2005-08-16
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from His Honour the Administrator Message No 4 notifying assent to bills passed in the June/July 2005 sittings.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Batchelor Institute accompanied by Ms Ren Barnett.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mr Michael Barrett AM, the Official Secretary to Administrators of the Northern Territory from 1979 to 1991, and the former Executive Director of the Australian Red Cross NT Division, and Mrs Ann Barrett, the official Secretary to former Administrator Jock Nelson from 1971 to 1975 and a Cabinet officer with the Northern Territory government for 15 years. On behalf of honourable members I extend a warm welcome to all our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I advise honourable members that on 11 July 2005, His Honour the Administrator made the following appointments of ministers of the Northern Territory:
Changes to Northern Territory Public Sector structures were made on the same day as the appointment of the new ministry to complement the new ministerial arrangements and reflect the priorities of the new government.
I table a copy of the Administrative Arrangements Order made by His Honour the Administrator on 11 July 2005 which sets out the new ministerial arrangements and public sector structures.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I wish to advise the parliament of some changes to the arrangements for the opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: Could you just seek leave first?
Ms CARNEY: I seek leave to make a statement regarding changes to the arrangements for the opposition.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: The changes are as follows:
I seek leave to table the arrangements as soon as I have made a suitable photocopy of same.
Leave granted.
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the Chief Minister for this sittings week. I do so because the Chief Minister, as we speak, is in Jakarta, Indonesia. It is not only her first overseas mission since becoming Asian Relations and Trade minister for this government, it is a unique opportunity not only to meet with President Yudhoyono. She was, in fact, invited to participate in the celebrations for the 60th anniversary of their independence.
We in the Northern Territory ought be very proud that the Indonesian government has seen fit to invite the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to participate in the commemoration and celebrations of what is to them a very special occasion, the 60th anniversary of their independence.
The Chief Minister will also meet with the Indonesian Minister for Foreign Affairs, the state Minister for Culture and Tourism, and the Director-General for Foreign Trade. All members would recognise that Indonesia represents not only our nearest neighbour, but one of the most important countries in terms of international relationships.
In the meeting with the President, she will discuss the BIMP-EAGA Plus One Forum – Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, East-Asian Growth Area, and, of course, the Plus One now includes the Northern Territory as a development partner. She will have further discussions with them about ongoing trade links, reconstruction efforts around Aceh and the Australian and Northern Territory governments’ involvement in that and, generally, issues of interest to both communities. Her meetings with other ministers and the Director-General will concentrate on cementing a closer working relationship and exploring business opportunities in her new ministerial role.
Madam Speaker, none appreciate the importance of a parliamentary sitting more than our Chief Minister. It certainly would have been her wish to be here for the full two weeks of sittings. Nonetheless, we have to recognise the importance of Indonesia as a friend to the Northern Territory - the size of the country, our ongoing links - and a personal invitation to attend a commemoration to meet with the President is a very special opportunity for the Chief Minister, and one that she really had no choice but to accept.
I move that leave of absence be granted to the Chief Minister for this week.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I wanted to comment briefly on the proposition put by the Deputy Chief Minister. I did not expect the arrogance of this government to creep in quite so quickly. There are only 33 days that this parliament sits; 33 days that all 25 of us need to rock up to every year.
This is the first full sitting after the election and, already, the Chief Minister has decided not to bother to turn up. She can afford to do that by dint of her numbers. However, I suspect this will not be the last time the Chief Minister pleases herself as to whether she turns up. There is a solemn duty that all of us undertake, Madam Speaker, as you know, when we are elected; the main one is to rock up to parliament. It is not a big ask in a small jurisdiction which sits for only 33 days.
Having said that, members and the general public will be well aware that during the last term of government, the opposition was snapping at the heels over and over again - encouraging, urging, imploring this government to get out and make the connections in Asia that are so important and that slipped under the watch of the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party.
We are encouraged that the Chief Minister - who incidentally offloaded many of her portfolios, we noticed after the election - has taken it upon herself to go to Indonesia. However, given that there are 365 days in the year, it is not too much to expect that she bother to turn up. It is unprecedented, as I understand it, that a Chief Minister in the Northern Territory’s Legislative Assembly is absent for one week. We all know that on occasion ministers need to be absent for a day or two. It is unprecedented that a Chief Minister decides not to turn up.
We only have the Chief Minister’s word, which is not worth much, Madam Speaker, that this was the only time she could do it ...
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Well, I do not believe the Chief Minister. She is always unbelievable. I note the member for Wanguri is twitchy early, which is always encouraging because it means that we are going to have a very entertaining sittings. I always know the button to press because the thug that is the member for Wanguri cannot help himself …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, withdraw, please.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw ‘thug’, Madam Speaker. In any event, I look forward to continuing to press his buttons; it is always entertaining. In any case, the point is well made. This is an arrogant government, an arrogant Chief Minister, who clearly shows her contempt for this parliament and Territorians.
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I believe the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks are both churlish and childish. She simply does not recognise that a 60th anniversary is on a specific date. There was no other opportunity, or to ask the Indonesian government to alter the date. It is simply a matter of history when this was to occur. The fact that it coincided with parliamentary sittings here is unfortunate. However, that is what has occurred.
The other point I make is that the Leader of the Opposition’s comments simply underline the luxury of opposition being able to have a little each way – you never back the winner straight out, you always sit on the fence and have a little each way.
In the lead-up to the election, the former spokesperson on these matters, the member for Blain, constantly criticised this government, the Chief Minister, the member for Wanguri, and others for lack of engagement with Indonesia. When an invitation – a particularly important invitation – is accepted by the Chief Minister, we are banged up again for being absent from parliament. So we are banged up if we turned up for being arrogant, in our numbers, and we are banged up if we do not turn up, because we are treating parliament with contempt. It would seem to me that that is a little too much of the each way proposition.
I have outlined the importance of the Chief Minister being in Indonesia at this time. I ask all members to support the motion that leave of absence be granted to the Chief Minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Millner, Mr Matthew Bonson, and the member for Karama, Ms Delia Lawrie, be discharged from service on the Public Accounts Committee; and the member for Goyder, Mr Ted Warren, and the member for Drysdale, Mr Chris Natt, be appointed in their stead.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Sanderson, Mr Len Kiely, and the member for Millner, Mr Matthew Bonson, be discharged from service on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee; and the member for Brennan, Mr James Burke, and the member for Arnhem, Ms Barbara McCarthy, be appointed in their stead.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in standing orders, the membership of the Privileges Committee comprise three government members, two members of the opposition, and one Independent member nominated to the Speaker; and the following members be appointed to the Privileges Committee: Mr Stirling, Dr Toyne, Dr Burns, Ms Carney and Mr Mills; and the committee shall elect a government member as chairman.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in standing orders, the membership of the House Committee comprise three government members, two members of the opposition, and one Independent member nominated to the Speaker; and the following members be appointed to the House Committee: Madam Speaker, Mr Vatskalis, Ms Sacilotto, Ms Carney and Mrs Miller, and the committee shall elect a government member as chairman.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in standing orders, the membership of the Standing Orders Committee comprise three government members, two members of the opposition, and one Independent member nominated to the Speaker; and the following members be appointed to the Standing Orders Committee: Madam Speaker, Mr Henderson, Mr Burke, Dr Lim, Mrs Miller and Mrs Braham, and the committee shall elect a government member as chairman.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in standing orders, the membership of the Subordinate Legislation and Tabled Papers Committee comprise three government members, two members of the opposition, and one Independent member nominated to the Speaker; and the following members be appointed to the Subordinate Legislation and Tabled Papers Committee: Mr Burke, Ms Sacilotto, Ms Anderson, Ms Carney and Mrs Miller, and the committee shall elect a government member as chairman.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that:
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): I move that:
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise it is my intention to present the Address-in-Reply to His Honour the Administrator at Government House on Thursday, 25 August 2005. All honourable members will be requested to assemble at Government House at 11 am and accompany me to present the Address. A program and plan will be distributed to all members outlining the order of proceedings. A formal photograph of the members of the Tenth Assembly will be taken following the presentation of the Address-in-Reply.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 49 petitioners praying that the Daly River be protected for the benefit of all Territorians. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
The CLERK: Madam Speaker pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to Petitions Nos 71 and 76 have been received and circulated to honourable members.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, in the first term of office, the Martin government undertook and achieved significant reforms in Employment, Education and Training. In this term of government, we intend, quite clearly, to continue that reform process. Last week, I announced the next round of community consultation on secondary education, focusing particularly on middle years learning. Today, I wish to place before the House further information on our efforts to improve literacy outcomes.
The National Accelerated Literacy Program was first trialled in the Northern Territory during 2001-03 in just six schools. That research trial pilot showed significant literacy improvements for targeted students in both urban and remote areas. In 2004, the Department of Employment, Education and Training, Charles Darwin University, and the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training commenced a partnership to move accelerated literacy from that pilot project to a jurisdiction-wide program by assuming the research and development responsibility of turning the successful pilot into a reproducible program in a unique partnership between government and university, and the lessons learned are expected to be of benefit across the country.
We have been given the national mantle of the lighthouse jurisdiction. During the pilot phase, the Northern Territory government contributed $0.49m. In 2004, the Northern Territory’s commitment increased to $1.95m per annum which will bring the Northern Territory government’s total estimated contribution of funding over the life of the project to $8.29m. The Australian government has matched that commitment by providing $8.6m over the four year period 2005-08.
The National Accelerated Literacy Program is an intensive teaching method and its expansion relies on a skilled group of trained coordinators, working in partnership with principals and teachers to create the environment for transforming student outcomes. The primary objective, of course, is to accelerate the reading skills of poor performing students to an age-appropriate standard. The project aims to train 700 Territory teachers to deliver the program to 10 000 students across 100 schools across the Northern Territory by the end of 2008. Charles Darwin University will carry out independent monitoring and evaluation of the project to provide a critical analysis of the outcomes.
To date, 121 teachers and about 80 teacher support staff have been trained across the Territory over the last year. An additional 11 schools began teaching the program, which brings the total number of Northern Territory schools now involved to 20. The target total of 100 schools will feature an increasing percentage of remote schools each year. By the end of the expansion project, 90 of the 100 schools would be in remote locations with largely indigenous student populations. In 2004, a total of 1446 target students were involved. In 2005, approximately 450 additional students joined the program. The data to date does show measurable improvements in literacy levels for accelerated literacy students. The accelerated literacy average shows gains of 1.61 reading levels per year.
It is an exciting program, one which is part of the Martin government’s commitment to improving education outcomes and moving the Territory ahead. We appreciate the Commonwealth’s involvement in this agreement over the next four years and their financial support for the project.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports the Accelerated Literacy Program and acknowledges the gains that have been made through a stronger focus on literacy across the curriculum. However, it demonstrates the need to go further than rhetoric, when we are speaking of reform, to seriously reform the way in which education is delivered in the Northern Territory.
The capacity to measure outcomes in education is the nub of this. For parents and, indeed, teachers to understand whether their child is actually progressing or gaining some competency in literacy or numeracy hinges upon accurate reporting that parents can understand. It also speaks of the need to seriously reform curriculum so that it focuses upon those core elements of education: reading, writing and arithmetic. At the moment, we are seeing gains delivered through accelerated literacy programs, and that is because it is a focus on one of the core aspects of education, literacy, and our young students are being provided with greater support.
If we were to restructure the way in which our curriculum operates, away from a curriculum that is a mile wide and an inch deep with no capacity for clear communication to parents across the board with reading, writing and arithmetic, we would make significant gains in education and make a real move to addressing the fundamental problem with education, which leads into the skills shortage. It starts with allowing students to understand how to read well and help parents understand how students are going.
Also, minister, there is an opportunity for you to have a look at the reports today on the ABC. You acknowledge you have not seen the sort of reports that parents are receiving from our education system. Have a look at them. They are filled with gobbledegook that parents cannot understand, and teachers themselves are confused by the reporting system.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I did have a look at a close analysis of northern suburbs primary school report - name excised of course - and my first impression was that it was a bit busy in terms of understanding the content of it. However, if you did take the time to start to read through it, I thought it gave a very good picture of that student’s progress within the system overall.
I accept criticism around reporting overall. Some schools are way out there in excellence, and some are very ordinary. We need to closely engage with the Commonwealth on this mandated A, B, C, D, E-type reporting. New South Wales and Western Australia are already in there; we will be in there. However, we have a body of work to do to make sure that the A at Papunya equates with the A at Parap in exactly where the student is at - it is not a Papunya A and a Parap A. There is a good deal of work to be done in and around that.
Whilst I would like to hear more of the member for Blain’s criticism around the NT curriculum framework being a mile wide and an inch deep, I do not accept that …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr STIRLING: I do not accept that. I would like to hear more and engage with him on that issue.
Mr McADAM (Housing): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House on a program introduced by Territory Housing as part of our Quality Landlord strategy to install smoke alarms in all Territory Housing properties in the Northern Territory. This program has recently commenced in Nhulunbuy and, by the end of this month, tenders will be let to fit all urban dwellings with smoke alarms by the end of this year.
It is a very large project that is being undertaken, with some 6800 dwellings to be covered across the Territory at a cost of around $500000. In addition, by the end of February, we hope to have all government employee housing in remote areas also fitted with alarms.
For some time now, all houses that have been renovated by Territory Housing, as well as new dwellings such as the Fannie Bay Seniors Village, have been routinely fitted with smoke alarms. Whilst all of our new Territory Housing dwellings have smoke alarms fitted, there is, in fact, no legal obligation under the Building Code of Australia to retrofit older dwellings with smoke alarms. However, as I mentioned, under our Quality Landlord strategy, our goal is to provide safe, secure and affordable housing for all Territorians, and the provision of smoke alarms is an important step in achieving this goal.
I am also pleased to report that when the roll-out of smoke alarms commences in larger centres such as Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek, our earliest priority will be to fit dwellings occupied by our senior Territorians. It is important to note that all the work will be carried out at no cost to tenants.
In conclusion, the smoke alarms complement our security screening program, which is virtually complete across the Northern Territory.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the government for introducing the smoke alarm program. It is good to see that maintenance of our Territory Housing properties continues from the days of the CLP, which initiated the maintenance. With the extra funding that has been obtained by the Northern Territory through GST, we have been able to expand the program.
The retrofitting with smoke alarms of those 6800 homes is a good idea. Ironically, we will be debating uranium and nuclear waste later on today and I wonder whether Territory Housing staff are advising people with smoke alarms that there is a bit of radiation material inside the smoke alarms. I was going to use this for tonight’s adjournment but, looking at Territory Housing, this is more of a problem. I wonder whether you have done anything about that.
People are concerned about living in Territory Housing properties. You said, ‘… make sure that Territory Housing provides safe, secure, affordable housing’. This is not safe. This is not secure, and that is the problem. The minister should spend his time and energy looking at how we can protect Territory residents in Territory Housing properties.
Housing residents are living in fear, minister. I hope you read this newspaper article yesterday - there are families being threatened by people walking onto their property. All Territory Housing is saying is that there are six patrols a night to those properties. That is not good enough. Territory Housing people are saying: ‘We are putting like people with like people’. What are you saying? You are putting like people with like people into a property?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I believe members of the government should at least afford me some silence while I am talking.
It is wrong that people in Territory Housing properties are living in fear ...
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of Government Business!
Dr LIM: Make sure that the places are secure. Do not put like people in the same properties because what happens then is that the problems compound, and then you will have more and more properties around the Territory with residents living in fear of their own personal safety. It is just not on.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I will remind you that, as from the last sittings, it is my indulgence as the Chair that we allow the Independents to speak. It will be decided at the Standing Orders Committee meeting this Wednesday.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, thank you for your kind gesture on our behalf as Independents.
Minister, I thank you for that meeting we had in Alice Springs. I am looking forward to working cooperatively with you. You have many challenges ahead in your portfolio. I am pleased to see you are continuing the practice of smoke detectors which was introduced in 1997.
However, you are aware there are some problems with installing smoke detectors in some of the units. For instance, the batteries have to be changed every 12 months. You might find you need to get an army of volunteers to go around to the pensioner flats or the flats for disabled people to change those batteries. If you do not, they do become ineffective and useless. I hope, as part of your program, you have addressed that issue and are making sure that people who have these installed do not have to have the worry of making sure the battery is actually working.
You are also aware that one of the commonest uses of radioisotopes today is in household smoke detectors, as the member for Greatorex reminded you. This is one of the arguments that there are soft uses of by-products of uranium, and the smoke detectors we use today is one of them.
I am also looking forward to the response that you indicated you would give me after our meeting to address some of the issues in Alice Springs. I know you visited some of the places that I asked you to. I appreciate that, and I am quite sure people out there also appreciate the use of smoke detectors, particularly as we have had two houses burn down in the electorate of Braitling. Whether a smoke detector would have saved that house, I am not really quite sure.
Mr McADAM (Housing): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the opposition spokesperson on Housing, and the member for Braitling.
I believe the issue of smoke alarms is a very important one in the context of being able to provide all tenants who live in public housing an affordability of safety-type issues, not only for themselves, but for tenants who live in the near vicinity, and also those private sector dwellings which also are closely associated with those complexes.
Regarding the comments made by the member for Greatorex on antisocial behaviour, I am very much aware of what some of those issues are. They are not easy problems to resolve. However, I can assure the member for Greatorex that this government - not only now but in the past - has worked very hard in dealing with those issues. As you know, we have supplied all public housing across the Territory with security screens. We also have tenancy managers who are dealing with – if I can call them – problem clients on a daily basis or as required. These are people who might get themselves into trouble …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, over the last week, there has been national attention on the devastating scourge of petrol sniffing in the Northern Territory. The focus has been on the coronial inquest being held in Central Australia into three deaths caused by petrol sniffing last year. This government welcomes the focus; the more attention that is paid to this problem, the better. We need a greater awareness of this tragedy in our community.
The previous minister, the member for Arafura, took up the challenge of tackling the scourge, and the Northern Territory is now leading the nation in the fight against petrol sniffing. As the new minister, I will be following on the good work and overseeing the progress of the initiatives that have been put in place.
In relation to the inquest that is currently under way, the government will wait for its conclusion and assess any recommendations.
In May this year, the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill was passed. The new act gives police and the courts the powers they need to tackle this problem, which include the power to seize petrol, to take people into a place of safety, and for courts to order compulsory treatment programs.
One of the best aspects of the VSA legislation is that it empowers the community to deal with the problem. The VSA legislation has provisions for community management plans that cover issues such as appropriate places of safety and persons being authorised to seize petrol. The guidelines around this are very important and are an integral part of the legislation. My department is very busy consulting with communities and developing these guidelines and regulations. We will get this right, and we are looking forward to the legislation coming into effect early next year.
This legislation will be pointless without backup programs and services for treatment and rehabilitation. That is why this government has committed an additional $10m over the next five years. History has shown that the best programs are done in conjunction with communities. There is no point imposing programs without input from the community. A total of about $2m will be spent this financial year to provide a range of options for families, communities, police and other agencies to respond when people are at risk of serious harm from sniffing. These options will include remote outstations, community planning and skills development, rehabilitation facilities in Alice Springs and Darwin, and nursing positions to provide clinical support to outstations.
Services already funded include Ipolera and Ilpurla outstations, which have each received $25 000 as ongoing support. These, with Mt Theo outstation, will be supported to take court-ordered clients when they meet the required standards of care. Kintore has been funded for a worker to assist the community plan and implement an outstation service. Funding of $98 000 has been committed to assist with infrastructure development. A tendering process has commenced already for two new urban residential treatment services in Alice Springs and Darwin.
This financial year, $40 000 will also be spent providing practical information about the VSA legislation to magistrates, prosecutors, and defenders, and for the dissemination of more general information to communities and the public. Funding has also been allocated to assist communities to undertake planning and skills development to implement the act. To date, three communities in the Top End – Angurugu, Gapuwiyak and Millingimbi – have submitted ideas for funding. Support has also been provided to Ngukurr to develop bush camps which will partly focus on volatile substance abuse.
This $10m is being spent on real initiatives in urban areas and in communities, yet those opposite would argue that this $10m should be cut. We are spending more money across government on programs that assist with the fight. Our record spend on education in the bush plays a huge role, as does our spend on police. For example, in conjunction with the Commonwealth, we are building a new permanent police station at Mutitjulu.
The roll-out of Opal fuel is also going to be very important in the fight against petrol sniffing. I congratulate the federal government for their initiatives to date on this front, but we urge them to do more. We believe that Opal should be rolled out right across regions rather than individual communities. We understand the costs are significant, but the cost of not doing it is much higher. It is important to understand that the Commonwealth government is still taxing Opal fuel at a much higher rate than it is subsidising it. Canberra makes around $13bn from fuel taxes each year. Just $10m of this would make such a difference. However, we do not pretend that reducing the supply of sniffable petrol will solve the problem completely. That is why our legislation and our programs and services are so important.
Madam Speaker, last week, images of a sniffer at the inquest in Mutitjulu appeared prominently in national media outlets. They were disturbing images. The only good news is that we are acting to address exactly this situation.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, this government today talks about petrol sniffing in a ministerial report. This report was initiated by the Leader of the Opposition who said: ‘We are going to bring the debate on petrol sniffing into this Chamber this week’.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: This is how you react! In May you said: ‘We moved this legislation in May this year’. You have done nothing about it since then. This legislation has been assented to but when will it commence? ‘Oh, we are not going to do anything about it until - oh, yes, when? Early next year sometime’.
What are you doing? This was so important that you rushed this legislation through this year, and you have done nothing since then. It is full of rhetoric. Your intentions are great; your $10m over the next five years is fantastic. But do something for goodness sake! Don’t sit on your hands and pat yourselves on the back and say: ‘We have done so much for the Territory, we are going to do this, we are going to do that.’ Well, you are a ‘gunna’. You are forever ‘gunna’ do things.
I recall the time when Mrs Anne Frank in Alice Springs had a fantastic petrol sniffing program which you guys have forgotten about altogether. Petrol sniffing is a scourge in our society. In urban Alice Springs we are seeing it more and more. It is time you got serious and banned petrol sniffing as the opposition told you to do. Ban it - have some guts, do something about it instead of pussyfooting around saying: ‘Poor people, we are going to do this, we are going to do that’.
It is time you got serious with this issue. You cannot just talk and do nothing about it. There are people dying, or people now confined to wheelchairs, and it is costing us a lot of money. Do something and do something soon - not early next year; it is too late.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Thank you, Madam Speaker, again for your tolerance. Minister, thank you for your report but there are many issues out there which you have not addressed and you really need to.
At the Mutitjulu hearing, the issue of who is an authorised person to take the petrol off people was raised. Greg Cavanagh, the magistrate, felt quite helpless about it. It is time you identified this. I believe this may be a loophole in your legislation if you only authorise people such as police, community service workers and Night Patrol. If I, or someone else, see a petrol sniffer in town or in a community and feel that the petrol should be taken from them, then we need to know what rights we have to do that. That needs to be addressed fairly quickly. Who are these authorised people; what powers will they have, what training have you given them? That is something we have not heard about.
You talked about the urban facility. The urban facility is desperately needed in Alice Springs at the moment. The tender was let last month. Come on! It does not take that long to let us know who the tenderer is. You already have a facility in Alice Springs. You have Aranda House which has been sitting there and could be used. It has all the facilities you need but, for some reason or other, we still have this delay. It is too late to say we are going to do it early next year. We need action now and that is what the member for Greatorex was on about.
You talked about Opal fuel. Why should the people of the Territory be penalised for the actions of these few? If you put Opal across regions you know where they are going to come to get their fuel – they will come into towns. It did not work with alcohol by putting in dry areas; all you did was move the alcohol problem into town. You know that Opal fuel is about 35 dearer than normal fuel; well, we pay enough as it is. That is not a solution to have to cross regions and again penalise Territorians. You have to get the message through to communities and parents to take responsibility themselves to stop the scourge of petrol sniffing by making sure they take the fuel from people and not tolerate…
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, the shadow has cloth ears. There was quite specific detail about the action that is being taken by government. It is not just rhetoric; there is $2m expenditure this year. Money has already rolled out to communities. We have 12 communities identified already. Officers from the department are literally on the ground in communities, talking to them and identifying the authorised persons in those communities, which is part of establishing the regulations that will come through this year.
The work is being done. I have visited Aranda House. There is great potential around that facility. I am already putting thought into the tender process, about what type of facility there will be in Alice Springs. That tender will close soon.
This is all work happening under this government. It was not started before. We have had years of petrol sniffing in the Territory, as we know, but the previous CLP governments stuck their heads in the sand and ignored it. Go down to Canberra …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Shadow minister, go to Canberra and get your mates to spend money on petrol sniffing. Go down to Canberra and get them to put their money in our pockets, and give us some of the tax they have been taking.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion forthwith condemning the Commonwealth government for planning to locate a nuclear waste dump in the Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Ms Carney: No.
Mr Mills: No.
Mr STIRLING: Do I have leave?
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
Mrs BRAHAM: There was a no, Madam Speaker.
Dr LIM: We said no, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, if it is not granted by leave, I will move to suspend standing orders.
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion forthwith condemning the Commonwealth government for planning to locate a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I understood …
Mr Stirling: The motion has been passed.
Ms CARNEY: No, it hasn’t.
Madam SPEAKER: The motion has been passed.
Ms CARNEY: We can still debate – I understand, Madam Speaker that …
Madam SPEAKER: I believe you cannot once the motion has been passed.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I understood that …
Madam SPEAKER: Is this a point of order, Leader of the Opposition?
Ms CARNEY: It is a point of order. I understood that the Acting Chief Minister moved for the suspension of standing orders and that we would, nevertheless, have an opportunity to debate that motion rather than going straight into the motion he intends to move; that is, the substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice from the Clerk.
The question has already been put and passed. I call on the Acting Chief Minister.
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly request that:
Madam Speaker, let us be very clear: this government will oppose the planned nuclear dump with absolutely the strongest possible action we can take at every step of the way. If it takes until 2011, including when the first shipment comes across the border, we will be in there boxing and fighting it.
There is no doubt that the Commonwealth government lied to the people of the Northern Territory and to the Northern Territory government. The Commonwealth government is taking advantage of us in the Northern Territory, and is not acting in accordance with the wishes of Territorians. This motion is all about making it very clear to Canberra that the Northern Territory government and the people of the Northern Territory will fight their plans.
Around July last year, this government became very concerned in relation to the Commonwealth government’s plans regarding a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. In July last year, the Commonwealth government announced that it had abandoned its plans to build a facility at Woomera in South Australia; the place that a scientific process had concluded was the best possible location in Australia.
At the same time, the member for Solomon opened the door to the Territory with his comments that it was our obligation to host this dump. The government acted immediately by very clearly stating our opposition to this dump being forced upon us.
In August last year, we introduced the Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Act. That was the strongest action we could take and it sent a very clear message to Canberra that the Territory would fight this. For a time, it looked to have worked because, less than two months later, in the lead-up to the federal election, the Commonwealth ruled out the Northern Territory.
On 30 September, just 10 days prior to that election, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, ruled out the Northern Territory. He said:
Writ in concrete, Madam Speaker! He backed his statement up by saying:
We now know that he was being the absolute reverse of that; he was, in fact, lying. It is not surprising then, when the Commonwealth decided to break this promise just before a federal election, that Senator Campbell was nowhere to be found or seen. He left it up to the Minister for Education, Science and Training, one Brendan Nelson, to carry it breathlessly to the national media airwaves.
The management of radioactive waste is a very important and complex issue. For the public to be able to understand this issue, they really do need to rely on an open and honest approach. As this debate unfolds, it is clear that Territorians will not be able to trust any of the information they receive from the Commonwealth government and its ministers on the issue, given their track record to this date.
Territorians were given a commitment. That commitment should have been honoured. It is as simple as that.
Territorians do not want this nuclear waste dump. It is a very clear message from the community, one that resonated very clearly, strongly and loudly through the show circuit where we are close to the people. I am surprised that the opposition, given that they were at some of the shows – they were not at Tennant Creek – did not get that message through their stall at the other shows.
People are angry that they were lied to, and that the Commonwealth government views the Northern Territory as a dumping ground. That is how they see us. As you would expect, groups such as the Environment Centre, the Arid Lands Environment Centre, and the Australian Conservation Foundation are all opposed to it. This is an issue that goes beyond those environmental groups, and it is noticeable how widespread the opposition to the dump is. Everyday Territorians do not want to know about this nuclear waste dump in their backyard.
Councils have opposed it. Pastoralists are concerned, AFANT is concerned, and the residents around the proposed sites are understandably concerned. Thousands of people have signed petitions to Canberra, and they keep coming in. Public meetings concerning this dump have been well attended in Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin. There was absolutely no consultation with anyone in the Territory prior to these plans being announced. The views of Territorians have counted for nought - absolutely nought - in this exercise.
As a government, it is absolutely our responsibility to do everything we can to ensure that the voice of the Territory is heard. It is incumbent upon government to speak on behalf of its constituents, and we will do this as loudly as we can - and unashamedly so.
As there has been absolutely no consultation, detail about the dump is very hard to source. One thing is clear: the dump proposed by the Commonwealth will contain the highest grade nuclear waste in Australia. It will include waste from the processing of nuclear fuel rods in France. The Commonwealth government is looking at transporting this waste in 112-tonne containers through Darwin Harbour and handling this waste at our port.
Radioactive waste from nuclear fuel rods in France coming through our harbour and handled in our port, we say is simply not on. They are not going to build a second dump so, into the future, this dump, presumably, is going to be home to all of the worst radioactive waste in this country.
Since the announcement, we have had numerous Commonwealth government people talk about how safe this facility will be. Just two weeks ago, Ian Macfarlane, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, said:
Well, it begs the question: if that is the case, why would you transport it halfway around the country? If this waste poses no danger to the environment or the population, why don’t they simply leave it in Sydney? Why don’t they leave it where it is stored safely, causing no harm to the population or the environment right there in Sydney where it is generated? A good question to which, so far, we have been unable to elicit a response. The Commonwealth is very busy trying to convince Territorians that what is not safe for the people of Sydney or the rest of Australia is absolutely safe for the people of the Northern Territory. That is the nub of their argument.
The Northern Territory is not yet a state and we are all very aware of how the Commonwealth government can, at any time, override any Northern Territory legislation. We may not be a state, but we do have a self-government act. The Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act makes it very clear that the disposal and storage of hazardous, dangerous waste is the domain of the Northern Territory government. The Prime Minister, when speaking on this issue on 19 July last year, ruled out taking advantage of the fact that the Northern Territory is not a state when he said:
Well, he did not mean it. The Commonwealth government has now decided that they will take advantage of the fact that the Northern Territory is not yet a state. They are ignoring the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and our Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Act. The Commonwealth is absolutely riding roughshod over the Territory, not because it is right, but because it can. It is now a fact, of course, that the Howard government does not respect the rights of the Northern Territory as it does the rights of other parts of the country.
There are members of the Commonwealth government, including the member for Solomon, arguing that, because we have some low-level radioactive waste of our own, we should have no problem taking the rest of the nation’s waste, including the highest level waste in this country. It is true that at Royal Darwin Hospital, there is 1.8 m3 of low-level radioactive waste safely stored; 1.8 m3 of the lowest level radioactive waste. Compare this to 4000 m3 of waste, including the most dangerous in the country. That is what the Commonwealth government is planning on storing here.
The other myth pushed by proponents of the dump is that it will bring jobs and an industry. Well, it is a dump! It is a dump and not a research centre; there will be no industry. Lucas Heights in Sydney is where the research is carried out. It is fanciful to suggest that research will follow this dump. Last week, we heard the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation shoot down this myth around jobs when they said there would be perhaps eight jobs; not a big industry.
If we are worried about industry, let us look at the tourism industry, the biggest employer in the Territory. We will not scaremonger, but if the Howard government ignores the wishes of the Territory and proceeds with this plan, this government will do everything we can to make sure that our tourism reputation is not tarnished. However, we have already seen, quite quickly, stories in the international media about radioactive waste near Uluru. Those reports are quite clearly wrong, but it shows how damaging this dump could be because our tourism industry prides itself and trades on the fact that we offer a pristine environment. A nuclear dump does not invoke pristine thoughts.
The pastoral industry is another that could be affected. We have already seen pastoralists voice their concerns. They also trade on a pristine image for their product, and pastoralists have flagged fears that competitors to our live cattle industry may well use this against us.
I said earlier that Territorians do not want this nuclear waste dump and, on behalf of Territorians, we will fight plans for it all the way through. We are assessing legal and environmental options. We will do everything we can to express the views of Territorians to the Commonwealth government. This motion is about letting Canberra know where this parliament stands. We have not received, unfortunately, assurances from CLP members of the Commonwealth government that they will oppose their mates’ plans.
Senator Nigel Scullion, interestingly, sits right next door to Senator Barnaby Joyce in the Senate, and it would be instructive for Senator Nigel Scullion to have a little chat with Senator Barnaby Joyce about how he intends to vote in the Senate and about how he intends to support the people who voted for him and put him in the Senate.
Senator Joyce said last week that he would vote for the people who voted for him, not for the government. It is unfortunate that in the Territory, we do not have members of the Howard government who are prepared to stand up for the Territory in the same way that Senator Barnaby Joyce is very clearly going to stand up for the interests of Queenslanders.
The Commonwealth government is relying on them to help pave the way and get this dump imposed with a minimum of fuss. I say to the member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, and Senator for the Northern Territory, Senator Nigel Scullion, that Territorians put their trust in them at the last federal election, and they are relying on both of those members to stand up for the Territory.
It may well be a long fight, but it is a fight. Let us make no mistake: Territorians are up for the fight. Canberra’s plans are just that. They are plans, and we will fight these plans with every resource that we can bring to the table, including legal manoeuvres. We have received some preliminary legal advice as to what Territorians can do to try to prevent the nuclear dump. One of the difficulties, of course, is that the Commonwealth government has released very little detail about the exact nature of this dump. They have not been specific on where the waste will come from and the exact nature of the waste, nor have they been specific about how the waste will get here. The specifics, of course, would impact on the legal options open to this government, and which acts of parliament, both Territory and Commonwealth, would come into effect.
As I mentioned, Prime Minister Howard is on the record as saying that the rights of the Territory will be no less respected than the rights of other parts of the country. If that is the case, our Radioactive Waste Storage, Disposal and Transport (Prohibition) Act and other relevant legislation comes into play. However, if that is just another broken promise and he does plan to override all Northern Territory legislation, there are still options open under Commonwealth legislation such as the Environment Protection, Biodiversity and Conservation Act.
This government will prepare for absolutely everything said from Canberra, which has clearly indicated that it will not be open and honest about this dump. Rest assured, whichever way they go, this government will be there ready to fight the dump. It is clear there are those who seek to confuse the issue with uranium mining. They are very separate issues, not least because the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act makes it very clear that uranium is the domain of the Commonwealth, but it equally makes it clear that hazardous waste should be dealt with by Territory legislation.
If the opposition is serious about their stated opposition to nuclear waste, they will be unambiguously opposed. I have to say I am not reassured when the Leader of the Opposition showed signs of not wanting to have this debate in here this morning. That does leave me a little uneasy about what position the opposition may adopt in this debate.
Madam Speaker, we have a good working relationship with the Commonwealth government. We have worked hard over the first term, minister by minister from Chief Minister down, to ensure that we maintain a good working relationship with our Commonwealth counterparts. The Commonwealth is too important to the Northern Territory not to work hard at maintaining those good relationships, and this will continue. Those good relationships and the work by individual ministers with their federal counterparts will continue. We do not propose in any way to let this issue interfere with the very important work and progress on joint Commonwealth-Territory initiatives in areas of health and education, among others.
However, a good relationship with our federal counterparts and the Commonwealth government overall does not mean that we roll over; not when we have been lied to, and when we know that we are being taken advantage of.
It is very important that this parliament has a completely unambiguous position opposing this dump as that is the message we need to send to Canberra, and that is the objective of this motion. The Chief Minister will be meeting with the Prime Minister on this issue. If she has the unanimous support of this parliament, her message will be greatly strengthened.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I do propose to deal with the motion, but I want to make mention of the politicking being done by the government. We have, of course, standing orders which govern the routine of business. Apparently on urgency, the government moves this motion. There is nothing urgent about it by the Acting Chief Minister’s very words; he said that things need to happen by 2011. What the Acting Chief Minister and his colleagues are doing by moving this unusual motion on urgency is politicking – nothing more, nothing less – no doubt trying their best to pitch to the media and their early deadlines.
It is a contempt for the parliament to play around with its routine in the way we have seen today but, of course, it is that sort of day, Madam Speaker. As we know, the Chief Minister has not bothered to turn up this week. It is a worry that …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I remind you that you are not supposed to reflect on the presence or absence of a member.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of Government Business sought leave of absence for the Chief Minister. It is on record that she is absent from this building. Referring to her absence is legitimate since it is on record that she is not here.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Members will not reflect on the presence or absence of other members. Leader of the Opposition, continue.
Ms CARNEY: No doubt, the Acting Chief Minister will be relieved to know that I and my colleagues have no reluctance or no difficulty whatsoever debating this important matter, and the reasons for that will emerge shortly. I simply make the point that, as parliamentarians, we - on this side at least - have a respect for the business of the parliament, the place it has in our community, and we do not try to play around with the parliament or its business for the sake of making a political point. This is a sign of things to come, I suspect, and of the arrogance of this government.
In any event, back to the motion. I will deal with it. I should make it very clear again that the CLP is opposed to the dump. We were, I think, first out of the blocks when the news was announced. We made our position clear then. It remains crystal clear.
Regarding the Acting Chief Minister’s statement, I make the following points: it is notable for the importance of the subject matter, but the hypocrisy shown by this government towards the people of the Northern Territory is staggering, and reasons for that will emerge. I say again: my party’s position is crystal clear. We oppose the siting of a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory.
The Chief Minister, again, was notably invisible when this issue first arose several weeks ago. I said then that I would work with her. I extended the offer; I confirmed it in writing and said that I was happy to work with her in whatever way I could to ensure the best possible outcomes for Territorians. I have not even had the courtesy of a reply to my letter but, then again, I am not surprised because I received a letter the other day from the Attorney-General which took five months. There was a five-month delay from the time I wrote the letter until I received the response. So no doubt, early next year, I will receive a reply from the Chief Minister - yet another sign of arrogance. Given that the government is clearly determined never to reply to correspondence, what we see is a scare campaign by Labor - and this device today is another example.
The Acting Chief Minister talked about David Tollner and Senator Scullion. Let me tell the Acting Chief Minister about those two honourable gentlemen. They have worked tirelessly - and I know how hard they have worked behind the scenes - trying to get their federal colleagues …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: No, you blokes are all part of the team, so I am sure you would like to listen to this. They have worked tirelessly to encourage, and cajole where necessary, their federal colleagues to prevent this waste facility being sited in the Northern Territory. They have fought the good fight. They also continue to fight by trying to get their federal colleagues to reverse the decision. Some members on the government side are members of Cabinet, some are not. Messrs Tollner and Scullion are not members of the federal Cabinet. A Cabinet decision was made. These guys have done their best.
The Acting Chief Minister wants me to get Senator Scullion to cross the floor and vote against the Commonwealth government’s decision. The Acting Chief Minister bolted too early when he started to say to media: ‘They should cross the floor’.
The fact is the advice we have - and the Acting Chief Minister if he were being honest would admit this – is that, in all likelihood, there will be no floor to cross. This decision does not require a legislative instrument on present indications. It is very easy for the Acting Chief Minister to say: ‘Cross the floor, cross the floor’, and then the people of the Northern Territory will say: ‘That is a good idea’. However, there is always this difference between government dealing with fact and government trying to spin things out of control. There is no floor to cross.
Second, as I have said, Messrs Tollner and Scullion are members of a Commonwealth government team, and there are benefits of those gentlemen being members of that team. Their involvement, their representation, has delivered untold wealth and benefits to the Northern Territory, many of which members of the Australian Labor Party have stood in this place and proudly parroted on regular occasions.
How many times have you thanked the government for its commitment to this, that and the other? You do it all the time. You always want more - everyone does - but you always say: ‘The Commonwealth has done this, that and the other; we are going to meet with the Commonwealth’.
Let me tell it to you very simply: this Commonwealth government team has delivered untold wealth and benefits to the Northern Territory. You may not like it but it is true. As members of that team, they have worked very hard behind the scenes to influence the uranium waste facility decision. However, as team members, my federal colleagues will continue to play as a team, even though they may not entirely support some of the decisions that the team makes. Members on the other side who are members of Cabinet will know exactly what I am talking about.
Let me remind the sceptical members on the other side of some of the benefits from which Territorians, and you as government - I hear the letters G-S-T - have benefited as a result of this Commonwealth government and, indeed, Messrs Tollner and Scullion’s involvement with it.
Let us talk about, for instance, the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. The railway would never have been built had it not been for the Commonwealth government’s love affair with Territorians. What an affair it was! The federal team gave Territorians $850m to ensure the railway would be built. You will remember that the Hawke-Keating federal Labor government refused to support the project, and the Chief Minister referred to it as ‘a faded dream’.
I digress. This government is reaping the benefits of the gas industry which is, metaphorically speaking, exploding throughout the Top End. Once again, it was that federal team which opened the doors in Canberra. People who have been following this issue will know that very well.
The Northern Territory has been the destination of some huge Australian Defence Force redeployments. Our geographical position has, of course, been the principal cause for those redeployments but, make no mistake, that federal team was, once again, working hard for Territorians.
In the year 2001-02, Defence spent $294m in the Territory. In the year 2003-04, Defence spent $675m in the Territory. The annual spend of the Commonwealth government in the Territory over the past three financial years has increased by $700m. My federal colleagues are members of a premiership team playing out of Canberra …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … and the Territory has been, and will continue to be, a beneficiary of that association. Members of the government might not like some of this stuff. We always know when they do not like what they hear because they become rude and noisy. I will bat on regardless.
Perhaps the more important question to be asking should be about this Martin government’s attitudes and actions regarding the Territory’s nuclear waste. What is this government actually doing?
The Acting Chief Minister has told Territorians that they are obtaining legal advice on the proposed nuclear waste dump. He said preliminary advice had been obtained. I wonder whether the Acting Chief Minister would be good enough to table a copy of that advice, given that there is bipartisan agreement in relation to opposition to this waste facility. I look forward to the Acting Chief Minister’s reply in that regard.
What questions were asked in seeking the legal advice? If there is preliminary advice, when is final advice likely to be received? What were the questions asked? If the preliminary advice or, indeed, final advice reveals that all options have been exhausted, what then does the government propose to do about it?
This government has a petition circulating, and I note with interest that public servants were asked – or perhaps it was implied to them – to put the petitions at their stalls at all of the regional shows. We have been contacted by some public servants who were at those stalls and who were very unhappy - notwithstanding whatever personal views they may have had about this issue - about being seen as government’s political pawns by asking people to sign those petitions. That issue, no doubt, can wait for another day.
There is no doubt that people are signing the petition. However, I wonder what exactly the Acting Chief Minister and his colleagues think will be accomplished by it. It could be said that it amounts simply to cheap politics. The views of our community are essential and important, but a glossy petition issued by government is an exercise in politics.
Once the rhetoric has been put to one side, we would like to know what government is doing and what it will do if the advice received is that we are at the end of the road. The Acting Chief Minister owes it to all of us to at least start to highlight what the consequences might be if we keep coming up with blanks, as I suspect we will - and I am sure the Acting Chief Minister knows we will.
There can be no doubt that the Commonwealth government is aware of Territorians’ attitudes towards this decision. I have made my views very clear to the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Hon Brendan Nelson - abundantly clear, in fact. Our federal representatives have made it abundantly clear at every opportunity in Canberra; they have done everything possible to protest the proposal.
Let me move to a much more important matter: what is this government doing about the Territory’s own nuclear waste material? Minister, instead of playing cheap politics, let us tell Territorians about it in more detail than you did in your statement. Apart from telling us just how much nuclear waste is there, is it the same – is it really the same – as the low-level nuclear waste proposed by the Commonwealth government? If so, are the Acting Chief Minister and his colleagues concerned about that waste for the same reasons that there is widespread community concern about the nature of the waste the Commonwealth government proposes to store in the Territory? Can the Acting Chief Minister assure us that the waste that is presently, as I understand it, in the basement of Royal Darwin Hospital safely and securely stored? If we, as a community, have concerns about the type of material that the Commonwealth government, if it has its way, is going to bring to the Northern Territory, might we not be equally concerned about the waste, if it is the same, that is sitting in the basement of Royal Darwin Hospital?
I would very much like the Acting Chief Minister to assure all residents of our northern suburbs that they have nothing to worry about. I have not heard that from the Acting Chief Minister, and I sincerely ask him to comment on that. In any event, if this government continues with the storage of nuclear waste in the basement, or the stairwells, or wherever it is in the Royal Darwin Hospital, the minister does have an obligation not just to me, not just to the opposition, but to everyone in the Northern Territory to tell it how it is.
The minister should be aware that Australia ratified the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management in 2003. Acting Chief Minister, can you assure Territorians that your government’s arrangements for the Territory’s nuclear waste management are consistent with those conventions? I would be very grateful in your reply if you would provide us with such advice. Also, while we are on the issue of the Territory’s nuclear waste, would you also be good enough to enlighten us about the industrial gauges containing enclosed radioactive waste that are held at Mt Todd and were referred to by Ms Scrymgour, the Territory Minister for the Environment and Heritage on 12 October 2004?
If we are going to have this debate, can we at least have a thorough and thoughtful one where all cards are on the table and where all questions are properly, thoughtfully and honestly answered?
Given this government’s form when it comes to being truthful and sticking to the facts, instead of making cheap political capital of the federal nuclear waste facilities, the minister should be telling Territorians just what he intends to do about the Territory’s radioactive waste, which is situated more broadly than just at Royal Darwin Hospital.
It can be said that our Chief Minister holds the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory in contempt, inasmuch as she is not participating in this debate for the first major sittings after the Northern Territory general election …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I remind you that I have already advised you that you are not supposed to reflect on the presence or absence of a member.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to that, Madam Speaker, I did not refer to her absence or otherwise. I simply said, deliberately so, that she was not participating in the debate.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise you to be very careful in what you are saying, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you for those words, Madam Speaker.
What I would like to see - and I am sure I am not alone - is for the Chief Minister to stop politicking and start acting in the best interests of Territorians. Instead of the gratuitous advice the Acting Chief Minister has offered over recent weeks telling me what I should do, I would like to know a bit more about what the government proposes to do.
Members on the other side will look at us and say: ‘What do you propose to do?’ Well, good on you, get over it. You won, we lost. You are government, we are opposition. You do not get off the hook that easily. You have a very solemn duty and an obligation to give this your best shot. We will stand with you, but you have to do better than a glossy petition, a bit of a spray every so often, and gratuitous, childish, churlish advice to my colleagues and me.
We do not want this facility. However, if the Commonwealth government is committed to building a nuclear waste facility in the Territory - and I believe that the Labor government knows that it cannot change that decision in the absence of the legal advice which the Acting Chief Minister has not tabled to date - then it is time for the government to start to thinking about the future, about what it can do, and how this problem can be dealt with.
This government abdicated its role in any decisions relating to new uranium mines very recently when the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy met with the federal minister, the Hon Ian Macfarlane. We ask: does this minister propose to stand up in this Chamber and declare that he resents the federal intrusion into Territory matters? This is a government that apparently feels so strongly about the sovereignty of the Territory that in a 15-minute meeting with the Hon Ian Macfarlane, the Territory Minister for Mines and Energy happily handed back control of Territory uranium mining …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: What a joke! Now the Commonwealth government is going to negotiate directly. They are going to by-pass you lot and negotiate directly with traditional owners about uranium mines. Who would have thought we would see the day? There is no question that our traditional owners are likely to be more responsive and much more honest with the Commonwealth government than the Labor government in the Territory.
It begs the question: if the Northern Territory government is so implacably opposed to dealing constructively with the nuclear waste question, why wouldn’t the Commonwealth government negotiate directly with the traditional owners in order to find a suitable site? Perhaps we can get the Territory Minister for Mines and Energy to handle such negotiations again. He might be similarly unsuccessful. This is a matter of great importance. Why would the Commonwealth government not deal directly with traditional owners and by-pass this government? Based on the minister’s conduct during his meeting with minister Macfarlane, there is every reason to suppose that the Commonwealth will not bother dealing with the Territory.
The Country Liberal Party’s position on mining -- all mining - is very clear and it always has been: provided that environmental concerns are addressed properly and the mining has the support of traditional owners, the CLP strongly supports the economic and social benefits mining brings to our citizens.
My party does not have a uranium mining policy dictated by Canberra. However, the federal Labor Party …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms CARNEY: I always know I am on to something when they all start getting in flap. I know I am on the right track, and it is always very enjoyable. I might even repeat the sentence: my party does not having a uranium mining policy dictated by Canberra ...
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: One more time? The federal Labor Party has told the Martin government that it cannot support further uranium mining. This, obviously – and we know it is, and you know we know it is – is a dilemma for you, but it becomes even more intriguing. Not only was our Chief Minister under the hammer from her federal Labor Party but, as it turns out, she was also between a rock and a hard place with the Territory land councils.
The Northern Land Council has told this government that it supports further mining, including uranium mining subject to the approval of traditional owners. The Central Land Council, on the other hand, has made it very clear that it opposes mining. In correspondence to government, it said that it opposes the ‘expedited procedure to uranium exploration licence applications’. Anyone who has seen the document will know that that is a direct quote. Therefore, the NLC and CLC have different positions.
Some members of the Labor government think uranium mining is terrific, but cannot possibly say so. Other members of Labor really do not like it at all. It is a mess; it is a dog’s breakfast. The Minister for Mines and Energy was told to hand back the Territory’s involvement in uranium mining decisions, and it was yet another example of government by non-decision. The hypocrisy! You can smell it, feel it, taste it. It is a mess. How politically convenient it was for the Chief Minister and her colleagues to say: ‘Oh, those Commonwealth government people! They just came in here and jumped all over us’.
I saw the footage. I was interstate, and I saw the footage of the Territory Minister for Mines and Energy and the Hon Ian Macfarlane. A closer couple I have not seen. They were so chummy that I wondered what had come over the minister. They were like old drinking mates. It was not the sign of a minister who had left a meeting feeling browbeaten, depressed, upset and angry. Oh, no! The Minister for Mines and Energy certainly had a spring in his step. Put another way: thank you, Ian, for coming and taking the decision away from us. Thank you, Ian, for putting us in the position where we can say: ‘Oh, those nasty boys from the Commonwealth just came in and took the decision away from us’. I do not mind if people have different views from me, but can you at least be consistent and honest? It is all I ask and it is not too much.
Turning to the motion, I will address each of the paragraphs briefly:
In terms of paragraph (a), we are prepared to support this motion to have the Commonwealth honour its election promise as soon as the Chief Minister delivers all of her election promises. I expect hell will freeze over before that happens.
In terms of paragraph (b), the Territory Labor Party does not have the remotest idea about sovereignty. If it did, the Territory Minister for Mines and Energy would not surrender our mining rights to the Commonwealth. The Chief Minister would readily assume control of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, as offered by the Commonwealth government. Of course, the Australian Labor Party conveniently forgets how it worked tirelessly behind the scenes to oppose, let us all say it, statehood.
In terms of paragraph (c), the Commonwealth will certainly act inside the spirit of the legislation because clause 5(1) of the legislation confesses that the act is subordinate to the Commonwealth.
In terms of paragraph (d), we know that our federal members have done so much more for the Territory than the current federal Labor members have or ever will. I remind you and others of the $700m of annual increased federal spending that my federal colleagues’ team has provided to the Northern Territory for all of our use and benefit. Let me make it clear that we will consider revisiting this motion when Territory Labor stands up to their bosses down south, when they make a stand regarding the three mines uranium policy. I say again: please be consistent and honest.
We support the final paragraph of the motion, and I will personally ask my federal colleagues to deliver it to Canberra. I will seal the envelope. I will ask them to take it to Canberra provided that the whole debate is enclosed, particularly my comments in relation to the Chief Minister, her conduct to date, the fact that she is not participating in this debate, the fact that she was not around when the news first came out and, in particular, the conduct of the Territory Minister for Mines and Energy. I am sure his very good friend, Ian, will be delighted to read about that.
That is our response to this interesting motion. We are with you in spirit. In fact, even before you blokes had bothered to rally your troops to get a response, we stood proudly and said: ‘No, this is not on’. So get on, play your politics. We will use up a bit more time of the day. The substance of it is important. I do not believe Territorians want a nuclear waste facility.
When you peel all of the politics away, can I just ask that you, being the government, give this a fair dinkum go and tell us honestly when you are at the end of the road? My hunch is that the end of the road is nigh. Instead of just playing politics for another few years, please tell us if we need to get to stage two; that is, we as a community and as a parliament need to start dealing with it. Please be honest about that.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I must admit my hopes rose when I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition early in her speech. It seemed like they were going to take a pretty forthright position of support on this motion. Then, like a pile of burning tyres, up came the smoke cloud, and more and more things disappeared behind it in terms of a real statement of support.
First of all, we were asked to put our trust in the premiership team - Nuclear Dave and Battling Nigel; they are going to pull us out of all this and help us by turning all their federal colleagues around to supporting the Territory. When you look at what Nuclear Dave did: ‘Yes, I am right on it’ - on the plane that is, off to Paris. How can you possibly think through an issue like this without a good feed of snails? Off he goes, and he comes back with a solution – no, not that I saw.
Then we had all the torture of the 1000 reasons why it was all going to be so difficult to deal with this issue, such as: ‘We would love to help you. We would love to get in behind this motion and we will be there shoulder to shoulder when we go to Canberra, and we will sort this for the Territory’.
The Leader of the Opposition had better be very aware of the history of standing up for Territorians’ rights. Over the last 100 years, we have had to do it many times. Early in the Country Liberal Party’s history, this would not have been a problem because there were times on record that the CLP did actually stand up for Territory rights against Canberra.
I will tell you something else the history of the Territory illustrates very clearly: you ignore the rights of Territorians at your peril. If you are an elected representative in this jurisdiction, you listen to Territorians when we are under attack from Canberra. This is exactly what is happening at the moment: we are under attack from Canberra.
In particular, Central Australians are under attack from Canberra because the odds are pretty strong that the site in Katherine will be too flood prone. It was already identified in a scientific report, which asked: why would you put a nuclear dump there? Where is it going to go? It is going to go on the Tanami Road, I reckon, because even the Plenty Highway gets a good flood when there has been good rainfall. You now have the prospect of people in my electorate in Central Australia inheriting this nuclear waste dump.
When is the decision going to be made? It has been made. That is what really has people up in arms around Central Australia. They come to us giving information to Territorians about this proposal after the decision has been made. Minister Brendan Nelson was very clear about it: ‘Get used to it, lads and lassies; you are going to have one of these. The only question is where we are going to put it’. Then they want to send the information caravan around to finally tell us something of what they have in mind.
I have heard in the streets of Alice Springs people who have voted CLP for their whole time in the Territory who are not going to vote conservative any more as a result of this. That is some sign of the degree of anger around Alice Springs. It takes a fair bit to stir us up because, generally and quite rightly, Territorians are out there having a great lifestyle, celebrating what a great government is giving them at the moment because there are many great activities in Central Australia. We are off doing things, enjoying our life as a community; we do not need this rubbish that we have had foisted on us.
The Leader of the Opposition asked: ‘What is the government doing about it?’ I will tell you what we are doing about it: we are going to make sure that Territorians have the strongest possible voice on this issue. We are going to make sure that they feel fully supported when they stand up, quite rightly, and say: ‘We are being treated with absolute contempt by the Canberra government’. Here is another chapter in the long and sorry history of the Northern Territory being the butt of every unpopular decision that national governments want to visit upon us, or other governments over the history of this place.
Where have the people of our communities gone? We had the Senator Nigel Scullion travelling caravan come to town. They decided that they were going to inform people. What did they do? They gave us 48 hours notice. They based the information session at the Alice Springs Town Council foyer, which would be lucky to hold 30 people in any sort of comfort, and they held it at 3 pm. There is a recipe for a big crowd!
They set up their cute little booths, with all the glossy pamphlets and the background materials on how wonderful this dump is going to look. They even prettied up the thing. I think they digitally altered the picture so that the shed did not look quite as much like a shed. In fact, all four sheds did not look quite like sheds. They had trees around them; I think I spotted some frangipanni plants in the landscaping. Anyway, there they were; they were going to have a few people come through the door: ‘Here is your glossy brochure and off you go’, and ‘We have consulted with the people of Alice Springs’.
Unfortunately, for them, over 100 people turned up and they were not very thrilled about the whole idea. They had much to say about it. More importantly, they spent an hour-and-a-half pressing a huge number of very valid questions about what the proposal was or was not going to do in Central Australia - none of which were adequately answered. People went away more angry than when they arrived.
The CLP was there for a quarter of an hour. The Lone Ranger, Dr Lim, turned up. If Senator Nigel Scullion was looking for some forthright support from his colleagues, he certainly did not get it. When the member for Greatorex sniffed the wind and realised which way the meeting was heading, it was the best disappearing act I have ever seen. He was out of there like a rat out of a drain. We had over 100 at that meeting and then …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, before you go on, I remind you that it is unparliamentary to make references that reflect on a member. Perhaps you could redesign some of your comments.
Dr TOYNE: Yes, I rephrase to rodent or …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please withdraw.
Dr TOYNE: I will tone it down, Madam Speaker. Thank you for your advice.
We then moved on to the next public meeting, which people were actually told about this time. It is a new thing we are trying. We had 250 people at that, and no CLP at all. They were off, presumably working with someone to do something about something. They certainly were not at the community meeting.
I will tell you who was at the community meeting: it was a very wide cross-section of Alice Springs people - many people from across the political spectrum, conservatives through to wide-eyed greenies. All of them are bound by this one threat that was being made to the town and the region. Again, there were some very probing questions and very angry comments about the way this has been handled.
There is no doubt that we, as a government, have to get in behind Territorians. We are not going to tell them what to think about this; we already know what they think. It is our job now, as government, to provide the support and the expertise to facilitate what will be a pitched battle with the Commonwealth government on this issue.
You can get into all the detail you like about legislation and technicalities, and I am sure we will as this debate proceeds. I am sure there will be much discussion. In fact, I hope the information that is needed to understand this proposal is freely available to Territorians. That is part of the empowerment of our population; to know exactly what all this means. The heart of the current situation is very simple: there has been no process here. The only formative element in what has happened to date is that the Commonwealth government is assuming it can run roughshod over the Northern Territory because we are not a state and we do not have the same rights as the rest of the country.
If the opposition wants to commit to a genuine attempt to promote statehood in the Northern Territory, what better issue could you possibly get to illustrate why we need to be a state? What better example could you see of what the Commonwealth government will always do into the future as long as this inequity of rights exists in our country? We have to fight energetically to promote statehood in our Territory and this issue is one that will mean a huge amount of understanding of why statehood is so important in the Territory agenda.
Madam Speaker, we will continue to work person to person, community to community and through government to support Territorians in this cause. We will fight as long as there is a way of fighting. If we can find anything within Commonwealth legislation, we will use that as a lever for Territorians on federal processes.
Senator Nigel Scullion can cross the floor because there will have to be enabling legislation if they are serious about setting up a facility such as they are contemplating. There will be a vote in the House of Representatives; there will be a vote in the Senate. He can cross the floor and stop this. That is what the CLP should be working on with their colleague: to ensure that Senator Nigel Scullion does the right thing by the Territorians who elected him, and that members who come to this House do the right thing by the Territorians who elected them, and show unqualified resistance to the way we are being treated by Canberra.
If we cannot do this, we are not ready for statehood. We have to stand, the 25 of us, together and make sure that Canberra does not get away with this.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, what a debacle! When our community expects leadership from politicians, it gets nothing. It just gets politics. It gets it today in the form of this stupid motion which treats Territorians as if they are a bunch of dills.
First, we know that this government will oppose anything to do with nuclear technology, whether it is uranium mining or radioactive waste, no matter how much scientists can explain that it can be done safely. The government today, as you already heard, will not argue its case on science. It will argue against it because the Commonwealth is ignoring Northern Territory legislation. It will argue about it in an attempt to win the popular vote. It will argue against it to pacify the extreme green vote. It will argue that it should be in someone else’s backyard, and it will argue about it because it believes that the storage facility will be dangerous.
It will argue that the Territory will not be regarded as pristine and this will affect our clean, green image and, therefore, destroy our tourism industry, even though we know the waste site will be very small and will not affect the environment. Just for good measure, it will probably mention the three mines policy designed by federal Labor.
The one thing it will not do is come up with a solution. Unfortunately, there are some in government who believe that nuclear is synonymous with witchcraft, devil worship and the black plague, and will oppose uranium at all costs. They belong with the EGs, the extreme greens, who do not want the new Lucas Heights reactor to come into operation. One way to do that is to stop the Commonwealth from finding a site for the waste so that Lucas Heights cannot get a licence to operate its new facility.
Unfortunately, none of the science presented at the meeting last week will be regarded as believable by the Australian Labor Party. The facts placed before members of the public by the Department of Education, Science and Training will be totally ignored simply because it does not suit their political agenda. Science is irrelevant. The best thing to do is not only ignore the science, but make sure people do not hear the facts and then promote a climate of fear fed on deliberate misinformation or no information at all.
The classic example of misinformation is the way the government has promoted its cause through its publicly funded political petition which refers to Canberra’s nuclear waste dump.
First, it is the Commonwealth government’s and the states’ waste, not Canberra’s waste dump. Second, it is not a dump. The word ‘dump’ was deliberately used, as you can see in the wording of this motion, to give the impression that this material is simply dumped in the ground, similar to a landfill site. The media has also run this line and, by doing that, it has shown itself not to be independent on this issue. Nuclear waste will be stored at a storage facility or repository, but that does not have the same emotional ring about it; it is not quite a headline grabber.
As was demonstrated at the recent public meeting, both low-level waste and intermediate waste could be stored safely and within a very small area: 3600 m3 of low-level waste is a very small amount of waste. Even if you add the 400 m3 of intermediate waste, it is still quite small: one cricket pitch wide by one cricket pitch long by 10 m would hold all your existing stocks; a drop in the bucket. In fact, it works out at 0.00000000052% of the total area of Australia. It is amazing how the need for such a tiny piece of land can cause so much ‘the end is nigh’ debate in this country.
The Acting Chief Minister talked about the pristine nature of the Territory, about cattle and tourism. I stand here and look out on the harbour. We always thought the harbour was great, but we have a great big LNG plant sitting out there, not exactly looking pristine. We have gravel scrapes all through the middle of the harbour. Wickham Point and Middle Arm Peninsula have been allowed to be mined. There are three more applications in the local newspaper. So much for the pristine nature of our harbour! As for cattle, we know from the meeting that you can have a fenced-off area around a facility like this so it will have absolutely no effect on the cattle. If you went to the meeting the other day, you would understand.
Many Territorians who understand this issue have a far more open mind than both the ALP and the CLP. Many older people who travel for cancer treatment out of the Territory are thankful for the nuclear medicine that will, hopefully, cure them. They are thankful that the turbine engines that drive the jet that flies them to the hospital interstate has been checked using nuclear technology. These Territorians use medical facilities in other states and leave their waste in those states. Yes, we do produce our own waste, but we rely on radioactive technology elsewhere. Shouldn’t we take responsibility for that as well?
We indirectly produce waste from mining, in cement works and in industry, where bottles and tins are tested. We rely on these industries in our everyday life, so it is misleading to say we are only responsible for what is produced in the Territory. Perhaps we forget to tell people we grow crops in the Ti Tree area of Central Australia, which has uranium in it, and we still eat the grapes and mangoes.
I believe there are Territorians out there who support the opportunity for the Territory to build a storage facility that will be safe and beneficial to our economy. As was said in response to a question from minister Burns at the meeting, the building of such a facility would cost about $40m. That is many jobs. The Chief Minister has been saying she wants 10 000 apprenticeships and 20 000 indigenous jobs. Isn’t that a good opportunity?
Why can’t we sit down with the Commonwealth and work towards building such a facility, which will be beneficial for both the Territory and Australia? After all, I am, you are, we are Australian. Where have I heard that before? The problem with the present situation is that the Commonwealth has been put in a corner because all states and territories have said they do not want a storage facility.
I note the Acting Chief Minister spoke about Woomera. I agree, and I believe Woomera is the site where it should have gone. Did I hear the Northern Territory Labor Party go down there to berate the South Australian Labor Party saying: ‘We think it should be there’? No way! What we have is a situation where every Labor state has said: ‘No way! Not in my backyard’. That is part of the problem.
Ms Scrymgour: I don’t think so.
Mr WOOD: Yes, it is. The Commonwealth has said it will use its own Defence land to store the waste. The problem with that is that these sites have been selected on the basis of the politics of ‘that is the only land we have’, rather than using the criteria that was originally used to select sites throughout Australia.
If you look at some of the information that has been collected over the years regarding a site, there is a map available showing sites in the Northern Territory, one of which was Blood’s Range, and another was at Tanami. It notes that no areas were considered within the Murray/Darling Basin or the Great Artesian Basin because of their importance as water and agricultural resources.
The Commonwealth is part of the problem, too. They are reacting to the ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome with dubious site selections that will not help this debate at all. In looking for sites, the Commonwealth quoted various criteria for the original sites, but now seems to be confusing the issue by saying that storage sites for low-level waste could be safe anywhere.
In addition to that, the member for Lingiari has said that there was another list of sites prepared by the Commonwealth. He claimed that on this list there are other sites throughout Australia that would be more suitable than the Territory, but they are not being selected because they are Liberal or National seats. There is no proof, but it just goes to show how politics clouds the real issue of where to put our nuclear waste. As I have only just seen this list, I do not know the veracity of the document or the accuracy of the claims by the member for Lingiari. If it is true that these sites are being selected on political criteria, why has the government not selected the Mt Reedy site near Canberra which is in a Labor seat? Knowing the member for Lingiari’s dislike of all thinks bright and yellow, there may be a hidden agenda.
If the Commonwealth is determined to put radioactive waste in the Northern Territory, why doesn’t our government at least look for the best possible site to get the best possible outcome for the Territory? For instance, Tanami was one of the original sites for this storage facility. If that is still a suitable site there may be opportunities to get the Commonwealth to seal the Tanami Road, or at least part of that notorious road. That would be beneficial for locals, the mining industry and tourism. Perhaps there are other sites which could be selected. We will never find out while the Northern Territory government is stubbornly opposed to anything to do with the waste facility. The Commonwealth government will go ahead regardless and put it on its own land.
As was said at the DEST meeting, Australia has very little waste compared to other countries, and those countries store the same waste without any problems. We have now become paranoid about this material. We have governments throughout Australia which are quite happy to use the benefits of nuclear technology, but not the waste product. We say we are part of the Commonwealth - a word which means ‘united with a common interest’ - but we cannot bring ourselves to accept the fact. Parochialism or politics, or both, drives an irrational debate across our country.
I have been accused by this government of being self-centred, standing on a soapbox, and having wind up my you-know-where. All that does is highlight the shallowness, the immaturity, the un-science, and the radioactive neurosis the government uses in its quest to win this debate. I know we need a repository or a storage facility in Australia, and I know that many Territorians support it - like my good friend, Jim, who is presently receiving radium treatment in Adelaide.
Some ask: if it is safe, why not store it in Sydney or Canberra? No matter what you say about radioactive waste, people will still be uneasy about it. We have been conditioned, especially by the media, to believe the worst in all things new or unseen. It has been proven that mobile phone towers are not a health hazard, but when one is advertised close to a residential area, there are many objections. The best solution is to erect the towers away from the residents. In other words, look for a site of least resistance.
The same principle should apply to a radioactive store and repository: site it at a place of least resistance. Surely, there is somewhere in Australia where we can find a place to store all this material. It would mean that radioactive waste, instead of being stored in a general dogsbody we have now - at many sites under many conditions and different security regimes - would be in a single, secure site.
I repeat: this issue needs to be dealt with as if we are Australians. The Territory is part of Australia and, except on a map, cannot be distinguished from Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia if seen from above. Our boundaries are just dots on a map, but we are all girt by sea. I may be the only one in this parliament who believes that we need a national radioactive repository or storage facility somewhere in Australia, but I will live with that.
If you do not want the benefits of nuclear technology, then I suppose it is easy to support the Labor Party approach. If you do support nuclear technology, be game enough to say so. I believe if a lot more of the information that was delivered at the recent DEST meeting was available to the public there would be more support. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth government has been well behind the eight-ball in putting forward its case for a repository. When it has had the opportunity, it has not delivered the message in a manner that the ordinary person in the street can understand. It needs to do much better than it has so far if it wants to counteract the furphies being promoted by the anti-nuke lobby.
I also find it disappointing that the CLP has joined forces with the ALP on this issue. I would be interested in what the CLP rank and file think. I will be listening with interest to any debate that comes out of the next Central Council meeting. I feel the CLP has jumped the gun instead of waiting for all the details to emerge.
I said it once, and I will say it again: this is a national issue and should be dealt with in such a manner. It is an Australian issue and requires leadership. If that means the Northern Territory is the only place a storage facility or repository can be built, so be it. If it is for the good of the nation, then I support it.
I make it clear that I do not necessarily support the Defence sites selected, but understand that the Commonwealth is in a bind because of the objections of the states. This government passed a bill last year which said ‘no nuclear waste sites in the Northern Territory’, so all the states have said: ‘We do not want it’. Therefore, the Commonwealth is in a bind as to what to do with it. If the Commonwealth wants to use any of the sites it has selected, then it must sit within publicly known criteria, not criteria based on a premise that it is the only place we have.
The Labor government will cry foul about our Territory rights and the rough treatment we are receiving from the Commonwealth by overriding our laws. That is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that they are opponents of nuclear technology and the nuclear energy which is the basis behind such technology. This motion is an excuse to ram home those objections, using arguments not based on science but on political rhetoric and fear, because they do not want the Lucas Heights’ new reactor to exist.
The motion, by inference, says that the Commonwealth broke an election promise not to locate the waste facility in the Territory. Isn’t that a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? The Chief Minister made a promise that we would have fixed four-year terms of parliament. We do not have fixed four-year terms of parliament. Did she honour her election promise? No. Whilst the Commonwealth government should be condemned for making a promise and then breaking it, let us not get high and mighty about it when the Northern Territory government also breaks its promises.
The motion states that the Commonwealth should respect the ban on waste travelling around the Territory. Not only is that a joke because of the high safety requirements for transporting waste around Australia - see the IAE regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material - but it does not recognise the fact that low-level waste is packed in drums and is made up of solids, not liquids; and if re-processed rods were brought into the Territory, they would be stored in a glass matrix and there would be only three deliveries over 10 years. Anyone who was at the meeting would have seen the strength of those glass matrix containers ...
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: These are the politics of fear, as I can hear now, at its best: inferring that radioactive waste cannot be transported safely. I wonder how the isotopes get to our hospitals. If you think it is going to stop radioactive waste, why not stop the movement of petrol tankers – triples, if you do not mind - travelling through our small towns and suburbs? Let us not mention, of course, the transportation of yellowcake from South Australia by rail to the Darwin port that the Northern Territory government supported.
Surprise, surprise, Madam Speaker, I will not be supporting this motion. I was tempted to move an amendment to ask the Chief Minister to call for a round table on this issue with the other Premiers and the Prime Minister, but I reckon it will be wasting the airconditioning in this building. The government is not interested in a new approach or acting as part of a nation. It does not support Lucas Heights because it knows that if the new Lucas Heights reactor cannot find a suitable site for its waste, then it will not have a licence to operate.
Could someone tell me then where we will get our ionising radioisotopes that are used in nuclear medicine for diagnosis and therapy, in industry for process controls, a variety of gauges for non-destructive testing, in research for environmental traces, in homes for things like smoke detectors? Where will Territorians get their treatment for cancer? Is this government going to tell my friend, Jim in Adelaide, that Australia will not have radium to treat his cancer because our Labor Party was opposed to the new Lucas Heights reactor by opposing a waste facility?
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Well, if you do not …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, order!
Mr WOOD: … want a waste facility in Australia, then the new Lucas Heights reactor is not going to be in action. We want the benefits, but this government, like the states, uses parochialism to avoid the responsibility of the issue of waste. The Territory government says they are sticking up for the Territory, that they are a Territory party, but have a look at what they say when asked about expanding our uranium mines. They say no. Why? Because that is the policy of federal Labor. Who is the Labor Party kidding when it tries to tell Territorians that the Commonwealth is running our lives? Federal Labor is running theirs.
No, Madam Speaker, this motion is about a lack of leadership and of acknowledgement that we are a nation. I said before, and I will continue to say even if it does get up the nose of some of those opposite: this is an issue that we need to deal with as Australians, not as parochial, one-eyed supporters of our states and territories. It is time to pull our heads out of the political sand and do something for our country. If the Commonwealth, states and territories cannot find solutions, their leaders do not deserve to be in positions of power. I believe John F Kennedy summed it up perfectly when he said in his inaugural speech:
Sadly, the Labor Party has its own version:
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of members of the University of the Third Age; senior citizens from the Brennan electorate; and Aboriginal Community Police Officers training at Charles Darwin University, accompanied by Wendy Kennedy and Stella Huttlestone.
On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to all of our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Condemnation of Commonwealth Government in Respect of Nuclear Waste Site
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support the Acting Chief Minister’s motion of condemning the Commonwealth government for planning to locate a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.
It is with a strong sense of dj vu that I stand arguing against the Commonwealth’s proposed imposition of a nuclear waste storage facility - accurately referred to as a nuclear waste dump - on the people of the Northern Territory. It was over a year ago, when the Commonwealth government announced that it had abandoned its plans to construct a waste storage facility in South Australia and had started looking elsewhere, that this government started fighting. We were opposed then to using the Territory as a dumping ground for the nation’s nuclear waste, and we are just as opposed now, over a year later, when the Commonwealth has announced that it has narrowed its options down to three sites, all of which are in the Northern Territory.
The Acting Chief Minister made the views of this government very well known. I can only emphasise and support these strong and unanimous views. The government of the Northern Territory does not want this dump, and the people of the Northern Territory do not want this dump. I have attended the Commonwealth government’s information sessions on the dump facility, and I attended the public meeting arranged by the community in Alice Springs. I will certainly be attending the public meeting in Darwin on 31 August.
It is very clear that the Commonwealth has made its selection of possible sites for no logical reason. A list of 23 potential sites was produced by the National Sites Advisory Committee at a time when the government had given an absolute assurance that there would be no nuclear waste dump in the Territory. The four Northern Territory sites that appear on the list were assessed as being less suitable. Five sites in New South Wales were considered most suitable. In fact, in a very unclear process, of the three Northern Territory sites announced by the Commonwealth government on 15 July, two of them did not even appear on the advisory committee’s list of potential sites. Where did Mt Everard and Harts Range come from? They seemed to be plucked out of thin air because they are Commonwealth-owned sites and they are in the Northern Territory.
After the last federal election, the Commonwealth government promised an objective, rational site selection process. This process has clearly been discarded. The Commonwealth needs to be more upfront and honest about its site selection process. The Commonwealth public servants who are running this project have a very unenviable job. They are trying to sell a blatantly political decision as good science. Territorians are not fooled; they can see through this snake oil science. That is not the only area where the Prime Minister, John Howard, needs to come clean. His government wants all of us to believe that a single repository is the best way of managing these wastes. At first, this seems like a reasonable proposition until you realise that we do not get fewer storage facilities with this proposal; we get one more.
Waste will continue to be stored at places like Lucas Heights and other facilities until enough is stored to enable it to be transported to this additional dump. Moreover, we effectively have a national repository already at Lucas Heights. More than 80% of Australia’s radioactive waste is stored at Lucas Heights and, according to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, is stored safely. Why, then, would anyone want to transport this waste across Australia at great expense with an increased risk to achieve nothing more than what we already have?
The driving force behind the proposal to put a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory is the current application by ANSTO to construct and operate a replacement nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. It is about securing the support of the people of New South Wales for this second generation reactor by guaranteeing that the waste will not be stored on the eastern seaboard.
Government is not simply saying: ‘Not in my backyard’. Of course we accept and acknowledge the benefits of nuclear medicine, but of itself, that is no argument for a nuclear waste dump. The issue is about storing waste safely, and an accepted principle of waste management is that it is best done near where it is generated, not 3000 km away. We need to get back to basics and question whether this facility is needed at all.
As the Acting Chief Minister has said, the Northern Territory has the lowest volume of radioactive waste of any jurisdiction in Australia, about 2 m3. We produce about 1% of Australia’s radioactive waste, all of it low grade and mostly medical material, while 90% of Australia’s nuclear waste is generated from the Commonwealth, much of it high grade.
It is proposed to dump in this facility all the waste that is to be brought back to Australia from France and Scotland under contractual arrangements between the national governments. I completely fail to see why this waste should be dumped in the Northern Territory. ‘Remote’ does not mean ‘safe’, nor does it mean ‘acceptable’. What it clearly does mean, though, is ‘politically expedient’.
Some may say that the amount of waste to be stored is very small, so what is the problem? Let me explain the problem with the storage of nuclear waste, and it has nothing to do with volume. Spent fuel is hot and radioactive, and must be stored under water to remove heat prior to permanent storage or reprocessing. In reprocessing, plutonium and unused uranium are separated for re-use. This means about 3% of the fuel has highly radioactive material including some residual plutonium requiring permanent disposal.
For intermediate-level waste, approximately 80% of initial radioactivity is lost after 100 years. A small amount still remains after 100 000 years. Low-level radioactive waste generally decays to background levels in less than 500 years. About 95% decays to background levels within 100 years. The potential risk for exposure is, therefore, present for a very long time. There is inherent uncertainty involving predicting waste site performance for the period that nuclear waste is to be isolated. The time frames over which protection is required can extend well beyond the life span of several generations.
Risk of disposing radioactive waste in near-service repositories include incidents during handling and storage, or problems with the containers, resulting in the release of potentially harmful radioactive material which can contaminate ground and surface water and have harmful effects on human health and our plants and animals.
The Leader of the Opposition has asked what we are doing now to deal with safe storage of our own waste. This is a blatant attempt to divert attention away from the issue that is at hand. The Leader of the Opposition must have a very short memory. Last year, in response to a motion by the then member for Port Darwin, I gave a detailed account of how this government has acted to ensure safe storage of radioactive waste. I will repeat some of that for the member’s benefit.
This government has always accepted the need to properly manage our own nuclear waste, but we do not accept any plans to dump anyone else’s waste on the Territory. Last year, this government legislated to ban a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. We did this in the knowledge that the Commonwealth government has the ability to override this legislation, as it can with all our laws and, indeed, as they have done before. The opposition called this a political stunt and the legislation meaningless. They sent a green light to Canberra that it was okay to dump on Territorians.
It is a fact of life that the Commonwealth has the constitutional right to overturn legislation. Does this make all our legislation meaningless and useless? Absolutely not! Making law is the strongest possible statement any parliament can make on any issue, and we have taken that step on behalf of all Territorians.
The current debate on uranium mining is another example of attempts to muddy the water of nuclear waste storage issues. Uranium and nuclear waste are two completely separate issues, but it is clearly in the Commonwealth government’s interest to blur the lines and have people think that the matters are related.
Ultimately, we know that, yes, the Commonwealth has the power to overturn our legislation, but this is not why they abandoned plans to build a facility in South Australia. It has nothing to do with our being a territory and not a state. The Commonwealth Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act, or the ANSTO Act, is sledgehammer legislation that takes precedence over any state or territory legislation with which it is inconsistent. Nevertheless, there are many steps to be taken before this proposal can become anything like a reality on the many fronts on which the Northern Territory can work.
There is the Commonwealth’s own Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, or the EPBC Act, to be utilised, and the establishment of any sort of facility would need to be subject to the strict provisions of that legislation. My Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts has already been working on an ecological inventory of the three sites. Other legislation of relevance is the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act also provides an avenue worthy of investigation in relation to the proposed location.
The crux of the whole issue, though, is simply logic, commonsense and natural justice. The proposal to construct a nuclear waste storage facility in the Northern Territory defies all logic and commonsense. Why would you transport 90% of Australia’s radioactive waste 3000 km across the country from where it is already safely stored? Technically and scientifically, there is no doubt - as admitted by the Commonwealth scientists in charge of this project - that the waste we are talking about could just as safely be stored in Sydney or Canberra.
Territorians do not want this facility and need to have the ability and the opportunity to say so loud and clear. Senator Scullion needs to remember why he is in parliament. He needs to honour his promise made last year that there would be no nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory on his watch. The federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, should also hold to his absolute, categorical assurance that the facility would not be in the Northern Territory.
For over a year, we have been saying that we do not want the Commonwealth’s nuclear waste stored in our Territory. We will keep saying that. We will keep fighting for as long as it takes to get the waste stored where it is generated.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I first heard about this nuclear waste facility proposal while I was at the Katherine Show this year. I was totally unprepared for it, I can assure you, as was everyone else in my party.
The position of the Country Liberal Party was, and remains, that we oppose the siting of a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. In a matter of hours of that announcement being made, Labor had petitions against the facility in the Territory circulating around the Katherine showgrounds - pretty quick, I thought. I do not know when they had time to do that, but someone had them out. Since that time, there have been endless discussions on radio, and between individuals, and media reports, about every aspect of this proposed nuclear waste facility. I already have a couple of folders here full of information about it. I have no doubt that, by 2011, I will probably have an office full of it.
Of particular concern to me is the inference that our federal representatives, Senator Nigel Scullion and David Tollner, are not doing enough to address the public outcry about this proposal. Both Senator Scullion and David Tollner have worked tirelessly, and will continue to do so, to try to get the Commonwealth government to reverse its decision.
In the meantime, Senator Scullion has accompanied scientific experts throughout the Northern Territory to address regional communities in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. These meetings have proved very useful to members of the community who were unsure of what was involved in setting up a nuclear waste facility. In Katherine, the minister was in attendance along with the member for Daly, me and some 150 people. I thought the line of questioning from most people in the community was extremely interesting because people were after factual information so that they could make an informed decision. Some people came to that meeting with a decision already made and were not prepared to listen to the facts. I learnt a lot more about the waste facility.
The politics that is being continually played with this proposal, I believe, is unfortunate. Of course, the topic is very emotive. I would like the Acting Chief Minister, in the absence of the Chief Minister, to tell us where nuclear waste is being stored at the moment in the Northern Territory and how much; and what kind of nuclear waste is being stored at Mt Todd and how much is being stored there.
This government really has some work to do to convince Territorians of its credibility, and to clarify its responsibilities as far as nuclear waste is concerned. To date, they have passed the buck and stated that they have no say in whatever decision the Commonwealth government makes in relation to the Northern Territory.
My question to the Acting Chief Minister is: what is this government doing to further the opposition of the Northern Territory to the proposed nuclear waste facility being located at one of the three locations identified? There is much talk, but I am sure that Territorians want action. I would like to know what action this government has taken.
In relation to the mining of uranium, it has been quite an interesting few weeks. The Minister for Mines and Energy, when questioned in the Estimates Committee, was adamant that the Labor Party does not support uranium mining and has always had a policy against uranium mining. As a matter of fact, the thought of the word sent him into a shake. It is really proving a dilemma for the Northern Territory government, but they have to be relieved of any further stress now that the federal minister has arrived in the Territory to talk to the minister who promptly, without any discussion, any reasoning, or any argument for the Territory, handed responsibility to the Commonwealth government by saying in response to the federal minister’s question to him about responsibility for it: ‘I will give them your phone number’. What a relief that must have been for the minister! It solved a dilemma for the Northern Territory government, as they had been caught between a rock and hard place and really did not know how to get out of it. I am sure that there will be ongoing debates about uranium mining in the Northern Territory well into the future. I look forward to participating in those debates.
To finalise my contribution to this nuclear waste facility motion, the government is very vocal in asking us what we are doing in opposition. We are in opposition; government has the responsibility to move this forward. I again ask the government: what are you doing? You are the ones who have the power to make something happen, not the opposition.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, my colleague, the member for Stuart, is spot on when he says Central Australians are angry at this nuclear waste dump proposal. People in Alice Springs have been able to raise some questions with the CLP federal representatives and agencies involved at the information sessions. They have been able to put their strong views at the recent public forum, a view which says we do not want the Commonwealth government’s nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.
People in the bush are just as angry about the Commonwealth government’s plan and the lies they have been told, but no one from the Commonwealth government …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The word ‘lies’ should not be used here, surely. It is unparliamentary. Saying that the Commonwealth government is lying …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, reference to the Commonwealth government lying has been used throughout this debate. It has not been ruled out of order and there has been no objection previously. I do not believe there is a point of order. Please continue, member for Macdonnell.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. No one from the Commonwealth government has bothered to speak to them about the plan to put a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory, in their country. People out bush are not only angry, they are frustrated at the way they have been treated by the Commonwealth government. They are upset and very disturbed about the lack of information they are getting from the Commonwealth government.
People in Harts Range, Papunya, Mt Liebig and Hermannsburg have all approached me about the nuclear waste dump issue. They are worried about what they are hearing about what the Howard government wants to do with the nuclear waste dump. They are asking why no one from Canberra is talking to them about the plan, why no one is talking to them about why they want to put this nuclear dump in the Northern Territory.
It might make sense to the federal member for Bradford, Brendan Nelson, to put this in the Northern Territory, but it is not making any sense to people out bush with whom I have spoken. The federal member for Bradford has asked why cannot people, whom he claims live in the middle of nowhere, have a nuclear waste dump. Many people out there, in the middle of nowhere, want to answer his question, and they should get the chance to do it.
I would like to take this opportunity to answer the federal member for Bradford’s question on behalf of my constituents in Macdonnell. I tell the federal member that this is not the middle of nowhere; it is our home and it is our country. It is where we live, it is where our kids grow up, and it is where our old people lie. The Department of Defence might put up fences around some of these places, but it is still our country.
One of my constituents said very strongly that it is a message that we have to make sure that the Howard government hears. This man said to me: ‘We have a clean country, not a dirty country. We do not want the nuclear waste dump to make our country dirty’. I could not agree more.
This nuclear waste dump proposal affects all Territorians in the towns and out bush. It is about standing up with one voice saying: ‘No! This is our place, we do not want this nuclear waste dump; we want to keep our country clean’.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not time for us to be divided in this House on this question. It is not time for us to be scoring political points or trying to make political mileage out of this question. It is time for us, as the Northern Territory parliament, to become united and stand together on this particular matter. I believe the issue has been dealt with very badly by all governments, federal and Territory. This issue can so easily become emotive and passionate and honestly, many times it can become a bit unreal.
I noticed when the member for Nelson made his speech today how gob-smacked the government was. There was hardly a sound. Even if you do not agree with him, he argued on the basis of fact. He had his facts ready to present to this House, whereas previous speakers had purely been arguing about, ‘You should have, it is your fault, your blame, get him to do this, shades of Grant Tambling all over again’, but we were not getting facts. It was interesting that it was not until Question Time that the Acting Chief Minister, who had already spoken, gave a speech including facts in his answer.
We are all caught up in the passion of the debate. It is not the time for that. If ever the Northern Territory parliament needed to be as one, it is now.
Right from the very start, let me say that I am completely opposed to the sites chosen in the Northern Territory for a nuclear dump; I cannot think of anywhere more inappropriate than the sites that have been identified, in particular, Harts Range, which is beautiful country and a wonderful area that has huge potential and many communities out that way that operate very successfully. To push this argument into the middle of their communities without consulting them, without even talking to them, is very unfair. Who is talking to them? Not this government, not the federal government, not the opposition - and this is the sad part.
We really need to get behind each other, put aside our political differences, and start trying to negotiate with the federal government on what we are talking about. Too often, we do not know what we are talking about. I am not a scientist; I do not understand the technology of nuclear waste. I do not understand the implications of its transportation, its location, or its storage. Goodness gracious me! I have done what every else has done. I have come across some extremely good articles. In this Institute of Public Affairs’ Review, there is an excellent article titled The safe disposal of nuclear waste.
There are some questions that need to be asked. Is a dump in the Northern Territory really necessary? Perhaps the minister, in his reply, could tell us where Northern Territory waste is held? Is it held at the Alice Springs Hospital and Royal Darwin Hospital? Where is the waste that comes from uranium mines held? Should we have to store waste that comes from other areas in Australia?
This article makes a very simple statement to begin with:
We are just a little part of Australia, but we have to be there negotiating and finding the best solution for Australia regarding nuclear waste disposal.
Despite this political and emotive debate, government has to understand that it is essential for them not to stand back and say: ‘Okay, federal government, it is your problem, you do it’. It is essential for them to be included in the whole process.
Not so long ago, every member of this parliament swore on the Bible that they were going to act in the interest of Territorians. Is that what they are doing by saying: ‘This is not our problem; this is your problem. We are going to step back and just involve ourselves in the argy-bargy of political debate.’?
I do not know whether the short list that Warren Snowdon has circulated is accurate or not. Every time I find one piece of paper on what is current, I am given other information that is supposedly current. There is so much information around that it is very hard to extract what is accurate information. What is most important to the Territory is what we are going to do about it. What are we going to do about it? Standing squabbling in this parliament is not what we should be doing. It is not going to get us anywhere. It certainly is not going to say to the Commonwealth government: ‘We are united in this, in our resolve’.
To confuse the issue, people bring up points about statehood and uranium mining. It just complicates the issue. The first thing we need to find out from the Commonwealth government, and to work with them on, is waste disposal. What about our own? The Northern Territory’s proportion of waste is minute compared to that produced by South Australia and New South Wales. In fact, many of us would have said that Woomera, which already houses much of the waste as a waste facility, should have continued to be used by the Commonwealth government. However, since it has been rejected, it is my opinion that the Commonwealth government has taken the easy option.
It is easy to say: ‘Okay, let us put it in the Territory. They are not a state. They will not argue with us like the South Australian government did. We have land there; whether it is the right place or not, let us do this’. I wonder if this is the spark to ignite this debate, that there might be another hidden agenda from the Commonwealth government’s aspect. Do they really have another option up their sleeves?
I quite like the idea put forward by the member for Nelson: that we should look at the Tanami. I hate to say it, but you already have the big hole out there; let us make it bigger. Let us leave it there and then, of course, we get the benefits of the sealed road. In all of this debate, we do not talk about the practical issues such as: how is it going to be transported? How is it going to be stored? Will it need an escort? Will there have to be emergency services at this dump? All the complications of what happens if we do have this disposal facility have not been flagged. The sad part is that we do not know and we are very much being kept in the dark. Why are we being kept in the dark? I believe it is because of the attitude of the government; the washing of the hands. I do not think we should do that, and I certainly do not think the opposition and government should be at each other’s throats about this at all.
It is a national issue; not just a state and territory issue, as has been said earlier. To pursue it without being prepared to negotiate and get a result that is acceptable to all people to me seems to be ridiculous. It is not a silly idea to say take it to COAG. That is where many items of national importance are discussed. Why doesn’t the Chief Minister say to the Prime Minister: ‘Can this be on the next agenda for COAG? We need to discuss this as a nation’. Not just the Territory battling the Commonwealth government on its own. We know quite well, as the minister has said, that the regulations state quite clearly all the areas the ministers can be responsible for, and that does not include uranium mining and land rights. It is in your regulations if you bother to go to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act.
Why do we not seek a solution? Rather than raising petitions, having demonstrations, and writing letters, why do we not go to the Prime Minister and say: ‘Let us sit down and negotiate’? I believe this will go on and on until we can find an acceptable solution. I would be very sad if we were forced to have it, certainly in an area that would not be beneficial to the people who lived around there.
In the debate there has been much made of the economic benefits of having this disposal facility in the Northern Territory. I certainly have not been able to gauge any answers to some of these questions such as what benefits can be identified with the introduction of this facility. Certainly our Senator has not come forward with any of these answers. At what cost to the taxpayer? How much is it going to cost Territorians to have this facility here? What road and rail works will be required? They may sound all very good, but could someone please let us know: is it a different sort of road we are after? How will it affect our normal traffic flow? How will it affect our grey nomads as they go up and down the north road all the time? Will there be additional training necessary for accompanying these vehicles? What will happen when we do have the facility? Will there need to be some sort of monitoring and control there?
I believe that, if we are not careful, we will end up having this disposal unit put somewhere where we do not want it. That will come about because we make such a political flurry, grandstand and carry on, and the Commonwealth government will say: ‘What a lot of juveniles up there in the Territory’.
We have to do this in a mature, thoughtful manner. We have to have unity, and it is time for this parliament to come together, united, not at each other’s throats. We need to have open and frank discussion with the Commonwealth, and the Chief Minister should be lobbying very hard to get it on the COAG agenda. We need the cooperation of our Commonwealth members. We should not be bagging them across the Chamber. We need to get them onside, particularly Senator Scullion. We need his voice in parliament, otherwise where do we go?
I can see that, if we cannot broker an agreement with all the states, territories and the Commonwealth government to look after their own waste, we will end up being the place where it is put. That is the national agenda which has to be highlighted: all states, territories and the Commonwealth should be responsible for their own waste. We should not be the dumping ground for other states’ or territories’ waste. The Commonwealth needs to negotiate a site, and they need to do it in consultation with all the stakeholders. That is the sad part about this whole issue: it just seems to have risen out of the dust and suddenly been plonked upon us. Now, we are all scurrying, throwing our hands up in the air.
You can sign as many petitions as you like, you can write as many letters as you like, you can demonstrate and wave your banners and flags as much as you like but, at the end of the day, if we do not talk to and negotiate with the Commonwealth, we will not have any say. We will just be told. I suggest we stop creating this great divide with this easy political point scoring. I suggest we get down to the basics: talk to the people concerned; put up some proposals. In this situation, there is going to have to be give and take.
I certainly do not want it where they have suggested it should go and, if it does, if we have to look after our own waste, then at least let us be the ones who decide where it should go.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I disagree with the member for Braitling. To just roll over and accept it is not …
Mrs Braham: That is not what I said.
Mr KNIGHT: That is basically what you were saying …
Mrs Braham: No, it was not. It is called negotiation.
Mr KNIGHT: … just roll over and accept that we are going to have one in the Territory; we are going to have one in the Katherine region - no matter what the science says, we should just accept it. It is not about science or facts. If it were, we would be happy to have that argument. It is about the politics of it and the federal politics of it.
Look at the matrix which the ANSTO people talked about: not a single site in the Northern Territory is suitable - not a single site. Yet, what do we have? Three in the Territory. Regarding negotiating with the Commonwealth government, we had Brendan Nelson saying: ‘We are not mucking around. It is going to be here; it is going to be in the Territory’. There was no negotiation, just: ‘We are sick of talking, it is going to be in the Northern Territory’.
Mrs Braham: So what are you going to do? What are you going to do? Come on.
Mr KNIGHT: Well, we are doing it now.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, you know about cross-Chamber chatter.
Mrs Braham: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr KNIGHT: She should have a little bit of experience in it.
We are trying to do it in this House. The Labor government, like the member for Katherine said, was right on the front foot. We had a petition going around within hours of being notified. That is the way we have operated. We do not want this site in the Northern Territory because there is not an acceptable site in the Northern Territory. The sites which were deemed suitable and most suitable – the three categories - were in other states.
It is not about the science; it is about the public perception. That is what I will talk about in my speech in support of the motion: it is the perception of nuclear waste. It is the perception of the nuclear industry which is what it is all about. Why don’t they put it in Canberra? Because the public there will be in uproar about it. Why don’t they want it in the states on the eastern seaboard? Because the public would be in a furore about it. That is what it is about, and that is what is going to be to the detriment of the Northern Territory.
I also want to talk about the real people. We talk about the subjects of waste and the nuclear industry, but it is about the people of the Katherine region. Other speakers will talk about the other two sites in Central Australia. I really want people to understand what is happening, and who it involves, in the Katherine region. As the member for Katherine said, it was announced on show day. It was a great day. Katherine residents were having a great time at the show, kids were yelling on the side shows and there was a great deal of activity happening at the show. Everybody was happy. Then the story broke and the word started to move around the show. People were aghast. They were surprised: ‘Katherine? What is it doing in Katherine? We have not heard anything about this before’. From that point on, it has been a talking point in Katherine and people are becoming more and more concerned. What happened that day was that the Coalition government basically trotted in and trampled on the lifestyles and the rights of people in the Katherine region.
Obviously, the particular site at Fisher’s Ridge has some direct neighbours. The fenced block – it is a square block - sits within a 220 km path through a property owned by Barry and Val Uttley. I had the pleasure of meeting Val and Barry and having a cup of tea with them on their property, Yelttu, which is actually Uttley spelt backwards. Just so you understand a bit about the people involved in this, Val and Barry came to the Territory in 1969. They are in their late 60s now and they bought the property to develop a herd size of about 1000 Brahman breeders. They came to the Territory in 1969 with their four young children who were from 18 months up to about 10 years old at that time. They did contract work on various cattle stations such as Anthony’s Lagoon, Tanumbirini and Sunday Creek. What started out as a contract for a few months turned out to be 36 years. They sold up everything they had in Queensland and moved to the Territory.
Barry and Val had the kids with them the whole time. It was a very tough environment. They worked very hard and they have done that for 36 years. It is a credit to them that the children are involved in the cattle industry still today on some of our most productive cattle properties. It is a ridiculous situation that this property that the Uttleys bought as an inheritance for their children will be robbed from them. Effectively, the value of that property has diminished overnight. The value of the stock has diminished overnight.
The Coalition has trampled on these working people. I just do not think they care. The other neighbouring properties include the Venn Blocks, a horticultural area, and other pastoral areas. The people on the Venn Blocks are quite concerned. They work extremely hard in Katherine and, effectively, overnight have had their produce compromised. They have suppliers asking them what it is all about, having a nuclear waste dump there. They market their produce in the southern states as Northern Territory, Katherine Region, and guess what? There is possibly a nuclear waste dump up there. It is effectively destroying their markets overnight and these very hardworking small business people. The Coalition government is trampling on the livelihood and rights of these people who work very hard in the horticultural industry.
In the tourism industry, the Northern Territory government has spent decades and millions of dollars trying to promote different aspects of the Northern Territory. The Katherine region is a classic example of a clean, green place to visit. We promote that year after year to southern visitors and international visitors. What is the Katherine region going to be known for in the future? As a nuclear waste site. The perception - do not worry about the science because that does not matter; people cannot understand the science - is that it is a nuclear waste dump site, so why go there?
It will be detrimental to the tourism industry, the small business operators who work so hard during the Dry Season and who try to market their properties over the Wet Season. You can imagine these people going to the southern shows during the Wet Season and trying to market the Katherine region if this dump site gets up. It is absolutely disgusting.
Senator Scullion wanted to find out what Territorians thought. He came to Katherine for the public meeting, and he got what they thought. I agree with the member for Katherine: there were many questions asked. People were very concerned, and the answers that were given raised more questions than they answered. I asked many questions and, sadly, the member for Katherine did not ask a single one.
Mrs Miller: I did not need to. I had all the answers there.
Mr KNIGHT: Oh, did you? The people of Katherine are opposed to this dump site. They were very concerned about what it will bring to their community. They cannot see that it is going to bring any economic benefit to the community whatsoever. It is going to decimate small business in the area and, if it gets up, it will only provide a few jobs.
The National Sites Advisory Committee identified the Fisher’s Ridge site as being most unsuitable because of flooding of the area. It sits on top of a huge aquifer that runs from Pine Creek to Mataranka, which supports the horticulture industry and town water for Katherine. It would be ludicrous to put a site there.
The Coalition government seems to have turned its back on the people it so loudly triumphs as being its own; the hardworking people, the people of the land, small business people, and people in regional Australia. It has turned its back on them.
The member for Braitling talked about reading articles and reports. I can get you a pile of articles this high which say it is the greatest and safest thing in the world. I can get you another pile of a similar size that say it is the most dangerous thing in the world. It is not about the science; it is about the perception. The perceptions kill the image of an area, and this proposal will kill the image of the Katherine region.
The member for Nelson thinks it is a great idea. He thinks it is the safest thing in the world. If he thinks it is the safest thing in the world, he should be proposing it for the Shoal Bay mud flats. They say it is super safe and nothing can happen, but no one wants it. I make that challenge to the member for Nelson. Sadly, he is not here, but if he …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, you are not supposed to refer to a member’s presence or absence in the Chamber.
Mr KNIGHT: I am sorry. I withdraw that, Madam Speaker. I will see him at the Humpty Doo pub or somewhere …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, just withdraw, please.
Mr KNIGHT: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
I have also noticed that the CLP opposition is big on words against this proposal, but it is not really big on action. You are not promoting the petition; no questions are being asked at the public forum. I do not think anyone actually turned up to the Darwin forum. I certainly did not see anyone from the opposition there. It seems like you are saying you do not agree with it, but you are not doing much more than that. There should be an aggressive approach …
Mrs Miller: You have no idea what we are doing.
Mr KNIGHT: If the member for Katherine is doing a lot, we would be hearing from her. The people in Katherine are not seeing a great deal happening or promotion there. I do not think there was a petition at the CLP stall on the show circuit …
Mrs Miller: Yes, there was.
Mr KNIGHT: It must have been right at the back. We certainly could not see it.
Mrs Miller interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Cease interjecting, please.
Mr KNIGHT: I urge members to take up the fight with the Labor government. The Labor government is saying no and fighting this thing to the death, and all we seem to be getting is the opposition trying to trip us up on this issue. I urge them to put that aside and support it. There should not have been this discussion this morning. It should have been: ‘Yes, we agree with this motion, let us get it away’. Instead, we had politicking, and talking about the uranium industry. They should have said: ‘No, we do not want it’. What is going happen is that the people of the Katherine region are going to read this debate, and see the opposition saying: ‘Oh no, we do not really agree with the government’s motion. We want to tick tack around it’. The opposition is saying: ‘We agree with the dump because we are not supporting the government saying it is going oppose it’ …
Mrs Miller: We have not said that at all. You have not been listening.
Mr KNIGHT: There should not have been any opposition to the motion. We had a long speech about everything other than supporting the motion. For the sake of the Katherine township and the region which surrounds it, I urge you to get behind it and take this fight up. It has to be taken up.
What do we have at the moment? We have this marvellous Katherine community, which is fighting for a lifestyle there and its economic viability, with a proposal which will destroy it. We have the Coalition government hell-bent on environmental, social and economic destruction of the Katherine region. The member for Solomon has disappeared somewhere overseas and come back without a word. The CLP Senator could have been a little more proactive at these public meetings. He said: ‘I want to talk to you about it’, but if you say: ‘No, I do not want to hear you’, we have that. We have the CLP opposition not really wanting to be there. They say: ‘No’, but they are not really very proactive about it at all.
I support the people of the Katherine community even though they do not make up a great deal of my constituency. I live there and, if the shadow minister and the member for Katherine will not take up the fight against this proposal for the small businesses of Katherine and for the people of the Katherine township, I certainly will. If she changes her mind, I will welcome the support.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I support the Northern Territory government’s opposition to any planned nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. As has been mentioned earlier in the parliament, the Commonwealth government needs to take responsibility. As parliamentarians, we have been questioned about our own sincerity in representing the people of our electorates. Indeed, the Commonwealth parliamentarians need to also be reminded of their roles and responsibility to the people of this country. On that point, we all must remain vigilant as to our roles and responsibilities.
There is no question that the Howard government needs to be stopped in its plans for any nuclear waste dump site here in the Territory. In the lead-up to the federal election last year, people were told there would be no plans for a nuclear waste dump site in the Territory. However, we have been deceived, which is why the member for Nhulunbuy has moved the motion condemning the Commonwealth government for planning to locate a nuclear waste dump on one of three planned sites in the Katherine region and Central Australia.
It seems there is a clear case of taking the Northern Territory for granted; indeed, the people of the Northern Territory and also the parliamentarians who make up the Legislative Assembly. Canberra obviously thinks we cannot speak for ourselves. We can speak for ourselves and we will fight the Commonwealth on this every step of the way. We are not going to be a dumping ground for nuclear waste for the rest of Australia, nor the world, regardless of it being low, moderate or high-grade material. We simply do not want it. If it is so safe, as Canberra says, and my Labor colleagues have said, Canberra can keep it - or Sydney, in this case.
Since the Commonwealth government’s announcement last month, there has been much debate during public meetings and in the media over the issue. Residents in Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin have had opportunities to raise their concerns and they have said they do not want it.
The people of the Northern Territory are very proud of our beautiful land, seas and waterways. Travel the Stuart Highway and you will see the magic of the red desert country, the rich colours of the MacDonnell Ranges where the spinifex and ghost gums grow, to the Devil’s Marbles in Tennant Creek where the country changes again to greener bushland. There are many creeks in the Katherine region where, as the members for Katherine and Daly would know very well, is the home of the Nitmiluk Gorge and hot springs, with the joys of sharing culture with the Manyallaluk mob and their tourist ventures. The Territory is renowned for its beautiful fishing spots, isolated locations and untouched areas. It is something we need to be very proud of, and we need to keep reminding the Commonwealth government that these are the reasons we are proud of the Northern Territory. It is these images that draw tourists from around the country and overseas. A nuclear waste dump will conflict with our image as a caring country - in this case, caring for country, sharing our country, our Territory, with tourists.
Who wants to travel to Manyallaluk for the peace and tranquillity of Aboriginal culture and pass a massive nuclear waste dump on the way? Or travel the Tanami Road with the ranges on one side, where the setting sun embraces the mountains in its stunning glory, with a massive nuclear waste dump on the other side.
One of the Howard government’s planned sites is Fisher’s Ridge, as the member for Katherine would know well and, indeed, the member for Daly, is 40 km south-east of Katherine. It is in the Daly electorate and near my electorate of Arnhem. At the Katherine Show, the day when the Howard government announced its planned nuclear dump sites in the Territory, at least 100 people signed a petition immediately in opposition to the announcement. One hundred people had signed by lunchtime on 16 July at the Katherine Show. Since that time, there have been thousands of people who have signed those petitions right across the Northern Territory. That gives an indication of the swift response by the Katherine residents, at the Katherine Show, to their complete opposition to any nuclear dump waste site near the town.
People in my electorate of Arnhem, from Barunga, Wugularr and Manyallaluk, which is near Fisher’s Ridge, signed the petition for they are also concerned about the impact of any nuclear dump site on country important to Aboriginal people in the region. There was a resounding ‘No’. There still is a resounding ‘No’ to the planned waste dump near Katherine, as there has been a resounding ‘No’ to the planned waste dump in Central Australia.
The member for Nhulunbuy, in Question Time this afternoon, informed this parliament that the Commonwealth government’s own committee said the area of Katherine East, Fisher’s Ridge, is not suitable. However, they have ignored their own advice. Who will they listen to? Who will the Howard government listen to? What of our Commonwealth CLP representatives? Does Senator Nigel Scullion have the courage to cross the floor? Contrary to what the member for Araluen says, that there is no floor for her Commonwealth colleague to cross, there is always a floor to cross; there is even a floor that leads right to the Prime Minister’s door.
Territorians do not want this nuclear waste dump. They have raised their voices across the Territory. It is not just the Labor government that speaks strongly against the planned nuclear dump sites. Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin councils have all opposed it. The pastoral industry has raised its objections; they are not satisfied with the information they have received. They are not convinced that this is a good idea. Instead, they worry for their future and their children’s future should the Howard government force its plans on us. They are also worried that any nuclear dump site will compromise the pastoral industry’s reputation as a producer of clean, green primary products.
Last year, the Territory government legislated to ban a nuclear waste dump in the Territory. This was the strongest action we could take as a Territory. The people of the Northern Territory, along with their local representatives in this parliament, can make a difference. We can stand together in our opposition to any nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. As the member for Braitling said, it needs to be a united voice from all sections of the parliament - a united voice that can go strongly straight to Canberra. It is not too late. Together we can make our voices heard in Canberra.
I call upon the Independents and the Country Liberal Party who have expressed their support - the members for Katherine and Araluen - to join us in unanimous opposition to the Commonwealth’s planned nuclear waste dump for the Northern Territory.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to speak on behalf of the constituents of Sanderson to oppose the stated intention of the Commonwealth government Coalition of the Liberal, National, and our very own Northern Territory Country Liberal, parties to force upon our community an unwanted national nuclear waste dump. We know our responsibilities in regard to managing the Territory’s own radioactive waste which, as we all know, is at the lower end of the scale. What we are not willing to become is a dump for our country’s highest grade nuclear waste. That is the immediate wish of the Commonwealth government and, apparently by its actions to date, their toady Coalition partner, the Territory’s own CLP.
The Deputy Chief Minister advised us earlier that, in July of last year the Commonwealth Liberal, National, Country Liberal Party Coalition government abandoned its plans to build a facility at Woomera in South Australia. I congratulate Premier Rann for his stance on this issue in not allowing his state to be ridden rough shod by the Commonwealth into becoming Australia’s nuclear waste state. I sincerely hope that we in this parliament take strength from South Australia’s opposition to Prime Minister Howard’s government and unanimously send a message to Canberra that, like South Australia, we will not be bullied into a situation that our children, our children’s children - in fact, our descendants for thousands of generations - will have to endure.
The National Radioactive Waste Repository draft EIS, compiled by the firm PPK Environmental and Infrastructure on behalf of the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training in 2002, I believe proposed three possible sites - one within the Woomera prohibited area, and two just outside the prohibited area - for the construction and storage of a facility which would manage the nation’s low-level nuclear waste - low-level waste - not low to intermediate nuclear waste - such as wrapping materials, hospital plant and equipment, some contaminated soils, discarded protective clothing, and the like.
It was not long after the announcement by the then Minister for Science and Technology, Peter McGauran, that the first cry of alarm was raised. Was it from the South Australian government? No. Was it from Greenpeace? No. Was it from Friends of the Earth? No. I will not keep you guessing! It was from the Commonwealth Liberal Defence Minister, Robert Hill. It turned out that the proposed low-level nuclear waste repository was to be placed beside a missile test firing range. That was deemed an unacceptable environmental risk by the Department of Defence. The point was not lost on other members of the Howard Cabinet.
And so it came to pass that the then Minister for the Environment, David Kemp, also became involved in this fiasco. As you will recall, there was a great deal of secrecy and evasion coming out of Canberra about the Woomera option and people started to have concerns about the claims that the Howard government only wanted a low-level repository. Those concerns turned out to be well founded. It is now known that the Commonwealth government was considering a co-location of a higher level nuclear waste dump and that it was forced into dropping the idea in the face of public outrage from our South Australian cousins.
Australia produces more than low-level nuclear waste. The High Flux Australian Reactor, known as HIFAR, is located at Lucas Heights in Sydney. Since it went critical in 1958, the reactor has been discharging 37 spent fuel elements each year. These fuel rods contain radionuclides which remain radio-toxic for tens of thousands of years. Up until 2002, 1665 elements had been produced. In 1996, a shipment of spent fuel rods was sent to Scotland for reprocessing. Only one shipment was sent, because that same year there was a leak in a main dissolver at the Doonray reprocessing plant in Scotland. Part of the deal with the Doonray is that the highly radioactive waste from the reprocessed fuel rods - the waste containing plutonium, caesium, strontium and cobalt - will be returned to Australia. The shipment is due to arrive in 2012.
Now we see why the Commonwealth government is so keen to have a nuclear dump in place by 2011. Since 1996, four shipments of spent fuel rods have been sent to France for reprocessing. Again, the deal is that the waste is returned to Australia. The French waste is due to be shipped to Australia in 2015.
The HIFAR research reactor at Lucas Heights is due to be closed down next year. The plan is to replace it with the Open Pool Australian Lightwater Reactor, known as OPAL. It is a pretty name for such an ugly facility. Perhaps the people who named it were not aware that opals have, historically, been associated with death. The OPAL reactor will also produce spent fuel rods. Until 2016, these spent fuel rods can be shipped to the United States, which will store them in a mountain. After 2016, the United States will no longer accept other nations’ spent fuel rods. The rods from OPAL and its potential successors will be reprocessed elsewhere, probably in France, with the waste to be returned to Australia.
The Commonwealth government lied to Territorians that we were not even being considered for a site for a nuclear waste facility. We have all been reminded of Senator Campbell’s words: ‘Northern Territorians can take that as an absolute, categorical assurance.’ How false, how hollow, and how deceptive!
Madam Speaker, we have gone from categorically no nuclear waste dump to a low-to-intermediate level nuclear waste repository designed to store this country’s highest grade of radioactive waste. Remember that even intermediate-level waste will remain at deadly levels of radiation for tens of thousands of years, far longer than any human experience. I am fearful that we have not yet heard the true and full intentions of this Commonwealth government. Why am I fearful? I am fearful, and others should be fearful, because of the time spans involved and the lack of certainty over Australia’s nuclear policy in the decades and centuries to come.
The difference between the so-called intermediate-level waste coming back from Europe and high-level waste is the temperature. High-level waste comes from nuclear reactors used to generate heat and, therefore, electricity. HIFAR and OPAL are not power stations but research reactors. Australia does not have a nuclear power station, but will that always be the case? Should Australia ever go down the road to nuclear power, where will we store the high-level waste? What does the future hold for a national nuclear waste repository that is in a remote location and built to a standard that can accommodate low and intermediate-level nuclear waste? The answer, I believe, will be to upgrade it to take high-level waste.
That is why I say we should be fearful of the current Commonwealth government. They have not told us the truth in the past, and I do not have any comfort that they are telling the truth now. I would not be at all surprised that the real intention of building this nuclear waste dump in the Territory is so that it can be upgraded to take high-level nuclear waste. We cannot permit this to happen. We cannot open the door to the possibility of this happening. We are the custodians of this country for future generations and I take this role seriously.
Territorians need to know that Australia is legally obliged to take back and permanently store a growing quantity of highly toxic and long-life radioactive waste. South Australia does not want a low-level nuclear waste dump, and you can assume that they are even more strident in their opposition to an intermediate-level nuclear waste dump.
If the Territory does not stand united in its opposition to the dump, we will be seen as an easy target by Canberra. The CLP claims that it is opposed to having a nuclear waste dump in the Territory. I wish I could believe them. I have gone over their contributions to the debate on the Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal Bill, and you can see that they have a habit of speaking out of both sides of their mouths. As a party, they denied that such a threat from the Commonwealth existed at all, that it was all a fabrication of the Chief Minister. So many times in their contributions they used the term ‘deceit.’ They accused the Chief Minister of running a scare campaign. They said legislation to protect our environment was high farce. High farce, indeed.
How is this for high farce? This is the member for Greatorex on 12 October 2004:
Well, member for Greatorex, it is true, and you and the rest of the opposition owe the Chief Minister an apology. Let my colleagues and me - in fact, let all Territorians - hear you make a public apology to the Chief Minister for the vitriol you heaped on her for standing up for the Northern Territory. Let us hear an apology from the leader of the CLP opposition that you, as a party, were wrong; that it is a Commonwealth Liberal/National Party government who are the deceivers. Let us all hear from the CLP that their Commonwealth colleagues will not vote with the Howard government to make the Territory a nuclear waste dump.
Let us hear that the Country Liberal Party Senator, Nigel Scullion, who can stop this from happening, intends to support the Northern Territory and the people he represents to stop this deceptive and destructive obsession of the Commonwealth government. Reassure us that those of your Commonwealth parliamentary party colleagues who will not pledge to support your party stand on this issue will be dis-endorsed. Then we will believe the CLP sincerity on this issue.
I believe that the opposition has tried to muddy the waters by introducing into the debate the issue of Labor’s policy on no new uranium mines. This is a long-held position of the party and has no part to play in the debate of us having a nuclear waste dump shoved down our throat. However, I will extrapolate on the CLP’s musings. Successive Australian governments have maintained that they have enough safeguards in place that we can sell yellowcake on the open market without fear that some of it will be diverted to nuclear weapons. Federally, we have a stated national position, currently, that we are not responsible for what comes out of the back end of the nuclear cycle. However, I believe we are in the process of seeing this position change. I believe we are being led by this Commonwealth government down the pathway of added value to our uranium exports. That added value is that, as the originating point for uranium, we will be offering ourselves and our new nuclear waste facility in the remote interior of Australia, our Northern Territory, as a place to establish a spent fuel repository. I believe this argument will be dressed up for public consumption under the guise of being morally responsible. However, the real reason will be to maximise the commercial benefit from the nuclear fuel cycle.
I sincerely believe we are playing for high stakes. We cannot and must not sit idly by and let the Commonwealth government ride roughshod over the Northern Territory and build this horrible installation. We have an obligation to our current constituency and to those generations of Territorians to come, to say: ‘No national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory’.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the motion put forward by my colleague, the Deputy Chief Minister, regarding the nuclear dump which the Commonwealth government intends to locate in the Northern Territory.
The issue of nuclear waste is not unique to Australia. Many countries, such as the United States, the Soviet Union or Russia, and now France, have examined what they are going to do with nuclear waste. Some of these countries have had different levels of success in effectively disposing of some of their nuclear waste. Some of these countries have generated high-level radioactive waste and other countries’ waste comes from nuclear reactors, the peaceful use of nuclear energy, or from military hardware.
In Australia, of course, we do not have a nuclear-powered reactor to generate electricity; we have research reactors. However, everybody thinks nuclear waste is something dangerous, something to avoid, and certainly not in my backyard. I listened with great interest to my colleagues from the other side talking about nuclear waste. The member for Nelson said that for the good of the nation we should have it in the Northern Territory and try to make money out of it. The reality is that, having a close look at the nuclear waste generation of Australia today, the current inventory in estimated annual arising of low-level and short-life intermediate-level waste in Australia is about 3700 m, and estimated future annual low-level waste arising would be about 45 m per year. The current inventory of long-life intermediate-level of waste is 505 m3. At the same time, the annual production of this kind of waste would be 6.1 m3. Of course, because of the commission of the high-firing nuclear reactor, we would have an extra 56 m3. We are talking here about nearly 5000 m3 of various levels of nuclear waste that has to be deposited somewhere, that has to be disposed of somewhere.
It is not that we do not have disposal or storage sites in Australia. If you look at the report titled The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, an Australian national report published in July 2003, there is a list of radioactive waste management facilities. The Commonwealth has the ANSTO radioactive waste management facility, and there are also other Commonwealth radioactive waste management facilities, one of which was proposed at Woomera.
In New South Wales, there is a non-operational store for waste generated in New South Wales. In Queensland, there is a purpose-built radioactive waste store owned by the Queensland state government and operated by Queensland Health. In South Australia, there are stores for the waste generated in South Australia in the Beverley uranium project, the Honeymoon uranium project, the Olympic Dam uranium project, the Port Pirie plant uranium and tailing dumps, and Radium Hill mine. In Tasmania, there is a small store for waste generated there. Whilst Victoria does not have any radioactive waste management facility within the meaning of the convention, it has the Victorian interim storage for seized and abandoned radioactive materials. Western Australia has the Intractable Waste Disposal Facility at Mt Walton East for the permanent disposal of intractable chemical and radiological waste generated within Western Australia. The Australian Capital Territory has a small store for waste generated in the Australian Capital Territory. In the Northern Territory, we have a small room at the Royal Darwin Hospital to dispose of low-level, not permanent or short half-life radioactive material. ERA Ranger Mine has radioactive material which is concentrated radioactive material left after the extraction of the uranium.
Returning to the issue of the disposal of nuclear waste, many countries have struggled with the location of a facility and have exactly the same problem as Australia - not in my backyard. In France in particular, there has been a problem since 1993. The French government is battling its population to find a permanent location for disposal of nuclear waste. France produces 75% of its electricity through nuclear reactors and generates about 59 gigawatts of power through nuclear reactors, and generates 635 816 m3 of waste. Obviously, they would need a significant site to dispose of this waste. They have been battling since 1993. They had occasions when people took them to the European Court, where ministers in government resigned or refused to sign agreements, and where the party in government refused to authorise or endorse the location of nuclear waste sites.
In Australia, we already have seven nuclear disposal sites or nuclear storage sites. There was one proposed in Woomera. The South Australian government objected strongly to the location of a nuclear storage or disposal facility in South Australia, and challenged the Commonwealth government in court. The Commonwealth government backtracked very quickly. It was at that time that news came that the Commonwealth government was looking for other sites in Australia to locate a nuclear disposal or storage facility. Senator Ian Campbell said:
On 29 September 2004, Senator Nigel Scullion said:
Those were his exact words when he spoke on ABC radio at 7.45 am on 29 September 2004. We should be sitting rather easy, I suppose, when you have the minister for environment saying categorically that nothing will happen in the Territory, and Senator Scullion saying exactly the same. Territorians should be okay with that: we are not going to see a nuclear dump in the Territory.
But, hello! The government in Canberra had other ideas and plans. Their plans were such that they wanted to avoid any controversy, any possible challenge, any possible dispute. They announced later that there were three sites examined in the Northern Territory and - surprise, surprise! - all of them were going to be on unused Defence land. Why unused Defence land? First of all because there is nothing much state and territories can do to prevent the Commonwealth depositing material on Defence land and, secondly, the legislation of a state or territory does not apply to Commonwealth land such as Defence land.
I was in the same meeting with the member for Katherine. There were 150 people there and I recall very well the scientist from ANSTO said the only reason they would put it on Territory Defence land is because they can do it and avoid any controversy. That was the only reason they did it - not for scientific reasons, research, or any other reasons. In France, there has been continuing research since 1993 to find a place to deposit the nuclear waste. Here, there was a decision by the minister to locate this dump in the Territory on Defence land because they knew they could get away with it.
I have to say that I was not very impressed with Senator Nigel Scullion because, in the media, it appears that Senator Scullion and Mr Tollner are in favour of a nuclear dump, as reported in the Tennant Creek Times on 22 July, as long as it only stores low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste. That comes completely in contrast with what Senator Scullion had to say to the media on different dates.
On 9 June 2005, Drive with Richard Margetson, Senator Scullion said:
Then he says about a month later on 15 July:
And, again, on 15 July:
Of course, on 25 July, he says:
What was said on 12 August was principally said because they have Commonwealth land and I believe that is because they can overthrow Territory laws. So we have a Senator who comes out in the beginning and said: ‘Not on my watch’ but, obviously, he was caught asleep because the Commonwealth minister came out and said: ‘We are going to put it there’. Then he started talking about: ‘Oh well, I said “No”, but now if it is only the medium-level waste, I cannot see the reason why’.
What is interesting - and I believe the members for Katherine and Daly can vouch for it - is that he changed his tune in Katherine when he saw the opposition. Out of 150 people, there were only a couple of people who were in support of a nuclear waste dump and, most likely, they were not fully informed. I can understand the emotion of the member for Nelson and other people when they say we need nuclear power and nuclear reactors to produce radioisotopes for diagnostic reasons or the treatment of cancer. I agree with him. Yes, we do need it. We need an experimental nuclear reactor to produce this kind of diagnostic or therapeutic material.
The problem in this case is that we have been totally ignored. We are not considered in the same way as the rest of the Australian citizens. They have decided in Canberra that they are going to put a nuclear dump in the Territory when we know very well there was a study done a few years back which identified a number of suitable sites. However, as my colleague, the member for Lingiari, said, it probably was too close to National and Liberal marginal seats. If they put it in the Territory they lose one seat and it is not much problem, but they would save two, three, four, five, or six seats down south.
I have a problem with this issue. First of all, as an Australian citizen, I demand to be treated equally with any other Australian citizen. I do not want to listen to lies from the Australian government. I do not want to be lied to by any Australian government regardless of its political affiliation. Certainly, there was no negotiation between the Commonwealth government and the Territory government. Even Senator Scullion admitted in Katherine that he heard about the dump in the Territory from the television – the same way all Territorians found out: from the radio, the television or the newspaper. This reflects very poorly upon the Commonwealth government and upon Senator Scullion’s colleagues. If I were Senator Scullion, I would not be very impressed and I would do everything in my power to make sure that this does not happen in the Territory.
It is very interesting that Senator Scullion said that people are not informed and that they have to know about it. Initially, I agreed with him. I thought it was a good idea to inform people and give them the opportunity to listen to all sides of the story and for him, as an elected member, to listen to what people say, and to convey the feelings of the people to the government.
However, I was a bit cynical so I did some research and came upon a document that was drafted by a consultant, prepared for the Department of Education, Science and Training. That document is titled Support for a Communications Campaign Surrounding the Announcement of the Decision for the Location of the National Repository for the Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste. That document was drafted for a Commonwealth department: how to change the minds of people so they will accept a radioactive nuclear disposal site in Woomera. This goes, step by step, through what to do, how to lobby people, how to establish groups to find out what they think, how to change their minds, how to rate radioactive material and a repository site and contrast it with other issues that concern people in order to make people change their minds and accept the radioactive site in Woomera in South Australia, in Katherine, or anywhere else. It is a very interesting document.
So I am very cynical. I believe the document is not about information for people; it is nothing but a smokescreen. You just go around and tell people everything will be all right and that there is not going to be any danger. We were there! We are not primary school graduates; most of us have been through university; most of us have done physics and chemistry during our school years. We are not nuclear scientists. However, we understand what they are talking about. I am really concerned when I hear scientists telling us that there is not going to be any problem, that they are going to transport the waste to wherever the site is established, and there is going to be a 112 tonne container and, by the way, most of it will be sealed in a 400 kg drum that will be filled with intermediate-level waste. If it is safe, if it is not so radioactive, if it is not so harmful, why do you put 111.6 tonnes of sealing around it?
I can accept the disposal of low-level radioactive waste as they describe: the gloves, the paper cups, and the things they are using in hospitals during diagnosis. However, if we have a site somewhere in the Territory for low-level radioactive material and intermediate-level radioactive material coming in 112 tonne containers, what will stop them bringing all nuclear waste together for safety management reasons? Why don’t we close all sites in Australia and bring all the waste to a single location somewhere in the Territory?
I do not trust them. Why should I trust them? They lied to us before. Who can guarantee to me or any Territorian that they are not going to do the same thing again? Reprocessed rods have to come to Australia because we use them for our benefit. Where are they going to be stored? There is already a trend in other countries where, if they buy your uranium, you have to take your waste back. The fact that they have the benefit of producing electricity or anything else does not count. Are we going to enter into this trade of nuclear waste: you pay us and we store it? Where are we going to store it?
Another issue which concerns me is the studies. There were no studies done on these areas. They announced the areas; now they are going to do the studies. The problem is that most of the people living near the areas know that the areas are not suitable. People in Katherine know very well what is happening in the area they have chosen. The aquifers, the limestone – everything points against that area. People in Alice Springs know the areas in the Centre are not suitable.
So why here? One reason is that they know very well we cannot challenge them. Whatever we do, they can overrule us. They might have the ability and the power to make laws and have nuclear waste here, but I do not think they have the moral authority to overrule the will of Territorians, treat us as second-class citizens, and make the Territory Australia’s rubbish tip for nuclear waste.
We have pride in the Territory as a place with a fantastic climate, no pollution, we produce organic, green and free-range food, and we pride ourselves on producing it. We try to market it as food that is wholesome and safe. In the current trade environment, if people want to put restrictions on, they cannot put it on protection, they are going use other reasons; for example, disease or contamination.
I remind you of what happened when, a few months ago, there was a rumour that there was one mad cow disease case in New Zealand: the New Zealand meat market collapsed. It took months of promotion, reassurance, and tests by the New Zealand government to return the exports of beef and lamb from New Zealand to what it was before. Why would you buy mangoes from Katherine if there is a nuclear repository site on top of Fisher’s Range that may contaminate - I do not say will, but may contaminate - the water table from where you are getting water to water your mangoes? Why should I get beef from Central Australia if there is a nuclear repository site there that might contaminate the grass and the area where the cattle feed? Why should I buy seafood from the Northern Territory if nuclear waste may contaminate the aquifer which will find its way to the Daly River or to the ocean?
What are we going to gain from a nuclear site? Not very much. There will be a construction stage. They are going to spend money, and they are going to employ local people. However, after it is constructed, the number of people who would be employed continuously there would be very small. There would be trucks coming and going, and a few people - probably five or 10 - who will supervise the nuclear repository facility and that will be the end. The cost to the Territory for having a dump like that will be enormous. It will jeopardise our good name, our environment, the Territory as a tourist destination, and ourselves as producers of wholesome, safe, organic, free-range food. The cost will be high.
I am very pleased to hear that my colleagues on the other side do not support a nuclear dump, but again, I cannot trust them. If they do not support a nuclear dump, instruct your Senator and your federal member to cross the floor. It is as simple as that - the same way you did with Grant Tambling. When he did not do what you said, you sacked him. Do the same. Tell them they do it or they are dis-endorsed. Then I will believe you. It might happen, but I doubt it very much.
With the rest of the 202 000 Territorians, I believe we have a very valid reason to stand firm and say ‘No’ to a nuclear dump in the Territory. Not because of the ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome, but because we want to be treated equally as other Australians.
This is our Territory. We have promised to, and we intend to, safeguard it. Together, we can oppose the attempts of the Commonwealth government to put a nuclear dump in the Northern Territory.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, as you and members are aware, my electorate of Drysdale is a very dispersed and diverse electorate, taking in the urban areas of Bayview, Woolner, Winnellie, Berrimah, Durack, Driver, and a small area of Gray. Of course, it is not only the suburbs I have just mentioned that fall into my electorate. It also takes in the East Arm Port and the railway station, and has the last few kilometres of the railway track to the station.
What concerns me, and I am sure the people of my electorate and the good people of Palmerston, is that there is a strong likelihood the port and the railway will be used for the shipping and carriage of overseas processed nuclear waste being shipped to Darwin as part of Canberra’s plan for a nuclear waste facility to be established in the Northern Territory.
The announcement from Canberra revealed that the dump will have to store waste from the overseas processing of nuclear fuel from countries such as France, and that this high-level waste will arrive in containers ready for shipment to the dump. The Commonwealth government has conceded it is not clear whether Australian ports have the capacity to handle the nuclear waste containers. However, I can assure you, the one thing that this government and I am particularly concerned about is the prospect that the highest level of radioactive waste ever seen in Australia will be travelling through our harbour, handled at the Port of Darwin, placed on a train carriage or road transport and driven through the urban areas of Palmerston to its surrounds to a yet unidentified dump situated down the track.
What guarantees will we have on how this waste is packed for shipment by these countries? Can we take the word of the countries wanting to wash their hands of this waste? I think not.
The Commonwealth government, in its wisdom, has procrastinated for some time over this nuclear waste issue. First, it was to be based in Woomera, then it was an island off the coast of Australia, and now they have done a complete about face by declaring that the facility will be located at a determined site in the Northern Territory. This is after an absolute categorical assurance by Senator Ian Campbell in September last year to the people of the Territory that it will not be situated in the Northern Territory.
The Commonwealth, through scientific processes, concluded that the dump should be in Woomera, which angered the South Australians greatly. The South Australian government was resolute in its fight that the dump should not be placed at Woomera, and proceeded to take court action over the processes the Commonwealth was employing to acquire the land for this dump. They won the case and the Commonwealth subsequently withdrew the Woomera option to look elsewhere. However, out of this mayhem, one of the very strong reasons the South Australian government won this fight was the bipartisan support it received from the opposition. Both sides of parliament rallied as one and sent a strong message to Canberra that South Australia did not want the dump in their backyard. This is not a case of cheap politicking; it is a fact that, by standing united on strong issues, results can be achieved.
The second option chosen by the Commonwealth government was to look at an island off the coast of Australia. The reason they went for this option was for security reasons, they stated. Well, my question now is: how will the security factor be enforced if it is to be placed in a selected site in the middle of Australia surrounded by red dirt, not water, with obvious accessibility? The consequences of an accident with this high-grade waste transported from overseas for the people of Darwin, Palmerston, and the surrounds, could be catastrophic. Tourism, aquatic resources and, of course, the pastoral industries will all be affected if a mishap was to occur. Let us face it, they are our biggest industries.
It is all well and good to say that the measures put in place to prevent any spilling or leakage of this waste makes it completely safe. However, my thought, and the thought of many others, is: why move it here from interstate or halfway around the world in the first place if the material is safe? Less than 1% of the nation’s waste is generated in the Territory, with less than 2 m3 low-grade medical waste stored safely in the Darwin hospital. A small amount of uranium mining tailings are stored in a shipping container in Kakadu by the Commonwealth, and that is manageable. However, now they are looking to store 4000 m3 of waste, including the highest level radioactive waste in the country, along with the overseas highly-contaminated shipments, in our backyard.
The Northern Territory people have been taken advantage of in this issue. Absolutely no consultation with anyone has been undertaken before making this decision. The views of Territorians are most important when decisions of this magnitude are considered. This decision by the Commonwealth government has been based on politics, and not the experience or advice of science. The Northern Territory is a place of least political resistance in their eyes, so it would seem logical for them to target the Territory as their dumping ground.
People are angry, as the petitions attest that they have been gravely misled. Groups such as the Environment Centre, Arid Lands Environment Centre, and the Australian Conservation Foundation are all opposed, as are the councils of Katherine, Alice Springs, and Darwin. Pastoralists, AFANT, and the residents living around the proposed sites are also quite rightly greatly concerned. This government will stand up for Territorians and will fight this issue with Canberra the best way it can, and ensure that the views of Territorians are made very clear to the Commonwealth government.
Madam Speaker, I find the whole situation deplorable and deceitful. I, along with the government, oppose the Commonwealth’s plan to place nuclear waste dumps in the Territory and, on behalf of the people of Palmerston, support the motion placed before us today by the Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to the debate. There were some very solid contributions from members in the Assembly, and I appreciate that input. It is very clear that there is a great deal of opposition across the Territory to this proposal from the Commonwealth government. Territorians do not like being lied to. It is a pretty simple equation. They do not like that at all; they do not like being taken advantage of, and they do not want the Territory to be the nuclear dumping ground for the rest of the nation.
The Leader of the Opposition stated her support for our position in opposing this dump but she did not talk about the dump very much in her contribution. She did not talk about the GST. She did not talk about the Commonwealth Defence budget. She talked a fair bit about mining but, ultimately and unfortunately, she ruled out the one thing that she, as Leader of the Opposition, may be able to do to prevent this dump from occurring. She made it very clear that, unlike the CLP leaders before her, she will not be requesting her colleagues in Canberra to stand up for the Territory. That is a shame. The Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Chief Minister, and claims this morning that she did not receive a reply. The Chief Minister did reply on 12 August, and in that letter the Chief Minister pointed out how important it was for the CLP to oppose these plans in Canberra.
The Leader of the Opposition also asked us to table the legal advice we have received to date. I did state very clearly that legal options received by government to date depend very much on the directions and the options that the Commonwealth takes. They may keep the promise that the Prime Minister made to respect the rights of Territorians as they would the rights of any other Australian. Or they may break that promise and simply overrule the legislation that we have on our books that would prevent this dump occurring. The legal advice clearly provides options depending on which way the Commonwealth government would go. It would be foolhardy of this government to release that advice, in advance of any steps the Commonwealth may take, in simply sending Canberra a heads-up on any plans that the Northern Territory government may have in relation to its intention to stop this dump from occurring.
The Leader of the Opposition asked if the waste the Commonwealth is planning on storing is any different to the 1.8 m safely stored at the Darwin hospital. Well, it is different. It is very different. There is no waste from nuclear fuel rods at Darwin hospital. The waste that is held at Darwin hospital is low level. The waste at this planned dump will be of the highest level in Australia. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the Environment minister has already reported to this House on how low-level radioactive material is safely stored in the Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition dismissed entirely the views of the 3000 Territorians who have already signed the petition. She accused the petition and, therefore, everyone who had signed it to date, of simply playing politics. These people are not playing politics and nor is the government when it comes to this issue of circulating the petition. Territorians simply do not like being lied to and they do not like the Territory being taken advantage of and made the dumping ground for the nation. We have 3000 signatures and they keep coming in. That petition is another step in helping to send a very clear message to Canberra that this government and the Territorians do not want this dump.
The member for Nelson said many things in support of the dump. There will always be issues that the government and the member for Nelson simply do not agree on. Uranium mining for one, cotton on the Daly for two, the LNG plant on the harbour three, nuclear waste, add that to the list, four. I could go on. That is not just his right, but it is his responsibility to put his views forward in this Chamber. Whilst I disagree with his views, I respect not just his right but his responsibility as a member to put his view forward, and he has.
One of his main points - his strong point, I thought - was that the decision on the location of such a facility ought be based on science. Clearly it should, and we would agree with that. Science named eight suitable sites. However, the Commonwealth threw that science out the door. That science clearly stated that those sites in the Territory are not the most suitable sites that ought be chosen. The member for Nelson said these sites are not based on science, but based on politics. That is exactly our point, and it is the one point on which we are in total agreement with the member for Nelson.
The member for Katherine talked about how wonderful Dave Tollner and Senator Nigel Scullion are - I do not doubt that they are wonderful people - and how hard Dave Tollner worked in Paris. However, she, like her leader, refused to suggest that they should vote for the Territory instead of voting for Canberra.
It is interesting to reflect on what has been said thus far in this debate, and when. Some of the statements that were made prior to the 2004 federal election, and those made after that election, beggar belief that they were made by one and the same person. Here are comments made by various people before the 2004 federal election:
Nigel Scullion said on 29 September 2004 on ABC radio news at 7.45 am:
Dave Tollner on 28 July 2004 on Channel 9 News said:
And on 1 October 2004 on ABC Drive, Mr Tollner said:
Senator Ian Campbell on 30 September 2004 on the ABC Morning Program:
Terry Mills in a media release on 14 July::
Terry Mills, in contrast to these others, can stand with his head high because he is one who has not changed his position before or after the federal election.
This is what they said before the 2005 Territory election. Senator Nigel Scullion on 9 June 2005 on Drive with Richard Margetson:
Dave Tollner on 7 June 2005, ABC radio news at 7.45 am:
Madam Speaker, I turn to what they are saying now. Nigel Scullion on 25 July 2005 on ABC news:
And on 15 July 2005 on Drive:
A little bit of a change from ‘not on my watch’. ‘Not on my watch,’ said Nige. Now he says: ‘Oh, well, it’s just a bit of low level and a bit of intermediate. I don’t think people have too much problem with it’.
Brendan Nelson on 15 July 2005 on ABC news:
We ought to be thankful we are regarded as Australians by the good minister Nelson.
I love this one from Brendan Nelson, also on 15 July 2005 on ABC television:
That is a good one, Brendan. We will get that one around the Northern Territory: we are in the middle of nowhere, why should we have a problem?
The Leader of the Opposition, Jodeen Carney:
That was 15 July 2005, ABC news. Further from the Leader of the Opposition:
That was 11 August 2005, 8HA.
Also 11 August 2005, 8HA – not your finest hour, Leader of the Opposition, with comments like that.
I do not doubt the Leader of the Opposition’s sincerity in opposing this. What I do doubt and how I judge people is by their actions rather than their words. Let us have a little look at Barnaby Joyce, the Senator from the National Party in Queensland. There are a few quotes here. A Brisbane caller, Lee, had a message for John Howard:
Senator Joyce agreed:
That was reported on 11 August 2005 in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Well congratulations, Senator Joyce. He clearly understands the role of the Senate as the states’ House. That is what it is there for. That is what is in the Constitution. That is what it is all about: to protect the interests of the states and, more lately, the territories.
Quote two:
Well, again, congratulations Barnaby Joyce. That was on 10 August 2005 on the ABC 7.30 Report.
Quote three:
That was on 31 July 2005 on Channel 9 on the Sunday program. This bloke keeps getting it wrong.
On the issue of whether Senators who are elected on a particular issue or promise should fight to deliver it, a quote from Terry Bolger, the immediate past president of the Queensland Nationals on ABC radio:
The last quote is interesting:
Given that Senator Scullion and Senator Joyce apparently sit side by side in the Senate, it would be just wonderful if some of those views of Barnaby Joyce were to rub off on one Senator Scullion. He would be a better man for it, because it would be clear then to one and all that he is standing up for the people who elected him and the people that he is paid to represent.
It is quite a simple equation. The Leader of the Opposition does need to backtrack around the history with the former Senator Tambling and the way his parliamentary career finished, I suppose. He crossed, actually, the interests of Territorians and what the CLP perceived was the best interests of Territorians, on a matter surrounding interactive gaming issues and he paid the ultimate price. That is, he was dumped as the CLP’s representative in the Senate and that dumping resulted in one Senator Nigel Scullion. There is a direct relationship here, and one that the Leader of the Opposition would do well to get across.
In the end, it is the lie and the broken promise that has Territorians’ backs up and angry, as much as the failure of the Commonwealth to consult with anyone on this, and their failure to put forward any quality information. I listened closely to the member for Stuart this morning when he was talking about 100 people at a meeting in Alice Springs where he was not the only member to suggest that the more questions that were asked, the more obscure and incomplete the answers, which simply led to more questions in themselves.
Madam Speaker, this government will continue to stand up for Territorians. We will fight this as strongly and as best we can. That is our responsibility as a government: to represent the interest of Territorians.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite for their support thus far on that motion. However, as I said, I do think and always will believe, that actions speak louder than words. It is not a hard ask. Senator Scullion is the CLP Senator representing all Territorians in the Senate, and it ought not be a hard ask from the leader and the CLP in the Northern Territory to say: ‘Senator Scullion, your responsibility is to take an opposing view to that of your Prime Minister and your government on this issue’. The Leader of the Opposition has run a pretty tricky trail through this, suggesting it may not go to a vote, and maybe there is no floor to cross.
I was very taken with the comment by the member for Arnhem who said, quite clearly, there is always a floor to cross. It may not be the floor of the Chamber to take your vote to the other side; there is the floor across the corridor to the Prime Minister’s office, the Leader of Government Business’ office, and the Leader of the Senate’s office. There are all those floors to cross and put your view before it ever gets to a vote. Once it is in a vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate, Mr Tollner’s and Senator Scullion’s choices are very clear: they should stand with their colleagues in the CLP in the Northern Territory, and with this government, and defeat this proposal from the Commonwealth government.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 30 June 2005.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, obviously, I propose to make a few comments in respect of this bill. I am concerned already, given that we are only just into the second term of Labor’s term of office, that some themes are emerging about arrogance and the telling of mistruths and political spin. The reason I say that is that it does have some relevance to this particular piece of legislation. Throughout my comments and at various parts of them, I am sure even the Labor members of the Assembly will see what I am getting at.
Before I talk about this government’s deceit - I suppose, for want of a better word - surrounding this particular issue, it is worth making some general comments about bail and the concept of bail. Bail, as some members of this Assembly will know, is the right to be at liberty rather than in custody. One of the central tenets in our criminal justice system is that a person is innocent until the contrary is proved. It needs to be understood that in any pretrial process, bail is offered to a person who is innocent of the offence with which they have been charged. The very nature of bail recognises this fact.
Liberty is the right for every person who acts within the law of this country. A person shall not have their liberty deprived except in some very tightly controlled circumstances. That is the way it is, and should properly be so. It is only when a person is found guilty of an offence beyond reasonable doubt that the nature of a person’s liberty changes. The person seeking bail has not yet reached that juncture. They are, generally, a person who has been charged with an offence after being arrested and dealt with at the police station or brought before the next available court.
The bill that is before the House today seeks to recognise a reality which is simply that there are certain people in the community who, by their repeated conduct in the past, come to the attention of police or courts again and again. Once a person has a demonstrated predisposition to offending, they then erode their right to bail when they are seeking bail at any subsequent time. It brings a person who has repeatedly been convicted in the past of a crime a responsibility, should they find themselves charged with a similar offence subsequently. These people need to demonstrate why they should have their liberty restored to them until the final court proceeding is heard.
I wonder then how it is that this Attorney-General could possibly reconcile his comments last year with the comments he made when introducing this bill that is before us today. There are some inconsistencies and some troubling aspects of the Attorney-General’s comments made when the CLP introduced a bill, compared to the comments made by the Attorney-General in support of a bill that he brings before the parliament.
If an offence was not considered to be serious it would be relegated to being heard on complaint, not on indictment. That is why this parliament went to great lengths to introduce a Criminal Code that separated out the indictments from summary and regulatory matters. This is not, with respect Attorney-General, legal rocket science. This is the legal equivalent to banging two rocks together, but you seem to have trouble keeping up, based on the comments you made when the CLP introduced its Bail Amendment Bill and those you have made in support of your own.
If a matter is heard on indictment, it can go to the Supreme Court. If it is heard on complaint, it must be heard in the lower courts and will only end up in the Supreme Court on appeal. Surely, the Attorney-General and his colleagues understand that a person charged with an indictable offence can elect to have that offence heard in the lower courts. Surely the Attorney-General understands that many people do elect to have matters heard in the lower courts, as those courts cannot imprison for a period of greater than two years. So, it is smart sentence mitigation to have matters heard there. Surely the Attorney-General understands that the majority of offences that fall within his definition of a serious offence can still be heard in the lower courts in spite of everything he may do to the Bail Act. Is the minister naive? Perhaps so.
The minister said that there would be numerous offences in the Summary Offences Act; that is, non-indictable offences that would look like indictable offences but were not because they were in the Summary Offences Act. The minister cited fighting in public, or threatening violence, or unlawful use of a motor vehicle. Well, guess what, minister? You still have not covered those very offences in the bill before us today. If the Attorney-General thinks that they are, move them to the Criminal Code and make them indictable offences that carry penalties for periods of greater than five years. If the Attorney-General does not advise us in parliament today and give such a commitment, then he has defeated, it seems to me, his own arguments from last year.
The bill itself needs to be examined and the simplicity of the bill needs to be compared with the one the CLP introduced. If you read the bill before us today, one notes that it tries hard to look different from the bill that was crafted by the CLP. To keep it simple, any offence that carries a penalty of greater than five years’ imprisonment is contained in the bill. That, by the way, is most indictable offences barring a handful such as common assault.
There is an extra definition of ‘serious violent offences’, so now we have two forms of serious offences. The first form applies to offences covered by offences outlined in clause 4(1)(1A)(a) as opposed to an offence that is mentioned in clause 4(1)(1A)(b) because there is a difference between them, as the bill says; one or both of the serious offences mentioned in subparagraphs (1) and (2) are serious offences. Are you confused, Madam Speaker? Yes!
The bill before this House last year simply said that this bill applied to indictable offences. In terms of clear law making, surely the simplicity of last year’s proposed amendment made more sense?
The other criticism the Attorney-General made of last year’s bill was that it merely targeted repeat offenders. Guess what? This bill targets repeat offenders. In the second line of the Attorney-General’s second reading speech, he made it clear he is targeting repeat offenders. He went on to say again and again in that speech that it is targeting repeat offenders. Does the minister make any attempt to reconcile his double backflip with half somersault and pike with last year’s bill to the House? No, he does not.
This Attorney-General knows that, although the words are different, the effect of this bill when compared to last year’s bill is, essentially, the same – certainly in defining what is a ‘serious offence’. The fact is that this government was caught out by last year’s bill because, when they read it they knew it was a good idea, but they simply could not muster the humility to acknowledge it; it came from the CLP. So they re-packaged it into their own bill and sent it off to what is increasingly being called, certainly in Darwin, the ministry of spin prior to the last election. That is where the word deceit comes up.
With the intellectual larceny, I suppose, that is so common to members of the Labor Party - and the members for Johnston and Sanderson will attest to this with their prize for plagiarism - they said: ‘We have a good idea’. Someone else had a good idea, and members of the Labor Party stole it. Then they confused it. They saw a wheel last year. They re-branded it, thus complicating it, called it a rule of biaxial rotational device and said that it was theirs. When all is done, a wheel is a wheel is a wheel, no matter how one reinvents it.
The deceit was perpetrated before the last election, and we have an unnecessarily complicated law to achieve what we all wanted to achieve last year. If the government had problems with last year’s bill, they simply could have amended it and it would have been working to protect Territorians many months ago.
However, that is not the way the Australian Labor Party operates. They would rather perpetuate their deceit than acknowledge a good idea when they see it. It will be very interesting during this next term. I lost count of how many bills the CLP introduced on General Business Days, then the government said no and came up with 1000 reasons as to why it could not be done and, within a matter of months, put it all in a shaker, shook it up and presented it to parliament and sold it as though it were their own idea. I think we were getting up to about five, six, seven or eight items of legislation. I wonder how many we will see over the coming four years.
In any event, the bill before us today reflects CLP policy from last year and, accordingly, we will not stand in its way. However, Territorians did need to be reminded that the bill, in so many respects, could be described as stolen property. If they steal another CLP idea, they may not get bail next time round. They will not steal anymore ideas, will they? Oh yes, the habitual drunks legislation is still around the corner.
With those comments, I look forward to what the Attorney-General has to say in response. That is the opposition’s response to this bill. I wonder whether other members from government will be talking about the bill as well. If they are, and if they are new members, I hope that they turn their mind to the one that the CLP introduced last year that was unsuccessful. In any event, I look forward to their contributions.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I speak in favour of the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill (No 2) 2005. The amendments contained in this bill show the Northern Territory Labor government continues to listen to Territorians and to reflect the needs and values of the community in bringing forth targeted law reform.
Let me say at the outset that I believe firmly in the efficacy of the doctrine of the separation of powers. The judicial arm of government must be allowed to do its job independently of the legislative and executive arms of government. This is why I opposed the mandatory sentencing legislation brought in by the former CLP government, and this is why the Labor government sought to repeal the harsh effect of that policy in relation to property crimes early on in its first term.
Mandatory sentencing for property crimes was, basically, a scheme where, in certain circumstances, there was no option for the courts but to impose a prison sentence. It totally removed judicial discretion. It did not matter what the individual circumstances of the case were, the legislation said only one course of action was open - a term of imprisonment. It is, of course, the responsibility of all members of this Assembly to reflect and respond to community values. Political parties in government that lose the support of the community do not remain in government. Individual members who do not listen to the community tend to lose their jobs.
The bill we are debating today is an example of how the Northern Territory Labor government listens to the genuine concerns of Territorians and seeks to respond to those concerns with measured reforms which address community safety but, at the same time, respect the role of the courts in providing a system of justice which is independent of political interference.
We know that Territorians want government to take a strong lead in remaining vigilant against criminal activities. That is why the Northern Territory Labor government has increased the size of the police force as part of its ongoing strategy to build safer communities. Under Labor, Northern Territory Police broke the 1000 officers’ mark and the record recruiting drive continues. In less than four years, Labor has achieved much. We now have 120 extra police on the beat around our streets and in our communities, and there are 80 more to come.
This bill is another integral part of the Labor government’s overall strategy to continue being tough on crime and causes of crime. It will complement other government initiatives, such as tougher sentencing laws and the revised criminal responsibility laws to ensure criminals cannot escape the full weight of the law simply because they are drunk or high on drugs. It also ties in with our important work in providing greater protection and support for the victims of crime.
However, let us not undervalue what this bill does. This bill widens the circumstances where the initial presumption is not one in favour of bail. The bill amends the Bail Act so that people with a history of serious offending who come before the courts charged with further serious offences committed when they are already on bail will not have the advantage of the basic presumption in favour of granting bail. Furthermore, where a serious offending involves serious violence there will actually be a presumption against bail, and the person seeking bail will be under an onus to satisfy the court that there are special reasons why they should not be remanded in prison. This is, by no means, an easy task. It is no small task to change a magistrate’s or justice’s starting point from a positive presumption in favour of bail, and it is a significant change to actually completely reverse the presumption in favour of bail for serious repeat offenders to one against.
This government has listened to the concerns of Northern Territory communities regarding offenders who receive bail from the courts when charged with serious offences, especially when it is alleged that offences occurred when the person was already on bail awaiting trial for other charges. Whilst listening to community concerns, the government has not lost sight of the fact that persons seeking bail are only charged, rather than convicted. The presumption of innocence - another important legal presumption - is maintained, and the court does retain some discretion to grant bail in circumstances where the court considers it is warranted. However, the new presumptions serve as a guide for the courts and the balance has shifted in line with expectations regarding community safety.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the Bail Amendment Act. Firstly, I would like to thank the minister for allowing his staff to give us a briefing on the matter. I certainly needed a briefing because trying to work out the exact criteria for a person to be refused bail under the new amendment to section 7A, and finding out what it meant to exclude people from the new amendment to section 8 took a little working out. Eventually, we have. I support the bill.
I will not repeat what the bill is about. The member for Brennan and the Leader of the Opposition have done that. I understand where the Opposition Leader is coming from when she said the CLP introduced something very similar. That is, generally, going to be the case where private members’ bills that are introduced are rarely taken up by the government because they would like to have their name to that piece of paper. Be that as it may, it is a good change, minister.
I have a couple of queries that, perhaps, you could help with. It is obvious that the police supported this bill coming into operation. However, my concern is that, even though it may only be a relatively small number of people who may be affected, we already know that our remand facilities and gaols are bursting. What is the government doing to make sure that it is going to match these changes of putting people in remand to actually having enough room for them? We know that our gaols are bursting at the seams.
The other question I would like to ask the minister is: will there be a review of how this act is actually working? The Leader of the Opposition talked about the issue of presumption to having one’s right to liberty and, of course, these changes do diminish that to some extent. Even though we think there is very good reason for it, it would certainly be a worthwhile exercise to look at how this bill operates over the next 12 months or two years and, perhaps, report back to parliament.
I support the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill. I certainly hope it keeps those people off the streets who we do not really want on the streets. However, I believe that we should certainly review it just to see how it is going.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill 2005, which is yet another piece of very good legislation by this government designed to strengthen community safety.
It cannot be stressed enough that the purpose of this bill is to create safer communities by removing the entitlement to bail for those offenders who have a history of serious repeat crimes. These are the offenders who are most likely to commit serious offences while on bail. The community has a right, not just an expectation, to be protected from such recidivists.
This government was given a clear mandate at the last election to ensure that such community rights carried the full force of law, and that is exactly what this bill intends to do. It will create safer communities. We are not talking about minor criminal activity here. We are talking about serious offences that would normally be punishable by maximum of at least five years gaol. We are talking about serious violence offences such as serious violent offences against the person – robbery with violence; assault with intent to steal. These offences would also normally incur at least a five year gaol sentence. This bill removes the presumption in favour of bail for certain repeat offenders.
The bill also has a ‘stay at bail’ provision, which will mean that where the prosecution immediately seeks a Supreme Court review of a magistrate’s or a justices’ decision to grant bail, the offender will stay in custody for up to three days pending the outcome of the review.
The bill is further evidence of this government’s commitment to crack down on crime. This tough stand against crime sends a strong message to the community. I am sure that my rural constituents in Goyder want to know that their government is serious about crime prevention. What better way than to make it more difficult for repeat offenders to get bail, especially if they have a history of committing serious offences while on bail. This bill reinforces the tough measures that have already been introduced by this government.
This government is very aware and in tune with the community’s expectations in respect of law and order, including the rural community. That is why the government set up the new Humpty Doo Police Station which was officially opened on 27 February this year. The large crowd which attended that opening was a very clear indication of the rural community’s support of the police and fire complex. The police station is staffed by seven police officers and operates from 10 am to 6 pm weekdays and 8 am to 4 pm on weekends. After hours police response is provided by the Palmerston Police Station some 20 km away.
By the end of June, over 1100 walk-in inquiries were handled by the Humpty Doo Police Station. Clearly, this shows a very strong endorsement of the value of having the rural police station at Humpty Doo and, along with the fire station, shows just how strong the public support is for this centre. I commend the Humpty Doo police officers for their hard work. The vast majority of people I meet have nothing but praise for their efforts. They have now become an integral part of our community and a very welcome part at that.
This bill will allow the police officers at stations like Humpty Doo to go about enforcing the law in the clear knowledge that serious offenders who often go on to re-offend will now find it very difficult to get bail. We know the police and the community are understandably unimpressed when repeat offenders continue to get bail. During my doorknocking in the lead-up to the recent Territory election, it was clear to me that there was a community concern about this issue. Women have complained to me that the law does not protect them. My constituents are rightly concerned and this bill will offer further protection to the community from the risk of repeat offenders. These reforms provide a disincentive to repeat offenders to commit further crime while on bail. This will be welcomed by my law abiding community in Goyder.
Of course, there must be a balance between the protection of the community and the rights of the accused. Rural people do not want to live in a police state but they do want a safer community. We know there is strong anecdotal evidence that some repeat offenders will commit serious crime whilst on bail because they need to commit the crime for financial reasons or to support a drug habit. Many of these offenders have criminal records as long as my arm. This bill will ensure they are not set free to commit more serious crime while they are awaiting trial on other charges. This makes commonsense.
Unlike the knee-jerk proposal previously put up by the opposition, this bill is considered and researched. The amendments in this bill were formulated in response to the outcomes of extensive consultations between the Northern Territory Police and the Department of Justice, and draw on an evidence base which includes operational experience of the police, case studies and research conducted by the police, and statistical data collected by the Department of Justice’s Office of Crime Prevention.
As a government we have to weigh up the cost of crime prevention against the cost of crime to society in general. This bill will benefit the rural and city folk alike. It will assist the police in carrying out their duties and help safeguard us all. It will introduce more certainty into the judicial system because magistrates and judges who hear bail applications will be given more guidance as to who should and should not get bail.
Madam Speaker, I believe this bill will be welcomed by my electorate. I support it in its entirety.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions, and the opposition and the member for Nelson for their support of the bill as well as the government supporting its own bill.
I will start with some comments regarding the Leader of the Opposition’s views about the relationship of this bill with an earlier bill presented by the former member for Macdonnell. I will start by making a very broad comment about my approach to introducing legislation to the House and considering the legislation proposals sponsored by the opposition and the Independents and, indeed, more widely than that; proposals for programs and policy embodied in motions and responses to debate.
I made it clear throughout the last term of government that I do, and will continue to, seriously consider proposals and priorities brought by members, not just the government members. I believe that the making of legislation is the business of parliament, not purely the government. By saying that, I am not making an undertaking to pick up, holus-bolus, bills that are introduced without first analysing them, considering the merits of the rationale that has gone into them, for consideration by the House as a whole.
There have been many occasions I could point to, over the last four years, where we have responded very constructively to issues that have been raised. The member for Araluen’s concerns about the taking of evidence from sexual assault victims and the unfit to plead mental impairment legislation springs to mind. There are many others that we have considered over the years. I certainly have not ever been dismissive of proposals brought to the House, so I encourage members to continue to bring ideas and proposals to the House.
The principle in question today was a strong priority brought to us by the police as a whole, not just in the form of the bill introduced by the former member for Macdonnell. It was an issue that we needed to consider. It was an issue where we needed to apply our own particular priorities as a government to the general principle; that is, we do not want serious offenders, particularly violent offenders, being released into the community on bail and then causing more victimisation in our communities. It is directly against the highest priority we are giving in providing safety to citizens in our community wherever we possibly can influence that situation.
As the member for Goyder indicated, the bill before us today stands on a considerable amount of consultation, research, and evaluation of the target group of offenders. Who are we going after with this? Who do we not want to release into the community as a result of a bail arrangement because of the high possibility of re-offending and re-victimisation of other community members? The answer, I believe, is fairly well elucidated in the bill itself: it is serious, violent offenders we are after. Serial offenders, people who have made a lifestyle of violent behaviour directed towards those around them in either their families or the general community.
Taking that as the final target of the legislation before us, I contrast that with the original bill brought in by the former member for Macdonnell. The bail bill brought forward during last term was not focused on the target group that we are talking about. Wherever possible, we want to minimise victimisation in the community. It is much more important how many offences you are taking out of the community by some reform than the number of offenders. If one offender victimises 100 people, it makes a hell of a lot of sense to pay particular attention to an offender of that type. That is what this bill is very much doing.
The original bill from the former member for Macdonnell sought to expand the presumption against bail to any repeat offence which was the same as, or similar to, at least three indictable offences in respect of which the accused person had been convicted during the three years immediately preceding the date on which the application for bail was being determined.
The second reading speech of the bill indicated that the objective was to require persons with a history of criminal activity to demonstrate why they should be given liberty. However, unlike the carefully researched proposals in this bill, the amendment was not targeted at serious offending, but merely at repeat offending on a very broad-brush basis.
The fact that an offence is indictable is not necessarily a guide to whether it represents a serious incident of offending. Many indictable offences are dealt with in the lower courts, as was indicated by the member for Araluen in her contribution; for example, simple stealing or receiving offences, or minor property damage. This is just one example of the problems with the bill that was introduced by the former member.
The bill provided no guidance on how an assessment of similarity was to be made. There are a number of summary offences that might be said to bear similarity to indictable offences. Obvious examples are fighting in a public place and threatening violence, which is similar to indictable assault, and the summary offence of illegal use of vehicle, which is similar to some indictable property offences. Legislation which allows for such subjective tests as to what a similar offence is confusing and uncertain.
In fact, the bill had several problems in achieving its stated objective. For example, the second reading speech said that the bill was aimed specifically at indictable offences. However, the offence in relation to which the bail presumption was to be reversed was described in the bill itself only as an offence. Presumably, the intention was that the offence must be an indictable one to answer the requirement for similarity to past offences. That was not clear on the face of the bill.
There was no mechanism in the bill to review a determination as to similarity of offences made by a police officer or by a court. There are also questions around whether the determination as to similarity of offences required by the Elferink bill could amount in some cases to an unlawful exercise of judicial power by a police officer because it would have required determination of a matter which affects the legal rights of the defendant.
All of these sorts of issues would be likely to give rise to legal challenges and would, therefore, unnecessarily clog up the work of the courts.
A further serious flaw with the formula established by the private member’s bill was its uneven application to offenders. There were also a number of other technical issues regarding the interpretation and application of the bill, which meant that it was flawed in its construction and its objectives would not have been met.
It is fairly clear from that analysis that it would not have been a good outcome for the Northern Territory if that bill had been adopted by parliament in the form that it came here. However, the fact that we have gone away and considered similar situations where repeat offenders are being processed in terms of gaining bail or having bail refused, is a very clear signal that we accepted the validity of the issue that was brought here, and felt that it did require the work that is now being put into to it.
The member for Araluen also raised issues regarding what a serious offence is within the current bill. A serious offence is described under the bill as an offence which attracts a penalty of at least five years, which I have already stated. What is a serious violence offence? A serious violence offence is defined under the bill as being an offence contained in Part 5 Division 2 of the Criminal Code, which relates to offences against morality; or an offence contained in Part 6 Divisions 3 to 6A of the Criminal Code, which cover homicide, suicide and other offences related to endangering life or health; or an offence under sections 211 or 212 of the Criminal Code - in other words, robbery or assault where the offence in question attracts the penalty of at least five years’ imprisonment.
The reason for setting the five-year threshold is that we considered the removal of the presumption in favour of bail as being a very serious measure to take. It is currently only applied to very serious offences within the Criminal Code such as homicide, very serious levels of drug dealing - those type of offence. It is really reserved to a small number of extremely serious level offences. We had to be a bit careful about the balance point that we would bring in, given that the presumption of bail is a very important element of the way the justice system operates at the moment.
We felt that we needed to set that bar relatively high to keep the balance between the presumptions of bail that currently exist. It is also part of the targeting process that we have been following consistently through the development of this and other legislation. We want to be very focused on the type of offender that we are trying to take out of circulation; the type of victimisation that we are trying to significantly reduce within the community. I believe that deals with most of the points that the Leader of the Opposition raised.
Regarding the member for Nelson’s query regarding the capacity of remand, it is quite true that we have had very high numbers in our prisons in recent times. Thankfully, they have receded somewhat in the last couple of months, and we are now below the total capacity of our prisons and remand areas. However, we are pursing work to look at targeting the use of imprisonment amongst the options that are available to the court at sentencing, to perhaps take some classes of more minor offending into other alternatives to prison - offences such as driving unlicensed and driving unroadworthy cars, where there is not a high level of victimisation as a result of the offence. Those are offences we may be able to take into home detention or community work order-type arrangements or, more properly, the courts may be able to consider in sentencing.
We do not need to change legislation to do that; we need to build the capacity and programs to allow courts to refer to them - very similarly to the task we have within inhalant or alcohol abuse - where it is not only a case of making sure the law provides opportunity for referral, you have to have the capacity to do it. We are certainly looking at those issues. Our preferred outcome is that we have the worst offenders, as first port of call, going into our gaols, and that we deal with other offenders who are able to be put into rehabilitation based on other depositions around the justice system.
Regarding review of provisions, as a matter of course we monitor the impact of new provisions that we put through this House and put out into the communities as law. I will certainly undertake that there will be a review of the impact of this legislation, as we do with all previous legislation we brought in. I hope that deals with the member for Nelson’s points. Again, I thank members for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time forthwith.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, today I inform the House of the significant contribution that fishing, aquaculture, and our seafood industry makes to our economy, to our unique lifestyle and its importance to indigenous Territorians. When you mention fishing, it seems that just about everyone has a story to share. It is generally about fishing for barra, or the catch of a lifetime, or the wonderful local seafood that we all enjoy. However, fishing offers so much more to the Territory. Yes, fishing is the lure of the Territory, member for Sanderson.
Our wild harvest fisheries and aquaculture, in conjunction with the recreational and fishing tourism sectors, contribute around 27% of the total production value for rural industries. It continues as an important regional employer. The outlook for aquaculture is very exciting. The Territory is particularly well suited to a wide range of aquaculture activities including pearls, barramundi, prawns, aquarium fish, and micro-algae. The most recent estimates show that aquaculture production rose by 26% from $22m to $28m in 2003. The value of the NT aquaculture industry is expected to exceed $120m by 2010.
The Territory has a reputation for being clean and green, having achieved world’s best practices in terms of production systems and mitigating the impact of the environment. These are all key demands by more discerning high end consumers. It is paramount that the Territory and other Australian producers establish their own identity in the marketplace.
Barramundi farming is a tremendous success story. Territory-wide, barramundi aquaculture production has reached more than 1000 tonnes and now exceeds the wild commercial harvest fishery. It is expected to exceed 4000 tonnes by the end of 2008. The Australian Barramundi Culture facility near the Adelaide River has a long history in the Territory and achieved its highest ever sales milestone early in the year. An ocean cage culture production system has been established at Port Hurd on the Tiwi Islands.
Similarly, another mainstay of Australian aquaculture, pearl production, is expected to increase production by 20% to 30% in the next four to five years. The Northern Territory and Western Australia producers lead the world when it comes to quality and the size of South Seas pearls. The pearl industry has experienced considerable growth in production over the last decade, and also a softening of the wholesale prices received by farmers. Internationally, pearl production is on the increase with large farms established throughout Indonesia.
Historically, the pearling industry relied on the harvesting of wild pearl oysters. Now pearl oysters can be regularly and reliably produced in the hatchery. The pearling industry is a wonderful example of what can be achieved when governments work together in a cooperative way. In the past, the Western Australian and Northern Territory pearling industries were managed separately, although both sectors sourced pearl shell from the same area. They competed in the national wholesale markets and producers operated farm sites across both jurisdictions. A draft memorandum of understanding has been developed which will see the Northern Territory and Western Australian governments working together to ensure consistent management and compliance when it comes to pearling. Both governments are now to jointly consider future arrangements for the pearling industry.
It is necessary to balance the future growth of the industry and the changing international marketplace for pearls. I applaud the initiatives of pearl producers who have determined to add value to the production through marketing their pearls directly to the consumer in preference to selling pearls on the wholesale markets. This vertical integration provides for brand recognition that highlights that South Sea pearls produced throughout northern Australia are the best in the world and demonstrates that Territory-based products can achieve much.
The outlook for prawn farming is mixed. A rapid increase in the culture of venimae prawns worldwide has placed a squeeze on the prices, particularly for smaller sized prawns. I continue to lobby for country of origin labelling for unpackaged foods so that consumers can make an informed choice when buying prawns.
I would like to mention the considerable achievements of the government’s Darwin Aquaculture Centre located at Channel Island in the Darwin Harbour. The centre is critical in underwriting the expansion of the Territory aquaculture industry. It provides barramundi grow-out stock and juvenile mud crabs on a commercial basis, extension services to the local aquaculture industry, and investigates new aquaculture species.
Research undertaken at the centre has achieved a world first: commercial scale production of mud crab from domesticated stock. Also last year, the centre was responsible for 1.5 million baby barramundi for our farming industry. While most of these were sold to commercial farms, excess fingerlings were destined to enhance recreational fishing experiences in the Northern Territory.
Successful mud crab grow-out trials have been undertaken with prawn farm operators and traditional owners in two separate trials. A demonstration mud crab farm, using Kulaluk community aquaculture ponds located near Dick Ward Drive in Darwin, is planned. The Fisheries Group will produce juvenile mud crabs and provide technical advice to the venture. In addition, a mud crab ranching trial is planned near Maningrida using ‘crablets’, juvenile mud crabs produced by the Darwin Aquaculture Centre. These two ventures represent a first step in trialling environmentally, economically and culturally sustainable businesses with indigenous communities.
The government called for expressions of interest for undertaking commercial trials at the Darwin Aquaculture Centre aimed at further stimulating the growth of the aquaculture industry. The centre provides incubator facilities, along with tropical aquaculture knowledge at minimal cost to encourage commercial partners to trial new ventures.
As an outcome, the culture of trepang is being tested. Members might be aware that trepang, or sea cucumber, was Australia’s very first export industry. Macassans visited the northern coast line of Australia from the late 1600s until the early 1900s, searching for trepang to export through trade routes from Sulawesi in Indonesia to China. It is suggested that some indigenous words have their origin in the Macassan/Indonesian language, such as rupiah for money and balanda, from Hollander, for white person. The links are well recognised and still strong, with 10 Macassans participating in this year’s Garma Festival.
The first few successful spawnings of trepang has been achieved, and now land and technical support is being sought to develop a sea cucumber culture industry.
Sponge grow-out trials have been conducted in Arnhem Land in collaboration with traditional owners at Maningrida and Goulburn Island.
Farming the Future, our government’s blueprint for developing our aquaculture industry from 2005 to 2010, represents a true participatory approach with industry members. It seeks to achieve a goal of aquaculture production value of $120m per annum contributing to regional and indigenous development.
I now to turn to an area of particular interest to all Territorians: recreational fishing. The abundant fish stocks and unspoilt nature of Northern Territory waters give the Territory a unique advantage over other jurisdictions and draws more than 100 000 visitors north each year. It is why I believe that fishing is the lure of the Territory.
Recreational fishing is one of the most popular leisure pursuits in the Territory, with up to one in every two Territorians fishing each year. It attracts significant tourism in the Northern Territory, particularly the Top End and Borroloola regions. The most recent survey suggests that more than $26m was spent directly on recreational fishing in the Northern Territory. Around 38% of all fishing effort in the Territory was by interstate and overseas tourists, compared with 11% nationally.
The government has committed more than $5m for fishing infrastructure and access projects over the next four years. This is in addition to $1.5m spent during our first term to improve facilities for anglers, such as the parking facility at Buffalo Creek and the upgrade of the Rocky Creek ramp near Borroloola. Access for anglers is being improved; the access road and fencing to the coast near the Peron Islands and access near Point Stuart are under way. The rock groyne at Nightcliff has been extended to provide greater protection to boat users.
Negotiations have commenced with traditional owners in the Borroloola region about possible recreational fishing camp sites on traditional land, similar to the existing Tiwi recreational fishing camp site permit system.
We are working on formalising access to the King and Katherine Rivers junction, including resolving public liability issues surrounding recreational fishing access.
We have also embarked upon an ambitious barramundi stocking program, including Lake Todd, Manton Dam and Lake Bennett. A total of 90 000 baby barramundi have been stocked into Manton Dam since early 2004. A further 55 000 barramundi fingerlings were stocked in Lake Bennett, with an undertaking to continue to allow day use of the area by anglers.
The government also established a dedicated Recreational Fishing Unit within the Fisheries Group and increased staffing numbers. Our junior fishing workshop program, coordinated by the Recreational Fishing Unit, will also be expanded.
Nine River Watch Centres, ‘neighbourhood watch’ for our coastal rivers, have been appointed across the Top End since 2002 to distribute information required by local and visiting anglers.
The Port Corporation is assisting in growing our artificial reef program for Darwin Harbour and I will be making further announcements about this shortly.
I will now outline the considerable success of our Indigenous Marine Ranger program. Marine Ranger programs provide a surveillance capacity to address concerns raised by traditional owners, the Fisheries Group and the Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit. The Marine Ranger program now covers Tiwi, Elcho Island, Warruwi, Borroloola, Wadeye and Maningrida. The Fisheries Group has forged a strong relationship with each of these teams through training, funding and the provision of technical support, with 37 rangers employed. In addition, the Fisheries Group has appointed an Indigenous Support Officer to help manage the program and work with other ranger groups at Ramingining, Lanhupuy, Dhimurru, Ngukurr, Numbulwar and Groote Eylandt.
An additional $306 000 will be made available over the next three years to expand the Indigenous Marine Ranger program. The Northern Territory government, working in partnership with Aboriginal groups, has recognised a need for consultative committees to assist with the care and management of marine resources and coastal habitats. These committees provide an opportunity for both government and indigenous stakeholders to work on fisheries related issues from the grassroots.
There has been an increase in the number of indigenous people wanting to work in the fishing industry. To accommodate this, the Aboriginal Liaison Unit within the Fisheries Group has been expanded and has some 30 indigenous economic development projects to oversee.
The long-term outlook for the wild harvest sector is promising, with domestic consumption of seafood increasing steadily. While seasonal conditions and market price fluctuations can be unpredictable, demand for quality seafood is expected to remain optimistic given consumer preference and growing per capita incomes. Demands from markets in southern Australia for our premium fresh fish remain strong.
Expansion of our wild harvest industry will require a concerted marketing effort and continued development of regional fisheries to satisfy both overseas and domestic demand. This is already under way with NT Fish Pty Ltd examining markets in the United States with a trial shipment of 1000 kg of black jewfish. The company is also sending tropical snapper fillets to Switzerland. It is looking for new markets to increase returns to local fishers, with a trial shipment of fresh mackerel sent to Japan late last week.
The Northern Territory is leading the nation in accreditation of its fisheries under the Commonwealth government’s export controls. These independent audits confirm that our management arrangements are sustainable. This is particularly important for commercial operators in considering investment decisions, and provides confidence for the community that we are managing our fisheries. No longer a lifestyle pursuit, fishing is a big business.
After just 17 years of operation, we have decided the Fisheries Act needs to be renewed. To ensure stakeholder and wider community input, government will release a discussion paper for public comment later in the year. It is anticipated that a new fisheries bill will be ready for consideration by government in late 2006. I encourage all stakeholders and those with an interest to participate in the upcoming review to help shape the future management and development of the Territory’s valuable aquatic resources.
Management programs implemented here in the Northern Territory continue to set world best practices. The Spanish Mackerel Fishery Management Plan is unique in Australia, and possibly the world, as it now recognises and allocates individual shares of the catch for the commercial, recreational and indigenous sectors. While many jurisdictions have discussed the need to clearly recognise who catches what, the Northern Territory is the first jurisdiction to achieve such a milestone. It means that management arrangements can be developed for individual sectors, rather than ‘one size fits all’.
Our iconic barramundi fishery has very special management needs. In the past, a number of commercial operators have exceeded what the fishery could sustain; that is why a licence reduction program was implemented, together with seasonal closure and minimum size restrictions. A number of major coastal rivers were also closed to commercial fishing. Government recognised the importance of barramundi as a major tourist drawcard, and a key part to our great and envious lifestyle. It is also why AFANT continues to lobby on behalf of its members for the best outcome for anglers.
You need to look no further than our premium barramundi fishing competitions on the Daly River - the Barra Nationals and the Barra Classic - to see that fishing is the lure of the Territory. Competitors commend the Territory government for recognising the importance of recreational fishing. It is also telling when an iconic Queensland beverage manufacturer runs a national competition with a trip to the Territory to catch a barra as first prize.
As honourable members already know, we have not stood still when it comes to barra. The government closed the McArthur and Adelaide Rivers to commercial barramundi fishing to make recreational fishing even better. We bought back two barramundi fishing licences so that fishing pressure was not displaced to other regions of the fishery. In the lead-up to the 2005 Territory elections, we provided a vision for the fishery, one in which major stakeholders can have a say in developing a five-year plan and 10-year vision; a vision that recognises the immense opportunity for anglers and provides certainty for those family fishing businesses which decided to continue, albeit in some of the most remote parts of the Territory. The plan provides a clear and solid road map for the future, rather than making hollow promises to appear popular. Our barra fishery is simply too important to Territorians and to our tourism industry to leave it to chance.
Developing such a vision is not easy; that is probably why it has never been done before. It will be making some very tough decisions - decisions that this government is prepared to make. In doing so, we are more inclusive and more transparent, and have a clear way forward for the next decade. Anglers will be assured that fishing will only get better, and businesses such as fishing tour operators and those in the tourism industry, will be able to invest with greater certainty. We have committed to buy back at least another three commercial barramundi licences as part of this plan.
Darwin recently hosted the National Barramundi Workshop, the first in 19 years. Scientists and managers from throughout Australia and overseas, including Uganda and the United States of America, attended. It highlights the international standing of our scientists and managers.
This also leads me to an issue that I am rather concerned about: protecting the integrity of the barramundi label. It seems that there is an identity crisis within our seafood industry; that fish sold as sea bass in other parts of the world suddenly changes identity and becomes barramundi when imported into Australia. Some unscrupulous sellers are marketing a freshwater African cousin, the Nile perch, as genuine barramundi. Members would be aware that the name ‘barramundi’ comes from the Aboriginal word ‘barramundi’ meaning ‘large scales’. It is as Australian as vegemite and we should protect it. Overseas producers are even cashing in on the name in the United States selling their product as barramundi on the back of the success of local barramundi farmers selling their fish in this market, and the popularity of ‘Australian’ produce.
The federal government has yet to be convinced of the icon status of our barra, and seems unwilling to provide protection in Australia. Federal laws now allow imported sea bass to be called barramundi. Barramundi is an icon; we should make a special case to protect it. We need to ensure that country of origin labelling is not eroded. Consumers need to know that they are purchasing genuine Australian products rather than imported seafood.
This government also acted to provide certainty to fishers when it clearly defined the area in which commercial fishers could operate. We changed the barramundi fishery management plan to ensure that there was no question about the boundaries, to safeguard investment in the catching sector. The government has appointed the Aquatic Resource User Group Forum so that recreational, commercial and indigenous fishers can all have a say about resource allocation – a transparent and inclusive process.
A review of the management arrangements for coastal net fisheries is currently under way. The review incorporates the coastal net fishery, bait net fishery, development fishery coastal net licences, and Aboriginal coastal licences. The Fisheries Group has met with key stakeholder groups to identify management issues and canvass proposed strategies for resolving these matters. Government will buy back inshore netting licences, and has committed more than $1m for this task. Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay will be a priority.
Our shark fishery is well managed. The number of commercial licences has been reduced by two-thirds. Nationally, we now have the lowest number of commercial shark fishermen and have implemented catch limits for our fisheries that take sharks as an incidental catch. Shark catches have been reduced from around 10 000 tonnes of sharks each year when foreign fishing vessels were authorised to operate in Australian waters.
Despite having the lowest level of commercial fishers, further controls have recently been introduced to ensure the future sustainability of the fishery. There has been a 20% reduction in the length of longlines and a limit on the number of hooks that fishers can use. Furthermore, there has been a 25% reduction in the length of the net. Shark fishermen can only now fish for 123 days using pelagic nets or 18 days using longlines. It is the most conservative approach to managing sharks. I applaud the industry for such a responsible approach in working with government.
I continue to raise concerns with my federal colleagues about reports of increasing illegal incursions by foreign fishing vessels. It is worrying to hear reports by Customs officials that they have evidence that foreign fishermen are landing illegally along the Territory coastline. It has been reported that these illegal boats carry dogs, parrots, hens and rats. This threatens the Territory’s bio-security and, ultimately, local producers and export markets. Federal authorities say that they have also located caches of shark fins on shore, as well as freshwater wells. They also say that illegal fisherman pose a health threat because many have tuberculosis.
We are no longer talking about subsistence fishers. Vessels apprehended are equipped with satellites and radar equipment to pinpoint their location and that of Australian authorities. It means that the sustainability of our shark fishery will be at risk and the cuts made by local operators will be simply eroded by illegal foreign fishing incursions.
It is reported that Customs officials now concede that much of what they have been doing is not working, particularly with incursions into the Gulf of Carpentaria. That is why I continue to seek greater resources for federal authorities protecting waters throughout the Top End. I am also deeply concerned about the decline in commercial landings of mud crab from 1200 tonnes in 2002 to around 400 tonnes over recent years. The average size of mud crabs has also declined, and fishermen have been convicted of using excess mud crab pots. The downturn may be linked to seasonal conditions but we need to act to ensure the breeding stock is protected when overall stock levels are low. I am considering the advice of my advisory group and industry members, and will make a decision shortly about changes to the commercial mud crab fishery, including changes to minimum sizes and greater penalties for over potting.
Protecting the health of our aquatic environment is paramount. Government has established an Aquatic Pest Management Unit in recognising the vulnerability of Territory waterways to invasion by exotic species. This was highlighted by the incursion of the black-striped mussel into our marinas, with more than $2m spent on the world’s only reported eradiation of an introduced marine pest. The Aquatic Pest Management Unit actively monitors for the presence of marine pests in collaboration with Paspaley Pearls, PenSyl (Tiwi Islands), Alcan Gove and GEMCO.
The expertise of the Territory in managing marine pest incursions has been recognised with the finalisation of a National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions. My department is also participating in a review of ornamental fish aimed at minimising the impact of exotic fish on our environment. In the past, the Aquatic Pest Management Unit has eradicated populations of exotic fish and snails which had the potential to displace native species and cause harm to our environment. Anyone who has any doubts about the impact of exotic fish needs to look no further than carp. It is believed that a hybrid strain of the fish bred in a dam near Mildura escaped during a flood event. With a female carp’s ability to produce 1.5 million eggs per year, carp have now spread through the Murray-Darling river system and earned the title of Australia’s number one pest. Exotic snails detected by the Aquatic Pest Management Unit have been found to be the intermediate host of parasites which affect cattle production, the pastoral industries’ health certification and, ultimately, export markets. The snails were destroyed and protocols put in place to prevent further introductions.
The Fisheries Research Group is recognised for punching well above its weight. The Gene Tag project – the genetic tagging of Spanish mackerel - continues to be a flagship project. Fisheries scientists and technical officers are recipients of three major awards, including the ABC’s New Inventors program. This highly innovative development has the potential to revolutionise the way we manage fish stocks. Our barramundi researchers have closely studied catch and release techniques, leading to the wider use of fish-friendly landing nets to improve survival rates. Future work will investigate the continuing effects of catch and release fishing on the survival and spawning success of mature barramundi.
The Fisheries Research Group has developed a novel method to access the abundance and movement of mud crabs. The Mud Crab Team is also continuing to monitor mud crab abundance in collaboration with the commercial fishery.
Jewfish are also highly prized by Northern Territory commercial and recreational anglers, and are sought by fishing charter operators offering day trips from Darwin. Fisheries researchers are testing a new approach using acoustic tags and underwater listening devices. This will provide cost-effective information on movement patterns.
Dedicated research in our offshore fisheries continues, with funding provided by the national Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. This research will allow for improved interpretation of reports provided by fishermen. The outcomes have implications for the way in which we manage our fisheries.
The Northern Shark Assessment Group, led by Northern Territory fisheries researchers, continues to undertake research on our shark fisheries. This work will result in greater collaboration with the Charles Darwin University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science in developing a world best practice shark monitoring program. This will involve tagging to monitor the impact of fishing.
The Fisheries Research Group is also actively working with the Australian Institute of Marine Science in a project funded by the Commonwealth government to determine the type of shark caught for its fins by illegal foreign fishing boats.
Closer to home, the Fisheries Research Group has supported a PhD project investigating the links between the mangroves and fish of Darwin Harbour. This project has just been completed and shows that the mangroves in the harbour provide a critical feeding habitat for a wide variety of fish species. This government has provided greater protection for our mangroves.
Many of the projects undertaken by the Fisheries Research Group are supported by external funding agencies and our research scientists have enormous success in securing funding for their projects.
In summary, the government will:
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to thank you for putting up with me and my cough. I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I sincerely hope the minister is feeling a lot better tomorrow. He has had something of a trial delivering that ministerial statement.
I welcome the minister’s statement. There is no doubt that fishing plays a very important part in the unique lifestyle that we enjoy in the Territory. The number of boats we see parked in people’s yards testifies to the importance of recreational fishing to Territorians. It is also a major attraction for visitors and draws a considerable number of interstate visitors annually. I know of many visitors who have been coming to the Territory annually for a long period of time solely to live out their dream of catching a big barra.
The buy-back of commercial barra licences over the past few years and the closure of the McArthur and Adelaide Rivers has ensured that there is a good supply of barra for everyone to experience the thrill of catching one. I note that the Amateur Fishermen’s Association NT has stated that barramundi stocks are depleted and that there should be more buy-back of barra licences. However, that is in direct dispute with the Fisheries Council, so I would think much more research has to be done into that aspect.
While it is encouraging to see that barramundi farming has become so successful and the demand is certainly there for the product, there is no doubt in my mind that the flavour of wild catch saltwater barramundi is tops and preferable. I was a little amused where the minister’s statement mentioned that some unscrupulous sellers are marketing a freshwater African cousin, Nile perch, as genuine barramundi. Some 12 years ago, when my husband and I first took over Red Gum Tourist Park, the fisheries inspector visited us to warn us of that very same issue, so it has been happening for a very long time. The boxes of product were always marked correctly with Nile perch, but it was our experience that it was the end seller who was advertising the product as genuine barramundi, not the wholesaler.
In his ministerial statement of 15 June 2004, the minister said:
The minister’s statement of today:
There is quite a discrepancy there, so I await with interest to hear what the correct amount is.
The value of recreational fishing to the Northern Territory economy cannot be underestimated. It is vital to ensure its sustainability, but also a balance so that the wild catch sector is not overlooked, because we tend to do that. The amateur fishing association has a huge number of members and the wild catch industry has a very small number, so they are certainly a minority in voice.
The federal government is very aware of the importance of great fishing experiences. It announced this very last week $15m over three years for recreational fishing community grants program. The first round is now open, with grants to be in by 14 October. With the opportunity of projects being funded of up to $100 000, that could include boat ramps for the Northern Territory, funding for volunteer marine rescue associations, and restocking and re-snagging rivers and waterways. It could include wash down facilities at boat ramps and youth fishing camps. I hope that the Northern Territory minister’s office is encouraging and promoting this opportunity far and wide.
While on the subject of facilities, the increasing number of vessels that are utilising the Frances Bay fishermen’s mooring basin and Fisherman’s Wharf means that these facilities need to be urgently upgraded. Will this government put urgently needed funding towards these facilities? There have also been concerns expressed by fishermen at Nhulunbuy. The Alcan expansion is having an effect on the access to the wharf at Nhulunbuy and, as it is it will be some time before extensions are completed, could the minister also look into problems that fishermen are facing in Nhulunbuy.
Last year, I had several concerned recreational fisherman contact my office in relation to the significant reduction in mud crab stocks and sizes caught. These reports were from several different locations in the Northern Territory and not connected. One recreational fisherman has been going to the Roper for many years and has always been able to get a couple of mud crabs per day. He now claims he is lucky to get one a trip and it has been like that for over 12 months. I had the opportunity to travel to Borroloola in December and spent some time with three professional mud crabbers who operate from King Ash Bay. These crabbers also confirmed that their catches were significantly declining and had been for at least two years. Whether this is as a result of over-fishing, the illegal use of excessive crab pots, or there does seem to be some question of ecological explanation, I do not believe you should hold off any longer in making changes to the commercial mud crab fishery. The decline is still evident and the industry needs protecting now.
Another serious threat to fishing in the Territory appears to be the rapid decline in shark stocks. This can be directly attributed to the illegal shark finning which was first highlighted in the NT News on Monday, 11 July, by a deckhand who took great courage to speak out following claims that illegal Indonesian fishermen were the cause.
I wish to read into Hansard a copy of a letter that was sent to Senator Hon Ian Campbell by Nicola Beynon, Wildlife and Habitat Program Manager for the Humane Society International on behalf of Adele Pedder of the Australian Marine Conservation Society, which relates to illegal shark finning in the Northern Territory. It reads:
Which I have here:
Section 303FT of the EPBC Act states:
I seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Mrs MILLER: As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are obviously some serious concerns in relation to illegal shark fining in the Northern Territory. I am sure the minister is very well aware of that.
I also note with interest that Dr Rik Buckworth, acting Principal Research Scientist, Fisheries Group with the NT government, said on the ABC Country Hour on 21 July, that Northern Territory Fisheries has an application into the Australian Research Council to use Genetags for shark monitoring. I think that gene tagging sharks for monitoring would go some way towards improving the shark stocks, but I am very interested in how one would actually tag a shark. I, for one, will not be offering to assist. I am sure there would have to be considerable thought put into how this can be done without serious injury by some very sharp teeth to the shark handler. Sharks are not exactly the friendliest of sea creatures, so I will be watching with interest the progress on Genetags for shark.
Policing of our fisheries is very important in ensuring that stocks are sustainable well into the future. Considering the vast area to be covered by the extensive waterways throughout the Territory and the coastline, I find it hard to believe that the small number of fisheries police - whom I wish to add do a great job - are adequate to cover such huge areas. The importance of policing the fishing industry cannot be underestimated, and I would like to see specially trained fisheries inspectors focusing on our extensive waterways and coastline right throughout the licensed season. Full-time fisheries inspectors work very effectively in South Australia and I would like to see their presence in the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that, overall, we have a great future for our very diverse fisheries industry in the Northern Territory. I thank the minister for his statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will touch on a few issues. The member for Katherine has touched on an issue I was going to raise. It is similar to an issue I raised when the minister made a statement on fisheries at about this time last year. It concerns the shark industry.
The member for Katherine read some articles from the NT News. There was another letter on 4 June 2004, which addressed the slaughter of 3 m to 4 m sharks for their fins:
That is similar to the issue I raised last time. Although there are the requirements – and the member for Katherine spoke about them – of shark fishery licences that deal with percentage ratios of fresh or frozen fin weight to a percentage of the trunk weight, I know some of that material is used by companies like Moeco for their fish emulsion products. When I spoke about it last time, there was a limit to how much they can store.
I am interested know whether we are still collecting fish that is coming in just to fulfil the requirements of the law. Has the government looked at assisting companies like Moeco to have a larger storage capacity to take some of these fish? It seems a terrible waste of such an animal just to lose its fins and then be dumped overboard. The industry has cut back on shark licences. It would be great, if we are to continue with this form of fishing, that we do not waste the product.
I would also be interested to know how many fishing inspectors we have and how often they check the boats coming in. Again, that was something I was concerned about last year. I do not know whether there are more fishing inspectors who do that sort of work. Of course, they have more than just the shark fishermen to look after. They are checking on amateur fishing people and other professional fishing people. They have a lot of work to do, so it would be interesting to know if there been an increase in the number of fishing inspectors. I will not go on too much about that. The member for Katherine covered an area about which I have some concerns.
I did raise during the Estimates Committee the issue of sea cages. There has been some talk about sea cages in the Darwin Harbour, and there are some concerns about the possible pollution or movement of disease from such places. I would be interested to know what the latest is on application to have sea cage aquaculture in our harbour and what the government thinks about it.
I know the government has just received a report on the crab industry looking at issues such as whether you increase the size of the crab. Of course, if you increase the size of the crab, there may be the possibility that the person who has the licence can harvest fewer crabs. I have been approached by one crab operator saying that, if that changed, they could lose a certain percentage of their income. I do not know whether the government is looking at that issue. It is important that we do not let our crab stocks drop off severely, but it is an issue that was raised by one of the crab people in my area.
An area that is sometimes missed in all these statements, minister - and I know it is only a small industry - is ornamental aquaculture. There is a gentleman, Dave Wilson, in my electorate who collects fish especially from Aboriginal communities where he pays a royalty for every fish he collects. He is breeding these fish and sending them overseas. He has a good rapport with traditional owners and is developing quite an exclusive, important industry. I believe he is also looking at frogs; whether we can use some of our native frogs as edible frogs. There is a market there as well.
It is people like this - though they might not appear to be as big as the crab, shark, barramundi and all those fishing industries – who are very important. I know the member for Katherine has a smile on her face, but some people enjoy eating frogs.
Mrs Miller: Just eating cane toads.
Mr WOOD: No, we are not eating cane toads.
That little industry creates industry within, say, the Howard Springs area, for water tanks, plumbing equipment - all those things he needs to keep operating. He is an important part of our economy. I know he is a genuine person when it comes to this type of business. He was involved with the Darwin Wildlife Park for many years, especially in the aquaculture section of the park.
I will get back to my favourite subject, minister. I spoke in the Estimates Committee about how you talk about more funding for AFANT, and how it is important for the amateur fishing industry and the tourists. That is all great. I think it is terrific. However, there is still not enough emphasis to encourage me that you are looking at a constant supply of wild fish in Northern Territory waters for the restaurant industry, and for the fish and chip industry. If you cut back on licences, as you are saying you will do as part of your election promises, are people who do not go out in the tinnies, who come to the Northern Territory to enjoy a Northern Territory barramundi at the restaurant, going to be able to get those? I believe you mentioned that probably they do not, they would probably get one of those fish that we should call another name – like cock-up. I hope you do not really make those people call a fish that, otherwise no one will ever eat it.
Mr Mills: I think I missed something.
Mr WOOD: Member for Blain, I will just recommend you read a little more deeply into the minister’s statement. He knows what I mean. That is the local name for what we call the barramundi; they call it that in other parts of the world. I spoke to our local fish and chip shop, which really has beautiful meals, about your statement that you could not get barramundi all the time. They said, of course you can; you collect enough and you freeze it. They have a supply all year around.
I am concerned that there is not a big bias towards amateur fishing. It is important, for sure. We gets many people come here who want to catch the icon, the barramundi. But I also want to eat the barramundi, the threadfin salmon, and the jewfish. I want to be able to buy that in a local fish and chip shop or at the restaurant.
The promises you make, to me, tend to be slanted towards the Amateur Fishermen’s Association against the professional fishermen, because you are reducing the number of licences and, as we know, AFANT wants all coastal licences bought back. I ask the government to make sure that we do not get political promises so great that we ruin something that many people come up here for. They want to eat some of our local wild fish. They do not really want to eat caged fish. That will be for the exclusive market in the United States. We just want to have our local tropical fish and to be able to enjoy it.
I know you talk about the importance of that fish. In fact, you say here, ‘the long-term outlook for the wild harvest sector is promising’, but then you talk about closing licences down. I would love to see how those two are compatible. It is important that one section of the industry does not wipe out the other section simply because we know there are many more amateur fishermen, and they have a fairly powerful lobby with many people in it. However, we also know we have a professional industry which does not have that many in it - it is very hard for them to organise because they are scattered - but they do earn the Territory a lot of money. Talk to the fishing suppliers: each time they come into port there are more ropes and nets, and more supplies of food and water and fuel. We must not lose sight that the professional industry is an important part of our industry and keep that balance right.
Minister, I would be interested to hear what you have to say about the shark industry. I know it is a very valuable industry but, at the same time, we should not lose sight of the fact that these are still important fish. I would hate to see a resource like that just used up simply because the fins and the tails are valuable and we throw the rest away. Thank you for your statement, and I am interested to hear what you have to say.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries’ statement on fishing. Since coming to office in 2001, this government has delivered greater access and improved fishing facilities and infrastructure for recreational anglers. A total of $1.5m over the past three years has been spent by this government to improve recreational fishing infrastructure, with an additional $2m committed over the next four years.
Improvements to the Buffalo Creek boat ramp facility were completed in early 2004 at a cost of approximately $500 000. Upgrading of the Dinah Beach boat ramp was completed at a cost of $750 000 in October 2004, and some minor modifications to lighting to shield residential units from the high levels of lights was completed in July 2005. An allocation of $150 000 has been made to the Palmerston Town Council to prepare a development strategy and implementing improvements to the Palmerston boat ramp.
As a result of public submissions, the government is upgrading the boat ramp and access at Rocky Creek in Borroloola, and we will provide a new boat ramp at Mule Creek to bring improved access to the McArthur River at a cost of $435 000. The construction of these two projects is being managed by the Borroloola Community Government Council, utilising a local work force to provide greater benefit to the community. Work has commenced at the Rocky Creek boat ramp, and access with 50% of earthworks for the road and car park completed. The concrete extension of the ramp is anticipated to take place within two weeks, and the overall completion is anticipated by the end of August. Work has also commenced at the new Mule Creek boat ramp, and access with at least 5% to 10% of the underlying rock fill to the access road having been installed. Completion of the Mule Creek boat ramp and access is anticipated prior to the Wet Season.
The McArthur River is a great river. As members would know, this government closed the McArthur River to commercial fishing quite soon after coming to government. These works really build on that, both for locals and tourists. I would be very interested to go out there with the local member. As the House knows, I am very keen fisherman and, even just throwing a line in from the boat ramps would bring a great deal of pleasure. There are some great works out at Borroloola. With the Savannah Way that comes through Queensland as a tourist route, that area will open up. We know there are many caravans, but some of those caravan owners also have boats on top of their cars and are very keen fishermen. These works out at Borroloola and in the electorate of Arnhem will open up that particular area as well. There is great fishing out there, and some great people at Borroloola and much to see.
Upgrading of the Mandorah boat ramp has commenced to improve the use of the ramp and prevent the constant natural dumping of shifting sand by the strong local currents and significant wave action that has been experienced along this coastline. The scope of the project is to raise the lower two-thirds of the ramp to a level consistent with the adjacent area. Work on upgrading the ramp has commenced and is anticipated to be completed by mid-August 2005. The member for Goyder, when he was a candidate, certainly got on my back about the boat ramp. It is a difficult issue; it is a natural phenomenon where sand builds up on that particular boat ramp. What we are trying to do is to remediate that situation. We met with the Cox Peninsula Community Government Council and worked through the issues. I am hopeful that these works will remediate the situation there.
An assessment was carried out in 2003 on raising the height and extending the Nightcliff boat ramp groyne to provide 100% protection from all tide levels. This concept was estimated to cost in the order of $500 000 to $750 000. At a recent inspection, it was noticed there is quite a legible watermark on the upper side of the groyne, which represents a frequent tide level. The existing groyne commences some 50 m from shore, leaving an unprotected gap that allows 70% to 80% of tides to splash through onto the boat ramp which makes boat launching and retrieval difficult and unsafe at times. This work was completed in mid-July at a cost of $135 000.
This issue was brought to my attention by some constituents, keen fishermen, who try to launch at Nightcliff. They pointed out to me that it was a hazard to people on certain tides and winds, and we have moved to try to remediate that situation. I am hopeful, once again, that the works that have been carried out will take away some of that hazard and people can enjoy launching and retrieving their boats from the Nightcliff boat ramp.
A boat ramp is to be constructed at Gregory National Park on the Victoria River on the junction with Gregory Creek. The contract is for construction of access road parking bays and boat ramp. The access road is about 500 m past the Victoria River Roadhouse. There is to be a parking area at the top of the river valley which will provide for bus parking as well as vehicles and trailers. The contract has been awarded to Norbuilt Pty Ltd. The value of the contract is $1.1m. A construction meeting is being held on-site with the contractor, park staff and Construction Division this Friday. It is planned to have it built before the Wet this year.
It is an area that I have had the pleasure to visit and to go up the Red Gorge. It is a beautiful piece of country and I do not think enough people and tourists stop there. This boat ramp will provide an incentive because, at present, people have to launch their boats over the rocks in the river and it can get quite boggy. With ease of access and ease of launching, more people, particularly tourists, will take advantage of stopping for a couple of days at the Victoria River Roadhouse.
I have spent a few enjoyable evenings there playing pool and having a couple of beers with the locals. There are a few characters around there and I have been fortunate enough to catch a couple of fish along there as well. It is great scenery. It is a great area within the electorate held by Mr Robert Knight. There is work there which is going to be a real plus for the Gregory National Park.
Access to the Peron Islands from the adjacent coast has been an issue that I have been closely involved with over the past two or two-and-a-half years. It has been a complex matter involving a number of parties. I do not want to say too much about that. There has been a bit of conflict there but, suffice to say, I believe a way forward has been found that suits most of the people involved. It is a pretty good solution to provide access to the people of Bulgul, as well as access to those who have cabins at Channel Point, and also for the government’s agenda of providing access to the Peron Islands. The roadway is currently under construction, as is the fencing. There will be a park area opened up for a limited number of recreational anglers, no more than 10 vehicles at a time.
This was an agreement that government reached with the Northern Land Council. There will be a permit system, similar to what operates currently at Cobourg, where the permits are granted through Parks and Wildlife. The Peron Islands are very close to there. It is going to be a big plus to recreational anglers. At the 2001 election, one of the election commitments we gave was that we would open up recreational access to anglers along our coastline, and what is happening there with access to the Peron Island is a very big part of that.
Some of the detail: a gate has been placed at the commencement of the easement across the Aboriginal land and is locked with keys issued to Bulgul community residents, Channel Point residents, and the lessee of Labelle Downs. This system will, ultimately, apply to recreational anglers with a permit to enter the park. This permit system will be the same as operates through Parks and Wildlife for access to Cobourg Peninsula. $175 000 is being funded from the existing land’s acquisition budget for fencing of the boundary between Labelle and the road reserve from the eastern boundary of Labelle to a point where it enters the land trust area.
A new capital works item was brought forward to the 2004-05 roads program, with a program provision of $600 000. This item involves the following: first, a total of $160 000 for fencing. This fencing, which is part of the compensation issue, includes $91 000 for fencing the easement through the land trust area and $69 000 for fencing the boundary between Labelle and the road reserve from a point the road re-enters Labelle from the land trust to the Channel Point Coastal Reserve. The second part is $440 000 for construction of approximately 8.5 km of road to by-pass Labelle homestead.
The Recreational Fishing Access Working Group has also identified and investigated options to enable the public to fish the King River through Manbulloo Station in liaison with the station manager. This project is anticipated to commence post the group’s next meeting, which will identify the project scope and public access issues.
The government continues to maintain 24 boat ramps located across the Territory as well as platforms, wharfs, jetties and artificial reefs that support recreational fishing for the benefit of Territorians and visitors alike.
What we will do this term is commit $2.8m for a new boat ramp at Hudson Creek, an additional $2m to improve facilities for recreational anglers, $150 000 for a new pontoon at the upgraded Dinah Beach boat ramp, and to provide access and camping facilities on the coast line near the Peron Islands.
Pearling has a rich and varied history in the Northern Territory. In the early 1900s, pearling luggers were a relatively common sight along the Northern Territory and West Australian coastlines, including some from overseas. Indeed, the industry was based on the wild catch, with the export of both pearls and pearl shell for buttons providing an economic return for a significant number of people in Northern Australia, many of them coming from nations all around the world.
The successful development of techniques to culture pearls in Australian shells in the 1960s was the next major step in the expansion of the industry and it is fair to say that the Paspaley family were the pioneers in this regard in partnership with Japanese interests with long-standing experience in these techniques.
As a former Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, I have maintained an active interest in this special industry, as I do with all fisheries issues. Moreover, I maintain some of the responsibilities for pearl leases, so it was with a great deal of pleasure that I accepted an invitation, along with the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, to visit the Paspaley leases on the Cobourg Peninsula to view the last day of harvest. This follows on a trip I made last year to the Arafura Pearls operation at Elizabeth Bay in East Arnhem Land.
I found both visits very interesting, particularly the harvest of pearls, the seeding of shells, as well as the harvest of shell and pearl meat. Although there is great deal of mystique surrounding the industry, the science and logistics supporting the industry are immense. Furthermore, this industry provides employment to a significant number of people in the Territory. Indeed, this industry is worth approximately $20m per year to the Northern Territory.
Nonetheless, each pearl is unique and it was particularly interesting during the Paspaley visit to see somewhere between 100 and 200 beautiful pearls laid out on a cloth. Notwithstanding the total value of these pearls being well over $0.5m, it was fascinating to hear how the pearls were valued and how this intricate market works. The pearling market and the maintenance of prices for Australian pearls in the face of a market that has been flooded by product from elsewhere is of great concern to government and the industry, as the minister outlined.
Further, as the minister outlined, government regulates the industry through pearl quotas. I commend the minister for his constructive work with the industry and his Western Australian counterparts on the allocation of new quotas as the current quotas near capacity. Notwithstanding a few hard decisions in relation to quota, this is an industry that has a bright future. I am sure that this future is assured with ongoing cooperation between the industry, the Western Australian government and the Northern Territory government.
As a footnote to that trip out to the Cobourg Peninsula, it was my and the minister’s pleasure to go out there on an amphibious plane, the Mallard. Paspaleys have a fleet of three. They have done these planes up superbly, put new motors in them, and it is such a pleasure to fly in. It is a veteran plane. They were made in the United States by Grummans between about 1946 and 1951. It was very interesting to take off from Darwin Airport. It is the first time that I have ever landed on water in one of these things and it was a quite a heart beating experience to do that; but the pilots are very skilled. These planes are the backbone of the Paspaley operations, along with their boats and crews and the many Territorians living in my and other electorates who work in this fantastic industry. So, a special thanks to Paspaleys.
Also, as I mentioned, I had the privilege of going to Elizabeth Bay in Eastern Arnhem Land last year and see the operation of Arafura Pearls there, which is a great operation. It is a newer company, expanding, and they are doing a great job out there also. Pearling is a very important industry for the Northern Territory.
I join the minister in complimenting the Fisheries Group in their leadership in managing our diverse fishery. In particular, I place on the record, once again, my praise for the highly-motivated staff at the Darwin Aquaculture Centre. The staff undertake world-class research and develop techniques and stock to support large-scale aquaculture venture, particularly barramundi farming. In addition, I would like to also join with the minister in congratulating Dr Rik Buckworth and his team for the many Territory and Australian awards they have received from their Genetag research into mackerel numbers to enable the mackerel fishery to be managed sustainably, based on science. Like all good science, it is elegantly simple but it is profound in its findings. It is a very good project. There has been a lot of interest from all over the world in what Rik Buckworth and the team have been doing, and they have garnered a lot of praise and a lot prizes, both here in the Territory and nationally for their project.
Along with the minister and the Chief Minister, I was fortunate to be present at the Seafood Industry Awards and Seafood Ball when Rik and his team received one of their many awards. It was great night, not only for the awards, but also for the opportunity to taste a variety of Northern Territory seafood showcased in the creations of a number of local and interstate chefs. Along with the highly successful Seafood Ball, I predict the Seafood Festival will get bigger and better each year. My congratulations to Ziko Illic and Iain Smith from the Seafood Council for their hard work in organising these events. Moreover, I congratulate them on their vision to promote Northern Territory seafood.
In conclusion, I commend the minister’s statement. This is a government that supports the seafood industry, including aquaculture. I noted the comments from the member for Nelson, and I agree: we need to support the seafood industry. They supply seafood to the shops. Not everyone fishes. It is a very important industry for the Northern Territory, and there are some great characters who are involved in the seafood industry. They work very hard, often in very isolated areas, and are certainly very special for the Northern Territory and for our seafood industry.
We also recognise the importance of lifestyle, especially for recreational anglers. We have shown our support for recreational anglers by increased access to places like the Peron Islands, and we have also invested heavily in new fishing infrastructure. We have also honoured commitments to close the McArthur and Adelaide Rivers. As the minister has detailed in his statement, we are a government committed to protecting our fisheries and ensuring they are sustainable into the future for the benefit of all Territorians. Madam Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement to the House.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I rise to contribute and congratulate the minister on a very informative and forward thinking statement on fishing. Like the previous speakers, I have a love and a passion for fishing which I will describe as I go on.
The minister’s statement mentions fishing in general, recreational, aquaculture, and the seafood industry – it talks about the benefits of this industry to the economy. He provided greats facts and details. He addressed lifestyles issues. He talked about indigenous Territorians’ input into the fishing industry.
That brings me to the angle that I want to talk about tonight, as a person who has lived this lifestyle all my life – dealing with fishing, not only myself, but my family over many years. In fact, my family has been hunting and fishing in the Northern Territory for thousands of years, and I can say definitely around the Darwin area for at least 100 years. We like to catch fish - barramundi, mangrove jack, salmon, queen fish, mullet and whiting. In the past, we have on occasions - and I know times have changed now - hunted turtle - we know when to get turtle eggs – gone spear fishing, collected oysters and caught mud crab - we know the best times to go, where to get them when they are full. I have fished in the Darwin Harbour, the Shoal Bay area, Buffalo Creek, King Creek, Howard River, and the Vernon Islands. I actually caught my first barramundi in Rapid Creek – freshwater Rapid Creek, which borders on my electorate as well as the electorate of the member for Johnston.
I look back at what fishing has meant to my family over the last 100 years. My grandparents had a wide variety of backgrounds, but the thing they had in common was they brought up a family of 12 over the last 100 years in Darwin. How people survived was through what we call a lifestyle issue now, which is going to catch fish to eat daily, to get mud crab daily. They lived on the Nightcliff Peninsula when there was only one family - the Bonson family - out there. In comparison with Darwin now, Nightcliff Peninsula would have been Howard Springs or Humpty Doo.
Over this period of time since my family has been involved in this type of lifestyle which includes recreational fishing, back in the old days it included licences to have fish traps and to sell fish. Many of the local people in Darwin have a relationship with the Bonson family through that and, indeed, many of the ethnic people. The population has changed from 1000 people 100 years ago to 100 000 people, and we are all using the same resources.
The minister dealt with the reality of how we are going to deal with those resources and how are we going to manage them. I would like to congratulate him on attempting to draw up a five-year plan with a 10-year vision. This is the future of the Northern Territory recreational fishing, the aquaculture industry, the seafood industry, lifestyle issues, and benefits to indigenous Territorians through employment and access to a natural resource.
Over my period of time as a fisherman, and life stylist, I suppose, living in Darwin, I have had an opportunity to fish all over the Northern Territory at places like Shady Camp, Hardy’s Lagoon, Corroboree, Yellow Waters, Daly Rivers, South Alligator, East Alligator, the Nhulunbuy region, Groote Eylandt, and the Tiwi Islands. On a recent trip, I had the fantastic luck to arrange a three-day expedition to Cobourg Peninsula to visit some family members who now have outstations in this beautiful area.
I noticed that the minister talked about the benefits of recreational fishing, and I will deal with some statistics, not only from the Northern Territory but the rest of Australia, the United States, England and Wales. I am just outlining this as an example of what recreational fishing can do for the economy of the Territorians.
We went by car on a three-day camping trip to the Cobourg Peninsula. We were within a day’s drive of Darwin. We spent around $200 to $300 on fishing gear and approximately $150 on fuel at the local fuel stations in both Darwin and South Alligator. We purchased food in Darwin and Jabiru, to the value of around another $150. We travelled for three days, less than eight hours away, to an exotic location that people from all over the world dream about. This is but a small example of what recreational fishing can add or contribute to our economy.
Talking about money spent on recreational fishing, the minister talked about $26m directly spent. The NT government has committed more than $5m for fishing infrastructure and access to projects over the next four years which include boat ramps at East Arm; providing a pontoon at Dinah Beach - I can happily say that I actually caught my largest barramundi ever at Dinah Beach; $1.5m on Buffalo Creek, which includes the now famous secure parking upgrade; Rocky Creek boat ramp near Borroloola; access roads to Peron Islands - people who have lived here for many years would know that the Peron Islands is a fantastic location to catch jewfish and other reef fish and is a favourite spot for campers on the weekends; the extension of the rock groyne at Nightcliff, which I know the Speaker and residents of Nightcliff would be very happy about; and the upgrade of Mule Creek boat ramp.
I come from a position of someone who has actually enjoyed fishing over a long period of time in the Northern Territory. It was part of my family make-up learning how to hunt and fish and how to be a Territorian. Part of that always was the outdoor mentality that we have to go to exotic places. Unfortunately, in this position, as many people would know, we do not get that opportunity to travel as much.
Recreational fishing has a major influence on the Northern Territory. I have some statistics here we were able to research. In particular, we are talking about recreational statistics in the Northern Territory done in a survey in 2000 by the Australian government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. It has here that approximately 0.04 million people or 31% of the population over the age of five years fished at least once in the Northern Territory; 71.9% of fishers were male; 76.9% of households have at least one recreational fisher person living there in the 12 months before May 2001; there were a total of 0.32 million fishing days and each fisher fishing day on an average of five days a year, comprised of 0.35 million events or 1.91 million fishing hours. It goes then to the breakdown of fishing harvest.
The interesting thing that I found with these statistics was that in comparison to other states and territories, New South Wales had a participation rate of 17.1%: Victoria, 12.7%: Queensland, 24.7%; South Australia, 24.1%; Western Australia, 28.5%; Tasmania, 29.3% and the Northern Territory - in Darwin in particular, 37.3% and for coastal communities, 45.2%. It is a large increase on what the national average of participation is. An indigenous fishing survey was conducted by the National Native Tribunal of northern Australia and it was done for 44 coastal communities from Broome to Cairns and did not include the Torres Strait Islands.
One of the things that the minister talked about is the pearling industry and the member for Johnston also touched on that. People may know that my grandmother was from the Torres Strait Islands and her grandfather came to Darwin through the pearling industry. People may also know that the Torres Strait Islands, Darwin and Broome have people who travelled up and down as pearling divers or people working in the pearling industry. One of my ancestors working in that industry came to Darwin, which is where my grandmother met my grandfather.
The survey conducted in this area - we are talking about from Torres Strait, Darwin, and Broome - represented about 20 000 people in and around 3000 dwellings. The survey results showed that people aged five years and older fished at least once during the 12 months survey period over this area of land, and this represents fishing participation rate of about 92% in these communities, which is quite amazing.
There are about 420 000 fisher effort days during the survey comprising 671 000 fishing events: 65% of the effort of people fishing in the Northern Territory in these communities, 21% in Queensland and 14% in Western Australia. More than 15% of the effort occurred in inshore waters. Line fishing is 53%, hand collection, 26%, net, 12% and spears, 9%.
The survey provides details of the catch of aquatic organisms harvested. In particular, it deals with mussels, prawns, and oysters. I encourage people to have a look at that survey done by the National Native Title Tribunal in 2003, and presented at Fremantle.
The other information on which I wanted to touch is about how big this industry is and how far it can reach. When you look at fishing around the world, in the United States it is estimated that in 2001, $35.6bn was spent on fishing. If we were able to attract a small percentage of this expenditure to the Northern Territory, that would have a fantastic impact on our economy.
I noticed that the minister talked about the debate of protecting the name of our barramundi product. I support his attempts to get the Commonwealth to recognise that barramundi is an indigenous name unique to the Northern Territory.
I also have statistics here dealing with anglers in Wales and England. We have only scratched the surface of attracting overseas anglers to come and catch our great sporting fish like the barramundi.
The minister’s detail on the best practices in aquaculture and, in particular, fishing research and management practices, should be supported as 27% of our total production value is for rural industries, wild harvest fish aquaculture and recreational fishing in tourism sectors. The minister produced estimates that show that aquaculture production rose by 26% from $22m to $28m, and the total value of the entire aquaculture industries is expected to exceed $120m by 2010.
The minister also talked about mud crabs. I have had the opportunity of sourcing some information about crablets and mud crab farming in Kulaluk, which is a small indigenous community in my electorate. I know that the community looks forward to the prospect of getting some economic independence, some job opportunities and, of course, producing edible mud crabs not only for the Australian market but overseas markets eventually. This is the future for indigenous people in terms of their natural resources; getting into aquaculture.
I wait with expectation the trials of release of baby barramundi. I understand some 1.5 million baby barramundi were produced last year by the Northern Territory government. I will watch, too, research into trepang. I know that has been an invaluable food resource for many people in Asian areas and northern Australia. I look forward to that type of testing.
Finally, I thank the minister for the work he has been able to do in his time as the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. I look forward to his continued development of the Northern Territory as one of Australia’s premier recreational fishing destinations for both Territorians and visitors alike. I support his continued devoting of resources to expanding aquaculture production, especially in collaborative projects with commercial partners in indigenous communities, and the review fishing management plans to ensure appropriate measures are in place so that our valuable aquatic resources are grown, harvested and managed in a sustainable manner.
I also support him in providing a framework for continued development of our seafood industry and maintaining export accreditation for those fisheries looking to market Northern Territory product on the world stage. I thank him for his work in encouraging indigenous economic development through collaborative partnerships, as well as providing information and technical support, and his work to create a new legislative framework for managing the Territory’s aquatic resources by undertaking a comprehensive review of the Fisheries Act after 17 years.
I note that the minister talked about making the tough decisions in terms of buying back fishing licences, and I encourage him to make the tough decisions. I also congratulate him on continuing to liaise with representatives from all users of the Northern Territory’ aquatic resources to grow fisheries in an environmentally sustainable manner. I support this statement wholeheartedly.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries for his statement, and I can attest that fishing is, indeed, the lure of the Territory. Having been taught at an early age to fish, many years on I find that one of my most enjoyable pastimes is still sitting on the briny wetting a line. Now that I have been indoctrinated into Northern Territory fishing circles, having caught my first barramundi, I have learnt, during my time in Darwin, having fished the harbours and estuaries, the importance of looking after and maintaining this valuable aquatic asset of which we are so proud and the envy of our neighbouring states.
In this, my supporting statement, I wish to talk about the exciting and emerging industry in the Territory – the fishing tour operator industry. I will start by giving the House some of the latest available statistics for the year ending 2004 that show that recreational anglers spent a total of more than 5000 days fishing somewhere in the Northern Territory. It is one of the most important recreational pursuits and, in some areas of the Territory, up to one in every two Territorians go fishing every year. In addition, more than 107 000 tourists say that they have gone fishing or intend to do so.
Barramundi is the most important and popular species, with Darwin Harbour the most popular destination to wet a line. However, if you fail to catch a barra, the beauty of fishing our waters is that you can move on and fish from the bottom, or trail a lure elsewhere, endeavouring to catch any of the vast variety of fish species, ensuring that there is a smell in the pan at the end of the evening.
Locals and visitors alike marvel at the fishing opportunities available here in the Northern Territory. The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries spoke about the exposure of the Northern Territory fishing experience. In addition to our fishing journalists, particularly Alex Julius, with Fishing North Australia, and Matt Flynn, with Fish Finder, nationally the Northern Territory features regularly in electronic and print media. You are hard pressed to find an edition of a fishing magazine or televised fishing program that does not feature the Northern Territory. It is this coverage that lures tourists and locals to the Top End, with our fishing tour operating industry providing the opportunity for anglers to land the catch of a lifetime.
I have had first-hand experience with this industry. In June last year, I was lucky enough to be invited on a sport fishing safari with visitors from South Australia on a tour boat, the MV Swordfish. The boat was owned and operated by Viv Thistlewaite, and ably manned by a very capable guide, Michael Politis. What an unbelievable eight days we had, anchored in the small bays south of the mouth of the Daly River. The MV Swordfish served as the mother ship of an evening but, during the day, we alighted into one of the two 7 m dories to fish the estuaries offshore. The coastline and estuaries we fished were in pristine condition, and the fishing was unbelievable. Needless to say, we achieved our bag limits early each day, but had enormous fun still catching an amazing variety of fish and releasing them back to their habitats.
The six gentlemen from South Australia were avid fishermen and had fished extensively the coastlines of South Australia and Victoria, but had never experience fishing of this calibre; so much so, they vowed to return with some of their close friends who had not experienced fishing in the Top End.
The fishing tour operator industry is diverse, ranging from 5 m vessels taking two or three paying passengers to catch barramundi, to 10 m to 15 m vessels taking up to a dozen anglers for a daytime trip to catch snapper and jewfish close to Darwin on extended fishing trips in which a small number of anglers live aboard luxurious surrounds as I had experienced in absolute comfort for up to a week, and fishing from the smaller dories in some of the remotest regions of the Territory.
There are currently 134 fishing tour operators registered in the Territory. This group of fishing tour operators is an important and emerging industry and one that this government is keen to support. That is why funds have been provided by the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development to assist the fishing tour operator industry to consider the formation of a representative body and the benefits of an executive officer. Nominations were called for industry members to form a selection committee, and to consider applications received for the position of executive officer.
Further to this exercise, Mr Lloyd Browne has been appointed as executive officer to the fishing tour operators industry. Mr Browne has been very active with an incorporated association representing the operators now formed. Mr Browne will now look, with industry members, at a range of issues including industry accreditation; licensed operators being currently required to hold public liability insurance, a valid first aid qualification, and the appropriate qualifications for operating a commercial vessel. A number of industry members have raised the possibility of an industry accreditation scheme to ensure they continue to provide a service that matches the fishing experience. Such accreditation will be a world-class practice.
Resource sharing and recreational and commercial fishing sectors: recent examples include concerns raised regarding access to waters adjacent to Aboriginal land and ensuring that the opportunity to enjoy the unique Territory experience with landing the fish of a lifetime continues. There is increasing requirement for formal representation of this industry on fishery management advisory committees and in other government and non-government consultative forums.
The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries outlined a long overdue review of the Fisheries Act. When the act commenced some 17 years ago, fishing tour operators were not active in the Territory. Without adequate representation, it is likely that the guided fishing tour as a developed tourism industry will be stifled, and our unique advantage of being the best fishing experience available, will be lost.
Madam Speaker, the fishing tour operating sector creates jobs and considerable flow-on benefits for our regions. It is an industry with enormous potential. In closing, I congratulate the minister and his staff on the work they are undertaking in this area, and for his comprehensive statement on fishing.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on issues raised in the ministerial statement by the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. It is encouraging to hear the minister speak about how this government will focus on developing, promoting and protecting the Territory’s valuable aquatic resources especially when so many of our communities across the Top End are near the coast, communities which rely strongly on food supplies from the sea.
I might just have to take issue with the member for Drysdale about Darwin Harbour, Madam Speaker. I am sure there are many people in the Arnhem Land region who would like to challenge that but, then again, the Rapid Creek area is where I caught one of the largest barramundis, so there you go.
In my home country of Borroloola in the Gulf of Carpentaria the Yanyuwa are known as liantha wirriyarra, the people of the sea. Our history is full of stories of early trade relationships with the Macassans. It is a trade relationship which occurred right across various parts of the Top End, in particular with communities in my electorate of Arnhem, such as Numbulwar and Umbakumba. At Umbakumba, the sight of tamarind trees on the beach is a reminder of that past trade relationship when indigenous people where sharing trade and cultural exchanges long before the arrival of Europeans.
That aquaculture production in the Territory has increased by 26% to $28m in 2003 and 2004 up from $22m the previous year is, indeed, encouraging especially when there are so many communities eager to be involved in fishing related industries. The Yugul Mangi Rangers in Ngukurr are one of those groups keen to be involved. Women like Cherry Daniels, who is just one of 14 rangers in Ngukurr, most of whom are women, are passionate about looking after country and this naturally involves the rivers and sea as well as land. It is the Roper River which is looked after by these amazing people, young and old.
These rangers only have one vehicle, which is a troop carrier, and a boat. They are largely paid through CDEP, the Community Development Employment Program, but that is not enough. It is true when minister Vatskalis says rangers not only provide meaningful employment in remote areas, but have saved lives and deterred illegal fishing activity such as reporting suspicious and illegal foreign fishing vessels in Territory waters. The Ngukurr rangers have told me of how, on one of their patrols, they saw what was later understood to be an illegal Indonesian fishing boat at the mouth of the Roper River. It was their patrols of the river and sea country that alerted authorities. This example is just one of many of how enthusiastic people in our communities are to be a part of any economic development that will protect and promote our river and sea and most importantly provide employment.
I urge the minister to continue his attempts to seek greater resources for federal authorities protecting waters throughout the Top End. These resources would be most beneficial for our marine rangers who could work in partnership with Customs officials on a regular basis. It is also encouraging to see that the fisheries group has employed an indigenous support officer to help manage the program and work with other ranger groups at Ramingining, Numbulwar, Groote Eylandt and Ngukurr.
Expansion of the Indigenous Liaison Unit is also a reflection of the interest of indigenous people to be involved in the fisheries area. The unit already has 13 indigenous economic development projects to oversee and they include Maningrida and Elcho Island mud crab aquaculture; crayfish development; developmental licences in Nhulunbuy; trepang aquaculture at Groote Eylandt and Warruwi; and fishing tour operators for the Nhulunbuy region and Wigram Island.
We may all have our own stories to tell about personal experiences on fishing trips as we heard from the member for Millner. Even those who do not particularly like fishing can still appreciate the value of our fish resources. Growing up by the islands in the Gulf of Carpentaria, fishing was and still is a natural past time. Our culture, the ways of the Yanyuwa, is filled with songs and stories about the sea. Protection of fish stocks, sea turtle and dugong has been a cultural way of life. When one family group goes fishing their catch is generously shared amongst clan groups. This is for two reasons: one is to care for our fellow family members so that the hunter’s family is not the only one that eats; and, two, because our leaders knew from the beginning of time of the importance of preserving fish stocks, sea turtle and dugong. Even when dugong get caught up in the nets of prawn trawlers or fishing boats, Aboriginal people are deeply upset at the waste of these marine animals. So, too, are many other people. This is a point of which any comprehensive review must take note.
The Fisheries Group in the minister’s department has also established Indigenous Community Marine Ranger programs in Borroloola, the Tiwi Islands, Port Keats, Maningrida, Warrawi and Elcho Island. There are three vessels and two four-wheel drives provided to assist the ranger programs, and this is just the beginning. Fisheries have been involved in the delivery of training to seven ranger groups, including those currently not funded. Some 37 rangers are employed.
I take this opportunity to again highlight the effective work undertaken by the marine rangers in the Gulf of Carpentaria. It was about this time last year when police and fisheries in the Borroloola region were alerted to concerns about dead fish in the Sir Edward Pellew group of islands to the north of Borroloola. Locals and tourists had noticed a foul stench that could not be clearly identified and needed investigation. The marine rangers, located with the Mabunji Aboriginal Resource Association in Borroloola, were selected to go and inspect the area and try to identify the smell.
Two rangers, one of whom was my brother, Alan Frontier, spent a week camping around the island to try to locate the site where the terrible smell came from. To the horror of the rangers, they identified many whale carcasses hidden in the rocks on one of the islands. Such was the state of decay, the carcasses could not be easily seen; and certainly not by a helicopter. Even when fishing boats went by in the area, they could not see the decay but they could certainly smell it.
Whale carcasses could only be found on foot by those who knew the country. The marine rangers at Borroloola know that country so well. The sight of the dead carcasses was upsetting for the Yanuwa and Mara people of the area, for no one could ever remember seeing so many dead whales on the islands. The discovery grabbed international attention. The work of the marine rangers has now seen the involvement of the World Wildlife Fund which is keen to support a partnership with communities. I, for one, am also keen to see how such a partnership can develop for the benefit of communities and habitat.
The minister has highlighted this government’s commitment to ensure the Northern Territory remains Australia’s premier recreational fishing destination for both Territory people and visitors, and will commit resources to expand the aquaculture production especially in collaboration projects with commercial partners and indigenous communities.
Madam Speaker, it is indeed timely for a comprehensive review of the Fisheries Act after 17 years. I commend the minister for his vision and insight in doing so.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their very constructive comments.
I would like to advise the House that, just a few minutes ago, I was advised that Customs have apprehended a 40 m fishing vessel from Thailand flying an Indonesian flag with 22 Thai nationals on board at one of the reefs very close to the Territory; in fact, only 300 km away. The vessel was carrying 25 tonnes of reef fish. That was an illegal vessel which entered Australian waters undetected and it was only detected when it approached 300 km from Darwin.
That is the reason why, in the past few months, I have been arguing with the Commonwealth for increased resources in the Top End and the north-west of Australia, not only for the Northern Territory, but for northern Western Australia, the Gulf of Carpentaria and Queensland.
I know that it is a very good idea to protect the Patagonian Tooth Fish down south, and allocate a lot of resources for that. However, the reality is, at this stage, our fishing stock is being decimated by illegal fisherman – not Indonesian villagers who battle weather and the elements to sail down here, but sophisticated vessels. That vessel had radar and a GPS and was able to detect Australian patrol boats and Australian Customs vessels. We are talking about organised illegal fishing from Thailand coming to the Northern Territory.
I take note of the comments made by the member for Katherine, and yes, the government is looking forward to improving facilities for recreational and commercial fisherman. We are aware of the Frances Bay problem, but the member should be aware that the previous government sold the boat ramp in East Arm to a private company and, as a result, people will not have access to East Arm any more. We committed approximately $2m to construct a new ramp in the Frances Bay area.
As for the crabs, the decline of the crab stock is significant. Scientists employed by the department indicated that if we do not do something now the stock would be decimated. The crab fishermen employed their own scientists who came to the same conclusions. As I said before, this government is prepared to make some tough decisions in order to rescue the crab stock. At the same time, we have had a significant number of people over-potting and arrested by Fisheries for putting up to 130 extra illegal pots in the water. We are certainly going to look into the licensing, hiring of licences and increased penalties.
We have a fantastic program of Marine Rangers. I would like that program to be expanded to become very similar to the ACPOs, the Aboriginal Community Patrol Officers, give them more police powers though they are actually rangers. Our program is so good that the Western Australian minister told me that he wants to copy that program to implement it in Western Australia, which indicates it is a very good program. At the moment we have about 35 people in different areas of the Northern Territory. We would like to expand it and would like to see it working closely with 12 or more Fisheries Police, who are supported now with $1m to replace their vessels. The CLP did not put any money into vessels. We had Fisheries Police but they could not go out to the sea because they did not have appropriate vessels. With two-thirds to replace the vessels, we are going to replace five vessels, and that will enable the Fisheries Police to go out to police our resources.
With regards to shark stocks, the consultant the member for Katherine attributed those comments to, made those comments before the review of the shark fishery. The shark fishery has been reviewed by Commonwealth authorities. The review took up to 18 months. We have reached a stage where the industry itself will reduce the fishing effort by reducing the number of hooks, the way they operate, and the number of fishing days, which is significant.
Once again, the Western Australian government wants to copy our plan of management of sharks because the shark fishing industry in Western Australia has completely decimated the shark fisheries. Western Australian also wants to copy our Mackerel Plan of Management, because we really are leaders in managing our fishing stocks. We want our fishing stock to be sustainable. We want it to be there for the future, instead of an attitude of fish them out today, make a lot of money and then people will move to other places to fish for something different.
To ask for the revocation of the wildlife declaration of the shark fishery would be disastrous. It will send the industry bankrupt; it will destroy people’s lives. People have invested up to $20m in equipment and there are about 50 people employed in the industry. The shark fin and shark carcasses operation works very well. The carcasses are not actually used now for fertiliser. They are exported to Philippines and other Asian countries, where they are converted to seafood, and some of the processed seafood comes back to Australia; for instance, fish balls or other products that we consume in Australia.
With regards to the supply of restaurants and fish and chip shops with wild catch, I agree with the member for Nelson. That is the reason we have put in place the five-year plan, 10-year outlook, which will involve recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen and indigenous people - how we are going to progress the barramundi plan of management, how we are going to have enough barramundi in our rivers for the recreational fishermen to fish, and enough barramundi in the sea for the commercial fisherman to catch and sell. The problem we have is that much of the barramundi catch is actually exported to other markets. It is very popular, interstate and internationally, and when they sell it overseas, such as the United States, they command a better price. The fish and chips shops here probably purchase a cheaper alternative, including sea bass, or cock-up as the member for Nelson referred to.
The fishing industry is a very important industry to the Territory. It is not only the shark fishers; some of the pelagic species that we catch are very close to the borders with Indonesia, including golden snapper and red snapper. There are a significant number of people employed in the industry, and the government would like to see the expansion of the fisheries, not only in the catching effort, but also the processing.
A group of people from my department and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure are looking at the block known as Gobi Desert, near Frances Bay, to be modified and made stable because, at the moment, it has many problems. It may be possible to establish a processing facility there so, instead of exporting whole fish, we actually put some value-adding here in the Territory to provide opportunities for Territorians.
One thing that is very important and I consider a personal challenge is utilising the fishing industry to provide job opportunities and economic development for indigenous communities. That is exactly what we are doing with the crabs, the trepang, and the coastal licence. I am always amazed that people living on a coastline were not able to catch fish themselves in their own communities in order to provide some money for themselves, and also some fresh produce and fresh food for the people of the community. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues from the coastal communities to find out if we can provide aquaculture and fishing opportunities.
I cannot see why a person from Melbourne would come up here, buy a boat and take tourists out there, when we have indigenous people living in Borroloola who know the Borroloola area and the islands inside out, and people living in Maningrida or anywhere – okay, not Central Australia – I am talking about the north now …
Ms Scrymgour: We could take a boat to Central Australia.
Mr VATSKALIS: Toynie would love that! Rumours about declaring the Todd River as a marine reserve are untrue!
I would like to see indigenous people involved in fishing operations, the fishing industry, and as fishing tour operators, and with the expansion of the marine program giving more power to these people to police their fishing stock. A few months ago, one of these marine rangers identified a foreign vessel and immediately notified the police. That led to the arrest of the sailors.
I am looking forward to the further growth of fishing industry, and to receiving your support. Together, we can grow the Territory further.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Over the last two months, I have had the pleasure of attending a couple of graduation ceremonies with organisations that lead the way with their commitment to training in skills development in the Territory. I attended the Dovaston Training and Assessment Centre graduation dinner in July. It was a great evening enjoyed by all. I am always impressed by the passion for training that Shirli Dovaston shows and to see the results of the efforts of her organisation.
Shirli is one of those people who put absolutely everything into their training, and are making a difference to people’s lives and livelihoods. Thirty-six people graduated. Over 30% of the graduates were indigenous. Some graduates travelled from Katherine and beyond to attend the evening. Three graduates travelling from Kalkarindji, and two from Katherine. There were eight graduates from Terrace Gardens Aged Care, a skills shortage area. Two indigenous trainees employed by Department of Employment, Education and Training graduated, with five more to complete this month.
I extend my congratulations to Merci Betts for her efforts in involving long-term DEET employees and training programs. I make mention of one person who was for 18 years in Registry as an AO1. How we, as a public service, allow that sort of situation to happen, I know not. However, that is a testament to bringing employment, education and training together. Combing through the department and finding an employee here of 17 or 18 years trapped at that level is unforgivable. I will be congratulating her when she graduates and is able to apply for positions at a more senior level later on.
Congratulations to those who received their certificates in a range of areas including business, frontline management, workplace assessment and training community services. These graduates were Barry Adams, Angela Bendall, Sarah Bethune, Susanne Boyd, Kieran Bush, Tony Chivell, Vicki Cosford, David Crawford, Russell Davey, Mikes Galimitakis, Nadine Garner, Kiya Gill, Bill Groom, Fiona Kajewski, Fran Kelly, Melanie Ledingham, Warren McGrath, Nathan Meyer, Judith Minogue, Rita Morris, Sevene Nichols, Kym-Maree Nixon, Teena Orum, Ruth Ottley, Craig Parker, Jo Parker, Justin Parker, Pauline Parker - no relations between those, Natasha Rajak-Harris, Jack Roe, and Dawn Rook.
On 28 July, I attended the CSM IT graduation ceremony. CSM Technology is renowned in the Territory for its strong commitment to providing training and mentoring young Territorians. I congratulate Kim Ford and his staff on their efforts. Kim is a leader in developing a strong training culture in his organisation and in putting time and effort into making difference to the future many young people.
The IT cadets program officially began in July 2002; 2005 is their third graduation ceremony. The program aims to take secondary students with the talent for IT and provide guidance to give to the IT students from a broad range of IT professionals. Cadets aged between 14 and 18 are provided with a place they call their own where they can be totally self-directed. It is a two-year program and cadets participate in activities after school and during school holidays. Cadets run the program themselves as a business unit. They have to prepare business cases or project plans for any necessary expenditure. The program involves a big commitment on the part of CSM staff who mentor as well as work alongside the young people from their community. The 2005 graduates developed basic project management skills; produced web sites using a variety of tools including Dream Weaver and Photoshop; developed flash animations; built and programmed robotics; server installation and set-up; obtained their ICDL - International Computer Driving Licence; went on field trips including visits to the Northern Territory Computing Centre; and learned the importance of backing up their work, I am told.
Congratulations to the recipients of certificates at the ceremony. The ICDL recipients are Thomas Cowie, Chris Newcombe, Daniel Ladlow, Max Collins, Mathew Sutton, Doug Watts and Ashish Vaikyl. Graduation certificates pending their exam results later in the week: Adrian James and Ivan Ouwerkerk. ICDL graduation certificates recipients: Corey Smith, Michael Haydon, Aaron Muttukumaru, Stephen Bidgood, and Daniel Hamilton. Special awards: Daniel Ladlow and Daniel Hamilton.
I am also pleased to congratulate a Territorian who has contributed to the Vocational Education and Training sector across the Territory. For the past 30 years, Bob Nixon, currently the Director of Quality and Planning at Charles Darwin University, recently received the National AUSTAFE Leadership Award at the association’s annual conference in Sydney. Bob has had a long, and certainly truly, Territory history since commencing his working life as a shipwright and taking up a position as a technical instructor at Yuendumu and Amoonguna in 1969. He has been a technical studies teacher in Yirrara College in Alice Springs; senior teacher at Yirrara College; head of department, Building Studies, Community College of Central Australia and then Alice Springs College of TAFE; head of School of Trade, Alice Springs College of TAFE; deputy principal, Alice Springs College of TAFE and acted as principal for 12 months during that time; Director TAFE programs, Centralian College; Director TAFE, Centralian College; and currently Director VET Quality and Planning, Charles Darwin University. He was a key player in overseeing the amalgamation of the Alice Springs College of TAFE and Sadadeen Senior Secondary College in 1993 and later the amalgamation of Centralian College in NT in 2004.
Bob has been on the committee and has been involved in several national Territory organisations dedicated to improving VET delivery including TAFE Directors Australia; Austafe Training Advisory Councils; NT Board of Studies; Australian Institute of Management; TAFE Advisory Council of the NT; World Skills; and Group Training. They do not come with greater and experience or expertise in the world of VET than Bob Nixon. We congratulate Bob on a well deserved award on top of that. He is a terrific bloke.
My congratulations to Hala Tupou and Yirrkala Dhanbul Community Council for their initiative in organising a key group of employees from Yirrkala Landcare, Yirrkala Banana Farm, and the Laynhapuy Homelands to successfully complete their medium rigid truck licence through a training course run by Charles Darwin University remote area driver training. Besides attaining the medium rigid truck licence, the participants have completed modules to service and maintain trucks, the correct load weights and widths, and how to tie down loads. Their new skills will be used in the community on the weekly rubbish collection truck, sand delivery, ceremony work, as well as the Alcan G3 landscaping. Well done to Janet Howarth, Raymond Dickinson, Victor Ndaomanu, Phillip Marawili, Orient Kapu, Charlie Wanabi, Jacob Wunungmurra, Wilson Malupo and Graham Baulch It is a great story for the community at Yirrakala. My best wishes to them all as they put their new skills to work.
An exhibition from north-east Arnhem Land currently showing in Darwin has been bought by Janet Holmes Court who flew to Darwin to see a preview of the Yakumirri exhibition before it was opened. The exhibition consists of a large bark painting from each of the 15 Buku-Larrnggay Mulka Centre artists who have won a major Australian art award or had a successful solo exhibition. Artists from Yirrkala have won the $40 000 first prize in the Telstra National Aboriginal Art Award twice in the last three years. My sincere congratulations to Djambawa Marawili, Wukun Wanambi, Naminapu White, Galuma Maymuru and Gulumbu Yunupingu who have all had solo exhibitions in Melbourne, Sydney and Darwin and been completely sold out. As local member, I am enormously proud of their achievements and the commitments these artists have made in producing with pride their culture for the rest of us to share.
I am pleased to congratulate David Mitchell on being awarded the highest Rotary award, the Paul Harris Fellow award for his community service to the region. Dave has been a long-term resident of Nhulunbuy. For many years, he has taken an active role in community events and activities, particularly with Nhulunbuy Primary School where his drive and determination added many features to the school’s surrounds. He also saw the need to involve the students in the development of their surroundings. Dave was also involved in ensuring the skate park was constructed for the young people in the town. He trialled a youth cinema and, along with other volunteers, supervised screenings for the young children. Dave has also worked with the Aboriginal community encouraging the itinerants in particular to take more pride in their meeting places and clean up their rubbish. Dave spent time on the Community Benefit Committee and, through his involvement with local Yolngu, has enhanced his involvement on the committee. He encourages by example and he is a very worthy recipient of the Rotary award.
Alcan Gove announced Marissa Henderson, daughter of Ed and Judy, as the recipient of the Dr Doettling Tertiary Scholarship for 2005, which carries an annual bursary of $4000 for the duration of undergraduate studies. Marissa is currently studying a Bachelor of Biomedical Science at the University of Queensland. On completion of these studies, she hopes to qualify for the postgraduate intake into medicine. Marissa is an outstanding candidate for this award and demonstrates a breadth of achievement both personally and academically. I congratulate her and wish her well. I am sure Ed and Judy are enormously proud.
The annual Garma Festival was held at Gulkala, 30 km from Nhulunbuy, last week, fostering relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians and promoting reconciliation. This year’s topic was indigenous cultural livelihoods. It attracted academics from within Australia and overseas to participate in forums and enjoy the cultural dancing from various clans represented from Arnhem Land, a significant cultural event appreciated by all spectators. My congratulations to Galarrwuy, Mandawuy, the Yothu Yindi Foundation, sponsors and organisers for a very successful festival. My thanks to those of my parliamentary colleagues who travelled out on the Monday to share in the activities of Garma.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about a woman by the name of Sally Goodin who is very well known in Alice Springs. Sally was born Sachiko Kura, a Japanese lady, the most diminutive, tiny, petite, small - call it what you will - woman in Alice Springs with a heart as big as you could ever imagine.
Sachiko-San, known as Sally to her friends and family, was born on 22 July 1929 in Osaka, Japan. I will read this eulogy as it was read by her son, Cameron Goodin, in Alice Springs just recently.
During the funeral service at the chapel in Kidman Street, several poems were read out and I would like to read them into the Parliamentary Record also.
This reading was by Bruni Hapke, a good friend, on behalf of Lyn and Cam:
Leave granted.
I would like to thank everyone who was involved in the Stuart campaign. It is a particularly difficult seat to campaign in because of its size and shape, and the difficulties in getting to a lot of the communities. It takes many people, a lot of commitment by people, and some pretty detailed planning to get around to 53 polling places spread between as far north as Yarralin and Pigeon Hole, right out to the Western Australia border right through to Nyirripi and across the Centre – Ti Tree and Willowra - and then up to Utopia and Ampilatwatja. You certainly have to do a bit of travelling.
The first person I want to thank is my wife, Thea. Whenever I think about what it takes to stay in public life, your whole family has to saddle up to keep us in here doing the work that we are doing for the Territory community. All our family pick up some of that load. Clearly, I want to pay tribute to the nine years that she has supported me in public life and all the wonderful things she has done for me in previous jobs that I have held over the years. I hope I have returned her support. There has been some tough asks to cover for our family and Thea is just fantastic the way she supports me.
Another special person I want to thank is my friend and campaign manager for the western side of the electorate, Karl Hampton, who gave up his time during the campaign to get around all of the western communities, Nyirripi and Yuendumu, Yuelamu, Laramba, and then I saw him up again at Ti Tree and Alyuen and Willowra. You get very close to people doing this work and Karl is a fantastic friend and comrade to have in doing this.
On the western side, I would have to complete the picture with Marg Riley and Robin Granites who helped with getting us around. I would lose count of the number of people who lined up at Yuendumu – Connie Rice, Robbie Wallit, and James Marshall – there were just so many people along with Robin and it was just great to be there. It is like it is my hometown and, boy, did people turn out on the day to give us a hand. Thank you to everyone at Yuendumu and Nyirripi, all the western side. They have stuck with me over 20 years now and it is great to be able to go back and repay some of the loyalty they have shown me.
Despite the intensity of the campaign, one of the things that jumps out in my memory is Karl had this great idea of borrowing a vehicle up at Ti Tree to get us around to the Anmatjere communities; he borrowed a Toyota single cab ute. That was all right in theory but one of our main campaign workers who was helping us there was Big Billy Woods and he is well known. If you can imagine someone slightly bigger than John Ah Kit, that is Big Billy. So Big Billy got into the single cab ute and Karl and I had to fit in there somewhere as well. Karl was driving so that did not leave a lot of options for me. I ended up straddling the gear stick. It was all right in first but when you got into second or fourth things got pretty exciting! You could have almost thought you were having an endoscope! We did get round and it was great to have a local car with the proper colour of a bush electorate campaign.
Thanks to Clarrie Robinya for his work in Laramba, Yuelamu, and Utopia. Clarrie just got around, reminding people of the real big issues in the electorate: the fact that it still is about country, it is about family, it is about basic services, no matter what other fancy things you want to do. That is what people out there care about. It is culture, country, houses, schooling, and health, and Clarrie is a great one to really get people thinking about what they should base their decisions on and not all the mirror tricks that sometimes come in to a campaign.
Jasper Haines, Simon Gorey, Tony Scrutton, Gean Martin, who was the owner of the ute, Betty Carter, Teddy Long, Dennis Beadman all helped us through the Anmatjere area and they were fantastic. There were some tricky issues going through there, and they really supported our campaign and our position that we were putting to the electorate.
Thanks to other gangers, Judy and Graham Buckley, who put in a fantastic job in two ways. Judy was processing all the information that comes in from 53 places around the electorate over 10 days and, as a candidate, there is nothing worse in not knowing what is going on around you. Judy kept all that together and was able to give me an ongoing picture of how we were going. Graham started by covering the polling in the town camps and then went out to Utopia and spent five days going to every little place that constitutes the Utopia area.
Robyn Freeman went to Camel Camp and Three Bores to cover the polling there. Ahmet Latifoglu is a fantastic scrutineer - I have never seen better than Ahmet. He provided absolutely accurate information on what was going on.
Some of the other Yuendumu people, Otto Simms, Neville Poulson, and over at Utopia, Gilbert Cobert, who visited and explained in Alyawarra language the issues that we were talking about; Motorbike Paddy, Lennie and Freddie Jones, and Lena Pula all travelled around the Mosquito Bore area in Utopia; Amy Namanadi helped at Camel Camp.
Going on, Tom Kairupan, Nigel Morton, Banjo Morton were at Ampilatwatja. Ampilatwatja turned out in big numbers and gave me fantastic support up there. They are a very strong community and we want to go back through Utopia and the Anmatjere area and work really solidly with the Anmatjere and Alyawarra people on the regional development planning processes.
Cabinet is going to be up there to talk about the longer term and wider plans for that area. It is an area that is often forgotten, with the bigger and more prominent communities such as Yuendumu, Lajamanu or Kalkarindji which are always in the public eye. I want to go back to those areas and really start working in detail with people to see if we can get some new services starting to happen there. Thanks to Paul Quinliven for looking after my gangers around that Ampilatwatja and Utopia area.
Another happy memory I have is Alex and Jo Sherin, who were managing the store at Ampilatwatja. They all turned up in bright pink wigs and bright T-shirts. So we turned the whole thing into a circus, which is always a bit unpredictable. Just when I thought I was coping with what Alex and Jo were doing, Morgan Flint turned up wearing my corflutes as a sandwich board. It was all right. I could handle the corflutes bouncing around the sports weekend oval, but his hairy legs underneath them were pretty unforgettable. I have a photo of it and I am threatening him with it at the moment.
Finally, up in the Victoria River area, Sean Heffernan, JP and MP - otherwise known as Justin Paddy and Michael Paddy - and Ros Frith and Perkins were just fantastic getting around the polling in that area.
Members might see - and probably it is no different in their electorates - that you need a lot of people to get elected in the Territory even though there are only a bit over 4000 voters that you are trying to encourage to vote for you. You need an awful lot of helpers to get round, and in a bush electorate that means people who are prepared to jump in a car and travel very long distances to help you out. So thanks to everyone who helped me in doing that.
The last thing I will say before I sign off is that, while all this was going on, my ministerial office was ticking over - even in caretaker mode you still have to make sure that the day-to-day needs of the Territory are being serviced - and also the Office of Central Australia. So to all the staff there, well done on keeping everything together while we went off and got ourselves re-elected. My thanks to everyone. I promise I will certainly work very hard over the next term of government to repay you.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have been very busy in Alice Springs lately. There have been some wonderful things happening and I would like to report on some of them tonight. The Zonta Club of Alice Springs is only a small group of women, but they took on a task to provide 1000 birthing kits to women in Ethiopia. This was a project that commenced with the Adelaide Hills club to assist women in developing countries, and I know it has expanded to many of the Zonta Clubs around Australia. If you can imagine, these birthing kits include a large sheet of black plastic, gauze pads, several pieces of string, a razor blade and latex gloves, all folded into a small plastic zip lock bag; simple, practical, basic materials. Those little kits will assist many women in Ethiopia for whom natural childbirth is not a choice - nor does childbirth often take place in a clinic or hospital.
Members of the Zonta Club of Alice Springs got together, and were also joined by Quotarians, Kiwanis, as well as Kate Lawrence from 8CCC, and some other members of the community. They were able to assemble 1000 birthing kits which are going to the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital in Ethiopia. Just by this simple gesture, they are going to assist many women in that country with childbirth.
I just want to say to the Zonta Club of Alice Springs, even though I know you are very small, I think your heart is in the right place and to do a simple task like this was great. I thank Kate Lawrence from 8CCC who interviewed the assembled teams and gave them publicity for what they had done. Her story was broadcast through 8CCC, so many thanks to everyone. It is an AusAID project; 50% supported by AusAID and 50% by the Zonta Clubs, but it was particularly nice to know that there are a number of service clubs involved in that.
When I talk about service clubs, some time ago I had an approach by some police officers who ran the Blue Light Disco in Central Australia on a voluntary basis. They were seeking money to buy equipment. Every time they want to put on a disco they would have to go out and borrow or beg from different businesses. We approached the Rotary Club of Alice Springs-Mbantua. They did apply for a grant through the Community Grants Scheme for the Blue Light Disco but, unfortunately, were unsuccessful in that application. Warren Serone, who had been the president of the Life Education Unit, came to see me. Unfortunately, the Life Education Unit folded. It was getting a little old and there are other priorities for people, it was a bit hard to keep going again, so they wound up that particular organisation. There was nearly $10 000 left over, and Warren agreed, when he heard about the dilemma of the Blue Light Disco officers, to give the money to the Rotary Mbantua Club which, in turn, bought the equipment. We had this wonderful morning tea where they presented it to the police officers so that they will have the equipment to run their Blue Light Discos without having to run around and chase it.
The Blue Light Disco team is now in the Crime Prevention Section of the police department, and I believe that is an excellent idea because it no longer relies just on voluntary time given by the police officers. The police officers who run it will actually be on duty and, of course, they would encourage other police officers to come along and volunteer their time.
This equipment was high-tech, far outside my expertise. Certainly, the mixer machines, the flashing lights and the amplifiers looked very flash to me. I believe they are going to start off by training some of the students from secondary schools to run this equipment. I am quite sure it will be a great initiative. I look forward to having more Blue Light Discos in Central Australia. They are a great way to get kids involved. We are often saying that kids say they do not have enough to do. It was extremely successful, and I guess one of the communities in Central Australia, Kintore, has proven how successful they are.
I want to thank Warren Serone first, for his initiative in approaching me with this money that was available; I want to thank the Rotary Club of Alice Springs-Mbantua for being sponsors and taking carriage of this particular grant; and, then most of all, I want to thank the police who have become involved in this project. It will be one of those small projects that will benefit so many young teenagers in town. I certainly look forward to their first use of the equipment.
I was also very pleased to launch the Alice Springs 2005 Desert Festival. I know the Darwin Festival is on at the moment. The Alice Springs Festival has grown considerably over the last few years. It is now a 10-day event with over 100 activities – workshops, conferences, etcetera. The festival includes live performance and workshops with artists from Alice Springs, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Tahiti, Sydney, Adelaide, and Melbourne. Alice Springs also plays host to the Sixth National Indigenous Dance Conference.
There are a few different things occurring this year with the Alice Festival. This is the program, and you can see that the cover is very colourful. That was the result of a poster competition, and the winner of that competition was Brett Jacobs, and his poster has been used on the cover of the program. This program will be delivered to every household in Alice Springs. The festival starts with a street parade, which is a great time to get together, walk along, sing, drum, whatever you wish to do. They have created what they call their hub space. For those people who know Alice Springs, it is down by the Anzac Oval on the banks of the Todd River. It will be a hub for all the activities occurring during the festival. You will be able to go there and join in any of the workshops that will be going on. There are far too many activities for me to go through, but you can imagine the variety is great.
What is wonderful about the Alice Springs Festival is that it brings out the wealth of talent and creativity that we have in the Centre. I do not think people realise what a wonderful inspiration the Centre is to people. We talk about the art of Alice Springs, but this is music, dance and creativity of a different type. At the launch, it was also announced that Jetset Travel was going to promote ‘fly a friend’, so there was a competition. Everyone in Alice Springs has a friend somewhere else so, if you wanted to enter this competition, you could. I thank Jetset Travel for their contribution.
Jacinta Castle sang a song that she had written herself and that was very nice. Jacinta is a local lass. There were two models, Russell Satour and Terika Holroyd. Terika had on one of the wearable arts costumes that won, and it was the most inspiring garment that won last year. The Wearable Works of Art occurs after the festival, but it is one of those events that you have to be inspired. People actually come up with these wonderful garments that they have made themselves. The one Terika had was particularly beautiful and she looked very beautiful herself, being such a lovely, slim, young lady.
I want to commend Clive Scollay who is Chairman of the Volunteer Committee. He and his band of volunteers including Robyn Van Dok, my electorate officer, have done a wonderful job in pulling this program together. Craig Mathewson is the Director of the Alice Desert Festival this year and Craig has been most enterprising and creative in what he has put together. Bryony O'Callaghan and Nicky Schonkala are just two of the other people who have been down there helping to coordinate the event.
I know the Alice Springs Festival is going to be a great success this year. BassintheDust will occur on the Saturday before the final night of the festival which is the Sunday so there is going to be a smorgasbord of entertainment and different activities for people to get involved in.
I just say to the Alice Springs people: please get behind your festival committee, get behind this Alice Springs Desert Festival. It is probably one of the greatest things to happen. It says to the people that we are just not just a desert town with beautiful mountains and scenery; we are also a town with a huge amount of talent.
I seek leave to table that program.
Leave granted.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I acknowledge the achievements of a Katherine identity, Bob Mackie. Bob Mackie was honoured on 14 June this year for the Best Work for the Dole Supervisor in the Prime Minister’s Work for the Dole Achievement Awards 2004, which is a pretty remarkable achievement considering this is a national award.
Bob’s commitment to the Work for the Dole program while supervising the Rotary Park Activity Centre in Katherine has been unstinting from the beginning. With the support of the Rotary Club of Katherine, Bob raised $350 000 to ensure that the Activity Centre project became a reality. His personal dedication to the project has been unwavering and his infectious humour, patience and motivation to all who had the opportunity to work with him was a joy to experience. I have to add here that in all the years I have known Bob - and that has been about 17 - I have never seen him in anything but a happy frame of mind. Humour is definitely his best medicine.
The participants in the Work for the Dole Scheme utilise practical skills and were only too eager to work with Bob and have taken great pride in their accomplishments in the Rotary Activity Centre. Bob was presented with his award at a Canberra function which he attended with Senator Nigel Scullion.
I would also like to mention the wonderful support of the Katherine Rotary Club and the community work coordinator at ITEC Employment who assisted Bob at every opportunity. Well done. They deserve some of this award too.
Rotary Park has become a great meeting place for families, and for groups who wish to hold functions in the evening, and for varied groups and individuals who utilise the great activities that have been so thoughtfully designed and planned around the activity park. Some of the things they have are mini golf, giant hopscotch, giant chess, bike tracks by the metre, giant draughts, multiple bike tracks around the back, shaded areas to sit in out of the sun and, of course, plenty of seating. All age groups are encouraged to use the park.
It first began as a Rotary Park for teaching people to drive. It was for road testing, road skills and to learn bike safety with helmets, etcetera, but it went by the wayside and Rotary Park had it sitting there for about five or six years doing absolutely nothing. Bob and a group of men decided that they would transform it into something that was worthwhile for the community and they have certainly done that.
If you are very lucky when you go to Rotary Park, Bob just might happen to be lighting up the barbecue for a relaxing meal. I want to congratulate Bob for a well-deserved award and one that he was very proud to go to Canberra to receive. He had to go a buy a new suit, by the way, to go to Canberra and he was fairly chuffed. Unfortunately, Bob’s celebrations were short lived as while he was returning from Canberra his mother-in-law died suddenly in England, and to add to the distress of the whole situation, Bob’s wife, Edith, was planning at that time to go to England for her mother’s funeral but, while Bob was returning home, she was admitted to Katherine Hospital with a heart condition.
So Bob arrived home from an exciting trip with a wonderful trophy but an empty house and a deceased relative in England. I am pleased to say, though, that Bob’s wife, Edith, has recovered well, and that Bob and Edith are very proud of the outcome for Rotary Park Katherine. I wanted to place on the record tonight how proud we are of all the work that he has done voluntarily and the inspiration that he has been to many unemployed people who have not had the opportunity for work anywhere else. He has given them some self-confidence and self-esteem. For that, I congratulate him. Well done, Bob.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to talk about a few very interesting constituents and the stories of their lives and how they came to the Territory.
In particular, I want to talk about a Wagaman constituent with an amazing history, an incredible asset to any community in which he chooses to live. I am talking about Andrew Kazamias who, together with his wife, Androula, came to Australia in November 1974 as a refugee from Cyprus where his family had lost all their businesses and property.
He married Androula in Cyprus; however, Androula was originally from Darwin so they came here. When Andrew came to Darwin he could not speak a word of English. He was fortunate to get a job with Colemans Printing and, even though he could not speak a word of English, he could read it and it was soon obvious that he was a brilliant printer. He could operate three machines simultaneously in the days of the letter press and became a valued employee in a very short time.
However, tragedy struck in the form of Cyclone Tracy in 1974. Andrew and Androula were among the first to be evacuated from Darwin, suffering horrific injuries. Androula was practically cut in half through the stomach and Andrew was in danger of having his arm amputated at the shoulder. There is, obviously, another story here of how these two survived their evacuation, their injuries, and the ordeal of recovery interstate. No doubt, it is a difficult tale to tell.
However, in about April the following year, Colemans received a phone call out of the blue from Andrew saying he was again looking for a job. He was told to get back to Darwin as fast as possible and, within weeks, he was back. That was May 1975. Androula ended up going through eight serious operations in Sydney as she was sewn back together and did not get back to Darwin until 12 to 18 months after Andrew.
By 1982, Andrew had worked his way up to Production Manager and, in 1986, Andrew took on more and more responsibility and was effectively No 2 to Gary at Colemans. By 1992, he actually became General Manager and still holds that position today and the age of 56.
Androula, despite her serious injuries and many operations, went on to produce two beautiful daughters with Andrew, the eldest having just had a baby and the youngest turning 21 at the end of July. It is people like Andrew and Androula who make the Territory such a fantastic place to live and work. Opportunities abound and people like Gary Coleman are well recognised for giving people a chance. In this case, Gary has also been rewarded in finding a man such as Andrew on whom he can rely so totally.
Here is a great story of people who came to Darwin from Cyprus and who have made a great success of their lives. They have a wonderful house, a wonderful family, and Andrew has made such a contribution to Colemans, which incidentally won a Telstra Small Business award. I think they are in the finals, which will be judged very soon. Andrew has been a backbone of that company and I am sure that the Colemans join with me in wishing Andrew all the best and thanking him for his efforts over many years with Colemans Printing.
Tonight I would also like to talk about a valued employee from the public sector, and that is Kevin Williams also from Wagaman, who retired from the Northern Territory Public Service on Friday, 1 July 2005 after conscientiously serving the Northern Territory for a period of 26 years.
Kevin joined the Northern Territory government in 1979 coming from the Country Roads Board of Victoria to head up the Bridge Section of the Roads Division. For over 10 years, he was a dynamic and persuasive bridge engineer. Kevin was renowned for his sense of adventure, infectious sense of fun and can-do attitude. A number of colleagues have said that he was far-sighted and a visionary, and that he cared greatly for the community and the people around him. One in particular remembers his attitude as being ‘nothing is impossible, the impossible just costs a little more’.
Kevin has overseen many major projects such as the Channel Island bridges, Bagot Road Flyover, the Rapid Creek and Trower Road pedestrian bridges, and the Daly River crossing. Following a decade of achievement in this field, Kevin transferred to senior management roles in the portfolios of Lands, Housing, Libraries and Local Government. He also spent a period of time in the policy, intergovernmental and operational functional areas in the delivery of health services in the Northern Territory.
Kevin returned to Transport and Infrastructure roles for the department in 2002, and was responsible for project managing the delivery of much of the government’s infrastructure programs. We know that since this government came to power there has been record spending on capital works expenditure. There has certainly been a lot going on, and it is people like Kevin Williams who have really carried that capital works program and brought it into fruition. Kevin has a Diploma in Civil Engineering and a Postgraduate Diploma in Executive Management. He is a well-respected member of his department, and has provided support and guidance to all staff in the department on infrastructure-related issues.
I take this opportunity to wish Kevin and his family all the best for the future. I happened to be doorknocking in the area, probably a month or two ago, and there was Kevin. He has his boat ready, and all the gear in there - his anchor and fishing gear. I wish Kevin all the best fishing and just say I am more than just a little jealous. Kevin, you have earned your retirement. You have certainly contributed much to the Northern Territory. We will sorely miss your expertise, but I am sure you have mentored many younger people to come up through the ranks and succeed you, and now the baton rests with a whole new generation of engineers.
Tonight, I would also like to mention someone who also made a very solid contribution to the Northern Territory Public Sector, and that is Tony Sinclair, who retires after having served the Northern Territory for almost 25 years. Tony transferred from the Commonwealth to join the then Department of Transport and Works, Public Works Division, when the Northern Territory attained self-government in 1978. Following periods in Public Works administration and managing the Essential Services Group, he moved to Transport Division’s Executive Officer Marine in 1984, and later worked in a range of policy and regulation areas, including Transport Planning and Road Transport.
Tony took on the role of Government Printer from 1991 to 1993, before returning to Transport as Manager, Strategic Planning in the Transport Planning Branch. He was appointed Director of Road Transport in 1995, including the role of Registrar of Motor Vehicles. In late 2003, Tony was appointed Senior Director, Transport. During his time with Transport, Tony has represented the Northern Territory government on numerous national committees engaged in formulating transport policy.
He first became involved in the machinations of the Australian Transport Council in 1984, and Tony said, he thinks not much has changed. I think that is a bit tongue in cheek, because I know he has made a great contribution to that forum.
I take this opportunity to thank Tony for his outstanding contribution to the Northern Territory, and to wish him, and Andy, all the best for a fulfilling retirement. I, as a minister, would like to put on the record that Tony, as a public servant, gave expert, fearless advice. What I always liked about Tony was that he had an infectious sense of humour and a lot of wisdom, because Tony had been around a long while. I will certainly miss his advice and his personal presence in meetings, because Tony had a mischievous sense of humour and we certainly appreciated it. Once again, we wish him a great retirement and I hope to see him in and about Darwin.
Tonight, I would like to talk about a very special constituent, because some people retire and then start work. Such is the case with a Jingili constituent of mine, Mr Barry Levarde, who retired from teaching at the then Northern Territory University a few years ago, and started up his own business training in chainsaw operation, urban forestry and tree felling. Since starting his business, Barry has continually travelled to remote communities doing great work passing on his skills. Whenever I travel out to those communities, all I ever hear about Barry Levarde is the respect that Aboriginal people hold him in, and the way they like his teaching style and technique.
Barry is committed to training Aboriginal people across the Top End, equipping them with the knowledge and qualifications to find satisfying employment, especially to support their own local community. Having skills with a chainsaw is certainly one way you can do that. What became evident to me after Cyclone Ingrid, when I saw Aboriginal people both at Warruwi and Minjilang operating chainsaws in a safe and effective way, was that I knew that Barry Levarde had been there passing on that knowledge. It is a very practical skill, and I know that Aboriginal people appreciate Barry’s efforts in that regard.
Barry’s trainees - and I am talking about Cyclone Ingrid here - were well able to safely and efficiently cut up and remove dangerous debris. This experience saves remote communities large sums of money not having to fly in professional tree loppers to deal with this situation. Barry’s support was recently recognised in Groote Eylandt, where the GEMCO magazine told a story of an enormous and dangerous mahogany tree which needed removal. This tree was ‘scary, dangerous and high risk’, the author reported. Barry – ‘chainsaw and tree guru’ – was on hand to help out. He had been on Groote Eylandt training nine new members of the rehabilitation and mine services crew in chainsaw, tree felling and advanced tree felling. Again, an opportunity presented itself for his trainees to excel in the safe removal of this tree.
I commend Barry on his good work, in which he gives over and above for his trainees to ensure that they are properly and thoroughly trained in this dangerous activity.
I would also like to place on the record that Barry is involved in a number of other educational programs on remote Aboriginal communities and I will talk about that at another date. However, enough said, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have highlighted the contribution of important members of my electorate to the Northern Territory community.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 4
Message No 4
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from His Honour the Administrator Message No 4 notifying assent to bills passed in the June/July 2005 sittings.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Batchelor Institute accompanied by Ms Ren Barnett.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Michael and Ann Barrett
Michael and Ann Barrett
Madam SPEAKER: I advise of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mr Michael Barrett AM, the Official Secretary to Administrators of the Northern Territory from 1979 to 1991, and the former Executive Director of the Australian Red Cross NT Division, and Mrs Ann Barrett, the official Secretary to former Administrator Jock Nelson from 1971 to 1975 and a Cabinet officer with the Northern Territory government for 15 years. On behalf of honourable members I extend a warm welcome to all our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I advise honourable members that on 11 July 2005, His Honour the Administrator made the following appointments of ministers of the Northern Territory:
- Clare Majella Martin: Chief Minister; Minister for Tourism; Minister for Asian Relations and Trade;
Minister for the AustralAsia Railway; and Minister for Indigenous Affairs.
Sydney James Stirling: Treasurer; Minister for Employment, Education and Training; and
Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing.
Peter Howard Toyne: Minister for Justice and Attorney-General; Minister for Health; and
Minister for Central Australia.
Paul Raymond Henderson: Minister for Business and Economic Development; Minister for Police,
Fire and Emergency Services; Minister for Regional Development; Minister for Defence Support; and
Minister for Essential Services.
Christopher Bruce Burns: Minister for Planning and Lands; Minister for Infrastructure and Transport;
Minister for Public Employment; Minister for Corporate and Information Services; and Minister for
Communications.
Konstantine Vatskalis: Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries; Minister for Mines and Energy; and Minister
for Multicultural Affairs.
Marion Rose Scrymgour: Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage; Minister for Parks and Wildlife;
Minister for Arts and Museums; Minister for Young Territorians; Minister for Women’s Policy; and Minister for
Senior Territorians.
Elliot Arthur McAdam: Minister for Local Government; Minister for Housing; and Minister assisting the
Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs.
Delia Phoebe Lawrie: Minister for Family and Community Services; and Minister for Sport and Recreation.
Changes to Northern Territory Public Sector structures were made on the same day as the appointment of the new ministry to complement the new ministerial arrangements and reflect the priorities of the new government.
I table a copy of the Administrative Arrangements Order made by His Honour the Administrator on 11 July 2005 which sets out the new ministerial arrangements and public sector structures.
OPPOSITION OFFICE HOLDERS
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I wish to advise the parliament of some changes to the arrangements for the opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: Could you just seek leave first?
Ms CARNEY: I seek leave to make a statement regarding changes to the arrangements for the opposition.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: The changes are as follows:
- Jodeen Carney: Leader of the Opposition; Justice and Attorney-General; Police, Fire and Emergency Services;
Planning and Lands; AustralAsia Railway; Defence Support; and Women’s Policy.
Fay Miller: Deputy Leader of the Opposition; Tourism; Mines and Energy; Primary Industry and Fisheries;
Transport and Infrastructure; Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage; Regional Development; and
Senior Territorians.
Richard Lim: Opposition Whip; Health; Family and Community Services; Essential Services;
Corporate and Information Services; Communications; Local Government; Housing; Multicultural Affairs; and
Central Australia.
Terry Mills: Treasury; Employment, Education and Training; Racing, Gaming and Licensing; Asian Relations
and Trade; Business and Economic Development; Indigenous Affairs; Public Employment; Parks and Wildlife;
Sport and Recreation; Arts and Museums; and Young Territorians.
I seek leave to table the arrangements as soon as I have made a suitable photocopy of same.
Leave granted.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Chief Minister and Member for Fannie Bay
Chief Minister and Member for Fannie Bay
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the Chief Minister for this sittings week. I do so because the Chief Minister, as we speak, is in Jakarta, Indonesia. It is not only her first overseas mission since becoming Asian Relations and Trade minister for this government, it is a unique opportunity not only to meet with President Yudhoyono. She was, in fact, invited to participate in the celebrations for the 60th anniversary of their independence.
We in the Northern Territory ought be very proud that the Indonesian government has seen fit to invite the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to participate in the commemoration and celebrations of what is to them a very special occasion, the 60th anniversary of their independence.
The Chief Minister will also meet with the Indonesian Minister for Foreign Affairs, the state Minister for Culture and Tourism, and the Director-General for Foreign Trade. All members would recognise that Indonesia represents not only our nearest neighbour, but one of the most important countries in terms of international relationships.
In the meeting with the President, she will discuss the BIMP-EAGA Plus One Forum – Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, East-Asian Growth Area, and, of course, the Plus One now includes the Northern Territory as a development partner. She will have further discussions with them about ongoing trade links, reconstruction efforts around Aceh and the Australian and Northern Territory governments’ involvement in that and, generally, issues of interest to both communities. Her meetings with other ministers and the Director-General will concentrate on cementing a closer working relationship and exploring business opportunities in her new ministerial role.
Madam Speaker, none appreciate the importance of a parliamentary sitting more than our Chief Minister. It certainly would have been her wish to be here for the full two weeks of sittings. Nonetheless, we have to recognise the importance of Indonesia as a friend to the Northern Territory - the size of the country, our ongoing links - and a personal invitation to attend a commemoration to meet with the President is a very special opportunity for the Chief Minister, and one that she really had no choice but to accept.
I move that leave of absence be granted to the Chief Minister for this week.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I wanted to comment briefly on the proposition put by the Deputy Chief Minister. I did not expect the arrogance of this government to creep in quite so quickly. There are only 33 days that this parliament sits; 33 days that all 25 of us need to rock up to every year.
This is the first full sitting after the election and, already, the Chief Minister has decided not to bother to turn up. She can afford to do that by dint of her numbers. However, I suspect this will not be the last time the Chief Minister pleases herself as to whether she turns up. There is a solemn duty that all of us undertake, Madam Speaker, as you know, when we are elected; the main one is to rock up to parliament. It is not a big ask in a small jurisdiction which sits for only 33 days.
Having said that, members and the general public will be well aware that during the last term of government, the opposition was snapping at the heels over and over again - encouraging, urging, imploring this government to get out and make the connections in Asia that are so important and that slipped under the watch of the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party.
We are encouraged that the Chief Minister - who incidentally offloaded many of her portfolios, we noticed after the election - has taken it upon herself to go to Indonesia. However, given that there are 365 days in the year, it is not too much to expect that she bother to turn up. It is unprecedented, as I understand it, that a Chief Minister in the Northern Territory’s Legislative Assembly is absent for one week. We all know that on occasion ministers need to be absent for a day or two. It is unprecedented that a Chief Minister decides not to turn up.
We only have the Chief Minister’s word, which is not worth much, Madam Speaker, that this was the only time she could do it ...
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Well, I do not believe the Chief Minister. She is always unbelievable. I note the member for Wanguri is twitchy early, which is always encouraging because it means that we are going to have a very entertaining sittings. I always know the button to press because the thug that is the member for Wanguri cannot help himself …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, withdraw, please.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw ‘thug’, Madam Speaker. In any event, I look forward to continuing to press his buttons; it is always entertaining. In any case, the point is well made. This is an arrogant government, an arrogant Chief Minister, who clearly shows her contempt for this parliament and Territorians.
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I believe the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks are both churlish and childish. She simply does not recognise that a 60th anniversary is on a specific date. There was no other opportunity, or to ask the Indonesian government to alter the date. It is simply a matter of history when this was to occur. The fact that it coincided with parliamentary sittings here is unfortunate. However, that is what has occurred.
The other point I make is that the Leader of the Opposition’s comments simply underline the luxury of opposition being able to have a little each way – you never back the winner straight out, you always sit on the fence and have a little each way.
In the lead-up to the election, the former spokesperson on these matters, the member for Blain, constantly criticised this government, the Chief Minister, the member for Wanguri, and others for lack of engagement with Indonesia. When an invitation – a particularly important invitation – is accepted by the Chief Minister, we are banged up again for being absent from parliament. So we are banged up if we turned up for being arrogant, in our numbers, and we are banged up if we do not turn up, because we are treating parliament with contempt. It would seem to me that that is a little too much of the each way proposition.
I have outlined the importance of the Chief Minister being in Indonesia at this time. I ask all members to support the motion that leave of absence be granted to the Chief Minister.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Public Accounts Committee – Change of Membership
Public Accounts Committee – Change of Membership
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Millner, Mr Matthew Bonson, and the member for Karama, Ms Delia Lawrie, be discharged from service on the Public Accounts Committee; and the member for Goyder, Mr Ted Warren, and the member for Drysdale, Mr Chris Natt, be appointed in their stead.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee – Change of Membership
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee – Change of Membership
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Sanderson, Mr Len Kiely, and the member for Millner, Mr Matthew Bonson, be discharged from service on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee; and the member for Brennan, Mr James Burke, and the member for Arnhem, Ms Barbara McCarthy, be appointed in their stead.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Privileges Committee – Appointment of Membership
Privileges Committee – Appointment of Membership
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in standing orders, the membership of the Privileges Committee comprise three government members, two members of the opposition, and one Independent member nominated to the Speaker; and the following members be appointed to the Privileges Committee: Mr Stirling, Dr Toyne, Dr Burns, Ms Carney and Mr Mills; and the committee shall elect a government member as chairman.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
House Committee – Appointment of Membership
House Committee – Appointment of Membership
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in standing orders, the membership of the House Committee comprise three government members, two members of the opposition, and one Independent member nominated to the Speaker; and the following members be appointed to the House Committee: Madam Speaker, Mr Vatskalis, Ms Sacilotto, Ms Carney and Mrs Miller, and the committee shall elect a government member as chairman.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Standing Orders Committee – Appointment of Membership
Standing Orders Committee – Appointment of Membership
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in standing orders, the membership of the Standing Orders Committee comprise three government members, two members of the opposition, and one Independent member nominated to the Speaker; and the following members be appointed to the Standing Orders Committee: Madam Speaker, Mr Henderson, Mr Burke, Dr Lim, Mrs Miller and Mrs Braham, and the committee shall elect a government member as chairman.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Subordinate Legislation and Tabled Papers Committee – Appointment of Membership
Subordinate Legislation and Tabled Papers Committee – Appointment of Membership
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in standing orders, the membership of the Subordinate Legislation and Tabled Papers Committee comprise three government members, two members of the opposition, and one Independent member nominated to the Speaker; and the following members be appointed to the Subordinate Legislation and Tabled Papers Committee: Mr Burke, Ms Sacilotto, Ms Anderson, Ms Carney and Mrs Miller, and the committee shall elect a government member as chairman.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Sessional Committee on Sport and Youth – Appointment of Membership
Sessional Committee on Sport and Youth – Appointment of Membership
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that:
- (1) a committee to be known as the Sessional Committee on Sport and Youth be appointed in accordance
with the terms of reference circulated to members;
two members of the opposition, and one Independent member nominated to the Speaker;
and Mr Wood; and
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Sessional Committee on Sport and Youth - Terms of Reference
Sessional Committee on Sport and Youth - Terms of Reference
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): I move that:
- (1) The Sessional Committee on Sport and Youth be empowered and, unless otherwise ordered, to inquiry into and
report on the delivery of sporting programs for the Territory’s youth, in particular:
- (a) the ability and effectiveness of existing structures and programs from grassroots to elite,
to deliver in urban, regional and remote areas, and recommendations for improvements;
(b) the role and benefit of School Sport NT programs and links to participation; and
(c) demonstrated links between participation in sport and reduced antisocial behaviour;
notwithstanding any adjournment of the Assembly. to adjourn from place to place and to have leave to report
from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and make such interim recommendations as it may
deem fit, and to publish information pertaining to activities from time to time;
and, unless otherwise ordered by the committee, a Daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as to take
place in public;
such subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine, and that the quorum of a
subcommittee shall be two; and
notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
- Motion agreed to.
WARRANT
Deputy Chairmen of Committees
Deputy Chairmen of Committees
- Pursuant to the provision of Standing Order 12, I hereby revoke all previous warrants nominating members to act as
Deputy Chairmen of Committees, and nominate the following members to act as Deputy Chairman of Committees:
Mr Wood and Mr Bonson, when requested so to do by the Chairman of Committees.
Given under my hand this 16th day of August 2005.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Presentation of Address-In-Reply
Presentation of Address-In-Reply
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise it is my intention to present the Address-in-Reply to His Honour the Administrator at Government House on Thursday, 25 August 2005. All honourable members will be requested to assemble at Government House at 11 am and accompany me to present the Address. A program and plan will be distributed to all members outlining the order of proceedings. A formal photograph of the members of the Tenth Assembly will be taken following the presentation of the Address-in-Reply.
PETITION
Protection of the Daly River
Protection of the Daly River
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 49 petitioners praying that the Daly River be protected for the benefit of all Territorians. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the Speaker and the Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned
respectfully showeth that the Daly River is a natural wonder of the Northern Territory and needs to be protected
now for the benefit of all Territorians.
We petitioners therefore humbly pray that:
- 1. the Northern Territory government immediately halt plans to subdivide pastoral leases in the
Daly Catchment for the intensification of agriculture;
2. the Northern Territory government immediately stop issuing tree-clearing permits and water
licences in the Daly Basin; and
3. the Northern Territory government initiate public consultation and research into economic strategies
for the Daly Catchment that do not result in large scale tree-clearing or intensive irrigation.
- And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
The CLERK: Madam Speaker pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to Petitions Nos 71 and 76 have been received and circulated to honourable members.
- Petition No 71
Bees Creek Kennels
Date Presented: 9 February 2005
Presented by: Mr Maley
Referred to: Minister for Local Government
Date response due: 15 June 2005
Date response received: 28 July 2005
Date response presented: 16 August 2005
- Thank you for your letter to the former Minister for Local Government dated 9 February 2005 forwarding the terms of a
petition (Petition No 71) read in the Legislative Assembly. Pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I hereby provide a
response for presentation to the Assembly.
The petition is addressed to the Litchfield Shire Council. The council is the most appropriate authority to deal with the
issue of concern to the petitioners.
The Litchfield Shire Council has, at this time, not introduced by-laws addressing dog control issues. This is a matter of
concern and these concerns have been raised with the Litchfield Shire Council. This council has, however, made
recent media statements advising that it is seriously considering a change to its policy and intends to introduce a form
of dog control.
Should the council fail to act there is power under the Local Government Act for a function to be declared a ‘core’
function of a council. There has been no declaration of animal nuisance and control as a core function at this time.
Should such a declaration be made it would be necessary to specify outcome standards and to require that a council
introduce measures to ensure such standards are met. Declarations of core functions and the declaration of standards
to be met would be made only where a serious situation exists and after discussions with councils.
The other Northern Territory legislation that may provide an option in dealing with nuisance caused by the barking of dogs
is provided in the Summary Offences Act under section 53D. This section deals with noise abatement orders and provides
that a court may make an order to stop, abate or confine noise and may specify the restriction of noise to certain hours or
impose such conditions as it thinks fit. The petitioners could, should they so wish, seek to have a court take action under
this provision.
Petition No 76
Objection to the Detention Facility at Marlow Lagoon
Date Presented: 4 May 2005
Presented by: Mr Dunham
Referred to: Minister for Justice and Attorney-General
Date response due: 12 October 2005
Date response received: 8 August 2005
Date response presented: 16 August 2005
- Since taking on the Family and Community Services portfolio, I have been fully briefed on this matter and, like my colleague,
the former minister, I fully support the actions taken by the department to comply with court orders made by magistrates in
the Family Matters Court.
There has been enough debate and politicising of this issue in recent months and I do not intend to engage in any further
discussion in this House about the circumstances of the client involved. Confidentiality and privacy are paramount and
are principles that I uphold.
The property in Marlow Lagoon is providing a therapeutic care environment in a community setting to meet the special
needs of an individual. The person will be cared for 24 hours a day, seven days a week and be supervised when participating
in activities in the community. This is not, in any way, a detention facility and, contrary to the rumours, it will not become a
group care facility.
The department had an obligation to talk with residents in the vicinity of the property about any potential impact on neighbours.
In the early stages of negotiations regarding the lease of the property, Family and Children’s Services staff did consult with a
number of residents. Once erection of the internal security fence began, other residents raised concerns. Both the
CEO of the Department of Health and Community Services and my predecessor, minister Scrymgour, were the first to
acknowledge that the department needed to undertake further consultation. This was swiftly actioned but, because the
department was not able to contact all residents in person, a letterbox drop was organised.
Through the department, the Northern Territory government is committed to providing appropriate care and support to
Territorians in their own community settings. I am, therefore, supportive of the use of the property at Marlow Lagoon and
know that others in the community are also supportive of community based care.
The former Minister for Family and Community Services has personally written to the petitioners about this matter.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Literacy Outcomes
Literacy Outcomes
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, in the first term of office, the Martin government undertook and achieved significant reforms in Employment, Education and Training. In this term of government, we intend, quite clearly, to continue that reform process. Last week, I announced the next round of community consultation on secondary education, focusing particularly on middle years learning. Today, I wish to place before the House further information on our efforts to improve literacy outcomes.
The National Accelerated Literacy Program was first trialled in the Northern Territory during 2001-03 in just six schools. That research trial pilot showed significant literacy improvements for targeted students in both urban and remote areas. In 2004, the Department of Employment, Education and Training, Charles Darwin University, and the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training commenced a partnership to move accelerated literacy from that pilot project to a jurisdiction-wide program by assuming the research and development responsibility of turning the successful pilot into a reproducible program in a unique partnership between government and university, and the lessons learned are expected to be of benefit across the country.
We have been given the national mantle of the lighthouse jurisdiction. During the pilot phase, the Northern Territory government contributed $0.49m. In 2004, the Northern Territory’s commitment increased to $1.95m per annum which will bring the Northern Territory government’s total estimated contribution of funding over the life of the project to $8.29m. The Australian government has matched that commitment by providing $8.6m over the four year period 2005-08.
The National Accelerated Literacy Program is an intensive teaching method and its expansion relies on a skilled group of trained coordinators, working in partnership with principals and teachers to create the environment for transforming student outcomes. The primary objective, of course, is to accelerate the reading skills of poor performing students to an age-appropriate standard. The project aims to train 700 Territory teachers to deliver the program to 10 000 students across 100 schools across the Northern Territory by the end of 2008. Charles Darwin University will carry out independent monitoring and evaluation of the project to provide a critical analysis of the outcomes.
To date, 121 teachers and about 80 teacher support staff have been trained across the Territory over the last year. An additional 11 schools began teaching the program, which brings the total number of Northern Territory schools now involved to 20. The target total of 100 schools will feature an increasing percentage of remote schools each year. By the end of the expansion project, 90 of the 100 schools would be in remote locations with largely indigenous student populations. In 2004, a total of 1446 target students were involved. In 2005, approximately 450 additional students joined the program. The data to date does show measurable improvements in literacy levels for accelerated literacy students. The accelerated literacy average shows gains of 1.61 reading levels per year.
It is an exciting program, one which is part of the Martin government’s commitment to improving education outcomes and moving the Territory ahead. We appreciate the Commonwealth’s involvement in this agreement over the next four years and their financial support for the project.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports the Accelerated Literacy Program and acknowledges the gains that have been made through a stronger focus on literacy across the curriculum. However, it demonstrates the need to go further than rhetoric, when we are speaking of reform, to seriously reform the way in which education is delivered in the Northern Territory.
The capacity to measure outcomes in education is the nub of this. For parents and, indeed, teachers to understand whether their child is actually progressing or gaining some competency in literacy or numeracy hinges upon accurate reporting that parents can understand. It also speaks of the need to seriously reform curriculum so that it focuses upon those core elements of education: reading, writing and arithmetic. At the moment, we are seeing gains delivered through accelerated literacy programs, and that is because it is a focus on one of the core aspects of education, literacy, and our young students are being provided with greater support.
If we were to restructure the way in which our curriculum operates, away from a curriculum that is a mile wide and an inch deep with no capacity for clear communication to parents across the board with reading, writing and arithmetic, we would make significant gains in education and make a real move to addressing the fundamental problem with education, which leads into the skills shortage. It starts with allowing students to understand how to read well and help parents understand how students are going.
Also, minister, there is an opportunity for you to have a look at the reports today on the ABC. You acknowledge you have not seen the sort of reports that parents are receiving from our education system. Have a look at them. They are filled with gobbledegook that parents cannot understand, and teachers themselves are confused by the reporting system.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I did have a look at a close analysis of northern suburbs primary school report - name excised of course - and my first impression was that it was a bit busy in terms of understanding the content of it. However, if you did take the time to start to read through it, I thought it gave a very good picture of that student’s progress within the system overall.
I accept criticism around reporting overall. Some schools are way out there in excellence, and some are very ordinary. We need to closely engage with the Commonwealth on this mandated A, B, C, D, E-type reporting. New South Wales and Western Australia are already in there; we will be in there. However, we have a body of work to do to make sure that the A at Papunya equates with the A at Parap in exactly where the student is at - it is not a Papunya A and a Parap A. There is a good deal of work to be done in and around that.
Whilst I would like to hear more of the member for Blain’s criticism around the NT curriculum framework being a mile wide and an inch deep, I do not accept that …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr STIRLING: I do not accept that. I would like to hear more and engage with him on that issue.
Public Housing – Installation of Smoke Alarms
Mr McADAM (Housing): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House on a program introduced by Territory Housing as part of our Quality Landlord strategy to install smoke alarms in all Territory Housing properties in the Northern Territory. This program has recently commenced in Nhulunbuy and, by the end of this month, tenders will be let to fit all urban dwellings with smoke alarms by the end of this year.
It is a very large project that is being undertaken, with some 6800 dwellings to be covered across the Territory at a cost of around $500000. In addition, by the end of February, we hope to have all government employee housing in remote areas also fitted with alarms.
For some time now, all houses that have been renovated by Territory Housing, as well as new dwellings such as the Fannie Bay Seniors Village, have been routinely fitted with smoke alarms. Whilst all of our new Territory Housing dwellings have smoke alarms fitted, there is, in fact, no legal obligation under the Building Code of Australia to retrofit older dwellings with smoke alarms. However, as I mentioned, under our Quality Landlord strategy, our goal is to provide safe, secure and affordable housing for all Territorians, and the provision of smoke alarms is an important step in achieving this goal.
I am also pleased to report that when the roll-out of smoke alarms commences in larger centres such as Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek, our earliest priority will be to fit dwellings occupied by our senior Territorians. It is important to note that all the work will be carried out at no cost to tenants.
In conclusion, the smoke alarms complement our security screening program, which is virtually complete across the Northern Territory.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the government for introducing the smoke alarm program. It is good to see that maintenance of our Territory Housing properties continues from the days of the CLP, which initiated the maintenance. With the extra funding that has been obtained by the Northern Territory through GST, we have been able to expand the program.
The retrofitting with smoke alarms of those 6800 homes is a good idea. Ironically, we will be debating uranium and nuclear waste later on today and I wonder whether Territory Housing staff are advising people with smoke alarms that there is a bit of radiation material inside the smoke alarms. I was going to use this for tonight’s adjournment but, looking at Territory Housing, this is more of a problem. I wonder whether you have done anything about that.
People are concerned about living in Territory Housing properties. You said, ‘… make sure that Territory Housing provides safe, secure, affordable housing’. This is not safe. This is not secure, and that is the problem. The minister should spend his time and energy looking at how we can protect Territory residents in Territory Housing properties.
Housing residents are living in fear, minister. I hope you read this newspaper article yesterday - there are families being threatened by people walking onto their property. All Territory Housing is saying is that there are six patrols a night to those properties. That is not good enough. Territory Housing people are saying: ‘We are putting like people with like people’. What are you saying? You are putting like people with like people into a property?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I believe members of the government should at least afford me some silence while I am talking.
It is wrong that people in Territory Housing properties are living in fear ...
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of Government Business!
Dr LIM: Make sure that the places are secure. Do not put like people in the same properties because what happens then is that the problems compound, and then you will have more and more properties around the Territory with residents living in fear of their own personal safety. It is just not on.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I will remind you that, as from the last sittings, it is my indulgence as the Chair that we allow the Independents to speak. It will be decided at the Standing Orders Committee meeting this Wednesday.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, thank you for your kind gesture on our behalf as Independents.
Minister, I thank you for that meeting we had in Alice Springs. I am looking forward to working cooperatively with you. You have many challenges ahead in your portfolio. I am pleased to see you are continuing the practice of smoke detectors which was introduced in 1997.
However, you are aware there are some problems with installing smoke detectors in some of the units. For instance, the batteries have to be changed every 12 months. You might find you need to get an army of volunteers to go around to the pensioner flats or the flats for disabled people to change those batteries. If you do not, they do become ineffective and useless. I hope, as part of your program, you have addressed that issue and are making sure that people who have these installed do not have to have the worry of making sure the battery is actually working.
You are also aware that one of the commonest uses of radioisotopes today is in household smoke detectors, as the member for Greatorex reminded you. This is one of the arguments that there are soft uses of by-products of uranium, and the smoke detectors we use today is one of them.
I am also looking forward to the response that you indicated you would give me after our meeting to address some of the issues in Alice Springs. I know you visited some of the places that I asked you to. I appreciate that, and I am quite sure people out there also appreciate the use of smoke detectors, particularly as we have had two houses burn down in the electorate of Braitling. Whether a smoke detector would have saved that house, I am not really quite sure.
Mr McADAM (Housing): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the opposition spokesperson on Housing, and the member for Braitling.
I believe the issue of smoke alarms is a very important one in the context of being able to provide all tenants who live in public housing an affordability of safety-type issues, not only for themselves, but for tenants who live in the near vicinity, and also those private sector dwellings which also are closely associated with those complexes.
Regarding the comments made by the member for Greatorex on antisocial behaviour, I am very much aware of what some of those issues are. They are not easy problems to resolve. However, I can assure the member for Greatorex that this government - not only now but in the past - has worked very hard in dealing with those issues. As you know, we have supplied all public housing across the Territory with security screens. We also have tenancy managers who are dealing with – if I can call them – problem clients on a daily basis or as required. These are people who might get themselves into trouble …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you time has expired.
Initiatives to Combat Petrol Sniffing
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, over the last week, there has been national attention on the devastating scourge of petrol sniffing in the Northern Territory. The focus has been on the coronial inquest being held in Central Australia into three deaths caused by petrol sniffing last year. This government welcomes the focus; the more attention that is paid to this problem, the better. We need a greater awareness of this tragedy in our community.
The previous minister, the member for Arafura, took up the challenge of tackling the scourge, and the Northern Territory is now leading the nation in the fight against petrol sniffing. As the new minister, I will be following on the good work and overseeing the progress of the initiatives that have been put in place.
In relation to the inquest that is currently under way, the government will wait for its conclusion and assess any recommendations.
In May this year, the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill was passed. The new act gives police and the courts the powers they need to tackle this problem, which include the power to seize petrol, to take people into a place of safety, and for courts to order compulsory treatment programs.
One of the best aspects of the VSA legislation is that it empowers the community to deal with the problem. The VSA legislation has provisions for community management plans that cover issues such as appropriate places of safety and persons being authorised to seize petrol. The guidelines around this are very important and are an integral part of the legislation. My department is very busy consulting with communities and developing these guidelines and regulations. We will get this right, and we are looking forward to the legislation coming into effect early next year.
This legislation will be pointless without backup programs and services for treatment and rehabilitation. That is why this government has committed an additional $10m over the next five years. History has shown that the best programs are done in conjunction with communities. There is no point imposing programs without input from the community. A total of about $2m will be spent this financial year to provide a range of options for families, communities, police and other agencies to respond when people are at risk of serious harm from sniffing. These options will include remote outstations, community planning and skills development, rehabilitation facilities in Alice Springs and Darwin, and nursing positions to provide clinical support to outstations.
Services already funded include Ipolera and Ilpurla outstations, which have each received $25 000 as ongoing support. These, with Mt Theo outstation, will be supported to take court-ordered clients when they meet the required standards of care. Kintore has been funded for a worker to assist the community plan and implement an outstation service. Funding of $98 000 has been committed to assist with infrastructure development. A tendering process has commenced already for two new urban residential treatment services in Alice Springs and Darwin.
This financial year, $40 000 will also be spent providing practical information about the VSA legislation to magistrates, prosecutors, and defenders, and for the dissemination of more general information to communities and the public. Funding has also been allocated to assist communities to undertake planning and skills development to implement the act. To date, three communities in the Top End – Angurugu, Gapuwiyak and Millingimbi – have submitted ideas for funding. Support has also been provided to Ngukurr to develop bush camps which will partly focus on volatile substance abuse.
This $10m is being spent on real initiatives in urban areas and in communities, yet those opposite would argue that this $10m should be cut. We are spending more money across government on programs that assist with the fight. Our record spend on education in the bush plays a huge role, as does our spend on police. For example, in conjunction with the Commonwealth, we are building a new permanent police station at Mutitjulu.
The roll-out of Opal fuel is also going to be very important in the fight against petrol sniffing. I congratulate the federal government for their initiatives to date on this front, but we urge them to do more. We believe that Opal should be rolled out right across regions rather than individual communities. We understand the costs are significant, but the cost of not doing it is much higher. It is important to understand that the Commonwealth government is still taxing Opal fuel at a much higher rate than it is subsidising it. Canberra makes around $13bn from fuel taxes each year. Just $10m of this would make such a difference. However, we do not pretend that reducing the supply of sniffable petrol will solve the problem completely. That is why our legislation and our programs and services are so important.
Madam Speaker, last week, images of a sniffer at the inquest in Mutitjulu appeared prominently in national media outlets. They were disturbing images. The only good news is that we are acting to address exactly this situation.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, this government today talks about petrol sniffing in a ministerial report. This report was initiated by the Leader of the Opposition who said: ‘We are going to bring the debate on petrol sniffing into this Chamber this week’.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: This is how you react! In May you said: ‘We moved this legislation in May this year’. You have done nothing about it since then. This legislation has been assented to but when will it commence? ‘Oh, we are not going to do anything about it until - oh, yes, when? Early next year sometime’.
What are you doing? This was so important that you rushed this legislation through this year, and you have done nothing since then. It is full of rhetoric. Your intentions are great; your $10m over the next five years is fantastic. But do something for goodness sake! Don’t sit on your hands and pat yourselves on the back and say: ‘We have done so much for the Territory, we are going to do this, we are going to do that.’ Well, you are a ‘gunna’. You are forever ‘gunna’ do things.
I recall the time when Mrs Anne Frank in Alice Springs had a fantastic petrol sniffing program which you guys have forgotten about altogether. Petrol sniffing is a scourge in our society. In urban Alice Springs we are seeing it more and more. It is time you got serious and banned petrol sniffing as the opposition told you to do. Ban it - have some guts, do something about it instead of pussyfooting around saying: ‘Poor people, we are going to do this, we are going to do that’.
It is time you got serious with this issue. You cannot just talk and do nothing about it. There are people dying, or people now confined to wheelchairs, and it is costing us a lot of money. Do something and do something soon - not early next year; it is too late.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Thank you, Madam Speaker, again for your tolerance. Minister, thank you for your report but there are many issues out there which you have not addressed and you really need to.
At the Mutitjulu hearing, the issue of who is an authorised person to take the petrol off people was raised. Greg Cavanagh, the magistrate, felt quite helpless about it. It is time you identified this. I believe this may be a loophole in your legislation if you only authorise people such as police, community service workers and Night Patrol. If I, or someone else, see a petrol sniffer in town or in a community and feel that the petrol should be taken from them, then we need to know what rights we have to do that. That needs to be addressed fairly quickly. Who are these authorised people; what powers will they have, what training have you given them? That is something we have not heard about.
You talked about the urban facility. The urban facility is desperately needed in Alice Springs at the moment. The tender was let last month. Come on! It does not take that long to let us know who the tenderer is. You already have a facility in Alice Springs. You have Aranda House which has been sitting there and could be used. It has all the facilities you need but, for some reason or other, we still have this delay. It is too late to say we are going to do it early next year. We need action now and that is what the member for Greatorex was on about.
You talked about Opal fuel. Why should the people of the Territory be penalised for the actions of these few? If you put Opal across regions you know where they are going to come to get their fuel – they will come into towns. It did not work with alcohol by putting in dry areas; all you did was move the alcohol problem into town. You know that Opal fuel is about 35 dearer than normal fuel; well, we pay enough as it is. That is not a solution to have to cross regions and again penalise Territorians. You have to get the message through to communities and parents to take responsibility themselves to stop the scourge of petrol sniffing by making sure they take the fuel from people and not tolerate…
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, the shadow has cloth ears. There was quite specific detail about the action that is being taken by government. It is not just rhetoric; there is $2m expenditure this year. Money has already rolled out to communities. We have 12 communities identified already. Officers from the department are literally on the ground in communities, talking to them and identifying the authorised persons in those communities, which is part of establishing the regulations that will come through this year.
The work is being done. I have visited Aranda House. There is great potential around that facility. I am already putting thought into the tender process, about what type of facility there will be in Alice Springs. That tender will close soon.
This is all work happening under this government. It was not started before. We have had years of petrol sniffing in the Territory, as we know, but the previous CLP governments stuck their heads in the sand and ignored it. Go down to Canberra …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Shadow minister, go to Canberra and get your mates to spend money on petrol sniffing. Go down to Canberra and get them to put their money in our pockets, and give us some of the tax they have been taking.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
MOTION
Leave to move Motion – Proposed Nuclear Waste Site
Leave to move Motion – Proposed Nuclear Waste Site
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion forthwith condemning the Commonwealth government for planning to locate a nuclear waste dump in the Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Ms Carney: No.
Mr Mills: No.
Mr STIRLING: Do I have leave?
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
Mrs BRAHAM: There was a no, Madam Speaker.
Dr LIM: We said no, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, if it is not granted by leave, I will move to suspend standing orders.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion – Proposed Nuclear Waste Site
Move Motion – Proposed Nuclear Waste Site
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion forthwith condemning the Commonwealth government for planning to locate a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I understood …
Mr Stirling: The motion has been passed.
Ms CARNEY: No, it hasn’t.
Madam SPEAKER: The motion has been passed.
Ms CARNEY: We can still debate – I understand, Madam Speaker that …
Madam SPEAKER: I believe you cannot once the motion has been passed.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I understood that …
Madam SPEAKER: Is this a point of order, Leader of the Opposition?
Ms CARNEY: It is a point of order. I understood that the Acting Chief Minister moved for the suspension of standing orders and that we would, nevertheless, have an opportunity to debate that motion rather than going straight into the motion he intends to move; that is, the substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice from the Clerk.
The question has already been put and passed. I call on the Acting Chief Minister.
MOTION
Condemnation of Commonwealth Government - Proposed Nuclear Waste Site
Condemnation of Commonwealth Government - Proposed Nuclear Waste Site
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly request that:
- (a) the Commonwealth government honour its election promise to not locate a nuclear waste dump
in the Northern Territory;
(b) the Commonwealth government respects the sovereignty of the Northern Territory and this parliament
and does not take advantage of the fact that we are a territory and not a state;
(c) the Commonwealth government respects the Northern Territory’s legislation banning the transport and disposal
of nuclear waste in the Territory;
(d) Northern Territory members of the Commonwealth parliament stand up for the Territory and oppose the location
of a nuclear waste dump in the Territory and, if necessary, cross the floor in parliament; and
(e) the Speaker forward the terms of this motion and associated debate to the President of the Senate and Speaker
of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth parliament.
Madam Speaker, let us be very clear: this government will oppose the planned nuclear dump with absolutely the strongest possible action we can take at every step of the way. If it takes until 2011, including when the first shipment comes across the border, we will be in there boxing and fighting it.
There is no doubt that the Commonwealth government lied to the people of the Northern Territory and to the Northern Territory government. The Commonwealth government is taking advantage of us in the Northern Territory, and is not acting in accordance with the wishes of Territorians. This motion is all about making it very clear to Canberra that the Northern Territory government and the people of the Northern Territory will fight their plans.
Around July last year, this government became very concerned in relation to the Commonwealth government’s plans regarding a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. In July last year, the Commonwealth government announced that it had abandoned its plans to build a facility at Woomera in South Australia; the place that a scientific process had concluded was the best possible location in Australia.
At the same time, the member for Solomon opened the door to the Territory with his comments that it was our obligation to host this dump. The government acted immediately by very clearly stating our opposition to this dump being forced upon us.
In August last year, we introduced the Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Act. That was the strongest action we could take and it sent a very clear message to Canberra that the Territory would fight this. For a time, it looked to have worked because, less than two months later, in the lead-up to the federal election, the Commonwealth ruled out the Northern Territory.
On 30 September, just 10 days prior to that election, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, ruled out the Northern Territory. He said:
- Northern Territorians can take that as an absolute, categorical assurance.
Writ in concrete, Madam Speaker! He backed his statement up by saying:
- We have decided to be very open and honest about where we want to pursue a waste dump.
We now know that he was being the absolute reverse of that; he was, in fact, lying. It is not surprising then, when the Commonwealth decided to break this promise just before a federal election, that Senator Campbell was nowhere to be found or seen. He left it up to the Minister for Education, Science and Training, one Brendan Nelson, to carry it breathlessly to the national media airwaves.
The management of radioactive waste is a very important and complex issue. For the public to be able to understand this issue, they really do need to rely on an open and honest approach. As this debate unfolds, it is clear that Territorians will not be able to trust any of the information they receive from the Commonwealth government and its ministers on the issue, given their track record to this date.
Territorians were given a commitment. That commitment should have been honoured. It is as simple as that.
Territorians do not want this nuclear waste dump. It is a very clear message from the community, one that resonated very clearly, strongly and loudly through the show circuit where we are close to the people. I am surprised that the opposition, given that they were at some of the shows – they were not at Tennant Creek – did not get that message through their stall at the other shows.
People are angry that they were lied to, and that the Commonwealth government views the Northern Territory as a dumping ground. That is how they see us. As you would expect, groups such as the Environment Centre, the Arid Lands Environment Centre, and the Australian Conservation Foundation are all opposed to it. This is an issue that goes beyond those environmental groups, and it is noticeable how widespread the opposition to the dump is. Everyday Territorians do not want to know about this nuclear waste dump in their backyard.
Councils have opposed it. Pastoralists are concerned, AFANT is concerned, and the residents around the proposed sites are understandably concerned. Thousands of people have signed petitions to Canberra, and they keep coming in. Public meetings concerning this dump have been well attended in Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin. There was absolutely no consultation with anyone in the Territory prior to these plans being announced. The views of Territorians have counted for nought - absolutely nought - in this exercise.
As a government, it is absolutely our responsibility to do everything we can to ensure that the voice of the Territory is heard. It is incumbent upon government to speak on behalf of its constituents, and we will do this as loudly as we can - and unashamedly so.
As there has been absolutely no consultation, detail about the dump is very hard to source. One thing is clear: the dump proposed by the Commonwealth will contain the highest grade nuclear waste in Australia. It will include waste from the processing of nuclear fuel rods in France. The Commonwealth government is looking at transporting this waste in 112-tonne containers through Darwin Harbour and handling this waste at our port.
Radioactive waste from nuclear fuel rods in France coming through our harbour and handled in our port, we say is simply not on. They are not going to build a second dump so, into the future, this dump, presumably, is going to be home to all of the worst radioactive waste in this country.
Since the announcement, we have had numerous Commonwealth government people talk about how safe this facility will be. Just two weeks ago, Ian Macfarlane, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, said:
- This low-level waste is treated in such a way, and stored in such a way, that it presents no danger to the environment
or to the population around it.
Well, it begs the question: if that is the case, why would you transport it halfway around the country? If this waste poses no danger to the environment or the population, why don’t they simply leave it in Sydney? Why don’t they leave it where it is stored safely, causing no harm to the population or the environment right there in Sydney where it is generated? A good question to which, so far, we have been unable to elicit a response. The Commonwealth is very busy trying to convince Territorians that what is not safe for the people of Sydney or the rest of Australia is absolutely safe for the people of the Northern Territory. That is the nub of their argument.
The Northern Territory is not yet a state and we are all very aware of how the Commonwealth government can, at any time, override any Northern Territory legislation. We may not be a state, but we do have a self-government act. The Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act makes it very clear that the disposal and storage of hazardous, dangerous waste is the domain of the Northern Territory government. The Prime Minister, when speaking on this issue on 19 July last year, ruled out taking advantage of the fact that the Northern Territory is not a state when he said:
- The rights of the Territory will be no less respected than the rights of other parts of the country.
Well, he did not mean it. The Commonwealth government has now decided that they will take advantage of the fact that the Northern Territory is not yet a state. They are ignoring the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and our Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Act. The Commonwealth is absolutely riding roughshod over the Territory, not because it is right, but because it can. It is now a fact, of course, that the Howard government does not respect the rights of the Northern Territory as it does the rights of other parts of the country.
There are members of the Commonwealth government, including the member for Solomon, arguing that, because we have some low-level radioactive waste of our own, we should have no problem taking the rest of the nation’s waste, including the highest level waste in this country. It is true that at Royal Darwin Hospital, there is 1.8 m3 of low-level radioactive waste safely stored; 1.8 m3 of the lowest level radioactive waste. Compare this to 4000 m3 of waste, including the most dangerous in the country. That is what the Commonwealth government is planning on storing here.
The other myth pushed by proponents of the dump is that it will bring jobs and an industry. Well, it is a dump! It is a dump and not a research centre; there will be no industry. Lucas Heights in Sydney is where the research is carried out. It is fanciful to suggest that research will follow this dump. Last week, we heard the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation shoot down this myth around jobs when they said there would be perhaps eight jobs; not a big industry.
If we are worried about industry, let us look at the tourism industry, the biggest employer in the Territory. We will not scaremonger, but if the Howard government ignores the wishes of the Territory and proceeds with this plan, this government will do everything we can to make sure that our tourism reputation is not tarnished. However, we have already seen, quite quickly, stories in the international media about radioactive waste near Uluru. Those reports are quite clearly wrong, but it shows how damaging this dump could be because our tourism industry prides itself and trades on the fact that we offer a pristine environment. A nuclear dump does not invoke pristine thoughts.
The pastoral industry is another that could be affected. We have already seen pastoralists voice their concerns. They also trade on a pristine image for their product, and pastoralists have flagged fears that competitors to our live cattle industry may well use this against us.
I said earlier that Territorians do not want this nuclear waste dump and, on behalf of Territorians, we will fight plans for it all the way through. We are assessing legal and environmental options. We will do everything we can to express the views of Territorians to the Commonwealth government. This motion is about letting Canberra know where this parliament stands. We have not received, unfortunately, assurances from CLP members of the Commonwealth government that they will oppose their mates’ plans.
Senator Nigel Scullion, interestingly, sits right next door to Senator Barnaby Joyce in the Senate, and it would be instructive for Senator Nigel Scullion to have a little chat with Senator Barnaby Joyce about how he intends to vote in the Senate and about how he intends to support the people who voted for him and put him in the Senate.
Senator Joyce said last week that he would vote for the people who voted for him, not for the government. It is unfortunate that in the Territory, we do not have members of the Howard government who are prepared to stand up for the Territory in the same way that Senator Barnaby Joyce is very clearly going to stand up for the interests of Queenslanders.
The Commonwealth government is relying on them to help pave the way and get this dump imposed with a minimum of fuss. I say to the member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, and Senator for the Northern Territory, Senator Nigel Scullion, that Territorians put their trust in them at the last federal election, and they are relying on both of those members to stand up for the Territory.
It may well be a long fight, but it is a fight. Let us make no mistake: Territorians are up for the fight. Canberra’s plans are just that. They are plans, and we will fight these plans with every resource that we can bring to the table, including legal manoeuvres. We have received some preliminary legal advice as to what Territorians can do to try to prevent the nuclear dump. One of the difficulties, of course, is that the Commonwealth government has released very little detail about the exact nature of this dump. They have not been specific on where the waste will come from and the exact nature of the waste, nor have they been specific about how the waste will get here. The specifics, of course, would impact on the legal options open to this government, and which acts of parliament, both Territory and Commonwealth, would come into effect.
As I mentioned, Prime Minister Howard is on the record as saying that the rights of the Territory will be no less respected than the rights of other parts of the country. If that is the case, our Radioactive Waste Storage, Disposal and Transport (Prohibition) Act and other relevant legislation comes into play. However, if that is just another broken promise and he does plan to override all Northern Territory legislation, there are still options open under Commonwealth legislation such as the Environment Protection, Biodiversity and Conservation Act.
This government will prepare for absolutely everything said from Canberra, which has clearly indicated that it will not be open and honest about this dump. Rest assured, whichever way they go, this government will be there ready to fight the dump. It is clear there are those who seek to confuse the issue with uranium mining. They are very separate issues, not least because the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act makes it very clear that uranium is the domain of the Commonwealth, but it equally makes it clear that hazardous waste should be dealt with by Territory legislation.
If the opposition is serious about their stated opposition to nuclear waste, they will be unambiguously opposed. I have to say I am not reassured when the Leader of the Opposition showed signs of not wanting to have this debate in here this morning. That does leave me a little uneasy about what position the opposition may adopt in this debate.
Madam Speaker, we have a good working relationship with the Commonwealth government. We have worked hard over the first term, minister by minister from Chief Minister down, to ensure that we maintain a good working relationship with our Commonwealth counterparts. The Commonwealth is too important to the Northern Territory not to work hard at maintaining those good relationships, and this will continue. Those good relationships and the work by individual ministers with their federal counterparts will continue. We do not propose in any way to let this issue interfere with the very important work and progress on joint Commonwealth-Territory initiatives in areas of health and education, among others.
However, a good relationship with our federal counterparts and the Commonwealth government overall does not mean that we roll over; not when we have been lied to, and when we know that we are being taken advantage of.
It is very important that this parliament has a completely unambiguous position opposing this dump as that is the message we need to send to Canberra, and that is the objective of this motion. The Chief Minister will be meeting with the Prime Minister on this issue. If she has the unanimous support of this parliament, her message will be greatly strengthened.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I do propose to deal with the motion, but I want to make mention of the politicking being done by the government. We have, of course, standing orders which govern the routine of business. Apparently on urgency, the government moves this motion. There is nothing urgent about it by the Acting Chief Minister’s very words; he said that things need to happen by 2011. What the Acting Chief Minister and his colleagues are doing by moving this unusual motion on urgency is politicking – nothing more, nothing less – no doubt trying their best to pitch to the media and their early deadlines.
It is a contempt for the parliament to play around with its routine in the way we have seen today but, of course, it is that sort of day, Madam Speaker. As we know, the Chief Minister has not bothered to turn up this week. It is a worry that …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I remind you that you are not supposed to reflect on the presence or absence of a member.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of Government Business sought leave of absence for the Chief Minister. It is on record that she is absent from this building. Referring to her absence is legitimate since it is on record that she is not here.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Members will not reflect on the presence or absence of other members. Leader of the Opposition, continue.
Ms CARNEY: No doubt, the Acting Chief Minister will be relieved to know that I and my colleagues have no reluctance or no difficulty whatsoever debating this important matter, and the reasons for that will emerge shortly. I simply make the point that, as parliamentarians, we - on this side at least - have a respect for the business of the parliament, the place it has in our community, and we do not try to play around with the parliament or its business for the sake of making a political point. This is a sign of things to come, I suspect, and of the arrogance of this government.
In any event, back to the motion. I will deal with it. I should make it very clear again that the CLP is opposed to the dump. We were, I think, first out of the blocks when the news was announced. We made our position clear then. It remains crystal clear.
Regarding the Acting Chief Minister’s statement, I make the following points: it is notable for the importance of the subject matter, but the hypocrisy shown by this government towards the people of the Northern Territory is staggering, and reasons for that will emerge. I say again: my party’s position is crystal clear. We oppose the siting of a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory.
The Chief Minister, again, was notably invisible when this issue first arose several weeks ago. I said then that I would work with her. I extended the offer; I confirmed it in writing and said that I was happy to work with her in whatever way I could to ensure the best possible outcomes for Territorians. I have not even had the courtesy of a reply to my letter but, then again, I am not surprised because I received a letter the other day from the Attorney-General which took five months. There was a five-month delay from the time I wrote the letter until I received the response. So no doubt, early next year, I will receive a reply from the Chief Minister - yet another sign of arrogance. Given that the government is clearly determined never to reply to correspondence, what we see is a scare campaign by Labor - and this device today is another example.
The Acting Chief Minister talked about David Tollner and Senator Scullion. Let me tell the Acting Chief Minister about those two honourable gentlemen. They have worked tirelessly - and I know how hard they have worked behind the scenes - trying to get their federal colleagues …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: No, you blokes are all part of the team, so I am sure you would like to listen to this. They have worked tirelessly to encourage, and cajole where necessary, their federal colleagues to prevent this waste facility being sited in the Northern Territory. They have fought the good fight. They also continue to fight by trying to get their federal colleagues to reverse the decision. Some members on the government side are members of Cabinet, some are not. Messrs Tollner and Scullion are not members of the federal Cabinet. A Cabinet decision was made. These guys have done their best.
The Acting Chief Minister wants me to get Senator Scullion to cross the floor and vote against the Commonwealth government’s decision. The Acting Chief Minister bolted too early when he started to say to media: ‘They should cross the floor’.
The fact is the advice we have - and the Acting Chief Minister if he were being honest would admit this – is that, in all likelihood, there will be no floor to cross. This decision does not require a legislative instrument on present indications. It is very easy for the Acting Chief Minister to say: ‘Cross the floor, cross the floor’, and then the people of the Northern Territory will say: ‘That is a good idea’. However, there is always this difference between government dealing with fact and government trying to spin things out of control. There is no floor to cross.
Second, as I have said, Messrs Tollner and Scullion are members of a Commonwealth government team, and there are benefits of those gentlemen being members of that team. Their involvement, their representation, has delivered untold wealth and benefits to the Northern Territory, many of which members of the Australian Labor Party have stood in this place and proudly parroted on regular occasions.
How many times have you thanked the government for its commitment to this, that and the other? You do it all the time. You always want more - everyone does - but you always say: ‘The Commonwealth has done this, that and the other; we are going to meet with the Commonwealth’.
Let me tell it to you very simply: this Commonwealth government team has delivered untold wealth and benefits to the Northern Territory. You may not like it but it is true. As members of that team, they have worked very hard behind the scenes to influence the uranium waste facility decision. However, as team members, my federal colleagues will continue to play as a team, even though they may not entirely support some of the decisions that the team makes. Members on the other side who are members of Cabinet will know exactly what I am talking about.
Let me remind the sceptical members on the other side of some of the benefits from which Territorians, and you as government - I hear the letters G-S-T - have benefited as a result of this Commonwealth government and, indeed, Messrs Tollner and Scullion’s involvement with it.
Let us talk about, for instance, the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. The railway would never have been built had it not been for the Commonwealth government’s love affair with Territorians. What an affair it was! The federal team gave Territorians $850m to ensure the railway would be built. You will remember that the Hawke-Keating federal Labor government refused to support the project, and the Chief Minister referred to it as ‘a faded dream’.
I digress. This government is reaping the benefits of the gas industry which is, metaphorically speaking, exploding throughout the Top End. Once again, it was that federal team which opened the doors in Canberra. People who have been following this issue will know that very well.
The Northern Territory has been the destination of some huge Australian Defence Force redeployments. Our geographical position has, of course, been the principal cause for those redeployments but, make no mistake, that federal team was, once again, working hard for Territorians.
In the year 2001-02, Defence spent $294m in the Territory. In the year 2003-04, Defence spent $675m in the Territory. The annual spend of the Commonwealth government in the Territory over the past three financial years has increased by $700m. My federal colleagues are members of a premiership team playing out of Canberra …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … and the Territory has been, and will continue to be, a beneficiary of that association. Members of the government might not like some of this stuff. We always know when they do not like what they hear because they become rude and noisy. I will bat on regardless.
Perhaps the more important question to be asking should be about this Martin government’s attitudes and actions regarding the Territory’s nuclear waste. What is this government actually doing?
The Acting Chief Minister has told Territorians that they are obtaining legal advice on the proposed nuclear waste dump. He said preliminary advice had been obtained. I wonder whether the Acting Chief Minister would be good enough to table a copy of that advice, given that there is bipartisan agreement in relation to opposition to this waste facility. I look forward to the Acting Chief Minister’s reply in that regard.
What questions were asked in seeking the legal advice? If there is preliminary advice, when is final advice likely to be received? What were the questions asked? If the preliminary advice or, indeed, final advice reveals that all options have been exhausted, what then does the government propose to do about it?
This government has a petition circulating, and I note with interest that public servants were asked – or perhaps it was implied to them – to put the petitions at their stalls at all of the regional shows. We have been contacted by some public servants who were at those stalls and who were very unhappy - notwithstanding whatever personal views they may have had about this issue - about being seen as government’s political pawns by asking people to sign those petitions. That issue, no doubt, can wait for another day.
There is no doubt that people are signing the petition. However, I wonder what exactly the Acting Chief Minister and his colleagues think will be accomplished by it. It could be said that it amounts simply to cheap politics. The views of our community are essential and important, but a glossy petition issued by government is an exercise in politics.
Once the rhetoric has been put to one side, we would like to know what government is doing and what it will do if the advice received is that we are at the end of the road. The Acting Chief Minister owes it to all of us to at least start to highlight what the consequences might be if we keep coming up with blanks, as I suspect we will - and I am sure the Acting Chief Minister knows we will.
There can be no doubt that the Commonwealth government is aware of Territorians’ attitudes towards this decision. I have made my views very clear to the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Hon Brendan Nelson - abundantly clear, in fact. Our federal representatives have made it abundantly clear at every opportunity in Canberra; they have done everything possible to protest the proposal.
Let me move to a much more important matter: what is this government doing about the Territory’s own nuclear waste material? Minister, instead of playing cheap politics, let us tell Territorians about it in more detail than you did in your statement. Apart from telling us just how much nuclear waste is there, is it the same – is it really the same – as the low-level nuclear waste proposed by the Commonwealth government? If so, are the Acting Chief Minister and his colleagues concerned about that waste for the same reasons that there is widespread community concern about the nature of the waste the Commonwealth government proposes to store in the Territory? Can the Acting Chief Minister assure us that the waste that is presently, as I understand it, in the basement of Royal Darwin Hospital safely and securely stored? If we, as a community, have concerns about the type of material that the Commonwealth government, if it has its way, is going to bring to the Northern Territory, might we not be equally concerned about the waste, if it is the same, that is sitting in the basement of Royal Darwin Hospital?
I would very much like the Acting Chief Minister to assure all residents of our northern suburbs that they have nothing to worry about. I have not heard that from the Acting Chief Minister, and I sincerely ask him to comment on that. In any event, if this government continues with the storage of nuclear waste in the basement, or the stairwells, or wherever it is in the Royal Darwin Hospital, the minister does have an obligation not just to me, not just to the opposition, but to everyone in the Northern Territory to tell it how it is.
The minister should be aware that Australia ratified the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management in 2003. Acting Chief Minister, can you assure Territorians that your government’s arrangements for the Territory’s nuclear waste management are consistent with those conventions? I would be very grateful in your reply if you would provide us with such advice. Also, while we are on the issue of the Territory’s nuclear waste, would you also be good enough to enlighten us about the industrial gauges containing enclosed radioactive waste that are held at Mt Todd and were referred to by Ms Scrymgour, the Territory Minister for the Environment and Heritage on 12 October 2004?
If we are going to have this debate, can we at least have a thorough and thoughtful one where all cards are on the table and where all questions are properly, thoughtfully and honestly answered?
Given this government’s form when it comes to being truthful and sticking to the facts, instead of making cheap political capital of the federal nuclear waste facilities, the minister should be telling Territorians just what he intends to do about the Territory’s radioactive waste, which is situated more broadly than just at Royal Darwin Hospital.
It can be said that our Chief Minister holds the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory in contempt, inasmuch as she is not participating in this debate for the first major sittings after the Northern Territory general election …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I remind you that I have already advised you that you are not supposed to reflect on the presence or absence of a member.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to that, Madam Speaker, I did not refer to her absence or otherwise. I simply said, deliberately so, that she was not participating in the debate.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise you to be very careful in what you are saying, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you for those words, Madam Speaker.
What I would like to see - and I am sure I am not alone - is for the Chief Minister to stop politicking and start acting in the best interests of Territorians. Instead of the gratuitous advice the Acting Chief Minister has offered over recent weeks telling me what I should do, I would like to know a bit more about what the government proposes to do.
Members on the other side will look at us and say: ‘What do you propose to do?’ Well, good on you, get over it. You won, we lost. You are government, we are opposition. You do not get off the hook that easily. You have a very solemn duty and an obligation to give this your best shot. We will stand with you, but you have to do better than a glossy petition, a bit of a spray every so often, and gratuitous, childish, churlish advice to my colleagues and me.
We do not want this facility. However, if the Commonwealth government is committed to building a nuclear waste facility in the Territory - and I believe that the Labor government knows that it cannot change that decision in the absence of the legal advice which the Acting Chief Minister has not tabled to date - then it is time for the government to start to thinking about the future, about what it can do, and how this problem can be dealt with.
This government abdicated its role in any decisions relating to new uranium mines very recently when the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy met with the federal minister, the Hon Ian Macfarlane. We ask: does this minister propose to stand up in this Chamber and declare that he resents the federal intrusion into Territory matters? This is a government that apparently feels so strongly about the sovereignty of the Territory that in a 15-minute meeting with the Hon Ian Macfarlane, the Territory Minister for Mines and Energy happily handed back control of Territory uranium mining …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: What a joke! Now the Commonwealth government is going to negotiate directly. They are going to by-pass you lot and negotiate directly with traditional owners about uranium mines. Who would have thought we would see the day? There is no question that our traditional owners are likely to be more responsive and much more honest with the Commonwealth government than the Labor government in the Territory.
It begs the question: if the Northern Territory government is so implacably opposed to dealing constructively with the nuclear waste question, why wouldn’t the Commonwealth government negotiate directly with the traditional owners in order to find a suitable site? Perhaps we can get the Territory Minister for Mines and Energy to handle such negotiations again. He might be similarly unsuccessful. This is a matter of great importance. Why would the Commonwealth government not deal directly with traditional owners and by-pass this government? Based on the minister’s conduct during his meeting with minister Macfarlane, there is every reason to suppose that the Commonwealth will not bother dealing with the Territory.
The Country Liberal Party’s position on mining -- all mining - is very clear and it always has been: provided that environmental concerns are addressed properly and the mining has the support of traditional owners, the CLP strongly supports the economic and social benefits mining brings to our citizens.
My party does not have a uranium mining policy dictated by Canberra. However, the federal Labor Party …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms CARNEY: I always know I am on to something when they all start getting in flap. I know I am on the right track, and it is always very enjoyable. I might even repeat the sentence: my party does not having a uranium mining policy dictated by Canberra ...
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: One more time? The federal Labor Party has told the Martin government that it cannot support further uranium mining. This, obviously – and we know it is, and you know we know it is – is a dilemma for you, but it becomes even more intriguing. Not only was our Chief Minister under the hammer from her federal Labor Party but, as it turns out, she was also between a rock and a hard place with the Territory land councils.
The Northern Land Council has told this government that it supports further mining, including uranium mining subject to the approval of traditional owners. The Central Land Council, on the other hand, has made it very clear that it opposes mining. In correspondence to government, it said that it opposes the ‘expedited procedure to uranium exploration licence applications’. Anyone who has seen the document will know that that is a direct quote. Therefore, the NLC and CLC have different positions.
Some members of the Labor government think uranium mining is terrific, but cannot possibly say so. Other members of Labor really do not like it at all. It is a mess; it is a dog’s breakfast. The Minister for Mines and Energy was told to hand back the Territory’s involvement in uranium mining decisions, and it was yet another example of government by non-decision. The hypocrisy! You can smell it, feel it, taste it. It is a mess. How politically convenient it was for the Chief Minister and her colleagues to say: ‘Oh, those Commonwealth government people! They just came in here and jumped all over us’.
I saw the footage. I was interstate, and I saw the footage of the Territory Minister for Mines and Energy and the Hon Ian Macfarlane. A closer couple I have not seen. They were so chummy that I wondered what had come over the minister. They were like old drinking mates. It was not the sign of a minister who had left a meeting feeling browbeaten, depressed, upset and angry. Oh, no! The Minister for Mines and Energy certainly had a spring in his step. Put another way: thank you, Ian, for coming and taking the decision away from us. Thank you, Ian, for putting us in the position where we can say: ‘Oh, those nasty boys from the Commonwealth just came in and took the decision away from us’. I do not mind if people have different views from me, but can you at least be consistent and honest? It is all I ask and it is not too much.
Turning to the motion, I will address each of the paragraphs briefly:
In terms of paragraph (a), we are prepared to support this motion to have the Commonwealth honour its election promise as soon as the Chief Minister delivers all of her election promises. I expect hell will freeze over before that happens.
In terms of paragraph (b), the Territory Labor Party does not have the remotest idea about sovereignty. If it did, the Territory Minister for Mines and Energy would not surrender our mining rights to the Commonwealth. The Chief Minister would readily assume control of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, as offered by the Commonwealth government. Of course, the Australian Labor Party conveniently forgets how it worked tirelessly behind the scenes to oppose, let us all say it, statehood.
In terms of paragraph (c), the Commonwealth will certainly act inside the spirit of the legislation because clause 5(1) of the legislation confesses that the act is subordinate to the Commonwealth.
In terms of paragraph (d), we know that our federal members have done so much more for the Territory than the current federal Labor members have or ever will. I remind you and others of the $700m of annual increased federal spending that my federal colleagues’ team has provided to the Northern Territory for all of our use and benefit. Let me make it clear that we will consider revisiting this motion when Territory Labor stands up to their bosses down south, when they make a stand regarding the three mines uranium policy. I say again: please be consistent and honest.
We support the final paragraph of the motion, and I will personally ask my federal colleagues to deliver it to Canberra. I will seal the envelope. I will ask them to take it to Canberra provided that the whole debate is enclosed, particularly my comments in relation to the Chief Minister, her conduct to date, the fact that she is not participating in this debate, the fact that she was not around when the news first came out and, in particular, the conduct of the Territory Minister for Mines and Energy. I am sure his very good friend, Ian, will be delighted to read about that.
That is our response to this interesting motion. We are with you in spirit. In fact, even before you blokes had bothered to rally your troops to get a response, we stood proudly and said: ‘No, this is not on’. So get on, play your politics. We will use up a bit more time of the day. The substance of it is important. I do not believe Territorians want a nuclear waste facility.
When you peel all of the politics away, can I just ask that you, being the government, give this a fair dinkum go and tell us honestly when you are at the end of the road? My hunch is that the end of the road is nigh. Instead of just playing politics for another few years, please tell us if we need to get to stage two; that is, we as a community and as a parliament need to start dealing with it. Please be honest about that.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I must admit my hopes rose when I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition early in her speech. It seemed like they were going to take a pretty forthright position of support on this motion. Then, like a pile of burning tyres, up came the smoke cloud, and more and more things disappeared behind it in terms of a real statement of support.
First of all, we were asked to put our trust in the premiership team - Nuclear Dave and Battling Nigel; they are going to pull us out of all this and help us by turning all their federal colleagues around to supporting the Territory. When you look at what Nuclear Dave did: ‘Yes, I am right on it’ - on the plane that is, off to Paris. How can you possibly think through an issue like this without a good feed of snails? Off he goes, and he comes back with a solution – no, not that I saw.
Then we had all the torture of the 1000 reasons why it was all going to be so difficult to deal with this issue, such as: ‘We would love to help you. We would love to get in behind this motion and we will be there shoulder to shoulder when we go to Canberra, and we will sort this for the Territory’.
The Leader of the Opposition had better be very aware of the history of standing up for Territorians’ rights. Over the last 100 years, we have had to do it many times. Early in the Country Liberal Party’s history, this would not have been a problem because there were times on record that the CLP did actually stand up for Territory rights against Canberra.
I will tell you something else the history of the Territory illustrates very clearly: you ignore the rights of Territorians at your peril. If you are an elected representative in this jurisdiction, you listen to Territorians when we are under attack from Canberra. This is exactly what is happening at the moment: we are under attack from Canberra.
In particular, Central Australians are under attack from Canberra because the odds are pretty strong that the site in Katherine will be too flood prone. It was already identified in a scientific report, which asked: why would you put a nuclear dump there? Where is it going to go? It is going to go on the Tanami Road, I reckon, because even the Plenty Highway gets a good flood when there has been good rainfall. You now have the prospect of people in my electorate in Central Australia inheriting this nuclear waste dump.
When is the decision going to be made? It has been made. That is what really has people up in arms around Central Australia. They come to us giving information to Territorians about this proposal after the decision has been made. Minister Brendan Nelson was very clear about it: ‘Get used to it, lads and lassies; you are going to have one of these. The only question is where we are going to put it’. Then they want to send the information caravan around to finally tell us something of what they have in mind.
I have heard in the streets of Alice Springs people who have voted CLP for their whole time in the Territory who are not going to vote conservative any more as a result of this. That is some sign of the degree of anger around Alice Springs. It takes a fair bit to stir us up because, generally and quite rightly, Territorians are out there having a great lifestyle, celebrating what a great government is giving them at the moment because there are many great activities in Central Australia. We are off doing things, enjoying our life as a community; we do not need this rubbish that we have had foisted on us.
The Leader of the Opposition asked: ‘What is the government doing about it?’ I will tell you what we are doing about it: we are going to make sure that Territorians have the strongest possible voice on this issue. We are going to make sure that they feel fully supported when they stand up, quite rightly, and say: ‘We are being treated with absolute contempt by the Canberra government’. Here is another chapter in the long and sorry history of the Northern Territory being the butt of every unpopular decision that national governments want to visit upon us, or other governments over the history of this place.
Where have the people of our communities gone? We had the Senator Nigel Scullion travelling caravan come to town. They decided that they were going to inform people. What did they do? They gave us 48 hours notice. They based the information session at the Alice Springs Town Council foyer, which would be lucky to hold 30 people in any sort of comfort, and they held it at 3 pm. There is a recipe for a big crowd!
They set up their cute little booths, with all the glossy pamphlets and the background materials on how wonderful this dump is going to look. They even prettied up the thing. I think they digitally altered the picture so that the shed did not look quite as much like a shed. In fact, all four sheds did not look quite like sheds. They had trees around them; I think I spotted some frangipanni plants in the landscaping. Anyway, there they were; they were going to have a few people come through the door: ‘Here is your glossy brochure and off you go’, and ‘We have consulted with the people of Alice Springs’.
Unfortunately, for them, over 100 people turned up and they were not very thrilled about the whole idea. They had much to say about it. More importantly, they spent an hour-and-a-half pressing a huge number of very valid questions about what the proposal was or was not going to do in Central Australia - none of which were adequately answered. People went away more angry than when they arrived.
The CLP was there for a quarter of an hour. The Lone Ranger, Dr Lim, turned up. If Senator Nigel Scullion was looking for some forthright support from his colleagues, he certainly did not get it. When the member for Greatorex sniffed the wind and realised which way the meeting was heading, it was the best disappearing act I have ever seen. He was out of there like a rat out of a drain. We had over 100 at that meeting and then …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, before you go on, I remind you that it is unparliamentary to make references that reflect on a member. Perhaps you could redesign some of your comments.
Dr TOYNE: Yes, I rephrase to rodent or …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please withdraw.
Dr TOYNE: I will tone it down, Madam Speaker. Thank you for your advice.
We then moved on to the next public meeting, which people were actually told about this time. It is a new thing we are trying. We had 250 people at that, and no CLP at all. They were off, presumably working with someone to do something about something. They certainly were not at the community meeting.
I will tell you who was at the community meeting: it was a very wide cross-section of Alice Springs people - many people from across the political spectrum, conservatives through to wide-eyed greenies. All of them are bound by this one threat that was being made to the town and the region. Again, there were some very probing questions and very angry comments about the way this has been handled.
There is no doubt that we, as a government, have to get in behind Territorians. We are not going to tell them what to think about this; we already know what they think. It is our job now, as government, to provide the support and the expertise to facilitate what will be a pitched battle with the Commonwealth government on this issue.
You can get into all the detail you like about legislation and technicalities, and I am sure we will as this debate proceeds. I am sure there will be much discussion. In fact, I hope the information that is needed to understand this proposal is freely available to Territorians. That is part of the empowerment of our population; to know exactly what all this means. The heart of the current situation is very simple: there has been no process here. The only formative element in what has happened to date is that the Commonwealth government is assuming it can run roughshod over the Northern Territory because we are not a state and we do not have the same rights as the rest of the country.
If the opposition wants to commit to a genuine attempt to promote statehood in the Northern Territory, what better issue could you possibly get to illustrate why we need to be a state? What better example could you see of what the Commonwealth government will always do into the future as long as this inequity of rights exists in our country? We have to fight energetically to promote statehood in our Territory and this issue is one that will mean a huge amount of understanding of why statehood is so important in the Territory agenda.
Madam Speaker, we will continue to work person to person, community to community and through government to support Territorians in this cause. We will fight as long as there is a way of fighting. If we can find anything within Commonwealth legislation, we will use that as a lever for Territorians on federal processes.
Senator Nigel Scullion can cross the floor because there will have to be enabling legislation if they are serious about setting up a facility such as they are contemplating. There will be a vote in the House of Representatives; there will be a vote in the Senate. He can cross the floor and stop this. That is what the CLP should be working on with their colleague: to ensure that Senator Nigel Scullion does the right thing by the Territorians who elected him, and that members who come to this House do the right thing by the Territorians who elected them, and show unqualified resistance to the way we are being treated by Canberra.
If we cannot do this, we are not ready for statehood. We have to stand, the 25 of us, together and make sure that Canberra does not get away with this.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, what a debacle! When our community expects leadership from politicians, it gets nothing. It just gets politics. It gets it today in the form of this stupid motion which treats Territorians as if they are a bunch of dills.
First, we know that this government will oppose anything to do with nuclear technology, whether it is uranium mining or radioactive waste, no matter how much scientists can explain that it can be done safely. The government today, as you already heard, will not argue its case on science. It will argue against it because the Commonwealth is ignoring Northern Territory legislation. It will argue about it in an attempt to win the popular vote. It will argue against it to pacify the extreme green vote. It will argue that it should be in someone else’s backyard, and it will argue about it because it believes that the storage facility will be dangerous.
It will argue that the Territory will not be regarded as pristine and this will affect our clean, green image and, therefore, destroy our tourism industry, even though we know the waste site will be very small and will not affect the environment. Just for good measure, it will probably mention the three mines policy designed by federal Labor.
The one thing it will not do is come up with a solution. Unfortunately, there are some in government who believe that nuclear is synonymous with witchcraft, devil worship and the black plague, and will oppose uranium at all costs. They belong with the EGs, the extreme greens, who do not want the new Lucas Heights reactor to come into operation. One way to do that is to stop the Commonwealth from finding a site for the waste so that Lucas Heights cannot get a licence to operate its new facility.
Unfortunately, none of the science presented at the meeting last week will be regarded as believable by the Australian Labor Party. The facts placed before members of the public by the Department of Education, Science and Training will be totally ignored simply because it does not suit their political agenda. Science is irrelevant. The best thing to do is not only ignore the science, but make sure people do not hear the facts and then promote a climate of fear fed on deliberate misinformation or no information at all.
The classic example of misinformation is the way the government has promoted its cause through its publicly funded political petition which refers to Canberra’s nuclear waste dump.
First, it is the Commonwealth government’s and the states’ waste, not Canberra’s waste dump. Second, it is not a dump. The word ‘dump’ was deliberately used, as you can see in the wording of this motion, to give the impression that this material is simply dumped in the ground, similar to a landfill site. The media has also run this line and, by doing that, it has shown itself not to be independent on this issue. Nuclear waste will be stored at a storage facility or repository, but that does not have the same emotional ring about it; it is not quite a headline grabber.
As was demonstrated at the recent public meeting, both low-level waste and intermediate waste could be stored safely and within a very small area: 3600 m3 of low-level waste is a very small amount of waste. Even if you add the 400 m3 of intermediate waste, it is still quite small: one cricket pitch wide by one cricket pitch long by 10 m would hold all your existing stocks; a drop in the bucket. In fact, it works out at 0.00000000052% of the total area of Australia. It is amazing how the need for such a tiny piece of land can cause so much ‘the end is nigh’ debate in this country.
The Acting Chief Minister talked about the pristine nature of the Territory, about cattle and tourism. I stand here and look out on the harbour. We always thought the harbour was great, but we have a great big LNG plant sitting out there, not exactly looking pristine. We have gravel scrapes all through the middle of the harbour. Wickham Point and Middle Arm Peninsula have been allowed to be mined. There are three more applications in the local newspaper. So much for the pristine nature of our harbour! As for cattle, we know from the meeting that you can have a fenced-off area around a facility like this so it will have absolutely no effect on the cattle. If you went to the meeting the other day, you would understand.
Many Territorians who understand this issue have a far more open mind than both the ALP and the CLP. Many older people who travel for cancer treatment out of the Territory are thankful for the nuclear medicine that will, hopefully, cure them. They are thankful that the turbine engines that drive the jet that flies them to the hospital interstate has been checked using nuclear technology. These Territorians use medical facilities in other states and leave their waste in those states. Yes, we do produce our own waste, but we rely on radioactive technology elsewhere. Shouldn’t we take responsibility for that as well?
We indirectly produce waste from mining, in cement works and in industry, where bottles and tins are tested. We rely on these industries in our everyday life, so it is misleading to say we are only responsible for what is produced in the Territory. Perhaps we forget to tell people we grow crops in the Ti Tree area of Central Australia, which has uranium in it, and we still eat the grapes and mangoes.
I believe there are Territorians out there who support the opportunity for the Territory to build a storage facility that will be safe and beneficial to our economy. As was said in response to a question from minister Burns at the meeting, the building of such a facility would cost about $40m. That is many jobs. The Chief Minister has been saying she wants 10 000 apprenticeships and 20 000 indigenous jobs. Isn’t that a good opportunity?
Why can’t we sit down with the Commonwealth and work towards building such a facility, which will be beneficial for both the Territory and Australia? After all, I am, you are, we are Australian. Where have I heard that before? The problem with the present situation is that the Commonwealth has been put in a corner because all states and territories have said they do not want a storage facility.
I note the Acting Chief Minister spoke about Woomera. I agree, and I believe Woomera is the site where it should have gone. Did I hear the Northern Territory Labor Party go down there to berate the South Australian Labor Party saying: ‘We think it should be there’? No way! What we have is a situation where every Labor state has said: ‘No way! Not in my backyard’. That is part of the problem.
Ms Scrymgour: I don’t think so.
Mr WOOD: Yes, it is. The Commonwealth has said it will use its own Defence land to store the waste. The problem with that is that these sites have been selected on the basis of the politics of ‘that is the only land we have’, rather than using the criteria that was originally used to select sites throughout Australia.
If you look at some of the information that has been collected over the years regarding a site, there is a map available showing sites in the Northern Territory, one of which was Blood’s Range, and another was at Tanami. It notes that no areas were considered within the Murray/Darling Basin or the Great Artesian Basin because of their importance as water and agricultural resources.
The Commonwealth is part of the problem, too. They are reacting to the ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome with dubious site selections that will not help this debate at all. In looking for sites, the Commonwealth quoted various criteria for the original sites, but now seems to be confusing the issue by saying that storage sites for low-level waste could be safe anywhere.
In addition to that, the member for Lingiari has said that there was another list of sites prepared by the Commonwealth. He claimed that on this list there are other sites throughout Australia that would be more suitable than the Territory, but they are not being selected because they are Liberal or National seats. There is no proof, but it just goes to show how politics clouds the real issue of where to put our nuclear waste. As I have only just seen this list, I do not know the veracity of the document or the accuracy of the claims by the member for Lingiari. If it is true that these sites are being selected on political criteria, why has the government not selected the Mt Reedy site near Canberra which is in a Labor seat? Knowing the member for Lingiari’s dislike of all thinks bright and yellow, there may be a hidden agenda.
If the Commonwealth is determined to put radioactive waste in the Northern Territory, why doesn’t our government at least look for the best possible site to get the best possible outcome for the Territory? For instance, Tanami was one of the original sites for this storage facility. If that is still a suitable site there may be opportunities to get the Commonwealth to seal the Tanami Road, or at least part of that notorious road. That would be beneficial for locals, the mining industry and tourism. Perhaps there are other sites which could be selected. We will never find out while the Northern Territory government is stubbornly opposed to anything to do with the waste facility. The Commonwealth government will go ahead regardless and put it on its own land.
As was said at the DEST meeting, Australia has very little waste compared to other countries, and those countries store the same waste without any problems. We have now become paranoid about this material. We have governments throughout Australia which are quite happy to use the benefits of nuclear technology, but not the waste product. We say we are part of the Commonwealth - a word which means ‘united with a common interest’ - but we cannot bring ourselves to accept the fact. Parochialism or politics, or both, drives an irrational debate across our country.
I have been accused by this government of being self-centred, standing on a soapbox, and having wind up my you-know-where. All that does is highlight the shallowness, the immaturity, the un-science, and the radioactive neurosis the government uses in its quest to win this debate. I know we need a repository or a storage facility in Australia, and I know that many Territorians support it - like my good friend, Jim, who is presently receiving radium treatment in Adelaide.
Some ask: if it is safe, why not store it in Sydney or Canberra? No matter what you say about radioactive waste, people will still be uneasy about it. We have been conditioned, especially by the media, to believe the worst in all things new or unseen. It has been proven that mobile phone towers are not a health hazard, but when one is advertised close to a residential area, there are many objections. The best solution is to erect the towers away from the residents. In other words, look for a site of least resistance.
The same principle should apply to a radioactive store and repository: site it at a place of least resistance. Surely, there is somewhere in Australia where we can find a place to store all this material. It would mean that radioactive waste, instead of being stored in a general dogsbody we have now - at many sites under many conditions and different security regimes - would be in a single, secure site.
I repeat: this issue needs to be dealt with as if we are Australians. The Territory is part of Australia and, except on a map, cannot be distinguished from Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia if seen from above. Our boundaries are just dots on a map, but we are all girt by sea. I may be the only one in this parliament who believes that we need a national radioactive repository or storage facility somewhere in Australia, but I will live with that.
If you do not want the benefits of nuclear technology, then I suppose it is easy to support the Labor Party approach. If you do support nuclear technology, be game enough to say so. I believe if a lot more of the information that was delivered at the recent DEST meeting was available to the public there would be more support. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth government has been well behind the eight-ball in putting forward its case for a repository. When it has had the opportunity, it has not delivered the message in a manner that the ordinary person in the street can understand. It needs to do much better than it has so far if it wants to counteract the furphies being promoted by the anti-nuke lobby.
I also find it disappointing that the CLP has joined forces with the ALP on this issue. I would be interested in what the CLP rank and file think. I will be listening with interest to any debate that comes out of the next Central Council meeting. I feel the CLP has jumped the gun instead of waiting for all the details to emerge.
I said it once, and I will say it again: this is a national issue and should be dealt with in such a manner. It is an Australian issue and requires leadership. If that means the Northern Territory is the only place a storage facility or repository can be built, so be it. If it is for the good of the nation, then I support it.
I make it clear that I do not necessarily support the Defence sites selected, but understand that the Commonwealth is in a bind because of the objections of the states. This government passed a bill last year which said ‘no nuclear waste sites in the Northern Territory’, so all the states have said: ‘We do not want it’. Therefore, the Commonwealth is in a bind as to what to do with it. If the Commonwealth wants to use any of the sites it has selected, then it must sit within publicly known criteria, not criteria based on a premise that it is the only place we have.
The Labor government will cry foul about our Territory rights and the rough treatment we are receiving from the Commonwealth by overriding our laws. That is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that they are opponents of nuclear technology and the nuclear energy which is the basis behind such technology. This motion is an excuse to ram home those objections, using arguments not based on science but on political rhetoric and fear, because they do not want the Lucas Heights’ new reactor to exist.
The motion, by inference, says that the Commonwealth broke an election promise not to locate the waste facility in the Territory. Isn’t that a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? The Chief Minister made a promise that we would have fixed four-year terms of parliament. We do not have fixed four-year terms of parliament. Did she honour her election promise? No. Whilst the Commonwealth government should be condemned for making a promise and then breaking it, let us not get high and mighty about it when the Northern Territory government also breaks its promises.
The motion states that the Commonwealth should respect the ban on waste travelling around the Territory. Not only is that a joke because of the high safety requirements for transporting waste around Australia - see the IAE regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material - but it does not recognise the fact that low-level waste is packed in drums and is made up of solids, not liquids; and if re-processed rods were brought into the Territory, they would be stored in a glass matrix and there would be only three deliveries over 10 years. Anyone who was at the meeting would have seen the strength of those glass matrix containers ...
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: These are the politics of fear, as I can hear now, at its best: inferring that radioactive waste cannot be transported safely. I wonder how the isotopes get to our hospitals. If you think it is going to stop radioactive waste, why not stop the movement of petrol tankers – triples, if you do not mind - travelling through our small towns and suburbs? Let us not mention, of course, the transportation of yellowcake from South Australia by rail to the Darwin port that the Northern Territory government supported.
Surprise, surprise, Madam Speaker, I will not be supporting this motion. I was tempted to move an amendment to ask the Chief Minister to call for a round table on this issue with the other Premiers and the Prime Minister, but I reckon it will be wasting the airconditioning in this building. The government is not interested in a new approach or acting as part of a nation. It does not support Lucas Heights because it knows that if the new Lucas Heights reactor cannot find a suitable site for its waste, then it will not have a licence to operate.
Could someone tell me then where we will get our ionising radioisotopes that are used in nuclear medicine for diagnosis and therapy, in industry for process controls, a variety of gauges for non-destructive testing, in research for environmental traces, in homes for things like smoke detectors? Where will Territorians get their treatment for cancer? Is this government going to tell my friend, Jim in Adelaide, that Australia will not have radium to treat his cancer because our Labor Party was opposed to the new Lucas Heights reactor by opposing a waste facility?
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Well, if you do not …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, order!
Mr WOOD: … want a waste facility in Australia, then the new Lucas Heights reactor is not going to be in action. We want the benefits, but this government, like the states, uses parochialism to avoid the responsibility of the issue of waste. The Territory government says they are sticking up for the Territory, that they are a Territory party, but have a look at what they say when asked about expanding our uranium mines. They say no. Why? Because that is the policy of federal Labor. Who is the Labor Party kidding when it tries to tell Territorians that the Commonwealth is running our lives? Federal Labor is running theirs.
No, Madam Speaker, this motion is about a lack of leadership and of acknowledgement that we are a nation. I said before, and I will continue to say even if it does get up the nose of some of those opposite: this is an issue that we need to deal with as Australians, not as parochial, one-eyed supporters of our states and territories. It is time to pull our heads out of the political sand and do something for our country. If the Commonwealth, states and territories cannot find solutions, their leaders do not deserve to be in positions of power. I believe John F Kennedy summed it up perfectly when he said in his inaugural speech:
Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
Sadly, the Labor Party has its own version:
- Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what you can do for the party.
________________________
Debate suspended for luncheon adjournment.
_________________________
VISITORS
Debate suspended for luncheon adjournment.
_________________________
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of members of the University of the Third Age; senior citizens from the Brennan electorate; and Aboriginal Community Police Officers training at Charles Darwin University, accompanied by Wendy Kennedy and Stella Huttlestone.
On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to all of our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Condemnation of Commonwealth Government in Respect of Nuclear Waste Site
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support the Acting Chief Minister’s motion of condemning the Commonwealth government for planning to locate a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.
It is with a strong sense of dj vu that I stand arguing against the Commonwealth’s proposed imposition of a nuclear waste storage facility - accurately referred to as a nuclear waste dump - on the people of the Northern Territory. It was over a year ago, when the Commonwealth government announced that it had abandoned its plans to construct a waste storage facility in South Australia and had started looking elsewhere, that this government started fighting. We were opposed then to using the Territory as a dumping ground for the nation’s nuclear waste, and we are just as opposed now, over a year later, when the Commonwealth has announced that it has narrowed its options down to three sites, all of which are in the Northern Territory.
The Acting Chief Minister made the views of this government very well known. I can only emphasise and support these strong and unanimous views. The government of the Northern Territory does not want this dump, and the people of the Northern Territory do not want this dump. I have attended the Commonwealth government’s information sessions on the dump facility, and I attended the public meeting arranged by the community in Alice Springs. I will certainly be attending the public meeting in Darwin on 31 August.
It is very clear that the Commonwealth has made its selection of possible sites for no logical reason. A list of 23 potential sites was produced by the National Sites Advisory Committee at a time when the government had given an absolute assurance that there would be no nuclear waste dump in the Territory. The four Northern Territory sites that appear on the list were assessed as being less suitable. Five sites in New South Wales were considered most suitable. In fact, in a very unclear process, of the three Northern Territory sites announced by the Commonwealth government on 15 July, two of them did not even appear on the advisory committee’s list of potential sites. Where did Mt Everard and Harts Range come from? They seemed to be plucked out of thin air because they are Commonwealth-owned sites and they are in the Northern Territory.
After the last federal election, the Commonwealth government promised an objective, rational site selection process. This process has clearly been discarded. The Commonwealth needs to be more upfront and honest about its site selection process. The Commonwealth public servants who are running this project have a very unenviable job. They are trying to sell a blatantly political decision as good science. Territorians are not fooled; they can see through this snake oil science. That is not the only area where the Prime Minister, John Howard, needs to come clean. His government wants all of us to believe that a single repository is the best way of managing these wastes. At first, this seems like a reasonable proposition until you realise that we do not get fewer storage facilities with this proposal; we get one more.
Waste will continue to be stored at places like Lucas Heights and other facilities until enough is stored to enable it to be transported to this additional dump. Moreover, we effectively have a national repository already at Lucas Heights. More than 80% of Australia’s radioactive waste is stored at Lucas Heights and, according to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, is stored safely. Why, then, would anyone want to transport this waste across Australia at great expense with an increased risk to achieve nothing more than what we already have?
The driving force behind the proposal to put a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory is the current application by ANSTO to construct and operate a replacement nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. It is about securing the support of the people of New South Wales for this second generation reactor by guaranteeing that the waste will not be stored on the eastern seaboard.
Government is not simply saying: ‘Not in my backyard’. Of course we accept and acknowledge the benefits of nuclear medicine, but of itself, that is no argument for a nuclear waste dump. The issue is about storing waste safely, and an accepted principle of waste management is that it is best done near where it is generated, not 3000 km away. We need to get back to basics and question whether this facility is needed at all.
As the Acting Chief Minister has said, the Northern Territory has the lowest volume of radioactive waste of any jurisdiction in Australia, about 2 m3. We produce about 1% of Australia’s radioactive waste, all of it low grade and mostly medical material, while 90% of Australia’s nuclear waste is generated from the Commonwealth, much of it high grade.
It is proposed to dump in this facility all the waste that is to be brought back to Australia from France and Scotland under contractual arrangements between the national governments. I completely fail to see why this waste should be dumped in the Northern Territory. ‘Remote’ does not mean ‘safe’, nor does it mean ‘acceptable’. What it clearly does mean, though, is ‘politically expedient’.
Some may say that the amount of waste to be stored is very small, so what is the problem? Let me explain the problem with the storage of nuclear waste, and it has nothing to do with volume. Spent fuel is hot and radioactive, and must be stored under water to remove heat prior to permanent storage or reprocessing. In reprocessing, plutonium and unused uranium are separated for re-use. This means about 3% of the fuel has highly radioactive material including some residual plutonium requiring permanent disposal.
For intermediate-level waste, approximately 80% of initial radioactivity is lost after 100 years. A small amount still remains after 100 000 years. Low-level radioactive waste generally decays to background levels in less than 500 years. About 95% decays to background levels within 100 years. The potential risk for exposure is, therefore, present for a very long time. There is inherent uncertainty involving predicting waste site performance for the period that nuclear waste is to be isolated. The time frames over which protection is required can extend well beyond the life span of several generations.
Risk of disposing radioactive waste in near-service repositories include incidents during handling and storage, or problems with the containers, resulting in the release of potentially harmful radioactive material which can contaminate ground and surface water and have harmful effects on human health and our plants and animals.
The Leader of the Opposition has asked what we are doing now to deal with safe storage of our own waste. This is a blatant attempt to divert attention away from the issue that is at hand. The Leader of the Opposition must have a very short memory. Last year, in response to a motion by the then member for Port Darwin, I gave a detailed account of how this government has acted to ensure safe storage of radioactive waste. I will repeat some of that for the member’s benefit.
The Northern Territory has a very comprehensive range of acts which deal with storage of our low level radioactive waste.
Where there were deficiencies in legislative controls, this government fixed them up. The Radiation Safety Control Act
has sat on the books since self-government in 1978. Within three years of coming to government, Labor completely
overhauled the controls, introducing new legislation reflecting modern best practice.
This government has always accepted the need to properly manage our own nuclear waste, but we do not accept any plans to dump anyone else’s waste on the Territory. Last year, this government legislated to ban a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. We did this in the knowledge that the Commonwealth government has the ability to override this legislation, as it can with all our laws and, indeed, as they have done before. The opposition called this a political stunt and the legislation meaningless. They sent a green light to Canberra that it was okay to dump on Territorians.
It is a fact of life that the Commonwealth has the constitutional right to overturn legislation. Does this make all our legislation meaningless and useless? Absolutely not! Making law is the strongest possible statement any parliament can make on any issue, and we have taken that step on behalf of all Territorians.
The current debate on uranium mining is another example of attempts to muddy the water of nuclear waste storage issues. Uranium and nuclear waste are two completely separate issues, but it is clearly in the Commonwealth government’s interest to blur the lines and have people think that the matters are related.
Ultimately, we know that, yes, the Commonwealth has the power to overturn our legislation, but this is not why they abandoned plans to build a facility in South Australia. It has nothing to do with our being a territory and not a state. The Commonwealth Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act, or the ANSTO Act, is sledgehammer legislation that takes precedence over any state or territory legislation with which it is inconsistent. Nevertheless, there are many steps to be taken before this proposal can become anything like a reality on the many fronts on which the Northern Territory can work.
There is the Commonwealth’s own Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, or the EPBC Act, to be utilised, and the establishment of any sort of facility would need to be subject to the strict provisions of that legislation. My Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts has already been working on an ecological inventory of the three sites. Other legislation of relevance is the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act also provides an avenue worthy of investigation in relation to the proposed location.
The crux of the whole issue, though, is simply logic, commonsense and natural justice. The proposal to construct a nuclear waste storage facility in the Northern Territory defies all logic and commonsense. Why would you transport 90% of Australia’s radioactive waste 3000 km across the country from where it is already safely stored? Technically and scientifically, there is no doubt - as admitted by the Commonwealth scientists in charge of this project - that the waste we are talking about could just as safely be stored in Sydney or Canberra.
Territorians do not want this facility and need to have the ability and the opportunity to say so loud and clear. Senator Scullion needs to remember why he is in parliament. He needs to honour his promise made last year that there would be no nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory on his watch. The federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, should also hold to his absolute, categorical assurance that the facility would not be in the Northern Territory.
For over a year, we have been saying that we do not want the Commonwealth’s nuclear waste stored in our Territory. We will keep saying that. We will keep fighting for as long as it takes to get the waste stored where it is generated.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I first heard about this nuclear waste facility proposal while I was at the Katherine Show this year. I was totally unprepared for it, I can assure you, as was everyone else in my party.
The position of the Country Liberal Party was, and remains, that we oppose the siting of a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. In a matter of hours of that announcement being made, Labor had petitions against the facility in the Territory circulating around the Katherine showgrounds - pretty quick, I thought. I do not know when they had time to do that, but someone had them out. Since that time, there have been endless discussions on radio, and between individuals, and media reports, about every aspect of this proposed nuclear waste facility. I already have a couple of folders here full of information about it. I have no doubt that, by 2011, I will probably have an office full of it.
Of particular concern to me is the inference that our federal representatives, Senator Nigel Scullion and David Tollner, are not doing enough to address the public outcry about this proposal. Both Senator Scullion and David Tollner have worked tirelessly, and will continue to do so, to try to get the Commonwealth government to reverse its decision.
In the meantime, Senator Scullion has accompanied scientific experts throughout the Northern Territory to address regional communities in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. These meetings have proved very useful to members of the community who were unsure of what was involved in setting up a nuclear waste facility. In Katherine, the minister was in attendance along with the member for Daly, me and some 150 people. I thought the line of questioning from most people in the community was extremely interesting because people were after factual information so that they could make an informed decision. Some people came to that meeting with a decision already made and were not prepared to listen to the facts. I learnt a lot more about the waste facility.
The politics that is being continually played with this proposal, I believe, is unfortunate. Of course, the topic is very emotive. I would like the Acting Chief Minister, in the absence of the Chief Minister, to tell us where nuclear waste is being stored at the moment in the Northern Territory and how much; and what kind of nuclear waste is being stored at Mt Todd and how much is being stored there.
This government really has some work to do to convince Territorians of its credibility, and to clarify its responsibilities as far as nuclear waste is concerned. To date, they have passed the buck and stated that they have no say in whatever decision the Commonwealth government makes in relation to the Northern Territory.
My question to the Acting Chief Minister is: what is this government doing to further the opposition of the Northern Territory to the proposed nuclear waste facility being located at one of the three locations identified? There is much talk, but I am sure that Territorians want action. I would like to know what action this government has taken.
In relation to the mining of uranium, it has been quite an interesting few weeks. The Minister for Mines and Energy, when questioned in the Estimates Committee, was adamant that the Labor Party does not support uranium mining and has always had a policy against uranium mining. As a matter of fact, the thought of the word sent him into a shake. It is really proving a dilemma for the Northern Territory government, but they have to be relieved of any further stress now that the federal minister has arrived in the Territory to talk to the minister who promptly, without any discussion, any reasoning, or any argument for the Territory, handed responsibility to the Commonwealth government by saying in response to the federal minister’s question to him about responsibility for it: ‘I will give them your phone number’. What a relief that must have been for the minister! It solved a dilemma for the Northern Territory government, as they had been caught between a rock and hard place and really did not know how to get out of it. I am sure that there will be ongoing debates about uranium mining in the Northern Territory well into the future. I look forward to participating in those debates.
To finalise my contribution to this nuclear waste facility motion, the government is very vocal in asking us what we are doing in opposition. We are in opposition; government has the responsibility to move this forward. I again ask the government: what are you doing? You are the ones who have the power to make something happen, not the opposition.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, my colleague, the member for Stuart, is spot on when he says Central Australians are angry at this nuclear waste dump proposal. People in Alice Springs have been able to raise some questions with the CLP federal representatives and agencies involved at the information sessions. They have been able to put their strong views at the recent public forum, a view which says we do not want the Commonwealth government’s nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.
People in the bush are just as angry about the Commonwealth government’s plan and the lies they have been told, but no one from the Commonwealth government …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The word ‘lies’ should not be used here, surely. It is unparliamentary. Saying that the Commonwealth government is lying …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, reference to the Commonwealth government lying has been used throughout this debate. It has not been ruled out of order and there has been no objection previously. I do not believe there is a point of order. Please continue, member for Macdonnell.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. No one from the Commonwealth government has bothered to speak to them about the plan to put a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory, in their country. People out bush are not only angry, they are frustrated at the way they have been treated by the Commonwealth government. They are upset and very disturbed about the lack of information they are getting from the Commonwealth government.
People in Harts Range, Papunya, Mt Liebig and Hermannsburg have all approached me about the nuclear waste dump issue. They are worried about what they are hearing about what the Howard government wants to do with the nuclear waste dump. They are asking why no one from Canberra is talking to them about the plan, why no one is talking to them about why they want to put this nuclear dump in the Northern Territory.
It might make sense to the federal member for Bradford, Brendan Nelson, to put this in the Northern Territory, but it is not making any sense to people out bush with whom I have spoken. The federal member for Bradford has asked why cannot people, whom he claims live in the middle of nowhere, have a nuclear waste dump. Many people out there, in the middle of nowhere, want to answer his question, and they should get the chance to do it.
I would like to take this opportunity to answer the federal member for Bradford’s question on behalf of my constituents in Macdonnell. I tell the federal member that this is not the middle of nowhere; it is our home and it is our country. It is where we live, it is where our kids grow up, and it is where our old people lie. The Department of Defence might put up fences around some of these places, but it is still our country.
One of my constituents said very strongly that it is a message that we have to make sure that the Howard government hears. This man said to me: ‘We have a clean country, not a dirty country. We do not want the nuclear waste dump to make our country dirty’. I could not agree more.
This nuclear waste dump proposal affects all Territorians in the towns and out bush. It is about standing up with one voice saying: ‘No! This is our place, we do not want this nuclear waste dump; we want to keep our country clean’.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not time for us to be divided in this House on this question. It is not time for us to be scoring political points or trying to make political mileage out of this question. It is time for us, as the Northern Territory parliament, to become united and stand together on this particular matter. I believe the issue has been dealt with very badly by all governments, federal and Territory. This issue can so easily become emotive and passionate and honestly, many times it can become a bit unreal.
I noticed when the member for Nelson made his speech today how gob-smacked the government was. There was hardly a sound. Even if you do not agree with him, he argued on the basis of fact. He had his facts ready to present to this House, whereas previous speakers had purely been arguing about, ‘You should have, it is your fault, your blame, get him to do this, shades of Grant Tambling all over again’, but we were not getting facts. It was interesting that it was not until Question Time that the Acting Chief Minister, who had already spoken, gave a speech including facts in his answer.
We are all caught up in the passion of the debate. It is not the time for that. If ever the Northern Territory parliament needed to be as one, it is now.
Right from the very start, let me say that I am completely opposed to the sites chosen in the Northern Territory for a nuclear dump; I cannot think of anywhere more inappropriate than the sites that have been identified, in particular, Harts Range, which is beautiful country and a wonderful area that has huge potential and many communities out that way that operate very successfully. To push this argument into the middle of their communities without consulting them, without even talking to them, is very unfair. Who is talking to them? Not this government, not the federal government, not the opposition - and this is the sad part.
We really need to get behind each other, put aside our political differences, and start trying to negotiate with the federal government on what we are talking about. Too often, we do not know what we are talking about. I am not a scientist; I do not understand the technology of nuclear waste. I do not understand the implications of its transportation, its location, or its storage. Goodness gracious me! I have done what every else has done. I have come across some extremely good articles. In this Institute of Public Affairs’ Review, there is an excellent article titled The safe disposal of nuclear waste.
There are some questions that need to be asked. Is a dump in the Northern Territory really necessary? Perhaps the minister, in his reply, could tell us where Northern Territory waste is held? Is it held at the Alice Springs Hospital and Royal Darwin Hospital? Where is the waste that comes from uranium mines held? Should we have to store waste that comes from other areas in Australia?
This article makes a very simple statement to begin with:
The most significant practical issue in nuclear electricity generation is the issue of nuclear waste. Regardless of the political
or economic factors in the debate over nuclear power, the question of waste disposal is a legitimate and timely one. A
safe, long-term solution is needed for Australia and the world.
We are just a little part of Australia, but we have to be there negotiating and finding the best solution for Australia regarding nuclear waste disposal.
Despite this political and emotive debate, government has to understand that it is essential for them not to stand back and say: ‘Okay, federal government, it is your problem, you do it’. It is essential for them to be included in the whole process.
Not so long ago, every member of this parliament swore on the Bible that they were going to act in the interest of Territorians. Is that what they are doing by saying: ‘This is not our problem; this is your problem. We are going to step back and just involve ourselves in the argy-bargy of political debate.’?
I do not know whether the short list that Warren Snowdon has circulated is accurate or not. Every time I find one piece of paper on what is current, I am given other information that is supposedly current. There is so much information around that it is very hard to extract what is accurate information. What is most important to the Territory is what we are going to do about it. What are we going to do about it? Standing squabbling in this parliament is not what we should be doing. It is not going to get us anywhere. It certainly is not going to say to the Commonwealth government: ‘We are united in this, in our resolve’.
To confuse the issue, people bring up points about statehood and uranium mining. It just complicates the issue. The first thing we need to find out from the Commonwealth government, and to work with them on, is waste disposal. What about our own? The Northern Territory’s proportion of waste is minute compared to that produced by South Australia and New South Wales. In fact, many of us would have said that Woomera, which already houses much of the waste as a waste facility, should have continued to be used by the Commonwealth government. However, since it has been rejected, it is my opinion that the Commonwealth government has taken the easy option.
It is easy to say: ‘Okay, let us put it in the Territory. They are not a state. They will not argue with us like the South Australian government did. We have land there; whether it is the right place or not, let us do this’. I wonder if this is the spark to ignite this debate, that there might be another hidden agenda from the Commonwealth government’s aspect. Do they really have another option up their sleeves?
I quite like the idea put forward by the member for Nelson: that we should look at the Tanami. I hate to say it, but you already have the big hole out there; let us make it bigger. Let us leave it there and then, of course, we get the benefits of the sealed road. In all of this debate, we do not talk about the practical issues such as: how is it going to be transported? How is it going to be stored? Will it need an escort? Will there have to be emergency services at this dump? All the complications of what happens if we do have this disposal facility have not been flagged. The sad part is that we do not know and we are very much being kept in the dark. Why are we being kept in the dark? I believe it is because of the attitude of the government; the washing of the hands. I do not think we should do that, and I certainly do not think the opposition and government should be at each other’s throats about this at all.
It is a national issue; not just a state and territory issue, as has been said earlier. To pursue it without being prepared to negotiate and get a result that is acceptable to all people to me seems to be ridiculous. It is not a silly idea to say take it to COAG. That is where many items of national importance are discussed. Why doesn’t the Chief Minister say to the Prime Minister: ‘Can this be on the next agenda for COAG? We need to discuss this as a nation’. Not just the Territory battling the Commonwealth government on its own. We know quite well, as the minister has said, that the regulations state quite clearly all the areas the ministers can be responsible for, and that does not include uranium mining and land rights. It is in your regulations if you bother to go to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act.
Why do we not seek a solution? Rather than raising petitions, having demonstrations, and writing letters, why do we not go to the Prime Minister and say: ‘Let us sit down and negotiate’? I believe this will go on and on until we can find an acceptable solution. I would be very sad if we were forced to have it, certainly in an area that would not be beneficial to the people who lived around there.
In the debate there has been much made of the economic benefits of having this disposal facility in the Northern Territory. I certainly have not been able to gauge any answers to some of these questions such as what benefits can be identified with the introduction of this facility. Certainly our Senator has not come forward with any of these answers. At what cost to the taxpayer? How much is it going to cost Territorians to have this facility here? What road and rail works will be required? They may sound all very good, but could someone please let us know: is it a different sort of road we are after? How will it affect our normal traffic flow? How will it affect our grey nomads as they go up and down the north road all the time? Will there be additional training necessary for accompanying these vehicles? What will happen when we do have the facility? Will there need to be some sort of monitoring and control there?
I believe that, if we are not careful, we will end up having this disposal unit put somewhere where we do not want it. That will come about because we make such a political flurry, grandstand and carry on, and the Commonwealth government will say: ‘What a lot of juveniles up there in the Territory’.
We have to do this in a mature, thoughtful manner. We have to have unity, and it is time for this parliament to come together, united, not at each other’s throats. We need to have open and frank discussion with the Commonwealth, and the Chief Minister should be lobbying very hard to get it on the COAG agenda. We need the cooperation of our Commonwealth members. We should not be bagging them across the Chamber. We need to get them onside, particularly Senator Scullion. We need his voice in parliament, otherwise where do we go?
I can see that, if we cannot broker an agreement with all the states, territories and the Commonwealth government to look after their own waste, we will end up being the place where it is put. That is the national agenda which has to be highlighted: all states, territories and the Commonwealth should be responsible for their own waste. We should not be the dumping ground for other states’ or territories’ waste. The Commonwealth needs to negotiate a site, and they need to do it in consultation with all the stakeholders. That is the sad part about this whole issue: it just seems to have risen out of the dust and suddenly been plonked upon us. Now, we are all scurrying, throwing our hands up in the air.
You can sign as many petitions as you like, you can write as many letters as you like, you can demonstrate and wave your banners and flags as much as you like but, at the end of the day, if we do not talk to and negotiate with the Commonwealth, we will not have any say. We will just be told. I suggest we stop creating this great divide with this easy political point scoring. I suggest we get down to the basics: talk to the people concerned; put up some proposals. In this situation, there is going to have to be give and take.
I certainly do not want it where they have suggested it should go and, if it does, if we have to look after our own waste, then at least let us be the ones who decide where it should go.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I disagree with the member for Braitling. To just roll over and accept it is not …
Mrs Braham: That is not what I said.
Mr KNIGHT: That is basically what you were saying …
Mrs Braham: No, it was not. It is called negotiation.
Mr KNIGHT: … just roll over and accept that we are going to have one in the Territory; we are going to have one in the Katherine region - no matter what the science says, we should just accept it. It is not about science or facts. If it were, we would be happy to have that argument. It is about the politics of it and the federal politics of it.
Look at the matrix which the ANSTO people talked about: not a single site in the Northern Territory is suitable - not a single site. Yet, what do we have? Three in the Territory. Regarding negotiating with the Commonwealth government, we had Brendan Nelson saying: ‘We are not mucking around. It is going to be here; it is going to be in the Territory’. There was no negotiation, just: ‘We are sick of talking, it is going to be in the Northern Territory’.
Mrs Braham: So what are you going to do? What are you going to do? Come on.
Mr KNIGHT: Well, we are doing it now.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, you know about cross-Chamber chatter.
Mrs Braham: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr KNIGHT: She should have a little bit of experience in it.
We are trying to do it in this House. The Labor government, like the member for Katherine said, was right on the front foot. We had a petition going around within hours of being notified. That is the way we have operated. We do not want this site in the Northern Territory because there is not an acceptable site in the Northern Territory. The sites which were deemed suitable and most suitable – the three categories - were in other states.
It is not about the science; it is about the public perception. That is what I will talk about in my speech in support of the motion: it is the perception of nuclear waste. It is the perception of the nuclear industry which is what it is all about. Why don’t they put it in Canberra? Because the public there will be in uproar about it. Why don’t they want it in the states on the eastern seaboard? Because the public would be in a furore about it. That is what it is about, and that is what is going to be to the detriment of the Northern Territory.
I also want to talk about the real people. We talk about the subjects of waste and the nuclear industry, but it is about the people of the Katherine region. Other speakers will talk about the other two sites in Central Australia. I really want people to understand what is happening, and who it involves, in the Katherine region. As the member for Katherine said, it was announced on show day. It was a great day. Katherine residents were having a great time at the show, kids were yelling on the side shows and there was a great deal of activity happening at the show. Everybody was happy. Then the story broke and the word started to move around the show. People were aghast. They were surprised: ‘Katherine? What is it doing in Katherine? We have not heard anything about this before’. From that point on, it has been a talking point in Katherine and people are becoming more and more concerned. What happened that day was that the Coalition government basically trotted in and trampled on the lifestyles and the rights of people in the Katherine region.
Obviously, the particular site at Fisher’s Ridge has some direct neighbours. The fenced block – it is a square block - sits within a 220 km path through a property owned by Barry and Val Uttley. I had the pleasure of meeting Val and Barry and having a cup of tea with them on their property, Yelttu, which is actually Uttley spelt backwards. Just so you understand a bit about the people involved in this, Val and Barry came to the Territory in 1969. They are in their late 60s now and they bought the property to develop a herd size of about 1000 Brahman breeders. They came to the Territory in 1969 with their four young children who were from 18 months up to about 10 years old at that time. They did contract work on various cattle stations such as Anthony’s Lagoon, Tanumbirini and Sunday Creek. What started out as a contract for a few months turned out to be 36 years. They sold up everything they had in Queensland and moved to the Territory.
Barry and Val had the kids with them the whole time. It was a very tough environment. They worked very hard and they have done that for 36 years. It is a credit to them that the children are involved in the cattle industry still today on some of our most productive cattle properties. It is a ridiculous situation that this property that the Uttleys bought as an inheritance for their children will be robbed from them. Effectively, the value of that property has diminished overnight. The value of the stock has diminished overnight.
The Coalition has trampled on these working people. I just do not think they care. The other neighbouring properties include the Venn Blocks, a horticultural area, and other pastoral areas. The people on the Venn Blocks are quite concerned. They work extremely hard in Katherine and, effectively, overnight have had their produce compromised. They have suppliers asking them what it is all about, having a nuclear waste dump there. They market their produce in the southern states as Northern Territory, Katherine Region, and guess what? There is possibly a nuclear waste dump up there. It is effectively destroying their markets overnight and these very hardworking small business people. The Coalition government is trampling on the livelihood and rights of these people who work very hard in the horticultural industry.
In the tourism industry, the Northern Territory government has spent decades and millions of dollars trying to promote different aspects of the Northern Territory. The Katherine region is a classic example of a clean, green place to visit. We promote that year after year to southern visitors and international visitors. What is the Katherine region going to be known for in the future? As a nuclear waste site. The perception - do not worry about the science because that does not matter; people cannot understand the science - is that it is a nuclear waste dump site, so why go there?
It will be detrimental to the tourism industry, the small business operators who work so hard during the Dry Season and who try to market their properties over the Wet Season. You can imagine these people going to the southern shows during the Wet Season and trying to market the Katherine region if this dump site gets up. It is absolutely disgusting.
Senator Scullion wanted to find out what Territorians thought. He came to Katherine for the public meeting, and he got what they thought. I agree with the member for Katherine: there were many questions asked. People were very concerned, and the answers that were given raised more questions than they answered. I asked many questions and, sadly, the member for Katherine did not ask a single one.
Mrs Miller: I did not need to. I had all the answers there.
Mr KNIGHT: Oh, did you? The people of Katherine are opposed to this dump site. They were very concerned about what it will bring to their community. They cannot see that it is going to bring any economic benefit to the community whatsoever. It is going to decimate small business in the area and, if it gets up, it will only provide a few jobs.
The National Sites Advisory Committee identified the Fisher’s Ridge site as being most unsuitable because of flooding of the area. It sits on top of a huge aquifer that runs from Pine Creek to Mataranka, which supports the horticulture industry and town water for Katherine. It would be ludicrous to put a site there.
The Coalition government seems to have turned its back on the people it so loudly triumphs as being its own; the hardworking people, the people of the land, small business people, and people in regional Australia. It has turned its back on them.
The member for Braitling talked about reading articles and reports. I can get you a pile of articles this high which say it is the greatest and safest thing in the world. I can get you another pile of a similar size that say it is the most dangerous thing in the world. It is not about the science; it is about the perception. The perceptions kill the image of an area, and this proposal will kill the image of the Katherine region.
The member for Nelson thinks it is a great idea. He thinks it is the safest thing in the world. If he thinks it is the safest thing in the world, he should be proposing it for the Shoal Bay mud flats. They say it is super safe and nothing can happen, but no one wants it. I make that challenge to the member for Nelson. Sadly, he is not here, but if he …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, you are not supposed to refer to a member’s presence or absence in the Chamber.
Mr KNIGHT: I am sorry. I withdraw that, Madam Speaker. I will see him at the Humpty Doo pub or somewhere …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, just withdraw, please.
Mr KNIGHT: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
I have also noticed that the CLP opposition is big on words against this proposal, but it is not really big on action. You are not promoting the petition; no questions are being asked at the public forum. I do not think anyone actually turned up to the Darwin forum. I certainly did not see anyone from the opposition there. It seems like you are saying you do not agree with it, but you are not doing much more than that. There should be an aggressive approach …
Mrs Miller: You have no idea what we are doing.
Mr KNIGHT: If the member for Katherine is doing a lot, we would be hearing from her. The people in Katherine are not seeing a great deal happening or promotion there. I do not think there was a petition at the CLP stall on the show circuit …
Mrs Miller: Yes, there was.
Mr KNIGHT: It must have been right at the back. We certainly could not see it.
Mrs Miller interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Cease interjecting, please.
Mr KNIGHT: I urge members to take up the fight with the Labor government. The Labor government is saying no and fighting this thing to the death, and all we seem to be getting is the opposition trying to trip us up on this issue. I urge them to put that aside and support it. There should not have been this discussion this morning. It should have been: ‘Yes, we agree with this motion, let us get it away’. Instead, we had politicking, and talking about the uranium industry. They should have said: ‘No, we do not want it’. What is going happen is that the people of the Katherine region are going to read this debate, and see the opposition saying: ‘Oh no, we do not really agree with the government’s motion. We want to tick tack around it’. The opposition is saying: ‘We agree with the dump because we are not supporting the government saying it is going oppose it’ …
Mrs Miller: We have not said that at all. You have not been listening.
Mr KNIGHT: There should not have been any opposition to the motion. We had a long speech about everything other than supporting the motion. For the sake of the Katherine township and the region which surrounds it, I urge you to get behind it and take this fight up. It has to be taken up.
What do we have at the moment? We have this marvellous Katherine community, which is fighting for a lifestyle there and its economic viability, with a proposal which will destroy it. We have the Coalition government hell-bent on environmental, social and economic destruction of the Katherine region. The member for Solomon has disappeared somewhere overseas and come back without a word. The CLP Senator could have been a little more proactive at these public meetings. He said: ‘I want to talk to you about it’, but if you say: ‘No, I do not want to hear you’, we have that. We have the CLP opposition not really wanting to be there. They say: ‘No’, but they are not really very proactive about it at all.
I support the people of the Katherine community even though they do not make up a great deal of my constituency. I live there and, if the shadow minister and the member for Katherine will not take up the fight against this proposal for the small businesses of Katherine and for the people of the Katherine township, I certainly will. If she changes her mind, I will welcome the support.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I support the Northern Territory government’s opposition to any planned nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. As has been mentioned earlier in the parliament, the Commonwealth government needs to take responsibility. As parliamentarians, we have been questioned about our own sincerity in representing the people of our electorates. Indeed, the Commonwealth parliamentarians need to also be reminded of their roles and responsibility to the people of this country. On that point, we all must remain vigilant as to our roles and responsibilities.
There is no question that the Howard government needs to be stopped in its plans for any nuclear waste dump site here in the Territory. In the lead-up to the federal election last year, people were told there would be no plans for a nuclear waste dump site in the Territory. However, we have been deceived, which is why the member for Nhulunbuy has moved the motion condemning the Commonwealth government for planning to locate a nuclear waste dump on one of three planned sites in the Katherine region and Central Australia.
It seems there is a clear case of taking the Northern Territory for granted; indeed, the people of the Northern Territory and also the parliamentarians who make up the Legislative Assembly. Canberra obviously thinks we cannot speak for ourselves. We can speak for ourselves and we will fight the Commonwealth on this every step of the way. We are not going to be a dumping ground for nuclear waste for the rest of Australia, nor the world, regardless of it being low, moderate or high-grade material. We simply do not want it. If it is so safe, as Canberra says, and my Labor colleagues have said, Canberra can keep it - or Sydney, in this case.
Since the Commonwealth government’s announcement last month, there has been much debate during public meetings and in the media over the issue. Residents in Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin have had opportunities to raise their concerns and they have said they do not want it.
The people of the Northern Territory are very proud of our beautiful land, seas and waterways. Travel the Stuart Highway and you will see the magic of the red desert country, the rich colours of the MacDonnell Ranges where the spinifex and ghost gums grow, to the Devil’s Marbles in Tennant Creek where the country changes again to greener bushland. There are many creeks in the Katherine region where, as the members for Katherine and Daly would know very well, is the home of the Nitmiluk Gorge and hot springs, with the joys of sharing culture with the Manyallaluk mob and their tourist ventures. The Territory is renowned for its beautiful fishing spots, isolated locations and untouched areas. It is something we need to be very proud of, and we need to keep reminding the Commonwealth government that these are the reasons we are proud of the Northern Territory. It is these images that draw tourists from around the country and overseas. A nuclear waste dump will conflict with our image as a caring country - in this case, caring for country, sharing our country, our Territory, with tourists.
Who wants to travel to Manyallaluk for the peace and tranquillity of Aboriginal culture and pass a massive nuclear waste dump on the way? Or travel the Tanami Road with the ranges on one side, where the setting sun embraces the mountains in its stunning glory, with a massive nuclear waste dump on the other side.
One of the Howard government’s planned sites is Fisher’s Ridge, as the member for Katherine would know well and, indeed, the member for Daly, is 40 km south-east of Katherine. It is in the Daly electorate and near my electorate of Arnhem. At the Katherine Show, the day when the Howard government announced its planned nuclear dump sites in the Territory, at least 100 people signed a petition immediately in opposition to the announcement. One hundred people had signed by lunchtime on 16 July at the Katherine Show. Since that time, there have been thousands of people who have signed those petitions right across the Northern Territory. That gives an indication of the swift response by the Katherine residents, at the Katherine Show, to their complete opposition to any nuclear dump waste site near the town.
People in my electorate of Arnhem, from Barunga, Wugularr and Manyallaluk, which is near Fisher’s Ridge, signed the petition for they are also concerned about the impact of any nuclear dump site on country important to Aboriginal people in the region. There was a resounding ‘No’. There still is a resounding ‘No’ to the planned waste dump near Katherine, as there has been a resounding ‘No’ to the planned waste dump in Central Australia.
The member for Nhulunbuy, in Question Time this afternoon, informed this parliament that the Commonwealth government’s own committee said the area of Katherine East, Fisher’s Ridge, is not suitable. However, they have ignored their own advice. Who will they listen to? Who will the Howard government listen to? What of our Commonwealth CLP representatives? Does Senator Nigel Scullion have the courage to cross the floor? Contrary to what the member for Araluen says, that there is no floor for her Commonwealth colleague to cross, there is always a floor to cross; there is even a floor that leads right to the Prime Minister’s door.
Territorians do not want this nuclear waste dump. They have raised their voices across the Territory. It is not just the Labor government that speaks strongly against the planned nuclear dump sites. Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin councils have all opposed it. The pastoral industry has raised its objections; they are not satisfied with the information they have received. They are not convinced that this is a good idea. Instead, they worry for their future and their children’s future should the Howard government force its plans on us. They are also worried that any nuclear dump site will compromise the pastoral industry’s reputation as a producer of clean, green primary products.
Last year, the Territory government legislated to ban a nuclear waste dump in the Territory. This was the strongest action we could take as a Territory. The people of the Northern Territory, along with their local representatives in this parliament, can make a difference. We can stand together in our opposition to any nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. As the member for Braitling said, it needs to be a united voice from all sections of the parliament - a united voice that can go strongly straight to Canberra. It is not too late. Together we can make our voices heard in Canberra.
I call upon the Independents and the Country Liberal Party who have expressed their support - the members for Katherine and Araluen - to join us in unanimous opposition to the Commonwealth’s planned nuclear waste dump for the Northern Territory.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to speak on behalf of the constituents of Sanderson to oppose the stated intention of the Commonwealth government Coalition of the Liberal, National, and our very own Northern Territory Country Liberal, parties to force upon our community an unwanted national nuclear waste dump. We know our responsibilities in regard to managing the Territory’s own radioactive waste which, as we all know, is at the lower end of the scale. What we are not willing to become is a dump for our country’s highest grade nuclear waste. That is the immediate wish of the Commonwealth government and, apparently by its actions to date, their toady Coalition partner, the Territory’s own CLP.
The Deputy Chief Minister advised us earlier that, in July of last year the Commonwealth Liberal, National, Country Liberal Party Coalition government abandoned its plans to build a facility at Woomera in South Australia. I congratulate Premier Rann for his stance on this issue in not allowing his state to be ridden rough shod by the Commonwealth into becoming Australia’s nuclear waste state. I sincerely hope that we in this parliament take strength from South Australia’s opposition to Prime Minister Howard’s government and unanimously send a message to Canberra that, like South Australia, we will not be bullied into a situation that our children, our children’s children - in fact, our descendants for thousands of generations - will have to endure.
The National Radioactive Waste Repository draft EIS, compiled by the firm PPK Environmental and Infrastructure on behalf of the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training in 2002, I believe proposed three possible sites - one within the Woomera prohibited area, and two just outside the prohibited area - for the construction and storage of a facility which would manage the nation’s low-level nuclear waste - low-level waste - not low to intermediate nuclear waste - such as wrapping materials, hospital plant and equipment, some contaminated soils, discarded protective clothing, and the like.
It was not long after the announcement by the then Minister for Science and Technology, Peter McGauran, that the first cry of alarm was raised. Was it from the South Australian government? No. Was it from Greenpeace? No. Was it from Friends of the Earth? No. I will not keep you guessing! It was from the Commonwealth Liberal Defence Minister, Robert Hill. It turned out that the proposed low-level nuclear waste repository was to be placed beside a missile test firing range. That was deemed an unacceptable environmental risk by the Department of Defence. The point was not lost on other members of the Howard Cabinet.
And so it came to pass that the then Minister for the Environment, David Kemp, also became involved in this fiasco. As you will recall, there was a great deal of secrecy and evasion coming out of Canberra about the Woomera option and people started to have concerns about the claims that the Howard government only wanted a low-level repository. Those concerns turned out to be well founded. It is now known that the Commonwealth government was considering a co-location of a higher level nuclear waste dump and that it was forced into dropping the idea in the face of public outrage from our South Australian cousins.
Australia produces more than low-level nuclear waste. The High Flux Australian Reactor, known as HIFAR, is located at Lucas Heights in Sydney. Since it went critical in 1958, the reactor has been discharging 37 spent fuel elements each year. These fuel rods contain radionuclides which remain radio-toxic for tens of thousands of years. Up until 2002, 1665 elements had been produced. In 1996, a shipment of spent fuel rods was sent to Scotland for reprocessing. Only one shipment was sent, because that same year there was a leak in a main dissolver at the Doonray reprocessing plant in Scotland. Part of the deal with the Doonray is that the highly radioactive waste from the reprocessed fuel rods - the waste containing plutonium, caesium, strontium and cobalt - will be returned to Australia. The shipment is due to arrive in 2012.
Now we see why the Commonwealth government is so keen to have a nuclear dump in place by 2011. Since 1996, four shipments of spent fuel rods have been sent to France for reprocessing. Again, the deal is that the waste is returned to Australia. The French waste is due to be shipped to Australia in 2015.
The HIFAR research reactor at Lucas Heights is due to be closed down next year. The plan is to replace it with the Open Pool Australian Lightwater Reactor, known as OPAL. It is a pretty name for such an ugly facility. Perhaps the people who named it were not aware that opals have, historically, been associated with death. The OPAL reactor will also produce spent fuel rods. Until 2016, these spent fuel rods can be shipped to the United States, which will store them in a mountain. After 2016, the United States will no longer accept other nations’ spent fuel rods. The rods from OPAL and its potential successors will be reprocessed elsewhere, probably in France, with the waste to be returned to Australia.
The Commonwealth government lied to Territorians that we were not even being considered for a site for a nuclear waste facility. We have all been reminded of Senator Campbell’s words: ‘Northern Territorians can take that as an absolute, categorical assurance.’ How false, how hollow, and how deceptive!
Madam Speaker, we have gone from categorically no nuclear waste dump to a low-to-intermediate level nuclear waste repository designed to store this country’s highest grade of radioactive waste. Remember that even intermediate-level waste will remain at deadly levels of radiation for tens of thousands of years, far longer than any human experience. I am fearful that we have not yet heard the true and full intentions of this Commonwealth government. Why am I fearful? I am fearful, and others should be fearful, because of the time spans involved and the lack of certainty over Australia’s nuclear policy in the decades and centuries to come.
The difference between the so-called intermediate-level waste coming back from Europe and high-level waste is the temperature. High-level waste comes from nuclear reactors used to generate heat and, therefore, electricity. HIFAR and OPAL are not power stations but research reactors. Australia does not have a nuclear power station, but will that always be the case? Should Australia ever go down the road to nuclear power, where will we store the high-level waste? What does the future hold for a national nuclear waste repository that is in a remote location and built to a standard that can accommodate low and intermediate-level nuclear waste? The answer, I believe, will be to upgrade it to take high-level waste.
That is why I say we should be fearful of the current Commonwealth government. They have not told us the truth in the past, and I do not have any comfort that they are telling the truth now. I would not be at all surprised that the real intention of building this nuclear waste dump in the Territory is so that it can be upgraded to take high-level nuclear waste. We cannot permit this to happen. We cannot open the door to the possibility of this happening. We are the custodians of this country for future generations and I take this role seriously.
Territorians need to know that Australia is legally obliged to take back and permanently store a growing quantity of highly toxic and long-life radioactive waste. South Australia does not want a low-level nuclear waste dump, and you can assume that they are even more strident in their opposition to an intermediate-level nuclear waste dump.
If the Territory does not stand united in its opposition to the dump, we will be seen as an easy target by Canberra. The CLP claims that it is opposed to having a nuclear waste dump in the Territory. I wish I could believe them. I have gone over their contributions to the debate on the Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal Bill, and you can see that they have a habit of speaking out of both sides of their mouths. As a party, they denied that such a threat from the Commonwealth existed at all, that it was all a fabrication of the Chief Minister. So many times in their contributions they used the term ‘deceit.’ They accused the Chief Minister of running a scare campaign. They said legislation to protect our environment was high farce. High farce, indeed.
How is this for high farce? This is the member for Greatorex on 12 October 2004:
- At the end of the day, the federal government, in the name of the minister Ian Campbell, came down and said: ‘There is not
going to be a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory imposed upon it by the federal government’. He assured Territorians
without any equivocation.
On the same day that Ian Campbell made that statement, we had the Chief Minister who, in an advertisement in the federal
campaign, had this to say; it is a Northern Territory Labor Party 2004 election advertisement, which was televised on
Channel 9 in Darwin, spoken by the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Clare Martin:
- The Territory is a great place to live and visit, with its clean and unspoilt environment, which is why my
government is fighting to make sure Australia’s nuclear waste is not dumped in the Territory.
- She already had the reassurance of the federal minister that this was not going to happen. For her to then continue with
that ad, over and over again, is nothing but deceit. This is not truthful.
Well, member for Greatorex, it is true, and you and the rest of the opposition owe the Chief Minister an apology. Let my colleagues and me - in fact, let all Territorians - hear you make a public apology to the Chief Minister for the vitriol you heaped on her for standing up for the Northern Territory. Let us hear an apology from the leader of the CLP opposition that you, as a party, were wrong; that it is a Commonwealth Liberal/National Party government who are the deceivers. Let us all hear from the CLP that their Commonwealth colleagues will not vote with the Howard government to make the Territory a nuclear waste dump.
Let us hear that the Country Liberal Party Senator, Nigel Scullion, who can stop this from happening, intends to support the Northern Territory and the people he represents to stop this deceptive and destructive obsession of the Commonwealth government. Reassure us that those of your Commonwealth parliamentary party colleagues who will not pledge to support your party stand on this issue will be dis-endorsed. Then we will believe the CLP sincerity on this issue.
I believe that the opposition has tried to muddy the waters by introducing into the debate the issue of Labor’s policy on no new uranium mines. This is a long-held position of the party and has no part to play in the debate of us having a nuclear waste dump shoved down our throat. However, I will extrapolate on the CLP’s musings. Successive Australian governments have maintained that they have enough safeguards in place that we can sell yellowcake on the open market without fear that some of it will be diverted to nuclear weapons. Federally, we have a stated national position, currently, that we are not responsible for what comes out of the back end of the nuclear cycle. However, I believe we are in the process of seeing this position change. I believe we are being led by this Commonwealth government down the pathway of added value to our uranium exports. That added value is that, as the originating point for uranium, we will be offering ourselves and our new nuclear waste facility in the remote interior of Australia, our Northern Territory, as a place to establish a spent fuel repository. I believe this argument will be dressed up for public consumption under the guise of being morally responsible. However, the real reason will be to maximise the commercial benefit from the nuclear fuel cycle.
I sincerely believe we are playing for high stakes. We cannot and must not sit idly by and let the Commonwealth government ride roughshod over the Northern Territory and build this horrible installation. We have an obligation to our current constituency and to those generations of Territorians to come, to say: ‘No national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory’.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the motion put forward by my colleague, the Deputy Chief Minister, regarding the nuclear dump which the Commonwealth government intends to locate in the Northern Territory.
The issue of nuclear waste is not unique to Australia. Many countries, such as the United States, the Soviet Union or Russia, and now France, have examined what they are going to do with nuclear waste. Some of these countries have had different levels of success in effectively disposing of some of their nuclear waste. Some of these countries have generated high-level radioactive waste and other countries’ waste comes from nuclear reactors, the peaceful use of nuclear energy, or from military hardware.
In Australia, of course, we do not have a nuclear-powered reactor to generate electricity; we have research reactors. However, everybody thinks nuclear waste is something dangerous, something to avoid, and certainly not in my backyard. I listened with great interest to my colleagues from the other side talking about nuclear waste. The member for Nelson said that for the good of the nation we should have it in the Northern Territory and try to make money out of it. The reality is that, having a close look at the nuclear waste generation of Australia today, the current inventory in estimated annual arising of low-level and short-life intermediate-level waste in Australia is about 3700 m, and estimated future annual low-level waste arising would be about 45 m per year. The current inventory of long-life intermediate-level of waste is 505 m3. At the same time, the annual production of this kind of waste would be 6.1 m3. Of course, because of the commission of the high-firing nuclear reactor, we would have an extra 56 m3. We are talking here about nearly 5000 m3 of various levels of nuclear waste that has to be deposited somewhere, that has to be disposed of somewhere.
It is not that we do not have disposal or storage sites in Australia. If you look at the report titled The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, an Australian national report published in July 2003, there is a list of radioactive waste management facilities. The Commonwealth has the ANSTO radioactive waste management facility, and there are also other Commonwealth radioactive waste management facilities, one of which was proposed at Woomera.
In New South Wales, there is a non-operational store for waste generated in New South Wales. In Queensland, there is a purpose-built radioactive waste store owned by the Queensland state government and operated by Queensland Health. In South Australia, there are stores for the waste generated in South Australia in the Beverley uranium project, the Honeymoon uranium project, the Olympic Dam uranium project, the Port Pirie plant uranium and tailing dumps, and Radium Hill mine. In Tasmania, there is a small store for waste generated there. Whilst Victoria does not have any radioactive waste management facility within the meaning of the convention, it has the Victorian interim storage for seized and abandoned radioactive materials. Western Australia has the Intractable Waste Disposal Facility at Mt Walton East for the permanent disposal of intractable chemical and radiological waste generated within Western Australia. The Australian Capital Territory has a small store for waste generated in the Australian Capital Territory. In the Northern Territory, we have a small room at the Royal Darwin Hospital to dispose of low-level, not permanent or short half-life radioactive material. ERA Ranger Mine has radioactive material which is concentrated radioactive material left after the extraction of the uranium.
Returning to the issue of the disposal of nuclear waste, many countries have struggled with the location of a facility and have exactly the same problem as Australia - not in my backyard. In France in particular, there has been a problem since 1993. The French government is battling its population to find a permanent location for disposal of nuclear waste. France produces 75% of its electricity through nuclear reactors and generates about 59 gigawatts of power through nuclear reactors, and generates 635 816 m3 of waste. Obviously, they would need a significant site to dispose of this waste. They have been battling since 1993. They had occasions when people took them to the European Court, where ministers in government resigned or refused to sign agreements, and where the party in government refused to authorise or endorse the location of nuclear waste sites.
In Australia, we already have seven nuclear disposal sites or nuclear storage sites. There was one proposed in Woomera. The South Australian government objected strongly to the location of a nuclear storage or disposal facility in South Australia, and challenged the Commonwealth government in court. The Commonwealth government backtracked very quickly. It was at that time that news came that the Commonwealth government was looking for other sites in Australia to locate a nuclear disposal or storage facility. Senator Ian Campbell said:
Not in the Northern Territory - categorically not in the Northern Territory. We are looking for an overseas disposal site.
On 29 September 2004, Senator Nigel Scullion said:
In terms of having any other repository in the Northern Territory, it is absolutely off the record as far as I am concerned.
Not on my watch, mate.
Those were his exact words when he spoke on ABC radio at 7.45 am on 29 September 2004. We should be sitting rather easy, I suppose, when you have the minister for environment saying categorically that nothing will happen in the Territory, and Senator Scullion saying exactly the same. Territorians should be okay with that: we are not going to see a nuclear dump in the Territory.
But, hello! The government in Canberra had other ideas and plans. Their plans were such that they wanted to avoid any controversy, any possible challenge, any possible dispute. They announced later that there were three sites examined in the Northern Territory and - surprise, surprise! - all of them were going to be on unused Defence land. Why unused Defence land? First of all because there is nothing much state and territories can do to prevent the Commonwealth depositing material on Defence land and, secondly, the legislation of a state or territory does not apply to Commonwealth land such as Defence land.
I was in the same meeting with the member for Katherine. There were 150 people there and I recall very well the scientist from ANSTO said the only reason they would put it on Territory Defence land is because they can do it and avoid any controversy. That was the only reason they did it - not for scientific reasons, research, or any other reasons. In France, there has been continuing research since 1993 to find a place to deposit the nuclear waste. Here, there was a decision by the minister to locate this dump in the Territory on Defence land because they knew they could get away with it.
I have to say that I was not very impressed with Senator Nigel Scullion because, in the media, it appears that Senator Scullion and Mr Tollner are in favour of a nuclear dump, as reported in the Tennant Creek Times on 22 July, as long as it only stores low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste. That comes completely in contrast with what Senator Scullion had to say to the media on different dates.
On 9 June 2005, Drive with Richard Margetson, Senator Scullion said:
- But most importantly, the Country Liberal Party’s position has not changed. I am their representative in Canberra and
I can assure you that the CLP policy is that we are not having anybody else’s waste in our backyard at the moment.
Then he says about a month later on 15 July:
Now, low level and intermediate level, look, I don’t think people have too much of a problem with.
And, again, on 15 July:
I have had an undertaking from the minister this morning but now, well, I don’t know if he changed his mind, but he came
back and he talked to me about it and I’ve said: ‘Definitely not going to be high level that radioactive waste,’ and he said:
‘Well, fair enough,’ and the Prime Minister’s office is writing me a letter on this matter.
Of course, on 25 July, he says:
It will only go ahead if it has support from a number of people and, obviously, parliamentarians will be listening very
carefully across Australia to this proposal. And you know, I will make whatever decision will do at the time.
What was said on 12 August was principally said because they have Commonwealth land and I believe that is because they can overthrow Territory laws. So we have a Senator who comes out in the beginning and said: ‘Not on my watch’ but, obviously, he was caught asleep because the Commonwealth minister came out and said: ‘We are going to put it there’. Then he started talking about: ‘Oh well, I said “No”, but now if it is only the medium-level waste, I cannot see the reason why’.
What is interesting - and I believe the members for Katherine and Daly can vouch for it - is that he changed his tune in Katherine when he saw the opposition. Out of 150 people, there were only a couple of people who were in support of a nuclear waste dump and, most likely, they were not fully informed. I can understand the emotion of the member for Nelson and other people when they say we need nuclear power and nuclear reactors to produce radioisotopes for diagnostic reasons or the treatment of cancer. I agree with him. Yes, we do need it. We need an experimental nuclear reactor to produce this kind of diagnostic or therapeutic material.
The problem in this case is that we have been totally ignored. We are not considered in the same way as the rest of the Australian citizens. They have decided in Canberra that they are going to put a nuclear dump in the Territory when we know very well there was a study done a few years back which identified a number of suitable sites. However, as my colleague, the member for Lingiari, said, it probably was too close to National and Liberal marginal seats. If they put it in the Territory they lose one seat and it is not much problem, but they would save two, three, four, five, or six seats down south.
I have a problem with this issue. First of all, as an Australian citizen, I demand to be treated equally with any other Australian citizen. I do not want to listen to lies from the Australian government. I do not want to be lied to by any Australian government regardless of its political affiliation. Certainly, there was no negotiation between the Commonwealth government and the Territory government. Even Senator Scullion admitted in Katherine that he heard about the dump in the Territory from the television – the same way all Territorians found out: from the radio, the television or the newspaper. This reflects very poorly upon the Commonwealth government and upon Senator Scullion’s colleagues. If I were Senator Scullion, I would not be very impressed and I would do everything in my power to make sure that this does not happen in the Territory.
It is very interesting that Senator Scullion said that people are not informed and that they have to know about it. Initially, I agreed with him. I thought it was a good idea to inform people and give them the opportunity to listen to all sides of the story and for him, as an elected member, to listen to what people say, and to convey the feelings of the people to the government.
However, I was a bit cynical so I did some research and came upon a document that was drafted by a consultant, prepared for the Department of Education, Science and Training. That document is titled Support for a Communications Campaign Surrounding the Announcement of the Decision for the Location of the National Repository for the Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste. That document was drafted for a Commonwealth department: how to change the minds of people so they will accept a radioactive nuclear disposal site in Woomera. This goes, step by step, through what to do, how to lobby people, how to establish groups to find out what they think, how to change their minds, how to rate radioactive material and a repository site and contrast it with other issues that concern people in order to make people change their minds and accept the radioactive site in Woomera in South Australia, in Katherine, or anywhere else. It is a very interesting document.
So I am very cynical. I believe the document is not about information for people; it is nothing but a smokescreen. You just go around and tell people everything will be all right and that there is not going to be any danger. We were there! We are not primary school graduates; most of us have been through university; most of us have done physics and chemistry during our school years. We are not nuclear scientists. However, we understand what they are talking about. I am really concerned when I hear scientists telling us that there is not going to be any problem, that they are going to transport the waste to wherever the site is established, and there is going to be a 112 tonne container and, by the way, most of it will be sealed in a 400 kg drum that will be filled with intermediate-level waste. If it is safe, if it is not so radioactive, if it is not so harmful, why do you put 111.6 tonnes of sealing around it?
I can accept the disposal of low-level radioactive waste as they describe: the gloves, the paper cups, and the things they are using in hospitals during diagnosis. However, if we have a site somewhere in the Territory for low-level radioactive material and intermediate-level radioactive material coming in 112 tonne containers, what will stop them bringing all nuclear waste together for safety management reasons? Why don’t we close all sites in Australia and bring all the waste to a single location somewhere in the Territory?
I do not trust them. Why should I trust them? They lied to us before. Who can guarantee to me or any Territorian that they are not going to do the same thing again? Reprocessed rods have to come to Australia because we use them for our benefit. Where are they going to be stored? There is already a trend in other countries where, if they buy your uranium, you have to take your waste back. The fact that they have the benefit of producing electricity or anything else does not count. Are we going to enter into this trade of nuclear waste: you pay us and we store it? Where are we going to store it?
Another issue which concerns me is the studies. There were no studies done on these areas. They announced the areas; now they are going to do the studies. The problem is that most of the people living near the areas know that the areas are not suitable. People in Katherine know very well what is happening in the area they have chosen. The aquifers, the limestone – everything points against that area. People in Alice Springs know the areas in the Centre are not suitable.
So why here? One reason is that they know very well we cannot challenge them. Whatever we do, they can overrule us. They might have the ability and the power to make laws and have nuclear waste here, but I do not think they have the moral authority to overrule the will of Territorians, treat us as second-class citizens, and make the Territory Australia’s rubbish tip for nuclear waste.
We have pride in the Territory as a place with a fantastic climate, no pollution, we produce organic, green and free-range food, and we pride ourselves on producing it. We try to market it as food that is wholesome and safe. In the current trade environment, if people want to put restrictions on, they cannot put it on protection, they are going use other reasons; for example, disease or contamination.
I remind you of what happened when, a few months ago, there was a rumour that there was one mad cow disease case in New Zealand: the New Zealand meat market collapsed. It took months of promotion, reassurance, and tests by the New Zealand government to return the exports of beef and lamb from New Zealand to what it was before. Why would you buy mangoes from Katherine if there is a nuclear repository site on top of Fisher’s Range that may contaminate - I do not say will, but may contaminate - the water table from where you are getting water to water your mangoes? Why should I get beef from Central Australia if there is a nuclear repository site there that might contaminate the grass and the area where the cattle feed? Why should I buy seafood from the Northern Territory if nuclear waste may contaminate the aquifer which will find its way to the Daly River or to the ocean?
What are we going to gain from a nuclear site? Not very much. There will be a construction stage. They are going to spend money, and they are going to employ local people. However, after it is constructed, the number of people who would be employed continuously there would be very small. There would be trucks coming and going, and a few people - probably five or 10 - who will supervise the nuclear repository facility and that will be the end. The cost to the Territory for having a dump like that will be enormous. It will jeopardise our good name, our environment, the Territory as a tourist destination, and ourselves as producers of wholesome, safe, organic, free-range food. The cost will be high.
I am very pleased to hear that my colleagues on the other side do not support a nuclear dump, but again, I cannot trust them. If they do not support a nuclear dump, instruct your Senator and your federal member to cross the floor. It is as simple as that - the same way you did with Grant Tambling. When he did not do what you said, you sacked him. Do the same. Tell them they do it or they are dis-endorsed. Then I will believe you. It might happen, but I doubt it very much.
With the rest of the 202 000 Territorians, I believe we have a very valid reason to stand firm and say ‘No’ to a nuclear dump in the Territory. Not because of the ‘not in my backyard’ syndrome, but because we want to be treated equally as other Australians.
This is our Territory. We have promised to, and we intend to, safeguard it. Together, we can oppose the attempts of the Commonwealth government to put a nuclear dump in the Northern Territory.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, as you and members are aware, my electorate of Drysdale is a very dispersed and diverse electorate, taking in the urban areas of Bayview, Woolner, Winnellie, Berrimah, Durack, Driver, and a small area of Gray. Of course, it is not only the suburbs I have just mentioned that fall into my electorate. It also takes in the East Arm Port and the railway station, and has the last few kilometres of the railway track to the station.
What concerns me, and I am sure the people of my electorate and the good people of Palmerston, is that there is a strong likelihood the port and the railway will be used for the shipping and carriage of overseas processed nuclear waste being shipped to Darwin as part of Canberra’s plan for a nuclear waste facility to be established in the Northern Territory.
The announcement from Canberra revealed that the dump will have to store waste from the overseas processing of nuclear fuel from countries such as France, and that this high-level waste will arrive in containers ready for shipment to the dump. The Commonwealth government has conceded it is not clear whether Australian ports have the capacity to handle the nuclear waste containers. However, I can assure you, the one thing that this government and I am particularly concerned about is the prospect that the highest level of radioactive waste ever seen in Australia will be travelling through our harbour, handled at the Port of Darwin, placed on a train carriage or road transport and driven through the urban areas of Palmerston to its surrounds to a yet unidentified dump situated down the track.
What guarantees will we have on how this waste is packed for shipment by these countries? Can we take the word of the countries wanting to wash their hands of this waste? I think not.
The Commonwealth government, in its wisdom, has procrastinated for some time over this nuclear waste issue. First, it was to be based in Woomera, then it was an island off the coast of Australia, and now they have done a complete about face by declaring that the facility will be located at a determined site in the Northern Territory. This is after an absolute categorical assurance by Senator Ian Campbell in September last year to the people of the Territory that it will not be situated in the Northern Territory.
The Commonwealth, through scientific processes, concluded that the dump should be in Woomera, which angered the South Australians greatly. The South Australian government was resolute in its fight that the dump should not be placed at Woomera, and proceeded to take court action over the processes the Commonwealth was employing to acquire the land for this dump. They won the case and the Commonwealth subsequently withdrew the Woomera option to look elsewhere. However, out of this mayhem, one of the very strong reasons the South Australian government won this fight was the bipartisan support it received from the opposition. Both sides of parliament rallied as one and sent a strong message to Canberra that South Australia did not want the dump in their backyard. This is not a case of cheap politicking; it is a fact that, by standing united on strong issues, results can be achieved.
The second option chosen by the Commonwealth government was to look at an island off the coast of Australia. The reason they went for this option was for security reasons, they stated. Well, my question now is: how will the security factor be enforced if it is to be placed in a selected site in the middle of Australia surrounded by red dirt, not water, with obvious accessibility? The consequences of an accident with this high-grade waste transported from overseas for the people of Darwin, Palmerston, and the surrounds, could be catastrophic. Tourism, aquatic resources and, of course, the pastoral industries will all be affected if a mishap was to occur. Let us face it, they are our biggest industries.
It is all well and good to say that the measures put in place to prevent any spilling or leakage of this waste makes it completely safe. However, my thought, and the thought of many others, is: why move it here from interstate or halfway around the world in the first place if the material is safe? Less than 1% of the nation’s waste is generated in the Territory, with less than 2 m3 low-grade medical waste stored safely in the Darwin hospital. A small amount of uranium mining tailings are stored in a shipping container in Kakadu by the Commonwealth, and that is manageable. However, now they are looking to store 4000 m3 of waste, including the highest level radioactive waste in the country, along with the overseas highly-contaminated shipments, in our backyard.
The Northern Territory people have been taken advantage of in this issue. Absolutely no consultation with anyone has been undertaken before making this decision. The views of Territorians are most important when decisions of this magnitude are considered. This decision by the Commonwealth government has been based on politics, and not the experience or advice of science. The Northern Territory is a place of least political resistance in their eyes, so it would seem logical for them to target the Territory as their dumping ground.
People are angry, as the petitions attest that they have been gravely misled. Groups such as the Environment Centre, Arid Lands Environment Centre, and the Australian Conservation Foundation are all opposed, as are the councils of Katherine, Alice Springs, and Darwin. Pastoralists, AFANT, and the residents living around the proposed sites are also quite rightly greatly concerned. This government will stand up for Territorians and will fight this issue with Canberra the best way it can, and ensure that the views of Territorians are made very clear to the Commonwealth government.
Madam Speaker, I find the whole situation deplorable and deceitful. I, along with the government, oppose the Commonwealth’s plan to place nuclear waste dumps in the Territory and, on behalf of the people of Palmerston, support the motion placed before us today by the Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to the debate. There were some very solid contributions from members in the Assembly, and I appreciate that input. It is very clear that there is a great deal of opposition across the Territory to this proposal from the Commonwealth government. Territorians do not like being lied to. It is a pretty simple equation. They do not like that at all; they do not like being taken advantage of, and they do not want the Territory to be the nuclear dumping ground for the rest of the nation.
The Leader of the Opposition stated her support for our position in opposing this dump but she did not talk about the dump very much in her contribution. She did not talk about the GST. She did not talk about the Commonwealth Defence budget. She talked a fair bit about mining but, ultimately and unfortunately, she ruled out the one thing that she, as Leader of the Opposition, may be able to do to prevent this dump from occurring. She made it very clear that, unlike the CLP leaders before her, she will not be requesting her colleagues in Canberra to stand up for the Territory. That is a shame. The Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Chief Minister, and claims this morning that she did not receive a reply. The Chief Minister did reply on 12 August, and in that letter the Chief Minister pointed out how important it was for the CLP to oppose these plans in Canberra.
The Leader of the Opposition also asked us to table the legal advice we have received to date. I did state very clearly that legal options received by government to date depend very much on the directions and the options that the Commonwealth takes. They may keep the promise that the Prime Minister made to respect the rights of Territorians as they would the rights of any other Australian. Or they may break that promise and simply overrule the legislation that we have on our books that would prevent this dump occurring. The legal advice clearly provides options depending on which way the Commonwealth government would go. It would be foolhardy of this government to release that advice, in advance of any steps the Commonwealth may take, in simply sending Canberra a heads-up on any plans that the Northern Territory government may have in relation to its intention to stop this dump from occurring.
The Leader of the Opposition asked if the waste the Commonwealth is planning on storing is any different to the 1.8 m safely stored at the Darwin hospital. Well, it is different. It is very different. There is no waste from nuclear fuel rods at Darwin hospital. The waste that is held at Darwin hospital is low level. The waste at this planned dump will be of the highest level in Australia. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the Environment minister has already reported to this House on how low-level radioactive material is safely stored in the Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition dismissed entirely the views of the 3000 Territorians who have already signed the petition. She accused the petition and, therefore, everyone who had signed it to date, of simply playing politics. These people are not playing politics and nor is the government when it comes to this issue of circulating the petition. Territorians simply do not like being lied to and they do not like the Territory being taken advantage of and made the dumping ground for the nation. We have 3000 signatures and they keep coming in. That petition is another step in helping to send a very clear message to Canberra that this government and the Territorians do not want this dump.
The member for Nelson said many things in support of the dump. There will always be issues that the government and the member for Nelson simply do not agree on. Uranium mining for one, cotton on the Daly for two, the LNG plant on the harbour three, nuclear waste, add that to the list, four. I could go on. That is not just his right, but it is his responsibility to put his views forward in this Chamber. Whilst I disagree with his views, I respect not just his right but his responsibility as a member to put his view forward, and he has.
One of his main points - his strong point, I thought - was that the decision on the location of such a facility ought be based on science. Clearly it should, and we would agree with that. Science named eight suitable sites. However, the Commonwealth threw that science out the door. That science clearly stated that those sites in the Territory are not the most suitable sites that ought be chosen. The member for Nelson said these sites are not based on science, but based on politics. That is exactly our point, and it is the one point on which we are in total agreement with the member for Nelson.
The member for Katherine talked about how wonderful Dave Tollner and Senator Nigel Scullion are - I do not doubt that they are wonderful people - and how hard Dave Tollner worked in Paris. However, she, like her leader, refused to suggest that they should vote for the Territory instead of voting for Canberra.
It is interesting to reflect on what has been said thus far in this debate, and when. Some of the statements that were made prior to the 2004 federal election, and those made after that election, beggar belief that they were made by one and the same person. Here are comments made by various people before the 2004 federal election:
Nigel Scullion said on 29 September 2004 on ABC radio news at 7.45 am:
In terms of having any other repository in the Northern Territory is absolutely off the record as far as I am concerned.
Not on my watch, mate.
Dave Tollner on 28 July 2004 on Channel 9 News said:
- If Canberra decides to put their foot on the neck of the Territory, I will always stand up for Territorians.
And on 1 October 2004 on ABC Drive, Mr Tollner said:
Senator Campbell categorically ruled out a national nuclear waste repository in the Northern Territory - and any islands
surrounding the Northern Territory are automatically part of the Northern Territory.
Senator Ian Campbell on 30 September 2004 on the ABC Morning Program:
The Commonwealth is not pursuing any options anywhere on the mainland … So Northern Territorians can take that as
an absolute, categorical assurance.
Terry Mills in a media release on 14 July::
- We will fight any move from a federal Liberal or Labor government to set up a nuclear waste dump in the Territory.
Terry Mills, in contrast to these others, can stand with his head high because he is one who has not changed his position before or after the federal election.
This is what they said before the 2005 Territory election. Senator Nigel Scullion on 9 June 2005 on Drive with Richard Margetson:
- … I can assure you that the CLP policy is that we’re not having anybody else’s waste in our backyard.
Dave Tollner on 7 June 2005, ABC radio news at 7.45 am:
- There’s not going to be a national nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I turn to what they are saying now. Nigel Scullion on 25 July 2005 on ABC news:
- It will only go ahead if it has support from a number of people and obviously parliamentarians will be listening very
carefully.
And on 15 July 2005 on Drive:
- Now low level and intermediate level - look I don’t think people have too much problem with.
A little bit of a change from ‘not on my watch’. ‘Not on my watch,’ said Nige. Now he says: ‘Oh, well, it’s just a bit of low level and a bit of intermediate. I don’t think people have too much problem with it’.
Brendan Nelson on 15 July 2005 on ABC news:
- There’s absolutely no room for mucking about now and we’re certainly not going to be held hostage by political
parochialism or the short-term view of some Australians.
We ought to be thankful we are regarded as Australians by the good minister Nelson.
I love this one from Brendan Nelson, also on 15 July 2005 on ABC television:
- Why on earth can’t people in the middle of nowhere have low-level and intermediate-level waste? What is being
proposed here makes sense; it’s in the national interest.
That is a good one, Brendan. We will get that one around the Northern Territory: we are in the middle of nowhere, why should we have a problem?
The Leader of the Opposition, Jodeen Carney:
- The CLP completely, absolutely and utterly opposes sites in the Northern Territory.
That was 15 July 2005, ABC news. Further from the Leader of the Opposition:
- I’ve been doing a bit of work behind the scenes and, unfortunately at this stage, it doesn’t look as though there is anything
we can do about it.
That was 11 August 2005, 8HA.
- I don’t think it would ruin our tourism industry. I just don’t know.
Also 11 August 2005, 8HA – not your finest hour, Leader of the Opposition, with comments like that.
I do not doubt the Leader of the Opposition’s sincerity in opposing this. What I do doubt and how I judge people is by their actions rather than their words. Let us have a little look at Barnaby Joyce, the Senator from the National Party in Queensland. There are a few quotes here. A Brisbane caller, Lee, had a message for John Howard:
The loyalty of the Queensland National Party Senators is to Queensland, and the people who put them there, not to you.
Senator Joyce agreed:
- The Constitution says I must represent my state.
That was reported on 11 August 2005 in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Well congratulations, Senator Joyce. He clearly understands the role of the Senate as the states’ House. That is what it is there for. That is what is in the Constitution. That is what it is all about: to protect the interests of the states and, more lately, the territories.
Quote two:
- Reporter: Is your first loyalty to the people of Queensland or the party room?
- Barnaby Joyce: Look, I think in representing the people of Queensland I do represent the party room. That’s what the
job in the Constitution is. It is representing your state. It has been that way since 1901. I haven’t remembered a
referendum that changed that.
Well, again, congratulations Barnaby Joyce. That was on 10 August 2005 on the ABC 7.30 Report.
Quote three:
So I’m a member of the Queensland National Party and the National Party is in Coalition, but my job under the
Constitution is to represent my state.
That was on 31 July 2005 on Channel 9 on the Sunday program. This bloke keeps getting it wrong.
On the issue of whether Senators who are elected on a particular issue or promise should fight to deliver it, a quote from Terry Bolger, the immediate past president of the Queensland Nationals on ABC radio:
- Senator Joyce’s first loyalty was with Queenslanders who elected him and the Senator would not be silenced. Barnaby won that
seat as a National and I believe, under those circumstances, he has not the duty to be disruptive, because that’s not the case,
but to represent the people of Queensland on the issues that he went to the polls on.
The last quote is interesting:
Alexander Downer backs right to cross floor.
As a party we tend to work out a party position, but in certain circumstances people have crossed the floor in the Liberal Party
and I think the National Party has the same rules.
Given that Senator Scullion and Senator Joyce apparently sit side by side in the Senate, it would be just wonderful if some of those views of Barnaby Joyce were to rub off on one Senator Scullion. He would be a better man for it, because it would be clear then to one and all that he is standing up for the people who elected him and the people that he is paid to represent.
It is quite a simple equation. The Leader of the Opposition does need to backtrack around the history with the former Senator Tambling and the way his parliamentary career finished, I suppose. He crossed, actually, the interests of Territorians and what the CLP perceived was the best interests of Territorians, on a matter surrounding interactive gaming issues and he paid the ultimate price. That is, he was dumped as the CLP’s representative in the Senate and that dumping resulted in one Senator Nigel Scullion. There is a direct relationship here, and one that the Leader of the Opposition would do well to get across.
In the end, it is the lie and the broken promise that has Territorians’ backs up and angry, as much as the failure of the Commonwealth to consult with anyone on this, and their failure to put forward any quality information. I listened closely to the member for Stuart this morning when he was talking about 100 people at a meeting in Alice Springs where he was not the only member to suggest that the more questions that were asked, the more obscure and incomplete the answers, which simply led to more questions in themselves.
Madam Speaker, this government will continue to stand up for Territorians. We will fight this as strongly and as best we can. That is our responsibility as a government: to represent the interest of Territorians.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite for their support thus far on that motion. However, as I said, I do think and always will believe, that actions speak louder than words. It is not a hard ask. Senator Scullion is the CLP Senator representing all Territorians in the Senate, and it ought not be a hard ask from the leader and the CLP in the Northern Territory to say: ‘Senator Scullion, your responsibility is to take an opposing view to that of your Prime Minister and your government on this issue’. The Leader of the Opposition has run a pretty tricky trail through this, suggesting it may not go to a vote, and maybe there is no floor to cross.
I was very taken with the comment by the member for Arnhem who said, quite clearly, there is always a floor to cross. It may not be the floor of the Chamber to take your vote to the other side; there is the floor across the corridor to the Prime Minister’s office, the Leader of Government Business’ office, and the Leader of the Senate’s office. There are all those floors to cross and put your view before it ever gets to a vote. Once it is in a vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate, Mr Tollner’s and Senator Scullion’s choices are very clear: they should stand with their colleagues in the CLP in the Northern Territory, and with this government, and defeat this proposal from the Commonwealth government.
Motion agreed to.
BAIL AMENDMENT (REPEAT OFFENDERS) BILL (No 2)
(Serial 6)
(Serial 6)
Continued from 30 June 2005.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, obviously, I propose to make a few comments in respect of this bill. I am concerned already, given that we are only just into the second term of Labor’s term of office, that some themes are emerging about arrogance and the telling of mistruths and political spin. The reason I say that is that it does have some relevance to this particular piece of legislation. Throughout my comments and at various parts of them, I am sure even the Labor members of the Assembly will see what I am getting at.
Before I talk about this government’s deceit - I suppose, for want of a better word - surrounding this particular issue, it is worth making some general comments about bail and the concept of bail. Bail, as some members of this Assembly will know, is the right to be at liberty rather than in custody. One of the central tenets in our criminal justice system is that a person is innocent until the contrary is proved. It needs to be understood that in any pretrial process, bail is offered to a person who is innocent of the offence with which they have been charged. The very nature of bail recognises this fact.
Liberty is the right for every person who acts within the law of this country. A person shall not have their liberty deprived except in some very tightly controlled circumstances. That is the way it is, and should properly be so. It is only when a person is found guilty of an offence beyond reasonable doubt that the nature of a person’s liberty changes. The person seeking bail has not yet reached that juncture. They are, generally, a person who has been charged with an offence after being arrested and dealt with at the police station or brought before the next available court.
The bill that is before the House today seeks to recognise a reality which is simply that there are certain people in the community who, by their repeated conduct in the past, come to the attention of police or courts again and again. Once a person has a demonstrated predisposition to offending, they then erode their right to bail when they are seeking bail at any subsequent time. It brings a person who has repeatedly been convicted in the past of a crime a responsibility, should they find themselves charged with a similar offence subsequently. These people need to demonstrate why they should have their liberty restored to them until the final court proceeding is heard.
I wonder then how it is that this Attorney-General could possibly reconcile his comments last year with the comments he made when introducing this bill that is before us today. There are some inconsistencies and some troubling aspects of the Attorney-General’s comments made when the CLP introduced a bill, compared to the comments made by the Attorney-General in support of a bill that he brings before the parliament.
If an offence was not considered to be serious it would be relegated to being heard on complaint, not on indictment. That is why this parliament went to great lengths to introduce a Criminal Code that separated out the indictments from summary and regulatory matters. This is not, with respect Attorney-General, legal rocket science. This is the legal equivalent to banging two rocks together, but you seem to have trouble keeping up, based on the comments you made when the CLP introduced its Bail Amendment Bill and those you have made in support of your own.
If a matter is heard on indictment, it can go to the Supreme Court. If it is heard on complaint, it must be heard in the lower courts and will only end up in the Supreme Court on appeal. Surely, the Attorney-General and his colleagues understand that a person charged with an indictable offence can elect to have that offence heard in the lower courts. Surely the Attorney-General understands that many people do elect to have matters heard in the lower courts, as those courts cannot imprison for a period of greater than two years. So, it is smart sentence mitigation to have matters heard there. Surely the Attorney-General understands that the majority of offences that fall within his definition of a serious offence can still be heard in the lower courts in spite of everything he may do to the Bail Act. Is the minister naive? Perhaps so.
The minister said that there would be numerous offences in the Summary Offences Act; that is, non-indictable offences that would look like indictable offences but were not because they were in the Summary Offences Act. The minister cited fighting in public, or threatening violence, or unlawful use of a motor vehicle. Well, guess what, minister? You still have not covered those very offences in the bill before us today. If the Attorney-General thinks that they are, move them to the Criminal Code and make them indictable offences that carry penalties for periods of greater than five years. If the Attorney-General does not advise us in parliament today and give such a commitment, then he has defeated, it seems to me, his own arguments from last year.
The bill itself needs to be examined and the simplicity of the bill needs to be compared with the one the CLP introduced. If you read the bill before us today, one notes that it tries hard to look different from the bill that was crafted by the CLP. To keep it simple, any offence that carries a penalty of greater than five years’ imprisonment is contained in the bill. That, by the way, is most indictable offences barring a handful such as common assault.
There is an extra definition of ‘serious violent offences’, so now we have two forms of serious offences. The first form applies to offences covered by offences outlined in clause 4(1)(1A)(a) as opposed to an offence that is mentioned in clause 4(1)(1A)(b) because there is a difference between them, as the bill says; one or both of the serious offences mentioned in subparagraphs (1) and (2) are serious offences. Are you confused, Madam Speaker? Yes!
The bill before this House last year simply said that this bill applied to indictable offences. In terms of clear law making, surely the simplicity of last year’s proposed amendment made more sense?
The other criticism the Attorney-General made of last year’s bill was that it merely targeted repeat offenders. Guess what? This bill targets repeat offenders. In the second line of the Attorney-General’s second reading speech, he made it clear he is targeting repeat offenders. He went on to say again and again in that speech that it is targeting repeat offenders. Does the minister make any attempt to reconcile his double backflip with half somersault and pike with last year’s bill to the House? No, he does not.
This Attorney-General knows that, although the words are different, the effect of this bill when compared to last year’s bill is, essentially, the same – certainly in defining what is a ‘serious offence’. The fact is that this government was caught out by last year’s bill because, when they read it they knew it was a good idea, but they simply could not muster the humility to acknowledge it; it came from the CLP. So they re-packaged it into their own bill and sent it off to what is increasingly being called, certainly in Darwin, the ministry of spin prior to the last election. That is where the word deceit comes up.
With the intellectual larceny, I suppose, that is so common to members of the Labor Party - and the members for Johnston and Sanderson will attest to this with their prize for plagiarism - they said: ‘We have a good idea’. Someone else had a good idea, and members of the Labor Party stole it. Then they confused it. They saw a wheel last year. They re-branded it, thus complicating it, called it a rule of biaxial rotational device and said that it was theirs. When all is done, a wheel is a wheel is a wheel, no matter how one reinvents it.
The deceit was perpetrated before the last election, and we have an unnecessarily complicated law to achieve what we all wanted to achieve last year. If the government had problems with last year’s bill, they simply could have amended it and it would have been working to protect Territorians many months ago.
However, that is not the way the Australian Labor Party operates. They would rather perpetuate their deceit than acknowledge a good idea when they see it. It will be very interesting during this next term. I lost count of how many bills the CLP introduced on General Business Days, then the government said no and came up with 1000 reasons as to why it could not be done and, within a matter of months, put it all in a shaker, shook it up and presented it to parliament and sold it as though it were their own idea. I think we were getting up to about five, six, seven or eight items of legislation. I wonder how many we will see over the coming four years.
In any event, the bill before us today reflects CLP policy from last year and, accordingly, we will not stand in its way. However, Territorians did need to be reminded that the bill, in so many respects, could be described as stolen property. If they steal another CLP idea, they may not get bail next time round. They will not steal anymore ideas, will they? Oh yes, the habitual drunks legislation is still around the corner.
With those comments, I look forward to what the Attorney-General has to say in response. That is the opposition’s response to this bill. I wonder whether other members from government will be talking about the bill as well. If they are, and if they are new members, I hope that they turn their mind to the one that the CLP introduced last year that was unsuccessful. In any event, I look forward to their contributions.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I speak in favour of the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill (No 2) 2005. The amendments contained in this bill show the Northern Territory Labor government continues to listen to Territorians and to reflect the needs and values of the community in bringing forth targeted law reform.
Let me say at the outset that I believe firmly in the efficacy of the doctrine of the separation of powers. The judicial arm of government must be allowed to do its job independently of the legislative and executive arms of government. This is why I opposed the mandatory sentencing legislation brought in by the former CLP government, and this is why the Labor government sought to repeal the harsh effect of that policy in relation to property crimes early on in its first term.
Mandatory sentencing for property crimes was, basically, a scheme where, in certain circumstances, there was no option for the courts but to impose a prison sentence. It totally removed judicial discretion. It did not matter what the individual circumstances of the case were, the legislation said only one course of action was open - a term of imprisonment. It is, of course, the responsibility of all members of this Assembly to reflect and respond to community values. Political parties in government that lose the support of the community do not remain in government. Individual members who do not listen to the community tend to lose their jobs.
The bill we are debating today is an example of how the Northern Territory Labor government listens to the genuine concerns of Territorians and seeks to respond to those concerns with measured reforms which address community safety but, at the same time, respect the role of the courts in providing a system of justice which is independent of political interference.
We know that Territorians want government to take a strong lead in remaining vigilant against criminal activities. That is why the Northern Territory Labor government has increased the size of the police force as part of its ongoing strategy to build safer communities. Under Labor, Northern Territory Police broke the 1000 officers’ mark and the record recruiting drive continues. In less than four years, Labor has achieved much. We now have 120 extra police on the beat around our streets and in our communities, and there are 80 more to come.
This bill is another integral part of the Labor government’s overall strategy to continue being tough on crime and causes of crime. It will complement other government initiatives, such as tougher sentencing laws and the revised criminal responsibility laws to ensure criminals cannot escape the full weight of the law simply because they are drunk or high on drugs. It also ties in with our important work in providing greater protection and support for the victims of crime.
However, let us not undervalue what this bill does. This bill widens the circumstances where the initial presumption is not one in favour of bail. The bill amends the Bail Act so that people with a history of serious offending who come before the courts charged with further serious offences committed when they are already on bail will not have the advantage of the basic presumption in favour of granting bail. Furthermore, where a serious offending involves serious violence there will actually be a presumption against bail, and the person seeking bail will be under an onus to satisfy the court that there are special reasons why they should not be remanded in prison. This is, by no means, an easy task. It is no small task to change a magistrate’s or justice’s starting point from a positive presumption in favour of bail, and it is a significant change to actually completely reverse the presumption in favour of bail for serious repeat offenders to one against.
This government has listened to the concerns of Northern Territory communities regarding offenders who receive bail from the courts when charged with serious offences, especially when it is alleged that offences occurred when the person was already on bail awaiting trial for other charges. Whilst listening to community concerns, the government has not lost sight of the fact that persons seeking bail are only charged, rather than convicted. The presumption of innocence - another important legal presumption - is maintained, and the court does retain some discretion to grant bail in circumstances where the court considers it is warranted. However, the new presumptions serve as a guide for the courts and the balance has shifted in line with expectations regarding community safety.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the Bail Amendment Act. Firstly, I would like to thank the minister for allowing his staff to give us a briefing on the matter. I certainly needed a briefing because trying to work out the exact criteria for a person to be refused bail under the new amendment to section 7A, and finding out what it meant to exclude people from the new amendment to section 8 took a little working out. Eventually, we have. I support the bill.
I will not repeat what the bill is about. The member for Brennan and the Leader of the Opposition have done that. I understand where the Opposition Leader is coming from when she said the CLP introduced something very similar. That is, generally, going to be the case where private members’ bills that are introduced are rarely taken up by the government because they would like to have their name to that piece of paper. Be that as it may, it is a good change, minister.
I have a couple of queries that, perhaps, you could help with. It is obvious that the police supported this bill coming into operation. However, my concern is that, even though it may only be a relatively small number of people who may be affected, we already know that our remand facilities and gaols are bursting. What is the government doing to make sure that it is going to match these changes of putting people in remand to actually having enough room for them? We know that our gaols are bursting at the seams.
The other question I would like to ask the minister is: will there be a review of how this act is actually working? The Leader of the Opposition talked about the issue of presumption to having one’s right to liberty and, of course, these changes do diminish that to some extent. Even though we think there is very good reason for it, it would certainly be a worthwhile exercise to look at how this bill operates over the next 12 months or two years and, perhaps, report back to parliament.
I support the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill. I certainly hope it keeps those people off the streets who we do not really want on the streets. However, I believe that we should certainly review it just to see how it is going.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the Bail Amendment (Repeat Offenders) Bill 2005, which is yet another piece of very good legislation by this government designed to strengthen community safety.
It cannot be stressed enough that the purpose of this bill is to create safer communities by removing the entitlement to bail for those offenders who have a history of serious repeat crimes. These are the offenders who are most likely to commit serious offences while on bail. The community has a right, not just an expectation, to be protected from such recidivists.
This government was given a clear mandate at the last election to ensure that such community rights carried the full force of law, and that is exactly what this bill intends to do. It will create safer communities. We are not talking about minor criminal activity here. We are talking about serious offences that would normally be punishable by maximum of at least five years gaol. We are talking about serious violence offences such as serious violent offences against the person – robbery with violence; assault with intent to steal. These offences would also normally incur at least a five year gaol sentence. This bill removes the presumption in favour of bail for certain repeat offenders.
The bill also has a ‘stay at bail’ provision, which will mean that where the prosecution immediately seeks a Supreme Court review of a magistrate’s or a justices’ decision to grant bail, the offender will stay in custody for up to three days pending the outcome of the review.
The bill is further evidence of this government’s commitment to crack down on crime. This tough stand against crime sends a strong message to the community. I am sure that my rural constituents in Goyder want to know that their government is serious about crime prevention. What better way than to make it more difficult for repeat offenders to get bail, especially if they have a history of committing serious offences while on bail. This bill reinforces the tough measures that have already been introduced by this government.
This government is very aware and in tune with the community’s expectations in respect of law and order, including the rural community. That is why the government set up the new Humpty Doo Police Station which was officially opened on 27 February this year. The large crowd which attended that opening was a very clear indication of the rural community’s support of the police and fire complex. The police station is staffed by seven police officers and operates from 10 am to 6 pm weekdays and 8 am to 4 pm on weekends. After hours police response is provided by the Palmerston Police Station some 20 km away.
By the end of June, over 1100 walk-in inquiries were handled by the Humpty Doo Police Station. Clearly, this shows a very strong endorsement of the value of having the rural police station at Humpty Doo and, along with the fire station, shows just how strong the public support is for this centre. I commend the Humpty Doo police officers for their hard work. The vast majority of people I meet have nothing but praise for their efforts. They have now become an integral part of our community and a very welcome part at that.
This bill will allow the police officers at stations like Humpty Doo to go about enforcing the law in the clear knowledge that serious offenders who often go on to re-offend will now find it very difficult to get bail. We know the police and the community are understandably unimpressed when repeat offenders continue to get bail. During my doorknocking in the lead-up to the recent Territory election, it was clear to me that there was a community concern about this issue. Women have complained to me that the law does not protect them. My constituents are rightly concerned and this bill will offer further protection to the community from the risk of repeat offenders. These reforms provide a disincentive to repeat offenders to commit further crime while on bail. This will be welcomed by my law abiding community in Goyder.
Of course, there must be a balance between the protection of the community and the rights of the accused. Rural people do not want to live in a police state but they do want a safer community. We know there is strong anecdotal evidence that some repeat offenders will commit serious crime whilst on bail because they need to commit the crime for financial reasons or to support a drug habit. Many of these offenders have criminal records as long as my arm. This bill will ensure they are not set free to commit more serious crime while they are awaiting trial on other charges. This makes commonsense.
Unlike the knee-jerk proposal previously put up by the opposition, this bill is considered and researched. The amendments in this bill were formulated in response to the outcomes of extensive consultations between the Northern Territory Police and the Department of Justice, and draw on an evidence base which includes operational experience of the police, case studies and research conducted by the police, and statistical data collected by the Department of Justice’s Office of Crime Prevention.
As a government we have to weigh up the cost of crime prevention against the cost of crime to society in general. This bill will benefit the rural and city folk alike. It will assist the police in carrying out their duties and help safeguard us all. It will introduce more certainty into the judicial system because magistrates and judges who hear bail applications will be given more guidance as to who should and should not get bail.
Madam Speaker, I believe this bill will be welcomed by my electorate. I support it in its entirety.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions, and the opposition and the member for Nelson for their support of the bill as well as the government supporting its own bill.
I will start with some comments regarding the Leader of the Opposition’s views about the relationship of this bill with an earlier bill presented by the former member for Macdonnell. I will start by making a very broad comment about my approach to introducing legislation to the House and considering the legislation proposals sponsored by the opposition and the Independents and, indeed, more widely than that; proposals for programs and policy embodied in motions and responses to debate.
I made it clear throughout the last term of government that I do, and will continue to, seriously consider proposals and priorities brought by members, not just the government members. I believe that the making of legislation is the business of parliament, not purely the government. By saying that, I am not making an undertaking to pick up, holus-bolus, bills that are introduced without first analysing them, considering the merits of the rationale that has gone into them, for consideration by the House as a whole.
There have been many occasions I could point to, over the last four years, where we have responded very constructively to issues that have been raised. The member for Araluen’s concerns about the taking of evidence from sexual assault victims and the unfit to plead mental impairment legislation springs to mind. There are many others that we have considered over the years. I certainly have not ever been dismissive of proposals brought to the House, so I encourage members to continue to bring ideas and proposals to the House.
The principle in question today was a strong priority brought to us by the police as a whole, not just in the form of the bill introduced by the former member for Macdonnell. It was an issue that we needed to consider. It was an issue where we needed to apply our own particular priorities as a government to the general principle; that is, we do not want serious offenders, particularly violent offenders, being released into the community on bail and then causing more victimisation in our communities. It is directly against the highest priority we are giving in providing safety to citizens in our community wherever we possibly can influence that situation.
As the member for Goyder indicated, the bill before us today stands on a considerable amount of consultation, research, and evaluation of the target group of offenders. Who are we going after with this? Who do we not want to release into the community as a result of a bail arrangement because of the high possibility of re-offending and re-victimisation of other community members? The answer, I believe, is fairly well elucidated in the bill itself: it is serious, violent offenders we are after. Serial offenders, people who have made a lifestyle of violent behaviour directed towards those around them in either their families or the general community.
Taking that as the final target of the legislation before us, I contrast that with the original bill brought in by the former member for Macdonnell. The bail bill brought forward during last term was not focused on the target group that we are talking about. Wherever possible, we want to minimise victimisation in the community. It is much more important how many offences you are taking out of the community by some reform than the number of offenders. If one offender victimises 100 people, it makes a hell of a lot of sense to pay particular attention to an offender of that type. That is what this bill is very much doing.
The original bill from the former member for Macdonnell sought to expand the presumption against bail to any repeat offence which was the same as, or similar to, at least three indictable offences in respect of which the accused person had been convicted during the three years immediately preceding the date on which the application for bail was being determined.
The second reading speech of the bill indicated that the objective was to require persons with a history of criminal activity to demonstrate why they should be given liberty. However, unlike the carefully researched proposals in this bill, the amendment was not targeted at serious offending, but merely at repeat offending on a very broad-brush basis.
The fact that an offence is indictable is not necessarily a guide to whether it represents a serious incident of offending. Many indictable offences are dealt with in the lower courts, as was indicated by the member for Araluen in her contribution; for example, simple stealing or receiving offences, or minor property damage. This is just one example of the problems with the bill that was introduced by the former member.
The bill provided no guidance on how an assessment of similarity was to be made. There are a number of summary offences that might be said to bear similarity to indictable offences. Obvious examples are fighting in a public place and threatening violence, which is similar to indictable assault, and the summary offence of illegal use of vehicle, which is similar to some indictable property offences. Legislation which allows for such subjective tests as to what a similar offence is confusing and uncertain.
In fact, the bill had several problems in achieving its stated objective. For example, the second reading speech said that the bill was aimed specifically at indictable offences. However, the offence in relation to which the bail presumption was to be reversed was described in the bill itself only as an offence. Presumably, the intention was that the offence must be an indictable one to answer the requirement for similarity to past offences. That was not clear on the face of the bill.
There was no mechanism in the bill to review a determination as to similarity of offences made by a police officer or by a court. There are also questions around whether the determination as to similarity of offences required by the Elferink bill could amount in some cases to an unlawful exercise of judicial power by a police officer because it would have required determination of a matter which affects the legal rights of the defendant.
All of these sorts of issues would be likely to give rise to legal challenges and would, therefore, unnecessarily clog up the work of the courts.
A further serious flaw with the formula established by the private member’s bill was its uneven application to offenders. There were also a number of other technical issues regarding the interpretation and application of the bill, which meant that it was flawed in its construction and its objectives would not have been met.
It is fairly clear from that analysis that it would not have been a good outcome for the Northern Territory if that bill had been adopted by parliament in the form that it came here. However, the fact that we have gone away and considered similar situations where repeat offenders are being processed in terms of gaining bail or having bail refused, is a very clear signal that we accepted the validity of the issue that was brought here, and felt that it did require the work that is now being put into to it.
The member for Araluen also raised issues regarding what a serious offence is within the current bill. A serious offence is described under the bill as an offence which attracts a penalty of at least five years, which I have already stated. What is a serious violence offence? A serious violence offence is defined under the bill as being an offence contained in Part 5 Division 2 of the Criminal Code, which relates to offences against morality; or an offence contained in Part 6 Divisions 3 to 6A of the Criminal Code, which cover homicide, suicide and other offences related to endangering life or health; or an offence under sections 211 or 212 of the Criminal Code - in other words, robbery or assault where the offence in question attracts the penalty of at least five years’ imprisonment.
The reason for setting the five-year threshold is that we considered the removal of the presumption in favour of bail as being a very serious measure to take. It is currently only applied to very serious offences within the Criminal Code such as homicide, very serious levels of drug dealing - those type of offence. It is really reserved to a small number of extremely serious level offences. We had to be a bit careful about the balance point that we would bring in, given that the presumption of bail is a very important element of the way the justice system operates at the moment.
We felt that we needed to set that bar relatively high to keep the balance between the presumptions of bail that currently exist. It is also part of the targeting process that we have been following consistently through the development of this and other legislation. We want to be very focused on the type of offender that we are trying to take out of circulation; the type of victimisation that we are trying to significantly reduce within the community. I believe that deals with most of the points that the Leader of the Opposition raised.
Regarding the member for Nelson’s query regarding the capacity of remand, it is quite true that we have had very high numbers in our prisons in recent times. Thankfully, they have receded somewhat in the last couple of months, and we are now below the total capacity of our prisons and remand areas. However, we are pursing work to look at targeting the use of imprisonment amongst the options that are available to the court at sentencing, to perhaps take some classes of more minor offending into other alternatives to prison - offences such as driving unlicensed and driving unroadworthy cars, where there is not a high level of victimisation as a result of the offence. Those are offences we may be able to take into home detention or community work order-type arrangements or, more properly, the courts may be able to consider in sentencing.
We do not need to change legislation to do that; we need to build the capacity and programs to allow courts to refer to them - very similarly to the task we have within inhalant or alcohol abuse - where it is not only a case of making sure the law provides opportunity for referral, you have to have the capacity to do it. We are certainly looking at those issues. Our preferred outcome is that we have the worst offenders, as first port of call, going into our gaols, and that we deal with other offenders who are able to be put into rehabilitation based on other depositions around the justice system.
Regarding review of provisions, as a matter of course we monitor the impact of new provisions that we put through this House and put out into the communities as law. I will certainly undertake that there will be a review of the impact of this legislation, as we do with all previous legislation we brought in. I hope that deals with the member for Nelson’s points. Again, I thank members for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time forthwith.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Economic Impact of Fishing Industry
Economic Impact of Fishing Industry
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, today I inform the House of the significant contribution that fishing, aquaculture, and our seafood industry makes to our economy, to our unique lifestyle and its importance to indigenous Territorians. When you mention fishing, it seems that just about everyone has a story to share. It is generally about fishing for barra, or the catch of a lifetime, or the wonderful local seafood that we all enjoy. However, fishing offers so much more to the Territory. Yes, fishing is the lure of the Territory, member for Sanderson.
Our wild harvest fisheries and aquaculture, in conjunction with the recreational and fishing tourism sectors, contribute around 27% of the total production value for rural industries. It continues as an important regional employer. The outlook for aquaculture is very exciting. The Territory is particularly well suited to a wide range of aquaculture activities including pearls, barramundi, prawns, aquarium fish, and micro-algae. The most recent estimates show that aquaculture production rose by 26% from $22m to $28m in 2003. The value of the NT aquaculture industry is expected to exceed $120m by 2010.
The Territory has a reputation for being clean and green, having achieved world’s best practices in terms of production systems and mitigating the impact of the environment. These are all key demands by more discerning high end consumers. It is paramount that the Territory and other Australian producers establish their own identity in the marketplace.
Barramundi farming is a tremendous success story. Territory-wide, barramundi aquaculture production has reached more than 1000 tonnes and now exceeds the wild commercial harvest fishery. It is expected to exceed 4000 tonnes by the end of 2008. The Australian Barramundi Culture facility near the Adelaide River has a long history in the Territory and achieved its highest ever sales milestone early in the year. An ocean cage culture production system has been established at Port Hurd on the Tiwi Islands.
Similarly, another mainstay of Australian aquaculture, pearl production, is expected to increase production by 20% to 30% in the next four to five years. The Northern Territory and Western Australia producers lead the world when it comes to quality and the size of South Seas pearls. The pearl industry has experienced considerable growth in production over the last decade, and also a softening of the wholesale prices received by farmers. Internationally, pearl production is on the increase with large farms established throughout Indonesia.
Historically, the pearling industry relied on the harvesting of wild pearl oysters. Now pearl oysters can be regularly and reliably produced in the hatchery. The pearling industry is a wonderful example of what can be achieved when governments work together in a cooperative way. In the past, the Western Australian and Northern Territory pearling industries were managed separately, although both sectors sourced pearl shell from the same area. They competed in the national wholesale markets and producers operated farm sites across both jurisdictions. A draft memorandum of understanding has been developed which will see the Northern Territory and Western Australian governments working together to ensure consistent management and compliance when it comes to pearling. Both governments are now to jointly consider future arrangements for the pearling industry.
It is necessary to balance the future growth of the industry and the changing international marketplace for pearls. I applaud the initiatives of pearl producers who have determined to add value to the production through marketing their pearls directly to the consumer in preference to selling pearls on the wholesale markets. This vertical integration provides for brand recognition that highlights that South Sea pearls produced throughout northern Australia are the best in the world and demonstrates that Territory-based products can achieve much.
The outlook for prawn farming is mixed. A rapid increase in the culture of venimae prawns worldwide has placed a squeeze on the prices, particularly for smaller sized prawns. I continue to lobby for country of origin labelling for unpackaged foods so that consumers can make an informed choice when buying prawns.
I would like to mention the considerable achievements of the government’s Darwin Aquaculture Centre located at Channel Island in the Darwin Harbour. The centre is critical in underwriting the expansion of the Territory aquaculture industry. It provides barramundi grow-out stock and juvenile mud crabs on a commercial basis, extension services to the local aquaculture industry, and investigates new aquaculture species.
Research undertaken at the centre has achieved a world first: commercial scale production of mud crab from domesticated stock. Also last year, the centre was responsible for 1.5 million baby barramundi for our farming industry. While most of these were sold to commercial farms, excess fingerlings were destined to enhance recreational fishing experiences in the Northern Territory.
Successful mud crab grow-out trials have been undertaken with prawn farm operators and traditional owners in two separate trials. A demonstration mud crab farm, using Kulaluk community aquaculture ponds located near Dick Ward Drive in Darwin, is planned. The Fisheries Group will produce juvenile mud crabs and provide technical advice to the venture. In addition, a mud crab ranching trial is planned near Maningrida using ‘crablets’, juvenile mud crabs produced by the Darwin Aquaculture Centre. These two ventures represent a first step in trialling environmentally, economically and culturally sustainable businesses with indigenous communities.
The government called for expressions of interest for undertaking commercial trials at the Darwin Aquaculture Centre aimed at further stimulating the growth of the aquaculture industry. The centre provides incubator facilities, along with tropical aquaculture knowledge at minimal cost to encourage commercial partners to trial new ventures.
As an outcome, the culture of trepang is being tested. Members might be aware that trepang, or sea cucumber, was Australia’s very first export industry. Macassans visited the northern coast line of Australia from the late 1600s until the early 1900s, searching for trepang to export through trade routes from Sulawesi in Indonesia to China. It is suggested that some indigenous words have their origin in the Macassan/Indonesian language, such as rupiah for money and balanda, from Hollander, for white person. The links are well recognised and still strong, with 10 Macassans participating in this year’s Garma Festival.
The first few successful spawnings of trepang has been achieved, and now land and technical support is being sought to develop a sea cucumber culture industry.
Sponge grow-out trials have been conducted in Arnhem Land in collaboration with traditional owners at Maningrida and Goulburn Island.
Farming the Future, our government’s blueprint for developing our aquaculture industry from 2005 to 2010, represents a true participatory approach with industry members. It seeks to achieve a goal of aquaculture production value of $120m per annum contributing to regional and indigenous development.
I now to turn to an area of particular interest to all Territorians: recreational fishing. The abundant fish stocks and unspoilt nature of Northern Territory waters give the Territory a unique advantage over other jurisdictions and draws more than 100 000 visitors north each year. It is why I believe that fishing is the lure of the Territory.
Recreational fishing is one of the most popular leisure pursuits in the Territory, with up to one in every two Territorians fishing each year. It attracts significant tourism in the Northern Territory, particularly the Top End and Borroloola regions. The most recent survey suggests that more than $26m was spent directly on recreational fishing in the Northern Territory. Around 38% of all fishing effort in the Territory was by interstate and overseas tourists, compared with 11% nationally.
The government has committed more than $5m for fishing infrastructure and access projects over the next four years. This is in addition to $1.5m spent during our first term to improve facilities for anglers, such as the parking facility at Buffalo Creek and the upgrade of the Rocky Creek ramp near Borroloola. Access for anglers is being improved; the access road and fencing to the coast near the Peron Islands and access near Point Stuart are under way. The rock groyne at Nightcliff has been extended to provide greater protection to boat users.
Negotiations have commenced with traditional owners in the Borroloola region about possible recreational fishing camp sites on traditional land, similar to the existing Tiwi recreational fishing camp site permit system.
We are working on formalising access to the King and Katherine Rivers junction, including resolving public liability issues surrounding recreational fishing access.
We have also embarked upon an ambitious barramundi stocking program, including Lake Todd, Manton Dam and Lake Bennett. A total of 90 000 baby barramundi have been stocked into Manton Dam since early 2004. A further 55 000 barramundi fingerlings were stocked in Lake Bennett, with an undertaking to continue to allow day use of the area by anglers.
The government also established a dedicated Recreational Fishing Unit within the Fisheries Group and increased staffing numbers. Our junior fishing workshop program, coordinated by the Recreational Fishing Unit, will also be expanded.
Nine River Watch Centres, ‘neighbourhood watch’ for our coastal rivers, have been appointed across the Top End since 2002 to distribute information required by local and visiting anglers.
The Port Corporation is assisting in growing our artificial reef program for Darwin Harbour and I will be making further announcements about this shortly.
I will now outline the considerable success of our Indigenous Marine Ranger program. Marine Ranger programs provide a surveillance capacity to address concerns raised by traditional owners, the Fisheries Group and the Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit. The Marine Ranger program now covers Tiwi, Elcho Island, Warruwi, Borroloola, Wadeye and Maningrida. The Fisheries Group has forged a strong relationship with each of these teams through training, funding and the provision of technical support, with 37 rangers employed. In addition, the Fisheries Group has appointed an Indigenous Support Officer to help manage the program and work with other ranger groups at Ramingining, Lanhupuy, Dhimurru, Ngukurr, Numbulwar and Groote Eylandt.
An additional $306 000 will be made available over the next three years to expand the Indigenous Marine Ranger program. The Northern Territory government, working in partnership with Aboriginal groups, has recognised a need for consultative committees to assist with the care and management of marine resources and coastal habitats. These committees provide an opportunity for both government and indigenous stakeholders to work on fisheries related issues from the grassroots.
There has been an increase in the number of indigenous people wanting to work in the fishing industry. To accommodate this, the Aboriginal Liaison Unit within the Fisheries Group has been expanded and has some 30 indigenous economic development projects to oversee.
The long-term outlook for the wild harvest sector is promising, with domestic consumption of seafood increasing steadily. While seasonal conditions and market price fluctuations can be unpredictable, demand for quality seafood is expected to remain optimistic given consumer preference and growing per capita incomes. Demands from markets in southern Australia for our premium fresh fish remain strong.
Expansion of our wild harvest industry will require a concerted marketing effort and continued development of regional fisheries to satisfy both overseas and domestic demand. This is already under way with NT Fish Pty Ltd examining markets in the United States with a trial shipment of 1000 kg of black jewfish. The company is also sending tropical snapper fillets to Switzerland. It is looking for new markets to increase returns to local fishers, with a trial shipment of fresh mackerel sent to Japan late last week.
The Northern Territory is leading the nation in accreditation of its fisheries under the Commonwealth government’s export controls. These independent audits confirm that our management arrangements are sustainable. This is particularly important for commercial operators in considering investment decisions, and provides confidence for the community that we are managing our fisheries. No longer a lifestyle pursuit, fishing is a big business.
After just 17 years of operation, we have decided the Fisheries Act needs to be renewed. To ensure stakeholder and wider community input, government will release a discussion paper for public comment later in the year. It is anticipated that a new fisheries bill will be ready for consideration by government in late 2006. I encourage all stakeholders and those with an interest to participate in the upcoming review to help shape the future management and development of the Territory’s valuable aquatic resources.
Management programs implemented here in the Northern Territory continue to set world best practices. The Spanish Mackerel Fishery Management Plan is unique in Australia, and possibly the world, as it now recognises and allocates individual shares of the catch for the commercial, recreational and indigenous sectors. While many jurisdictions have discussed the need to clearly recognise who catches what, the Northern Territory is the first jurisdiction to achieve such a milestone. It means that management arrangements can be developed for individual sectors, rather than ‘one size fits all’.
Our iconic barramundi fishery has very special management needs. In the past, a number of commercial operators have exceeded what the fishery could sustain; that is why a licence reduction program was implemented, together with seasonal closure and minimum size restrictions. A number of major coastal rivers were also closed to commercial fishing. Government recognised the importance of barramundi as a major tourist drawcard, and a key part to our great and envious lifestyle. It is also why AFANT continues to lobby on behalf of its members for the best outcome for anglers.
You need to look no further than our premium barramundi fishing competitions on the Daly River - the Barra Nationals and the Barra Classic - to see that fishing is the lure of the Territory. Competitors commend the Territory government for recognising the importance of recreational fishing. It is also telling when an iconic Queensland beverage manufacturer runs a national competition with a trip to the Territory to catch a barra as first prize.
As honourable members already know, we have not stood still when it comes to barra. The government closed the McArthur and Adelaide Rivers to commercial barramundi fishing to make recreational fishing even better. We bought back two barramundi fishing licences so that fishing pressure was not displaced to other regions of the fishery. In the lead-up to the 2005 Territory elections, we provided a vision for the fishery, one in which major stakeholders can have a say in developing a five-year plan and 10-year vision; a vision that recognises the immense opportunity for anglers and provides certainty for those family fishing businesses which decided to continue, albeit in some of the most remote parts of the Territory. The plan provides a clear and solid road map for the future, rather than making hollow promises to appear popular. Our barra fishery is simply too important to Territorians and to our tourism industry to leave it to chance.
Developing such a vision is not easy; that is probably why it has never been done before. It will be making some very tough decisions - decisions that this government is prepared to make. In doing so, we are more inclusive and more transparent, and have a clear way forward for the next decade. Anglers will be assured that fishing will only get better, and businesses such as fishing tour operators and those in the tourism industry, will be able to invest with greater certainty. We have committed to buy back at least another three commercial barramundi licences as part of this plan.
Darwin recently hosted the National Barramundi Workshop, the first in 19 years. Scientists and managers from throughout Australia and overseas, including Uganda and the United States of America, attended. It highlights the international standing of our scientists and managers.
This also leads me to an issue that I am rather concerned about: protecting the integrity of the barramundi label. It seems that there is an identity crisis within our seafood industry; that fish sold as sea bass in other parts of the world suddenly changes identity and becomes barramundi when imported into Australia. Some unscrupulous sellers are marketing a freshwater African cousin, the Nile perch, as genuine barramundi. Members would be aware that the name ‘barramundi’ comes from the Aboriginal word ‘barramundi’ meaning ‘large scales’. It is as Australian as vegemite and we should protect it. Overseas producers are even cashing in on the name in the United States selling their product as barramundi on the back of the success of local barramundi farmers selling their fish in this market, and the popularity of ‘Australian’ produce.
The federal government has yet to be convinced of the icon status of our barra, and seems unwilling to provide protection in Australia. Federal laws now allow imported sea bass to be called barramundi. Barramundi is an icon; we should make a special case to protect it. We need to ensure that country of origin labelling is not eroded. Consumers need to know that they are purchasing genuine Australian products rather than imported seafood.
This government also acted to provide certainty to fishers when it clearly defined the area in which commercial fishers could operate. We changed the barramundi fishery management plan to ensure that there was no question about the boundaries, to safeguard investment in the catching sector. The government has appointed the Aquatic Resource User Group Forum so that recreational, commercial and indigenous fishers can all have a say about resource allocation – a transparent and inclusive process.
A review of the management arrangements for coastal net fisheries is currently under way. The review incorporates the coastal net fishery, bait net fishery, development fishery coastal net licences, and Aboriginal coastal licences. The Fisheries Group has met with key stakeholder groups to identify management issues and canvass proposed strategies for resolving these matters. Government will buy back inshore netting licences, and has committed more than $1m for this task. Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay will be a priority.
Our shark fishery is well managed. The number of commercial licences has been reduced by two-thirds. Nationally, we now have the lowest number of commercial shark fishermen and have implemented catch limits for our fisheries that take sharks as an incidental catch. Shark catches have been reduced from around 10 000 tonnes of sharks each year when foreign fishing vessels were authorised to operate in Australian waters.
Despite having the lowest level of commercial fishers, further controls have recently been introduced to ensure the future sustainability of the fishery. There has been a 20% reduction in the length of longlines and a limit on the number of hooks that fishers can use. Furthermore, there has been a 25% reduction in the length of the net. Shark fishermen can only now fish for 123 days using pelagic nets or 18 days using longlines. It is the most conservative approach to managing sharks. I applaud the industry for such a responsible approach in working with government.
I continue to raise concerns with my federal colleagues about reports of increasing illegal incursions by foreign fishing vessels. It is worrying to hear reports by Customs officials that they have evidence that foreign fishermen are landing illegally along the Territory coastline. It has been reported that these illegal boats carry dogs, parrots, hens and rats. This threatens the Territory’s bio-security and, ultimately, local producers and export markets. Federal authorities say that they have also located caches of shark fins on shore, as well as freshwater wells. They also say that illegal fisherman pose a health threat because many have tuberculosis.
We are no longer talking about subsistence fishers. Vessels apprehended are equipped with satellites and radar equipment to pinpoint their location and that of Australian authorities. It means that the sustainability of our shark fishery will be at risk and the cuts made by local operators will be simply eroded by illegal foreign fishing incursions.
It is reported that Customs officials now concede that much of what they have been doing is not working, particularly with incursions into the Gulf of Carpentaria. That is why I continue to seek greater resources for federal authorities protecting waters throughout the Top End. I am also deeply concerned about the decline in commercial landings of mud crab from 1200 tonnes in 2002 to around 400 tonnes over recent years. The average size of mud crabs has also declined, and fishermen have been convicted of using excess mud crab pots. The downturn may be linked to seasonal conditions but we need to act to ensure the breeding stock is protected when overall stock levels are low. I am considering the advice of my advisory group and industry members, and will make a decision shortly about changes to the commercial mud crab fishery, including changes to minimum sizes and greater penalties for over potting.
Protecting the health of our aquatic environment is paramount. Government has established an Aquatic Pest Management Unit in recognising the vulnerability of Territory waterways to invasion by exotic species. This was highlighted by the incursion of the black-striped mussel into our marinas, with more than $2m spent on the world’s only reported eradiation of an introduced marine pest. The Aquatic Pest Management Unit actively monitors for the presence of marine pests in collaboration with Paspaley Pearls, PenSyl (Tiwi Islands), Alcan Gove and GEMCO.
The expertise of the Territory in managing marine pest incursions has been recognised with the finalisation of a National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions. My department is also participating in a review of ornamental fish aimed at minimising the impact of exotic fish on our environment. In the past, the Aquatic Pest Management Unit has eradicated populations of exotic fish and snails which had the potential to displace native species and cause harm to our environment. Anyone who has any doubts about the impact of exotic fish needs to look no further than carp. It is believed that a hybrid strain of the fish bred in a dam near Mildura escaped during a flood event. With a female carp’s ability to produce 1.5 million eggs per year, carp have now spread through the Murray-Darling river system and earned the title of Australia’s number one pest. Exotic snails detected by the Aquatic Pest Management Unit have been found to be the intermediate host of parasites which affect cattle production, the pastoral industries’ health certification and, ultimately, export markets. The snails were destroyed and protocols put in place to prevent further introductions.
The Fisheries Research Group is recognised for punching well above its weight. The Gene Tag project – the genetic tagging of Spanish mackerel - continues to be a flagship project. Fisheries scientists and technical officers are recipients of three major awards, including the ABC’s New Inventors program. This highly innovative development has the potential to revolutionise the way we manage fish stocks. Our barramundi researchers have closely studied catch and release techniques, leading to the wider use of fish-friendly landing nets to improve survival rates. Future work will investigate the continuing effects of catch and release fishing on the survival and spawning success of mature barramundi.
The Fisheries Research Group has developed a novel method to access the abundance and movement of mud crabs. The Mud Crab Team is also continuing to monitor mud crab abundance in collaboration with the commercial fishery.
Jewfish are also highly prized by Northern Territory commercial and recreational anglers, and are sought by fishing charter operators offering day trips from Darwin. Fisheries researchers are testing a new approach using acoustic tags and underwater listening devices. This will provide cost-effective information on movement patterns.
Dedicated research in our offshore fisheries continues, with funding provided by the national Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. This research will allow for improved interpretation of reports provided by fishermen. The outcomes have implications for the way in which we manage our fisheries.
The Northern Shark Assessment Group, led by Northern Territory fisheries researchers, continues to undertake research on our shark fisheries. This work will result in greater collaboration with the Charles Darwin University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science in developing a world best practice shark monitoring program. This will involve tagging to monitor the impact of fishing.
The Fisheries Research Group is also actively working with the Australian Institute of Marine Science in a project funded by the Commonwealth government to determine the type of shark caught for its fins by illegal foreign fishing boats.
Closer to home, the Fisheries Research Group has supported a PhD project investigating the links between the mangroves and fish of Darwin Harbour. This project has just been completed and shows that the mangroves in the harbour provide a critical feeding habitat for a wide variety of fish species. This government has provided greater protection for our mangroves.
Many of the projects undertaken by the Fisheries Research Group are supported by external funding agencies and our research scientists have enormous success in securing funding for their projects.
In summary, the government will:
- deliver on its commitment to ensure that the Northern Territory remains Australia’s premier recreational
fishing destination for both Territorians and visitors alike;
commercial partners and indigenous communities;
resources are grown, harvested and managed in a sustainable manner;
and technical support;
comprehensive review of the Fisheries Act. After 17 years, the act has passed its use-by date; and
environmentally sustainable manner.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to thank you for putting up with me and my cough. I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I sincerely hope the minister is feeling a lot better tomorrow. He has had something of a trial delivering that ministerial statement.
I welcome the minister’s statement. There is no doubt that fishing plays a very important part in the unique lifestyle that we enjoy in the Territory. The number of boats we see parked in people’s yards testifies to the importance of recreational fishing to Territorians. It is also a major attraction for visitors and draws a considerable number of interstate visitors annually. I know of many visitors who have been coming to the Territory annually for a long period of time solely to live out their dream of catching a big barra.
The buy-back of commercial barra licences over the past few years and the closure of the McArthur and Adelaide Rivers has ensured that there is a good supply of barra for everyone to experience the thrill of catching one. I note that the Amateur Fishermen’s Association NT has stated that barramundi stocks are depleted and that there should be more buy-back of barra licences. However, that is in direct dispute with the Fisheries Council, so I would think much more research has to be done into that aspect.
While it is encouraging to see that barramundi farming has become so successful and the demand is certainly there for the product, there is no doubt in my mind that the flavour of wild catch saltwater barramundi is tops and preferable. I was a little amused where the minister’s statement mentioned that some unscrupulous sellers are marketing a freshwater African cousin, Nile perch, as genuine barramundi. Some 12 years ago, when my husband and I first took over Red Gum Tourist Park, the fisheries inspector visited us to warn us of that very same issue, so it has been happening for a very long time. The boxes of product were always marked correctly with Nile perch, but it was our experience that it was the end seller who was advertising the product as genuine barramundi, not the wholesaler.
In his ministerial statement of 15 June 2004, the minister said:
- Total value of production of wild fisheries at first point of sale is in the order of $30m per annum, with the Northern Territory
prawn fishery contributing an additional $130m. Aquaculture contributes $35m and is on the increase.
The minister’s statement of today:
- The most recent estimates show that aquaculture production rose by 26% from $22m to $28m in 2003.
There is quite a discrepancy there, so I await with interest to hear what the correct amount is.
The value of recreational fishing to the Northern Territory economy cannot be underestimated. It is vital to ensure its sustainability, but also a balance so that the wild catch sector is not overlooked, because we tend to do that. The amateur fishing association has a huge number of members and the wild catch industry has a very small number, so they are certainly a minority in voice.
The federal government is very aware of the importance of great fishing experiences. It announced this very last week $15m over three years for recreational fishing community grants program. The first round is now open, with grants to be in by 14 October. With the opportunity of projects being funded of up to $100 000, that could include boat ramps for the Northern Territory, funding for volunteer marine rescue associations, and restocking and re-snagging rivers and waterways. It could include wash down facilities at boat ramps and youth fishing camps. I hope that the Northern Territory minister’s office is encouraging and promoting this opportunity far and wide.
While on the subject of facilities, the increasing number of vessels that are utilising the Frances Bay fishermen’s mooring basin and Fisherman’s Wharf means that these facilities need to be urgently upgraded. Will this government put urgently needed funding towards these facilities? There have also been concerns expressed by fishermen at Nhulunbuy. The Alcan expansion is having an effect on the access to the wharf at Nhulunbuy and, as it is it will be some time before extensions are completed, could the minister also look into problems that fishermen are facing in Nhulunbuy.
Last year, I had several concerned recreational fisherman contact my office in relation to the significant reduction in mud crab stocks and sizes caught. These reports were from several different locations in the Northern Territory and not connected. One recreational fisherman has been going to the Roper for many years and has always been able to get a couple of mud crabs per day. He now claims he is lucky to get one a trip and it has been like that for over 12 months. I had the opportunity to travel to Borroloola in December and spent some time with three professional mud crabbers who operate from King Ash Bay. These crabbers also confirmed that their catches were significantly declining and had been for at least two years. Whether this is as a result of over-fishing, the illegal use of excessive crab pots, or there does seem to be some question of ecological explanation, I do not believe you should hold off any longer in making changes to the commercial mud crab fishery. The decline is still evident and the industry needs protecting now.
Another serious threat to fishing in the Territory appears to be the rapid decline in shark stocks. This can be directly attributed to the illegal shark finning which was first highlighted in the NT News on Monday, 11 July, by a deckhand who took great courage to speak out following claims that illegal Indonesian fishermen were the cause.
I wish to read into Hansard a copy of a letter that was sent to Senator Hon Ian Campbell by Nicola Beynon, Wildlife and Habitat Program Manager for the Humane Society International on behalf of Adele Pedder of the Australian Marine Conservation Society, which relates to illegal shark finning in the Northern Territory. It reads:
- Dear Minister
Re illegal shark finning in the Northern Territory.
Humane Society International (HSI) and the Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) write to you with our serious
concerns over evidence of illegal shark finning by commercial fishermen in the Northern Territory. We recommend you
revoke the Wildlife Trade Operations (WTO) declaration for the Northern Territory shark fishery and instigate an urgent
investigation into this matter.
AMCS has received information from an industry insider that in 2004 the volume of shark fin estimated through Darwin
wharf alone was at least 100 tonnes. As reported in the Northern Territory News (11/07/05), according to government
estimates on the fin to carcass ratio, this is equivalent to 6578 tonnes of whole shark. However, the commercial licences
for the NT shark fishery allow for only 800 tonnes of shark to be fished.
This implies that a massive amount of shark fins are being brought in illegally and that sharks are being severely fished over
their quota in the Northern Territory shark fishery.
Meanwhile, also reported in the Northern Territory News, a former deckhand has come forward claiming to have witnessed
illegal shark finning on several accounts:
- The man said he witnessed the sister boat’s skipper cut the fins off up to a dozen sharks and also saw two large
tiger shark fins about 70 cm in diameter in his boat’s freezer.
‘When I asked my skipper what he was going to do with them he said he was taking them back to Darwin to sell
on the black market’.
‘It wasn’t just our boat that was shark finning illegally … I knew of at least two others doing it in the bay we were fishing’.
- For your information, we have enclosed the relevant extract from the Northern Territory News.
Which I have here:
- The NT shark fishery was declared a WTO under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC)
on 29 November 2004. We note that the approval period for the WTO was originally until 1 June 2005. However, this period has
recently been extended until 30 November 2007.
The declaration of the WTO was based on the report prepared in 2003 for the Department of Environment and Heritage as required
for assessment under Part 13 and 13A of the EPBC Act, (the Assessment Report).
The EPBC Act Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries require there to be ‘management strategies in
place capable of controlling the level of take’. (1.1.7 of the guidelines).
In responding to this requirement the Assessment Report specifies management strategies designed to prevent shark finning
in the fishery. It states:
- It is now a condition of the shark fishery licence that shark product on board a vessel must conform to the following percentage ratios:
- (a) fresh or frozen fin weight to be no more than 8% of trunk weight on board a vessel;
- … These ratios effectively prevent the practice of shark finning (ie the take of shark fin without retaining the remaining carcass) ...
If illegal shark finning is occurring to such an extent as implied by the evidence above, it is obvious that the management
strategies in place are not succeeding in controlling the level of take.
We note that records of catch are recorded and published in the shark fishery status reports by the NT Department of Business,
Industry and Resource Development. While these reports provide information on total shark catch they do not provide information
on the volume of shark fin landed. This in itself indicates poor management at the very least. Records of fin landings should feature
in the annual status reports for the fishery.
Section 303FT of the EPBC Act states:
- 9. The Minister must by instrument published in the Gazette revoke a declaration if he or she is satisfied that a
condition of the declaration has been contravened.
6. If a declaration specifies circumstances as mentioned in subsection (4), the Minister must by instrument
published in the Gazette revoke the declaration if he or she is satisfied that those circumstances have
ceased to exist.
10. The Minister may by instrument published in the Gazette revoke a declaration at any time.
We suggest that such gross overfishing, widespread illegal activity, and inadequate management strategies raise serious
sustainability issues that require urgent investigation. In the meantime, the WTO should be revoked. HSI and AMCS would
like to draw your attention toward a report prepared for the Northern Land Council by Dr Jeremy Prince (2004). The report
provides an assessment of the environmental issues relevant to the NT shark fishery.
Dr Prince’s findings are alarming. He notes that the fishery has rapidly evolved into ‘a broad scale, indiscriminate fin
fishery for large scale species’ and states that the ‘management strategies are clearly incapable of controlling catch levels
of the “target species” either above or below target levels’. Dr Prince concludes that the management arrangements in this
fishery are so poor that it ‘should be closed until it is research and sustainability issues have been addressed’ …
The Australian government has indeed been very vocal in their criticism of illegal shark fining and would face criticisms of
hypocrisy for prosecuting Indonesian shark finners in our waters and not coming down hard on Australians illegally carrying
out the same activity.
We thank you for your attention to this urgent conservation matter and we look forward to your reply.
I seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Mrs MILLER: As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are obviously some serious concerns in relation to illegal shark fining in the Northern Territory. I am sure the minister is very well aware of that.
I also note with interest that Dr Rik Buckworth, acting Principal Research Scientist, Fisheries Group with the NT government, said on the ABC Country Hour on 21 July, that Northern Territory Fisheries has an application into the Australian Research Council to use Genetags for shark monitoring. I think that gene tagging sharks for monitoring would go some way towards improving the shark stocks, but I am very interested in how one would actually tag a shark. I, for one, will not be offering to assist. I am sure there would have to be considerable thought put into how this can be done without serious injury by some very sharp teeth to the shark handler. Sharks are not exactly the friendliest of sea creatures, so I will be watching with interest the progress on Genetags for shark.
Policing of our fisheries is very important in ensuring that stocks are sustainable well into the future. Considering the vast area to be covered by the extensive waterways throughout the Territory and the coastline, I find it hard to believe that the small number of fisheries police - whom I wish to add do a great job - are adequate to cover such huge areas. The importance of policing the fishing industry cannot be underestimated, and I would like to see specially trained fisheries inspectors focusing on our extensive waterways and coastline right throughout the licensed season. Full-time fisheries inspectors work very effectively in South Australia and I would like to see their presence in the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that, overall, we have a great future for our very diverse fisheries industry in the Northern Territory. I thank the minister for his statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will touch on a few issues. The member for Katherine has touched on an issue I was going to raise. It is similar to an issue I raised when the minister made a statement on fisheries at about this time last year. It concerns the shark industry.
The member for Katherine read some articles from the NT News. There was another letter on 4 June 2004, which addressed the slaughter of 3 m to 4 m sharks for their fins:
- I work in the fishing industry and see first-hand the tonnes of sharks being landed each month. Some boats bring in the
practically worthless meat (it is unfit for human consumption) only to fulfil the letter of the law, but most don’t.
That is similar to the issue I raised last time. Although there are the requirements – and the member for Katherine spoke about them – of shark fishery licences that deal with percentage ratios of fresh or frozen fin weight to a percentage of the trunk weight, I know some of that material is used by companies like Moeco for their fish emulsion products. When I spoke about it last time, there was a limit to how much they can store.
I am interested know whether we are still collecting fish that is coming in just to fulfil the requirements of the law. Has the government looked at assisting companies like Moeco to have a larger storage capacity to take some of these fish? It seems a terrible waste of such an animal just to lose its fins and then be dumped overboard. The industry has cut back on shark licences. It would be great, if we are to continue with this form of fishing, that we do not waste the product.
I would also be interested to know how many fishing inspectors we have and how often they check the boats coming in. Again, that was something I was concerned about last year. I do not know whether there are more fishing inspectors who do that sort of work. Of course, they have more than just the shark fishermen to look after. They are checking on amateur fishing people and other professional fishing people. They have a lot of work to do, so it would be interesting to know if there been an increase in the number of fishing inspectors. I will not go on too much about that. The member for Katherine covered an area about which I have some concerns.
I did raise during the Estimates Committee the issue of sea cages. There has been some talk about sea cages in the Darwin Harbour, and there are some concerns about the possible pollution or movement of disease from such places. I would be interested to know what the latest is on application to have sea cage aquaculture in our harbour and what the government thinks about it.
I know the government has just received a report on the crab industry looking at issues such as whether you increase the size of the crab. Of course, if you increase the size of the crab, there may be the possibility that the person who has the licence can harvest fewer crabs. I have been approached by one crab operator saying that, if that changed, they could lose a certain percentage of their income. I do not know whether the government is looking at that issue. It is important that we do not let our crab stocks drop off severely, but it is an issue that was raised by one of the crab people in my area.
An area that is sometimes missed in all these statements, minister - and I know it is only a small industry - is ornamental aquaculture. There is a gentleman, Dave Wilson, in my electorate who collects fish especially from Aboriginal communities where he pays a royalty for every fish he collects. He is breeding these fish and sending them overseas. He has a good rapport with traditional owners and is developing quite an exclusive, important industry. I believe he is also looking at frogs; whether we can use some of our native frogs as edible frogs. There is a market there as well.
It is people like this - though they might not appear to be as big as the crab, shark, barramundi and all those fishing industries – who are very important. I know the member for Katherine has a smile on her face, but some people enjoy eating frogs.
Mrs Miller: Just eating cane toads.
Mr WOOD: No, we are not eating cane toads.
That little industry creates industry within, say, the Howard Springs area, for water tanks, plumbing equipment - all those things he needs to keep operating. He is an important part of our economy. I know he is a genuine person when it comes to this type of business. He was involved with the Darwin Wildlife Park for many years, especially in the aquaculture section of the park.
I will get back to my favourite subject, minister. I spoke in the Estimates Committee about how you talk about more funding for AFANT, and how it is important for the amateur fishing industry and the tourists. That is all great. I think it is terrific. However, there is still not enough emphasis to encourage me that you are looking at a constant supply of wild fish in Northern Territory waters for the restaurant industry, and for the fish and chip industry. If you cut back on licences, as you are saying you will do as part of your election promises, are people who do not go out in the tinnies, who come to the Northern Territory to enjoy a Northern Territory barramundi at the restaurant, going to be able to get those? I believe you mentioned that probably they do not, they would probably get one of those fish that we should call another name – like cock-up. I hope you do not really make those people call a fish that, otherwise no one will ever eat it.
Mr Mills: I think I missed something.
Mr WOOD: Member for Blain, I will just recommend you read a little more deeply into the minister’s statement. He knows what I mean. That is the local name for what we call the barramundi; they call it that in other parts of the world. I spoke to our local fish and chip shop, which really has beautiful meals, about your statement that you could not get barramundi all the time. They said, of course you can; you collect enough and you freeze it. They have a supply all year around.
I am concerned that there is not a big bias towards amateur fishing. It is important, for sure. We gets many people come here who want to catch the icon, the barramundi. But I also want to eat the barramundi, the threadfin salmon, and the jewfish. I want to be able to buy that in a local fish and chip shop or at the restaurant.
The promises you make, to me, tend to be slanted towards the Amateur Fishermen’s Association against the professional fishermen, because you are reducing the number of licences and, as we know, AFANT wants all coastal licences bought back. I ask the government to make sure that we do not get political promises so great that we ruin something that many people come up here for. They want to eat some of our local wild fish. They do not really want to eat caged fish. That will be for the exclusive market in the United States. We just want to have our local tropical fish and to be able to enjoy it.
I know you talk about the importance of that fish. In fact, you say here, ‘the long-term outlook for the wild harvest sector is promising’, but then you talk about closing licences down. I would love to see how those two are compatible. It is important that one section of the industry does not wipe out the other section simply because we know there are many more amateur fishermen, and they have a fairly powerful lobby with many people in it. However, we also know we have a professional industry which does not have that many in it - it is very hard for them to organise because they are scattered - but they do earn the Territory a lot of money. Talk to the fishing suppliers: each time they come into port there are more ropes and nets, and more supplies of food and water and fuel. We must not lose sight that the professional industry is an important part of our industry and keep that balance right.
Minister, I would be interested to hear what you have to say about the shark industry. I know it is a very valuable industry but, at the same time, we should not lose sight of the fact that these are still important fish. I would hate to see a resource like that just used up simply because the fins and the tails are valuable and we throw the rest away. Thank you for your statement, and I am interested to hear what you have to say.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries’ statement on fishing. Since coming to office in 2001, this government has delivered greater access and improved fishing facilities and infrastructure for recreational anglers. A total of $1.5m over the past three years has been spent by this government to improve recreational fishing infrastructure, with an additional $2m committed over the next four years.
Improvements to the Buffalo Creek boat ramp facility were completed in early 2004 at a cost of approximately $500 000. Upgrading of the Dinah Beach boat ramp was completed at a cost of $750 000 in October 2004, and some minor modifications to lighting to shield residential units from the high levels of lights was completed in July 2005. An allocation of $150 000 has been made to the Palmerston Town Council to prepare a development strategy and implementing improvements to the Palmerston boat ramp.
As a result of public submissions, the government is upgrading the boat ramp and access at Rocky Creek in Borroloola, and we will provide a new boat ramp at Mule Creek to bring improved access to the McArthur River at a cost of $435 000. The construction of these two projects is being managed by the Borroloola Community Government Council, utilising a local work force to provide greater benefit to the community. Work has commenced at the Rocky Creek boat ramp, and access with 50% of earthworks for the road and car park completed. The concrete extension of the ramp is anticipated to take place within two weeks, and the overall completion is anticipated by the end of August. Work has also commenced at the new Mule Creek boat ramp, and access with at least 5% to 10% of the underlying rock fill to the access road having been installed. Completion of the Mule Creek boat ramp and access is anticipated prior to the Wet Season.
The McArthur River is a great river. As members would know, this government closed the McArthur River to commercial fishing quite soon after coming to government. These works really build on that, both for locals and tourists. I would be very interested to go out there with the local member. As the House knows, I am very keen fisherman and, even just throwing a line in from the boat ramps would bring a great deal of pleasure. There are some great works out at Borroloola. With the Savannah Way that comes through Queensland as a tourist route, that area will open up. We know there are many caravans, but some of those caravan owners also have boats on top of their cars and are very keen fishermen. These works out at Borroloola and in the electorate of Arnhem will open up that particular area as well. There is great fishing out there, and some great people at Borroloola and much to see.
Upgrading of the Mandorah boat ramp has commenced to improve the use of the ramp and prevent the constant natural dumping of shifting sand by the strong local currents and significant wave action that has been experienced along this coastline. The scope of the project is to raise the lower two-thirds of the ramp to a level consistent with the adjacent area. Work on upgrading the ramp has commenced and is anticipated to be completed by mid-August 2005. The member for Goyder, when he was a candidate, certainly got on my back about the boat ramp. It is a difficult issue; it is a natural phenomenon where sand builds up on that particular boat ramp. What we are trying to do is to remediate that situation. We met with the Cox Peninsula Community Government Council and worked through the issues. I am hopeful that these works will remediate the situation there.
An assessment was carried out in 2003 on raising the height and extending the Nightcliff boat ramp groyne to provide 100% protection from all tide levels. This concept was estimated to cost in the order of $500 000 to $750 000. At a recent inspection, it was noticed there is quite a legible watermark on the upper side of the groyne, which represents a frequent tide level. The existing groyne commences some 50 m from shore, leaving an unprotected gap that allows 70% to 80% of tides to splash through onto the boat ramp which makes boat launching and retrieval difficult and unsafe at times. This work was completed in mid-July at a cost of $135 000.
This issue was brought to my attention by some constituents, keen fishermen, who try to launch at Nightcliff. They pointed out to me that it was a hazard to people on certain tides and winds, and we have moved to try to remediate that situation. I am hopeful, once again, that the works that have been carried out will take away some of that hazard and people can enjoy launching and retrieving their boats from the Nightcliff boat ramp.
A boat ramp is to be constructed at Gregory National Park on the Victoria River on the junction with Gregory Creek. The contract is for construction of access road parking bays and boat ramp. The access road is about 500 m past the Victoria River Roadhouse. There is to be a parking area at the top of the river valley which will provide for bus parking as well as vehicles and trailers. The contract has been awarded to Norbuilt Pty Ltd. The value of the contract is $1.1m. A construction meeting is being held on-site with the contractor, park staff and Construction Division this Friday. It is planned to have it built before the Wet this year.
It is an area that I have had the pleasure to visit and to go up the Red Gorge. It is a beautiful piece of country and I do not think enough people and tourists stop there. This boat ramp will provide an incentive because, at present, people have to launch their boats over the rocks in the river and it can get quite boggy. With ease of access and ease of launching, more people, particularly tourists, will take advantage of stopping for a couple of days at the Victoria River Roadhouse.
I have spent a few enjoyable evenings there playing pool and having a couple of beers with the locals. There are a few characters around there and I have been fortunate enough to catch a couple of fish along there as well. It is great scenery. It is a great area within the electorate held by Mr Robert Knight. There is work there which is going to be a real plus for the Gregory National Park.
Access to the Peron Islands from the adjacent coast has been an issue that I have been closely involved with over the past two or two-and-a-half years. It has been a complex matter involving a number of parties. I do not want to say too much about that. There has been a bit of conflict there but, suffice to say, I believe a way forward has been found that suits most of the people involved. It is a pretty good solution to provide access to the people of Bulgul, as well as access to those who have cabins at Channel Point, and also for the government’s agenda of providing access to the Peron Islands. The roadway is currently under construction, as is the fencing. There will be a park area opened up for a limited number of recreational anglers, no more than 10 vehicles at a time.
This was an agreement that government reached with the Northern Land Council. There will be a permit system, similar to what operates currently at Cobourg, where the permits are granted through Parks and Wildlife. The Peron Islands are very close to there. It is going to be a big plus to recreational anglers. At the 2001 election, one of the election commitments we gave was that we would open up recreational access to anglers along our coastline, and what is happening there with access to the Peron Island is a very big part of that.
Some of the detail: a gate has been placed at the commencement of the easement across the Aboriginal land and is locked with keys issued to Bulgul community residents, Channel Point residents, and the lessee of Labelle Downs. This system will, ultimately, apply to recreational anglers with a permit to enter the park. This permit system will be the same as operates through Parks and Wildlife for access to Cobourg Peninsula. $175 000 is being funded from the existing land’s acquisition budget for fencing of the boundary between Labelle and the road reserve from the eastern boundary of Labelle to a point where it enters the land trust area.
A new capital works item was brought forward to the 2004-05 roads program, with a program provision of $600 000. This item involves the following: first, a total of $160 000 for fencing. This fencing, which is part of the compensation issue, includes $91 000 for fencing the easement through the land trust area and $69 000 for fencing the boundary between Labelle and the road reserve from a point the road re-enters Labelle from the land trust to the Channel Point Coastal Reserve. The second part is $440 000 for construction of approximately 8.5 km of road to by-pass Labelle homestead.
The Recreational Fishing Access Working Group has also identified and investigated options to enable the public to fish the King River through Manbulloo Station in liaison with the station manager. This project is anticipated to commence post the group’s next meeting, which will identify the project scope and public access issues.
The government continues to maintain 24 boat ramps located across the Territory as well as platforms, wharfs, jetties and artificial reefs that support recreational fishing for the benefit of Territorians and visitors alike.
What we will do this term is commit $2.8m for a new boat ramp at Hudson Creek, an additional $2m to improve facilities for recreational anglers, $150 000 for a new pontoon at the upgraded Dinah Beach boat ramp, and to provide access and camping facilities on the coast line near the Peron Islands.
Pearling has a rich and varied history in the Northern Territory. In the early 1900s, pearling luggers were a relatively common sight along the Northern Territory and West Australian coastlines, including some from overseas. Indeed, the industry was based on the wild catch, with the export of both pearls and pearl shell for buttons providing an economic return for a significant number of people in Northern Australia, many of them coming from nations all around the world.
The successful development of techniques to culture pearls in Australian shells in the 1960s was the next major step in the expansion of the industry and it is fair to say that the Paspaley family were the pioneers in this regard in partnership with Japanese interests with long-standing experience in these techniques.
As a former Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, I have maintained an active interest in this special industry, as I do with all fisheries issues. Moreover, I maintain some of the responsibilities for pearl leases, so it was with a great deal of pleasure that I accepted an invitation, along with the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, to visit the Paspaley leases on the Cobourg Peninsula to view the last day of harvest. This follows on a trip I made last year to the Arafura Pearls operation at Elizabeth Bay in East Arnhem Land.
I found both visits very interesting, particularly the harvest of pearls, the seeding of shells, as well as the harvest of shell and pearl meat. Although there is great deal of mystique surrounding the industry, the science and logistics supporting the industry are immense. Furthermore, this industry provides employment to a significant number of people in the Territory. Indeed, this industry is worth approximately $20m per year to the Northern Territory.
Nonetheless, each pearl is unique and it was particularly interesting during the Paspaley visit to see somewhere between 100 and 200 beautiful pearls laid out on a cloth. Notwithstanding the total value of these pearls being well over $0.5m, it was fascinating to hear how the pearls were valued and how this intricate market works. The pearling market and the maintenance of prices for Australian pearls in the face of a market that has been flooded by product from elsewhere is of great concern to government and the industry, as the minister outlined.
Further, as the minister outlined, government regulates the industry through pearl quotas. I commend the minister for his constructive work with the industry and his Western Australian counterparts on the allocation of new quotas as the current quotas near capacity. Notwithstanding a few hard decisions in relation to quota, this is an industry that has a bright future. I am sure that this future is assured with ongoing cooperation between the industry, the Western Australian government and the Northern Territory government.
As a footnote to that trip out to the Cobourg Peninsula, it was my and the minister’s pleasure to go out there on an amphibious plane, the Mallard. Paspaleys have a fleet of three. They have done these planes up superbly, put new motors in them, and it is such a pleasure to fly in. It is a veteran plane. They were made in the United States by Grummans between about 1946 and 1951. It was very interesting to take off from Darwin Airport. It is the first time that I have ever landed on water in one of these things and it was a quite a heart beating experience to do that; but the pilots are very skilled. These planes are the backbone of the Paspaley operations, along with their boats and crews and the many Territorians living in my and other electorates who work in this fantastic industry. So, a special thanks to Paspaleys.
Also, as I mentioned, I had the privilege of going to Elizabeth Bay in Eastern Arnhem Land last year and see the operation of Arafura Pearls there, which is a great operation. It is a newer company, expanding, and they are doing a great job out there also. Pearling is a very important industry for the Northern Territory.
I join the minister in complimenting the Fisheries Group in their leadership in managing our diverse fishery. In particular, I place on the record, once again, my praise for the highly-motivated staff at the Darwin Aquaculture Centre. The staff undertake world-class research and develop techniques and stock to support large-scale aquaculture venture, particularly barramundi farming. In addition, I would like to also join with the minister in congratulating Dr Rik Buckworth and his team for the many Territory and Australian awards they have received from their Genetag research into mackerel numbers to enable the mackerel fishery to be managed sustainably, based on science. Like all good science, it is elegantly simple but it is profound in its findings. It is a very good project. There has been a lot of interest from all over the world in what Rik Buckworth and the team have been doing, and they have garnered a lot of praise and a lot prizes, both here in the Territory and nationally for their project.
Along with the minister and the Chief Minister, I was fortunate to be present at the Seafood Industry Awards and Seafood Ball when Rik and his team received one of their many awards. It was great night, not only for the awards, but also for the opportunity to taste a variety of Northern Territory seafood showcased in the creations of a number of local and interstate chefs. Along with the highly successful Seafood Ball, I predict the Seafood Festival will get bigger and better each year. My congratulations to Ziko Illic and Iain Smith from the Seafood Council for their hard work in organising these events. Moreover, I congratulate them on their vision to promote Northern Territory seafood.
In conclusion, I commend the minister’s statement. This is a government that supports the seafood industry, including aquaculture. I noted the comments from the member for Nelson, and I agree: we need to support the seafood industry. They supply seafood to the shops. Not everyone fishes. It is a very important industry for the Northern Territory, and there are some great characters who are involved in the seafood industry. They work very hard, often in very isolated areas, and are certainly very special for the Northern Territory and for our seafood industry.
We also recognise the importance of lifestyle, especially for recreational anglers. We have shown our support for recreational anglers by increased access to places like the Peron Islands, and we have also invested heavily in new fishing infrastructure. We have also honoured commitments to close the McArthur and Adelaide Rivers. As the minister has detailed in his statement, we are a government committed to protecting our fisheries and ensuring they are sustainable into the future for the benefit of all Territorians. Madam Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement to the House.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I rise to contribute and congratulate the minister on a very informative and forward thinking statement on fishing. Like the previous speakers, I have a love and a passion for fishing which I will describe as I go on.
The minister’s statement mentions fishing in general, recreational, aquaculture, and the seafood industry – it talks about the benefits of this industry to the economy. He provided greats facts and details. He addressed lifestyles issues. He talked about indigenous Territorians’ input into the fishing industry.
That brings me to the angle that I want to talk about tonight, as a person who has lived this lifestyle all my life – dealing with fishing, not only myself, but my family over many years. In fact, my family has been hunting and fishing in the Northern Territory for thousands of years, and I can say definitely around the Darwin area for at least 100 years. We like to catch fish - barramundi, mangrove jack, salmon, queen fish, mullet and whiting. In the past, we have on occasions - and I know times have changed now - hunted turtle - we know when to get turtle eggs – gone spear fishing, collected oysters and caught mud crab - we know the best times to go, where to get them when they are full. I have fished in the Darwin Harbour, the Shoal Bay area, Buffalo Creek, King Creek, Howard River, and the Vernon Islands. I actually caught my first barramundi in Rapid Creek – freshwater Rapid Creek, which borders on my electorate as well as the electorate of the member for Johnston.
I look back at what fishing has meant to my family over the last 100 years. My grandparents had a wide variety of backgrounds, but the thing they had in common was they brought up a family of 12 over the last 100 years in Darwin. How people survived was through what we call a lifestyle issue now, which is going to catch fish to eat daily, to get mud crab daily. They lived on the Nightcliff Peninsula when there was only one family - the Bonson family - out there. In comparison with Darwin now, Nightcliff Peninsula would have been Howard Springs or Humpty Doo.
Over this period of time since my family has been involved in this type of lifestyle which includes recreational fishing, back in the old days it included licences to have fish traps and to sell fish. Many of the local people in Darwin have a relationship with the Bonson family through that and, indeed, many of the ethnic people. The population has changed from 1000 people 100 years ago to 100 000 people, and we are all using the same resources.
The minister dealt with the reality of how we are going to deal with those resources and how are we going to manage them. I would like to congratulate him on attempting to draw up a five-year plan with a 10-year vision. This is the future of the Northern Territory recreational fishing, the aquaculture industry, the seafood industry, lifestyle issues, and benefits to indigenous Territorians through employment and access to a natural resource.
Over my period of time as a fisherman, and life stylist, I suppose, living in Darwin, I have had an opportunity to fish all over the Northern Territory at places like Shady Camp, Hardy’s Lagoon, Corroboree, Yellow Waters, Daly Rivers, South Alligator, East Alligator, the Nhulunbuy region, Groote Eylandt, and the Tiwi Islands. On a recent trip, I had the fantastic luck to arrange a three-day expedition to Cobourg Peninsula to visit some family members who now have outstations in this beautiful area.
I noticed that the minister talked about the benefits of recreational fishing, and I will deal with some statistics, not only from the Northern Territory but the rest of Australia, the United States, England and Wales. I am just outlining this as an example of what recreational fishing can do for the economy of the Territorians.
We went by car on a three-day camping trip to the Cobourg Peninsula. We were within a day’s drive of Darwin. We spent around $200 to $300 on fishing gear and approximately $150 on fuel at the local fuel stations in both Darwin and South Alligator. We purchased food in Darwin and Jabiru, to the value of around another $150. We travelled for three days, less than eight hours away, to an exotic location that people from all over the world dream about. This is but a small example of what recreational fishing can add or contribute to our economy.
Talking about money spent on recreational fishing, the minister talked about $26m directly spent. The NT government has committed more than $5m for fishing infrastructure and access to projects over the next four years which include boat ramps at East Arm; providing a pontoon at Dinah Beach - I can happily say that I actually caught my largest barramundi ever at Dinah Beach; $1.5m on Buffalo Creek, which includes the now famous secure parking upgrade; Rocky Creek boat ramp near Borroloola; access roads to Peron Islands - people who have lived here for many years would know that the Peron Islands is a fantastic location to catch jewfish and other reef fish and is a favourite spot for campers on the weekends; the extension of the rock groyne at Nightcliff, which I know the Speaker and residents of Nightcliff would be very happy about; and the upgrade of Mule Creek boat ramp.
I come from a position of someone who has actually enjoyed fishing over a long period of time in the Northern Territory. It was part of my family make-up learning how to hunt and fish and how to be a Territorian. Part of that always was the outdoor mentality that we have to go to exotic places. Unfortunately, in this position, as many people would know, we do not get that opportunity to travel as much.
Recreational fishing has a major influence on the Northern Territory. I have some statistics here we were able to research. In particular, we are talking about recreational statistics in the Northern Territory done in a survey in 2000 by the Australian government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. It has here that approximately 0.04 million people or 31% of the population over the age of five years fished at least once in the Northern Territory; 71.9% of fishers were male; 76.9% of households have at least one recreational fisher person living there in the 12 months before May 2001; there were a total of 0.32 million fishing days and each fisher fishing day on an average of five days a year, comprised of 0.35 million events or 1.91 million fishing hours. It goes then to the breakdown of fishing harvest.
The interesting thing that I found with these statistics was that in comparison to other states and territories, New South Wales had a participation rate of 17.1%: Victoria, 12.7%: Queensland, 24.7%; South Australia, 24.1%; Western Australia, 28.5%; Tasmania, 29.3% and the Northern Territory - in Darwin in particular, 37.3% and for coastal communities, 45.2%. It is a large increase on what the national average of participation is. An indigenous fishing survey was conducted by the National Native Tribunal of northern Australia and it was done for 44 coastal communities from Broome to Cairns and did not include the Torres Strait Islands.
One of the things that the minister talked about is the pearling industry and the member for Johnston also touched on that. People may know that my grandmother was from the Torres Strait Islands and her grandfather came to Darwin through the pearling industry. People may also know that the Torres Strait Islands, Darwin and Broome have people who travelled up and down as pearling divers or people working in the pearling industry. One of my ancestors working in that industry came to Darwin, which is where my grandmother met my grandfather.
The survey conducted in this area - we are talking about from Torres Strait, Darwin, and Broome - represented about 20 000 people in and around 3000 dwellings. The survey results showed that people aged five years and older fished at least once during the 12 months survey period over this area of land, and this represents fishing participation rate of about 92% in these communities, which is quite amazing.
There are about 420 000 fisher effort days during the survey comprising 671 000 fishing events: 65% of the effort of people fishing in the Northern Territory in these communities, 21% in Queensland and 14% in Western Australia. More than 15% of the effort occurred in inshore waters. Line fishing is 53%, hand collection, 26%, net, 12% and spears, 9%.
The survey provides details of the catch of aquatic organisms harvested. In particular, it deals with mussels, prawns, and oysters. I encourage people to have a look at that survey done by the National Native Title Tribunal in 2003, and presented at Fremantle.
The other information on which I wanted to touch is about how big this industry is and how far it can reach. When you look at fishing around the world, in the United States it is estimated that in 2001, $35.6bn was spent on fishing. If we were able to attract a small percentage of this expenditure to the Northern Territory, that would have a fantastic impact on our economy.
I noticed that the minister talked about the debate of protecting the name of our barramundi product. I support his attempts to get the Commonwealth to recognise that barramundi is an indigenous name unique to the Northern Territory.
I also have statistics here dealing with anglers in Wales and England. We have only scratched the surface of attracting overseas anglers to come and catch our great sporting fish like the barramundi.
The minister’s detail on the best practices in aquaculture and, in particular, fishing research and management practices, should be supported as 27% of our total production value is for rural industries, wild harvest fish aquaculture and recreational fishing in tourism sectors. The minister produced estimates that show that aquaculture production rose by 26% from $22m to $28m, and the total value of the entire aquaculture industries is expected to exceed $120m by 2010.
The minister also talked about mud crabs. I have had the opportunity of sourcing some information about crablets and mud crab farming in Kulaluk, which is a small indigenous community in my electorate. I know that the community looks forward to the prospect of getting some economic independence, some job opportunities and, of course, producing edible mud crabs not only for the Australian market but overseas markets eventually. This is the future for indigenous people in terms of their natural resources; getting into aquaculture.
I wait with expectation the trials of release of baby barramundi. I understand some 1.5 million baby barramundi were produced last year by the Northern Territory government. I will watch, too, research into trepang. I know that has been an invaluable food resource for many people in Asian areas and northern Australia. I look forward to that type of testing.
Finally, I thank the minister for the work he has been able to do in his time as the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. I look forward to his continued development of the Northern Territory as one of Australia’s premier recreational fishing destinations for both Territorians and visitors alike. I support his continued devoting of resources to expanding aquaculture production, especially in collaborative projects with commercial partners in indigenous communities, and the review fishing management plans to ensure appropriate measures are in place so that our valuable aquatic resources are grown, harvested and managed in a sustainable manner.
I also support him in providing a framework for continued development of our seafood industry and maintaining export accreditation for those fisheries looking to market Northern Territory product on the world stage. I thank him for his work in encouraging indigenous economic development through collaborative partnerships, as well as providing information and technical support, and his work to create a new legislative framework for managing the Territory’s aquatic resources by undertaking a comprehensive review of the Fisheries Act after 17 years.
I note that the minister talked about making the tough decisions in terms of buying back fishing licences, and I encourage him to make the tough decisions. I also congratulate him on continuing to liaise with representatives from all users of the Northern Territory’ aquatic resources to grow fisheries in an environmentally sustainable manner. I support this statement wholeheartedly.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries for his statement, and I can attest that fishing is, indeed, the lure of the Territory. Having been taught at an early age to fish, many years on I find that one of my most enjoyable pastimes is still sitting on the briny wetting a line. Now that I have been indoctrinated into Northern Territory fishing circles, having caught my first barramundi, I have learnt, during my time in Darwin, having fished the harbours and estuaries, the importance of looking after and maintaining this valuable aquatic asset of which we are so proud and the envy of our neighbouring states.
In this, my supporting statement, I wish to talk about the exciting and emerging industry in the Territory – the fishing tour operator industry. I will start by giving the House some of the latest available statistics for the year ending 2004 that show that recreational anglers spent a total of more than 5000 days fishing somewhere in the Northern Territory. It is one of the most important recreational pursuits and, in some areas of the Territory, up to one in every two Territorians go fishing every year. In addition, more than 107 000 tourists say that they have gone fishing or intend to do so.
Barramundi is the most important and popular species, with Darwin Harbour the most popular destination to wet a line. However, if you fail to catch a barra, the beauty of fishing our waters is that you can move on and fish from the bottom, or trail a lure elsewhere, endeavouring to catch any of the vast variety of fish species, ensuring that there is a smell in the pan at the end of the evening.
Locals and visitors alike marvel at the fishing opportunities available here in the Northern Territory. The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries spoke about the exposure of the Northern Territory fishing experience. In addition to our fishing journalists, particularly Alex Julius, with Fishing North Australia, and Matt Flynn, with Fish Finder, nationally the Northern Territory features regularly in electronic and print media. You are hard pressed to find an edition of a fishing magazine or televised fishing program that does not feature the Northern Territory. It is this coverage that lures tourists and locals to the Top End, with our fishing tour operating industry providing the opportunity for anglers to land the catch of a lifetime.
I have had first-hand experience with this industry. In June last year, I was lucky enough to be invited on a sport fishing safari with visitors from South Australia on a tour boat, the MV Swordfish. The boat was owned and operated by Viv Thistlewaite, and ably manned by a very capable guide, Michael Politis. What an unbelievable eight days we had, anchored in the small bays south of the mouth of the Daly River. The MV Swordfish served as the mother ship of an evening but, during the day, we alighted into one of the two 7 m dories to fish the estuaries offshore. The coastline and estuaries we fished were in pristine condition, and the fishing was unbelievable. Needless to say, we achieved our bag limits early each day, but had enormous fun still catching an amazing variety of fish and releasing them back to their habitats.
The six gentlemen from South Australia were avid fishermen and had fished extensively the coastlines of South Australia and Victoria, but had never experience fishing of this calibre; so much so, they vowed to return with some of their close friends who had not experienced fishing in the Top End.
The fishing tour operator industry is diverse, ranging from 5 m vessels taking two or three paying passengers to catch barramundi, to 10 m to 15 m vessels taking up to a dozen anglers for a daytime trip to catch snapper and jewfish close to Darwin on extended fishing trips in which a small number of anglers live aboard luxurious surrounds as I had experienced in absolute comfort for up to a week, and fishing from the smaller dories in some of the remotest regions of the Territory.
There are currently 134 fishing tour operators registered in the Territory. This group of fishing tour operators is an important and emerging industry and one that this government is keen to support. That is why funds have been provided by the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development to assist the fishing tour operator industry to consider the formation of a representative body and the benefits of an executive officer. Nominations were called for industry members to form a selection committee, and to consider applications received for the position of executive officer.
Further to this exercise, Mr Lloyd Browne has been appointed as executive officer to the fishing tour operators industry. Mr Browne has been very active with an incorporated association representing the operators now formed. Mr Browne will now look, with industry members, at a range of issues including industry accreditation; licensed operators being currently required to hold public liability insurance, a valid first aid qualification, and the appropriate qualifications for operating a commercial vessel. A number of industry members have raised the possibility of an industry accreditation scheme to ensure they continue to provide a service that matches the fishing experience. Such accreditation will be a world-class practice.
Resource sharing and recreational and commercial fishing sectors: recent examples include concerns raised regarding access to waters adjacent to Aboriginal land and ensuring that the opportunity to enjoy the unique Territory experience with landing the fish of a lifetime continues. There is increasing requirement for formal representation of this industry on fishery management advisory committees and in other government and non-government consultative forums.
The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries outlined a long overdue review of the Fisheries Act. When the act commenced some 17 years ago, fishing tour operators were not active in the Territory. Without adequate representation, it is likely that the guided fishing tour as a developed tourism industry will be stifled, and our unique advantage of being the best fishing experience available, will be lost.
Madam Speaker, the fishing tour operating sector creates jobs and considerable flow-on benefits for our regions. It is an industry with enormous potential. In closing, I congratulate the minister and his staff on the work they are undertaking in this area, and for his comprehensive statement on fishing.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on issues raised in the ministerial statement by the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. It is encouraging to hear the minister speak about how this government will focus on developing, promoting and protecting the Territory’s valuable aquatic resources especially when so many of our communities across the Top End are near the coast, communities which rely strongly on food supplies from the sea.
I might just have to take issue with the member for Drysdale about Darwin Harbour, Madam Speaker. I am sure there are many people in the Arnhem Land region who would like to challenge that but, then again, the Rapid Creek area is where I caught one of the largest barramundis, so there you go.
In my home country of Borroloola in the Gulf of Carpentaria the Yanyuwa are known as liantha wirriyarra, the people of the sea. Our history is full of stories of early trade relationships with the Macassans. It is a trade relationship which occurred right across various parts of the Top End, in particular with communities in my electorate of Arnhem, such as Numbulwar and Umbakumba. At Umbakumba, the sight of tamarind trees on the beach is a reminder of that past trade relationship when indigenous people where sharing trade and cultural exchanges long before the arrival of Europeans.
That aquaculture production in the Territory has increased by 26% to $28m in 2003 and 2004 up from $22m the previous year is, indeed, encouraging especially when there are so many communities eager to be involved in fishing related industries. The Yugul Mangi Rangers in Ngukurr are one of those groups keen to be involved. Women like Cherry Daniels, who is just one of 14 rangers in Ngukurr, most of whom are women, are passionate about looking after country and this naturally involves the rivers and sea as well as land. It is the Roper River which is looked after by these amazing people, young and old.
These rangers only have one vehicle, which is a troop carrier, and a boat. They are largely paid through CDEP, the Community Development Employment Program, but that is not enough. It is true when minister Vatskalis says rangers not only provide meaningful employment in remote areas, but have saved lives and deterred illegal fishing activity such as reporting suspicious and illegal foreign fishing vessels in Territory waters. The Ngukurr rangers have told me of how, on one of their patrols, they saw what was later understood to be an illegal Indonesian fishing boat at the mouth of the Roper River. It was their patrols of the river and sea country that alerted authorities. This example is just one of many of how enthusiastic people in our communities are to be a part of any economic development that will protect and promote our river and sea and most importantly provide employment.
I urge the minister to continue his attempts to seek greater resources for federal authorities protecting waters throughout the Top End. These resources would be most beneficial for our marine rangers who could work in partnership with Customs officials on a regular basis. It is also encouraging to see that the fisheries group has employed an indigenous support officer to help manage the program and work with other ranger groups at Ramingining, Numbulwar, Groote Eylandt and Ngukurr.
Expansion of the Indigenous Liaison Unit is also a reflection of the interest of indigenous people to be involved in the fisheries area. The unit already has 13 indigenous economic development projects to oversee and they include Maningrida and Elcho Island mud crab aquaculture; crayfish development; developmental licences in Nhulunbuy; trepang aquaculture at Groote Eylandt and Warruwi; and fishing tour operators for the Nhulunbuy region and Wigram Island.
We may all have our own stories to tell about personal experiences on fishing trips as we heard from the member for Millner. Even those who do not particularly like fishing can still appreciate the value of our fish resources. Growing up by the islands in the Gulf of Carpentaria, fishing was and still is a natural past time. Our culture, the ways of the Yanyuwa, is filled with songs and stories about the sea. Protection of fish stocks, sea turtle and dugong has been a cultural way of life. When one family group goes fishing their catch is generously shared amongst clan groups. This is for two reasons: one is to care for our fellow family members so that the hunter’s family is not the only one that eats; and, two, because our leaders knew from the beginning of time of the importance of preserving fish stocks, sea turtle and dugong. Even when dugong get caught up in the nets of prawn trawlers or fishing boats, Aboriginal people are deeply upset at the waste of these marine animals. So, too, are many other people. This is a point of which any comprehensive review must take note.
The Fisheries Group in the minister’s department has also established Indigenous Community Marine Ranger programs in Borroloola, the Tiwi Islands, Port Keats, Maningrida, Warrawi and Elcho Island. There are three vessels and two four-wheel drives provided to assist the ranger programs, and this is just the beginning. Fisheries have been involved in the delivery of training to seven ranger groups, including those currently not funded. Some 37 rangers are employed.
I take this opportunity to again highlight the effective work undertaken by the marine rangers in the Gulf of Carpentaria. It was about this time last year when police and fisheries in the Borroloola region were alerted to concerns about dead fish in the Sir Edward Pellew group of islands to the north of Borroloola. Locals and tourists had noticed a foul stench that could not be clearly identified and needed investigation. The marine rangers, located with the Mabunji Aboriginal Resource Association in Borroloola, were selected to go and inspect the area and try to identify the smell.
Two rangers, one of whom was my brother, Alan Frontier, spent a week camping around the island to try to locate the site where the terrible smell came from. To the horror of the rangers, they identified many whale carcasses hidden in the rocks on one of the islands. Such was the state of decay, the carcasses could not be easily seen; and certainly not by a helicopter. Even when fishing boats went by in the area, they could not see the decay but they could certainly smell it.
Whale carcasses could only be found on foot by those who knew the country. The marine rangers at Borroloola know that country so well. The sight of the dead carcasses was upsetting for the Yanuwa and Mara people of the area, for no one could ever remember seeing so many dead whales on the islands. The discovery grabbed international attention. The work of the marine rangers has now seen the involvement of the World Wildlife Fund which is keen to support a partnership with communities. I, for one, am also keen to see how such a partnership can develop for the benefit of communities and habitat.
The minister has highlighted this government’s commitment to ensure the Northern Territory remains Australia’s premier recreational fishing destination for both Territory people and visitors, and will commit resources to expand the aquaculture production especially in collaboration projects with commercial partners and indigenous communities.
Madam Speaker, it is indeed timely for a comprehensive review of the Fisheries Act after 17 years. I commend the minister for his vision and insight in doing so.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their very constructive comments.
I would like to advise the House that, just a few minutes ago, I was advised that Customs have apprehended a 40 m fishing vessel from Thailand flying an Indonesian flag with 22 Thai nationals on board at one of the reefs very close to the Territory; in fact, only 300 km away. The vessel was carrying 25 tonnes of reef fish. That was an illegal vessel which entered Australian waters undetected and it was only detected when it approached 300 km from Darwin.
That is the reason why, in the past few months, I have been arguing with the Commonwealth for increased resources in the Top End and the north-west of Australia, not only for the Northern Territory, but for northern Western Australia, the Gulf of Carpentaria and Queensland.
I know that it is a very good idea to protect the Patagonian Tooth Fish down south, and allocate a lot of resources for that. However, the reality is, at this stage, our fishing stock is being decimated by illegal fisherman – not Indonesian villagers who battle weather and the elements to sail down here, but sophisticated vessels. That vessel had radar and a GPS and was able to detect Australian patrol boats and Australian Customs vessels. We are talking about organised illegal fishing from Thailand coming to the Northern Territory.
I take note of the comments made by the member for Katherine, and yes, the government is looking forward to improving facilities for recreational and commercial fisherman. We are aware of the Frances Bay problem, but the member should be aware that the previous government sold the boat ramp in East Arm to a private company and, as a result, people will not have access to East Arm any more. We committed approximately $2m to construct a new ramp in the Frances Bay area.
As for the crabs, the decline of the crab stock is significant. Scientists employed by the department indicated that if we do not do something now the stock would be decimated. The crab fishermen employed their own scientists who came to the same conclusions. As I said before, this government is prepared to make some tough decisions in order to rescue the crab stock. At the same time, we have had a significant number of people over-potting and arrested by Fisheries for putting up to 130 extra illegal pots in the water. We are certainly going to look into the licensing, hiring of licences and increased penalties.
We have a fantastic program of Marine Rangers. I would like that program to be expanded to become very similar to the ACPOs, the Aboriginal Community Patrol Officers, give them more police powers though they are actually rangers. Our program is so good that the Western Australian minister told me that he wants to copy that program to implement it in Western Australia, which indicates it is a very good program. At the moment we have about 35 people in different areas of the Northern Territory. We would like to expand it and would like to see it working closely with 12 or more Fisheries Police, who are supported now with $1m to replace their vessels. The CLP did not put any money into vessels. We had Fisheries Police but they could not go out to the sea because they did not have appropriate vessels. With two-thirds to replace the vessels, we are going to replace five vessels, and that will enable the Fisheries Police to go out to police our resources.
With regards to shark stocks, the consultant the member for Katherine attributed those comments to, made those comments before the review of the shark fishery. The shark fishery has been reviewed by Commonwealth authorities. The review took up to 18 months. We have reached a stage where the industry itself will reduce the fishing effort by reducing the number of hooks, the way they operate, and the number of fishing days, which is significant.
Once again, the Western Australian government wants to copy our plan of management of sharks because the shark fishing industry in Western Australia has completely decimated the shark fisheries. Western Australian also wants to copy our Mackerel Plan of Management, because we really are leaders in managing our fishing stocks. We want our fishing stock to be sustainable. We want it to be there for the future, instead of an attitude of fish them out today, make a lot of money and then people will move to other places to fish for something different.
To ask for the revocation of the wildlife declaration of the shark fishery would be disastrous. It will send the industry bankrupt; it will destroy people’s lives. People have invested up to $20m in equipment and there are about 50 people employed in the industry. The shark fin and shark carcasses operation works very well. The carcasses are not actually used now for fertiliser. They are exported to Philippines and other Asian countries, where they are converted to seafood, and some of the processed seafood comes back to Australia; for instance, fish balls or other products that we consume in Australia.
With regards to the supply of restaurants and fish and chip shops with wild catch, I agree with the member for Nelson. That is the reason we have put in place the five-year plan, 10-year outlook, which will involve recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen and indigenous people - how we are going to progress the barramundi plan of management, how we are going to have enough barramundi in our rivers for the recreational fishermen to fish, and enough barramundi in the sea for the commercial fisherman to catch and sell. The problem we have is that much of the barramundi catch is actually exported to other markets. It is very popular, interstate and internationally, and when they sell it overseas, such as the United States, they command a better price. The fish and chips shops here probably purchase a cheaper alternative, including sea bass, or cock-up as the member for Nelson referred to.
The fishing industry is a very important industry to the Territory. It is not only the shark fishers; some of the pelagic species that we catch are very close to the borders with Indonesia, including golden snapper and red snapper. There are a significant number of people employed in the industry, and the government would like to see the expansion of the fisheries, not only in the catching effort, but also the processing.
A group of people from my department and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure are looking at the block known as Gobi Desert, near Frances Bay, to be modified and made stable because, at the moment, it has many problems. It may be possible to establish a processing facility there so, instead of exporting whole fish, we actually put some value-adding here in the Territory to provide opportunities for Territorians.
One thing that is very important and I consider a personal challenge is utilising the fishing industry to provide job opportunities and economic development for indigenous communities. That is exactly what we are doing with the crabs, the trepang, and the coastal licence. I am always amazed that people living on a coastline were not able to catch fish themselves in their own communities in order to provide some money for themselves, and also some fresh produce and fresh food for the people of the community. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues from the coastal communities to find out if we can provide aquaculture and fishing opportunities.
I cannot see why a person from Melbourne would come up here, buy a boat and take tourists out there, when we have indigenous people living in Borroloola who know the Borroloola area and the islands inside out, and people living in Maningrida or anywhere – okay, not Central Australia – I am talking about the north now …
Ms Scrymgour: We could take a boat to Central Australia.
Mr VATSKALIS: Toynie would love that! Rumours about declaring the Todd River as a marine reserve are untrue!
I would like to see indigenous people involved in fishing operations, the fishing industry, and as fishing tour operators, and with the expansion of the marine program giving more power to these people to police their fishing stock. A few months ago, one of these marine rangers identified a foreign vessel and immediately notified the police. That led to the arrest of the sailors.
I am looking forward to the further growth of fishing industry, and to receiving your support. Together, we can grow the Territory further.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Over the last two months, I have had the pleasure of attending a couple of graduation ceremonies with organisations that lead the way with their commitment to training in skills development in the Territory. I attended the Dovaston Training and Assessment Centre graduation dinner in July. It was a great evening enjoyed by all. I am always impressed by the passion for training that Shirli Dovaston shows and to see the results of the efforts of her organisation.
Shirli is one of those people who put absolutely everything into their training, and are making a difference to people’s lives and livelihoods. Thirty-six people graduated. Over 30% of the graduates were indigenous. Some graduates travelled from Katherine and beyond to attend the evening. Three graduates travelling from Kalkarindji, and two from Katherine. There were eight graduates from Terrace Gardens Aged Care, a skills shortage area. Two indigenous trainees employed by Department of Employment, Education and Training graduated, with five more to complete this month.
I extend my congratulations to Merci Betts for her efforts in involving long-term DEET employees and training programs. I make mention of one person who was for 18 years in Registry as an AO1. How we, as a public service, allow that sort of situation to happen, I know not. However, that is a testament to bringing employment, education and training together. Combing through the department and finding an employee here of 17 or 18 years trapped at that level is unforgivable. I will be congratulating her when she graduates and is able to apply for positions at a more senior level later on.
Congratulations to those who received their certificates in a range of areas including business, frontline management, workplace assessment and training community services. These graduates were Barry Adams, Angela Bendall, Sarah Bethune, Susanne Boyd, Kieran Bush, Tony Chivell, Vicki Cosford, David Crawford, Russell Davey, Mikes Galimitakis, Nadine Garner, Kiya Gill, Bill Groom, Fiona Kajewski, Fran Kelly, Melanie Ledingham, Warren McGrath, Nathan Meyer, Judith Minogue, Rita Morris, Sevene Nichols, Kym-Maree Nixon, Teena Orum, Ruth Ottley, Craig Parker, Jo Parker, Justin Parker, Pauline Parker - no relations between those, Natasha Rajak-Harris, Jack Roe, and Dawn Rook.
On 28 July, I attended the CSM IT graduation ceremony. CSM Technology is renowned in the Territory for its strong commitment to providing training and mentoring young Territorians. I congratulate Kim Ford and his staff on their efforts. Kim is a leader in developing a strong training culture in his organisation and in putting time and effort into making difference to the future many young people.
The IT cadets program officially began in July 2002; 2005 is their third graduation ceremony. The program aims to take secondary students with the talent for IT and provide guidance to give to the IT students from a broad range of IT professionals. Cadets aged between 14 and 18 are provided with a place they call their own where they can be totally self-directed. It is a two-year program and cadets participate in activities after school and during school holidays. Cadets run the program themselves as a business unit. They have to prepare business cases or project plans for any necessary expenditure. The program involves a big commitment on the part of CSM staff who mentor as well as work alongside the young people from their community. The 2005 graduates developed basic project management skills; produced web sites using a variety of tools including Dream Weaver and Photoshop; developed flash animations; built and programmed robotics; server installation and set-up; obtained their ICDL - International Computer Driving Licence; went on field trips including visits to the Northern Territory Computing Centre; and learned the importance of backing up their work, I am told.
Congratulations to the recipients of certificates at the ceremony. The ICDL recipients are Thomas Cowie, Chris Newcombe, Daniel Ladlow, Max Collins, Mathew Sutton, Doug Watts and Ashish Vaikyl. Graduation certificates pending their exam results later in the week: Adrian James and Ivan Ouwerkerk. ICDL graduation certificates recipients: Corey Smith, Michael Haydon, Aaron Muttukumaru, Stephen Bidgood, and Daniel Hamilton. Special awards: Daniel Ladlow and Daniel Hamilton.
I am also pleased to congratulate a Territorian who has contributed to the Vocational Education and Training sector across the Territory. For the past 30 years, Bob Nixon, currently the Director of Quality and Planning at Charles Darwin University, recently received the National AUSTAFE Leadership Award at the association’s annual conference in Sydney. Bob has had a long, and certainly truly, Territory history since commencing his working life as a shipwright and taking up a position as a technical instructor at Yuendumu and Amoonguna in 1969. He has been a technical studies teacher in Yirrara College in Alice Springs; senior teacher at Yirrara College; head of department, Building Studies, Community College of Central Australia and then Alice Springs College of TAFE; head of School of Trade, Alice Springs College of TAFE; deputy principal, Alice Springs College of TAFE and acted as principal for 12 months during that time; Director TAFE programs, Centralian College; Director TAFE, Centralian College; and currently Director VET Quality and Planning, Charles Darwin University. He was a key player in overseeing the amalgamation of the Alice Springs College of TAFE and Sadadeen Senior Secondary College in 1993 and later the amalgamation of Centralian College in NT in 2004.
Bob has been on the committee and has been involved in several national Territory organisations dedicated to improving VET delivery including TAFE Directors Australia; Austafe Training Advisory Councils; NT Board of Studies; Australian Institute of Management; TAFE Advisory Council of the NT; World Skills; and Group Training. They do not come with greater and experience or expertise in the world of VET than Bob Nixon. We congratulate Bob on a well deserved award on top of that. He is a terrific bloke.
My congratulations to Hala Tupou and Yirrkala Dhanbul Community Council for their initiative in organising a key group of employees from Yirrkala Landcare, Yirrkala Banana Farm, and the Laynhapuy Homelands to successfully complete their medium rigid truck licence through a training course run by Charles Darwin University remote area driver training. Besides attaining the medium rigid truck licence, the participants have completed modules to service and maintain trucks, the correct load weights and widths, and how to tie down loads. Their new skills will be used in the community on the weekly rubbish collection truck, sand delivery, ceremony work, as well as the Alcan G3 landscaping. Well done to Janet Howarth, Raymond Dickinson, Victor Ndaomanu, Phillip Marawili, Orient Kapu, Charlie Wanabi, Jacob Wunungmurra, Wilson Malupo and Graham Baulch It is a great story for the community at Yirrakala. My best wishes to them all as they put their new skills to work.
An exhibition from north-east Arnhem Land currently showing in Darwin has been bought by Janet Holmes Court who flew to Darwin to see a preview of the Yakumirri exhibition before it was opened. The exhibition consists of a large bark painting from each of the 15 Buku-Larrnggay Mulka Centre artists who have won a major Australian art award or had a successful solo exhibition. Artists from Yirrkala have won the $40 000 first prize in the Telstra National Aboriginal Art Award twice in the last three years. My sincere congratulations to Djambawa Marawili, Wukun Wanambi, Naminapu White, Galuma Maymuru and Gulumbu Yunupingu who have all had solo exhibitions in Melbourne, Sydney and Darwin and been completely sold out. As local member, I am enormously proud of their achievements and the commitments these artists have made in producing with pride their culture for the rest of us to share.
I am pleased to congratulate David Mitchell on being awarded the highest Rotary award, the Paul Harris Fellow award for his community service to the region. Dave has been a long-term resident of Nhulunbuy. For many years, he has taken an active role in community events and activities, particularly with Nhulunbuy Primary School where his drive and determination added many features to the school’s surrounds. He also saw the need to involve the students in the development of their surroundings. Dave was also involved in ensuring the skate park was constructed for the young people in the town. He trialled a youth cinema and, along with other volunteers, supervised screenings for the young children. Dave has also worked with the Aboriginal community encouraging the itinerants in particular to take more pride in their meeting places and clean up their rubbish. Dave spent time on the Community Benefit Committee and, through his involvement with local Yolngu, has enhanced his involvement on the committee. He encourages by example and he is a very worthy recipient of the Rotary award.
Alcan Gove announced Marissa Henderson, daughter of Ed and Judy, as the recipient of the Dr Doettling Tertiary Scholarship for 2005, which carries an annual bursary of $4000 for the duration of undergraduate studies. Marissa is currently studying a Bachelor of Biomedical Science at the University of Queensland. On completion of these studies, she hopes to qualify for the postgraduate intake into medicine. Marissa is an outstanding candidate for this award and demonstrates a breadth of achievement both personally and academically. I congratulate her and wish her well. I am sure Ed and Judy are enormously proud.
The annual Garma Festival was held at Gulkala, 30 km from Nhulunbuy, last week, fostering relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians and promoting reconciliation. This year’s topic was indigenous cultural livelihoods. It attracted academics from within Australia and overseas to participate in forums and enjoy the cultural dancing from various clans represented from Arnhem Land, a significant cultural event appreciated by all spectators. My congratulations to Galarrwuy, Mandawuy, the Yothu Yindi Foundation, sponsors and organisers for a very successful festival. My thanks to those of my parliamentary colleagues who travelled out on the Monday to share in the activities of Garma.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about a woman by the name of Sally Goodin who is very well known in Alice Springs. Sally was born Sachiko Kura, a Japanese lady, the most diminutive, tiny, petite, small - call it what you will - woman in Alice Springs with a heart as big as you could ever imagine.
Sachiko-San, known as Sally to her friends and family, was born on 22 July 1929 in Osaka, Japan. I will read this eulogy as it was read by her son, Cameron Goodin, in Alice Springs just recently.
- Sally, daughter to Teyjiro and Mitsuru Kura and younger sister to brother, Etsuro Kura, Mum came from a very loving family.
Mum’s mum, Mitsuru was always helping and looking after others. Mum’s father, Teyjiro, was a master builder, a perfectionist
in his trade and much sought after. Mum’s brother, Etsuro worked in spare parts and would spend his pay on buying beautiful
clothes for Mum. He doted on her and Mum also remembered Etsuro with fond memories. He went to war at 18, but before he
left, he married Hatsuko and they had a daughter, Yasko, whom he never met as he did not return from the war. Mum always
missed him dreadfully.
Mum’s schooling was cut short by the war when she was 13 years old. Mum’s mum bought a market and they supported many
people and families during this time. Her mother, like Mum, was a great carer.
At 24 years old, Mum met Dad who was a Sergeant-Major with the Australian Force stationed in Japan. Mum always maintains
that the minute she saw Dad, she fell in love with him and felt comfortable and safe by his side. Dad went back to Australia and
was then posted to Patarinjaya in Malaysia and visited Mum in Japan over the next couple of years. Dad and Mum sealed their
love in marriage in December 1957 whilst holidaying in Selangor, Malaya. A religious ceremony of marriage was also held in
Sydney on 12 October 1964.
Dad and Mum came to Alice Springs in 1958 and their two children, Lynette and Cameron, were born in Alice Springs in 1961
and 1965 respectively. Mum came from the thriving metropolis of Osaka, Japan to the tiny, dusty outback town of Alice Springs.
She barely spoke or wrote a word of English and over the years she taught herself both, a major feat of determination and
perseverance. In the early years she was very lonely and sad and missed her mum dreadfully. She spent many nights outside
in the garden, looking up at the night sky and talking to her mum. Because of this, Dad sent her home to Japan for a holiday from
where she did not return for a whole year. Dad had an accident and was quite badly hurt and Mum immediately flew back to be with
him.
After we were born, Mum settled into life in Alice Springs more comfortably and she grew to love the town. In 1966, she became
an Australian citizen. Along the way, she made many, many friends and touched many peoples’ lives in such a special way.
Many would remember her from her working days at The Little Shop, Bambi Children’s Wear, The Hole in One and, finally, at
the Alice Springs Hospital in 1985, where she worked as a seamstress. Whilst there, she was Employee of the Month, and
the following comment sums up in part, the type of person she was:
Sally is one of the happiest and most helpful people I have ever had the pleasure to work with. Nothing is ever too much for her and I think she helps to lift the spirits of other staff with her cheerfulness.
Dad passed away in July 1979, and she missed him terribly but, as was her way, she carried her grief and burden quietly and
with dignity.
In 1986, Mum and Lyn went to Japan - Mum’s first trip back for almost 30 years. Although she was shocked at the changes,
she enjoyed being reunited with her family, especially Yasko, her brother’s daughter, and her daughter, Yukea, and also
Ryoji Hiroshi and their families. In 1999, Mum, Lyn and Anne, her niece, visited Japan again.
In 1994, Mum retired from her working life at the hospital, but she worked tirelessly and endlessly in her much loved home and
garden at Nicker Crescent. She especially enjoyed watering her beautiful garden. It was a peaceful and relaxing experience
for her. Throughout her life and right up to the end, Mum worked hard to instil good manners and morals in her children,
and she gave them all the love and every piece of herself to them. She was totally unselfish in every aspect of her life …
- … always putting herself last, never expecting that she deserved any more.
She loved her children, her family, her friends, and worried constantly that they were all right, happy and healthy, despite the fact
that, in the last few years of her life, her health had deteriorated quite drastically and, of all people, she needed that love and care
herself. And yet, she would rarely ask for help …
… always loathe to put anyone out, to be a hindrance to anyone. She did not easily accept that others wanted to help her,
nor need her.
Two years ago, Mum sold her beloved home at Nicker Crescent as it was getting too much for her to manage. She bought
a lovely duplex at Laver Court, close to her daughter, Lynette …
- … and her partner, David, but her heart and soul always remained at Nicker Crescent. She also gave up her licence which
was a terrible loss of independence for a very independent lady.
One of the happiest moments of Mum’s life was Cam’s marriage to Kerry in 1995, and the subsequent births of her grandchildren,
Tayla and Georgia. She was also so relieved and happy that Lyn finally found a good, reliable man in David. Lyn and Cam think
she was relieved that someone was prepared to take them on.
Sadly, Mum’s final hours were not as comfortable as we had all wished for, but despite this, she enjoyed the company of friends
who came to visit in the hospital, but typically, was more concerned for them than for herself. To the very end - totally unselfish.
- Mum passed away on her 76th birthday, 22 July 2005.
During the funeral service at the chapel in Kidman Street, several poems were read out and I would like to read them into the Parliamentary Record also.
This reading was by Bruni Hapke, a good friend, on behalf of Lyn and Cam:
- You closed your eyes and broke our hearts,
God took your hand and made us part.
You gave us love in the fullest measure,
With care, devotion and memories to treasure.
You shared our joys, our hopes, our tears,
Thank you, Mum, for those precious years.
In our hearts you will always stay,
Loved and remembered every day.
Our Obaasan was caring, sharing beautiful lady. She would wipe away our tears and keep us company whenever we were sad.
She always said sorry, thank you or please and was always nice and kind to people.
We have lots of beautiful memories of such a special lady and will keep them in our hearts forever.
Thank you, Obaasan, for always being there for Gigi and I and for all the love you gave us.
We love you and we miss you very much.
- It was around two years ago that Sally came into our lives in Laver Court. You know when a home is sold near you, you wonder
with great anticipation who the new neighbour will be.
Denise being the more outspoken and great ‘neighbourhood watcher’ saw whom she thought was a child at the new neighbour’s
letterbox and was about to tell her off when she realised that this little lady was our new neighbour, and what a wonderful journey
we were to have.
I am employed as a carer with the Red Cross and saw that Sally was to have some help, an hour a week, with heavier chores.
Well, it did not take long for me to realise who was going to be the ‘carer’. I was invited to have tea and hot muffins with her,
which I certainly enjoyed, but kept thinking I need to do this work. Eventually, Sally went outside into her garden and then the
work could be done. Each and every carer was treated with the same hospitality.
The food then started coming over to me - and half of Laver Court. We would be treated to rice salad, sushi, muffins, all with
the greatest affection and wanted nothing in return. We all tried!
Sally was fiercely independent and found it very difficult to accept that she could not do ‘everything’ anymore. Sally was a
wonderful warm lady and adored her family, of whom I was shown photos when having many cups of tea.
Sally always put others before herself. She gave love unconditionally, and each one of us that Sally has known has been
enriched by this love, humility and gentleness.
I know I have and will never forget the little lady who came to live in Laver Court. Thank you, God, for Sally.
Her immortality lives on through her son, Cameron, and daughter, Lyn, because she is part of them and they are part
of her.
Leave granted.
- Friends all, good morning and welcome. My name is Meredith Campbell, and I am a civil celebrant. On behalf of Lyn and
Dave, Cameron, Kerry, Georgia and Tayla, Anne and Mel and Margaret, I welcome you here to celebrate and remember Sally’s
life amongst us, to grieve and reflect together, and to comfort each other.
I thank everyone for coming to this ceremony today. Being here today, in this place, unites us all. We share a common bond
of love and respect for Sally, beloved wife, mother and grandmother – or as Georgia and Tayla knew her – their Obaasan,
Japanese for grandmother. She was also sister, auntie and friend to many - and her homes at Nicker Crescent and Laver Court
you will remember as oases of peace and hospitality – all because tiny, indomitable, spirited, inexhaustible, generous Sally was
there.
We have come together in this peaceful place because we loved Sally. At this time we are experiencing great loss, yet we take
comfort from the fact that Sally’s life has now been joined with all life, stretching into the past and into the future. The love,
humour, support, humility, wisdom, stories, joy and caring that Sally shared with us now lie within our lives, and travel with us
into the future. For as Thomas Campbell has written: ‘To live in hearts we leave behind is not to die.’
I now ask all of us present to share a period of silent reflection on the life of Sally. In the silence, I now invite you to reflect on this
journey of life which was lived with us, or to pray if that is true to you. Let us also remember those who most need our comfort
at this time.
Music: I now invite Ariana, Sally’s long-time friend, to present a special personal tribute.
Poem: This poem is called Death is Nothing At All by Henry Scott-Holland:
- Death is nothing at all.
I have only slipped away
Into the next room.
I am I, and you are you
Whatever we were to each other,
That we are still.
Call me by my old familiar name,
Speak to me in the easy way
Which you have always used.
Put no difference in your tone,
Wear no forced air of solemnity or sorrow.
Laugh as we have always laughed
At the little jokes we enjoyed together
Let my name be ever the household word
That it always was,
Let it be spoken without effect,
Without a trace of shadow on it.
Life means all that it ever meant
It is the same as it ever was:
There is unbroken continuity.
Why should I be out of mind
Because I am out of sight?
I am waiting for you, for an interval
Somewhere very near
Just around the corner.
We can never capture the true life and essence of a person. We can only bring glimpses and moments which remind us of
the life they lived with us. It is now time for Sally’s loved ones and friends to bring memories to share with us.
I now invite Tayla to share her memory of her beloved Obaasan which she brings on behalf of herself and her sister,
Georgia.
I now invite Margaret to share her memory.
I now respectfully invite others to share their memory.
This memory is from Glenys, and I have the honour and privilege to share it with you now.
I invite Connor to share a poem with us. This poem was written by Sally and Lyn’s dear friend, Deborah.
As we come to the moment of farewell, part of our grief may be regret for the things done or left undone, words said or never
said, or moments that never happened. This is the time to lay aside all those regrets, and to honour the spirit of Sally herself,
who would never want them carried into the future. Let us receive this gift of generosity from Sally, and go forward together
in peace.
Friends all, would you please repeat these words after me:
Sally, we are so glad that you lived amongst us
We are glad that we saw your face
And felt the touch of your hands
We cherish the memory of your words
Of your deeds and your character
We cherish your friendship
And most of all, your love.
Friends all, this ceremony will conclude with a special and loving tribute by Tayla and Georgia.
At the conclusion of this ceremony, please take some time to comfort each other and reflect together. I have been asked by
the family to remind you that the unreal cortege will proceed to the Garden Cemetery. After this, you are invited to share
refreshments and fellowship at Sally’s home. Remember that Sally would always say, ‘Please come and visit me.’
There you can continue to share the safe and loving fellowship that you have renewed with each other today.
And now let us go into the world
Glad that we have loved
Free to weep for the one we have lost
Free to hold each other in our human frailty
Empowered to live life to the full
And to affirm the hope of human existence.
I would like to thank everyone who was involved in the Stuart campaign. It is a particularly difficult seat to campaign in because of its size and shape, and the difficulties in getting to a lot of the communities. It takes many people, a lot of commitment by people, and some pretty detailed planning to get around to 53 polling places spread between as far north as Yarralin and Pigeon Hole, right out to the Western Australia border right through to Nyirripi and across the Centre – Ti Tree and Willowra - and then up to Utopia and Ampilatwatja. You certainly have to do a bit of travelling.
The first person I want to thank is my wife, Thea. Whenever I think about what it takes to stay in public life, your whole family has to saddle up to keep us in here doing the work that we are doing for the Territory community. All our family pick up some of that load. Clearly, I want to pay tribute to the nine years that she has supported me in public life and all the wonderful things she has done for me in previous jobs that I have held over the years. I hope I have returned her support. There has been some tough asks to cover for our family and Thea is just fantastic the way she supports me.
Another special person I want to thank is my friend and campaign manager for the western side of the electorate, Karl Hampton, who gave up his time during the campaign to get around all of the western communities, Nyirripi and Yuendumu, Yuelamu, Laramba, and then I saw him up again at Ti Tree and Alyuen and Willowra. You get very close to people doing this work and Karl is a fantastic friend and comrade to have in doing this.
On the western side, I would have to complete the picture with Marg Riley and Robin Granites who helped with getting us around. I would lose count of the number of people who lined up at Yuendumu – Connie Rice, Robbie Wallit, and James Marshall – there were just so many people along with Robin and it was just great to be there. It is like it is my hometown and, boy, did people turn out on the day to give us a hand. Thank you to everyone at Yuendumu and Nyirripi, all the western side. They have stuck with me over 20 years now and it is great to be able to go back and repay some of the loyalty they have shown me.
Despite the intensity of the campaign, one of the things that jumps out in my memory is Karl had this great idea of borrowing a vehicle up at Ti Tree to get us around to the Anmatjere communities; he borrowed a Toyota single cab ute. That was all right in theory but one of our main campaign workers who was helping us there was Big Billy Woods and he is well known. If you can imagine someone slightly bigger than John Ah Kit, that is Big Billy. So Big Billy got into the single cab ute and Karl and I had to fit in there somewhere as well. Karl was driving so that did not leave a lot of options for me. I ended up straddling the gear stick. It was all right in first but when you got into second or fourth things got pretty exciting! You could have almost thought you were having an endoscope! We did get round and it was great to have a local car with the proper colour of a bush electorate campaign.
Thanks to Clarrie Robinya for his work in Laramba, Yuelamu, and Utopia. Clarrie just got around, reminding people of the real big issues in the electorate: the fact that it still is about country, it is about family, it is about basic services, no matter what other fancy things you want to do. That is what people out there care about. It is culture, country, houses, schooling, and health, and Clarrie is a great one to really get people thinking about what they should base their decisions on and not all the mirror tricks that sometimes come in to a campaign.
Jasper Haines, Simon Gorey, Tony Scrutton, Gean Martin, who was the owner of the ute, Betty Carter, Teddy Long, Dennis Beadman all helped us through the Anmatjere area and they were fantastic. There were some tricky issues going through there, and they really supported our campaign and our position that we were putting to the electorate.
Thanks to other gangers, Judy and Graham Buckley, who put in a fantastic job in two ways. Judy was processing all the information that comes in from 53 places around the electorate over 10 days and, as a candidate, there is nothing worse in not knowing what is going on around you. Judy kept all that together and was able to give me an ongoing picture of how we were going. Graham started by covering the polling in the town camps and then went out to Utopia and spent five days going to every little place that constitutes the Utopia area.
Robyn Freeman went to Camel Camp and Three Bores to cover the polling there. Ahmet Latifoglu is a fantastic scrutineer - I have never seen better than Ahmet. He provided absolutely accurate information on what was going on.
Some of the other Yuendumu people, Otto Simms, Neville Poulson, and over at Utopia, Gilbert Cobert, who visited and explained in Alyawarra language the issues that we were talking about; Motorbike Paddy, Lennie and Freddie Jones, and Lena Pula all travelled around the Mosquito Bore area in Utopia; Amy Namanadi helped at Camel Camp.
Going on, Tom Kairupan, Nigel Morton, Banjo Morton were at Ampilatwatja. Ampilatwatja turned out in big numbers and gave me fantastic support up there. They are a very strong community and we want to go back through Utopia and the Anmatjere area and work really solidly with the Anmatjere and Alyawarra people on the regional development planning processes.
Cabinet is going to be up there to talk about the longer term and wider plans for that area. It is an area that is often forgotten, with the bigger and more prominent communities such as Yuendumu, Lajamanu or Kalkarindji which are always in the public eye. I want to go back to those areas and really start working in detail with people to see if we can get some new services starting to happen there. Thanks to Paul Quinliven for looking after my gangers around that Ampilatwatja and Utopia area.
Another happy memory I have is Alex and Jo Sherin, who were managing the store at Ampilatwatja. They all turned up in bright pink wigs and bright T-shirts. So we turned the whole thing into a circus, which is always a bit unpredictable. Just when I thought I was coping with what Alex and Jo were doing, Morgan Flint turned up wearing my corflutes as a sandwich board. It was all right. I could handle the corflutes bouncing around the sports weekend oval, but his hairy legs underneath them were pretty unforgettable. I have a photo of it and I am threatening him with it at the moment.
Finally, up in the Victoria River area, Sean Heffernan, JP and MP - otherwise known as Justin Paddy and Michael Paddy - and Ros Frith and Perkins were just fantastic getting around the polling in that area.
Members might see - and probably it is no different in their electorates - that you need a lot of people to get elected in the Territory even though there are only a bit over 4000 voters that you are trying to encourage to vote for you. You need an awful lot of helpers to get round, and in a bush electorate that means people who are prepared to jump in a car and travel very long distances to help you out. So thanks to everyone who helped me in doing that.
The last thing I will say before I sign off is that, while all this was going on, my ministerial office was ticking over - even in caretaker mode you still have to make sure that the day-to-day needs of the Territory are being serviced - and also the Office of Central Australia. So to all the staff there, well done on keeping everything together while we went off and got ourselves re-elected. My thanks to everyone. I promise I will certainly work very hard over the next term of government to repay you.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have been very busy in Alice Springs lately. There have been some wonderful things happening and I would like to report on some of them tonight. The Zonta Club of Alice Springs is only a small group of women, but they took on a task to provide 1000 birthing kits to women in Ethiopia. This was a project that commenced with the Adelaide Hills club to assist women in developing countries, and I know it has expanded to many of the Zonta Clubs around Australia. If you can imagine, these birthing kits include a large sheet of black plastic, gauze pads, several pieces of string, a razor blade and latex gloves, all folded into a small plastic zip lock bag; simple, practical, basic materials. Those little kits will assist many women in Ethiopia for whom natural childbirth is not a choice - nor does childbirth often take place in a clinic or hospital.
Members of the Zonta Club of Alice Springs got together, and were also joined by Quotarians, Kiwanis, as well as Kate Lawrence from 8CCC, and some other members of the community. They were able to assemble 1000 birthing kits which are going to the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital in Ethiopia. Just by this simple gesture, they are going to assist many women in that country with childbirth.
I just want to say to the Zonta Club of Alice Springs, even though I know you are very small, I think your heart is in the right place and to do a simple task like this was great. I thank Kate Lawrence from 8CCC who interviewed the assembled teams and gave them publicity for what they had done. Her story was broadcast through 8CCC, so many thanks to everyone. It is an AusAID project; 50% supported by AusAID and 50% by the Zonta Clubs, but it was particularly nice to know that there are a number of service clubs involved in that.
When I talk about service clubs, some time ago I had an approach by some police officers who ran the Blue Light Disco in Central Australia on a voluntary basis. They were seeking money to buy equipment. Every time they want to put on a disco they would have to go out and borrow or beg from different businesses. We approached the Rotary Club of Alice Springs-Mbantua. They did apply for a grant through the Community Grants Scheme for the Blue Light Disco but, unfortunately, were unsuccessful in that application. Warren Serone, who had been the president of the Life Education Unit, came to see me. Unfortunately, the Life Education Unit folded. It was getting a little old and there are other priorities for people, it was a bit hard to keep going again, so they wound up that particular organisation. There was nearly $10 000 left over, and Warren agreed, when he heard about the dilemma of the Blue Light Disco officers, to give the money to the Rotary Mbantua Club which, in turn, bought the equipment. We had this wonderful morning tea where they presented it to the police officers so that they will have the equipment to run their Blue Light Discos without having to run around and chase it.
The Blue Light Disco team is now in the Crime Prevention Section of the police department, and I believe that is an excellent idea because it no longer relies just on voluntary time given by the police officers. The police officers who run it will actually be on duty and, of course, they would encourage other police officers to come along and volunteer their time.
This equipment was high-tech, far outside my expertise. Certainly, the mixer machines, the flashing lights and the amplifiers looked very flash to me. I believe they are going to start off by training some of the students from secondary schools to run this equipment. I am quite sure it will be a great initiative. I look forward to having more Blue Light Discos in Central Australia. They are a great way to get kids involved. We are often saying that kids say they do not have enough to do. It was extremely successful, and I guess one of the communities in Central Australia, Kintore, has proven how successful they are.
I want to thank Warren Serone first, for his initiative in approaching me with this money that was available; I want to thank the Rotary Club of Alice Springs-Mbantua for being sponsors and taking carriage of this particular grant; and, then most of all, I want to thank the police who have become involved in this project. It will be one of those small projects that will benefit so many young teenagers in town. I certainly look forward to their first use of the equipment.
I was also very pleased to launch the Alice Springs 2005 Desert Festival. I know the Darwin Festival is on at the moment. The Alice Springs Festival has grown considerably over the last few years. It is now a 10-day event with over 100 activities – workshops, conferences, etcetera. The festival includes live performance and workshops with artists from Alice Springs, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Tahiti, Sydney, Adelaide, and Melbourne. Alice Springs also plays host to the Sixth National Indigenous Dance Conference.
There are a few different things occurring this year with the Alice Festival. This is the program, and you can see that the cover is very colourful. That was the result of a poster competition, and the winner of that competition was Brett Jacobs, and his poster has been used on the cover of the program. This program will be delivered to every household in Alice Springs. The festival starts with a street parade, which is a great time to get together, walk along, sing, drum, whatever you wish to do. They have created what they call their hub space. For those people who know Alice Springs, it is down by the Anzac Oval on the banks of the Todd River. It will be a hub for all the activities occurring during the festival. You will be able to go there and join in any of the workshops that will be going on. There are far too many activities for me to go through, but you can imagine the variety is great.
What is wonderful about the Alice Springs Festival is that it brings out the wealth of talent and creativity that we have in the Centre. I do not think people realise what a wonderful inspiration the Centre is to people. We talk about the art of Alice Springs, but this is music, dance and creativity of a different type. At the launch, it was also announced that Jetset Travel was going to promote ‘fly a friend’, so there was a competition. Everyone in Alice Springs has a friend somewhere else so, if you wanted to enter this competition, you could. I thank Jetset Travel for their contribution.
Jacinta Castle sang a song that she had written herself and that was very nice. Jacinta is a local lass. There were two models, Russell Satour and Terika Holroyd. Terika had on one of the wearable arts costumes that won, and it was the most inspiring garment that won last year. The Wearable Works of Art occurs after the festival, but it is one of those events that you have to be inspired. People actually come up with these wonderful garments that they have made themselves. The one Terika had was particularly beautiful and she looked very beautiful herself, being such a lovely, slim, young lady.
I want to commend Clive Scollay who is Chairman of the Volunteer Committee. He and his band of volunteers including Robyn Van Dok, my electorate officer, have done a wonderful job in pulling this program together. Craig Mathewson is the Director of the Alice Desert Festival this year and Craig has been most enterprising and creative in what he has put together. Bryony O'Callaghan and Nicky Schonkala are just two of the other people who have been down there helping to coordinate the event.
I know the Alice Springs Festival is going to be a great success this year. BassintheDust will occur on the Saturday before the final night of the festival which is the Sunday so there is going to be a smorgasbord of entertainment and different activities for people to get involved in.
I just say to the Alice Springs people: please get behind your festival committee, get behind this Alice Springs Desert Festival. It is probably one of the greatest things to happen. It says to the people that we are just not just a desert town with beautiful mountains and scenery; we are also a town with a huge amount of talent.
I seek leave to table that program.
Leave granted.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I acknowledge the achievements of a Katherine identity, Bob Mackie. Bob Mackie was honoured on 14 June this year for the Best Work for the Dole Supervisor in the Prime Minister’s Work for the Dole Achievement Awards 2004, which is a pretty remarkable achievement considering this is a national award.
Bob’s commitment to the Work for the Dole program while supervising the Rotary Park Activity Centre in Katherine has been unstinting from the beginning. With the support of the Rotary Club of Katherine, Bob raised $350 000 to ensure that the Activity Centre project became a reality. His personal dedication to the project has been unwavering and his infectious humour, patience and motivation to all who had the opportunity to work with him was a joy to experience. I have to add here that in all the years I have known Bob - and that has been about 17 - I have never seen him in anything but a happy frame of mind. Humour is definitely his best medicine.
The participants in the Work for the Dole Scheme utilise practical skills and were only too eager to work with Bob and have taken great pride in their accomplishments in the Rotary Activity Centre. Bob was presented with his award at a Canberra function which he attended with Senator Nigel Scullion.
I would also like to mention the wonderful support of the Katherine Rotary Club and the community work coordinator at ITEC Employment who assisted Bob at every opportunity. Well done. They deserve some of this award too.
Rotary Park has become a great meeting place for families, and for groups who wish to hold functions in the evening, and for varied groups and individuals who utilise the great activities that have been so thoughtfully designed and planned around the activity park. Some of the things they have are mini golf, giant hopscotch, giant chess, bike tracks by the metre, giant draughts, multiple bike tracks around the back, shaded areas to sit in out of the sun and, of course, plenty of seating. All age groups are encouraged to use the park.
It first began as a Rotary Park for teaching people to drive. It was for road testing, road skills and to learn bike safety with helmets, etcetera, but it went by the wayside and Rotary Park had it sitting there for about five or six years doing absolutely nothing. Bob and a group of men decided that they would transform it into something that was worthwhile for the community and they have certainly done that.
If you are very lucky when you go to Rotary Park, Bob just might happen to be lighting up the barbecue for a relaxing meal. I want to congratulate Bob for a well-deserved award and one that he was very proud to go to Canberra to receive. He had to go a buy a new suit, by the way, to go to Canberra and he was fairly chuffed. Unfortunately, Bob’s celebrations were short lived as while he was returning from Canberra his mother-in-law died suddenly in England, and to add to the distress of the whole situation, Bob’s wife, Edith, was planning at that time to go to England for her mother’s funeral but, while Bob was returning home, she was admitted to Katherine Hospital with a heart condition.
So Bob arrived home from an exciting trip with a wonderful trophy but an empty house and a deceased relative in England. I am pleased to say, though, that Bob’s wife, Edith, has recovered well, and that Bob and Edith are very proud of the outcome for Rotary Park Katherine. I wanted to place on the record tonight how proud we are of all the work that he has done voluntarily and the inspiration that he has been to many unemployed people who have not had the opportunity for work anywhere else. He has given them some self-confidence and self-esteem. For that, I congratulate him. Well done, Bob.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to talk about a few very interesting constituents and the stories of their lives and how they came to the Territory.
In particular, I want to talk about a Wagaman constituent with an amazing history, an incredible asset to any community in which he chooses to live. I am talking about Andrew Kazamias who, together with his wife, Androula, came to Australia in November 1974 as a refugee from Cyprus where his family had lost all their businesses and property.
He married Androula in Cyprus; however, Androula was originally from Darwin so they came here. When Andrew came to Darwin he could not speak a word of English. He was fortunate to get a job with Colemans Printing and, even though he could not speak a word of English, he could read it and it was soon obvious that he was a brilliant printer. He could operate three machines simultaneously in the days of the letter press and became a valued employee in a very short time.
However, tragedy struck in the form of Cyclone Tracy in 1974. Andrew and Androula were among the first to be evacuated from Darwin, suffering horrific injuries. Androula was practically cut in half through the stomach and Andrew was in danger of having his arm amputated at the shoulder. There is, obviously, another story here of how these two survived their evacuation, their injuries, and the ordeal of recovery interstate. No doubt, it is a difficult tale to tell.
However, in about April the following year, Colemans received a phone call out of the blue from Andrew saying he was again looking for a job. He was told to get back to Darwin as fast as possible and, within weeks, he was back. That was May 1975. Androula ended up going through eight serious operations in Sydney as she was sewn back together and did not get back to Darwin until 12 to 18 months after Andrew.
By 1982, Andrew had worked his way up to Production Manager and, in 1986, Andrew took on more and more responsibility and was effectively No 2 to Gary at Colemans. By 1992, he actually became General Manager and still holds that position today and the age of 56.
Androula, despite her serious injuries and many operations, went on to produce two beautiful daughters with Andrew, the eldest having just had a baby and the youngest turning 21 at the end of July. It is people like Andrew and Androula who make the Territory such a fantastic place to live and work. Opportunities abound and people like Gary Coleman are well recognised for giving people a chance. In this case, Gary has also been rewarded in finding a man such as Andrew on whom he can rely so totally.
Here is a great story of people who came to Darwin from Cyprus and who have made a great success of their lives. They have a wonderful house, a wonderful family, and Andrew has made such a contribution to Colemans, which incidentally won a Telstra Small Business award. I think they are in the finals, which will be judged very soon. Andrew has been a backbone of that company and I am sure that the Colemans join with me in wishing Andrew all the best and thanking him for his efforts over many years with Colemans Printing.
Tonight I would also like to talk about a valued employee from the public sector, and that is Kevin Williams also from Wagaman, who retired from the Northern Territory Public Service on Friday, 1 July 2005 after conscientiously serving the Northern Territory for a period of 26 years.
Kevin joined the Northern Territory government in 1979 coming from the Country Roads Board of Victoria to head up the Bridge Section of the Roads Division. For over 10 years, he was a dynamic and persuasive bridge engineer. Kevin was renowned for his sense of adventure, infectious sense of fun and can-do attitude. A number of colleagues have said that he was far-sighted and a visionary, and that he cared greatly for the community and the people around him. One in particular remembers his attitude as being ‘nothing is impossible, the impossible just costs a little more’.
Kevin has overseen many major projects such as the Channel Island bridges, Bagot Road Flyover, the Rapid Creek and Trower Road pedestrian bridges, and the Daly River crossing. Following a decade of achievement in this field, Kevin transferred to senior management roles in the portfolios of Lands, Housing, Libraries and Local Government. He also spent a period of time in the policy, intergovernmental and operational functional areas in the delivery of health services in the Northern Territory.
Kevin returned to Transport and Infrastructure roles for the department in 2002, and was responsible for project managing the delivery of much of the government’s infrastructure programs. We know that since this government came to power there has been record spending on capital works expenditure. There has certainly been a lot going on, and it is people like Kevin Williams who have really carried that capital works program and brought it into fruition. Kevin has a Diploma in Civil Engineering and a Postgraduate Diploma in Executive Management. He is a well-respected member of his department, and has provided support and guidance to all staff in the department on infrastructure-related issues.
I take this opportunity to wish Kevin and his family all the best for the future. I happened to be doorknocking in the area, probably a month or two ago, and there was Kevin. He has his boat ready, and all the gear in there - his anchor and fishing gear. I wish Kevin all the best fishing and just say I am more than just a little jealous. Kevin, you have earned your retirement. You have certainly contributed much to the Northern Territory. We will sorely miss your expertise, but I am sure you have mentored many younger people to come up through the ranks and succeed you, and now the baton rests with a whole new generation of engineers.
Tonight, I would also like to mention someone who also made a very solid contribution to the Northern Territory Public Sector, and that is Tony Sinclair, who retires after having served the Northern Territory for almost 25 years. Tony transferred from the Commonwealth to join the then Department of Transport and Works, Public Works Division, when the Northern Territory attained self-government in 1978. Following periods in Public Works administration and managing the Essential Services Group, he moved to Transport Division’s Executive Officer Marine in 1984, and later worked in a range of policy and regulation areas, including Transport Planning and Road Transport.
Tony took on the role of Government Printer from 1991 to 1993, before returning to Transport as Manager, Strategic Planning in the Transport Planning Branch. He was appointed Director of Road Transport in 1995, including the role of Registrar of Motor Vehicles. In late 2003, Tony was appointed Senior Director, Transport. During his time with Transport, Tony has represented the Northern Territory government on numerous national committees engaged in formulating transport policy.
He first became involved in the machinations of the Australian Transport Council in 1984, and Tony said, he thinks not much has changed. I think that is a bit tongue in cheek, because I know he has made a great contribution to that forum.
I take this opportunity to thank Tony for his outstanding contribution to the Northern Territory, and to wish him, and Andy, all the best for a fulfilling retirement. I, as a minister, would like to put on the record that Tony, as a public servant, gave expert, fearless advice. What I always liked about Tony was that he had an infectious sense of humour and a lot of wisdom, because Tony had been around a long while. I will certainly miss his advice and his personal presence in meetings, because Tony had a mischievous sense of humour and we certainly appreciated it. Once again, we wish him a great retirement and I hope to see him in and about Darwin.
Tonight, I would like to talk about a very special constituent, because some people retire and then start work. Such is the case with a Jingili constituent of mine, Mr Barry Levarde, who retired from teaching at the then Northern Territory University a few years ago, and started up his own business training in chainsaw operation, urban forestry and tree felling. Since starting his business, Barry has continually travelled to remote communities doing great work passing on his skills. Whenever I travel out to those communities, all I ever hear about Barry Levarde is the respect that Aboriginal people hold him in, and the way they like his teaching style and technique.
Barry is committed to training Aboriginal people across the Top End, equipping them with the knowledge and qualifications to find satisfying employment, especially to support their own local community. Having skills with a chainsaw is certainly one way you can do that. What became evident to me after Cyclone Ingrid, when I saw Aboriginal people both at Warruwi and Minjilang operating chainsaws in a safe and effective way, was that I knew that Barry Levarde had been there passing on that knowledge. It is a very practical skill, and I know that Aboriginal people appreciate Barry’s efforts in that regard.
Barry’s trainees - and I am talking about Cyclone Ingrid here - were well able to safely and efficiently cut up and remove dangerous debris. This experience saves remote communities large sums of money not having to fly in professional tree loppers to deal with this situation. Barry’s support was recently recognised in Groote Eylandt, where the GEMCO magazine told a story of an enormous and dangerous mahogany tree which needed removal. This tree was ‘scary, dangerous and high risk’, the author reported. Barry – ‘chainsaw and tree guru’ – was on hand to help out. He had been on Groote Eylandt training nine new members of the rehabilitation and mine services crew in chainsaw, tree felling and advanced tree felling. Again, an opportunity presented itself for his trainees to excel in the safe removal of this tree.
I commend Barry on his good work, in which he gives over and above for his trainees to ensure that they are properly and thoroughly trained in this dangerous activity.
I would also like to place on the record that Barry is involved in a number of other educational programs on remote Aboriginal communities and I will talk about that at another date. However, enough said, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have highlighted the contribution of important members of my electorate to the Northern Territory community.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016