2006-10-17
ACTING SPEAKER
The CLERK: Honourable members, I advise that, due to the absence of Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 9, the Deputy Speaker and member for Daly, Mr Knight, will take the Chair as Acting Speaker.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Acting Speaker Knight took the Chair at 10 am.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Nightcliff
Member for Nightcliff
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the member for Nightcliff, Mrs Jane Aagaard, for this sitting week.
Motion agreed to.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Katherine
Member for Katherine
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the member for Katherine, Mrs Miller, for this sitting week. Her brother died on Friday morning interstate.
Motion agreed to.
VISITORS
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Irrkerlantye Community Development Centre students accompanied by Nicole Traves. On behalf of honourable members, I warmly welcome our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITION
Police Presence at Karama Plaza
Police Presence at Karama Plaza
Ms LAWRIE (Karama)(by leave): Mr Acting Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 266 petitioners relating to the location of a substation, higher police presence, at Karama Plaza.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, the petition has not been read. We would like to know what the petition is.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I apologise to members. It is my running sheet. Member for Karama.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- Substation/Higher Presence of Police
Please sign petition if you agree to have a substation located in the plaza at Karama.
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
The CLERK: Mr Acting Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petition Nos 21, 22, and 33 have been received and circulated to honourable members.
- Petition No 21
Baby Clinic at Palmerston Community Centre
Date presented: 4 May 2006
Presented by: Dr Lim
Referred to: Minister for Health
Date response due: 11 October 2006
Date response received: 11 October 2006
Date response presented: 17 October 2006
Response:
Petition No 21 requests the retention of services of the Palmerston drop-in clinic with adequate staffing between 8.30 and 1230 hrs and between 1330 and 1530 hrs on four days of the week, except public holidays.
The ‘Well-Baby Clinics’ at the Palmerston Community Care Centre were changed from 9 May 2006 to improve access to immunisations and ‘well baby’ checks. The changes were communicated to the public through advertisements in the local print media at the end of April and early May.
There is not an appointment system for mothers and their babies on Mondays, Wednesday mornings, Thursdays and Fridays, with a drop-in clinic being maintained all day Tuesday.
The new system means that mothers can be sure that their baby will be seen as needed, while maintaining the flexibility of a drop-in service on Tuesdays. This has allowed the centre to increase the provision of postnatal home visiting.
The new service does not represent a reduction in either overall service provision or staffing, but instead ensures better quality child and family health services to families in Palmerston.
Since these changes have been made, the government has announced an increase in Health and Community Services in the Palmerston region. Additional services to be provided over the next year include:
These services have already begun with the commencement of a new Maternal and Child Health nurse at the Community Care Centre from 5 October 2006. Amongst other things, this nurse will:
Petition No 22
Daly Electorate Roads Upgrade – Election Promise
Date presented: 4 May 2006
Presented by: Ms McCarthy
Referred to: Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
Date response due: 11 October 2006
Date response received: 11 October 2006
Date response presented: 17 October 2006
Response:
The upgrading of the causeways on the Daly River Road and the Nauiyu Nambiyu access was investigated by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in 2000 and the raising of causeway levels by up to 2 m (ie above 13.5 m) was recommended.
This project has been identified as a priority on the Northern Territory government’s forward works proposals. The actual timing of the works is subject to normal budget considerations of competing priorities within available funds.
The project was not approved for the 2006-07 Capital Works Program, but I can assure you that this project remains a high priority and will be considered for further programming action.
- Petition No 33
Radiation Oncology Unit, Royal Darwin Hospital
Date presented: 23 June 2006
Presented by: Dr Lim
Referred to: Minister for Health
Date response due: 19 October 2006
Date response received: 12 October 2006
Date response presented: 17 October 2006
Response:
The Territory government has promised to build a high-quality, safe and sustainable radiation oncology unit in Darwin. We are delivering on that promise. We have commissioned and received expert advice, received expressions of interest from major interstate provider(s), and approached the Australian government to seek their support as they have a fund to assist states and territories to set up and run these expensive units.
The Australian government has now made a commitment of an initial $13m towards the cost of the unit. The Territory government has welcomed this, while noting that the total cost to set up and run a radiation oncology service in Darwin is estimated to be close to $50m over five years.
Negotiations with the Australian government are progressing, and proposed time lines have been released. These negotiations are a significant step towards Territorians being able to access life-saving treatments while remaining in the Northern Territory.
I attach a copy of the recent media release regarding the development of radiation oncology services in Darwin.
Media Release: Radio Oncology Unit Forges Ahead
18 August 2006
The Health Minister Peter Toyne said negotiations with the federal government about meeting the costs of building and running the service are at an advanced stage.
‘This has allowed us to put together a projected time line that should see a radiation oncology unit up and running in early 2009’, he said.
‘The Territory government promised to provide this service for Territorians and we are equally committed to delivering it’.
Dr Toyne said the Territory government’s commitment extended to:
- Providing a radio oncology service is expected to cost $50m during the first five years. The federal government has pledged an initial $13m towards the cost of building and running the unit.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Exercise Cumpston 06- Pandemic
Influenza Outbreak Preparedness
Exercise Cumpston 06- Pandemic
Influenza Outbreak Preparedness
Dr BURNS (Health): Mr Acting Speaker, this government takes seriously the possibility of a pandemic influenza outbreak. To date, there have been no confirmed incidents of human to human transmission of the H5N1 virus.
Whilst the risk of a pandemic is relatively low, there is no doubt that it would be a grave threat to public health in the Territory, in Australia and across the globe.
Planning and preparedness is the best way to mitigate the potentially serious consequences of a new influenza pandemic. Planning for such an event has been going on at the national level for several years, with our own Centre for Disease Control playing an active part in that process. Here in the Northern Territory we have taken a whole-of-government approach to pandemic planning under the NT Counter Disaster Council and have developed a special counter disaster plan for pandemic influenza.
Aspects of this plan are being tested for the first time this month in the national operation, Cumpston 06. In December 2005, the Commonwealth government announced its intention to conduct an exercise to test our national level of preparedness for a pandemic influenza. The name chosen for this exercises is Cumpston 06. Dr John Howard Lidgett Cumpston, as head of the Quarantine Service, was largely responsible for halting the threat of Spanish influenza in Australia in 1919. The aim of exercise Cumpston 06 is to validate the capacity and capability of the Australian health response to a pandemic in accordance with the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza 2006. It will test Australia’s preparedness and allow any gaps to be identified and addressed.
Exercise Cumpston 06 will assess surveillance and response policies and systems, decision-making structures, coordination mechanisms and the relationship between Health departments and other agencies around Australia. The exercise will also test governance aspects of the National Action Plan and the National Emergency Protocol developed under the auspices of the Council of Australian Governments. It will also test our own Northern Territory Special Counter Disaster Plan for Pandemic Influenza.
Exercise Cumpston 06 is being conducted as I speak and functional exercises will continue to take place in an operational environment until this Thursday, 19 October 2006.
During the exercise participants will be required to perform a range of tasks related to their normal roles to deal with an imaginary scenario of a widespread human-to-human transmission of a new strain of virus. These will include international events and actions, as well as those within Australia. A realistic international development and progression of the pandemic will be modelled.
In the Northern Territory, the exercise will include the testing of our media and communications strategy. It is important to note that all communication related to the exercise will be clearly identified as part of exercise Cumpston 06.
As with any exercise, the aim is to discover any gaps or problems so that they can be addressed. This exercise will, therefore, be carefully and thoroughly evaluated so that adjustments can be made and plans refined. A specific feature particularly relevant to our Northern Territory context has been included in exercise Cumpston 06 to test our capacity to address surveillance, contact tracing, treatment and containment measures in both urban and remote settings.
As the simulated events unfold, a significant number of national and whole-of-government meetings will be conducted within the exercise. These meetings will require participation from decision-makers at the highest level and will initiate many of the anticipated actions or imaginary scenarios set to unfold today and Wednesday.
Although there is no imminent risk of pandemic ’flu in the Territory, it is a possibility we have to take seriously. Our participation in exercise Cumpston 06 continues the role of the Territory as an active player, nationally and locally, in the planning for such an eventuality.
I record my thanks to all those involved in developing the exercise and those who will be dealing with the simulated outbreak over the next few days, especially the staff of our own Centre for Disease Control.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Speaker, I congratulate the government for being part of this exercise to test the preparedness of the Northern Territory.
Obviously, Australia needs to be very much on guard in relation to the avian ’flu that may affect this country. Exercises such as this will, obviously, identify the gaps. One of the things the government should be particularly aware of is the potential of magpie geese being one of the reservoirs. It has been said before that magpie geese are resident in the Northern Territory, but other migratory birds could potentially bring in the virus, which then infect local mosquitos, which then infect magpie geese.
We also know that some indigenous people use magpie geese as one of their food streams and it is beholden on this government to ensure that people who consume magpie geese cook them adequately to ensure that the viruses are killed in the cooking process.
Surveillance and contact tracing, in medical terms, are part of the procedures that have to take place when you undergo this exercise. I am sure that the professionals in CDC will have all this under control. I have great faith in them and how they manage. I support the government in this exercise. I reserve some time for my colleague.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Speaker, I seek leave to make a comment and ask a question in relation to this exercise.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Speaker, this is a time for ministerial reports and a formal response from the opposition. If the Leader of the Opposition has a question, she can either raise it with any of us personally or can ask the question during Question Time. Let us get on with …
Ms Carney: So you are denying leave to ask about the men in balaclavas and machine guns wandering around Parliament House last night. Was that part of the exercise?
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition.
Mr HENDERSON: In trying to resolve the issue, Mr Acting Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition has a question of such nature, I suggest she raises it directly around the back here with the Police minister and she will get a response or …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: … she can raise it during Question Time, Mr Acting Speaker.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Otherwise, Mr Acting Speaker, she is just grandstanding as she is wont to do.
Leave denied.
Dr BURNS (Health): Mr Acting Speaker, going to the point the member for Greatorex raised in relation to magpie geese, that is something that has been dealt with formally in this place. It was an allegation that was made by the Leader of the Opposition, who asserted that magpie geese were migratory birds and were liable to bring the pandemic ’flu or virus into Australia. That was shown to be untrue and I am amazed that the opposition is still peddling this myth.
This is a great exercise. I am not sure what the opposition …
Ms Carney: Where did the men with balaclavas come from? Do you know about that?
Dr BURNS: I am not sure what the Opposition Leader is alluding to in what she is talking about here, but I would have thought the opposition would have been getting right behind exercise Cumpston 06. It is something that has the full support of the federal government, the federal Cabinet and …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: … the Leader of the Opposition is simply politically grandstanding.
Underground Electricity Supply - Nightcliff
Mr VATSKALIS (Essential Services): Mr Acting Speaker, I am pleased to report that the undergrounding of power lines in Nightcliff is on track. This project is funded jointly by the Northern Territory government and Power and Water.
The Northern Territory government is contributing the amount of $3m per year, with Power and Water contributing $1.2m per year. In total, this will result in 9000 lots and 16 000 customers in suburban Darwin having overhead power lines replaced with more reliable and safer underground lines.
The first 329 properties have been changed over to the new underground system and power lines and poles have been removed. Underground works in Nightcliff are planned to be completed by the end of 2006. At this time, 698 properties will have been converted to the new underground system and power lines and power poles removed. Boring and civil works for the first half of Rapid Creek commenced earlier this month.
There has been significant consultation with various stakeholders involved in the project. Regular discussions are held with the Darwin City Council to ensure community and technical requirements are met, with minimal disruption to residents and appropriate reinstatement of affected areas.
Telstra and Austar are kept informed of the various stages of progress of the works. Power and Water is currently negotiating with Telstra for Power and Water to be the single installer of conduits in the ground for works in Rapid Creek. A successful outcome is anticipated. A formal cooperation agreement is currently being finalised between both parties. The single installation of conduits will reduce disruption to residents and reduce overall costs. Austar has offered to replace its cable infrastructure with satellite dishes.
Residents affected by the works are kept informed by letters and weekly newspaper advertisements regarding progress. I am proud to say that, to date, contracts to the value of over $30m have been awarded to local Territory businesses for labour and materials associated with the project for the undergrounding of power in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek so far.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Speaker, initially I thought it was the minister for Sport getting up on his feet to give a report, but it turns out to be about undergrounding of power in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek.
Mr Henderson: Which you oppose.
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: I find it a little confusing. Anyway, I thank the minister for providing us with an update of what is going on. The opposition still believes that the undergrounding of power in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek was a political decision and had nothing to do with the reality of the need that is there or the cost onus on Power and Water to provide this infrastructure.
We all know that the cost of undergrounding power in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek has blown out significantly. While I applaud that local businesses have picked up on the benefits of this project, the reality is that it has done very little for Territorians in general. For instance, there are people in the Dundee area who require reticulated power and they are not getting it. Instead, money is being spent at Nightcliff and Rapid Creek, which is a real pity.
This government has its priorities back to front. You have core services you have to deliver for all Territorians, so provide the core services; do not go and politicise what is essentially core services to try to bolster your own votes in the community. That is not how government does business.
Talking about undergrounding power, I am still waiting for this government to come up with funds to underground power in the Old East Side. As recently as last weekend, at the Ross Park Primary School fete, I was asked again: ‘Where is the commitment by the Northern Territory government to underground power at the Old East Side?’. I said: ‘There is none’. They promised they would do it to try to buy votes for the failed Labor candidate in Alice Springs, the current mayor. Put your money where your mouth is, minister. You promised to underground power in the Old East Side in Alice Springs. Do that, then at least I can come up here and say some good words about you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Speaker, the undergrounding of power is a nice thing to do; I appreciate that it makes the landscapes in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek look much better without having power lines there, but it is not really essential, considering that we still pump thousands of litres of sewage into our harbour. That is a priority. That is something that we need to do something about. Undergrounding power is okay, but it is not essential for the development of Darwin.
Sometimes, we have our priorities upside down. It is more important to stop pumping this water into the harbour and to possibly recycle our water and put that water back into parks and gardens in Darwin, Palmerston and the new city of Weddell. That is where we should be looking.
By all means, when you have some extra cash, do look at undergrounding power because it does make the suburbs look a lot better, but, again, people are not going to be without power simply because it is not underground.
There is a local issue from a rural point of view: for years I have been asking Power and Water - and I will ask the government - to consider putting an annual amount into getting rid of the spaghetti lines, as we call them, in the rural areas. They are the private lines that run from one end of the street to the other to allow people to have town water on their rural blocks. That may have been all right some years ago, but now many of those pipes are leaking. The government might say it is the owner’s fault, but the reality is there are hundreds of these pipes around the rural area. If you are going to look at the luxury of putting power underground in the northern suburbs of Darwin, the government would do well by also spending money on people in the rural area to get rid of what is a potential problem, especially when we are so keen on ensuring we do not waste water.
Mr VATSKALIS (Essential Services): Mr Acting Speaker, let me remind the member for Greatorex that it is a core function of government to provide power to all residents in the Territory. I also remind him that one thing that is vulnerable, especially during cyclones, is power. When the power goes, nothing operates in our homes, shops or hospitals. It was vital for Nightcliff power to be laid underground.
The only political decision about undergrounding power was in 1997 when the then member for Nightcliff, Steve Hatton, was threatened by the Labor candidate, Paul Henderson, and immediately the decision was made to conduct a trial of underground power in Rapid Creek. I was there then; my house was one which got power underground, but it only happened for a few metres and then it stopped. But here …
A member: You didn’t vote for Steve Hatton, did you?
Mr VATSKALIS: Certainly not! I was handing out how to vote cards for Paul Henderson.
Underground power is very important, and it is essential. In this way, can deal with businesses and provide services and conduits for Telstra, Austar and other service and, with staged development, with water and sewerage in the future.
Road Safety – Duke and Burt
Streets Intersection
Streets Intersection
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Mr Acting Speaker, this government, through our capital works program, has been investing heavily to improve the safety of our roads.
Jurisdictions with a much smaller geographic area and a larger population and budget also face the challenge of keeping their roads safe. Here, with our vast distances and smaller budget, our task is made all the more difficult. We have inherited a high unmet demand. Only 23% of our road network is sealed. As I outlined last week, someone is killed every week on our roads, and nine more are seriously injured. You are three times more likely to be killed on Territory roads than elsewhere in Australia.
Improving driver behaviour and the driving culture is an important aspect of improving our road safety. Just as important is improving the conditions of our roads. The only way to improve the condition of our roads is to continue to invest and build our roads budget. When we came to government in 2001, the annual roads budget was $80m. This year, it is $130m. That is a 62% increase and it means that, under Labor, an additional $50m is being invested annually on road development. This extra investment in our roads budget gives us a greater capacity to improve black spots. When a particular area of our road network is identified as a black spot, we strive to address it.
One such black spot was the intersection of Stuart Highway, Duke Street and Burt Street in Stuart Park. People travelling the Stuart Highway into central Darwin will know the intersection; it is the last one before the Daly Street bridge. More than 25 000 vehicles use the intersection each day, with the vast majority being through traffic on the Stuart Highway.
Following a tragic series of crashes at this intersection, the former minister took action. He reduced the speed limit from 70 km/h to 60 km/h, and turning lanes were installed. The previous minister then undertook an extensive consultation program with local residents to help determine the best course of action. The member of Port Darwin played a key role in this consultation, talking to local residents about their ideas on the intersection. This consultation included meetings with the Stuart Park Residents Association, local businesses, and there was an Internet-based survey of commuters.
The two most favoured options were the installation of traffic lights, and the prevention of right turns from Duke Street and Burt Street. With the vast majority of the traffic movement being along the Stuart Highway in or out of Darwin, the best option was considered to be the prevention of right-hand turns. This will mean that people wanting to go right in or out of Burt and Duke Streets will have to use alternative routes. We believe this is a small price to pay to make this intersection safer.
Regular commuters will have noticed that works are currently being carried out to extend the medium strip across this intersection. This is a small, but very important, project. It is one of many that are being undertaken to make our roads safer.
We expect the works will be completed in the coming weeks. I commend the former minister for his prompt action in making this very busy intersection, with 25 000 vehicles passing through it a day, a safer intersection into the future. It is our hope that we prevent tragic accidents from occurring there in the future.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Speaker, I reply on behalf of the member for Katherine, who is on leave. Thank you for your report, minister. It is good to hear you talking about upgrading road safety. That is a factor and when you release your position paper - such as it is - in the coming weeks about what you as a government, and we as Territorians, can do to improve our safety on the roads, I hope that there is a sufficient and generous allocation for upgrading roads in the Territory.
Of course, we have the ongoing saga of the Mereenie Loop Road, an election promise since before 2001. Every year it is in the budget. Every second year, when we go to Alice Springs, we hear that the Mereenie Loop Road will be sealed. My understanding is that 36 km of that very long road is currently being sealed or just about to finish. I received a call from representatives at the Ntaria Council at Hermannsburg offering to grade the road themselves because it was so bad. I wonder whether the minister can provide an update on that.
I note with great interest that Tiger Brennan Drive continues to be treated as this government treats Territorians; namely, badly. This government prefers to play political games rather than getting on with the job, notwithstanding the Commonwealth’s commitment of many millions of dollars – I think it was over $10m. This government has, since we have been talking about Tiger Brennan Drive, systematically blamed the Commonwealth. One asks that if the costs of that road upgrade have blown out, why on earth did this government not provide the Commonwealth with suitable figures? If the figures were not right, as clearly they must not have been when government initially provided them, I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to say whether she has provided additional information to the federal government so that together that road can be upgraded.
I note with interest the ongoing saga of the Tanami Road, and note with a great deal of disappointment that Alice Springs, being seen as a supply centre, is often contained in the brochures of this government that they want to see Alice Springs do better. One of the ways it can do that is to become a supply centre, yet one of the mining companies that uses the Tanami Road extensively is now getting its goods from Western Australia. I expect the minister to stand up and blame the federal government. There is a federal election in the next 12 months. We will hear that repeatedly. It is disappointing because this government can do something. We ask: what?
Finally, minister, is it true that about a year ago you saw a government document that said we will not do speed limits because it would be unpopular? Can you enlighten us about that document?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Speaker, I thank the minister for her report and appreciate the problems there have been with Duke Street and the Stuart Highway.
I remind the minister that approximately six years ago the government put in place the Coolalinga Traffic Management Plan. Great ideals; nothing has happened. There have been quite a few accidents where the United service station is. That entrance was supposed to be moved. It has not and it continues to be a problem because there are no overhead lights in that area. It is a very difficult intersection.
There were promises that the Girraween Road intersection would be moved to Henning Road. There has been nothing except a few pink markers put through the bush. Absolutely nothing has happened in relation to physical works that the traffic management plan was supposed to have put in place, except maybe for the change in the speed limit. It is six years since that plan was initiated and nothing has happened.
Whilst I applaud the changes to Duke Street, there are certainly other areas that need attention - and need attention now. The way we are going with the Coolalinga area, with the enormous amounts of traffic that frequents that part of the world, especially with the popularity of Woolworths and the new shops opening there, something needs to happen much quicker that has happened over the last six years. I would like to hear from the minister in relation to when the Coolalinga Traffic Management Plan is going to be put into place.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I am sorry. The time for ministerial reports has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT
(GROUP CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES) BILL
(Serial 65)
(GROUP CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES) BILL
(Serial 65)
Continued from 24 August 2006.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Speaker, this is the legislation that mirrors, almost in all respects in terms of the title, lots of legislation that we dealt with last week. Members will remember that I made some comments in relation to it. I do so again from the top, as it were. We have made a number of statements in and outside this Chamber as to our position regarding this bill.
Put simply, the opposition opposes the bill because we oppose legislation that is flawed. We oppose legislation that is designed for one purpose, and that is political spin, which is rapidly becoming the hallmark of this government. We oppose legislation that, in many respects, is absurd - and I will never shy away from so doing. This legislation is political huff and puff at its best, or to be more accurate, at its worst.
The government, Mr Acting Speaker – and unfortunately, you are a member of it - is drunk on its own power. We saw that this morning when, as Opposition Leader, I rose to ask a question regarding men in balaclavas with machine guns roaming around parliament last night. The government does not want to answer that question. If ever there was a demonstration of a government being drunk on power, that surely must be it, although there are many others.
The government is beside itself with arrogance to the extent that members and ministers have forgotten the difference between fact and fiction. It seems that they believe their own spin. Perhaps that is why the former member for Stuart, Peter Toyne, resigned.
The measures in the bill are designed to be tough on crime, and that is the spin. What is not contained in the government’s media releases and the words dribbling from ministers’ mouths is that much of what is proposed in the bill already exists. I will say that again: much of what is proposed in this bill already exists. In other words, this cynical and manipulative government has rehashed a number of offences, rebadged them to make them look new, and I will deal with some shortly.
This is an increasingly reactive government, so I noted with some interest and humour that part of the second reading speech where the former Attorney-General said:
- This government prides itself on dealing with matters in a considered fashion.
Oh, really! This government prides itself on dealing with matters in a considered fashion? I do not think so. If members of this government seriously believe that, then they will have a go at former NT top public servant, Dr Rolf Gerritson. He must have been wrong, according to some in government, when he described this government as utterly reactive, one without a sound policy framework. This is a reactive government and one need only follow the trail of their media releases and join the dots to see that is clearly the case.
We saw it with the Nanette Rogers interview on 15 May; national outrage and debate ensued. At the same time or shortly thereafter, the riots at Wadeye occurred and, once again, there was national attention, debate and embarrassment for this government. Again, the Chief Minister embarrassed herself, her party and the Territory with her appalling handling of matters. She continues to do so today. Her ambitious then police minister - who has subsequently been demoted, him being recognised as a threat to the current Chief Minister - tried again to repair the damage being done to the government by jumping in.
In a media release dated 23 May, he said that he was:
- … exploring how to ensure the ring leaders of rioting in the community feel the full force of the law. I am discussing how we can improve court processes with the Attorney-General.
That suggested to the national media and, no doubt, his colleagues such as the member for Millner, that this government was going to do something.
With the pressure on, on 13 June he came up with something. Instead of simply saying that the law of the Northern Territory would be administered to those people at Wadeye, he said in his media release - that is, the then police minister, member for Wanguri - that new legislation was being drafted to target criminal groups and disrupt criminal gang activity, and that it would mean harsher penalties.
That made him look as though he was doing something, and that is the art that has been carefully crafted by this government. As long as you look as though you are doing something, you might just be able to get away with it. The more they are caught out, the less likely it will be that, over time, this government will be able to get away with it. They are merely creating the impression that something is being done. I say again, it is the hallmark of this government.
In relation to so many of the existing laws in the Northern Territory, we say that people should be apprehended, arrested and prosecuted. People who are trashing other people’s property are contravening the existing laws of the Northern Territory. People who are embarking on violent pursuits at Wadeye, Karama and other places are breaking existing laws in the Northern Territory. The gangs in Karama are breaking existing laws and should be dealt with. I ask whether this government is seriously suggesting that there are no laws in place to deal with the high levels of criminal behaviour that we are seeing in the Northern Territory at present.
I note in the second reading speech, there was the phrase, ‘full force of the law’, which we saw in the bill last week,. As I said in relation to a bill last week, is this government seriously suggesting that those thugs in Karama making people’s life hell have not previously felt the full force of the law? If not, why not? Is it not the case that these people are breaking existing laws by trashing people’s houses, embarking on antisocial and downright criminal behaviour? I believe they are breaking the existing laws of the Northern Territory. Is it not the case that the rioters at Wadeye are breaking the existing laws in the Northern Territory? Is it the case that they have been getting away for years without facing the full force of the law in the Northern Territory? I do not think so.
The fact is the offences that are being committed are breaches of existing laws and, in relation to Karama, the local member said, according to this headline in the Northern Territory News on 3 July …
Ms Lawrie: No, I did not say it.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … ‘My own suburb a war zone - MP’. Another heading: ‘Residents unite to fight gangs’. Do you know what the residents of Karama want? They want to see police. They want to see something more than this government gave them by delivery of a mobile police van. There was a petition tabled this morning in relation to this issue. They want to see more than a van with a couple of police officers moving intermittently through the suburb of Karama every few days, and no one knows exactly how often it is there.
I will tell you what the people of Karama want, because I have asked them. I have doorknocked streets in the suburb of Karama, and you know what they want? They want to hear from their local member because her very own constituents have not heard from her. They are saying: ‘Where is our local member?’ Knock, knock, knock on the door, goes the Leader of the Opposition. ‘Hello, I hear you are having problems with gangs in Karama’. ‘Yes’, they say. ‘How can we help?’, I say. They say: ‘Well, you could get the local member to do her job for a start’.
I appeal to the member for Karama who is receiving a base salary of $115 000 to $117 000, to at least spare a thought for her constituents even though she is a minister with all sorts of responsibilities. Can she go doorknocking? Can she say to them: ‘I will deliver more than just a bus passing through various hot spots on occasion’? I will tell you what the people of Karama want to see. They want to see a permanent police presence. They want to see a substation in the suburb of Karama. Why do they want to see that? Because there are thugs walking around Karama and, indeed, some other places in the Territory, and there are not enough police officers on the beat to apprehend them, arrest them, and ensure that they are prosecuted.
If the member for Karama and her ministerial colleagues are seriously suggesting that those little thugs running around Karama and other places are not breaking existing laws of the Northern Territory, then I respectfully invite the member for Karama and others to have a quick flick through their Criminal Code and they will see a range of offences. In fact, the minister might even want to duck over to the Supreme Court at lunchtime. She might want to even go to the Magistrates Court. Next time she is in Alice, she could always duck into the local court there and see what is happening. Day after day, thugs are being prosecuted. However, there are not enough prosecutions because there are not enough police on the beat. How on earth does this government expect little thugs to be apprehended if there is just a moving police van going through the suburb on occasion?
I look forward to hearing from the member for Karama. I, as always, expect to be under-whelmed by her contribution. However, given that these laws, according to the government, are designed to bring in a new regime that will pick up all these little thugs, I look forward to her explaining to me and other Territorians why the existing laws of the Northern Territory are not being enforced.
In relation to some other parts of the bill, we note that it includes amendments to the Bail Act. The Bail Act will be amended by adding the capacity to impose non-association restrictions on bailees. That provision already exists with a much broader – I say again, much broader – capacity to make orders by police or courts granting bail. In fact, it is not unusual for courts to apply bail with a condition that the accused is not to approach or contact in any way. If the member for Karama or her friends want to duck into a court house in the Northern Territory, they will see, almost every single day of the week, magistrates giving bail to various people - usually little thugs - with, as part of their bail condition: ‘Do not approach or contact in any way X, Y and Z’.
Yet, we have the political spin of this government saying: ‘While the ability for those orders presently exist, we will huff and puff; we will spin the political wheels and make it seem as though we are doing something different’. I say again in very simple terms: the provision already exists by use of the Bail Act and it is being administered by magistrates every day of the week in the Northern Territory.
The new offence of violent disorder replaces the old offence of affray. The current offence of affray is easy to understand and is about two lines long, from memory. The new offence of violent disorder is a page long and adds little, if anything, to the existing affray provisions. If ever there was window dressing, it is now. Of course, I wonder how long it took Cabinet to come up with the expression ‘violent disorder’. That sounds like a commitment from government. That sounds like government members are doing something. ‘Violent disorder’. How well will that go with the voters? Maybe this government even polled on it, as they did with a number of issues including the proposed sale of TIO and middle schools at about this time last year. Who knows? Perhaps we will find out in estimates. In any event, the point is made. It serves the political interests of this government to come up with something and call it ‘violent disorder’, rather than affray. I will bet London to a brick that the government’s view was that it will resonate with average voters.
The Summary Offences Act already has loitering provisions. I will say that again: the Summary Offences Act already has loitering provisions. The fact is that the current provisions are rarely used. I would like the minister, in reply, to state for the purposes of Hansard how many prosecutions have been pursued under that legislation in the last 12 months. Loitering provisions already exist. This government says: ‘Oh no, we need to dress it up, frock it up, call it something different’. I ask the question: how many prosecutions have there been for loitering in the last 12 months? I have a sneaking suspicion that there have been very few indeed. If there are very few, one wonders why that is. Maybe a reason for that is that there are not enough police on the beat catching people. Maybe there is not a demonstration of political will from the top down to indicate to police that, yes, we want these people moved on.
The expression ‘moved on’ leads very neatly to some legislation that the former CLP had in place. In 2001, mandatory sentencing was the big ticket item and that was the first legislation this government dealt with, from memory. Not long after that, they removed what were commonly referred to as the ‘move on laws’ in something like the public order and disorder act. Under the previous government, they gave police the power to move people on. It was considered so outrageous and so offensive at the time that this government did not take long to get rid of it. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, they even campaigned on it. Here we are, five years on and they are using the words ‘move on’; they want to move people on. How consistent are this people?
I do not know how long I have been a member of the CLP, but I never knew that so many members of the Labor Party were budding CLP politicians. I did not know that so many of them spent 27 years wishing secretly that they were CLP politicians because some of the hard-nosed law and order polices of the CLP were secretly admired by members of the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party. It must have been torturous for them sitting there watching all this hard-nosed stuff, saying publicly: ‘Oh, it is an outrage, is it not?’, so they could court all of their little lefty mates at that time. Yet, one wonders whether they were honest enough - and I know what a dishonest government this is - to say to their little lefty friends: ‘I have a secret. I secretly love the CLP, I secretly love what they are doing for law and order, I secretly love them. By jingo, when we get into government after waiting for 27 long, desperate and pathetic years, we will just tread water for a bit, we will make ourselves look cool and groovy but, after a few years, we will take some of the CLP’s policy’.
They learnt well, this mob, in opposition. It is hard to believe that you would not after 27 years. You reckon you would pick up a couple of things, but they learnt well. They understand that Territorians want their government to be tough on law and order. They do, but they want something else from government: they want their government to be honest. When the government says we are going to be tough on law and order, they want it to mean something and they want it translated into something concrete. They want, deserve and expect much more than window dressing, as is the case with this legislation.
We will, under my leadership, not support legislation that is political huff and puff. We will not support or be complicit in any way with this government in its desperate and somewhat Machiavellian pursuits to persuade the people of the Northern Territory that they are being tough on crime when they are not. It boils down to this: the laws already exist. Territorians want and expect those laws to be enforced. I hope for a response that is reasonable and goes to the issues I have raised; in particular, the loitering one. Many people are interested in that.
I am not sure that I can outline my contempt for this legislation in stronger terms. I know the government will spin this. They are probably up there on the fifth floor now typing a media release ‘Carney soft on crime, CLP soft on crime’. I will happily take that rather than stand in this Chamber and be complicit in this government’s mischievous and dishonest legislation. You give us fair dinkum legislation and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone who wants to seriously tackle the crime rate in the Northern Territory.
For anyone who thinks Labor is doing a good job, I remind you of the June quarter statistics. We raised it in Question Time on the first day of sittings last week. Crime was up in almost every single category. The nett crime rate increase in the Northern Territory was about 11% or 16%. It was up significantly. The rates of personal assault in the Northern Territory were up significantly. Anyone who might secretly be thinking: ‘This Labor government has been fantastic on crime’ should look at not my figures, nor the members for Blain or Greatorex, but the government’s own figures.
I remember when Peter Toyne stood in this parliament, probably in May 2002, and said that this government would stand or fall on the crime statistics. It is too early from an election but, if crime is the issue and if there was an election held later this week, my view is that many Territorians would vote against this government because they can clearly see, on the government’s own figures, that they have failed.
I say again I am happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone who wants to get serious about the unspeakably high crime rates in the Northern Territory. You give the opposition some reasonable legislation that is not political puffery and we will support you because we all have an interest in ensuring better outcomes for all people in the Northern Territory.
Do not give us this stuff and say it is the answer to crime problems. Do not rebadge existing stuff. What we and our fellow Territorians ask you to do is enforce the law, increase the police presence, and do better than moving little buses through problem areas. I say to the member for Karama: get out more; doorknock your own constituents, as I have done, and you will feel the extent of their rage. If she seriously suggests that those people are not breaking existing laws of the Northern Territory, then she is even more silly than I thought she was. In any event, her voters can make that decision at the next election.
I believe, Mr Acting Speaker, that I have made our position in respect of this legislation abundantly clear.
Dr BURNS (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Acting Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition made a false start last week and came out all guns blazing, but the bill was on this week. She has made a start today, but a lot of what she said is false.
I will demonstrate that through the fairly detailed speech I have, but I would like to run through, at a superficial level before I get in to my speech, some of the issues the Leader of the Opposition raised. The first thing she should understand is that this legislation has been introduced at the request, and with the intimate involvement, of police. It is plainly wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to bag the efforts of the police.
I, along with the Attorney-General, had a briefing a week ago on this legislation which included senior members of the police who told us how this legislation would work, would be effective, and would target this problem. If it comes down to trusting advice, I would certainly trust the advice of senior police who have grappled with this problem and come up with solutions to government.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about inadequate police resources. I do not know where she has been for the last four to five years because this government has increased police resources by 55%. We have had the O’Sullivan Report, which identified the need for 200 extra police after the opposition froze recruitment in the 1990s for a number of years, which had a knock-on effect right throughout the police force. We are on target to fulfil that. The nett gain is 165 extra police working with the Northern Territory Police than there were when we came to power. We are still on target with a couple more recruit teams to come through to meet that target of 200. There are extra police on the beat after the opposition did not really do the right thing in terms of our police force and recruitment for it.
The Opposition Leader asserts that existing laws are sufficient and they should simply be enforced. That is not the message I got from the police when I was briefed on the issue. The police were very clear that current loitering laws, for instance, and the other laws we are talking about today, are insufficient; that more needed to be done. These are exactly the sort of amendments needed to give them teeth. If you are talking about loitering laws in particular, sure, you can tell someone to move on from a particular point, but what they are talking about here is an area bound by laneways, streets around laneways, not a specific point. That is why some of these amendments have been introduced.
The Leader of the Opposition also tried to run down the initiative of mobile police vans. Last week, I talked about how government is delivering on that promise. There are already two and another two on the way. My briefings from the Officer-in-Charge at Casuarina Police indicate that those mobile police vans are moving through the northern suburbs. He also told me that in the school holidays last week, police had very targeted operations in the Karama area and across the northern suburbs in relation to youth gangs and youth crimes. To my knowledge, they have been generally successful. I commend the police for their efforts, despite the Opposition Leader running them down all the time.
The Opposition Leader talked about bail provisions excluding people from associating with others, certain specific individuals or certain places. Yes, it is true that they can be added into the bail provisions as they exist now, but my advice is that the framework proposed is more specific and gives the courts some guidance, if you like, in the imposition of those orders. Therefore, it is really beefing up those bail provisions and, once again, these were recommendations from police who, of course, work closely with the Justice Department.
The Leader of the Opposition lauded the former CLP government’s move-on laws. That is what she called them. Most people would be aware that those laws targeted itinerancy and antisocial behaviour, not so much the youth gangs that have emerged in some remote Aboriginal communities. This legislation is targeting aspects of gangs in our northern suburbs and within remote indigenous communities.
Once again, the Opposition Leader has it wrong. You wonder where she gets these things from. She certainly puts her own spin on things. She gets lost a little in Alice Springs. I came across a quote from her the other day. She was being interviewed by Daryl Manzie and she said: ‘It is still a bit cold in Alice Springs, but I am coming up to Darwin for the Alice Springs Show, so I will bring my shorts and T-shirt’. That is how far out of touch the member for Araluen is; she said she is coming up to Darwin for the Alice Springs Show. That is a real non sequitur, along with a lot of the other comments in her speech.
Mr Acting Speaker, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Group Criminal Activities) Bill provides police with powerful and practical tools to disrupt and fracture gang-related criminal activity at its source before it takes hold in the community.
The bill enables police to target gang leaders where they have been engaged in criminal activity, and for the courts to take account of the activity in which gang leaders have engaged. This bill addresses threats to public safety by improving the ability of police to intervene before harmful activities escalate into more serious offences or cause further fear for the community. This bill will assist police in breaking up and disrupting criminal and gang-related activity by attacking its power base and structure.
The bill allows for police to act against criminal activity, ranging from youth groups in residential suburbs, to gangs terrorising indigenous communities, to organised criminal gangs wherever they may be located. The ability to impose place and non-association orders under bail conditions allows police to make it harder for gang leaders to influence others. In essence, this bill aims to make criminal group activities and gang membership undesirable. It also aims to prevent young people from being drawn into or be influenced by serious gang offending.
The bill’s new loitering provisions will provide an effective deterrent to prevent an escalation in offending or criminal conduct through preventative policing. The loitering provisions will give police the ability to exclude people from certain locations where their behaviour presents a serious risk of offending. It is important to make the point that the bill does not criminalise their behaviour at the outset. This package - and it is a package - includes practical and workable policing tools and measures to combat gang activity. It is appropriately balanced with strong safeguards to ensure that these measures are used appropriately.
Police and Justice have worked closely together to prepare measured, appropriate and targeted responses to the issues. As part of this process, a range of Australian and overseas legislation was examined. However, it must be stressed that this package is Northern Territory specific and has been developed to address Territory issues and situations. Most importantly, the bill aims to give police the ability to act against gang-related criminal activity before it escalates.
I would now like to summarise the key features of this bill starting with the amendments to riot offences. These amendments will simplify the operation of the riot provisions. The amendments remove the archaic requirement for a police officer to go forth and read a riot proclamation before responding to a riot. They will also improve the practical operation of the riot provisions, making police enforcement and prosecution of these provisions more straightforward. The new provisions targeting violent disorder are aimed at addressing offending behaviour before it reaches the level of an unlawful assembly or riot.
The new violent disorder offence is an extension of the existing affray offence, and will encompass fighting between individuals. This offence recognises that community fear in relation to violent acts is increased by the involvement of more than one person. The violent disorder offence targets individuals who are part of a group that engages in a violent act resulting in other people reasonably fearing for their safety. To prove the offence, it will not be necessary to demonstrate that each individual engaged separately in violent conduct. However, the offence also recognises that an individual must know or intend to be reckless about the violent nature of the act and the resulting fear that it will engender.
Importantly, mere presence alone will not be sufficient proof of the offence. In combination with the new loitering provisions and place restriction and non-association orders, the violent disorder offence allows police to take prompt and early action against people whose conduct represents a serious threat to community safety. This action can be taken before the conduct in question escalates, or incites a higher level of threat to public disorder such as unlawful assembly or riot.
The new loitering provisions within this bill will target street-level criminal groups, or gang-related groups by giving police the power to restrict the person’s access to a particular area for up to 72 hours. This new loitering provision allows police to deal with people immediately, without having to arrest them before action can be taken. It is aimed at disrupting low-level criminal group or gang-related activity. Restrictions can only be imposed where police have a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been or is about to be committed by an individual or group. The ability to apply loitering notices for periods up to 72 hours provides a more effective policing tool to limit the potential harm or threat to public safety that identified persons could pose over a reasonable period or at a specific public event. If notices only extend for a 24-hour period, police could be required to serve a new notice on an individual each and every night.
The new loitering notices and their associated restrictions are not designed to interfere with the everyday activity or rights of citizens; they are aimed at stopping individuals or groups who have committed an offence, or who are reasonably suspected to be about to commit a criminal act before their conduct results in serious harm or increased levels of community fear. The loitering notice itself must contain details of the area from which a person is restricted, as well as the specific time frame of the restriction. It will also specify the potential consequences of contravening the notice. Not only must these requirements be specified in the notice, but every effort must be made to ensure that the individual who is the subject of the notice understands the requirements. It is only after the issue of the notice and the explanation of the conditions that a person who re-enters an area from which they have been removed by police will be subject to further action and possible charge.
Being in the area and receiving a notice is not, in itself, an offence. Any action taken against the juvenile under this provision must still comply with the principles and requirements of the Youth Justice Act. Juvenile diversion considerations will continue to apply to any juveniles who may breach a loitering notice.
The new provision of consorting between known offenders is aimed at disrupting high-level criminal activity. It will provide that the Commissioner of Police can issue a notice requiring that a person not consort with another specified person. Requirements of the notice preventing specified people from communicating or being in company with each other must be clearly stated in the notice. A breach of the notice will lead to the named persons being liable to a penalty of up to two years imprisonment. Like the loitering provisions, receiving a notice does not, in itself, signify an offence, but a breach of the clearly specified conditions will constitute an offence.
Prior to a notice being issued, a number of prerequisites must be established by the Commissioner of Police. These are, first, that the subject of the notice and other persons named therein must each have been found guilty of a serious offence that will be detailed in the regulations; and second, that the Commissioner of Police must reasonably believe that preventing contact between the two people is likely to prevent the commission of one of those named offences involving more than one person and a substantial degree of planning.
As I said earlier, this bill was developed in close consultation between the Northern Territory Police and the Department of Justice. The loitering provisions and the non-association and place restriction provisions provide valuable policing tools that will enhance the ability of frontline police officers to take positive early action against people engaging in criminal conduct or gang-related activities, as well as preventing further harm or offences being committed in the local community.
In addition, the new provisions will provide a strong deterrent to other persons, especially impressionable youths who may otherwise be influenced by the harmful conduct and behaviour of criminal groups or gang leaders.
I should like to outline how these provisions will address current problems facing police. The new loitering provisions are in addition to the current loitering powers and provide a more effective and powerful tool for police to combat gang-related and criminal group activities at their source. The current loitering provisions have limited effect because people are often unable to do much more than ask someone to move on. They do not give police the power to impose set parameters relating to time and area. The non-association and place restriction orders, when imposed on bail or sentence, will mean the isolation of criminal group or gang leaders from other persons or key locations. The restriction orders will have the effect of preventing identified gang or criminal group leaders from exerting power and influence over co-offenders or people who might be vulnerable to their influence.
The restriction orders will also remove criminal group or gang leaders from particular areas, allowing the local community to regain control. This is seen as a particularly effective policing tool in remote areas where certain gang leaders can gain control over communities or exercise harmful influence through their presence alone. Like current trespass and bail provisions, these laws will be relatively easy to enforce and prosecute. The amendments to riot offences will improve the practical application of the law as it relates to police enforcement and prosecution.
The new laws are designed to make enforcement simpler and more efficient. For example, the new loitering provisions will not only improve the capacity of frontline police officers to respond, but will also reduce the need for police to re-attend at locations to move on people or groups who may engage in criminal activities or who are causing harm to the peace and good order of the community.
I stress the point that this bill does not make it an offence for groups to congregate, nor should it, nor does the new loitering offence criminalise behaviour from the outset. It allows police to take a positive, preventative action before serious offending or harm occurs. Before someone is issued with a notice to stay away from a specified area for 72 hours, they must first be reasonably suspected of having committed or being about to commit an offence. The requirements of the notice must be in writing and must be fully explained to the person receiving it. This is to ensure that people do not inadvertently breach the notice. It is only after someone returns to an area in contravention of the notice that an offence is committed.
There will be a formal review of the effectiveness of the operation of the provisions in the bill after 12 months. As stated by the then Attorney-General in his second reading speech, the operation of this bill will be closely monitored by both Justice and police to ensure that the government’s objectives are achieved.
This bill is aimed at preventing and stopping gang-related activity before it becomes criminal. It is not designed to punish or trap young people. The new loitering provisions are not designed to criminalise behaviour from the outset. Instead, they provide an opportunity to set boundaries to all juveniles of the consequences of their activity and to take preventative action if necessary. The application and principles of the Youth Justice Act, as I said, will still apply to juveniles. Accordingly, prosecution and detention of juveniles will remain a last resort for police. Police already exercise their discretion in many circumstances and will do so in relation to these new powers.
In conclusion, I emphasise that issues facing the Northern Territory are very different from those faced in other jurisdictions. It is, therefore, appropriate that our response is one that suits the needs of the Territory community and is not merely a transfer of laws from other jurisdictions. For example, the proposed New South Wales legislation targets inter-racial riots and drive-by shootings. In most cases in the Territory, gang-related behaviour would not necessarily fit into the categories described in the New South Wales offences. Our focus is to break up gang-related activity and criminal groups before they escalate to a serious level of offending.
Early in the development of this package, we considered the need for increased stop and search powers for police; however, it was decided that existing powers were sufficient to meet the enforcement needs of police.
Finally, we must acknowledge that these new powers are not the only answer to gang problems in the Territory. We will continue assessing the underlying causes of gang membership and offending. In many cases, these include long-standing and complex social issues. What we are introducing is a measured response to the issue from a justice and policing point of view.
The Opposition Leader claimed that this is merely a cosmetic change. I do not believe so. In the preface to my speech, I demonstrated that these are not cosmetic changes; they are real changes aimed at stopping activity before it becomes criminal, to warning young people off, and separating these gang leaders away from the young people that they influence. I believe that our package of reform will address gang issues at many levels and stages and it aims to have an effective long-term impact. On that basis, Mr Acting Speaker, I support the amendments to the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Speaker, I would like to make a few comments about the bill and comments that have been made from government side. One is in relation to what the minister said about his bill being reviewed in 12 months. They were the very words spoken about the Traffic Amendment Bill or the anti-hooning bill, and that was nearly two years ago. My understanding, from a briefing from the police, is that law is very weak and was deliberately made that way so it would not upset too many voters from the motor car lobby. The reality is that it is not working. The then Police minister quoted something like 63 offences had been prosecuted, but the reality is that only one person has had their car confiscated.
We are talking about gangs. Gangs in cars are just as bad as gangs walking around the streets of Karama. People are intimidated when you have bunches of young people in fast cars doing burnouts late at night or even during the day, and engaging in dangerous and intimidating activities. If the government is saying we are tough on gangs, I wonder why they have not reviewed an act they said they would review by now. When the minister said: ‘We will review this act in 12 months’, can we believe that government will do it? It is nice in writing, but will it actually happen?
In relation to the bill as a whole, I would like to have heard comments from other bodies that should have been consulted. I am no great legal eagle, but what does the Criminal Lawyers Association say about the changes to the Criminal Code? Did the Police Association have an opinion? I rang and asked what they thought of the bill, and they said they had not been asked about it. The government may say it is up to them to find the legislation and comment on it, but I am sure if there were changes to the laws relating to the Fire Brigade, I know the union that represents them would certainly be asked what they thought of the changes to the laws. I believe the Police Association should be asked. The government will say: ‘We have asked the police’. Yes, you have asked the departmental side of the police, but there is another point of view that can come from the Police Association.
There are a couple of issues I would like to raise in relation to specifics in the bill. On the issue of changes to the Sentencing Act in relation to Division 1A, Non-association and place restriction orders, I am interested to know why that is not sufficient to overcome new section 55A, Consorting between known offenders, in the Summary Offences Act. Why can’t section, where the court imposes orders and sentencing, be the means to carry out this consorting activity? As I see it, the problem is that you have gone from the courts to the commissioner having powers that carry a fairly stiff penalty. For instance, the new section 55A proposed for the Summary Offences Act reads:
55A Consorting between known offenders
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
- (a) the Commissioner gives a written notice to the person under the section prohibiting the person, for a specified period not exceeding 12 months, from one or both of the following as specified in the notice:
- (i) being in company with one or more specified persons;
- (ii) communicating in any way with one or more specified persons; and
- Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
I would have thought for such serious offences, the court should be more involved rather than the commissioner, and that the commissioner applies to the court for the consorting orders to be made.
Further down in that section, it reads:
- (7) In addition, the Commissioner must give each specified person the notice under subsection (1) imposing similar obligations in relation to prohibiting the specified person from one or both of the following:
Further down, it reads:
- (8) However, the Commissioner may disregard subsection (7) in exceptional circumstances.
I do not know what the exceptional circumstances would be, but what that does is, basically, say that a specified person under the act who has not been notified could be still charged with an offence. I would have thought that was not very fair. I know there are exceptional circumstances written there, but if I was not told I was a specified person and then, all of a sudden I was charged with an offence under this section of the act, I would be saying: ‘Hey, give me a break’. You would think you would have to be told before you could be charged under that section.
This bill also seeks to amend the Summary Offences Act by introducing sections on loitering. I did ask this question at the ministerial briefing, but it was an area that, unfortunately, probably could not have been answered at that stage as we did not have a police representative at the briefing. The issue is the practicality of what is proposed. New section 47B reads:
- 47B Loitering - offence following notice
(1) A police officer may give a written notice to a person who is loitering at a public place:
My concern is: how do you actually do that? Say you have a bunch of young fellas mucking about in an area, and you have an officer saying: ‘I am going to give you a notice. What is your name?’ The names given are Ned Kelly and Fred Smith - they do not give you the correct name. Second, when you give them the piece of paper, they just chuck it on the ground. The loitering notice requires them …
Mr Stirling: You’d get them for littering as well.
Mr WOOD: Well, that is probably a good idea. They are supposed to stay away from an area for a time not exceeding 72 hours. Okay, so one shift of police come along and they have given notices to five or six people not to hang around this area for at least 72 hours. How is another shift going to know which people were served with that notice? A suggestion I put was that a photograph is taken. I am told there are a lot of legal issues in relation to that, but I see some practical issues. Give them a piece of paper and you can imagine the smart words said by a group of them in front of the police. How, in practice, will that work? I do not just mean giving a person a notice. Someone else has to make a decision, and it may not be the same police officer, as to whether they have breached that section of the act; that is, they are not to be in a certain place or an area for 72 hours. I am looking at the practical implications, which is why I asked whether the Police Association has been consulted. It is all very well to have laws, but if they cannot work in practice, I wonder how well thought out they have been.
I am not going to oppose the bill. However, the Leader of the Opposition raised an important point, which was also raised in debate on the prescribed areas legislation. What I said is that you basically have a 2 km law which could cover the entire Alice Springs area, so why do we need this extra law? In other words, are we beefing laws up because they need beefing up, or are we doing it from a political point of view? Does it make us look better if we have more regulations written when, in actual fact, existing legislation covers it, but we do not exercise it as well as we should?
I understand from the minister for Police that the police raised some of these matters. However, what needs to be clear is exactly what is wrong with existing law that this has to be. Why, for instance, in the case of the prescribed areas legislation, did the 2 km law not work? Was it not being enforced? Then, you would ask: why was it not enforced? It says you cannot drink in a park within 2 km of a licensed area. Now we have legislation which says you can declare a park as a prescribed area where you cannot drink. That says the same thing in different terminologies.
The Leader of the Opposition has a fair point. Are we just introducing legislation to tell people: ‘Yes, we are doing this. We are on top of the gangs’? That is fine. I do not want gangs causing problems in suburbs or the rural area. However, it raises a good question that the government has to answer as to whether this is just another layer of legislation and bureaucracy that we do not need. If we use existing legislation, we can do the same things.
Mr Acting Speaker, I support the legislation because we have to make sure our suburbs and our rural and remote areas are safe places to live. However, I am not a great supporter of adding bits to legislation that really do nothing but add a few pages when existing legislation can do the job.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Speaker, I thank contributors to the debate. The opposition chose to oppose the bill in no uncertain terms, claiming that this was flawed, political spin, absurd, huff and puff and window dressing.
That flies absolutely in the face of where this bill came from. It came out of very close consultation with the police and Justice. Part of the Opposition Leader’s denunciation of the bill is answered in her own question in her second reading speech about how many loitering prosecutions there were in the last 12 months. I have information on that which goes to the heart of some of the difficulties of the current legislation. For example, with loitering prosecutions, I am advised that between 2001 and the present, there have been 125 prosecutions for loitering. I would say that does not sound many against the legislation on the books. That is exactly the deficiency and weakness we have with the legislation at the moment. That is why police came forward, so that they could have something far more specific by way of a tool to stop loitering, and having the ability to prosecute if the offender then went on to breach the notice. In asking her question, she went right to the heart of one of the weaknesses of current legislation and the need for this change.
The member for Nelson was asking about the 12 month review and noted that the same thing was promised for anti-hooning laws but has not seen a review. He asked how we can trust a promise such as this. It is a joint commitment between the ministers for Police and Justice. I will be making sure that Justice upholds that review. I would have thought the police would be interested themselves because, primarily, the origins of this legislation come from them. They would be interested in 12 months to see how effective the legislation has been in place. The new minister for Police will be finding out where that review on the previous legislation is up to.
The member for Nelson was also asking about the practicality of recognising the same group or individuals in a particular area, having the possibility of being handed notices by previous shift police, or the shift changed and new police are on duty. Part of their shift reports would be to hand in what has occurred on their shift and in what area. I do not doubt that there would be descriptions of people and the particular area if they had handed notices out. Those details would be left for the police coming on. It ought not be that difficult in community policing, with police knowing their areas, knowing the trouble spots and, if they have been in the area for while, they most likely know who are the likely potential troublemakers. I do not know there is as much practicality or difficulty in relation to that, as the member for Nelson might be suggesting.
In relation to the consorting offence available for persons, this is for those who have committed serious offences previously but are no longer on sentencing or parole conditions, so they are beyond any reach of the Sentencing Act. The crime has to have been of such serious nature to attract 10 years maximum imprisonment before this power is able to be utilised.
The member for Nelson went through proposed new section 55A of the Summary Offences Act and then asked a question in relation to section 55A(8); that the commissioner may disregard section 55A(7) in exceptional circumstances. That is in the situation where the commissioner has advised and been able to serve the first person, but has not been able to locate or get the same directive to the second person involved. You do not want to render invalid the notice served on the first person involved; that would still hold. In respect of the second person, they are going to have to work through that and make sure the notice gets through to them. Just because they cannot get person B by way of serving the notice, it does not render invalid the first one who has been notified and given the directive. Section 55A(7) is in there as a protective measure to make sure that person A is caught within the meaning of the act, notwithstanding person B cannot be located or notified. That is the exceptional circumstance referred to there.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about legislation that this government repealed. That was the previous CLP legislation the Public Order and Antisocial Conduct Act, and, by its title, she should have been alerted to the differences between the two bills. The Antisocial Conduct Act was repealed because it was very vague legislation. It was not fully focused in what it tried to do, and it did duplicate powers that already existed in the Summary Offences Act. If she wants to talk about window dressing, it ain’t this legislation; it is the legislation that the CLP passed and we subsequently repealed in 2002. It was all about window dressing. It went nowhere to address the underlying social issues in relation to antisocial behaviour generally stemming from alcohol abuse and from itinerants in and around our urban areas.
That was an outright attempt to criminalise itinerant and antisocial behaviour rather than criminal conduct itself. That is why the loitering provisions in this bill are far more directive, far more specific, far more targeted but, in themselves, part of a broad package aimed at specific gang behaviour - not itinerants and antisocial behaviour. The provision only allows notice if the gangs themselves are committing an offence, not antisocial behaviour. It has a very different goal to that antisocial behaviour legislation that we proudly did away with back in 2002: making gang membership and related criminal behaviour as difficult as possible.
Again, if the Leader of the Opposition simply concentrated on the title, the Public Order and Antisocial Conduct Act, it would have given her a clue as to the difference in intent and how the legislation will operate.
I thank contributors to the debate. It is a tough and targeted response to emerging gang activity and offending in the Northern Territory but, importantly, it is appropriate to the Northern Territory. This is not the type of legislation you see in the States, with gangs in the south of Los Angeles. This is not the type of legislation from New South Wales where you have quite serious gang and criminal activity, sometimes stemming from racial connections. This is Northern Territory legislation appropriate to the Northern Territory, appropriate to the emerging difficulties we have with urban juvenile gangs, around gangs in remote communities and around the highly organised level of criminal activity that we do see. I urge all members to support this legislation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General for the
Northern Territory, August 2006
Report to Legislative Assembly
Note Paper – Auditor-General for the
Northern Territory, August 2006
Report to Legislative Assembly
Continued from 22 August 2006.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Mr Acting Speaker, I respond to the Auditor-General’s report to this parliament tabled during the sittings in August, and to report to the House about this government’s progress in procurement reform. I shall also deal with the matter of the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council, as mentioned in the Auditor-General’s report.
First and foremost, I acknowledge that procurement undertaken by government agencies can be complex. This is due to the need to balance the objectives of being accountable, recognising value for money, the effect on local businesses, employment, innovation and other facets of commerce. This task is not made any easier by the substantial differences in procuring services as opposed to goods, and the fact that procurement ranges from being simple and straightforward to, alternatively, being of high risk and value.
Every purchase demands a unique approach. I place on record that this government continues to take a significant interest in procurement reform. The most recent accomplishment has been the introduction of new procurement directions in March of this year, replacing policies, directions and strategies of years gone past. In fact, some of these date back to the commencement of self-government in 1978.
Importantly, the new procurement directions aim to simplify procurement practices and improve transparency. They are the results of a significant body of work that included input from many businesses and industry representatives. The Auditor-General’s Report 2006 has highlighted just how important it is that government continues to focus on improvements to these processes. It also addresses some areas that were raised by the Public Accounts Committee in 2004.
It is important to note that the audit work carried out that culminated in this report was based on information gathered over the period of 2003 to early 2005 and not on current practices. A line in the sand has been drawn so that enhancements to performance can be measured and reported appropriately, and in the fullest context possible.
By way of record, I advise that in the 2005-06 financial year, government issued, assessed and awarded 1331 contracts valued at $723m; 29% of tenders were processed to completion in less than 30 days, and 72% of tenders were awarded in a period of less than 60 days. Whilst this is an admirable result, given the inherent complexity and probity involved in assessing a variety of other often dissimilar tender processes, I am confident that further improvement will result from future reforms.
An aspect of the Auditor-General’s Report that drew attention in the last sittings was that of an estimate being in error by 3500%. This was not, in fact, the case. With respect, the Auditor-General picked up a simple clerical mistake. In any event, estimates are not publicly disclosed and so no tenderer was inconvenienced by this mistake. Estimates are merely used as a guide by the agency and the Procurement Review Board to assess the validity of the tender bids. This example is very much an aberration.
In addition, the Auditor-General noted concerns regarding tenders that do not progress through to contracts being awarded. In reviewing this, the Department of Corporate and Information Services advises there are a number of valid reasons why this can occur, including: no bids received; tender price does not represent value for money; there are no conforming or acceptable bids; and there was a change in government priorities.
Another area I would like to address is that of training. This government recognises and agrees with the Auditor-General that procurement requires appropriately skilled and experienced personnel. The Department of Corporate and Information Services has reviewed and improved training opportunities for the public service and, through the Procurement Change Managers Group, which comprises representation from most government agencies, is actively promoting these training options. Again, by way of record, over 1500 individuals have undertaken training and procurement in the past year. This training ranges from short courses to certificate qualifications. As more public servants continue to undertake the procurement training provided, expertise and skills will improve across the board.
This government recognises the specialised skills necessary to underpin successful procurement. The House can be assured that this government will use every endeavour to ensure those skills are maintained.
I can confirm this government’s commitment to ongoing procurement reform and, once again, can acquit our efforts in this area by reminding members that this government has, amongst other things, established the Government Procurement Council to ensure greater consultation and engagement between government and industry; established the Procurement Liaison Office within the Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development to handle complaints and concerns in an independent and timely manner; introduced new Procurement Directions to simplify and improve transparency; introduced formal agency procurement management plans to facilitate improved procurement planning; introduced a Buy Territory policy to ensure maximum opportunities for local businesses are achieved; and closely monitors with agency chief executives the progress of tenders.
I look forward to the next Auditor-General’s report on cross-agency procurement, as I am confident it will result in demonstrating achievement of the goals set by this government.
The Department of Local Government and Housing has been working closely with the Yugul Mangi Council to address the number of irregularities within council’s operations as a result of recommendations made under section 243(4) of the Local Government Act. Significant progress has been made by council to address those recommendations. On 27 September 2006, a new council was elected and the first meeting was held on 4 October 2006. Council has appointed Mr Graham Watson, an experienced chief executive officer, in a temporary capacity and he will be starting tomorrow, as I understand it. Departmental officials have provided regular presence at the community and will continue to be at the community full-time until Mr Watson commences. A high-level presence is required to support the remaining staff and to ensure services are being provided.
Mr Acting Speaker, the Auditor-General’s report highlighted the lack of governance capacity of remote councils to comply with the complexity of the Local Government Act and regulations, coupled with the difficulty of attracting suitably qualified staff. The department, for its part, continues to pursue best practice through its compliance processes and the employment of CEOs holding prescribed qualifications. Consequently, the department is developing reform proposals for government consideration that will ensure service delivery, sustainability, and accountability of local government bodies is dramatically enhanced.
Dr BURNS (Health): Mr Acting Speaker, as you will be aware, the Auditor-General’s August 2006 report for the six months to 30 June was tabled at the last sittings. Part of that report included the results for a cross-agency review of procurement practices. The review covered nine agencies including Police, Fire and Emergency Services, and two entities that fall within my portfolio as Minister for Health: the Menzies School of Health Research, and the Department of Health and Community Services.
Before I address the findings of the Auditor-General, it is always important for me, as a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, to remind this House that prior to this government coming to power, to a large degree the Auditor-General’s reports under previous governments were ignored. In fact, agencies rarely, if ever, commented on the findings of the Auditor-General. In his last report as Auditor-General, I recall that Mr Iain Sommers commented on that and voiced his disappointment.
There has been a sea change under this government. We are a government that takes the Auditor-General’s reports very seriously and, as ministers, we encourage our agencies to respond to and address the issues raised by the Auditor-General because he is there to review public accounts and the operation of agencies, and governments must take what the Auditor-General has to say very seriously. This is a government that certainly has done that in contrast to previous CLP governments.
On the issue of the Health department, the financial statements of the Menzies School of Health Research received an unqualified independent audit opinion. I must also digress here to say that the Menzies School received quite a lot of grants yesterday through the NHMRC process. I am hoping for an opportunity later this week in parliament to detail those because, once again, the Menzies School has shown that it is a top-class research institution and competes at the very highest level within the National Health and Medical Research Council grants system, which are very hard to get. Menzies has done very well this year.
Returning to the Auditor-General’s report, only a small number of minor matters were identified within the Menzies School of Health Research audit. I am advised that these have now been addressed. The department agrees with the Auditor-General’s findings about procurement and the need to improve the knowledge and skills of personnel working in the area, and is taking steps to improve training in procurement. The department is also participating with other health jurisdictions in a number of reforms aimed at improving strategic management of our tendering, procurement and contract management process.
Recognising that procurement was an integral component for standardising health data, the National E-Health Transition Authority, or NEHTA, established by the Australian Health Ministers Council, is focusing on, first, creating a national health products catalogue based on standard definitions and coding; second, introducing standards and system protocols for each jurisdiction to adopt for electronic ordering between jurisdictions and suppliers; and third, provision of tools for enhancing business analysis and reporting. These initiatives should provide a more strategic focus in identifying future procurement opportunities.
The department is currently participating in benchmarking the cost of health products, and management is looking at options for the department to access the product catalogue and electronic ordering. The key issues with this will be linked to the GAS, or the Government Accounting System, Purchasing and Payment System, as well as our inventory management system for hospital and pharmaceutical products.
The department is also piloting an electronic tender evaluation system to improve the rigour of our tendering process. This system, TenderMAX, is used in some states and is being trialled and evaluated by others. We believe this will help us improve the scoping of tenders and evaluation processes within the Health Department, including information for unsuccessful tenderers.
I now turn to Police, Fire and Emergency Services. Within this portfolio, a concerted effort has been made to see dedicated procurement staff are well trained, and to foster a culture of ongoing learning and attainment of qualifications. Once procurement staff attain these qualifications, there is a greater likelihood of them staying within this specialist field. It is agreed that historically across government, the procurement function does not seem to have been considered a particularly attractive area in which to work, nor has it been accorded much status. Procurement units in agencies have generally been staffed by lower-level employees, and these staff often have to make decision on complex matters, which can lead to errors being made. I am pleased to say that this situation is gradually improving with the introduction of specialist procurement training through DCIS.
Procurement staff are expected to undertake Certificate IV level training in Government Procurement, and there is also an advance diploma course on Strategic Government Procurement available for relevant personnel. The effectiveness of a pilot course being offered on Tender Specification Preparation has yet to be fully assessed, but it is expected that this will address the training shortfall experienced in the area of complex specification preparation.
It is important that we continue to monitor changes in the area of procurement. In short, we acknowledge there is a need to improve knowledge and skills of procurement staff and we are moving to improve the training of officers involved in procurement.
Mr Acting Speaker, finally, I commend and congratulate the Auditor-General for his August 2006 report, and for the issues he has raised. In my portfolios, and I am sure across government, we take the opinions of the Auditor-General seriously and, as a government, we always strive to implement the changes he recommends.
Debate suspended.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mr Ian Tuxworth, former Northern Territory Chief Minister, accompanied by Dr Bill Wilson. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
VISITORS
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the Parliament House Public Tours program visitors.
STATEMENT BY ACTING SPEAKER
Police Security Exercise –
Parliament House Precinct
Police Security Exercise –
Parliament House Precinct
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I advise honourable members about a subject that was raised this morning. I am aware of concerns expressed earlier today in respect of the conduct of a police training exercise in Parliament House last evening. I inquired into this matter and have been advised that the exercise was a routine training exercise by the Tactical Response Group of the Northern Territory Police. It was conducted with the prior approval of the Speaker, Hon Jane Aagaard, MLA.
I am further advised that the Clerk has written to all members expressing his regret that members and other building users were not advised of the exercise, apologising for the inconvenience caused as a result of that oversight. The Clerk has also advised that action will be taken to prevent a recurrence of this error of judgment.
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General for the Northern Territory, August 2006 Report
to Legislative Assembly
Note Paper – Auditor-General for the Northern Territory, August 2006 Report
to Legislative Assembly
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HENDERSON (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Acting Speaker, I speak on the Auditor-General’s August 2006 Report to the Legislative Assembly in my capacity as Minister for Employment, Education and Training.
I reiterate comments made by colleagues earlier in this debate that this is a government that does treat the Auditor-General’s reports to the Assembly with the utmost seriousness. Reports are something we take account of, and we expect our agencies to take the issues raised by the Auditor-General seriously.
The Auditor-General’s role in the Westminster system of government is crucial to ensuring best practice in the management of government funds through agencies and, importantly, ensuring those funds are not properly acquitted in an accounting sense, but also to ensure that, wherever possible in government policies and programs funded through the budget process, outcomes are achieved in the agencies.
The Auditor-General made a couple of minor findings in regard to agencies that I am now responsible for. In respect of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, the Auditor-General made reference to the fact that the institute did not provide a final signed copy of its financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2005 before the 30 June 2006 time frame and, as such, the institute has breached its statutory financial reporting requirements. However, the institute submitted a final copy of its financial statements in mid-July and I will report on this in my next report to the Legislative Assembly that is scheduled for February 2007. As minister, I do not like to see reference to institutions for which I have responsibility not meeting their requirements of financial reporting. It is an issue that I have raised with the appropriate people.
Charles Darwin University pretty much received a no key findings report as a result of the audit. I pay tribute to Charles Darwin University, their financial people and the board of the university in regard to coming through the audit with no significant findings to report.
In respect of the Department of Employment, Education and Training, there is a small comment from the agency in regard to the cross-agency procurement review. The department stated that they support the comments made by the Auditor-General and will implement his recommendations where appropriate. This has been a critical area for government, where we really have worked very hard over a number of years to improve the internal procurement workings of government and the external business opportunities for our private sector as a result of expenditure by government.
As a minister who previously had policy carriage in this area, it is a very complex area of government. It is labour intensive and in any tendering regime where you have more losers than winners in regard to any given tender that goes out, there is always room for errors of judgment, sometimes mistakes in process, and you end up with people external to government angry on occasions about the process. I do not envisage any process that you would put in place that you would not receive complaints in regard to the procurement process, but it is certainly something that we will continue to work on.
The Auditor-General commented, in terms of background and quotes, that in many organisations, purchasing remains the least understood and most ineffectively managed of all business processes. I would say across government, until recently it really has been not well understood. Many people across government who are involved in purchasing do a great job on a day-to-day basis, but a real understanding of where they fit in the chain of purchasing is something, with the turnover of staff, that needs to be worked on.
The findings go through the extent to which log jams have delayed the award of contracts. As ministers, we receive regular reports from my colleague, the minister for DCIS, that go through all outstanding tenders of which our agencies have carriage. That spreadsheet is broken down into tenders that have been approved within 30 days, between 30 and 60 days outstanding, 60 and 90 days outstanding, and 90 and 120 days outstanding. As ministers, we go through that and discuss tenders longer than 30 days outstanding to find out why those contracts have not yet been awarded. It is a process that puts a level of accountability into the minister’s office to ensure that the pressure is always applied through the agency; that tender evaluations just do not sit in people’s in trays whilst they are on leave or they get subsumed by other priorities. The prompt awarding of tenders is a key performance target of CEOs. However, on occasions there are log jams, there are issues about judgment and what is actually being bid within a tender and, in the more complex tenders, there is any amount of toing and froing between the agency and the people who have submitted bids in trying to secure the best outcome for the Territory.
The Auditor-General talked about the extent to which tenders did not come to fruition. Again, that is a concern. As the previously long-standing Business minister in this House, there is probably very little more frustrating than businesses which do take time to respond to a government tender, a lot of effort is put in and, consequently, that tender is cancelled for any number of good reasons. It is very frustrating for the businesses which took time to bid for a tender. In the majority of cases, however, tenders are cancelled when bids received exceed the original estimates, which means there is not enough budget capacity within the agency to meet what has been bid. Discipline in agencies of actually getting to an accurate estimate of what the contracts might be worth in an economy that is significantly expanding needs to be improved, and there is a lot of work going on to improve base estimates when budgets are set.
It is a requirement of every agency to have a champion for the black art, which is procurement, within government. Those procurement champions are to be at a senior level in the agency to ensure that objectives of value for money are achieved and risk management policies and systems are in place. DEET advises me that the Director of Accounting Services at an executive level is the procurement champion for the agency.
The Auditor-General talked about the continuing need and development for agency personnel, procurement skills and processes and said that the government’s procurement reforms were accompanied by a review of training needs and changes to the number and scope of courses offered to agencies. Eight courses are offered, ranging from an Advanced Diploma in Government Corporate Management to courses of shorter duration dealing with single topics such as Procurement Planning. Almost 1500 individuals attended training courses in 2004-05, a similar number to prior years. However, no strong correlation was observed between the number of attendees from individual agencies and the number of tenders issued by those agencies.
I say, again, when I had formal policy carriage in this area, there was very little training going on internally within government on procurement. The fact that there is now an Advanced Diploma in Contract Management as a formal training program with a qualification at the end of it is a significant advance. Across government, it is heartening to see an ongoing 1500 individuals attending training courses because that was not happening a few years ago.
I commend the Auditor-General on this report. I would like to see the Auditor-General taking a regular look at procurement because it is a very important role of government, given the very significant role that government plays in the economy in the Northern Territory, to have systems in place that deliver value for money for the Territory government and the taxpayer, but also value for money in our contribution to the economy. I have not sought my colleagues’ support for this, but I am pretty sure they will support my encouragement of the Auditor-General to review procurement on a regular basis because it is a good check and balance on what is a very important role of government.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Speaker, I wish to comment on the main area of the report. The previous speaker has spoken about auditing of the public account, especially in relation to procurement.
I receive a lot of complaints from contractors about procurement. They say: ‘Yes, we put in a price, but the department said that was too high because the department’s price had not been looked at properly’. There are two options: change the design of the whole program or recall the tenders. The Auditor-General highlighted the extent to which agency estimates of likely tender costs were reliable. That is putting exactly what I have heard from many builders and contractors into print.
My concern is not only for the builders and contractors. How can government run its budgets if its department is picking a figure, say $20m, for a school when the real cost is $25m. When the tenders come in at around $25m, the government has to make up its mind whether it scraps the school or pinches $5m from another program. One of the issues I would like to raise today is that, if you are having problems with estimating the cost of projects, what effect is that having on the overall budget? What effect is it having on other programs? Although this has not come out in this report, it is an area I would like the Auditor-General to have a look at if he takes on the suggestion from the minister that we have more regular reviews of procurement. It is a good suggestion.
There is no doubt that there are some good things in here; for example, having 1500 individuals attending training courses, and having an Advanced Diploma in Government Contract Management. Again, that highlights the fact that we do not have enough experienced people who are able to make these decisions about how much projects cost.
Has the government taken its eye off the ball? Have we let experienced people who were able to assess the accurate cost of a project leave the government? Have those people disappeared from the public service all together and we have replaced them with inexperienced people? That is what it sounds like. There should be a strong effort in recruiting people who have experience in this field. I have heard numbers of cases where projects were under-valued. They simply could not be built for what was put in the budget. I feel that a lot of the little things I am looking for in my electorate are the sacrificial elements that disappear off the promise scale simply because there was bad budgeting within the department; the estimates were wrong.
It would be an improvement if the Auditor-General reviews procurement again and we do not come up with a report that says that there were differences in tender amounts between 20% and 3500%, although admittedly the 3500% estimate was a one-off occasion when the original estimate was based on the supply of services for a period of 12 months instead of 36 months. You can take that as an exception, but the Auditor-General said there are many occasions on which the estimate was way out. That is something we need to look at.
Another issue many contractors talk about is the time it takes to get approvals. The Auditor-General has looked at that. Considering that contractors spend a lot of money working out what their contract price will be, they cannot afford to wait and for up to 110 days to find out whether they have the contract because they need to be looking at other jobs. If they know they are not going to get the contract, they have to be looking for other work; they cannot wait around forever.
I see reflected in this report what builders and contractors tell me: there is not an understanding of the private industry. Here we have the government buried deep within its own regulations and atmosphere, and over here is the private sector. They feel that these people have no idea what these people are doing. I know that is not always the case, but that is the impression I have. The private sector is saying: ‘These people do not know what they are talking about because they have not had experience in that particular industry and they have spent their life in the public service’. That is the impression I have from builders and contractors at times. If the Advanced Diploma in Government Contract Management is successful, that is a good start.
I wonder whether the government can make a bigger effort. Obviously, the Labor government has brought various people in from the private sector, from the TCA and the Chamber of Commerce. Perhaps it has to make a bigger effort in trying to get people who have been involved in estimates for private projects to bring that commercial influence into the government’s regime to give them the insight they need to smarten up their act, to try to improve the system, and to have a better understanding of how builders and contractors work.
I welcome the Auditor-General’s report. It is an excellent report on procurement and I will be telling builders and contractors who have problems to read this report, and to come back with comments. It is most beneficial from my perspective because I have received complaints. There are other issues in the report, most of which are matters which can be cleared up. I look forward to the next report from the Auditor-General.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Mr Acting Speaker, I make some comments regarding procurement and some of the issues raised in the Auditor-General’s report.
As you are aware, on 26 May 2005, the government announced the Buy Territory procurement package aimed at maximising opportunities for local businesses bidding for Territory government contracts. Part of this package includes the establishment of a Government Procurement Liaison role within the DBERD Business Development Division to help ensure that government is meeting its Buy Territory objectives. The Procurement Liaison Director within the department is helping businesses resolve issues with government tenders.
The Procurement Liaison Director in DBERD has been actively working with business and helping to resolve issues they may have regarding the government tendering process. Seventy-one matters were referred to Procurement Liaison from August 2005 to the end of August 2006, with resolution achieved in 61 cases. Overall, this equates to 5.9 matters per month for that period. Since the introduction of the Revised Procurement Framework on 1 March 2006, referrals were received at the rate of 3.5 per month to the end of August 2006 with 62% of the referrals by Darwin-based businesses, 21% from Alice Springs; 6% from Katherine; 3% from Tennant Creek; 1% from Nhulunbuy; and 7% from interstate businesses.
During the period August 2005 to July 2006, 1576 tenders were closed across the Northern Territory, resulting in the receipt of 4237 tenders. A total of 67 complaints were registered with Procurement Liaison during the period, representing 1.5% of tenders received. Twenty-three complaints were registered during the period 1 March 2006 to July 2006, representing 1.25% of 1834 tenders received in response to the close of 720 tenders.
The Procurement Liaison Director met by appointment with individual businesses in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine during September 2006. Issues raised by business centred on procurement practices, rather than procurement policy, and are being pursued directly with agencies. Recent work with local small suppliers to government has identified the need to improve private sector understanding of tender assessment on a value for money rather than lowest price basis.
The Director of Procurement Liaison raised the matter at the September 2006 meeting of the Government Procurement Council and agreement was reached for the development of appropriate forums. Assistance will be provided to the Director Procurement Policy in DCIS in this regard. Avenues for provision of assistance to suppliers experiencing difficulties with tender documents are also being pursued. By working with business to resolve government tender issues and government procurement processes, it is anticipated that the competitiveness of local firms will be improved by building their capacity within the bounds of National Competition Policy and free trade agreements to target government tenders and improve employment outcomes for the Northern Territory.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Speaker, similar to other agencies, the Justice Department was audited as part of the cross-agency review on procurement.
The Auditor-General’s office conducted a cross-agency review of procurement practices in late 2005 and early 2006. Justice was one of nine agencies reviewed. The review found there was a general lack of experience and training on the part of the staff of agencies in the area of procurement. The Department of Justice has indicated it recognises the need to support increased awareness and improve adherence to correct procurement procedures.
To provide the required support to the agency, positions have been reviewed and restructured to accommodate a senior procurement officer position. I hope it is not at an executive level, Mr Acting Speaker, or we will have the member for Blain on our back again. The position has a focus, among other responsibilities, on coordinating and delivering support, advice and services to ensure all procurement activity, including leased acquisitions, is correctly documented, processed, reported upon and managed across the agency. The position also oversees procurement activities involving amounts exceeding $10 000, including advice and development of requests for tender and advice involving the tender evaluation procedures.
As a former procurement minister, I am aware of the good changes that have been introduced by this government. It is a complex issue, one it is very important to get right, especially for business. I am pleased that we have made the procurement system more responsive to the business community and its needs, but it is incumbent on us to ensure we are continually training and providing assistance to the members of the public service who need to implement this system.
The Auditor-General’s advice is timely. His investigation was well worth the effort and I thank him for his report.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Speaker, I would like to share a few thoughts on my reading of the Auditor-General’s report, August 2006.
Like the member for Nelson, the thing that jumped up at me in the first instance was the issue of mean elapsed time of about 110 days between approval of an authority to invite tender and the award of the contract. Then the mean elapsed time between close of tender and the award of contract was 60 days. This really causes a lot of angst for many contractors. They spend a lot of time and effort in submitting tenders to agencies, and then have to sit by for some four months wondering what the heck is going to happen and, in that time, the rest of their business could potentially be on hold and, therefore, reflect upon the total throughput of their business.
When the Auditor-General went deeper into the issue and drew down into the causes of it, he described them as log jams. He found some reasons for the delays, one being the increasing complexity of tenders. I wonder whether some of the officers who provide the detail for the tenders are fully across their jobs. There have been many comments made by private contractors that some of our public service management areas are a bit thin on skills. If that is the case, it is important for the government to get these public servants out into the real world to get in touch with industry and become upskilled so that their work is more current with the present standards of construction.
Why DCIS continues to receive and accept non-complying tenders from potential suppliers is something I do not understand. They have their panel lists already. With tenders, there are specific dates and terms that have to be met. When tenders are non-complying and they are accepted, it gives them an unfair advantage over complying tenders. The department has to look at that. It comes to issues of incomplete scoping of tender requirements. This is, again, where the expertise of the officer writing the tender has come into question. The Auditor-General said:
- One issue identified was a lack of rigour within agencies when determining the initial contract specifications.
That really boils down to what I just said. Whether it is about expertise or current industry knowledge, these questions have to be responded to by the minister in charge of DCIS. The sooner he addresses this issue with his CEO, the better.
I know of contractors who have submitted tenders and do not hear from the departments after that. When they finally ring up the departments or the agencies to ask about the fate of the tenders, they get the response: ‘We decided not to go ahead with it’, or ‘We never intended to go with it’. That leads contractors to think that they were being used by the department just to get a ballpark figure for a job that the department may or may not be looking at for a future time, and that agency or department goes back to a preferred contractor and uses the tender price as a lever to work on the preferred contractor. These are issues no single business is prepared to put their names against because they say: ‘If we put our names to these complaints formally, we will be blacklisted by the department and we will never see another government job’.
Those are significant concerns. The government needs to be aware of them and address them. I am glad the Auditor-General has made a thorough assessment of this. The issues that he raised in procurement must be taken fully on board. He talked about sampling some tenders and, of the samples he selected to audit, 40% were subsequently reissued or the remainder did not proceed further. That must have cost departments a lot of work, time and effort to put those tenders together, then to reissue 40% of them, with the other 6% falling off the horizon altogether. All that effort has gone to waste. If contractors were to submit tenders for that 60%, it is a significantly wasted effort unrewarded by any financial remuneration. Tenders submitted to government do not provide any source of income unless successful in getting the contract.
The other major point was about the extent to which agencies’ estimates of likely tender costs were so far removed from what contractors were putting as the appropriate price. The relative differences, according to the Auditor-General, ranged from 20% to 3500%. That is a huge undershoot by departments assessing the cost of the job at some 3500% less than what realty is. It goes to show that our public servants are definitely out of touch with current industry and the values that industry has put on the work that they have to provide.
Much of what I have said has been said by the member for Nelson. Those are the two major ones: the ones about the log jam and the significant undershoot of estimates. A point I want to stress again is that contractors have said that they have submitted tenders and do not hear any more about it and, when they eventually inquire, they discover that the agency had no intention of going ahead with the tender. That leaves contractors with a sour taste in their mouths. They wonder why they bothered to spend time and effort when there is no likelihood of any positive outcome.
In his conclusions, the Auditor-General suggested that there was a general lack of experience and training on the part of the staff of agencies in the area of procurement. The government must pick that point up and show that staff are properly trained and then brought to currency in their understanding of work value.
The Auditor-General also wrote about the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council. In his assessment of it, he spoke about the council members having very limited experience in management of a local government body, no experience in the field of financial management, and they had to rely entirely upon the advice of senior staff who also lacked skills and knowledge to discharge their functions properly. It is no wonder the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council then failed, if that is the case. The Auditor-General suggested that the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council is not the only one that faces these sorts of difficulties; that council members do not have the expertise and senior staff themselves, when appointed to a job, are not fully qualified to undertake to the letter of the law.
I was a bit disappointed when I read the response by the department saying that they had done the right thing under the Local Government Act, and that it is up to the council itself. It is important for the Office of Local Government to ensure that people of adequate ability are appointed as senior officers within local community government councils. It is no good saying that people without those qualifications can work there and then have a ministerial dispensation to secure the jobs. We are setting up these councils to fail.
I recall that the former Minister for Local Government said very strongly that he was going to introduce a capacity building program for many of the members of community government councils. Obviously, that capacity building program has not worked well. I am not satisfied that many of the community government council members have the capacity nor have they been provided with adequate training to develop capacity for them to run their local community government councils.
The new shire councils are another matter to be considered, and I look forward to a briefing that I propose to have this Friday. Some of my questions will be about how the government proposes to ensure that members of those shire councils have the capacity to manage what is going to be a larger area. You will find that people within small community areas will have less input into their own management than they currently have.
Mr Acting Speaker, I believe the government has a lot of work to do with procurement to ensure that tenders are appropriately priced and the response time should be shortened so that private enterprise can respond in a timely manner and get contracts out and running in a timely manner. Contractors cannot sit around forever waiting for some or no response from the government.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, just a few comments really to support what my colleague, the member for Greatorex, said. I have heard comments that reflect on the issues raised by the Auditor-General, particularly focused on procurement.
Anyone who goes to business functions or speaks to those who have taken personal risks to enter into private enterprise and to go through the tendering process, will find there is a significant amount of angst within our community surrounding procurement. I commend the Auditor-General for drawing attention to this important area. I acknowledge the comments that have been made by members opposite who have responsibility for responding to the issues raised by the Auditor-General. We will watch with real interest to see that issues that have been highlighted are addressed in a satisfactory way.
The Auditor-General has directed government to an avenue that will bring about improvements in this very important area. Government has great capacity to feed in and stimulate the grassroots of our economy, which is the small business sector, by enhancing, strengthening and focusing on its procurement capacity by making it more of a specialised field in its own right. There are many lessons to be learnt from the corporate sector, which treats these matters as very important in the chain of decision-making and the flow of resources to produce outcomes.
The Auditor-General is very clear about the problems that are being experienced by real people who are having real problems. Anyone who has been in private enterprise knows how difficult inexplicable or unacceptable delays can be. Having 110 days from the initiating process to the awarding of the contract is unacceptable and inappropriate if we genuinely want to serve the best interests of Territorians who are the ones growing the Territory, taking the risks, and producing the employment.
I hope we will see changes in the way that government deals with this area so that we can have those good Territorians properly supported in building the Territory.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Acting Speaker, as noted in the Auditor-General’s report, the 2004-05 financial statements for the Cobourg Peninsula Sanctuary and Marine Park Boards and the Nitmuluk Katherine Gorge National Park Board were not prepared and signed within the required legislative time frame.
These reports are required to be submitted for audit within two months of the end of the financial year, in this case by 31 August 2005. Initial submissions to the Auditor-General did not happen until December 2005 and the financial reports were not signed by the boards until February 2006. This resulted in a qualified audit opinion being issued on 16 March 2006 for the Nitmuluk board and on 5 April 2006 for the Cobourg board.
The Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts assumed responsibility for these boards in late July 2005 following its creation under the new administrative orders. The first three months of the financial year, when statements would normally be prepared, was a time of significant change and disruption to normal practices while establishing the new department, and this was the primary reason for the delay in preparing the financial statements.
Financial statements for the 2005-06 financial year have already been forwarded to the Auditor-General in accordance with legislative requirements, and the audit process has commenced.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Speaker, as you will be aware, my ministerial colleagues and I appreciate the importance of the role of the Auditor-General in facilitating good governance in our public sector.
The Auditor-General’s comments are taken most seriously and given due consideration by ministers and chief executives alike. His six-monthly reports are tabled in this Assembly each February and August and are an essential component of the fabric of government accountability. As well as reporting to the Assembly, the Auditor-General brings the results of his audits to the attention of agency chief executives for their consideration and action as necessary.
In this report, the Auditor-General has examined and reported on the following matters, and we have heard them commented on during the debate: ministerial travel; financial statements from five Northern Territory government agencies or entities; a cross-agency procurement review; and the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council.
The Auditor-General has noted several areas of concern in his report and these have each been satisfactorily addressed by the responsible minister. While the difficulties noted with the management of the Yugul Mangi Community Government Council, and possibly some other remote local councils, are a cause for serious concern, I have every confidence that the reform proposals being developed by the Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport will introduce a regime which will enable councils to become effective, efficient and accountable managers of the funds at their disposal. I look forward to seeing the proposals and will take a personal interest in their implementation.
The cross-agency procurement review also highlights some concerns but, again, as noted by my colleague, actions have already been taken to address the issues identified - indeed, many of them have been dealt with. I join him in looking forward to the next review of this area and I am sure it will demonstrate significant improvements.
The member for Nelson was very accurate in saying that the cost of estimating the budgets for capital works items is difficult. He asked how we can manage this aspect better. It is something that engages government, and particularly the agency, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, every day. With the pressures on building costs, it is a challenge for both the public and private sectors. We are not isolated in this; we are not Robinson Crusoe. The private sector is also trying to manage these escalations of costs, and those costs have been going up sometimes between 25% and 40% over a year.
We, in government, need to build our expertise. A good point made by the member for Nelson, and one we are working on, is to better use the capacity and expertise in the private sector and work more collaboratively with them. It is a challenging area and will continue to be so. The only way we could see it not being so challenging is to see the economy go flat. It was not really that much of a problem estimating costs back in 2000 and 2001 but, now, with the growth in the economy, it has become a significant challenge. I thank the member for Nelson for his comments.
The final matter reported on by the Auditor-General relates to the administration of ministerial travel by my own department. I am pleased to note that a previous adverse finding has been removed. The Auditor-General has stated that significant improvements in the department’s procedures have enabled him to provide a reasonable assurance that payments are in compliance with the requirements of the Remuneration Tribunal’s Determination.
Aside from the matters I have mentioned, the Auditor-General has noted that the scope of his work over the past six months was focused on the introduction of the Australian equivalents to international reporting requirements. While this has limited the amount of work undertaken on compliance audits, this is a temporary situation and should not be repeated in the near future. As foreshadowed in my last address to this Assembly on the Auditor-General’s Report, the triennial review of the Auditor-General’s office scheduled for this year has been completed and will be tabled this week, and government looks forward to considering the findings of that review.
Mr Acting Speaker, I again thank our Auditor-General, Frank McGuiness, for this latest report and we look forward to his next one in February.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
McArthur River Mine
McArthur River Mine
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Mr Acting Speaker, today I provide further detail regarding the future of the McArthur River Mine.
As you are aware, last Friday I approved the proposal of McArthur River Mining Pty Ltd to convert the McArthur River Mine from underground to open cut operations. After an exhaustive assessment process, I am satisfied that the company’s Mining Management Plan has addressed all environmental issues raised by the Environmental Protection Agency program.
In making this decision, I have relied on expert advice and recommendations from my Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines. I am satisfied that McArthur River Mines’ Mining Management Plan has met the requirements of the Mining Management Act.
This decision has not been taken lightly. It is the result of careful evaluation of the facts and the proper following of a transparent process, which began with the Environmental Impact Statement and Supplement, continued with the Public Environmental Report, and ended with the assessment of the amendment of the Mining Management Plan.
The history of this process is a complex one. Initially, the Environment Protection Agency flagged nine issues it was concerned about in the Environmental Impact Statement submitted by the company. These were: the proposed realignment of the McArthur River Mine and Barney and Surprise Creeks; the performance and long-term management of the tailings storage facility including post-mine closure; the location and management of the overburden emplacement facility; the potential for reduced water quality in the McArthur River; uncertainty of the mine pit closure; the performance of the proposed flood protection bund; community consultation methods; the potential for impact on freshwater sawfish populations - these are listed as vulnerable under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act; and impacts on groundwater and subsequent impact to the river, including the Djirrinini Waterhole upstream from the mine.
These issues were dealt with to the Environmental Protection Agency’s satisfaction in the mine’s Public Environment Report. The Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage wrote to me indicating that the project could go ahead, but indicated that there were still matters she would like the McArthur River Mine to address. My colleague suggested that there were six issues which still needed consideration. These were: the lodgement of a substantial security bond and provision of post-mine environmental management; proper research of the vegetation of the river diversion; the proposed diversion itself; management of potential contaminants from the mine site and tailings facilities; the establishment of a mine-funded monitoring and regulatory agency; and a legal agreement to guarantee positive social benefits for the Gulf community.
The experts in my department have worked tirelessly to see that the first five of these have been addressed successfully. The submitted Mining Management Plan covers the four environmental management issues. The fifth, mine-funded independent monitoring, has been required as part of the mine’s authorisation under the Mining Management Act and has been agreed to by McArthur River Mine.
A social benefits agreement has been negotiated by the Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development, and I understand that the Minister for Business and Economic Development will provide information on this to the Assembly.
I return to the five issues covered in my approvals. First is the independent monitoring process. McArthur River Mine will fund independent experts to undertake ongoing monitoring during the life of the mine. The Territory government will manage the engagement of the independent monitor. The independent monitoring will operate under the Mining Management Act. It will see a completely separate group from outside the Territory government - probably from and interstate department - review and monitor the work done by the company and by the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines mining officers. As mentioned, this independent monitoring will be paid for by the company. The reports from the independent monitor will be available to the public so there will be complete transparency of environmental monitoring and associated decisions.
Second is the river diversion itself. There are measures in place to secure the site during flooding. The government’s independent expert, Professor Erskine, has confirmed that the new designs for the river diversion are sound. With regard to the issue of the river diversion, I point out that it is not a unique situation. There are many examples worldwide of river diversions. The issues associated with the flooding have been thoroughly dealt with in the amended Mining Management Plan. They are covered by the raising of the bund walls to ensure protection from a one in 500-year flood event.
The third issue is research for the revegetation of the river diversion. The company significantly altered its original plans to allow for preparatory diversion works and revegetation work to be staged prior to the diversion of the river. Over the coming years, trials and plantings will be performed to enable this research before the river is diverted in 2008.
The fourth issue concerned site management and environmental protection from the tailings dam. The company is committed to storing tailings in a facility that has been engineered to Australian standards. The prevailing tailings dam is being superseded, impervious barriers have been emplaced to limit seepage, and contingency measures to deal with unacceptable future seepage are in place.
The fifth suggestion from the Environmental Assessment Report concerns the size of the security to be levied against the expansion. A $55.5m security bond has been set to cover mine operations until October 2007. The bond will be reviewed annually and will be adjusted appropriately in line with future works. The Security Assessment Board’s process included an independent assessment of the security calculation, which was considered in addition to my department’s figures and the operator’s figures in setting the security.
I am pleased to say that the lessons learnt in the Mt Todd experience when the former CLP government charged an insufficient bond to the mining operation to cover rehabilitation of the site have ensured that we have set the security at an appropriate level as recommended by the Security Assessment Board.
Let me reiterate that with the approval of the amended Mining Management Plan, the required security of $55.5m covers the operations of the mine until October 2007 only. By this time, a new Mining Management Plan will have been submitted and the security assessed will be updated accordingly. The current assessment does not deal with the actual diversion of the river, only the preparatory works over the next 12 months. These preparatory works include some channel preparation, and commencement of revegetation programs.
Each year as the mine expands, the security bond will be reassessed and it will, thereby, always cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation of the site. I am confident that with annual Mining Management Plans, continual upgrades of the security required to cover mine site rehabilitation and the formation of the independent monitoring process, there will be a sound environmental future for the mine site and the McArthur River.
The manner in which my department and the Security Assessment Board handled the security issue once again demonstrates the professional and conscientious manner in which this entire process has been handled. The Territory government’s core commitment to the people of the Territory was to deliver a strong and growing economy for the benefit of Territorians now and into the future.
I contend that this approval supports that commitment in a very responsible and tangible way. Expanding the McArthur River Mine will produce 200 000 tonnes of lead-zinc concentrate each year. The conversion to the open cut operation will take two years and the McArthur River Mine will invest $110m into the Territory’s economy. It will create 300 direct and 162 indirect jobs during the construction phase, and 264 direct and 272 indirect jobs when it is in operation. These are not figures to be dismissed or ignored. The expanded mine represents $223m direct and indirect annual economic benefit to the Northern Territory economy. Add to this the fact that the extended mine will inject into the community revenue generated through local community business partnerships and the very significant community benefits package, which my colleague the Minister for Business and Economic Development will address later.
I realise that there will be those who still oppose this decision, but I am satisfied that the outcomes of the environmental assessment processes and the amended Mining Management Plan address satisfactorily the identified environmental concerns. We have rigorously followed due process, and it is clear that the economic gains for the region and the Territory are balanced with environmental integrity and community benefits.
Mr Acting Speaker, I table the Statement of Decision, which sets out my consideration of this matter for future record. In conclusion, allow me to read the second half of my Statement of Decision:
- In making this decision, I have relied on expert advice and recommendations from my department. Since taking office, I have been briefed, in writing and verbally, on the McArthur River Mine and the expansion proposal. I have visited the Borroloola community and met with community representatives, traditional owners. I have held discussions with the operator, met with the mining industry, local business, environmental organisations and other interested parties.
One of the Minister for Environment and Heritage’s suggestions following her consideration of Assessment Report 54 was to work with the operator to ensure that social and economic benefits accrue to the local community. I understand that the Minister for Business and Economic Development and his department have been negotiating with the operator on a package of community benefits. I am advised that the community benefits package being negotiated with the operator is not a relevant consideration for my decision to accept the amended Mining Management Plan, and I have therefore not taken that package into account in making this decision.
The Security Assessment Board has recommended a security in an amount of $55.5m in respect of the amended Mining Management Plan. This amount is higher than the amount proposed by the operator and independently determined by a third party expert. I am satisfied that the Security Assessment Board’s recommended security amount is appropriate.
I am satisfied that the amended Mining Management Plan addresses the outcomes of the environmental process under the Environmental Assessment Act and meets the requirements of the Mining Management Act.
Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement, which occurred after the people who packed the gallery today have long gone. I note the gutless way in which this government conducted itself during Question Time - no questions about McArthur River Mine, not even from the local member. You would have thought that she would ask as a question but, alas, no, she has lost her bottle and has not done it.
Mr Acting Speaker, this three-ring circus, which is the way the government has conducted itself - it can only be described as a three-ring circus - will forever and a day create difficulties for the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party.
I said in one of the questions I asked during Question Time that those people at McArthur River - both indigenous people and, indeed, those in the mining industry - always knew where the CLP stood on this issue. That is in stark contrast to Labor. This government has been all over the shop. The reason for that is because this government cannot make up its mind as to whether it is a classic Labor government with a social agenda or whether it is a government trying its best to take the ground traditionally held by former conservative governments. That is why the people at Borroloola and the mining industry have been let down, confused and disappointed by the way this government has conducted itself.
Of course, it all started in February when the environment minister elected not to allow the expansion of the McArthur River Mine, which we described then as dealing a massive blow not only to the people involved in the mine but also to the mining industry generally. It created a climate of uncertainty, and I will come to that shortly.
Then in March, we had Xstrata’s CEO come to Darwin to talk with the Chief Minister. I met with him as well. It was always the case that Xstrata wanted this government to do the decent thing; that is, encourage one of the world’s biggest mining companies, and certainly the Territory’s, to assist it in order to generate much-needed revenue for the Territory government.
From February, all involved have been all over the shop. We have seen mining ministers come and go. Of course, the new kid on the block, the member for Drysdale, shot like a bolt fairly quickly and declared himself by implication to be on the conservative side of the Australian Labor Party because he is pro-development. Then we heard comments from other members of the Labor Party who are, presumably, trying their best to be on the social agenda side of the Australia Labor Party. I would love to be a fly on the wall inside the Labor caucus because we have had the member for Millner do his memo and other Labor Party representatives speak out. I heard on the news this afternoon that Norman Fry was expressing profound disappointment in the indigenous members of this government. He said words to the effect that they had failed their people.
It is for others to make a number of comments. No doubt, this is not what members of the Labor Party and the aspiring Chief Minister, the member for Wanguri - that is before the number of demotions he copped six or so weeks ago - want to hear. It is, in fact, the truth. A three ring circus is how any objective observer would describe how this government has conducted itself. It is a government that is torn on the outside and torn from within.
It is important that we go through some of the history, and I propose to do that now. It is important that we talk about the so-called - I stress so-called - independent EPA and the role it played. Surely, the minister for the Environment must have been made aware if there were problems with the mine because the EPA was, at the time and remains today, part of her department. She knew all along. This has the hallmarks of a political solution and interference rather than due process of an environmental study. It is the case that many people who would describe themselves as part of the environmental or green lobby who, traditionally in the Territory, have voted Labor, will be confused at the schizophrenic approach by this government. Even they had an expectation prior to 2005 - I think it was a promise before 2001, I am not sure - that government will deliver on its promise; that is, deliver an independent EPA – and wasn’t the government caught out on that front?
In some respects, I suppose you could say if there was ever a strategy working with this whole issue, there may have been one, and that was the social agenda side of the Labor Party wanted to come out and say: ‘No, no, no, we will not do this’. Hence, the minister with the funny EPA came out and said: ‘No, we cannot do it’, and then see if they could placate the traditional owners and environmentalists on the way through, let it go for a number of months because, having placated them, they could then come out several months hence and say: ‘Aren’t we pro-development?’, thereby going back to the conservative side of the political pendulum to see if they can pick up some business votes. To the extent that a strategy was working, one has to wonder whether, in fact, that was it.
It must have been a good day for the minister for the Environment when she said that McArthur River would not go ahead. She must have had a warm feeling within when she said to Territorians that the McArthur River Mine development was not going to go ahead because she was pitching herself as the darling of the left and the environmental movement that night …
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: The darling of the left and the environmental movement.
Ms Scrymgour: Oh, I love it.
Ms CARNEY: But, boy, things have changed! The environmental movement that she was sucking up to was going to hail her as the great environmental warrior. It is a pity that the same group of people would, in subsequent months, be demonstrating and talking about the lack of integrity that the minister and her ministerial colleagues have shown on this issue. Of course, people will be aware that, after the minister for the Environment made her announcement in February, the Dow Jones issued a notice under the banner headline: ‘Mine closure would add years to zinc shortage’, putting extra pressure on the commodity market in zinc. So profound was her decision that Xstrata’s share price fell sharply.
None of that matters anywhere near as much as the months of pain and fear that the decision was going to bring to bear upon the workers who worked at the mine and upon the people who depend on it to support their families. The economic impacts that threatened the Territory were about 270 direct jobs, 1400 indirect jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in income. From the political side of things, those who were on the conservative side, those who know what the Financial Review looks like, must have …
A member interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Many of them have shares. They are pretending that they are lefty Labor types, but most of them send their kids to private schools and all that sort of stuff. Those of them who know what the Financial Review looks like must have seen the share price of this, that and the other, and thought: ‘We are still confused. We are still all over the place. Today I am an environmentalist. Today I am a capitalist’. They are all over the place. Some of those people must have had their way.
The decision was made that this is a vote-neutral issue. With the greatest of respect to the constituents of the member for Arnhem, even though I appreciate their rage notwithstanding that our position has always been made very clear, my great challenge is to encourage them to vote for my party at the next election. Somehow, I doubt whether we will get a great swing to the CLP in the member for Arnhem’s electorate. The decision was made up there on the fifth floor that this is a vote-neutral issue: ‘Let us slither and slide all the way through; let us placate the greenies; let us placate the capitalists. Let us create months of indecision and try to make ourselves look as stupid as possible on the way through because there is not going to be much in the way of a vote swing’. That is the way the Machiavellian minds on the fifth floor have pitched this. To the extent, as I said before, that our strategy was operating, by jingoes, that must have been it! We have the environmental minister, the green one, saying: ‘Yes, EPA’. Notwithstanding all of the problems of this so-called independent EPA, the member for Arafura was saying, proudly it seemed to me, that the mine would not go ahead.
On the way through, they really needed to demonstrate, or at the very least create the illusion, that the EPA had teeth. The problem is that the EPA did not. What happened was that a report was received from Xstrata. They then said they did not like what they saw. Then they got an independent professor to do a review of Xstrata’s submission. It is a pity the professor did not take the time to visit the mine site because he had been there years ago. On the strength of this, the EPA then advised the minister that the mine should not go ahead, hardly an exercise in due process!
What a surprise it was when URS, the company that did the EIS for Xstrata, said on page 1 of the letter of explanation to Xstrata that due process had not been extended to them in preparing the EIS. Let me say that again: what a surprise when URS, the company that did the EIS for Xstrata, said on page 1 of their letter of explanation to Xstrata that due process had not been extended to them in preparing the EIS. Curiously, they also complained that all of the issues that were of concern to the EPA, only one issue dealt with the redirection of the river. The EPA review did not mention concern about either flooding or stability, the two key points upon which the refusal was apparently based. The EPA was spoiling to flex its muscle, and the minister was unrestrained when climbing onto that band wagon.
It makes you wonder: why did the minister not order the EPA to go back and talk to the mine properly so that all of these issues could have been settled quietly and in a civilised manner? Because the answer to the question is that she did not want to. She just did not want to, so earnest was she in keeping up her side of this Labor strategy of placating the environmentalists.
In the public arena, it went out and, to the astonishment of government, not everyone agreed, particularly Treasury, which said that the mine produced about 4%, I think it was, of GSP. Local businesses, members will remember, were up in arms because many of them have contracts with the mine. I went to a meeting at SKYCITY and the depth of feeling there was truly palpable.
Missiles were coming in from everywhere, and the government needed to create a fallback position. One wonders whether it was part of the script at the beginning. I am sure it was. In any event, the fallback position was created. The Chamber of Commerce launched a tirade against the government, expressing its alarm at the decision. It was then up to the mining minister to put his final seal of approval on the decision not to let the mine go ahead. At the time, it was said it would take five weeks for the decision to be made and that, I understand, was reported in the NT News of 25 February 2006. It must be remembered that was February this year. Why did it not take five weeks? Who knows? Why did it take until October, many months later, to make the decision? The only reasonable conclusion or inference to draw was that, at the time, the government was fully planning on making the decision it has today, but they were all over the place and, as I have said, were desperate to placate pretty much everyone.
It was like: ‘Well, we will make you happy today but we will make you unhappy tomorrow’, and get to the end because they always knew it was a relatively vote-neutral proposition. That was what they thought, having been to the meeting at SKYCITY. It is not for me to speculate on people’s politics, but I reckon if there were any Labor voters at that meeting, they would have changed their vote. They will remember the way this government has conducted itself. They will not be brainwashed at the next election. They will remember, as will their families, the indecisiveness of this government, the scandalous way government ministers collectively handled themselves, and the risks that these people were facing in providing for their families down the track. The story has been astounding because nowhere else would a government behave in such a churlish and amateurish way.
Of course, that is to be expected because this government has not had to wrestle with a decision like this before. The CLP is on the record regarding its position on mining. The government, on the other hand - the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party - just does not know where it is. Of course, in modern politics, the ground changes, but the Labor Party up here, in addition to generally taking their instructions from down south - and I cannot wait until your national conference to see if you let journalists in without a ticket. However, I digress. This government had not had to wrestle with an issue like this before where they were weighing up the green vote with the mining industry. They were so silly, they have done themselves an almighty disservice on the way through. They have been shown to be opportunistic, lacking in courage in nailing their colours to the mast and saying: ‘This is the way I will go’, so they are directionless.
The member for Millner knows all about that, which is why he wrote that memo. I look forward to more memos. I read an article from the Parliamentary Library Service this morning, from The Age newspaper. More documents have been leaked to The Age, so keep those leaks coming, everyone. I remind you that Leader of the Opposition’s office is on the fourth floor, Parliament House. We have seen you leak before, and we encourage people to do it again. If there is anyone on the Labor side who feels like writing a memo, just pen it to us, and up it comes.
The reason why the Labor government has acted so badly with this issue is because they were torn. The old lefties and the more progressive conservative members must have been a fascinating series of arguments to watch. Then, of course, towards the end of the year, some people are thinking about Christmas ...
Mr Henderson: It is pretty hard arguing with yourself.
Ms CARNEY: The member for Wanguri – you see, this is part of the reason he was humiliated in the way he was when he was demoted. We noticed big portfolios were ripped away from him and he went back to square one, which is the Tourism portfolio, important though it is. The member for Wanguri wanted the big ticket items. In fact, people are asking: ‘Where is the member for Wanguri? Hark, in the distance’ because they do not see him on television any more. They are wondering when he is going to stand up and say something. When is he going to mount the challenge to the Chief Minister? He has been not surreptitiously sidelined. Perhaps he was helping the member for Millner draft the famous memo. Perhaps it was the member for Millner’s friend, Stewart O’Connell, one of three best men at the member for Millner’s wedding. Anyone can read that on the Parliamentary Record if they want to have a look.
Who knows? The member for Wanguri just cannot help himself. He is feeling a bit deprived because he has not been on the telly recently. The best he can do is sit here and throw garbage across the Chamber. No doubt, you are constantly counting the numbers, member for Wanguri. You had better come up with something a bit more intelligent that yelling across the Chamber, otherwise members of your party will not vote for you. I want your boss’s job, too, so on that we are at least as one.
Now that the member for Wanguri is being quiet, I can return to the issue. To the extent that the strategy was worked up by people on the fifth floor, the backflip was planned late in the year. Late October, people are starting to think about their Christmas holidays. I note with interest a radio report that said the announcement was made on Friday when people from the member for Arnhem’s electorate were making their way into town. This government gazumped even its own constituents. They have every right to feel upset about that.
In any event, as I said, two weeks ago, we had the first act of this new mining minister who, I said in response to a ministerial report last week, can do no worse than his predecessor. The new kid on the block shot like a rocket and said: ‘I love mining and isn’t McArthur River fine?’ To his credit, he has at least had the courage to nail his colours to the mast, unlike the member for Arnhem and the member for Arafura who, while she has had a bit of a dabble at having a go at a public statement, has been, like the member for Millner, fairly quickly reined in. Perhaps there is a memo which is going to surface in due course. My office is just upstairs if you would like to send it up or, of course, you can always send it to the National Indigenous Times.
At least with the new minister, people know where he stands, albeit that a leash was wrapped around him pretty quickly. Perhaps the Chief Minister said: ‘Look, I love your enthusiasm but can you try not to be that enthusiastic because we are still walking this dangerous tightrope of trying to placate the green lobby and looking after business as well’. No doubt, he has had a bit of a stern talking to and he will not make that mistake again.
This whole saga will go down as a sorry saga for the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party. As I said, it is to be expected, I suppose, because they have not had to deal with an issue like this. Unlike the CLP, they are not on the record regarding their position with respect to mining. No doubt, many of their rank and file members are furious, and some of the more progressive ones are very happy with what has happened. When the media, who will, no doubt, be allowed in to your next conference provided they are paid up union members, go in to the conference and listen to the debate, we will all know how angry some of your members are.
To the member for Arnhem, good on you for having a go; it is always important to speak with your conscience, and I speak with experience on that point. At times, it is enormously difficult. Once I looked down the barrel of losing my job. I was prepared to do it, because I took the view that nothing was more important to me than my integrity and I did not need this job quite that much. By all means, continue to do what you think is right. I know it can be difficult, but it also can be enormously rewarding.
Having said that, the rest of you score a big fat zero for the way you have conducted yourselves in this sad and sorry tale. You have jeopardised the mining industry. That you have sent such conflicting messages to the mining industry is something with which you will have to live. That you have incurred the wrath of your own constituents is something you will have to live with. However, I do not think it will be too much of a challenge for you because you all know, and those of you less bright than others will have been told, that this is a relatively vote-neutral exercise.
You got there in the end, but only just. If you lose only one vote as a result of this sad and sorry tale, that will speak volumes. I doubt the CLP is going to receive a huge swing from some of your core constituents but, if you lose one vote, you bloody well deserve it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Acting Speaker, I often wait for some substance from the Opposition Leader. She has real form, particularly on this issue. I was waiting for some substance, but there was very little.
In supporting my colleague, the Mines minister, I find it unavoidable, after listening to the Leader of the Opposition, to comment on the ludicrous statements by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Blain in the last few days. No matter what one’s views are on the McArthur River Mine and the current conditional approval to mine, they are statements that demonstrate, unequivocally, why you could never trust the current crop of opposition members to be allowed anywhere near environmental or mine management in the Northern Territory.
According to the gospel of the opposition, the going ahead of the McArthur River expansion should have been given years ago, and the Mines minister’s approval of the Mine Management Plan was belated and put the project at risk. All those opposite, particularly the member for Blain, should really pull the other one Let me remind the House that what the opposition calls delays are, in any sensible person’s language, called statutory safeguards. They are matters at law, whether through legislation or regulation, which oblige government to consider matters carefully to give the public a right to have a say while, at the same time, not allowing decisions to be deferred indefinitely. It is called good governance, and I will send the opposition the dictionary definitions if they do not get it.
Guess what, Mr Acting Speaker? The delays the member for Blain talked about through this process were, in fact, put in place by his own party while they were in government. The environmental approval processes that were undertaken for this project were introduced by the CLP government. Let us look at his claims a bit more closely.
Xstrata first submitted its notice of intent to expand from a below-ground mine to open cut in January of 2003. Yes, Mr Acting Speaker, that is shy of four years ago - 194 weeks ago, to be exact, and that seems like a long time ago. However, it took MRM 125 weeks - well over half the time since then - for them to submit the initial Environmental Impact Statement, which is what you would expect for such a major and complex project. Why is an EIS necessary? Quite simply, to ensure the environment is protected from unacceptable development and because the public, the people of the Northern Territory, have a right to be fully informed about projects that are proposed. I have no problems with that, nor did MRM. They fulfilled their statutory obligations. MRM have also said that they will happily comply with the environmental regulation regime of their approval.
Why does the CLP have a problem? MRM were not just applying for an extractive gravel permit for a borrow pit for road works; they were, after all, proposing expanding a mine by some 25 years with radically different approaches to mining than under their current method of operations.
I would have been disappointed if they were able to undertake a planning project of this scale in anything less than the time they took. Of course, under the various parts of legislation that apply to such processes, there were further periods in which MRM undertook yet further research and analysis. Why was that? The opposition may have plenty of answers, but I pose the question: why was that? Quite simply, not all the questions the public and the scientists asked had been addressed. Again, the people of the Northern Territory have a right for information and the chance to respond, and so they should.
Again, we are not just looking at a gravel pit. In all - including the time required to prepare the supplementary Environmental Impact Statement, notice of their intention to proceed after I raised initial concerns in February this year, the preparation of their public environment report and responses to inquiries for further information - we are looking instead at 157 weeks that were, quite properly, expended by MRM in demonstrating due diligence in their environmental obligations. That is, MRM, quite properly, did the right thing and carried out further research in its response to scientific and other public queries.
We can go back to what the members for Blain, Katherine, Araluen and Nelson clearly regard as unacceptable and belated delays to the approval process. This is where they are revealed as being incapable of looking after the environment in the Northern Territory.
Of the remaining 37 weeks since MRM announced its initial notice of intent, 25 weeks have been taken up by allowing the public – oh, yes, member for Nelson, the public; they are important – of the Northern Territory to have their say, their chance to make submissions and to weigh up the proposals of MRM.
Is the whole of the CLP saying this is too long? Is the statutory period allowed for by legislation - introduced by his own party, by the way – excessive? Is he saying that the Territory public should by stifled; that they should not have a say in one of the biggest development proposals in the Territory in recent times? One can only hope not. Why is he saying that the decision has been belated? It is very difficult to escape the conclusion that the CLP would far prefer Territorians, when considering major resource projects, be kept well down in the mushroom club …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: That should not surprise us. Look at their track record. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Nelson always calls this the Clayton’s EPA. ‘I am confused’, said the member for Nelson. The member for Nelson contributed to debate on the EPA and has been part of forums to discuss the staged approach to establishing it, yet he still continues to be confused ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Not many people are confused, but the member for Nelson continues to be confused ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will allow vigorous debate, but not interjections.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I digressed, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and I am sorry. I will go back to the CLP and the member for Blain when I said their track record stands for itself …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Let us look back to 1993. Their former leader, Marshall Perron, was perfectly happy under his ‘better a marginal mine than no mine at all’ policy to allow the devastation of Mt Todd to take hold over the upper reaches of the Edith River in the Katherine region. He was the one who was entirely happy with merely taking a $900 000 deposit on rehabilitation for an environmental bill that is likely to add up to tens of millions of taxpayers’ funds …
Mr Mills interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes, no worries, member for Blain, let us get rid of those belated decisions. It is a pity we cannot get rid of the one on Mt Todd, I can tell you.
What we have is the fact that the period leading up to an approved Mine Management Plan is a development period, a time when ideas are proposed, tested, adapted, and redeveloped. It would be a pretty stupid state of affairs if it were otherwise for such a big project. What we have is substantial reworking of the engineering design in the river diversion. Is the member for Blain saying we should have been happy with ‘good enough’? What is wrong with ‘better’, member for Blain? Regarding major changes to flooding precautions, which is now out to a 500-year event, is the member for Blain saying we should have been happy with lesser environmental standards and more frequent flooding events?
Mr Mills interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Read your media release. If you are going to issue media releases, the opposition should be prepared for it to be thrown back at them. It is all well and good to play the politics - and they have form, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, they certainly have form. I remember the opposition, as well as the member for Nelson, standing in this House …
Mr Wood: Oh, not again.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes, again. I remember the member for Nelson saying quite clearly: ‘This is all politics’. This is what they have done: they do not care for the environment. It has been pure politics from these people opposite, and when it is thrown back at them they do not like it ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, please!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Number three, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, is a substantial security deposit now mandated by this government to be an up-front cash deposit or bank guarantee. Would the member for Blain and the opposition be more happy with a kind of book-up approach his mates gave the nod to over Mt Todd? On the independent monitoring funded by MRM, does the opposition disagree with such a transparent approach?
Mr Vatskalis: Too expensive for the company.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I have heard my colleague the Minister for Business and Economic and Regional Development talk about economic development and benefits to the local Gulf region.
All of these advances in mining design and procedure from an economic, environmental and social point of view have come about from what the opposition regard as unacceptable delays. They seem to be saying none of these things are needed, they just get in the way and they should be scrapped. Well, none of them are Robinson Crusoe. The member for Katherine said last February the mine should have been green-lighted on the basis of the EIS alone, let alone the other statutory processes that followed.
The opposition members, on their track record, are saying none of these things are a good idea. Are they saying that we should have just rejected MRM’s own commitments that they have followed responses to concerns from government and the community, that they do not want this kind of stuff? I heard the Leader of the Opposition having a go at the Chief Minister about being honest; the Leader of the Opposition needs to start being honest and straight about this.
Are they telling the people of the Territory that they would abolish the legislative and regulatory environmental safeguards that allow the people of the Territory to have a say in major projects and that ensure development can take place without unacceptable environmental impacts? If so, they should be up-front about it. If not, they have nowhere to go. Either way, letting this mob opposite get their hands on the environment and mine management would be like giving the keys to the stockyard to a bunch of cattle duffers.
Xstrata is one of the biggest mining companies in the world. They know about environmental assessment and approval processes. They know they have to meet the commitments that they have promised to fulfil under their Mine Management Plan and are happy to do so, as they would have to do in regimes throughout the western world. They know the Territory public, which has had access to this process of consultation and review, will be watching that those obligations are honoured. Through this assessment process, we now have both a major project that will bring benefits to the Territory and the local region and we have it happening in a sustainable way with reasonable and acceptable safeguards. We have followed due process, and have a good result. That is how it should be.
I know the members for Blain and Nelson will respond about their favourite topic, which is the EPA. I put on record, as I have done right throughout this whole process, that I completely refute any suggestion that the assessment by the EPA was somehow flawed or was unnecessarily negative. I commend my staff in the EPA and the work they did with both Assessment Report No 51, which was when the original proposal was found to have had unacceptable risk and was negated, and going through Assessment 54. The EPA did a sterling job, very professionally, even though they have to listen to the constant negativity that comes from the opposition, but that makes the EPA even more determined to go through all the assessment processes. The EPA would have been negligent had they not assessed and identified the many risks associated with this project. We followed due process.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement and commend it to the House.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is my great pleasure today to speak to the statement by my colleague, the Minister for Mines and Energy. As a former Mines minister, I can vouch for what both my colleagues, the members for Drysdale and Arafura said: due process was followed at all stages.
This afternoon, I was astounded to hear the Leader of the Opposition ask a question and tell people in the galleries that they knew the position of the CLP. It was the ALP who made our position obvious from the beginning. What she forgot to mention was that on the very first day the report by the EPA was delivered to my office, the member for Katherine walked in with one of her advisors, hand delivering a letter telling me: ‘Come on. Make the decision. I have read the EIS by Xstrata. Everything is fine. It can be approved’. Not 24 hours later, I had read the report and it raised many questions. Many times I have been accused of being pro-development, pro-mining, pro-everything. Yes, I am pro-development, yes, I am pro-mining, but not development at any cost. I asked Professor Erskine to brief me on some of the issues that were included in the Xstrata EIS. Professor Erskine came to my office, sat down and told me that what Xstrata was proposing in the original proposal would not work. It was dangerous. I was reluctant to approve the extension of the McArthur River Mine.
Government and ministers sometimes face and have to make difficult decisions. On one hand, we have a mine that wants to expand and, if it did not expand, it would close down with the loss of a number of jobs contributing to the economy. However, at the same time, if we allowed the mine to proceed as per the original proposal, we faced enormous damage to the environment to the same levels as Mt Todd. I was not prepared to put my signature for Xstrata to mine under its original proposal.
The option for us was to say: ‘No’, and the mine to close. The other option for us was to ask Xstrata, as prescribed in the Environmental Assessment Act, to go back and do their work again to address the nine issues identified in the original report. To their credit, they went back and they did the work. When we asked Professor Erskine again if the river can now be diverted without any problems, the answer was yes. A decision was made not on emotions, but on science, and I am not afraid to stand up for it.
The CLP did not tell the McArthur River traditional owners that they had made up their mind before the EIS was even drafted, before the report by the Environmental Protection Agency was delivered to its shadow minister and to the minister for Mines. The CLP wanted the Xstrata expansion at any cost, here and now.
They are talking about delays. Of course there will be delays. There are processes to be followed and, under the Mining Management Act, there is no time limitation for the minister. The minister for Mines has to satisfy himself that the proposal meets environmental standards, occupational health and safety standards and modern mining practices. If he is not satisfied, he cannot legally approve a mine. To be satisfied, he has to study the reports and he has to receive advice, as he did.
The other thing the CLP did not tell the traditional owners is that the CLP wanted Xstrata to go ahead, expand the mine, and that is about it. What about the community? Well, eventually the community will get some benefits. Xstrata might employ some people. We said: ‘No, it has to be formalised in such a way that this company or any company has to put back into the community what they get out of the land where the community resides’.
Separate from the mining approval process, my department had been negotiating with McArthur River Mine to agree on a community benefits package for the region. The first stage of that process has been completed and I am pleased to report that we have agreed on a package worth at least $32m over the life of the mine. Over approximately 25 years, that is $1.25m a year.
These types of packages look to broaden the benefits from the commercial success of significant projects, particularly in regional areas. This government has demonstrated we are very much supportive of regional development in the Territory. It is also important for me to emphasise today that this package is not compensation for any environmental issues associated with the mine. I will repeat that: this package has nothing to do with any environmental issues associated with the mine. These can be addressed in a different way under the mining or EPA legislation.
The totality of environmental issues are, quite properly, managed through the environmental assessment and mine approval processes. This community benefit package is solely focused on developing the sustainability of the social and economic framework of the Gulf region. This package is designed to build real economic capacity for the Gulf region for many years to come. It will operate at three distinctive levels, with a series of initiatives all running in parallel each year for the life of the mine. These levels are employment and training, enterprise development, and developing and sustaining new infrastructure in the region or, more straightforward, jobs, businesses and new services for the community.
The deal we have struck with McArthur River Mine will see the company contribute each year to a Community Benefit Trust, where those funds are distributed to key projects that deliver jobs, contracts or services. It is a unique agreement and one of which we are particularly proud as it sets a good benchmark for regional development.
What we have agreed is a Heads of Agreement that captures all the key elements of the deal between the company and government. From here, we will engage the Gulf community in a series of discussions on how we might structure the trust, and what projects should form the first tranche of activities in the region. We deliberately structured our approach to facilitate this stage. It was essential to build the foundation of the package at the outset, which is what we have done. The commitment to $32m is locked away today; however, it was vitally important to then sit down and listen to what the community has to say about their aspirations for the future.
The whole process has been difficult for some, and I know that many have aspirations for their children and their children for a better future. Only when the process is complete can we then sit down with McArthur River Mining and finalise the formal agreement that will carry us forward to 2031 and beyond. McArthur River Mine is happy with the approach and I want to acknowledge their team, particularly Santiago Zaldumbide in Spain and Brian Hearne here in Darwin for their forward thinking in this regard.
Government also has an important role to play in the future success of the community benefit package. First, it will be important that we construct and deliver a sophisticated community consultation process. My department is moving quickly to establish a new Gulf Economic Development Committee to assist in that process. This committee will bring together the full breadth of stakeholders in the region to discuss the package and to help identify the first series of initiatives. This will be a regular task for them as funds flow in to the trust.
Government must also look to coordinate our activities in the region with those sponsored through the trust. The leverage that might come from coordination is an important legacy of this package and the issue is not always about money. Good quality thinking and support for individuals can be just as important. Helping to develop business ideas, innovative training models and introducing people with similar aspirations can also deliver long-term benefits for everyone.
Finally, it is government's role to invest in the region to provide the building blocks for economic development. Investment in education, health, roads and more are vital if the Gulf region is to develop as the vibrant economy we all want. While on government, the Community Benefits Package, Trust and Economic Development Committee all provide important mechanisms to assist the Australian government to engage with the region. It can use these arrangements to determine the direction of its own programs and to make a lasting contribution to the sustainable development of the region.
As I said before, we intend to listen to what the community has to say about their aspirations for new community infrastructure, business opportunities and sustainable jobs. However, we do not start at a zero base. McArthur River Mines has already committed to a range of initiatives in its public environmental report, which originally arose from community discussion. They will form the backbone of this next consultation process. I believe it is important to introduce some of these into this debate today so that all members can develop an understanding of what this government and MRM are hoping to achieve.
In the area of employment and training, some of the early concepts include: establishing a target of 20% indigenous employment at the mine; individually tailored training and career development programs; implementing an education-based development program, including work experience, school-based apprenticeships and scholarship programs; and an employment-based development program of traineeships and apprenticeships.
Similarly, in the enterprise development area, there have been discussions around business opportunities for sand and gravel supplies, residential construction projects, tourism-related projects and commercial property projects.
Finally, in terms of infrastructure, some of our focus today has been on medical services and infrastructure, sporting facilities, a training centre, and community services such as patrols.
The mine is the direct source of the funds for the community benefits package. Its commercial success is what enables it to deliver the money that would support the creation of jobs, new businesses and community infrastructure in the region. This is on top of the $223m it is expected to generate in economic activity across the wider Territory and the royalties stream to be paid separately to government.
McArthur River Mining has committed at least $32m to these projects over the life of the mine. It is a substantial package for the region, and MRM deserves to be recognised for this. The company has also agreed to work in partnership with the community on this package, starting with the trust arrangement and including the next and ongoing phases of community consultation.
What this all demonstrates is the important role that mining can play in regional development, and how an enlightened corporate commitment can leave a legacy for the community beyond the effects of its direct activities.
It is an exciting period in the history of this projects and the Gulf region.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we heard the Leader of the Opposition talking about the number of votes. Let me tell you, I do not see a number of votes; I see people with aspirations for themselves and the future. What we did today is put the basis for a bright future for the people living in the region.
Like it or not, mining in the Territory is the lifeline of the Territory. It is one of the biggest contributors to gross state product. Not everyone agrees with it; some people object to it. We all know that for these townships to survive, for there to be economic development in some of these regions where nothing much is happening, mining, pastoral industry and tourism are the fundamentals. In this case, we have a mine with a 25-year life span. We might as well exploit the opportunity.
At the same time, we object to development at all costs. We will make sure that the mine will operate. The mine will be monitored. The mine will have a strict monitoring regime, as my colleague, the minister for Mines, assured us. We will be able to react very quickly. On top of that, the company has a liability. Every year, there will be an assessment that will determine the environmental impact. This year, and for the next 12 months, it is $55m. Next year, if there is increased disturbance, the bond can increase. Depending on the activities of the mining company, bonds go up or down. There are different companies around the Territory; they have different bonds. However, we will never ever allow the fiasco of Mt Todd and the liability to Territorians to be part of this government, as it was part of the CLP government.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, first, I believe the McArthur River can be moved if the processes are done correctly, and the mine will bring great economic benefit. I support many of the conditions that have been placed by the government on the miner for the mine to expand.
However, although the process was legally correct, you might say, if you add a bit of commonsense to the process, you would say it was a joke at the beginning. First, the minister always has a go at me about the EPA, and I will probably always have a go back at her. However, she did state today that there is no such thing as an EPA because we have a board which is looking at making up an EPA.
However, the EPA is mentioned all the time. The EPA was mentioned at the very beginning and had its stamp on the front page of documents when it originally knocked back the first EIS. Later, when it replied to the second EIS, it had ‘EPA Board’ or ‘EPA Interim’ - I am not sure which; I do not have it in front of me - but it certainly had changed its label. That signifies to me that not only has the government not quite made up its mind whether it has a department of NRETA, and EPA interim, an EPA Board - I do not know - but it certainly sent mixed messages to anyone who tried to understand what the government is doing.
In reality, if we get away from the EPA issue, the chronology at the beginning was that the company did an EIS and it allowed 10 weeks for the public to comment, which the public did. Then there was a supplement to that which the mining company was required to complete, which addressed those issues that were proposed to them. In the meantime, the government had talks with Professor Wayne Erskine and he did a report not based on the draft EIS, as it is called; he did his report on the draft EIS, not the supplement. Therefore, he answered questions and raised concerns based on a document that had not been completed.
Professor Erskine should have been asked to comment on the mine’s final document, which was the draft EIS plus the supplement, but that did not happen. The government, using the information that Professor Wayne Erskine had supplied to them, then knocked back the EIS. You would have thought that if Professor Wayne Erskine had raised a number of issues which were on page 1 of the minister’s statement tonight, in fairness, what should have happened is that those issues should have been discussed with the mine before they released their supplement. You have to realise that in the chronology, Professor Wayne Erskine was looking at the initial EIS document. If the government had sat down with the company and gone through many of the issues that Professor Wayne Erskine highlighted, the process could have been shortened, not because it did not want the process to go through its correct line, but because we would not have wasted all this time in between.
Although the government says: ‘We now have a package which is environmentally sound’ etcetera, that could have been achieved if a bit of commonsense had been applied in the beginning.
I disagree with the minister for NRETA. I believe the process was flawed at the beginning. The process probably needs some looking at to see whether we can make it work better; that some of those issues that I raised can be addressed so the process is a bit more streamlined and allows for what I regard as the commonsense approach when you come up with issues that came up in this process, especially with Professor Wayne Erskine’s comments.
In the minister’s statement today about the process, I agree with a number of the issues that have been raised. The minister has spoken about the river diversion and the revegetation in the river. I was down there after the flood earlier this year. It is not as big as the Daly, but it is not a small river, either, and it has substantial flows when it is flooding. The one thing that kept the banks together was good vegetation cover not only from trees but, in this case, from grasses and shrubs. Some of those were weeds but, if a revegetation program can be put in place and it is allowed to establish long before water is allowed to flow down the diversion channel, I would say there is every chance that there will be no major difficulties with that.
A concern I have is that the minister has spoken about the independent monitoring process. I know MRM has agreed to fund independent experts to undertake ongoing monitoring during the life of the mine, but that raises the issue of the role of EPA and the mines department’s environmental people. If you take this away from McArthur River and say this is just another mine that requires ongoing monitoring, who does that? The department would do that. The government would be the neutral body in that role. Companies would do it as well, but they do it for themselves. That would be a good corporate approach. They want to make sure there is no environmental impact because that is going to cost them a lot of money. On the other hand, the government is saying to the company: ‘You pay for an independent monitor’. I am not sure why the company should have to pay for the independent monitor. The EPA, if that is what the minister wants to call it, should be the independent monitor. They are the government; they are the neutral body ...
Mr Natt: It comes back to government.
Mr WOOD: That is right. That is my argument, but it is not the miner’s job; it is the government’s job. That is why I say do not take the argument for this particular mine; take it for any mine for which you have government inspectors and people who monitor the environment. I regard that as the government’s job ...
Mr Natt: We do that as a matter of course, anyway.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but that is what they should do. Here, it looks like - and I may be wrong - the mine will fund an independent expert, but the Territory government will manage the engagement of that independent monitor. I understand where you are going, but I am not sure that is the precedent that I prefer.
There have been some other concerns raised. Some were raised during Question Time today. The Minister for Business and Economic Development just talked about benefits to the community. I would like to see some more detail on that because that is the first I have heard of it. Today in Question Time, the minister, talking about the life of the mine and the mine being approved, said:
- What this guarantees is that the people of the Gulf region will have access to a flow of funds to develop their economy over the long term. It is a great result because here is a mining company that agreed to contribute funds for the life of the mine. It is a great example of government and mining companies getting together for the benefit of the people. It is a great result because we are now going to see real economic development in the region, economic development that will not rely solely on the mine. It is a great result because it will form the basis for future negotiations with mining companies in the Northern Territory.
There will be $32m over 25 years. Money will go into the trust from other sources.
I do not know what those other sources will be, but if you look at face value - and I know the minister is not dealing directly with this, as he said in his statement - $32m over 25 years is not a huge amount of money. That is about $1.2m or $1.3m per year so it is not a huge amount of money. I wonder whether the government could have used a better economic package for the people based on the principle that the mine was changing from what it was originally to something new. Certainly, the miner has a contract, but the mine could not continue unless there was approval for diversion of the river.
I have not been party to those negotiations, but if we look at the transcript from Question Time today, $32m over 25 years is really a pittance if that is what is happening. Of course, there will be spin-offs for local people for employment, but a mine of such magnitude, as the minister said, represents $223m direct and indirect annual economic benefit to the Northern Territory’s economy. If that is every year, you would think we would see a reflection of that economic wealth in the local region.
That is something I know people from the region are not happy with. That was an area government had an opportunity to address and include with this announcement. In other words, the two things could have come together. The minister was saying earlier that mining produces jobs and economic benefits, and that is for sure. I support that concept, but it does have its downsides. It does affect the environment and, in the case of Aboriginal people, it can have cultural effects, all of which have to be taken into consideration. I hope to see a more detailed package being made in this House so that we have an idea of what is actually proposed.
Some or most of the people who were here today were also concerned that they could not see a Mine Management Plan. My understanding is that Mine Management Plans are not available to the public, but I always wondered why, even if it was in a summarised form. There may be some commercial-in-confidence matters, but it is a Mine Management Plan relating to how the mine will operate and that has a bearing on how the environment will be affected. It is policy that you cannot get hold of the Mine Management Plan, but given open and transparent government and processes, some form of the Mine Management Plan could be released so people can see how the mine will operate in their back yard.
My last point is that I believe there was some politics in this matter today. The government announced that it approved this mine last Friday. I had a phone call from one of the people who was working with the traditional owners, asking me to meet with the traditional owners as they were coming to Darwin to put their point of view to the government, which is their right. All of a sudden, the announcement was made straight after the message had come through that the traditional owners were coming to Darwin which, to some extent, pulled the rug from under their feet. The government then said: ‘We have made up our mind and that is the end of the story’. People feel betrayed by that.
I have been speaking to some of the people in the park this afternoon and they know that I agree with the mine. I have said that straight out. Of course, there are risks with any mine, but I have had a good look at what has been proposed. The government has come up with a good deal, except I have a slight difference of opinion on how it should be monitored. That notwithstanding, it would not have hurt to have waited to make the announcement after they came. Aboriginal people have a lot more trust in someone who says straight up: ‘I do not agree with you and these are my reasons’, than if you beat around the bush and say: ‘I really like you, but I am not going to tell you what I think just to keep you happy’. It would have been wiser to have made the announcement after you had spoken to the traditional owners. I do not suggest that their arguments about the matter would have changed the government’s mind, but it would have been a fairer way of dealing with this issue.
Minister, I heard you on radio in an interview with the ABC. You were asked: ‘When do you expect to make an announcement on it?’ You basically said: ‘There is no great rush’. Not long after, the announcement was made. If I try to be impartial, it did not take the long time that you were talking about on the radio; it came very quickly after the interview. You may have a different view, but that is how I felt, listening in the public arena.
In summary, as I said, I support the mine. I believe there has been a lot of work go into making sure this mine will not have a major environmental effect. There is no way you can say it will have no effect, because nothing you do when you transform a landscape will have nil effect. I believe it will bring benefits, but I do not think those benefits have been negotiated enough with people in the area. There will be some benefits for Aboriginal people, there is no doubt about that, but if this mine is going to operate as long as the owners think, we have to make sure that the basis for economic development for Aboriginal people, especially in that area, is set in place so that it will last much longer than the mine. Once the mine is closed, we need to ensure that the benefits of that mine flow on in other ways so that the people will benefit in the area.
Even though I have said, mainly to the minister for NRETA, the initial process was flawed and we could have gone through exactly what we have gone through today in a shorter period, and that does not mean rushed through. There was time wasted because the system was not working properly. In the end, though, we have come up with a good environmental result, but there has to be more work done on the social implications before we can say this is a totally good deal for everyone.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Mr Acting Speaker, I support the statement by the Minister for Mines and Energy concerning the McArthur River Mine.
It is important for me to say at the outset that this has been a very difficult and painful exercise in respect of the traditional owners. I want to pay particular tribute to those people who have been involved in this process for a very long period of time. We observed in this House today a very dignified, respectful response from those people who were here, who came to Darwin because they were concerned enough and, obviously, do not support the decision made by government of which I am a part.
I want to make a few points clear, particularly regarding the opening remarks by the Leader of the Opposition about how they would have approached the McArthur River Mine. She said, very clearly, that she supported the mine right from the outset, but she was very insincere in her attempt this afternoon to try to convey those concerns to the traditional owners, the community of Borroloola and everyone associated with this project. Under the CLP regime, they would have gone in said: ‘Yes, the mine will go ahead; that is all there is to it’, just like they did - what was it? - 15 years ago or thereabouts. They did not take into consideration the aspirations or views of traditional owners. It was also fast-tracked by Keating. However, the point is that in the Northern Territory, the Country Liberal Party did not take into consideration the views of the traditional owners. They did not factor in any long-term economic opportunities. They did not factor in any jobs opportunities.
That is why it is fair to say that our approach has been quite different. It has been difficult and we, as a government, have raised the bar in a number of areas in our response to the expansion of the McArthur River Mine. We have already heard from the minister for the Environment, and I pay tribute to her and acknowledge her courage when she made the decision not to allow the mine to expand. She made the right decision because she was not convinced, nor were we convinced as a government, that Xstrata had exercised due diligence in respect of some of the environmental concerns. As a result of this decision, we have a far more robust and relevant environmental protection regime which factors in a lot of the concerns - not all - that were raised by the traditional owners. At the very least, it provides more certainty and allows for a greater degree of confidence in terms of Xstrata’s operation of the mine.
I want to refer briefly to the community benefit package. I daresay this is not something that would have been envisaged or considered by the existing Leader of the Opposition; it would not have been part of the equation. It would have been the same old situation of pushing people into the background, not taking into consideration their long-term aspirations and economic goals. They would not take in to consideration any view that the area could grow. That is why I am proud to be part of this decision. As I said earlier, it has not been the easiest process on my part as the local member. I acknowledge that it has not been easy for other people who have connections to that country - and here I refer to the member for Arnhem, Barbara McCarthy, who has conducted herself in a very professional and fair way. I appreciate the concerns she has had in this whole exercise. I thank her for her support.
The important point I want to make today which goes back to my initial point, is that the traditional owners and the people of Borroloola have conducted themselves with great dignity, pride and respect. Their concerns relate to the long-term future of their country. This has been the subject of quite heated debate. It is important for us as a society to understand that democracy is, without doubt, our most valuable asset, and the right of people to disagree or protest must always be respected. That is something I will always afford the people from that region.
Another point I wish to make relates to McArthur River Mining, which has come a long way in their responses to environmental concerns and the community package. I applaud them for breaking new ground, particularly with the community benefit package and the $32m they have agreed to put into an economic development investment fund which will be used over time to provide real economic growth to the people in that community.
It is important that we, as a government, ensure that when this fund is set up the traditional owners who are directly impacted by the mine have an input to the investment fund. This will be an opportunity for people to look at some relevant economic opportunities that might arise, not like in the past where you have had $40 000 chucked here and $50 000 chucked there, effectively with no real outcome. I look forward to that entity being established and it having real capacity in growing the region.
Mr Acting Speaker, I have been involved in this process for quite some time, as I mentioned, and I have had discussions with MRM over a very long period of time. I have, basically, put to MRM that there are a few things that we have to do differently - not only them as a company, but we as a government - and this will go part of the way to achieving that outcome.
At the moment, MRM fly in approximately 60 workers from Queensland. There are a lot of other workers based out of Darwin. That is the reality of it at present, but I am pleased that they have agreed to look at a 20% local workforce participation rate. I hope that we can achieve that goal. Government is very committed and will provide whatever support we can. There are programs that get indigenous people into the workplace, and I refer to GEMCO’s operations. They have been able to reach an agreement with the Anindilyakwa Land Council. It is a very good model and provides a realistic, commonsense approach to engaging, preparing and mentoring people so that they do have real employment outcomes. I sincerely hope that we will go down the path of looking at other models that are going to provide real opportunities.
I have spoken to MRM, too, about people who fly in and fly out. There could well be a situation whereby some of those people might wish to live in Borroloola. They may wish to avail themselves of what Borroloola has to offer as a community. There is a lot that the community can offer, which really means that should those people choose to live in Borroloola, there will be value adding by dollars being spent locally, but there will also be opportunities whereby traditional owners or the royalty associations might want to have a look at building houses which they could, in turn, be rented back to staff at MRM. It has happened elsewhere and it is something that I would like to see happen. Clearly, it is the choice of those people, but if MRM is fair dinkum, we should have further discussions in trying to get people to live in Borroloola itself because that is the only way you grow it, by getting people to live there. You are value adding because people spend more dollars locally.
The other point of interest to me is that, until now, a lot of their gravel and sand has been accessed out of Queensland. It has not been an issue for me as such, but I have often asked the question as to why that was the case and whether you could access the same product locally. I do not know whether you can, but I do know that MRM are fair dinkum about undertaking all the appropriate surveys to try to have that business located within the region. That would provide jobs to the local community. Again, I encourage MRM to go down that path. They have indicated they will, and I am sure they will.
There is another important issue. Quite often, we talk about cross-cultural relations. It means different things to different people, but if there is one thing that I have learnt over the last few years, it is that it should be a priority of mining companies, including MRM, to incorporate cross-cultural stuff. I do not mean that from an indigenous/whitefella point of view. You have to reverse it to a whitefella/indigenous perspective, too. That is what is happening at Groote Eylandt with the Anindilyakwa Land Council. It goes a long way to understanding the different points of view, the different perspectives, the different positions taken by different groups of people. I raise it as an issue because it is very important that there is that sort of understanding about the role of indigenous people, the traditional owners, and likewise, vice versa, the role of the mining company in the area.
Another matter that has been discussed, and I ask MRM to consider, is that they have been able to provide some dollars, for which I thank them. I applaud their civic commitment on the road out to King Ash Bay. They have been able to partner with government to upgrade that road, as equally with Mule Creek. Another one they should give some consideration to is the port facility at Bing Bong. I know there are some real issues of public liability, but it is a major access out to the islands. It is an area where people, both indigenous and non-indigenous, fish. It probably needs to be thought through a bit more, but it is something that has the potential to add to what Borroloola has to offer.
I do not want to say too much more other than to say very clearly that I support this government’s decision in respect of expansion of the mine. I want to acknowledge the traditional owners, the people of Borroloola, for the mature way in which they have dealt with this very difficult exercise. I pay tribute to the manner in which people have conducted themselves: a very dignified and respectful way. I look forward, as a member of this government and as the member for Barkly, to engaging with those people and with MRM to try to ensure that the agreements and proposals that are in place do provide a real opportunity for a lot of young people and for families that will add to their quality of life, create jobs and provide a move away from the passive welfare-type system which, unfortunately, pervades too many of our indigenous communities throughout the Northern Territory.
Mr Acting Speaker, in conclusion, I support the minister for Mines’ statement.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Speaker, I did not think I would be the only person speaking against the decision made by government. I thought there would have been other people in this House who would have done so. It is not that I am completely against mining. Obviously, I am not, I support it, but this decision to divert a river has long-term effects that none of us can envisage. Even though you have impact statements and management plans, the future of that river in 20 years’ time - what are we going to say to our grandkids if we have destroyed it?
I swam in that river in the late 1960s. I fished in that river. I have fond memories of that river and the people there. I also know well some of the young people who went to St Phillips School because the people of that area always had a high regard for education and they looked after their children well. At one stage, we even had a block of land in Borroloola. It is not as though I am not familiar with the area or the people there. That is why I asked the questions I did during Question Time when the people were in the gallery.
They felt as though no one in this House was speaking up for them, that no one was putting their point of view. They were particularly concerned that they had come 1000 km, only to find the decision had been made before they got here. They feel as though they were not part of the decision-making process; they have not been included enough in the loop and, in a way, they feel that government has let them down.
I realise the member for Barkly is very sincere in what he says, but he must also understand the issue from their point of view. Interestingly, this morning when I went up into the gallery, there were the Irrkerlantye people. I was talking to Margaret Mary Turner and she was saying: ‘Are all of those government? Are all those Labor? Why don’t they make decisions for us?’ We hear this over and over again from some of the Aboriginal groups: ‘If all these people are in government and are Labor, why are they not looking after our interests?’ That was the message that was given very strongly outside.
I know the minister in his speech basically said: ‘This diversion is not unique; there are plenty of other examples in the world’. It is unique! It is unique to the Northern Territory. It is unique, as far as I know, to a tropical river. Just because it has happened somewhere else does not mean it is the right thing to do. That is my greatest concern. We are going down a path and we really do not know what we are heading into. For all the safeguards we may put in place, who knows how the river will flow in 10 or 20 years time? I understand why the traditional owners have said that, particularly as they have talked about their dreaming tracks and their song lines across the river. They are asking: ‘If you disturb the river, will it then make the country sick?’ They also talk about the many sacred sites that surround the mine and, if they are damaged through the river diversion, how will this break down the Aboriginal culture and knowledge of the country?
I understand why they are saying that. We hear so often that we should be protecting Aboriginal culture but, in a way, we are pulling the rug from under their feet and saying: ‘Trust us. All will be well. The river will be diverted and nothing will happen’. We do not know that, and that is the sad part. You can say over and over again: ‘It is okay, we can do this’, but I wonder how much the mining company looked at mining the zinc and lead from another angle. How deeply did they actually do that?
Xstrata has a bit of a reputation. It is an international company based in Switzerland. Its last annual report showed that, for the calendar year 2005, they made $1.7bn profit, up 60% from the previous year. Yet, they have argued that McArthur River Mine has not made any profit to pay any royalties for the last 12 years. Why would a mining company continue to mine if that were the case? They also say this expansion is going to improve everything and they will suddenly be able to pay a royalty next year. Come on! This magic wand is going to make it all profitable. It might take years to construct the diversion and expansion, so how are we suddenly going to get a profit that will make it all right?
We heard in the minister’s speech about the wonderful economic opportunities. The Minister for Business and Economic Development talked about the great benefits to the community. We have not heard what has happened for the last 12 years. How many jobs were created? We all know about the whipper snipper gang that do the gardening – seven of them - but how many have actually been trained to work in that mine? How many have long-term employment at the mine? It is no good saying it is going to happen in the future when you have had years to prove that you are a company that takes this seriously.
I thought that little snippet from the paper was interesting; the guy that said he worked at the mine and was one of six from Darwin and the rest flew in and flew out:
- A former McArthur River Mine employee almost fell off his chair laughing at claims $4.5m would be spent employing Territorians when it reopened. He said he was one of six miners from a workforce of 70 who lived in Darwin before operations wound down prior to the environment review. The other 60-plus miners were flown in from Queensland.
You are talking about creating work for the Northern Territory. Come on! Minister, perhaps you can tell us how many jobs will go to Territorians, and how many people will be trained to become long-term employees? Will we have something a little more grand than the whipper snipper gang?
We talked about the disaster at Mt Todd. I would have thought that would have rung bells …
Dr Burns: What, with the CLP?
Mrs BRAHAM: No, I am talking about the result of what happened to a mine. It is fine to say we have $55m put aside that is going to correct any environmental damage. We are talking about the future. I guarantee when Mt Todd was first started, there was no indication it would end up as it was ...
Dr Burns: I thought you might have been part of it. You must have been a minister in those days. You were a member when the McArthur River mine was established.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mrs BRAHAM: Keep going, minister. Have you had your say yet? Well, get up and have it, and do not just mumble at me.
Dr Burns: I am not mumbling.
Mrs BRAHAM: Okay. Mr Acting Speaker, it is the unknown that worries me. Sure, you can take a gamble; sure, you make all sorts of promises that it will be okay. What proof do you have? The proof is in the detail. We have not seen the detail. It is all commercial-in-confidence, this mine management. We do not know the details of what the minister for Business was talking about or how the community is going to benefit. All we have is rather a grand statement of what might happen. We really need to know the detail. The local people need to know the detail. They might have some reassurance if they knew exactly what you are talking about. When you make generalisations, it does nothing to convince people that this is a good thing. I am quite sure they are beginning to wonder why this government will not tell them exactly what they are talking about, why this government will not allow the member for Arnhem, who represents them, to answer a question in Question Time. Why will not the government allow …
Dr Burns: Oh, stop playing mischief.
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs BRAHAM: Okay, the member for - who is he?
__________________________
Visitors
Mr ACTING SPEAKER: If I can just interrupt, member for Braitling. I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of participants in the Department of Employment, Education and Training Chief Executive’s Student Forum, accompanied by Margaret Banks, DEET Chief Executive, and Trent Harvison, Project Coordinator. Participants include: Borroloola CEC, Shayna Anderson; Dripstone High School, Ben Anderson; NT Open Education Centre, Kylie Davies; Nhulunbuy High School, Mitchell Hinchcliffe and Hannah Putland; Centralian Senior Secondary College, Jake Hoey, Anjomay Manansala and Jawoyn Cole-Manolis; Darwin High School, Michael Hofer, Josephine Tchia and Ciella Williams; Nightcliff High School, Puanna Kapi; Taminmin High School, Stephanie Lutzke; Tennant Creek High School, Emma McLaren-Alexander; Sanderson High School, Alecia Slocombe; and Shepherdson College, Jessica Thorne.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________________
Mrs BRAHAM: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. In the minister’s statement, he said there will be a sound environmental future for the mine site and the McArthur River. I am not sure whether that is much comfort for the traditional owners who are here today. They have already found their country has been damaged over 10 years. There have been spills of zinc ore every time the ships are loaded. Five years ago, the tailings dam broke, poisoning much of the surrounding area. There have been a number of unreported incidents such as truck accidents, spilling lead and zinc into creeks as they cross. There have been hundreds of dugong and other marine life deaths at the mouth of the river and out to sea attributable to discharges from the mine. Despite all the promises of looking after the environment, we do not know what else is going to happen.
We have already seen a lot of damage to the environment. We have seen a lot of damage to marine life. We have not even talked about damage to wildlife from the habitat either side of the river. If they are so used to living in an environment where the river is now, who knows how they will adjust to a river that is diverted? We have not talked about that sort of environmental impact on wildlife in that area. That is something government has overlooked. If they do have an answer, they certainly have not told the traditional owners.
The minister talked about the community benefit package being negotiated with the operator. Interestingly in his statement, he never once mentioned the response of the traditional owners or even what he discussed with them. All he said is: ‘I have held discussions’, ‘I have met with the mining industry and other interested parties’, but he does not give us any details or information of what these meetings were about. This statement is light. I do not know whether it was intended to give us reassurance and comfort or feedback on why the decision has been made. There are more problems in what it does not say than in what it does say, which is very little indeed.
I cannot say much else except to that there is concern. It looks like government rushed this through last week when they could have easily have waited and talked this through with the people who visited from Borroloola today. They have not been given any comfort from the comments made in the House today. The minister keeps lauding a great result. How many times did he say: ‘What a great result’? Who knows what the result is? That is whole point: we do not.
I ask the minister concerned to get back to us in 12 months time and give us a report on what is happening out there. As a new minister who has only been six weeks in the job, he is going to look back on this speech in a few years time and he will either be able to say: ‘Yes, I made the right decision’ or he will be standing there saying: ‘What have I done?’ He will find that all the promises have not been fulfilled because they have not been fulfilled in the past. We have not seen economic benefits to the community and I doubt whether they will be seen in the future.
The opposition and the member for Nelson have said that they agree with the mine. They are concerned about the way the decision was made. That is fair enough. Tell us the details of the agreement and the benefits you envisage. Give us a report card on what benefits have gone, over the 12 years of the mine operating, to the people around that area. Make sure that your impact statement and your Mine Management Plan will reassure the people who are going to be most affected by this and we don’t see another disaster such as Mt Todd.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Mr Acting Speaker, first to the minister for the Environment, who, quite rightly, pointed out that it is a radically different approach to this mining process, therefore, due process had to be followed. The process has allowed the public to have a say, which is very commendable. She and her department have been diligent and methodical in their process regime and the points of economic, environmental and community considerations were all areas considered by her department and the EPA, and they have expressed their views strongly in respect of the inconsistencies of the original MMP.
To the credit of the McArthur River Mine, they understood and accepted the issues raised by the EPA and the minister’s department, and have undertaken all measures to ensure they comply with the points raised. I thank the minister for the Environment for her support.
As we all know, the Minister for Business and Economic Development has been involved in this process from the start of the EPA’s rejection. He outlined the processes of the acceptance of the MMP and I thank him for his support this afternoon.
I have not been involved in the community benefits package, which has been an undertaking of the minister’s department. However, it is a very important issue raised by the minister for the Environment and I thank the Minister for the Business and Economic Development and his department for working closely with MRM to ensure a lasting contribution is committed to the Borroloola community. Employment, career development, education packages and enterprise and development and infrastructure will see the community move forward. It is a great package and a wonderful start for the community to kick them into the years forward. I thank the minister for his support of this decision.
I thank the member for Nelson for his support of the decision, albeit in general terms. I am not going to get into arguments over the EPA. At the end of the day, environmental issues at the mine site were recognised and they have been appropriately addressed in a diligent, decisive manner and the mine operator’s MMP has addressed those issues in a very competent way. I can assure him there has been no politics in the timing of this decision, but I have met with and written to the traditional owners and have taken their views extremely seriously when I did meet with them.
I thank the member for Barkly for his support of the decision. As the local member, I know that he has worked extensively with his constituents over this issue and he fully understands, as I do, the feelings that they are going through at the moment. I know that he is excited about the community benefits package and the impact this package is going to have on the community. I thank him for his diligence and the time he spent with the community in working to ensure that there has been a positive outcome.
It is disappointing to hear the member for Braitling does not support the decision; however, I know that she has endeavoured to support the Borroloola people today and I commend her for that. I can assure her that the expert advice that we have received from Professor Erskine has supported the river’s diversion. I am a little upset with some of the ramblings towards the end of her speech. I met with local people today. They have raised several issues and, yes, they are genuinely concerned about their surroundings, but it does not need someone like the member for Braitling making false accusations when I understand that she was a minister in the CLP government when the Mt Todd mine fiasco occurred. That is something that she has to have in the back of her mind.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her support of the decision. Unlike her ramblings, this decision is a careful evaluation of facts. A careful balance between environment protection, mining development and community benefits has been considered, and the final decision made within the requirements of the act. We have not been indecisive; we have been diligent and forthright in our processes to ensure an appropriate outcome is achieved.
It is not about votes, as the Leader of the Opposition so poorly pointed out; it is about following the correct processes to ensure all issues are covered. I do not need to remind her of her party’s previous decisions in such mining exercises. The name Mt Todd should send shivers down her spine in the knowledge that due consideration was not given to the environment at that mine site, and it now impacts by millions of dollars on our taxpayers’ pockets.
In summing up, Mr Acting Speaker, this has been an exhaustive process and I am more than satisfied that the Mining Management Plan will address all of the issues at the mine site. This government clearly defined the environmental issues to be addressed and, to the credit of McArthur River Mine - and I congratulate them for their commitment - they have worked with government to address the issues. I must add that environmental outcomes have been decisively improved. Rigorous processes will be undertaken and the economic gains for the region will be clearly seen in the future. Environmental integrity has been paramount in this process. I commend the statement to the House.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Twenty-five Years of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory
Twenty-five Years of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Mr Acting Speaker, it is appropriate that this year, 2006, we take time, as a legislature, to reflect on the legacy of the museums and art galleries of the Northern Territory.
A month or so ago, we celebrated the silver jubilee of the building at Bullocky Point. This year also sees the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the first board of what was to become the Museum and Art Gallery of the Territory. As well, on a sadder note, this year also marked the death of the MAGNT’s founder and first director, Dr Colin Jack-Hinton.
This statement is the first since 29 February 1996, delivered in this House by the then Arts and Museums Minister, Shane Stone. It is time to take stock and evaluate. We must build on the past, but we must look to the long term to consolidate and develop the Territory’s investment in the arts and museums sector.
Museums and art galleries occupy important positions in any community, and it is arguable that MAGNT is of special importance to the Northern Territory, in particular the Top End. They have a seemingly contradictory role. Not only do museums and art galleries describe and celebrate what we know about ourselves as a community, and perhaps also what we want visitors to know about us, but they are also places that are about what we do not know. At their best, they are also places of wonder. In this, I am not just talking about learning in a dry, formal sense, but of real discovery and the absolute pleasure of discovering things about the world, whether it be through art, history or science.
In this, having the functions of both museum as well as art gallery, the MAGNT serves us well in both contexts, and has done so far for a quarter of century. However, just as importantly, the MAGNT has served us in many ways that no other Territory institution has.
Over the past 25 years, the MAGNT has had 3.7 million visitors through its doors, an astonishing figure given the Territory’s small population. With over 200 000 people a year visiting Darwin’s MAGNT these days, it is one of the few institutions in the nation whose visitation rates far exceed its city population, the only other exception being visitation to the national museums and institutions in Canberra. It is an institution that is not just there for tourists, though I will discuss that issue in a moment. The Territory has the highest visitation rate by locals for museums in the country, a huge 72% above the national rate.
As I noted at the time of the 25th birthday for the Bullocky Point premises, MAGNT is arguably the Territory’s most popular and respected institution. It is worth noting in this context also that the popularity of MAGNT contradicts the popular misconception of Territorians of being a bunch of cowboys with little thought to the finer things of life. While it is often said, for example, that Territorians love their footy - and I must confess I am one of them - it is not an either/or choice for us.
The last NTFL season saw around 52 000 people going to games, pretty much the same figure as the number of locals going to the MAGNT, though slightly less than the 58 000 people who attended Darwin Festival events. In other words, cultural activity, of which visiting our art galleries and museums is an element, is part of the make up of what it is to belong to the Territory community.
MAGNT is more than just a series of collections, though these in themselves are impressive. True to its original vision, the MAGNT’s primary focus is on positioning its collection to reflect the Northern Territory and northern Australia with a strong additional emphasis on our neighbours in South-East Asia. The natural history of our region is of particular note with MAGNT. With some 1.2 million items in the catalogue and another 4000 new items added a year, as a research institution, it is highly regarded in Australia and internationally.
Indeed, the success of our research staff, as measured by refereed published research per staff member, is on par with that of researchers at Britain’s Natural History Museum, one of the largest and best funded of such institutions in the world. Similarly, the collection of South-East Asian art ranks amongst the largest and most comprehensive in Australia, as well as being of regional importance to our neighbours. The Chief Minister and the Minister for Asian Relations and Trade will speak about this aspect of the MAGNT in detail. Suffice to say the links we have been able to build with other institutions in our region are of enormous importance to the Territory community.
Finally, of course, our art collection is world-class, particularly with respect to our holdings of Aboriginal art with over 40 000 catalogued items of art and material culture. MAGNT’s collection is recognised as holding some of the nation’s most important works by indigenous artists. While the annual Telstra Awards focus the eyes of the nation on contemporary Aboriginal art, the broader collection traces the history of art and material culture across the many local cultural traditions of the Territory.
The art collection is not limited to indigenous holdings as was seen earlier this year, for example, with the staging of The Sound of the Sky, which revealed a significant number of MAGNT’s holding in non-Aboriginal art. Over the last 25 years, it has delivered to audiences over 400 exhibitions. This is in addition to the suite of semi-permanent exhibitions that include the Cyclone Tracy Exhibition and the ever-popular Sweetheart. In 1992, the Maritime Gallery extension was open to the public. In 2001, Transformations: the Changing Nature of the Territory brought to audiences an understanding of why the Northern Territory’s fauna is unique through examining diversity and place. In 2003, the Ramp Gallery showcases were upgraded enthralling audiences with the beauty of shells, birds, minerals and reptiles. In 2005, the Aboriginal Art Gallery was redeveloped to explore the diversity of indigenous art and material culture.
MAGNT also delivers an active exhibition program each year that brings to audiences opportunities to access the Northern Territory’s collection, which numbers in excess of 1.2 million natural science specimens and over 40 000 art and material culture items that I mentioned earlier.
Highlights from the MAGNT developed exhibition programs have included: the Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award; The Sound of the Sky; Jungiila Bunajina: Star-Meterorite Dreaming Stone; Sweet and Sour: Experiences of Chinese Families in the Northern Territory; Windows on Australian Art; Contemporary Territory; and Artists in the Field.
However, MAGNT is also a gateway to the collections and exhibitions of other institutions such as the National Gallery of Australia, the National Gallery of Victoria, the Australian War Memorial, Museum Victoria, Questacon and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, to name a few. Locals and tourists appreciate these exhibitions and, to date, the most successful of these was Space: Reaching Out from the Sci-Tech Discovery Centre, which attracted over 110 000 adults and children.
Other notable touring exhibitions that have been featured at MAGNT include: Monet; Stolen Years: Australian Prisoners of War; Vietnam Voices; Dinosaurs of Darkness; Russell Drysdale 1912-1981; Spiders!; Life and Death under the Pharaohs; Antarctica: Secrets of the Frozen World; and Real Wild Child: Australian Rock Music - Then and Now.
MAGNT ensures the collection and the results of research from its talented staff are also accessible to audiences interstate and overseas through exhibitions touring to regional and city centres such as: Celebrating 20 Years: the Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award; Speaking with Cloth: Cerita dalam Kain; Transitions; Rainbow, Sugarbag and Moon; The Realism of Peace: George Gittoes; Hot Wax; and Mambo: Art Irritates Life.
The Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory relies on the generosity of individuals, corporates and philanthropic organisations to develop its collection and delivers to audiences new and exciting programs each year. Foremost amongst these are the thousands of individuals who have donated collection items to the Museum and Art Gallery over the years.
Through the Cultural Gifts Program, the Museum and Art Gallery attracts donations of cultural works of significance from private collections. Donors are entitled to claim a tax deduction for the value of the donation and the cost of the valuations which we are obtained specifically for the Taxation Advantages Scheme may be claimed as tax-related expenses. To date, MAGNT has received 245 donations and 2135 lots under this program, totalling $808 678.
In 1997, the Museum and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory Foundation Limited was established as a company limited by guarantee to maintain, improve and develop the collection of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. The foundation works with the MAGNT to attract donations, gives bequests, endowments and other forms of financial and in-kind of support from the community and corporate sectors. Funds raised by the foundation are utilised to acquire artworks and objects of historical, educational or scientific significance for MAGNT’s collection and support research activities and public programs.
The Museum and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory Foundation Limited established a Foundation Trust for the receipt of donations and sponsorships. Donations to the fund are allowable deductions under section 78(5) of the Australian Income Tax Assessment Act. To date, the foundation has gifted 176 artworks and collection items to the collection valued at $349 315 in total.
In addition, numerous corporations have assisted MAGNT over the years in bringing to audiences exhibitions and education programs. Key amongst these are Telstra, which has supported MAGNT since 1992. Recently, Telstra announced continuation of its partnership with MAGNT until 2009. The partnership has been a most successful one and, in 2003, received recognition through a special commendation from the judges of the AbaF Business and Arts Partnership Award.
The Gordon Darling Foundation has supported MAGNT for over a decade, with sponsorship for the development of many exhibitions and publications, and recently, the important project Ankung Kunred – Wild Honey Country DVD and the Aboriginal Cultural Database. Both of these projects seek to repatriate to indigenous communities the wealth of information and knowledge that has been shared with MAGNT by traditional owners in a new technological format.
Many other corporations have supported Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory in the past with their generous support, and these include Shell Development Australia, TIO, TNT, Australian Air Express, Macquarie Bank, Paspaley Pearls Pty Ltd, Argyle Diamonds and Channel Nine, to name just a few. Many benefits have resulted from these partnerships and I encourage other corporations and benefactors to support the important work MAGNT achieves for our community.
There are many intangible benefits brought to the Northern Territory through its museums and art galleries. They give us a sense of place and a sense of community, but there are economic impacts of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory for the Northern Territory, particularly in the way it plays in our tourism industry. Preliminary results of the unpublished research from the Tourism Research Group of the Charles Darwin University gives us early indications, from a research point of view, of what may be attributed to the Top End economy by the Museums and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory.
The research identifies two important things. First, the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory is a key asset for our tourism industry in the Top End, with around 150 000 tourists visiting the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory a year. Importantly, the museums and art galleries of the Northern Territory attracts a key demographic group and, in particular, those visitors who stay longer in the Top End and are, therefore, likely to have a higher spend. It is a key destination incorporated in tours of Darwin run by a very large number of private sector tour groups. While the research cannot identify the extent to which the museum is a prime destination for visitors, it is undoubtedly a must see for a substantial number of people who come here as tourists.
Second, while the research has expressed necessary caution in drawing conclusions from a variety of data sources, something in the order of $30m a year can be directly attributed to the Northern Territory economy through the role of the museum as a key part of the local and regional tourism industry.
In anyone’s language, spending on this scale is nothing to sniff at. Of course, this does not include the obvious economic multipliers from the activities of the museum through wages, spending on goods and services and so on. One sometime hears of the notion that cultural activities are subsidised. The reality - and this has been recognised by governments of both persuasions for many years - is that cultural activities are, in fact, serious investments, not subsidies and, as I have outlined, the investment in the museum by both the CLP and the Labor government have long benefited Territorians.
I mentioned last week in the debate on economic development that private sector groups such as the TOGA Group, through their investments, are producing a cultural dividend to the Northern Territory. The museum has been producing cultural and economic dividends for the best part of 25 years and will continue to do so.
As I have mentioned, the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory is the Territory’s most popular and respected institution. Its reputation amongst Territorians is well deserved. Its social and community benefits are valued by us and enjoyed by visitors to the Territory. It is also of significant economic worth to the Territory and plays an important role as a key asset for the tourism industry. Let us make it better.
Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Speaker, I welcome the statement. As a member who delights in visiting the Museum and Art Gallery, and, whenever visiting any place, whether it be in Indonesia or the region or other states, I always make a point of visiting museums. The Museums Association describes museums in this way:
- Museums enable people to explore collections for inspiration, learning and enjoyment. They are institutions that collect, safeguard and make accessible artefacts and specimens which they hold in trust for society, and they provide the means to get a better understanding of the people that are reflected in the collection.
Not just for visitors - in my case, visiting museums wherever I go - but for locals. I encourage anyone in our community who has not been to the museum - and I do not find that many - to visit our museum as a means of gaining some insight into that which is special about the place that we live.
Museums have a very important role to play and for that reason, it is important, from time to time, to make statements such as the minister has just made. Museums have a unique potential for addressing and fostering cultural understanding and reaching a wide cross-section of the population. As a window into a community, as our museum is, it is one place that I tell visitors to visit. I visited a museum about a month ago in Sydney, which had a couple of interesting exhibits including a great gemstone collection. It occurred to me, though, that this museum is not a patch on the museum we have in Darwin. For one, we have no entry fee. Two, our museum is genuinely interesting, from very large crocodiles - and you invariably meet someone who was there at the time, saw it being photographed, or saw it first in the paper - to the Cyclone Tracy display about which everyone in the country knows.
It is very accessible and is a very important institution. I am very pleased, minister, that you have done something which is not commonly done by this Labor government: acknowledge the origins of the museum and say that it was something that occurred before the Martin Labor government came to office. That is appreciated and is a sensible approach because this is not the sort of thing that we should have fights over; it is something that reflects our community, then and now, and long may it run.
I am pleased to see that an enhancement of this type of institution has featured in the Chief Minister’s vision for the future of our beautiful city. Of particular interest, not just to me but many people in our community and around the country, is World War II. I very much support any initiative that will result in a collection that allows this nation to recognise what occurred in 1942 and onwards. There are stories that are largely untold. On a recent visit to Western Australia, I met a veteran of the 1942 conflict in the battle for Timor. Just as the bombing of Darwin is not well understood or known by many Australians, the conflict in Timor in 1942-43 is largely unknown. There are many veterans of that conflict who are coming to a stage in their life where they would like to see something that leaves a legacy of what occurred. Darwin played a vital role in that. They would love to bring their families to see a place that tells their story. We should not underestimate the power of such places to attract and inform visitors. They serve not only to inform us, but the nation.
On that issue you will have every support from me. There are some issues that we discuss in this parliament - not that many, sadly – on which we can work together. There have been a couple of offers from opposition, but the games played in here, sadly, do not leave much room for working together. You have made it much easier, minister, by acknowledging that this Museum and Art Gallery occurred in a different place and time and continues today. That is very helpful. With issues such as looking at our World War II heritage, I am particularly thinking of prisoners of war. Many of them came back to Australia and their first port of call was Darwin. It would be a great place to tell the story of those who suffered as prisoners of war in the region whose first repatriation port of call was Darwin.
Mr Acting Speaker, it is pleasing to see the tone in which this presentation has been made to parliament. You have the support of the opposition. I look forward to further progress and updates to the House on this very important matter.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Speaker, I am proud to contribute to this celebration of MAGNT and the important role it has played over the last 25 years.
Listening to the minister’s statement, I felt very nostalgic for all those wonderful exhibitions that have been held over the last few years, from Monet to the spiders and pharaohs. As the minister mentioned them, you could capture exactly what the exhibition was about. The extraordinary thing about the Monet exhibition was that we only had one Monet here, one of the Haystack series, and 26 000 people went to see it. There were other works that were contributing around the time, so it was not just one work on display, but that one work predominantly attracted 26 000 people. That is extraordinary. Haystacks are very fine when they are painted by Monet and this was a midday haystack. It was fantastic that so many Territorians went to see it. When you compare us with the rest of Australia, we have a very high cultural participation and visitation rate, which belies the general view of Territorians, which is very much shorts and thongs - we love our arts, which come in all shapes and sizes.
I am predominantly going to speak about the museum and its relationship with our new neighbours in the BIMP-EAGA region.
I cannot resist talking briefly as the local member. I am a very proud local member to have the MAGNT in my electorate. For many years, I have been a regular visitor. I have said a few times that one of the great benefits when you have small children is that they can go to the Museum and Art Gallery and see what entertains them at any time, but it has great airconditioning. At this time of the year, never underestimate the attraction of great airconditioning. With children growing up here, you have a choice some days: you go to the Museum and Art Gallery or to Casuarina. I always enjoy the Museum and Art Gallery option.
We are doing a lot better now with interactive displays for children, particularly the education centre is terrific for kids. The new natural science area is much more engaging. In the past, my children used to get into a lot of trouble for touching things, and I spent a lot of time saying: ‘Don’t touch, don’t touch’. At the museum, Security would say: ‘Don’t touch’. Sometimes it became a bit tense. I was working at the ABC at the time and one day I had Colin Jack-Hinton, the first director, talking about the Museum and Art Gallery. I said that one of my gripes is that my children are always getting into trouble for touching glass cases. He said: ‘Do not worry; you go and swing the sheep’. The sheep was an amazing installation, a very large one, probably over six feet tall. It was on a U-shaped stand and hanging from it were four sheep upside down, and you could swing these things. Colin said: ‘Take the children and swing the sheep’. With great trepidation, the kids would swing the sheep. Security would be very nervous, but we had a good time doing it and I thank Colin Jack-Hinton, who, sadly, died earlier this year.
It is a wonderful institution in the electorate, whether people are going to visit things like the Telstra Art Awards, which are just about over. There is a wonderful succession of exhibitions that are so varied yet attract everyone. Whether you go to look at what is on at the art gallery or the museum or whether you go to Cornucopia, it is a wonderful part of the Fannie Bay electorate.
To go more formally to the relationship between the museum and South-East Asia, the South-East Asian art holdings of MAGNT are far more than a mere collection of textiles, ceramics, sculpture, jewellery and paintings. They are a living embodiment of the contemporary and historical relationships we hold with our northern neighbours, relationships that are very different from those experienced by other places in Australia. They describe links that reach back to the 17th century, to the first contact between Macassar and Marege, the Macassan word for Australia. They document the evolution of our relationship with South-East Asia and the many Territorians who come from South-East Asian heritage.
The South-East Asian Art Collection is one of the gallery’s seminal collections. The earliest recorded acquisition occurred at the beginning of the 1970s. The Kai pottery collection from the Moluccas Islands in Eastern Indonesia was purchased during the late Dr Colin Jack-Hinton’s first year as the gallery’s founding director. That collection of pottery was a small beginning, but one that was central to his vision that the gallery should reflect the historical, geographical, maritime and social relationships that exist between north Australia and the South-East Asian region. It is a vision that defines us not merely as a gateway to Asia, but as very much a part of Asia. The collection, which is the third largest public art collection in the Territory, has over 3500 accessioned objects, including: South-East Asian textiles; Chinese, Thai and Khmer trade ware ceramics; wooden carvings; jewellery and body adornment; and contemporary Indonesian paintings.
The aim of the Art and Material Culture Program, and I am quoting here from the South-East Asian Collection Policy, is to:
- … provide for the people of the Northern Territory and visitors, encounters with the visual art heritage of Australia and South-East Asia, for their education and enjoyment. It also aims to establish the MAGNT as the pre-eminent site for exploring cultural linkages and exchanges in art and material culture between the Northern Territory, the rest of Australia and South-East Asia (with specific emphasis on the south-eastern regions of Indonesia and East Timor).
The focus is on the following four areas, and again I quote from the policy:
- South-East Asian art and craft from both urban and regional contexts … Islamic art and material culture from Indonesia … Macassan art and material culture … and contemporary Indonesian urban textile material culture and ephemera.
The gallery has developed strong working relationships with key cultural stakeholders in South-East Asia over the years. Let me tell you about some of those relationships. First, with Indonesia: MAGNT was instrumental in establishing the Yayasan Tafean Pah in West Timor, a dynamic indigenous weaving cooperative which today has over 4000 members. The art collection holds more contemporary West Timorese textiles than anywhere else in the world, with the majority being produced in the past two decades in Biboki and acquired through Yayasan Tafean Pah. The gallery hosted two exhibitions with Yayasan Tafean Pah in 1991 and 1994, and the former curator of South-East Asian Art and Material Culture, Fiona Liebrick, published the first ever book on the textile arts of Biboki, Binding Culture Into Thread. It was published by MAGNT and the Northern Territory University in 1994.
Yayasan Tafean Pah also contributed to the MAGNT exhibition Speaking With Cloth: Cerita dalam Kain in 2003. The current curator, Joanna Barrkman, organised the 2004 exhibition, Monet Tok Tan’ni: Skills For Life. It displayed contemporary ikat textiles from Yayasan Tafean Pah on behalf of Erasmus Huis from the Dutch Cultural Centre in Jakarta. This exhibition coincided with Yayasan Tafean Pah receiving the internationally recognised Prince Claus Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Preservation and Innovation of Craft.
The Director of Yayasan Tafean Pah, Mrs Yovita Meta, presented papers at two seminars at Charles Darwin University in 2005 and Raft Artspace in Darwin hosted an exhibition of Biboki textiles from Yayasan Tafean Pah in 2005.
In 2003, Joanna Barrkman was invited to work with members of Yayasan Tafean Pah, resulting in field research on the textile production and rituals associated with Atoin meto society and numerous related published articles. The Brahma Tirta Sari Batik Studio, Yogyakarta, has worked closely with the gallery over the past decade. Joanna Barrkman opened an exhibition of batik textiles by Brahma Turta Sari and Ernabella artists at the Fabric of Life Gallery in Adelaide early this year.
James Bennett, another former MAGNT curator, worked with Joanna on various articles and catalogue essays regarding the work of Brahma Tirta Sari. Brahma Tirta Sari artists also contributed to the MAGNT exhibition Speaking with Cloth: Cerita dalam Kain in 2003.
The gallery holds a significant collection of contemporary Javanese batik works from the Brahma Tirta Sari studio, which complement works created by Utopia artists from Central Australia. The Brahma Tirta Sari artists’ work was also presented in the exhibition Hot Wax, which was created by James Bennett in 1994.
The Babaran Segaragunung Cultural Centre in Yogyakarta was officially opened in October 2005, and our curator attended as an official guest. Those Territorians who have visited Bali may be familiar with the work of the Threads of Life Textile Gallery in Ubud. In 2003, Threads of Life participated in the MAGNT exhibition Speaking with Cloth: Cerita dalam Kain. In the same year, Territory Craft hosted an exhibition of Threads of Life textiles. The Gallery hosted Rai Artha, a cultural worker from Bali, for a two-month internship in 2004. It was funded through the Ford Foundation and resulted in the development of a collections facility in Ubud for an Indonesian textile collection. Numerous textiles have been acquired through Threads of Life for our collection.
Ongoing collaborations with Indonesian museums are a part of the gallery’s role as a significant cultural resource in the region. It has previously hosted training programs with staff from these institutions, collaborated on research of collections and contributed to seminars. MAGNT staff have attended official exhibition openings, particularly at the Kupang Museum.
In 2006, MAGNT, on behalf of the government, attended the opening of an Indonesian carving exhibition, which was attended by museum directors from across Indonesia. We presented a gift of a Tiwi carving for the Deputy Governor of West Timor as a sign of the ongoing friendship between the two galleries. Funds are currently being sought for the Museum and Art Gallery to conduct a conservation training program with the Kupang and Mataram museums. The gallery also provided a training workshop two years ago to the Jakarta Museum Association consisting of representatives from over 30 museums.
MAGNT also has long-lasting relationships with national museums in Kupang, Mataram on Lombok, and Ujung Pandang in South Sulawesi.
Mr Acting Speaker, let me talk a little about Timor-Leste. The MAGNT was instrumental in the East Timor Museum salvage operation in Dili in 2000. Three gallery staff, led by James Bennett, salvaged the museum’s collection with the assistance of UNTAET. In 2002, both Bennett and Joanna Barrkman, in association with UNESCO, ran a museum training program with staff from the newly formed East Timor Ministry of Culture. In 2006, MAGNT has been invited to collaborate with Timor-Leste Museum, which is the recipient of UNESCO Museum to Museum Partnership Funds. However, due to recent political unrest, this project has been postponed.
MAGNT has also developed a close relationship with the Sarawak Museum in Kuching in East Malaysia. The long and close relationship between the two museums was exemplified by a gift of two large wooden carved poles from the Governor of Sarawak to the Territory government in 1991. The Sarawak Museum was instrumental in assisting the gallery to collect 265 Malaysian artefacts, predominantly from Sabah and Sarawak, which remain in its collection. The collection also attracts extraordinary levels of support and generosity from local, interstate and Indonesian collectors, as well as from other cultural institutions. For example, the South-East Asian art collection has increased by 1222 objects in the past six years. It is positioned to be the most accessible, relevant and appropriate institution in Australia to house artefacts from nearby South-East Asia.
Of those 1222 objects, 1064 had been donated to the Northern Territory government from the public, which really indicates the depth of community support for this aspect of the gallery’s collection. Two major donations of South-East Asian textiles - Indian, Indonesian and Malaysian - are currently being processed. The first is 189 textiles and tools from James Cook University in Townsville, and the second is 85 textiles donated by Michael Abbott QC. May I add that Michael has been a loyal and regular donor to the MAGNT collection over many years, and he certainly deserves our heartfelt thanks.
There have been many other donors to the MAGNT collection over the last six years - people like Brian Robinson, Gwen Swan, Dr Ray Hearn, Paul Ryan, Bernt and Gerda Weber, Valerie Asche, Caroline and Bill Taylor, James Bennett, Chips Mackinolty, Joanna Barrkman, the National Gallery of Australia, Dan Herbison, Susanne Perret, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Barry Ison, Peter Spillett, Bpk Siradjuddin Bantang, Allison Gray, Susie Tuckwell, Wayne Oastler, Dr Barry Russell, Ardiyanto Pranata and Allan Anderson.
Current MAGNT South-East Asian projects include the Link Gallery, which will see the development of an exhibition for semi-permanent display at the MAGNT. It is due to be installed later this year and features a display of East Timorese artefacts, carvings from Atauro and a DVD of Mrs Inez Casimiro, a senior member of Darwin’s East Timorese community. A diverse range of objects including Chinese trade ware ceramics, eastern Indonesian jewellery, Javanese glass paints, and Yao hill tribe ceremonial paintings will be displayed. The gallery has also received funding from the Australia-Indonesia Institute for the research, documentation and commissioning of Macassan and Bugis talismanic flags. These flags were originally used by Macassan and Bugis sailors who were responsible for introducing textiles and flags into Yolngu ceremonial practises. People would have seen this at the recent Indigenous Music Awards with the performances of Numbulwar’s Red Flag dancers.
Another important initiative is the Asialink Northern Territory-Eastern Indonesia Partnership Program. Curator Joanna Barrkman travelled to eastern Indonesia with representatives from partner organisations such as Asialink, the Ford Foundation and Kelola Foundation from Jakarta in January of this year. As a result, arts programs will commence in West Timor in 2007, with Territory artists supported with advice and expertise from MAGNT. It is envisaged that the visual arts projects undertaken as part of this program will be documented by the museum.
The partnership program brings together Territorians and eastern Indonesian traditional arts practitioners and managers who are working towards revitalisation of traditional arts. The program includes a variety of culturally significant art forms and traditions from eastern Indonesia that complement the broader cultural systems of the region. It aims to provide four key Indonesian artists and community leaders with alternative models for managing sustainable community cultural centres. This will be achieved through internships with Australian partners who have significant experience in the area. Our aim is to promote the participants’ confidence, pride and value in their own artistic traditions.
It will be a reciprocal exchange. Australian artists and art managers will carry out professional development workshops, seminars and artistic collaborative exchanges with communities in eastern Indonesia. Currently under development is the Mast, Flag and Wind exhibition. The exhibition looks at the historical contact between the Bugis and Macassan fishers of South Sulawesi and the Yolngu people of north Australia. It brings the two nations closer together through their shared histories, and gives visitors new insight into this part of the world.
Over recent years, there have been a number of other significant exhibitions featuring works from MAGNT’s collection. These have included: Motif Motif, Biboki, West Timorese textiles in 1991; Binding Culture into Thread, textile arts of Biboki in 1994; Hot Wax, an exhibition of Australian Aboriginal Indonesian Batik, MAGNT and Yogyarkarta Indonesia in 1995–96; and Noble Shadows in 1997. MAGNT has also loaned pieces from its collection to a number of other exhibitions including the Crescent Moon exhibition at the Art Gallery of South Australia, and the National Gallery of Australia last year.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as noted by the minister, museums and art galleries occupy important positions in any community, and this is true for the gallery’s South-East Asian art collection, perhaps more so for this is a collection that links communities and nations. It is a collection that uniquely positions the Territory as Australia’s most important link to our northern neighbours. I thank all the MAGNT staff for the wonderful work they have put into the Territory’s most popular and respected institution over the last 25 years.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Speaker, I was not planning to speak to this until I had the opportunity to read the minister’s statement. I am told she has corrected what she was going to say, which was this is the first occasion in the history of the Legislative Assembly that there has been a ministerial statement on Museum and Art Gallery of the Territory …
Ms Scrymgour: I made the change.
Dr LIM: I note that. The minister did change it, and that is good. Members will be interested to know that as far back as 29 February 1996, the then Chief Minister, who was also the Minister for Museums and Art Galleries, made a statement. On 24 February 1998, the then Minister for Arts and Museums, Mr Daryl Manzie, also made a statement; in June 2000, Peter Adamson, the minister, made another statement.
Both governments have recognised that the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory has provided significant input to the Territory. I am curious, if the minister can explain it, about the title. It used to be Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory. Now we are talking about the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. Maybe one is about the facility and the other, the plural, is about museums and art galleries across the Northern Territory.
Today, we are celebrating the facility and not the whole of museums and art galleries. Even so, I would have expected the minister to elaborate more about what the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory does. I was a little disappointed, like the shadow minister for museums and arts. I was looking forward to the minister coming back with further statements about what Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory has done. I thought it was a bit of froth and bubble, restricting their comments only to cultural exchanges and to collections within the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory.
In fact, if I were the minister, I would have included many other things that the Museum and Art Gallery does in Darwin. The minister should recognise the significant contribution that the Museum and Art Gallery made to the eradication of the black striped mussel. It was a collaborative exercise between the museum and the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries that found, identified and eradicated the black striped mussel. The work is a matter of record and I do not need to go much further into that. The fact that the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, and in fact the plural form, Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory, made and continues to make significant contributions in scientific studies both in the Territory and throughout Australia. I believe the minister should have drawn on that as well.
Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory scientists have attracted national and international media attention. We talk about the work they have done with Aboriginal rock art. We talk about the fossils that they have discovered and huge research by people like Dr Peter Murray’s joint research project with other government agencies including assistance with environmental, faunal and resource surveys. These are things that previous ministers have spoken about and I am surprised that the speechwriter for the minister had not referenced this material prior to writing her short statement all about just art collections and nothing much more than that.
I was pleased to hear the Chief Minister add her bit about international exchanges and the close links we have established with South-East Asia. That is important. Museums, as the shadow minister for arts and museums said, are places where most tourists want to visit because they are where you learn about the history and culture of the place you are visiting. That is what it is all about: cultural exchange. You see for yourself what those places have to offer, the past they came from and from that, you can derive what futures those places have.
To dwell on the museum because of its collection alone undersells what good work the museum and art gallery has performed in the last 25 years. We should be applauding them for the maritime archaeological surveys they have done of the Beagle Gulf, the Darwin Harbour and Cobourg Peninsula. I did not hear anything like that from the minister or the Chief Minister. They are huge things that the government should be talking about. I remember the member for Fannie Bay, in opposition, talking about Fannie Bay Gaol, Lyons Cottage - not a mention of that in the minister’s statement. What has happened? Do they not form part of the museum and art gallery?
When the portfolio was under minister Manzie, he spoke about the museum providing an enrichment of Territory lifestyle. Today, you go into the establishment and look at it and you can appreciate what true Territorian lifestyle is all about and, perhaps, thank God for the library. Some institutions in the Territory at least are trying to retain the lifestyle of the Territory and show people what it is all about, not like this government. All it wants to do is to bring in southern policies like restricting speed limits on the Stuart Highway and demerit points and all that. This is not Territory lifestyle. We do not need it and we do not want it.
I recall in 1995 or 1996 that there were some 303 000 visitors to the museum. That was despite the closure of Fannie Bay Gaol and Lyons Cottage. The minister says now that we have about 200 000 people visiting Darwin’s Museum and Art Gallery. While we might have had 3.5 million or 3.7 million visitors in the last 25 years, is the traffic decreasing compared to previous years? If it has, the minister needs to address that and see why are we only getting 200 000 and not 300 000-plus that we had some 10 or 12 years ago. Are we doing the right things? While we have more items in the catalogue and new items added each year, it hangs around 3000 to 4000 items each year and, with time, you are going to have more and more items in the catalogue and on display in the library.
I spoke about the black striped mussel, which is a significant project that the Museum and Art Gallery did in 1999. Minister, in your reply closing debate, I would like you to at least recognise that the Museum and Art Gallery did a significant job in that regard.
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased, as the Minister for Tourism, to support my colleague the Minister for Arts and Museum’s statement this evening. What a fabulous part the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory at Bullocky Point plays in giving tourists to the great city of Darwin a wonderful experience and understanding of the rich history and culture of the Northern Territory.
It really is a must do destination for any tourist that visits the Northern Territory, whether they are from interstate or overseas. Indeed, for all of us as residents of the Northern Territory, when we have families who come and visit us from interstate or overseas, it is certainly a must do experience to share with our families. It is fabulous that the museum is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. I extend personally, as a resident of Darwin, my thanks to the people who have been involved in running what is a fabulous landmark institution in Darwin for those 25 years.
As my colleague, the minister, said, over 200 000 people visit the museum a year, which is in excess of the population of the Northern Territory. I have never heard a negative comment. Everyone who comes away from spending half a day or so at the museum walks away with as many questions as they have answers in relation to the history of the Northern Territory. People thirst for continuing to understand more about the diversity of the history and culture of the Northern Territory. That thirst is not quenched once they leave the museum. I will not go through identifying all the displays over the years, as my colleagues have done, but it is a wonderful showcase.
The Indigenous Art Gallery is probably the best of its type in Australia. I am no aficionado in being through indigenous art galleries, but it has over 40 000 catalogued items and represents a great expose of the different types of art from different regions of the Northern Territory. It is an area of the museum in which you can spend many hours.
The Telstra National Aboriginal and Islander Arts Award, which is awarded in Darwin every year, features an exhibition showcasing all the art entered in the award. That, again, is a must do attraction for residents of Darwin to see how contemporary indigenous art is evolving. Some of those canvasses really blow me away.
One of the most poignant exhibits at the museum has to be the Cyclone Tracy display. I was not here in 1974. I came to the Northern Territory in 1982 and Cyclone Gretel is the biggest cyclone that I have been through. Every time I go and look at the photographs of the northern suburbs of Darwin around where I live and see the devastation that Cyclone Tracy wrought on this wonderful city, it makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Standing in the sound room listening to the fury of Tracy is something that I do not want to experience in my lifetime. It is a poignant reminder of what this city went through back on Christmas Eve 1974. I hope that display is never changed, never modified. The way it is certainly tells the story of what this city went through.
The Maritime Gallery is fabulous and I acknowledge the initial curator at the museum, Colin Jack-Hinton, who was such a magnificent face of our museum in Darwin for many years. He passed away earlier this year. The Maritime Gallery is a testimony to his life-long passion for the history of the Northern Territory, particularly our links with South-East Asia and the Macassans. Colin Jack-Hinton will always be associated very closely with the museum at Bullocky Point.
Another of the great exhibits which is now resident with the Chung Wah Society was the Sweet and Sour exhibition. I know today a number of colleagues attended, with members of Chung Wah, the sod turning for their new premises that they are building in the city for a permanent and more public display of the Sweet and Sour exhibition. Going through that history was fabulous because we all know so many members of the Chinese community. The family lineages and the history of some of the eminent Chinese families in Darwin was fabulous to see. With the support of this government’s funding - I think it is a couple of hundred thousand dollars - Sweet and Sour will go on permanent display not only for the people of Darwin, but also for the tourists who visit our great city.
As the Chief Minister said, the museum has significant regional importance, given that it is the pre-eminent museum in Australia that catalogues Australia’s connection going back hundreds and, in some cases, a couple of thousands of years with communities to our north in South-East Asia. It really is a regionally important museum and maintains the history of the connection between the Northern Territory and the Aboriginal people in our coastal communities with those of South-East Asia and Indonesia.
All in all, I wish the museum a happy 25th anniversary. It is certainly an institution of which all of us who live in this great city are very proud. I look forward to visiting the museum as a resident of this city for many years to come. I congratulate the minister on her statement tonight. Once again, I put my thanks onto the public record for the dedication of all the people who have worked at the museum and continue to provide such a wonderful experience for the people of Darwin to this very day.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to add my voice wishing the Museum of Art and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory a happy 25th birthday.
My first experience of visiting the museum and art gallery was in 1985, not to the exhibits, but to the restaurant that was located there, which went by the name of The Beagle. It was a great way to be introduced to the place. I finished lunch and decided to go for a walk along the foreshore. I remember seeing the Vietnamese fishing boats sitting up on the grass. This was one of the first that brought the wave of refugees from Vietnam in the late 1970s. I was impressed by this exhibit, and it aroused my curiosity to go inside the museum building and see what other exhibits were housed there to surprise me.
Let me tell the Assembly I was hooked on that first visit, and I can say I still am. Over the last 20 years, I have taken every interstate or overseas visitor to my home to the museum. I have told them that this place is a must. I find myself waxing lyrically about the fine art collections, marine craft section, any special exhibits on at the time and, of course, I paint a picture of the wondrous natural science collections. I frequently go to the museum with my family. My wife is always happy to go there with our kids and their friends as a place to relax, to learn and be fascinated by the vast array of creatures that share or have shared our environment.
The Chief Minister spoke a little while ago about visiting with her children during the build-up because of the airconditioning, and the panic attacks she had with her kids touching things. That seems to be a fairly shared experience with all families. I do not know how many times I have chased my young fellow around the museum, trying to stop him from touching things and wondering whether we would all get into strife. However, we managed to get through every time, and now he truly enjoys the experience of going there himself.
Clearly, I am not the only one who feels or acts like this – 3 700 000 visitors over 25 years cannot be wrong. Whenever I am viewing one of the many exhibits at the gallery, I nearly always find myself thinking about what goes on behind the scenes to make this place such a success. The member for Greatorex was critical that no mention was made about the scientific work that has been undertaken at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. Perhaps I can take the time now to address his worries because I have done a little digging on this question. I would like to share with the Assembly some of the things I have found about the role and value of this institution in extending our society’s knowledge and understanding of natural sciences.
The member for Greatorex could have done this himself. It is petulant to say: ‘We did not hear about this, we did not hear about that’. It is a public institution. It is there for everyone to see. All the information is out there in the public domain. It is a matter of showing a little foresight, energy and having a look at the fine institutions that we have. They are not government owned as such. They are not Labor party owned. They are not CLP owned. They are for the whole population. He should be talking it up instead of talking it down. The CLP seem to find joy in the negativity of knocking everything.
It is estimated that over the past 25 years, natural sciences staff have dealt with more than 12 000 public inquiries relating to animals in the Northern Territory. These inquiries have ranged from providing identifications of molluscs, worms, fish, insects, spiders, frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals to providing information on dangerous creatures such as box jellyfish and mouse spiders. In addition, MAGNT scientists have undertaken more than $4m worth of externally-funded surveys in the Northern Territory and adjacent sea areas. The result of this work has substantially increased our understanding of the biodiversity of our region.
Over the past 25 years, MAGNT has published 21 volumes and two supplementary volumes of The Beagle: Records of the Museums and Art Galleries of Northern Territory. This world-class publication is the only peer-reviewed scientific journal published in the Northern Territory and it contains the results of much of research undertaken by the MAGNT and other NRETA scientists. Since 1981, staff and research associates of MAGNT have published more than 680 scientific papers and described more than 200 new species from the NT and our region.
Over the last 25 years, there has been significant growth of reference collections. In 1981, the annual report listed 3050 fish. In 2006, the number is greater than 242 000 lots estimated at 1.2 million specimens comprising molluscs; fish; polychaetes, which are marine worms; coelenterates, which are corals and soft corals; crustaceans, shrimps and crabs; poriferan, which are the sponges; echinoderms, which are sea stars, trepang, the good old sea cucumber; and other invertebrate animals as well as reptiles and amphibians, birds and mammals.
Just as an aside, I always remember the Bougainvillea Festival when the chap who had the Indonesian restaurant at Nightcliff used to get along in his car with the great sea slug hanging off the top of it. I thought that was a wonderful touch to the Territory.
Much of the research work in natural sciences at MAGNT is traditional collections-based taxonomy and systematics. This is recognised as the core scientific strength of the MAGNT and what distinguishes it from university, conservation and wildlife management-based research activity. It is widely recognised in Australia that core taxonomic research such as that being undertaken at the MAGNT is critical to understanding biodiversity and evolutionary processes and underpins good sustainable environmental and natural resource management.
MAGNT’s natural science research is largely focused on three interdisciplinary themes, which reflect where its scientific strengths can most effectively contribute to an understanding of the natural history of the Northern Territory and adjacent regions.
Theme one is Palaeontology and Earth History. The goal of the Palaeontology and Earth History program is the study of the unique geological and fossil history of central and northern Australia centred on the international and significant fossil beds at Alcoota in Central Australia. The program also includes supporting research on the stratigraphy and palaeoenvironment of Central and northern Australia, and on tektite and meteorite discoveries in the Territory.
I must say that I have just been reading a ripping yarn on the Permian extinction, which details how debate has gone on for 100 years about just what did bring on the mass extinctions over time. Quite interesting, it is really good to see that our museum is right in amongst it all.
Over the past 25 years, the Palaeontology and Earth Sciences Program has yielded major and outstanding scientific discoveries including giant marsupial megafauna and the nearly complete skeletons of the giant bird, Dromornis stirtoni, probably the largest bird ever to roam the Earth, and unique reconstructions of these giant birds and other megafauna can be seen in the wonderful natural history displays at the Museum of Central Australia, Alice Springs and at the MAGNT, Bullocky Point.
Theme two is biosystematics. The goal of the biosystematics program is to increase our understanding of the biological diversity and natural history of northern and Central Australia through a taxonomic collection of the terrestrial, marine and freshwater aquatic fauna of our region. Research centres on field survey and taxonomic collection, and is directed towards supporting other essential NRETA biodiversity programs.
The research of the MAGNT is focused on animal groups that are of biogeographical, ecological or economic significance and now includes genetic and biochemical studies being undertaken in conjunction with Biosciences North Australia at the Charles Darwin University.
The third theme is Scientific Reference Collections. MAGNT is a primary source of taxonomical identification and information on the terrestrial, freshwater and marine fauna in the Northern Territory, and provides a service to the public and private sector such as industry, project developers, environmental consultants and scientific researchers.
Information is provided to the private sector on a fee-for-service basis. MAGNT also undertakes consultancy work relevant to its core expertise, including field surveys on a full cost recovery basis for industry and government. The Scientific Reference Collection program supports the development and management of the Natural Sciences collections of MAGNT. These collections are a major component of Northern Territory’s State Scientific Reference Collection and contain a permanent of the Territory’s biological wealth and natural heritage, containing materials that support research in many scientific disciplines including applied biology, health and human sciences, agriculture, ecology, resource management, bioinformatics, biosecurity and biotechnology.
Staff have also established important national and international links and collaborative programs with other research organisations such as the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences, the CSIRO, Arafura Timor Research Facility, museums and universities, and have undertaken collaborative work with such international bodies as the Food and Agricultural Organisation of United Nations and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
Over the past 25 years, MAGNT has loaned specimens from its collection to more than 1500 researchers in Australia and overseas, and provided access to collections to more than 200 visiting researchers whose work has added important information to our knowledge of the Northern Territory’s biological diversity.
Since its inception, notable achievements by MAGNT scientists have included a major baseline survey of the port of Darwin for marine pest species in 1999, which led to the discovery of an outbreak of the black striped mussel in Cullen Bay, Tipperary Waters and Frances Bay marinas. Thanks to the quick identification of this pest species by museum scientist, Dr Richard Willan, and the rapid response by government, this serious pest incursion was able to be contained and eradicated, a world first that averted a multimillion dollar threat to our pearl farming and aquaculture industries.
Museum scientists continue to play a crucial frontline biosecurity role in the early identification of marine pest incursions associated with foreign fishing vessels and have taken a leading role in the development of prevention management strategies for marine pests in northern Australia.
In respect of marine bioprospecting in northern Australian waters, MAGNT is a principal Australian partner in a cooperative research and bioprospecting program with the Coral Reef Research Foundation, a Palau-based non-profit organisation, and the United States National Cancer Institute, worth approximately $1.5m over five years from the years 2002 to 2007. This program, led by Dr Belinda Alvarez de Glasby, a world-class expert on sponges, has involved the collection of samples of marine animals such as soft corals and sponges for the screening by NCI for new pharmaceutical compounds with curative or preventative properties for cancer and AIDS.
The collaboration with CRRF and NCI is subject to a benefit sharing agreement that provides for the negotiation and entering into of further agreements for royalties in the event that an extracted compound from the Northern Territory is licensed to a pharmaceutical company for production and marketing. Some 806 samples have now been sent to the NCI for extraction and screening of bioactive compounds, although it may be several more years before the results of this analytical work are known.
The immediate short-term benefits of this program, however, have enabled MAGNT to build additional capacity marine taxonomy and, through an externally-funded collecting program, significantly increase our knowledge of marine biodiversity of the Northern Territory.
The bioprospecting program has also enabled leverage of additional funding from the Australian Biological Resources Survey to undertake further taxonomic work on sponges, which includes bimolecular studies with researchers at Biosciences North Australia at Charles Darwin University that are aimed at a better understanding of the potential pharmaceutical properties of these important marine organisms.
There is the joint marine research project entitled North Australian Marine Biological Survey. As part of regional marine planning for the northern Australia involving the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth of Australia through the National Oceans Office, a joint marine research project was undertaken by the Northern Territory government, National Oceans Office, Parks Australia North, the Northern Land Council and local Aboriginal community groups. The objectives of the survey were to conduct a marine biodiversity survey of the inshore waters around Arnhem Land and the Arafura Sea, which have had little scientific exploration, and develop research links with Aboriginal communities and their representative sea ranger programs.
The scientific research, which was coordinated by the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, also involved other scientists from the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, as well as the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines, concentrated on the eastern Van Diemen Gulf adjacent to Kakadu National Park, Goulburn Island, Boucaut Bay near Maningrida, and Castlereagh Bay near Milingimbi. Seagrasses in these areas were mapped using helicopter surveys and analysis of remote sensing imagery prior to the vessel-based surveys which extensively sampled the marine environment. The vessel survey, undertaken between 20 November and 8 December2004, has filled important gaps in information on biodiversity of marine ecosystems in the area and will assist in future coastal management planning.
One of the most important aspects of the survey was the involvement of local indigenous communities in the project through sea ranger groups and traditional owners. The selection of survey sites and the associated work program was undertaken following extensive consultation with the Northern Land Council, indigenous community groups and traditional owners at Kakadu, Maningrida, Warrawi, Ramingining, Milingimbi and Galiwinku. The survey has contributed towards the development and strengthening of relationships and information sharing between indigenous communities and scientific researchers, and has been an important first step in building community ranger programs’ ability and capacity to engage in marine research and monitoring coastal management in the future.
MAGNT is playing a significant role in the emerging science of bioinformatics. Bioinformatics is the application of computer technology to the management and analysis of biological data. The ultimate goal of bioinformatics is to uncover the wealth of biological information hidden in the mass of data and obtain a clearer insight into the fundamental biology of organisms. This new knowledge will have profound impacts on fields as varied as human health, agriculture and aquaculture, the environment, energy and biotechnology.
MAGNT is an active partner in a major proposal to the Commonwealth government for the development of the Atlas of Living Australia which will unlock over $1bn of museum and herbarium collection and research resources in Australia to the scientific and wider community. The Atlas of Living Australia will provide tools for data discovery, validation, retrieval, visualisation and analysis to suit the needs of all who are engaged in research and management of Australian biota and the landscapes, terrestrial, freshwater and marine, in which they exist. The Atlas of Living Australia will not only eventually present the data associated with the estimated 60 million biological specimens held in Australia’s biological collections - that is animals, plant and microbial - but will also be a repository for information about species, including diagnostic character sets, ecological and observational data on organisms and ecosystems, and for DNA and gene sequence information about organisms.
It will provide an efficient mechanism to speed access to the location of specimens, cultures and DNA essential for research and applications. It will not only include data on the specimens currently held in collections, but will also provide the framework for the capture of future biological data collection, improving the efficiency of this enormously. The benefits to the Northern Territory of participating in this very important program are obvious. The atlas will support research and decision-making in natural resource management and conservation planning, biosecurity, biodiscovery, health and education, and make assessable vital information on the Territory’s biological resources.
On a smaller scale, MAGNT Curator of Marine Worms, Dr Chris Glasby, is developing new web-based tools for the identification and description of marine worms, and has taken a leading role in an international collaborative study of marine worms. The Pantropical Nereid project, PARTNER, is an international collaborative project funded by the United States government to document and describe the diversity of tropical nereid polychaete worms of the world as a contribution to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. This project has involved collaboration of various researchers around the world, and has included collaborative work in Taiwan supported by the Australian Academy of Science and the National Science Council Australian/Taiwan Exchange Program. This work has also been supported by the Australian Biological Resources Survey, which has funded the Australian Nereid Species Bank Project, which will provide web-based taxonomic and biological information on all currently valid species of marine worms in Australian waters.
Members of the Assembly may wonder why this basic bioinformatics and taxonomic research on marine worms is important, and I can tell you. Marine worms are the dominant group of marine animals in soft bottom marine habits, and I bet you did not know that. They are especially ecologically important in seagrass and mangrove habitats of the Northern Territory ...
Mr Stirling: I cannot believe you know so much, Lenny.
Mr KIELY: Well, I hope the member for Greatorex is listening, because he seemed keen on knowing this.
Elsewhere, some marine worms are also serious pests, and MAGNT has received Commonwealth funding for the identification of native and non-native species in Northern Territory waters. Despite their importance, marine worms are very poorly known, although I do know a few terrestrial worms, if I may digress for a moment. I will get back to the subject.
Despite their importance, marine worms are very poorly known. For example, a recent study of deeper water polychaetes of the Arafura Sea yielded about 200 species, most of them either new records or new species. This rich diversity is also being explored in other ways.
Research overseas has shown polychaete worms may also be important in providing new and exciting pharmaceuticals; for example, the haemoglobin from one marine worm, Perinereis aibuhitensis, has been found to have potential medical application for gluing bones in orthopaedic operations. Similarly, a compound isolated from the same worm has significant antimicrobial activity, and may offer more general application in the search for new antibiotic molecules. Other marine worm species are being used as part of the biological treatment of sewage waste, while still others are being cultured as natural foods for prawn aquaculture. Prawns fed with polychaetes are shown to taste better; also there is significant savings in purchase of pellet food.
Clearly then, as well as underpinning studies of the marine biodiversity of Darwin Harbour and the Northern Territory coast by NRETA aimed at coastal management, the basic taxonomic and bioinformatics research being undertaken at MAGNT also has potential to support new and existing pharmaceutical biodiscoveries, as well as to provide better and more cost-effective solutions for aquaculture, marine waste disposal and biosecurity.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have gone over in little detail - not much by MAGNT’s high standards, I am sure – of some of their achievements in the natural sciences, which are probably not known to the wider world and definitely not known to the member for Greatorex. I have taking the opportunity to publicise this information because I feel it is something of which we should all be proud. I am pleased that I have been given the opportunity to support the minister and bring to this Chamber the good work of the MAGNT. Once again, I take the opportunity of wishing MAGNT a happy 25th birthday.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank everyone who contributed, particularly the member for Sanderson. Having listened to his contribution, he certainly has researched. He touched on the importance of the scientific collection. I am sure he would have talked to the staff who work in those areas. They are very passionate and certainly know their stuff. I thank the member for Sanderson for his fantastic contribution. We all learnt something. I will be touching on some of the same subject matter tomorrow.
I thank the member for Blain, who acknowledged that it is important to make occasional statements about places of importance such as MAGNT. Members know that after 25 years, I cannot claim MAGNT as a project of the ALP. We are quite happy to acknowledge the CLP’s role in the museum’s development.
He touched on World War II, which is certainly something I have been keen to work through. With our vision of Darwin, our World War II history is part of that vision. He mentioned initiatives that result in this nation recognising what happened in 1942 and onward. There has been a lot of work, over the last four years in particular, where the emphasis has been on a lot of the World War II sites where we have been able to upgrade and have better interpretative signage for many of the World War II sites. The airstrip in the member for Goyder’s electorate …
Mr Warren: Yes, Hughes.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, with the aeroplanes. Strauss!
I welcome the member for Blain’s bipartisan support. He talked about his idea of including the Timor campaign during World War II and the return of the prisoners of war whose port of call was Darwin. That would be interesting. I am not closed to having a discussion with him about that.
The Legislative Assembly Table Office provided me with some information on the previous debates and statements. In the Chief Minister’s contribution, she talked about when her children were small and swinging the sheep. I was going to go through that during my wrap up. As the member for Sanderson said, there are probably many parents around Darwin who have the same story: when you take little kids, they do want to touch.
The museum has moved on through the years. It has become more family friendly. There are areas where children can be involved. I often took my kids when they were growing up. Many years later, I am going there with my grandchildren. That certainly says something.
Listening to the Chief Minister and her passion for the South-East Asian Art Collection, I am thankful that I did not have to pronounce all the difficult Indonesian and other language names. I do want to emphasise the point that the Chief Minister made about the importance of the collection to our historic ties as far back as the Macassans and the relationship with the Yolngu people as well as contemporary relationships with our neighbours.
I was a bit disappointed with the member for Greatorex. He was his usual semantic self: gallery versus galleries. If he had looked at the statement properly, it was specifically for MAGNT and its 25th anniversary. I note he talked about the Fannie Bay Gaol and other museums. The statement was not about all of our museums. I am not saying they are not important, but this statement was purely on MAGNT’s 25 years celebration, which he would know if he had taken the time to really look at the statement a bit better.
I note with interest, though, when he was trawling through some of that, given that he is a member from Central Australia, he did not mention the Araluen Centre, which was interesting. Araluen, in terms of importance with MAGNT, is the museum of Central Australia and holds a number of big collections and has the Strehlow Collection, which is very important in Northern Territory history.
He talked about the scientific areas that I had left out. I hope he listened to the member for Sanderson’s contribution to the debate. If I had touched on all the scientific areas within the museum, I would still be on my feet and would not have had enough time. He should pick up the member for Sanderson’s contribution on the scientific areas within the museum, which was absolutely fantastic.
The Chief Minister picked up about South-East Asia and our connections and the art collections there. The member for Sanderson touched on the science and my other colleague, the member for Wanguri and the Minister for Tourism, picked up on some of those other areas. I thank them all for their contribution.
The member for Greatorex touched on something of interest. He talked about figures of 300 000 in the mid-1990s. Member for Greatorex, I asked my office with MAGNT to do a quick check. This is not about competition, either. The member for Blain said this is an opportunity for us to work together on something that is for the community. However, I have to point out to the member for Greatorex that his reference to 300 000 in the mid-1990s indicate that visitor numbers have decreased. For his benefit, in 1981 to 1982, there were not clear figures and it was only estimated that those numbers were about 100 000. Then for 1982 to 1983, when they started doing a better count, it was averaging around 106 789. It started increasing in the 1990s. Actually 1992-93 was probably the best year; it was around 140 228. That was the highest in the 1990s. Then in 2001-02, we had 140 431. Those numbers kept increasing to 2003-04 210 787. In 2004-05, we saw 210 244. So the 200 000 mark that I talked about, member for Greatorex, did not happen in the 1990s. It only started increasing in 2003-04. That is because of the Labor government. We have increased tourist numbers and a lot of tourists are going to the museum.
Without further ado, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank everyone for their contributions. Before I finish, I would like to once again, as do all members who contributed to this statement, acknowledge and thank the staff of MAGNT. They are a dedicated, hard-working staff. I have to make the point that for the first time, we have an Aboriginal female curator, Francesca Cubillo. It was a proud moment to see Francesca, a local, indigenous woman, return and become the Indigenous Curator at MAGNT. I thank Anna and all the staff at the museum. They do a fantastic job and I know mums and dads enjoy going there.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
On 23 August, the new classrooms at Holy Spirit Primary School were officially opened and presented for blessing by Father Stephen Hackett. Unfortunately, owing to parliamentary sittings, I was unable to attend. However, my friend and colleague, the member for Arnhem, Barbara McCarthy, was more than happy to attend in my place. It was a great day in terms of opening the new facilities for the kids at Holy Spirit. Barb is a very proud parent at a fantastic school in my electorate.
I was fortunate to have a tour of the classrooms to appreciate how much money and effort has gone into the overall makeover of the facilities and to see the teaching facilities now available for the school and its students. Holy Spirit has been established in Wanguri for many years and, over time, the suburb has grown around the school. With the change in classrooms, funds have also been used refurbishing the undercover area so classes can use it as a larger area to study and learn about different arts, cultures and subjects. I congratulate Principal Gill Webb and her Parents and Friends Committee for their persistence in making this vision become a reality. I know it will be enjoyed by current and future students for many years to come.
On Saturday 26 August, I had a great afternoon working on the chocolate wheel at St Andrew’s Lutheran Primary School for their fun fair, doing my bit to help raise money for the school. Parents and staff members did a great job organising the event, and everything came together on the day, with many families enjoying the affordable afternoon out. To Principal Tom Leach, the teachers and the Parents and Friends Committee, congratulations on a fantastic day. Everyone had a lot of fun. I look forward to the event next year.
There has been a lot of action at the Trower Road unit complex in Wanguri in recent months as residents take to their gardens to not only beautify their own yards, but also the surrounding grounds of the complex. Donna Kittle has been a long-term resident of my electorate and, when I heard she was moving to the complex, I knew her gardening green thumb would be contagious with fellow residents. Sure enough, after Donna was happy with her own little sanctuary in her courtyard, she started helping out nearby residents with handy tips and giving them plants to help grow their own gardens. There are now many residents getting into the gardening craze, improving the appearance of the area and the number is growing as the word is spreading. When neighbours heard about the Territory Housing Gardening Competition; it gave them extra incentive to work hard in their gardens. Not only did residents rally behind the gardening initiative, so did the local community and businesses who generously donated gardening equipment and soil for the cause.
I visited the gardens recently and provided a community barbecue for the residents involved in the gardening to congratulate them on all their hard work and invested time in the project. Their gardens and the overall gardens of the complex look fantastic. All their hard work has paid off and some of the residents picked up awards in the Territory Housing Gardening Competition announced at this year’s Garden Spectacular. Congratulations to Donna, who won the second prize, and Val Kildare and Craig Brooksby who were noted with a special commendation. Keep up the good work, guys. I hope that more residents in the complex get the gardening bug.
I would like to congratulate a constituent, Mrs Rita Nadeem, who was recently awarded a Northern Territory 2006 Pride of Australia Medal at the awards dinner at SKYCITY. Mrs Nadeem was the winner of the Peace Medal, an acknowledgement of her efforts in the community which recognises people in the community for advancing understanding, tolerance and social harmony amongst Australians of any background. This was recently demonstrated as Mrs Nadeem opened her home and went to great efforts to accommodate and help some of the refugees from East Timor when the country was going through a difficult time.
Mrs Nadeem characterises the attributes of a single Australian trying to help people in need no matter what their diversity or ethnic background. I commend Mrs Nadeem’s work in the community. She is a leader in the community, admired by family, neighbours and myself, so congratulations. It is a well deserved accolade for a great woman, and congratulations to the Northern Territory News for sponsoring such a significant award.
I recently had a great time meeting a group of Japanese students and staff from Kibi Cho Junior High School during a tour of Parliament House. Dripstone High School has had a long-running association with the Kibi Cho school and its students. The group participates in the school’s classes and the school community billet the visiting students, fostering a great relationship and learning culture. The 16 students and four staff members arrived on 1 August, and were in Darwin for 10 days in which they were determined to see as much of Darwin as possible and undertake as many tourist activities as they could. They shared experiences at Litchfield Park, visiting Batchelor and Crocodylus Park. As well as enjoying Darwin’s tourist attractions and a wide range of activities, they continued to strengthen the relationship between the two high schools, which I hope will continue for many years to come.
I recently met with a young lady in my electorate, Honeylyn Lisson, a bright young lady who is about to embark on the journey of a lifetime. Honeylyn is one of two from the Darwin Phoenix Guides Group chosen to represent the Northern Territory and Australia at an international guide camp in England during August. I was delighted to be able to support Honeylyn with a donation to assist with costs of the trip. I wish her well in her travels and look forward to catching up with her when she gets back and lets me know how she went on that great trip of a lifetime.
On Sunday, 30 July, I was pleased to drop into the Tracy Village Sports and Social Club to announce that $800 000 will be provided to the club to upgrade its sporting facilities. The Territory government is very proud to deliver on another election commitment and support local clubs in the community. The grant will see installation of professional lighting at the club’s ovals, allowing for the fast-growing Northern Territory baseball and softball leagues to play competitions at night for the first time. Work is under way on the light installation and is expected to be completed by December. This time line will provide the capacity to support the Northern Territory championships and the Arafura Games in 2007. I hope this announcement will also increase the number of participants in both these sports, as it has done in Alice Springs. Well done to the club and its committee for their efforts in securing the funds. I, along with government and my colleague, the member for Casuarina, think it is money well spent. It is a great investment in the Tracy Village Sports and Social Club. As their president said to me the other day, it is the first funding Tracy Village has received from the Northern Territory government. It is a great investment in our northern suburbs.
I have recently had the pleasure to enjoy a cup of tea with members of a local playgroup, which meets weekly in our community. Leanyer’s Little Leapers Playgroup meets every Friday at 10 am at the Leanyer Preschool grounds. The group has a great set-up at the preschool, with access to toys, equipment and a great outdoor area for the kids’ enjoyment. The playgroup caters for children zero to five years of age, and parents have a great time catching up with each other over morning tea. With the first two visits free, I encourage all young families and new families to visit the play group and join in.
If you have been past Tambling Terrace or Henbury Avenue recently, you will have seen much activity in the new suburb of Lyons. My electorate office is always being bombarded with inquiries and questions as to progress and land sales. I am pleased to inform the House that things are looking good and are on track at this stage, and they hope to achieve a lot before the Wet sets in. I always enjoy catching up with the director of the development, Geoff Smith, and his sales and consultant team of Sharon Feist and Phil Charlton. The team is about two to three weeks away from opening their own sales and inquiry office on-site, which will give interested residents and future buyers the resource they need to stay involved and ask questions. The office will be located on Tambling Terrace next to the Tracy Village Club entrance.
As the House may have already heard, the sale of blocks and land in the suburb will be done by a ballot process. This is to avoid buyers purchasing multiple blocks, and keeping the land price affordable so their target demographic can still get into the suburb. Expressions of interest have been called from builders to purchase seven blocks for the purpose of a display village. The aim is for construction to commence on the village in October and be ready to open in March 2007. At this stage, the public open day is set for March 2007 and will include the launch of neighbourhood facility, display village and, hopefully, the central park. The construction of Stage 1 is well under way, and Stage 2 is now starting. The home sites in Stage 1 are expected to go on sale in the next couple of weeks, with a ballot being held on 25 November at this stage.
Public interest in the development has been overwhelming, with huge support from the people of Darwin. There will be plenty of advertising soon with all the details. The successful tenderer to build the neighbourhood facility is Larrakia Homes. I congratulate the Larrakia; they really are setting the trail of being an indigenous group coming together and forming commercial enterprises that are looking at every avenue to employ local people. For Larrakia Homes to win the tender to build the neighbourhood facility in the first new suburb Darwin has seen for many years is a huge tribute to their capacity. Completion of this building is expected in early 2007. The website will be upgraded with prices and plans of Stage 1, the design guidelines, and the ballot pack in the next few weeks. I look forward to my next tour of the site, as it is constantly changing.
Wanguri Primary School is now 30 years old. The event was celebrated in style with a full day and evening of entertainment and a trip down memory lane on Wednesday, 30 August. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it was great to have you there at the official assembly to celebrate the 30th anniversary because you are an old boy of Wanguri Primary School. It was great to have you there for the day.
The morning kicked off with a full assembly with class performances, speeches and His Honour the Administrator Ted Egan singing happy birthday to the school, while I had the honour of cutting the birthday cake. I really wanted to give the school a special birthday gift that could stay with them for another 30 years. I was thrilled to get a painting from artist Bulathay Marion from the Wanguri clan in Arnhem Land from which the school received its name. The painting is called Wanguri Monak and it tells a very distinct story about the land, the water and the whole story of the dreaming of the culture of the Wanguri people. The painting is another way of identifying the school’s long identity and history in the Northern Territory. I am very keen, as local member, to build solid bridges and relationships with the Wanguri people in Arnhem Land.
Past and present students, teachers and parents then gathered in the evening to look at photo displays from 30 years of classes and watch the school put on a show of song and celebration to mark the event. It was a great night and seeing the number of people just looking back through the old class photos to see themselves or their kids was fantastic. The day-long celebrations were great. I congratulate the school on organising such a wonderfully successful event. Happy birthday, Wanguri.
Last Monday, I had the pleasure of being asked to open the Northern Territory Junior Eight Ball Titles held at the Tracy Village Sports and Social Club. It was great to see so many juniors involved in this sport as teams gathered from across the Territory to battle it out for the Northern Territory representative honours at next year’s nationals in Melbourne. To officially open the event, I was asked to break the balls on the table and was very relieved to make a great break on the first try. It is a long time since I have played eight ball - it is time to get back to my youth, I think. I congratulate a constituent, Wendy Banfield, for all the hard work and time she invested in the event and its success.
As all local members are aware, the government, through the Office of Senior Territorians, always ensures the Seniors Month calendar is full of activities and events to occupy our seniors. This year’s Seniors Month was held in August. The member for Casuarina, Kon Vatskalis, and I found it almost impossible to hold our own functions for seniors in our electorates because there was so much happening so we decided to wait until September and hold a combined function when our seniors’ social diaries had settled down a bit.
Last month, we held a combined morning tea for our senior Territorians from both the Casuarina and Wanguri electorates at Tracy Village. The morning was a hit, with everyone keen to get together for a cup of tea and a catch up as well as meeting new people in the area. We were very privileged to have the Wanguri Primary School Choir perform a few songs, fresh from their outstanding performance in Darwin at The Beat and the school’s 30th birthday. All the guests were blown away by their singing ability. I thank Principal, Jenny Robinson, and choir leader, Judy Weepers, and the students for attending and supplying much appreciated entertainment.
I extend my personal thanks to Judy Weepers who has been teaching music to Territory students for over 30 years. She is a true legend of education in the Territory. Judy, thank you very much for your work over the years.
I am continually astounded by the talent among the young people in our community. On a recent visit to Leanyer Primary School, I was able to stay and enjoy the fabulous presentation of the Disney classic, The Lion King. The Year 7 classes of Mrs Russell and Mrs Eade did a fantastic job of bringing this movie to reality on the school stage, with the rest of the school an eager audience. Well done to both Year 7 classes on their outstanding performance on 21 September. I was amazed by the effort that had gone into the costumes and set design as the story came to life, with extraordinary acting talent demonstrated by the students. There are many uplifting occasions that occur within our school during the course of the year, and this performance of Lion King was no exception. It was absolutely fantastic. A production of this nature deserves to be recorded and it was only made possible because Anthony Grey, Brendan Hart, Mathias Hansen and Dylan Burden recorded the performance. Still photographs are being produced and a DVD will be made. Thank you to Natalie Shannon and the indefatigable Wendy Banfield for the production. Thanks to Mara, Margaret, Michaeland all others, staff and support staff, who were part of the significant adult group supporting our Year 7s.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it has been a fantastic couple of months in the Wanguri electorate. I look forward to reporting further.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about the by-election for the seat of Stuart, which commenced on 11 September and finished on 23 September, some five weeks ago. For me, the last five weeks have just flown by.
As we would have all experienced before, elections tend to bring out some fantastic stories and, in some cases, some very opportunistic photos. How can I forget the donkey votes at Daguragu and the Brolga Award I was given at Pigeon Hole?
A member: Great photos!
Mr HAMPTON: Fantastic photos! I was amazed by the interest and excitement the people in my home town of Alice Springs showed and have continued to show towards the by-election and my election as the new member for Stuart.
Many of my mother’s old friends and ex-students from the St Mary’s Home in Alice Springs have since come up to me and given me a hug and shed a tear or two. It may sound trivial, but to me it means a lot because many of these ladies have watched me grow up and treated me as their own son. I take this moment to thank those ladies for their warm and caring feelings over the many years, including Aunty Daisy Hampton, Eileen Mosley, Doris Green, Doreen McCormack, Nora Kempster, Bessie Parsons, Bessie Kriss, Audrey Tilmouth and Edith Tranter.
I would also like to mention Sister Eileen Heath, who many long-term Territorians would know well. Sister Eileen, who turned 100 years old earlier this year, was one of the original St Mary’s sisters and a strong advocate for the Alice Springs community over many years. Sister Eileen was someone who grew my mother up when she resided at the St Mary’s home and has been a close friend of the family ever since
I am very proud of Alice Springs because it has a very strong and special spirit about it. This spirit is created by the people for the people and is best expressed during times of hardship and sorrow. It is very unfortunate that people in the CLP and some aldermen on the Alice Springs Town Council like to politicise and talk down the town because of some of the social problems. Alice Springs, like many communities throughout the world, has its fair share of social problems. I am confident in saying that the spirit of Alice Springs is well and truly alive and something on which I will be drawing over the coming years.
As you can imagine, the by-election in the seat of Stuart was an enormous event to conduct, and I am forever grateful to the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party for their support. There were many people involved in my campaign I would like to thank personally. In particular, those members of the bush communities and the town camps who supported all the way: Eileen Hoosan, Barbara Shaw, Gary Moore, Walter Shaw, Tommy Walkabout, Margaret Ross, Tony Scrutton, Comet Fishook, Simon Gorey, Freddie Pepperill, Andrew Glenn, Sean Glenn, Jasper Haines, Mick Arundal, Des Rogers, Peter Strachan, Robert Hoogenraad, Bob Durnan, Miguel Ociones, Vince Jeisman, Scott McConnell, Paul Quinlivan, Robyn Freeman, James and Violet Marshall, Melissa Brown, Teddy Jupurrula Long, Maxi Martin, Matthew Furber, Alison Furber, Cheryl Alice, Jeremy Scrutton, Marg Smith, Lance Lewis, Brian Stirling, Norbet Patrick, Tracy Katakaringa, Stewart Adcock, John Ah Kit …
Mrs Braham: That’s half of Alice Springs, isn’t it?
Mr HAMPTON: No, he is a Top Ender. … Tahnee Anderson, Graham and Judy Buckley, Maya Cifali, Carol Burke, Amanda Crossin, Jo Clarke, Rose Connolly, Colvin Crowe, Kevin and Elanor Diflo, Adrian Dixon, Michael Duffy, Chris Hallet, Dee Hampton, Judith Hargraves, Sean Heffernan, Jeanie Herbert, John King, Tracey Lemass, Claire Meaney, Masie Charlie, Trish Van Dyke, Stephen Weber, Peter Stafford, Otto Simms, Wilma Ross, Emilio Roberts, John Rawnsly, Lena Pula and all the ladies from Mosquito Bore at Utopia, Stephen Bob, Marilyn Peters, John Prior, Eddie Robertson, Christina Phillis, Justin Paddy, Richard Newry, Johnathon Mick, Banjo Morton, Gilbert Corbett, Jack Cook, Isobele Hagan, Robbie and Connie Wallit, Jeanie Egan and Thomas Rice.
I have no doubt that I have missed some people, and I will thank them personally when I see them.
Mr Stirling: You think so?
Mr HAMPTON: As I stated in my maiden speech a week ago in this House, the seat of Stuart has been held by the Australian Labor Party for 23 years. My predecessors, Brian Ede and Peter Toyne, fought hard for the bush with both working in opposition prior to 2001 election.
My campaign slogan of Standing up for You is something I am proud to place on the public record and on which to be judged during my parliamentary career ...
Mrs Braham: I will remind you about that.
Mr HAMPTON: No worries. I commend the Northern Territory Electoral Commission on the work the commission and mobile team staff did during the by-election.
During the campaign, there were many issues the people of Stuart raised with me. The issue of roads was one that was constantly brought to my attention, including Lajamanu to Kalkaringi road, the road from Yarralin to Pigeon Hole, the Humbert River Road along the community of Yarralin, the Tanami Highway and the Sandover Highway down the Centre.
Roads are the most critical infrastructure for the bush as they provide the links for thriving industries in Stuart such as the many vast pastoral properties, the Tanami mining province, the growing horticultural industry around the Ti Tree area and the tourism sector. Roads importantly provide the lifeline for our remote Territory communities and the service centres of Katherine and Alice Springs. I look forward to meeting with the Cattlemen’s Association, mining, horticultural and tourism industry representatives in the future to discuss their issues.
Other issues raised included housing, secondary education, access to contracts, employment opportunities, land rights, the permit system and the future of outstations. The last three issues in particular need to be carefully thought out and considered. I suggest that CLP members in this Chamber talk to their mates in Canberra and tell them to get out into the bush and listen to the people.
I acknowledge the other candidates and the hard work that they put in to the by-election. One thing that we all experienced during the campaign was the pressure and long hours on the road. The CLP tried but failed to confuse voters in the bush by putting up five other candidates, two CLP and three so-called Independents. This did not go down well with many voters in Stuart who have a very good understanding of the electoral system.
Another concern in my electorate, and one that was a worry during the campaign, was family feuds. As I have stated publicly, I am always prepared to help out families who are ready to sit down and talk through the issues and problems. These family feuds are crippling our communities, and what we are seeing is school attendance falling as families are moving in and out of their communities to avoid the trouble. I look forward to the challenge ahead and working as part of the Martin Labor government.
An event just after the by-election was the AFL grand final in Melbourne. I saw the member for Braitling there, and I am sure she enjoyed the game as well, despite Melbourne not being in the final. I thank the Territory’s own Western Bulldogs, Cameron McDonald and John Van Gronigan, who were fantastic to my family. I have mentioned the member for Braitling. The members for Millner and Wanguri were there along with our Minister for Sport and Recreation. What a fantastic game it was. There was a crowd of 98 000 people at the MCG. It was my first grand final and my first AFL game at the newly redeveloped MCG. I put on record that it was a fantastic game in a great atmosphere and was a good opportunity to take my wife and sons down and watch the game live. It was a great reward for my family because of the pressure they had been under during the by-election. It was a fantastic opportunity and a fantastic trip.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I inform the Assembly of the wonderful work that is being done with our young children and teenagers in the northern suburbs by family members, just like all of us, who happen to have a bit of a passion for football. I am speaking specifically about the Marrara Dragons Soccer Club. This club is a proud member of the Northern Territory Football Federation and has been established since 1993. It provides a local soccer club for junior players in the Anula, Malak, Karama, Leanyer and Wulagi areas.
The club was started in the early days by Bill Miller, a name we all associate with football, and the driving force for its development in the Northern Territory. Bill’s contribution to the Marrara Dragons has been recognised by the award of Life Membership by the club. Bill reciprocates the club for this honour by happily giving up his time to help kids train and to take part in club presentations. On behalf of all club members, I say good on you, Bill; your support is greatly appreciated by players, parents and the committee.
Recently, I was asked by the committee to take on a role as club patron, I guess because of the support my office has given the club over the years. I had a quick look through some of my past correspondence to the club and noticed, much to my pleasant surprise, in 2003 I made a donation towards the purchase of soccer equipment for the club.
As I mentioned, the club has a long history in the Sanderson area and a strong following of juniors as young as four-and-a-half years old, as well as a ladies and the Division 2 men’s team. When I was asked to become patron, I never hesitated to accept. It has been a fantastic season this year for the Marrara Dragons Soccer Club, who entered teams from the littlies, Under 6s, right up to the open women’s and men’s teams. I am proud to be the patron of this fantastic club that promotes teamwork and fitness.
Thank you also needs to go out to the new club president, Carmen McVicar. Carmen’s fantastic efforts have the club running smoothly. Other committee members include vice-president, Dave Mitchell; secretary, Stefan Herold; treasurer, Tim Lay; and committee members, Debora Brown, Annette Dougall, Shaneen Tilmouth and Erin Grace.
Appreciation for ongoing commitment and effort for the 2006 season goes to the coaches and team managers who put in a great deal of time. I would like to thank: the Under 6 coach, Colin Hugget, and manager, Cathy Hugget; Under 8 coaches, Aaron Beavington and Ryan Beattie, and managers, Kerryn Beavington and Sally Parmenter. I must say that Sally, who lives in Northlakes, is really keen on youth sport, heavily involved in the golfing scene and has great aspirations for young golfers at Darwin Golf Club. I wish her all the luck with that.
Back to the teams: Under 9s coach, Piet Kailola, and manager, Sherryl Murray; Under 11s coach, Steve Mitchell, and manager, Debora Brown; Division 5 coach, Jalil Jadue, and manager, David Hardy; and Division 6 coach, Peter Byrne, and manager, Stefan Herold.
Members might know of Peter if they had been out and seen The Rogues, a band that used to play at the old Sheraton Hotel. I remember going out to see them. They were a great Irish band. I think Peter might still play.
Both the men’s and women’s teams had a great season making it to the semi-finals. Thanks to the men’s coach, Mick Reid, and women’s coaches, Louis Espinoza and Steve Thick.
Thank you also to the creators of the wonderful website for the club, Claudia Sepulveda and Michael Deluca. Last but not least, I acknowledge and thank all the parents who take players to and from training and games, washed the teams’ strips and volunteered their time in the duty club.
I had great pleasure last Sunday participating, as patron, in the presentation of cups and medallions to our players. I was also very pleased that Bill Miller found time to get to the presentation, hand out some awards and let parents know the good things our government and his code are doing to help cement football into the NT suite of sporting activities enjoyed by the community.
The presentation day at Parap Pool was fantastic, and the club put on a great barbecue. I was happy to help with a donation and help all the other parent volunteers to make this memorable occasion for our junior players.
Soccer, if I may use the old term, is a fantastic way for kids to get fit and meet new friends. It has a strong multicultural base of players, and it is good to see the mums and dads get involved in supporting their kids. I must also say that the Marrara Dragons train regularly, Tuesday nights at Malak Oval. They did mention to me that training commences at approximately 5.30 pm. They only get an hour in, particularly in the Dry Season. This oval is used heavily by the club and others. It would be great to have some lights at the oval. There might be room in some of the programs run by the Justice Department but also the council should give consideration to getting these lights up. We live in a climate which lends itself to evening activities. We have issues about giving our kids alternatives and getting them involved in sport. This would be a great way to do it. I ask my parliamentary colleagues to think seriously about lights at the Malak Oval. I also ask the Waters Ward aldermen and the Lord Mayor to consider lights for this oval for the benefits it would bring to the suburb and its families.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I report on a recent trip to Canberra after which I returned through Sydney where I made a point of investigating the sport of Paintball or Skirmish.
There has been a lot of talk of this sport in the Northern Territory. There has been a desire for it by many people for a number of years. I go back to 1999 or 2000 when, as a backbencher in the CLP government, I presented about 900 signatures supporting the approval of Paintball to operate in the Northern Territory. As the sport was developing around the country, there was a fair amount of discussion behind the scenes about changing the regulations to permit the licensed operation of Paintball in the Northern Territory.
Government changed and, from our positions in opposition, we cannot implement policy, but I maintain the position that I held at the time as a new member of parliament that the sport of Paintball could be permitted in the Territory. My investigations in New South Wales will serve some good lessons as to how it could best operate in the Northern Territory. I will go into that in more detail in a moment.
I had the good fortune of visiting the largest Paintball or Skirmish operation in New South Wales. It was a reasonable drive out of the centre of Sydney. I was not only visiting the site, but was hosted by Michael Wybrew who is one of the managers and is the President of the Australian Paintball Association. They are very concerned about the profile of the sport. Given some of the battles that they have had to fight in different states, they are very aware of the issues surrounding establishment of the sport within states.
Every mainland state, apart from the Northern Territory, permits the operation of Paintball. For those who are unfamiliar with it - and I was surprised to find that there are some people do not know what it is - it is a bit like cowboys and Indians for grown-ups or a bit like the Taser game that is played where you use a laser gun and it registers an impact and you get the score at the end of it. It is very much the same, but it is generally played outdoors. It is quite physical and relatively harmless. If you are involved in the sport, you must wear a face mask. I can tell you from personal experience if you are hit, it is not going to knock you over or cause much pain; however, it did sting a bit. I asked, on behalf of honourable members, to return with the experience of having been shot so I could report on what it is like to be shot.
These are the paintballs themselves. They are different colours, filled with coloured clay, which is resin or plastic coated. It disintegrates and the dye is biodegradable. Even though the site I visited was covered in paint, after rain, it is washed away. I asked him if I could experience what it is like to be hit by one of these things. I have never been told to go and stand over there if I want to be shot, but I did what I was told and braced myself. It was a bit of a sting, but nowhere near what I thought it might be.
I found that there are a number of different scenarios for a team. I was first greeted by a group of Asian students who had travelled from Melbourne. They were very excited. It was a mixed group of girls and boys, university students. They had saved their money and it was a big outing for them. That is fairly common. Usually, you have mixed groups, youngish people, executives, people from the workplace, football clubs and so on. They will come out and they will spend half a day or a day at the site.
You pay your money, receive your basic kit, which is protective head gear and overalls, and you get your paint gun. You buy a certain number of paintballs to go with it. You go through a series of instructions of how this is to be played. You take your paint gun from the licensed operator. The guns are all the same and then you are under the control of one of the instructors at the first battle ground where they play different games.
It was really good fun. I could see them having a wonderful time and I would really enjoy being involved in something like that. I had a bit of time with the Army and training cadets many years ago and those sorts of activities are really quite exciting, just as I used to take my family down to Zone 3. That was good fun and a nice outing. The difference between what I saw there and those who are preoccupied with those kinds of games behind a computer monitor is it is outdoors, it is physical and you are in the company of a lot of other people. With all the guidelines I saw in place, it is safe.
One issue I saw could, potentially, be debated in the Territory if we were to change the regulations and permit a paint gun operation in the Territory. In New South Wales, they have a licensed operator who is able to supply the paint gun to any group that wants to play the game. They also now have provision for owning your own paint gun and taking it home. I bought a number of magazines and was surprised to see that there are a number of Australian magazines. One is called Paintball, Australia’s Premier Paintball Magazine. There is an international magazine and I have another Australian one. You can buy very powerful pain guns.
In New South Wales, there are those who are very serious dedicated players of the sport Skirmish or Paintball and they have their nominated teams and they train and so on. They take their own special, far more high powered, paint guns than the ones you get from the licensed premises. I am concerned about that. If it was to operate in the Territory, I would prefer to see a licensed operator who keeps all the paint guns on-site and they are all the same and are checked regularly. That means we would not develop another arm of the sport whereby people are able to take paint guns home and perhaps modify them. New South Wales, as far as I know, is the only state that allows that - and I could well be wrong - but that is not the sort of code that I would like to see in the Territory.
I would like to see licensed operators and the paint guns owned by that operator, stored on premises and subject to regular inspections. Once we had that in place, we could have an exercise in the Territory that is very healthy, good outdoors stuff and appealing to lots of young people who might want to come to the Territory. I recently had my daughter’s wedding here. Lots of young people came up, and they were looking for different things to do together as a group. Paintball is the sort of thing that young people enjoy doing. I am perhaps not that young any more, but I would like to give it a shot, too.
I did fire a few paintballs off. They are not the most accurate, but you can have a heck of a good time. It is quite realistic and all ages and both sexes could be involved. In New South Wales, as in other states, it operates from about 16 to 18 upwards so that excludes younger members of the family being involved. That is a question being debated by some of the associations: whether younger people, under parental supervision, could be involved. At this point, I would like to keep it relatively simple, perhaps 16 and older and under the care of a licensed operator.
I took my interest in Paintball to our CLP Annual Conference, where it was debated and fully supported by the CLP. Lots of arguments were raised: it is dangerous or perhaps encourages violence. If we have the Zone 3 operation already in the Territory, it is not much different from that. If we go to the Royal Show and we have dodgem cars, the same argument could apply: riding around in dodgem cars and running into each other could encourage problems on the road. It is a similar argument. On balance, with young people getting so caught up in electronic games, usually in isolation from anyone else, it is a very good outlet for that kind of activity because it is physical, it is outdoors and it is in the company of a group, which is good stuff.
I would like the minister for Police to revisit this issue. It has a lot of merit for the Northern Territory. We are the only state that does not permit it. Other states have bitten the bullet on Paintball, and they have found a way of allowing the sport to operate under reasonable and sensible guidelines. We could do the same in the Northern Territory. I look forward to one day having a competition with members of this Chamber. It would be a hoot; we would have a great time.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, when we last had a competition with members opposite, we beat them in a Dragon Boat racing. We might beat them again this time.
I speak tonight about a couple of letters written to the former Minister for Health and copied to me. The first letter was written in May 2006 and the other one in July 2006. It is about registration versus licensing of radiographers. The letter to the former Minister for Health opens with the line:
- This is a follow up to the previous letter sent to the Honourable Jane Aagaard in 2003 and to you on 10 March 2004 and 10 December 2004.
It is about the government’s apparent desire to change the compulsory registration of radiographers to a licensing scheme. Obviously, radiographers in the Northern Territory are concerned about that. They have sought information from government as to rationale and procedure. Evidently, nothing has been forthcoming from the government to the radiographers group. Their concern is this: licensing appears to be a lesser requirement than registration in their profession. In every job these days, people want to be professional in their job. Registration is the way to go because it gives them more professional status, whereas licensing does not.
Currently, New Zealand and the states of Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania have registration for radiographers. New South Wales and Western Australia are well on the way to having registration in their jurisdictions by the end of this year, and South Australia is working towards it by the end of this year. That means all states and territories currently use the registration system. I am not sure whether the government is aware, but the Country Liberal Party government was the first to introduce registration for radiographers in Australia, thus leading the country. Now, this Labor government wants to reverse the decision and go against the rest of Australia and New Zealand. It does not make sense.
The profession, obviously, needs to have a reason why this is happening and, to this point in time, the profession has not been able to secure an answer from the government. The government may say this is all because of the National Competition Policy but, if every state and territory uses the registration system to be consistent with the rest of the country, so should the Northern Territory. Remember, within professions nowadays we have the national policy of mutual recognition where your professional qualifications are recognised across borders. If the Northern Territory were to move towards licensing rather than registration, we are going to be inconsistent with the rest of the country. How will that then impact on radiographers who are licensed in the Northern Territory and want to work interstate? How will they be able to get themselves registered in those states before they can legally practise?
I do not know whether the minister is aware that to qualify as a radiographer, it takes four years of university studies. They are quite extensive studies. My elder daughter studied radiography and, having studied medical subjects such as physiology, anatomy, biochemistry and all those things that are required in the allied health profession, on top of that you have to study radioactivity and the negative impacts of radioactivity on body tissue, and how they can minimise those negative impacts. The studies are complex. They go through four years of those studies to achieve a university degree.
Rightfully, then, they should be registered after doing one year of professional development before they are allowed to go into practice within radiography services. From that point onwards, radiographers can branch off into doing ultrasonography, echocardiography, MRIs or radiotherapy techniques. These super specialist techniques will require about two years of extra studies before they can be qualified to practise in those professions. If they have to acquire all those specialist studies, to then not require them to have some form of registration where a professional body assesses the qualifications of a candidate, the professional skills that the person has before he is registered, would take away all the meaning of having to go through this intensive training before they can do these jobs.
When you look at how this process has developed with correspondence between the radiographer groups in the Northern Territory and the government, it appears that the NCP review was completed around May 2000 and, in January 2004, the Radiographers Board was given a copy of the draft bill and were told they had one week to provide comment to government. It took the government and its advisors, three-and-a-half years to draft the bill. Yet, they gave the Radiographers Board one week to make comment. That is really unjust. Unfortunately, despite the comments being provided back to government, radiographers have not received any feedback from government since then.
Their complaint, therefore, is that, in summary, for the last 15 to 20 years the profession of radiography has been made more complicated through all these extensive studies they have to do. There are more professional options now and training times have been increased. Therefore, it is important to ensure that they are recognised as registered professionals. By changing it to licensing, we lessen the status of the profession. Sub-specialties from radiography include medical imaging technologists, therapeutic radiographers, diagnostic radiographers, nuclear medicine, specialty in ultrasound, CT scans, MRI, and then even echocardiography. This requires many years of study.
In closing, I ask the minister to respond to the Radiographers Board. Tell them what your intentions are; your rationale for wanting to make registration the lesser requirement of a licensing process. It will surely take away the professionalism that radiographers wish to have for their occupation. The minister, who is a university graduate, feels that after four years of study, you should not be a registered professional, perhaps he should be prepared to give up his PhD.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I begin tonight by recognising a man who continues to make a valuable contribution to the Territory; a compassionate, talented man who has a great deal of experience and understanding of the social impact of law and the modern legal system on indigenous communities, a man who is unquestionably and genuinely concerned with working to find a way to end violence on Aboriginal communities and to do his part to find an answer to the wrenching of the social fabric on many of our indigenous communities. This is a man who has no interest in political point scoring, media grandstanding or one dimensional responses to the complex issues confronting indigenous communities. I am, of course, referring to Mr Stewart O’Connell. It is a shame that an honourable, genuine person like Stewart had to endure the politically motivated or, at very best, ill considered attack by the Leader of the Opposition.
I am not objecting to the Leader of the Opposition voicing opposition to views Mr O’Connell expressed in articles. We are entitled to have differing views. However, attacking Mr O’Connell’s credibility is going too far. I am very comfortable trusting the motivations of Mr O’Connell. I cannot always say the same about the Leader of the Opposition on this issue, nor the CLP, a party that has never, in my opinion, been genuinely interested in the problems facing our indigenous community.
I have been extremely busy in Palmerston. I see a great many people in my electorate office on a daily basis. It is always a pleasure to have people come and see me and to be able to assist, even if only in a simple or little way. I take great pleasure in representing the people of Brennan and the people from the greater Palmerston area who come to see me either because of something happening in their lives, or simply to drop in, say hello and introduce themselves.
I was very pleased to recently attend Gray Primary School and The Good Shepherd School as part of Numeracy and Literacy Week. I read a book called Run Hare Run. The book is about an artist who wants to paint a picture of a hare; about the artist chasing the hare through the countryside and then the city before capturing the hare and immortalising it in a painting. The painting actually sits in an art gallery in Vienna.
The children to whom I read were a credit to their schools. I enjoy attending schools in my electorate and other parts of Palmerston. The students I have been able to meet and have been privileged to be able to have some interaction with have always done their school proud. I very much hope the children enjoyed the story on these occasions. It was my pleasure to present a copy of the book to the libraries of both schools. I hope they will be very well read over the years and bring joy to those who read them. I thank the schools for their invitations as part of Numeracy and Literacy Week.
Gray Primary School has hosted a number of events of its school community. I was very happy to assist with Father’s Day breakfast. There were many dads who turned up and had bacon and eggs with their child or children, which was fantastic to see. Many dads went off with their child or children to look at classrooms, something I understand schools have great difficulty with at times. It was a great initiative by the school to host this breakfast for dads because we live very busy lives and it can be difficult. It was not just about dads coming down to the school, but dads having an extra opportunity to be with their kids and enjoy something together, something, as I said, in our busy lives can be easy to neglect. I was able to assist with cooking on the morning, but still was privileged to have a chance to chat to some of those who were there. It was a very enjoyable morning for me.
The other big event for Gray Primary School was a Performance Night on 14 September. Again, this was a very well-attended event and I congratulate all the staff for the effort that they put in to involving the families of their students in the school. The decorations around the school were magnificent and were only outshone by the performances of the students themselves. We sold out of steak a number times on the night. I say ‘a number of times’ because Mr K kept managing to find an extra store of steak from somewhere - just when we thought we were all sold out.
I thank the staff also for their warm hospitality to me and inviting me to stay back for a drink after the event and to reminisce about some of the performances. Gray Primary School is a fantastic educational institution. It leads the way in the Territory in the use of electronic whiteboards. It really has embraced this technology. The teachers who are using it are examples for teachers in other schools to follow. It is about how they can utilise this technology to engage with students and to enhance the learning experience for them, because learning is not a static experience; it changes with time. Gray Primary School has shown that it is a school that embraces new times and new learning. It encourages and fosters a family atmosphere. All the teachers are very willing to be involved with their students and families, and to assist where they can. I think teachers generally are enthusiastic and fun people, but Gray has them in spades. The staff are extremely good at what they do, and the number of awards for excellence that Gray Primary School has received is quite revealing of the level of commitment that they have to their students and families.
The new play equipment at the school has really enhanced the outdoor area, and the opportunities for children to explore and to improve their coordination and motor skills, and all those things that we do as we are growing up from young children into pre-teenage years and leaving to go up to high school. The school had a funny experience in relation to trying to find sand to go underneath the play equipment. Apparently, there was a run on sand. You must have sand accredited to an Australian Standard, you cannot just have any sand, so raiding the beaches is not going to assist in any way. Eventually, they did find the appropriate grade soft fall sand and the equipment is all in place. At the moment, Gray does not have the same space constrictions that other schools are experiencing in the Palmerston area. I would heartily recommend any family and parents in my electorate and elsewhere in Palmerston to consider Gray, go and talk to Cindy McGarry, Sue Beynon or Eric Smith and have a look around the school. I know they would be more than pleased to show you around, and you can be well assured that your child or children will be getting as good an education as we can provide here in the Territory.
I must also mention tonight the Palmerston Cricket Club of which I am patron, and I thank the club for the honour. It was a great privilege to be asked and to be patron at a time when the club won the A Grade again this year. I know Anthony Dent, who is someone I grew up with, would be over the moon, as with the rest of the players, AJ and others. I know Bob Bayley and his family will also be extremely happy with the result. I believe both his sons played in the A Grade grand final. It was a fantastic effort. For me, one of the great things about the cricket club was the strength of the junior program and the commitment that the club has to ensuring that its juniors really learn the skills of the game and can progress through at their own pace, having quality coaching and instruction from those who have gone before them.
The Palmerston Rugby Union Club was not quite as successful as the cricket club this year, but not for want of trying. I was at the 300th game of ‘Squirter’ Leach. What a fantastic milestone: 300 games for a club interspersed with going down south and playing at an advanced level. Just fantastic! Craig has a second calling, which I did not realise, because he was the MC at the presentation night which, from memory, was 26 August. He is some compere, I must say. Congratulations to him and thank you to the committee, especially Garry Russell, for the invitation to me and my wife, Sharon, and making us welcome.
I was privileged to go to The Beat awards at the Entertainment Centre as well this year. It was a great night by the committee. There has been a lot said, deservedly, about Jessica Mauboy. I hope she goes all the way. However, The Beat awards night, just like The Beat itself, is a great celebration of the talent of our young people. We are truly enriched by their contributions to our society.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Speaker, I would like tonight to talk about the forthcoming Masters Games in Alice Springs. It is a very big event and, already, the town is starting to fill, which will include my parents arriving in Alice Springs on Wednesday. I look forward to seeing my mother on the golf course and, indeed, playing in the Stableford competition with her at about 7.53 on Saturday morning.
I am not the only one who has family and friends arriving from all over the place. Most people in Alice Springs are either directly or indirectly affected by the Masters Games. It is a truism that the town in so many ways closes down for the duration of the Masters Games. A skeleton staff is maintained in the private sector, and I speak from experience in that respect. In relation to the public sector, I know that a lot of our very hard-working public servants take leave. You can still get things done in Alice Springs, but there is skeleton staff working pretty much everywhere because so many people are involved in the games. If they are not playing, then they are involved by being volunteers and ambassadors.
I was pleased, when I was home in Alice Springs on the weekend, to see some of the signs going up around town for the Masters Games. I have noticed some new signage this year, and it looks great. No doubt, there will be more by the time I get home on Friday afternoon.
I congratulate, very sincerely, Mrs Judith Dixon for the great leadership she has shown. This is her first year as the boss, and she certainly had big shoes to fill. However, there can be no doubt that she has filled them well and truly. Judith brings with her a long-standing passion and commitment for Alice Springs, and an interest in the Masters Games and, like anyone taking up a new position, they bring with them new ideas, new energy and new passion. Having bumped into Judith at the supermarket on Saturday, I can assure members that she is as calm as ever. I wondered whether it was the calm before the storm because with so many participants in the Masters Games, I am sure there will be some rocky moments. However, if anyone is capable of being a fine captain of the ship, it is Judith Dixon.
I take this opportunity of putting on the Parliamentary Record the names of the people on the Masters’ Games Advisory Committee: Bronte Evans, Paul Fitzsimons, Peter Hoey, Chairman, the Mayor, Jo-anne Pulsford, Kevin Rockemer, Damien Ryan, Ray Rowe, Randle Walker, Darryl Hall, Judith Dickson, who is the Manager, of course, and Adrian Currie. All of those people have worked long and hard and I am sure that they are counting down the sleeps until the kick-off in the great procession, which is on Saturday night. I understand that there has been a slight change to previous years. We will be starting from the Todd Mall. I was in the parade last time because I played in those Masters’ Games, scoring my three bronze medals because I was less than 40 then, and there were only three people in my age group. So it was always odds on that I was going to win a medal. I won three bronze medals, admittedly by default, but I can say I have three Masters Games medals sitting at home.
I do not expect, with my elevation into the next age group, that I will have any expectation of winning a medal. However, it is not whether you win or lose, Mr Acting Speaker, as you well know, it is how you play the game that counts. I certainly look forward to participating on the golf course. Of course, as a local politician, you are invited to present medals at various sports and I look forward to that as well as not only talking to locals, but also meeting so many people from interstate. Many of them plan their trip for months, and they get there by car, motorbike, plane – basically whatever way they can - because they know that the Masters Games is an outstanding event and they do whatever they can to get there. I look forward to seeing, as I said, so many locals but also tourists, and in my capacity as a local member, welcoming them wholeheartedly to Alice Springs and wishing them all the very best of luck.
No Masters Games, Commonwealth Games or Olympic Games can these days be successfully run without the very generous time that volunteers and ambassadors give up. I take this opportunity to thank the sports coordinators, the volunteers and ambassadors. Dawn Fraser - our Dawn - will be once again participating. I looked at the Masters draw the other day, and I had to ring my mother because I told her that on Sunday or Monday, she is playing golf with our Dawn. She is somewhat intimidated because Dawn Fraser, from all accounts, is a very good golfer - not only an Olympic swimmer, but a fantastic golfer. So Mrs Carney will be somewhat overwhelmed because she is learning golf. She is not there to win the competition. She is there not only to see her daughter, but to participate in what I have sold to her over the years as a fantastic opportunity. My father will not be participating because he will be so busy at home attending to what I have described as ‘boy jobs’ around the house.
Nevertheless, there will be lots of people from all over the place. Dawn Fraser, a well-known ambassador, is very loyal to the Masters’ Games. Daryl Somers has the role of Ambassador at Large. I have met Daryl before and, at the last games, Daryl and I were asked to present medals at the clay shooting competition. At the end of the competition, we were both given a rifle and shown how to shoot. I went first and I yelled, ‘pull’, and this clay thing sprung into the air and I was as surprised as the next person when I hit it and it shattered into smithereens. Daryl, always a competitive soul, stepped up and, happily, when he screamed ‘pull’, he hit the clay as well. So it was one out of one for both of us. I hope I can get to see him again and ask him how his shooting has been going. He indicated that he might like to take it up as a pastime.
To everyone, I extend my congratulations and thanks in advance. The 2006 Masters Games marks the 20th year since the Masters’ inception in 1986, making it not just the friendliest games, but the longest running Masters event in Australia. Like the games competitors, it keeps getting better and better with age, not unlike a very good bottle of wine. With more than 30 sports on offer, a list of celebrated international entertainers and games participants from across Australia and, indeed, I understand from overseas, participants and the people of Alice Springs generally can expect a fantastic sports program, first-class entertainment and a fabulous social calendar. To one and all, congratulations and thank you so much for the efforts you have put in and the generosity you have given in time and commitment.
I also take this opportunity of extending my congratulations to 8HA announcer, Matt Conlan. Matt Conlan will be known to most members of this Assembly. In addition to hosting the morning show, Matt hosts a very good talkback show on 8HA called Territory Today from 12 noon to 1 pm, Monday to Friday. It is a program both Matt and, I understand, the owners of the station, the Harris family, undertook as something of an experiment. They saw that there was a niche market in Alice Springs and that, over and above the ABC, there was no opportunity for local people to participate in radio talkback.
It is a fabulous forum. Certainly, it has a political dimension on occasion. There are plenty of members of this Chamber who have participated, although I note with interest not the member for Macdonnell, to my knowledge. I encourage her to participate. It is a very good forum and I am sure your constituents would be very happy to hear from you. I look forward to the new member for Stuart going out there. Maybe because he is new he is a bit braver than the member for Macdonnell, I do not know, but I hope that he can use the opportunity. I am sure, as a former political staffer, he will appreciate how valuable the opportunity is. Whilst it is probably reasonable to say that the listening audience does not represent the balance of his constituency, there is, very importantly, a responsibility for the five local members, regardless of the party they represent, to get ourselves out and about so people to hear our views and what we have to say.
In any event, I have digressed. Matt Conlan won, on Saturday night in Sydney, a prestigious award. The award is called The Australian Commercial Radio Award for Best Talk Presenter. It went to Matt Conlan, Territory Today, 8HA, Alice Springs. This program, Territory Today, was started a couple of years ago. They had their second anniversary recently. It was started as an experiment to not only give an opportunity to politicians and others such as those representing community groups to get in and have their say, but also as an opportunity for local people to ring in and express their views.
The program had something of a baptism of fire because it started only a few months - maybe six months - before the last election campaign. For anyone, albeit a politician or someone involved in the media, their first election campaign is arguably their most frightening. Territory Today, and Matt Conlan in particular, acquitted themselves very well. I think it was from that experience that he really guaranteed his market. Everywhere I go in Alice Springs, people comment on Matt Conlan’s show. They do not always agree with the views expressed by any of the guests on that program, but they do very much appreciate the opportunity that it presents. With a population the size of Alice Springs, why should we not have a commercial radio station that provides the opportunity of inviting people to ring in? People avail themselves of that opportunity on a regular basis and I utterly encourage the people of Alice Springs to continue to do so.
It is no mean feat that Territory Today continues to capture the imagination of those running the program but, most importantly in my view, continues to attract an increasing audience in numbers, and increasing respect for Matt Conlan and 8HA generally because Matt Conlan does a sensational job and the service that Territory Today provides to Alice Springs is just first class. My hearty congratulations, I am sure, on behalf of all members to Matt Conlan for winning this prestigious award and to everyone at 8HA.
With those words, Mr Acting Speaker, I will conclude. I hope that some members will be participating in the Masters Games.
Ms Anderson: I am!
Ms CARNEY: Member for Macdonnell, what is your sport?
Ms Anderson: Softball.
Ms CARNEY: Softball! There you go. I am patron of the local softball association, so you never know; I might end up presenting you with a medal, which would be my great pleasure. I do hope that you have an enjoyable Masters Games. It cannot help but be enjoyable. Have you ever played in the Masters Games before? No, I note the member for Macdonnell is shaking her head. It is great fun and I hope, member for Macdonnell, that I see you in the march on Saturday night. I have heard a lot about the march, and I was a bit thingy about whether or not I would participate, but it is a really great feeling, and to have everyone there will be wonderful.
Of course, we hope to see the former member for Stuart, Peter Toyne, who is an Australian or world record holder in running fast or something like that. We will get to see how fit he is and see whether he has been sitting around having too much beer and Twisties since he has given up parliament. We hope he has not; we hope he runs fast and well. I hope to see many members from both sides of politics participating in the games.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016