were under one single tree in the middle of this vast expanse of vacant land trying to protect themselves from the sun. Of course, one of the issues that has arisen by removing this natural vegetation, was not only the salination of the areas, and as a result people had to withdraw from their land and stop farming, but also the disappearance of a large number of species of fauna and flora.
A few years later when some of these events became evident in Western Australia, people actively wanted to bring back some of the birds, animals, flowers, plants that had disappeared. Farmers without any urging by the then government, decided to do something very similar to what my colleague proposed today - to create corridors for wildlife to return, for wildlife to start breeding and for the species that had disappeared many years ago to reappear.
In Ehrlich’s book, he describes the harsh reality that wildlife, especially birds and animals, ,will hesitate to cross an open space unless there is a protected pathway for migration, even for breeding purposes. This is a well-known fact.
The same thing will happen with some of the plants. They have more opportunity to grow and become established in areas that have been already somehow prepared for this expansion, rather than the vast areas. We see this in places where there are huge road networks. Much of the fauna will not cross the empty roads, or if they try to cross, most of the time, they find themselves flat on the bitumen, squashed by big trucks or cars. You can see that even here in the Territory on Dick Ward Drive, sometimes driving to work I see quolls and small animals on the road.
Proposing the eco-link in the Northern Territory I think is a significant step to promote our eco system. The Northern Territory is a vast expanse, 1.5m km, about 2000 km long and about 1000 km wide with unique eco-systems and climates, from the tropical north to the semi-arid in the Barkly, down to the arid environments of Alice Springs and surroundings. Every single eco-system has unique flora and fauna and every single one of these eco-systems are adapted to this environment, so we can say we have a number of different eco-systems in the Northern Territory.
Within each of these climatic environments we have pockets of eco-systems which are there because they have been separated through anthropogenic means. People cleared the land of its grasses to plant pastures, and also cleared for roads and mining operations. As a result we have isolated pockets of fauna far away from other pockets like species. . These can be divided by 100 m or by kilometres due to the actions of humans or, in some cases, the climate. So, trying to bring those two together and re-establish the links between the different eco-systems in an environment, is a unique opportunity for us to act now and promote and support the ecology of the Northern Territory.
The reality is, if we continue to keep these areas divided, the smaller the population of an animal or a plant in a particular area, the more likely this population is to become extinct through inbreeding or through accidental means. Fire in a small pocket of vegetation can destroy some of these plants and the ones that remain will not be sufficient to repopulate and re-establish a colony of that rare plant in the area. We have to provide the opportunity for these rare birds or animals, in case of emergency, to be able to escape, protected, from one area to another. We have to make ensure that these proper and distinct populations, living in two different pockets, can actually get together for breeding purposes so we have a bigger variation and thus better protection of the species for their survival in the future.
What is proposed here is not only about creating corridors between different pockets of fauna and flora, but connecting the different areas, through the different environments, and utilising the traditional knowledge of people who have been living in these areas for thousands of years. In some cases these people know better than some of our scientists who have been trained in Europe or America or in South Australia. These people know the best way to connect, to preserve and link these areas by different means.
The question regarding acquisition of land was asked. No. We do not have to acquire land. Are you going to compensate pastoral property owners for what you are doing? No. The reality is, you do not have to compulsorily acquire land because you can still have pockets and corridors in the same place. In some cases pastoralists and farmers are very keen to re-establish these corridors because they have seen the problems when they clear a vast expanse of land without providing any protection for the wildlife and, in some cases, providing protection for their own animals. In some areas, especially in the Barkly when it is the windy time of the year, you have poor cattle in the middle of a field in cold weather. By planting a row of trees you can provide protection for your animals, and at the same time provide a corridor for wildlife to cross from one pocket to the other.
The other point to consider is being able to drive from Arafura to Alice or from Borroloola to Keep River and see a continuous strip of national parks and vegetated areas rather than seeing national park, desert, pastoral properties with nothing on them, national park, desert with nothing on it for various reasons. I have seen it before, and I will see it again.
If you drive to Alice Springs, in particular, especially after a big fire, you get tired driving on a flat road looking at nothing else but flat, empty terrain. Promoting this eco-link the way it is being promoted here is not only good for the environment, for the fauna and the flora, it is not only good for our national parks and traditional owners, it is also very good for our tourists.
As Tourism minister, I have been promoting our environment as a unique pristine environment, around the world. I have been in China telling them that it is the only place in the world you will drive 2000 km and most likely see only 50 cars. It is the only place in the world where you can see for miles without anything obstructing your vision. We do not have pollution, unless, of course, there is a fire. It is the only place in the world when you turn your eyes to the sky at night you see a multitude of stars - more than you have ever seen before in your life. Also I said, it is the only place in the world where you see plants that have existed in this place for millions of years because our environment has remained unchanged. This is the place where you see unique birds and animals that you do not see any where else in the world.
In addition, we can work in close cooperation with the pastoralists, the farmers and conservation organisations. We have a number of workers in these organisations who have acquired old pastoral leases and they have closed them down as pastoral properties because they want to protect a particular species of bird or animal. We have some of these parks in the east of the Territory, near Borroloola.
There were some attempts to buy some of these pastoral properties near Alice Springs and some to the west of the Northern Territory. This is for us, an opportunity to utilise these attempts by conservation organisations, together with our Parks and Wildlife, to establish these natural links to preserve our unique environment, fauna and flora. It is not the amount of money you spend to do it, because I do not think we will be able to acquire the land ourselves to create the link in a perceived period of time. But if we work together with pastoralists and the public, we have a common interest to preserve our environment and I think we can do that very quickly. In some cases, rather than paying to acquire vast tracts of land, the money will be better allocated to provide assistance to these people who want to come onboard and help us establish the eco-link.
How we are going to do it and help people to establish some of the areas is very innovative. Many people do not want $1000, or $10 000 to do something; people need guidance, support and the scientific knowledge of how to do something and do it right so it will last for years to come. Many people also want to ensure that they leave behind a legacy; they do not want to leave a legacy of the biggest pastoral property in the Territory. Some people can leave a legacy that says: ‘On my property, the Gouldian finch survived. On my property, that unique flower still survives despite the fact that it was under threat many years ago’. Many people are proud of things you can see on their properties.
I have been to properties where people show, quite proudly, the unique birds and animals that live there, despite the fact they had thousands of people on this property, and they can coexist and work together. We can work together. After all, every time one of these birds or plants becomes extinct, our world becomes poorer; there are birds that have survived for millions of years and, through our actions in 100 years, we have caused their extinction.
I congratulate my colleague for her proposal. It is an excellent proposal. One suggestion I would make: if we do not tell the public what we are doing, they will not know, so I suggest we develop some promotion material to give to the people we are going to work with, but also to the people around Australia, to tell them that the Territory is not only famous for Kakadu and Uluru, but also famous for the attempts and efforts we make to preserve our unique environment, wildlife and flower..
Some of the photographs of the Gouldian in this pamphlet are fantastic and every time I see them, I see something new. Therefore, the more we do – and, as you know a picture speaks more than 1000 words - people will see and realise the effort we made, and people will come onboard and assist us in what we are trying to achieve.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister once again. It is a small idea, but has enormous impact on our environment, our flora and our fauna.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on the Arafura to Alice EcoLinks project.
This brought back many memories to me when we combined and brought together all the departments dealing with natural resources, environment and heritage into one fantastic department. We have scientists and people in the museum areas who add to the level of expertise.
I do want to touch on the important area of water. Over many years, water has been greatly over-allocated and over-used.
It was a privilege to work with Ian Lancaster, Director of the Water Resource Branch within Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts and an expert in his field. Ian and I went to a number of meetings with the then federal Minister for the Environment, Malcolm Turnbull – now federal Leader of the Opposition as of yesterday. We looked at skills sets and noted that one skill set that is disappearing right across Australia is hydrologists. We need skilled and experienced hydrologists, particularly in places like Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia. We need to retain those experts across Australia. Malcolm Turnbull was trying to poach Ian Lancaster but we would not let him!
Water is a major issue, and dominated national debates, because of the terrible droughts we have seen continue to hit hard in southern Australia. The community wants action, and politicians of all persuasions are taking note of that ongoing debate. Over the last year or two the focus has been on northern Australia because southern states are seeing the Northern Territory, as water drenched. Given the droughts down south, they believe our water should be channelled to look after those drought-affected areas. However, we should not presume that the water debate will be confined to those regions most affected by the current water crisis.
Our tropical rivers and groundwater systems contain roughly 70% of Australia’s freshwater resources, and we directly use only a very small proportion. It is no exaggeration to say that north Australian rivers and water resources are increasingly becoming the envy of the rest of Australia, and herein lies the dilemma of scarcity and opportunity. To some, the water crisis of southern Australia, coupled with climate change, provides the opportunity to go north and irrigate, or to realise lofty dreams of piping the wasted water of the north down south where it is really needed, but to others, water is perceived differently. The continued availability of water is understood in different ways.
Water is of enormous significance to Aboriginal people, far beyond its simple use for drinking and bathing. It is a pre-eminent focus in creation accounts of the origins of the traditional lands and seas amongst every Aboriginal group in the north and the south. Water has also been a focus for conflict.
In terms of north Australia, with the increased contact with non-Aboriginal people moving across the continent and the pastoral areas increasing, it was Aboriginal people with their encyclopaedic knowledge of their land who often worked with pastoralists, or pointed pastoralists to permanent water sources. Indeed, all of our major stock routes - and anyone who has been out bush has seen those stock routes – were initially pioneered by Aboriginal stockmen and women. However, as pastoralism became entrenched, we all know the history where Aboriginal people felt, and were, increasingly excluded from their water sources.
Ceremonial grounds were supplanted by homesteads built at some of these permanent waterholes. Introduced animals and plants, fed by traditionally-owned water sources, caused widespread, in many cases, drastic changes to the environment and availability of traditional foods.
In my contact and discussions with the pastoral industry, or the Cattlemen’s Association, they have placed a major focus, and have shifted their focus, to come up with their adaptive management framework into land management – a lot of work has gone into that. The Cattlemen’s Association and people should be applauded, because there was a major shift from how they saw the environment and looked after the environment to one where they have put in place quite a strong, adaptive management framework so that they could deal with things like water and weeds, and what was happening in the changes to the environment.
North Australia is unique. We have many river catchments where ecological processes continue to operate to connect headwaters with floodplains, wetlands, estuaries and the coast, as the minister points out in her statement. The connections between ground and surface water remain largely intact. The strong ecological connections support many goods and services provided to north Australians - clean water, a vibrant tourism industry, great recreational opportunities and productive coastal fisheries and pastoral lands. For all of us who call the Territory ‘home’, our rivers are intrinsically part of our identity.
The minister’s statement also points out the importance of land management. Kakadu, in my electorate is an environment with a quite fragile biodiversity. All the recent research, nationally and internationally, is showing that Kakadu National Park will be impacted by climate change and we will see rising sea levels and the flooding. Recently, in 2006 we saw the floods in Kakadu; the community of Oenpelli was flooded for the first time in over 100 years. There the increasing threat of cyclones. Those are threats say to us, that climate change is a major issue and one on which we need a greater focus on.
Minister, I am aware of the ranger programs run by your department. I believe they are a fantastic because we are starting to educate our young people and involve them in land care and management. The Parks and Wildlife department does a great job nurturing them, particularly the young ones. The junior ranger program is not just a Darwin-based program; it is also in Alice Springs. I know some of the park rangers want to see it in more of our regional and remote communities. We have seen the success of our sea and land management rangers. Every member with a bush electorate has those ranger groups as part of the landscape.
Those ranger groups are male and female. The member for Arnhem spoke very passionately about the Yugul Mangi, the female rangers like Cherry Daniels,and they play a fantastic role. The rangers at Wadeye are the Thamarrurr Rangers. In my own electorate I often talk about the Djelk Rangers, who have done some fantastic work.
One of the programs that is in place in my electorate of West Arnhem is the West Arnhem Fire Management Agreement, which was the first agreement that brought in corporate sponsorship to a fire management agreement and looked at bringing together and offsetting carbon emissions in terms of bushfires. The West Arnhem Fire Management Agreement involves traditional owners from many different groups including some of the groups from Land Care from the western and central Arnhem Land areas - one of those groups comes from the member for Arnhem’s area - that have banded together to reinstate traditional land and fire management practices.
Catalyst, which was shown on ABC last year, showed how that agreement unites the skills and energies of western scientists and Aboriginal holders of traditional knowledge in working with a major gas company to produce greenhouse gas trading benefits which, effectively, balance emissions from 20 000 vehicles or 100 000 tonnes of greenhouse gas a year, with traditional land management practices. That was the first agreement ever.
The Australian Greenhouse Office was quite excited about that agreement. It is something Aboriginal people, with their country, do want to preserve and conserve it and these are some of the economic benefits. As I said in my speech yesterday, not every Aboriginal group or community has a mine or the potential to have a mine near them. Land management, however, and reaping the benefits of getting private investment with government, with Aboriginal groups, can happen and create jobs with the outcome of protecting country.
As the minister says, she is from the environment, and it is very important for us that we do not see short-term fixes that are so often locked into with this debate. It is important that Aboriginal people who are from the land, from the environment, are central and part of any development that we see going forward to creating a better Territory, because looking after the environment benefits everybody.
It is probably the one area that can go a long way in terms of reconciliation. It allows for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, the experts, the scientists - the white scientists who I see flocking out to work with the different Aboriginal groups in west Arnhem - it happens in all our regions; to have white, mainstream scientists working with Aboriginal people, building on those two knowledge systems and bringing them together is a fantastic thing. It is about all of us caring and looking after country.
Madam Speaker, the statement on eco-links and making that our vision for the way forward has a lot of support..
Ms ANDERSON (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, I congratulate and thank my colleagues on this side of the House for being visionary, constructive and allowing themselves to dream about being different and of allowing the Northern Territory to become a food bowl. We do live in a food bowl because of the different cultures and the fact that we have such different fauna and flora. When I say we live in a food bowl, it is about the different animals we have, and how we all come together as Territorians.
I have heard calls for more detail, and a few doubts, about whether we can implement such a large concept. That is fair enough, because this is a new plan. We have to do more and listen to people. We do not pretend otherwise. It is a new plan. It is about consultation, it is about being informed and informing. It is not just about informing you, our parliamentary colleagues, but informing the public, that is the people from Arafura to Alice Springs.
I want to talk about some of the doubts that some people have in their minds in speaking to my statement today, and reiterate that we know we are facing periods of change with global warming. We also know that parks alone cannot protect certain animals and plants unless we manage the wider landscape. There is a clear problem we need to address.
There are also opportunities. For example, there are Indigenous groups already working on country and this is where I come back to say: Let us take risks, let us be different because we are Territorians, we are different. We are different to those people who live in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. We are Territorians, a multicultural society. We are a food bowl, not just in a culture but also in the flora and fauna that we have in the Northern Territory.
There are pastoralists investing in conservation and there are conservation groups purchasing land for conservation. What we need is a plan to connect the problem with opportunity. That is what Arafura to Alice EcoLinks will do. The member for Arnhem captured the sentiment behind Arafura to Alice EcoLinks very well: we should not be afraid to take on something new and creative.
The member for Brennan has suggested this plan is a deviation from the main matters at hand. It is okay for him to have that thought, but it is not an either/or situation - we can have visionary long-term projects and address the short-term issues on a day-to day-basis. As they say in America, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
The member for Brennan also said that consultation with all groups will be necessary, and I agree. I reiterate we are specifically interested in engaging with the public, so there will be consultation. I can guarantee, as the minister, I will make sure there is consultation - focused and serious consultation. We will focus on this project having community support all the way through. We need to take the people with us. This is not a journey that we can have alone; it has to be a journey of all Territorians from Arafura to Alice Springs.
The member for Goyder has raised issues of compulsory acquisition. I could not have been any clearer in the statement. This is a program to support voluntary conservation efforts, so there will not be any compulsory acquisitions. The member for Goyder also stressed the need for consultation with all the relevant groups. This was detailed in the statement but, if the member for Goyder would like a further briefing, then I would be happy to organise one - not in a bad way, it is very serious. Like statehood, this requires bipartisan support - not just with parliamentary colleagues but with all Territorians.
The member for Goyder also questioned the capacity of private organisations to upgrade conservation areas. I inform the member that groups already exist in the Territory and they are doing wonderful work at places like Newhaven Station, which is in, the member for Stuart’s electorate, which is west of Alice Springs.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge my grandfather, Tjampu, Harry Nelson, sitting at the back, who is also from that area.
And this is happening right now; through Arafura to Alice, we can grow this effort. It is about bringing pastoralists, conservationists, Indigenous people and government together. This is the journey of all Territorians.
I welcome the comments from the member for Nelson. The member for Nelson really speaks from his heart. He is a real conservationist and naturalist and is interested in Indigenous issues as well. I thank him for his comments. On detail, I am wondering if we can sit down together and have the opportunity to ensure that we listen to you and go through the details at a later stage, instead of doing it in my reply to you, member for Nelson. I also agree with the member for Nelson that opening up new areas must not occur at the expense of existing parks. He has my firm undertaking that this will not occur.
I have heard some wonderful contributions from members about Indigenous ranger groups. They are truly an inspiration to all of us and I hope they draw a little more inspiration from the support received in this House for their great work. I thank my colleagues.
Madam Speaker, this statement was the first step in a long journey. I urge members opposite to join me in that journey with goodwill and an open mind for the benefit of future generations.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Territory Statehood
Territory Statehood
Ms McCARTHY (Statehood): Madam Speaker, in this the 30th anniversary year of self-government, I share with the people of the Northern Territory the progress of the Northern Territory parliament towards statehood. Before I begin I would like to acknowledge the presence of Harry Nelson, a member of the Statehood Steering Committee, and the Executive Officer, Carolynne James.
Thirty years ago, we were granted self-government by an act of the Commonwealth. Ten years ago, the people of the Northern Territory voted ‘no’ to statehood, just over 51% voted no. As I have stated in this House on previous occasions, people voted no largely because they felt excluded and uninformed of what the process was all about.
The Statehood Steering Committee, which reports to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee of the parliament, has spent the past 3 years educating and informing Territorians about statehood. It is a bipartisan process of the Northern Territory parliament, and I take this opportunity to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his role in ensuring such a positive and constructive partnership with the Henderson Labor government.
I also welcome the member for Nightcliff, the member for Fannie Bay, the member for Brennan, and the member for Goyder, who was a Statehood Steering Committee member prior to becoming a parliamentarian. I welcome you to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
We have learned a valuable lesson from 1998, and that is, we, as the political representatives, must rise above politics if we are to ensure the future for the children of the Northern Territory in becoming the seventh state in the Australian federation.
In studying our constitutional status, I have come to explore the deeper reality of what it means to the ordinary Territory person; to the business owner working long hours to cover their overheads and pay their staff; to the bus driver who transports schoolchildren every day to and from school; to the long grasser who chooses between the beach camp or airport camp to rest for the night; or the CDEP worker who has to choose between travelling to town for a music concert with the family or wait until next time; to the new refugees from Africa or Asia, who are trying to settle into their new country; and to the pastoralists who have to decide how many trailers they need to transport the cattle for export. Do not forget the mango growers who struggle for hired hands, and the artist who immerses him or herself in their work of art, or the able or disabled athletes, determined to excel in their sporting dreams.
How do we as a parliament tap into the lives of each of these diverse Territorians about our right to join our fellow Australians across the country as full citizens in this country? How do we as a parliament overcome the legacy of a failed attempt and renew and reinvigorate hearts to believe in it again?
On 21 June 2007, the then Howard government announced its federal intervention into the Northern Territory. It changed dramatically the lives of thousands of Aboriginal people - Territorians - immediately. I say to the House, put aside for now the rights and wrongs about the intervention, and put aside even the reasons for it. Just reflect on this: if ever we needed to be reminded of our constitutional vulnerability as Australian citizens, then surely the intervention has done just that - reminded us, as parliamentarians, that we have some serious work ahead of us in tackling our constitutional inequality. Many Aboriginal people have approached me with an even greater understanding of their own constitutional vulnerability because of the intervention. We already knew the Territory constitutional power was limited under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. The actions of June last year further restricted the Territory’s capacity to address its own problems.
The Commonwealth has treated Territory law in a way that could not happen in a state. In reflecting on the reasons for the intervention on 21 June 2007, the former Prime Minister said: ‘Why just in the Northern Territory and why only now? Because we can, given our constitutional powers’. That was in the Sydney Morning Herald online on 26 June 2007. Because they can, Madam Deputy Speaker, because they can.
It is the Northern Territory government’s intention that our ongoing commitment to statehood should also aim to heal the rifts that came from these recent actions and let us reconcile our role in a federal system of government, at the same time as we look to statehood as an important part of our ongoing program for reconciliation between Aboriginal and all other Territorians.
The challenge for this parliament is how do we plan for the future, where the rights of each and every Territorian is guaranteed to live a full life with access to opportunities, not at the expense of one’s cultural identity or religious beliefs or even their geographic location. We have the opportunity in the Northern Territory to do what our constitutional forefathers could never do, and that is to write a new constitution for a new state that recognises and respects the men and women of the Northern Territory, black and white, refugees, mango growers, and pastoralists.
In the words of the Statehood Steering Committee campaign, ‘Walking Together Towards Statehood’, is very appropriate. For the people who read or hear this speech, even they may feel some affinity with such searching. Is this dream of constitutional equality a dream shared by others? Has it become a recurring dream, a fixated dream, an obsessive dream that no one wants to know about? Will it be known only as this elusive dream, where many have tried and failed?
It is when we here in this House believe we are worthy to join our brothers and sisters at the seat of Federation as equal citizens, not second class citizens, only then will other parliaments across the country believe in it too – I mean really believe in it. Do we believe we should be equal citizens under the Australian Constitution? A simple yes or no.
Forget about the constitutional passages, the legal jargon, the hundreds of pages to read, and goodness me, do not get bogged down thinking about the numbers of senators or trying to intellectualise like a game of chess who moves where in the Upper and Lower House of the Commonwealth if we enter as a state. Speak with your hearts and let the people decide.
Members of the parliament, think about this some more while I turn to the statistical reality of our status under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. Under the Australian Constitution, the Commonwealth parliament has a very broad paper to determine the future of any new state using section 121 of the Constitution. The Constitution says at section 121:
- The parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new states, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit.
There has been considerable academic and political speculation concerning the meaning and interpretation of section 121, but until a new state comes into existence it will remain untested, that is until now. It is now that we will in the Northern Territory have the opportunity to become the seventh state in the Australian Federation.
It would appear from a simple reading of the Australian Constitution that it is open to the Commonwealth to decide that the only term and condition would be absolute equality with the existing states. Indeed, the Northern Territory government may seek the Commonwealth to agree to such a proposal in the first instance, however, we are also aware that previous discussions between the Territory and the Commonwealth indicate the Commonwealth may wish to impose some terms and conditions other than absolute equality with the existing states, which may differentiate the Northern Territory from the original states.
The Northern Territory public should be able to discuss this prospect in an open and informed way. However, what is clear is that many people across the Northern Territory want eventual equality.
As I have mentioned in the past, the Commonwealth has expressed reservations on statehood for two reasons. First, the Commonwealth has sought a stronger demonstration of the Northern Territory’s desire for statehood. At the 1998 Referendum, the Commonwealth had not prepared a formal policy position of its own on the terms and conditions of statehood for the Territory. Rather, it indicated it would take an interest and be informed by what the Northern Territory might put forward.
Can the people of the Northern Territory really be expected to demonstrate support for statehood without knowing what the Commonwealth’s policy position is on what the new state would look like? Some Territorians, who, for example, indicate support for statehood only on the same constitutional basis as the existing states, may withhold agreement all together if the model is unknown …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. We have to ring the bells because there are not enough people to form a quorum, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells. We now have a quorum. Please continue, minister.
Ms McCARTHY: Some Territorians who, for example indicate support for statehood only on the same constitutional basis as the existing states may withhold agreement altogether if the model is unknown. But they may be swayed if the compelling argument is put from a model with initial unequal entry along with the later guarantees of equality.
The Statehood Steering Committee has argued to both the Territory government as well as to the Commonwealth House of Representatives Committee of Inquiry that this is the key dilemma to the future success of a statehood referendum. During 2006, the Statehood Steering Committee wrote to the Territory government expressing this view, as well as making a submission along the same lines to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Inquiry into the Federal Implications of Northern Territory Statehood. The House of Representatives committee has recognised this dilemma and has made a single, clear recommendation to the Commonwealth government which was:
- … that the Australian government update and refine its position on Northern Territory statehood and recommence work on an unresolved federal issues.
This recommendation is vital. The Commonwealth committee inquiry recognises the stalemate which the federal government must break. The Commonwealth must make clear which roles and responsibilities come to the Territory upon statehood, and which will remain with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth government’s response to the 2007 inquiry is still outstanding. We will be pressing the federal government, seeking the release of the Commonwealth’s response as the first step in discussions on terms and conditions. The Northern Territory parliament sees statehood as inevitable. However, statehood will not just happen. The Australian government has said it supports statehood. Nonetheless, Territorians need to work hard to overcome any reservations the Commonwealth may have.
Despite the election of a federal Labor government, there will still be a need to demonstrate we are ready and have earned our constitutional place. I am pleased to point out that the new federal government is encouraging the statehood process.
In June this year, the federal Territory’s minister, Bob Debus, joined and co-launched the Statehood Committee’s ‘Walking Together Towards Statehood’ campaign. At this event, the federal minister committed to active engagement and dialogue with the Territory government on outstanding federal issues. As any constitutional student is aware, statehood potentially changes the current makeup of the Commonwealth parliament. If there will be more Territory senators, it will mean more representatives under the nexus provision of the Australian Constitution.
Getting the Commonwealth to act in our favour may not be easy. The move toward statehood is something that needs groundwork from the Statehood Steering Committee. It also requires a helping hand from government. But government must avoid a heavy-handed approach. The Statehood Steering Committee has a crucial community role in educating people, discussing statehood and consulting independently of government.
Some may say the government must keep out of statehood altogether to let the committee get on with its work. The committee’s role in work is not in doubt - the committee’s work is separate and essential work. If we are to seriously advance statehood, there are also distinct roles for the Northern Territory government and this parliament along the road to statehood. I pay tribute to all the pioneers of statehood.
I pay particular tribute to Harold Nelson, the early-day Harold Nelson who took the fight to the Commonwealth in order to obtain that first House of Representatives seat in Commonwealth parliament in 1922. However, despite this historic event, Mr Nelson’s work remains unfinished because we know that, unlike a state, the Northern Territory still has no constitutionally entrenched right whatsoever to any representation in the Australian parliament. At the national level, our representation remains at the pleasure of the Commonwealth parliament of the day. Our self-government attained 30 years ago remains today a limited construct, with the Legislative Assembly vulnerable to dissolution by the Commonwealth government without consent or consultation with the Northern Territory people, hence the continued push for statehood in the 1980s by then Chief Minister, Steve Hatton.
In 1986, the Hatton government had adopted three broad statehood objectives. These were:
1. constitutional equality with the existing states;
Of these goals, only the third has been realised in the subsequent 22-year period and, even then, while the Territory is treated the same as the states in terms of financial arrangements, the existing arrangements with the Commonwealth mean that the Territory and the states may be held hostage to a range of agendas dictated by the Commonwealth. The first two goals expressed in 1986 are goals shared by the Territory government in 2008.
A central theme of my statement today is learning from the past. We know that constitutional change in Australia takes a very long time. We also know that if people feel rushed or bullied, they will react against it. Setting targets and end dates can be perilous, but also may be a necessary objective in what could otherwise end up being a process that could just meander on for several more generations.
This leads to what the government is doing now. First, the Northern Territory government is taking its message to Canberra and to the nation. The government, together with the opposition and the steering committee, will soon visit Canberra to promote interest in statehood and specifically request federal government action. One clear message we will be taking to Canberra is that the Territory should, ultimately, be an equal state in the Federation. However, there are two other messages we need to impress upon our national colleagues. First, statehood for the Northern Territory completes the Federation and embodies the vision set in place over 100 years ago. As the seventh state of Australia, we will break free of our outdated Territory status. Over the last 100 years, Territorians have proven themselves and earned the right to operate with the same state autonomy available to other Australians.
The time for statehood is now. The Northern Territory, with its population and economic growth, is taking the lead in the development of Australia’s north. The Territory government takes a preliminary view that equality must be the platform for entry into the Federation as a new state. It is a view shared by this parliament. The people of the Northern Territory do not deserve anything less. People who ask if that means 12 new Territory Senators from day one, should be assured we are talking about equality in the foundations of statehood. We must not be so nave as to think we can negotiate on an all or nothing basis, but we must also stay strong to our principles. Maybe the Territory, as a new state, may not start off with immediate absolutely equality, but it is about eventual equality.
If we get the process right, we should kick off statehood with the confidence and understanding that eventual equality is built into the foundation as a guarantee to future generations, so that the Northern Territory transitions to full equal status relatively soon.
The previous Legislative Assembly sessional committee identified two concurrent forces of action for a grant of statehood. The first was the preparation and adoption by Territorians of a constitution for the new state, and the second was the negotiation of a memorandum of understanding between the Territory government and the Commonwealth government on the terms and conditions of the new state for the Commonwealth parliament to implement under section 121 of the Australian Constitution.
The government today recommits the Northern Territory to that process. These actions should be concurrent, so while we develop a constitution the Territory and the Commonwealth must be discussing the terms and conditions of entering this state.
The outcome from the process should be a draft Commonwealth/Territory memorandum of understanding or informal agreement between the two governments on all these issues. It is critical so that on the day the next statehood referendum takes place, Territorians will be voting for or against statehood, knowing the proposed content of the future state constitution and, most importantly, the terms and conditions upon which statehood is made available to the Northern Territory. It was the terms and conditions that were not available in the 1998 referendum.
To deliver these outcomes, key tasks are required that need to commence right now. I am pleased to announce that the Northern Territory government will undertake a project to identify positions and implications of statehood matters within the Northern Territory. Some of the key issues that have been identified previously are: financial arrangements; uranium mining; national parks; Aboriginal land; island territories; representation; trade and commerce; industrial relations; executive powers and the head of state; as well as the process for giving effect to statehood.
The second task for the Northern Territory government will be to urge the Commonwealth to establish a Commonwealth interdepartmental committee to consider these matters.
I am also pleased to announce that, in 2009, the Statehood Steering Committee will commence specific consultations, asking Territory residents their views on the future control of these matters upon statehood. These consultations will be called Constitutional Workshops. They differ from the previous education and awareness activities undertaken by the committee in the past 3 years. These workshops will ask for and record specific views and feedback on statehood issues, including the potential content of the constitution and preferences on Commonwealth terms and conditions. The workshops will be well advertised, open to all Territorians and provided in as many parts of the Territory as possible. The committee’s goal is to make sure that the public is well informed about statehood and feels comfortable to make an informed decision on statehood issues.
The outcomes of the workshops will be threefold:
1. to hear from as many Territorians as possible about statehood at a grassroots level;
I must point out that these dates are dependent on the Commonwealth coming to the party. We are not going to experience the pain of another referendum like 1998 in the absence of knowing the terms and conditions of statehood.
Whether we reach the 2011 target date is up to each and every one of us, and we must be active in our communities.
I make special mention of the four Aboriginal land councils – the Northern Land Council, the Central Land Council, Tiwi Land Council and Anindilyakwa Land Council. Your knowledge and passion in the pursuit of a better life for the Territory’s Indigenous population will be essential in the workshops in communities across the Northern Territory, and I look forward to your input on how these workshops should be undertaken.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the federal Labor government are under no illusion about the need for constitutional recognition for Aboriginal Australians. This was evident at the gathering in Yirrkala a few months ago for the Rudd Community Cabinet. I say to the Prime Minister: while we in the Northern Territory will do all we can to advance our process towards statehood, there must be serious discussion at the highest levels in Canberra also, for we will not be kept busy here for the sake of just being busy on statehood.
As I mused earlier, is statehood an elusive dream? No, it is not. Too many people have given so much, and will give even more this next 18 months, as we embark on the workshops leading up to the Constitutional Convention. A national campaign strategy will also be run in parallel to the Territory-wide workshops.
All 25 members of this Assembly have a role to play. All members must energise our communities to encourage effective democracy and fairness in our walk together towards statehood. I say to all here, the members of the 11th Parliament of the Northern Territory, your leadership role in your respective electorates in the next 18 months, will be an important one as constitutional workshops occur across the Territory.
I also remind this House of the 3 years of work undertaken by the Statehood Steering Committee members. I thank each and every Statehood Steering Committee member for their ongoing commitment and dedication to statehood and it is, indeed, an honour to work with you.
I also thank the staff of the Statehood Secretariat, in particular Nora Kempster, who has continuously travelled and will continue to travel across the Northern Territory with the education and awareness campaign. I say thank you, Nora, for your absolute dedication to the process towards statehood. To Marise Riddell and Poppy Lelekis, thank you for the tremendous work you have put into the July campaign for the 30th Anniversary of Statehood. I am encouraged by your efforts and your team efforts of continuing on this path.
I also take this opportunity to thank two people who left the committee earlier this year, the former Co-Chair, Sue Bradley and former Executive Officer, Michael Tatham. Both Sue and Michael can be proud of the strong foundations they have built in their respective roles on the Statehood Steering Committee. I know they wish the new Co-Chair, Fran Kilgariff, and new Executive Officer, Carolynne James, all the best in this next 18 months of important work leading up to the Constitutional Convention in 2010.
Madam Speaker, I say, in closing, that this is about harnessing the hearts of our fellow Australians around the country to encourage us to join them at the seat of Federation as the seventh state in the Federation.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Statehood for her statement and support her in all the comments that have been put before the House today.
I agree. It is now a matter of getting on with some serious action and our biggest challenge is not going to be the people of the Northern Territory. Our biggest challenge is going to be the people in the southern states, particularly in some strange place called Canberra, where a species inhabits some of the year. That is the biggest challenge, getting the federal politicians to fully understand what statehood means and what it means to the Northern Territory.
Like the minister, whilst I was not born in the Northern Territory, I grew up here and I share the vision with the minister for us to get the grant of statehood and bring fairness and equity to the Northern Territory, which we currently do not have.
I was around when self-government was granted to the Northern Territory and there are probably only a few members in the parliament who were around at that time. I was also around when we had the first push for statehood under the then Chief Minister, Steve Hatton, which involved going on show circuits and having major displays. That was our first public foray and it was reasonably successful at the time, albeit many people did not fully understand the implications of statehood.
I was also around, as was the minister, for the second push involved for statehood, which also included the convention in which I was a participant. Whilst it was well intentioned, it was probably not managed as well as it could have been.
I have seen firsthand, as have members of this parliament, how the Commonwealth has at times treated the Northern Territory with distain and, some would argue, disrespect.
We have had the famous overturning of our Northern Territory legislation, the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, and all that has fallen out of that. Some time before that, some members in the House may recall that we also had other Northern Territory legislation overridden by the Commonwealth, which was the proposal to put a mitigation dam in the Charles River, so that the Todd River did not flood all the time. The minister may recall that, that was the Heritage Act which was enacted to override the Northern Territory government at that time.
Of course, we have seen the upheaval and the controversy around the proposal for a low level nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory and, more recently, the intervention.
What is more, apart from those things that have gone by us, which is in the past and we have to move forward, is that the Commonwealth at any point in time can dissolve this parliament - a parliament that has been elected by the people. Quite frankly, I do not think that is good enough for the people of the Northern Territory. There are many things that we do not control as a consequence of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and the fact that we are only a self governing territory. It is time now that the Northern Territory was granted statehood and given full rights to manage our own affairs. What is within our borders and land management issues should be the purview of this parliament.
We do a lot of administrative work for the Commonwealth and yet we are not receiving some of the benefits from the work that we do. Classic amongst this is Ashmore and Cartier Islands where the Northern Territory handles all the administration, but we do not get any of the direct benefits from the activities in that area.
We are treated as second class citizens. The time has come, as the minister has outlined, for us to have fairness and equity; to put aside some of the differences that may have existed in the past between us and the Commonwealth and, perhaps, between industry and land councils as well as between the different sides of politics. Yes, we learn from the past but it is now time for us to move forward in a cohesive manner. It is not going to be an easy task. We know that. We know there will be items we will not be able to agree on, we know there is going to be a fairly difficult and complicated transfer, patriation of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act to the Northern Territory. It is a matter now of getting down and trying to work through our differences.
We know there will be issues with some of the other legislation; there are approximately 29 pieces of legislation that either pertain fully to the Northern Territory or pertain in part to the Northern Territory that have to be negotiated across to the Northern Territory parliament on the granting of statehood.
We know that representation is going to be a stickler, as well, particularly with the Commonwealth and those curious beasts that reside in Canberra. Again, it is about fairness and equity. We have to work on those issues and with those curious beasts to try to get proper and fair representation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister on her statement. I know on our side of the parliament we do believe it has bipartisan support. We have to work together, not only with our fellow Territorians but also to get it into the thick heads of those federal parliamentarians that it is time for us to have statehood.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support the Minister for Statehood’s first ministerial statement. Congratulations. It is an extremely important topic.
Statehood has been on the agenda for many years, as far back as 1947 when it was mentioned as a goal in the launch edition of the Centralian Advocate newspaper. It has not only been on the Territory’s agenda but also the Commonwealth’s. Even then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, indicated that statehood was only a few short years away.
Much work was achieved in the late 1980s and early 1990s culminating in the 1998 referendum. While the result deferred the process of statehood, it has not defeated it. What that result clearly demonstrated, is that we have to bring the people of the Northern Territory with us if we wish to achieve the goal of statehood. That is the most important step in this process; only by energising and educating people to the potential benefits of becoming a state can we establish a general consensus for change.
It is a big step. No one is pretending otherwise. There are major legal, social and constitutional implications. Importantly, two years ago, in September 2006 the then Chief Minister created the portfolio of Minister for Statehood to help guide this process. It was pleasing to see the Opposition Leader followed suit and appointed a shadow minister for Statehood, the member for Blain.
Much work has been undertaken by many people over the years in an effort to attain statehood for the Territory. It is vital that we learn from the experiences of the past. The minister mentioned that statehood will not just happen by default, nor should it. It is up to the Territory government to continue providing support to the Statehood Steering Committee so they can get on with the job of educating and communicating with Territorians about all aspects of the Territory becoming a state.
Statehood will only happen if the people of the Northern Territory want it. I look forward to being involved personally and recognise that when steps are taken to implement statehood the Attorney-General will have an active role in the process of providing advice to government. We need to engage with the Commonwealth to ensure the terms and conditions of statehood suit us. I am pleased to note the minister’s views on the positive engagement and encouragement provided by the federal government on this issue.
Today is an appropriate day to be debating the issue; the day Senator Brown re-introduced his bill regarding euthanasia. Putting the very important subject matter that is within that bill to one side, it is important to remember that the original incarnation of this bill aimed to automatically re-impose legislation upon the Territory with no consultation as to its effect and implications for Territorians.
Whilst I acknowledge Senator Brown’s current amendments to this bill, federal parliament makes very important legal changes like this for one reason - it can. Federal politicians, if they so choose, can use the Territory as an experimental petri dish. Federal imposition remains a constant shadow over our heads as long as we remain a Territory. It is a basic fact - and I am not saying this in any partisan way - that Territorians will never have the final say in policy directions of laws in this jurisdiction. That needs to change.
Our law-making powers are not guaranteed like those of the Commonwealth and can be taken away by the Commonwealth should it decide to do so. Freedom to legislate is of fundamental importance. We have seen several examples, both here and in the ACT, where the Commonwealth can intervene and laws passed by Assemblies can be overturned - or laws that may have been passed were not, simply because the Commonwealth indicated they were not immediately moved to overturn them. At heart, we do not have the same rights as people in the states. This includes our role and contribution to the content of the very basis of our democracy - the constitution.
Territorian votes in a referendum have less value as they are not counted to determine whether a majority of states have agreed to a referendum proposal. Until 1977, Territorians did not even have the right to vote in a referendum and, for many years, did not have a say in changes to the Australian Constitution. Statehood means that Territorians will finally have equality and a clear legislative ability without Commonwealth interference, and a guaranteed future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the minister for setting out how far we have come, how far we have to go, and what steps will take us there. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened with interest to the Health minister and his comments in relation to statehood. There is a part of his statement that I wish to pick up on.
It is interesting - and I suspect not many Territorians or many Australians realise this - that the Australian Constitution is a bill or an act of the British parliament. It is England which passed the Australian Constitution Act, and it was England that constituted Australia as a self-governing federation as a result of a long and drawn-out process in which Australian citizens took their colonies and submitted to the Crown, and to the British parliament, that those colonies should be combined into a Commonwealth of colonies under a particular set of arrangements. They went to England with a proposal in mind, and that proposal became the Constitution of Australia.
The Northern Territory does have a constitution. The constitution of the Northern Territory is the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act (Commonwealth) 1978. This legislation constitutes us as a self-governing Territory. That is really at the heart of this particular argument.
I would be impressed if our political masters in Canberra were to subordinate themselves to England today in such a way as to accept a decision to - for argument’s sake - repeal legislation that the English do not like in Australia. I suspect that if the British parliament and the Commons and the Lords conspired to take away our constitutional rights by repealing legislation that establishes the Constitution of Australia, we would be a republic in about 25 seconds of that announcement being made. Australia would not stomach nor tolerate such an outrageous imposition of legislative authority from such a far-flung place, and such a remote society as England, as compared to ours today.
Let us place that into the context in which Canberra, with relentless and dreadful disregard, quite happily turns over legislation and interferes in our jurisdiction in ways that would be unconstitutional in this country, and we have to stomach it. I get very passionate about this particular issue, because I actually have a mandate of the people of the Northern Territory to stand here and make laws on their behalf. The quality of that mandate is not diminished by the fact that our electorates are smaller here. The quality of that mandate is not diminished by any other factor than some legislative instrument that presides over us from afar. If the quality of the mandate of the Prime Minister of Australia was diminished by England, he would be screaming from the rafters, and I would join him as part of the chorus of 20 million people who would tell England to go and stick it right up their nose.
For some reason, where they would be so precious in such circumstances, they are not so precious in these circumstances to inflict upon us a treatment that they would find unacceptable, and they do it very readily and with little regard to the outcomes of that decision. I heard the Minister for Health makes his observations in relation to the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, and I will not enter into the debate about the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act because there is a more fundamental and important principle underlying this - and that is our right to make that decision.
I note that when Senator Bob Brown, of the Australian Greens, recently introduced a bill to overturn the effect of the Andrews bill, which amended self-government legislation, all self-government legislation in Australia, to the effect that self-governing territories, be they Norfolk Island, the Australian Capital Territory, or the Northern Territory, cannot legislate in relation to the issue of voluntary euthanasia. That bill by Senator Brown will have the effect, and only the effect, of repealing the Andrews bill which put those terms into place.
I checked that very carefully. I read the legislation, and I thought: Hurrah! I could actually agree with Senator Bob Brown on something. What an unusual circumstance. However, I do agree with the senator, not because I support euthanasia particularly, but rather because he is attempting to remit to this House the capacity for us to fully and freely exercise the mandate which we have been given by the people who voted for us in the Northern Territory. That I support.
The bill that Bob Brown introduced went off to a Senate Committee, as so many Senate bills do for some investigation, and a very nasty side effect has been identified, which I am very surprised that the minister has not mentioned to date. Because that bill was remitted to the Senate committee it invited comments from the public. I was always under the impression, as were so many other Territorians, that section 109 of the Australian Constitution dealing with inconsistent legislation between the states and the Commonwealth, applied to the Northern Territory.
Section 109 of the Constitution basically says where a state law and a Commonwealth law are at odds with each other, the Commonwealth law, I think the language goes something like ‘shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency only’, which means where there is a Commonwealth law that overrides a state law, and there is an inconsistency between that Commonwealth law and that state law, the state law is nullified, or held in abeyance, it is not even nullified, to the extent of the inconsistency only. So should the Commonwealth law change, the state law on the statutory books would then be resurrected by virtue of the fact that the inconsistency had disappeared.
I was always under the impression, and I recently checked again, that the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act is still in our statute books. I was always under the impression that section 109 would apply to us. However, section 109 says: ‘When a law of a state is inconsistent …’
Section 109 refers to states, not territories, and that is a very serious complication – I did some homework on this – the University of New South Wales Centre for Public Law, Professor George Williams and Andrew Lynch made a submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Brown bill and they made an observation, and I will quote that observation:
- While the repeal of the Commonwealth Act in its entirety restores the legislative capacity to the territories for future use, it cannot, at least not without some clearer expression than found in the draft provision, retrospectively reinstate that power to the Northern Territory so that the 1995 Act was, albeit inoperative, still sustained by the legislative power of the Northern Territory between 1997 and now.
Now, it took me a while to figure out what they were talking about. The reference is to a rather arcane doctrine and that is called the doctrine of repugnancy. The doctrine of repugnancy comes out of the time when the superior legislature in the British Empire had ascendency over all other subordinate legislatures. So, consequently, if India legislated something which was inconsistent with a decision made inside the Palace of Westminster, the effect was that the Indian legislation was nullified, because it was repugnant to the legislation passed by the Commons and the Lords.
That is different to the parameters of section 109 of the Constitution and it is different in this important way. It is that the courts of time held by the Privy Council, as I understand it, said that the doctrine of repugnancy had the effect of actually nullifying or rendering completely void or, more importantly, repealing the legislation made by the subordinate legislature. The effect of that then is that the subordinate legislation is repealed. It is gone. It is expunged.
Because section 109 of the Australian Constitution does not apply to the Territory and its arrangements with the Commonwealth, it therefore reasonably defaults back to the doctrine of repugnancy. There is now an extremely large question mark hanging over the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act as a consequence of the operation of the doctrine of repugnancy.
I had cause to speak to one of the authors of that particular submission, Professor Williams. I was concerned that Professor Williams said that case law on the retrospective nature of the doctrine of repugnancy is next to non-existent, so it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act has effectively been rendered permanently inoperable. Consequently, it is unclear as to whether the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act actually operates or not, but all of the expert opinions that I have seen on this particular issue, suggest that in every likelihood it is.
The reason this is important is that this now raises another issue for us in the Northern Territory, because we can now compare our self-government act to the self-government act which operates in the Australian Capital Territory. That self-government act has a provision in it which, although not mirroring the effects of section 109 of the Australian Constitution, does have the effect of interpreting legislation in such a way that when there is an inconsistency with the federal legislature, the Australian Capital Territory’s legislation is not nullified.
As a consequence, we are not first class citizens in this country. We are not second class citizens in this country. We are third class citizens and we are third class politicians. The reason that we are third class politicians is because if we pass a law and Canberra passes a law which contradicts it, our law is expunged. If Canberra passes a law - and I am talking about the Legislative Assembly of the ACT - and it is inconsistent with federal law, at least it is not expunged, it is merely held in abeyance.
I have commenced discussions with the Senator for the Northern Territory, Senator Nigel Scullion, on this particular issue. We are going to have ongoing discussions in relation to this because it opens the opportunity to amend the constitution of the Northern Territory, which is the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act in its current form.
The capacity to change and amend the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, to enhance it in a whole bunch of ways, may be something that we, as legislators, want to visit over time because it actually provides us with a back door to enhance the quality of the rights we have available to us. So, rather than relying necessarily on the operation of section 121 of the Australian Constitution, we can start to enhance our constitutional strength by at least looking at the legislation that constitutes us as an operational jurisdiction at the moment.
Consequently, there is any number of things that we might want to look at in terms of improved circumstances and seeing if we can, through some bipartisan process, actually talk to each other about going to the federal government and, over time, improving the quality of the self-government act with amendments as we approach statehood.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that may be the piecemeal way of approaching the issue, but for somebody who has been a second and now third class citizen in the country in which he lives for the entire time he has lived in this country, I am prepared to desperately apply almost any approach to improve the quality of my citizenship, which is substantially diminished by the current administrative arrangements here in the Northern Territory.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish I could speak so eloquently, but this will be short. I congratulate the minister for her ministerial statement today.
I appreciate the opportunity to use a bipartisan approach, it is very refreshing. I appreciate the opportunity to be involved in making history and, more importantly, achieving equality for all Territorians.
Equality is important for many reasons, no more so than this House’s ability to make laws for Territorians without fear of intervention from the Commonwealth. The member for Goyder touched on the difficulties we may face in Canberra. Let me tell you, the member for Fannie Bay and I are already working on a plan of influence, you might say.
At the moment our legislation is toyed with by some southern senator. This strikes at the very heart of the issue. I recall the legislation in regard to voluntary euthanasia and no matter what side of the fence you sit on that argument, the fact is that another jurisdiction toyed with our legislation. Until we can all stand here with the absolute certainty that what happens here, stays here and cannot be tampered with, this bipartisan support will not end.
Freedom to introduce laws, to ensure good governance is very important to everyone in this room. I look forward to working with the committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the minister for taking Statehood forward into the future.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the statement by the Minister for Statehood. Her statement is a clear indication of her passion and how the drive is about moving all Territorians forward. It is about the rights of Territorians, it is about protecting the rights of Territorians, not just in the present day but Territorians in the future.
This is such an important issue for the Territory, it goes to the very heart of who we are as Territorians.
As I said earlier in my statement on the eco-link, we are a bowl, a fruit salad bowl - we have Greeks, Asians, Aboriginals, old Territorians, young Territorians, we really are a multicultural society. It is a journey of recognising our rights, a journey of involvement, and statehood will mould us altogether as the seventh state.
I pay tribute to the Minister for Statehood. She deserves great credit for the fantastic work she has done in bringing the statehood issue back onto the local and national agenda in such an inclusive and informed manner. She will do a marvellous job as the Minister for Statehood in the future. She is young and the future is hers and every person her age, and it is good to see young people driving the Territory into a new light. She is also doing it with the full support of her Chief Minister and the Labor team.
I thank the Chief Minister for his comments on statehood. The Chief Minister spent time in his Address-in-Reply to the Administrator reiterating his personal commitment, and the commitment of this government, to achieving statehood. That binds the Chief Minister with the Minister for Statehood, members on this side, the bipartisan approach we have had from the opposition as leaders and duly elected members of the Legislative Assembly. We are the drivers of statehood, carrying Territorians of the past, present and future, with us and having one vision: striving to ensure that we maintain our rights as the seventh state.
I acknowledge the bipartisan approach that has been taken, to date, by the opposition and, in particular, the Leader of the Opposition. As the minister stated, without a bipartisan approach, statehood will not occur. I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for his support and his commitment to a vision of unity and people walking together on this journey. This is not about whether you are in the Labor Party or the CLP. This is fighting for the rights of Territorians. That is why bipartisanship is appreciated.
I now pick up on some of the key points raised by the minister in her statement and express my support for them.
First, the minister said we are committed to statehood but we will not do it in the divisive way it was attempted in the past - an act that set back the process many years. I remember that time. I was one of the people, with my grandfather, Harry Nelson, who is sitting in the gallery today, and others from the Central Land Council area who took up the fight with the then Northern Territory government because there was lack of consultation and lack of involvement. We felt, as Indigenous people, that we were not involved in the decision-making or part of walking this journey together. That is partly why we protested against it.
I strongly support this point: we need to involve everyone in the statehood process and not leave anyone behind. That is the key point here. If we stop talking to people and not involving everyone - whether they be Indigenous people or other groups - then we will get the blockade we had back then.
The minister’s message is very clear: she will consult with everybody. There will be workshops to make sure that everyone is included, and she wants everyone to feel included in this journey.
Second, the minister said the Statehood Steering Committee has a crucial community role in educating people, discussing statehood, and consulting independently of government. That has been highlighted. The independence of the steering committee is very important so people know there is no connection or involvement from either side of government,, or anyone else, driving statehood. I commend the government and the minister for that.
Third, the minister said we know that constitutional change in Australia takes a long time. We also know if people feel rushed or bullied, they will react against that, but I think Territorians are prepared for that long journey now. When we have people like the Minister for Statehood at the front, the Opposition Leader, members of the steering committee and the member for Goyder as shadow minister for statehood, I think Territorians feel confident that our rights will be looked after. And that is crucial to Aboriginal people understand statehood, as well. I believe Aboriginal people have felt left out and feel they do not understanding it, therefore they say: if we are not informed and we do not know what is going on, then we do not want to be part of it.
The initiatives that the steering committee has taken in education strategies and making sure that everyone is involved, minister, is a key driver in people feeling informed, and they will follow. People can see, through the education strategies and the meetings being planned and prepared, that they are being included, and I think there will be high level of participation in these meetings.
Minister, as the Minister for Central Australia, and speaker of several Aboriginal languages, I will commit to you and the steering committee that, wherever I can help with my language skills, and as the Minister for Central Australia, I will do so.
It is very important that the key message of where statehood is going and our rights as Territorians is given to Indigenous people in their own language so they feel fully informed and know we are travelling the road to achieving this goal together.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement to the House.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on our journey to becoming the seventh state of Australia. This journey is critical to our future, our identity, and to the evolution of the Territory as a modern, independent state.
It is a journey that started, nearly 100 years ago with the loss of representation in 1911. That was when the land we know as the Northern Territory was excised from South Australia and came under Commonwealth control. Our identity and the reputation of Territorians as having a fierce, independent spirit was forged during those times, by our early Territorians who took strident action against taxation without that representation. We do not like being told what to do by people down south, and that is an attitude I think is still common today. Our independent spirit has helped build this place and forged our identity.
The story of the demise of the controversial Administrator, John Gilruth, shortly after World War I, helped illustrate this emerging identity. I thank Alan Powell and Frank Alcorta. Their work informed some of my comments on Gilruth and our early Territorians and is a story I am sure has been told in this House before.
The Darwin Rebellion has been compared to the Rum Rebellion and the Eureka Stockade, and it all started with what an official from down south might perceive as a trivial issue.
In 1918, everyone celebrated the end of the war, and it seemed only fair that the women working in the state hotels should have a few hours off to join the celebrations. Everyone down at the pub thought it was a good idea and they were more than happy to dine somewhere else. However, Gilruth in his wisdom, refused to grant leave - the women took it anyway - and when they came to work the next day, they found themselves locked out by order of the Administrator.
Closing a pub is never a good idea, especially when alcohol prices are already a problem and kept rising. A closed pub with expensive beer led to a significantly angry crowd of between 400 and 1000 people - depending on the reports you read - marching from Parap to Government House. When they arrived, Mr Gilruth did not help his case by releasing a statement declaring he was answerable only to the federal minister; he did not recognise the citizens of Darwin as having any authority over him. A red rag to a bull, you could say. To his credit, he came out after a few minutes and repeated his statement to the crowd, in person. However, his courage backfired. The crowd swarmed him and, although he managed to escape, windows were broken and his effigy was burnt.
The story has a postscript. Gilruth admitted in a letter to the Prime Minister that he knew reducing the price of beer would have ensured a peaceful end to the march, but he decided against it - because Treasury would not have been pleased.
There are a couple of lessons from the Darwin Rebellion: always watch the price of beer, limit the power of Treasury and, most importantly, Territorians should govern themselves. Their fight, independent spirit and sheer bloody mindness has been passed down the generations. I know I carry a responsibility to continue that fight, not just as a fourth generation Territorian, but as a member of this Legislative Assembly.
We are here today as members in this Chamber under a self-government act that is limited in its ability to allow us to govern ourselves. We are aware of its limitations because we have had our laws overturned. All members in this House would agree that a fierce independent spirit still exists in the Northern Territory; the member for Nelson is living proof of that. Despite this spirit, the last step on this journey, the one to statehood, has been our most difficult.
The member for Arnhem explained that people voted no largely because they felt excluded and uninformed. In tackling the problem of exclusion, in trying to inform people about statehood we must understand why Territorians might feel we are not ready to take the last step.
There are three reasons I believe this last step has been our most difficult. We have struggled to accept that we have the confidence and ability to engage with the rest of Australia on an equal footing. We have struggled to accept that we have the ability to engage in our region as a full partner in the Australian Commonwealth. We have struggled to accept we have the maturity to govern ourselves and control our future.
In a nutshell, these are the reasons why, I feel, the majority of Territorians felt we were not ready to take that last hard step in 1998. Perhaps they were right. But we have moved on since then. We now have one of the nation’s strongest and most vibrant economies. We have a steadily growing population. We are now a key player in our region, respected and self assured. We have one of the nation’s great lifestyles. In short, we have matured and we have grown. While the vote did not lose by much last time, lose it did. But as this country’s journey to federation at the turn of the last century, independence is never easy, and it rarely happens without setbacks.
The next time the Territory votes, we must not settle for just winning. We need to have garnered massive support right across the Northern Territory. That is why the task of the Statehood Steering Committee is so vital; that is why their work in engaging Territorians is so vital.
I take this opportunity to recognise the efforts of previous members on the Legal and Constitutional Committee: James Burke, Fay Miller, the member for Stuart and the member for Blain. And last, but not least, the member for Arnhem, whose work as Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Chair of the Statehood Steering Committee and now as the Minister for Statehood, has been instrumental in leading this process. I look forward to working with the member for Goyder, the member for Brennan, the member for Arnhem and the member for Nightcliff on the new Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee.
From this parliamentary committee, three members are elected to be on the 19 strong, Statehood Steering Committee. Before the last election, the member for Goyder was an important member of the Statehood Steering Committee and she will continue her work in a different role and I look forward to working with her, the member for Arnhem and all other members of the Statehood Steering Committee.
We have important work ahead of us and it is work that we can not take lightly. We are new shoulders at a wheel that has been pushed for nearly 100 years. Over the next 18 months the work of the Statehood Steering Committee will change direction - from a focus on education and information distribution to active discussion with Territorians through constitutional workshops.
The focus will be about what type of state we want to be apart of. The discussion needs to be broad, taking in all Territorians, from people versed in constitutional law to those with a passion for the Territory, who believe we should be the best we can be.
It is important that these meetings are robust, that they are well attended and that everyone has a chance to have their say. I am sure there will be lively debate at times, but the purpose of these workshops is to listen and learn, not to criticise anyone’s opinion, but to encourage all to participate fully. The workshops will start early next year and run right through until the end of the year. Our journey to statehood needs to be driven by the community and it needs to be supported by the community.
I have spoken with the member for Arnhem, and, other members of the constitutional committee agree that as we change step from education to active discussion we need to make sure we involve young Territorians, not just those over 18 with the right to vote today, but our young Territorians now in high school and middle school. We need to respect and include their thoughts in our journey to statehood. They should be a part of the shaping of our and their future.
Statehood will only work if it is genuinely wanted by a large majority of Territorians and genuinely supported by all political parties. The 25 members of Legislative Assembly are some of our most important community leaders. I encourage all members of this Chamber to get behind these workshops; to encourage their constituents to attend and to back this consultative and inclusive approach. The Statehood Secretariat is happy to work with you if you want to organise meetings in your own areas with local schools, seniors groups, community organisations or the general community. Collaboration is the key. For example, I would be very happy to work with the member for Port Darwin to get community members in our two electorates to meetings and even create specific communities of our own.
This change of approach needs to be matched by a new way of engaging with other Australians, both in Canberra and with ordinary Australians around the country: a decision of the Territory’s transition to statehood be made by all Australians. If the denial of representation started our drive for self determination, then surely a quality of independence of other states should be enough motivation for us now. In other words, we are Australian and should have the rights and independent governance all other Australians take for granted.
We should not be content with the facsimile of independence, some might say, that the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act provides today. Gilruth learned a harsh lesson about the independence of Territorians 90-odd years ago. We are still an independent mob, but unlike those early days, we now look outward and engage confidently with a rapidly changing world. Our constitutional arrangements must reflect this independence and they must reflect our place in the world.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with all members on our journey from a territory to a state. I commend the statement to the House.
Members: Hear! Hear!
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am in whole-hearted support of the Minister for Statehood’s statement in the House today. I am fully aware, listening to the debates of the total, on-going bipartisan commitment to statehood. I thank all members of this House for that bipartisan commitment. As the member for Fannie Bay so eloquently said in the preceding speech, without total bipartisan political support for statehood across the Northern Territory, we are doomed not to achieve what we aspire to. It is fantastic to hear this continued bipartisan support.
Statehood means Territorians will enjoy the same political and constitutional right as other Australians - the right to govern ourselves. We are elected to this parliament. We have just recently had an election in the Northern Territory and our constituents, who put that faith in us to represent them here, to make laws for the people of the Northern Territory, have every confidence in this parliament to make good laws and govern well. They do not want to be represented and over-ruled by politicians in Canberra who have absolutely no connection or affiliation with this place.
That is not why we are elected to this parliament. Whether it is in the member for Macdonnell’s home communities of Papunya and Hermannsburg, or my communities of Wanguri and Leanyer, those people do not want people sitting in Canberra making laws, over-turning laws passed in this House by members of parliament who have been elected in the Northern Territory.
It is a very simple equation to put to Territorians. It is simple in that terminology and understanding, but obviously very complicated in terms of the constitutional issues that need to be addressed: the terms and conditions for the Northern Territory to become a state. This debate has to be generated from within the people of the Northern Territory and demanded by the people of the Northern Territory.
Currently, we do not have the same level of decision-making as our cousins in the states. The reality is, constitutionally, we are second-class citizens. When we think about not this parliament, but the people of the Northern Territory, it is the people of the Northern Territory who are, constitutionally within the Federation of Australia, second-class citizens.
I find that offensive because Territorians create, deliver and contribute so much to the great nation of Australia. That our citizens should be constitutionally second-class, given all that we contribute to this great nation of Australia, is offensive. Look at the professional people who live and work amongst us. We have some of the best professional people in the country - doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, scientists; you can run through all the professions – constitutionally, they are second-class citizens compared to their colleagues in the other states.
Look at our Indigenous people in the Northern Territory, custodians of a 40 000-year-old - maybe longer - living culture; creators of globally renowned and highly sought-after arts; custodians and carers of over half of the land mass of the Northern Territory. Our Indigenous Territorians, constitutionally, are second-class citizens of this country compared to their cousins who live across the border in South Australia and Western Australia and have fewer constitutional rights. It is offensive.
Look at our business people, some of whom are the greatest business people in Australia. Why are the people who are running the major mining companies in the Northern Territory second class, compared to other people?
It is an absolute absurdity as to why, in 2008, Territorians cannot take their place as constitutional equals with our cousins, our brothers, our sisters, the family of the rest of the Australian population. It is also illogical, as well as offensive.
One group of Australians, say, the residents of Kununurra get to vote in a constitution referendum and they have twice the votes as somebody in Timber Creek just across the border. It is absolutely illogical. Why does a soldier based at Laverack Barracks in Townsville have a greater constitutional status, as a citizen, than a soldier at Robertson Barracks in Palmerston? It does not make any sense; it is absolutely illogical. This issue should be resolved in the near to immediate future.
However, I think all we agree - and this is not being political – that the attempt we made a decade ago, obviously did not work. The majority of people voted against that and, in spite of support from both sides of politics, there were clear messages to both sides of politics regarding the way it was attempted last time. When you look at the booth-by-booth results, as to the referendum question that was put 10 years ago, for the CLP heartland, the question was lost in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine - centres of CLP support since the birth of the party.
For the Labor Party, the question went down in every single one of the predominantly Indigenous electorates. On both our sides, we all lost the opportunity in the way the question was put and the climate in which the question was put the last time. Neither political party came out of it unscathed. Look at some of the booth-by-booth results in the northern suburbs of Darwin as well. It is quite fascinating to go to the Electoral Commission website - all the data is still there - and look booth-by-booth at what did happen with that question across the Northern Territory.
In the Labor heartland and the CLP heartland, essentially, the vote was reflected. It was lost because a majority of Territorians did not trust the politicians. That was why it was lost; it came down to the trust equation. The age-old Australian suspicion of authority and power came through, and the majority of Territorians who voted no did not trust the politicians and the body politic of the day in what they being asked to do and decided that they would continue to trust the Australian parliament in Canberra over this parliament here. It came down to a trust equation, and I believe, fundamentally, there has to be a different climate this time.
The people who go to the polls, whenever they go to the polls to vote on the referendum, have to feel that they trust the people in this parliament to take those issues forward to take that big step. That is why the next campaign has to be a genuine push from the people of the Territory. It must be a grassroots community campaign for statehood; it was a grassroots community campaign that delivered the no vote for statehood. We must have a grassroots community campaign demanding statehood and calling for statehood. That is where we have to move to.
I believe one of the great failures of the 1998 campaign was the lack of an articulated Commonwealth position on statehood. Territorians were asked to vote to be granted statehood, but what were the terms and conditions of the Commonwealth government and parliament’s grant of statehood? What were those terms and conditions going to be? Those questions were not answered, so Territorians went to the polling booth, not really understanding what they were voting for. Those issues have to be addressed and determined well before the question is put next time so Territorians really understand what it is they are voting for.
I am still being asked, when I talk about statehood to constituents of the Northern Territory: ‘Won’t we be worse off? Won’t they take money from us?’ I am astounded at the number of times I am asked that question. Fundamentally, people do not understand that since, I think it was February 1996, we have been treated, through the Grants Commission, as an equivalent to the states. People somehow think if we are going to become a state, we are going to be worse off financially, and we do not want a bar of that.
The terms and conditions for statehood have to be defined and determined before we ask the question again. Quite clearly, one of the significant tasks of the Statehood Steering Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of this Northern Territory parliament, is to win the hearts and minds of both sides of politics in Canberra in the campaign for statehood.
It is a grant of the Commonwealth parliament that admits us into the Federation as a state. So, ultimately, we have to convince all sides. It is a complex political scenario in Canberra now, where you have the Greens in the Senate, you have two independents, and you have the traditional parties - the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals. We have a complex environment in Canberra where must win the hearts and minds of federal representatives, at a political level, as to why the Northern Territory should be granted statehood, and the terms and conditions.
I have spoken with the Minister for Statehood about this on many occasions. We, as a parliament, and I know the Steering Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee are going to work this out; we actually have to go to Canberra and lobby room by lobby room, door by door, party room by party room articulate our case for statehood, . That is going to be a big body of work for me as Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, as well.
I have had a number of discussions with the Prime Minister about statehood and, in principle he supports statehood for the Northern Territory, as long as it is overwhelmingly supported in the Northern Territory and those terms and conditions, those issues, are identified and determined.
Given that we are politicians and we all understand the numbers game and how numbers work, ultimately, it is going to come down to the number of senators, I believe, in regards to the terms and conditions for the grant of statehood by the Commonwealth parliament. That is an issue that we have to work through.
As well as the Territory having rights, we also have to be pragmatic and understand that there is a political side to this, and we have to be mature enough to be able to engage with our Canberra colleagues on this question. At the end of the day, politics is about vision and aspirations and a belief in a better place and a better world for the citizens we represent. But, as politicians, we understand that it has to be politically achievable, it has to be delivered with regard to the numbers in the parliaments, and that is a body of work we need to do. For it to be politically achievable it must be bipartisan and bipartisan not only in this parliament, but also in the Commonwealth parliament.
Our constitutional development toward statehood is certainly necessary. I find it, as I said, offensive that Territorians do not have the same rights politically and constitutionally as other Australians. It is totally illogical that we don’t, but I do not believe it is inevitable. We have to get this right. A vote for statehood cannot merely be assumed. It must be won through sensible and rational arguments. Statehood cannot be something that benefits sectional interests or narrow groupings. It must benefit all Territorians, and it must be supported by a substantial majority.
I do not think we would get a grant of statehood if last time 51% said no and next time 51% said yes. I think if it is 51%, 52% or 55% of the vote we will not get there. We need 80% to 90% support for statehood.
So there is much work to be done. It needs to be methodical and it needs to be diligent. We, as members of this parliament, need to encourage, as the member for Fannie Bay said, people to come to the workshops and really engage, and this, will be hard. We know Territorians lead very busy lives, they are working, they are delivering for their families and they are engaged in communities. For our Indigenous Territorians, many people are struggling from day-to-day. This a very busy and complex world that we live in and people, apart from the time they are asleep, are living and working and playing very hard. Trying to engage Territorians on the importance of statehood, and cut through on those issues, is a hard thing to do. That is why the work needs to be methodical and diligent.
I congratulate the work of the Statehood Steering Committee. I know most of the people on the committee personally and they are committed to statehood, they are hard-working and they are visionary. It will be hard work to get out there across the Territory and put this case. I thank each and every one of those 19 people and congratulate them on the work they are doing.
The constitutional workshops to be rolled out are a big step forward. Let us, through those constitutional workshops, have the debate about the terms and conditions for statehood and what Territorians would agree to, and put those issues on the table, outside the political environment, and move those issues forward.
I also thank the new Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of this House. We have some new members to the parliament on this committee and it is a bipartisan committee. In spite of all of the argy bargy that goes on in here, and it has been a very robust start to the 11th Assembly of the Northern Territory, it is good to see that we can have the arguments on issues of substance that we have to have. However, we need to put the political issues aside, for the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory, whilst we work with them to progress the citizens of the Northern Territory to be equal before the constitution with the rest of Australia.
I thank the Statehood Secretariat staff who contribute so much to the running of the Statehood Steering Committee: Nora Kempster, Marise Riddell, Poppy Lelekis and Carolynne James – all of those people – and some of them are in the gallery. They do an enormous amount of work with the Steering Committee, and I thank you for your commitment to statehood.
This is a very exciting time. I have lived in the Northern Territory for just over 25 years now; my children were born here and my wife is from here. This is the best place on earth to raise a family. I believe the Territory has come a long way since I first came here. There are many members in this parliament who were born here. I can only talk about my experience over the half of my life I have lived here.
The maturity of this place is shown by the fact that we are coming together - whether it is people from Central Australia, the Top End, Indigenous, non-Indigenous - that multicultural aspect is there. This is a much more mature body politic than it was 25 years ago. Our time is coming. We can work through those issues. We can present a united case to Canberra and we can convince our colleagues in Canberra.
I am very hopeful, with the work of the Statehood Steering Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the bipartisan support of everybody in this House, we can achieve the dream of statehood.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister on her statement. I thank the minister for her absolute commitment, contribution, dedication and belief in statehood. She is doing a fantastic job and is absolutely the right person in my Cabinet to take this forward.
Members: Hear! Hear!
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I would like to add a few comments to this statement. I congratulate the minister and the committee for bringing it forward. It is carried by the minister, but I am sure she would acknowledge it is the committee that is really driving this. It is a bipartisan approach, and that is the way I treat this very important subject.
My experience with the statehood debate goes back to the 1998 vote when I was living at Timber Creek. When it went down, people, friends of mine from interstate were asking the question: ‘What happened?’ I believe it was a question of maturity and, far from us saying we were not ready for it, we were saying we understood what was required but we were not going to accept something we were not comfortable with. The model developed did not have the support of people and they were not going to accept what was put forward. At that point, the Territory was a very mature jurisdiction and they were saying they wanted to get it right and to have something that could go forward to the Commonwealth parliament to gain statehood. It was something that I was proud of the Territory for doing; they did not accept an inferior type of model.
Around the communities to which I travelled at the time, because it was done during the federal election, from my memory, there was a great deal of confusion out bush. People really did not know what it all meant, what it was all about, what they were voting for. A member of the Timber Creek community was chosen to be part of the conference which developed the model. I do not think she was from our side of politics, but she was contacting the organisation I worked for, asking for advice because people came to Darwin to participate in this conference and were given a set of books the night before the start of conference, and expected to make decisions. So, that person, who supported statehood very strongly, was very confused about the process undertaken.
This approach of steady, solid work going on through the communities really is the way to go. I must acknowledge the work of my current electorate officer, Sharon McAlear, who is a passionate supporter of statehood. She was born in the Territory and she really wants to see it through. She works on the stalls and goes to all the shows. Any chance she gets to talk about it, she certainly does.
As I said, people from interstate ask me what happened. When I travel, people recognise the Territory as being a legitimate jurisdiction; it promotes itself, you do business with the government and other bodies in the Territory, and it is generally seen, in other parts of Australia, as a legitimate jurisdiction. So, in time, it would follow that they would be supportive of the Territory having legitimacy within the Federation.
At a personal level, I will be trying to get my friends and family from interstate, and any fellow parliamentarians I come into contact with, giving them statehood badges from the Territory and making them aware of where we want to go and why they should also spread the message that the Northern Territory is ready for statehood, that we are working at producing a model and will be taking it to the Commonwealth government to seek recognition within the Commonwealth.
It is worthwhile remembering, that Federation was a long and arduous process. At the time of Federation, Western Australia was not a part of the original states. It was in the constitution if they wanted to come in and, from my recollection, New Zealand was as well. There has been an evolution of governance within Australia, and this is another part of it. The whole debate about becoming a republic is all part of that evolution of Australia standing on its own two feet, and that is reflected in the Northern Territory wanting to stand on its own two feet and have some real legitimacy.
Recently, there was discussion about the flag and whether we should have the Union Jack in the corner of our flag. What I was looking at in the flag was the Commonwealth star which is made up of seven points: six for the states and one for the territories. I am wondering, if we become a state, do we get our own star? It would give us more legitimacy, and we could see where we actually sit on the Australian flag.
It is little things like that. When you watch the weather on the news, sometimes we are on, sometimes we are off. In reports about the economic development of Australia or anything like that, sometimes we are on, sometimes we are off. We are sometimes treated in very different ways because of our status as a territory.
With this move ahead to statehood, I will, at every opportunity - at ministerial council meetings or visits to interstate parliaments and the Commonwealth parliament - be lobbying fellow parliamentarians about our desire and readiness to become a state, and try to get those members, whether they be in state parliament or federal parliament, to come on board. They come here and they enjoy their time here; they realise we do a lot for the economy of Australia and we should be given some legitimacy. We are a very legitimate jurisdiction. We engage, not only interstate, but at a regional level. The Minister for Asian Relations is often out of the country talking with other governments and businesses, and when those businesses come to the Northern Territory, they engage with the Northern Territory government, whoever it may be at the time. We are treated as a legitimate government, a legitimate jurisdiction, and we just need to go that extra step forward.
The last referendum was quite contentious. The Chief Minister has just talked about the actual vote, and the numbers were very strange,. Some places, you would think, are more conservative than others, but it was strange the way the votes went. People were really split down the middle; it cut across gender lines, age groups, ethnic groups, and it should not have been that way. We should all be moving together with this debate. We should not be divided on it.
It is not about the politics. It is about us, the people of the Northern Territory, having some legitimacy as we move forward; we cannot accept that we will be a Territory for the rest of our time. The Territory is ready. It has a larger population than Tasmania and Western Australia when they came into the Federation. The Territory’s population is growing, and growing very quickly. As Territorians, whether you have been here a month or your whole life, we need that recognition.
I congratulate the minister on her efforts, and I encourage the committee to keep on with their work.
There are many people, I am sure, who would want to become ambassadors, who want to talk to their families who live in southern states, or friends who come to visit, to get the message and go back and tell other people: their parliamentary colleagues, their workmates or their business colleagues, that the Northern Territory is ready. That the Territory will be going to the Commonwealth parliament to ask for legitimate recognition as the next state.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister, and I look forward to further updates.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I support this very important statement. I acknowledge you, member for Arnhem, Minister for Statehood, for bringing this statement forward at this time, and the Chief Minister for his comments that reinforced the need to take a bipartisan approach in this. I acknowledge those who are listening to our debate here, who support the important work of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Statehood Steering Committee.
It is good to be in the company of those who are close to this activity, to monitor it and to see whether we are going through the motions or whether we are going somewhere. I was elected in 1999, the same time as the member for Wanguri, the Chief Minister, the same day, in fact. The first day I entered the parliament, I was given the position by my colleagues on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. That was some time ago, and I have been to many, many meetings. We have had a number of talks in this parliament, and not a lot has changed.
There was a referendum; we commented on that. I came into the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the aftermath of that referendum, and we spent about four-and-a-half years talking about that and where we would go now. There was a change of government and now we are resetting the agenda and we are working towards it. I do not think we need to convince each other that statehood is something we desire. The arguments are sound. It is a legitimate call now.
Our immediate task is to let people understand what it is. When you put the simple argument to any Territorian, in fact any Australian, they accept the logic of the argument. How could this great nation have within it a group who are, in many ways regarded as a state but, in fact, constitutionally inferior? That needs to be corrected.
The argument – I have heard it in the comments that have been made in the Chamber – is compelling. However, we do not need to convince each other as much as we need to convince Canberra, because we could continue talking in here for the next 10, 15, 20 years and make not a jot of difference to those who hold our destiny in their hands and that is, the federal parliament. It is a Commonwealth act.
Consider it this way. If the opposition were to raise a proposition and present a bill to the Territory parliament - and I do not recall in my time any bill proposed by the opposition which has been accepted by the government because there are all sorts of issues attached to accepting what comes from the opposition - in a very similar way, for the Territory to propose to the Commonwealth that we become the next state, it has a lot of complications in the minds of those who are going to give that consent. The power is in their hands. How we move their hand is the issue. Not to continue our arguments and discussions amongst each other. It is edifying to some degree, but how do we move the hand of the one who has the power to change our constitutional status? That is the challenge.
The first part of is to ensure that our community understands it. We can keep that fire going for some time, but you cannot keep it going indefinitely. We need to keep that dialogue going because there are issues that come and go and attract people’s attention and hold it for some time, and then fade away.
It is difficult to maintain a strong position on statehood in the wider community, because it is abstract. That is why reaching the schools to help them understand their status and their rights and responsibilities as Australian citizens and the constitutional deficiency in the Northern Territory is so important. It is very important that schools be supported through good curriculum material and presentations from MLAs to keep that message going. We have an obligation to keep talking about it. If it is left to others, if it is left just to the committee, we will not have enough energy to keep the fire going. We all need to be involved in it, all saying it, all taking the opportunity, putting it in your newsletters, keeping it going – keep banging the drum, about that initiative. I am very pleased this initiative has been devised, that we go to Canberra and make a noise there - bang the drum in Canberra.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS: If we do not bang the drum in Canberra and mean what we say, we will just be making noises and no one will listen to us. It is like kids playing outside. No one is going to take us seriously. So we really have to ramp it up and recognise we have a serious fight on our hands. That fight is to prevail upon those in Canberra who have the power in their hands to make that decision. How do we move the hand? That is the issue.
The argument is compelling, but how do we move the hand of the one who has the power - the federal parliament. Words have been spoken, again and again. I have heard Malcolm Fraser’s name being mentioned here. He made assurances. There have been assurances forever and a day about this. It is like a kid going to a parent and saying: ‘Can we? Can we? Can we?’ ‘Yes, you can, but just not yet. Not just yet. Why don’t you just go away?’ ‘But we are really serious’. ‘Well, just go away and do this, that and the other, then come back’. Then you come back and they say: ‘Oh, very good, you are nearly there, but you should go off and do this, this and this’ – and it goes on for 20 or 30 years.
We have to recognise what is going on. Here is an opportunity to cut through and go to Canberra. Those who go to Canberra from this Chamber and those who go to support us, our obligation is to make a noise and continue that fight and take it to Canberra. Do not for a moment forget - they have the power. We have to be able to present the case in such a way that their hand is moved.
Two things, lobbying when we get there, but behind that lobbying is a sustained energy in our own communities. Each MLA, 25 seats in here, has a job to do in our own communities to keep that fire burning, to maintain that energy to back-up our efforts in Canberra.
I am pleased to hear the member for Daly talking about the opportunity he has to speak to those who come from interstate, to tell them our story. Just keep it going. Tell them all. They have probably all left now because the build up has started. But you wait. Next Dry Season they all will be coming back, and when they come, tell them our story. Tell them again and again and again. It is simple as that. That is our job. The Statehood Steering Committee: keep up the good work. It is a difficult road because it seems to be a long and winding road.
We had an opportunity when the euthanasia issue was raised by Senator Brown. I was disappointed that opportunity was not taken by government, to recognise behind that euthanasia proposition was the issue of statehood, not euthanasia. I am not a supporter of euthanasia. I am happy to say that, but behind it was the capacity for this parliament to make a decision that reflects the will of its people. That was the underlying issue. If you did a bit of work you could see that was the story behind the story; Senator Brown recognised that. There was an opportunity.
When we see these opportunities we must bang that drum again. Without going into the contentious political aspects of the nuclear waste facility, we have a similar story there: an opportunity to bang that drum; recognising the constitutional inferiority the Territory has compared to South Australia, for example. There is an opportunity to bang the drum together. Let us separate the politics from the underlying constitutional issue. Bang that drum and do not be distracted or fall into the temptation of playing politics alone and forgetting the underlying message - the constitutional inferiority deficiency. Bang that drum - as Australians we have an obligation to do that.
If all the talk and passion from the Steve Hattons and John Baileys, and those who have gone before us, is to come to anything, we have to take the baton which has fallen to us and we have to run with it - and continue to bang that drum, here in our community and in Canberra
Madam Speaker, I support the statement.
Ms McCARTHY (Statehood): Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to the statement.
I will begin with the Leader of the Opposition as the final speaker. Bang that drum, Leader of the Opposition, I like it. I believe we will be taking that. I am sure the staff who are listening from the secretariat will take on that on board, too. I like it very much. Your comments regarding how we move the hand of the one who has the power to change our constitutional status - I believe the answer is - we do it together. We do it together, we stay together. We stick together as the people, one people of the Northern Territory who are one voice in Canberra. That is how we have to do it.
That will be the next step for us as we prepare for the national strategy and we embark on the trip to Canberra in November to visit both houses of parliament. I will be pleased to report in the New Year on how that one voice in Canberra went, banging that drum, Leader of the Opposition.
The Member for Goyder and shadow for statehood - you are right - the biggest challenge is getting the southern states, Canberra in particular, to support us. It is our southern counterparts and people across Australia we have to tap into. I use the words ‘harness the hearts’ of our fellow Australians because that is what we must do.
As the member for Daly said, it is through tapping into the expertise and networks of our own ambassadors - the well-known Territory personalities such as our footballers and high profile athletes who live in Sydney, Victoria and Queensland - that we ‘harness the hearts’ of fellow Australians who, we hope, will ask their local politicians: ‘How come you are not listening to the people of the Northern Territory? Why are they not full citizens of this country like we are?’
The member for Johnston spoke about statehood being on the agenda since 1948. The member for Johnston raised some important issues regarding the need to have the same rights and the fact we have only half a vote in the referendums.
Member for Port Darwin, I was interested to hear your knowledge of England …
Mr Elferink: Ah, just making it up.
Ms McCARTHY: Sorry, what was that?
Mr Elferink: I was just making it up.
Ms McCARTHY: Oh, goodness, I will have to check it now. Carolynne is in the gallery; she will double check. It was a real eye-opener to look at the relationship with the Australian Constitution as an act of the British parliament - I thought that was interesting - and the relationship we have with England as a country, and the relationship our federal parliament has with us.
I was very pleased to hear the member for Fannie Bay, who was the speaker after you, offer bipartisan support …
Mr Elferink: Already been accepted. We have an appointment to meet tomorrow.
Ms McCARTHY: Excellent. … of working together with the workshops that will be occurring across the Territory. It is that kind of relationship, the bipartisan support outside this Chamber in the communities, in the electorates, where you can be part of the education and awareness program for statehood - and yourselves, ambassadors. Thank you.
Member for Brennan, I welcome your contribution and look forward to working closely with you on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The trip to Canberra will be a special one for those of us who are able to go.
To the member for Macdonnell, it is a journey of recognising our rights. How right is that? Your observations and storytelling of what it was like in 1998 and how the people felt, is valid. That is part of the reason we need to have these workshops, because Aboriginal people, in particular, voted no because they felt excluded and did not understand. The importance of interpretation, the use of language, the use of pictures, the way we describe it, enables all people to understand - whether they are Aboriginal, from non-English-speaking background, refugees or ordinary Territorians. Governance is not the easiest issue to talk about.
The Statehood Steering Committee, the Secretariat, my role as minister, and my staff, acknowledge the enormity of the task before us, but we also embrace it, being completely aware that we do not have a select audience. Everyone is our audience and we have to encourage every single person across the Northern Territory, from the age of 15 upwards. As the member for Fannie Bay said, we must not forget the youth because they are the ones who are going to be the future leaders of the Northern Territory.
Chief Minister, I appreciate your support and your confidence in my ability to continue in this role. The issue that needs to be kept out in the community is: the votes of Territorians, who elect every member in this House and expect their vote to be accepted and solid, can be overturned by one single member of parliament in Canberra.
Member for Daly, you spoke about being in Timber Creek at the time of the vote, and the confusion in the bush, and I take that on board. The workshops will be very much a part of the open dialogue and inclusive process. However, it requires the effort of every single person in this House.
Madam Speaker, I thank every member who contributed, and all those members who are very much a part of statehood. This parliament accepts we are walking together toward statehood.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
__________________
The sitting suspended.
__________________
__________________
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Master Plan for the Darwin CBD
Master Plan for the Darwin CBD
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 this Territory government to develop a master plan for Darwin CBD and the subsequent ad hoc approach to planning and provision of services.
Yours sincerely
Member for Port Darwin
Is the proposal supported? It is supported.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, today I speak to a matter which is of great importance to the people of Port Darwin, to the people of Darwin generally and, ultimately, to all people of the Northern Territory.
Port Darwin is a city built not on a riverbank or in some central location. Port Darwin is built on a cul-de-sac at the end of the peninsula which the Stuart Highway enters through Daly Street with the major thoroughfares of the Esplanade, Mitchell Street, Smith Street, Cavenagh Street, Wood Street and McMinn Street.
This cul-de-sac has to compete directly with other parts of the community and other commercial centres which are, frankly, better located. For argument’s sake, if you look at Casuarina Shopping Square, it is located centrally with the suburbs radiating out around it in all directions. Port Darwin does not have that privilege, so running a commercial enterprise or a shop in Port Darwin is a difficult thing to do because the vast majority of people, the population centres, are at Palmerston or in the northern suburbs. However, as a place to live, Darwin is growing in size.
Running a small business in this area is difficult and demonstrates the difficult situation Darwin is in. I would like to see a Darwin CBD which is attractive to the people not only in the northern suburbs and Palmerston, but beyond. Sadly, there is little in Darwin to attract many people. There are many reasons for this, and if you drill into the causes you will find it has to do with the planning of Darwin city and. As I have called for previously in this House, it is time to create a master plan to enable Port Darwin to develop effectively.
I suggest this master plan starts looking at Port Darwin from 50 m underground and works its way up. Rather than what is being tendered for at the moment, I am talking something more fundamental in terms of what it is trying to achieve. We live in a changing world which has to be captured in the master plan in a way the current planning processes do not.
I am talking about capturing absolutely everyone to find what Darwin’s CBD should look like. I have mentioned before we should be talking to the Education and the Health departments and to all departments and not restricting ourselves to Darwin itself or even the Northern Territory, but casting a net much wider to come up with a plan which has a coherent philosophy.
Let me give you some examples of the sorts of things we might consider. By way of interjection, I kept asking about the schools. What about the schools? The minister quite rightly pointed out the middle school which has been built on Bullocky Point, but it was not to that I was referring. I was referring to primary schools particularly, because in the planning processes we have, we do not seem to anticipate the number of primary schoolchildren who will come out of the increasing numbers of tall buildings being built. People are being encouraged to come back into the CBD to give it life, and I agree with that. However, we are not planning for primary schools to be built in the CBD.
We have Larrakeyah Primary School, for argument’s sake, and St Mary’s is another example, and there is Stuart Park. But if we keep building a vertical city, and the chances are this city will keep growing, perhaps exponentially as time passes, where are we going to put primary schools of the future, and even high schools of the future? It would be wonderful if we had a master plan that actually suggested, as part of its planning process, a capacity to have a school in one of these tall buildings.
This would not be normal and you would not see it immediately recognised as something you would expect to see in Darwin. I believe we have Canberra to change the way we think and perhaps there is room to start saying to the Health department that if you are going to provide health services, especially outpatient services and those sorts of things, they may well be located on the first or second floor of one of these tall buildings. I am not saying it has to happen, but what I am saying is we have to start thinking outside of the box.
A city is, and should be, a reflection of the people who live there and their hopes and their aspirations. I hope we capture in our planning processes in this city, a philosophy of who we are and our relaxed lifestyle. The concrete tunnels of New York express what New York is about. They say they are in your face, they are aggressive, this is about making money, this is what we are, and it suits New York. If you look at Paris, Paris has deliberately avoided that sort of planning. They are very careful to capture the highlight of French culture from a couple of hundred years ago. If you travel up the Champs-lyses even today, which is the main artery of Paris, you will not see tall buildings, with the exception of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. Paris wants to talk to and tell the story about its people.
The philosophy that Darwin should capture should be the philosophy of Darwin’s people. Darwin is about being relaxed, being comfortable, enjoying your lifestyle, being a little quirky and odd occasionally. Let us find a way to capture that in our master plan. To create concrete canyons, which is occurring at the end of Woods Street and Cardona Court, is not in keeping with the character and the flavour of Darwin.
I am going to go out on a limb here but, in my opinion, Synergy Square is neither ‘synergous’ nor ‘square’. Quite frankly, it is an awful piece of central business district planning. Cardona Court is an alley and, because of the number of letter office boxes, there is always rubbish in that area; and there is another high rise, almost completed, on the corner of Cardona Court and Woods Street. I have seen the plans of a new high rise development proposed for 29 and 31 Woods Street and have reservations about some aspects of them. However, they are probably better than Synergy Square.
The problem is, because of the awful planning of Synergy Square, the new developer will probably struggle to get that development approved. Why? Because the concentration of high density living in that area will make it extremely difficult for access, egress, cleanliness, and even off street car parking to be maintained. I suspect Cardona Court/Synergy Square is one of the finest examples available of how not to plan for Darwin.
However, we did get it right in Darwin, and with a much older building - the Marrakai Apartments. Marrakai is set back on the block, it is at an angle and there is lots of space around it. My only criticism is the alienating aspect of the front fence as you travel along the street: outside you are presented with a large brick wall. I understand the need for security, but it would be wonderful if you could see through the fence to the lush gardens beyond. The layout of Marrakai Apartments on that block, I think, is well done.
I could be critical to a greater or lesser degree, of every building in town. If I took a check sheet and ticked off buildings on a scale of one to 10, none would score 10 in my opinion, and none would score one; they would all be in between for different reasons. It is that human philosophy which is absent from Darwin’s planning scheme at the moment
Alain de Botton, an English philosopher, recently wrote a book about architecture and the nature of architecture, and captured in that book was a thread that percolated through all of his studies, all the way through Baroque architecture, even pre-Christian architecture, leading through the Rococo styles to 20th century architecture, as expressed through the works of people like Antonio Gaudi. All the way through that book you can feel what he is talking about: the necessity for a psychological/spiritual link, if you like, with the architecture in the environment.
When I call for a master plan, I want to capture that spirit for the people of Darwin. I want to capture something that says ‘trees’. Surely, if there is one thing Darwin stands for it is the need we have for trees. For some reason, we have so many buildings which go all the way to their boundaries. I like development; I am from a side of politics that has always liked development. However, development can be done well or it can be done badly. I also state on the record now that I have no objection to ‘tall’. Tall does not offend me, particularly in the CBD, depending on the environment it is in. Tall is a necessary aspect of inner cities and, I suspect, tall will become even more necessary as oil becomes an increasing reality in our world.
If we are going to do tall and we are going to put people in tall, all the more reason to get the philosophy of what we are doing right. This means practical thoughts, practical decisions, and practical solutions being brought to bear. We have to get the fundamentals right. Let us ensure that the power that we supply to these buildings in our CBD is reliable, even in times of cyclones. The power along Mitchell Street West is still hanging off power poles and box girders, which I have seen blow over in cyclones.
Let us ensure that we get the water supply right. I am not talking about making sure it is clean when it runs out the tap; let us ensure that the source is reliable. Let us ensure that our disposal of sewage is done correctly. We all know the arguments we have had about the poo shooter. Ultimately, it will be dealt with. I believe the date is 2010 - not soon enough in my opinion. We need to get those fundamentals right, and we need to start talking about a master plan that starts underground.
Some time ago it was proposed, I think by the former minister for Lands, Tim Baldwin, that part of this State Square development be a very large underground car park which serviced the whole CBD. You would come in from Palmerston driving along, I think it was Bennett Street - I cannot quite remember how it was going to be done - and drive into a huge underground car park which was several stories deep. This was an attempt to deal with the inherent car parking problems which the cul-de-sac, the peninsula of Darwin, creates.
If you look at the solutions for car parking so far in Darwin, there is West Lane. People have become used to that; it is actually quite discreetly tucked away, but it is overworked. Then, we have the Chinatown car park, which is another one that scores extremely low, in my opinion of architecture in Darwin. Surely, as a modern city, we can do better than straightforward concrete with cyclone mesh out the front. It is a really poor outcome for the people who would have to live in this organic environment, which is what a city must be. A city must capture the nature of its people, and the people must be comfortable living in the city.
Planning also includes other things. Ross Finocchiaro, during a recent government sponsored forum - I am glad they have these forums; I wish more would come from them – quite bravely made the observation that if we are going to maintain a safe city, then we have to have planning processes which capture things like proper policing. We have to ensure that the drunks and the panhandlers - to use an old phrase – who are on our streets are dealt with. We are talking about creating a city which is bicycle friendly - where are the bike paths? We are talking about making a city which is friendly to the people who live there, yet, it is not friendly at four o’clock in the morning in Mitchell Street. All of these things need to be addressed. The current planning process is incapable of casting such a wide net.
Sadly, the Development Consent Authority has almost become an organisation which ticks off on a check list. It says to itself: ‘Okay, here is the planning scheme, this is what is proposed by the developer: it is a cube, it goes right to the footpath all the way around’. Tick, tick, tick. It passes everything through the plan: that is fine, we will let that one go. Yet, the next developer may have something perfectly acceptable and perfectly useful but it does not quite comply with the planning scheme so they cannot do it.
This then leads into the murky area of merit. I understand the minister’s predicament about merit because, as time passes, the pendulum swings to: ‘Let us have a merit-based system’, then it swings back to: ‘No, we can’t have a merit-based system, we have to lock down on the planning scheme, and as long as everyone Canberra understands what is happening, they will stay within those parameters’. But swinging between those two positions produces outcomes which are poor on both extremes of the pendulum.
It would be nice to see merit better defined. From the advice I have received from people engaged in this process, there is a capacity to define merit more accurately than currently done. I also understand, even where the DCA does bite the bullet and reject a project, an appeal to the tribunal still leads to outcomes which are frustrating for many people.
We are never ever going to have a planning scheme in the Northern Territory which will make everybody happy. It has to be one of the most divisive issues that government, or councils have to face. It is one of the issues that will continue to drive division, which is why I am arguing for a master plan which takes in all of these issues. I am not saying to the government: ‘Stop what you are doing, it has to stop now’. Of course you have to keep going, it is still a growing city.
What I am saying to government is: ‘Whilst the opportunity is still available to us, before the next set of tall buildings come along, before the next major structural changes start happening to the CBD, let us create a master plan, let us spend some real money on obtaining a master plan which takes in all of these issues and speaks as broadly and widely as it can to the community.’
Let us give it a couple of years, but really drive and impel the search onward. We will have to live within the awkward system we have at the moment but, at the end of it, when we finally come out with a master plan for Darwin City, we will have something capturing the philosophy that is Darwin. Something that makes Darwin an attractive place to come. People who come here will say: ‘I know I am in Darwin. I am not in Paris, or New York, or Cairns. I am in Darwin and I am here to enjoy things which are quintessentially Darwin’.
Madam Speaker, if you do it from the ground up, and you do it with the right people, the smart people and you take as many people as you can with you, ultimately you will end up with a master plan which will build one of the most beautiful cities in south-east Asia.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, Darwin is uniquely positioned to take advantage of the many opportunities that are unfolding in our region. To understand Darwin, to understand the plan of Darwin, I believe, as Planning minister, is to understand our history, how we developed as a city, and ensure that the city in its development acknowledges that history and to also understand our future growth and where we sit within the region and within our great Territory.
As Planning minister, in a planning sense we see cycles, 10-year cycles. You should update your key master plan, which is your planning scheme documents, around the CBD, in this instance the CBD of Darwin, and when I became Planning minister the cycle was nearing the time to refresh and renew the plans.
The planning scheme had been under a great deal of consultation, about seven years’ worth of consultation, when I became Planning minister. One of the first things I did was implement a planning scheme to provide consistency across the Territory, then immediately proceed to the plan for the Darwin CBD. I know the member for Port Darwin wants us to take a couple of years, but this is a process we have already started and we are more than halfway through the process. It does take a while to get the planning for the CBD right with all the stakeholders who need to be included in the planning and all the expertise you need to bring to bear on that planning.
I guess the member for Port Darwin is debating in a reality where it all began the day he was elected to this Chamber. Well, I can inform the House that it all began more than a year ago, when I embarked on the planning process, the master plan for our CBD. The planning process commenced in a consultative forum, it was a combined body of work between the Darwin City Council and the Northern Territory government. Intrinsically, we have to have the local government tier of government at the table when we are dealing with and discussing what our city will look like. Quite appropriately, local government is a major stakeholder in that debate and discussion. As Planning minister, I am committed to working with the Lord Mayor and the aldermen and the technical officers of council to ensure that we have a cohesive and comprehensive approach to planning.
I know the member for Port Darwin has his views about Synergy Square. To him it is an eyesore; to him it does not work. To the many people who live there, they are enjoying the place. It is horses for courses in terms of architectural design.
We heard the member for Port Darwin talk about the great architects and I am a fan of Antoni Gaudi. I have been to Barcelona. I have seen his work. I am a fan of the architecture I saw in a great many cities. But we are very different. We are a tropical city in the South East Asian region and we need to design and plan a city appropriate to that region.
We had a Darwin CBD Planning Forum in April last year, which was combined Darwin City Council/Northern Territory government sponsored, and it was extremely successful. As Planning minister I appointed an Urban Design Advisory Panel because we did not have a body of experts to advise on urban design. The panel is chaired by Professor Rob Adams, who is internationally renowned and has won many awards.
Professor Adams was responsible for the 25-year redesign of the city of Melbourne, and those of us who know Melbourne know it is a very different city today than 25 years ago. It was about bringing life back into the city of Melbourne. It was about opening the city up to the people. It was about bringing people back into the city to live, so it was also about lifestyle, recreation and enjoyment. It was about invigorating old wastelands and no-go zones into what are now interactive, open, recreation and mixed-use areas.
The Urban Design Advisory Panel consists of interstate and local Territory experts in architecture, property development, and urban landscape design, as well as technical expertise from Darwin City Council and Northern Territory government in technical and planning areas. The UDAP will also deal with issues that arise between major urban overhauls and planning.
UDAP was brought together to advise us on the outcomes of the Urban Design Planning Forum Day for our city, which could not be agreed upon. However, there were things that were agreed. For example: the trees - planting more trees in our city streets, creating shaded boulevards akin to what we have in Cavanagh Street. We incorporated the Darwin City Council’s landscape master plan to ensure all future buildings have awnings and 75% interactive streetscape so you will not see a city of blank walls, but actually see the interaction occurring at the base level of those buildings.
The issues discussed at the forum were: how our city should function; how we achieve better building designs in the CBD, and how to improve our streets, paths and other open spaces. The forum brought together many people: government, council, residents, users of the CBD, property developers, the general public, as well as people involved in the Planning Action Network, who are great advocates for the improvement of our city.
I will present the outcomes of the forum as amendments to the Planning Scheme which will enshrine them in the planning principles which must be adhered to. So awnings, the 75% interactive streetscapes, the greening of Darwin through tree planting etcetera, is coming into the Planning Scheme.
We knew the hardest nut to crack would be the issue of building heights and the area lots, the volumetric control of those buildings. These could not be agreed to at the forum, so I have referred them to UDAP. Bear in mind that UDAP is a body of both interstate and Territory experts supported by technical and planning advice from the Northern Territory government and Darwin City Council.
The panel had deliberated since the planning forum last April. In March of this year, they brought me a series of recommendations concerning building heights and volumetric controls - the key issues we are confronted with in development of the city.
Those recommendations I have made public because, as Planning minister, I wanted community feedback on those recommendations - they are important to our future growth. It is recommended that building heights be limited to 90 meters above ground level within the core of our CBD which is bounded by McMinn Street, Daly Street, Mitchell Street and Bennett Street; and on the perimeter, protecting the Esplanade etcetera, the heights would go down to 36 meters around that core.
The panel also made recommendations on volumetric controls for the buildings. That is, how you design buildings to capture the prevailing sea breezes without a series of block walls which create the concrete canyons seen in other cities. It also dealt with the environmental and sustainable design of buildings for a tropical environment.
Controversial as UDAP recommendations have been, they are critically important to work on as a blueprint of what our city will become. The member of Port Darwin said it is a two-year process. We are already about 18 months into this master plan process, and I am hopeful we will be finished by the end of this year.
I have selected a small group of people from UDAP headed by the Darwin manager of Lang O’Rourke, Dick Goit, who will meet with all the stakeholders - people who are affected by potential changes to the planning controls - to listen to them and consider their views on what UDAP proposes in its recommendations, and the outcomes can be seen as genuinely independent.
I sincerely ask the CLP to put forward their views, to give us a legitimate, fair dinkum response to those UDAP recommendations. That has not happened yet and I look forward to hearing the opposition’s response to the recommendations. I have also invited the member for Nelson to respond to those UDAP recommendations. If you want to have a buy-in to the master plan, to how our city will be designed around those planning scheme principals, UDAP’s recommendations are the buy-in to that process.
After the recommendations have been tested by Dick Goit and his team, they will make further recommendations to me as Planning minister, which I will take to Cabinet. They will then become formal recommendations that go on public exhibition as amendments to the Planning Scheme. We will then go into a far more formal consultative process.
I hope to have the current round of consultations from Dick Goit and his team by the end of November, and then we will have formally proposed amendments to the planning scheme to consider, and early next year we will have a contemporary plan for our CBD. Yes, it will deal with the issue of special merit, which has been contentious, and I have put an interim development control order over the city so that the special merit cannot be used in the interim to break through currently approved planning heights.
Regarding the broader issues of people living in the city and how that impacts on education, I note the member for Port Darwin recognised the additional school facilities we have put into the Port Darwin feeder area. The Department of Education is separately looking at future growth projections for the Darwin CBD and how that impacts on any infrastructure planning the department would be undertaking.
In the past, both city and broader area schools have accepted enrolments from outside their feeder areas, which affect their enrolments. For example, at Larrakeyah Primary School, 22% of the students come from outside the Larrakeyah feeder area. Parap Primary School is at 75% capacity, Stuart Park Primary School is at 78% capacity and Ludmilla Primary School is as low as 44% capacity. That shows the capacity currently existing within those primary schools. And we have the new Darwin Middle School. The Department of Education is looking at those future growth projections - bearing in mind, we take data from the ABS figures regarding the number of children living in those inner city apartments.
In terms of the infrastructure, the government is already quite a way down the path of a five-year program of infrastructure for Darwin. It is not work we have to do; it is work we are midway through. This is a $1bn five-year program which started last financial year; which is power, water and sewerage services to progress the Territory. The $1bn program consists of $769m capital and $243.9m for repairs and maintenance.
Power and Water currently has a range of projects to increase water needs. These include raising the level of Darwin River Dam, which will increase water supply by about 20% storage in the dam and water capital works forecast include an estimated $125.9m over the next five years.
Are we getting on with the planning and the essential infrastructures for the city? Yes, we are. We are spending the money in capital works to build the infrastructure our city needs for its growth.
The replacement of overhead power lines with underground cables is progressing well throughout our suburbs. Your electorate of Nightcliff, Madam Speaker, was the first of the old suburbs to be done, and that program is continuing to roll out, providing the security we need in those storm and cyclone periods.
New zone substations are planned for Darwin city at East Arm, Lee Point, Palmerston, Marrakai near Weddell, and in Alice Springs as well. These will ensure our power networks capital works forecast include approximately $240m over the next five years to deal with our power capacity for growth.
Works have already commenced and a program is in place to close the Larrakeyah sewage outfall. The project is reducing the potential environmental impact by eliminating untreated sewage discharge into the harbour. Over the next four years, $35m will be spent on diversion works to redirect the sewage from the Larrakeyah catchment to the Dinah Beach trunk sewer; upgrading the Ludmilla Waste Water Treatment Plant and constructing a second pipe to deliver effluent to and extend the East Point outfall. Works completed already on this project include a new trunk sewer in Mitchell Street and Dinah Beach, a new sewerage pumping station at Dinah Beach, upgrades to the Parap trunk sewer and upgrades to various facilities at the Ludmilla Waste Water Treatment Plant. We are already in the essential services upgrade program, including shutting down the Larrakeyah sewage outfall which has been in operation for more than 40 years. If only this work had started two decades ago.
Regarding a growing population and the essential aspects in the Darwin CBD of having new recreation and open space areas for people to enjoy, we, have announced our plans. In July this year, we commenced development of a 4.6 ha of parkland worth about $6m in investment at Flagstaff Park at the top of Cullen Bay. The park will allow Territory families and tourists to enjoy our great lifestyle and will be an asset to the people of Darwin and the tourism industry; a walkway down from Nurses Walk will connect to the popular Mindil Beach Markets and the new resort being developed by SKYCITY Casino.
I am interested to have the CLP’s views on the old hospital site because they had earmarked it for development. In stark contrast, Labor has earmarked the old hospital site predominantly for parkland. We believe this is essential to creating ribbons of green around our city. We already have the Esplanade which will link with parkland at the old hospital site and Flagstaff Park, then through the Botanic Gardens with more parkland, and at the old Stuart Park Tank Farm, connecting with the magnificent recreation area of our waterfront.
If you are living in the city and looking for family recreation, you cannot beat the $1.5bn Darwin City Waterfront development. Apart from the magnificent Convention Centre which has already opened and is being enjoyed by people, who, for example, went to the Boat and Leisure Show in August, and was a massive success with something like 9000 visitors; we have completed the sea wall, the boating lagoon and beach, and the wave lagoon is on track for completion later this year. Landscaping of the public parklands will be completed to coincide with the opening of two hotels and a multilevel car park early next year.
We are already a significant way through creating a dynamic tropical city where we see mixed-use commercial and residential areas and a vibrant restaurant precinct. We are getting the connections right between the waterfront and the CBD with the Smith Street connection and we are working on shared plans with Darwin City Council, which is critical to getting our State Square redesigned - shared visions between council and the Northern Territory government.
We are ensuring with the master plan that the horse does not bolt in terms of how buildings can be built in the CBD. As Planning minister I was asked a question by the member for Port Darwin tonight - I am not prepared to wait two years to change the Planning Scheme to know what the development of our city will look like during this massive phase of growth. It is important we act now so we can be confident about our tropical city: what the heights will be, what the area lot size for the buildings will be, the volumetric controls, the awnings, the setbacks, the landscaping, the planting of trees, where the parks around the city will be – all that work has been undertaken by the Territory government. We are nearing the end of the work to enshrine the changes to the Planning Scheme.
To protect the city in the interim, I put in the Interim Development Control Orders to ensure that special merit could not be used to break through what is conventional agreed planning as we have it today. So we have an Interim Development Control Order there to protect the city, and we are on the verge of changing the Planning Scheme for our contemporary city which captures the desires and visions of not just the Northern Territory government, but the people who took the time to attend that Urban Planning Forum in April last year - the people who live, work and play in our city, the people who said, as a community, what they want our city to look like.
We have taken on board their views, and we have taken onboard their suggestions. I will be changing the Planning Scheme. I will be making those changes early next year when we finish the last two important phases of public and stakeholder consultation. The first is under way and due to finish in November. The second will be the formal amendments to the Planning Scheme’s public consultation period, which will occur early next year. So, do we have a plan? Yes, we do. We are extremely close to amending the Planning Scheme to renew the plan.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I hear what the minister has to say and I agree that CBD planning is a serious issue that needs very careful consideration and, excuse the pun, serious and good planning. However, it is not just restricted to the CBD and it extends beyond the boundaries of the city area. Darwin does need a good plan, and …
Ms Lawrie: This is about the CBD, the MPI. All right, discuss the entire area, but it is about the CBD.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The honourable member is very concerned about this kind of behaviour from other members in different debates. I draw your attention to that, and the hypocrisy of that member over there.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order. Very clearly this is an MPI specifically about a master plan for Darwin CBD. The shadow minister for Planning starts talking beyond the CBD. If it was a debate about beyond the CBD, I would have had a much broader contribution. I stuck to the CBD.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, there is no point of order.
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, this is symptomatic of the government’s problem. They are very myopic in their thinking and their vision of it just being on the Darwin CBD, but they are forgetting that the majority of people from the rural area, from Palmerston and beyond, drive on the roads into the CBD. So whilst it may appear it is just CBD planning, it does extend further and does not stop at Daly Street bridge and focusing inwards.
The problem extends out into the rural area. Our roads are congested. Anyone who comes in from the rural area and Palmerston will attest there is in excess of 30 000 to 40 000 cars coming in between one and 1 hours in the morning. We have serious congestion coming into the CBD, notably in Bennett Street, and there does not appear to be any planning to resolve these problems, given that there is more high density living planned for Darwin and the CBD.
It also appears that there is not a lot of planning for green belts in the Darwin or CBD. I have mentioned the traffic. This in itself will create issues on the greenness of our city and will be exacerbated with more cars on the road because our public transport system, quite frankly, is not up to scratch. Fewer people will probably use the public transport system because it is not reliable and the time tables do not suit people in the rural area.
If we go further out with the roads system, we have some serious issues at the BP Palms intersection. I know there is an enormous problem with the traffic flows into the city, primarily the problem of lights at the intersection. The traffic backs up not only from BP Palms to the Palmerston intersection, but right back to the Howard Springs lights. That is contributing to some of the frustrations on the roads by rural and Palmerston residents as they converge at that main Y junction intersection. What used to take 20 minutes getting into the city from Howard Springs turnoff is now taking 40 minutes, which is impacting on the rural residents’ lifestyle. The government is hot to trot on lifestyle but I put to you that it is about lifestyle for urban people, not rural people’s lifestyles.
What we could be looking at is better planning for areas such as Virginia Road and also Bees Creek Road coming onto the Stuart Highway. There could be quite inexpensive slip lanes put in to make it not only safer but create better traffic flow coming onto the highway. A couple of years ago, and people who travel to the rural area on a regular basis would know, that the slipway type of complex was put in quite quickly and efficiently at the Tulagi Road/Stuart Highway intersection to accommodate our army friends coming onto the Stuart Highway from Robertson Army Barracks. If it is good enough for our army friends, then it should be good enough for the rural residents to have safe entrances to the Stuart Highway.
One of the other issues I would like to raise in regards to planning, because it will impact on how people go about their business in the CBD - I just have to make sure I put CBD in there so I still within the MPI’s parameters - is the Berrimah Farm. I have raised this previously but it is an important issue because located within the Berrimah Farm complex is a not-for-profit organisation and business that is very important to the future of the Northern Territory’s oil and gas industry, which this government is also very keen to promote and takes credit for a lot of what happens. This is the Northern Australian Safety Centre and it is on land towards the back part of Berrimah Farm; it is excised from the farm and they have been told they will have to go.
This is the main training centre for the offshore oil and gas industry and the mining industry. They have the Helicopter Underwater Escape Training course there, HUET, and if we are to have more offshore operations utilising Darwin as the supply base, then we are going to need this kind of service facility. They have been told by government they cannot have the land excised. There will be no compensation even though that not-for-profit organisation has committed a substantial amount of money in that complex to train not only Northern Territory private enterprise, but they also assist with the training of the Northern Territory Fire Service officers.
There is nowhere else in the Northern Territory that provides fire training and there is no other fire training ground. If this complex closes because a new location cannot be found, this training will go interstate. It will probably put about half a dozen people out of work, plus it will take an enormous amount of expenditure and money out of the Northern Territory. They would most likely go to places like Perth, which is one of our major competitors for the offshore oil and gas industry servicing, or maybe go to Singapore or Tasmania where they have similar kinds of fire training grounds.
This organisation is celebrating 20 years in the Northern Territory and it would be a shame to see their needs, and the services they deliver to the business and public sector service community, go unnoticed - and they are basically chucked out. They have a guarantee until about 2011, but given the infrastructure at this base, they are going to need more time than that. I cannot see any logical reason why their complex cannot be given an excise so they can continue their operations for the benefit not only of the business community but also the Northern Territory government.
In regards to planning, there may well be people from the CBD who relocate to this new proposed Berrimah Farm complex. I have previously mentioned the history of Berrimah Farm, and for the benefit of members, I bring to their attention the fact that activities on Berrimah Farm have involved the use of copper, chromium and arsenic. These chemicals, or minerals, are very mobile when they get into the ground, particularly copper. They are very persistent in the soil and they are soluble. They will get into the waterways. In all the planning announcements the government has made in regard to this complex, there has been no mention of the potential contamination of the soils and how they are going to address these serious environmental issues. These chemicals do not combine easily with other things to make stable complexes.
It is a serious issue, and I bring it to the House’s attention, and I hope that something is done about it. There are people who live in Darwin today who lived on Berrimah Farm when it was a proper research farm, and they know the location of these former exercises and activities. If we look at the recent example in a southern state where a development was put on old landfill and the ensuing problems with the health and safety of the people caused by methane gas, then we need to look at this kind of planning exercise very carefully.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude, but I will say the CBD planning area extends beyond the borders of the Daly Street bridge.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will be talking on the CBD, but I had a chuckle today when I saw the Chief Minister on television announcing Harbour Town is coming to town – 120 shops. Where is it going to be put? It is going to be put out opposite Harvey Norman, on the block of land that used to have the mini-golf course. I laugh because not so long ago, a developer wanted to put a shopping centre at Coolalinga.
I would like to quote from the minister who wrote to Maureen Coleman, who was the CLP candidate standing against me. The minister said:
- My decision to refuse this rezoning proposal…
This was the shopping centre at Coolalinga:
- … was on the basis of potential significant impact on Stuart Highway traffic flows …
Well, 120 shops on the Stuart Highway opposite Harvey Norman is not going to cause some issues regarding traffic? I beg to differ. It seems there are rules for one part of the world and other rules for another part of the world.
The one issue we are missing in this debate is the number of empty shops in the CBD. Just walk around Darwin. The best time to walk around is at night, and look at some of the plazas - they are empty and they have been empty for years. And the government praises a developer for putting 120 fancy shops out at Berrimah. Here we are building a residential city - because that is what we are doing with all these high-rise units - and we do not have the commercial facilities to go with them. Why have we not attracted Harbour Town into the Darwin CBD? Beats me.
If we want to have a vibrant heart, we also have to have a vibrant commercial centre - and you do not get that when you walk up the mall at 6.30 pm. I walked up there the other night and there were about three people at the Vic and a couple sitting at the new noodle shop. It was dead - except for a few people checking out the ATM.
There are parts of the city which are dead and there are parts of the city where there is empty shop after empty shop. As you go up the mall on the right hand side before the Galleria, there is building there which is practically empty. There is hardly anyone in there, and there are other shops around the Darwin CBD which are exactly the same. Whilst the government might praise the developer for coming to the Berrimah area, it really should have been looking at seeing whether they could have attracted that developer into the heart of Darwin and made Darwin a more vibrant city.
Be that as it may, I thank the minister for her response and for her offer to be part of a forum which looks at these issues. Whether government will take notice of some alternative points of view, I do not know, but I thank the minister for her offer and I will be taking it up.
We have to deal with the city as it is right now, and we need to look at it and ask: ‘Why is this master plan not in operation right now?’ I also have a copy of this Darwin Urban Design Advisory Panel report for the Minister for Planning and Lands. It was interesting reading a section of it. It said, as part of the introduction:
- Sound models for scale and height control are needed to ensure that the amenity of this housing option; that is, using Darwin as a housing centre, will not be incrementally eroded by subsequent high-rise development; rather, the aim is to optimise this throughout the CBD peninsula. Strong visual connection to the beauty of Darwin Harbour and maintenance of open breeze corridors are important aspects of CBD housing which has a reduced reliance on energy intensive airconditioning systems.
The minister talked about the idea of a green city; something that the Darwin City Council has put forward. I cannot believe people say something when, in reality, does not work. Go down Knuckey Street and have a look at the trees - if there are any outside the Mantra or Evolution. Evolution is built out over the footpath. It is not a matter of awnings; the whole building is built over the footpath and any tree would have to grow at a 60 angle and would not be the sort of tree that would shade Knuckey Street.
The minister says we need to look at a 10-year planning scheme and every 10 years we renew it. But what is missing - and this is about the whole of the Darwin region - you must, first of all, have a vision. If you do not have the vision, then you get nowhere. The vision stays forever, the planning schemes change, the micro changes, but stick within the vision.
For instance, Alice Springs has a vision that no buildings be over a certain height. Why? Because they have, cleverly, decided that the height would ruin the landscape, they have used hills - whether it was for sacred sites originally, or whether it might have been silly to build houses on previously rocky hills - whatever it is, Alice Springs has a real character of its own. It has protected geographical and cultural features; it has protected the heights so that you can still see the MacDonnell Ranges. So someone had a vision and, for better or worse, at least that vision is retained.
There will be new suburbs, but the overall vision stays, and that is exactly what Darwin had. The vision, I thought, was a strong visual connection to the beauty of Darwin Harbour and maintenance of open breeze corridors. That alone is a pretty good vision for Darwin, that is why we have high-rise so we can look at the sea, so we can have a view, otherwise, why bother going up? Some people enjoy living in a high-rise, partly because they have a view, but if that $400 000 or $500 000 or $600 000 apartment’s view is blocked because the planning system in Darwin allows for another 30-storey building to go up next to it, you are not going to be happy.
There is a building going up right against what, I think was the car park for Admiralty House on the corner of Knuckey and Mitchell Streets next to one of our first high-rise apartment buildings. The people there who did have a nice view of Darwin Harbour are soon going to lose that view, and I do not think they are particularly happy. We need to be taking that into account. There is nothing wrong with high-rise. I know the minister talks about heights but I do not think height is such a problem. It is the density of these high buildings in the city that is the problem.
The minister also said to get around that they are looking at this development of high-rise from boundary to boundary. If you get hold of this report, you will see at Attachment C that up to about 13 m you can have the entire block of land covered by the building, then if you go up higher you come in, a bit higher you come in, and when you get to the main part of the building, you have to be a maximum of 20 m away from the neighbouring block. That is an improvement.
The problem is the bottom ‘landscaping’ is total building. We are still putting 500 people on this little area of land, say 1400 m2 in size, but we are not putting the green we talked about anywhere. We should be separating these big buildings with green, open space, where kids can come down to the ground floor and people can walk around the building, and be part of the community, mixing with their neighbours. We can have high-rise buildings that are separated.
We have to make a bigger effort if we really believe the city is going to be tropical, to have much more space between our tall buildings and much more greenery to separate them. We could do better, but at the moment, unfortunately, we are just getting a concrete jungle.
The other issue that we have not really touched on is transport. There is an argument about having Darwin CBD as a residential area, - and I do not have a problem with that - which means people do not have to go far to work. Well, that is all right as long as you have work in town. The other factor is people do move from the Darwin CBD, they go on holidays, they go to Casuarina, and that is why we do not have a big shopping centre in the CBD, or they go to the rural area, or to Palmerston. So there is the issue of how much traffic the Darwin peninsula can hold.
We should be putting more effort into alternative forms of transport into town. The rail link - before the land is built on, before it becomes too difficult - should be built from Palmerston to Darwin. That should be a priority right now. Do not wait. I do not care whether it costs a few dollars because in the long term, it will be a saving for the city. If you leave it longer, it will cost more money. Build it. It is not hard. It is a railway line. They built them in the 1880s across the west of America, out past the Indians and through the desert and over the Rockies - and we cannot build about 10 km from Palmerston to Darwin. Then we could extend it to Humpty Doo and put a railway station at Acacia Hills, and people from Pine Creek, Katherine and Adelaide River could come on a daily rail into town.
Come on, let us try! It is not hard. Vision. It is vision. That is what people in the early days in America - you do not need to go to America - go to my old city of Melbourne. They built railway lines spreading all over the city before anyone was there, except a few farms, and they still use them today. In fact I think they are building more of them; Melbourne is putting on 60 new trams and 20 new trains because they are expanding their public transport system. We should be thinking that way. Buses are nice, but they are not the only solution. You could move a lot more people on a train than you can on a bus and that is the advantages of trains.
So we really have to start thinking outside the square – we have to get up and do things - now. We have talked about this long enough, we have to do something now, otherwise the traffic problems will get worse and worse.
In relation to issues about heights and the control order over heights which the minister mentioned. Something which has been raised with me is the peculiarity of building heights in the old Darwin railway station area, which is down the bottom of the escarpment near Perkins Shipping. There are quite low height restrictions in that area. I would have thought people down the bottom of the hill would be allowed a fairly large height because they are not blocking anyone. But for some reason taller buildings are allowed up on the high country and only shorter buildings are permitted on the lower country.
The government has told the developers that is the height they have to have there – it is about 35 m. They have exempted themselves from two large buildings which will eventually go near the Navy Depot right on the sea, as part of the waterfront development, which are 33-storey buildings. It seems we have one rule for one part of Darwin and, about 100 m further over, you have a different rule for the government’s waterfront development. I am interested to know why the government has exempted itself from a height restriction on some building developments down towards the wharf and not on its own development.
I know people talk about the Convention Centre, I have been down there and I think it is over-rated. It is a great convention centre to have, It is important for Darwin, but it is not – I will use the word people do not like – ‘iconic’.. That is what disappoints me. We needed something that said: ‘This is Darwin’. This convention centre is a convention centre. You sit around a circle and listen to a speaker and you have lots of IT equipment. In the end that is what it is about, but it really does not sell Darwin as it could have. And that is what we have missed, again - an opportunity to say this is Darwin and this is something to be proud of. It is great and we need it, but we could have done better. We did not have the vision.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin for the substance of his matter of public importance, but, not the opinion expressed of failure and ad hoc planning by this government.
The member for Port Darwin and I share electoral boundaries and we share constituents with similar issues and ideas. There is undoubted interest in my electorate in the issues of CBD planning. The CBD may be in the Port Darwin electorate, but people in Parap, Fannie Bay and Stuart Park are interested in a better CBD.
We are a growing city. We have exciting developments in the heart of Darwin and, while we have done a lot, there is still much more we can do. There is no doubt we can do things better at times. That was a message from the last election.
Let us take a step back from what the member for Port Darwin has said. His concerns are perhaps reasonable for a member of the opposition, but they are not truly reflective of the concerns that have been expressed to me by people living in Parap, Fannie Bay or Stuart Park.
Many people in my electorate are positive about the future of Darwin. The Darwin CBD has come alive in recent years with better restaurants, shops, bars and entertainment - it is a vibrant cosmopolitan city. An important component of this has been the increase in CBD living - new apartments.
Both Darwin City Council and the Northern Territory government can take some of the credit for overseeing the burst of energy in our city over recent years. I am the youngest member of this House but I am still a year or two older than the average age of Territorians. I have lived in a unit in our CBD. In fact, I lived opposite the old hospital site, which I knew better as my original university campus. Living in a unit in our CBD is a lifestyle choice of many and I have many friends and family who have made that lifestyle choice. It is the accommodation choice for both Territory locals and young people who have come from interstate to take advantage of our growing economy to further their careers. I can assure members the last thing many of these people want to do at this stage of their lives is mow a lawn.
Eleven hundred units have been approved recently in the CBD with 200 more going through the planning process. In terms of future planning for the CBD it is important to note there are fewer people per household in these units than a suburban household. However, it is important we plan for the 1400 units going up. It is the equivalent of the population of a whole new suburb like Bellamack. That is why we are planning in areas like education, essential services, public open spaces and parks, transport and planning processes.
Mr Elferink: No, no, I am talking about something bigger than this. It is more global than this.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: I understand what you are saying, but it is not quite what I am on about.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Fannie Bay has the call.
Mr GUNNER: We have a fantastic new middle school and the Principal, Marcus Dixon, and the school Chair, Monica van den Nieuwenhof, are doing a great job. However, while the new middle school has created extra classroom capacity in our inner suburban primary schools, we are aware there is growing demand on primary schools like Larrakeyah, Parap and Stuart Park. That is why the Department of Education and Training is looking at what our schools may need in the future and they have commenced the development of - excuse the title - a Greater Darwin Strategic Infrastructure Plan.
The Larrakeyah macerator is an issue that has been raised frequently in this House and government is working towards closing the outfall. While we are doing it and it is happening now, the opposition should be very careful with their words, especially during the election. They said they would accelerate the Lameroo outfall but they did not mentioned time frames and they promised no extra money for it; in fact, they said they would do it within existing resources. Which leaves a very important question unanswered: what would they have scrapped to pay for it? The member for Port Darwin has already added hundreds of millions of dollars to the Power and Water bill by saying the CLP will build a new dam, but he has not nominated the river he will dam …
Mr Elferink: Yes I have. I said the Marrakai dam over the Adelaide River.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: Goodness gracious, that has been identified and purchased for ages. Whoever writes this stuff for you should do some homework.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin. Member for Fannie Bay, you have the call.
Mr GUNNER: Rather than the talk happening on that side of the Chamber, this government is acting. We are increasing the capacity of the Darwin River Dam by 20%. We are not currently facing water shortages …
Ms Purick: That is not CBD, the dam.
… especially compared to southern cities. We are planning to increase our supply.
Member for Goyder, I am talking more about the CBD than you did during your contribution.
Mr GUNNER: We are probably doing as much as any other city to increase our water supply.
I have already spoken in this House about our investment in Darwin’s wonderful outdoor lifestyle with a plan for our city to live and breathe, surrounded by parkland and rivers of green that connect the CBD to our suburbs …
Mr Wood: Parkland? The escarpment is covered in buildings.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, cease interjecting!
Mr GUNNER: … starting at Flagstaff Park. It will continue with a corridor of green through the old tank farm site and, we said quite clearly, there will be parkland on the old hospital site. Importantly, we are making sure these parks are connected by new and better bike parks and boardwalks. To keep our parks and open spaces the best they can be we need to make sure they are used and are popular. Connecting them properly is the best way to do that.
On public transport, which is a big issue in my electorate, the government has announced a $13.4m upgrade to bus services: more buses, more routes and free buses for seniors and students. It was welcomed in my electorate.
During the campaign, the member for Port Darwin promised that the CLP would be making some big announcements on public transport, but they have not. I have not seen it. We waited, but they have not made an announcement. They have no plan for public transport …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! The member for Fannie Bay has the call. Member for Port Darwin and Leader of Government Business, cease interjecting.
Mr GUNNER: Madam Speaker, we have a plan for public transport – more buses, more routes, and free buses for students and seniors.
Earlier the minister for Planning spoke about our planning changes. They are important changes; they are following an important process. The minister held a planning forum 18 months ago to put these issues on the table. This is long before the CLP had even recognised that the issue existed. Planning is a complex area, not least because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Aspects of good planning are subjective. There is a range of community members and groups which have very different views on which direction Darwin should head. The planning forum was the best way of bringing these groups together and thrashing out the issues. The establishment of the Urban Design Advisory Panel is a proactive and proper way to ensure the community is involved in planning decisions.
The government has scrapped the special merit provision of the planning approvals process. Special merit was brought in by the CLP and it allowed developers to apply for special consideration to develop outside approval guidelines, such as height guidelines. We have not yet heard whether the CLP still supports special merit.
Mr Elferink: You just heard me. I just stood up and settled this. I talked about it.
Ms Lawrie: Oh, weasel words.
Mr Elferink: No, I just talked about it, for God’s sake. If the guy is going to come in here and talk, then he should listen to what I said.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting. Leader of Government Business, the member for Fannie Bay has the call – cease interjecting.
Mr GUNNER: The member for Port Darwin did not make clear the CLP’s position on special merit. We can only assume, as a member of the previous CLP government, he supported special merit …
Mr Elferink: Goodness gracious me! This is the problem with turning up with a pre-prepared speech.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Ms Carney: Yes, it does not fit the speech he gave.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, cease interjecting.
Mr GUNNER: It is quite clear that the CLP has not changed its position on special merit. The member for Port Darwin did not make his position clear. If you do not have a position on special merit, you cannot have a planning policy.
When the member Port Darwin spoke in the adjournment last night, I was bemused by the CLP approach to water-based recreation. The member for Port Darwin was outraged by the possibility the wave pool in his electorate will be cheap. As the local member for many families in Parap, Fannie Bay and Stuart Park, I have to say they are looking forward to the wave pool and would prefer it to be as cheap as possible.
It was an interesting policy position outlined by the member for Port Darwin. He is against taxpayers putting contributions towards the wave pool entry costs because not all taxpayers will use it. I believe community infrastructure is important. In my electorate that would include council assets like the Parap pool. I believe council and governments have a responsibility to provide community infrastructure. Not all taxpayers use the Leanyer Recreation Water Park, and taxpayers subsidise that 100%. Taking the CLP position on the wave pool to its logical conclusion, the CLP would be willing to charge entry for the Leanyer Recreation Water Park. I believe that would be a serious mistake.
In my maiden speech, I spoke about our opportunity to plan for our future, to protect what is best about this place and to make what is best even better. I spoke about more parks, free buses, better bike paths, about our planned ribbons of green connecting our CBD to our suburbs, and our plans for better boardwalks along our harbour. The harbour is what I would like to talk further about tonight.
We have a fantastic harbour. It is a place we go for a quiet drink, a bite to eat, to catch up with mates. Our restaurants, cafes and pubs have their backs to our harbour. On a Friday night at The Deck, patrons look out on a road. On Sunday morning at the Cool Spot, you see more road than harbour. Better outdoor dining options – and more of them - to take advantage of our great harbour is what we need. This is something the government can work on with council, which controls most of the land surrounding our harbour.
We should note that industry has the ability to address what is a clear demand in Darwin: hotels on the Esplanade that deliver an experience of fine dining or a casual breakfast, a quiet drink or a morning coffee, with a view of our harbour you cannot get on Mitchell Street. This is something I know locals and tourists alike would love. It is something that would add to our great lifestyle, and would preserve those qualities I have talked about before. The call is to convince generations of families in my electorate that this was the best place in Australia to live and raise a family.
Madam Speaker, the government has a comprehensive approach to planning. A booming economy and population has given us challenges, and we are responding to them.
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, today I speak about the recent elections and to thank all the people who have been instrumental in my re-election as the member for Casuarina. Being here today as a third time member of the Northern Territory parliament is something I never imagined when I was growing up in my mother country, Greece.
Politics is something that was always in my blood, perhaps due to the difficult and challenging political times I lived through during my youth. As a young man, I became involved in student politics, but my path to politics in Australia started that fateful afternoon before Christmas Eve in 1981 when I met for the first time a young Australian woman, Linda Cotton, who later became my wife and the reason I migrated to Australia.
I came to Australia in January 1983, and by May 1983 I was a member of the Labor Party. In 1986, I was preselected for the seat of Clontarf, a blue ribbon Liberal seat that gave me my first taste of political battle and, despite the fact that I did not win the seat, the whole affair provided me with valuable experience. Kim Beazley launched my campaign and it was at this time in Perth that I came to know parliamentarians such as Stephen Smith, Chris Evans and others who are currently members of the federal parliament and Cabinet.
When I met my second wife, Margaret, I told her jokingly that I would take her places, and I did - first to Port Hedland, and later to Darwin. Our stint in Darwin was supposed to be only for a three-year period, but I suppose this is a story you hear many times here in the Territory. It did not take long for me to become once again involved with the Labor Party, and I found myself as one of the founding members of the Millner branch and working in Paul Henderson’s campaign for Nightcliff.
I was told the Territory was different from the rest of Australia, and I could see this. This was the place that had not only a can-do but also an ‘anything goes’ attitude; a strange political system with a right wing government which had socialist tendencies where government money financed private ventures: you may remember the Darwin Joinery, the Sheraton, and the abolition of local government to create a company town in Yulara.
The downturn of the economy and the increasing arrogance of the CLP government helped me make my decision to put my hand up to for pre-selection for Casuarina for the 2001 elections. I was absolutely thrilled to be chosen by the people of Casuarina as their representative for 2001, and later 2005.
In 2008 I was chosen again by the people of Casuarina to be their representative, and I want to say to my constituents that I am privileged, humbled and honoured to represent you in parliament. I thank you once again for placing your trust in me and electing me to represent you for a third term. I assure you that I will continue to work hard to assist all the people in Casuarina and to deliver on the commitments made by my government. I thoroughly enjoy engaging with my constituents and community groups within my electorate, with regular visits to community schools, childcare centres, seniors’ villages, aged care complexes, shopping centres, and sporting clubs, because it is the people I meet and the assistance I can provide my constituents that makes me want to continue to be your local member.
I am proud of the many achievements made in the Casuarina electorate over the past few years. I am extremely excited and look forward to deliver on my promises to the residents of Alawa, Brinkin, Nakara and Tiwi over the next four years: the $5m upgrade for Casuarina Senior College; $3m upgrade for Dripstone Middle School; the Police Beat Shopfront at Casuarina Square, backed up with the CCTV; $2m each for further upgrades to Alawa and Nakara Primary Schools Stage 2; and the Leanyer Recreation Park upgrade Stage 2, including water slides and kiosk.
The electorate of Casuarina is truly representative of the Territory - 25% of the population is overseas born. There is a mix of public servants, subcontractors, small business operators and private business employees. Among other things, the electorate is home to Casuarina Shopping Square, the Territory’s largest shopping centre and, of course, the Casuarina Coastal Reserve, the most visited reserve in Australia. Within the electorate, a number of suburbs such as Alawa and Tiwi are undergoing a demographic transformation with young families with children now replacing older families.
I was particularly pleased to see my 2005 election promises become a reality with the completion of the Stage 1 upgrades and renovations for Nakara and Alawa Primary Schools. These schools were built in the 1970s and had not received any substantial amount of money for renovations in the past 30 years. They were in urgent need of attention, and I am pleased to say that our government provided this attention. Part of my new election promises is to provide Nakara and Alawa Primary Schools and Dripstone Middle School with funding to enable further enhancing of these schools for our children. This will make them among the most modern schools in the Territory.
Our government also cares for the ever-increasing number of aged Territorians who have decided to retire here, or came here to be close to their families. The Masonic Retirement Village in the suburb of Tiwi is now complemented by the extension of the Masonic Nursing Home next door. The new facility which is currently being completed is built on 2.4 ha of land granted by our government. The Masonic Foundation extension will be completed very soon. The facility includes an additional 45 aged care beds, 35 retirement homes and 12 units. It not only caters for senior Territorians, but also alleviates the local shortage of beds and homes for our aged Territorians. The facility is located close to the Royal Darwin and Private Hospitals.
We have achieved much in the past three years, and Casuarina has its fair share of government funding initiatives. However, there is more to be done. In the next four years our government will continue to provide funding for school upgrades, improve lighting and additional recreational facilities around the Casuarina Coastal Reserve and Leanyer Recreational Park to cater for tourists, visitors and locals, and finalise the installation of low impact lights at the Nakara Park oval.
As the recent election has shown, there are no safe seats anymore and no one can bask in past glories. The seats are won in the streets and not sitting in offices. Promises contribute to a successful campaign, but they do not win elections. In the past three years I have worked very hard to deliver on promises made for Casuarina, but I have also worked very hard doorknocking every house, in every street, in every suburb in my electorate because I feel the best place to gain the confidence of my electorate is on the doorstep.
In addition to this, a great support team helps enormously, not only during the campaign and on election day, but for the entire four-year term. I have a fantastic support team to thank for the long hours they spent in my electoral office and at the polling booths: Ms Natasha Fyles, my campaign manager and her assistant, Kirby Lawler, worked tirelessly; Mr Andrew Fyles, a very dear friend and long-term member of the Labor party and his wife, Cheryl, for their continued support, encouragement and assistance; Debbie Rowland, my electorate officer, and her family - Ted, Simone and Candice - for always being there when I needed them, and the many people who endorsed me as a candidate, supported me through the campaign and provided me with much needed assistance.
A huge thank you to Barry, Carol, Mona, Andrew, Maureen and Simone for your support with lovely messages of endorsement. Thank you to David, Matthew, Steven, Shaun and Gary for assisting Andrew and for being part of his poster erecting team. I especially thank David Neville who spent many hours of his holidays letterboxing and assisting the team. To all my letterboxing teams, a huge thank you for being available whenever you were called. I thank my election booth set-up teams, scrutineers and election day helpers. To all my sponsors, thank you for your continuous generosity and support. To all my friends, and everyone who sent me their best wishes, cards, faxes and e-mails during the campaign: your kindness and thoughts are much appreciated, and it makes the job even more rewarding. At the risk of leaving someone out, thank you to all those people who helped in any way they could.
Most of all, of course, my family. My eldest son, Alexander, who is usually a rock by my side, was very disappointed that he could not be here to help me due to his commitment at university in Perth. My youngest son, Michael, my father-in-law, Ivor Moss, who came from Perth to help in my campaign and, most of all my wife, Margaret, who supported me, guided me and cared for me prior to, during and post election campaign. She is my wonderful wife and dear friend. Thank you, Margaret.
To everyone who assisted me in any way, your personal support and involvement meant a great deal to me and my family and certainly contributed significantly to our stunning win in Casuarina.
I would particularly like to thank this country and this Territory. I would like to thank Australia, a country which gave me, a first generation migrant with a strong accent, but an even stronger work ethic and loyalty the opportunity to be educated, get jobs, find many friends and a great family. I also thank the Territory that has been our home for the past 13 years and which has provided me with a unique opportunity to become a member of the Territory parliament and a minister of the Crown. Once again, from the bottom of my heart, I thank you all.
I close my adjournment with a small speech about four teachers who are retiring this week from Nakara Primary School.
Sandra Poffley began her working life in the Northern Territory as a teacher at Nightcliff Primary School and Darwin High School. This year, after 28 years at Nakara Primary School, she is retiring. Sandra worked at Nakara, first as an Administrative Officer 2, then all the way up to Administrative Officer 5 - Administration Manager Registrar. Sandra’s plans for the future include painting, travelling, gardening and other activities that she did not have time to do in the past.
Betty Ruch first worked in the Department of Education at Warrego Primary School, Tennant Creek, in the 1970s. Following the family’s move to Darwin, Betty secured an Administrative Officer 2 position at Nakara Primary School, where she has worked until retiring in September this year. Betty and her husband are moving to Queensland where Betty plans to do volunteer work.
Anne Jackson started her teaching career in 1974 at various primary schools around Darwin. She transferred to Nakara Preschool in 1992 where she continued to teach for the next 16 years. This year, Anne retired from teaching and she too plans to move to Queensland and do more travelling.
Bronwyn Reif began her teaching career in the Northern Territory in 1979. In 1989, Bronwyn was appointed to Nakara Primary School as a teacher in the upper primary section. She soon moved into the position of Librarian, which she held for the following 19 years. This week Bronwyn also retires and plans to move interstate.
Sandra, Betty, Anne and Bronwyn: your work at Nakara Primary School is much appreciated. Hundreds of students have been taught by you and they know you and said a big ‘thank you’ for the work you have done for young Territorians at Nakara Primary School.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I draw the attention of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to the death of a New Zealand police officer killed whilst on duty at 1.45 am Thursday, 11 September 2008, whilst conducting covert operations in Mangere. Sergeant Don Wilkinson, 46, of Waimauku, West Auckland, is the 28th New Zealand police officer killed in the line of duty. It is without doubt his family, friends, and colleagues are deeply shocked and mourning his passing.
Sergeant Wilkinson was not alone at the time he was killed. Sergeant Wilkinson and his colleague were chased whilst on foot by offenders in a vehicle over a 75 meter distance before Sergeant Wilkinson was shot in the chest, which resulted in his death. His partner was beaten and shot several times, but continues to improve and remains in hospital in a serious condition.
As a former Northern Territory police officer, I truly understand the danger involved in the line of duty. I understand the deep hurt the loss would be causing. I hope you will join with me passing deep sympathy to his family: mother, Beverly Lawrie, friends and colleagues of the New Zealand Police Force. Members let it be noted.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): I was being a bit cheeky then. I did not deserve the call, but I thank the member for Stuart for his tolerance.
Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that I was suddenly caught by what the member for Drysdale had to say because it reminded me of a police officer I used to work with. In fact, when he came out on the road in Alice Springs I think I was one of his first senior partners. He was a decent bloke, a really good bloke, his name was Glen Huitson. Sadly, he was murdered on duty a few years ago. Every time I hear of a police officer dying on duty, I think of Glen’s family and how they suffered after he died. If there was somebody who fulfilled the truism: only the good die young, it was Glen Huitson. My condolences, and feelings and thoughts go to the family of the police officer who was killed in New Zealand.
I also speak on another issue - the issue of planning. I know the member for Nelson has a reputation for banging on about planning but I appreciate why he does that. This is a much more specific issue. It is not the global issue I was talking about earlier. This very specific issue is previously the absurd location of the so-called secure taxi rank in Mitchell Street, opposite 79 Mitchell Street, where there are several blocks of units.
At the time this taxi rank was announced by the minister for Planning absolutely no one had been consulted. It is my understanding, with the exception of the cinema, no one wanted the taxi rank - including the Taxi Council - in that particular location. From the taxis’ perspective, it is in the wrong lane, facing the wrong way. From the local residents’ perspective, the most deserving voice in this argument, because they have to put up with the noise this taxi rank generates, it has proven every bit as disastrous as people predicted.
Drunks accumulate around this taxi rank in the early hours of the morning and, whilst I support the need to have a taxi rank in Mitchell Street, particularly at four o’clock in the morning, the right place to put it is not in front of residential flats. Whilst the security officers are there, I am advised, there is merely the issue of noise, which upsets many residents and keeps them awake. They know they live in a city, and near pubs, so they expect a certain amount of noise. However, the noise that is generated by drunks at 4 am when they are congregating in large numbers is unpleasant to the ear and unpleasant for the people who have to put up with that noise.
On top of that, when the security guards knock off work the violence, for which Mitchell Street, sadly, has become synonymous, breaks out. Not only do people have to put up with noise, they then have to put up with the violence, the fights and the abuse that is so often associated with Mitchell Street - and the language is horrible. The better location for the taxi rank would have been in front of the Darwin Entertainment Centre. , It would have been on the right side of the road so taxis picking up clients could get out of town easily and quickly by going straight down towards the Daly Street lights. People who live in the residences at 79 Mitchell Street would not have to put up with all of the noise, the fighting, and the urinating and defecating that occurs in front of their units. It is not a tall fence in front of those units.
These units are not occupied by rich people, and they are not the cutting edge of modern architecture. They are fairly basic units and provide some of the cheapest accommodation in Darwin. However, they were there first in this instance, and the decision to put the taxi rank there was predicted to be a disaster, and has turned out to be a disaster for the residents who live there. There are many aged people and pensioners who live in those units and, whilst their lives were disrupted before by the growing city around them, the deliberate decision to put the taxi rank at that location has proven to be a curse which they should not have to bear.
I call upon the minister for Planning to move it where it should be - further down the road in front of DEC - where there is an appropriate slip lane.
I also turn my attention tonight to another issue which has been percolating for some time. The issue of small and medium-sized craft pontoons, and places for these craft to go, which are not in privately run or corporate body run marinas around town. It may come as a surprise to many members in this Chamber that outside of the marinas in this town – Cullen Bay, the Duck Pond, Dinah Beach - there are very few places for small to medium-sized craft to tie up. The problem at the moment - and I am not going to engage myself in a battle between users of a particular marina and the body corporate - is the body corporate at Cullen Bay has made certain decisions about what they are going to charge commercial operators using the marina and the lock.
That decision has meant that many of the commercial operators no longer see it as viable to use the Cullen Bay marina, so they have to look for moorings and places to berth outside the existing marinas, and those places are few and far between. The one at Cullen Bay that is available and that does, as I understand it, belong to the government, is the pontoon at which several of these operators now have to tie up. That pontoon is too small and is in desperate need of maintenance. The information I have received is it almost sank recently; it took on a lot of water and had to be pumped out. Apparently they do not know where the water is getting into it, and so they have to continue to maintain it.
The government provides roads for commercial trucks to drive on; it provides airstrips for commercial aeroplanes to land on, especially in remote communities. It is not absurd to suggest the government should also play a role in providing places for commercial operators to tie up at apart from the privately-owned marinas. The government has a report in its possession, which it received some time ago, and the government has been sitting on that report. That report made several recommendations as to where a small to medium-size public vessel mooring station or marina could be built. Cullen Bay and Stokes Hill Wharf were areas suggested.
The government’s decision to sit on that report was because they do not want to spend money on infrastructure – there is nothing particularly new in that and, in their defence, they have started to realise they do need to do that. However, the government should not be sitting on this report, and they should be finding a place to build a marina so small to medium-size operators, tourist operators, the people who breathe the life and soul into the tourism industry, particularly the fishing industry and the sightseeing industry in Darwin Harbour, can have a place where they can ply their trade with reasonable fees attached.
This is now becoming a matter of some urgency. It is important and urgent that the government, this year, find the money to build a proper pontoon at a location which is sensible for the people who need to use those pontoons. If need be, one suggestion I will make, is you repair and extend the existing pontoon at Cullen Bay. You drive in a few more piles and you extend it so that the operators, who have to compete with Customs and private boats coming into Darwin, can get some place to ply their trade without exorbitant lock fees and having to use places where they are going to be rendered unviable or simply made unwelcome.
The government should not sit on this report. The government should find the money to do this, because this is the basic bread and butter stuff of building the infrastructure of any community. We talk about roads, and everyone acknowledges we have to build roads. We talk about airstrips in remote communities in particular, and there is no problem; the government is happy to build airstrips in remote communities and maintain them. In fact, it is the federal government, through the Defence budget which, I think, maintains the airstrip in Darwin used by commercial aircraft. So it should be for vessels on the sea. If it is good for vehicles of the air and land, it is good for vehicles of the sea to also get infrastructure to support them so they can go about their business in an effective way.
It is not good enough for the government to sit on these reports. It is not good enough that the government merely shrugs its shoulders and says: ‘I am not going to do anything about that’. And it is not good enough for these people who are the heart and soul of the Darwin Harbour tourism industry being left like shags on a rock because the government decides the report it has commissioned means that it has to spend too much money.
Basic infrastructure, the basic nuts and bolts of how our community works is a government responsibility. It is with roads, it is with airports, and so it should be with berthing arrangements. These operators do not expect this to be free, but they certainly expect to have a reasonable tariff applied to what they are offered. That is an argument they want to have because, at the moment, they have almost nowhere to go.
It would be a shame, for want of a desire to expend money on the part of this government that these people go out of business or shift their businesses interstate. I am aware there are a couple of operators who are looking at taking their businesses interstate, albeit reluctantly, because the infrastructure I am calling for here is actually being provided as, a matter of course, in other places.
This is an issue of spending priorities and I submit to the members of this House that these priorities have been abandoned for more fanciful pursuits by this government.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk briefly tonight about the election campaign in my electorate of Stuart and to say thank you to people who supported me during the campaign.
As I said in my Address-in-Reply to the Administrator’s speech last week, this was my first full election. I was elected in 2006 at a by-election, so for me this was a first full election campaign and it was much different. Obviously, with a by-election you enjoy the full support of your party and other members and colleagues, but this time around it was certainly a challenging one, given the redistribution of my electorate of Stuart.
This year the travel I undertook over the 14 days was enormous, stretching from Pine Creek, Barunga, Beswick, Kybrook Farm, across to Timber Creek, Mataranka, down the western side of the Northern Territory, and it meant I spent many days and hours in the car. I would not have been able to do it without the help of a lot of people and it is those people I acknowledge tonight in my adjournment speech.
First, to the Labor Party of which I have been a member for the last 15 years: I thank them for their trust and their support, not only in the by-election, but also re-election this year. Thank you to Paul Henderson, our Chief Minister, and my colleagues, for electing me not only as a Caucus member, but electing me to Cabinet. It is truly an honour that I treasure and I will look back on in my retirement with much pride. I also thank the many supporters in the communities, and the many family members who helped on the day.
To those people who voted for me, without their vote I would not be here now, so thank you to all those people in all those communities in my electorate. Also to those people who may not have voted for me this time, I certainly honour a pledge today that I will work hard for everyone, no matter what their political affiliation or which way they voted.
Particularly to my family, it is a big commitment for all our families. As members of parliament we spend a lot of time away from home. I think it is even harder for bush members, not only during the campaign but as we look forward to the next four years and being in Cabinet. Without the support of my wife, Rebecca, my three boys and the extended family, my brothers, sisters and my father, it would be a lot harder than it is already. I place their names on the public record and thank them for their support and understanding.
There are a few people who helped in the campaign whom I acknowledge: Uncle Polly, Andrew, Eddie, Sean, Jack, Kirk, a lot of people in the Top End of my electorate who did the hard yards, a lot of travel and were there for me at the remote polling booths in the Top End. Thank you very much for your support. Without you it would have been even harder. Through the centre, there are people such as McGill, Strackie, Matthew, Vince, John, Robin Jabinunga, Norbert and Tracy, Kirk, Sean and Joe and also Alison and Barbara, or Malarndirri. Without their support, it would have been impossible.
With all bush campaigns there are many good stories that you reflect on and have a good laugh about. From my electorate of Stuart there is no shortage of stories of the feral animals, particularly feral horses and the donkeys in the area of Kalkarindji. They certainly had affection for many of the corflutes! So a lot of fun and stories there.
I acknowledge the new communities in my electorate. I was able to spend time in the top part of my electorate meeting people and visiting communities that were new to the Stuart. It was great to have the opportunity to catch up with some of the people who are now part of my huge electorate. Everyone was very welcoming and I was delighted with the time people took to show me around and talk to me about what is happening in their communities. I especially enjoyed lunch with members of the Barunga community, a barbecue with the Wugularr residents and the tour of Manyallaluk.
I was most impressed by the Barunga community. It really is a model community. My colleague, the member for Arnhem, was very disappointed to lose them and I can understand why because the general appearance of the community is fantastic. I look forward to spending more time up there and working with the Barunga residents. I especially thank Old Man Jack from Bulla. He spent an afternoon showing me around the community and pointing out with much pride the new works and developments going on. Old Man Jack is a fantastic asset to the Bulla community and, indeed, the region.
I was also lucky to be in Katherine for another successful Katherine Show. This is one of the biggest regional events in Katherine for the year and it was a good time to meet with people from the region. It was my first Katherine show and I was impressed by the way the show was organised and the numbers of people who attended. It is a true regional country show.
The show’s President, Adrian Creighton, and the large group of volunteers all helped to make the 2008 Katherine Show an outstanding success and they are all to be congratulated. I was pleased once again to sponsor the Brahman Cutout Prize and proud to say the winners were: Verity Hall with first prize; the Katherine South After School Care with the second prize; and Joseph Gazey with third prize. I spent a pleasant evening at the Brahman dinner in Katherine which was held at the CDU rural campus. The night was fantastic. There was great food and plenty of great dancing, as well as the Brahman Cattle awards. I congratulate the Bunda Brahman stud run by Reg and Janelle Underwood and their family. They won a host of awards including the Most Successful Exhibitor Award and Junior Champion Heifer with Bunda Nicole.
Moving to Pine Creek, I spent an enjoyable morning catching up with Robert Liddy, Veronica Birrell and Des Grainer to find out what was happening at Kybrook Farm. I was very impressed with Brenda Huddleston’s new business ‘Langawarin’. Brenda produces bush medicine soap, which I think the member for Daly mentioned today, and has been selling them at the Darwin markets. If you are ever down that way, keep an eye out for them.
After 31 years and one month, Pine Creek says goodbye to long time resident, Elaine Gano. Elaine worked for the Pine Creek Council and was a wonderful community supporter and will be sorely missed as she moves to New South Wales to be near her daughters.
Pine Creek also recently celebrated its 25th Moline Golf Classic which has the distinction of being the longest running golf competition in the Northern Territory. It is great to see the Pine Creek community so involved in many fantastic events throughout the year, one of which is the Pine Creek festival which finished with a spectacular concert by the Darwin Symphony Orchestra in the park. It was a free concert put on for the community with the principle sponsors being GBS Gold. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend as it was election night, but I have heard it was a fantastic night and well attended by the Pine Creek and Katherine communities, as well as tourists who were pleasantly surprised to see the DSO outback style. Well over 700 people attended. Well done to all those involved in the organisation of this great event. I look forward to getting to it next year.
In Mataranka, congratulations go to Bradley and Michael Lewis, who have just returned from Norway after attending the International Children’s Conference for the Environment. One thousand children attended from 100 countries to discuss water, biodiversity, energy and consumption.
On a sadder note, I extend my sincere sympathy to the Fishlock family on the tragic loss of Duane, who was killed in a helicopter accident at the Mataranka showgrounds the 23 August 2008. Duane and his wife, Jane, own a number of businesses, including a cattle station called Stuart Downs, 70 km south of Katherine. Duane was also a well-known Territory identity and will be remembered for his rodeo company, Norstock, and his contribution to the sport of rodeo. Duane and Jane had been huge supporters of the Mataranka and Katherine communities and his loss would be felt by both of them. This is a very sad time for the Fishlock family and my thoughts are with them, particular Jane and the children - Cody, Simone, Taylor, Ben and Troy.
The Top End Region Primary School Art Competition was held during the last parliamentary sittings at Parliament House and it was fantastic to see art from around the region on display in the foyer. I congratulate Kalkaringi students: Katrina Ketchup, Shania Smiler, Ricarda Edwards and Patricia Lacy, who won second prize for their art work titled Community Leadership and Kids Like Going to School at Kalkaringi. Also, congratulations to the Katherine School of the Air student, Christopher Summerhill, who won the People’s Choice Award with his painting which represents the eyes of an Aboriginal elder. Well done to Christopher.
There are many more communities and towns that are new to my electorate, and I will be endeavouring to visit them in the near future so I can update this parliament with the fantastic things happening in the Katherine region.
Turning to the central region of my electorate, I congratulate the Anmatjere men who participated in the Certificate II in Rural Operations course in Ti Tree: Freddy Pepperill, Kim Brown, Carl Bevan, Dan Pepperill, Rodney Campbell, Tony Scrutton, Halen Foster, Malcolm Ross, Terry Pananka, Henry Ross, Dwayne Allan, Paul Janima, Michael Allan and Nigel Cook. Well done to all of those men. I normally visit there as I am driving to Ti Tree, and I know all of those men are fantastic role models for the communities around Ti Tree and I look forward to assisting them into jobs in the horticultural industry in the future. Congratulations to all of those men, and keep up the good work.
I also recently attended the Batchelor Institute Graduation in Alice Springs and I congratulate the constituents from my electorate who received certificates:
- Daphne Ryan and Cecelia Tilmouth: Certificate II in Community Service Support Work;
Magda Curtis: Certificate I in Spoken and Written English:
Kenny Ricky: Certificate III in Aboriginal Health Work (Clinical);
Freddy Japanangka Williams: Certificate II in Conservation and Land Management;
Barbara Nabaldjari Charles and Maggie Dixon: Certificate II in Health Support Services - Food Support Services;
Christopher Japandardi Poulson: Certificate IV in Business Management;
Hilda Price from Willowra: Certificate III in Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Cultural Arts;
Melva Brinjen: Certificate IV in Out of School Hours Care;
Corinne Swan, Sharon Tracey Davis and Sally Axten - all from Alice Springs: Certificates IV in Indigenous Education Work;
Camille Maree Berto: Diploma of Teaching (Early Childhood)
Samuel Sailor: Bachelor of Education (Primary) and
Cyril Hampton, my cousin: Batchelor Institute Representative Council’s Strong Voices Award.
Madam Deputy Speaker, well done to all those students. Many of them are mature-age students, so it goes to show you are never too old to learn.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I place on the Parliamentary Record an issue that affects both the residents of Katherine and Nhulunbuy, and medical staff of the Katherine and Gove Hospitals. It has become apparent that the RDH has had some serious issues in relation to staffing. Finally, the minister has acknowledged what we have all known for a long time. It does not take a brain surgeon to figure out there is a staffing crisis amongst nurses at Royal Darwin Hospital.
There has been years of anecdotal evidence to suggest there were serious staffing issues in hospitals all over the Territory. Why it has taken an adverse coronial finding for the minister to sit up and take notice beggars belief. I suggest to the Minister for Health, where there is smoke, there is fire. I cannot understand why the minister has not sought out the source of the smoke that has been billowing from our hospitals for years.
Whilst this issue has been questioned and debated in no small way since the release of the recent Coroner’s report into the death of a patient at RDH, there will come a time when the government will have to stop sitting on its hands and address some of the underlying causes of staff issues; that is attracting and maintaining quality staff, not only nurses but other professional and semi-professional employees in a variety of departments within the Northern Territory government.
RDH is not alone in its plight. Both the Katherine and Gove Hospitals are also experiencing issues with staff. Today, I am not going to harp on issues which are both widely known and previously debated in this House. However, this issue relates in no small way to the overall failings of the NT health system and the government’s complicity in that failure.
The doctors and nurses I know are professional, dedicated, committed and hard-working people. I believe an individual working with people’s health must possess an amazing amount of compassion and devotion to the patients under their care. I take my hat off to them for I do not believe that I possess the patience they do. Often our doctors and nurses work very long hours on the basis of goodwill alone. I frequently said to my former police colleagues that the police force survives on goodwill of the members on the ground, and the organisation would implode if it were not for the dedicated individuals and teams that make a flawed system work. I strongly suspect that our hospital system survives on much the same basis. That is not the issue today; that will be for another time.
In looking at the staffing issues, there is a widely held belief amongst doctors that the Territory is a great training venue. Across the Territory a large proportion of patients, specifically in Gove and Katherine, are Indigenous patients who present with advanced morbidity, major trauma and other life threatening emergencies needing stabilisation before aerial evacuation to Darwin. As a result of their very nature as training venues, the Katherine and Gove Hospitals attract younger, less experienced doctors. These doctors are those dedicated, caring people I alluded to earlier. Our doctors, particularly our junior doctors, need as much support as possible. However, that support is limited. Senior doctors are either rare or unavailable due to their own workload commitments.
There is a system by which junior doctors can receive real time support and advice from their senior and more experienced colleagues. Part of that system involves the junior doctor calling a senior doctor on the phone, usually to the Royal Darwin Hospital. I have been advised that junior doctors in our regional hospitals often have trouble getting a more senior doctor on the phone immediately. Messages are left, but it can often be a matter of hours before the call is returned. When the call is returned, the attitude has been reported as condescending. ‘You do not have the facilities in Katherine, so just send them to Darwin’, is the response that has been received more than once. It is appalling that the only advice a junior doctor can get is: send the patient to Darwin. Not that I blame the doctors.
Like many other professionals, doctors have extremely hefty workloads. Take a doctor rostered on duty in Accident and Emergency in Katherine on a Friday night. Nights like this could produce numerous patients presenting with serious injuries. No wonder the waiting time is measured in hours. A similar situation occurs frequently in all Territory hospitals. So, you would think the Territory government would jump at the chance to have a ready supply of senior doctors available to train the younger ones. But no, not this government.
In 2003, the PROSPECT project was spawned. PROSPECT stands for Providing Remote On Site Skills, Procedural Education and Clinical Training. The project was an initiative of the Royal College of Australasian Surgeons as an extension of other rural initiatives which were in place. The program involves clinical instructors from the ranks of semi-retired health professionals travelling to Katherine and Gove Hospitals. Disciplines represented amongst these professionals included orthopaedic and general surgeons, obstetricians, gynaecologists and anaesthetists. These clinical instructors spent a period of four weeks in the Territory at any one time; two weeks each at Gove and Katherine Hospitals. Over a period of a year we could have senior, experienced, clinical instructors in our regional hospitals for between 40 and 48 weeks. Up until now this has been the case, but in 2008 this initiative has been let slide by the Territory Labor government and its federal cohorts in Canberra.
The PROSPECT project was in receipt of a fixed term funding arrangement. The funding was jointly provided by the federal and Northern Territory governments. Its inception occurred during the term of the previous federal government, a government which was obviously insightful and proactive in providing a cost-effective adjunct to programs such as the Medical Specialist Outreach Assistance Program. Yet, within seven months of federal Labor coming to power, common sense has been thrown out the window.
Some might ask why have this project running if there are other outreach programs? Good question. This project is very cheap, and I mean cheap, to operate, and relies again, on the goodwill of medical personnel. These semi-retired doctors donate their time to come from all over Australia to help their colleagues in regional centres where clinical training is lacking. On top of that, they provide an extra set of hands in busy times. I know their input is considered invaluable.
These visiting doctors provide their services pro bono. The only cost to the government is in the form of airfares and, in some cases, accommodation. The cost of getting these experts to the Northern Territory is not $1m, not even $0.5m, not even $200 000. The total cost per year for this service is a measly $110 000. Yes, $110 000. So, for the sake of a token amount, the NT government has access to senior specialists who are willing to come here for nothing and work alongside our own medical personnel providing high level training and assistance. Why, for goodness sake, did the Territory Labor government not lobby its federal counterparts to keep this program alive? For that matter, why did the NT government not take the reins and fund this program on its own? The party, paid for by the Territory taxpayers at the opening of the Convention Centre, would have paid for a further five years of this program.
At the beginning of this submission to the House, I mentioned there are underlying causes in attracting and maintaining quality staff. It is widely held that salary and conditions attract a person to a job, but it is the intangible that keep them in that job. Not that I am suggesting that money is a driving force for our doctors, for they are truly attracted to their profession by the good they can do in our community. Nor am I suggesting that the NT leads the way in offering more than competitive salaries, but all employers must be cognisant of the need to address the intangible.
The issue of ongoing training and support is one of those intangibles. Doctors need to undertake a wide variety of inservice training throughout their careers. For junior medical staff, what better opportunity to have real time, onsite training than through the PROSPECT program? The lack of training availability in this area contributes greatly to both the attrition rate and the difficulty in attracting staff in the Northern Territory. Staff who do not feel supported will simply not stay. They will move on to greener pastures, and there are greener pastures out there.
Also, those disaffected doctors talk to their interstate colleagues, and you can imagine the tenor of their conversation does not go along the lines of: ‘Come to the Territory, you will get great support and training here’. That goes to the crux of the problem. It is high time the government stops sitting on its hands. It is high time the government got its priorities right.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this situation is simply not acceptable for the people of the Northern Territory, they deserve better.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to a Territorian who has served our community for more than three decades, and there are some links to the Assembly as well.
Mrs Di Trimble has today said farewell to her colleagues at the Power and Water Corporation after a career spanning 36 years. All of us in this House will agree such a long career deserves our recognition and our thanks.
As Mrs Trimble celebrates her retirement tonight with friends, I take this opportunity to recount some of her story for the Parliamentary Record. A fourth generation Territorian, Di is a descendant of the Sue Wah Chin family. Her father, Ray, was the Clerk of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. She joined what was then the Department of the Northern Territory in 1972. Following Cyclone Tracy, Di was amongst the government Corporate Services personnel relocated to Brisbane from 1975 to 1977 for the rebuilding of the department’s recruitment, payroll and registry services during Darwin’s reconstruction stage. In Mrs Trimble’s words ‘some holiday camp’.
From 1978 to 1987 Mrs Trimble worked in personnel and payroll in the Northern Territory Electricity Commission and stayed on when it became the Power and Water Authority in 1987. Mrs Trimble initially continued in her role in personnel and was promoted to Industrial Relations Policy Officer in 1999. In 2002, the Power and Water Authority was transformed into the Power and Water Corporation. Most recently, Mrs Trimble has played a key role as an Employment Services consultant and her knowledge and expertise has proven invaluable in negotiating workplace agreements.
In a brief e-mail to her colleagues marking her retirement, Mrs Trimble farewells Power and Water as a great organisation to work for and facing new challenges every day within the Utilities industry. I am sure Mrs Trimble will be sadly missed by her colleagues up and down the track.
I know members join me in acknowledging Mrs Trimble’s 36 years’ of service to the people of the Northern Territory, and wish her all the best in her well deserved retirement.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016