2009-02-12
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion for leave of absence for the member for Casuarina.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs for the full day today, 12 February 2009, for the member for Casuarina and the pair is the member for Katherine, and it has been signed by both the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 627 petitioners praying that an independent review be commissioned to assess the adequacy of resources, policies, procedures and systems at Royal Darwin Hospital and Acute Care Services.
The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirements of standing orders.
This petition is similar in terms to a petition presented in the October 2008 sittings.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, this morning I report to the House on an important milestone reached yesterday in delivering new and upgraded houses in some of our largest remote communities. A full meeting of the Northern Land Council has agreed to enter into 40 year housing leases with the Northern Territory government in the communities of Galiwinku, Gunbalanya, Maningrida and Wadeye.
This decision has secured more than $159m in housing and infrastructure across the four communities as part of the $672m Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, or SIHIP, a joint venture between the Australian and Territory governments. This housing lease agreement comes as a result of months of consultation and collaboration between traditional owners and the Northern Territory and Australian governments, as well as the Northern Land Council.
I commend the traditional owners for their commitment to improving housing and living conditions in those communities. A lot of work has gone into reaching this decision, a decision which will create new opportunities for the future of Maningrida, Galiwin’ku, Wadeye and Gunbalanya. This decision provides a boost in housing numbers in these communities, in upgrades to many houses as well as improvements in community infrastructure.
Improving housing conditions is an essential part of closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. Through SIHIP, capital works funding of $48.7m has been allocated to Maningrida, $33m for Galiwin’ku, $28.7m for Gunbalanya and $48.7m for Wadeye. Extensive community consultation will now be undertaken to determine the scope of works, and it is expected this funding will see approximately 300 new houses built and approximately 250 existing houses refurbished. A further $15m will be injected into smaller communities in these regions for housing refurbishment.
SIHIP is not just about housing upgrades. The Northern Territory and Australian governments are determined to address the living conditions in remote communities. Decent housing is essential for the protection of children, improving health, education and employment opportunities, and rebuilding positive norms in these communities. This program is also about long-term job and home ownership opportunities. This housing will help reduce overcrowding in the communities and boost the local economy with jobs for local people in housing construction and refurbishment work.
Flow-on effects for providing work for people in these communities is an important step in closing the gap in employment between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The Northern Land Council Chief Executive, Kim Hill, has welcomed the commitment, saying traditional owners had been calling for substantial increases in the number of houses in remote communities, as well as the boost in related infrastructure. The NLC has also welcomed the fact that these housing stocks will be managed and maintained by Territory Housing. This agreement will see further employment opportunities for local Aboriginal people.
In Tennant Creek, where a lease agreement was reached with Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation late last year, 16 local apprentices are already in training to uptake work in these community living areas and small communities in the Barkly and southern shires. This is a fantastic outcome as a result of SIHIP. The latest agreement reached with the NLC will see similar opportunities for locals, as well as Territory contractors and businesses.
In my own electorate, Wadeye will receive $48.7m in upgrades. It is hard to comprehend just what this will mean for the community. This money will not only see substantial housing and infrastructure changes, it will mean major changes in living conditions.
These housing and infrastructure changes will address overcrowding in homes and these changes will flow on to positively impact on the health and wellbeing of locals, and will help re-build positive community outcomes.
The program will create job and training opportunities for the people of Wadeye, and regular maintenance programs will ensure houses remain safe and healthy, and that community members are able to deliver the services long term.
I am sure that all members in this Chamber will appreciate the hard work that has been put into delivering these essential housing and infrastructure programs. Following consultation with the communities, work is expected to start later this year.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. It is good to hear that there is a good working cooperative relationship between land councils and the Australian and NT governments. I urge this relationship to keep forging ahead because it is important that we catch up in regard to quality housing in remote communities, to ensure that there are no more delays in regard to providing accommodation which is really a fundamental right of all Australians and, of course, all Territory people regardless of where they live. I know that your department is working very hard in regard to finding designs that are suitable, applicable or what people actually want in these various communities, whether it be designs appropriate for the climate or just exactly what they want. Basically, why should they not have a design that they actually want to live in, because your house is more than a house, it is your home, and it should be safe.
I thank the minister for his report, and I look forward to hearing more comments in regard to more houses. On the Tiwi Islands they are pushing ahead with the Alliance Group building houses over there, and that is welcome news as well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the report of the minister. I have some concerns. A number of times it was raised in this parliament - and I know the previous Minister for Local Government and Housing, Elliot McAdam, spoke about the concepts of trying to reduce the costs of housing.
If I do the figures of 300 into $159m, I come up with a house at $0.5m. I wonder whether we have got anywhere since the minister spoke about trying to reduce the cost of houses. If we are building houses at $0.5m, we are never going to get there. We need to be looking at some simple, straightforward designs that put a roof over people’s head, which is easily maintainable; otherwise we are never going to achieve the goals we are trying to achieve.
I am concerned, as I recently visited Daly River and was told they are worried about places like Daly River where they have always looked after their houses, that they will be penalised by having less money for housing, simply because other communities have destroyed some of their housing and, now, because it looks bad in the eyes of the public, they are getting the money - in other words, they are being rewarded for not looking after their houses, whereas the communities that have looked after their houses and have used their money well are going to get less funding. I am interested in the minister’s comments there because we need to be very careful that we do not send the wrong message out to those places that are looking after their houses.
Yes, we need decent houses. Yes, we need to be ensuring that Aboriginal people have a roof over their head and are not overcrowded. However, at the same time, we must say to those communities that they must maintain those houses. There must be that responsibility given to people. It does not matter whether there are a lot of people in the house. I know it is sometimes used as an excuse, but I know where 15 or 16 people lived in houses in country Victoria. They were still able to look after the house because they all took responsibility for maintaining their house. I think it is important we build these houses, but at the same time make sure they are maintained.
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. Actually, I will highlight the questions that were raised by the member for Nelson. The costs around building the houses is also for the land servicing, so there are obviously increased costs for building out bush, but certainly, one of the aims has been to drive down those prices of housing construction, servicing those blocks, so that has been part of it.
With respect to Daly River, we would have spoken to Ken Bowen. Ken Bowen is someone who certainly has run a very good housing program there. I have spoken to him about exactly what you talked about. That is why we have Territory Housing now mainstreaming housing out bush so that those issues of damage and misadministration of housing stocks out there will not happen into the future. I take that on board and I will be reporting to the House on a regular basis about the roll-out of this program.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, tourism is a key economic driver for the Territory, worth an estimated $1.6bn to the economy and employing over 17 000 Territorians. The winners of the 2008 Brolga Northern Territory Tourism Awards were announced during an awards gala event held on Saturday, 22 November 2008 at the Darwin Convention Centre. It is certainly an event that I am looking forward with pleasure to attending as the new minister this year. I know my predecessor attended, along with 381 industry members.
The Brolga Tourism Awards are the tourism industry’s highest accolade and it is a night of nights for the Northern Territory industry. It is a time when the industry gets together as one, and businesses and individuals are recognised alongside their industry counterparts. The Awards, now in their 22nd year, recognise and celebrate a commitment to excellence and innovation. They are an important benchmark for best practice in business. I would like to pass on my congratulations to all the winners and the participants, and I would like to inform the House of the 2008 winners of the NT Brolga Tourism Awards.
Major Tourist Attraction: Alice Springs Desert Park; Significant Tourist Attraction: Deckchair Cinema; Significant Festivals and Event: 2008 Tattersall’s Finke Desert Race; Ecotourism: Alice Springs Desert Park; Heritage and Cultural Tourism: Lord’s Kakadu and Arnhemland Safaris; Indigenous Tourism: AAT Kings - Tiwi Tours; Specialised Tourism Services: VIP Touring - APT Group; Visitor Information Services: Tourism Top End; Meetings and Business Tourism: Alice Springs Convention Centre; Major Tour and Transport Operator: Connections – Northern Territory Tours; Significant Tour and Transport Operator: Airborne Solutions; Adventure Tourism: Cannon Charters; Tourism Marketing: Tourism Top End; Tourism Education and Training: SKYCITY Darwin, who also picked up the Tourism, Restaurants and Catering Services; Tourism and Caravan Parks: MacDonnell Range Holiday Park; Backpacker Accommodation: YWCA of Darwin; Unique Accommodation: Great Southern Railway - The Ghan; Standard Accommodation: Gagudju Crocodile Holiday Inn; Deluxe Accommodation: Crowne Plaza Darwin; Luxury Accommodation: SKYCITY Darwin; Outstanding Interpreter Guide: Sean Arnold, Kakadu Animal Tracks Safari; Judges Encouragement Award: Arnhem Land Eco - Cultural Tours; Voyages Ayers Rock Resort, Campground and Wallaroo Eco Tours; Chairman’s Choice Business Excellence Awards: SKYCITY Darwin; and Chairman’s Choice Business Growth Awards: Savannah Guides.
I would also like to make special mention of the winner of the Young Achiever Award: Ms Mardi Belle of Crown Plaza Darwin, and the Minister for Tourism’s Special Recognition Award: Foxy Robinson, who does such a great job.
The Tourism Minister’s Perpetual Trophy for outstanding contribution was award to Mr George Dunne PSM. He has been involved with the tourism industry for over 50 years. George has invested an incredible amount of his personal time and commitment to the Territory tourism industry. I am sure members join me in congratulating George.
Members: Hear, hear!
Tourism NT’s solid efforts in encouraging and supporting industry participation has been rewarded with a 20% increase in entries from 2007. The Brolga Awards are judged by a panel of 18 judges under the able stewardship of Bob Woodward, who has had a long-term involvement with this; and all the judges do this voluntarily.
Bob Woodward openly praised the industry entrants this year and said this year’s submissions were outstanding. It is also a verification of Tourism NT’s free workshops and mentoring which have been very supportive in successfully guiding the industry through what is a lengthy submission process. These positive changes to the process have encouraged more applicants to get involved in entering the awards.
Tourism NT is represented on the national coordinators panel and there are measures in place to move to an online awards program in 2010 with stronger links with the National Tourism Accreditation Program.
The winners of the business category will now go on to compete as finalists in the Qantas Australian Tourism Awards which will be held on Friday, 27 February 2009 at the Palladium at Crown in Melbourne. I am sure all members of the House wish those Territorian businesses that are going forward to those awards well. I am sure they will equip themselves very well.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker. I welcome the new minister’s comments on our tourism operators in the Territory. I was at the Brolga Awards – it was a fantastic night. They are a fantastic group of people in our tourism industry in the Northern Territory, and hats off to them. They do great a job and richly deserve all the praise that they received.
It is very unfortunate, of course, that all their hard work is not being more assisted by government, particularly in the regional areas, places like Tennant Creek, Katherine, and Pine Creek have been all but ignored from a tourism perspective. It is absolutely appalling the disregard this government has for those regional areas.
One thing they could do for the tourism industry is clean up the streets. Fix the law and order problems that people in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Darwin - right across the Territory - are experiencing. That would be a good place to start to help people in the tourism industry. Fix the roads. Our roads are continually degenerating, and our government does not do anything about it at all.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr TOLLNER: The government lacks imagination when it comes to tourism, they do not have the wit or the courage to address the problems. I urge you to get on board, fix the problems, and help out our hard-working tourism operators. They do a great job. The Brolga Awards were a classic example of how fantastic the people are in our tourism industry. They need support of government, and this government has turned its back on tourism and it is a dreadful shame.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also congratulate those who won awards at the Brolga Awards night. But I also have concerns about the tourism industry in the Northern Territory.
I would like to know whether the government has some sort of strategy for the downturn in the economy. Will there be less people wanting to spend their time in the Territory, simply because they do not want to spend money? What is the strategy? It concerns me that, over the last five or six years, on average, most of our parks have less people visiting them. There a few that have increases, but most parks, when you look at the figures, have a downward trend. I am interested to know whether the government has a strategy for increasing the number of people visiting those parks.
One of the things that concern me is: I went to Katherine Gorge last week and did one of the walking tours. If you look at the website, most walking trails in the Territory are closed because of the weather conditions. You cannot walk in the Litchfield National Park at the present time. Most roads are closed and I understand there are good reasons for some roads being closed, but in the Wet Season, which I believe is the most beautiful season and the best time to be out there, especially in the Top End, we are very restricted in the use of our parks.
I believe the government needs to look at that and see whether we can open up parks, especially for walking. I am not expecting our roads to be dug up in the Wet Season by four-wheel drives when the roads are boggy, but surely we can access those parks better than we are at the present time. I would like people, especially southerners, to enjoy our wonderful parks. There are some absolutely terrific places. The Davenport Ranges has now been handed back to the traditional owners as part of the joint management plan and it has been expanded. That is a fantastic park. But when you look at the visitor numbers, they are very small.
I believe we have great opportunities. I would really like to know if the government has a strategy in these hard economic times to make sure the tourism industry survives and will move ahead when better times come.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I certainly welcome the member for Nelson’s constructive comments. The government is certainly, and I as a new minister, looking at ways of redirecting existing resources within Tourist NT to adapt to the worldwide changes, and looking at what other measures government needs to take to support the tourism Industry.
Parks are part of it and I hope to make some announcements in the very near future about that. You have raised a very good point.
As for the member for Fong Lim, his incredible negativity in talking the Territory down, but what else can the opposition do?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I can assure the House that this government is very focused on building tourism in our regions, such as Tennant Creek and Katherine and the assertion that nothing has been done is completely wrong. We need to do more and, as the new minister, I am very focused on that. I will be visiting those regional areas very soon.
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, the Heineken Hottest 7s is a Territory success story and, since 1989, when it was known as the Territory 7s, has grown in stature year after year and is today one of the premier Rugby 7 events on the world stage.
The Territory government is committed to this fantastic event, the Heineken Hottest 7s. We have elevated the tournament to major event status and we have allocated $300 000 over the next three years to ensure its ongoing growth. No other Rugby 7s competition in the southern hemisphere offers $60 000 in prize money, making this Darwin event a significant benchmark, not only for the Top End, but for the game of rugby nationwide.
Territory businesses have also supported this event and its 20-year history. This year we saw Foxy Robinson from the Airport Value Inn come on board as a major sponsor; other sponsors include Perkins, Southern Cross Television, OneSteel, SKYCITY and Austar.
We all know how important sponsorship is to our sporting organisations, especially for an event of this calibre, so I would like to extend our thanks to all the sponsors and supporters of the Hottest 7s. The Friends of Rugby, led by Bruce Kennon and Brock Simon also play an important part in promoting the sport in the Territory. These volunteers, with their commitment and dedication to the game, have been instrumental in helping lift the profile and popularity of rugby in the Territory.
The Heineken Hottest 7s included teams from Fiji, Samoa, Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Guam and Japan. This really is an international event and is now on the rugby calendar worldwide. All the players and all the teams provided great sporting entertainment with their extraordinary skills. A highlight was the return of the legend, Gary Ella. Gary, the youngest of the Ella brothers to wear the green and gold guernsey, returned to head the Galloping Greens after 15 years away from the game. He and his brothers, Glen and Nathan, were a formidable team during the weekend. The Darwin Mosquitoes came close to causing an upset when they were beating both Sydney clubs, Randwick and Gordon, close to full time. Unfortunately, some bursting side steps and teamwork by both clubs saw the Mossies defeated.
There were heart-stopping moments for the fans on this first day of play, but defending champions, the South Sea Drifters, and the second seeds, Digicel Samoa Barbarians, set the pace early and were set for the final showdown. It was a thrilling final, with the Digicel Samoa Barbarians winning the Hottest 7s with a sensational last minute try by Timoteo Loseu who ran the length of the field to touchdown under the post and secure the win for the Samoans and the $20 000 prize money. Congratulations to the Samoan captain, Ofisa Treviranus, who was named Player of the Tournament and also scored a try in the final.
In the Women’s Final, the Zonnators posted five unanswered tries to win the final, and the winner’s cheque of $6000.
The Australian Sevens coach, Michael O’Connor, was here to assess the talent on display in preparation for the next round of the IRB 7s World Series and the IRB World Cup 7s to be staged in Dubai in March this year.
It is events such as this that showcases our sporting talent and I am pleased to report that our own Bo de la Cruz was selected in the women’s squad and will be representing Australia in Dubai in March. Congratulations to Bo.
From all accounts, it was a sensational weekend and congratulations must go to all those who were involved, especially Tim Heath, the CEO of the NT Rugby, and Vince Kelly the President. This international event really does put rugby and Darwin on the sporting map, and I am confident that the 2010 Hottest 7s will be even bigger and better.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Sport and Recreation for his comments. In fact, the Rugby Hottest 7s is a fantastic event; I saw them and they were great.
The Indigenous All-Stars was a fantastic event on Saturday night - great result - they represent our Territory people. The Imparja Cup in Alice Springs is another fantastic event going on at the time. These are great examples of sporting prowess in the Northern Territory - great achievements.
However, I am extremely disappointed that when things were not so nice, not so easy, not as pleasant as this, my colleague, the Sports minister, was not to be found.
When Gymnastics Northern Territory needed assistance from the Sports minister, he was not to be found, like many of the government ministers on that side of the Chamber - when it is difficult, when it is not a great and glossy story, you are not to be found. It is important to do your job. As a minister, you are responsible for all your portfolio requirements. In this case, it does not matter which sport - whether you are riding a horse, driving a car, jumping, somersaulting, or kicking a football - you need to be there for your portfolio.
Madam Speaker, I personally thank both groups involved in the dispute that I am talking about. They know of it. The mediation we were able to do with me and my office between those groups delivered a fantastic outcome for over 500 children. These people understand the importance of events being supported, and I thank them for coming to the table, talking to me, and coming to a good resolution. I wish we had the support we needed; I wish they had the support they needed. I am thankful that they were able to recognise I was willing to listen for them.
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, it is really disappointing that the member for Drysdale has taken this opportunity to play politics with such a sensitive issue …
Members interjecting.
Mr HAMPTON: Let us not take away the shine from the Spring Festival …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: The member for Drysdale well knows that my office has been working on this very closely with both groups. He also knows that Gymnastics Australia has taken the lead role in this. I do not know if the member for Drysdale has spoken to Gymnastics Australia, but I certainly have. I know that Jane Allen is in town this weekend for their AGM, and she is very appreciative that I have not stepped in and been involved in this, because it is not about politics.
The Territory government well and truly knows that it is about the young athletes. It is on public record. Louise Bennett, from Darwin Gymnastics, has also said that it is about mediation, it is about Gymnastics getting involved; it is not about me stepping in as minister …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill I introduce today will implement another important measure under the government’s strategy of Building Safer Communities.
During 2008, the government introduced a range of initiatives aimed at increasing the safety of Territory road users. These included: introduction of drug-driving penalties; public transport passenger safety legislation; alcohol ignition lock legislation; and greater emphasis on road safety education in remote areas. However, it is apparent with our rising road toll that people are not getting the message, and our young people are particularly at risk. The incidence of antisocial driving, or hooning as it is commonly known, has been recognised as a significant concern for all Australian state and territory governments.
The recent review undertaken clearly identified the demographic most likely to be involved in hoon driving behaviour are young males between 17 and 26 years of age.
In this House, we have also heard calls to increase the penalties for those who carry out this behaviour. Recent figures from police indicate that, between the commencement of the anti-hooning legislation in November 2004 and the end of December 2008, 391 infringement notices have been issued and three vehicles have been impounded for 48 hours. Of these, approximately 27% of all persons apprehended for hooning offences were aged between 16 and 20 years, and approximately 35% of people apprehended were 21 to 25-years-old.
We have heeded these calls and now introduce legislation that delivers harsher penalties to those people who continue to hoon and present a danger to others on the road. This bill provides additional powers to police, including:
Providing the police with the ability to immediately impound a vehicle for 48 hours without having to apply for a court order will mean that offenders will pay for the consequences of their actions at the time they commit the offence. While the period is not lengthy, it does cause inconvenience and, in addition to being deprived of their vehicle, the offender will also have to meet the costs associated with the impounding. The additional court-imposed penalties of between three and six months impoundment for a second offence, and forfeiture for a third offence within two years, also strengthens the regime for dealing with these types of offences.
Transition provisions have been included to make it clear that prescribed hooning offences committed before the legislation comes into force will be taken into account when determining whether an offence committed after the legislation commences is a second or subsequent offence.
This bill delivers on this government’s commitment to increase the penalties for hoon driving behaviour. It ensures that a person who repeatedly abuses their driving privileges pays the price. It targets young people, currently over-represented in our road toll, and makes the roads safer for us all.
I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 27 November 2008.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill. I will indicate at this point that my colleague, the member for Drysdale, will seek clarification of some provisions of the bill. I believe he will outline his concerns in his reply and then go to the committee stage. Notwithstanding particular concerns in relation to some provisions, I repeat that the opposition supports this bill.
It has been a long time coming and congratulations to everyone involved, in particular to Jane Lloyd. Jane is well-known to many people in this Chamber and is rightly considered, I believe, an expert in this area. She is the Chair of the Chief Minister’s Indigenous and Family Violence Advisory Committee and has been active, interested and committed to Indigenous justice issues for women in remote communities probably for the better part of 20 years.
The intention of the bill is to provide the legislative and administrative framework to enable reciprocal recognition of Territory laws in prescribed areas of South Australia and Western Australia. The introduction of this bill is the second bill in a tri-state model to allow police, courts, and corrections to operate effectively and efficiently in a multi-jurisdictional environment. The need for this initiative was identified to deal with the problems justice agencies faced when dealing with law and order in the NPY lands, which span approximately 450 000 km over the junction of the Territory, South Australian and Western Australian borders and contain almost 10 000 people, almost all of whom are Indigenous and highly transient throughout the tri-state region.
This legislation is modelled on the Western Australian legislation which was passed in Western Australia in March last year. Somewhat worryingly, South Australia has not yet developed a bill to introduce corresponding legislation. It was a three-way deal; the South Australians are dragging the chain. We have received information from the shadow South Australian Attorney-General who advises that they are not aware of any legislation before the House.
Before I make further remarks, I encourage the new minister to contact the government of South Australia and say: ‘We have two out of three. What on earth are you doing?’ They really need to get on with it. I will leave that with the minister.
Before any of the cross-border justice legislation can be enacted, amendments to the Commonwealth Service and Execution of Process Act are needed to give magistrates of all three jurisdictions the ability to deal with the offenders on interstate matters; that is my understanding of the bill. It would be good if efforts could be made to hurry along to the extent the Commonwealth government is able.
The example given by the then Western Australian Attorney-General, Jim McGinty, during the introduction of the bill in Western Australia shows how the bill works and neatly explains it, so I will quote as follows:
That is how it is going to work, and I think Jim McGinty outlined it very succinctly.
It is worth noting that the bill is limited to matters that can be dealt with in magistrates courts only. There are good reasons for that. The sentence will travel with the offender so that a person convicted of a crime under Territory law by a South Australian magistrate will serve their sentence in South Australia as if he or she were in the Territory. Interestingly, and fortunately, another area which will be affected is the payment of fines; so an offender’s property in Western Australia, for instance, can be accessed as payment of a fine in the Territory.
It is quite creative legislation and does what governments anywhere should do, and that is respond to a well-known difficulty which has become increasingly difficult over the years. Whilst it has application to a range of crimes in particular, there can be no doubt that there has been a focus by policy makers and decision makers to try to get this right so that it targets perpetrators of violence, particularly against women. To that extent, in particular, it is worthy of support.
It has been well known for some years that the borders that exist have enabled wrongdoers, as the former minister said in his second reading speech in November, to evade police and the justice system as justice services operate individually in each region. He went on to say, quote: ‘The effect of the cross-border justice scheme is to relax the rigidity with which state and territory borders are enforced and therefore to move legal restrictions imposed by the borders under the cross-border scheme’.
Fantastic! That is exactly what is required given the difficulties in these regions that, as I said, have been acknowledged for some years. By a joint effort by some good people, we have now seen a solution, or at least an intended solution, a proposed solution, to some of these difficulties, which is why we need the South Australians to hurry up and why the Commonwealth needs to do its bit as well.
The minister said that there have been more than 200 officials involved with this project since its commencement, and they are to be congratulated for their efforts - indeed they are. In my view, these have been pretty clever people to deal with individuals in other agencies in other jurisdictions, and come up with the sort of legislation we have. It is to be admired in terms of how we might address future problems when dealing with other jurisdictions, and it is also to be admired, notably because of the tenacity of some people over a period of years. It will, ultimately, achieve a good result.
Having said that, I am yet to find the perfect legislation; I look forward to the day when I see perfect legislation. There are some procedural aspects about which the member for Drysdale will ask the new minister.
However, stepping back from this, I am very supportive of this bill. I hope it achieves what it is intended to achieve. I have no doubt that in the event it does not achieve what it is intended to achieve, or if improvements need to be made along the way, then they will be made. I am hopeful that those involved will do so quickly and efficiently.
Madam Speaker, I conclude by again saying that the opposition supports the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the words the member for Araluen said in her quote about a policeman in one jurisdiction coming from a different jurisdiction, and then being tried by a magistrate in another jurisdiction - that sums up the complexities of this legislation but, regardless of that, the legislation is good.
As said in our briefing – and I thank the minister for the briefing - this was about helping stem the level of abuse of children and women in the Central, Southern and Western Desert regions of Australia by increasing the amount of resources that could be used in that area, and basically saying that those state and territory boundaries do not exist in relation to what we are talking about today.
From a practical point of view, the one thing that will be essential with this is education about where this area is and what the ramifications will be, not only people who live in the area, but for people passing through the area. I will give you an example. The Stuart Highway is in this area and, if I am doing my 130 km/h, thankfully, in the Northern Territory and I am pulled up by the South Australian police, I know what I am going to say to him, unless I know he is pulling me up because I am doing more than 130 km/h. People need to be told that they are moving through an area which allows police from the three areas to have jurisdiction over their movements in that area. It is just a practical thing. I know if I was pulled up by the South Australian police in the Northern Territory for going a little faster than the speed limit, I would say: ‘It is not your business’. That is one area we need to look at.
There are some other issues that also need to be developed as this legislation comes into action; that is, whether we need a new prison site. Already, Alice Springs prison is well and truly overcrowded and, in keeping with one of the recommendations of the Deaths in Custody report which stated that people should be incarcerated close to where their family live, there is an opportunity to look at a prison farm. I imagine a there will be some serious offenders but there may be offenders who do not need to go into the big concrete house. There is an opportunity for either work camps or a prison farm in this area which could be a multi-jurisdictional correctional centre as well. That is something that could feed from this particular legislation.
In the long term, it makes you wonder whether we need to look at this area as a special area where we can get as much uniformity in our laws as possible. I am not always in agreement with that, otherwise I would be agreeing that we travel up the highway at 110 km/h. However, where it is practical, there may be room for discussion to reduce the complications of a police officer in one jurisdiction having to know the laws of two other jurisdictions. If we can move towards some uniformity in this area, in relation to what the laws are and what the penalties are, that may help in the administration of this particular change to carrying out justice in this area.
I know those things will not happen overnight. I just put them up as possible issues that should be debated, because this certainly is pioneering legislation. It has ramifications in other parts of the Territory, especially around the Kununurra/Northern Territory area; the Kununurra/Timber Creek area; Central Australia, in areas like the Barky; and Camooweal into the Northern Territory, because people move to and from those areas. I went to Alpurrurulam, and one of my arguments about whether it should have its own shire is that it is nowhere near Tennant Creek; it is closer to Mt Isa. From the point of view of who the people in that area mix with, it is probably more the people in Mt Isa than the people in the central part of the Territory.
I suppose this is the first cab off the rank and we need to give it time to settle in and look at the issues it raises. There are certainly possibilities that in areas where people move to and fro without having much to do with an artificial border, that this type of legislation could be applied in those areas.
I raised in another briefing whether the Ombudsman should have a role in this legislation. We have dealt with everyone else, but should the Ombudsmans – yes, that is correct, because they are not necessarily men as the Opposition Leader told us yesterday, it is a Swedish word – the Ombudsmans, and should they have a role in this legislation as well? What will happen if someone has a complaint about a police officer, for instance? Who will listen to that complaint? Will the Ombudsman’s powers apply in a cross-jurisdictional format we are putting forward today? It may, but I put that question to the minister.
I welcome the legislation. It has obviously taken a lot of work to put together. Western Australia has taken the lead role because they have already introduced the legislation. South Australia is due to come in February this year, and we are putting it forward to parliament right now. I would hope that after 12 months, or 12 months after South Australia has brought its own legislation in, that we get a fairly thorough report on how it is actually working in practice. As the member for Araluen said, no legislation is perfect, and one of the things it is always good for parliament to do is to review the legislation, see if it is working well and, if it needs adjustments, let us adjust it.
I welcome the legislation. I congratulate the government on bringing it forward into parliament. I look forward to seeing how it works and getting feedback from anyone in that area as to what effects or ramifications this legislation has. Hopefully, it will achieve a reduction in the level of abuse of children and women in the central, southern and western regions of Australia. If it does not do that then the whole thing is pointless, because this is the very reason we have put it there.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support the Cross-Border Justice Bill. I take this opportunity to thank the NPY communities, the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands, and Jane Lloyd and Vicki Gillick and everyone who has worked to make sure that something like this has come in front of government so that there are cross-border similarities in police taking action against perpetrators fleeing from one state to another.
The boundaries come under a non-Indigenous area which says this is Western Australia, this is South Australia, whereas there are no boundaries from an Indigenous point of view. If they commit a crime in the Northern Territory, in less than 24 hours they will be in Western Australia at places like Kiwirrkurra, Kalgoorlie or Laverton, or in South Australia, so there is this cross-border fleeing.
I take this opportunity to thank the many NPY women from the lands, and from Central Australia, and the legal backing that they had from people like Jane Lloyd and Vicki Gillick, and also the people who have put this bill together, because this bill has come from the push of people on the ground who saw these problems occurring.
Like the members for Nelson and Araluen said, it is about perpetrators fleeing and leaving their victims to suffer. The justice system takes years to find some of these people. Sometimes they do not find them. There may be warrants out for them in the Northern Territory, but they will continue to live in South Australia or Western Australia. There is a cross-border police station at Kintore, in my electorate of Macdonnell. The member for Drysdale has been a police officer stationed at that cross-border station. He knows very well that people from Kintore who perpetrate a crime could, within hours, be in Kiwirrkurra or somewhere else, and that then allows the Western Australian police or the Northern Territory police to go across the border to get those people back and charge them under those laws.
It is has really alleviated the pressure that these women and people have been under in remote Aboriginal communities; to know, if someone flees across border, they will be brought to trial, they will be brought to justice. I can tell you the pressure on these women - mothers, grandmothers and wives - has been alleviated and that is why I support this bill. I know that amongst my people in Central Australia and through the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara lands in Western Australia and South Australia this is really welcome.
It also gets cross-border governments working together. It results in the saving and sharing of resources; it is sharing of information and knowledge. It is really important to make sure that we work across borders, and this gives us many opportunities to see that we can work across borders in other areas as well. There are no boundaries in Aboriginal culture and we will always go into Western Australia and into South Australia. We are a mobile group of people you cannot keep tied down by any kind of law or legislation. Have a look at Indigenous culture during November, December, and January. You can see it through ceremonies. Our ceremonies have no boundaries. We go into Western Australia, to the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara lands, and into South Australia. We are just like gypsies. We like to travel across into other jurisdictions.
This bill is important because it shows that we understand, and that we have grown as a nation, we have matured as governments – across borders – and realise that we can share information, we can share resources and we know the problems do not just stay in the Northern Territory, or South Australia or Western Australia, that they do cross the boundaries, and there are many Indigenous communities in those areas.
The drug users, or the people who are carrying drugs - most of the drugs in the Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory come from South Australia - but because we have that interaction with the South Australian police, people will be caught, and they do get caught.
There was an incident where, without naming the community, a person had gone into South Australia, bought the drugs, was coming back into the Northern Territory and was apprehended in the Northern Territory. This has reduced the amount of drugs going into our communities. Drugs really make our children sick and lazy. They do not have the opportunities to go out and look for jobs, and they just sit in front of the television or sleep all day because they are on ganja all the time.
It is so good to see. Aboriginal people are now confident that there is something in place which is working and they can ring up the cross-border stations from the Northern Territory or South Australia, or from any station, and say: ’Look, my son has just committed a crime in South Australia, but we believe from a telephone call that he is in WA’. You can give that kind of information cross-border, and it really has built the confidence of the women on the NPY lands and Central Australia knowing that just around the corner at Kintore we have a cross-border station.
When the member for Drysdale rises, he will tell you the confidence the station at Kintore has built with the women of Kintore. They are now so confident they can say to anyone who perpetrates a crime at Kintore and goes across: ‘It is okay, you can go there, but Tjilpi will go and get you tomorrow’. They are really happy. It is good that they have still Aboriginal police officers based at these tri-state stations, because it is the ability to communicate that is so important in these major Aboriginal communities. They take their ACPOs along. Most of the work with the translation and interpreting is done by the Aboriginal police officer, which brings us together as a community.
We will always have the Indigenous and non-Indigenous aspects, I guess, of what happens and how things are done, but I believe we have grown as people and matured as governments, across borders, to understand that people do move beyond states and there are no boundaries. I can tell you, as an Indigenous woman, there are no boundaries for Indigenous people to go across to other places and make a nuisance of themselves; and it is good that the justice system brings them to justice. It also heals the women in the communities to know that there is something there that protects them. Women have become quieter and it is like a huge pressure has been taken off them, knowing that something like this exists and that people will get caught.
As the member for Nelson said, we still need to keep an eye on it, and make sure that we still build on it. It is something really good that we need to keep building on.
I wanted to give you the community aspect, minister, of how good it is and why I support this bill. I have seen it work from the very beginning, and I think it is absolutely wonderful.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I support the bill as well. This is an extremely important bill. It will go a very long way to making the work of our police forces in South Australia, Northern Territory, Western Australia and, hopefully, one day in Queensland, much easier. It will go a long way to ensuring that we have better family support of victims who live in these regions so that when someone does commit an offence in one of those areas they simply cannot skip the border and, essentially, get away with a crime.
Crimes should be met with a response that is rapid, where possible, and there is a consequence so that, hopefully, we can break that circle. That is the importance of the legislation we have before us. Instead of the perpetrator hiding for many years or months, believing they may have got away with it, they have someone on their tail and they know they cannot rest because their only real option is to hand themselves in.
The member for Macdonnell is very right in saying that, at the end of the day, it does not matter where the border line is. I saw a map on my computer. It has some lines on it. There are no lines in the desert. There might be a white pole, but there are no lines there. And there are people from the region, and other areas within the Northern Territory and the other states, who are not concerned about those lines.
We city folk tend to worry about going to Palmerston - it is below the Berrimah Line; it is too far to go. It is not too far in Central Australia, and Arnhem Land and other areas, to go 500 km for a sports carnival; that is a weekend trip. We will not even bother packing any food for that type of distance. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that they are going to cross the border. It is not unreasonable to think they are going to go from Alice Springs across the border into Western Australia - go to Kiwirrkurra, Newman, Well 33, or Marble Bar - that is just part of life. This legislation is vital in allowing the police to deal with these situations because, unfortunately, that trip may not always be harmonious. You may meet your family on the way and there may be a domestic at Mt Liebig, at Kintore, or Papunya. However, they know straightaway, if they leave, the tyranny of distance will normally be enough to prevent the police getting to them before they cross the border. Once they have crossed that border, the police cannot pursue them for an offence they have committed in the Northern Territory.
As a special constable with powers under Western Australian policing laws, they may be able to pursue them on fresh offences within Western Australia; not the offences they committed five minutes ago when they were in the Northern Territory. They know that very well, and they will go and stay there, or find another way home so that they can avoid the police. The people on the ground know about those stories that happened in that other town.
It is not just about domestics; it is about criminal damage, where someone has a jealous streak and they have decided to smash someone’s car up. The number of times we have had situations where, before the police in a community even get the information, the person has already left. You can see the dust trail 20 km away, and you know that mob have gone and they are heading for the border. In Kintore and Kulgera, for instance, you are only a matter of kilometres from the border –34 km roughly from the border for Kintore, and about 17 km for Kulgera. It is not far to go, and there is always going to be that occasion when they go.
Therefore, it is very important we continue with this. This is a great step for our law enforcement agencies. However, I do have some concerns. They are not an attack in any form, they are advising that I have noticed something and I would like to have these things clarified, because they pose significant problems. They add significant burden and onus upon the officers dealing with these laws and legislation.
One of them will be when taking a person into custody. It is very powerful legislation anywhere in the world when you are given the power to detain, restrain and take away the liberty of another person. It is never taken lightly by any police officer. With that, there are requirements; there are burdens on that person to look after the person taken into custody.
When we talk of persons taken into custody, and holding that person in a prison cell, gaol or a court house, it does not allow us to come to the closest, safest, nearest approved holding facility. In extremely remote places in Central Australia, such as Kintore, that may mean you have gone 40 km into Western Australia, arrested that person for an offence committed at Kintore, but to hold that person in custody you must travel 700 km through some of the worst roads in Australia to take that person to a place of suitable custody, another cell; which will be at Warakurna; or you need to arrange for that person to be flown out, which will at least mean you must go to Kiwirrkurra, so you must drive another 140 km-odd again.
These roads are not pretty; this is not driving down the back road of Humpty Doo. These roads are very dangerous and must be treated with great respect. You must go to Kiwirrkurra to the nearest airport, and then the argument will be that someone must front the bill for about a $24 000 charter flight, plus the officers required to man that private charter to fly the person in custody to Kalgoorlie, which is the closest place you are going to get your charter from. These are important issues and there may be an answer, but I do not see it there.
At least, there should be an arrangement where the person can be taken to the safest and closest approved holding facility; then we would have to find a way of wording the ‘appropriate holding facility’ so that, yes, it is in terms of extradition because you are going back across the border, but you are only travelling 40 km. It is in the safest and best interests of all people involved that they go back to that facility. Then we continue with the appropriate legal process. We are not saying we have every part of the answer, but it is a concern, and we need to look at it.
There is another issue which we should talk about, and that is returning a person not charged to the place of arrest or other place. Again, this puts the burden initially upon the police officers to return that person to the place where they were arrested or, in fact, a place of that person’s liking. We will talk further about that, but the implications could be that the person demands to go hundreds of kilometres to another township where they will have food, communication with other people and everything where they are. It is an excessive burden, I believe, to take that person maybe several hundred kilometres because that is where they prefer to go. If we were to word that so it is slightly less onerous upon the police of any state, it may be of great benefit and it may avoid people complaining about the actions that police officers failed to take, because there is an implication that the burden is upon them.
The next point is the preliminary alcohol or drug test that cannot be conducted in another participating jurisdiction. The way I read it, this refers directly to the breath test, a hand-held device used by the Northern Territory police, where it is implied, in my reading, that the breath test, which is a preliminary determining of a person’s intoxication or likelihood of having in excess of the legal limit of alcohol in their blood, and giving us the power to then request that person to submit a breath analysis - is actually not allowed.
I have a concern that we may have to carry extra equipment for breath analysis, normally ranging up to $2000 per item, because in another state the equipment may be somewhat different to what we use. It concerns me that that could be the case. In the Northern Territory we predominantly use two: the preliminary test normally being conducted with the breath test, which is a hand-held device, and then we complete this with the breath analysis, using another certified instrument; and that is what we take to court. This is all prior to even considering blood samples or otherwise. However, with drink-driving it appears most areas are covered but for some reason there is Part 44 which particularly says we cannot use our preliminary detection device.
The last issue refers again to a person taken into custody. It is much the same as Part 34, but this time it talks particularly from the view of either a Western Australian or a South Australian police officer, and I believe it needs some further consideration. It is going to be somewhat hard to come up with the right answer, but I am sure that if we grab someone 40 km away from a major community like Kintore, and drive them 600 km, 400 km, or 200 km, and something happens to that person, I could see that the Coroner would not be overly happy. As a former police officer, I would not be happy to be put in a position where something may happen that I would have to, at worst case, live with for the rest of my life; particularly knowing that greater safety was perhaps only 40 km away.
Madam Speaker, we can look at those things further in committee and I look forward to the minister’s responses. I commend the bill, it is a great step forward, and it is a great tool.
I disagree with the member for Nelson’s first comments. if you are breaking the law in the Northern Territory and any form of law enforcement agent comes up behind you, you should be worried because you should not break the law. I hope the member for Nelson considers that next time he chooses to break the law.
Mr HAMPTON (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, we would all agree that this is a complex and unusual piece of legislation. At its heart it aims to improve the delivery of law and justice services to the cross-border regions of Central Australia by removing various legal obstacles caused by state and territory borders.
As the Minister for Central Australia, I believe it is essential we remind ourselves of how this came about. I thank the member for Macdonnell for her detailed description of how it did come about.
I will reinforce that, six years ago, a group of Aboriginal women in Central Australia stood up and said that enough was enough. They wanted an end to the violence and criminal behaviour that was blighting their lives and the lives of the people of the NPY lands. When they sought help from government, they found themselves caught up in jurisdictional red tape, a legacy of Australia’s colonial history. The NPY lands span three jurisdictions - the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. They are chopped in three by lines on a map drawn by 19th century colonial officials.
As my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, is fully aware, many of our traditional families have their own system of boundaries and maps according to dreaming tracks. The result is three separate jurisdictions administrating three separate systems of justice in the cross-border regions of Central Australia. The consequences are that offenders in this remote part of Australia have been able to use the state and territory borders to elude police or avoid court appearances. This bill is part of the process that will provide the three jurisdictions with additional capacity as they seek to break the cycle of domestic violence, child abuse, substance abuse, and repeat offending.
My electorate of Stuart shares a 900 km border with Western Australia. However, while this bill affects only a handful of my constituents in the far south of my electorate, such as Nyirripi and Yuendumu, there are certainly common issues in the northern part of my electorate, specifically around Kalkarindji, Timber Creek and Amanbidji. Many of my constituents have not only traditional links but also service delivery links with places like Balgo, Timber Creek and Halls Creek. It is an area that poses particular challenges for law enforcement, and for other service providers.
I am sure our police will welcome the additional authority to exercise their powers in all three jurisdictions, particularly the NT police officers stationed at Warakurna in Western Australia.
I have visited the Kintore Police Station on many occasions, and have been impressed by the work of our NT police officers, and also the work of the WA police officers. Another important element to that is the issue of infrastructure; the police station and the sealed airstrip there provide much support for the hard work done by the police.
The borders will continue to matter from the point of view of legal jurisdiction, but they often remain a barrier to the people of the NPY Lands and are a totally alien concept. Many of the people who live in NPY Lands operate within a very different structure because of their traditional lifestyle.
We are following Western Australia with this bill, and South Australia is following us. The bill has been a long time in the making, which the Attorney-General outlined in her previous speech.
I join with the Attorney-General in acknowledging all those people, within the Northern Territory and interstate, who have put so much time and effort into this bill. I also take this opportunity to mention my predecessor, Dr Peter Toyne, who, in his time as Attorney-General, did some significant work in this area.
For me, this is what the parliament is all about - the workings of parliament. We, as constituents, pick up these issues and not often do we see it come into law. However, this is one very good example of what our job is all about. To all of those involved: the member for Araluen for her legal perspectives on the legislation; the member for Drysdale for his perspective as a police officer, particularly the procedural issues that the police officers out there face - and they do a fantastic job; and to my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, who so eloquently put her perspective as a traditional woman of Central Australia.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank the members opposite for their support of this significant and innovative legislation. I recognise, as do my ministerial colleagues who have spoken in debate, that this legislation comes from the wishes and the calls of women of the NPY lands. It is their strength and their pursuit of justice which has brought this legislation before the House. With the shadow Justice minister, I recognise the good work done by Jane Lloyd and Vicki Gillick in championing the causes and the rights of the NPY women.
Interestingly, this legislation has been nurtured significantly, as mentioned, by Dr Peter Toyne in the Territory, and also Jim McGinty in Western Australia and, in a very practical sense in the Territory by Richard Coates and Tom Pauling QC. Whilst I can talk about the 250-odd people who have been active in bringing this cross-border legislation forward, there are some stand-out people whom I did want to put on the record with the government’s sincere thanks.
I thank the contributions from all the members - the members for Araluen, Nelson, Drysdale - and my ministerial colleagues, the Minister for Central Australia and the minister for the Environment who represents many of the women affected by the legislation in Macdonnell.
It started, really, with a scoping study in 2004 by the South Australia government which found that the levels of justice-related disadvantage in the cross-border region was considerably higher than in other remote areas. After nearly six years, the passing of this bill, I believe, will be an incredibly significant day for justice. As I said, there are some 250 people who have been involved in the development of the cross-border justice scheme. The cry from the NPY women in 2003 was: please give us, quote: ‘White police with guns and laws to stop the violence’. This law will do that, while not affecting the normal laws of any jurisdiction.
Some in the legal profession may protest. To those few people, I would say they are not living the reality of people in this region or the reality of these times. We will not tolerate any violence towards women and children, anywhere. Members have eloquently explained the movement of the NPY lands, the cross-border movement, has really meant that perpetrators have used the jurisdictional boundaries to their benefit, and to the detriment of the victims.
The bill will enable the Northern Territory to participate in this mutual cross-border justice scheme with South Australia and Western Australia. As explained, the effect of the legislation is to relax the rigidity with which the state and territory borders are enforced, removing the legal restrictions that would otherwise exist in relation to enforcing justice across these state borders.
We should be under no illusion. This body of work has been a groundbreaking project affecting inter-jurisdictional services in Australia and it was agreed to by the governments of the three jurisdictions in December 2004. Our Administrator, Tom Pauling QC, in his former capacity as the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory, presented the project to SCAG - the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General - and SCAG agreed to the project.
The concept is seen, we believe, as a potential model for other jurisdictions in Australia - it is groundbreaking, it is a first, and it is not just for the justice and policing services either, we believe. This model could potentially be applied in areas such as Tweed Heads/Coolangatta, Albury/Wodonga, and Mt Isa/Tennant Creek. This innovative scheme does not affect jurisdictional independence. Each set of existing laws is not changed, it simply allows the enforcement of the three sets of laws in the region across borders that are in reality, as we know, not recognised by the majority of residents in the region. The area to be covered in this project encompasses almost 500 000 km2 and nearly 10 000 people, of which 7600 are Indigenous. However, this is not an Indigenous law, it applies to any person who fits any one of the three triggers: normally resident in the region, offended in the region, or apprehended in the region.
The Commonwealth supports this scheme and it will be amending the Service and Execution of Process Act during the autumn sittings to allow it to proceed. This amendment will eliminate the need for lengthy and expensive extradition between the jurisdictions.
The Western Australian Cross-Border Justice Bill was assented to in March 2008; it has not yet commenced. The South Australian Cross-Border Justice Bill was introduced to the House of Assembly last week on 4 February 2009. As South Australia has two houses of parliament, it is anticipated that the South Australian Cross-Border Justice Bill will be passed in the June 2009 sittings.
For the benefit of the shadow Justice minister, who was concerned that South Australia may be dragging their feet - as I said, they are not dragging their feet, they have introduced their legislation - I will table the South Australian House of Assembly Notice Paper No 20 of Tuesday, 17 February 2009 under Government Business Orders of the Day. You will see at No 6 the Cross-Border Justice Bill No 62 under the Attorney-General.
The plan is to go live with this exciting project on 1 July this year, following the training of magistrates, police, corrections and other important people in the criminal justice system. The first orientation for the Northern Territory magistrates will occur on 23rd of this month, followed by formal training of selected magistrates from all three jurisdictions - Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia – in May of this year. The Northern Territory Law Society will hold a seminar for the legal profession of the Northern Territory on the 24th of this month.
This legislation will stop offenders in the area avoiding arrest by simply crossing the border into another jurisdiction. Justice for women and child victims will be improved.
As many speakers noted, no body of legislation is necessarily perfect, no new and bold innovative scheme such as this cross-border is necessarily perfect, so a formal evaluation is inbuilt into the legislation after three years, but not more than five years of duration. Further, we also intend that it will be reviewed every 12 months using an evaluation process that will be established at the time the scheme is commenced.
The governments of the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia are working together to improve the justice and policing services, and to reduce the violence against women and children by enforcing each other’s laws in the region, and stopping offenders from avoiding arrest for their crimes.
The member for Nelson posed some questions to which I will put the government’s response on the record. His concern was in letting people know about the legislation in the region: a full communication plan is being developed by all jurisdictions. He mentioned if a police officer pulls you up for speeding: we can say that it will be the law of the applicable jurisdiction that will apply, that is, 130 km/h in the Northern Territory on the Stuart Highway, or 110 km/h in South Australia on the Stuart Highway. The law applies as it should apply, as the member for Drysdale pointed out.
Police have already been operating in a multi-jurisdictional capacity, for example, in Kintore, so we have great confidence in the police capacity to pick up and run with this scheme. As I have mentioned, the extension of the scheme is an absolute possibility, and it is something that is being considered by other jurisdictions, including ourselves, with the other regions. As I said, the review is built in.
The other significant question that the member for Nelson raised was in regard to the application of a complaint mechanism to the Ombudsman. The complaint is tied to the exercise of jurisdiction. For example, a complaint about a South Australian officer exercising Northern Territory law under the scheme would be dealt with by the Northern Territory Ombudsman. But if a South Australian officer was exercising South Australian law in the Northern Territory, that is, he arrested an alleged offender who was alleged to have committed an offence in South Australia, then the South Australian Ombudsman would deal with the complaint. So that is the keep–it-simple process on the Ombudsman’s complaints processes.
In relation to the member for Drysdale, I know that you want to go into committee and I am happy for that to happen. I have some simple responses at this stage, but we can have further discussions in committee. In terms of section 34, in relation to custody, the law allows the arresting officers to hold an arrested person in the closest facility in that region. The argument you put that that should occur is actually what is in this provision. It certainly removes that problem that you outlined of the expenses involved in chartering, for example. So what you thought ought to be operationally the case is provided for in this act.
In terms of section 44, it was a policy decision specifically to draft it in such a way as to avoid a booze bus or a random breath test station being set up across the border; that was a policy decision made in the consideration of the drafting phases of the law. It was quite a specific policy section decision. I am advised the instructing officer on the Western Australian model was the Western Australia Solicitor-General and, as I said, the legislation was really designed not to be used to set up random breath testing just across the border. What I am advised is there was a deliberate decision not to allow preliminary testing or random breath testing by state officers to be carried out in another participating jurisdiction, but drug/alcohol testing, which is not random breath testing, can be carried out by an officer over the border if there is a suspicion of an offence. So the person would not get away with a drink-driving offence, as in drinking at the pub at the border scenario, because they could be tested in the next jurisdiction under that jurisdiction’s laws. It just means that they will not be charged with, for example, a South Australian offence. That is the advice I have received in relation to that.
I am happy, of course, to go into committee stage, but I do want to restate that this is requiring each jurisdiction to enact provisions in relation to three aspects of the criminal justice system: the exercise of police powers, the jurisdiction of the summary courts, and the enforcement of sentences and orders.
This has a significant history. Western Australia was the architect of the model legislation, but the champions of this cross-border legislation are the women of the NPY lands themselves. I sincerely thank members opposite for the bipartisan support of this legislation. The legislation received bipartisan support when it passed through Western Australia and, as I have said, it has already been introduced into South Australia and we are hopeful of it passing through by the June sittings, given they have two houses of parliament.
I commend the legislation, and I look forward to going into committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 33, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 34:
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, particularly in reference to, first, clause 34, which I will read.
(i) whether with or without a warrant; and
The point I am concerned with is (2)(b), in that the wording to me is relatively specific, in the sense that we keep the person in custody in ‘another’, not in the closest reasonable holding facility, but in ‘another’, referring to, as in most other parts of this act, either Western Australia or South Australia, not being that of the Northern Territory.
If that was its intention, under this particular part which gives us the power as a police officer to withhold that person’s right of freedom, it needed to specifically state that we could hold that person in custody in either another jurisdiction or the closest jurisdiction with an approved facility, including that of the Territory.
Madam Chair, that is where I am concerned, I would really like to see, as mentioned previously by the Attorney-General that they believe it is covered, but those words are particularly clear as far as I am concerned: keep the person in custody in another participating jurisdiction, which would infer that it does not mean the Northern Territory. As outlined in my reply to this bill, which I say right now I support; it is a great bill and we need to push through with this today, as soon as possible, because it will help people out there.
When you are hundreds of kilometres from the nearest suitable and safe approved holding facility, that is an arduous journey for anyone, it is a great burden, it is a great safety risk and it is hard to even pick up on the Google Earth Map, because there are really no roads marked in the area of Kintore, for instance, but to get to Warakurna; the closest route is 260 km via the Sandy Blight, but that crosses the border several times.
Technically, by the way this piece is written and interpreted by myself, and legislation is part of interpretation, that officer would have to break the law by taking that person back into the Northern Territory, having apprehended him under a Northern Territory law but in another jurisdiction, being Western Australia, because Sandy Blight does not follow that border, it crosses the border on the way down. So the only other way is then to go all the way across to either Newman, or take 700 km or 800 km, the longest way out and, yes, that is right through the centre of Western Australia over towards the western coast of Western Australia and then down and then back into Warakurna.
The other alternative is - and the most reasonable but extremely expensive - conveyance by aircraft, and in the way of the Western Australian police, that will come from Kalgoorlie, that is where the plane would fly; it is about $24 000, the last time I was there, and I know my counterpart in those days dreaded the thought of using that, because it came directly out of his station budget, and anyone losing $24 000 out of their station budget would cringe.
I would like to see a good clear answer on that because, reading that piece of power, the power that is given to a police officer, a very powerful piece of power for any person in the world; to me, does not give that officer the authority to take the person back across the border; only to retain that person in another jurisdiction.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, the concerns are recognised, but the operation will not be as articulated by the member for Drysdale. The operative word in there is a police officer of the Territory ‘may’ - that is giving them a choice. Essentially, what this subclause does is empower the Territory police officer to arrest a person under the laws of the Territory, either with or without a warrant, in any of the participating jurisdictions, and to keep the person in custody in another participating jurisdiction, but under the Territory law.
A person, for example, who is a resident in South Australia or WA, under Territory law, does not have to be returned to the Territory to be kept in custody. A police officer can also take the person to a police station, court or anywhere else for an authorised purpose. So it really is as you would want it to work, member for Drysdale, it is the most practical decision that that police officer makes as to where they want to hold that person in custody, and those practical decisions on the ground will be the closest place.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I still do not see that written there, and that is the problem. I do not want to leave our officers at risk, because we have some fantastic lawyers throughout Australia, and If we leave that loophole - and if you have ever been prosecuted through a civil court for a unlawful arrest you, would understand - it needs to be specific. It needs to identify the specific ability to do so - not ‘may’. I do not see the ‘may’ word written there. It says: ‘Keep the person in custody in another’ - in another – ‘participating jurisdiction’. I am quite happy if you would like to seek leave to come and point to it on the paper, because I still do not see it. I want to see it; I really do want to see it.
Ms LAWRIE: Read the line above it. You have to read it in the context of the line above it.
Mr BOHLIN: 34. Which line?
Ms LAWRIE: 34(2): A police officer of the Territory ‘may’.
Mr BOHLIN: That ‘may’ gives the discretionary power to arrest a person. You ‘may’ arrest a person. You ‘may’ …
Ms LAWRIE: No, ‘may’ in the context of (a). ‘May’ keep them in another participating jurisdiction’. It is giving them the either/or. It is just an empowerment to let them operate in a custodial scenario in another jurisdiction. They may or may not choose to keep them in South Australia or in Western Australia and, indeed, keep them in the Northern Territory. It gives them that choice.
Mr BOHLIN: In that case …
Madam CHAIR: Can we just work through the Chair, please, member for Drysdale.
Mr BOHLIN: Sorry, Madam Chair. I now find that word ‘may’, but it does not give you a clarification that you can take that person into custody into the Northern Territory. It does not, at all, give you that authority.
This is about trying to move forward with this. It does need specifically looking at. It may be something that needs to be an amendment at a further time, because this bill is important; it does need to go through. That does not give you the power to take the person back across the border. It does not. Not ‘may’ not ‘could’ not - it does not give you that power. You need to be specific with the wording because …
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Drysdale, you are simply wrong. On the best legal advice of the Department of Justice, you are simply wrong.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, be it noted they have declared that it is wrong. I say that it is of great concern. We will only see when it is challenged in a court in the future and, unfortunately, it could have been avoided with better clarification. Ready to move on, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Drysdale, moving forward, the best way through this process is to work through each of the questions you had against the clauses. Given that they are not amendments as such, there seems to be no point in going through the process where we stand as printed. If that is all right with you, that is what we will work through.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, providing it is - and I believe it is noted without doubt - that I stand with that concern; that it is not giving us sufficient authorisation to take a person back into the Northern Territory. However, due to the importance of this legislation, it needs to stand as printed today so we can move forward to help protect the people.
Madam CHAIR: Certainly, your comments are recorded on the Parliamentary Record.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36:
Madam CHAIR: Do you want to move to your questions around clause 36?
Mr BOHLIN: Clause 36, Madam Chair, yes, please. Madam Chair, I will read it out again:
section 34(2)(a) is released without charge.
I accept the word ‘reasonable’:
Madam Chair, it is important to have these types of words. In general, I support them. I believe, however, it applies a portion too much onus upon the police officer to take that person maybe several hundred kilometres back to a different place of arrest. There are reasons why we may release without charge, that may be the decision to summons, take further time to investigate all evidence, that could be one reason for releasing a person without charge and then invoking this section.
Granted, it is not a great concern, because I am sure there is a great deal of leniency there. But if we could have taken the word ‘must’ out and left it as ‘a police officer of the Territory take reasonable steps’ it would put a little less onus on that police officer to take every step possible. It will be, at some time, argued that leaving the person in, let us say, Kiwirrkurra, where there are shops, phones, council support, there is a local council, and not having taken them back to Kintore or Mt Liebig or Papunya, the officer may come under fire for not doing so because there is that extra onus of ‘must’.
As I said, I think there is a reasonable amount of flexibility, but perhaps not such a strong word would have been a little less onerous on the police and, in essence, the government, for that. I think we need to keep moving with this legislation, it is great, but putting that extra burden may mean we are travelling 200 km, 300 km, 600 km extra, which means that the community is left without the support of those police officers.
When the person who has been arrested has all the facilities available, all the safeties of a community where they are, and we do not put holding facilities many miles from a township, they are all in townships, so it is quite reasonable to allow them to leave by the front door, ensure that you avail them of telecommunications while they are there, and that they are not going to come to any harm in that community. It is not necessarily reasonable to put that extra burden on the police that they have to travel maybe 600 km to drop someone off and come back.
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that the police fully supported the legislation without any suggested amendment, and ‘must’ was written into the legislation to give clarity to a police officer’s duty. The cross-border justice scheme operates in the more remote areas of the Territory where there are large distances between population centres and limited transport available.
If an NT police officer has kept a person in custody in another jurisdiction, and you can refer to clause 34 for their ability to do that, and the person is released from custody, the police officer must take reasonable steps to ensure the person is returned to where they were arrested, or to a place reasonably nominated by the person. As we noted, however, if to take a person released from custody to a particular place is likely to endanger the safety of the person or another person, the police officer is not required to assist the person to go to that place.
We are talking about what is a reasonable situation when that person has been apprehended. They can take them what we know is some considerable distance in a region where we know there is no public transport service; in a region where we know there is significant poverty and not everyone has access to a car, so reasonably, in that scenario, if you pick someone up and you have taken them somewhere, but they are not going to be charged, reasonably, you take them back. It is really giving clarity to the police officers’ duty. The police force has no problem with the operation of this aspect of the legislation - it is reasonable.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I am relatively happy because the Attorney-General has emphasised the word ‘reasonable’ quite a few times during her explanation. In that aspect, I believe that will give enough leniency if a member was to come under scrutiny, provided they have taken those reasonable steps and reasonable considerations, they will do their job properly. With that emphasis on ‘reasonable’ by the Attorney-General, I believe it will cover the member sufficiently. Not everyone that we deal with is reasonable and the allegations they may later pose upon a police officer will bring them under scrutiny where it is not reasonable. There is a lot of support in the bush and I understand that there should be a reasonable return, if reasonable.
I thank the Attorney-General for further highlighting the word ‘reasonable’ because that is the key aspect – an element of reasonableness, and if that is the intention of that part of the law, I am happy. It is important, and I thank you for clarification on that.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 43, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 44:
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, Clause 44.
44 Preliminary alcohol or drug test cannot be conducted in another participating jurisdiction.
In most part, it is at least best practice that a person is submitted to a random breath test, being a preliminary form of assessing whether a person is in excess of the legal limit, it is the tool that the officers are given, it is only this large. I know the Attorney-General said earlier that it was a consensus that this be put in place to prevent an RBT station being set up on the other side of the border. One could consider that, if that was the case, you would be perhaps using your special constable powers as a Western Australian or a South Australian police officer, not a Northern Territory police officer, in the first place.
However, if you are pursuing someone who has committed that offence of drink-driving in the Northern Territory, Kulgera for instance, and they have skipped the few kilometres to the South Australian border, the general ability for that police officer to submit that person to a breath test, our preliminary tool, our preliminary device of evidence, has just been taken away from that officer once he crosses the border. To me, this is just for drink-driving, particularly seeing drink-driving has been an issue, perhaps it should not have been allowed to have crept in there.
The previous parts to do with drink-driving have done a great job, they really have. Why take away one of our primary tools? What we then do is go back to the days when we had to make people walk the line, or observe and use observations of intoxication, primarily to then arrest the person to conduct a breath analysis, which is the certified piece that we take to court. It is our primary and most common tool, the breath test, a hand-held device, which we use to get us to the point where we make that clear decision to take someone into custody, to arrest them for the purpose of a breath analysis.
Another area of concern, which I think is covered under all the previous drink-driving aspects, is now we have to travel some distance, and again, it is not clearly defined, to take a person back across the border to Kulgera. We would have to travel some distance to a breath analysis machine, unless the officer happens to be a fine duty traffic officer and he has the breath analysis machine on his back seat, which is possible, but it is not common practice to carry that device. It is a sensitive, calculated machine and it needs regular calibration and getting thrown around on dirt roads across the Territory will not do much for our ability to convict people on drink-driving charges. In fact, I personally would challenge it if I saw the police officer rolling down the road, with the device in the back seat bouncing around like crazy, because the ability to guarantee that device works properly is out the door.
However, to have taken away our primary tool for conducting a breath test prima facie start to further conducting and compelling a person to a breath analysis has been taken away. I think the reasons and concerns, wherever they have been generated from, are unfounded and do need to be reviewed. As I said before, this legislation must continue today, but it does need to be reviewed, or we now issue all our Territory officers and all the WA officers, if need be, but I think it is all the Territory officers, with the other jurisdictions’ primary tools, their way for proving the initial level of intoxication.
Madam Chair, I hand it back to the Attorney-General.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, at the outset I want to say that one of the bases to this whole cross-border legislation scheme was to keep intact the integrity of the laws of each jurisdiction. There are different ways of approaching this innovative model. You could have tried to go in and change a whole raft of laws across three different jurisdictions and tried to apply them and make it all work, instead the approach we have before us today was taken. We have put in a whole lot of enabling clauses within a body of legislation which is our cross-border scheme. For example, the member has to read, and should read clauses 41 and 42, which talk about the powers of an NT police officer which certainly gives them the ability to use their preliminary breath testing tools in the Northern Territory to test as they normally would in the Northern Territory.
It is when you cross that border as a Northern Territory police officer that you are then required, under this scheme; to apply the processes and the sampling procedures that are required under their laws. So we would expect a South Australian officer to apply the procedures that we expect under our laws, and they would require our officers to apply the procedures that would be expected under their laws, to keep the integrity of the laws of each of the three jurisdictions when it comes to this issue of drink-driving in place.
One of the critical things with this legislation is the training that will occur that goes with it; not just the training of the magistrates, not just the training of the corrections officers, but importantly also, the training of police or the operators. Will they be equipped with the relevant tools to do their job? Yes, they are equipped with the relevant tools to do their job.
This is some enabling legislation. I was very clear in my response in wrapping up, particularly in relation to this issue that there are clear policy decisions that were taken every step of the way in the formation of this model legislation which, as I say, has already passed with bipartisan support in Western Australia, and it is already introduced in South Australia, and has been receiving bipartisan support here.
Key policy decisions were made around the integrity of the existing law in each of the three jurisdictions and therefore procedures have to be in place to keep that integrity, which is what we have before us in clauses 41, 42 and 43, and now 44, which is what we are discussing. You must read clause 44 in relation to clauses 41, 42 and 43; you cannot take it in isolation otherwise you do not see the workability of this drink-driving system within this legislation. Very clearly, I said that it was a deliberate decision not to allow those random breath tests to be set up by state officers across the borders into another jurisdiction.
It is one of those areas, member for Drysdale, where I am going to have to agree to disagree with you. There is clear policy intent in the construct of this legislation - clear policy decision of how the breath testing regime would occur and could occur, bearing in mind the integrity of each jurisdiction’s existing laws underpin the development of this cross-border legislation.
Mr BOHLIN: I have just gone back and read clause 41. Unfortunately, I am trying to listen to your reply and read that clause. Clause 41, to me, says that the Territory officer can still conduct a breath test in the Territory as if it was a Territory law. Hello! If that the case, why would we change it in the first place? Just because we are now at a cross-border region still does not stop us from allowing Northern Territory laws. It then goes on to talk about being able to use the preliminary devices as if it was that of another jurisdiction within the Territory. However, if you cross the border into another jurisdiction from the Territory, clause 44 says we cannot use our own preliminary devices, but we can use a preliminary device from another jurisdiction. To me, that is confusing. I am glad you pointed that out to me, because clause 41 now makes me more confused as to what you are getting at.
I would also like you to confirm for me: what, then, is our reasoning or ability to stop someone for a breath test, followed by breath analysis, if it is not under the provisions for a random breath test? You are saying the reasoning for not allowing clause 44 is because we do not want to have random breath testing. Random breath testing is not about the big bus; it is not about a big glossy bus. It is about the police officer driving down the road having a reasonable belief or wanting to apply a random - random; hello anyone! - breath test upon a person to find out if they are sober or not, and suitable to be driving that weapon down the road.
It is not preliminary about the big bus. The big bus theory is interstate. They are great on these; they have great big resources. We rely predominantly on the police officer driving down the road deciding to pull you over because they wish to conduct a random breath test. It is in our power to do so.
Ms Lawrie: You are a member of parliament now.
Mr BOHLIN: I am talking as a Territorian and as a former police officer. If you choose to ignore that, and ignore the fact that there are some concerns and just dig your heels in and say no and agree with what some other state said - because they are concerned about a big bus rolling across the border. I tell you, the big bus is in Alice for starters; the big bus is in Darwin and it is not going to Kintore, and it ain’t going to Kulgera in a hurry.
The reasoning behind this may have been just to progress things; but it is flawed. We are going to move forward in a minute because it is important legislation, but you are taking away tools you should not have done …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Drysdale, I am going to have to interrupt you there, it is 12.10 pm. We are going to suspend the Committee of the Whole and resume at 2.10 pm.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given my leave to the member for Arnhem to make a personal explanation. As you are aware, when making a personal explanation it is listened to in silence.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation to correct the record regarding a comment made by the member for Fong Lim during the MPI on the McArthur River Mine last night. In his statement, the member for Fong Lim said, and I quote directly from Hansard:
His statement is wrong. I flew over the expansion pit twice in July last year and the river diversion. Prior to that, I visited the mine on following occasions in 2006 and in 2004. While working in Borroloola, I toured the mine on a number of occasions in my role as the Coordinator of the Lijakarda Arts Culture and Media Training Centre with my students in 1997, in the hope that some may pursue a career with MRM. Then in my role as broadcast trainer, when establishing the Borroloola radio station, Voice of the Gulf, in 1998, which is located at Mabunji Aboriginal Resources Association, I would visit the mine regularly again to inspect the possibility of transmitting the 70 km from Borroloola to the mine.
When the mine opened in 1995, I worked closely with MRM in organising the first cultural festival in the region, the Lijakarda Cultural Festival, and I worked closely again with MRM when I helped to establish Borroloola’s first arts centre in the Mabunji Building.
I am always ready to take up any opportunity to visit the mine and I would certainly be happy to facilitate a gathering that would bring together the mine, traditional owners and local businesses.
Perhaps next time the member for Fong Lim may have the courtesy to ask me directly for any information before he speaks again on the issue.
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:
Clause 44 (continued):
Ms LAWRIE: Clause 44 of the Cross-border Justice Bill provides that the subdivision does not authorise a police officer of the Territory to require a person in another participating jurisdiction, South Australia or Western Australia, to provide a sample of breath or oral fluid for a preliminary alcohol or drug test under the Territory’s drink or drug-driving laws.
However, it must be noted that all police operating in the cross-border region will be appointed special constables of the other jurisdictions under the Police Administration Act or equivalent. For example, if a person consumes alcohol at Kulgera in the NT and is observed by police, the person then drives off, chased by NT police over the border into South Australia, and the police pull the person over for drink-driving, the police would have the power to conduct a preliminary breath test as a South Australian police officer, an NT police officer wearing a South Australia police hat, and do so under the South Australian law in respect to the South Australian offence of drink-driving.
This clause should not be read in isolation and needs to be read together with clauses 41, 42 and 43.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I thank the Attorney-General. That does, at least, give some powers. I still believe there could have been a better argument when this legislation was drawn up so that the powers exist, as they do in many other parts of this act, so we could conduct those breath tests as a Northern Territory police officer in another jurisdiction.
Perhaps, would it be good to put on record, if you so wish, that you would at least consider revisiting this after some time if there are problems that arise from it, particularly in the jurisdictions of places like Kulgera, where there is a pub very close to the border.
There are many examples of drink-drivers not stopping, they may go across the border and you then have to act as a South Australian officer to be able to breath test them, but you could actually act as a Northern Territory officer to arrest them for driving dangerously or whatever other offences they may commit, but you could not actually deal with the drink-driving aspect of the offence at the same time.
All we ask is that we can revisit this at another time and review it in a year or two years down the track because it is only minor, and I accept that, in the big scheme of things, but if we could just perhaps revisit that at a later time.
Ms LAWRIE: In response to the very reasonable request from the member for Drysdale, I reiterate what I said previously. There is a 12 monthly evaluation built into this body of legislation; there is also a significant review at year 3 and definitely before year 5. So, in the construct of this, very cautious and deliberate consideration has been given to the workability, given that this is a nation first in terms of cross-border jurisdictional issues and how that operates. That said, built actually within the construct of this legislation is that evaluation process and, importantly, a review of the whole process as well.
Clearly, in any evaluation of this, police would be participating, they are the front-end law delivers in this region; other stakeholders pertinent to the operation of this would also be participating in that evaluation. I have no hesitation in saying this would be absolutely essential to that evaluation - the evaluation I am on the record as saying will occur in 12 months’ time.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I am reasonably happy with that answer and it is so good to see that you have committed to those things, particularly the input from the police force is always going to be important because they are the people who act on those parts of the law and they are the ones who will always find the faults before anyone else, and they will always wear the consequences of those faults.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 to 53, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 54:
Mr BOHLIN: If it may please you, Madam Chair, we will move on clause 54. Clause 54 is essentially, in reverse, repeating that of 34 - it is taking a person into custody. A police officer in another participating jurisdiction does, in the reference or interpretation, make reference to the other two jurisdictions. Arrest a person under the law of the arresting jurisdiction, with or without a warrant, and whether in the Territory or another participating jurisdiction; the person has a connection with the cross-border region again.
But clause 54(2) states:
Apparently ‘may’ is a very powerful word.
The two areas there; it refers specifically in ‘the Territory’, not in the other ‘participating jurisdictions’ or the ‘other jurisdictions’, it says in ‘the Territory’. We understand that there may be an intent by the writer to open up and allow free transportation and extradition of people from one state to the other state for the closest police station, whichever may suit the cause, but the police officer, the magistrate, the lawyers will use this legislation to determine their findings.
In clause 34, it is somewhat clouded; in clause 54 it becomes rather succinct - in ‘the Territory’. South Australia is not the Territory, Western Australia is not the Territory. It says in ‘the Territory’. There is less play on words there. If the Attorney-General wishes to continue to say that ‘may’ is the most powerful word and has wiped out extradition orders, if that is going to be the case, let us have the Attorney-General stand and succinctly state that the intent of these two parts of law, clauses 34 and 54, are for the purposes that any police officer from a participating jurisdiction is able to take a person in custody to any participating jurisdiction, prison, holding facility, court or otherwise.
Be concise, state it here and then it is forever on record that is the intent of this legislation, so that if some clever magistrate or lawyer decides to attack it, it can be referred that in this House it was succinctly identified with clear English, clear words, that the intent is so that you can take them to the closest place of a participating jurisdiction. That would more than satisfy me.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, to put it succinctly, this is the mirror to clause 34 which we discussed previously. It is the enabling provision whereby police officers are able to make a choice as to where they take the person in custody, as explained previously. Under clause 34, it will certainly enable the Territory police officer to have powers in the other jurisdictions to determine where they would take a person into custody. This is the mirror of that. It gives the police in the other jurisdictions - that is South Australia and Western Australia – the ability to determine where they want to take those persons in custody in the Territory; that is, it is a mirror enabling provision so that police officers who do the arresting in whichever of the tri-jurisdictions - that is the cross-border region - can make their own considered decision as to where they take that person into custody.
It is a pretty simple premise to what makes all of this workable; the police understand it; the police have been involved in the construct of this. This is not a new process; this is a process that has been worked up carefully. The genesis of this was 2003; the model and the scheme was put forward, in a national sense, formally from 2004. We have had something like six years of consideration as to how this would work. We know, and I have stated on the record, that this is innovative, bold, but this is also practical in its application; that is, as I have said before, they could have gone ahead and tried to change all the laws in all the three jurisdictions to try to get some workability or, they could have taken this model cross-border approach.
I know the member for Drysdale genuinely wants to ensure the workability here. I know that is genuinely where you are coming from, having worked in the region as a police officer. I just wish you had availed yourself of the opportunity of a briefing, because there are some very good law officers in the employ of the Department of Justice who have toiled on this. As I said, 250 people have been involved in the legislation that we have before us today. This is an important …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Chair! Despite the bleatings of the minister, my colleague is not obliged to receive a briefing. He is entitled, as is every member of this Assembly, to question here; this is the parliament. If members want to avail themselves of briefings - and they do and they have from time to time - so be it.
I ask you, Madam Chair, to pull up the minister if she is going to go on and, basically, attack my colleague for not getting a briefing. There is no requirement for him to do so. This is why we have the debate. This is why we have the committee stage, and she knows it.
Madam CHAIR: There is no point order. I believe the Attorney-General is simply suggesting that that is available. You are quite correct; the member for Drysdale does have the opportunity to ask those questions as he is so doing.
Ms LAWRIE: I point out to the shadow that, first of all, it is a breach of standing orders for her to converse from a seat other than her own, so she is in breach of standing orders for conversing from a seat other than her own. Second, I point out that I have sat here and listened to the questions put forward and the scenarios posed by the member for Drysdale. I have sat here and genuinely listened to many descriptive questions from him, and I have responded to each and every one, so I think it is appropriate that I do continue to put in context the extent of scrutiny that each of these clauses have been provided with by very senior law officers across three jurisdictions.
This is WA model legislation, so it is important to contextualise the nature of the questioning that has been occurring in the committee stage, again to reassure the member for Drysdale that the issue of the workability, which are clauses 34 and 54 which he has raised, has been considered and has been produced in a way that appears before us today in the legislation, so the workability is as best as it can be, so the police officers on the ground can make those on-the-ground decisions about where they take people into custody without the jurisdictional border issues, which is genuinely at the heart of the cross-border legislation we have before us.
Madam CHAIR: A reminder, member for Araluen, the Attorney-General is quite correct, if you do wish to speak, you do need to be at your designated desk, and that is for reasons of Hansard as much as anything else.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I thank the Attorney-General for that. You did a fantastic job at actually answering, but not exactly stating for the record 100% clearly what your intention is. You did a pretty good job of it though, and I do thank you for your acknowledgment of my passion for this. I do have a passion for this, because this is about affecting people’s lives.
I do wish to add, before I continue on that. For the last 10 years I have scrutinised parts of the legislation. I have then applied that legislation. Now, if the Attorney-General wishes to say that I, as a trained police officer in the Northern Territory do not, merely because of my election by the public to the parliament, any longer understand legislation, you perhaps lean upon all the other members of the Northern Territory Police Force who today continue to interpret this legislation. That is my concern, the way it is able to be interpreted and, in fact, the effect of this provision limits that choice in clause 54, because it clearly states ‘in the Territory’.
All I ask is a consideration to change some wording that does envelop all those other areas, or additional words that allows it to be so crystal clear that it cannot be interpreted in any other way. Because, at the moment, if it can be interpreted at any time this way, that means it will be scrutinised in the courts, not in this Chamber any more, but in the courts, and it will cost a lot of money, it has cost a lot of money already. A lot of experts, professional people have already put a lot of effort into this, but everyone can make a mistake. The fact that this particular part, clause 54, does very much, in the effect of the provision, limit the choice, takes away that choice by saying ‘in the Territory’.
Ms Lawrie: No. You are wrong.
Mr BOHLIN: It does. I am telling you, I believe we are right.
Ms Lawrie: I know you believe it.
Mr BOHLIN: You believe you are right, I believe I am right. That is why we have cases in courts so that we can argue these things. We are having a discussion in this Chamber for that same reason, because, if I can see the argument now and the lack of clarity now, so may others. In fact, many will. So, if we had included the words ‘in a participating jurisdiction’ or ‘the Territory and/or another participating jurisdiction’, instead of ‘the Territory’, but if it pains you so greatly to include three or four extra words which really combine the essence of the entire legislation, really ties it back together the way it needs to be, it is about all three jurisdictions working together, so if the inclusion of doing that so offends you - it beggars belief that you hold the position.
Ms LAWRIE: Is there a question in this?
Mr BOHLIN: This part of clause 54 affects the provision of the limits of choice by cleanly and clearly stating ‘in the Territory’. ‘The’ is another word used in legislation, similar to ‘or’ and ‘and’, they are simple words by themselves but, when used in context within legislation, are very, very powerful words.
So if we say ‘in the Territory’, ‘keep the person in custody in the Territory’, it does not say keep the person in the Territory in Queensland or anywhere else, but it says, keep the person in custody in the Territory. The intent, I understand, is to allow it to be more fluid, so we need to ensure we modify our wording because our wording has failed, and that is not a furphy, it is not a lie, it is not a creation - it has failed, it is no clearer than to keep the person in custody in the Territory.
We suggest that the Attorney-General stands on her feet soon, without waffling about anything else, and states: my intention as the Attorney-General in this legislation is that, by saying under clause 54 and clause 34, the intent is to allow a police officer of any participating jurisdiction to take that person to any other participating jurisdiction and then follows through with police station, court house - that way there will never be another question and there will be no other wasting of time.
Ms LAWRIE: As in the debate around clause 34, the word that the member for Drysdale has to understand is that word ‘may’. A police officer of the arresting jurisdiction ‘may’. As I have explained, this clause is about the arresting jurisdiction in South Australia, Western Australia, that is the other participating jurisdictions under whose laws the person is being arrested in the Territory, a police officer of that arresting jurisdiction may arrest a person, either with or without a warrant, and keep them in custody in the Territory. It is necessary that the arrested person have a connection with a cross-border region for this to apply.
Once the person is in custody, they can be taken to a police station, a court or other authorised place in the NT. NT custody laws are not applied in this situation and do not govern this arrest. It is really clear, I have explained it. I guess the concerns of the member for Drysdale could be picked up as an example of the sort of training police officers will be undertaking. It is going to be pretty clear that these are enabling powers to work in the other jurisdictions, to take people into custody in the other jurisdictions. The previous clause was about Territory police officers being able to place people in custody in WA and SA, and this one is about Western Australian and South Australian officers being able to take people into custody in the Territory. It is pretty simple, pretty basic, we have been through it, and I have been through it a few times now.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, will the minister give some explanation to the meaning behind 54(3), which states:
Why does not the law of the Territory apply in relation to custody when the custody, at this point, talks about taking a person into custody in the Northern Territory? It seems to somewhat contradict (3).
Ms LAWRIE: My advice is: because they have been arrested under the laws of the jurisdiction of the other state.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, it is a nice and simple answer - it is just not clear. So, if muddy water is muddy, is it muddy? I think so.
Minister, will you give this parliament an undertaking that you will amend this section if it proves difficult or presents problems for the police officers within 12 months?
Ms LAWRIE: I talked to the member for Drysdale before about this, and I will restate it because that was before the lunch session. The police have been all over this. They do not have an issue with the workability of this. The only person who has an issue with the workability of this is the member for Drysdale.
So, as to the commitment he is seeking, I do not actually need to make, because what I do know is this: that justice, and police are going to be undertaking some comprehensive training in support of this package of reform, the cross-border reform process, the training will be robust because this is a well considered body of work, and there are already dates identified and the process for training is already identified. I have done a lot of work already in preparation for this. I will repeat: the Western Australian parliament did not seem to have a problem with the workability of this section.
Mr BOHLIN: I am glad the Western Australian parliament did not have a problem with this section, but maybe we have given it a bit of direct application scrutiny, and sometimes that is what it will need. That is what we are suggesting when we were asking the minister to give us an undertaking, if she feels she can be flexible enough, lenient enough and considerate enough, to amend this section if it proves difficult when it is actually applied on the ground. Many scientists will draw up many things and will not get it right, because when it actually gets applied there is a fault with it. That is what I am pointing out: that I believe when this legislation, in particular these sections about custody get applied, we will have problems.
So will the minister assure us, or give us an undertaking, that she will be flexible enough to consider, on all reasonableness, if there are problems within the next 12 months, that she will act on those problems?
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Drysdale does not seem to understand what an evaluation is.
Mr BOHLIN: I am glad the minister is so flexible in those matters. If she is so flexible that we need to wait 12 months for an evaluation, what if we do end up in a court case for the next four years on a civil case because the minister failed to be a little flexible? What if that proceeding begins before the next 12 months? So that is all right, the minister is quite flexible in that regard. Thank you.
However, minister, given your government has form when it comes to bringing legislation into parliament and then having to make amendments months or years later to remedy them; we are calling them the ‘oops’ bills. Can you assure this parliament that this bill will not be an ‘oops’ one, particularly seeing we have raised some concerns?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, he is really getting into the realms of nonsense now.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I would probably at this time say ‘thank you very much’ to the Chair.
This type of legislation is difficult and, unfortunately, there are some problems with it. Unfortunately, the minister has not shown her ability to be flexible in her new role as Attorney-General to understand that when you actually apply something there could be problems. We have identified that in the interpretation of this legislation, bearing in mind that the legislation is interpreted stand-alone, by itself, as legislation in the courts; there may be problems and simple word changes, some very simple changes, would have fixed this.
In other parts, Madam Chair, this legislation goes a long way to bringing a really great change in many remote areas of Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia, where I have met many police officers from those areas. Other than the concerns that I have raised, I commend the bill.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s February 2009 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Rules and Guidelines for Incorporation of Material into the Parliamentary Record, as previously distributed to members.
Ms McCARTHY (Statehood): Madam Speaker, as Chair of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I table the Revised Terms of Reference for the Statehood Steering Committee.
Ms McCARTHY (Statehood): Madam Speaker, I move that the Legislative Assembly adopt the terms of reference as tabled.
The Statehood Steering Committee was established in 2004 as an advisory committee to the standing committee with a charter to inter alia provide advice to the standing committee in identifying and developing strategies and programs in educating the Northern Territory community on statehood and constitutional development, and to provide assistance to the standing committee in undertaking a role in promoting the awareness of statehood and constitutional development to the Northern Territory community.
During the second half of 2008, the standing committee undertook a review of the Statehood Committee’s terms of reference, with a view to updating the document so that it better clarifies the relative accountability and responsibilities of the body and the standing committee. A number of changes were agreed to by the standing committee in November 2008, and these are incorporated in the tabled document.
The standing committee considers that these changes will provide the steering committee with a sound base for the next stage of its operations.
Motion agreed to; report adopted.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, today I make a statement in response to the inquiry and the subsequent report on Invasive Species and Management Programs in the Northern Territory by the Legislative Assembly Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.
At the outset, I thank the committee for taking an in-depth and honest look at invasive species in the Territory, and for making positive recommendations on how to improve our response. In particular, I thank my former parliamentary colleague, Ted Warren, for chairing the committee. I also thank former members: Matthew Bonson, Fay Miller, and Dr Richard Lim for their contributions and, of course, my current parliamentary colleagues, the members for Arnhem, Stuart, Daly and Nelson for their service to the committee in its deliberations. I also thank those who gave evidence to the committee and provided us with their important perspectives on how invasive species have been managed and how we can make our efforts more productive. And, of course, a big thank you to all those in the committee secretariat who worked tirelessly to put that report together.
I would also like to say that the recommendations that of the report have my support and that I have directed my department and my Ministerial Office to move full steam ahead with their implementation. Obviously, this will require additional resources and this is something I am actively pursuing.
Madam Speaker, there are some fundamental principles that I will apply in tackling the problem of invasive species, and they are principles that you will see me apply across my portfolios.
First and foremost, we will focus on practical ways we can take action on the ground. This involves making the hard decisions and getting resources where they are needed.
Second, we will employ a risk-based approach so that we look at the evidence before us and prioritise accordingly, making sure we tackle the most pressing problems first.
Third, we will engage community and industry in a meaningful way, and use their knowledge and skills to help us resolve issues.
Fourth, we must make sure that we forge strong partnerships with local government, other states and the federal government, so that we can pool our resources and work out ways to halt the damage caused by invasive species.
Finally, we must set ambitious targets in all our efforts to protect our environment, including from the threat of introduced and exotic species. The target that we should set is that there is no nett loss of biodiversity here in the Territory. We are blessed with amazing natural beauty in the Territory, in our landscapes, our wetlands and our marine environment, and we must do all we can to safeguard their natural brilliance.
Invasive pests can be divided into two broad groups: weeds and feral animals. In the first instance, I would like to outline our approach to weeds. There are currently 119 declared weeds in the Northern Territory and these are separated into three classes of schedules. Schedule Class A/C - to be eradicated; Class B/C - growth and spread to be controlled; and Class C - not to be introduced to the Territory.
There are also nine weeds of national significance that have been found in the Territory. Now, I might stumble over some of these: athel pine, mimosa, parthenium weed, salvinia, rubber vine, prickly acacia, mesquite, parkinsonia and cabomba.
I am pleased to announce that we are putting in place a best practice weed management strategy to negotiate the impact of invasive weeds on our biodiversity. Further, we will continue to release individual weed management plans to help landowners and managers understand their obligations under the Weeds Management Act. The government is also looking after its own patch. We are developing the Northern Territory Crown Land Weed Management Strategy to address weed issues on government land.
This government is committed to a risk-based approach to countering threats to the Territory’s natural environment. We are doing the important research to ensure that we are fully informed to make decisions so they are cost-effective and result in real impact.
A Weed Risk Management System has been recently put in place by NRETAS to set out the most effective ways to manage the invasive grasses in the Territory. This system will focus on stopping the spread of species already in the Territory, and will aim to prevent future introduction of plant species which could become a problem.
The system is the product of collaborative arrangements with my department and the Department of Business and Employment; the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources; and Charles Darwin University. Further, my department is working with Charles Darwin University to study the level of carbon emissions caused by invasive grasses. Communications between agencies, institutions such as Charles Darwin University and the wider community will be the key to the success of the system. We are making sure our strategies are geared towards making all parties aware of their responsibilities when it comes to staving off the threats and problems associated with weeds.
While the issues related to weed management and other invasive species are many and pressing, we are prioritising and we will tackle the most important problems first. The gamba weed declaration provides a useful example. It ranks very highly as a priority weed species based on a risk assessment.
In November last year, this government declared gamba grass a weed under the Weeds Management Act. This was an important action to quell the threat this invasive grass poses to the environment. Gamba grass is a serious fire risk, and stopping its spread will reduce the threat to people and property by wildfires. Gamba grass provides dangerously high fuel levels to bushfires, and we have taken steps to minimise the risk to Territorians and the environment.
The government needs to be proactive in recognising the problems that weeds could cause on government land, as well as addressing the issues we already have. That is why we are putting together management plans for government-owned land, in the same way we are urging private landowners to be vigilant about their weed control.
NRETAS and the department of Primary Industry are working together to map and control weeds on Crown land. We must make sure that the government is setting a solid example of good weed management and managing our own risk accordingly. Effective engagement of the community is vital to finding long-term solutions to environmental problems, and the management of invasive species is no exception.
When it comes to weed management, we are deterring people from doing the wrong thing by ensuring sanctions are appropriate and educating people on how to identify and control weeds. We are creating an environment where peer pressure also helps ensure landholders uphold their weed management responsibilities. The level of compliance by landholders can have major impacts on our neighbour’s actions.
This government takes a range of approaches to promoting awareness in this area. Some of these include setting up stalls at regional shows across the Territory circuit, at farm and garden days and other events where the public gets a chance to speak to experts in various areas of invasive species management. Television, radio and print media are also being used to get the message across to a diverse range of people in the community.
A campaign through various media channels to limit the spread of cabomba weed shows just how effective a focused effort to galvanise the public to help contain an invasive species can be. The proof of this campaign’s success can be seen in practice. All reports to date confirm that cabomba weed, identified as a serious threat, has been contained within a limited section of the Darwin River. Effective management of invasives demands the cooperation of many sectors of the community. All retail nurseries have been made aware of which plant species they cannot import or sell under the Weeds Management Act. There is a list of species already in Australia that are banned from sale.
NRETAS is part of a program called Garden Thugs that aims to promote environmentally friendly plants to nurseries and their customers. The department plans to broaden these efforts to also target those who buy and sell at market gardens.
I now turn my attention to feral animals which are causing serious environmental harm through the Territory. I am sure you will agree that cane toads are the best known invasive species, and their management is another important priority for this government. We are moving to negate the cane toad threat by distributing cane toad traps throughout the community and educating the public about the damage that cane toads cause. At this point, I would like to pay tribute to Frog Watch and all the ToadBuster groups across the Territory, who do such an amazing job in controlling toad numbers and raising awareness about the impacts of cane toads.
Further, this government is looking at the evidence we have before us when it comes to the destructive force of large numbers of cane toads and we are keeping a close watch on some interesting developments in the cane toad control area. There are promising areas of research to develop biological controls on cane toads. These strategies could disrupt cane toad breeding and may have a knock-out impact on their numbers that everyone would like to see. We will monitor these developments and continue to work towards best practice ways to negate the impact.
Of course, theoretical approaches to the management of invasive species need to be set in motion with practical action. This government is taking real action on the ground; we are putting in the resources where they are needed to make sure we get results. For example, the government is implementing a major feral animal management program in the Katherine region. This is a partnership with the Victoria River District Conservation Association, Roper River Landcare Group, Indigenous Land Corporation, the Northern and Central Land Councils, and Conservation Pest Management.
Our on the ground action is yielding solid results. A program funded by the Natural Heritage Trust to lower horse and donkey numbers in the Victoria River District last year was a strong success. More than 17 000 animals were removed from the area between September and December last year, mainly by ground shooting and aerial culling. This program’s success was mainly due to the level of local community involvement. The local community were very involved on a practical level and gained from the program a very strong knowledge of environmental damage caused by horses and donkeys.
We are also tackling the Territory’s wild dog problem. In a joint effort with the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources, we are making the poison 1080 available to accredited, private landholders within approved areas through dry, pre-manufactured baits. 1080 poison has proven effective in controlling numbers of feral dogs, pigs, foxes and rabbits. My department is developing a nationally accredited training program to guide users how to use the poison safely.
Another problematic feral animal species we are taking action to remove is the feral cat which is in substantial numbers from the dry desert country to the tropics. These cats are a particularly annoying problem as they are very good at avoiding baits and traps. A Natural Heritage Trust funded program in the Sir Edward Pellew Islands to try to manage the islands’ feral cat problem has yielded strong results. The knowledge gained from this study into the habits of feral cats and the most effective ways to manage them will be useful on other islands off the Territory coast and, more broadly, around Australia. This program also provided good training for the local Indigenous Mabunji Rangers. They will now have the skills to manage their own feral cat programs in the future.
We are also taking action to offset the impact of invasive species on our native wildlife. The Island Ark project was started by my department in 2003 to save the Northern Quoll population from disappearing due to cane toads. Sixty-four Northern Quolls were rehoused on islands off the Territory coast where cane toads cannot reach. This initial population has grown to many thousands and the program continues to help the Northern Quoll population rebuild. This is a real Territory success story and a story that will now live forever in a wonderful children’s book by Sandra Kendall t\which I had the pleasure of launching late last year.
We are also taking action to assess new threats to our threatened species and scientists have recently began assessing the damage caused by black rats in the Victoria River District. It is believed these pests are impacting on the Purple-Crowned Fairy-Wren, a threatened bird species. A survey has started and, from that, further action will be taken to safeguard this species’ population.
The environmental damage caused by camels in Central Australia is very serious and we need to move to fix this problem with urgency; in many places the natural and cultural environment is being, quite simply, wrecked. Over Christmas, I spent seven days in my electorate in Central Australia between Mt Liebig, Papunya and Kintore and had the luxury of not only enjoying the silence and the stars at night, but also waking up to groups of camels munching away on branches and wrecking waterholes; so that is a real issue for us in Central Australia. I will make the hard decisions on camels and I will take action to direct resources into attacking this problem. I am looking at practical solutions; we have the theoretical knowledge with my department, and Desert Knowledge produced a framework for camel management last year.
Now is the time to look at what we can do on the ground to stop the invasive pests. I am looking at options for a large scale cull; we are determining whether aerial or land shooting will be most effective and if innovative methods of controlling camels’ fertility can be effective in stopping their population explosion.
We should also consider whether there can be some kind of economic activity generated by a camel cull. In particular, I am examining whether camel meat could be a viable pet food product. I am told this would require the use of mobile abattoirs, chillers and burial equipment, and I am eager to start trialling this approach.
I know that many Aboriginal people have concerns about culling camels and donkeys because of their biblical connections, and horses and buffalos due to their historical connection with the pastoral industries, but I am determined to have a frank discussion with communities about the need to take action to protect our fragile ecosystems. The cooperation of traditional owners and residents will be crucial to making our camel reduction efforts work.
Another example of a recent highly successful community campaign put in place by this government was the Yellow Crazy Ant eradication project. This campaign has helped nip in the bud potentially damaging exotic ant outbreaks. The Yellow Crazy Ant can cause big problems for native ants and other insects, not to mention the impact on soil quality. Identification kits distributed to schools in the community as part of this program helped identify an outbreak of Crazy Ants in Berrimah earlier this year. These damaging ants were previously only found in Arnhem Land. Community engagement was the key to this effort, and my department is confident the outbreak will be contained, and the heroes were ordinary Territorians using inexpensive identification kits.
Building on this community-based success, the government has recently introduced a new category in our EnvironmeNT Grants scheme to give the community a chance to apply for invasive species research funds. This will provide the means for community input into developing the best methods to manage invasive species, and is in addition to the resources provided to fund community-based cane toad management programs.
The management of invasive species is a problem faced around Australia, and our efforts to deal with our unique issues in the Territory are helped by our collaborative approach to these problems with other jurisdictions. We are making sure we coordinate the implementation of our invasive species and weed management strategies within the Northern Territory government, with local government and also the Commonwealth. This will ensure we are all working together towards the common goal of preserving our unique natural environment.
Our participation in ministerial councils and subcommittees help develop national policies and strategies for dealing with invasive species. My department staff sit on several interstate working groups where best practice management is discussed, and cross-border management plans are developed and implemented. I will ensure I engage my ministerial colleagues from interstate so that we have a joint approach to solving what is a problem across multiple jurisdictions.
This government’s involvement with a national biosecurity committee, and my department’s regular participation in rapid response exercises with other agencies, is further proof of our strong commitment to proactively dealing with invasive issues in a coordinated fashion.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the impact of weeds and ferals can have devastating impacts upon the Territory’s environment and the productive capacity of our economy. A dollar spent in prevention is worth many hundreds in a cure. In addition to the relatively small team of outstanding experts in my department, there are literally thousands of Territorians - mostly unpaid - who are taking action every day to eradicate and prevent the spread of weeds and ferals. I pay tribute to these hard-working Territorians and say to them: this is the fight we can never give up.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, first, there is some good stuff in here; there really is some good stuff. However, if I can digress slightly for a second, not being part of the parliamentary process for long, I am still coming to terms with some of the processes involved. I feel that the lateness of receiving notices such as this does have an impact - severe impact - on the quality or the scrutiny of a report. Contrary to some opinions, it is not always our job to flog the government; we are here to support when there are some good things.
I suppose we could now waffle for 30 minutes, but I did take the time last night, until the wee hours, reading much of the report. As I said, there are some really good things in here.
From NRETA – and I will quote this:
It was really pleasing to read the recommendations in this report and hearing that the minister has taken those on.
On the lateness - I digress slightly again - I was particularly angry that I only found this in my office upstairs at lunchtime today, and thought that was a little late to be getting a statement. I was going to make a big point of it, however, the reality is, when I looked closer I noticed a big footprint on the paper and it seems to fit my foot. I am pretty sure I walked straight over it last night and did not see it, so I will not go to town over that. As I said, there are some good things in here. I will look down next time as I walk into the office but, being a very conscientious person, my lights were off and I must have stepped straight on it.
A member: Put the lights on first.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, I better put the lights on first.
Madam Speaker, I have read through the statement and, as I said, it was very pleasing to see that the minister has directed her department and her ministerial office to move full steam ahead with this implementation. One of the things here is, she has acknowledged that it will require additional resources. I suppose that is where I have a particular worry, given that we are in some very, very tight economic times, and I commend the minister.
In the time I have been here I have built up a level of trust with the minister and feel that she is a good person. I worry, though, that her biggest battle is going to be winning the Cabinet over in getting some of these things funded, but I will help in any way I possibly can.
As the minister said, first and foremost, we need to find some practical ways to deal with these issues. Again, it is pleasing to see that she is prepared to make the hard decisions that are required, and that is not an easy thing to do, particularly in cases where there are animals involved, because we all know that animals can be rather an emotive issue. I also agree that we are blessed with an amazing natural beauty here in the Northern Territory and we must do all we can to safeguard our environment.
One of the problems I believe that we have, particularly in regard to weeds, I was having a look at the Darwin River quarantine on cabomba, and if you look at the flowers you can very easily see mum and dad and grandma growing these things in the back yard, and I wonder if a lot of our weeds, unfortunately, do look very pretty and would probably look nice in people’s gardens, and that is where some of our problems may be.
Gamba grass: as we know, back in mid- to late-1980s, it was considered to be an asset to some properties, and seed was even being harvested and sold on to others. Camp Creek Station near Adelaide River township was one such property. That devil was considered to be good, fast growing feed, and although stock did not have a particular preference for it, they would eat it and do well. Some pastoralists soon learnt that gamba had to be heavily grazed for a couple of very important reasons: if let go, it becomes a major fire hazard, and as the seed is very light it would spread very easily to your neighbour’s property and beyond; if let grow long and stalky, the stalk would take to it as well, and when it is short it is also sweet; gamba is a clumping grass and can make it difficult to drive and operate machinery. Gamba has its benefits but, unfortunately, they are far outweighed by the disadvantages - like the dreaded mimosa and the cane toad and other introductions gone wrong.
Members may have heard of a near miss we had with cane toads just before Cyclone Tracy, where a teacher brought 30-odd from Queensland to use in school experiments. Subsequently, a dog found the rubbish bin in which they were being held, under at the teacher’s house, and the toads were off. Fortunately, most were either found or splattered on nearby roads and accounted for - a near miss. The point here is, we must be diligent and forever on our guard.
Unfortunately, the toads are here to stay and we can only learn to manage them as best we can. If you look at Queensland today you will notice, after decades of mass toad invasions that, thankfully, they do not appear to be as plentiful as they once were. It appears that the local environment has adapted and, hopefully, this will happen in the Northern Territory; eradication is the preferred option. Obviously, we must continue to do everything we can to continue the fight against these insidious pests.
Some of the issues with donkeys, particularly on the NT/WA border, have been going on for many years. The best part of the last three decades has seen regular ground and aerial culls, resulting in many thousands of donkeys being eliminated, but the battle must go on regardless. The damage caused to our pastoral industry and the environment is well documented, and it is pleasing to see that the government is continuing the fight. Camels have the potential to be as big a pest as donkeys, and it is good that the minister has been out there firsthand seeing the problem.
I recall something which happened not so long ago: friends of mine had cabomba weed in their fish tanks, and I wondered whether or not that is still available today in the Northern Territory, whether people can still get hold of cabomba weed, whether is bought interstate or from overseas. In this particular case, my friend was in the Defence force and posted away, and they had this rather large fish tank with the cabomba weed, so what did they do? They went and turned it into the local creek and let the fish go and, of course, we all know how quickly that particular weed spreads. It has got to do with public awareness of how these things do spread. Someone who upturns their fish tank into the creek, thinking they are doing the right thing in saving the fish rather than down the toilet, or humanely disposed of in other ways. The problem is, those little things can do so much harm.
I am also very interested to study a bit more on the carbon emissions caused by invasive grasses, and I would welcome a briefing at any time that the minister can arrange to learn more about these things. As I said before, gamba grass is a serious fire risk and stopping its spread will reduce that threat. We have seen how destructive wildfires have been, and it is a very tragic point at the moment as we have seen in Victoria.
There are some things in the statement today: creating an environment where peer pressure is used, I thought that was an interesting approach. I hope, however, that landholders are not blamed for something that perhaps happened before their time there, if we could do that by way of infringement notices or notices to clear so they are not penalised for something they did not have responsibility for or did not bring there.
Management, of course, is another important priority. You mentioned cane toads, and I have already touched on cane toads. I was interested to go back and read from the debates on Thursday, 12 June 2008, from the member for Arnhem, which says,
It would be interesting to see if there is any more current feedback, and I will speak to the member for Arnhem about that, because I would like to see that. I am hoping there is a change. A funny thing, I believe, has happened since the cane toads came here, and they have made a remarkable impact on the environment since they first arrived in the Northern Territory. What I have seen in the wild a couple of times, and it is fascinating, to see a crow, for instance, turn a cane toad over and start to eat it from underneath where it is not poisoned, and yet the first crows that perhaps ate these cane toads perished. I was wondering who told the crow that if you turn them over it was okay to eat. I just think nature can be a marvellous thing sometimes and there is hope for us all; there is evolution.
We talked about some of the biological controls such as pheromones, and I am thinking that perhaps some of the aftershave worn around here could be used to propel some of the cane toads that we have here. Sex reversal – that is another interesting one.
I wonder sometimes that evolution seems to happen a bit quicker than we can introduce some of these controls. One of the ideas I put forward to the Palmerston Council when I was the Regulatory Manager there was that the black pet poo bags be used for people when they pick up cane toads and freeze them. I have had the unfortunate circumstance where I thought that I was defrosting a steak one night for a barbecue, and it was not a steak after all - it was a cane toad that one of my children had caught and put in a white plastic bag and popped in the freezer. Hence, the idea that these black pet poo bags, ideal in size, and if you found one of them in your freezer you would know straightaway that the black bag is the cane toad, and what might be in the white bag is the steak and the meat and so forth. It is really a good idea not to have that problem again and to identify which things you can eat in the freezer, and which things that you should …
Ms Purick: A separate freezer.
Mr CHANDLER: Separate freezer, the member for Goyder said. That might be a good idea.
It is also great to see a major feral animal management program in the Katherine region. Wallabies have been one of the big issues down there lately, as the member for Katherine so rightly pointed out, in regard to medical services at the Tindal Airbase.
I would like to recall a small story. I was visiting an animal rescue centre recently and the story was that a wallaby was run over on the road, and a young family had stopped and rendered assistance to the wallaby and taken it to the rescue centre because it needed some repairs – that was the wallaby, not the car – and the veterinarian provided the service and there was a bit of rehabilitation at the veterinarian’s surgery. Then it was given to wild carers to look after; then it was sent to a refuge where, for many months, the wallaby was retrained to go back into the wild. I thought: ‘What a wonderful vocation. What a wonderful thing to do for that little animal’. And I could not help thinking as I was being told this story, the irony that we were destroying thousands of wallabies only a couple of hundred kilometres down the road. However, I suppose there is a balance there and it might sound a strange story, but I am realist. I am an animal lover, but I am also a realist and I understand when things like this need to happen; and the minister has promised to make those hard decisions where needed.
We understand that there are many environmental problems with horses and donkeys and the wild dog problem which also affects some of the fringes of our urban areas. A lot of these dogs are not wild dogs, they are – well, I classify them as wild dogs - but NRETAS says that if a dog is part domesticated it is no longer a pure dingo and not their responsibility.
The 1080 debate is interesting. We have feral cat problems, we have feral dog problems and other animal problems, and there have been a lot of experiments done around the world. On the fellowship tour I did, I learnt so much about the process that animals use in the wild. In fact, it is highlighted by an experiment that was done in Victoria where they were trapping wild cats out of an area and thought they were reducing the numbers, but in all the surveys they did, they found that the animals were returning. Nature has this way of filling the void, if you like. So they had a very successful program where they removed the cats, had them desexed, then returned them back to the wild and what that did, it had a very strong impact on that area because the cats could no longer multiply and there was no void to fill, so the management of the numbers was a real eye-opener and a real success story.
There is a veterinarian in the Northern Territory who is open to trying that experiment with wild dogs, for instance, on a property. Rather than trying to kill off animals, as I said, there is this natural regrowth or filling a void. I spoke to him about this idea, would it work for dogs if it works for cats in certain areas? He looked rather surprised but thought it is worth giving a shot, and I think it may be a great way that the department could perhaps experiment on a property where – and this veterinarian is quite happy to be involved in a program like this – they could go in, they could capture these animals, they could desex them and then put them back out on to these properties.
It does not get rid of them, but manages their numbers, and we all know that animals have a tendency in very good times to multiply and in hard times, they do not. Up here, of course, we have the Wet Season every year, so our land is replenished, and even in the Centre in recent times there have been some terrific rains, and I am sure the animal population will start to grow. Perhaps there are ways to look at that. That has never been done before in regard to other animals, it has been done with cats, but maybe we could look outside the square and try some of those initiatives.
I did some research in regard to the Edward Pellew Islands. I again commend the minister - what a wonderful result. As it was pointed out, it was very good training for the local Indigenous rangers. The Island Ark Project saving the Northern Quolls is another terrific example of what we can do to sustain the lives of a population of animals that could or would otherwise be extinct.
As you point out, the damage caused by camels in Central Australia is very serious. Again you made that point about the hard decisions, because that will be a hard one. I also acknowledge that there could be some economic activity there in regard to the camels. I sincerely think that would be an easier way to sell it. I know that governments around Australia and the world often come under scrutiny from wildlife agencies. The HSUS, the Humane Society of the United States, often make issues when governments are trying to cull an animal. They did it in Canberra a couple of years ago when there was a wallaby problem there –kangaroos, in fact. So, if there was an economic advantage here, particularly for Indigenous people, it would have my absolute support. As I said, it would be a way of being able to sell it to outside agencies. I know that some people might think that does not matter, but they do apply pressure, and they can apply some pretty strong pressure in the media at times. However, if you can show a direct benefit, it just might help get that one over the line.
I recall when I spent a week in Washington a couple of years ago with the Humane Society of the United States. Before I went into the lunch room, I was pulled aside and told to be careful about saying what I was having for lunch. I did not think anything more of it, but I am glad I did not have a steak sandwich that day. It really stunned me, working in this environment full of people who cared that much for animals that they would not dare eat them. I am raving about fishing in the Northern Territory and they were looking at me horrified: ‘You fish?’ ‘Do you fish? They were not impressed by the fact that I was supposed to be an advocate for animals, but I was enjoying fishing and doing things like that.
I also agree with your statement, minister, that the cooperation of traditional owners and residents will be crucial to making this whole thing work, particularly in regard to the camels. I also commend you on the Yellow Crazy Ant, that quick action. I had never heard of them before. The first time I had seen them was on television when they said there was an outbreak in Berrimah. Not long after that, I actually saw a Discovery documentary on these ants in the United States and just how they take over. It is a terrible thing, what they can do
I worry that we spend a great deal - and I suppose you can take this as a criticism, but this government does spend a lot - on glossy brochures, and I worry how much that makes a difference. I attended an environmental breakfast last week, and there was an interesting experiment they did in the United States where this municipality was trying to save water across the community. They spent $500 000 in sending out a pamphlet to all the people within the municipality to try to save water. But they wanted to measure whether or not that $500 000 was going to be a success, so they sent it out randomly, ensuring that 50% of the population was covered. They read the meters before the booklet went out, then a month later, three months later, and six months later. They had spent $500 000 on this pamphlet; their idea was to change people’s habits. What they found after one month with the people who had not received the pamphlet was the change in their water usage, their habits, was zero; the people who received the pamphlet, the change in their habits was zero - and the same result was in three months and in six months. They had spent $0.5m in sending out a booklet which promoted all the right things, and they surveyed afterwards, and they did convince people - yes, everything in the book that was the right thing to do - but did it change their habits? No, it did not.
It proved that you need to have some kind of stimulus. You need to have an impact on someone to change. There has to be something in it for them, whether it is a penalty, or a levy, or all these types of things, but there has to be a direct benefit to them before you will change someone’s habit. One thing I think government should be looking at is the way we try to share information with the community. The glossy brochures, whilst they are well intended, sometimes do not change people’s habits, and if that is what we really want to do, then we really need to focus on how we change people’s habits.
It is also good to see that you are working together towards a common goal to preserving our unique natural environment. As I said before, I have built up a level of trust with this minister; the minister is a good person, a very good person. I have concerns if she will have the ability to influence the Cabinet to spend the money necessary, particularly in these times of economic crisis, particularly given that we are facing a $200m black hole.
As an example of the way I think government sometimes likes to gloss things up, I have just read the annual report from the EPA, and here is the golden child for this government in regard to having an independent Environment Protection Authority. As I read through this, it was interesting to see that they have strategic objectives - fantastic. They have principles, which is to provide independent and transparent advice. It was established on 19 October 2005 and I know this is its first year in operation, this is its first annual report, but I worry that the report is 15 pages long and it is not a very comprehensive document in regard to what I would think an EPA stands for.
As it says here: ‘The interim board recommended that: the EPA should be clearly identified, and clearly distinguished from the operational and enforcement aspects of environmental protection and regulation provided by government agencies. In order to be independent, the EPA should be established by legislation which ensures appointment of members by executive council have considered the recommendations of the minister’. I question how it could be independent if the minister is recommending who is going to be on the board in the first place. ‘The EPA to make recommendations to the responsible minister and parliament’. Again, it is to the responsible minister, directly, and could be stopped from going to parliament.
‘The principle of transparency should be fundamental, that is, make matters public unless there are reasonable grounds not to’. Now, the reasonable grounds could be the minister or the Cabinet decides we do not get to see the report. The last part, and remember this is what the interim board recommended: ‘Capacity and resources to fund its own investigational reports’. I will get back to that one shortly.
The authority is made up of four members on the board, three of which …
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are talking about the report on the invasive species from the Environment committee. I am just questioning a point of relevance. The member for Brennan is talking about a report from the EPA …
Mr CHANDLER: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr CHANDLER: I am simply trying to point out, and I will pick up on the interjection, that it is trying to paint a picture of this government and how it really acts in regard to protecting our environment. These reports, there is some fantastic work in there, but we all know that the EPA is such an important part of what this government is supposed to stand for and protect the environment, and yes, we have all this wonderful work here, and yet this is the kind of backing that you give. You give the kind of backing that does not even provide a budget for an independent EPA. It says:
The most important thing here:
Yet, on the following page it is mentioned three times:
That is directed by the minister. So it shows that the minister can direct them to do things.
I know it is a new organisation and I know there is work to be done, and I will be interested to read and follow up on how things do progress in the next 12 months.
One part of the minister’s statement, I believe, does point out the fact that: a dollar spent saves hundreds. In the report it actually says: ‘For every dollar spent you save approximately $38’. That is from Dr C Bradshaw, Transcript of Evidence, 16 November 2006, page 344.
To finalise:
I am quoting here from Submission No 35 from the report:
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, your time has expired.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I also welcome the report from the minister for the Environment. Being an original member on this committee, it is a great body of work and involved a great deal of effort, and I acknowledge the effort and the contribution of past and present members of that committee; Ted Warren was a champion of the objectives of this committee.
It was certainly a good committee to set up, and invasive species threaten both our environment and our economy in the Territory, and likewise our lifestyle. The overrun of weeds into the waterholes and other places certainly deprives us of those lifestyle pleasures.
Also to thank Matthew Bonson, Fay Miller and Richard Lim who were on that committee, and also the member for Nelson who was on the committee for a time. I thank them all for their contribution.
The inquiry that we undertook was quite extensive, there were approximately 43 submissions. We had several days of presentations with some very significant academic professionals, and also peak bodies and non-government organisations that provided a wealth of knowledge. Also from the private sector, we had a gentleman come in from a cattle station to talk about gamba and other weeds that he had on his property and his attempts to control them, and also his attempts to control mimosa pigra which, for Top Enders, it is a significant problem.
I drew on my experience with mimosa pigra out on the Oenpelli floodplains. I was there in the early 1990s; we had a major weed eradication program funded through the Commonwealth and run through the Territory’s PIFR department. There was thousands and thousands of hectares where the mimosa was three or four times the height of a car. We dropped tonnes and tonnes of chemicals on that mimosa over one build-up season; killed off a lot of it over that Wet Season, but there was a lot of striping with the poison and we had to go back and do it again, and then we started the chaining. So an incredible amount of work and, an incredible amount of money went into it, and there was just nothing underneath that mimosa, it had killed everything underneath. Only the pigs survived underneath there.
You talk to the old timers out there and they talk about a couple of plants out on the floodplain, glorious floodplains with just a couple of trees, and that was only a matter of years before. With the buffalo, it certainly spread very quickly and it drops something like 5000 seeds per square metre, which is incredible, and they can last up to 20 years, and fire only gets them going. So it is an incredibly durable weed and certainly something that is costing us a lot of money.
Also, my involvement with salvinia through the waterholes throughout Kakadu, there are significant outbreaks of salvinia still, obviously, being worked on. I am delighted to be able to contribute to this, and having described the weed problem in Kakadu and Arnhem Land, they are certainly overrunning a great deal of the prime country we have in the Territory.
One of the issues that really struck me is how many invasive species we actually have in the Territory - 119 declared weeds, and having nine major weeds of national significance here certainly is a real problem. My involvement around the Katherine region highlights the work that goes on with the weed management groups and the management group in Katherine has been working very hard with the risk management strategy, and now that has been adopted. They also came out with a weed identification book, which is a great book; it fits in your top pocket or in your glove box and allows people to actually identify weeds and how to eradicate them.
The inquiry began in December 2005 and finished in November 2006. We had eight hearings. and I give credit to the former member for Goyder, who made sure we got out into the regions. The eight hearings were held in seven different locations and the wealth of information that came out was certainly appreciated. One of the key findings was in relation to gamba grass through the rural area and through the regions in the Top End.
Gamba grass is such a prodigious weed and it has really eradicated a great deal of good country, it destroys a lot of the major trees and, if you get a hot fire through there with the gamba, it starts to wipe out the trees and then you start to get more gamba grass in there. Through the Coomalie region and further afield, it really has taken over whole paddocks, and when you do not have either slashing or cattle on it, it can get to heights of 10 feet. As I have said before in this House, when gamba is dry and burns, it can get as hot as an oxy torch; so it destroys any other seeds that are around and it certainly causes a great problem.
Several years ago, we had a fire come up through the Acacia area and it had such strength that the firestorm in front of it was actually igniting green mango plantations. So gamba is a real risk, it takes over country and the Landcare groups are very active in trying to eradicate this. Declaring it has been a long time coming, it is something the government has been able to do outside of any sort of EPA action, and it is certainly welcome. It is about being pragmatic about it and working with the community. The Coomalie Council has a scheme whereby they provide glycosate at a minimal profit margin to landholders so they can go out and try to eradicate the gamba grass.
Obviously, one of the bigger areas of concern is the spread and management of weeds on Crown land, and the minister did highlight that. It is something that we, as government members through our individual departments, need to be looking at, the land held by different departments or the Northern Territory Land Corporation. We must find ways of controlling it and look at innovative solutions such as getting cattle on to those properties if the poisons or the annual slashing are unaffordable.
One of the other weeds which was highlighted in the report was cabomba weed. In my electorate, the most prominent outbreak has been in the Darwin River area. We had a situation where we actually had to close and poison that whole river to get rid of the cabomba. It was quite a drastic step. One thing that did happen was that it started to reseed, which is a world first, apparently, so there had to be ongoing monitoring of the outbreak there. It certainly is a concern; that is a very popular stretch of waterway for the residents and for water supplies further down where people extract from that system. The cabomba can cause a great many biological problems in the river system. The ongoing monitoring is certainly warranted.
On the invasive animal species, cane toads come up-front and centre. I was in Katherine for quite some time and saw the cane toads there. It was a wave, they came in and were almost everywhere. Then there seemed to be a lag after the wave came through and their numbers dropped back; whether that was due to lack of food sources or people’s persistence in trying to kill them, but the cane toads have certainly taken over.
I was recently driving from Mandorah around the Cox Peninsula Road and saw a large monitor lizard. It was such a delightful sight to see those lizards because, in my time in the Territory, you used to see quite a lot of them. They were very big and I love the look of them, and they are great eating as well. They have disappeared, and disappeared primarily because of the cane toads. It is very sad. The initiatives of using parasites and other measures need to be looked into. We are not on our own, obviously Queensland battled for decades, and Western Australia is about to receive the onslaught. Unfortunately, we are learning to live with them here in the Territory, but the vigilance goes on. Those ToadBusters and the FrogWatch groups are doing a great job. Just recently, they had a toad busting night at Wagait Beach and they got a lot of cane toads. It is an area that needs to be looked at in the future.
The minister talked about camels. In my time in the VRD, I use to drive on the back road from Mistake Creek back through to Kalkarindji, and I have never seen so many camels in my life, through that back road there; they just rip up country. Also, when I was at Docker River a while back, flying into the airport, there are three or four big strands of thick wire running alongside the perimeter fence around the airstrip, and I said: ‘What is all this about?’ And it was because of the camels. I had never seen it before. These camels knock down fences; and when we went into Docker River, there was a water hydrant all smashed up. It was just unbelievable.
Certainly, an innovative solution is needed, and culling is obviously one option, but you do get problems with basically shooting and leaving them there, you get a lot of flies and other problems. Looking at economic opportunities, I know there are a lot of people around who are looking at those economic opportunities - herding and setting up yards were they can actually run a type of abattoir. We have to look at that, be pragmatic about the type of abattoirs we can have, and get those numbers down.
Also, horses and donkeys; there are huge populations of donkeys through the VRD which denude the area of vegetation. That, in itself, leads to the spread of weeds through that area. I know horses are a popular pet for a lot of people, certainly out bush, and they are seen as an asset and a companion, but they do cause a lot of problems. They travel a lot further, they are hard hoofed, and they do a lot of damage.
One animal which does not get much recognition is the buffalo. The buffalo is coming back, and in Arnhem Land it is coming back in numbers. It was only last year or the year before I spotted a buffalo some 100 km west of Timber Creek, within 100 km of the Western Australian border; so the buffalo is certainly coming back. I have a personal kind of love of buffalo, I reckon they are great animals, but they do wreck the environment. They spread weeds, which is the situation at Oenpelli and, I would imagine, a great many floodplains across the Top End. They disrupt the soil, allowing weeds to grow; they take away the coverage grasses, which compete with weeds as well, so we certainly need to be conscious of where the feral buffalo are going.
Also, wild dogs. In the Coomalie region we have had our fair share of wild dogs killing young calves. The minister’s comments in relation to the 1080, responsible use is certainly the way to go; getting that out there and providing training in its use so our primary producers can actually make a living and we can get these wild dogs out of the system. They are also impacting on our dingo population; the damage they do to cattle and other animals is just awful. A lot of the time they maim them but do not kill them outright, so the more flexibility that the minister mentioned regarding 1080 poison certainly would be welcomed from the primary produce sector.
Also, feral cats - anybody who travels around the bush, in the middle of nowhere, you spot a cat or two. They are there and they do not look skinny most of the time, so they are obviously living off the wildlife, whether they are rats or mice, or native bird life. So eradicating those feral cats is something I would not shy away from at all.
Madam Speaker, this report has been a long time coming. It is welcoming to see that there is a grant scheme now available. I know a lot of smaller communities and groups around the Territory will be looking very closely at applying for those, and they do a lot work. Most of those groups use that money for materials or infrastructure and they would make that money go a long way. It is that vigilance; it is that commitment from locals and that knowledge; you have to know what is a weed and what is not to be able to do something about it. Just watching the development of ToadBusters and the education in schools about toads and other invasive species is encouraging. I know the great work that the weeds team around the Daly River do with the community about identifying exotic, introduced species is great, there are things I have never heard of before, and they are getting onto it very early. It is very welcoming and encouraging.
Minister, I hope that all the work in this report informs your future considerations about initiatives and the focus of the department. I know you are very committed to it.
In closing, I would like to again thank those former members, especially Ted Warren, for his dogmatic approach to this inquiry and getting some real results for Territorians.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for the statement. It was not until I got this statement that I realised that I did know about this sessional hearing and the work, because during my time at the Minerals Council, we put in a submission with regards to the terms of reference.
Yes, the weeds problem is an ever increasing problem, not just in the Northern Territory, but Australia-wide. Plant species continue to be introduced into Australia, both accidentally and intentionally, for agricultural purposes, pastoral, but also for the ornamentals. We have seen a number of species that have come in and for one reason or another have either got out of control or have been dumped in the bush and created problems. I know from the work that I have done previously that, in the 200 years since settlement in Australia, we have something in the vicinity of 28 000 introduced plant species, mostly for pastoral, horticulture and ornamentals; and only about 2500 of those plants have been naturalised, so we do have a big problem out there.
Of course, one of the two or three key issues is that it costs community and industry a lot of money, something in the vicinity of $3.5bn in lost production; and the other key area is, obviously, it can and is detrimental to our environment and eco-systems, biodiversity and so on. Additionally, the feral animals are a similar situation, most, if not all, have been introduced for one reason or another - sometimes for pleasure or recreation, like foxes and rabbits, which were brought in originally to entertain the landed gentry, as they did in England in those times, and some were brought in for breeding and when that was not successful, they were let go. So there are issues there as well.
In going through the document, I see that there will be a requirement in regard to implementing much of what you want to implement and it will require additional resources, so I hope that you will go in to bat strongly with your colleagues to get adequate resources to do the work programs that you want to do. Also, the time frames, are they realistic time frames that can be achieved?
I was interested in the early part that the focus is going to be on what the practical ways are that people can do things, and that is important because we do not want any highfalutin things that are not realistic and which people either cannot accommodate or they are not interested in.
I will relate a small story in regard to how one couple did things in a practical way. It was in the days when Pancontinental had the Jabiluka Deposit and the Ja Ja camp. There was the Jabiluka billabong, and I believe the salvinia weed was choking the billabong and choking up the fish and upsetting things. The caretaker of the camp was a fellow called Bob Hall. Bob Hall used to wade out, waist deep, into that billabong and pull out the weeds by hand and chuck them into the boat. The interesting thing is that billabong was full of crocodiles and his wife was sitting in that boat with a shotgun ready to shoot the crocodiles in case they came for him. And that was their practical way of tackling it. He did this every day, day-in-day –out, and he did make inroads, but that has all changed and I am not sure how the billabong is going. Yes, there are practical ways we can do things, and I applaud that.
Also, your scenario of a risk-based approach, definitely, I could not agree more; it has to be done on a risk-based approach and engage with the community and industry. I presume when you talk about community, that includes the research organisations like Weeds CRC and Australian groups like that; and also forge strong partnerships with local governments, land councils, the other states, etcetera.
In your statement, you talk about two broad groups: you talk about weeds and feral animals. I query why you have not included marine pests, because we do have the issue of marine pests in the northern part of the Territory, and they too can present just as serious a list of problems as can land-based ones. For example, they are generally accidentally brought into our country through ballast water or other ways. We are going to see an increase in the number of ships coming into our port both with ConocoPhillips and, if and when INPEX is up and running, there will be a lot more ships and they will have ballast water. Minister, I ask that in addressing this invasive species that it is a three-pronged approach - weeds, feral animals and marine pests - because we only have to go back to the situation of the striped mussel, or whatever it was, in Cullen Bay and how that was tackled and the potential problems with that.
Further in your statement, you talk about releasing individual weed management plans to help landowners and managers, and that is great. One issue I would like to bring to your attention. I have had people come into my electoral office looking for weed identification material and the department, I think it might have been Primary Industry and Fisheries, did have a hard identification kit with flips which was laminated so you could have it in backs of cars. They are not doing that any more and I have had quite a few people come in wanting it.
I know the Horticultural Association does up a poster, but there is no real hard material; there is information on the Internet, but that is limited as well, so if you actually have a problem plant or a problem weed and you do not know what it is, you physically have to go into the facility at Palmerston, and that is not always practical for people. So I ask if that could be revisited. I am happy to show an example of what I am talking about because it is a very useful tool for landowners and anyone for that matter.
Again, I ask about the important research; you talk about that. Is it your department, or in cooperation with research organisations? And if it is, that is great, because I think part of the battle is to do the research in regard to the practical things on the ground.
Talking about gamba grass, and I know that there has been some comment about that and my personal view is: just poison the stuff and that gets rid of it pretty quick.
Mr Wood: Not on Wallaby Holtze Road.
Ms PURICK: Parts of Wallaby Holtze Road have been poisoned quite successfully. But I think maybe some consideration needs to be given, and this would only apply to small landholders, obviously - some kind of incentive program. I really do not know what it is, but to encourage people to get rid of it off their smaller blocks, because the more we tackle it on a small scale then, of course, others will perhaps follow. I do not have anything in mind and I will have to give it some consideration but, yes, have regulation, but sometimes you need to balance that with some kind of incentive scheme, however small that may be.
You talk about the government having to work out about control of weeds on Crown Land. I could not agree more, because government must be seen to be leading, and we know there are a lot of weed problems on government land whether it be the grasses like gamba and mission grass or any other areas.
I, too, have a few concerns about creating an environment where peer pressure will help ensure landholders, and I would not want to see a culture being developed of dob-in-your-neighbour type of thing, so I am not quite sure what was meant by that. If it is a situation of encouraging best practice, that is good, but I would not want to see a dob-in-a-neighbour type situation, because I think they could have bad social implications.
I see there are working relationships with retail nurseries regarding which plant species can come in and which ones cannot. I would encourage talking to nurseries and also, minister, if the departments could have in their plans to talk to the pet shop people as well, because they often have the importation of small fish and also decorative plants they put in fish ponds, and I have seen salvinia and other types of plants for fish tanks in pet shops. They are still selling them currently, so I am not sure how we can get around it, but I think pet shops must be included in the list of business people to talk to.
Of course, there is the ubiquitous cane toad. I do not have the problem of my colleague because I have a separate fridge for my dog meat and the cane toads go in there. Interestingly, there is a school of thought that Muscovy ducks, which originate in South America, have been shown to be able to eat the toadlets and survive. I have had Muscovy ducks on my property, as do my neighbours, and I am not saying that is why we have less cane toads but, in talking with the researchers at Fogg Dam at the open day, they said there is some merit in it. They were going to look at it a little further. So if anyone wants to buy my Muscovy ducks, it might help get rid of your cane toad problem.
Yes, cane toads are an issue, and I know there are tremendous efforts from all parties to try to get rid of them, including the researchers. One day, they will come up with something that, perhaps, can get them under control.
In talking about feral animals, you talked about a wild dog problem. I am not exactly sure what the definition of a wild dog is. I am not sure if that includes dingoes or not. I do not think it does, because I believe they are protected, but I was just was not clear about wild dogs. If it does include dingoes well, so be it, or perhaps you are referring to crossbred dogs with dingoes that get dumped in the bush, grow up and crossbreed. Yes, that is a problem and I appreciate and applaud the use of 1080 poison because it is very effective in those kinds of animals. I know the animal liberationists would not agree, but that is just a bit of bad luck.
In your comments about the problems with larger feral animals in Central Australia such as camels or donkeys, I know it is a big picture thing, but why can there not be consideration given to turning a problem into an industry? I know there were camel exports, and I do not know if there still is. Why can we not somehow start in a small way to cultivate camels for pet meat, or camel sausages or something? Maybe they do it, I do not know. Perhaps the problem is far too big; sometimes, for every bad side you can, somehow, turn it into an upside and get a benefit from it. I appreciate camels can be very destructive because they are very large animals.
Apart from that, it is a good statement. It is the beginning of a long road to try to improve and protect our environment in the Territory, and as long it is done in a cooperative manner with all the community, then we have a chance of success.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to support the statement by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage. From the outset, I should say that, being a member of the Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, it was an interesting and instructive period of time, although it was relatively short. I also congratulate all those other members in the House and those who are no longer with us, who spent time on the committee. The report that we have before us now is a great piece of work and will certainly take us down the track in addressing many of the issues identified in it.
Like many Territorians, I am aware of the negative impact that introduced and feral fauna and flora can have on our unique environment in the Northern Territory. As the member for Macdonnell has said, we must do all we can to safeguard our natural assets against the damage that can be done by invasive species. The saying goes that every cloud has a silver lining; while I am no fan of feral species, I do see some opportunities for regional development when it comes to controlling these pests.
My colleague has spoken about the need to forge strong relationships on the ground with communities when trying to stop the spread of invasive species and repairing the damage that has already been done. There are many opportunities worthy of further investigation for our remote communities and towns, and feral animal management programs are one area that can provide opportunities for jobs and enterprises in regional communities.
Feral camels, for example, inhabit large tracts of land, not only in Central Australia but also throughout the country. The national estimate of numbers are in excess of one million head of camels, with the population increasing by 100 000 a year across Australia. As I said, camels are a huge problem in Central Australia, particularly for pastoralists, but also for the environment. The most recent figures for the Northern Territory suggest there are between 120 000 and 160 000 camels, particularly in the southern arid areas of the Northern Territory. The camel industry is still in its virgin stages, but camel meat is becoming more acceptable to consumers and is often found as a specialty meat on restaurant menus and for pet consumption.
The Central Australian Camel Industry Association in Alice Springs is the only organisation in Australia currently slaughtering and selling camel meat. It has been slaughtering around 300 camels per year since 1995, which represents approximately 49 tonnes of camel meat with an average wholesale value of $250 000. The camel meat market is fairly restricted at the moment, but an economic analysis of feral harvesting and domestic production of camels for live export or processing is currently being undertaken by the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry and Fisheries Economics Unit. Harvesting camels from the wild can be a difficult and unpredictable business, but there are some investigations going on into the sustainable management of camels on Indigenous-held lands and pastoral properties.
Interestingly, camels themselves can help fight other invasive species. They have been found to enjoy snacking on some weed species, such as parkinsonia and mimosa bushes. Central Australian camels are also proving useful in eating the prickly acacia on northern Queensland’s Mitchell Plains.
The minister has touched on the feral animal management program in the Katherine region. I know through my many travels, as well as the issues the member for Daly has raised, there is a huge problem, particularly with feral donkeys, throughout the VRD region. The project by the Northern Land Council and Central Land Council, in partnership with the communities on the ground, is a great success, particularly in the areas of horse and donkey control.
I also commend the minister for her commitment in talking to our Indigenous communities in our regions about the need to implement these management controls and programs.
Feral animals not only cause a lot of concern in terms of the environment and environmental degradation, but in many areas out bush they also cause concern to traditional owners, particularly in regard to their sacred sites. I know in my electorate, particularly through the Tanami regions and some of the huge pastoral leases, many traditional owners have come to me with their concerns after having sacred sites damaged by feral animals. I have also been told horses, donkeys, and wild herd cattle have caused this damage. Many people out bush are genuinely concerned about how to protect significant areas from these invasive species, and should also be very much part of the process of implementation of these programs.
Some feral animals have come to form a traditional part of the diet for people who live in remote Territory communities. In Central Australia, rabbits have come to be seen as a significant food source, and many people see feral cats as good tucker.
The work of the Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development on Invasive Species had a direct relationship with regional development in my electorate of Stuart. The mining industry, for example, plays a significant role in the management of invasive species in the Territory.
I have previously referred to the work that has been carried out at the Granites Gold mine in my electorate, but I think it is worth highlighting for new members. Around 10 years ago, when I worked for the Normandy Mining Company, the Granites Gold Mine was closely involved in assisting traditional owners to manage weeds and feral animals on the mining lease. They had their own department of environmental care onsite and were involved with the traditional owners in programs to identify and collect examples of invasive species of flora and fauna. I also recall them producing a book; I think it was called ‘Weeds and Feral Animals in the Tanami Desert’, which helped staff, workers and passers-by identify native and invasive animals and plants, such as mice and feral pigeons.
Newhaven Station, also in my electorate in the far south, is also playing its part. Newhaven Bird Sanctuary is jointly owned by Birds Australia and the Australian Wildlife Conservatory. It is believed to provide a home for some 160 species of wild birds and a number of threatened species, including the Grey Falcon, the Grey Honeyeater and the Black-footed Wallaby. It is also the location of one of the last sightings in this country of the Night Parrot, an extremely rare species on the brink of extinction. Even remote Newhaven Station has its own problems with invasive species, including foxes and feral cats.
I would also like to mention a couple of Commonwealth programs, and I am pleased the minister will be working closely with our federal colleagues. Obviously, through the Caring for Our Country program there is the national reserves system, and also the Indigenous Protected Areas program. I am probably more familiar with the Indigenous Protected Areas program, as there is one currently in the northern Tanami region of my electorate, particularly around Lajamanu.
Much of the IPA lands are in extremely good condition, but is under threat from wild fire, weeds and feral animals. The day-to-day patrolling of this program is undertaken by the Wulaign Rangers, all local Lajamanu men, and is set up under the control of the Central Land Council. Rangers not only monitor native wildlife and controlled pests, but they also fence off key areas to protect native species, as well as sacred sites.
In relation to recommendation 11 of the report, where the committee recommends that the Northern Territory government controls weeds and feral animals on Crown land by using Indigenous programs, among others, to control weeds and feral animals on Crown land, the Indigenous Protected Areas program is just one example of how that can be done. I believe by working with all levels of government there are unique opportunities for our new shires in the regions to undertake environmental programs or management projects.
I also take on board the comments by the member for Brennan; I think it was a very good comment: we do not only have feral animals or invasive species in remote areas, but also in our towns.
In closing, I add the issue of town camps in Alice Springs and the great partnership between the Alice Springs Town Council and Tangentyere Council in tackling the issues of wild dogs at the Hidden Valley Town Camp.
I join the minister in thanking all those people who have contributed to the report. I am very pleased to support the minister’s statement, and wish her all the best in the future.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have a few comments on the minister’s statement, and I thank the minister for the statement.
The issues that concern me relate mainly to weeds. Some of these weeds have been around for quite a while, and we have had many people talk about them and many people write articles about them and, while we have been writing articles and talking about them, those weeds have been growing faster and faster, and gamba grass is a classic example. I know the minister has now declared that it is a controlled weed, and that is very nice and is probably the approach we have to have, simply because we have to find the balance between what many of us think is a major threat to our environment versus many people in the pastoral industry who regard it as an important species that benefits live cattle, especially in the Top End of Australia.
The minister says first and foremost we will focus on the practical ways we can take action on the ground and this involves making the hard decisions in getting resources where they are needed. I agree, but I believe we are going through that stage of still talking. We know where the gamba grass is, we have mapped it. We know how to kill it, it is called Roundup. We need to put in a practical system of people on the ground, with four-wheel drives with tanks on the back with a good supply of Roundup, all working in specified areas, with a long-term plan of probably about 20 years at least, to tackle gamba grass.
I understand there have been meetings recently; I heard word that there is a Weed Management Strategy Group which got together and had some difference of opinion on which weed we should focus our resources on. I believe there was some disagreement as to whether it should be gamba or some other weeds. I put gamba at the top of the pile. If we do not control gamba, we put a lot of the Top End at risk, because we know what damage it does when it burns. I presume that that is what some of the comments about our greenhouse gases is about, because it is a grass that when it burns, it burns with a lot of heat, and I presume a lot of carbon gets burnt and put into the atmosphere.
I think the government has had enough time to discuss these issues. It needs to basically come in like the army and say: ‘Right. We’ll cut this Top End up into A, B, D, E, F and G. We will employ that number of people with’ – well, probably it would need more than a quad to take the volume of water to go out and spray for a while, but we need the infrastructure to actually go out physically and spray these weeds. Each person will have a responsibility to do it on Crown land, and I think then we have agreements with some private owners where perhaps they pay for the Roundup, but we will come in and help them spray the weeds on their property. It is no use Crown land controlling weeds, and I do not think they have done a very good job of that in the past, and you have a private landowner who has got the same problem, who is not controlling their weeds. This has to be followed up; gamba is one of those weeds, if you do not come back you might as well not be bothered in the first place.
If you go around close to town, down Amy Johnson Drive and parts of Tiger Brennan Drive, they have sprayed in there a number of times, but it requires people to come back - weeds will be missed, seeds will still keep coming up - it requires a concerted, long-term plan. It does not require too much rocket science; we know how to control it, we just need to set up a practical way of controlling it. If that means employing 20 people over the next 20 years, so be it, but if we are really serious about controlling it, we are not going to get anywhere unless we do it.
The member for Goyder mentioned about helping landowners. I do know there is a scheme in Litchfield Shire, especially among Landcare groups, and it probably goes outside Litchfield Shire, where the government has given some money for Landcare groups for small spraying equipment which can be used by landowners in the area; that is a good thing as well and more of those things can be included in the package.
I think we need to focus on those main weeds. I am not saying we completely take our eye off the ball; mimosa has been round for a long time and is a real problem. We have put many insects in to try to munch and crunch on mimosa and, in some cases, it has possibly worked, and it would be interesting to hear from the minister whether we could get a report on the success or otherwise on the biological control of mimosa. It is certainly a weed which is difficult for the average person to control, and is normally found more in the big floodplains and some of those larger blocks of land rather than the more built-up areas, although it does invade into some of the closer areas. I knew mimosa grew in Geranium Street, Stuart Park, when I used to do some gardening there. I would pull it out and it would come up next year; I would pull it out and it would come up the next year because the seeds last for at least 10 years. But I think gamba, because of its fire potential and its potential to really affect the environment is the one we should be aiming at in this part of the world.
The minister also mentioned the importance of looking after Crown land and says the government is also looking after its own patch in developing the Northern Territory Crown Land Weed Management Strategy to address weed issues on government land. The government is committed to a risk-based approach countering threats to the Territory’s natural environment.
What I would like to say on that is: I visited two parks recently; the closest one was Howard Springs, and I actually raised this in the media recently, when I walked around the park near the springs and found quite substantial amounts of snake weed and hyptis I would have thought, for a small park, that Parks and Wildlife would have that well and truly under control. Howard Springs Nature Park is not a big piece of country; it is a relatively small piece of land. There was a response from Parks on the radio that they were doing weed control. One of my jobs before I had this job was spraying weeds. When you spray weeds like snake weed and hyptis, they curl up, you immediately see that the plant has been sprayed. I did not see any plants being sprayed except bits of Roundup around posts so the lawnmower did not have to get too close. If that is what Parks and Wildlife say is their weed control, yes, there was weed control, but the weed control that needs to happen in those parks is the control of things like snake weed and hyptis. I would have thought there would be a constant plan and money allocated each year for weed control in a park, of all places.
I went to Katherine Gorge recently. I was going to talk about it in my adjournment debate, but I might just raise some of it now. If you go from the visitors’ park along one of the day walks on the edge of the gorge, you will see massive amounts of weeds all along the river bank. It is a difficult area to control, but I would have thought, especially near the visitors’ park, there would be some program by the government, by Parks, to ensure - and they are at their best at the moment because it is lovely weather for them - a broad-scale approach to reducing the amount of weeds. I saw some very small areas that had been sprayed, but it did not look like there was a concerted effort to ensure these weeds were killed. If the government is talking about management of weeds on Crown land, it needs to look at what it is doing in its parks first, and see whether that is working. I certainly get the impression there is not enough money being put into weed control in its own parks right now.
The other thing the government is talking about is various ways of encouraging people to come on board to control weeds on their blocks. It would have been a good time for the minister to give us a review of the effectiveness of the Weeds Management Act 2001. My understanding, from talking to people, is that it is pretty well a toothless tiger and part of the reason is, if you start to introduce the conditions in the Weeds Management Act you would impose on the government the need to do things on its own Crown land. It has things called Weed Advisory Committees, and what I would be asking the minister: is there any Weed Advisory Committee in the Northern Territory? If there is, where is it …
Ms Scrymgour: There is a very effective one in Katherine.
Mr WOOD: What does it do? And is it effective?
Ms Scrymgour: Yes, they are quite good in Katherine.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but you are not the minister. I will ask the minister the question …
Ms Scrymgour: I am just telling you.
Mr WOOD: That is all right then. However, I do not hear of any Weed Advisory Committees elsewhere, and we have lots of weeds …
Ms Scrymgour: Go and talk to Charlie Holtzwart.
Mr WOOD: All right. Are they effective? Are they doing what they were set up to do? As I said, go round the countryside and have a look at the amount of weeds growing all over the place. Some may say it is a waste of time; some may say the battle was lost some years ago. All I am saying is, we have a Weeds Management Act. How effective is that? Especially in response to this document on the recommendations about invasive species. Does it need to be upgraded? Does it need to be reviewed so it is more in line with what the minister is saying about getting down and making the hard decisions and getting on top of some of these areas?
I notice, as has been mentioned before, about the retail nurseries. For a while, neem trees were being sold through nurseries. I have a neem tree on my block. I wish I did not. Somehow I have to get it down because it is seeds like you would not believe. My understanding is it is a major pest along the Victoria River now …
Ms Purick: Get a couple of goats; they will eat it down.
Mr WOOD: Yes. Yet, it was sold through the nurseries as a ‘this will get rid of the mosquitoes’ plant. I do not think it got rid of the mosquitoes, but it certainly spread through the Territory. Working through retail nurseries to ensure that we do not import plants which are going to cause problems is a good thing.
On the issue of cane toads; I do not know where we are with cane toads, I know we have traps and it is good that people are getting out and killing them. If they come to my place, I use a different, more humane method. I use oil of cloves; it puts them to sleep. It is used for toothaches. I got that information from a good friend of mine, Dave Wilson …
Ms Scrymgour: They are so ugly, they do not need loving, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: I hope Hansard picked that up. It is not a matter of loving them or not, it is …
Ms Purick: Just dong them on the head!
Mr Tollner: What is wrong with a golf club, Gerry, or a lump of wood, or a star picket?
Mr Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nelson has the floor.
Mr WOOD: The member for Fong Lim does not understand that I am not a great golfer; by the time I have the first swing, the game play has gone. I prefer a shovel. But, I am just giving a little advice given to me by a friend of mine who, believe it or not, puts down aquarium fish; because he is in the industry and he is required to do these things, and he said, try oil of cloves. Simply put two or three drops on the back of a cane toad and it is dead within one minute.
Mr Tollner: Haemorrhoid cream does the same thing.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. Perhaps we could have a statement on cane toad elimination processes. I just thought I would bring that up in passing. What I am saying is that we certainly appear to be a long way off finding a more permanent control than haemorrhoid cream or the golf club method, or oil of cloves, because if you read some of the articles …
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Mr WOOD: If you read the CSIRO reports, and they are certainly doing a fair bit of work on this issue, it is obvious that we are quite a way off with a solution. We certainly have some ideas that might be of help in the long term, but I think we are a long way off coming up with something. But it is good that the CSIRO is still trying, and I hope there are more people out there who are trying to find a solution. It would be interesting if someone now looked at a serious survey of which animals have been affected by the cane toad.
As those people who have been in parliament in my time, that makes me sound like an old man, know, there was a lot of discussion as to whether the cane toads were going to have a permanent effect as they came across the border from Queensland. The then CEO of Parks, Mr Freeland, his argument was that cane toads would not have a permanent effect on our wildlife. The government actually sacked him not so long after. The member for Brennan just said that perhaps, after the first wave, there was less of an effect.
We are making all these statements about whether cane toads have an effect, and we can say it in here without any great fear of being contradicted, but have we got a scientific basis for that now? Have we gone out there and checked to see what effect they have? I certainly do not see those big sand monitors I used to see.
A member: Have a look at Queensland, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Queensland did not bother to check what they had before they came there. They came from Queensland and we are not very thankful to Queensland for giving us cane toads.
One of the problems with Queensland is, it did not have a survey of the animals that existed before the cane toad arrived, and we have at least been able to …
Ms Anderson: Do an inventory.
Mr WOOD: Do an inventory, thank you very much, on what wildlife existed before the cane toad arrived. We should now be able to see what has happened. There has been a lot of work done at Fogg Dam, but I have not seen any of those results.
Ms Anderson: And Kakadu.
Mr WOOD: And Kakadu. I think one thing the government missed, besides at least trialling a fence at Cobourg Peninsula, yes, I had to put that in, it was another recommendation to government so you cannot go crook at me for bringing it up; but I think they should have paid pastoralists and Indigenous people who own land to look at whether they could have fenced those areas off and maintained those fences to see whether they could have kept cane toads out, especially to try to protect species like sand monitors. I used to see them at Daly River, beautiful big goannas that would stand up about four feet high. I do not think you see them any more.
Ms Scrymgour: Would the rabbit proof fence work in with this as well?
Mr WOOD: Ah, but you would keep part of your management program and you would employ people to make sure that the fences were kept in a good state and there was a chance. I believe it is better to try than not to try; but we did not try.
1080 and wild dogs – that is an area I would love to talk about. We have wild dogs in the rural area, and if anyone here can tell me how to control them, please let me know.
A member: Shoot them.
Mr WOOD: You are not allowed to use 1080, and unless you want to sit up all night on government land and wait for them to come past you, it is very difficult to shoot them. Trapping them? These are smart dogs. They smell if there is a human being or traps around, and they do not come anywhere near them. You can put the juiciest T-bone steak in that trap, and they will not touch it.
I believe if the government wanted to help in this area, especially in areas like Litchfield or any of those farming areas close to a town where they will not allow 1080 to be used, it would be to try to work out a way of trapping feral dogs.
I have been given some photographs in recent times of domestic dogs absolutely skinned to the bone; nothing left but bone and head and the rest is gone. We believe there are packs of 15 to 20 wild dogs in the rural area. Council has tried to trap them; I have tried to trap them in my time with some RSPCA traps. They did not touch them. I believe we need to look at some innovative ways of trying to catch these animals in areas close to the city. I do not know whether the government would help in that way. I have been thinking of the possibility of something like a small cattle trap, where you actually bring the dogs into an area. The bait might be chickens, well and truly protected chickens by the way, but it might be something the dogs would come into, like a yard you use for cattle, and you capture them that way. But they are a big issue in the rural area and they are causing people with domestic animals problems.
Yes, I know about the quolls, they used to love my chickens, so they are better off on that island; but they love chickens. It is a good experiment. I do not know what the effect of having thousands of quolls will be on the natural environment of those islands, because they did not have them there before. We have actually done what other people have done - we have introduced a new species to an island, and I believe it would be worthwhile for the government to see whether there has been any effect of having a species on that island, especially in large numbers. I believe if we are going to do this work we need to make sure it works out all right.
Mr GILES: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member for Nelson to continue his debate.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Obviously it was putting the member for Fong Lim to sleep, I will continue so he does not have to wake up.
The issue of camels. I notice in the statement regarding camels, you talk about the possibility of mobile abattoirs, chillers, and other equipment. My understanding is that, and I recall the previous member for Braitling discussed this issue, there were some mobile abattoirs and some yards and I am not sure whether that was a program one of the communities actually asked to get money for, or whether they did get it and it just did not happen. I am interested to know if there was a program or a project previously in Central Australia which did look at this particular way of producing camel meat. The minister might know more about that.
The minister certainly has some issues which she is going to have to deal with. The issue about Aboriginal people not wanting the camels shot because the three wise men bopped into town with them. Can you tell you them it was only three camels – not 330 000 camels. And donkeys? Jesus came on one, he did not come on about 500 000 of them. So you have a job to do there, minister. I know you will. I believe you are the best person to convince people that we have to do something, because we do not hang onto animals because they look nice; if they are ruining the environment we have to do something.
As the minister said, a dollar spent in prevention is worth many hundreds in a cure. I believe you are right. If we can stop any more feral plants and animals coming into the Territory, that will save us money. But at the same time, we cannot let some things continue to grow and reproduce, and still sit down and have meetings and discuss things and bring out reports when we know that weeds like gamba will die if you spray them with Roundup. And if you come back next year at the right time, you can do it again, and eventually the gamba will not be there anymore. I believe we have to look at these practical issues.
Just one other area in relation to weeds is the dear old buffel grass. I believe that is the tough one. In fact, I was reading in the report from the Sessional Committee on the Environment Sustainable Development on page 42, there is a quote by Dr G. Calvert, and he said in relation to buffel grass:
I beg your pardon, I have pulled the wrong one out for paragraphs, I thought it was buffel grass, but buffel grass is similar to what he is talking about. Buffel grass is, I suppose, Central Australia’s version of gamba grass.
It was introduced originally by people like Bob Keetch for dust repression in many Aboriginal communities where people were suffering eye problems, and I think that it was also put around Alice Springs airport to reduce the amount of dust. It was also found out to be wonderful cattle feed, it is the same issue as gamba - in its right place, it is no problem, but when it catches on fire or when it spreads out of its environment …
Mr Tollner: Buffel does not catch on fire like gamba does.
Mr WOOD: Well, I will talk to the people of Central Australia. When buffel burns, I am told that it burns with quite a bit of heat …
A member: That is what nearly burnt down Ayres Rock and Yulara.
Mr WOOD: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Fong Lim is relaxing and talking through his - no, he is not …
A member: Yes he is.
Mr WOOD: It is a very similar issue to what we have with gamba; pastoralists love it, and it has a good use - dust repression as I said - but it has a downside and the downside is when it catches fire and it burns fiercely. It also takes over natural habitat, and that is another problem with it.
The minister has not mentioned it here; it has not become a controlled plant. I am interested to know whether the government believes it is in the too-hard basket - and I understand why, if they say that. However, it is a reality; it does exist. What are the potential effects on the long-term environment in areas that are not being grazed, for instance? Should it be the case, as with gamba: you can grow it, but you must control it within the boundaries of your pastoral property or wherever you are growing it? I do not know, but it seems it is one of those weeds that is just a bit difficult. I understand the politics of it and I understand that sometimes this is hard. However, eventually we did come up with an answer for gamba, but it took a long time. We said: ‘Yes, we realise that it is very good for the pastoral industry, but it does have a major effect on the environment’.
I would also be interested to see, minister, after 12 months or so, how the implications of that controlled plant classification is actually working in practice, and what pastoralists are doing to implement the controls that are needed in relation to this.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is a good statement. We have seen lots of environmental statements, we have seen reports before and, sure, cane toads have been discussed time and time again; gamba has been discussed time and time again; mimosa has been discussed time and time again. The crunch is: has anything changed from last time? If the minister says things will change, I will ask the minister to bring a statement back in 12 months and show there have been some changes. What are the real changes on the ground? I do not want, in some cases, to hear any more reports.
We know what gamba is like, we know what mimosa is like, we know what some of these weeds are like. I know the biggest problem really is money, and I think that is the biggest hurdle the minister will have to take. We can do anything if we have heaps of money, but whether the minister can get enough money in these tough times, I do not know, but tough things like weeds and ferals do not worry about tough times, they keep going, so we really cannot take our hand off the wheel and foot off the brake; we have to keep going. So I am interested to hear the minister for the Environment’s response.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also support of the statement delivered by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage. I, too, would like to acknowledge and thank the members of the previous sessional committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development for their work and deliberations as they enquired into invasive species and management programs in the Northern Territory. Further, I thank the many people who gave evidence to the committee and offered valuable expert advice on how we tackle invasives which, broadly speaking, is weeds and feral animals, to ensure that the Territory protects one of its most precious and fragile assets - the environment.
Their recommendations, both thorough and comprehensive, seek to cover a broad range of objectives which include, and I quote from the report:
The work of the committee resulted in some 29 recommendations being put forward. I was delighted to hear the minister say that she has directed her department and her ministerial office to proceed with their implementation. However, I also acknowledge the many demands on her department and the competition between government agencies for resourcing and funding, that the minister has mapped out a four-step process of fundamental principles which will realistically guide how the implementation of the committee’s recommendations will be tackled.
As a new member to this parliament and a member of the current Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, I appreciate the important role that government plays in developing and driving policy which seeks to manage, protect and minimise the impacts on the environment. The committee’s report presents key learnings which will have bearing on the current committee’s investigation into the Northern Territory’s capacity to progress agricultural production in any environmentally sustainable manner.
The balance of the ecosystem and maintaining that delicate balance between human activities, such as agriculture, mining and tourism, to be environmentally sustainable are absolutely critical. I am certainly no expert in the area, but I have lived in the Territory for many years and toured many parts of the Territory and understand what the very negative impacts of invasive species have been. I have observed how they have been managed and have certainly noticed the growing sense of urgency of how we must devise strategies to tackle some of the problems we face with invasive species.
Coming from Nhulunbuy, it is my experiences of living in that region for 19 years which provides me with some of the insights that I would like to share on the subject of invasive species . I am, of course, very biased, but it is one of the most beautiful places in the Northern Territory and whilst it is history - and I am talking about that of the actual town, for residents like me - goes back only 40 years. However, its history goes back time immemorial for Indigenous people, the Yolngu people, the saltwater people who live there. There are certainly amongst the old people there those who remember a time well before weeds like coffee bush and mimosa, and pests like feral cats, cane toads and crazy ants came to town. They can speak firsthand about what the devastating impact has been on their land and to the environment.
The minister, in her report, talked about those important partnerships. That is exactly what I am going to talk about in relation to working with organisations like Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation which, of course, is based in the centre of Nhulunbuy, and sees traditional owners work in partnership with Northern Territory government’s Parks and Wildlife, as well as with research agencies and scientists, to tackle the problems of invasive species which threaten the biodiversity of the land. Interestingly, Dhimurru was established back in the 1980s as the body representing traditional owners, mainly to manage recreational areas which Nhulunbuy residents frequent because once upon a time it was fairly open slather to access those areas. However, plainly, access to those areas needed to be managed and controlled to ensure the protection of the environment, as well as protection for sensitive cultural areas and sacred sites.
Over the years, their work has evolved to be much more than just managing those recreational areas. From their mission statement, their objectives are to:
Dhimurru employs some 16 people, 12 of whom are Yolngu, and most of them are in ranger roles looking after an Indigenous protected area which is more than 100 000 ha, with an extensive commitment to land and sea country with conservation programs. They are certainly well-known for their sea turtle rescue program, with sea turtles and dugongs victim to an awful invasive item, not a species as such, but still invasive and deadly all the same, found off the coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria and right across the Top End. I refer to ghost nets from foreign fishing vessels which drift and capture all manner of sea life. Perhaps this could be an area for future investigations for committees.
In terms of management of invasive species, Dhimurru’s work includes crazy ant eradication, a project that they work on with the Northern Territory government and in partnership with Rio Tinto Alcan, as crazy ant colonies exist on the company’s bauxite mine lease area. To date, they are having good success with reducing numbers and infestation. I would like to acknowledge Rio Tinto Alcan’s long history of partnering with the community and stakeholders on all manner of community projects, including environmental projects. I can certainly attest to that because I worked there for 12 years in a community relations role before I came to parliament.
I know the minister has had the opportunity to meet with the Dhimurru Rangers during a visit to Nhulunbuy with Cabinet members late last year, and she has a good understanding of the important work they do and, no doubt, that carries on to all of the Indigenous rangers across the Northern Territory. When the minister talks about the importance of forging strong relationships at the three levels of government, that also flows on to include the landowners, traditional or otherwise, and the organisations that represent them. I include amongst those partnerships in my electorate the Yirralka Rangers who operate under the jurisdiction of Laynhapuy Homelands Association, which covers a much larger Indigenous protected area than Dhimurru are looking after - they have 600 000 hectares of land and more than 600 km of coastline.
Buffaloes – whilst I doubt my region has numbers anything like the number of camels in the minister’s area of Central Australia, and I am very thankful for that - they are still a destructive creature in the wild and wreak havoc on the environment, in particular in wetland areas such as those in western Arnhem Land and Kakadu, and eastern Arnhem Land as well. I would doubt that we would need, or would even want to see them eradicated, and certainly the Northern Territory Buffalo Industry Council supports a range of viable businesses, including buffalo for hides and leather, for milking, breeding, slaughter, including the pet food market - a market the minister is considering for feral camels - feedlots for live export and, of course, buffalo provide a niche part of the tourism market for hunters who pay good money for the sport and bring dollars and jobs into those communities which are operating safaris. However, they definitely are a problem.
I remember when I first arrived in the Northern Territory, a campaign had been instigated by the Department of Primary Industry called BTEC, which stood for Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign. At that time, the buffalo population, much of it feral, had peaked at around 350 000, and amongst healthy buffalo were those infecting and spreading brucellosis and tuberculosis to the cattle industry. Obviously, that is a very negative impact which had to be dealt with, so BTEC commenced in 1982 and involved an extensive testing and culling campaign.
I remember, to encourage people to shoot buffalo, there was a monetary reward, but in order to claim, people had to present the ears of the buffalo. Obviously, out in remote areas you did not have to present the entire carcass, but as evidence that you had culled buffalo, you collected the ears - I do not know if you had to collect one or two. It sounded like a reasonable method but, unfortunately, the program was badly tainted when buffalo ears, which dried hard like leather, because they are leather, became like currency, and the system was rorted. I remember this was at the centre of a Four Corners program exposing the rort. That is certainly one of the challenges in finding ways and means of dealing with and eradicating invasive species, to find a scheme which does not have a negative impact.
Quite apart from the threat to the cattle industry, buffaloes are a very real threat to people. Many people out my way have been gored by buffalo over the years, and for some the injuries have proved fatal. Such is the history of buffalo in the region. Amongst Indigenous people, I recall last year at the Telstra Indigenous Art Awards that a Yirrkala artist, Nyapanyapa Yunupingu, won the Wandjuk Marika Three-Dimensional Memorial Award with her entry titled Incident at Mutpi, 1975, and it was the story of her as a child having survived a terrifying incident, which was, in fact, being gored by a buffalo, and the entry was a painting and an eight-minute video where she retold that story.
In recent years, there have been programs to cull buffalo numbers in the Nhulunbuy region because their numbers have grown so much and because of the hazard they present to people. Like the camel, which the minister said is important to people down there because of its biblical associations, I believe the buffalo has a certain place amongst Yolngu people also.
I can assure you that one species that has no place in any culture or community but are in plague proportions is the cane toad. They have been in our region around Nhulunbuy for a couple of years and have had a devastating impact on the environment and on native wildlife. I simply do not see the goannas and frill necked lizards and other lizards I used to see and enjoy in my garden, as did my children. I have heard the member for Daly and the member for Nelson say they do not see them in their neck-of-the-woods either. Whilst that is a shame for me and my family, it is an even greater shame for people for whom this is a traditional food source and it is devastating for the biodiversity of these areas.
I recognise the efforts of ToadBuster groups in Darwin and outer Darwin who have stalled the advance and numbers of cane toads through their efforts, but we obviously need the kinds of biological control the minister made reference to in her statement. Whether it be parasites, viral diseases or, heaven forbid, sex reversal, but if it works - I say, let us do it. In the meantime, minister, I look forward to getting hold of one of those cane toad traps which you mentioned were to be distributed through the community. In fact, I will take two.
As far as invasive plant species go in my community, there have been efforts with varying degrees of success to deal with plants like coffee bush, salvinia, the neem tree, which we are currently tackling and which can grow as high as 15 m; cumbungi, which is affecting the natural flow of the water in the town lagoon area in the centre of Nhulunbuy; candle bush, which I am pleased to say is now quite rare out our way; perennial mission grass is a problem, though there are efforts to control it; and just recently they have identified, again in our town lagoon area, the bellyache bush.
As the member for Brennan said, one of the problems in controlling weeds is the ability for people and communities to recognise what they are dealing with is actually a weed; as he said, there are some weeds which look quite pretty. As a kid growing up in rural South Australia, I remember seeing - and you still see them, not that I get home very often - paddocks and paddocks of salvation Jane, also known as Paterson’s curse. It is a really pretty purple flower and it just is like a blanket, but it is terrible stuff. I checked on the South Australian government website and it remains very widespread and it was introduced from the Mediterranean many years ago as a garden ornamental. These species that look nice are actually devastating on the environment.
Candle bush is one of the weeds I mentioned that we are dealing with in Nhulunbuy, and I know other parts of the Territory are, and I did not actually know that it was a weed until I read a colour flyer, a fact sheet, that was distributed locally in our community pointing out to people these are the weeds that you need to look out for, these are the ones that Nhulunbuy Corporation are dealing with, but if you see them in your garden, do not pick them, chop them down. It was only when I had actually seen one of those fact sheets that I realised that this flower that I thought was quite nice was actually a weed.
That is why these education and campaigns of awareness amongst communities are really important, and the minister addressed that in her statement.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, at the risk of going back over ground that has already been covered, I will wind up, but suffice to say that I welcome and commend the recommendations of the report, and I acknowledge and share the sentiments of the member for Goyder who said this is the start of a long road that we need to travel down. It is important. It is more than important, it is critical.
As I said at the start, as a member of the current Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, I look forward to working with colleagues on the new Terms of Reference set out by the minister.
I commend the minister for her statement.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on Invasive Species and Management Programs in the Northern Territory.
I would like to add, from a Barkly perspective, and from my own perspective, how important the government’s focus is on such a very delicate area of our environment and a very delicate area in terms of our future. Broadly, it has been defined as weeds and feral animals, however, I would like to share with the House an experience that happened in Tennant Creek a number of years ago, and that was a species that invaded us from north Queensland - that was the mosquito that carried dengue fever.
This species came, so we found out, on trucks in pot plants for a commercial market, and it caused considerable havoc in the Territory, both among the community and the government, and at considerable cost to both the community and the government. We have talked about the invasive ants and we are talking about new species all the time. This is a very serious business for the Territory and I take great delight in hearing from the minister that government is certainly on to this case.
We are looking at urban areas as well as remote areas and we are talking about a great diversity of environments. If we look at the Barkly and across the Barkly from the Gulf country, we have a serious woody weed problem and, in terms of that, impacting on both urban and rural environments. When we look at the Barkly Tablelands, some of the best cattle producing area in the world, we have parkinsonia and a history of other introduced species that are threatening our perfect pastures; and in the arid zone areas we have got a considerable amount of burrs and bindii and other weeds that are not only affecting commercial production but are also very dangerous in terms of living areas and communities and create all sorts of problems, especially with our kids.
Industry and wilderness areas are both very delicate issues in terms of invasive species. In industry, we have areas that are frequented and managed and we have access; in wilderness areas, not so, and I think we need to seriously look at management plans with diversity to cater for such areas. An example of a wilderness area in the Barkly is the Davenport Ranges National Park, a beautiful area, and the member for Nelson commented on his trip through the Davenports and how unique that part of the arid zone Barkly is.
The issue with the Davenports is feral animals, and the minister talked about donkeys and brumbies. I go back into that area quite a way and I celebrate an era that I like to refer to as the bull catching days. And the bull-catchers from the Top End took a great interest in the Barkly after it got quite competitive in the Top End and many new cowboys, so to speak, were entering the industry. The early bull-catchers that I met, that I worked with, was lucky to share work with, and they took me on and taught me their trade, they were pioneers in that Davenport area and they basically started destocking scrub bulls. They proved very early that the industry benefits were outstanding, and if I can quote one bull-catcher, who I know well, took 1000 head of scrub bulls off Karumby Station in a five day period. This is serious economic benefits that we can look at and I would like to transfer that concept into looking at feral animals. I know that the minister is very interested and has done a lot of work on this already.
If we talk about the Davenport area and preserving that wilderness, that country, from invasive species then we must look at the communities that surround that area: the remote communities of Epenarra, Murray Downs, Canteen Creek, and Ali Curung as a more expansive and well developed community, but nonetheless communities of people living in this area who have affiliations and attachments with the land and understand the country - the perfect people to look at commercial enterprises, the perfect opportunities to develop economic bases in remote communities of the Barkly.
Many members have talked about cane toads, and I would like to share a cane toad story. It was 1986, and I dare not quote the date for fear of misleading parliament, however, I know it was in February and I will just say I am sure it was 6 February ...
Ms Scrymgour: Just say 1986.
Mr McCARTHY: Just 1986. It was February. It was a good Wet Season and the kids were on their way to Robinson River School - and they were on time, and they certainly enjoyed their school. I will not mention names, but they were young Galaru boys, there were four of them and they were the pioneering students of that school. They came that morning with an object they had caught under a piece of tin near the river on their way to school. They asked the schoolteacher, the learned one of the western world: ‘Mister, what is this?’ I was shocked, and I was not quite sure, other than reflecting on an Anglo background and thinking: well, in the general area it is a toad. If it is a toad, we should be wary of that toad. We had great delight in looking at and exploring that toad and that toad came to school and had his special place that day at Robinson River School.
However, being a responsible citizen, I said to the boys ‘We should check this out’. So, at 12 o'clock on the daily high frequency radio schedule, we sent a telegram to the government to tell them of our find. Somewhere on the file at Robinson River School would be the letter that we received with a positive identification of what we had described as a cane toad.
The story has meaning: that represented the march of an invasive species across the Gulf country. We knew that those toads were in Australia, but we were not quite sure where they were. We knew that they were not at Robinson River in 1985 at the end of the Dry Season. However, the first toad was found by some Galaru youth who were very interested in this species that had arrived in their country and they reported it.
From 1986, I witnessed the march of those toads across the Gulf country. I witnessed episodes that make me fearful of a lack of education and awareness in this area: tourists who were catching such toads and taking them great distances in their vehicles for a bit of fun, a bit of a joke. I remember a time at Heartbreak Hotel where the local stock inspector came into the hotel and saw a mob of tourists playing with a cane toad, he was most indignant and advised them very sternly about the impact of what their action had done, they had transferred an invasive species over a section of country that represented 200 km, and that toad was loose and on its march to Darwin. Luckily, the stock inspector did dispose of that toad humanely that night, and those tourists were well educated in what they had done.
My point is education and awareness. We just cannot seem to get away from education and awareness. Those tourists left knowing far better about invasive species in our country, and those kids at Robinson River School knew so much more about invasive species in their country. Years later, we see the cane toads march into Darwin.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we have to get a message through, and that message means media, it means awareness, it means education, and the more Australians who are aware of invasive species, the better.
I commend the minister for her statement, and I commend her department for their great work. I look forward to the creative and innovative approaches that you have already discussed with me about business and economic enterprises linked to such a delicate and dangerous area in our country.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will briefly rise to support the statement by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage. I do not want to go over a lot of the feral weeds and feral animals as it has all been discussed to death. I thought Gerry and the member for Barkly were going to tell us how they licked the back of a toad for a minute there, I did not know where we were going.
What I do want to talk about is the opportunities it creates in the way of jobs for people. Some of these things that have been spoken about in the paper do not necessarily reflect an economic base, or one that you might see at this point in time, especially weeds management, it is more of a grant-based system to try to eradicate a lot of that. But some of the things about camels, donkeys, buffaloes and crocodiles, or whatever it may be, do represent an opportunity for people in terms of jobs. The Chief Minister has been banging his fist and getting really cranky today talking about economic stimulus and so forth and I believe it is very important that, whilst focusing on weed and feral eradication, we look at the other side, and that is the job side of it.
It would be good, instead of this government, through the Chief Minister, banging on about all they are doing about jobs and we are seeing the unemployment rate increase in the Northern Territory by 0.4%, I think it would be good for announcements to come out about how we might help Aboriginal people move into industries such as camels and mobile abattoirs and where you might put the repository, what the market is, or how you go about exporting camels overseas, and the 1 in 12 rate about which one is a good one and which one is not. There are many more areas we could flow down on this. I sat here and listened and I was not going to jump up, but I thought I would. We need to get to the next point, not just banging our fists about the Country Liberals do not support jobs, or the Country Liberals do, and Labor does or Labor does not.
This is an opportunity to put forth something that can move forward and actually create those frameworks, because this has been talked about for a long time. Camels have been harvested in the past - but we now just talk about it. Everyone knows there are about 1.6 million camels running around in Central Australia, but nobody has a plan to do anything about it. We have this written on a bit of paper now.
I know the member for Macdonnell is a woman of conviction and someone who will actually do something about it. That is why I am not going to speak negatively, but I think it is good that we need to look at it in a positive light and how we actually move forward to put things in place.
I also recognise that it will be difficult, and I cannot see the Northern Territory government doing anything about this for a long time because of the multiple layers of bureaucracy that the member for Nhulunbuy spoke about. When you have land councils and local shires now, and traditional owners, and the many interests with the Territory government and the federal government, and all these different signs we have to have, which is why it is important that we move forward with Statehood to remove some, but getting through that myriad of bureaucracy to try to set up a camel farming business in the bush is just too hard; let alone the expectations or the understanding of many people on the land who think camels, or any other animals, should not be culled, getting over those hurdles, I believe, is a long way off. It is an opportunity to use this industry, which is just waiting to thrive.
We know the crocodile farming industry is very keen to get camel meat to feed their stocks. It is an industry just waiting to boom. It is in the bush, so it should be very attractive to the Minister for Regional Development, and it should also be attractive to the minister for Employment, because it is about getting people into real jobs, getting them off CDEP or getting them off the dole. I know that this government does not support getting people off CDEP, they like welfare, but I support getting people off the dole and into real jobs.
A member: CDEP is actually an employment program.
Mr GILES: I have heard everyone here talking about saving CDEP and how it is a real positive for people, but I find it hard to believe that people would want to be on a welfare trap, on CDEP, for such a long time when here we have 1.6 million camels running around in the bush. A program or something could be set up straightaway where people could start harvesting those camels and get off the dole or off CDEP.
For Labor to continually run a racist program like CDEP, a program that for 30 years has not paid people long service leave or superannuation, that is simply racist. I find it hard to believe that the Whitlamites, who are the great saviours of Aboriginal people, still continue to support that. Thirty years ago with the walk off at Wave Hill Station, when the unions convinced everyone to walk off - quite rightly, because people were not getting paid - they did not put anything in place at the end of it to try to maintain employment to make sure people had an income. They convinced everybody to walk off and just left it. And many people are still in the same position now, nothing has changed.
Here we have an opportunity for industry creation, for jobs, for development in the bush and I will guarantee that nothing will happen, unless the member for Macdonnell, who is the only one who can actually do anything on that side of the Chamber, actually gets this happening. What will happen is these people will sit on CDEP, and we will have the members here supporting CDEP, we will even have them supporting sit-down money.
A member: Stay on the dole!
Mr GILES: The minister for sit-down money over here is being a bit quiet tonight; he might have been licking toads. I encourage the member for Macdonnell, the minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage and for Indigenous Policy to pursue this and I will give it my 100% support. I will work with it, not for political benefit, but to get people into jobs. That is how we make changes and that is the sort of stimulus package that we should have had.
This nonsense about this hand-wringing approach today, and this fist fighting and this jamming it up, they have not even had the vote yet. Senator Xenophon is going to vote tomorrow, apparently. The theatrics with the cameras and the media all around is just a joke. But to see a stimulus package come down, one that just throws money willy-nilly, it does not support local needs; this could have had an element to support the camel industry; it could have had an element to support realigning the crocodile industry and the egg harvesting industry; it could have promoted jobs in the bush. But this Labor government are just keen to take the soft approach and keep people on the teat of welfare - the racist CDEP and then on sit-down money and the dole. Do not worry, we will just keep giving you dole for the rest for your life – that is what Labor supports. They have supported it since Whitlam and they still support it today. Well, I support jobs and I know at least one colleague on the other side of the Chamber supports that too. I do not know how she will get it through the heads of her Labor counterparts.
The member for Brennan mentioned the role of the EPA. The EPA is a bit of a bow in how it links into this statement here, although I do think it is important. We have different approaches about how we would have an EPA; ours would be fully independent, whereas yours sits under government. But I do believe it is important to ensure that the EPA has a role in weed and feral animal management, in terms of oversight and how they look at future development and so forth. I looked through the annual report of the EPA, which I do not have in front of me, and I thought it strange that the EPA, much lauded by this government, tries to say it is fully independent, when we know it is not, and talks about how it will do right by the people and not right by government and not pander to government, I find it strange when I look at the four board members: Dr Andrew Tupper, the Chairperson …
A member: Where is he from?
Mr GILES: He is from the Northern Territory, he lives in the Northern Territory. He is the chairperson. But I look at Judith King.
A member: Where is she from?
Mr GILES: She has been a director of the Northern Territory Power and Water Corporation since 2000, and is currently the Deputy Chair. She is Chair of the Victorian Commission for Gaming Regulations; she is also Director of National Ageing Medical Research Institute at Swinburne, and chair of a number other things in Victoria. It would have been nice if she was in the Northern Territory. I would have thought that, if you were on the EPA in the Northern Territory, that you would live in the Northern Territory. I find that strange.
The second person out of four on the board, Professor Donna Craig, Foundation Professor at Desert Knowledge Australia – and this is not a blight on these people or their reputations at all. She was in Alice Springs with the Desert Knowledge Australia, Professor of Law, Head of the Department of Environmental Law, Director of Indigenous Law and National Resources Program at Macquarie University.
A member: That is in Sydney.
Mr GILES: It is in Sydney. I have full respect for Professor Craig, she is well educated, she has vast experience but, once again, I would have thought if you are on the EPA in the Northern Territory you would live in the Northern Territory. That is the second member out of three who does not live in the Northern Territory.
We will go to Professor Gordon Duff. He was formerly the Chief Executive Officer of the Tropical Savannahs Management CRC at the Charles Darwin University. I could go through his list of things, but he also does not live in the Northern Territory.
I find it hard to believe that 75% of the Board members of the EPA are not even in the Territory. There is a funny comment here, it says: ‘While three of the members do not reside in the Northern Territory, all the members have strong links to the ’Northern Territory'. They are environmentally protecting the Northern Territory from a distance. That is great. I would have thought the EPA would have a greater role. I hope these people do come to the Northern Territory, and I would really like to see them come to Alice Springs and have a close investigation of the potential uranium mine in Alice Springs, the Angela Pamela mine there.
The Country Liberals are pro-mining, and we are pro-development and we are pro-jobs, not welfare teat; we really want real jobs, but we cannot have real jobs unless we have them in a sustainable way, and that is why I support the minister in his statement because …
A member: Do you support the mine?
Mr GILES: That is why I support the minister in her statement because she is talking about sustainability.
A member: Do you support the mine?
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Braitling has the floor.
Mr GILES: So it is very important that we make sure the EPA has a role for that mine in Alice Springs. It is very important that we make sure the quality of our waters are right, and that we make sure that the traditional owners are happy, and we make sure it passes all those regular tests. I also think it is really important that they take a look at the northern uranium application to do some more exploration around Alice Springs for uranium.
This was in yesterday’s Northern Territory News. I did not hear the minister for Mines talking about this and I am not sure how the Alice Springs branch of the Labor Party will support another uranium mine in Alice Springs, I am sure they would be quite concerned. But if the three members of the EPA who live interstate can find the time to come to Alice Springs and check this out, I would be very happy because I know there are a lot of constituents in my electorate of Braitling, and I am quite sure in the electorate of Greatorex, you have the greenies in Greatorex, and the constituents in Araluen, which is closest to this proposed mine; some of them are in your area too, member for Greatorex …
A member: Do you support it?
A member: We do support it.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Braitling has the floor.
Member for Fong Lim, I would like to hear the member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: If this seemingly independent EPA can manage to get its board members from interstate to the Territory to have a look at this, I am quite sure people in Alice Springs would be happy if it can be declared that it is safe, and that we can guarantee our water source, and we can guarantee that people are not going to be poisoned or have airborne disease, or wind borne disease, or whatever could come from it. We are a supporter of jobs, we are supporters of mining and we are supporters of development.
Mr Conlan: As long as it is done properly.
Mr GILES: As long as it is done properly, that is exactly right, member for Greatorex.
The member for Brennan spoke about where the budget is. We do not actually have a budget when it is done independently, member for Brennan, it all comes straight out of the department. They administer everything, so we do not get to see how much it costs to fly people from interstate all the time if you are not on the board of the EPA.
It might even be harder to be flying people around now, because when you have a $200m black hole, which this government now has, with eight years of mismanagement of the budget, a $200m black hole, how can you afford to be flying people interstate all the time to sit on the EPA and come and have a look all these proposed uranium mines around Alice Springs? I will have to have a chat to the Chairperson of the Labor Party in Alice Springs and see what they think about these new exploration licences for uranium development. There were five in yesterday’s paper, in the Northern Territory News, page 41, if anyone is listening. It would be good to find that out. With that $200m black hole, it is clearly not going to allow for money to be flying people from all around the country to come to Alice Springs to check out our uranium licences.
The other thing - and the member for Fong Lim might be interested in this, as he has spoken to me about this before – that links into this paper, which is a good paper and 100% supported by me, apart from weeds and feral animal management and the role of the EPA in environmental control, is the opportunities for other industries around carbon trading. I believe there are significant opportunities here. It is not in the paper. I am not saying it should have been, but there are significant opportunities. It went by the wayside a bit during the Howard government years, they should have pushed it a bit more, although I do know that they were also stuck in bureaucracy trying to get through some of the layers to get things happening. It is, potentially, a massive industry that we should be looking at in the Northern Territory; it will help our environmental sustainability, it creates industry, it creates jobs, and it somewhat links to the paper there. I believe it is something that we should look at.
However, we also need to be careful with linking carbon trading and management of the environment with the proposed ETS - Emissions Trading Scheme - by the federal government. I believe that will have a negative impact on the Northern Territory, especially with our mines and the costs that they will have to pay, let alone the subsidised taxes. Although, the way that we are going in the Territory with the mines closing down - now with MRM - we will have to wait and see the outcome of that with the new taxes. All this ETS is going to do is tax business. The ETS is not about fixing the environment. They can dress it all up for the greenies and lefties of the Labor Party, but this is about taxing business. This will actually stop growth and stop jobs at a time when there is a global economic crisis. How much will it impact Australia? We will wait and see. For government to come out and tax business is an absolute joke. There is no plan for the tax on the business or what will happen. It is designed to be a tax to encourage people to invest in new technology to have savings in carbon emissions and so forth, but there is no plan for where that money is going to go.
It is like the alco-pop tax. The alco-pop tax did not all go into educating young people about their problems with drinking. What should happen if there is going to be this imposition tax on businesses and jobs for Australians and Territorians, those taxes should go back into environmental sustainability measures. That could be the tax that is backing the camel industry, and the buffalo and the crocodile industries. It could be the thing that is backing carbon trading. If you are going to raise money through a tax on business and a tax on jobs, and trying to attack the Australian economy, at least put it back into the environment through industry development. That is what can actually happen here, there is no reason why not. John Howard, and I think it was Malcolm Turnbull at the time, the now Opposition Leader - was it Malcolm Turnbull?
Mr Conlan: Yes, it was.
Mr GILES: They announced a solar city in Alice Springs. That is a great thing. I have had my energy audit. Yes, Mr Midnight Oil came along and re-announced it and took all the credit for it, but it was the Howard government that did it. You cannot put $20m into a community without good financial management.
However, I believe there is an opportunity to go even further for environmental management. It takes me back to something I saw – it happens in all places these days, it seems, in the big capital cities - and that was the creation of a research and development IT-type centre. A new one started in Melbourne about 10 years, and they have them in Sydney, Brisbane and all around the world. There is an opportunity for Alice Springs to go beyond the solar city - do what they do with a solar city, but go the next step and become a place for research and development and excellence in solar technology. I would love to see a multistorey building there with all the facilities of BP Solar, or someone like that basing themselves out of Alice Springs. It would not just create jobs; it would go a long way in research and development to create a whole solar industry for the world. We could have that in Alice Springs. We could have world-leading technology in Alice Springs.
If you are going to have this imposition of ETS tax by the federal government - a tax on business and a tax on jobs with nothing being put back into the environment - this is the place where you should be able to source the funds to create the opportunity for this to be introduced into Alice Springs. This is where you could put it in Central Australia. You could put it in Tennant Creek. There is an opportunity for Central Australia, working with Solar City, working with Desert Knowledge, to create a centre of excellence for solar technology for the whole world. You could do that through ETS.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will conclude now and say I believe it is very important that we look to jobs. This government does not look to jobs. This government has a massive $200m black hole. It cannot afford to promote jobs. It cannot afford to fly EPA members from around Australia to their apparent home state.
I do support this bill, and I will happily work with the minister in the creation of jobs as she seeks to control feral animals.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have been listening to the member for Braitling, and what a woeful performance. The member for Braitling stands up here on his pedestal and pretends that the Labor government has not done anything, or that no jobs have come out of different projects.
The member for Braitling is the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs and he might have an ideological view of CDEP and I invite him to visit our bush electorates such as the electorate of the member for Nhulunbuy and my electorate. The member for Braitling should visit Maningrida, for example, where they have an effective CDEP which has been used as leverage to create commercial enterprises to put people into full-time jobs. This is important and we have all worked towards and encouraged this outcome. It is important when we talk about jobs that it is not just jobs in towns or regions, but particularly jobs in the bush.
When you look at the invasive species and the report, and I thank the minister for her statement on it, it is something, particularly in an electorate like mine with Kakadu and all the issues with cane toads and the invasive weeds, of particular importance.
I remember talking to the then, I am not sure if he was the federal Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, or maybe he had tourism. Anyway, he was a federal Liberal minister, and he was saying how the morale in the parks was down because they were constantly at the front line fighting weeds and the whole issue of cane toads. Not interested. It was not sexy enough, and he did not want to do anything about it.
Kakadu is the biodiversity hot spot in Australia. If we talk about biodiversity and protection - Kakadu is where the most fragile biodiversity in Australia exists. I know the work the minister and her department are doing with the Mary River wet plains; and my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, also talked about the wet plains because the biggest problem with the floodplains and wet plains is salinity, saltwater intrusion coming in, and buffaloes have played a big part in this. The minister’s department has done a lot of work with the Commonwealth to try to put up barriers and other things to stop the saltwater intrusion which has occurred around the Mary River and will continue to encroach, particularly in places like Kakadu. The fragility of that environment needs to be looked after and where we should direct all our efforts.
In terms of cane toads; when you drive out to Kakadu or Litchfield on the Arnhem Highway, you are running over these horrible, nasty creatures. When you sit down with the Bining or the Aboriginal people around Kakadu, they will tell you the goannas and other food sources have disappeared. There are many stories. When you sit down with Dave Lindner and his son, Gary Lindner, who works for Parks Australia in Kakadu, they will tell you where they have come across dead crocodiles and when they have done autopsies on some of those crocodiles they have found cane toads in their stomachs.
I remember a meeting with Graeme Sawyer and Paul Cowdy, may he rest in peace, who worked quite actively with Graeme Sawyer; they brought in – and I believe it might be in the minister’s office now – a plaque of a cane toad which had been tanned. I believe that is a useful industry and one that should be supported, because after the toad has been killed and tanned it has fantastic leather, and whilst they do have to be killed, the leather, the skin of cane toads, once the toxins are removed and it goes through the process of drying and then curing …
Mr Elferink: But would you wear the shoes?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I would love to wear the shoes, John. I was trying to convince them to put it all together, but you would need to kill thousands of them, although given the way they have invaded …
Mr Elferink: I would never suggest your feet were that big.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: If you get to feel the cane toad’s skin, it is fantastic leather. So that is an industry, I believe, that has been developed and looked at, although I am not sure where it has got up to; I thought it was quite innovative and smart.
Graeme Sawyer and his push with the cane toad musters in Kakadu really took off and engaged the community. I remember going out to many of those musters, and also in Darwin, to join the different family groups and be part of those musters which did unite the community to engage in a project, as well as educating the community so they were better informed about cane toads. It got families together and bought the community together, so I thought it was a fantastic program.
The member for Braitling talked about the emissions trading scheme. I encourage the member for Braitling. I would like to take him on a trip to my electorate, because I believe that is where the only project anywhere in Australia actually embodied the emissions trading scheme, and Aboriginal rangers entered into the first and only deal with a corporate business, Darwin LNG-ConocoPhillips, who invested $1m in Aboriginal rangers to invest in bushfire management to offset the increasing emissions in Darwin.
That has created jobs, and for the member for Braitling to say that our Labor government, and by the way, the Northern Territory government was part of this whole process in working with them and providing some funding, to say the Henderson government is not committed to jobs, I would like to ask the member for Braitling to come with me to my electorate. I know that there are barriers with land councils and land issues, but many of our bush electorates have successful stories about jobs which have been created and which go towards environmental protection and conservation, which can look at emissions trading without costing big business. The view of the CLP has to change because, in cases like Darwin LNG and big business it has changed, their view has changed - they will invest the dollars with those Aboriginal ranger groups.
I am having discussions at the moment, as a local member, with ERA and Rio Tinto at Jabiru to look at how they can invest in the same model as the West Arnhem Fire Management Agreement with rangers in Kakadu. This is creating jobs for Aboriginal people.
In terms of tackling invasive species and saying that the government has not worked, or is not working to create jobs or we are not serious about jobs is an absolute falsehood. The member for Braitling, whilst I know he is very passionate about these issues, would be better off doing more research and better inform himself about how those programs work. Many us would be willing to work with the member for Braitling to show him that it is not all doom and gloom out there, that there are Aboriginal people employed and not on welfare.
Yes, I support CDEP, I have always supported CDEP and I am not ashamed to say that, because I have seen a CDEP program that can work and can be used as a means and as leverage to full-time jobs. I believe we too often lose the heart of the whole process when we are debating these issues, such as the Ranger program and the benefits that have come out of that, where CDEP can be used and to develop commercial opportunities.
I was heartened to hear the member for Nhulunbuy talk about the bellyache bush. And the member for Nelson was asking: ‘Where is a Weeds Advisory Council?’ Well, it was our government that established the Weeds Advisory Council and there is a very effective Weeds Advisory Council in Katherine, member for Nelson. I remember many times meeting with those men and women who are involved in it, and they are very passionate about their work. I remember going with Charlie Holtzwart I, I am not sure whether he is still the Chair of the Katherine Weeds Advisory Council, to Camp Hill Station and he was saying everyone was talking about gamba and every other weed in the Northern Territory, and he said: ‘I want to show you a bush which has got huge implications for the Top End of the Northern Territory because it is in the Florina River’. I am sure you know Charlie, member for Katherine. And when you look at the map of the bellyache bush, it is a concern, because it has spread into the Florina River, and it is only a matter of time before it gets into the Daly. If that happens, here is an iconic river, and the Florina feeds into the Daly. So that is a huge issue. I want to let the minister know, because I believe everyone focuses on gamba and other things, and rightly so, but bellyache bush was something we asked NRETAS to look at at that time because it was, particularly for the Katherine region, quite a problem.
I would like to acknowledge my former colleague, Mr Ted Warren. I know he has departed this parliament, but I remember when he was doing this report he was very passionate about this, as all of us need to be.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You would have these conversations with Ted and he would bore you to death, but you would have to listen to him. But he was passionate, and …
A member: He still is I hope, he was not quite dead, I suspect, when he left this place.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: All of us need to be passionate about this stuff. If we lose sight and passion, the country will be overtaken. I look at places like Kakadu. We have to look after places like Kakadu because it is for the future generations of our kids. If we allow these invasive weeds and species to take over, we are going to be forever damned as parliamentarians because we could have done a bit more.
Finally, I want to say to the minister for Corrections that I was in Robinson River in 1986. I was there with the Northern Land Council on the Robinson River land claim. I had never seen a cane toad in my life, but we were setting up for the land claim hearings and I went to the toilet and something jumped on my foot. It was really heavy, I put the torch down and nearly passed out - this thing was sitting on my foot ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, I have been meaning to apologise to you about that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I cannot say what I said when I pointed the torch down and I saw what was on my foot. That was the first time that I had seen a cane toad ...
Ms McCarthy: You will not forget it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It was terrifying. I thought: My God, what is this thing? Maybe the aliens have landed in Robinson River. I want to go home!
The reason they have spread is because, as I understand it, the female can lay about 20 000 eggs. My colleague, the member for Johnston and the Minister for Tourism, was very passionate about cane toads and pushed for the first-ever funding for the cane toad problem to be recognised, and for FrogWatch to be funded. It has been a long time since I have been through this portfolio, Madam Speaker.
It is good to get this report and keep up to date. Minister, I hope things can continue. I know you have a passionate department and I do not think that I have met more dedicated scientists, workers and rangers than at NRETAS; and that is good because we need them. I support the statement.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am not going to take much of the folks’ time. I am going to commit a small heresy by parliamentary standards, because I am going to start by saying that this is actually a good statement. I read it. I was not going to speak today, but I am on my feet for another reason, and I will get to that shortly.
It shows you that a little more thought went into this speech than was presented by a former minister, the former member for Sanderson, who presented a similar thing that was more focused on endangered species. I urge members to revisit last year’s Estimates Committee’s exchange between Len Kiely and Fay Miller over some questions she asked in the estimates process as a result of a speech made by the then minister, Len Kiely, in this place. I know it is not good to speak ill of the dead, but it was pretty clearly demonstrated by Fay Miller in that estimates process that the ministerial statement was more about the minister than the substance of the statement. It was, obviously, prepared by the department but, clearly, the minister had not spent a great deal of time getting his head around the contents, because he talked about the endangered species list in that statement.
Fay and I and a few others did some homework on the endangered species list, to discover that it was somewhat inappropriate. For instance, five species listed as extinct on that list were actually in the Desert Park in Alice Springs - alive and well, not least of which was the numbat. Also on that list was one of the great things to which the minister absolutely committed himself in the Northern Territory - the protection of the blue whale - also a mildly ridiculous circumstance. Then we had creatures which were listed as endangered, such as the Lesser Stick-nest Rat, which actually has been extinct since the 1930s. Fay Miller quipped at the time that if we were to discover one it should be called the Lazarus Stick-nest Rat. But it showed that not a great deal of thought or imagination had gone into it.
In a moment of wickedness on my part - far be it from me - I checked the Endangered Species List of the Northern Territory and I notice that it is now an up-to-date record and we could not plug any holes in it, we did not try that hard, but it is now an up-to-date record.
The care which has gone into this ministerial statement reflects what is happening in the department, I suspect, under the tutelage of this minister, that this is actually more about the contents of the statement than the minister herself. So, I tip my hat to the minister for getting the priority of this particular statement right. I thank the minister for drawing to the attention of this House the issue which still has not gone away in the Territory - the nature of these invasive species.
It is sad that we cannot commit, as a government, the resources that are actually required; we always struggle to commit those resources. The intentions of what government has to do across a raft of areas will always eat into things like the management of the Mexican poppy or mimosa pigra or whatever else. We are realistic about it, we understand you are realistic about it, and we certainly hope the clarity of thought that exists in this area continues.
I also rise to my feet to mention one other thing before I sit down. I did mention it privately to the new Minister for Correctional Services, but I think it is worth saying publicly. In Question Time today, the Minister for Correctional Services read from a script which had been prepared for him. I asked him to table the document – clearly it was not going to be tabled, and that is not the issue - the minister then actually gave an answer without looking down at his notes, he glanced down once, and that is it, and I got the impression that I was getting a much more believable and heartfelt answer from the minister, and I am prepared to go on the public record to say: ‘Mate, you are better than your speech writer and I think you should stick to trusting yourself’’ Because, quite genuinely, I might not agree with what you have to say as the minister but, frankly, when you talk from the heart it sounds a whole lot more credible and believable than when you read from a script. I know am I not supposed to address you directly, but I think it is worth putting on the record.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, this has been a very passionate debate. I am so happy to see from my parliamentary colleagues, on both sides, that this report has got a really positive push. I think we are all passionate as Territorians to see the environment we live in preserved for future generations of Territorians. I have not just heard your passion; I have felt your passion today: the member for Nelson, every single one of my colleagues sitting on the other side and, of course, my colleagues on my own side have all reflected on things that are happening in their own communities - Davenport Ranges, Tennant Creek, and Nhulunbuy.
This report does not come without the sweat and tears and love and passion of the former minister for the Environment, the member for Arafura. She has had a lot to do with the environment and the things that are happening, such as the grants system that we have in place, she has to be given the credit for that - it is her ideas and her initiative. She is an Indigenous person who has lived on a community; she has seen the invasive species and the buffaloes and pigs destroying the waterholes in the Top End, and we have seen it in Central Australia. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the former minister, the member for Arafura, for her vision for the Northern Territory.
I would like to say again: I heard the passion, but I also felt it. I think this is a clear message from this parliament to this side of the House, to the government, to make sure that we look at all these things seriously - the invasive weeds, the feral animals that we have, the camels, the donkeys, the horses, the pigs, and the buffaloes.
We need to make sure that we understand that visitors from outside the Northern Territory come to visit our parks, they come to have a look at the beauty of our parks, the beauty of our communities and the true partnerships we have formed with state, federal, local government and the Indigenous rangers, as well. We should not allow these visitors to leave with the impression that we are riddled with weeds and feral animals, because I believe they could take the negative aspects of the Territory back into other states and overseas and say: ‘Do not go to Kakadu or Litchfield Park because it has got all these weeds’. I believe that we need to give that clean, clear image of the Territory and its beauty because that is what we advertise through our brochures and through television. We say: ‘Come to the Territory for the beauty of our parks’, and we need to make sure that we support parks’ infrastructure, the cleanliness of our parks, no weeds or feral animals.
There were a few questions that colleagues on both sides asked about camels. I have been advised that carrying large numbers of camels to a permanent abattoir is not viable because of both the cost and logistical problems. As you know, camels have very long legs and shooting camels in the field, bleeding them and carrying the carcass in mobile abattoirs would be the best way to go; to take the mobile abattoirs out to the camel, rather than the camel to the abattoirs. They would have a backhoe or something there to dig a hole, throw the guts in, cut off the legs and the head, throw them inside, then cut it into four quarters and put it inside a chiller, and then off the truck goes. These are some of the things we spoke about when I had the meeting in Alice Springs. We need to ensure that these abattoirs are approved for use in supplying the domestic market, and we also need to license the mobile abattoirs under the Northern Territory Meat Industries Act.
I am also advised that a senior meat industry officer will visit Alice Springs at the end of the month to look at Wamboden Abattoir and various meat wholesalers to examine their capacity for dealing with camels. We have already had discussions with Wamboden, and I believe this is a great opportunity for Alice Springs and Wamboden Abattoir to do something. As the member for Braitling said, and many others on my side of this House, it is about employment opportunities for Indigenous people in communities.
Mr Elferink: Hear, hear!
Ms ANDERSON: There are great opportunities for Indigenous people to be employed in this industry.
Mr Elferink: Definitely.
Ms ANDERSON: The member for Port Darwin knows, because he was the member when the Docker River community actually started an industry.
Mr Elferink: It is still going.
Ms ANDERSON: The yards are still there. I think it was federally funded. Correct me if I am wrong, John.
Mr Elferink: Which one was that?
Ms ANDERSON: Docker River.
Mr Elferink: Yes. Gary Cartwright started that off. I am just trying to think. It was a long time ago now.
Ms ANDERSON: Yes. So it was funded by the federal government, and it just collapsed due to lack of interest.
Mr Elferink: Kintore had yards as well.
Ms ANDERSON: There was not really that partnership on the ground between the Indigenous people and whoever the operators were, so it started off as a joint partnership, and then gradually it shifted away. That is the important thing we must remember with Indigenous employment: we must always have them there and nurture them into these fields that we want to expose them to.
One of the questions the member for Braitling and the member for Brennan asked was about the EPA; they were very concerned that the EPA did not go to Alice Springs. Early this year, the EPA met as a board in Alice Springs and they actually had a forum in Alice Springs where people participated and gave them ideas.
The member for Brennan also questioned the brochures, but I believe it is irrelevant that we send this kind of material out. I know glossy brochures sometimes put people off, but I believe it is necessary to tell the little people the same as we tell the big people, through the same material, what is going on.
I thank the member for Goyder for her support. It is important that we move the things we have spoken about in this statement forward. I believe it gives us great opportunities as Territorians, it means that the pastoral industry, the green industry, politicians, we have matured in this small community we call the Territory. We can see the balance of having a good environment, having productivity with industry, and I believe we have come together now and we are a very mature Territory. I take this opportunity again to thank you all for a very positive and passionate debate on this.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not trying to be cute or funny or anything, but was there not a tabled paper hitting the table some time tonight?
Madam SPEAKER: We have done all the papers.
Mr ELFERINK: Was it not the Auditor-General’s Report?
Madam SPEAKER: I have already tabled that.
Mr ELFERINK: That has hit the table, has it? I was under the impression it was coming on after the statement.
Madam SPEAKER: No, papers come before Ministerial Statements.
Mr ELFERINK: All right. I am sorry to have disturbed you, Madam Speaker. I was actually trying to help government in case they had overlooked it, but thank you, Madam Speaker, I appreciate it.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, as some members would be aware, I have moved electoral offices from Moil, where the electorate office of Jingili was and which became the electorate office of Johnston. I have now moved to Rapid Creek to Matthew Bonson’s old electorate office. As members would be aware, through the redistribution, Millner and parts of Coconut Grove became part of the electorate of Johnston. As members would also be aware, nearly every Sunday I go to the Rapid Creek Markets, and I am there from 7 am until about 12 noon; that is probably about 85% to 90% of Sundays throughout the year.
I felt it was important that the electorate office move because Millner, to some degree, has become, or is becoming, the geographic centre of the electorate. Who knows what is going to happen with future redistributions, but I felt it was very important to maintain a presence at the Rapid Creek Shopping Centre where, as I say, I go nearly every Sunday. I must say that sometimes the opposition is there, a few Sundays here and there, when there are a few issues around, but I am there every Sunday, come thick or thin. I really enjoy the markets, and I certainly enjoy the produce - I do buy things there as well; but I just enjoy people popping in, saying hello, people coming with issues, and sometimes people even chew my ear, but I can handle that as well. Sometimes we have some very interesting conversations and put differing points of view.
It was sad to leave the Moil electorate office, there is a bit of history there. I understand Paul Everingham had his office there. Mr John Nicolakis is the landlord and he has been a great landlord, and it is a great space for an electorate office. It is probably not the most modern facility, but it has a great community room and kitchen, and other amenities, and the office space is very good. I have been sad to leave there, but I understand the member for Arafura will be moving into that electorate office from town, and I believe that is a positive thing also. It is a great little shopping centre and I am going to miss the people at the shops there, and all the people who drop by as they are going to the shops. Moil is really a good place. But I have now moved to Rapid Creek, and I am certainly getting to know the people at Rapid Creek too.
There was some work to be done there, Madam Speaker, and I thank the Legislative Assembly for the paint job and a few electrical things that needed to be done, and a few things still be done. My Electorate Officer, Judy Herring, has also moved in there, so that is fantastic. I invite people to come and see me at that electorate office during the week.
I believe It has been important for the people of Millner. As I doorknocked Millner, both before and after the election, the first question Millner people would ask me was: ‘Why is there not an electorate of Millner anymore?’. They were very upset about that. The second question was: ‘When are you going to move in to the Rapid Creek Shops?’ It became a chorus, and I said to Judy, my Electorate Officer: ‘We are going to have to move’. And so we did. It did take a while, but I am very happy at the Rapid Creek shops and I will be advertising that move.
My service to the electorate will continue. As soon as the sittings are over and the rain clears a bit, I will be out there on the streets of Millner, as I was at the end of December last year, knocking on doors, further getting to know my constituents, because it is important, as local members, that we do doorknock and get to meet people. The people of Millner and Coconut Grove are great. There are a lot of old families in Millner and there are many new people who have moved into that suburb as well. It is great for me to get to know people. Once I have finished Millner and Coconut Grove, I will be on the circuit again with the rest of the electorate.
Madam Speaker, I value the opportunity to tell the House today about the change in my electorate office.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I wish to comment on another deemed paper which was tabled today. I notice that we are still getting annual reports for last year through. The annual report for Public Trustee has just hit the Table. Without having to look up the legislation, I suspect that the same rules may apply in relation to the reporting cycle. I wonder how many of these are hitting the table, contrary to the legislative instruments that support them. It has become noteworthy that this government has become quite tardy in annual reporting requirements, which has been evidenced particularly by those annual reports coming out of hospital boards and those sorts of things, which are contrary to the legislative environment, but we have had that debate in this place.
The annual report in relation to NT Build, however, is interesting. It is interesting because it is an annual report which has received a qualified audit opinion from the Auditor-General. A qualified audit opinion means that it does not get the unqualified support of the Auditor-General. The issue is in the nub of this sentence, which I will read. The Auditor-General said:
He goes on to make a few other observations. However, NT Build itself acknowledges that its actuarial review demonstrated that there were inherent problems in the management of this particular fund. Normally, the alarm bells start ringing when government produces qualified audit opinions from auditors and when even the departments themselves, or the body responsible for maintaining NT Build, comes back with a statement about it.
The problem is not a reflection on the people who managed the fund; it is not their fault, and both the Auditor-General and NT Build make that quite clear. The problem is in the structure of the legislation and how the fund is managed. That is because of the lack of consideration and support that went into this very union-driven fund, whose sole purpose was to try to extract from the construction industry another mode of payment. What it actually has done, because it has been knocked or nobbled together in such a foolhardy and rushed fashion – another hallmark of some of the legislation that comes through from this government - is that we have produced legislation that is extraordinarily difficult to manage. It is extraordinarily difficult to manage because the nature of what is a construction site is an issue. Some people will be working in what might be deemed construction without actually knowing they are in construction, and that could be areas such as the mining industry and those sorts of things.
Consequently, you have a fund that may actually be drawn down much more aggressively upon into the future by people claiming their long-service entitlements under the fund than is available in the fund. That is what the Auditor-General’s problem is. It is what the fund’s problem is, and it demonstrates that rushing stuff through is not the way that this House and government should go about its business. Whilst I appreciate the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling’s, passion for a portable long-service scheme in the construction industry, the consequence is going to be potentially a nightmare or a headache for future Territory governments.
The other thing I wanted to flag is, whilst this account is essentially a trust instrument which is held separate from government, it is created by a legislative instrument and, in these difficult and troubled times, I hope we do not see another legislative instrument come into this place seeking to change the nature of that trust instrument, thus making this particular fund, which may already be insufficient for its purposes, become a fund which is going to support government’s expenditure regime into the future. The Conditions of Service Reserve, which is a parallel fund by government, in relation to looking after people’s superannuation payments, has already been renamed the Infrastructure Fund, so we know what is coming in terms of the future superannuation savings from government in that area. And you watch, it will not be too long before they are looking at that $8m as well.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, in December last year, I travelled to research the Shoalhaven City Council Youth Holiday Activity Programs with a focus on Indigenous youth. I chose the Shoalhaven City Council due to their well documented website, strong youth focus, economically depressed community status, challenging youth social conditions, and high percentage of Indigenous youth. This community model had many similarities with Tennant Creek, and it presented a larger and more sophisticated youth outreach initiative for Learning Lessons and addressing an elevated juvenile crime rate during school holiday periods.
My contact was Mrs Donna Corbyn, Youth Development Officer, at the Shoalhaven City Council, and I thank her and the many others who gave their time to me.
The Shoalhaven City Council has forged a blueprint for 12- to 24-year-olds who live in the Shoalhaven about being part of the planning future for the region. The Shoalhaven Youth Advisory Committee contributes to the community by providing ideas, suggestions and recommendations to the Shoalhaven City Council about youth issues. It has a formal role in decision-making and operation of programs, including a budget provision.
Shoalhaven City Council supports three youth centres at Nowra, Sanctuary Point and Ulladulla. Through a shire model, it includes youth workers, youth centres and youth services. It includes targeted programs for at-risk youth and Indigenous youth, in partnership with agencies, including the police and the private sector.
The Habitat Youth Night Patrol, formed in 1996 as a community street beat and transport service, operates from the Nowra Youth Centre. The patrol has two teams of six people working alternate nights, and operates two buses providing youth transport to youth activities and home, as well as assisting at-risk youth with transport off the streets. Respected local Indigenous people are encouraged to and actively participate in this youth specific transport service, often identifying cases where at-risk youth need to be collected from home to remove them from harmful situations like alcohol and substance abuse.
Another good example of utilising transport was taking activities to the street, such as the youth workers’ teams taking a league tag sports activity into the suburbs, targeting parks and recreational areas where at-risk youth congregate. It builds relationships with the community and engages youth not confident to visit youth centres or participate in programmed youth activities. This strategically provides safety, early intervention, crime prevention, and increased attendance and participation in youth-related activities. The Youth Centre infrastructure provided is of a high standard, with popular and innovative resources and activities in partnership with an active corporate sponsorship program.
I researched the Dunn and Lewis Youth Development Foundation in Ulladulla. It was formed after the Bali bombings by Gayle Dunn as a memorial facility to her son, Craig Dunn, and Danny Lewis – local surfers from Ulladulla - who lost their lives in the terrorist attack, to ‘remember the boys forever’. I quote from the literature I collected:
In relation to youth programs researched, I found considerable similarities to the Northern Territory models. I found certain initiatives to be of interest including:
proactive as opposed to tokenistic inclusion of youth in the decision-making processes for the design and delivery of youth programs;
improving a sense of ownership and respect for program assets and activities, and possibly reducing vandalism and complacency;
I would like to note the references for the material collected, with great pride, from: the Shoalhaven City Council in New South Wales, the Dunn and Lewis Youth Foundation and the New South Wales government.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, there a few issues I wish to raise tonight in adjournment. The first one is in relation to a young gentleman in Katherine who should really be considered a shining light of what can be achieved by Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. The young fellow I am talking about is Richard Baker.
Richard is an Indigenous helicopter pilot. He would be one of the very few Indigenous helicopter pilots in the Northern Territory. I am reading from a newspaper article which appeared in the Katherine Times this week, and I had the pleasure of meeting Richard just a week or two ago at the launch of Airborne Solutions’ new helicopter which is capable of doing medical evacuations and rescues.
I want to highlight the fact that there are opportunities in the Northern Territory that quite often are not available to people in other states, and this is probably an example of that. It is wonderful to see a young man of 25 years of age who had a dream of working as a helicopter pilot when he was a young boy. He started working for Parks and Wildlife, met up with the owner of Airborne Solutions helicopter company who, basically, gave him a job; they said if you can get your licence, we will give you a job. So that is what Richard went out and did. It is an example of the way people who come from an Indigenous background can really overcome all of the issues we see as being big issues for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory and triumph. My congratulations go to young Richard Baker.
The next issue I wanted to quickly raise is in relation to a document tabled today: the Ombudsman’s report into a complaint made by three prisoners at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. The complaint basically was that these three prisoners had been transferred from the Darwin Correctional Centre, against their wishes, and had been held at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre for quite some time. This resulted in them not receiving visits from family for quite some period of time, and family members who were put to great hardship in attempting to get down to see these prisoners.
I read this in context of what was discussed in this House today in relation to plans for a new prison to be built in Darwin, and this complaint arises because there are not enough beds in the Darwin Correctional Centre and these prisoners had to be transferred to Alice Springs because that was the only place they could go. I note if the new prison does go ahead that, by 2016, according to our research, the prison will be full, which is only three years after its planned opening. So, the prison the government is proposing here will be completely inadequate in what I would call the short term. Even though today it is probably a medium term issue, being six or seven years away, but it will be a short-term issue by 2013 when the prison is actually finished.
I would encourage the government to take a much longer term view of the prison system, to consider there are other parts of the Territory that will be wanting this type of development, and it would benefit the prisoners greatly to be located in places that are more in tune with their home country; that would facilitate, as the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommended, that prisoners be located in places that are near to their country, near to their family, to alleviate some of the severe mental trauma and problems that arise through incarceration.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, there was an incident at Palmerston Shopping Centre two weeks ago where three young ladies, returning from school, sought refuge in the Palmerston Shopping Centre thinking they would be safe in a public place. Unfortunately, that was not the case. These three young girls were set upon by a mob of what can only be described as thugs. One thing that struck me in this whole thing was that there were other people around; people in uniforms, and the general public who did not step in and do anything. It was a horrible thing to see.
In this case, we were able to get the three young girls into our office and, as it has been described here today, call police, call their parents, settle them down and offer them some comfort before their parents turned up.
I just wanted to relay that it is tragic, although there probably has been some good come out of it inasmuch as the Palmerston Shopping Centre had a meeting yesterday with police and security to discuss some initiatives they can introduce there. It was in conjunction with the YMCA, and they want to make this a group effort to see if we can find something for these kids to do of an afternoon. The CCTV cameras have surely fixed up many of the problems in the Palmerston interchange; the kids now know this and they just move their problems from the interchange to somewhere where there are no CCTV cameras. I think it is all about just trying to find programs for these kids to do of an afternoon rather than just congregate around a shopping centre.
I congratulate young Jessie Chalker who attends Bakewell Primary School. Jessie was the Australia Day 2009 Student of the Year. It was very well deserved, and Jessie is a wonderful young kid.
One of the other things happening in Palmerston at the moment is the Paws Animal Rescue Centre on Thursday evenings at 6 pm. We have a Paws Walk where people can take their own dogs for a walk, but if they do not have a dog, they can take one of the rescued dogs for a walk around the suburbs. This is intended to help these animals with a chance of being re-homed by getting them used to walking around the streets, the different noises, and the different smells, and to hopefully make them a better companion for their new owners.
I also take this opportunity to remind us again as our thoughts go out to our families, our friends and everyone involved in Victoria. This tragedy has touched so many. It is during times of great tragedy that the true character of Australians comes to the fore and the outpouring of support is a true testament to this character. I am positive this support will continue and I encourage everyone to donate if they can. It is not all about money; as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out the other day, giving blood is so vital at this time.
I personally thank Pete Davies and his 360 team for being able to respond so quickly in helping to raise a substantial amount of cash in such a short period of time. Pete’s quick response will provide much needed assistance for many families affected by this tragedy.
To finish up, I had a wonderful trip to Mt Isa before Christmas to visit the Incitec Pivot chemical plant to have a look at what and how a chemical plant such as that operates so close to an urban environment. I learnt some vital lessons, which I will relate in another adjournment one evening to report on it in depth.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, today, as Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, I pay tribute to three outstanding members of my department who were named in the Australia Day honours: Detective Senior Sergeant Scott Pollock and Sergeant Stuart Davis were nominated for the Australian Police Medal, and Mr Selwyn Kloeden was nominated for the Emergency Service Medal.
Detective Senior Sergeant Scott Pollock has over 25 years of distinguished and dedicated service as a member of the Northern Territory Police Force since 1984. He served at Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Darwin, and is currently the OIC of the Major Crimes Section. In December 1987, he transferred to the Criminal Investigation Branch where, over the following 10 years, he became an experienced investigator and was awarded his detective designation. Following his promotion to sergeant in 1997, he transferred to the Alice Springs Criminal Investigation Branch.
In 2002, Detective Senior Sergeant Pollock became the Officer in Charge of the extremely successful Task Force Ranger, established to combat property crime and target recidivist offenders. In mid-2006, he played a key role in the development and implementation of the property crime reduction strategy, and achieved a substantial reduction in property crime, and was awarded the Commissioner’s Outstanding Leadership Medal. In 2007, he was appointed OIC of the Major Crimes Section.
During his long and continuing policing career, Detective Senior Sergeant Pollock has delivered many years of dedicated and loyal service to the people of the Northern Territory and to the Northern Territory Police Force. His career in general duties policing and criminal investigation has been at the front line of policing. Detective Senior Sergeant Pollock’s leadership, diligence and fortitude is demonstrated by his preparedness to perform challenging and sometimes physically arduous policing duties at various postings.
Sergeant Stuart Davis has over 21 years of distinguished and dedicated service as a member of the Northern Territory Police Force since 1987. He has served in Groote Eylandt, Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin, and is currently a sergeant with the Summary Prosecutions Section. In 1997, Sergeant Davis transferred to the Police College where he was heavily involved in delivering recruit training, as well as assisting with development of the Territory Police Operational Safety Tactics and Training Manual. Following his transfer to the Summary Prosecutions Section in 1999, he developed a reputation as a quality prosecutor. In 2003, Sergeant Davis returned to the Police College to assist in the redevelopment and delivery of detective training. In 2004, he worked in the Confiscation of Assets Unit before returning to Summary Prosecutions in 2006.
During his long and continuing policing career, Sergeant Davis has performed many years of dedicated and loyal service to the people of the Northern Territory and to the Northern Territory Police Force. His career in general duties policing, criminal investigation, recruit training and summary prosecutions has been at the front line of policing. Sergeant Davis’ diligence and fortitude is demonstrated by his preparedness to perform challenging policing duties at various postings.
Mr Selwyn Robert Kloeden has been a Northern Territory Emergency Service volunteer since 2003 and has served continuously with the Hermannsburg Volunteer Unit. Mr Kloeden has dedicated himself to gaining nationally recognised qualifications and training in emergency management disciplines, including urban search and rescue, road accident rescue, general rescue and air observer. He has held appointments as equipments officer, rescue leader and training officer.
In February 2006, Mr Kloeden was appointed Unit Officer, Hermannsburg, by the Director, Northern Territory Emergency Services. Through excellent leadership and the application of his extensive knowledge and experience, Mr Kloeden has developed a cohesive, well-trained and responsive Emergency Services volunteer unit which supports the Ntaria community. His respect and involvement in all aspects of the community has been influential in maintaining the high profile of the volunteer unit throughout the area.
In addition to supporting the community, Mr Kloeden and his unit have the responsibility for providing emergency services to a very popular tourist area of the Territory where they are called upon to respond to many vehicle accidents that occur in this area each year. Mr Kloeden’s tireless commitment to improving his unit and the Northern Territory Emergency Services is evidenced through gaining a land allotment from the community and successfully being awarded a federal government grant to construct a dedicated headquarters building on his allotment. His dedication and sense of community service over the past five years has significantly contributed to enhancing the capability and professional reputation of the service throughout the Northern Territory. Mr Kloeden is an exemplary volunteer with enormous passion and drive who selflessly gives his time to provide an emergency service to a remote area of the Northern Territory. Mr Kloeden clearly upholds the values instilled into the Northern Territory Emergency Services motto: ‘To serve and protect’.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate these three men for their commendable service to the Northern Territory.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I note of a couple of items. First, I would really appreciate if the members opposite would reconsider the five minutes. I have a lot of things to say about some fantastic young Territorians that is going to take a little longer than five minutes, so I might have to do this on a number of occasions, but it is going to take up quite a few adjournment speeches.
The matter I would like to address first, I note the time is exactly 7.30 pm right now, is an event that is occurring in Rome. A great friend of the Northern Territory, the Honourable Tim Fischer, is currently before the Pope presenting his credentials as the Australian Ambassador to the Holy See. Tim Fischer, of course, is a great friend of regional and rural Australia, and a great ambassador for any organisation or country he would be asked to represent. He is accompanied by his wife, Judy, and sons, Harrison and Dominic.
I am sure that this is a great day not only for the Roman Catholic community but for all Australians because they have a great representative. I am sure the matters being discussed will include some prayers for those who have been affected by the fires in Victoria. We wish Mr Fischer, being a great friend of the Territory, all the best in his new role.
The second issue I would like to raise is that of the Student Citizen of the Year Awards. I would like to say to members here that I am very proud to be the sponsor of 11 Citizen of the Year trophies that are presented each year to 11 different schools within the northern suburbs. This is an award I have been involved in for the last 20 years. It is great to be able to recognise these young people and to give them a trophy to take home. It is a miniature of the large trophy, which obviously stays at the school.
Before I run out of time, I would like to mention these people and the schools. These people are very worthy young Territorians, and are role models in the schools and in the community.
I would like to mention: Sabrina Ciubal from Wagaman Primary School; Rachael Dodd from Leanyer Primary School; Tess Hales, from Nightcliff Primary School; Tayla McKinnon from Nightcliff Primary School; Cindy Mu from Wulagi Primary School; Tom O’Neill-Thorne from Anula Primary School; Molly Robbins from St Pauls Primary School; Jordan Smith from Malak Primary School; Rachel Harpur from Jingili Primary School; Emily Moo from Nakara Primary School; and, Tom Conroy from Sanderson Middle School.
Madam Speaker, these are fine, upstanding, young people and I would like to read some notes from a speech from one of these people, but this could apply to any one of them. This is an extract from one of the speeches:
Madam Speaker, those are the qualities that the people I just mentioned have. I look forward to seeing them in future as role models. The last person I would like to mention is Simone Liddy. Simone is a wonderful person who was this year’s Young Territorian, and formerly a winner of the NAIDOC Award in 2007. She is a great role model and a former recipient of one of my Student Citizen Awards. Unfortunately, time prevents me, but I will try to mention her in another speech. Madam Speaker, I am sorry I cannot finish my speech.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I wish tonight to pay tribute to a gentleman by the name of Fred Murray. Fred was 58-years-old and, unfortunately, passed away when his light plane crashed during a refresher training flight south of Perth on 27 November 2008.
I first met Fred when he worked for Otto Gold Mines Limited in the Tanami region in 1997. At the time, I was working with the Commonwealth agency of the Department of Employment, Education and Training in Alice Springs. Stan Pageant was the mine manager for the Tanami mine and Fred’s official title was the Human Resources Superintendent. The project was the first in Central Australia to be a partnership between Indigenous communities, the Central Land Council and the mining company. Indigenous employment was part of the agreement. Prior to that, the levels of Indigenous employment were very low and the relationships with communities and the CLC were very poor. Tracker Tilmouth was the CLC Director at the time and he negotiated funding from the federal government - Simon Crean was the federal minister at the time - to fund a steering committee as well as a job based within the Central Land Council for a Development Officer.
Fred was the Otto Gold representative on the steering committee which had community-based members as direct voices on improving community involvement, support and employment. Harry Jakamarra Nelson was one of those community representatives on the board. Fred always made sure that the community views were recorded and that changes were made to address the issues; he was a key organiser for the official mine opening in May 1996 where people came from the Warlpiri Triangle to see just what was happening.
He went on road trips to these communities as part of the information process so that families knew what was happening and why. Fred and Stan Pageant also insisted that, where possible, local Indigenous subcontractors secured business. This included a fellow by the name of Paul Herbert from Lajamanu who was the local subcontractor in making caps for filling the drill holes. Des Rogers was also involved in the food transport area and, I believe, Sid Rusca for road construction. Fred played a mentor role onsite but always made sure the various contractors took up their responsibilities and did not just hand pass tough decisions.
I would like now to read a few tributes from people who spoke highly of Fred. Mr Murray, who worked as an Indigenous Relations Officer with a number of resource companies, was also a Director of the Kimberley-based Indigenous group, Jirrawun Arts. Jirrawun Arts Chairman, Mr Ian Smith, said Mr Murray was a low profile advocate for Indigenous Australians who would be sorely missed in Aboriginal communities across the country, particularly in the Kimberley region.
‘Mr Murray spent 20 years working with Aboriginal people using an extraordinary ability to work seamlessly between the Indigenous and white cultures’ Mr Smith said. ‘Fred played an enormous role in seeking to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. He was a significant figure, but his low-key nature and enormous modesty meant his achievements were unrecognised by many’. Mr Smith said that Mr Murray had no critics, just friends and admirers. The Gija people in the Kimberley loved and adored Fred, whether sitting with the elders or helping out the kids. He was loved by everyone he had contact with.
Mr Murray was known for his work at Rio Tinto’s Argyle Diamond Mine and more recently had been employed by Newmont Gold Australia as an Indigenous Affairs Coordinator at its Boddington operations in the state’s south-east and that was from the Jirrawun Arts group in the Kimberley.
Another tribute was from a gentleman by the name of Peter Strachan, or Strachy, whom many of us here would know, and he had this to say about Fred:
A final tribute is from Sir William Deane. He said that Fred was much more than a rare and special person - he was a magnificent and overwhelmingly generous human being.
Can I say, on the anniversary of the Prime Minister’s apology 12 months ago, I had the privilege of being in Canberra and I think Fred was one of those guys who left an impression and he really did practice what the Prime Minister said in terms of an apology and he did it with his actions.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Casuarina
Member for Casuarina
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion for leave of absence for the member for Casuarina.
Motion agreed to.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Casuarina and Member for Katherine
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Casuarina and Member for Katherine
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs for the full day today, 12 February 2009, for the member for Casuarina and the pair is the member for Katherine, and it has been signed by both the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip.
PETITION
Royal Darwin Hospital Review
Royal Darwin Hospital Review
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 627 petitioners praying that an independent review be commissioned to assess the adequacy of resources, policies, procedures and systems at Royal Darwin Hospital and Acute Care Services.
The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirements of standing orders.
This petition is similar in terms to a petition presented in the October 2008 sittings.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- We, the undersigned, respectfully show that we are angry and upset over the avoidable death of 64-year-old Margaret Winter at Royal Darwin
Hospital in 2006. We are alarmed by the Northern Territory Coroner Greg Cavanagh’s findings that indicate that the conditions in the Royal
Darwin Hospital were dangerous due to inadequate staffing.
Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Northern Territory government immediately commission an independent review to assess the
adequacy of resources, policies and procedures and systems at the Royal Darwin Hospital and Acute Care Services to deliver safe health care
to all Territorians. As a matter of urgency the review should investigate the staffing levels of nurses and doctors to assess whether patients are
at risk due to low staffing levels.
We request that the independent review be made public in its entirety and that the recommendations be implemented immediately.
And your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Northern Land Council – Housing Lease Agreements on Remote Communities
Northern Land Council – Housing Lease Agreements on Remote Communities
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, this morning I report to the House on an important milestone reached yesterday in delivering new and upgraded houses in some of our largest remote communities. A full meeting of the Northern Land Council has agreed to enter into 40 year housing leases with the Northern Territory government in the communities of Galiwinku, Gunbalanya, Maningrida and Wadeye.
This decision has secured more than $159m in housing and infrastructure across the four communities as part of the $672m Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, or SIHIP, a joint venture between the Australian and Territory governments. This housing lease agreement comes as a result of months of consultation and collaboration between traditional owners and the Northern Territory and Australian governments, as well as the Northern Land Council.
I commend the traditional owners for their commitment to improving housing and living conditions in those communities. A lot of work has gone into reaching this decision, a decision which will create new opportunities for the future of Maningrida, Galiwin’ku, Wadeye and Gunbalanya. This decision provides a boost in housing numbers in these communities, in upgrades to many houses as well as improvements in community infrastructure.
Improving housing conditions is an essential part of closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. Through SIHIP, capital works funding of $48.7m has been allocated to Maningrida, $33m for Galiwin’ku, $28.7m for Gunbalanya and $48.7m for Wadeye. Extensive community consultation will now be undertaken to determine the scope of works, and it is expected this funding will see approximately 300 new houses built and approximately 250 existing houses refurbished. A further $15m will be injected into smaller communities in these regions for housing refurbishment.
SIHIP is not just about housing upgrades. The Northern Territory and Australian governments are determined to address the living conditions in remote communities. Decent housing is essential for the protection of children, improving health, education and employment opportunities, and rebuilding positive norms in these communities. This program is also about long-term job and home ownership opportunities. This housing will help reduce overcrowding in the communities and boost the local economy with jobs for local people in housing construction and refurbishment work.
Flow-on effects for providing work for people in these communities is an important step in closing the gap in employment between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The Northern Land Council Chief Executive, Kim Hill, has welcomed the commitment, saying traditional owners had been calling for substantial increases in the number of houses in remote communities, as well as the boost in related infrastructure. The NLC has also welcomed the fact that these housing stocks will be managed and maintained by Territory Housing. This agreement will see further employment opportunities for local Aboriginal people.
In Tennant Creek, where a lease agreement was reached with Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation late last year, 16 local apprentices are already in training to uptake work in these community living areas and small communities in the Barkly and southern shires. This is a fantastic outcome as a result of SIHIP. The latest agreement reached with the NLC will see similar opportunities for locals, as well as Territory contractors and businesses.
In my own electorate, Wadeye will receive $48.7m in upgrades. It is hard to comprehend just what this will mean for the community. This money will not only see substantial housing and infrastructure changes, it will mean major changes in living conditions.
These housing and infrastructure changes will address overcrowding in homes and these changes will flow on to positively impact on the health and wellbeing of locals, and will help re-build positive community outcomes.
The program will create job and training opportunities for the people of Wadeye, and regular maintenance programs will ensure houses remain safe and healthy, and that community members are able to deliver the services long term.
I am sure that all members in this Chamber will appreciate the hard work that has been put into delivering these essential housing and infrastructure programs. Following consultation with the communities, work is expected to start later this year.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. It is good to hear that there is a good working cooperative relationship between land councils and the Australian and NT governments. I urge this relationship to keep forging ahead because it is important that we catch up in regard to quality housing in remote communities, to ensure that there are no more delays in regard to providing accommodation which is really a fundamental right of all Australians and, of course, all Territory people regardless of where they live. I know that your department is working very hard in regard to finding designs that are suitable, applicable or what people actually want in these various communities, whether it be designs appropriate for the climate or just exactly what they want. Basically, why should they not have a design that they actually want to live in, because your house is more than a house, it is your home, and it should be safe.
I thank the minister for his report, and I look forward to hearing more comments in regard to more houses. On the Tiwi Islands they are pushing ahead with the Alliance Group building houses over there, and that is welcome news as well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the report of the minister. I have some concerns. A number of times it was raised in this parliament - and I know the previous Minister for Local Government and Housing, Elliot McAdam, spoke about the concepts of trying to reduce the costs of housing.
If I do the figures of 300 into $159m, I come up with a house at $0.5m. I wonder whether we have got anywhere since the minister spoke about trying to reduce the cost of houses. If we are building houses at $0.5m, we are never going to get there. We need to be looking at some simple, straightforward designs that put a roof over people’s head, which is easily maintainable; otherwise we are never going to achieve the goals we are trying to achieve.
I am concerned, as I recently visited Daly River and was told they are worried about places like Daly River where they have always looked after their houses, that they will be penalised by having less money for housing, simply because other communities have destroyed some of their housing and, now, because it looks bad in the eyes of the public, they are getting the money - in other words, they are being rewarded for not looking after their houses, whereas the communities that have looked after their houses and have used their money well are going to get less funding. I am interested in the minister’s comments there because we need to be very careful that we do not send the wrong message out to those places that are looking after their houses.
Yes, we need decent houses. Yes, we need to be ensuring that Aboriginal people have a roof over their head and are not overcrowded. However, at the same time, we must say to those communities that they must maintain those houses. There must be that responsibility given to people. It does not matter whether there are a lot of people in the house. I know it is sometimes used as an excuse, but I know where 15 or 16 people lived in houses in country Victoria. They were still able to look after the house because they all took responsibility for maintaining their house. I think it is important we build these houses, but at the same time make sure they are maintained.
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. Actually, I will highlight the questions that were raised by the member for Nelson. The costs around building the houses is also for the land servicing, so there are obviously increased costs for building out bush, but certainly, one of the aims has been to drive down those prices of housing construction, servicing those blocks, so that has been part of it.
With respect to Daly River, we would have spoken to Ken Bowen. Ken Bowen is someone who certainly has run a very good housing program there. I have spoken to him about exactly what you talked about. That is why we have Territory Housing now mainstreaming housing out bush so that those issues of damage and misadministration of housing stocks out there will not happen into the future. I take that on board and I will be reporting to the House on a regular basis about the roll-out of this program.
Brolga Tourism Awards
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, tourism is a key economic driver for the Territory, worth an estimated $1.6bn to the economy and employing over 17 000 Territorians. The winners of the 2008 Brolga Northern Territory Tourism Awards were announced during an awards gala event held on Saturday, 22 November 2008 at the Darwin Convention Centre. It is certainly an event that I am looking forward with pleasure to attending as the new minister this year. I know my predecessor attended, along with 381 industry members.
The Brolga Tourism Awards are the tourism industry’s highest accolade and it is a night of nights for the Northern Territory industry. It is a time when the industry gets together as one, and businesses and individuals are recognised alongside their industry counterparts. The Awards, now in their 22nd year, recognise and celebrate a commitment to excellence and innovation. They are an important benchmark for best practice in business. I would like to pass on my congratulations to all the winners and the participants, and I would like to inform the House of the 2008 winners of the NT Brolga Tourism Awards.
Major Tourist Attraction: Alice Springs Desert Park; Significant Tourist Attraction: Deckchair Cinema; Significant Festivals and Event: 2008 Tattersall’s Finke Desert Race; Ecotourism: Alice Springs Desert Park; Heritage and Cultural Tourism: Lord’s Kakadu and Arnhemland Safaris; Indigenous Tourism: AAT Kings - Tiwi Tours; Specialised Tourism Services: VIP Touring - APT Group; Visitor Information Services: Tourism Top End; Meetings and Business Tourism: Alice Springs Convention Centre; Major Tour and Transport Operator: Connections – Northern Territory Tours; Significant Tour and Transport Operator: Airborne Solutions; Adventure Tourism: Cannon Charters; Tourism Marketing: Tourism Top End; Tourism Education and Training: SKYCITY Darwin, who also picked up the Tourism, Restaurants and Catering Services; Tourism and Caravan Parks: MacDonnell Range Holiday Park; Backpacker Accommodation: YWCA of Darwin; Unique Accommodation: Great Southern Railway - The Ghan; Standard Accommodation: Gagudju Crocodile Holiday Inn; Deluxe Accommodation: Crowne Plaza Darwin; Luxury Accommodation: SKYCITY Darwin; Outstanding Interpreter Guide: Sean Arnold, Kakadu Animal Tracks Safari; Judges Encouragement Award: Arnhem Land Eco - Cultural Tours; Voyages Ayers Rock Resort, Campground and Wallaroo Eco Tours; Chairman’s Choice Business Excellence Awards: SKYCITY Darwin; and Chairman’s Choice Business Growth Awards: Savannah Guides.
I would also like to make special mention of the winner of the Young Achiever Award: Ms Mardi Belle of Crown Plaza Darwin, and the Minister for Tourism’s Special Recognition Award: Foxy Robinson, who does such a great job.
The Tourism Minister’s Perpetual Trophy for outstanding contribution was award to Mr George Dunne PSM. He has been involved with the tourism industry for over 50 years. George has invested an incredible amount of his personal time and commitment to the Territory tourism industry. I am sure members join me in congratulating George.
Members: Hear, hear!
Tourism NT’s solid efforts in encouraging and supporting industry participation has been rewarded with a 20% increase in entries from 2007. The Brolga Awards are judged by a panel of 18 judges under the able stewardship of Bob Woodward, who has had a long-term involvement with this; and all the judges do this voluntarily.
Bob Woodward openly praised the industry entrants this year and said this year’s submissions were outstanding. It is also a verification of Tourism NT’s free workshops and mentoring which have been very supportive in successfully guiding the industry through what is a lengthy submission process. These positive changes to the process have encouraged more applicants to get involved in entering the awards.
Tourism NT is represented on the national coordinators panel and there are measures in place to move to an online awards program in 2010 with stronger links with the National Tourism Accreditation Program.
The winners of the business category will now go on to compete as finalists in the Qantas Australian Tourism Awards which will be held on Friday, 27 February 2009 at the Palladium at Crown in Melbourne. I am sure all members of the House wish those Territorian businesses that are going forward to those awards well. I am sure they will equip themselves very well.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker. I welcome the new minister’s comments on our tourism operators in the Territory. I was at the Brolga Awards – it was a fantastic night. They are a fantastic group of people in our tourism industry in the Northern Territory, and hats off to them. They do great a job and richly deserve all the praise that they received.
It is very unfortunate, of course, that all their hard work is not being more assisted by government, particularly in the regional areas, places like Tennant Creek, Katherine, and Pine Creek have been all but ignored from a tourism perspective. It is absolutely appalling the disregard this government has for those regional areas.
One thing they could do for the tourism industry is clean up the streets. Fix the law and order problems that people in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Darwin - right across the Territory - are experiencing. That would be a good place to start to help people in the tourism industry. Fix the roads. Our roads are continually degenerating, and our government does not do anything about it at all.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr TOLLNER: The government lacks imagination when it comes to tourism, they do not have the wit or the courage to address the problems. I urge you to get on board, fix the problems, and help out our hard-working tourism operators. They do a great job. The Brolga Awards were a classic example of how fantastic the people are in our tourism industry. They need support of government, and this government has turned its back on tourism and it is a dreadful shame.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also congratulate those who won awards at the Brolga Awards night. But I also have concerns about the tourism industry in the Northern Territory.
I would like to know whether the government has some sort of strategy for the downturn in the economy. Will there be less people wanting to spend their time in the Territory, simply because they do not want to spend money? What is the strategy? It concerns me that, over the last five or six years, on average, most of our parks have less people visiting them. There a few that have increases, but most parks, when you look at the figures, have a downward trend. I am interested to know whether the government has a strategy for increasing the number of people visiting those parks.
One of the things that concern me is: I went to Katherine Gorge last week and did one of the walking tours. If you look at the website, most walking trails in the Territory are closed because of the weather conditions. You cannot walk in the Litchfield National Park at the present time. Most roads are closed and I understand there are good reasons for some roads being closed, but in the Wet Season, which I believe is the most beautiful season and the best time to be out there, especially in the Top End, we are very restricted in the use of our parks.
I believe the government needs to look at that and see whether we can open up parks, especially for walking. I am not expecting our roads to be dug up in the Wet Season by four-wheel drives when the roads are boggy, but surely we can access those parks better than we are at the present time. I would like people, especially southerners, to enjoy our wonderful parks. There are some absolutely terrific places. The Davenport Ranges has now been handed back to the traditional owners as part of the joint management plan and it has been expanded. That is a fantastic park. But when you look at the visitor numbers, they are very small.
I believe we have great opportunities. I would really like to know if the government has a strategy in these hard economic times to make sure the tourism industry survives and will move ahead when better times come.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I certainly welcome the member for Nelson’s constructive comments. The government is certainly, and I as a new minister, looking at ways of redirecting existing resources within Tourist NT to adapt to the worldwide changes, and looking at what other measures government needs to take to support the tourism Industry.
Parks are part of it and I hope to make some announcements in the very near future about that. You have raised a very good point.
As for the member for Fong Lim, his incredible negativity in talking the Territory down, but what else can the opposition do?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I can assure the House that this government is very focused on building tourism in our regions, such as Tennant Creek and Katherine and the assertion that nothing has been done is completely wrong. We need to do more and, as the new minister, I am very focused on that. I will be visiting those regional areas very soon.
Rugby Hottest 7s
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, the Heineken Hottest 7s is a Territory success story and, since 1989, when it was known as the Territory 7s, has grown in stature year after year and is today one of the premier Rugby 7 events on the world stage.
The Territory government is committed to this fantastic event, the Heineken Hottest 7s. We have elevated the tournament to major event status and we have allocated $300 000 over the next three years to ensure its ongoing growth. No other Rugby 7s competition in the southern hemisphere offers $60 000 in prize money, making this Darwin event a significant benchmark, not only for the Top End, but for the game of rugby nationwide.
Territory businesses have also supported this event and its 20-year history. This year we saw Foxy Robinson from the Airport Value Inn come on board as a major sponsor; other sponsors include Perkins, Southern Cross Television, OneSteel, SKYCITY and Austar.
We all know how important sponsorship is to our sporting organisations, especially for an event of this calibre, so I would like to extend our thanks to all the sponsors and supporters of the Hottest 7s. The Friends of Rugby, led by Bruce Kennon and Brock Simon also play an important part in promoting the sport in the Territory. These volunteers, with their commitment and dedication to the game, have been instrumental in helping lift the profile and popularity of rugby in the Territory.
The Heineken Hottest 7s included teams from Fiji, Samoa, Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Guam and Japan. This really is an international event and is now on the rugby calendar worldwide. All the players and all the teams provided great sporting entertainment with their extraordinary skills. A highlight was the return of the legend, Gary Ella. Gary, the youngest of the Ella brothers to wear the green and gold guernsey, returned to head the Galloping Greens after 15 years away from the game. He and his brothers, Glen and Nathan, were a formidable team during the weekend. The Darwin Mosquitoes came close to causing an upset when they were beating both Sydney clubs, Randwick and Gordon, close to full time. Unfortunately, some bursting side steps and teamwork by both clubs saw the Mossies defeated.
There were heart-stopping moments for the fans on this first day of play, but defending champions, the South Sea Drifters, and the second seeds, Digicel Samoa Barbarians, set the pace early and were set for the final showdown. It was a thrilling final, with the Digicel Samoa Barbarians winning the Hottest 7s with a sensational last minute try by Timoteo Loseu who ran the length of the field to touchdown under the post and secure the win for the Samoans and the $20 000 prize money. Congratulations to the Samoan captain, Ofisa Treviranus, who was named Player of the Tournament and also scored a try in the final.
In the Women’s Final, the Zonnators posted five unanswered tries to win the final, and the winner’s cheque of $6000.
The Australian Sevens coach, Michael O’Connor, was here to assess the talent on display in preparation for the next round of the IRB 7s World Series and the IRB World Cup 7s to be staged in Dubai in March this year.
It is events such as this that showcases our sporting talent and I am pleased to report that our own Bo de la Cruz was selected in the women’s squad and will be representing Australia in Dubai in March. Congratulations to Bo.
From all accounts, it was a sensational weekend and congratulations must go to all those who were involved, especially Tim Heath, the CEO of the NT Rugby, and Vince Kelly the President. This international event really does put rugby and Darwin on the sporting map, and I am confident that the 2010 Hottest 7s will be even bigger and better.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Sport and Recreation for his comments. In fact, the Rugby Hottest 7s is a fantastic event; I saw them and they were great.
The Indigenous All-Stars was a fantastic event on Saturday night - great result - they represent our Territory people. The Imparja Cup in Alice Springs is another fantastic event going on at the time. These are great examples of sporting prowess in the Northern Territory - great achievements.
However, I am extremely disappointed that when things were not so nice, not so easy, not as pleasant as this, my colleague, the Sports minister, was not to be found.
When Gymnastics Northern Territory needed assistance from the Sports minister, he was not to be found, like many of the government ministers on that side of the Chamber - when it is difficult, when it is not a great and glossy story, you are not to be found. It is important to do your job. As a minister, you are responsible for all your portfolio requirements. In this case, it does not matter which sport - whether you are riding a horse, driving a car, jumping, somersaulting, or kicking a football - you need to be there for your portfolio.
Madam Speaker, I personally thank both groups involved in the dispute that I am talking about. They know of it. The mediation we were able to do with me and my office between those groups delivered a fantastic outcome for over 500 children. These people understand the importance of events being supported, and I thank them for coming to the table, talking to me, and coming to a good resolution. I wish we had the support we needed; I wish they had the support they needed. I am thankful that they were able to recognise I was willing to listen for them.
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, it is really disappointing that the member for Drysdale has taken this opportunity to play politics with such a sensitive issue …
Members interjecting.
Mr HAMPTON: Let us not take away the shine from the Spring Festival …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: The member for Drysdale well knows that my office has been working on this very closely with both groups. He also knows that Gymnastics Australia has taken the lead role in this. I do not know if the member for Drysdale has spoken to Gymnastics Australia, but I certainly have. I know that Jane Allen is in town this weekend for their AGM, and she is very appreciative that I have not stepped in and been involved in this, because it is not about politics.
The Territory government well and truly knows that it is about the young athletes. It is on public record. Louise Bennett, from Darwin Gymnastics, has also said that it is about mediation, it is about Gymnastics getting involved; it is not about me stepping in as minister …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
TRANSPORT LEGISLATION (HOON BEHAVIOUR) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 28)
(Serial 28)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill I introduce today will implement another important measure under the government’s strategy of Building Safer Communities.
During 2008, the government introduced a range of initiatives aimed at increasing the safety of Territory road users. These included: introduction of drug-driving penalties; public transport passenger safety legislation; alcohol ignition lock legislation; and greater emphasis on road safety education in remote areas. However, it is apparent with our rising road toll that people are not getting the message, and our young people are particularly at risk. The incidence of antisocial driving, or hooning as it is commonly known, has been recognised as a significant concern for all Australian state and territory governments.
The recent review undertaken clearly identified the demographic most likely to be involved in hoon driving behaviour are young males between 17 and 26 years of age.
In this House, we have also heard calls to increase the penalties for those who carry out this behaviour. Recent figures from police indicate that, between the commencement of the anti-hooning legislation in November 2004 and the end of December 2008, 391 infringement notices have been issued and three vehicles have been impounded for 48 hours. Of these, approximately 27% of all persons apprehended for hooning offences were aged between 16 and 20 years, and approximately 35% of people apprehended were 21 to 25-years-old.
We have heeded these calls and now introduce legislation that delivers harsher penalties to those people who continue to hoon and present a danger to others on the road. This bill provides additional powers to police, including:
● the power to immediately impound or immobilise an offender’s vehicle for 48 hours when they commit an offence;
● allowing police to act on a written complaint from a member of the public and impound a vehicle for 48 hours and issue a traffic infringement notice;
● the provision of a court imposed penalty of a minimum of three months impoundment to a maximum of six months when a person has been found guilty
of a second offence within a two year period.
● a provision for the court to order the forfeiture of a vehicle upon the conviction of a third offence when a person has been found guilty of a third offence within
two years of the first offence. If the court believes that severe hardship will be caused by the forfeiture of the vehicle, it can, in lieu of forfeiture, order a
minimum of three months impoundment to a maximum of six months if it is satisfied that the hardship will not be severe if the offender is only temporarily
deprived of the use of their vehicle. Under the Sentencing Act, the court also has the option to impose a community work order for adult offenders if it
considers impoundment would also cause severe hardship.
● making offenders responsible for all costs associated with the removal, transport and storage of their impounded or immobilised vehicle whether it is a
result of a police action or a court imposed penalty;
● a process of review by senior police officers of a 48 hour impoundment direction to ensure the grounds of impoundment are sound;
● providing for a vehicle to be immobilised by wheel clamping, or some other means, as an alternative to storing the vehicle in a secure yard;
● allowing orders for vehicle impoundment or forfeiture to be made by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction as part of the sentencing process rather than requiring
a separate civil application to be made to the local court;
● making it an offence to sell, strip or otherwise dispose of a vehicle used in a prescribed driving offence before an impoundment or forfeiture order is made by the court;
● authorising police to direct anyone responsible for excessive noise associated with the use of a vehicle, be it engine noise or the car stereo, to immediately abate that noise;
● creating an offence for failing to comply with a noise abatement direction which can be dealt with by way of a $200 traffic infringement notice; and
● preventing the Registrar of Motor Vehicles from cancelling or transferring the registration of a vehicle that has been used by an offender to commit a second or subsequent
prescribed hooning offence pending the offender being charged and the hearing of that charge, so the vehicle cannot be disposed of before the court can consider an
application for an impoundment, immobilisation or forfeiture order.
Providing the police with the ability to immediately impound a vehicle for 48 hours without having to apply for a court order will mean that offenders will pay for the consequences of their actions at the time they commit the offence. While the period is not lengthy, it does cause inconvenience and, in addition to being deprived of their vehicle, the offender will also have to meet the costs associated with the impounding. The additional court-imposed penalties of between three and six months impoundment for a second offence, and forfeiture for a third offence within two years, also strengthens the regime for dealing with these types of offences.
Transition provisions have been included to make it clear that prescribed hooning offences committed before the legislation comes into force will be taken into account when determining whether an offence committed after the legislation commences is a second or subsequent offence.
This bill delivers on this government’s commitment to increase the penalties for hoon driving behaviour. It ensures that a person who repeatedly abuses their driving privileges pays the price. It targets young people, currently over-represented in our road toll, and makes the roads safer for us all.
I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
CROSS-BORDER JUSTICE BILL
(Serial 23)
(Serial 23)
Continued from 27 November 2008.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill. I will indicate at this point that my colleague, the member for Drysdale, will seek clarification of some provisions of the bill. I believe he will outline his concerns in his reply and then go to the committee stage. Notwithstanding particular concerns in relation to some provisions, I repeat that the opposition supports this bill.
It has been a long time coming and congratulations to everyone involved, in particular to Jane Lloyd. Jane is well-known to many people in this Chamber and is rightly considered, I believe, an expert in this area. She is the Chair of the Chief Minister’s Indigenous and Family Violence Advisory Committee and has been active, interested and committed to Indigenous justice issues for women in remote communities probably for the better part of 20 years.
The intention of the bill is to provide the legislative and administrative framework to enable reciprocal recognition of Territory laws in prescribed areas of South Australia and Western Australia. The introduction of this bill is the second bill in a tri-state model to allow police, courts, and corrections to operate effectively and efficiently in a multi-jurisdictional environment. The need for this initiative was identified to deal with the problems justice agencies faced when dealing with law and order in the NPY lands, which span approximately 450 000 km over the junction of the Territory, South Australian and Western Australian borders and contain almost 10 000 people, almost all of whom are Indigenous and highly transient throughout the tri-state region.
This legislation is modelled on the Western Australian legislation which was passed in Western Australia in March last year. Somewhat worryingly, South Australia has not yet developed a bill to introduce corresponding legislation. It was a three-way deal; the South Australians are dragging the chain. We have received information from the shadow South Australian Attorney-General who advises that they are not aware of any legislation before the House.
Before I make further remarks, I encourage the new minister to contact the government of South Australia and say: ‘We have two out of three. What on earth are you doing?’ They really need to get on with it. I will leave that with the minister.
Before any of the cross-border justice legislation can be enacted, amendments to the Commonwealth Service and Execution of Process Act are needed to give magistrates of all three jurisdictions the ability to deal with the offenders on interstate matters; that is my understanding of the bill. It would be good if efforts could be made to hurry along to the extent the Commonwealth government is able.
The example given by the then Western Australian Attorney-General, Jim McGinty, during the introduction of the bill in Western Australia shows how the bill works and neatly explains it, so I will quote as follows:
- This is best illustrated by example: a person alleged to have committed an offence in Western Australia is arrested in South Australia by police officers of that state
exercising Western Australian powers of arrest. The person is brought before the most convenient court, which happens to be in Alice Springs, where a
Northern Territory magistrate, sitting as a cross-border magistrate of Western Australia, is able to deal with the matter; the magistrate tries the case applying the
criminal law, laws of evidence, court procedure and sentencing regimes of Western Australia; and if the person is found guilty, he or she could be given a
community-based sentence under Western Australian law, which could be supervised by a community corrections officer of any one of the three participating
jurisdictions, or receive a custodial sentence, which could be served in a prison of any one of the three participating jurisdictions, whichever proves to be the
most expedient.
That is how it is going to work, and I think Jim McGinty outlined it very succinctly.
It is worth noting that the bill is limited to matters that can be dealt with in magistrates courts only. There are good reasons for that. The sentence will travel with the offender so that a person convicted of a crime under Territory law by a South Australian magistrate will serve their sentence in South Australia as if he or she were in the Territory. Interestingly, and fortunately, another area which will be affected is the payment of fines; so an offender’s property in Western Australia, for instance, can be accessed as payment of a fine in the Territory.
It is quite creative legislation and does what governments anywhere should do, and that is respond to a well-known difficulty which has become increasingly difficult over the years. Whilst it has application to a range of crimes in particular, there can be no doubt that there has been a focus by policy makers and decision makers to try to get this right so that it targets perpetrators of violence, particularly against women. To that extent, in particular, it is worthy of support.
It has been well known for some years that the borders that exist have enabled wrongdoers, as the former minister said in his second reading speech in November, to evade police and the justice system as justice services operate individually in each region. He went on to say, quote: ‘The effect of the cross-border justice scheme is to relax the rigidity with which state and territory borders are enforced and therefore to move legal restrictions imposed by the borders under the cross-border scheme’.
Fantastic! That is exactly what is required given the difficulties in these regions that, as I said, have been acknowledged for some years. By a joint effort by some good people, we have now seen a solution, or at least an intended solution, a proposed solution, to some of these difficulties, which is why we need the South Australians to hurry up and why the Commonwealth needs to do its bit as well.
The minister said that there have been more than 200 officials involved with this project since its commencement, and they are to be congratulated for their efforts - indeed they are. In my view, these have been pretty clever people to deal with individuals in other agencies in other jurisdictions, and come up with the sort of legislation we have. It is to be admired in terms of how we might address future problems when dealing with other jurisdictions, and it is also to be admired, notably because of the tenacity of some people over a period of years. It will, ultimately, achieve a good result.
Having said that, I am yet to find the perfect legislation; I look forward to the day when I see perfect legislation. There are some procedural aspects about which the member for Drysdale will ask the new minister.
However, stepping back from this, I am very supportive of this bill. I hope it achieves what it is intended to achieve. I have no doubt that in the event it does not achieve what it is intended to achieve, or if improvements need to be made along the way, then they will be made. I am hopeful that those involved will do so quickly and efficiently.
Madam Speaker, I conclude by again saying that the opposition supports the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the words the member for Araluen said in her quote about a policeman in one jurisdiction coming from a different jurisdiction, and then being tried by a magistrate in another jurisdiction - that sums up the complexities of this legislation but, regardless of that, the legislation is good.
As said in our briefing – and I thank the minister for the briefing - this was about helping stem the level of abuse of children and women in the Central, Southern and Western Desert regions of Australia by increasing the amount of resources that could be used in that area, and basically saying that those state and territory boundaries do not exist in relation to what we are talking about today.
From a practical point of view, the one thing that will be essential with this is education about where this area is and what the ramifications will be, not only people who live in the area, but for people passing through the area. I will give you an example. The Stuart Highway is in this area and, if I am doing my 130 km/h, thankfully, in the Northern Territory and I am pulled up by the South Australian police, I know what I am going to say to him, unless I know he is pulling me up because I am doing more than 130 km/h. People need to be told that they are moving through an area which allows police from the three areas to have jurisdiction over their movements in that area. It is just a practical thing. I know if I was pulled up by the South Australian police in the Northern Territory for going a little faster than the speed limit, I would say: ‘It is not your business’. That is one area we need to look at.
There are some other issues that also need to be developed as this legislation comes into action; that is, whether we need a new prison site. Already, Alice Springs prison is well and truly overcrowded and, in keeping with one of the recommendations of the Deaths in Custody report which stated that people should be incarcerated close to where their family live, there is an opportunity to look at a prison farm. I imagine a there will be some serious offenders but there may be offenders who do not need to go into the big concrete house. There is an opportunity for either work camps or a prison farm in this area which could be a multi-jurisdictional correctional centre as well. That is something that could feed from this particular legislation.
In the long term, it makes you wonder whether we need to look at this area as a special area where we can get as much uniformity in our laws as possible. I am not always in agreement with that, otherwise I would be agreeing that we travel up the highway at 110 km/h. However, where it is practical, there may be room for discussion to reduce the complications of a police officer in one jurisdiction having to know the laws of two other jurisdictions. If we can move towards some uniformity in this area, in relation to what the laws are and what the penalties are, that may help in the administration of this particular change to carrying out justice in this area.
I know those things will not happen overnight. I just put them up as possible issues that should be debated, because this certainly is pioneering legislation. It has ramifications in other parts of the Territory, especially around the Kununurra/Northern Territory area; the Kununurra/Timber Creek area; Central Australia, in areas like the Barky; and Camooweal into the Northern Territory, because people move to and from those areas. I went to Alpurrurulam, and one of my arguments about whether it should have its own shire is that it is nowhere near Tennant Creek; it is closer to Mt Isa. From the point of view of who the people in that area mix with, it is probably more the people in Mt Isa than the people in the central part of the Territory.
I suppose this is the first cab off the rank and we need to give it time to settle in and look at the issues it raises. There are certainly possibilities that in areas where people move to and fro without having much to do with an artificial border, that this type of legislation could be applied in those areas.
I raised in another briefing whether the Ombudsman should have a role in this legislation. We have dealt with everyone else, but should the Ombudsmans – yes, that is correct, because they are not necessarily men as the Opposition Leader told us yesterday, it is a Swedish word – the Ombudsmans, and should they have a role in this legislation as well? What will happen if someone has a complaint about a police officer, for instance? Who will listen to that complaint? Will the Ombudsman’s powers apply in a cross-jurisdictional format we are putting forward today? It may, but I put that question to the minister.
I welcome the legislation. It has obviously taken a lot of work to put together. Western Australia has taken the lead role because they have already introduced the legislation. South Australia is due to come in February this year, and we are putting it forward to parliament right now. I would hope that after 12 months, or 12 months after South Australia has brought its own legislation in, that we get a fairly thorough report on how it is actually working in practice. As the member for Araluen said, no legislation is perfect, and one of the things it is always good for parliament to do is to review the legislation, see if it is working well and, if it needs adjustments, let us adjust it.
I welcome the legislation. I congratulate the government on bringing it forward into parliament. I look forward to seeing how it works and getting feedback from anyone in that area as to what effects or ramifications this legislation has. Hopefully, it will achieve a reduction in the level of abuse of children and women in the central, southern and western regions of Australia. If it does not do that then the whole thing is pointless, because this is the very reason we have put it there.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support the Cross-Border Justice Bill. I take this opportunity to thank the NPY communities, the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands, and Jane Lloyd and Vicki Gillick and everyone who has worked to make sure that something like this has come in front of government so that there are cross-border similarities in police taking action against perpetrators fleeing from one state to another.
The boundaries come under a non-Indigenous area which says this is Western Australia, this is South Australia, whereas there are no boundaries from an Indigenous point of view. If they commit a crime in the Northern Territory, in less than 24 hours they will be in Western Australia at places like Kiwirrkurra, Kalgoorlie or Laverton, or in South Australia, so there is this cross-border fleeing.
I take this opportunity to thank the many NPY women from the lands, and from Central Australia, and the legal backing that they had from people like Jane Lloyd and Vicki Gillick, and also the people who have put this bill together, because this bill has come from the push of people on the ground who saw these problems occurring.
Like the members for Nelson and Araluen said, it is about perpetrators fleeing and leaving their victims to suffer. The justice system takes years to find some of these people. Sometimes they do not find them. There may be warrants out for them in the Northern Territory, but they will continue to live in South Australia or Western Australia. There is a cross-border police station at Kintore, in my electorate of Macdonnell. The member for Drysdale has been a police officer stationed at that cross-border station. He knows very well that people from Kintore who perpetrate a crime could, within hours, be in Kiwirrkurra or somewhere else, and that then allows the Western Australian police or the Northern Territory police to go across the border to get those people back and charge them under those laws.
It is has really alleviated the pressure that these women and people have been under in remote Aboriginal communities; to know, if someone flees across border, they will be brought to trial, they will be brought to justice. I can tell you the pressure on these women - mothers, grandmothers and wives - has been alleviated and that is why I support this bill. I know that amongst my people in Central Australia and through the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara lands in Western Australia and South Australia this is really welcome.
It also gets cross-border governments working together. It results in the saving and sharing of resources; it is sharing of information and knowledge. It is really important to make sure that we work across borders, and this gives us many opportunities to see that we can work across borders in other areas as well. There are no boundaries in Aboriginal culture and we will always go into Western Australia and into South Australia. We are a mobile group of people you cannot keep tied down by any kind of law or legislation. Have a look at Indigenous culture during November, December, and January. You can see it through ceremonies. Our ceremonies have no boundaries. We go into Western Australia, to the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara lands, and into South Australia. We are just like gypsies. We like to travel across into other jurisdictions.
This bill is important because it shows that we understand, and that we have grown as a nation, we have matured as governments – across borders – and realise that we can share information, we can share resources and we know the problems do not just stay in the Northern Territory, or South Australia or Western Australia, that they do cross the boundaries, and there are many Indigenous communities in those areas.
The drug users, or the people who are carrying drugs - most of the drugs in the Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory come from South Australia - but because we have that interaction with the South Australian police, people will be caught, and they do get caught.
There was an incident where, without naming the community, a person had gone into South Australia, bought the drugs, was coming back into the Northern Territory and was apprehended in the Northern Territory. This has reduced the amount of drugs going into our communities. Drugs really make our children sick and lazy. They do not have the opportunities to go out and look for jobs, and they just sit in front of the television or sleep all day because they are on ganja all the time.
It is so good to see. Aboriginal people are now confident that there is something in place which is working and they can ring up the cross-border stations from the Northern Territory or South Australia, or from any station, and say: ’Look, my son has just committed a crime in South Australia, but we believe from a telephone call that he is in WA’. You can give that kind of information cross-border, and it really has built the confidence of the women on the NPY lands and Central Australia knowing that just around the corner at Kintore we have a cross-border station.
When the member for Drysdale rises, he will tell you the confidence the station at Kintore has built with the women of Kintore. They are now so confident they can say to anyone who perpetrates a crime at Kintore and goes across: ‘It is okay, you can go there, but Tjilpi will go and get you tomorrow’. They are really happy. It is good that they have still Aboriginal police officers based at these tri-state stations, because it is the ability to communicate that is so important in these major Aboriginal communities. They take their ACPOs along. Most of the work with the translation and interpreting is done by the Aboriginal police officer, which brings us together as a community.
We will always have the Indigenous and non-Indigenous aspects, I guess, of what happens and how things are done, but I believe we have grown as people and matured as governments, across borders, to understand that people do move beyond states and there are no boundaries. I can tell you, as an Indigenous woman, there are no boundaries for Indigenous people to go across to other places and make a nuisance of themselves; and it is good that the justice system brings them to justice. It also heals the women in the communities to know that there is something there that protects them. Women have become quieter and it is like a huge pressure has been taken off them, knowing that something like this exists and that people will get caught.
As the member for Nelson said, we still need to keep an eye on it, and make sure that we still build on it. It is something really good that we need to keep building on.
I wanted to give you the community aspect, minister, of how good it is and why I support this bill. I have seen it work from the very beginning, and I think it is absolutely wonderful.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I support the bill as well. This is an extremely important bill. It will go a very long way to making the work of our police forces in South Australia, Northern Territory, Western Australia and, hopefully, one day in Queensland, much easier. It will go a long way to ensuring that we have better family support of victims who live in these regions so that when someone does commit an offence in one of those areas they simply cannot skip the border and, essentially, get away with a crime.
Crimes should be met with a response that is rapid, where possible, and there is a consequence so that, hopefully, we can break that circle. That is the importance of the legislation we have before us. Instead of the perpetrator hiding for many years or months, believing they may have got away with it, they have someone on their tail and they know they cannot rest because their only real option is to hand themselves in.
The member for Macdonnell is very right in saying that, at the end of the day, it does not matter where the border line is. I saw a map on my computer. It has some lines on it. There are no lines in the desert. There might be a white pole, but there are no lines there. And there are people from the region, and other areas within the Northern Territory and the other states, who are not concerned about those lines.
We city folk tend to worry about going to Palmerston - it is below the Berrimah Line; it is too far to go. It is not too far in Central Australia, and Arnhem Land and other areas, to go 500 km for a sports carnival; that is a weekend trip. We will not even bother packing any food for that type of distance. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that they are going to cross the border. It is not unreasonable to think they are going to go from Alice Springs across the border into Western Australia - go to Kiwirrkurra, Newman, Well 33, or Marble Bar - that is just part of life. This legislation is vital in allowing the police to deal with these situations because, unfortunately, that trip may not always be harmonious. You may meet your family on the way and there may be a domestic at Mt Liebig, at Kintore, or Papunya. However, they know straightaway, if they leave, the tyranny of distance will normally be enough to prevent the police getting to them before they cross the border. Once they have crossed that border, the police cannot pursue them for an offence they have committed in the Northern Territory.
As a special constable with powers under Western Australian policing laws, they may be able to pursue them on fresh offences within Western Australia; not the offences they committed five minutes ago when they were in the Northern Territory. They know that very well, and they will go and stay there, or find another way home so that they can avoid the police. The people on the ground know about those stories that happened in that other town.
It is not just about domestics; it is about criminal damage, where someone has a jealous streak and they have decided to smash someone’s car up. The number of times we have had situations where, before the police in a community even get the information, the person has already left. You can see the dust trail 20 km away, and you know that mob have gone and they are heading for the border. In Kintore and Kulgera, for instance, you are only a matter of kilometres from the border –34 km roughly from the border for Kintore, and about 17 km for Kulgera. It is not far to go, and there is always going to be that occasion when they go.
Therefore, it is very important we continue with this. This is a great step for our law enforcement agencies. However, I do have some concerns. They are not an attack in any form, they are advising that I have noticed something and I would like to have these things clarified, because they pose significant problems. They add significant burden and onus upon the officers dealing with these laws and legislation.
One of them will be when taking a person into custody. It is very powerful legislation anywhere in the world when you are given the power to detain, restrain and take away the liberty of another person. It is never taken lightly by any police officer. With that, there are requirements; there are burdens on that person to look after the person taken into custody.
When we talk of persons taken into custody, and holding that person in a prison cell, gaol or a court house, it does not allow us to come to the closest, safest, nearest approved holding facility. In extremely remote places in Central Australia, such as Kintore, that may mean you have gone 40 km into Western Australia, arrested that person for an offence committed at Kintore, but to hold that person in custody you must travel 700 km through some of the worst roads in Australia to take that person to a place of suitable custody, another cell; which will be at Warakurna; or you need to arrange for that person to be flown out, which will at least mean you must go to Kiwirrkurra, so you must drive another 140 km-odd again.
These roads are not pretty; this is not driving down the back road of Humpty Doo. These roads are very dangerous and must be treated with great respect. You must go to Kiwirrkurra to the nearest airport, and then the argument will be that someone must front the bill for about a $24 000 charter flight, plus the officers required to man that private charter to fly the person in custody to Kalgoorlie, which is the closest place you are going to get your charter from. These are important issues and there may be an answer, but I do not see it there.
At least, there should be an arrangement where the person can be taken to the safest and closest approved holding facility; then we would have to find a way of wording the ‘appropriate holding facility’ so that, yes, it is in terms of extradition because you are going back across the border, but you are only travelling 40 km. It is in the safest and best interests of all people involved that they go back to that facility. Then we continue with the appropriate legal process. We are not saying we have every part of the answer, but it is a concern, and we need to look at it.
There is another issue which we should talk about, and that is returning a person not charged to the place of arrest or other place. Again, this puts the burden initially upon the police officers to return that person to the place where they were arrested or, in fact, a place of that person’s liking. We will talk further about that, but the implications could be that the person demands to go hundreds of kilometres to another township where they will have food, communication with other people and everything where they are. It is an excessive burden, I believe, to take that person maybe several hundred kilometres because that is where they prefer to go. If we were to word that so it is slightly less onerous upon the police of any state, it may be of great benefit and it may avoid people complaining about the actions that police officers failed to take, because there is an implication that the burden is upon them.
The next point is the preliminary alcohol or drug test that cannot be conducted in another participating jurisdiction. The way I read it, this refers directly to the breath test, a hand-held device used by the Northern Territory police, where it is implied, in my reading, that the breath test, which is a preliminary determining of a person’s intoxication or likelihood of having in excess of the legal limit of alcohol in their blood, and giving us the power to then request that person to submit a breath analysis - is actually not allowed.
I have a concern that we may have to carry extra equipment for breath analysis, normally ranging up to $2000 per item, because in another state the equipment may be somewhat different to what we use. It concerns me that that could be the case. In the Northern Territory we predominantly use two: the preliminary test normally being conducted with the breath test, which is a hand-held device, and then we complete this with the breath analysis, using another certified instrument; and that is what we take to court. This is all prior to even considering blood samples or otherwise. However, with drink-driving it appears most areas are covered but for some reason there is Part 44 which particularly says we cannot use our preliminary detection device.
The last issue refers again to a person taken into custody. It is much the same as Part 34, but this time it talks particularly from the view of either a Western Australian or a South Australian police officer, and I believe it needs some further consideration. It is going to be somewhat hard to come up with the right answer, but I am sure that if we grab someone 40 km away from a major community like Kintore, and drive them 600 km, 400 km, or 200 km, and something happens to that person, I could see that the Coroner would not be overly happy. As a former police officer, I would not be happy to be put in a position where something may happen that I would have to, at worst case, live with for the rest of my life; particularly knowing that greater safety was perhaps only 40 km away.
Madam Speaker, we can look at those things further in committee and I look forward to the minister’s responses. I commend the bill, it is a great step forward, and it is a great tool.
I disagree with the member for Nelson’s first comments. if you are breaking the law in the Northern Territory and any form of law enforcement agent comes up behind you, you should be worried because you should not break the law. I hope the member for Nelson considers that next time he chooses to break the law.
Mr HAMPTON (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, we would all agree that this is a complex and unusual piece of legislation. At its heart it aims to improve the delivery of law and justice services to the cross-border regions of Central Australia by removing various legal obstacles caused by state and territory borders.
As the Minister for Central Australia, I believe it is essential we remind ourselves of how this came about. I thank the member for Macdonnell for her detailed description of how it did come about.
I will reinforce that, six years ago, a group of Aboriginal women in Central Australia stood up and said that enough was enough. They wanted an end to the violence and criminal behaviour that was blighting their lives and the lives of the people of the NPY lands. When they sought help from government, they found themselves caught up in jurisdictional red tape, a legacy of Australia’s colonial history. The NPY lands span three jurisdictions - the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. They are chopped in three by lines on a map drawn by 19th century colonial officials.
As my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, is fully aware, many of our traditional families have their own system of boundaries and maps according to dreaming tracks. The result is three separate jurisdictions administrating three separate systems of justice in the cross-border regions of Central Australia. The consequences are that offenders in this remote part of Australia have been able to use the state and territory borders to elude police or avoid court appearances. This bill is part of the process that will provide the three jurisdictions with additional capacity as they seek to break the cycle of domestic violence, child abuse, substance abuse, and repeat offending.
My electorate of Stuart shares a 900 km border with Western Australia. However, while this bill affects only a handful of my constituents in the far south of my electorate, such as Nyirripi and Yuendumu, there are certainly common issues in the northern part of my electorate, specifically around Kalkarindji, Timber Creek and Amanbidji. Many of my constituents have not only traditional links but also service delivery links with places like Balgo, Timber Creek and Halls Creek. It is an area that poses particular challenges for law enforcement, and for other service providers.
I am sure our police will welcome the additional authority to exercise their powers in all three jurisdictions, particularly the NT police officers stationed at Warakurna in Western Australia.
I have visited the Kintore Police Station on many occasions, and have been impressed by the work of our NT police officers, and also the work of the WA police officers. Another important element to that is the issue of infrastructure; the police station and the sealed airstrip there provide much support for the hard work done by the police.
The borders will continue to matter from the point of view of legal jurisdiction, but they often remain a barrier to the people of the NPY Lands and are a totally alien concept. Many of the people who live in NPY Lands operate within a very different structure because of their traditional lifestyle.
We are following Western Australia with this bill, and South Australia is following us. The bill has been a long time in the making, which the Attorney-General outlined in her previous speech.
I join with the Attorney-General in acknowledging all those people, within the Northern Territory and interstate, who have put so much time and effort into this bill. I also take this opportunity to mention my predecessor, Dr Peter Toyne, who, in his time as Attorney-General, did some significant work in this area.
For me, this is what the parliament is all about - the workings of parliament. We, as constituents, pick up these issues and not often do we see it come into law. However, this is one very good example of what our job is all about. To all of those involved: the member for Araluen for her legal perspectives on the legislation; the member for Drysdale for his perspective as a police officer, particularly the procedural issues that the police officers out there face - and they do a fantastic job; and to my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, who so eloquently put her perspective as a traditional woman of Central Australia.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank the members opposite for their support of this significant and innovative legislation. I recognise, as do my ministerial colleagues who have spoken in debate, that this legislation comes from the wishes and the calls of women of the NPY lands. It is their strength and their pursuit of justice which has brought this legislation before the House. With the shadow Justice minister, I recognise the good work done by Jane Lloyd and Vicki Gillick in championing the causes and the rights of the NPY women.
Interestingly, this legislation has been nurtured significantly, as mentioned, by Dr Peter Toyne in the Territory, and also Jim McGinty in Western Australia and, in a very practical sense in the Territory by Richard Coates and Tom Pauling QC. Whilst I can talk about the 250-odd people who have been active in bringing this cross-border legislation forward, there are some stand-out people whom I did want to put on the record with the government’s sincere thanks.
I thank the contributions from all the members - the members for Araluen, Nelson, Drysdale - and my ministerial colleagues, the Minister for Central Australia and the minister for the Environment who represents many of the women affected by the legislation in Macdonnell.
It started, really, with a scoping study in 2004 by the South Australia government which found that the levels of justice-related disadvantage in the cross-border region was considerably higher than in other remote areas. After nearly six years, the passing of this bill, I believe, will be an incredibly significant day for justice. As I said, there are some 250 people who have been involved in the development of the cross-border justice scheme. The cry from the NPY women in 2003 was: please give us, quote: ‘White police with guns and laws to stop the violence’. This law will do that, while not affecting the normal laws of any jurisdiction.
Some in the legal profession may protest. To those few people, I would say they are not living the reality of people in this region or the reality of these times. We will not tolerate any violence towards women and children, anywhere. Members have eloquently explained the movement of the NPY lands, the cross-border movement, has really meant that perpetrators have used the jurisdictional boundaries to their benefit, and to the detriment of the victims.
The bill will enable the Northern Territory to participate in this mutual cross-border justice scheme with South Australia and Western Australia. As explained, the effect of the legislation is to relax the rigidity with which the state and territory borders are enforced, removing the legal restrictions that would otherwise exist in relation to enforcing justice across these state borders.
We should be under no illusion. This body of work has been a groundbreaking project affecting inter-jurisdictional services in Australia and it was agreed to by the governments of the three jurisdictions in December 2004. Our Administrator, Tom Pauling QC, in his former capacity as the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory, presented the project to SCAG - the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General - and SCAG agreed to the project.
The concept is seen, we believe, as a potential model for other jurisdictions in Australia - it is groundbreaking, it is a first, and it is not just for the justice and policing services either, we believe. This model could potentially be applied in areas such as Tweed Heads/Coolangatta, Albury/Wodonga, and Mt Isa/Tennant Creek. This innovative scheme does not affect jurisdictional independence. Each set of existing laws is not changed, it simply allows the enforcement of the three sets of laws in the region across borders that are in reality, as we know, not recognised by the majority of residents in the region. The area to be covered in this project encompasses almost 500 000 km2 and nearly 10 000 people, of which 7600 are Indigenous. However, this is not an Indigenous law, it applies to any person who fits any one of the three triggers: normally resident in the region, offended in the region, or apprehended in the region.
The Commonwealth supports this scheme and it will be amending the Service and Execution of Process Act during the autumn sittings to allow it to proceed. This amendment will eliminate the need for lengthy and expensive extradition between the jurisdictions.
The Western Australian Cross-Border Justice Bill was assented to in March 2008; it has not yet commenced. The South Australian Cross-Border Justice Bill was introduced to the House of Assembly last week on 4 February 2009. As South Australia has two houses of parliament, it is anticipated that the South Australian Cross-Border Justice Bill will be passed in the June 2009 sittings.
For the benefit of the shadow Justice minister, who was concerned that South Australia may be dragging their feet - as I said, they are not dragging their feet, they have introduced their legislation - I will table the South Australian House of Assembly Notice Paper No 20 of Tuesday, 17 February 2009 under Government Business Orders of the Day. You will see at No 6 the Cross-Border Justice Bill No 62 under the Attorney-General.
The plan is to go live with this exciting project on 1 July this year, following the training of magistrates, police, corrections and other important people in the criminal justice system. The first orientation for the Northern Territory magistrates will occur on 23rd of this month, followed by formal training of selected magistrates from all three jurisdictions - Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia – in May of this year. The Northern Territory Law Society will hold a seminar for the legal profession of the Northern Territory on the 24th of this month.
This legislation will stop offenders in the area avoiding arrest by simply crossing the border into another jurisdiction. Justice for women and child victims will be improved.
As many speakers noted, no body of legislation is necessarily perfect, no new and bold innovative scheme such as this cross-border is necessarily perfect, so a formal evaluation is inbuilt into the legislation after three years, but not more than five years of duration. Further, we also intend that it will be reviewed every 12 months using an evaluation process that will be established at the time the scheme is commenced.
The governments of the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia are working together to improve the justice and policing services, and to reduce the violence against women and children by enforcing each other’s laws in the region, and stopping offenders from avoiding arrest for their crimes.
The member for Nelson posed some questions to which I will put the government’s response on the record. His concern was in letting people know about the legislation in the region: a full communication plan is being developed by all jurisdictions. He mentioned if a police officer pulls you up for speeding: we can say that it will be the law of the applicable jurisdiction that will apply, that is, 130 km/h in the Northern Territory on the Stuart Highway, or 110 km/h in South Australia on the Stuart Highway. The law applies as it should apply, as the member for Drysdale pointed out.
Police have already been operating in a multi-jurisdictional capacity, for example, in Kintore, so we have great confidence in the police capacity to pick up and run with this scheme. As I have mentioned, the extension of the scheme is an absolute possibility, and it is something that is being considered by other jurisdictions, including ourselves, with the other regions. As I said, the review is built in.
The other significant question that the member for Nelson raised was in regard to the application of a complaint mechanism to the Ombudsman. The complaint is tied to the exercise of jurisdiction. For example, a complaint about a South Australian officer exercising Northern Territory law under the scheme would be dealt with by the Northern Territory Ombudsman. But if a South Australian officer was exercising South Australian law in the Northern Territory, that is, he arrested an alleged offender who was alleged to have committed an offence in South Australia, then the South Australian Ombudsman would deal with the complaint. So that is the keep–it-simple process on the Ombudsman’s complaints processes.
In relation to the member for Drysdale, I know that you want to go into committee and I am happy for that to happen. I have some simple responses at this stage, but we can have further discussions in committee. In terms of section 34, in relation to custody, the law allows the arresting officers to hold an arrested person in the closest facility in that region. The argument you put that that should occur is actually what is in this provision. It certainly removes that problem that you outlined of the expenses involved in chartering, for example. So what you thought ought to be operationally the case is provided for in this act.
In terms of section 44, it was a policy decision specifically to draft it in such a way as to avoid a booze bus or a random breath test station being set up across the border; that was a policy decision made in the consideration of the drafting phases of the law. It was quite a specific policy section decision. I am advised the instructing officer on the Western Australian model was the Western Australia Solicitor-General and, as I said, the legislation was really designed not to be used to set up random breath testing just across the border. What I am advised is there was a deliberate decision not to allow preliminary testing or random breath testing by state officers to be carried out in another participating jurisdiction, but drug/alcohol testing, which is not random breath testing, can be carried out by an officer over the border if there is a suspicion of an offence. So the person would not get away with a drink-driving offence, as in drinking at the pub at the border scenario, because they could be tested in the next jurisdiction under that jurisdiction’s laws. It just means that they will not be charged with, for example, a South Australian offence. That is the advice I have received in relation to that.
I am happy, of course, to go into committee stage, but I do want to restate that this is requiring each jurisdiction to enact provisions in relation to three aspects of the criminal justice system: the exercise of police powers, the jurisdiction of the summary courts, and the enforcement of sentences and orders.
This has a significant history. Western Australia was the architect of the model legislation, but the champions of this cross-border legislation are the women of the NPY lands themselves. I sincerely thank members opposite for the bipartisan support of this legislation. The legislation received bipartisan support when it passed through Western Australia and, as I have said, it has already been introduced into South Australia and we are hopeful of it passing through by the June sittings, given they have two houses of parliament.
I commend the legislation, and I look forward to going into committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 33, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 34:
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, particularly in reference to, first, clause 34, which I will read.
- 34 Person taken into custody
- (1) Subsection (2) applies if:
- (a) the police officer of the Territory arrests a person under the law of the Territory
(i) whether with or without a warrant; and
- (b) the person has a connection with the cross-border region.
- (2) A police officer of the Territory may:
(a) keep the person in custody in another participating jurisdiction, and
jurisdiction for any purpose authorised under the law of Territory as applied by subsection 3.
The point I am concerned with is (2)(b), in that the wording to me is relatively specific, in the sense that we keep the person in custody in ‘another’, not in the closest reasonable holding facility, but in ‘another’, referring to, as in most other parts of this act, either Western Australia or South Australia, not being that of the Northern Territory.
If that was its intention, under this particular part which gives us the power as a police officer to withhold that person’s right of freedom, it needed to specifically state that we could hold that person in custody in either another jurisdiction or the closest jurisdiction with an approved facility, including that of the Territory.
Madam Chair, that is where I am concerned, I would really like to see, as mentioned previously by the Attorney-General that they believe it is covered, but those words are particularly clear as far as I am concerned: keep the person in custody in another participating jurisdiction, which would infer that it does not mean the Northern Territory. As outlined in my reply to this bill, which I say right now I support; it is a great bill and we need to push through with this today, as soon as possible, because it will help people out there.
When you are hundreds of kilometres from the nearest suitable and safe approved holding facility, that is an arduous journey for anyone, it is a great burden, it is a great safety risk and it is hard to even pick up on the Google Earth Map, because there are really no roads marked in the area of Kintore, for instance, but to get to Warakurna; the closest route is 260 km via the Sandy Blight, but that crosses the border several times.
Technically, by the way this piece is written and interpreted by myself, and legislation is part of interpretation, that officer would have to break the law by taking that person back into the Northern Territory, having apprehended him under a Northern Territory law but in another jurisdiction, being Western Australia, because Sandy Blight does not follow that border, it crosses the border on the way down. So the only other way is then to go all the way across to either Newman, or take 700 km or 800 km, the longest way out and, yes, that is right through the centre of Western Australia over towards the western coast of Western Australia and then down and then back into Warakurna.
The other alternative is - and the most reasonable but extremely expensive - conveyance by aircraft, and in the way of the Western Australian police, that will come from Kalgoorlie, that is where the plane would fly; it is about $24 000, the last time I was there, and I know my counterpart in those days dreaded the thought of using that, because it came directly out of his station budget, and anyone losing $24 000 out of their station budget would cringe.
I would like to see a good clear answer on that because, reading that piece of power, the power that is given to a police officer, a very powerful piece of power for any person in the world; to me, does not give that officer the authority to take the person back across the border; only to retain that person in another jurisdiction.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, the concerns are recognised, but the operation will not be as articulated by the member for Drysdale. The operative word in there is a police officer of the Territory ‘may’ - that is giving them a choice. Essentially, what this subclause does is empower the Territory police officer to arrest a person under the laws of the Territory, either with or without a warrant, in any of the participating jurisdictions, and to keep the person in custody in another participating jurisdiction, but under the Territory law.
A person, for example, who is a resident in South Australia or WA, under Territory law, does not have to be returned to the Territory to be kept in custody. A police officer can also take the person to a police station, court or anywhere else for an authorised purpose. So it really is as you would want it to work, member for Drysdale, it is the most practical decision that that police officer makes as to where they want to hold that person in custody, and those practical decisions on the ground will be the closest place.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I still do not see that written there, and that is the problem. I do not want to leave our officers at risk, because we have some fantastic lawyers throughout Australia, and If we leave that loophole - and if you have ever been prosecuted through a civil court for a unlawful arrest you, would understand - it needs to be specific. It needs to identify the specific ability to do so - not ‘may’. I do not see the ‘may’ word written there. It says: ‘Keep the person in custody in another’ - in another – ‘participating jurisdiction’. I am quite happy if you would like to seek leave to come and point to it on the paper, because I still do not see it. I want to see it; I really do want to see it.
Ms LAWRIE: Read the line above it. You have to read it in the context of the line above it.
Mr BOHLIN: 34. Which line?
Ms LAWRIE: 34(2): A police officer of the Territory ‘may’.
Mr BOHLIN: That ‘may’ gives the discretionary power to arrest a person. You ‘may’ arrest a person. You ‘may’ …
Ms LAWRIE: No, ‘may’ in the context of (a). ‘May’ keep them in another participating jurisdiction’. It is giving them the either/or. It is just an empowerment to let them operate in a custodial scenario in another jurisdiction. They may or may not choose to keep them in South Australia or in Western Australia and, indeed, keep them in the Northern Territory. It gives them that choice.
Mr BOHLIN: In that case …
Madam CHAIR: Can we just work through the Chair, please, member for Drysdale.
Mr BOHLIN: Sorry, Madam Chair. I now find that word ‘may’, but it does not give you a clarification that you can take that person into custody into the Northern Territory. It does not, at all, give you that authority.
This is about trying to move forward with this. It does need specifically looking at. It may be something that needs to be an amendment at a further time, because this bill is important; it does need to go through. That does not give you the power to take the person back across the border. It does not. Not ‘may’ not ‘could’ not - it does not give you that power. You need to be specific with the wording because …
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Drysdale, you are simply wrong. On the best legal advice of the Department of Justice, you are simply wrong.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, be it noted they have declared that it is wrong. I say that it is of great concern. We will only see when it is challenged in a court in the future and, unfortunately, it could have been avoided with better clarification. Ready to move on, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Drysdale, moving forward, the best way through this process is to work through each of the questions you had against the clauses. Given that they are not amendments as such, there seems to be no point in going through the process where we stand as printed. If that is all right with you, that is what we will work through.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, providing it is - and I believe it is noted without doubt - that I stand with that concern; that it is not giving us sufficient authorisation to take a person back into the Northern Territory. However, due to the importance of this legislation, it needs to stand as printed today so we can move forward to help protect the people.
Madam CHAIR: Certainly, your comments are recorded on the Parliamentary Record.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36:
Madam CHAIR: Do you want to move to your questions around clause 36?
Mr BOHLIN: Clause 36, Madam Chair, yes, please. Madam Chair, I will read it out again:
- Return of person not charged to place of arrest or other place
section 34(2)(a) is released without charge.
I accept the word ‘reasonable’:
- … to ensure the person is taken, at the person’s election:
(a) back to the place that the person was arrested; or
(b) to a place reasonably nominated by the person.
Madam Chair, it is important to have these types of words. In general, I support them. I believe, however, it applies a portion too much onus upon the police officer to take that person maybe several hundred kilometres back to a different place of arrest. There are reasons why we may release without charge, that may be the decision to summons, take further time to investigate all evidence, that could be one reason for releasing a person without charge and then invoking this section.
Granted, it is not a great concern, because I am sure there is a great deal of leniency there. But if we could have taken the word ‘must’ out and left it as ‘a police officer of the Territory take reasonable steps’ it would put a little less onus on that police officer to take every step possible. It will be, at some time, argued that leaving the person in, let us say, Kiwirrkurra, where there are shops, phones, council support, there is a local council, and not having taken them back to Kintore or Mt Liebig or Papunya, the officer may come under fire for not doing so because there is that extra onus of ‘must’.
As I said, I think there is a reasonable amount of flexibility, but perhaps not such a strong word would have been a little less onerous on the police and, in essence, the government, for that. I think we need to keep moving with this legislation, it is great, but putting that extra burden may mean we are travelling 200 km, 300 km, 600 km extra, which means that the community is left without the support of those police officers.
When the person who has been arrested has all the facilities available, all the safeties of a community where they are, and we do not put holding facilities many miles from a township, they are all in townships, so it is quite reasonable to allow them to leave by the front door, ensure that you avail them of telecommunications while they are there, and that they are not going to come to any harm in that community. It is not necessarily reasonable to put that extra burden on the police that they have to travel maybe 600 km to drop someone off and come back.
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that the police fully supported the legislation without any suggested amendment, and ‘must’ was written into the legislation to give clarity to a police officer’s duty. The cross-border justice scheme operates in the more remote areas of the Territory where there are large distances between population centres and limited transport available.
If an NT police officer has kept a person in custody in another jurisdiction, and you can refer to clause 34 for their ability to do that, and the person is released from custody, the police officer must take reasonable steps to ensure the person is returned to where they were arrested, or to a place reasonably nominated by the person. As we noted, however, if to take a person released from custody to a particular place is likely to endanger the safety of the person or another person, the police officer is not required to assist the person to go to that place.
We are talking about what is a reasonable situation when that person has been apprehended. They can take them what we know is some considerable distance in a region where we know there is no public transport service; in a region where we know there is significant poverty and not everyone has access to a car, so reasonably, in that scenario, if you pick someone up and you have taken them somewhere, but they are not going to be charged, reasonably, you take them back. It is really giving clarity to the police officers’ duty. The police force has no problem with the operation of this aspect of the legislation - it is reasonable.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I am relatively happy because the Attorney-General has emphasised the word ‘reasonable’ quite a few times during her explanation. In that aspect, I believe that will give enough leniency if a member was to come under scrutiny, provided they have taken those reasonable steps and reasonable considerations, they will do their job properly. With that emphasis on ‘reasonable’ by the Attorney-General, I believe it will cover the member sufficiently. Not everyone that we deal with is reasonable and the allegations they may later pose upon a police officer will bring them under scrutiny where it is not reasonable. There is a lot of support in the bush and I understand that there should be a reasonable return, if reasonable.
I thank the Attorney-General for further highlighting the word ‘reasonable’ because that is the key aspect – an element of reasonableness, and if that is the intention of that part of the law, I am happy. It is important, and I thank you for clarification on that.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 43, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 44:
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, Clause 44.
44 Preliminary alcohol or drug test cannot be conducted in another participating jurisdiction.
- This Subdivision does not authorise a police officer of the Territory to require a person in another participating jurisdiction to provide
a sample of breath or oral fluid for a preliminary alcohol or drug test under the Territory’s drink or drug-driving laws.
In most part, it is at least best practice that a person is submitted to a random breath test, being a preliminary form of assessing whether a person is in excess of the legal limit, it is the tool that the officers are given, it is only this large. I know the Attorney-General said earlier that it was a consensus that this be put in place to prevent an RBT station being set up on the other side of the border. One could consider that, if that was the case, you would be perhaps using your special constable powers as a Western Australian or a South Australian police officer, not a Northern Territory police officer, in the first place.
However, if you are pursuing someone who has committed that offence of drink-driving in the Northern Territory, Kulgera for instance, and they have skipped the few kilometres to the South Australian border, the general ability for that police officer to submit that person to a breath test, our preliminary tool, our preliminary device of evidence, has just been taken away from that officer once he crosses the border. To me, this is just for drink-driving, particularly seeing drink-driving has been an issue, perhaps it should not have been allowed to have crept in there.
The previous parts to do with drink-driving have done a great job, they really have. Why take away one of our primary tools? What we then do is go back to the days when we had to make people walk the line, or observe and use observations of intoxication, primarily to then arrest the person to conduct a breath analysis, which is the certified piece that we take to court. It is our primary and most common tool, the breath test, a hand-held device, which we use to get us to the point where we make that clear decision to take someone into custody, to arrest them for the purpose of a breath analysis.
Another area of concern, which I think is covered under all the previous drink-driving aspects, is now we have to travel some distance, and again, it is not clearly defined, to take a person back across the border to Kulgera. We would have to travel some distance to a breath analysis machine, unless the officer happens to be a fine duty traffic officer and he has the breath analysis machine on his back seat, which is possible, but it is not common practice to carry that device. It is a sensitive, calculated machine and it needs regular calibration and getting thrown around on dirt roads across the Territory will not do much for our ability to convict people on drink-driving charges. In fact, I personally would challenge it if I saw the police officer rolling down the road, with the device in the back seat bouncing around like crazy, because the ability to guarantee that device works properly is out the door.
However, to have taken away our primary tool for conducting a breath test prima facie start to further conducting and compelling a person to a breath analysis has been taken away. I think the reasons and concerns, wherever they have been generated from, are unfounded and do need to be reviewed. As I said before, this legislation must continue today, but it does need to be reviewed, or we now issue all our Territory officers and all the WA officers, if need be, but I think it is all the Territory officers, with the other jurisdictions’ primary tools, their way for proving the initial level of intoxication.
Madam Chair, I hand it back to the Attorney-General.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, at the outset I want to say that one of the bases to this whole cross-border legislation scheme was to keep intact the integrity of the laws of each jurisdiction. There are different ways of approaching this innovative model. You could have tried to go in and change a whole raft of laws across three different jurisdictions and tried to apply them and make it all work, instead the approach we have before us today was taken. We have put in a whole lot of enabling clauses within a body of legislation which is our cross-border scheme. For example, the member has to read, and should read clauses 41 and 42, which talk about the powers of an NT police officer which certainly gives them the ability to use their preliminary breath testing tools in the Northern Territory to test as they normally would in the Northern Territory.
It is when you cross that border as a Northern Territory police officer that you are then required, under this scheme; to apply the processes and the sampling procedures that are required under their laws. So we would expect a South Australian officer to apply the procedures that we expect under our laws, and they would require our officers to apply the procedures that would be expected under their laws, to keep the integrity of the laws of each of the three jurisdictions when it comes to this issue of drink-driving in place.
One of the critical things with this legislation is the training that will occur that goes with it; not just the training of the magistrates, not just the training of the corrections officers, but importantly also, the training of police or the operators. Will they be equipped with the relevant tools to do their job? Yes, they are equipped with the relevant tools to do their job.
This is some enabling legislation. I was very clear in my response in wrapping up, particularly in relation to this issue that there are clear policy decisions that were taken every step of the way in the formation of this model legislation which, as I say, has already passed with bipartisan support in Western Australia, and it is already introduced in South Australia, and has been receiving bipartisan support here.
Key policy decisions were made around the integrity of the existing law in each of the three jurisdictions and therefore procedures have to be in place to keep that integrity, which is what we have before us in clauses 41, 42 and 43, and now 44, which is what we are discussing. You must read clause 44 in relation to clauses 41, 42 and 43; you cannot take it in isolation otherwise you do not see the workability of this drink-driving system within this legislation. Very clearly, I said that it was a deliberate decision not to allow those random breath tests to be set up by state officers across the borders into another jurisdiction.
It is one of those areas, member for Drysdale, where I am going to have to agree to disagree with you. There is clear policy intent in the construct of this legislation - clear policy decision of how the breath testing regime would occur and could occur, bearing in mind the integrity of each jurisdiction’s existing laws underpin the development of this cross-border legislation.
Mr BOHLIN: I have just gone back and read clause 41. Unfortunately, I am trying to listen to your reply and read that clause. Clause 41, to me, says that the Territory officer can still conduct a breath test in the Territory as if it was a Territory law. Hello! If that the case, why would we change it in the first place? Just because we are now at a cross-border region still does not stop us from allowing Northern Territory laws. It then goes on to talk about being able to use the preliminary devices as if it was that of another jurisdiction within the Territory. However, if you cross the border into another jurisdiction from the Territory, clause 44 says we cannot use our own preliminary devices, but we can use a preliminary device from another jurisdiction. To me, that is confusing. I am glad you pointed that out to me, because clause 41 now makes me more confused as to what you are getting at.
I would also like you to confirm for me: what, then, is our reasoning or ability to stop someone for a breath test, followed by breath analysis, if it is not under the provisions for a random breath test? You are saying the reasoning for not allowing clause 44 is because we do not want to have random breath testing. Random breath testing is not about the big bus; it is not about a big glossy bus. It is about the police officer driving down the road having a reasonable belief or wanting to apply a random - random; hello anyone! - breath test upon a person to find out if they are sober or not, and suitable to be driving that weapon down the road.
It is not preliminary about the big bus. The big bus theory is interstate. They are great on these; they have great big resources. We rely predominantly on the police officer driving down the road deciding to pull you over because they wish to conduct a random breath test. It is in our power to do so.
Ms Lawrie: You are a member of parliament now.
Mr BOHLIN: I am talking as a Territorian and as a former police officer. If you choose to ignore that, and ignore the fact that there are some concerns and just dig your heels in and say no and agree with what some other state said - because they are concerned about a big bus rolling across the border. I tell you, the big bus is in Alice for starters; the big bus is in Darwin and it is not going to Kintore, and it ain’t going to Kulgera in a hurry.
The reasoning behind this may have been just to progress things; but it is flawed. We are going to move forward in a minute because it is important legislation, but you are taking away tools you should not have done …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Drysdale, I am going to have to interrupt you there, it is 12.10 pm. We are going to suspend the Committee of the Whole and resume at 2.10 pm.
Debate suspended.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Arnhem
Member for Arnhem
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given my leave to the member for Arnhem to make a personal explanation. As you are aware, when making a personal explanation it is listened to in silence.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation to correct the record regarding a comment made by the member for Fong Lim during the MPI on the McArthur River Mine last night. In his statement, the member for Fong Lim said, and I quote directly from Hansard:
- … most notably, the member for Arnhem, who has never visited the mine and who, I am reliably informed, has never been out to see the river diversion and never done a tour of the mine.
His statement is wrong. I flew over the expansion pit twice in July last year and the river diversion. Prior to that, I visited the mine on following occasions in 2006 and in 2004. While working in Borroloola, I toured the mine on a number of occasions in my role as the Coordinator of the Lijakarda Arts Culture and Media Training Centre with my students in 1997, in the hope that some may pursue a career with MRM. Then in my role as broadcast trainer, when establishing the Borroloola radio station, Voice of the Gulf, in 1998, which is located at Mabunji Aboriginal Resources Association, I would visit the mine regularly again to inspect the possibility of transmitting the 70 km from Borroloola to the mine.
When the mine opened in 1995, I worked closely with MRM in organising the first cultural festival in the region, the Lijakarda Cultural Festival, and I worked closely again with MRM when I helped to establish Borroloola’s first arts centre in the Mabunji Building.
I am always ready to take up any opportunity to visit the mine and I would certainly be happy to facilitate a gathering that would bring together the mine, traditional owners and local businesses.
Perhaps next time the member for Fong Lim may have the courtesy to ask me directly for any information before he speaks again on the issue.
CROSS-BORDER JUSTICE BILL
(Serial 23)
(Serial 23)
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:
Clause 44 (continued):
Ms LAWRIE: Clause 44 of the Cross-border Justice Bill provides that the subdivision does not authorise a police officer of the Territory to require a person in another participating jurisdiction, South Australia or Western Australia, to provide a sample of breath or oral fluid for a preliminary alcohol or drug test under the Territory’s drink or drug-driving laws.
However, it must be noted that all police operating in the cross-border region will be appointed special constables of the other jurisdictions under the Police Administration Act or equivalent. For example, if a person consumes alcohol at Kulgera in the NT and is observed by police, the person then drives off, chased by NT police over the border into South Australia, and the police pull the person over for drink-driving, the police would have the power to conduct a preliminary breath test as a South Australian police officer, an NT police officer wearing a South Australia police hat, and do so under the South Australian law in respect to the South Australian offence of drink-driving.
This clause should not be read in isolation and needs to be read together with clauses 41, 42 and 43.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I thank the Attorney-General. That does, at least, give some powers. I still believe there could have been a better argument when this legislation was drawn up so that the powers exist, as they do in many other parts of this act, so we could conduct those breath tests as a Northern Territory police officer in another jurisdiction.
Perhaps, would it be good to put on record, if you so wish, that you would at least consider revisiting this after some time if there are problems that arise from it, particularly in the jurisdictions of places like Kulgera, where there is a pub very close to the border.
There are many examples of drink-drivers not stopping, they may go across the border and you then have to act as a South Australian officer to be able to breath test them, but you could actually act as a Northern Territory officer to arrest them for driving dangerously or whatever other offences they may commit, but you could not actually deal with the drink-driving aspect of the offence at the same time.
All we ask is that we can revisit this at another time and review it in a year or two years down the track because it is only minor, and I accept that, in the big scheme of things, but if we could just perhaps revisit that at a later time.
Ms LAWRIE: In response to the very reasonable request from the member for Drysdale, I reiterate what I said previously. There is a 12 monthly evaluation built into this body of legislation; there is also a significant review at year 3 and definitely before year 5. So, in the construct of this, very cautious and deliberate consideration has been given to the workability, given that this is a nation first in terms of cross-border jurisdictional issues and how that operates. That said, built actually within the construct of this legislation is that evaluation process and, importantly, a review of the whole process as well.
Clearly, in any evaluation of this, police would be participating, they are the front-end law delivers in this region; other stakeholders pertinent to the operation of this would also be participating in that evaluation. I have no hesitation in saying this would be absolutely essential to that evaluation - the evaluation I am on the record as saying will occur in 12 months’ time.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I am reasonably happy with that answer and it is so good to see that you have committed to those things, particularly the input from the police force is always going to be important because they are the people who act on those parts of the law and they are the ones who will always find the faults before anyone else, and they will always wear the consequences of those faults.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 to 53, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 54:
Mr BOHLIN: If it may please you, Madam Chair, we will move on clause 54. Clause 54 is essentially, in reverse, repeating that of 34 - it is taking a person into custody. A police officer in another participating jurisdiction does, in the reference or interpretation, make reference to the other two jurisdictions. Arrest a person under the law of the arresting jurisdiction, with or without a warrant, and whether in the Territory or another participating jurisdiction; the person has a connection with the cross-border region again.
But clause 54(2) states:
- A police officer of the arresting jurisdiction may:
Apparently ‘may’ is a very powerful word.
- (a) keep the person in custody in the Territory; and
- (b) while the person is in custody, take the person to a police station, court, or other place in the Territory for any purpose authorised under the law of the arresting
jurisdiction as applied by its cross-border laws.
The two areas there; it refers specifically in ‘the Territory’, not in the other ‘participating jurisdictions’ or the ‘other jurisdictions’, it says in ‘the Territory’. We understand that there may be an intent by the writer to open up and allow free transportation and extradition of people from one state to the other state for the closest police station, whichever may suit the cause, but the police officer, the magistrate, the lawyers will use this legislation to determine their findings.
In clause 34, it is somewhat clouded; in clause 54 it becomes rather succinct - in ‘the Territory’. South Australia is not the Territory, Western Australia is not the Territory. It says in ‘the Territory’. There is less play on words there. If the Attorney-General wishes to continue to say that ‘may’ is the most powerful word and has wiped out extradition orders, if that is going to be the case, let us have the Attorney-General stand and succinctly state that the intent of these two parts of law, clauses 34 and 54, are for the purposes that any police officer from a participating jurisdiction is able to take a person in custody to any participating jurisdiction, prison, holding facility, court or otherwise.
Be concise, state it here and then it is forever on record that is the intent of this legislation, so that if some clever magistrate or lawyer decides to attack it, it can be referred that in this House it was succinctly identified with clear English, clear words, that the intent is so that you can take them to the closest place of a participating jurisdiction. That would more than satisfy me.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, to put it succinctly, this is the mirror to clause 34 which we discussed previously. It is the enabling provision whereby police officers are able to make a choice as to where they take the person in custody, as explained previously. Under clause 34, it will certainly enable the Territory police officer to have powers in the other jurisdictions to determine where they would take a person into custody. This is the mirror of that. It gives the police in the other jurisdictions - that is South Australia and Western Australia – the ability to determine where they want to take those persons in custody in the Territory; that is, it is a mirror enabling provision so that police officers who do the arresting in whichever of the tri-jurisdictions - that is the cross-border region - can make their own considered decision as to where they take that person into custody.
It is a pretty simple premise to what makes all of this workable; the police understand it; the police have been involved in the construct of this. This is not a new process; this is a process that has been worked up carefully. The genesis of this was 2003; the model and the scheme was put forward, in a national sense, formally from 2004. We have had something like six years of consideration as to how this would work. We know, and I have stated on the record, that this is innovative, bold, but this is also practical in its application; that is, as I have said before, they could have gone ahead and tried to change all the laws in all the three jurisdictions to try to get some workability or, they could have taken this model cross-border approach.
I know the member for Drysdale genuinely wants to ensure the workability here. I know that is genuinely where you are coming from, having worked in the region as a police officer. I just wish you had availed yourself of the opportunity of a briefing, because there are some very good law officers in the employ of the Department of Justice who have toiled on this. As I said, 250 people have been involved in the legislation that we have before us today. This is an important …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Chair! Despite the bleatings of the minister, my colleague is not obliged to receive a briefing. He is entitled, as is every member of this Assembly, to question here; this is the parliament. If members want to avail themselves of briefings - and they do and they have from time to time - so be it.
I ask you, Madam Chair, to pull up the minister if she is going to go on and, basically, attack my colleague for not getting a briefing. There is no requirement for him to do so. This is why we have the debate. This is why we have the committee stage, and she knows it.
Madam CHAIR: There is no point order. I believe the Attorney-General is simply suggesting that that is available. You are quite correct; the member for Drysdale does have the opportunity to ask those questions as he is so doing.
Ms LAWRIE: I point out to the shadow that, first of all, it is a breach of standing orders for her to converse from a seat other than her own, so she is in breach of standing orders for conversing from a seat other than her own. Second, I point out that I have sat here and listened to the questions put forward and the scenarios posed by the member for Drysdale. I have sat here and genuinely listened to many descriptive questions from him, and I have responded to each and every one, so I think it is appropriate that I do continue to put in context the extent of scrutiny that each of these clauses have been provided with by very senior law officers across three jurisdictions.
This is WA model legislation, so it is important to contextualise the nature of the questioning that has been occurring in the committee stage, again to reassure the member for Drysdale that the issue of the workability, which are clauses 34 and 54 which he has raised, has been considered and has been produced in a way that appears before us today in the legislation, so the workability is as best as it can be, so the police officers on the ground can make those on-the-ground decisions about where they take people into custody without the jurisdictional border issues, which is genuinely at the heart of the cross-border legislation we have before us.
Madam CHAIR: A reminder, member for Araluen, the Attorney-General is quite correct, if you do wish to speak, you do need to be at your designated desk, and that is for reasons of Hansard as much as anything else.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I thank the Attorney-General for that. You did a fantastic job at actually answering, but not exactly stating for the record 100% clearly what your intention is. You did a pretty good job of it though, and I do thank you for your acknowledgment of my passion for this. I do have a passion for this, because this is about affecting people’s lives.
I do wish to add, before I continue on that. For the last 10 years I have scrutinised parts of the legislation. I have then applied that legislation. Now, if the Attorney-General wishes to say that I, as a trained police officer in the Northern Territory do not, merely because of my election by the public to the parliament, any longer understand legislation, you perhaps lean upon all the other members of the Northern Territory Police Force who today continue to interpret this legislation. That is my concern, the way it is able to be interpreted and, in fact, the effect of this provision limits that choice in clause 54, because it clearly states ‘in the Territory’.
All I ask is a consideration to change some wording that does envelop all those other areas, or additional words that allows it to be so crystal clear that it cannot be interpreted in any other way. Because, at the moment, if it can be interpreted at any time this way, that means it will be scrutinised in the courts, not in this Chamber any more, but in the courts, and it will cost a lot of money, it has cost a lot of money already. A lot of experts, professional people have already put a lot of effort into this, but everyone can make a mistake. The fact that this particular part, clause 54, does very much, in the effect of the provision, limit the choice, takes away that choice by saying ‘in the Territory’.
Ms Lawrie: No. You are wrong.
Mr BOHLIN: It does. I am telling you, I believe we are right.
Ms Lawrie: I know you believe it.
Mr BOHLIN: You believe you are right, I believe I am right. That is why we have cases in courts so that we can argue these things. We are having a discussion in this Chamber for that same reason, because, if I can see the argument now and the lack of clarity now, so may others. In fact, many will. So, if we had included the words ‘in a participating jurisdiction’ or ‘the Territory and/or another participating jurisdiction’, instead of ‘the Territory’, but if it pains you so greatly to include three or four extra words which really combine the essence of the entire legislation, really ties it back together the way it needs to be, it is about all three jurisdictions working together, so if the inclusion of doing that so offends you - it beggars belief that you hold the position.
Ms LAWRIE: Is there a question in this?
Mr BOHLIN: This part of clause 54 affects the provision of the limits of choice by cleanly and clearly stating ‘in the Territory’. ‘The’ is another word used in legislation, similar to ‘or’ and ‘and’, they are simple words by themselves but, when used in context within legislation, are very, very powerful words.
So if we say ‘in the Territory’, ‘keep the person in custody in the Territory’, it does not say keep the person in the Territory in Queensland or anywhere else, but it says, keep the person in custody in the Territory. The intent, I understand, is to allow it to be more fluid, so we need to ensure we modify our wording because our wording has failed, and that is not a furphy, it is not a lie, it is not a creation - it has failed, it is no clearer than to keep the person in custody in the Territory.
We suggest that the Attorney-General stands on her feet soon, without waffling about anything else, and states: my intention as the Attorney-General in this legislation is that, by saying under clause 54 and clause 34, the intent is to allow a police officer of any participating jurisdiction to take that person to any other participating jurisdiction and then follows through with police station, court house - that way there will never be another question and there will be no other wasting of time.
Ms LAWRIE: As in the debate around clause 34, the word that the member for Drysdale has to understand is that word ‘may’. A police officer of the arresting jurisdiction ‘may’. As I have explained, this clause is about the arresting jurisdiction in South Australia, Western Australia, that is the other participating jurisdictions under whose laws the person is being arrested in the Territory, a police officer of that arresting jurisdiction may arrest a person, either with or without a warrant, and keep them in custody in the Territory. It is necessary that the arrested person have a connection with a cross-border region for this to apply.
Once the person is in custody, they can be taken to a police station, a court or other authorised place in the NT. NT custody laws are not applied in this situation and do not govern this arrest. It is really clear, I have explained it. I guess the concerns of the member for Drysdale could be picked up as an example of the sort of training police officers will be undertaking. It is going to be pretty clear that these are enabling powers to work in the other jurisdictions, to take people into custody in the other jurisdictions. The previous clause was about Territory police officers being able to place people in custody in WA and SA, and this one is about Western Australian and South Australian officers being able to take people into custody in the Territory. It is pretty simple, pretty basic, we have been through it, and I have been through it a few times now.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, will the minister give some explanation to the meaning behind 54(3), which states:
- The law of the Territory does not apply in relation to the custody.
Why does not the law of the Territory apply in relation to custody when the custody, at this point, talks about taking a person into custody in the Northern Territory? It seems to somewhat contradict (3).
Ms LAWRIE: My advice is: because they have been arrested under the laws of the jurisdiction of the other state.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, it is a nice and simple answer - it is just not clear. So, if muddy water is muddy, is it muddy? I think so.
Minister, will you give this parliament an undertaking that you will amend this section if it proves difficult or presents problems for the police officers within 12 months?
Ms LAWRIE: I talked to the member for Drysdale before about this, and I will restate it because that was before the lunch session. The police have been all over this. They do not have an issue with the workability of this. The only person who has an issue with the workability of this is the member for Drysdale.
So, as to the commitment he is seeking, I do not actually need to make, because what I do know is this: that justice, and police are going to be undertaking some comprehensive training in support of this package of reform, the cross-border reform process, the training will be robust because this is a well considered body of work, and there are already dates identified and the process for training is already identified. I have done a lot of work already in preparation for this. I will repeat: the Western Australian parliament did not seem to have a problem with the workability of this section.
Mr BOHLIN: I am glad the Western Australian parliament did not have a problem with this section, but maybe we have given it a bit of direct application scrutiny, and sometimes that is what it will need. That is what we are suggesting when we were asking the minister to give us an undertaking, if she feels she can be flexible enough, lenient enough and considerate enough, to amend this section if it proves difficult when it is actually applied on the ground. Many scientists will draw up many things and will not get it right, because when it actually gets applied there is a fault with it. That is what I am pointing out: that I believe when this legislation, in particular these sections about custody get applied, we will have problems.
So will the minister assure us, or give us an undertaking, that she will be flexible enough to consider, on all reasonableness, if there are problems within the next 12 months, that she will act on those problems?
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Drysdale does not seem to understand what an evaluation is.
Mr BOHLIN: I am glad the minister is so flexible in those matters. If she is so flexible that we need to wait 12 months for an evaluation, what if we do end up in a court case for the next four years on a civil case because the minister failed to be a little flexible? What if that proceeding begins before the next 12 months? So that is all right, the minister is quite flexible in that regard. Thank you.
However, minister, given your government has form when it comes to bringing legislation into parliament and then having to make amendments months or years later to remedy them; we are calling them the ‘oops’ bills. Can you assure this parliament that this bill will not be an ‘oops’ one, particularly seeing we have raised some concerns?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, he is really getting into the realms of nonsense now.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I would probably at this time say ‘thank you very much’ to the Chair.
This type of legislation is difficult and, unfortunately, there are some problems with it. Unfortunately, the minister has not shown her ability to be flexible in her new role as Attorney-General to understand that when you actually apply something there could be problems. We have identified that in the interpretation of this legislation, bearing in mind that the legislation is interpreted stand-alone, by itself, as legislation in the courts; there may be problems and simple word changes, some very simple changes, would have fixed this.
In other parts, Madam Chair, this legislation goes a long way to bringing a really great change in many remote areas of Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia, where I have met many police officers from those areas. Other than the concerns that I have raised, I commend the bill.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Auditor-General’s February 2009 Report
Auditor-General’s February 2009 Report
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s February 2009 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
MOTION
Print Paper - Auditor-General’s February 2009 Report
Print Paper - Auditor-General’s February 2009 Report
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s February 2009 Report
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s February 2009 Report
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Rules and Guidelines for Incorporation of Material into the Parliamentary Record
Rules and Guidelines for Incorporation of Material into the Parliamentary Record
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Rules and Guidelines for Incorporation of Material into the Parliamentary Record, as previously distributed to members.
TABLED PAPER
Statehood Steering Committee - Revised Terms of Reference
Statehood Steering Committee - Revised Terms of Reference
Ms McCARTHY (Statehood): Madam Speaker, as Chair of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I table the Revised Terms of Reference for the Statehood Steering Committee.
MOTION
Adopt Terms of Reference for Statehood Steering Committee
Adopt Terms of Reference for Statehood Steering Committee
Ms McCARTHY (Statehood): Madam Speaker, I move that the Legislative Assembly adopt the terms of reference as tabled.
The Statehood Steering Committee was established in 2004 as an advisory committee to the standing committee with a charter to inter alia provide advice to the standing committee in identifying and developing strategies and programs in educating the Northern Territory community on statehood and constitutional development, and to provide assistance to the standing committee in undertaking a role in promoting the awareness of statehood and constitutional development to the Northern Territory community.
During the second half of 2008, the standing committee undertook a review of the Statehood Committee’s terms of reference, with a view to updating the document so that it better clarifies the relative accountability and responsibilities of the body and the standing committee. A number of changes were agreed to by the standing committee in November 2008, and these are incorporated in the tabled document.
The standing committee considers that these changes will provide the steering committee with a sound base for the next stage of its operations.
Motion agreed to; report adopted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Invasive Species and Management Programs in the Northern Territory - Report
Invasive Species and Management Programs in the Northern Territory - Report
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, today I make a statement in response to the inquiry and the subsequent report on Invasive Species and Management Programs in the Northern Territory by the Legislative Assembly Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.
At the outset, I thank the committee for taking an in-depth and honest look at invasive species in the Territory, and for making positive recommendations on how to improve our response. In particular, I thank my former parliamentary colleague, Ted Warren, for chairing the committee. I also thank former members: Matthew Bonson, Fay Miller, and Dr Richard Lim for their contributions and, of course, my current parliamentary colleagues, the members for Arnhem, Stuart, Daly and Nelson for their service to the committee in its deliberations. I also thank those who gave evidence to the committee and provided us with their important perspectives on how invasive species have been managed and how we can make our efforts more productive. And, of course, a big thank you to all those in the committee secretariat who worked tirelessly to put that report together.
I would also like to say that the recommendations that of the report have my support and that I have directed my department and my Ministerial Office to move full steam ahead with their implementation. Obviously, this will require additional resources and this is something I am actively pursuing.
Madam Speaker, there are some fundamental principles that I will apply in tackling the problem of invasive species, and they are principles that you will see me apply across my portfolios.
First and foremost, we will focus on practical ways we can take action on the ground. This involves making the hard decisions and getting resources where they are needed.
Second, we will employ a risk-based approach so that we look at the evidence before us and prioritise accordingly, making sure we tackle the most pressing problems first.
Third, we will engage community and industry in a meaningful way, and use their knowledge and skills to help us resolve issues.
Fourth, we must make sure that we forge strong partnerships with local government, other states and the federal government, so that we can pool our resources and work out ways to halt the damage caused by invasive species.
Finally, we must set ambitious targets in all our efforts to protect our environment, including from the threat of introduced and exotic species. The target that we should set is that there is no nett loss of biodiversity here in the Territory. We are blessed with amazing natural beauty in the Territory, in our landscapes, our wetlands and our marine environment, and we must do all we can to safeguard their natural brilliance.
Invasive pests can be divided into two broad groups: weeds and feral animals. In the first instance, I would like to outline our approach to weeds. There are currently 119 declared weeds in the Northern Territory and these are separated into three classes of schedules. Schedule Class A/C - to be eradicated; Class B/C - growth and spread to be controlled; and Class C - not to be introduced to the Territory.
There are also nine weeds of national significance that have been found in the Territory. Now, I might stumble over some of these: athel pine, mimosa, parthenium weed, salvinia, rubber vine, prickly acacia, mesquite, parkinsonia and cabomba.
I am pleased to announce that we are putting in place a best practice weed management strategy to negotiate the impact of invasive weeds on our biodiversity. Further, we will continue to release individual weed management plans to help landowners and managers understand their obligations under the Weeds Management Act. The government is also looking after its own patch. We are developing the Northern Territory Crown Land Weed Management Strategy to address weed issues on government land.
This government is committed to a risk-based approach to countering threats to the Territory’s natural environment. We are doing the important research to ensure that we are fully informed to make decisions so they are cost-effective and result in real impact.
A Weed Risk Management System has been recently put in place by NRETAS to set out the most effective ways to manage the invasive grasses in the Territory. This system will focus on stopping the spread of species already in the Territory, and will aim to prevent future introduction of plant species which could become a problem.
The system is the product of collaborative arrangements with my department and the Department of Business and Employment; the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources; and Charles Darwin University. Further, my department is working with Charles Darwin University to study the level of carbon emissions caused by invasive grasses. Communications between agencies, institutions such as Charles Darwin University and the wider community will be the key to the success of the system. We are making sure our strategies are geared towards making all parties aware of their responsibilities when it comes to staving off the threats and problems associated with weeds.
While the issues related to weed management and other invasive species are many and pressing, we are prioritising and we will tackle the most important problems first. The gamba weed declaration provides a useful example. It ranks very highly as a priority weed species based on a risk assessment.
In November last year, this government declared gamba grass a weed under the Weeds Management Act. This was an important action to quell the threat this invasive grass poses to the environment. Gamba grass is a serious fire risk, and stopping its spread will reduce the threat to people and property by wildfires. Gamba grass provides dangerously high fuel levels to bushfires, and we have taken steps to minimise the risk to Territorians and the environment.
The government needs to be proactive in recognising the problems that weeds could cause on government land, as well as addressing the issues we already have. That is why we are putting together management plans for government-owned land, in the same way we are urging private landowners to be vigilant about their weed control.
NRETAS and the department of Primary Industry are working together to map and control weeds on Crown land. We must make sure that the government is setting a solid example of good weed management and managing our own risk accordingly. Effective engagement of the community is vital to finding long-term solutions to environmental problems, and the management of invasive species is no exception.
When it comes to weed management, we are deterring people from doing the wrong thing by ensuring sanctions are appropriate and educating people on how to identify and control weeds. We are creating an environment where peer pressure also helps ensure landholders uphold their weed management responsibilities. The level of compliance by landholders can have major impacts on our neighbour’s actions.
This government takes a range of approaches to promoting awareness in this area. Some of these include setting up stalls at regional shows across the Territory circuit, at farm and garden days and other events where the public gets a chance to speak to experts in various areas of invasive species management. Television, radio and print media are also being used to get the message across to a diverse range of people in the community.
A campaign through various media channels to limit the spread of cabomba weed shows just how effective a focused effort to galvanise the public to help contain an invasive species can be. The proof of this campaign’s success can be seen in practice. All reports to date confirm that cabomba weed, identified as a serious threat, has been contained within a limited section of the Darwin River. Effective management of invasives demands the cooperation of many sectors of the community. All retail nurseries have been made aware of which plant species they cannot import or sell under the Weeds Management Act. There is a list of species already in Australia that are banned from sale.
NRETAS is part of a program called Garden Thugs that aims to promote environmentally friendly plants to nurseries and their customers. The department plans to broaden these efforts to also target those who buy and sell at market gardens.
I now turn my attention to feral animals which are causing serious environmental harm through the Territory. I am sure you will agree that cane toads are the best known invasive species, and their management is another important priority for this government. We are moving to negate the cane toad threat by distributing cane toad traps throughout the community and educating the public about the damage that cane toads cause. At this point, I would like to pay tribute to Frog Watch and all the ToadBuster groups across the Territory, who do such an amazing job in controlling toad numbers and raising awareness about the impacts of cane toads.
Further, this government is looking at the evidence we have before us when it comes to the destructive force of large numbers of cane toads and we are keeping a close watch on some interesting developments in the cane toad control area. There are promising areas of research to develop biological controls on cane toads. These strategies could disrupt cane toad breeding and may have a knock-out impact on their numbers that everyone would like to see. We will monitor these developments and continue to work towards best practice ways to negate the impact.
Of course, theoretical approaches to the management of invasive species need to be set in motion with practical action. This government is taking real action on the ground; we are putting in the resources where they are needed to make sure we get results. For example, the government is implementing a major feral animal management program in the Katherine region. This is a partnership with the Victoria River District Conservation Association, Roper River Landcare Group, Indigenous Land Corporation, the Northern and Central Land Councils, and Conservation Pest Management.
Our on the ground action is yielding solid results. A program funded by the Natural Heritage Trust to lower horse and donkey numbers in the Victoria River District last year was a strong success. More than 17 000 animals were removed from the area between September and December last year, mainly by ground shooting and aerial culling. This program’s success was mainly due to the level of local community involvement. The local community were very involved on a practical level and gained from the program a very strong knowledge of environmental damage caused by horses and donkeys.
We are also tackling the Territory’s wild dog problem. In a joint effort with the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources, we are making the poison 1080 available to accredited, private landholders within approved areas through dry, pre-manufactured baits. 1080 poison has proven effective in controlling numbers of feral dogs, pigs, foxes and rabbits. My department is developing a nationally accredited training program to guide users how to use the poison safely.
Another problematic feral animal species we are taking action to remove is the feral cat which is in substantial numbers from the dry desert country to the tropics. These cats are a particularly annoying problem as they are very good at avoiding baits and traps. A Natural Heritage Trust funded program in the Sir Edward Pellew Islands to try to manage the islands’ feral cat problem has yielded strong results. The knowledge gained from this study into the habits of feral cats and the most effective ways to manage them will be useful on other islands off the Territory coast and, more broadly, around Australia. This program also provided good training for the local Indigenous Mabunji Rangers. They will now have the skills to manage their own feral cat programs in the future.
We are also taking action to offset the impact of invasive species on our native wildlife. The Island Ark project was started by my department in 2003 to save the Northern Quoll population from disappearing due to cane toads. Sixty-four Northern Quolls were rehoused on islands off the Territory coast where cane toads cannot reach. This initial population has grown to many thousands and the program continues to help the Northern Quoll population rebuild. This is a real Territory success story and a story that will now live forever in a wonderful children’s book by Sandra Kendall t\which I had the pleasure of launching late last year.
We are also taking action to assess new threats to our threatened species and scientists have recently began assessing the damage caused by black rats in the Victoria River District. It is believed these pests are impacting on the Purple-Crowned Fairy-Wren, a threatened bird species. A survey has started and, from that, further action will be taken to safeguard this species’ population.
The environmental damage caused by camels in Central Australia is very serious and we need to move to fix this problem with urgency; in many places the natural and cultural environment is being, quite simply, wrecked. Over Christmas, I spent seven days in my electorate in Central Australia between Mt Liebig, Papunya and Kintore and had the luxury of not only enjoying the silence and the stars at night, but also waking up to groups of camels munching away on branches and wrecking waterholes; so that is a real issue for us in Central Australia. I will make the hard decisions on camels and I will take action to direct resources into attacking this problem. I am looking at practical solutions; we have the theoretical knowledge with my department, and Desert Knowledge produced a framework for camel management last year.
Now is the time to look at what we can do on the ground to stop the invasive pests. I am looking at options for a large scale cull; we are determining whether aerial or land shooting will be most effective and if innovative methods of controlling camels’ fertility can be effective in stopping their population explosion.
We should also consider whether there can be some kind of economic activity generated by a camel cull. In particular, I am examining whether camel meat could be a viable pet food product. I am told this would require the use of mobile abattoirs, chillers and burial equipment, and I am eager to start trialling this approach.
I know that many Aboriginal people have concerns about culling camels and donkeys because of their biblical connections, and horses and buffalos due to their historical connection with the pastoral industries, but I am determined to have a frank discussion with communities about the need to take action to protect our fragile ecosystems. The cooperation of traditional owners and residents will be crucial to making our camel reduction efforts work.
Another example of a recent highly successful community campaign put in place by this government was the Yellow Crazy Ant eradication project. This campaign has helped nip in the bud potentially damaging exotic ant outbreaks. The Yellow Crazy Ant can cause big problems for native ants and other insects, not to mention the impact on soil quality. Identification kits distributed to schools in the community as part of this program helped identify an outbreak of Crazy Ants in Berrimah earlier this year. These damaging ants were previously only found in Arnhem Land. Community engagement was the key to this effort, and my department is confident the outbreak will be contained, and the heroes were ordinary Territorians using inexpensive identification kits.
Building on this community-based success, the government has recently introduced a new category in our EnvironmeNT Grants scheme to give the community a chance to apply for invasive species research funds. This will provide the means for community input into developing the best methods to manage invasive species, and is in addition to the resources provided to fund community-based cane toad management programs.
The management of invasive species is a problem faced around Australia, and our efforts to deal with our unique issues in the Territory are helped by our collaborative approach to these problems with other jurisdictions. We are making sure we coordinate the implementation of our invasive species and weed management strategies within the Northern Territory government, with local government and also the Commonwealth. This will ensure we are all working together towards the common goal of preserving our unique natural environment.
Our participation in ministerial councils and subcommittees help develop national policies and strategies for dealing with invasive species. My department staff sit on several interstate working groups where best practice management is discussed, and cross-border management plans are developed and implemented. I will ensure I engage my ministerial colleagues from interstate so that we have a joint approach to solving what is a problem across multiple jurisdictions.
This government’s involvement with a national biosecurity committee, and my department’s regular participation in rapid response exercises with other agencies, is further proof of our strong commitment to proactively dealing with invasive issues in a coordinated fashion.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the impact of weeds and ferals can have devastating impacts upon the Territory’s environment and the productive capacity of our economy. A dollar spent in prevention is worth many hundreds in a cure. In addition to the relatively small team of outstanding experts in my department, there are literally thousands of Territorians - mostly unpaid - who are taking action every day to eradicate and prevent the spread of weeds and ferals. I pay tribute to these hard-working Territorians and say to them: this is the fight we can never give up.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, first, there is some good stuff in here; there really is some good stuff. However, if I can digress slightly for a second, not being part of the parliamentary process for long, I am still coming to terms with some of the processes involved. I feel that the lateness of receiving notices such as this does have an impact - severe impact - on the quality or the scrutiny of a report. Contrary to some opinions, it is not always our job to flog the government; we are here to support when there are some good things.
I suppose we could now waffle for 30 minutes, but I did take the time last night, until the wee hours, reading much of the report. As I said, there are some really good things in here.
From NRETA – and I will quote this:
- When discussing planning, it is important to note the distinction between a ‘strategy’ and a ‘plan’. A ‘strategy’ is a long-term plan of action or broad
non-specific statement of an approach designed to achieve a particular goal. A ‘plan’ is a series of steps to be carried out or goals to be accomplished.
It was really pleasing to read the recommendations in this report and hearing that the minister has taken those on.
On the lateness - I digress slightly again - I was particularly angry that I only found this in my office upstairs at lunchtime today, and thought that was a little late to be getting a statement. I was going to make a big point of it, however, the reality is, when I looked closer I noticed a big footprint on the paper and it seems to fit my foot. I am pretty sure I walked straight over it last night and did not see it, so I will not go to town over that. As I said, there are some good things in here. I will look down next time as I walk into the office but, being a very conscientious person, my lights were off and I must have stepped straight on it.
A member: Put the lights on first.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, I better put the lights on first.
Madam Speaker, I have read through the statement and, as I said, it was very pleasing to see that the minister has directed her department and her ministerial office to move full steam ahead with this implementation. One of the things here is, she has acknowledged that it will require additional resources. I suppose that is where I have a particular worry, given that we are in some very, very tight economic times, and I commend the minister.
In the time I have been here I have built up a level of trust with the minister and feel that she is a good person. I worry, though, that her biggest battle is going to be winning the Cabinet over in getting some of these things funded, but I will help in any way I possibly can.
As the minister said, first and foremost, we need to find some practical ways to deal with these issues. Again, it is pleasing to see that she is prepared to make the hard decisions that are required, and that is not an easy thing to do, particularly in cases where there are animals involved, because we all know that animals can be rather an emotive issue. I also agree that we are blessed with an amazing natural beauty here in the Northern Territory and we must do all we can to safeguard our environment.
One of the problems I believe that we have, particularly in regard to weeds, I was having a look at the Darwin River quarantine on cabomba, and if you look at the flowers you can very easily see mum and dad and grandma growing these things in the back yard, and I wonder if a lot of our weeds, unfortunately, do look very pretty and would probably look nice in people’s gardens, and that is where some of our problems may be.
Gamba grass: as we know, back in mid- to late-1980s, it was considered to be an asset to some properties, and seed was even being harvested and sold on to others. Camp Creek Station near Adelaide River township was one such property. That devil was considered to be good, fast growing feed, and although stock did not have a particular preference for it, they would eat it and do well. Some pastoralists soon learnt that gamba had to be heavily grazed for a couple of very important reasons: if let go, it becomes a major fire hazard, and as the seed is very light it would spread very easily to your neighbour’s property and beyond; if let grow long and stalky, the stalk would take to it as well, and when it is short it is also sweet; gamba is a clumping grass and can make it difficult to drive and operate machinery. Gamba has its benefits but, unfortunately, they are far outweighed by the disadvantages - like the dreaded mimosa and the cane toad and other introductions gone wrong.
Members may have heard of a near miss we had with cane toads just before Cyclone Tracy, where a teacher brought 30-odd from Queensland to use in school experiments. Subsequently, a dog found the rubbish bin in which they were being held, under at the teacher’s house, and the toads were off. Fortunately, most were either found or splattered on nearby roads and accounted for - a near miss. The point here is, we must be diligent and forever on our guard.
Unfortunately, the toads are here to stay and we can only learn to manage them as best we can. If you look at Queensland today you will notice, after decades of mass toad invasions that, thankfully, they do not appear to be as plentiful as they once were. It appears that the local environment has adapted and, hopefully, this will happen in the Northern Territory; eradication is the preferred option. Obviously, we must continue to do everything we can to continue the fight against these insidious pests.
Some of the issues with donkeys, particularly on the NT/WA border, have been going on for many years. The best part of the last three decades has seen regular ground and aerial culls, resulting in many thousands of donkeys being eliminated, but the battle must go on regardless. The damage caused to our pastoral industry and the environment is well documented, and it is pleasing to see that the government is continuing the fight. Camels have the potential to be as big a pest as donkeys, and it is good that the minister has been out there firsthand seeing the problem.
I recall something which happened not so long ago: friends of mine had cabomba weed in their fish tanks, and I wondered whether or not that is still available today in the Northern Territory, whether people can still get hold of cabomba weed, whether is bought interstate or from overseas. In this particular case, my friend was in the Defence force and posted away, and they had this rather large fish tank with the cabomba weed, so what did they do? They went and turned it into the local creek and let the fish go and, of course, we all know how quickly that particular weed spreads. It has got to do with public awareness of how these things do spread. Someone who upturns their fish tank into the creek, thinking they are doing the right thing in saving the fish rather than down the toilet, or humanely disposed of in other ways. The problem is, those little things can do so much harm.
I am also very interested to study a bit more on the carbon emissions caused by invasive grasses, and I would welcome a briefing at any time that the minister can arrange to learn more about these things. As I said before, gamba grass is a serious fire risk and stopping its spread will reduce that threat. We have seen how destructive wildfires have been, and it is a very tragic point at the moment as we have seen in Victoria.
There are some things in the statement today: creating an environment where peer pressure is used, I thought that was an interesting approach. I hope, however, that landholders are not blamed for something that perhaps happened before their time there, if we could do that by way of infringement notices or notices to clear so they are not penalised for something they did not have responsibility for or did not bring there.
Management, of course, is another important priority. You mentioned cane toads, and I have already touched on cane toads. I was interested to go back and read from the debates on Thursday, 12 June 2008, from the member for Arnhem, which says,
- One of the first impacts noticed by the local people was the impact this invasive species had on the goanna population, in particular, the blue tongue. These are
really important food sources for Aboriginal people and families in the Gulf. There was a noticeable difference, not only in the hunting cycle where people could
not hunt for the goannas any more; they noticed that they were dying.
It would be interesting to see if there is any more current feedback, and I will speak to the member for Arnhem about that, because I would like to see that. I am hoping there is a change. A funny thing, I believe, has happened since the cane toads came here, and they have made a remarkable impact on the environment since they first arrived in the Northern Territory. What I have seen in the wild a couple of times, and it is fascinating, to see a crow, for instance, turn a cane toad over and start to eat it from underneath where it is not poisoned, and yet the first crows that perhaps ate these cane toads perished. I was wondering who told the crow that if you turn them over it was okay to eat. I just think nature can be a marvellous thing sometimes and there is hope for us all; there is evolution.
We talked about some of the biological controls such as pheromones, and I am thinking that perhaps some of the aftershave worn around here could be used to propel some of the cane toads that we have here. Sex reversal – that is another interesting one.
I wonder sometimes that evolution seems to happen a bit quicker than we can introduce some of these controls. One of the ideas I put forward to the Palmerston Council when I was the Regulatory Manager there was that the black pet poo bags be used for people when they pick up cane toads and freeze them. I have had the unfortunate circumstance where I thought that I was defrosting a steak one night for a barbecue, and it was not a steak after all - it was a cane toad that one of my children had caught and put in a white plastic bag and popped in the freezer. Hence, the idea that these black pet poo bags, ideal in size, and if you found one of them in your freezer you would know straightaway that the black bag is the cane toad, and what might be in the white bag is the steak and the meat and so forth. It is really a good idea not to have that problem again and to identify which things you can eat in the freezer, and which things that you should …
Ms Purick: A separate freezer.
Mr CHANDLER: Separate freezer, the member for Goyder said. That might be a good idea.
It is also great to see a major feral animal management program in the Katherine region. Wallabies have been one of the big issues down there lately, as the member for Katherine so rightly pointed out, in regard to medical services at the Tindal Airbase.
I would like to recall a small story. I was visiting an animal rescue centre recently and the story was that a wallaby was run over on the road, and a young family had stopped and rendered assistance to the wallaby and taken it to the rescue centre because it needed some repairs – that was the wallaby, not the car – and the veterinarian provided the service and there was a bit of rehabilitation at the veterinarian’s surgery. Then it was given to wild carers to look after; then it was sent to a refuge where, for many months, the wallaby was retrained to go back into the wild. I thought: ‘What a wonderful vocation. What a wonderful thing to do for that little animal’. And I could not help thinking as I was being told this story, the irony that we were destroying thousands of wallabies only a couple of hundred kilometres down the road. However, I suppose there is a balance there and it might sound a strange story, but I am realist. I am an animal lover, but I am also a realist and I understand when things like this need to happen; and the minister has promised to make those hard decisions where needed.
We understand that there are many environmental problems with horses and donkeys and the wild dog problem which also affects some of the fringes of our urban areas. A lot of these dogs are not wild dogs, they are – well, I classify them as wild dogs - but NRETAS says that if a dog is part domesticated it is no longer a pure dingo and not their responsibility.
The 1080 debate is interesting. We have feral cat problems, we have feral dog problems and other animal problems, and there have been a lot of experiments done around the world. On the fellowship tour I did, I learnt so much about the process that animals use in the wild. In fact, it is highlighted by an experiment that was done in Victoria where they were trapping wild cats out of an area and thought they were reducing the numbers, but in all the surveys they did, they found that the animals were returning. Nature has this way of filling the void, if you like. So they had a very successful program where they removed the cats, had them desexed, then returned them back to the wild and what that did, it had a very strong impact on that area because the cats could no longer multiply and there was no void to fill, so the management of the numbers was a real eye-opener and a real success story.
There is a veterinarian in the Northern Territory who is open to trying that experiment with wild dogs, for instance, on a property. Rather than trying to kill off animals, as I said, there is this natural regrowth or filling a void. I spoke to him about this idea, would it work for dogs if it works for cats in certain areas? He looked rather surprised but thought it is worth giving a shot, and I think it may be a great way that the department could perhaps experiment on a property where – and this veterinarian is quite happy to be involved in a program like this – they could go in, they could capture these animals, they could desex them and then put them back out on to these properties.
It does not get rid of them, but manages their numbers, and we all know that animals have a tendency in very good times to multiply and in hard times, they do not. Up here, of course, we have the Wet Season every year, so our land is replenished, and even in the Centre in recent times there have been some terrific rains, and I am sure the animal population will start to grow. Perhaps there are ways to look at that. That has never been done before in regard to other animals, it has been done with cats, but maybe we could look outside the square and try some of those initiatives.
I did some research in regard to the Edward Pellew Islands. I again commend the minister - what a wonderful result. As it was pointed out, it was very good training for the local Indigenous rangers. The Island Ark Project saving the Northern Quolls is another terrific example of what we can do to sustain the lives of a population of animals that could or would otherwise be extinct.
As you point out, the damage caused by camels in Central Australia is very serious. Again you made that point about the hard decisions, because that will be a hard one. I also acknowledge that there could be some economic activity there in regard to the camels. I sincerely think that would be an easier way to sell it. I know that governments around Australia and the world often come under scrutiny from wildlife agencies. The HSUS, the Humane Society of the United States, often make issues when governments are trying to cull an animal. They did it in Canberra a couple of years ago when there was a wallaby problem there –kangaroos, in fact. So, if there was an economic advantage here, particularly for Indigenous people, it would have my absolute support. As I said, it would be a way of being able to sell it to outside agencies. I know that some people might think that does not matter, but they do apply pressure, and they can apply some pretty strong pressure in the media at times. However, if you can show a direct benefit, it just might help get that one over the line.
I recall when I spent a week in Washington a couple of years ago with the Humane Society of the United States. Before I went into the lunch room, I was pulled aside and told to be careful about saying what I was having for lunch. I did not think anything more of it, but I am glad I did not have a steak sandwich that day. It really stunned me, working in this environment full of people who cared that much for animals that they would not dare eat them. I am raving about fishing in the Northern Territory and they were looking at me horrified: ‘You fish?’ ‘Do you fish? They were not impressed by the fact that I was supposed to be an advocate for animals, but I was enjoying fishing and doing things like that.
I also agree with your statement, minister, that the cooperation of traditional owners and residents will be crucial to making this whole thing work, particularly in regard to the camels. I also commend you on the Yellow Crazy Ant, that quick action. I had never heard of them before. The first time I had seen them was on television when they said there was an outbreak in Berrimah. Not long after that, I actually saw a Discovery documentary on these ants in the United States and just how they take over. It is a terrible thing, what they can do
I worry that we spend a great deal - and I suppose you can take this as a criticism, but this government does spend a lot - on glossy brochures, and I worry how much that makes a difference. I attended an environmental breakfast last week, and there was an interesting experiment they did in the United States where this municipality was trying to save water across the community. They spent $500 000 in sending out a pamphlet to all the people within the municipality to try to save water. But they wanted to measure whether or not that $500 000 was going to be a success, so they sent it out randomly, ensuring that 50% of the population was covered. They read the meters before the booklet went out, then a month later, three months later, and six months later. They had spent $500 000 on this pamphlet; their idea was to change people’s habits. What they found after one month with the people who had not received the pamphlet was the change in their water usage, their habits, was zero; the people who received the pamphlet, the change in their habits was zero - and the same result was in three months and in six months. They had spent $0.5m in sending out a booklet which promoted all the right things, and they surveyed afterwards, and they did convince people - yes, everything in the book that was the right thing to do - but did it change their habits? No, it did not.
It proved that you need to have some kind of stimulus. You need to have an impact on someone to change. There has to be something in it for them, whether it is a penalty, or a levy, or all these types of things, but there has to be a direct benefit to them before you will change someone’s habit. One thing I think government should be looking at is the way we try to share information with the community. The glossy brochures, whilst they are well intended, sometimes do not change people’s habits, and if that is what we really want to do, then we really need to focus on how we change people’s habits.
It is also good to see that you are working together towards a common goal to preserving our unique natural environment. As I said before, I have built up a level of trust with this minister; the minister is a good person, a very good person. I have concerns if she will have the ability to influence the Cabinet to spend the money necessary, particularly in these times of economic crisis, particularly given that we are facing a $200m black hole.
As an example of the way I think government sometimes likes to gloss things up, I have just read the annual report from the EPA, and here is the golden child for this government in regard to having an independent Environment Protection Authority. As I read through this, it was interesting to see that they have strategic objectives - fantastic. They have principles, which is to provide independent and transparent advice. It was established on 19 October 2005 and I know this is its first year in operation, this is its first annual report, but I worry that the report is 15 pages long and it is not a very comprehensive document in regard to what I would think an EPA stands for.
As it says here: ‘The interim board recommended that: the EPA should be clearly identified, and clearly distinguished from the operational and enforcement aspects of environmental protection and regulation provided by government agencies. In order to be independent, the EPA should be established by legislation which ensures appointment of members by executive council have considered the recommendations of the minister’. I question how it could be independent if the minister is recommending who is going to be on the board in the first place. ‘The EPA to make recommendations to the responsible minister and parliament’. Again, it is to the responsible minister, directly, and could be stopped from going to parliament.
‘The principle of transparency should be fundamental, that is, make matters public unless there are reasonable grounds not to’. Now, the reasonable grounds could be the minister or the Cabinet decides we do not get to see the report. The last part, and remember this is what the interim board recommended: ‘Capacity and resources to fund its own investigational reports’. I will get back to that one shortly.
The authority is made up of four members on the board, three of which …
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are talking about the report on the invasive species from the Environment committee. I am just questioning a point of relevance. The member for Brennan is talking about a report from the EPA …
Mr CHANDLER: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr CHANDLER: I am simply trying to point out, and I will pick up on the interjection, that it is trying to paint a picture of this government and how it really acts in regard to protecting our environment. These reports, there is some fantastic work in there, but we all know that the EPA is such an important part of what this government is supposed to stand for and protect the environment, and yes, we have all this wonderful work here, and yet this is the kind of backing that you give. You give the kind of backing that does not even provide a budget for an independent EPA. It says:
- In the functions of this department the EPA may do all things necessary or convenient to enable it to perform its functions but consult with agencies,
businesses and the community. Will give advice, recommendations to Territory business and the community and (3) …
The most important thing here:
- The EPA is not subject to the minister’s direction.
Yet, on the following page it is mentioned three times:
- The EPA will not become directly involved in the approval process relating to any individual project once that project has commenced.
That is directed by the minister. So it shows that the minister can direct them to do things.
I know it is a new organisation and I know there is work to be done, and I will be interested to read and follow up on how things do progress in the next 12 months.
One part of the minister’s statement, I believe, does point out the fact that: a dollar spent saves hundreds. In the report it actually says: ‘For every dollar spent you save approximately $38’. That is from Dr C Bradshaw, Transcript of Evidence, 16 November 2006, page 344.
To finalise:
- While industry, whether it is in the minerals, tourism or the cattle industry.
I am quoting here from Submission No 35 from the report:
- … weed management seriously, the low level of public awareness on invasive plants and their long-term consequences is in stark contrast. Demand for exotic garden
plants has fuelled the weed explosion with most of Australia’s weeds originating from a park or garden. Behavioural change is required if new species of weeds are to
be prevented. Work needs to be done to reverse the situation either through school-based education or community action plans of management.
The stakeholders in tackling weeds is all encompassing and includes governments, industry, research institutions, broad community - more research, more resources
and funding and more commitment.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, your time has expired.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I also welcome the report from the minister for the Environment. Being an original member on this committee, it is a great body of work and involved a great deal of effort, and I acknowledge the effort and the contribution of past and present members of that committee; Ted Warren was a champion of the objectives of this committee.
It was certainly a good committee to set up, and invasive species threaten both our environment and our economy in the Territory, and likewise our lifestyle. The overrun of weeds into the waterholes and other places certainly deprives us of those lifestyle pleasures.
Also to thank Matthew Bonson, Fay Miller and Richard Lim who were on that committee, and also the member for Nelson who was on the committee for a time. I thank them all for their contribution.
The inquiry that we undertook was quite extensive, there were approximately 43 submissions. We had several days of presentations with some very significant academic professionals, and also peak bodies and non-government organisations that provided a wealth of knowledge. Also from the private sector, we had a gentleman come in from a cattle station to talk about gamba and other weeds that he had on his property and his attempts to control them, and also his attempts to control mimosa pigra which, for Top Enders, it is a significant problem.
I drew on my experience with mimosa pigra out on the Oenpelli floodplains. I was there in the early 1990s; we had a major weed eradication program funded through the Commonwealth and run through the Territory’s PIFR department. There was thousands and thousands of hectares where the mimosa was three or four times the height of a car. We dropped tonnes and tonnes of chemicals on that mimosa over one build-up season; killed off a lot of it over that Wet Season, but there was a lot of striping with the poison and we had to go back and do it again, and then we started the chaining. So an incredible amount of work and, an incredible amount of money went into it, and there was just nothing underneath that mimosa, it had killed everything underneath. Only the pigs survived underneath there.
You talk to the old timers out there and they talk about a couple of plants out on the floodplain, glorious floodplains with just a couple of trees, and that was only a matter of years before. With the buffalo, it certainly spread very quickly and it drops something like 5000 seeds per square metre, which is incredible, and they can last up to 20 years, and fire only gets them going. So it is an incredibly durable weed and certainly something that is costing us a lot of money.
Also, my involvement with salvinia through the waterholes throughout Kakadu, there are significant outbreaks of salvinia still, obviously, being worked on. I am delighted to be able to contribute to this, and having described the weed problem in Kakadu and Arnhem Land, they are certainly overrunning a great deal of the prime country we have in the Territory.
One of the issues that really struck me is how many invasive species we actually have in the Territory - 119 declared weeds, and having nine major weeds of national significance here certainly is a real problem. My involvement around the Katherine region highlights the work that goes on with the weed management groups and the management group in Katherine has been working very hard with the risk management strategy, and now that has been adopted. They also came out with a weed identification book, which is a great book; it fits in your top pocket or in your glove box and allows people to actually identify weeds and how to eradicate them.
The inquiry began in December 2005 and finished in November 2006. We had eight hearings. and I give credit to the former member for Goyder, who made sure we got out into the regions. The eight hearings were held in seven different locations and the wealth of information that came out was certainly appreciated. One of the key findings was in relation to gamba grass through the rural area and through the regions in the Top End.
Gamba grass is such a prodigious weed and it has really eradicated a great deal of good country, it destroys a lot of the major trees and, if you get a hot fire through there with the gamba, it starts to wipe out the trees and then you start to get more gamba grass in there. Through the Coomalie region and further afield, it really has taken over whole paddocks, and when you do not have either slashing or cattle on it, it can get to heights of 10 feet. As I have said before in this House, when gamba is dry and burns, it can get as hot as an oxy torch; so it destroys any other seeds that are around and it certainly causes a great problem.
Several years ago, we had a fire come up through the Acacia area and it had such strength that the firestorm in front of it was actually igniting green mango plantations. So gamba is a real risk, it takes over country and the Landcare groups are very active in trying to eradicate this. Declaring it has been a long time coming, it is something the government has been able to do outside of any sort of EPA action, and it is certainly welcome. It is about being pragmatic about it and working with the community. The Coomalie Council has a scheme whereby they provide glycosate at a minimal profit margin to landholders so they can go out and try to eradicate the gamba grass.
Obviously, one of the bigger areas of concern is the spread and management of weeds on Crown land, and the minister did highlight that. It is something that we, as government members through our individual departments, need to be looking at, the land held by different departments or the Northern Territory Land Corporation. We must find ways of controlling it and look at innovative solutions such as getting cattle on to those properties if the poisons or the annual slashing are unaffordable.
One of the other weeds which was highlighted in the report was cabomba weed. In my electorate, the most prominent outbreak has been in the Darwin River area. We had a situation where we actually had to close and poison that whole river to get rid of the cabomba. It was quite a drastic step. One thing that did happen was that it started to reseed, which is a world first, apparently, so there had to be ongoing monitoring of the outbreak there. It certainly is a concern; that is a very popular stretch of waterway for the residents and for water supplies further down where people extract from that system. The cabomba can cause a great many biological problems in the river system. The ongoing monitoring is certainly warranted.
On the invasive animal species, cane toads come up-front and centre. I was in Katherine for quite some time and saw the cane toads there. It was a wave, they came in and were almost everywhere. Then there seemed to be a lag after the wave came through and their numbers dropped back; whether that was due to lack of food sources or people’s persistence in trying to kill them, but the cane toads have certainly taken over.
I was recently driving from Mandorah around the Cox Peninsula Road and saw a large monitor lizard. It was such a delightful sight to see those lizards because, in my time in the Territory, you used to see quite a lot of them. They were very big and I love the look of them, and they are great eating as well. They have disappeared, and disappeared primarily because of the cane toads. It is very sad. The initiatives of using parasites and other measures need to be looked into. We are not on our own, obviously Queensland battled for decades, and Western Australia is about to receive the onslaught. Unfortunately, we are learning to live with them here in the Territory, but the vigilance goes on. Those ToadBusters and the FrogWatch groups are doing a great job. Just recently, they had a toad busting night at Wagait Beach and they got a lot of cane toads. It is an area that needs to be looked at in the future.
The minister talked about camels. In my time in the VRD, I use to drive on the back road from Mistake Creek back through to Kalkarindji, and I have never seen so many camels in my life, through that back road there; they just rip up country. Also, when I was at Docker River a while back, flying into the airport, there are three or four big strands of thick wire running alongside the perimeter fence around the airstrip, and I said: ‘What is all this about?’ And it was because of the camels. I had never seen it before. These camels knock down fences; and when we went into Docker River, there was a water hydrant all smashed up. It was just unbelievable.
Certainly, an innovative solution is needed, and culling is obviously one option, but you do get problems with basically shooting and leaving them there, you get a lot of flies and other problems. Looking at economic opportunities, I know there are a lot of people around who are looking at those economic opportunities - herding and setting up yards were they can actually run a type of abattoir. We have to look at that, be pragmatic about the type of abattoirs we can have, and get those numbers down.
Also, horses and donkeys; there are huge populations of donkeys through the VRD which denude the area of vegetation. That, in itself, leads to the spread of weeds through that area. I know horses are a popular pet for a lot of people, certainly out bush, and they are seen as an asset and a companion, but they do cause a lot of problems. They travel a lot further, they are hard hoofed, and they do a lot of damage.
One animal which does not get much recognition is the buffalo. The buffalo is coming back, and in Arnhem Land it is coming back in numbers. It was only last year or the year before I spotted a buffalo some 100 km west of Timber Creek, within 100 km of the Western Australian border; so the buffalo is certainly coming back. I have a personal kind of love of buffalo, I reckon they are great animals, but they do wreck the environment. They spread weeds, which is the situation at Oenpelli and, I would imagine, a great many floodplains across the Top End. They disrupt the soil, allowing weeds to grow; they take away the coverage grasses, which compete with weeds as well, so we certainly need to be conscious of where the feral buffalo are going.
Also, wild dogs. In the Coomalie region we have had our fair share of wild dogs killing young calves. The minister’s comments in relation to the 1080, responsible use is certainly the way to go; getting that out there and providing training in its use so our primary producers can actually make a living and we can get these wild dogs out of the system. They are also impacting on our dingo population; the damage they do to cattle and other animals is just awful. A lot of the time they maim them but do not kill them outright, so the more flexibility that the minister mentioned regarding 1080 poison certainly would be welcomed from the primary produce sector.
Also, feral cats - anybody who travels around the bush, in the middle of nowhere, you spot a cat or two. They are there and they do not look skinny most of the time, so they are obviously living off the wildlife, whether they are rats or mice, or native bird life. So eradicating those feral cats is something I would not shy away from at all.
Madam Speaker, this report has been a long time coming. It is welcoming to see that there is a grant scheme now available. I know a lot of smaller communities and groups around the Territory will be looking very closely at applying for those, and they do a lot work. Most of those groups use that money for materials or infrastructure and they would make that money go a long way. It is that vigilance; it is that commitment from locals and that knowledge; you have to know what is a weed and what is not to be able to do something about it. Just watching the development of ToadBusters and the education in schools about toads and other invasive species is encouraging. I know the great work that the weeds team around the Daly River do with the community about identifying exotic, introduced species is great, there are things I have never heard of before, and they are getting onto it very early. It is very welcoming and encouraging.
Minister, I hope that all the work in this report informs your future considerations about initiatives and the focus of the department. I know you are very committed to it.
In closing, I would like to again thank those former members, especially Ted Warren, for his dogmatic approach to this inquiry and getting some real results for Territorians.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for the statement. It was not until I got this statement that I realised that I did know about this sessional hearing and the work, because during my time at the Minerals Council, we put in a submission with regards to the terms of reference.
Yes, the weeds problem is an ever increasing problem, not just in the Northern Territory, but Australia-wide. Plant species continue to be introduced into Australia, both accidentally and intentionally, for agricultural purposes, pastoral, but also for the ornamentals. We have seen a number of species that have come in and for one reason or another have either got out of control or have been dumped in the bush and created problems. I know from the work that I have done previously that, in the 200 years since settlement in Australia, we have something in the vicinity of 28 000 introduced plant species, mostly for pastoral, horticulture and ornamentals; and only about 2500 of those plants have been naturalised, so we do have a big problem out there.
Of course, one of the two or three key issues is that it costs community and industry a lot of money, something in the vicinity of $3.5bn in lost production; and the other key area is, obviously, it can and is detrimental to our environment and eco-systems, biodiversity and so on. Additionally, the feral animals are a similar situation, most, if not all, have been introduced for one reason or another - sometimes for pleasure or recreation, like foxes and rabbits, which were brought in originally to entertain the landed gentry, as they did in England in those times, and some were brought in for breeding and when that was not successful, they were let go. So there are issues there as well.
In going through the document, I see that there will be a requirement in regard to implementing much of what you want to implement and it will require additional resources, so I hope that you will go in to bat strongly with your colleagues to get adequate resources to do the work programs that you want to do. Also, the time frames, are they realistic time frames that can be achieved?
I was interested in the early part that the focus is going to be on what the practical ways are that people can do things, and that is important because we do not want any highfalutin things that are not realistic and which people either cannot accommodate or they are not interested in.
I will relate a small story in regard to how one couple did things in a practical way. It was in the days when Pancontinental had the Jabiluka Deposit and the Ja Ja camp. There was the Jabiluka billabong, and I believe the salvinia weed was choking the billabong and choking up the fish and upsetting things. The caretaker of the camp was a fellow called Bob Hall. Bob Hall used to wade out, waist deep, into that billabong and pull out the weeds by hand and chuck them into the boat. The interesting thing is that billabong was full of crocodiles and his wife was sitting in that boat with a shotgun ready to shoot the crocodiles in case they came for him. And that was their practical way of tackling it. He did this every day, day-in-day –out, and he did make inroads, but that has all changed and I am not sure how the billabong is going. Yes, there are practical ways we can do things, and I applaud that.
Also, your scenario of a risk-based approach, definitely, I could not agree more; it has to be done on a risk-based approach and engage with the community and industry. I presume when you talk about community, that includes the research organisations like Weeds CRC and Australian groups like that; and also forge strong partnerships with local governments, land councils, the other states, etcetera.
In your statement, you talk about two broad groups: you talk about weeds and feral animals. I query why you have not included marine pests, because we do have the issue of marine pests in the northern part of the Territory, and they too can present just as serious a list of problems as can land-based ones. For example, they are generally accidentally brought into our country through ballast water or other ways. We are going to see an increase in the number of ships coming into our port both with ConocoPhillips and, if and when INPEX is up and running, there will be a lot more ships and they will have ballast water. Minister, I ask that in addressing this invasive species that it is a three-pronged approach - weeds, feral animals and marine pests - because we only have to go back to the situation of the striped mussel, or whatever it was, in Cullen Bay and how that was tackled and the potential problems with that.
Further in your statement, you talk about releasing individual weed management plans to help landowners and managers, and that is great. One issue I would like to bring to your attention. I have had people come into my electoral office looking for weed identification material and the department, I think it might have been Primary Industry and Fisheries, did have a hard identification kit with flips which was laminated so you could have it in backs of cars. They are not doing that any more and I have had quite a few people come in wanting it.
I know the Horticultural Association does up a poster, but there is no real hard material; there is information on the Internet, but that is limited as well, so if you actually have a problem plant or a problem weed and you do not know what it is, you physically have to go into the facility at Palmerston, and that is not always practical for people. So I ask if that could be revisited. I am happy to show an example of what I am talking about because it is a very useful tool for landowners and anyone for that matter.
Again, I ask about the important research; you talk about that. Is it your department, or in cooperation with research organisations? And if it is, that is great, because I think part of the battle is to do the research in regard to the practical things on the ground.
Talking about gamba grass, and I know that there has been some comment about that and my personal view is: just poison the stuff and that gets rid of it pretty quick.
Mr Wood: Not on Wallaby Holtze Road.
Ms PURICK: Parts of Wallaby Holtze Road have been poisoned quite successfully. But I think maybe some consideration needs to be given, and this would only apply to small landholders, obviously - some kind of incentive program. I really do not know what it is, but to encourage people to get rid of it off their smaller blocks, because the more we tackle it on a small scale then, of course, others will perhaps follow. I do not have anything in mind and I will have to give it some consideration but, yes, have regulation, but sometimes you need to balance that with some kind of incentive scheme, however small that may be.
You talk about the government having to work out about control of weeds on Crown Land. I could not agree more, because government must be seen to be leading, and we know there are a lot of weed problems on government land whether it be the grasses like gamba and mission grass or any other areas.
I, too, have a few concerns about creating an environment where peer pressure will help ensure landholders, and I would not want to see a culture being developed of dob-in-your-neighbour type of thing, so I am not quite sure what was meant by that. If it is a situation of encouraging best practice, that is good, but I would not want to see a dob-in-a-neighbour type situation, because I think they could have bad social implications.
I see there are working relationships with retail nurseries regarding which plant species can come in and which ones cannot. I would encourage talking to nurseries and also, minister, if the departments could have in their plans to talk to the pet shop people as well, because they often have the importation of small fish and also decorative plants they put in fish ponds, and I have seen salvinia and other types of plants for fish tanks in pet shops. They are still selling them currently, so I am not sure how we can get around it, but I think pet shops must be included in the list of business people to talk to.
Of course, there is the ubiquitous cane toad. I do not have the problem of my colleague because I have a separate fridge for my dog meat and the cane toads go in there. Interestingly, there is a school of thought that Muscovy ducks, which originate in South America, have been shown to be able to eat the toadlets and survive. I have had Muscovy ducks on my property, as do my neighbours, and I am not saying that is why we have less cane toads but, in talking with the researchers at Fogg Dam at the open day, they said there is some merit in it. They were going to look at it a little further. So if anyone wants to buy my Muscovy ducks, it might help get rid of your cane toad problem.
Yes, cane toads are an issue, and I know there are tremendous efforts from all parties to try to get rid of them, including the researchers. One day, they will come up with something that, perhaps, can get them under control.
In talking about feral animals, you talked about a wild dog problem. I am not exactly sure what the definition of a wild dog is. I am not sure if that includes dingoes or not. I do not think it does, because I believe they are protected, but I was just was not clear about wild dogs. If it does include dingoes well, so be it, or perhaps you are referring to crossbred dogs with dingoes that get dumped in the bush, grow up and crossbreed. Yes, that is a problem and I appreciate and applaud the use of 1080 poison because it is very effective in those kinds of animals. I know the animal liberationists would not agree, but that is just a bit of bad luck.
In your comments about the problems with larger feral animals in Central Australia such as camels or donkeys, I know it is a big picture thing, but why can there not be consideration given to turning a problem into an industry? I know there were camel exports, and I do not know if there still is. Why can we not somehow start in a small way to cultivate camels for pet meat, or camel sausages or something? Maybe they do it, I do not know. Perhaps the problem is far too big; sometimes, for every bad side you can, somehow, turn it into an upside and get a benefit from it. I appreciate camels can be very destructive because they are very large animals.
Apart from that, it is a good statement. It is the beginning of a long road to try to improve and protect our environment in the Territory, and as long it is done in a cooperative manner with all the community, then we have a chance of success.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to support the statement by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage. From the outset, I should say that, being a member of the Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, it was an interesting and instructive period of time, although it was relatively short. I also congratulate all those other members in the House and those who are no longer with us, who spent time on the committee. The report that we have before us now is a great piece of work and will certainly take us down the track in addressing many of the issues identified in it.
Like many Territorians, I am aware of the negative impact that introduced and feral fauna and flora can have on our unique environment in the Northern Territory. As the member for Macdonnell has said, we must do all we can to safeguard our natural assets against the damage that can be done by invasive species. The saying goes that every cloud has a silver lining; while I am no fan of feral species, I do see some opportunities for regional development when it comes to controlling these pests.
My colleague has spoken about the need to forge strong relationships on the ground with communities when trying to stop the spread of invasive species and repairing the damage that has already been done. There are many opportunities worthy of further investigation for our remote communities and towns, and feral animal management programs are one area that can provide opportunities for jobs and enterprises in regional communities.
Feral camels, for example, inhabit large tracts of land, not only in Central Australia but also throughout the country. The national estimate of numbers are in excess of one million head of camels, with the population increasing by 100 000 a year across Australia. As I said, camels are a huge problem in Central Australia, particularly for pastoralists, but also for the environment. The most recent figures for the Northern Territory suggest there are between 120 000 and 160 000 camels, particularly in the southern arid areas of the Northern Territory. The camel industry is still in its virgin stages, but camel meat is becoming more acceptable to consumers and is often found as a specialty meat on restaurant menus and for pet consumption.
The Central Australian Camel Industry Association in Alice Springs is the only organisation in Australia currently slaughtering and selling camel meat. It has been slaughtering around 300 camels per year since 1995, which represents approximately 49 tonnes of camel meat with an average wholesale value of $250 000. The camel meat market is fairly restricted at the moment, but an economic analysis of feral harvesting and domestic production of camels for live export or processing is currently being undertaken by the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry and Fisheries Economics Unit. Harvesting camels from the wild can be a difficult and unpredictable business, but there are some investigations going on into the sustainable management of camels on Indigenous-held lands and pastoral properties.
Interestingly, camels themselves can help fight other invasive species. They have been found to enjoy snacking on some weed species, such as parkinsonia and mimosa bushes. Central Australian camels are also proving useful in eating the prickly acacia on northern Queensland’s Mitchell Plains.
The minister has touched on the feral animal management program in the Katherine region. I know through my many travels, as well as the issues the member for Daly has raised, there is a huge problem, particularly with feral donkeys, throughout the VRD region. The project by the Northern Land Council and Central Land Council, in partnership with the communities on the ground, is a great success, particularly in the areas of horse and donkey control.
I also commend the minister for her commitment in talking to our Indigenous communities in our regions about the need to implement these management controls and programs.
Feral animals not only cause a lot of concern in terms of the environment and environmental degradation, but in many areas out bush they also cause concern to traditional owners, particularly in regard to their sacred sites. I know in my electorate, particularly through the Tanami regions and some of the huge pastoral leases, many traditional owners have come to me with their concerns after having sacred sites damaged by feral animals. I have also been told horses, donkeys, and wild herd cattle have caused this damage. Many people out bush are genuinely concerned about how to protect significant areas from these invasive species, and should also be very much part of the process of implementation of these programs.
Some feral animals have come to form a traditional part of the diet for people who live in remote Territory communities. In Central Australia, rabbits have come to be seen as a significant food source, and many people see feral cats as good tucker.
The work of the Sessional Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development on Invasive Species had a direct relationship with regional development in my electorate of Stuart. The mining industry, for example, plays a significant role in the management of invasive species in the Territory.
I have previously referred to the work that has been carried out at the Granites Gold mine in my electorate, but I think it is worth highlighting for new members. Around 10 years ago, when I worked for the Normandy Mining Company, the Granites Gold Mine was closely involved in assisting traditional owners to manage weeds and feral animals on the mining lease. They had their own department of environmental care onsite and were involved with the traditional owners in programs to identify and collect examples of invasive species of flora and fauna. I also recall them producing a book; I think it was called ‘Weeds and Feral Animals in the Tanami Desert’, which helped staff, workers and passers-by identify native and invasive animals and plants, such as mice and feral pigeons.
Newhaven Station, also in my electorate in the far south, is also playing its part. Newhaven Bird Sanctuary is jointly owned by Birds Australia and the Australian Wildlife Conservatory. It is believed to provide a home for some 160 species of wild birds and a number of threatened species, including the Grey Falcon, the Grey Honeyeater and the Black-footed Wallaby. It is also the location of one of the last sightings in this country of the Night Parrot, an extremely rare species on the brink of extinction. Even remote Newhaven Station has its own problems with invasive species, including foxes and feral cats.
I would also like to mention a couple of Commonwealth programs, and I am pleased the minister will be working closely with our federal colleagues. Obviously, through the Caring for Our Country program there is the national reserves system, and also the Indigenous Protected Areas program. I am probably more familiar with the Indigenous Protected Areas program, as there is one currently in the northern Tanami region of my electorate, particularly around Lajamanu.
Much of the IPA lands are in extremely good condition, but is under threat from wild fire, weeds and feral animals. The day-to-day patrolling of this program is undertaken by the Wulaign Rangers, all local Lajamanu men, and is set up under the control of the Central Land Council. Rangers not only monitor native wildlife and controlled pests, but they also fence off key areas to protect native species, as well as sacred sites.
In relation to recommendation 11 of the report, where the committee recommends that the Northern Territory government controls weeds and feral animals on Crown land by using Indigenous programs, among others, to control weeds and feral animals on Crown land, the Indigenous Protected Areas program is just one example of how that can be done. I believe by working with all levels of government there are unique opportunities for our new shires in the regions to undertake environmental programs or management projects.
I also take on board the comments by the member for Brennan; I think it was a very good comment: we do not only have feral animals or invasive species in remote areas, but also in our towns.
In closing, I add the issue of town camps in Alice Springs and the great partnership between the Alice Springs Town Council and Tangentyere Council in tackling the issues of wild dogs at the Hidden Valley Town Camp.
I join the minister in thanking all those people who have contributed to the report. I am very pleased to support the minister’s statement, and wish her all the best in the future.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have a few comments on the minister’s statement, and I thank the minister for the statement.
The issues that concern me relate mainly to weeds. Some of these weeds have been around for quite a while, and we have had many people talk about them and many people write articles about them and, while we have been writing articles and talking about them, those weeds have been growing faster and faster, and gamba grass is a classic example. I know the minister has now declared that it is a controlled weed, and that is very nice and is probably the approach we have to have, simply because we have to find the balance between what many of us think is a major threat to our environment versus many people in the pastoral industry who regard it as an important species that benefits live cattle, especially in the Top End of Australia.
The minister says first and foremost we will focus on the practical ways we can take action on the ground and this involves making the hard decisions in getting resources where they are needed. I agree, but I believe we are going through that stage of still talking. We know where the gamba grass is, we have mapped it. We know how to kill it, it is called Roundup. We need to put in a practical system of people on the ground, with four-wheel drives with tanks on the back with a good supply of Roundup, all working in specified areas, with a long-term plan of probably about 20 years at least, to tackle gamba grass.
I understand there have been meetings recently; I heard word that there is a Weed Management Strategy Group which got together and had some difference of opinion on which weed we should focus our resources on. I believe there was some disagreement as to whether it should be gamba or some other weeds. I put gamba at the top of the pile. If we do not control gamba, we put a lot of the Top End at risk, because we know what damage it does when it burns. I presume that that is what some of the comments about our greenhouse gases is about, because it is a grass that when it burns, it burns with a lot of heat, and I presume a lot of carbon gets burnt and put into the atmosphere.
I think the government has had enough time to discuss these issues. It needs to basically come in like the army and say: ‘Right. We’ll cut this Top End up into A, B, D, E, F and G. We will employ that number of people with’ – well, probably it would need more than a quad to take the volume of water to go out and spray for a while, but we need the infrastructure to actually go out physically and spray these weeds. Each person will have a responsibility to do it on Crown land, and I think then we have agreements with some private owners where perhaps they pay for the Roundup, but we will come in and help them spray the weeds on their property. It is no use Crown land controlling weeds, and I do not think they have done a very good job of that in the past, and you have a private landowner who has got the same problem, who is not controlling their weeds. This has to be followed up; gamba is one of those weeds, if you do not come back you might as well not be bothered in the first place.
If you go around close to town, down Amy Johnson Drive and parts of Tiger Brennan Drive, they have sprayed in there a number of times, but it requires people to come back - weeds will be missed, seeds will still keep coming up - it requires a concerted, long-term plan. It does not require too much rocket science; we know how to control it, we just need to set up a practical way of controlling it. If that means employing 20 people over the next 20 years, so be it, but if we are really serious about controlling it, we are not going to get anywhere unless we do it.
The member for Goyder mentioned about helping landowners. I do know there is a scheme in Litchfield Shire, especially among Landcare groups, and it probably goes outside Litchfield Shire, where the government has given some money for Landcare groups for small spraying equipment which can be used by landowners in the area; that is a good thing as well and more of those things can be included in the package.
I think we need to focus on those main weeds. I am not saying we completely take our eye off the ball; mimosa has been round for a long time and is a real problem. We have put many insects in to try to munch and crunch on mimosa and, in some cases, it has possibly worked, and it would be interesting to hear from the minister whether we could get a report on the success or otherwise on the biological control of mimosa. It is certainly a weed which is difficult for the average person to control, and is normally found more in the big floodplains and some of those larger blocks of land rather than the more built-up areas, although it does invade into some of the closer areas. I knew mimosa grew in Geranium Street, Stuart Park, when I used to do some gardening there. I would pull it out and it would come up next year; I would pull it out and it would come up the next year because the seeds last for at least 10 years. But I think gamba, because of its fire potential and its potential to really affect the environment is the one we should be aiming at in this part of the world.
The minister also mentioned the importance of looking after Crown land and says the government is also looking after its own patch in developing the Northern Territory Crown Land Weed Management Strategy to address weed issues on government land. The government is committed to a risk-based approach countering threats to the Territory’s natural environment.
What I would like to say on that is: I visited two parks recently; the closest one was Howard Springs, and I actually raised this in the media recently, when I walked around the park near the springs and found quite substantial amounts of snake weed and hyptis I would have thought, for a small park, that Parks and Wildlife would have that well and truly under control. Howard Springs Nature Park is not a big piece of country; it is a relatively small piece of land. There was a response from Parks on the radio that they were doing weed control. One of my jobs before I had this job was spraying weeds. When you spray weeds like snake weed and hyptis, they curl up, you immediately see that the plant has been sprayed. I did not see any plants being sprayed except bits of Roundup around posts so the lawnmower did not have to get too close. If that is what Parks and Wildlife say is their weed control, yes, there was weed control, but the weed control that needs to happen in those parks is the control of things like snake weed and hyptis. I would have thought there would be a constant plan and money allocated each year for weed control in a park, of all places.
I went to Katherine Gorge recently. I was going to talk about it in my adjournment debate, but I might just raise some of it now. If you go from the visitors’ park along one of the day walks on the edge of the gorge, you will see massive amounts of weeds all along the river bank. It is a difficult area to control, but I would have thought, especially near the visitors’ park, there would be some program by the government, by Parks, to ensure - and they are at their best at the moment because it is lovely weather for them - a broad-scale approach to reducing the amount of weeds. I saw some very small areas that had been sprayed, but it did not look like there was a concerted effort to ensure these weeds were killed. If the government is talking about management of weeds on Crown land, it needs to look at what it is doing in its parks first, and see whether that is working. I certainly get the impression there is not enough money being put into weed control in its own parks right now.
The other thing the government is talking about is various ways of encouraging people to come on board to control weeds on their blocks. It would have been a good time for the minister to give us a review of the effectiveness of the Weeds Management Act 2001. My understanding, from talking to people, is that it is pretty well a toothless tiger and part of the reason is, if you start to introduce the conditions in the Weeds Management Act you would impose on the government the need to do things on its own Crown land. It has things called Weed Advisory Committees, and what I would be asking the minister: is there any Weed Advisory Committee in the Northern Territory? If there is, where is it …
Ms Scrymgour: There is a very effective one in Katherine.
Mr WOOD: What does it do? And is it effective?
Ms Scrymgour: Yes, they are quite good in Katherine.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but you are not the minister. I will ask the minister the question …
Ms Scrymgour: I am just telling you.
Mr WOOD: That is all right then. However, I do not hear of any Weed Advisory Committees elsewhere, and we have lots of weeds …
Ms Scrymgour: Go and talk to Charlie Holtzwart.
Mr WOOD: All right. Are they effective? Are they doing what they were set up to do? As I said, go round the countryside and have a look at the amount of weeds growing all over the place. Some may say it is a waste of time; some may say the battle was lost some years ago. All I am saying is, we have a Weeds Management Act. How effective is that? Especially in response to this document on the recommendations about invasive species. Does it need to be upgraded? Does it need to be reviewed so it is more in line with what the minister is saying about getting down and making the hard decisions and getting on top of some of these areas?
I notice, as has been mentioned before, about the retail nurseries. For a while, neem trees were being sold through nurseries. I have a neem tree on my block. I wish I did not. Somehow I have to get it down because it is seeds like you would not believe. My understanding is it is a major pest along the Victoria River now …
Ms Purick: Get a couple of goats; they will eat it down.
Mr WOOD: Yes. Yet, it was sold through the nurseries as a ‘this will get rid of the mosquitoes’ plant. I do not think it got rid of the mosquitoes, but it certainly spread through the Territory. Working through retail nurseries to ensure that we do not import plants which are going to cause problems is a good thing.
On the issue of cane toads; I do not know where we are with cane toads, I know we have traps and it is good that people are getting out and killing them. If they come to my place, I use a different, more humane method. I use oil of cloves; it puts them to sleep. It is used for toothaches. I got that information from a good friend of mine, Dave Wilson …
Ms Scrymgour: They are so ugly, they do not need loving, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: I hope Hansard picked that up. It is not a matter of loving them or not, it is …
Ms Purick: Just dong them on the head!
Mr Tollner: What is wrong with a golf club, Gerry, or a lump of wood, or a star picket?
Mr Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nelson has the floor.
Mr WOOD: The member for Fong Lim does not understand that I am not a great golfer; by the time I have the first swing, the game play has gone. I prefer a shovel. But, I am just giving a little advice given to me by a friend of mine who, believe it or not, puts down aquarium fish; because he is in the industry and he is required to do these things, and he said, try oil of cloves. Simply put two or three drops on the back of a cane toad and it is dead within one minute.
Mr Tollner: Haemorrhoid cream does the same thing.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. Perhaps we could have a statement on cane toad elimination processes. I just thought I would bring that up in passing. What I am saying is that we certainly appear to be a long way off finding a more permanent control than haemorrhoid cream or the golf club method, or oil of cloves, because if you read some of the articles …
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Mr WOOD: If you read the CSIRO reports, and they are certainly doing a fair bit of work on this issue, it is obvious that we are quite a way off with a solution. We certainly have some ideas that might be of help in the long term, but I think we are a long way off coming up with something. But it is good that the CSIRO is still trying, and I hope there are more people out there who are trying to find a solution. It would be interesting if someone now looked at a serious survey of which animals have been affected by the cane toad.
As those people who have been in parliament in my time, that makes me sound like an old man, know, there was a lot of discussion as to whether the cane toads were going to have a permanent effect as they came across the border from Queensland. The then CEO of Parks, Mr Freeland, his argument was that cane toads would not have a permanent effect on our wildlife. The government actually sacked him not so long after. The member for Brennan just said that perhaps, after the first wave, there was less of an effect.
We are making all these statements about whether cane toads have an effect, and we can say it in here without any great fear of being contradicted, but have we got a scientific basis for that now? Have we gone out there and checked to see what effect they have? I certainly do not see those big sand monitors I used to see.
A member: Have a look at Queensland, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Queensland did not bother to check what they had before they came there. They came from Queensland and we are not very thankful to Queensland for giving us cane toads.
One of the problems with Queensland is, it did not have a survey of the animals that existed before the cane toad arrived, and we have at least been able to …
Ms Anderson: Do an inventory.
Mr WOOD: Do an inventory, thank you very much, on what wildlife existed before the cane toad arrived. We should now be able to see what has happened. There has been a lot of work done at Fogg Dam, but I have not seen any of those results.
Ms Anderson: And Kakadu.
Mr WOOD: And Kakadu. I think one thing the government missed, besides at least trialling a fence at Cobourg Peninsula, yes, I had to put that in, it was another recommendation to government so you cannot go crook at me for bringing it up; but I think they should have paid pastoralists and Indigenous people who own land to look at whether they could have fenced those areas off and maintained those fences to see whether they could have kept cane toads out, especially to try to protect species like sand monitors. I used to see them at Daly River, beautiful big goannas that would stand up about four feet high. I do not think you see them any more.
Ms Scrymgour: Would the rabbit proof fence work in with this as well?
Mr WOOD: Ah, but you would keep part of your management program and you would employ people to make sure that the fences were kept in a good state and there was a chance. I believe it is better to try than not to try; but we did not try.
1080 and wild dogs – that is an area I would love to talk about. We have wild dogs in the rural area, and if anyone here can tell me how to control them, please let me know.
A member: Shoot them.
Mr WOOD: You are not allowed to use 1080, and unless you want to sit up all night on government land and wait for them to come past you, it is very difficult to shoot them. Trapping them? These are smart dogs. They smell if there is a human being or traps around, and they do not come anywhere near them. You can put the juiciest T-bone steak in that trap, and they will not touch it.
I believe if the government wanted to help in this area, especially in areas like Litchfield or any of those farming areas close to a town where they will not allow 1080 to be used, it would be to try to work out a way of trapping feral dogs.
I have been given some photographs in recent times of domestic dogs absolutely skinned to the bone; nothing left but bone and head and the rest is gone. We believe there are packs of 15 to 20 wild dogs in the rural area. Council has tried to trap them; I have tried to trap them in my time with some RSPCA traps. They did not touch them. I believe we need to look at some innovative ways of trying to catch these animals in areas close to the city. I do not know whether the government would help in that way. I have been thinking of the possibility of something like a small cattle trap, where you actually bring the dogs into an area. The bait might be chickens, well and truly protected chickens by the way, but it might be something the dogs would come into, like a yard you use for cattle, and you capture them that way. But they are a big issue in the rural area and they are causing people with domestic animals problems.
Yes, I know about the quolls, they used to love my chickens, so they are better off on that island; but they love chickens. It is a good experiment. I do not know what the effect of having thousands of quolls will be on the natural environment of those islands, because they did not have them there before. We have actually done what other people have done - we have introduced a new species to an island, and I believe it would be worthwhile for the government to see whether there has been any effect of having a species on that island, especially in large numbers. I believe if we are going to do this work we need to make sure it works out all right.
Mr GILES: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member for Nelson to continue his debate.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Obviously it was putting the member for Fong Lim to sleep, I will continue so he does not have to wake up.
The issue of camels. I notice in the statement regarding camels, you talk about the possibility of mobile abattoirs, chillers, and other equipment. My understanding is that, and I recall the previous member for Braitling discussed this issue, there were some mobile abattoirs and some yards and I am not sure whether that was a program one of the communities actually asked to get money for, or whether they did get it and it just did not happen. I am interested to know if there was a program or a project previously in Central Australia which did look at this particular way of producing camel meat. The minister might know more about that.
The minister certainly has some issues which she is going to have to deal with. The issue about Aboriginal people not wanting the camels shot because the three wise men bopped into town with them. Can you tell you them it was only three camels – not 330 000 camels. And donkeys? Jesus came on one, he did not come on about 500 000 of them. So you have a job to do there, minister. I know you will. I believe you are the best person to convince people that we have to do something, because we do not hang onto animals because they look nice; if they are ruining the environment we have to do something.
As the minister said, a dollar spent in prevention is worth many hundreds in a cure. I believe you are right. If we can stop any more feral plants and animals coming into the Territory, that will save us money. But at the same time, we cannot let some things continue to grow and reproduce, and still sit down and have meetings and discuss things and bring out reports when we know that weeds like gamba will die if you spray them with Roundup. And if you come back next year at the right time, you can do it again, and eventually the gamba will not be there anymore. I believe we have to look at these practical issues.
Just one other area in relation to weeds is the dear old buffel grass. I believe that is the tough one. In fact, I was reading in the report from the Sessional Committee on the Environment Sustainable Development on page 42, there is a quote by Dr G. Calvert, and he said in relation to buffel grass:
- There is absolutely no restrictions on any land management practices that encourage the spreadable growth of these grasses. There is no encouragement
or incentives to undertake control. There is no biological control research.
I beg your pardon, I have pulled the wrong one out for paragraphs, I thought it was buffel grass, but buffel grass is similar to what he is talking about. Buffel grass is, I suppose, Central Australia’s version of gamba grass.
It was introduced originally by people like Bob Keetch for dust repression in many Aboriginal communities where people were suffering eye problems, and I think that it was also put around Alice Springs airport to reduce the amount of dust. It was also found out to be wonderful cattle feed, it is the same issue as gamba - in its right place, it is no problem, but when it catches on fire or when it spreads out of its environment …
Mr Tollner: Buffel does not catch on fire like gamba does.
Mr WOOD: Well, I will talk to the people of Central Australia. When buffel burns, I am told that it burns with quite a bit of heat …
A member: That is what nearly burnt down Ayres Rock and Yulara.
Mr WOOD: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Fong Lim is relaxing and talking through his - no, he is not …
A member: Yes he is.
Mr WOOD: It is a very similar issue to what we have with gamba; pastoralists love it, and it has a good use - dust repression as I said - but it has a downside and the downside is when it catches fire and it burns fiercely. It also takes over natural habitat, and that is another problem with it.
The minister has not mentioned it here; it has not become a controlled plant. I am interested to know whether the government believes it is in the too-hard basket - and I understand why, if they say that. However, it is a reality; it does exist. What are the potential effects on the long-term environment in areas that are not being grazed, for instance? Should it be the case, as with gamba: you can grow it, but you must control it within the boundaries of your pastoral property or wherever you are growing it? I do not know, but it seems it is one of those weeds that is just a bit difficult. I understand the politics of it and I understand that sometimes this is hard. However, eventually we did come up with an answer for gamba, but it took a long time. We said: ‘Yes, we realise that it is very good for the pastoral industry, but it does have a major effect on the environment’.
I would also be interested to see, minister, after 12 months or so, how the implications of that controlled plant classification is actually working in practice, and what pastoralists are doing to implement the controls that are needed in relation to this.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is a good statement. We have seen lots of environmental statements, we have seen reports before and, sure, cane toads have been discussed time and time again; gamba has been discussed time and time again; mimosa has been discussed time and time again. The crunch is: has anything changed from last time? If the minister says things will change, I will ask the minister to bring a statement back in 12 months and show there have been some changes. What are the real changes on the ground? I do not want, in some cases, to hear any more reports.
We know what gamba is like, we know what mimosa is like, we know what some of these weeds are like. I know the biggest problem really is money, and I think that is the biggest hurdle the minister will have to take. We can do anything if we have heaps of money, but whether the minister can get enough money in these tough times, I do not know, but tough things like weeds and ferals do not worry about tough times, they keep going, so we really cannot take our hand off the wheel and foot off the brake; we have to keep going. So I am interested to hear the minister for the Environment’s response.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also support of the statement delivered by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage. I, too, would like to acknowledge and thank the members of the previous sessional committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development for their work and deliberations as they enquired into invasive species and management programs in the Northern Territory. Further, I thank the many people who gave evidence to the committee and offered valuable expert advice on how we tackle invasives which, broadly speaking, is weeds and feral animals, to ensure that the Territory protects one of its most precious and fragile assets - the environment.
Their recommendations, both thorough and comprehensive, seek to cover a broad range of objectives which include, and I quote from the report:
- To halt the spread of invasive species, incrementally reduce levels of infestation, prevent sleeper species from becoming endemic, and prevent the
introduction of new invasive species;
To raise staff and financial resources to a point where NT can take full advantage of community interest in control of invasive species, and of finding
mechanisms, external to the NT, for invasive species management;
- To continue to develop and strengthen invasive species risk management systems and evidence-based practice; and,
To ensure that there is a sufficient level of research activity to meet the demand for research data created by invasive species risk-management systems
and evidence-based practice.
The work of the committee resulted in some 29 recommendations being put forward. I was delighted to hear the minister say that she has directed her department and her ministerial office to proceed with their implementation. However, I also acknowledge the many demands on her department and the competition between government agencies for resourcing and funding, that the minister has mapped out a four-step process of fundamental principles which will realistically guide how the implementation of the committee’s recommendations will be tackled.
As a new member to this parliament and a member of the current Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, I appreciate the important role that government plays in developing and driving policy which seeks to manage, protect and minimise the impacts on the environment. The committee’s report presents key learnings which will have bearing on the current committee’s investigation into the Northern Territory’s capacity to progress agricultural production in any environmentally sustainable manner.
The balance of the ecosystem and maintaining that delicate balance between human activities, such as agriculture, mining and tourism, to be environmentally sustainable are absolutely critical. I am certainly no expert in the area, but I have lived in the Territory for many years and toured many parts of the Territory and understand what the very negative impacts of invasive species have been. I have observed how they have been managed and have certainly noticed the growing sense of urgency of how we must devise strategies to tackle some of the problems we face with invasive species.
Coming from Nhulunbuy, it is my experiences of living in that region for 19 years which provides me with some of the insights that I would like to share on the subject of invasive species . I am, of course, very biased, but it is one of the most beautiful places in the Northern Territory and whilst it is history - and I am talking about that of the actual town, for residents like me - goes back only 40 years. However, its history goes back time immemorial for Indigenous people, the Yolngu people, the saltwater people who live there. There are certainly amongst the old people there those who remember a time well before weeds like coffee bush and mimosa, and pests like feral cats, cane toads and crazy ants came to town. They can speak firsthand about what the devastating impact has been on their land and to the environment.
The minister, in her report, talked about those important partnerships. That is exactly what I am going to talk about in relation to working with organisations like Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation which, of course, is based in the centre of Nhulunbuy, and sees traditional owners work in partnership with Northern Territory government’s Parks and Wildlife, as well as with research agencies and scientists, to tackle the problems of invasive species which threaten the biodiversity of the land. Interestingly, Dhimurru was established back in the 1980s as the body representing traditional owners, mainly to manage recreational areas which Nhulunbuy residents frequent because once upon a time it was fairly open slather to access those areas. However, plainly, access to those areas needed to be managed and controlled to ensure the protection of the environment, as well as protection for sensitive cultural areas and sacred sites.
Over the years, their work has evolved to be much more than just managing those recreational areas. From their mission statement, their objectives are to:
- facilitate the protection, conservation and sustainable management of natural and cultural resource values, …
and to:
effectively manage natural and cultural resources based on Yolngu control and a community-based approach to planning.
Dhimurru employs some 16 people, 12 of whom are Yolngu, and most of them are in ranger roles looking after an Indigenous protected area which is more than 100 000 ha, with an extensive commitment to land and sea country with conservation programs. They are certainly well-known for their sea turtle rescue program, with sea turtles and dugongs victim to an awful invasive item, not a species as such, but still invasive and deadly all the same, found off the coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria and right across the Top End. I refer to ghost nets from foreign fishing vessels which drift and capture all manner of sea life. Perhaps this could be an area for future investigations for committees.
In terms of management of invasive species, Dhimurru’s work includes crazy ant eradication, a project that they work on with the Northern Territory government and in partnership with Rio Tinto Alcan, as crazy ant colonies exist on the company’s bauxite mine lease area. To date, they are having good success with reducing numbers and infestation. I would like to acknowledge Rio Tinto Alcan’s long history of partnering with the community and stakeholders on all manner of community projects, including environmental projects. I can certainly attest to that because I worked there for 12 years in a community relations role before I came to parliament.
I know the minister has had the opportunity to meet with the Dhimurru Rangers during a visit to Nhulunbuy with Cabinet members late last year, and she has a good understanding of the important work they do and, no doubt, that carries on to all of the Indigenous rangers across the Northern Territory. When the minister talks about the importance of forging strong relationships at the three levels of government, that also flows on to include the landowners, traditional or otherwise, and the organisations that represent them. I include amongst those partnerships in my electorate the Yirralka Rangers who operate under the jurisdiction of Laynhapuy Homelands Association, which covers a much larger Indigenous protected area than Dhimurru are looking after - they have 600 000 hectares of land and more than 600 km of coastline.
Buffaloes – whilst I doubt my region has numbers anything like the number of camels in the minister’s area of Central Australia, and I am very thankful for that - they are still a destructive creature in the wild and wreak havoc on the environment, in particular in wetland areas such as those in western Arnhem Land and Kakadu, and eastern Arnhem Land as well. I would doubt that we would need, or would even want to see them eradicated, and certainly the Northern Territory Buffalo Industry Council supports a range of viable businesses, including buffalo for hides and leather, for milking, breeding, slaughter, including the pet food market - a market the minister is considering for feral camels - feedlots for live export and, of course, buffalo provide a niche part of the tourism market for hunters who pay good money for the sport and bring dollars and jobs into those communities which are operating safaris. However, they definitely are a problem.
I remember when I first arrived in the Northern Territory, a campaign had been instigated by the Department of Primary Industry called BTEC, which stood for Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign. At that time, the buffalo population, much of it feral, had peaked at around 350 000, and amongst healthy buffalo were those infecting and spreading brucellosis and tuberculosis to the cattle industry. Obviously, that is a very negative impact which had to be dealt with, so BTEC commenced in 1982 and involved an extensive testing and culling campaign.
I remember, to encourage people to shoot buffalo, there was a monetary reward, but in order to claim, people had to present the ears of the buffalo. Obviously, out in remote areas you did not have to present the entire carcass, but as evidence that you had culled buffalo, you collected the ears - I do not know if you had to collect one or two. It sounded like a reasonable method but, unfortunately, the program was badly tainted when buffalo ears, which dried hard like leather, because they are leather, became like currency, and the system was rorted. I remember this was at the centre of a Four Corners program exposing the rort. That is certainly one of the challenges in finding ways and means of dealing with and eradicating invasive species, to find a scheme which does not have a negative impact.
Quite apart from the threat to the cattle industry, buffaloes are a very real threat to people. Many people out my way have been gored by buffalo over the years, and for some the injuries have proved fatal. Such is the history of buffalo in the region. Amongst Indigenous people, I recall last year at the Telstra Indigenous Art Awards that a Yirrkala artist, Nyapanyapa Yunupingu, won the Wandjuk Marika Three-Dimensional Memorial Award with her entry titled Incident at Mutpi, 1975, and it was the story of her as a child having survived a terrifying incident, which was, in fact, being gored by a buffalo, and the entry was a painting and an eight-minute video where she retold that story.
In recent years, there have been programs to cull buffalo numbers in the Nhulunbuy region because their numbers have grown so much and because of the hazard they present to people. Like the camel, which the minister said is important to people down there because of its biblical associations, I believe the buffalo has a certain place amongst Yolngu people also.
I can assure you that one species that has no place in any culture or community but are in plague proportions is the cane toad. They have been in our region around Nhulunbuy for a couple of years and have had a devastating impact on the environment and on native wildlife. I simply do not see the goannas and frill necked lizards and other lizards I used to see and enjoy in my garden, as did my children. I have heard the member for Daly and the member for Nelson say they do not see them in their neck-of-the-woods either. Whilst that is a shame for me and my family, it is an even greater shame for people for whom this is a traditional food source and it is devastating for the biodiversity of these areas.
I recognise the efforts of ToadBuster groups in Darwin and outer Darwin who have stalled the advance and numbers of cane toads through their efforts, but we obviously need the kinds of biological control the minister made reference to in her statement. Whether it be parasites, viral diseases or, heaven forbid, sex reversal, but if it works - I say, let us do it. In the meantime, minister, I look forward to getting hold of one of those cane toad traps which you mentioned were to be distributed through the community. In fact, I will take two.
As far as invasive plant species go in my community, there have been efforts with varying degrees of success to deal with plants like coffee bush, salvinia, the neem tree, which we are currently tackling and which can grow as high as 15 m; cumbungi, which is affecting the natural flow of the water in the town lagoon area in the centre of Nhulunbuy; candle bush, which I am pleased to say is now quite rare out our way; perennial mission grass is a problem, though there are efforts to control it; and just recently they have identified, again in our town lagoon area, the bellyache bush.
As the member for Brennan said, one of the problems in controlling weeds is the ability for people and communities to recognise what they are dealing with is actually a weed; as he said, there are some weeds which look quite pretty. As a kid growing up in rural South Australia, I remember seeing - and you still see them, not that I get home very often - paddocks and paddocks of salvation Jane, also known as Paterson’s curse. It is a really pretty purple flower and it just is like a blanket, but it is terrible stuff. I checked on the South Australian government website and it remains very widespread and it was introduced from the Mediterranean many years ago as a garden ornamental. These species that look nice are actually devastating on the environment.
Candle bush is one of the weeds I mentioned that we are dealing with in Nhulunbuy, and I know other parts of the Territory are, and I did not actually know that it was a weed until I read a colour flyer, a fact sheet, that was distributed locally in our community pointing out to people these are the weeds that you need to look out for, these are the ones that Nhulunbuy Corporation are dealing with, but if you see them in your garden, do not pick them, chop them down. It was only when I had actually seen one of those fact sheets that I realised that this flower that I thought was quite nice was actually a weed.
That is why these education and campaigns of awareness amongst communities are really important, and the minister addressed that in her statement.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, at the risk of going back over ground that has already been covered, I will wind up, but suffice to say that I welcome and commend the recommendations of the report, and I acknowledge and share the sentiments of the member for Goyder who said this is the start of a long road that we need to travel down. It is important. It is more than important, it is critical.
As I said at the start, as a member of the current Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, I look forward to working with colleagues on the new Terms of Reference set out by the minister.
I commend the minister for her statement.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on Invasive Species and Management Programs in the Northern Territory.
I would like to add, from a Barkly perspective, and from my own perspective, how important the government’s focus is on such a very delicate area of our environment and a very delicate area in terms of our future. Broadly, it has been defined as weeds and feral animals, however, I would like to share with the House an experience that happened in Tennant Creek a number of years ago, and that was a species that invaded us from north Queensland - that was the mosquito that carried dengue fever.
This species came, so we found out, on trucks in pot plants for a commercial market, and it caused considerable havoc in the Territory, both among the community and the government, and at considerable cost to both the community and the government. We have talked about the invasive ants and we are talking about new species all the time. This is a very serious business for the Territory and I take great delight in hearing from the minister that government is certainly on to this case.
We are looking at urban areas as well as remote areas and we are talking about a great diversity of environments. If we look at the Barkly and across the Barkly from the Gulf country, we have a serious woody weed problem and, in terms of that, impacting on both urban and rural environments. When we look at the Barkly Tablelands, some of the best cattle producing area in the world, we have parkinsonia and a history of other introduced species that are threatening our perfect pastures; and in the arid zone areas we have got a considerable amount of burrs and bindii and other weeds that are not only affecting commercial production but are also very dangerous in terms of living areas and communities and create all sorts of problems, especially with our kids.
Industry and wilderness areas are both very delicate issues in terms of invasive species. In industry, we have areas that are frequented and managed and we have access; in wilderness areas, not so, and I think we need to seriously look at management plans with diversity to cater for such areas. An example of a wilderness area in the Barkly is the Davenport Ranges National Park, a beautiful area, and the member for Nelson commented on his trip through the Davenports and how unique that part of the arid zone Barkly is.
The issue with the Davenports is feral animals, and the minister talked about donkeys and brumbies. I go back into that area quite a way and I celebrate an era that I like to refer to as the bull catching days. And the bull-catchers from the Top End took a great interest in the Barkly after it got quite competitive in the Top End and many new cowboys, so to speak, were entering the industry. The early bull-catchers that I met, that I worked with, was lucky to share work with, and they took me on and taught me their trade, they were pioneers in that Davenport area and they basically started destocking scrub bulls. They proved very early that the industry benefits were outstanding, and if I can quote one bull-catcher, who I know well, took 1000 head of scrub bulls off Karumby Station in a five day period. This is serious economic benefits that we can look at and I would like to transfer that concept into looking at feral animals. I know that the minister is very interested and has done a lot of work on this already.
If we talk about the Davenport area and preserving that wilderness, that country, from invasive species then we must look at the communities that surround that area: the remote communities of Epenarra, Murray Downs, Canteen Creek, and Ali Curung as a more expansive and well developed community, but nonetheless communities of people living in this area who have affiliations and attachments with the land and understand the country - the perfect people to look at commercial enterprises, the perfect opportunities to develop economic bases in remote communities of the Barkly.
Many members have talked about cane toads, and I would like to share a cane toad story. It was 1986, and I dare not quote the date for fear of misleading parliament, however, I know it was in February and I will just say I am sure it was 6 February ...
Ms Scrymgour: Just say 1986.
Mr McCARTHY: Just 1986. It was February. It was a good Wet Season and the kids were on their way to Robinson River School - and they were on time, and they certainly enjoyed their school. I will not mention names, but they were young Galaru boys, there were four of them and they were the pioneering students of that school. They came that morning with an object they had caught under a piece of tin near the river on their way to school. They asked the schoolteacher, the learned one of the western world: ‘Mister, what is this?’ I was shocked, and I was not quite sure, other than reflecting on an Anglo background and thinking: well, in the general area it is a toad. If it is a toad, we should be wary of that toad. We had great delight in looking at and exploring that toad and that toad came to school and had his special place that day at Robinson River School.
However, being a responsible citizen, I said to the boys ‘We should check this out’. So, at 12 o'clock on the daily high frequency radio schedule, we sent a telegram to the government to tell them of our find. Somewhere on the file at Robinson River School would be the letter that we received with a positive identification of what we had described as a cane toad.
The story has meaning: that represented the march of an invasive species across the Gulf country. We knew that those toads were in Australia, but we were not quite sure where they were. We knew that they were not at Robinson River in 1985 at the end of the Dry Season. However, the first toad was found by some Galaru youth who were very interested in this species that had arrived in their country and they reported it.
From 1986, I witnessed the march of those toads across the Gulf country. I witnessed episodes that make me fearful of a lack of education and awareness in this area: tourists who were catching such toads and taking them great distances in their vehicles for a bit of fun, a bit of a joke. I remember a time at Heartbreak Hotel where the local stock inspector came into the hotel and saw a mob of tourists playing with a cane toad, he was most indignant and advised them very sternly about the impact of what their action had done, they had transferred an invasive species over a section of country that represented 200 km, and that toad was loose and on its march to Darwin. Luckily, the stock inspector did dispose of that toad humanely that night, and those tourists were well educated in what they had done.
My point is education and awareness. We just cannot seem to get away from education and awareness. Those tourists left knowing far better about invasive species in our country, and those kids at Robinson River School knew so much more about invasive species in their country. Years later, we see the cane toads march into Darwin.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we have to get a message through, and that message means media, it means awareness, it means education, and the more Australians who are aware of invasive species, the better.
I commend the minister for her statement, and I commend her department for their great work. I look forward to the creative and innovative approaches that you have already discussed with me about business and economic enterprises linked to such a delicate and dangerous area in our country.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will briefly rise to support the statement by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage. I do not want to go over a lot of the feral weeds and feral animals as it has all been discussed to death. I thought Gerry and the member for Barkly were going to tell us how they licked the back of a toad for a minute there, I did not know where we were going.
What I do want to talk about is the opportunities it creates in the way of jobs for people. Some of these things that have been spoken about in the paper do not necessarily reflect an economic base, or one that you might see at this point in time, especially weeds management, it is more of a grant-based system to try to eradicate a lot of that. But some of the things about camels, donkeys, buffaloes and crocodiles, or whatever it may be, do represent an opportunity for people in terms of jobs. The Chief Minister has been banging his fist and getting really cranky today talking about economic stimulus and so forth and I believe it is very important that, whilst focusing on weed and feral eradication, we look at the other side, and that is the job side of it.
It would be good, instead of this government, through the Chief Minister, banging on about all they are doing about jobs and we are seeing the unemployment rate increase in the Northern Territory by 0.4%, I think it would be good for announcements to come out about how we might help Aboriginal people move into industries such as camels and mobile abattoirs and where you might put the repository, what the market is, or how you go about exporting camels overseas, and the 1 in 12 rate about which one is a good one and which one is not. There are many more areas we could flow down on this. I sat here and listened and I was not going to jump up, but I thought I would. We need to get to the next point, not just banging our fists about the Country Liberals do not support jobs, or the Country Liberals do, and Labor does or Labor does not.
This is an opportunity to put forth something that can move forward and actually create those frameworks, because this has been talked about for a long time. Camels have been harvested in the past - but we now just talk about it. Everyone knows there are about 1.6 million camels running around in Central Australia, but nobody has a plan to do anything about it. We have this written on a bit of paper now.
I know the member for Macdonnell is a woman of conviction and someone who will actually do something about it. That is why I am not going to speak negatively, but I think it is good that we need to look at it in a positive light and how we actually move forward to put things in place.
I also recognise that it will be difficult, and I cannot see the Northern Territory government doing anything about this for a long time because of the multiple layers of bureaucracy that the member for Nhulunbuy spoke about. When you have land councils and local shires now, and traditional owners, and the many interests with the Territory government and the federal government, and all these different signs we have to have, which is why it is important that we move forward with Statehood to remove some, but getting through that myriad of bureaucracy to try to set up a camel farming business in the bush is just too hard; let alone the expectations or the understanding of many people on the land who think camels, or any other animals, should not be culled, getting over those hurdles, I believe, is a long way off. It is an opportunity to use this industry, which is just waiting to thrive.
We know the crocodile farming industry is very keen to get camel meat to feed their stocks. It is an industry just waiting to boom. It is in the bush, so it should be very attractive to the Minister for Regional Development, and it should also be attractive to the minister for Employment, because it is about getting people into real jobs, getting them off CDEP or getting them off the dole. I know that this government does not support getting people off CDEP, they like welfare, but I support getting people off the dole and into real jobs.
A member: CDEP is actually an employment program.
Mr GILES: I have heard everyone here talking about saving CDEP and how it is a real positive for people, but I find it hard to believe that people would want to be on a welfare trap, on CDEP, for such a long time when here we have 1.6 million camels running around in the bush. A program or something could be set up straightaway where people could start harvesting those camels and get off the dole or off CDEP.
For Labor to continually run a racist program like CDEP, a program that for 30 years has not paid people long service leave or superannuation, that is simply racist. I find it hard to believe that the Whitlamites, who are the great saviours of Aboriginal people, still continue to support that. Thirty years ago with the walk off at Wave Hill Station, when the unions convinced everyone to walk off - quite rightly, because people were not getting paid - they did not put anything in place at the end of it to try to maintain employment to make sure people had an income. They convinced everybody to walk off and just left it. And many people are still in the same position now, nothing has changed.
Here we have an opportunity for industry creation, for jobs, for development in the bush and I will guarantee that nothing will happen, unless the member for Macdonnell, who is the only one who can actually do anything on that side of the Chamber, actually gets this happening. What will happen is these people will sit on CDEP, and we will have the members here supporting CDEP, we will even have them supporting sit-down money.
A member: Stay on the dole!
Mr GILES: The minister for sit-down money over here is being a bit quiet tonight; he might have been licking toads. I encourage the member for Macdonnell, the minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage and for Indigenous Policy to pursue this and I will give it my 100% support. I will work with it, not for political benefit, but to get people into jobs. That is how we make changes and that is the sort of stimulus package that we should have had.
This nonsense about this hand-wringing approach today, and this fist fighting and this jamming it up, they have not even had the vote yet. Senator Xenophon is going to vote tomorrow, apparently. The theatrics with the cameras and the media all around is just a joke. But to see a stimulus package come down, one that just throws money willy-nilly, it does not support local needs; this could have had an element to support the camel industry; it could have had an element to support realigning the crocodile industry and the egg harvesting industry; it could have promoted jobs in the bush. But this Labor government are just keen to take the soft approach and keep people on the teat of welfare - the racist CDEP and then on sit-down money and the dole. Do not worry, we will just keep giving you dole for the rest for your life – that is what Labor supports. They have supported it since Whitlam and they still support it today. Well, I support jobs and I know at least one colleague on the other side of the Chamber supports that too. I do not know how she will get it through the heads of her Labor counterparts.
The member for Brennan mentioned the role of the EPA. The EPA is a bit of a bow in how it links into this statement here, although I do think it is important. We have different approaches about how we would have an EPA; ours would be fully independent, whereas yours sits under government. But I do believe it is important to ensure that the EPA has a role in weed and feral animal management, in terms of oversight and how they look at future development and so forth. I looked through the annual report of the EPA, which I do not have in front of me, and I thought it strange that the EPA, much lauded by this government, tries to say it is fully independent, when we know it is not, and talks about how it will do right by the people and not right by government and not pander to government, I find it strange when I look at the four board members: Dr Andrew Tupper, the Chairperson …
A member: Where is he from?
Mr GILES: He is from the Northern Territory, he lives in the Northern Territory. He is the chairperson. But I look at Judith King.
A member: Where is she from?
Mr GILES: She has been a director of the Northern Territory Power and Water Corporation since 2000, and is currently the Deputy Chair. She is Chair of the Victorian Commission for Gaming Regulations; she is also Director of National Ageing Medical Research Institute at Swinburne, and chair of a number other things in Victoria. It would have been nice if she was in the Northern Territory. I would have thought that, if you were on the EPA in the Northern Territory, that you would live in the Northern Territory. I find that strange.
The second person out of four on the board, Professor Donna Craig, Foundation Professor at Desert Knowledge Australia – and this is not a blight on these people or their reputations at all. She was in Alice Springs with the Desert Knowledge Australia, Professor of Law, Head of the Department of Environmental Law, Director of Indigenous Law and National Resources Program at Macquarie University.
A member: That is in Sydney.
Mr GILES: It is in Sydney. I have full respect for Professor Craig, she is well educated, she has vast experience but, once again, I would have thought if you are on the EPA in the Northern Territory you would live in the Northern Territory. That is the second member out of three who does not live in the Northern Territory.
We will go to Professor Gordon Duff. He was formerly the Chief Executive Officer of the Tropical Savannahs Management CRC at the Charles Darwin University. I could go through his list of things, but he also does not live in the Northern Territory.
I find it hard to believe that 75% of the Board members of the EPA are not even in the Territory. There is a funny comment here, it says: ‘While three of the members do not reside in the Northern Territory, all the members have strong links to the ’Northern Territory'. They are environmentally protecting the Northern Territory from a distance. That is great. I would have thought the EPA would have a greater role. I hope these people do come to the Northern Territory, and I would really like to see them come to Alice Springs and have a close investigation of the potential uranium mine in Alice Springs, the Angela Pamela mine there.
The Country Liberals are pro-mining, and we are pro-development and we are pro-jobs, not welfare teat; we really want real jobs, but we cannot have real jobs unless we have them in a sustainable way, and that is why I support the minister in his statement because …
A member: Do you support the mine?
Mr GILES: That is why I support the minister in her statement because she is talking about sustainability.
A member: Do you support the mine?
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Braitling has the floor.
Mr GILES: So it is very important that we make sure the EPA has a role for that mine in Alice Springs. It is very important that we make sure the quality of our waters are right, and that we make sure that the traditional owners are happy, and we make sure it passes all those regular tests. I also think it is really important that they take a look at the northern uranium application to do some more exploration around Alice Springs for uranium.
This was in yesterday’s Northern Territory News. I did not hear the minister for Mines talking about this and I am not sure how the Alice Springs branch of the Labor Party will support another uranium mine in Alice Springs, I am sure they would be quite concerned. But if the three members of the EPA who live interstate can find the time to come to Alice Springs and check this out, I would be very happy because I know there are a lot of constituents in my electorate of Braitling, and I am quite sure in the electorate of Greatorex, you have the greenies in Greatorex, and the constituents in Araluen, which is closest to this proposed mine; some of them are in your area too, member for Greatorex …
A member: Do you support it?
A member: We do support it.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Braitling has the floor.
Member for Fong Lim, I would like to hear the member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: If this seemingly independent EPA can manage to get its board members from interstate to the Territory to have a look at this, I am quite sure people in Alice Springs would be happy if it can be declared that it is safe, and that we can guarantee our water source, and we can guarantee that people are not going to be poisoned or have airborne disease, or wind borne disease, or whatever could come from it. We are a supporter of jobs, we are supporters of mining and we are supporters of development.
Mr Conlan: As long as it is done properly.
Mr GILES: As long as it is done properly, that is exactly right, member for Greatorex.
The member for Brennan spoke about where the budget is. We do not actually have a budget when it is done independently, member for Brennan, it all comes straight out of the department. They administer everything, so we do not get to see how much it costs to fly people from interstate all the time if you are not on the board of the EPA.
It might even be harder to be flying people around now, because when you have a $200m black hole, which this government now has, with eight years of mismanagement of the budget, a $200m black hole, how can you afford to be flying people interstate all the time to sit on the EPA and come and have a look all these proposed uranium mines around Alice Springs? I will have to have a chat to the Chairperson of the Labor Party in Alice Springs and see what they think about these new exploration licences for uranium development. There were five in yesterday’s paper, in the Northern Territory News, page 41, if anyone is listening. It would be good to find that out. With that $200m black hole, it is clearly not going to allow for money to be flying people from all around the country to come to Alice Springs to check out our uranium licences.
The other thing - and the member for Fong Lim might be interested in this, as he has spoken to me about this before – that links into this paper, which is a good paper and 100% supported by me, apart from weeds and feral animal management and the role of the EPA in environmental control, is the opportunities for other industries around carbon trading. I believe there are significant opportunities here. It is not in the paper. I am not saying it should have been, but there are significant opportunities. It went by the wayside a bit during the Howard government years, they should have pushed it a bit more, although I do know that they were also stuck in bureaucracy trying to get through some of the layers to get things happening. It is, potentially, a massive industry that we should be looking at in the Northern Territory; it will help our environmental sustainability, it creates industry, it creates jobs, and it somewhat links to the paper there. I believe it is something that we should look at.
However, we also need to be careful with linking carbon trading and management of the environment with the proposed ETS - Emissions Trading Scheme - by the federal government. I believe that will have a negative impact on the Northern Territory, especially with our mines and the costs that they will have to pay, let alone the subsidised taxes. Although, the way that we are going in the Territory with the mines closing down - now with MRM - we will have to wait and see the outcome of that with the new taxes. All this ETS is going to do is tax business. The ETS is not about fixing the environment. They can dress it all up for the greenies and lefties of the Labor Party, but this is about taxing business. This will actually stop growth and stop jobs at a time when there is a global economic crisis. How much will it impact Australia? We will wait and see. For government to come out and tax business is an absolute joke. There is no plan for the tax on the business or what will happen. It is designed to be a tax to encourage people to invest in new technology to have savings in carbon emissions and so forth, but there is no plan for where that money is going to go.
It is like the alco-pop tax. The alco-pop tax did not all go into educating young people about their problems with drinking. What should happen if there is going to be this imposition tax on businesses and jobs for Australians and Territorians, those taxes should go back into environmental sustainability measures. That could be the tax that is backing the camel industry, and the buffalo and the crocodile industries. It could be the thing that is backing carbon trading. If you are going to raise money through a tax on business and a tax on jobs, and trying to attack the Australian economy, at least put it back into the environment through industry development. That is what can actually happen here, there is no reason why not. John Howard, and I think it was Malcolm Turnbull at the time, the now Opposition Leader - was it Malcolm Turnbull?
Mr Conlan: Yes, it was.
Mr GILES: They announced a solar city in Alice Springs. That is a great thing. I have had my energy audit. Yes, Mr Midnight Oil came along and re-announced it and took all the credit for it, but it was the Howard government that did it. You cannot put $20m into a community without good financial management.
However, I believe there is an opportunity to go even further for environmental management. It takes me back to something I saw – it happens in all places these days, it seems, in the big capital cities - and that was the creation of a research and development IT-type centre. A new one started in Melbourne about 10 years, and they have them in Sydney, Brisbane and all around the world. There is an opportunity for Alice Springs to go beyond the solar city - do what they do with a solar city, but go the next step and become a place for research and development and excellence in solar technology. I would love to see a multistorey building there with all the facilities of BP Solar, or someone like that basing themselves out of Alice Springs. It would not just create jobs; it would go a long way in research and development to create a whole solar industry for the world. We could have that in Alice Springs. We could have world-leading technology in Alice Springs.
If you are going to have this imposition of ETS tax by the federal government - a tax on business and a tax on jobs with nothing being put back into the environment - this is the place where you should be able to source the funds to create the opportunity for this to be introduced into Alice Springs. This is where you could put it in Central Australia. You could put it in Tennant Creek. There is an opportunity for Central Australia, working with Solar City, working with Desert Knowledge, to create a centre of excellence for solar technology for the whole world. You could do that through ETS.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will conclude now and say I believe it is very important that we look to jobs. This government does not look to jobs. This government has a massive $200m black hole. It cannot afford to promote jobs. It cannot afford to fly EPA members from around Australia to their apparent home state.
I do support this bill, and I will happily work with the minister in the creation of jobs as she seeks to control feral animals.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have been listening to the member for Braitling, and what a woeful performance. The member for Braitling stands up here on his pedestal and pretends that the Labor government has not done anything, or that no jobs have come out of different projects.
The member for Braitling is the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs and he might have an ideological view of CDEP and I invite him to visit our bush electorates such as the electorate of the member for Nhulunbuy and my electorate. The member for Braitling should visit Maningrida, for example, where they have an effective CDEP which has been used as leverage to create commercial enterprises to put people into full-time jobs. This is important and we have all worked towards and encouraged this outcome. It is important when we talk about jobs that it is not just jobs in towns or regions, but particularly jobs in the bush.
When you look at the invasive species and the report, and I thank the minister for her statement on it, it is something, particularly in an electorate like mine with Kakadu and all the issues with cane toads and the invasive weeds, of particular importance.
I remember talking to the then, I am not sure if he was the federal Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, or maybe he had tourism. Anyway, he was a federal Liberal minister, and he was saying how the morale in the parks was down because they were constantly at the front line fighting weeds and the whole issue of cane toads. Not interested. It was not sexy enough, and he did not want to do anything about it.
Kakadu is the biodiversity hot spot in Australia. If we talk about biodiversity and protection - Kakadu is where the most fragile biodiversity in Australia exists. I know the work the minister and her department are doing with the Mary River wet plains; and my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, also talked about the wet plains because the biggest problem with the floodplains and wet plains is salinity, saltwater intrusion coming in, and buffaloes have played a big part in this. The minister’s department has done a lot of work with the Commonwealth to try to put up barriers and other things to stop the saltwater intrusion which has occurred around the Mary River and will continue to encroach, particularly in places like Kakadu. The fragility of that environment needs to be looked after and where we should direct all our efforts.
In terms of cane toads; when you drive out to Kakadu or Litchfield on the Arnhem Highway, you are running over these horrible, nasty creatures. When you sit down with the Bining or the Aboriginal people around Kakadu, they will tell you the goannas and other food sources have disappeared. There are many stories. When you sit down with Dave Lindner and his son, Gary Lindner, who works for Parks Australia in Kakadu, they will tell you where they have come across dead crocodiles and when they have done autopsies on some of those crocodiles they have found cane toads in their stomachs.
I remember a meeting with Graeme Sawyer and Paul Cowdy, may he rest in peace, who worked quite actively with Graeme Sawyer; they brought in – and I believe it might be in the minister’s office now – a plaque of a cane toad which had been tanned. I believe that is a useful industry and one that should be supported, because after the toad has been killed and tanned it has fantastic leather, and whilst they do have to be killed, the leather, the skin of cane toads, once the toxins are removed and it goes through the process of drying and then curing …
Mr Elferink: But would you wear the shoes?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I would love to wear the shoes, John. I was trying to convince them to put it all together, but you would need to kill thousands of them, although given the way they have invaded …
Mr Elferink: I would never suggest your feet were that big.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: If you get to feel the cane toad’s skin, it is fantastic leather. So that is an industry, I believe, that has been developed and looked at, although I am not sure where it has got up to; I thought it was quite innovative and smart.
Graeme Sawyer and his push with the cane toad musters in Kakadu really took off and engaged the community. I remember going out to many of those musters, and also in Darwin, to join the different family groups and be part of those musters which did unite the community to engage in a project, as well as educating the community so they were better informed about cane toads. It got families together and bought the community together, so I thought it was a fantastic program.
The member for Braitling talked about the emissions trading scheme. I encourage the member for Braitling. I would like to take him on a trip to my electorate, because I believe that is where the only project anywhere in Australia actually embodied the emissions trading scheme, and Aboriginal rangers entered into the first and only deal with a corporate business, Darwin LNG-ConocoPhillips, who invested $1m in Aboriginal rangers to invest in bushfire management to offset the increasing emissions in Darwin.
That has created jobs, and for the member for Braitling to say that our Labor government, and by the way, the Northern Territory government was part of this whole process in working with them and providing some funding, to say the Henderson government is not committed to jobs, I would like to ask the member for Braitling to come with me to my electorate. I know that there are barriers with land councils and land issues, but many of our bush electorates have successful stories about jobs which have been created and which go towards environmental protection and conservation, which can look at emissions trading without costing big business. The view of the CLP has to change because, in cases like Darwin LNG and big business it has changed, their view has changed - they will invest the dollars with those Aboriginal ranger groups.
I am having discussions at the moment, as a local member, with ERA and Rio Tinto at Jabiru to look at how they can invest in the same model as the West Arnhem Fire Management Agreement with rangers in Kakadu. This is creating jobs for Aboriginal people.
In terms of tackling invasive species and saying that the government has not worked, or is not working to create jobs or we are not serious about jobs is an absolute falsehood. The member for Braitling, whilst I know he is very passionate about these issues, would be better off doing more research and better inform himself about how those programs work. Many us would be willing to work with the member for Braitling to show him that it is not all doom and gloom out there, that there are Aboriginal people employed and not on welfare.
Yes, I support CDEP, I have always supported CDEP and I am not ashamed to say that, because I have seen a CDEP program that can work and can be used as a means and as leverage to full-time jobs. I believe we too often lose the heart of the whole process when we are debating these issues, such as the Ranger program and the benefits that have come out of that, where CDEP can be used and to develop commercial opportunities.
I was heartened to hear the member for Nhulunbuy talk about the bellyache bush. And the member for Nelson was asking: ‘Where is a Weeds Advisory Council?’ Well, it was our government that established the Weeds Advisory Council and there is a very effective Weeds Advisory Council in Katherine, member for Nelson. I remember many times meeting with those men and women who are involved in it, and they are very passionate about their work. I remember going with Charlie Holtzwart I, I am not sure whether he is still the Chair of the Katherine Weeds Advisory Council, to Camp Hill Station and he was saying everyone was talking about gamba and every other weed in the Northern Territory, and he said: ‘I want to show you a bush which has got huge implications for the Top End of the Northern Territory because it is in the Florina River’. I am sure you know Charlie, member for Katherine. And when you look at the map of the bellyache bush, it is a concern, because it has spread into the Florina River, and it is only a matter of time before it gets into the Daly. If that happens, here is an iconic river, and the Florina feeds into the Daly. So that is a huge issue. I want to let the minister know, because I believe everyone focuses on gamba and other things, and rightly so, but bellyache bush was something we asked NRETAS to look at at that time because it was, particularly for the Katherine region, quite a problem.
I would like to acknowledge my former colleague, Mr Ted Warren. I know he has departed this parliament, but I remember when he was doing this report he was very passionate about this, as all of us need to be.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You would have these conversations with Ted and he would bore you to death, but you would have to listen to him. But he was passionate, and …
A member: He still is I hope, he was not quite dead, I suspect, when he left this place.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: All of us need to be passionate about this stuff. If we lose sight and passion, the country will be overtaken. I look at places like Kakadu. We have to look after places like Kakadu because it is for the future generations of our kids. If we allow these invasive weeds and species to take over, we are going to be forever damned as parliamentarians because we could have done a bit more.
Finally, I want to say to the minister for Corrections that I was in Robinson River in 1986. I was there with the Northern Land Council on the Robinson River land claim. I had never seen a cane toad in my life, but we were setting up for the land claim hearings and I went to the toilet and something jumped on my foot. It was really heavy, I put the torch down and nearly passed out - this thing was sitting on my foot ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, I have been meaning to apologise to you about that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I cannot say what I said when I pointed the torch down and I saw what was on my foot. That was the first time that I had seen a cane toad ...
Ms McCarthy: You will not forget it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: It was terrifying. I thought: My God, what is this thing? Maybe the aliens have landed in Robinson River. I want to go home!
The reason they have spread is because, as I understand it, the female can lay about 20 000 eggs. My colleague, the member for Johnston and the Minister for Tourism, was very passionate about cane toads and pushed for the first-ever funding for the cane toad problem to be recognised, and for FrogWatch to be funded. It has been a long time since I have been through this portfolio, Madam Speaker.
It is good to get this report and keep up to date. Minister, I hope things can continue. I know you have a passionate department and I do not think that I have met more dedicated scientists, workers and rangers than at NRETAS; and that is good because we need them. I support the statement.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am not going to take much of the folks’ time. I am going to commit a small heresy by parliamentary standards, because I am going to start by saying that this is actually a good statement. I read it. I was not going to speak today, but I am on my feet for another reason, and I will get to that shortly.
It shows you that a little more thought went into this speech than was presented by a former minister, the former member for Sanderson, who presented a similar thing that was more focused on endangered species. I urge members to revisit last year’s Estimates Committee’s exchange between Len Kiely and Fay Miller over some questions she asked in the estimates process as a result of a speech made by the then minister, Len Kiely, in this place. I know it is not good to speak ill of the dead, but it was pretty clearly demonstrated by Fay Miller in that estimates process that the ministerial statement was more about the minister than the substance of the statement. It was, obviously, prepared by the department but, clearly, the minister had not spent a great deal of time getting his head around the contents, because he talked about the endangered species list in that statement.
Fay and I and a few others did some homework on the endangered species list, to discover that it was somewhat inappropriate. For instance, five species listed as extinct on that list were actually in the Desert Park in Alice Springs - alive and well, not least of which was the numbat. Also on that list was one of the great things to which the minister absolutely committed himself in the Northern Territory - the protection of the blue whale - also a mildly ridiculous circumstance. Then we had creatures which were listed as endangered, such as the Lesser Stick-nest Rat, which actually has been extinct since the 1930s. Fay Miller quipped at the time that if we were to discover one it should be called the Lazarus Stick-nest Rat. But it showed that not a great deal of thought or imagination had gone into it.
In a moment of wickedness on my part - far be it from me - I checked the Endangered Species List of the Northern Territory and I notice that it is now an up-to-date record and we could not plug any holes in it, we did not try that hard, but it is now an up-to-date record.
The care which has gone into this ministerial statement reflects what is happening in the department, I suspect, under the tutelage of this minister, that this is actually more about the contents of the statement than the minister herself. So, I tip my hat to the minister for getting the priority of this particular statement right. I thank the minister for drawing to the attention of this House the issue which still has not gone away in the Territory - the nature of these invasive species.
It is sad that we cannot commit, as a government, the resources that are actually required; we always struggle to commit those resources. The intentions of what government has to do across a raft of areas will always eat into things like the management of the Mexican poppy or mimosa pigra or whatever else. We are realistic about it, we understand you are realistic about it, and we certainly hope the clarity of thought that exists in this area continues.
I also rise to my feet to mention one other thing before I sit down. I did mention it privately to the new Minister for Correctional Services, but I think it is worth saying publicly. In Question Time today, the Minister for Correctional Services read from a script which had been prepared for him. I asked him to table the document – clearly it was not going to be tabled, and that is not the issue - the minister then actually gave an answer without looking down at his notes, he glanced down once, and that is it, and I got the impression that I was getting a much more believable and heartfelt answer from the minister, and I am prepared to go on the public record to say: ‘Mate, you are better than your speech writer and I think you should stick to trusting yourself’’ Because, quite genuinely, I might not agree with what you have to say as the minister but, frankly, when you talk from the heart it sounds a whole lot more credible and believable than when you read from a script. I know am I not supposed to address you directly, but I think it is worth putting on the record.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, this has been a very passionate debate. I am so happy to see from my parliamentary colleagues, on both sides, that this report has got a really positive push. I think we are all passionate as Territorians to see the environment we live in preserved for future generations of Territorians. I have not just heard your passion; I have felt your passion today: the member for Nelson, every single one of my colleagues sitting on the other side and, of course, my colleagues on my own side have all reflected on things that are happening in their own communities - Davenport Ranges, Tennant Creek, and Nhulunbuy.
This report does not come without the sweat and tears and love and passion of the former minister for the Environment, the member for Arafura. She has had a lot to do with the environment and the things that are happening, such as the grants system that we have in place, she has to be given the credit for that - it is her ideas and her initiative. She is an Indigenous person who has lived on a community; she has seen the invasive species and the buffaloes and pigs destroying the waterholes in the Top End, and we have seen it in Central Australia. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the former minister, the member for Arafura, for her vision for the Northern Territory.
I would like to say again: I heard the passion, but I also felt it. I think this is a clear message from this parliament to this side of the House, to the government, to make sure that we look at all these things seriously - the invasive weeds, the feral animals that we have, the camels, the donkeys, the horses, the pigs, and the buffaloes.
We need to make sure that we understand that visitors from outside the Northern Territory come to visit our parks, they come to have a look at the beauty of our parks, the beauty of our communities and the true partnerships we have formed with state, federal, local government and the Indigenous rangers, as well. We should not allow these visitors to leave with the impression that we are riddled with weeds and feral animals, because I believe they could take the negative aspects of the Territory back into other states and overseas and say: ‘Do not go to Kakadu or Litchfield Park because it has got all these weeds’. I believe that we need to give that clean, clear image of the Territory and its beauty because that is what we advertise through our brochures and through television. We say: ‘Come to the Territory for the beauty of our parks’, and we need to make sure that we support parks’ infrastructure, the cleanliness of our parks, no weeds or feral animals.
There were a few questions that colleagues on both sides asked about camels. I have been advised that carrying large numbers of camels to a permanent abattoir is not viable because of both the cost and logistical problems. As you know, camels have very long legs and shooting camels in the field, bleeding them and carrying the carcass in mobile abattoirs would be the best way to go; to take the mobile abattoirs out to the camel, rather than the camel to the abattoirs. They would have a backhoe or something there to dig a hole, throw the guts in, cut off the legs and the head, throw them inside, then cut it into four quarters and put it inside a chiller, and then off the truck goes. These are some of the things we spoke about when I had the meeting in Alice Springs. We need to ensure that these abattoirs are approved for use in supplying the domestic market, and we also need to license the mobile abattoirs under the Northern Territory Meat Industries Act.
I am also advised that a senior meat industry officer will visit Alice Springs at the end of the month to look at Wamboden Abattoir and various meat wholesalers to examine their capacity for dealing with camels. We have already had discussions with Wamboden, and I believe this is a great opportunity for Alice Springs and Wamboden Abattoir to do something. As the member for Braitling said, and many others on my side of this House, it is about employment opportunities for Indigenous people in communities.
Mr Elferink: Hear, hear!
Ms ANDERSON: There are great opportunities for Indigenous people to be employed in this industry.
Mr Elferink: Definitely.
Ms ANDERSON: The member for Port Darwin knows, because he was the member when the Docker River community actually started an industry.
Mr Elferink: It is still going.
Ms ANDERSON: The yards are still there. I think it was federally funded. Correct me if I am wrong, John.
Mr Elferink: Which one was that?
Ms ANDERSON: Docker River.
Mr Elferink: Yes. Gary Cartwright started that off. I am just trying to think. It was a long time ago now.
Ms ANDERSON: Yes. So it was funded by the federal government, and it just collapsed due to lack of interest.
Mr Elferink: Kintore had yards as well.
Ms ANDERSON: There was not really that partnership on the ground between the Indigenous people and whoever the operators were, so it started off as a joint partnership, and then gradually it shifted away. That is the important thing we must remember with Indigenous employment: we must always have them there and nurture them into these fields that we want to expose them to.
One of the questions the member for Braitling and the member for Brennan asked was about the EPA; they were very concerned that the EPA did not go to Alice Springs. Early this year, the EPA met as a board in Alice Springs and they actually had a forum in Alice Springs where people participated and gave them ideas.
The member for Brennan also questioned the brochures, but I believe it is irrelevant that we send this kind of material out. I know glossy brochures sometimes put people off, but I believe it is necessary to tell the little people the same as we tell the big people, through the same material, what is going on.
I thank the member for Goyder for her support. It is important that we move the things we have spoken about in this statement forward. I believe it gives us great opportunities as Territorians, it means that the pastoral industry, the green industry, politicians, we have matured in this small community we call the Territory. We can see the balance of having a good environment, having productivity with industry, and I believe we have come together now and we are a very mature Territory. I take this opportunity again to thank you all for a very positive and passionate debate on this.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not trying to be cute or funny or anything, but was there not a tabled paper hitting the table some time tonight?
Madam SPEAKER: We have done all the papers.
Mr ELFERINK: Was it not the Auditor-General’s Report?
Madam SPEAKER: I have already tabled that.
Mr ELFERINK: That has hit the table, has it? I was under the impression it was coming on after the statement.
Madam SPEAKER: No, papers come before Ministerial Statements.
Mr ELFERINK: All right. I am sorry to have disturbed you, Madam Speaker. I was actually trying to help government in case they had overlooked it, but thank you, Madam Speaker, I appreciate it.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, as some members would be aware, I have moved electoral offices from Moil, where the electorate office of Jingili was and which became the electorate office of Johnston. I have now moved to Rapid Creek to Matthew Bonson’s old electorate office. As members would be aware, through the redistribution, Millner and parts of Coconut Grove became part of the electorate of Johnston. As members would also be aware, nearly every Sunday I go to the Rapid Creek Markets, and I am there from 7 am until about 12 noon; that is probably about 85% to 90% of Sundays throughout the year.
I felt it was important that the electorate office move because Millner, to some degree, has become, or is becoming, the geographic centre of the electorate. Who knows what is going to happen with future redistributions, but I felt it was very important to maintain a presence at the Rapid Creek Shopping Centre where, as I say, I go nearly every Sunday. I must say that sometimes the opposition is there, a few Sundays here and there, when there are a few issues around, but I am there every Sunday, come thick or thin. I really enjoy the markets, and I certainly enjoy the produce - I do buy things there as well; but I just enjoy people popping in, saying hello, people coming with issues, and sometimes people even chew my ear, but I can handle that as well. Sometimes we have some very interesting conversations and put differing points of view.
It was sad to leave the Moil electorate office, there is a bit of history there. I understand Paul Everingham had his office there. Mr John Nicolakis is the landlord and he has been a great landlord, and it is a great space for an electorate office. It is probably not the most modern facility, but it has a great community room and kitchen, and other amenities, and the office space is very good. I have been sad to leave there, but I understand the member for Arafura will be moving into that electorate office from town, and I believe that is a positive thing also. It is a great little shopping centre and I am going to miss the people at the shops there, and all the people who drop by as they are going to the shops. Moil is really a good place. But I have now moved to Rapid Creek, and I am certainly getting to know the people at Rapid Creek too.
There was some work to be done there, Madam Speaker, and I thank the Legislative Assembly for the paint job and a few electrical things that needed to be done, and a few things still be done. My Electorate Officer, Judy Herring, has also moved in there, so that is fantastic. I invite people to come and see me at that electorate office during the week.
I believe It has been important for the people of Millner. As I doorknocked Millner, both before and after the election, the first question Millner people would ask me was: ‘Why is there not an electorate of Millner anymore?’. They were very upset about that. The second question was: ‘When are you going to move in to the Rapid Creek Shops?’ It became a chorus, and I said to Judy, my Electorate Officer: ‘We are going to have to move’. And so we did. It did take a while, but I am very happy at the Rapid Creek shops and I will be advertising that move.
My service to the electorate will continue. As soon as the sittings are over and the rain clears a bit, I will be out there on the streets of Millner, as I was at the end of December last year, knocking on doors, further getting to know my constituents, because it is important, as local members, that we do doorknock and get to meet people. The people of Millner and Coconut Grove are great. There are a lot of old families in Millner and there are many new people who have moved into that suburb as well. It is great for me to get to know people. Once I have finished Millner and Coconut Grove, I will be on the circuit again with the rest of the electorate.
Madam Speaker, I value the opportunity to tell the House today about the change in my electorate office.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I wish to comment on another deemed paper which was tabled today. I notice that we are still getting annual reports for last year through. The annual report for Public Trustee has just hit the Table. Without having to look up the legislation, I suspect that the same rules may apply in relation to the reporting cycle. I wonder how many of these are hitting the table, contrary to the legislative instruments that support them. It has become noteworthy that this government has become quite tardy in annual reporting requirements, which has been evidenced particularly by those annual reports coming out of hospital boards and those sorts of things, which are contrary to the legislative environment, but we have had that debate in this place.
The annual report in relation to NT Build, however, is interesting. It is interesting because it is an annual report which has received a qualified audit opinion from the Auditor-General. A qualified audit opinion means that it does not get the unqualified support of the Auditor-General. The issue is in the nub of this sentence, which I will read. The Auditor-General said:
- … I am unable to satisfy myself as to the completeness of the $8 173 283 disclosed as ‘Contributions from levy payers’ in the income statement.
He goes on to make a few other observations. However, NT Build itself acknowledges that its actuarial review demonstrated that there were inherent problems in the management of this particular fund. Normally, the alarm bells start ringing when government produces qualified audit opinions from auditors and when even the departments themselves, or the body responsible for maintaining NT Build, comes back with a statement about it.
The problem is not a reflection on the people who managed the fund; it is not their fault, and both the Auditor-General and NT Build make that quite clear. The problem is in the structure of the legislation and how the fund is managed. That is because of the lack of consideration and support that went into this very union-driven fund, whose sole purpose was to try to extract from the construction industry another mode of payment. What it actually has done, because it has been knocked or nobbled together in such a foolhardy and rushed fashion – another hallmark of some of the legislation that comes through from this government - is that we have produced legislation that is extraordinarily difficult to manage. It is extraordinarily difficult to manage because the nature of what is a construction site is an issue. Some people will be working in what might be deemed construction without actually knowing they are in construction, and that could be areas such as the mining industry and those sorts of things.
Consequently, you have a fund that may actually be drawn down much more aggressively upon into the future by people claiming their long-service entitlements under the fund than is available in the fund. That is what the Auditor-General’s problem is. It is what the fund’s problem is, and it demonstrates that rushing stuff through is not the way that this House and government should go about its business. Whilst I appreciate the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling’s, passion for a portable long-service scheme in the construction industry, the consequence is going to be potentially a nightmare or a headache for future Territory governments.
The other thing I wanted to flag is, whilst this account is essentially a trust instrument which is held separate from government, it is created by a legislative instrument and, in these difficult and troubled times, I hope we do not see another legislative instrument come into this place seeking to change the nature of that trust instrument, thus making this particular fund, which may already be insufficient for its purposes, become a fund which is going to support government’s expenditure regime into the future. The Conditions of Service Reserve, which is a parallel fund by government, in relation to looking after people’s superannuation payments, has already been renamed the Infrastructure Fund, so we know what is coming in terms of the future superannuation savings from government in that area. And you watch, it will not be too long before they are looking at that $8m as well.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, in December last year, I travelled to research the Shoalhaven City Council Youth Holiday Activity Programs with a focus on Indigenous youth. I chose the Shoalhaven City Council due to their well documented website, strong youth focus, economically depressed community status, challenging youth social conditions, and high percentage of Indigenous youth. This community model had many similarities with Tennant Creek, and it presented a larger and more sophisticated youth outreach initiative for Learning Lessons and addressing an elevated juvenile crime rate during school holiday periods.
My contact was Mrs Donna Corbyn, Youth Development Officer, at the Shoalhaven City Council, and I thank her and the many others who gave their time to me.
The Shoalhaven City Council has forged a blueprint for 12- to 24-year-olds who live in the Shoalhaven about being part of the planning future for the region. The Shoalhaven Youth Advisory Committee contributes to the community by providing ideas, suggestions and recommendations to the Shoalhaven City Council about youth issues. It has a formal role in decision-making and operation of programs, including a budget provision.
Shoalhaven City Council supports three youth centres at Nowra, Sanctuary Point and Ulladulla. Through a shire model, it includes youth workers, youth centres and youth services. It includes targeted programs for at-risk youth and Indigenous youth, in partnership with agencies, including the police and the private sector.
The Habitat Youth Night Patrol, formed in 1996 as a community street beat and transport service, operates from the Nowra Youth Centre. The patrol has two teams of six people working alternate nights, and operates two buses providing youth transport to youth activities and home, as well as assisting at-risk youth with transport off the streets. Respected local Indigenous people are encouraged to and actively participate in this youth specific transport service, often identifying cases where at-risk youth need to be collected from home to remove them from harmful situations like alcohol and substance abuse.
Another good example of utilising transport was taking activities to the street, such as the youth workers’ teams taking a league tag sports activity into the suburbs, targeting parks and recreational areas where at-risk youth congregate. It builds relationships with the community and engages youth not confident to visit youth centres or participate in programmed youth activities. This strategically provides safety, early intervention, crime prevention, and increased attendance and participation in youth-related activities. The Youth Centre infrastructure provided is of a high standard, with popular and innovative resources and activities in partnership with an active corporate sponsorship program.
I researched the Dunn and Lewis Youth Development Foundation in Ulladulla. It was formed after the Bali bombings by Gayle Dunn as a memorial facility to her son, Craig Dunn, and Danny Lewis – local surfers from Ulladulla - who lost their lives in the terrorist attack, to ‘remember the boys forever’. I quote from the literature I collected:
- Its primary approach is based on the idea that the lack of community-based activities, skill learning programs, and an entertainment opportunity
does nothing to get kids off binge drinking, drugs or address the overriding issues of boredom, lack of training or constructive life guidance.
In relation to youth programs researched, I found considerable similarities to the Northern Territory models. I found certain initiatives to be of interest including:
proactive as opposed to tokenistic inclusion of youth in the decision-making processes for the design and delivery of youth programs;
improving a sense of ownership and respect for program assets and activities, and possibly reducing vandalism and complacency;
I would like to note the references for the material collected, with great pride, from: the Shoalhaven City Council in New South Wales, the Dunn and Lewis Youth Foundation and the New South Wales government.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, there a few issues I wish to raise tonight in adjournment. The first one is in relation to a young gentleman in Katherine who should really be considered a shining light of what can be achieved by Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. The young fellow I am talking about is Richard Baker.
Richard is an Indigenous helicopter pilot. He would be one of the very few Indigenous helicopter pilots in the Northern Territory. I am reading from a newspaper article which appeared in the Katherine Times this week, and I had the pleasure of meeting Richard just a week or two ago at the launch of Airborne Solutions’ new helicopter which is capable of doing medical evacuations and rescues.
I want to highlight the fact that there are opportunities in the Northern Territory that quite often are not available to people in other states, and this is probably an example of that. It is wonderful to see a young man of 25 years of age who had a dream of working as a helicopter pilot when he was a young boy. He started working for Parks and Wildlife, met up with the owner of Airborne Solutions helicopter company who, basically, gave him a job; they said if you can get your licence, we will give you a job. So that is what Richard went out and did. It is an example of the way people who come from an Indigenous background can really overcome all of the issues we see as being big issues for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory and triumph. My congratulations go to young Richard Baker.
The next issue I wanted to quickly raise is in relation to a document tabled today: the Ombudsman’s report into a complaint made by three prisoners at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. The complaint basically was that these three prisoners had been transferred from the Darwin Correctional Centre, against their wishes, and had been held at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre for quite some time. This resulted in them not receiving visits from family for quite some period of time, and family members who were put to great hardship in attempting to get down to see these prisoners.
I read this in context of what was discussed in this House today in relation to plans for a new prison to be built in Darwin, and this complaint arises because there are not enough beds in the Darwin Correctional Centre and these prisoners had to be transferred to Alice Springs because that was the only place they could go. I note if the new prison does go ahead that, by 2016, according to our research, the prison will be full, which is only three years after its planned opening. So, the prison the government is proposing here will be completely inadequate in what I would call the short term. Even though today it is probably a medium term issue, being six or seven years away, but it will be a short-term issue by 2013 when the prison is actually finished.
I would encourage the government to take a much longer term view of the prison system, to consider there are other parts of the Territory that will be wanting this type of development, and it would benefit the prisoners greatly to be located in places that are more in tune with their home country; that would facilitate, as the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommended, that prisoners be located in places that are near to their country, near to their family, to alleviate some of the severe mental trauma and problems that arise through incarceration.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, there was an incident at Palmerston Shopping Centre two weeks ago where three young ladies, returning from school, sought refuge in the Palmerston Shopping Centre thinking they would be safe in a public place. Unfortunately, that was not the case. These three young girls were set upon by a mob of what can only be described as thugs. One thing that struck me in this whole thing was that there were other people around; people in uniforms, and the general public who did not step in and do anything. It was a horrible thing to see.
In this case, we were able to get the three young girls into our office and, as it has been described here today, call police, call their parents, settle them down and offer them some comfort before their parents turned up.
I just wanted to relay that it is tragic, although there probably has been some good come out of it inasmuch as the Palmerston Shopping Centre had a meeting yesterday with police and security to discuss some initiatives they can introduce there. It was in conjunction with the YMCA, and they want to make this a group effort to see if we can find something for these kids to do of an afternoon. The CCTV cameras have surely fixed up many of the problems in the Palmerston interchange; the kids now know this and they just move their problems from the interchange to somewhere where there are no CCTV cameras. I think it is all about just trying to find programs for these kids to do of an afternoon rather than just congregate around a shopping centre.
I congratulate young Jessie Chalker who attends Bakewell Primary School. Jessie was the Australia Day 2009 Student of the Year. It was very well deserved, and Jessie is a wonderful young kid.
One of the other things happening in Palmerston at the moment is the Paws Animal Rescue Centre on Thursday evenings at 6 pm. We have a Paws Walk where people can take their own dogs for a walk, but if they do not have a dog, they can take one of the rescued dogs for a walk around the suburbs. This is intended to help these animals with a chance of being re-homed by getting them used to walking around the streets, the different noises, and the different smells, and to hopefully make them a better companion for their new owners.
I also take this opportunity to remind us again as our thoughts go out to our families, our friends and everyone involved in Victoria. This tragedy has touched so many. It is during times of great tragedy that the true character of Australians comes to the fore and the outpouring of support is a true testament to this character. I am positive this support will continue and I encourage everyone to donate if they can. It is not all about money; as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out the other day, giving blood is so vital at this time.
I personally thank Pete Davies and his 360 team for being able to respond so quickly in helping to raise a substantial amount of cash in such a short period of time. Pete’s quick response will provide much needed assistance for many families affected by this tragedy.
To finish up, I had a wonderful trip to Mt Isa before Christmas to visit the Incitec Pivot chemical plant to have a look at what and how a chemical plant such as that operates so close to an urban environment. I learnt some vital lessons, which I will relate in another adjournment one evening to report on it in depth.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, today, as Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, I pay tribute to three outstanding members of my department who were named in the Australia Day honours: Detective Senior Sergeant Scott Pollock and Sergeant Stuart Davis were nominated for the Australian Police Medal, and Mr Selwyn Kloeden was nominated for the Emergency Service Medal.
Detective Senior Sergeant Scott Pollock has over 25 years of distinguished and dedicated service as a member of the Northern Territory Police Force since 1984. He served at Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Darwin, and is currently the OIC of the Major Crimes Section. In December 1987, he transferred to the Criminal Investigation Branch where, over the following 10 years, he became an experienced investigator and was awarded his detective designation. Following his promotion to sergeant in 1997, he transferred to the Alice Springs Criminal Investigation Branch.
In 2002, Detective Senior Sergeant Pollock became the Officer in Charge of the extremely successful Task Force Ranger, established to combat property crime and target recidivist offenders. In mid-2006, he played a key role in the development and implementation of the property crime reduction strategy, and achieved a substantial reduction in property crime, and was awarded the Commissioner’s Outstanding Leadership Medal. In 2007, he was appointed OIC of the Major Crimes Section.
During his long and continuing policing career, Detective Senior Sergeant Pollock has delivered many years of dedicated and loyal service to the people of the Northern Territory and to the Northern Territory Police Force. His career in general duties policing and criminal investigation has been at the front line of policing. Detective Senior Sergeant Pollock’s leadership, diligence and fortitude is demonstrated by his preparedness to perform challenging and sometimes physically arduous policing duties at various postings.
Sergeant Stuart Davis has over 21 years of distinguished and dedicated service as a member of the Northern Territory Police Force since 1987. He has served in Groote Eylandt, Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin, and is currently a sergeant with the Summary Prosecutions Section. In 1997, Sergeant Davis transferred to the Police College where he was heavily involved in delivering recruit training, as well as assisting with development of the Territory Police Operational Safety Tactics and Training Manual. Following his transfer to the Summary Prosecutions Section in 1999, he developed a reputation as a quality prosecutor. In 2003, Sergeant Davis returned to the Police College to assist in the redevelopment and delivery of detective training. In 2004, he worked in the Confiscation of Assets Unit before returning to Summary Prosecutions in 2006.
During his long and continuing policing career, Sergeant Davis has performed many years of dedicated and loyal service to the people of the Northern Territory and to the Northern Territory Police Force. His career in general duties policing, criminal investigation, recruit training and summary prosecutions has been at the front line of policing. Sergeant Davis’ diligence and fortitude is demonstrated by his preparedness to perform challenging policing duties at various postings.
Mr Selwyn Robert Kloeden has been a Northern Territory Emergency Service volunteer since 2003 and has served continuously with the Hermannsburg Volunteer Unit. Mr Kloeden has dedicated himself to gaining nationally recognised qualifications and training in emergency management disciplines, including urban search and rescue, road accident rescue, general rescue and air observer. He has held appointments as equipments officer, rescue leader and training officer.
In February 2006, Mr Kloeden was appointed Unit Officer, Hermannsburg, by the Director, Northern Territory Emergency Services. Through excellent leadership and the application of his extensive knowledge and experience, Mr Kloeden has developed a cohesive, well-trained and responsive Emergency Services volunteer unit which supports the Ntaria community. His respect and involvement in all aspects of the community has been influential in maintaining the high profile of the volunteer unit throughout the area.
In addition to supporting the community, Mr Kloeden and his unit have the responsibility for providing emergency services to a very popular tourist area of the Territory where they are called upon to respond to many vehicle accidents that occur in this area each year. Mr Kloeden’s tireless commitment to improving his unit and the Northern Territory Emergency Services is evidenced through gaining a land allotment from the community and successfully being awarded a federal government grant to construct a dedicated headquarters building on his allotment. His dedication and sense of community service over the past five years has significantly contributed to enhancing the capability and professional reputation of the service throughout the Northern Territory. Mr Kloeden is an exemplary volunteer with enormous passion and drive who selflessly gives his time to provide an emergency service to a remote area of the Northern Territory. Mr Kloeden clearly upholds the values instilled into the Northern Territory Emergency Services motto: ‘To serve and protect’.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate these three men for their commendable service to the Northern Territory.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I note of a couple of items. First, I would really appreciate if the members opposite would reconsider the five minutes. I have a lot of things to say about some fantastic young Territorians that is going to take a little longer than five minutes, so I might have to do this on a number of occasions, but it is going to take up quite a few adjournment speeches.
The matter I would like to address first, I note the time is exactly 7.30 pm right now, is an event that is occurring in Rome. A great friend of the Northern Territory, the Honourable Tim Fischer, is currently before the Pope presenting his credentials as the Australian Ambassador to the Holy See. Tim Fischer, of course, is a great friend of regional and rural Australia, and a great ambassador for any organisation or country he would be asked to represent. He is accompanied by his wife, Judy, and sons, Harrison and Dominic.
I am sure that this is a great day not only for the Roman Catholic community but for all Australians because they have a great representative. I am sure the matters being discussed will include some prayers for those who have been affected by the fires in Victoria. We wish Mr Fischer, being a great friend of the Territory, all the best in his new role.
The second issue I would like to raise is that of the Student Citizen of the Year Awards. I would like to say to members here that I am very proud to be the sponsor of 11 Citizen of the Year trophies that are presented each year to 11 different schools within the northern suburbs. This is an award I have been involved in for the last 20 years. It is great to be able to recognise these young people and to give them a trophy to take home. It is a miniature of the large trophy, which obviously stays at the school.
Before I run out of time, I would like to mention these people and the schools. These people are very worthy young Territorians, and are role models in the schools and in the community.
I would like to mention: Sabrina Ciubal from Wagaman Primary School; Rachael Dodd from Leanyer Primary School; Tess Hales, from Nightcliff Primary School; Tayla McKinnon from Nightcliff Primary School; Cindy Mu from Wulagi Primary School; Tom O’Neill-Thorne from Anula Primary School; Molly Robbins from St Pauls Primary School; Jordan Smith from Malak Primary School; Rachel Harpur from Jingili Primary School; Emily Moo from Nakara Primary School; and, Tom Conroy from Sanderson Middle School.
Madam Speaker, these are fine, upstanding, young people and I would like to read some notes from a speech from one of these people, but this could apply to any one of them. This is an extract from one of the speeches:
- This year’s recipient was chosen from a large number of very worthy young people. Not only has the recipient achieved in all the areas that we looked for, they have a
very caring and compassionate nature. This has been demonstrated by their kindness and support shown to others in the school community. They have continually
strived to improve the school for others and make it a safe and happy place to be.
Their courteous, friendly, hard-working and public spirited manner has made the recipient a mentor for many in the school. Our recipient has a reputation of being an
honest and trustworthy person who gives their time freely to help others. These are only a few of a long list of qualities.
Be it in the classroom, the schoolyard, helping other charities, playing particular sports or participating in the RAAF cadets, this young person shows leadership by example.
These are only a few of the qualities that make this person an outstanding young citizen, a role model and a shining example to us all.
Madam Speaker, those are the qualities that the people I just mentioned have. I look forward to seeing them in future as role models. The last person I would like to mention is Simone Liddy. Simone is a wonderful person who was this year’s Young Territorian, and formerly a winner of the NAIDOC Award in 2007. She is a great role model and a former recipient of one of my Student Citizen Awards. Unfortunately, time prevents me, but I will try to mention her in another speech. Madam Speaker, I am sorry I cannot finish my speech.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I wish tonight to pay tribute to a gentleman by the name of Fred Murray. Fred was 58-years-old and, unfortunately, passed away when his light plane crashed during a refresher training flight south of Perth on 27 November 2008.
I first met Fred when he worked for Otto Gold Mines Limited in the Tanami region in 1997. At the time, I was working with the Commonwealth agency of the Department of Employment, Education and Training in Alice Springs. Stan Pageant was the mine manager for the Tanami mine and Fred’s official title was the Human Resources Superintendent. The project was the first in Central Australia to be a partnership between Indigenous communities, the Central Land Council and the mining company. Indigenous employment was part of the agreement. Prior to that, the levels of Indigenous employment were very low and the relationships with communities and the CLC were very poor. Tracker Tilmouth was the CLC Director at the time and he negotiated funding from the federal government - Simon Crean was the federal minister at the time - to fund a steering committee as well as a job based within the Central Land Council for a Development Officer.
Fred was the Otto Gold representative on the steering committee which had community-based members as direct voices on improving community involvement, support and employment. Harry Jakamarra Nelson was one of those community representatives on the board. Fred always made sure that the community views were recorded and that changes were made to address the issues; he was a key organiser for the official mine opening in May 1996 where people came from the Warlpiri Triangle to see just what was happening.
He went on road trips to these communities as part of the information process so that families knew what was happening and why. Fred and Stan Pageant also insisted that, where possible, local Indigenous subcontractors secured business. This included a fellow by the name of Paul Herbert from Lajamanu who was the local subcontractor in making caps for filling the drill holes. Des Rogers was also involved in the food transport area and, I believe, Sid Rusca for road construction. Fred played a mentor role onsite but always made sure the various contractors took up their responsibilities and did not just hand pass tough decisions.
I would like now to read a few tributes from people who spoke highly of Fred. Mr Murray, who worked as an Indigenous Relations Officer with a number of resource companies, was also a Director of the Kimberley-based Indigenous group, Jirrawun Arts. Jirrawun Arts Chairman, Mr Ian Smith, said Mr Murray was a low profile advocate for Indigenous Australians who would be sorely missed in Aboriginal communities across the country, particularly in the Kimberley region.
‘Mr Murray spent 20 years working with Aboriginal people using an extraordinary ability to work seamlessly between the Indigenous and white cultures’ Mr Smith said. ‘Fred played an enormous role in seeking to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. He was a significant figure, but his low-key nature and enormous modesty meant his achievements were unrecognised by many’. Mr Smith said that Mr Murray had no critics, just friends and admirers. The Gija people in the Kimberley loved and adored Fred, whether sitting with the elders or helping out the kids. He was loved by everyone he had contact with.
Mr Murray was known for his work at Rio Tinto’s Argyle Diamond Mine and more recently had been employed by Newmont Gold Australia as an Indigenous Affairs Coordinator at its Boddington operations in the state’s south-east and that was from the Jirrawun Arts group in the Kimberley.
Another tribute was from a gentleman by the name of Peter Strachan, or Strachy, whom many of us here would know, and he had this to say about Fred:
- Fred never pretended to be an expert and was hungry to learn as much as he could. He was politely persistent in saying what could be changed and what could not.
He had enormous respect very quickly from all of us involved in the project in the Tanami so I was really pleased to hear from Roger Barnes that he had gone on and
done a really good job in WA. Roger Barnes said that Fred had good memories about the Tanami as part of his life journey.
A final tribute is from Sir William Deane. He said that Fred was much more than a rare and special person - he was a magnificent and overwhelmingly generous human being.
Can I say, on the anniversary of the Prime Minister’s apology 12 months ago, I had the privilege of being in Canberra and I think Fred was one of those guys who left an impression and he really did practice what the Prime Minister said in terms of an apology and he did it with his actions.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016