2007-08-28
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Sacred Heart Primary School, Year 5 students accompanied by teacher, Mr Bill Bemelmans, participating in the Parliament of Wizards as part of the Celebrating Democracy Week. Honourable members are welcome to watch the Parliament of Wizards in the Chan Building from 1.20 pm to 1.45 pm today. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I give notice that later this day I shall move a motion relating to a referendum for a nuclear waste facility. I will move:
That the Assembly request that:
(a) the Commonwealth government acknowledges the widespread and bipartisan opposition to its plans to locate a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory;
(c) the Commonwealth government allows Territorians to have a say on the nuclear waste dump planned for the Northern Territory. A binding referendum which was promised by the Prime Minister last week should be a mandatory precondition for introducing any new nuclear facilities to any region in Australia;
(d) the Commonwealth government immediately make public the current status of its plans to locate a nuclear waste dump near Tennant Creek at Muckaty Station;
(e) Northern Territory members of the Commonwealth parliament stand up for the Territory and support a referendum; and
(f) 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.
Mr NATT (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I report to the Assembly the situation regarding the outbreak of equine influenza in New South Wales and Queensland, and the response implemented in the Territory.
Equine influenza is an exotic, highly contagious disease of horses, mules, donkeys and other equine species. It is not generally fatal to horses; however, fatalities may occur in old or infirm horses and foals. The main clinical signs of equine influenza are a sudden increase in temperature, a watery nasal discharge which quickly turns thick with a strong odour, and a deep, dry hacking cough.
Australia and New Zealand are amongst the few countries which have significant equine industries free from the disease. Humans are not affected by equine influenza, but can spread the virus to horses via infected clothing. Between 17 and 20 August, two sites in New South Wales reported horses with suspected equine influenza, with subsequent testing leading to equine influenza being diagnosed. National emergency animal disease arrangements were enacted with state disease control headquarters being focused on all jurisdictions. The Territory response has been run from our state disease control centre which is located at Berrimah Farm. This response is tried and tested, having been utilised in a number of crisis simulation exercises in the past.
Part of the national response is a national standstill. Under the standstill, no horse can be moved from its current location without a permit from the Chief Veterinary Officer, or his delegates. The standstill gives officers time to trace the movements of any suspect horses and to prevent any further spread of the disease. It also allows time to establish effective quarantine zones at the infected properties in New South Wales.
The Territory standstill will be reviewed on Thursday afternoon, when I will receive expert advice from the Consultative Committee of Emergency Animal Diseases. This is the national group of experts coordinating a national response to the exotic disease outbreak.
I stress that the risk in the Territory is low, and there has been no movement of horses from infected areas. However, this is not to say that we are not taking every precaution. There are two thoroughbred horses which have been moved to the Territory from non-infected parts of New South Wales since mid-August. The animals are healthy and are under management of the Darwin racecourse vet. There was also a shipment of six horses from Queensland which were intercepted and stopped at Katherine. These horses were allowed to move to their destination following confirmation that there was no contact with suspect infected animals.
Late last weekend, after consultation with the Chief Veterinary Officer of the Territory, the Darwin Turf Club implemented a horse standstill at its course. The operations at Fannie Bay are somewhat unique as the race horses have been stabled at the course and no other horses have arrived. For this reason, the race meeting could proceed despite the standstill. In contrast, interstate races see horses moved from large numbers of private off-course stables to the course on race day. What will happen this weekend will depend on the analysis of risks being undertaken by my department. As I mentioned earlier, we will meet again on Thursday and, in light of information to hand at that time, will decide on our next move.
Race meetings at Alice Springs and Darwin can proceed this weekend, providing the current health status of the horses is maintained. The Chief Veterinary Officer will be meeting with racecourse management on Thursday also. I do appreciate that the standstill will impact on Territorians; it means that horses cannot be moved unless a permit has been issued by the Chief Vet. It may affect polocrosse and dressage events planned for this weekend.
In conclusion, I assure all horse owners in the Northern Territory that if they are at all concerned that their animals have a fever, nasal discharge or a hacking cough, please contact my department or their local vet. I extend my thanks to all members of the horse industry, those involved in the Territory’s response effort at the State Disease Control Headquarters, and other departments for their cooperation in this most important matter.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the opposition welcomes the report. It is timely and it appears to be well responded to in the Northern Territory. It is tremendous to see that high level of coordination and cooperation across borders when it comes to matters to do with the concern about the health of horses. It is a shame that there is not the same level of coordination and cooperation shown on other matters which require a high level of coordination and cooperation in the best interests of the vulnerable.
That aside, I would like to know what measures are in place with regards to donkeys and wild horses …
Mrs Braham: And camels.
Mr MILLS: I do not know whether camels can be affected, but certainly donkeys and wild horses. What sort of measures are in place to monitor any incursion of the infection into our feral animal population? I am wondering too, just for advice to the House, how is it transmitted? I understand how it came in to the country, but how is it transmitted? Would birds be able to carry the virus? As there is such a large population of donkeys and wild horses, it would be interesting to have a report on that.
Mr NATT (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his inquiries. I understand the disease is an airborne virus that can be carried on people’s clothing and it can be swept through by the winds. Therefore, studs or horse properties that are in close proximity to each other can be affected so they are keeping a close eye on it. As for the wild animals, the department is well aware of the circumstances that could arise from that. At this stage it is a very low risk but I am sure the department will stay on top of that.
While I am standing, I would like to say how disappointed I was with the facts that were printed in the paper on the weekend. If you knew the facts and read the newspaper article, you would understand that the article, and the concept, was clearly wrong. I would like to put that story straight. I also again thank the Commonwealth officials and the state officials who have acted very quickly to stop the disease. It could be a tragic event if it spread and they have done a wonderful job to contain it as quickly as they have.
Indigenous Art Buyers Mission
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to talk about the success of recent inbound indigenous arts and crafts buyers’ missions. Over the past three years we have been working with indigenous art centres to increase exports of indigenous arts and crafts. I am pleased to report that our work is paying off and providing real opportunities for indigenous artists from many different communities.
This year we have hosted delegations of indigenous art and craft buyers from the US and Europe. The European mission was made up of buyers from France, Italy and Sweden, and both missions were again undertaken in partnership with Austrade. The results speak for themselves. Immediate purchases made by the buyers were in excess of $700 000 and we are still counting. Future international exhibitions are being planned for a number of art centres in America and Europe. Over 20 indigenous art centres were visited by the buyers, providing an opportunity to establish solid relationships with international buyers.
The five inbound missions that we have hosted to date had delivered significant, tangible outcomes to indigenous art centres and artists. The money that buyers spend in the art centres helps the centres maintain and improve their operations and their place in the life of their communities. The total sales from all inbound missions currently stand at around $1.2m. That is an impressive figure, and the coverage we are getting is not bad either.
Countries that have been represented in the missions include Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Bahrain, Singapore, United States, France and Italy, and this bodes well for the future. The number of buyers who have participated in the missions stands at 28, but it is not the quantity of buyers we are after; it is the quality. For example, the recent American mission included high-profile gallery owners, private collectors, and curators from the University of Virginia and Harvard University. It is these types of buyer who can deliver to us not only immediate outcomes in the form of sales, but also longer-term export development activities in their home countries.
The inbound missions are a great example of the role that we can play in assisting indigenous art centres to grow their business through export. We are currently planning future missions from the United States and Europe for next year. The importance and benefits that the missions provide has been recognised by a number of private sector businesses that had interests in assisting indigenous communities. Both the American and European missions receive sponsorship from Newmont, Rio Tinto, ERA and the Kimberley Development Corporation. I extend my thanks and gratitude to these organisations for sharing our vision to grow our indigenous arts and crafts industry.
The success of the missions has much to do with warm welcome buyers receive in the communities they visit and at the art centres. Our art centre managers play a critical role, and I take this opportunity to thank them for their efforts and for being wonderful ambassadors for the Territory: Cecilia Alfonso from Warlukurlangu Artists at Yuendumu; Clive Scollay from Maruku Arts at Mutitjulu; Quentin Sprague from Jilamara Arts and Crafts at Milikapiti; Anthony Murphy from Injalak Arts and Crafts at Oenpelli; and Andrew Blake from Buku Larrnggay Mulka at Yirrkala. They all did a marvellous job and have my thanks.
There is no doubt that the ongoing development of our indigenous arts and crafts industry, particularly in some of our remote communities, has the potential to strengthen the economic base of those communities for many years to come and, importantly, create sustainable jobs. I will keep the House updated on the outcomes of future missions.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her report this morning. We are fully supportive, on this side of the House, of all inbound and outbound missions on indigenous art. It is a wonderful initiative to get people to come here, but it is also very important to take the artists on outbound missions so that potential buyers can speak to the artists.
There is, obviously, a future for indigenous art in the Northern Territory that is still untapped. We only have to look at the amount of money that has been spent by buyers in the last couple of months in purchasing significant indigenous art to see how much the value has increased in such a short time. We have a long way to go in promoting Northern Territory indigenous art.
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, today I report on the EnvironmeNT Grants Program.
The program was introduced by Labor in 2004 as recognition of, and commitment to, the important role that our community plays in protecting and managing the environment. This grants program has provided some $460 000 each year towards community activities. I am pleased to announce that this year, school project grants received some $18 660; individual program grants received some $278 960; and the operational grants had an allocation of $200 000. This exceeds the yearly $460 000 available to the EnvironmeNT Grants Program because an additional $33 960 was made available through the Litter Abatement Fund.
School project grants are an extremely important element of the grants program, as it allows us to encourage young Territorians to engage in positive action to protect their environment. It is critical that they understand that personal action can make a difference. The school recipients this year include Anula Primary School; Durack Primary School; Living Waters Lutheran School; Nightcliff Primary School; Pularumpi School; St Paul’s Primary School; Tennant Creek Primary School; Wagaman Primary School; Wulagi Primary School, and Yipirinya School.
Operational grants are available to non-profit environment organisations to assist in meeting their ongoing operational expenses. Through this scheme, government commits around $200 000 per year to key environmental organisations. Organisations that have received funding since the introduction of this grants program have included: The Environment Centre NT; the Arid Lands Environment Centre; Keep Australia Beautiful Council; the Environmental Defenders office; and the Australian Marine Conservation Society.
Individual project grants provide up to $10 000 to community groups, industry and individuals for a wide range of activities designed to provide significant benefit to the environment through direct action, research and education. Since the grant program began, more than $1m has been allocated to these individual grants. This year, there have been 23 successful submissions which will share a total of approximately $279 000.
Some of those successful applicants include: Lajamanu, for a container deposit scheme; the Keep Australia Beautiful Council for Rethinking Waste in Schools Challenge; Central Australian Football League for a Cash for Cans refund program; Alice Springs Town Council for their We Can Can our Can approach; the Keep Australia Beautiful Council’s Tidy Towns Forums; Girraween Landcare Group for water monitoring of the Girraween Lagoon; the Arid Lands Environment Centre for Home Energy Audits; the Centre for Sustainable Arid Towns for a desertSMART Gardens promotion; COOLmob for some fact sheets and Ecospecifier seminar; Oz GREEN, to provide a Darwin Youth LEAD 2008 program; Northern Territory Recycling Solutions; the Centre for Sustainable Arid Towns for a rainwater resource calculator for the Territory; the Environment Centre NT will have a forum on the Northern Territory’s Tropical Rivers Conservation; and we have the Land for Wildlife WA Low Ecological Services that will look at the implementation of a Garden for Wildlife Off-Reserve Conservation in Alice Springs. Coomalie Council received some funding for the Batchelor landfill, the analysis of their waste reduction strategy. We gave some funding to the Chamber of Commerce for Rethinking Waste in Industry; and the Motor Traders Association for a Green Stamp Plus Eco-efficiency Program.
Madam Speaker, in my role as Environment minister, I have the benefit of being able to provide financial assistance through these grants programs to the community, industry and councils to ensure the preservation and protection of both our natural and built environments. There is no doubt that both these grant programs bring enormous benefits to the Northern Territory. I am committed to ensuring the success of the grant programs into the future.
Yesterday morning, I launched Keep Australia Beautiful’s week of activities. The theme this year is ‘Save the World and Start at Home’. I urge all members of the Chamber to take on a personal challenge in greening their home, whether it is putting in an environmental energy-saving light globe, recycling their mobile phones or their cartridges from their various machines, and filling up that recycling bin instead of dumping everything into the rubbish bin.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report this morning. I am a great believer in school-based programs; we need to teach and educate our young for the future. I thank the minister for funding all of those little projects that many people throughout the Territory are working on.
One of my passions is recycling. The member for Nelson will probably talk about recycling also. I believe an extremely important part of our environment is the recycling of cans and bottles, and plastic containers, etcetera. I would like to hear from the minister about recycling plans. I know there are a few of us in this House who are very passionate about recycling.
KESAB is very important. I know that, the Katherine area, my electorate, has been quite successful over the years in their KESAB program, and that is a great way to educate the young as well. We could talk about the environment in the Northern Territory for quite some time. I thank the minister for her statement and I am sure there will be plenty more to come.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I think the member for Katherine meant the KABNT, not the KESAB.
Mrs Miller: Yes, I did.
Mr WOOD: That is her South Australian origin.
I thank the minister for her statement. It is important that we help many of those voluntary groups to get out and do something, especially Landcare groups. You mentioned the Girraween Landcare Group, which is doing a marvellous job trying to preserve Girraween Lagoon, which will, soon I think, be the subject of a major subdivision proposal, which will need very careful evaluation before it is approved. By giving funds to these groups, you at least encourage and show recognition to these people that what they are doing is important. If we did not have these people, then the government would have to find ways of doing it themselves, or it would never be done at all.
The member for Braitling has asked me to inquire regarding issues in Alice Springs. For instance, how many people have taken up the subsidy for rainwater tanks? What is the percentage, or the number of people who have taken that up?
I also was very interested to know that you had given some funds to add to the Environment Awards to the Litter Abatement Fund, which is not exactly my way of thinking how things should be done. As you know, I have been pushing for many years for container deposit legislation. You have mentioned that Yuendumu has had a project that was announced at the KAB AGM this year. That is something that should be evaluated by the government.
However, it was funny when the minister spoke this morning about having a referendum over nuclear waste, as she would know that there were surveys taken throughout the Northern Territory, and about 90% of people wanted container deposit legislation. You know that and the government knows that and has done nothing about it. I see a little hollow stump coming up this afternoon because, when people have asked for this government to do something about the environment, you have not. You have been paid off by the beverage industry and you have not bothered to do something on the ground …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: … and something that people want. You just could not be bothered!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Katherine for her wholehearted support for these community-based grants programs, and for recognising that the grant programs going to the schools are critically important to sustaining the environment into the future. Our kids are great examples of how they are very aware and in tune with the need to protect our environment.
Keep Australia Beautiful are advocates of the way the government is approaching a range of community-based grants programs now. They see the sense in working at community level in recycling programs.
Community-based container deposit schemes, which are emerging across small communities, are really starting to take shape. You misrepresent the government. We have been on the record as saying we need to be part of a national container deposit scheme …
Members interjecting.
Mr Wood: That is an excuse! South Australia is not part of a national program and it works very well.
Ms LAWRIE: It is not an excuse. We have done the figures and we know we need to be a part of a national scheme for it to be viable for the Territory.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Continued from 20 June 2007.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this bill is supported. I note that the Attorney-General’s second reading speech was relatively short. This bill is supported for the reasons outlined in his speech. Although it is invariably the case that, with legislation of this nature, people - and I think each and every one of us in the Chamber - are keen to ensure that the appropriate checks and balances are in place. That always has to be balanced with the intention of what can rightly be described as far-reaching legislation of this nature. Getting the balance right can often be a challenge.
The opposition’s view is that the balance is right with this bill. I feel certain that the government, and the Attorney-General in particular, will not be backwards in coming forward in the event that changes need to be made to this bill down the track.
The bill seems to offer an improvement on the existing legislation and the capacity to assist across borders as part of a national system to boost crime fighting capacity. There is judicial oversight and that is welcomed.
I am not sure that the opposition can or needs to add much more than that. The reasons for the support of the bill are those as I have articulated, and in addition to the comments that you raised in your second reading speech. We support the bill.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Araluen and the opposition for their support. The points she raised regarding checks and balances are extremely important when you are increasing the powers of police as we are with this legislation. In her view the balance is about right, and that is the government’s view as well. The reporting activities on a six-monthly basis through the Ombudsman’s Office, which I am required to table in this parliament, will gives us all the opportunity to monitor pretty closely the operations of this bill in ensuring that we are, in fact, correct in our assumption at the outset that the checks and balances are right. I thank the member for Araluen for her supportive comments.
Surveillance, of course, is a critical tool in effective policing and law enforcement. We have had many advances in technology which, of course, provides criminals and others wishing to harm our community with ever easier ways and more innovative ways to carry out their activities. The world has changed quite dramatically in technology since the current Surveillance Devices Act commenced in 2000. We all know organised crime and terrorism do not stop at our state borders. Neither should the ability of governments and police forces to monitor them stop at the borders. The laws must keep pace with newest technology and the criminals who use it to provide the best possible regime for law enforcement.
The bill implements the electronic surveillance model legislation that was developed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the Australasian Police Ministers Council Joint Working Group. It came in response to Resolution 15 of the Leaders Summit on Terrorism and Multijurisdictional Crime. In April 2002, the Prime Minister, state Premiers and territory Chief Ministers agreed to legislate, through model laws, a national set of powers for cross-border investigations.
The bill consolidates and updates the current regulatory regime of the use of surveillance devices. It provides for regulation of surveillance devices and investigation of local and cross-border crime; comprehensive reporting and recording requirements; and introduces that extra accountability through scrutiny by the Ombudsman of police records of surveillance device use. It also restricts the use of all information gathered through the use of surveillance devices. The misuse of any such information will carry a heavy penalty.
By adopting the model provisions and making some amendments recommended by Northern Territory Police for operational reasons, the bill presents a modern, consolidated set of laws governing the use of surveillance devices. We think it provides the necessary balance, on the one hand, to allow best use of an essential policing tool and, on the other, protecting people from unnecessary intrusion in personal privacy.
It is part of a package further to come that will address cross-border crime, which will include assumed identity, controlled operations, and witness identity protection legislation. Most importantly, it facilitates cross-border investigation and will allow for the recognition of surveillance device warrants issued in jurisdictions with corresponding legislation. It also addresses operational difficulties experienced by police; for example, it clarifies that a law enforcement officer may make an application for the instillation, use and maintenance of more than one device, and devices of a different type. It allows for police to be wired; they now will be able to use a listening device without a warrant where the officer is acting in a performance of his or her duty and the use is for purposes of safety. It allows police to use optical surveillance without warrant if use is in the course of duty and does not involve trespassing, and it allows for installation of an optical surveillance device without warrant if the occupier’s consent is obtained and installation is for the purposes of protection of lawful interests.
Importantly, it increases reporting, accountability and protections. It requires officers to provide a detailed report to the judge who issued a warrant detailing use of the device. It requires the Ombudsman to order police records and to report every six months to the minister on compliance by police with the act. These reports are to be tabled by the minister. It requires the law enforcement chief officer to keep a register of warrants and emergency authorisations and statements detailing use of warrants, thereby providing an audit trail for the Ombudsman’s inspections. It also provides penalties for the unlawful communication of information obtained by the use of surveillance device.
Other important features are that it removes the limitation on installation of data surveillance devices for persons other than law enforcement. To keep ahead of criminal knowledge, it provides protection of surveillance device technologies and methods. It provides for emergency use of listening or optical devices in the public interest where there is a serious and urgent matter, but it does require a report to a judge on any such device used in emergency circumstances.
One of the bill’s main purposes is to address the operational difficulties experienced by the police force in the Northern Territory, while easing restrictions on cross-border operations through implementation of the model provisions. The changes are made to allow police, in the course of their duty and without warrant, to record conversations to which they are a party, record conversations to which they are not a party with the consent of a party, and where they reasonably believe necessary to do so for the protection of someone’s safety, or use optical surveillance devices where consent of an occupier of the premises is obtained, or where the use of the device does not involve trespass to property or person.
It contains stringent regulation over the use of these devices and strong accountability requirements. They include clear parameters for lawful recording of conversations; a requirement to keep details of the use of information obtained through use of the device; oversight of the records by the Ombudsman; and, perhaps most importantly, there is a requirement that the person responsible for executing the warrant to report to the judge who issued the warrant to ensure the warrant was validly executed. If the judge is not satisfied that all requirements are met, the judge may order the information inadmissible and to be destroyed.
Police also have strong internal accountability and application processes for surveillance devices as part of general orders.
Finally, hefty penalties for the unlawful communication of information and reports obtained as a result of the use of a surveillance device are provided for.
The police, of course, were closely involved with the development of this legislation. It is clear that what was good law seven years ago has fallen behind today. Law enforcement officials must be able to make the most of the latest technology to keep pace with criminals’ rapid technological sophistication. That is the why the bill modifies the current surveillance legislation by allowing a warrant to be issued in respect of one or more kinds of surveillance device; ensuring evidence obtained under emergency authorisation may be used in court proceedings; setting out exact requirements to lawfully retrieve devices; recognition of corresponding warrants and authorisations, compliance and monitoring; specifically protecting surveillance device technology and method of use from disclosure; providing more extensive reporting and record keeping; setting out requirements for destruction of records; inclusion of evidentiary certificates which will provide prima facie evidence relating to the warrant application process; and the use of surveillance devices.
The bill closely adheres to model provisions, but it includes some Territory-specific provision for operational reasons. One minor, but important, amendment was made to the reporting mechanism in the model provisions, clause 58. Under the model provision, a report to the issuing judge must contain the name of the each person involved in the execution of the warrant. Because of the close nature of the Territory community, particularly in smaller centres, Northern Territory police strongly recommended against this being a requirement in our legislation because the risk of putting informants and personnel at risk. Government, therefore, decided it was unnecessary to adhere strictly to the model provision in this case, particularly as the provision was already adding another layer to the accountability contained in existing legislation.
Madam Speaker, the Martin government has worked hard over the last six years to strengthen community safety and protection. This was most evident in the Chief Minister’s landmark policy addressed last week to close the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians. This bill is another component of the government’s commitment to protect the community. It is about giving police the tools they need to monitor and prosecute those who would seek to harm others.
It will complement other recent reforms in the Justice portfolio such as victims of crime support which commenced earlier this year, the bail changes that were introduced to parliament last week, and the domestic violence legislation to come later this year. In particular, surveillance devices laws will work in conjunction with the tough anti-gang laws which came into force late last year and which included components specifically targeted at organised criminal syndicates operating here and across our borders.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 21 June 2007.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I speak for the first time as shadow minister for Parks and Wildlife to respond to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment (Joint Management Parks) Bill (Serial 103). At the outset, I just want to say that the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act was introduced not long after I became the member for Katherine. It is without doubt that it certainly stirred up a lot of anger, not only from the members on this side of the House, but also across the Northern Territory. That angst was due to several reasons, but included the fact that this government based its decision to introduce the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment (Joint Management Parks) Bill on two legal positions and opinions. The whole parks giveaway is based on these two legal opinions.
What is really interesting, and also very frustrating, is that this government has never made those opinions available, and has repeatedly and flatly refused to do so on several occasions. When legal opinions on an issue as important as the parks giveaway are not revealed by government for whatever reason, it is only natural that suspicion arises. Can the minister verify if, out of the 49 parks originally identified as parks which could have been claimed, there was only originally a real threat to three of those parks? Curiously, while the original number of parks was 49, the minister has made comment that 27 parks were under claim. In fact, there was only a potential for the parks to be claimed. That potential had not been realised when the government decided to give the parks away.
Government, in its refusal to make public their legal advice which led to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, has done nothing to address these rumours. What is there to hide? If this legislation is seen by government as such an important step forward, Territorians would appreciate you advising them on what advice you based your decision. I ask the minister to table the legal documents so that you can back up your position. This will disprove the rumours once and for all.
It is also interesting to note that this government has always chanted the mantra in this process about negotiation rather than litigation when they are going to the High Court on Blue Mud Bay and when they fight traditional claimants over native title in Darwin. Why is it, when a claim affects Darwin residents, such as amateur fisherman or Darwin parks and median strips, the policy of negotiation rather than litigation evaporates into a cloud of lawyers? It does present an interesting scenario, don’t you think?
In relation to the amendments to the act that the minister has presented, most of them appear to be minor to enable some joint use agreements to brought into the scope of the joint management scheme. The biggest changes to the act relate to the principles of joint management, and they are quite significant.
The original act, section 25AC, lists the objectives to be achieved by managing the park or reserve in accordance with the following principles:
and
(d) recognising that community living areas in or in close proximity to parks and reserves are an integral part of the natural and cultural resource management of parks and reserves;
The reasons for this occurring could be numerous. First, the cultural components of this approach of joint management may well be making the operation of the legislation impossible because of the capacity or even the motivation of the new joint managers. This means that management is beginning to be drawn back to the exclusive role of the Northern Territory. This is good for the parks estate but represents a defeat for government because your lofty ideals have been struck down by the reality of the incapacity for many of the new landowners to participate in joint management arrangements.
Another possible interpretation is that the existing section implies a financial commitment by the new owners through their land councils. Clearly, the land councils do not want to foot the bill for the management of this new land they now own. Therefore, government may well be softening the legislation to assume greater responsibility for the land that the Northern Territory no longer owns. Put simply, this means that government has given away the land, leased it back for $1m per year, and will now pay extra for the privilege of managing it.
While these amendments will not be voted against by the opposition, it is very important that government realises that Territorians are still extremely annoyed by the original decision to give their parks away, which may have been totally unnecessary. What it has done is ensure that Territorians are committed to paying for the lease on parks that they did not need to, and it is a lot of money that could have been spent in other areas.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Children Services)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I support this amendment for two important reasons. First, it is the responsibility of government to do its best to continually improve the management of public assets. The days of ‘near enough is good enough’ are no longer acceptable. The management of national parks and conservation reserves in the Northern Territory is a high priority. Not only do they represent some of the nation’s most important conservation areas, they are, in a large part, pristine.
Our parks have other than environment value as well. With the steady increase in the importance of tourism to our economy, the need to manage our parks is paramount. The fact that so many of our parks are in such good condition is that they have not been disturbed by the intensive settlement or agricultural practices so common elsewhere in Australia; indeed, throughout much of the world.
Conversely, this lack of intensive settlement and agriculture also reflects the historical reality of colonialism in Australia. Because the Northern Territory was affected by settler society much later than elsewhere in Australia, our parks are far closer in time to traditional Aboriginal land management practices - closer in time but also closer in reality. Because so much traditional intellectual knowledge is still closely held by Aboriginal traditional owner groups in the Northern Territory we have been able, and uniquely for Australia, to benefit from this knowledge through embracing joint management practices for our national parks and conservation reserves.
This is no accidental or idle advantage. To the extent that we are able to utilise traditional intellectual knowledge through joint management, we are making an invaluable investment in the future of our parks estate through learning from the past. Joint management is, therefore, best practice if we are to maintain our parks’ heritage. Joint management whereby traditional Aboriginal intellectual knowledge can be married with contemporary western science is simply the best way to improve the management of these valuable public assets.
From my period as minister with responsibility for Parks and Wildlife, I developed a high regard for the staff of the parks’ service both at the head office and on the ground in our national parks. What most impressed me was the way the joint management was seen by so many senior non-indigenous staff as a critical path forward in the management of our parks. It was also interesting to see that staff, even before the days when we first moved to joint management under the Framework for the Future policy and legislation, had been embracing joint management principles. I recall, for example, John De Koning taking me through the Gregory National Park and explaining how joint management was working on the ground through flexible employment strategies, the full-time employment and training of Aboriginal rangers, the payment of cultural advisors in both management and research functions, and the awarding of local contracts to local Aboriginal organisations.
The twist in this tail was that Parks and Wildlife had been advancing these practices even in the days of the previous CLP government. It had been clear, especially from the time of the establishment of Nitmiluk in 1989, that joint management was the best way to go. The irony was that this was going on under the noses of a succession of CLP governments bitterly opposed to the extension of joint management practices to parks other than Nitmiluk. The park rangers and traditional owners were voting with their feet. It was best practice back in 1989, and remains that way today.
That is the first reason to support this legislation. The amendments that we pass today will follow the formalisation of those best practice management options and Umbrawarra Gorge, Barranyi and Tjuwaliyn Hot Springs. More importantly, it will seamlessly allow the extension of this principle to the other lands in the future.
The second reason for supporting the amendments relates to the enormous potential joint management offers us in Aboriginal employment and enterprise development. Joint management represents environmental advantages – we know that. Joint management also offers social, cultural and economic advantages. As we move over the next 20 years to fulfilling the Closing the Gap program introduced by the Chief Minister last week, national parks and conservation reserves will play an increasingly important role as a source of employment and wealth generation. The majority of our parks estate is in remote areas of the Northern Territory and that is also where the majority of Aboriginal Territorians live and work. Jointly managed parks and conservation reserves are already showing returns on investment in the training and employment of Aboriginal rangers. In addition, other land management groups such as the Djelk Rangers at Maningrida and Dhimurru at Yirrkala are increasing the pool of Aboriginal people employed in biodiversity conservation and biosecurity programs funded by this and the federal governments.
The future employment growth for Aboriginal Territorians is inextricably tied up with joint management of our parks, and through mechanisms such as the West Arnhem Fire Management Project, or indigenous protected areas such as that on Groote Eylandt. The establishment of Aboriginal enterprises on and near our parks has the potential for employment, obviously, but also significant advantages to the Territory’s economy through investment.
The late Bangardi Lee from Nitmiluk National Park was often fond of pointing out that Aboriginal people were not likely at any time soon to be investing their profits on the Gold Coast or overseas tax shelters. Aboriginal investment would stay in the Northern Territory, thereby increasing the wealth of all Territorians, not just Aboriginal Territorians.
There is another reason why these amendments should be supported, and the opposition should take careful note of this rather than the rhetoric we have heard time and time again from them where they have constantly tried to divide the Northern Territory. However, I believe that the Northern Territory has moved on. It has matured; it no longer panders to the redneck element that constantly divides Aboriginal Territorians from non-indigenous Territorians. This Territory has matured; it is moving forward. When we passed the legislation in the last parliament to enact joint management over our 27 national parks and conservation reserves in the Territory. We did so for the reasons that I have outlined very clearly.
The then CLP - and the opposition needs to look at this now - showed their true colours when it came to advancing the causes of Aboriginal training and employment, not to mention internationally respected best practice when it comes to biodiversity conservation. They bitterly opposed joint management of our parks. If they campaigned on anything other than their crazy power scheme, they campaigned against joint management of our parks. History shows that the electorate overwhelmingly rejected the negativity of the CLP when it came to joint management of our parks and conservation reserves, and overwhelmingly favoured supporting a long-term future for Aboriginal employment and commercial investment.
Labor had a mandate to continue the process of moving to joint management of our parks and reserves. These amendments further advance that principle, endorsed by the electorate. That is why we should now endorse the amendments. Madam Speaker, I support the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, people have been discussing the general framework around this amendment, so I should say at the outset that I support the government’s policy on joint management arrangements for these parks.
When you look at the parks that were nominated as those suitable for joint management agreements in the cold light of day, it would be very difficult to say that those parks did not have traditional owners. This was based on the court’s decision that these parks were subject to land rights claims. I looked at this issue long and hard. I know the CLP does not agree with me, but I felt in this case that to take these matters to court - although that could have been in the public’s viewpoint possibly the technically correct way to go - would have lost you the case. You have to remember that the traditional owners of those areas would have had to be certified by the land councils. So, if we were not putting the traditional owners into those joint management agreements, I am pretty sure someone would be suing the land councils for having people involved in incorrect joint management arrangements.
Coming back to the amendment, I have some concerns. Unless those concerns are corrected, I may have some problems with supporting the amendment. My concerns relate to the role of land councils in this matter. Clause 8 substitutes the section to lessen the role of land councils for those agreement executed solely by the minister. This is section 25AN, ‘Application of Division’, the division being Division 6, Role of Land Councils. Currently, section 25AN simply states that the division applies to parks and reserves in Schedules 2 and 3, that is park freehold title and various reserves of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act.
The amendment adds that to any park or reserve where the minister has executed a joint management arrangement. That is a new section in clause 5, ‘… the minister may execute on behalf of the Territory a joint management agreement for a park or reserve’. The clause 8 amendment then adds that for those parks and reserves executed by the minister, ‘the application of this Division is subject to exclusion or modification by the agreement or any ILUA’. The explanatory statement interprets this as ‘The application of the Division may be modified or nullified through the joint management agreement or any ILUA’. This means the role of the land councils may be modified or nullified for those parks where the minister has declared an agreement. There is no mention of this in the second reading, although the Northern Territory government could argue that these are most likely to be parks and reserves not on Aboriginal land. However, this is not explicit in the bill.
The advice we have received is that this amendment is inconsistent with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and, therefore, may be invalid; that is, under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, land councils must be consulted in land management issues - being a Commonwealth act, it takes precedence over Northern Territory law.
The second point I raise is related to clause 5, which inserts a new section allowing the minister to execute an agreement. However, there is no reference to any need for informed consent from the traditional owners or other relevant bodies, and no mention of what happens if traditional owners et al do not want an agreement. I need some fairly clear ratification of whether what I have said is right.
In relation to the bill as a whole, I was interested when, in the second reading, you referred to a number of parks. One is Tjuwaliyn, which is the Douglas Hot Springs Park, one is the Upper Daly land claim, and the other one is Umbrawarra Gorge. I have mentioned in parliament that I spent a week or so travelling the Barkly and visited the Davenport Ranges. If anyone has picked up a map of the Davenport Ranges, you will see in brackets that word ‘proposed’. I did speak to some people in the area as to why it is being still proposed, because it has been proposed since 1993, I gather. That is an awful long time for a national park to be proposed. I am interested to know why that park has still not been declared an official national park. Would this particular amendment to the act have any bearing on whether that park will eventually become a fully-fledged park? I ask the minister if she could give some detail on what is happening on the case of Davenport Ranges National Park.
Minister, whilst I understand the overall intent of the bill, which is to allow Aboriginal people to propose areas of land, and not necessarily Aboriginal people only, they would like as part of our parks estate so a joint management agreement can be set out, and that is an excellent concept, I would be interested in how that fits into budgetary requirements for Parks and Wildlife. From my anecdotal evidence, Parks and Wildlife does not have a lot of money. They do not have a lot of money to fix Howard Springs; they do not have a lot of money to fix the boardwalk at Fogg Dam. I do not know whether they have any other boardwalks. I am interested to know the status of all the boardwalks. However, the feeling I get is that they do not have a lot of money. I will give you another example: I have had many complaints about pigs in the Howard Springs Nature Park. It requires money to solve that problem, but that problem is not being solved as far as I know.
Whilst it is all very well to have the bill, it will be interesting to know what the ramifications are of taking on extra parks. From my wife’s country, for instance, there has been some talk about some land there being available as a national park. It might be a great idea, good to have joint management arrangements, and it will be great for employment for people there, but we have to be realistic. If you take on parks, you take on a very large budget. Whilst we are saying this, I am interested to hear whether the government is planning for the future. Does it intend to put more money into parks to make this process work? If so, can they say what that budget will be?
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I also support this bill, which takes in a great many areas within my electorate, parts that are included in the original bill and parts that may be included in the future.
I pick up on a comment from the member for Nelson. He is obviously talking about the Bulgul area …
Mr Wood: The Perron Islands.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, the Perron Islands. There are great opportunities for joint management, opportunities for commercial development for Aboriginal people to use both a newly formed park to attract people to the area and develop commercial activities within the park. There are huge opportunities within joint management for traditional owners to open up land and manage it in a sustainable way. That is what many traditional owners are trying to do.
There has been a negative campaign against this. I have seen CLP members in Katherine sitting at card tables, woolly stare, a bit lonely with their little plaque saying: ‘You are giving away our parks’, which has been going on for at least a year. It obviously did not have much resonance in the last election. They were told fairly clearly that their negative, racist, redneck campaign comes more out of the late 1990s than it does from the early 2000s. They should give it up, realise that people see through their racist rhetoric and realise that this is sensible, sustainable legislation. It moves the Territory forward and gives rights to the people who have the land. They should stop being so racist about what they are saying.
The Gregory National Park is one of the key parks of the original legislation ...
Mrs Miller: It has nothing to do with racism.
Mr KNIGHT: The shadow minister wants to comment. When did you last go out to Gregory National Park, shadow minister?
Mrs Miller: It has nothing to do with racism.
Mr KNIGHT: I do not think you have been out there. When did you last go out to Flora National Park? No, have not been out there. Keep River National Park - no, have not been out there. There is a range of parks that the shadow minister cannot even bother to get out and have a good look at, and talk to the traditional owners of those areas to see what they think. Talk to the traditional owners of Gregory National Park about the workshops and the camps they have been conducting and you will see that they are thoroughly engaged with it; that opportunities exist in those areas and they are making use of it. The places are not locked up and they are not being given away. They are there for every Territorian, every Australian to visit. Those places will keep developing.
I have a lot to do with VRD areas, and I can tell you people are engaging in those workshops and camps. I have just been talking to a friend who is adjacent to the Flora National Park. He is working with Parks and has some work out of these joint management arrangements. It is part-time work at the moment, but I hope that will continue.
This legislation opens up opportunities in areas like that for the future. The Daly River or Mt Nancar Conservation Reserve is part of an area which may have some adjustment in the future; it may be incorporated into a larger park. Obviously it is up to the traditional owners to look at …
Mr Wood: It needs a road.
Mr KNIGHT: Mt Nancar? Yes, right. That is another issue for the minister for Infrastructure and Transport, but it is certainly an opportunity for the Mt Nancar area to be incorporated into a large park, to open up that area, to bring infrastructure and facilities. The Douglas Daly Esplanade Conservation Area is another which could be opened up where people, if they agree, could make this a jointly managed park and put more facilities down there. I visited the Tjuwaliyn, or Douglas Daly Hot Springs as people like to call it, more like boiling springs at the moment, on Saturday. There would have been about 60 or 70 vehicles in the camp ground and in the picnic area, there would have been about another 20 vehicles. The park experiences high visitation; it is a highly sought after area and it is a fabulous facility. I hope that through this process we can open up other areas in the Douglas Daly so it is not just one destination area and people can make use of other parks.
The Mary River area is on a bit of a hold at the moment with negotiations going on, but I hope the Mary River area comes aboard, too. Umbrawarra Gorge is another key part of the original and this legislation. It is a beautiful area adjacent to Pine Creek. I hope there will be improvements in road access.
Just on Tjuwaliyn and Umbrawarra, the CLP say: ‘You are giving it away’. Well, it was a CLP government that actually negotiated the handing of those portions of land to the traditional owners in lieu of entering into a joint management agreement. Here we have two areas where you were doing what we did, and that was 13 years ago, a very different climate then I am sure, but you gave back the park in lieu of joint management. Now, the CLP government sat on its hands, really showed its racist tendencies by not entering into formal joint management arrangements, and here we are doing it now. We are formalising it, getting the traditional owners involved and making it all happen.
This is an excellent third tranche that opens up areas, provides greater opportunities for government to invest in parks, and opens them for every Territorian, every Australian to visit the Territory. I thank the minister. I am delighted that areas within my electorate are being opened and given maximum opportunity to develop. People in these areas are gaining greater opportunities for employment and commercial development. I congratulate the minister on her bill.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support the amendments to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. As the minister and my colleagues have stressed, it is about certainty. That what good governments are about: ensuring that there is adequacy and certainty in legislation.
My understanding is that the bill amends the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act which enables joint management standards to be applied consistently across the Territory. Consistency is the key because we have legislation which is a hangover from the CLP days which was inconsistent, and it comes back to what I said earlier: it is about certainty.
All of the parks and reserves would come under the jointly managed parks and wildlife aspects of this act, with the exception of parks and reserves managed under the joint management legislation such as Nitmiluk, Garig Gunak Barlu, which is Cobourg National Park, or where there is a joint management agreement already in place.
There are specific aspects of this that I would like to touch on for my constituents. They are the aspects covered under the Framework to date. These include Indigenous Land Use Agreements and leases that have been signed and registered for the 27 parks and reserves scheduled under the Framework act, apart from the proposed Mary River National Park where an objection to the registration of the Indigenous Land Use Agreement is under consideration by the Native Title Tribunal.
Joint management camps and induction workshops have been conducted with traditional owner groups, as I understand it, across the new jointly managed parks. These have been of much interest and have combined contemporary and traditional ways of looking after country. I am very keen to see how that progresses. In total, over 200 owners and over 60 Parks and Wildlife staff have participated in joint management induction workshops to date. So this government is about doing things, trying to redress past imbalances.
Another aspect is the flexible employment and training programs including innovative job sharing arrangements which have been developed to assist traditional owners with employment opportunities in joint management of the parks. This has provided an avenue for traditional owners to gain access to both full- and part-time positions, another thing that the Martin Labor government is doing.
Despite the assertions about parks being given away, which seems to be very much the opposition’s rhetoric and a catch cry they have latched onto, the Territory Labor approach to resolving land and native title claims over parks and reserves is seen both nationally and internationally as quite visionary and forward-looking. It is part of 21st century best practice park management.
These amendments are designed to broaden the application of joint management provisions in the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act so they can apply to proposed jointly managed parks and reserves within the Territory. That is the essence of the amendments.
My understanding is that these amendments are needed because under previous CLP administrations, some aspects were left incomplete and, in particular, some of our parks were left with an uncertain future because of lack of consultation by the previous administration. That is sad. Specifically, the two areas we are talking about are Umbrawarra Gorge and Douglas Hot Springs. A condition of settlement of the land grants was for the parks to be jointly management by traditional owners and the Northern Territory government. When I talk about Douglas Hot Springs, despite over six years of opportunities, no formal agreement over the management of the area had been reached and the legal basis for its management remains uncertain. That is what alerts you to problems with the existing legislation. The amendment will help to formalise the joint management agreement for Douglas Hot Springs and Umbrawarra Gorge.
I would like now to talk about some of the parks in my electorate. The Vernon Islands Conservation Reserve, in the Gunn Point area, is Crown land subject to land claim. It is not in a situation right now, but it could benefit from this if the land claim is approved. The same applies to Tree Point Conservation Reserve and the Shoal Bay Coastal Reserve. All are Crown land reserves and provided we get the bill passed, they will be unaffected by the amendments.
The Channel Island Conservation Reserve comes under the Power and Water Corporation. The land is owned by the corporation and is unaffected by these amendments. The Middle Point and Lambells Lagoon area in my electorate, in particular Fogg Dam Conservation Reserve, the Harrison Dam Conservation Reserve, the Black Jungle/Lambells Lagoon Conservation Reserve and the Melacca Swamp Conservation Area are all included in Schedule 3 of the Frameworks act.
Bynoe Harbour is right on the boundary with the Daly; and the Indian Island Conservation Area is still subject, as is the whole Cox Peninsula, to the Kenbi Land Claim. Even though it has been recommended for grant, it is possible that at some time in the future, joint management will be part of the Bynoe Harbour Marine Park proposal, which is something the government will be looking at in the future.
I turn to the opposition’s contribution to this debate, which has been pretty shallow, pretty hollow. It is all about division; it is rhetoric about ‘giving away’. The CLP clearly does not understand the amendments and what we are talking about, and the fact that they provide certainty. Why don’t they? They were talking about supporting it. I will leave that to my fellow colleagues to determine. The other aspect is that they may not want to acknowledge the surety of this bill. They are peddling misinformation, which they continue to do for their own purposes. It suits their purposes and divisive nature; they would like to see a divisive Territory. That is unfortunate. They are a bit of a paradox.
The member for Katherine talked about lack of disclosure. There are documents she would like us to table. I remind the House that we are still waiting on the Leader of the Opposition to table Dr Annie Cossins’ independent analysis of the Little Children are Sacred Report. I remind the Leader of the Opposition of that, and if she would like to table the report, we would all welcome it. The whole of the CLP debate was based on that independent analysis, and I would like to see it. I am sure every member on this side of the House would like to see it. If you are talking about tabling and disclosure, maybe you could think about disclosing some aspects of what your case has been in other areas of debate.
I conclude by reiterating what my colleagues have stated. This is not about the CLP style of division. We are not about that. We are about a whole-of-Territory approach. We are about engaging all Territorians. I am proud to be part of the Martin Labor government that has that as its basic philosophy; not one of division, separation or pointing out the differences between Territorians, but one of engaging Territorians and looking at joint management of our parks.
This is a process which will take us into the 21st century. It is best practice parks management. I was keen to hear that the opposition supports it, but they have to get their rhetoric right. They have to add a bit of substance to their debate in future because it was quite shallow. That is very disappointing because this House is supposed to be a place where you put a bit of effort into what you present, a bit of thought, and unfortunately the CLP has failed in that area again. I look forward, though, to the Leader of the Opposition tabling Dr Cossins’ comments and her report.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for fixing the wrongs of the previous CLP administration.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, this is all about a political argument about who should own the parks and who should manage them. We now have to accept that we do have these agreements, and we hope that they will not, in any way, interfere with people who want to enjoy national parks; that there will be benefits for all Territorians from them. We need to move on and government needs to ensure that what they have put in place is for the benefit of us all.
I always get frustrated with the little rules. I am trying to be polite about this, but rangers introduce so many rules and regulations in many of our parks: do not camp here, do not get off the path, do not pee here, do not do this, do not do that. You cannot even take your dog any more. That used to be one of the fun trips for families. However, that is by the by. We are over, we are done: you have this in place; make sure it works.
What I want to clarify, minister, is where we stand with our parks with regard to the federal legislation. We all heard over the weekend that at Uluru, tourists will not be able to enjoy a wine at the sunset viewing. Do these restrictions apply to other parks, our parks? Has an alcohol ban been imposed? I am thinking of some of the tourism operators. There is one particular operator who takes out specialist groups like artists and they may stop at Rainbow Valley or Palm Valley. These artists basically work all day, come back to the camp at night, enjoy the campfire, enjoy a meal prepared for them and enjoy a beer or a wine. I am concerned that the Federal government restrictions may also affect those people who earn their living from utilising our parks: good operators who do not do any damage to the environment, who add to the economy of the Territory. That is my concern. Will these tourism operators be allowed to have permits to continue operating the way they have and will they have to apply for them? It needs to be clarified. There is a lot of concern out there. I guess it applies in the Top End, but particularly around Central Australia, as the member for Stuart knows, and those operators who go out with specialised groups. I would like the minister to clarify for me exactly what effect, if any, the federal intervention has on the use of the parks by the tour operators.
Ms LAWRIE (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, in the debate today, what I believe is appropriate to do is to bring members of the Chamber back to the comments of minister Scrymgour during the second reading speech, and put into context what these amendments are about.
I was concerned about the rhetoric of the member for Katherine. Whilst indicating that the opposition will support these amendments and recognising that they are eminently sensible and reasonable, the rhetoric of the past returned, talking about a parks giveaway, which is absolutely and completely wrong.
The framework for parks is all about joint management. A shining example of that is Nitmiluk National Park. It is an example of effective joint management. When national and international tourists are surveyed, much of the feedback is that they come to the Territory to see our beautiful, unique environment and to gain an experience of Aboriginal culture. The most appropriate way in which to experience both situations is to expand and enhance our joint management parks base, which is exactly what the original legislation did.
The Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment (Joint Management Parks) Bill is about joint management standards that can be applied consistently across the Territory’s jointly managed parks and reserves. It is providing for standards and principles, it is identifying negotiations that should occur and it is putting safeguards in place for those negotiations.
I will go to the member for Nelson’s concerns in my response. In terms of the effectiveness of the action taken in the original Framework act, I want to go back to minister Scrymgour’s comments in the second reading speech. She said that the legislative changes had been instrumental in resolving uncertainty about the future of many of the Territory’s parks and reserves and had established a win-win situation for both indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians. The joint management provisions provide an overarching structure for the administration and management of jointly managed parks. The provisions define the objectives and principles of joint management. They define the role and responsibilities of both joint management partners. They provide a way the joint management plan must be prepared and give some consistency and understanding of informed consent, which is what the member for Nelson’s queries were about. It provides for the manner in which by-laws must be applied. It provides for the function and roles of the land council and, in relation to your query, member for Nelson, of course the Northern Land Council must be involved in any negotiations on ALRA land. The amendments provided for in the legislation we have before us today provide for circumstances that do not involve ALRA land. I will go to an example of that in my comments, member for Nelson. A number of other details with respect to the administration and management of jointly managed parks and reserves have been established under that Framework act.
The legislation was rolled out and the new joint management arrangements across the Territory are being facilitated. To date, we have Indigenous Land Use Agreements and leases that have been signed and registered for those 27 parks and reserves scheduled under the original act, apart from the Mary River National Park where there is an objection to the registration of the ILUA under consideration by the Native Title Tribunal.
Joint management camps and induction workshops have been conducted with traditional owner groups and Parks staff across the new jointly managed parks. There has been interest generated by both groups in combining contemporary and traditional ways of looking after country. Some 200 traditional owners and more than 60 Parks and Wildlife staff have participated in joint management induction workshops to date.
Flexible employment and training programs, including innovative job sharing arrangements, have been developed to assist traditional owners with employment opportunities in these jointly managed parks. This has provided an avenue for traditional owners to gain access to full- and part-time positions. As part of the new joint management arrangements, a total of 11 trainee and permanent indigenous ranger positions have been filled to date. The newly created flexible employment program has 176 registered participants. Over the past 12 months, participants have engaged in 52 on-park projects. New training and capacity building programs have resulted in 35 indigenous people enrolled in Certificate II and III accredited courses in conservation and land management. Accredited training has also been provided to traditional owners in job-related training such as chemical use, first aid, fire management, chainsaw operation and, importantly, tour guiding.
Works contracts have been provided to indigenous communities at Gregory National Park, Flora River Nature Reserve and the Alice Springs Telegraph Station. It is likely that additional contracts will be awarded to indigenous groups to undertake maintenance and construction works associated with joint management parks over time.
Traditional owners of a number of joint management parks have expressed an interest in developing ecotourism opportunities. These are being explored through on-ground workshops and feasibility studies. Joint management planning workshops have taken place for the majority of new jointly managed parks and reserves, and the first joint management plans under the new arrangements are expected to be released for public comment in the near future. A new joint management monitoring and evaluation program is being established in cooperation with Charles Darwin University. A pilot program is under way at the Flora River Nature Park and a $500 000 Australian Research Council grant application has been submitted to assist in the broader implementation of this program. The monitoring and evaluation program uses innovative and participatory techniques to capture the breadth of joint management outcomes.
Despite the uninformed assertions about parks being given away, the Territory’s approach to resolving its land and native title claims over parks and reserves is seen nationally and internationally as forward-looking and visionary. Other Australian states are taking note of the Territory’s far-sighted approach and following suit in resolving land and native title claims.
The amendments to the act are designed to broaden the application of joint management provisions within the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act so that these provisions can apply to newly proposed jointly managed parks and reserves within the Territory. I will give an example. Under the CLP government, Tjuwaliyn, which is the Douglas Hot Springs Park, was granted to the Wagiman Land Trust in 1994 and in 1999, the Upper Daly Repeat Land Claim was settled, guaranteeing the Wagiman people freehold title over the Umbrawarra Gorge National Park. A condition of settlement of these land grants was for the parks to be jointly managed by the traditional Aboriginal owners and the Northern Territory government, but despite the lapse of some 13 years and six years, no formal agreement over the management has ever been reached and the legal basis for their management remains uncertain. The amendments proposed in the bill will help formalise joint management arrangements for these parks.
The parks and conservation master plan provides a vision for an enhanced park estate which would include, with the agreement of traditional owners, the addition of Aboriginal lands under joint management arrangements. However, there is presently no straightforward legal mechanism for this to occur. The amendments proposed in this bill provide a mechanism for joint management to be formalised for Tjuwaliyn, which is Douglas Hot Springs Park, Umbrawarra Gorge National Park and Barranyi (North Island) National Park, and provides a mechanism for the minister to establish on behalf of the Territory joint management agreements over new areas of land for inclusion in the parks estate.
The framework sets high standards for achieving joint management in the Territory. These standards recognise and value Aboriginal culture and tradition and require that indigenous knowledge is incorporated into park management decision-making processes. These standards require that the public is guaranteed access on a no entry fee, no permit basis. The standards require that the public has a say in the joint management planning processes, the plans of management are passed through this House before being legally adopted, a joint management park reserve is managed in accordance with a joint management plan and joint management principles, and that statutory procedures are in place for developing, amending and, if necessary, revoking a joint management plan. The bill before us allows a far more consistent, transparent and equitable approach to be applied to jointly managed parks and reserves in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, in relation to comments by the member for Katherine, I can say that there have been no problems with the cultural components of joint management. We have found we work effectively with the traditional owners and the land councils. The Rainbow Valley joint management plan is evidence of that. The Devils Marbles plan is close to completion, as is the Flora River plan.
These amendments do not change the principles of joint management. The Framework act was established following the Ward decision in Western Australia and provided a way to resolve land and native title questions over parks and reserves. It provided a way to do so both effectively and efficiently. This has enabled the development of partnerships between the Territory and traditional owners to ensure the long-term security and future of our parks and reserves. This act will enable parks over which there has been uncertainty for many years, like Tjuwaliyn and Umbrawarra, to move forward with certainty.
Member for Nelson, in respect of your concern about clause 8, I can advise that land councils’ roles on ALRA land is not changed by this amendment. Not all jointly managed parks are on or will be on ALRA land, and an example of that is Umbrawarra. The joint management agreement provides that it is an agreement between the Territory and the traditional owners, and therefore it cannot be executed unilaterally by the minister. The joint management objectives explicitly require equitable partnership. Joint management principles recognise the need for institutional support and capacity building. These ensure appropriate, informed decision making.
Member for Nelson, in terms of the Davenport Ranges, it is one of the 27 scheduled parks and reserves under the Framework act. ALRA title will be granted when the Commonwealth introduces legislation to amend ALRA to schedule the land under the act. Until ALRA title is granted and the lease is executed, it would be inappropriate to declare the park. Timing of the introduction of the amendments to ALRA is in the hands of the Commonwealth.
I can advise the member for Nelson that the Commonwealth minister, Mal Brough, has written to the Chief Minister informing her that although the ALRA amendments are listed for the spring sitting of the Commonwealth parliament, he does not expect that there will be time to introduce them. Obviously, this is very disappointing news for the Northern Territory government. We are very keen to see the Commonwealth schedule the Davenport Ranges. It is naturally lending itself to the next stage of a national park, but until this is resolved by Commonwealth scheduling, we cannot move on it.
I can advise the member for Braitling that yes, the Northern Territory government shares her concerns about the federal intervention in terms of alcohol restrictions on ALRA land. Our advice to date is that this does affect our parks that have ALRA land within them, so it is very concerning. The Minister for Alcohol Policy has provided information consistently to the Commonwealth government that their amendments are completely opposite to what should occur. Why can’t someone enjoy a glass of Chardonnay while watching the sun set at Uluru, and why can’t someone enjoy a drink within the normal rules that apply across our parks network? It is a difficult and foolish action by the Commonwealth government that does affect our parks.
We will continue to talk to the Commonwealth government and urge them to amend the legislation and take heed that there are tremendous economic opportunities across the Northern Territory in our magnificent parks and reserves. They provide real opportunity for joint management. I am enormously proud of the actions taken by the Chief Minister and the former minister for the Environment to pursue the parks framework. It is glaringly obvious to anyone with any sense who understands parks management, who understands parks within the Northern Territory, that joint management is the way forward.
It provides for the traditional owners to benefit from their ownership of the land, but to share this beautiful parks estate with all Territorians and all visitors from across Australia and overseas. As we have heard from what I have said today, it will provide real jobs for traditional owners in our parks estate. They have appropriate skills to become park rangers. It is great to see the flexibility in employment relationships that provide for opportunities for a vast number of traditional owners to participate in the care and protection of our parks estate.
I note that the member for Braitling expressed some concern about the existence of by-laws and how strictly managed our parks estates are, but it is recognition that they are pristine environments. We need to ensure that whilst people have access to these beautiful parks and reserves, we do not see a destruction of what is a great asset for Territorians. We have seen the introduction of feral species and the impact those species have had on our pristine environment. I can understand that whilst some people may be responsible dog owners and want to take them to a park, the issue of introduced animals to the parks can be very problematic. So underlying each of the by-laws are some very practical reasons as to why we need to protect the integrity of our parks estates.
I note that the member for Nelson, quite appropriately, raised the issue of whether there is funding provided to move the parks forward and to underpin the joint management opportunities that exist. Obviously, the policy decision taken by government is a significant one. We have already expanded the indigenous range of programs in funding in this budget. We are working across government agencies. We are talking to Tourism, for example, and Planning and Infrastructure in terms of recognising the opportunities that exist within the parks estate, recognising the improvements in infrastructure.
Access to the estates is another issue, for example, in terms of roads. Litchfield, for example, and the Mereenie Loop are clear examples of where we are putting in road infrastructure to provide access to some of our beautiful parks and reserves areas.
This will be a continued budgetary requirement from government. There is no doubt about that. However, it does, by the nature of joint management, lend itself to a range of funding opportunities, particularly in the area of ecotourism. It lends itself to those small business enterprises to be established by traditional owners with the support and advice of government as well. It is not just a case of saying government can foot the bill for everything; it is a case of being able to work in true partnership and open up magnificent tracts of the Territory for people to see and to enjoy.
I know there was divisive debate about the introduction of the Framework act. I note that the member for Arafura, the previous minister, very clearly articulated that despite the shameful CLP campaigning on what was a complete fallacy, saying that the park estates were about to be given away. The estate was not given away; joint management is not a giveaway, we all know that. Despite that, the Territory public rejected that nonsense and said the government has a mandate to move forward with joint management of parks and reserves. We have put a whole lot of principles, objectives and standards in place to ensure that what we do, we do in a very fair way; that we do not impose our view on traditional owners or the land councils, but we sit down and, park by park, reserve by reserve, provide a framework for negotiation to deliver a joint management of that park or reserve. It provides certainty into the future of how people will be able to access those very pristine and magnificent areas of the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions. I thank the members for Daly and Goyder for talking about the beauty of the parks and reserves within their electorates. It is one of the privileges of our job to be able to travel throughout the Territory and see our magnificent parks and reserves.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment (Joint Management) Parks Bill 2007 (Serial 103). I seek advice from the member for Nelson about which areas he would like to cover.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, I would like to deal with clauses 5 and 8.
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, proposed section 23A(1) states:
You said that, basically, because it would be an equitable partnership, traditional owners would be involved. However, proposed section 23A(2) reads:
That has been included as a specific item. In relation to proposed section 23A(1), I wonder why the phrase ‘in consultation with traditional owners where relevant’ should have been included to clarify that they are to be consulted.
My argument is that you are saying it is already there, but in the next clause you include something which is already in the framework agreement, the business about access to the park being open to the public without payment. I thought that was already implied, but we have added it here as a specific item. Why not have specific consultation with the TOs as required?
Ms LAWRIE: You query goes to the definition of a joint management agreement for a park or reserve, which means ‘an agreement between the Territory and the traditional Aboriginal owners of the park or reserve about the management of the park reserve’. It is enshrined in the definition of a joint management agreement that the TOs are consulted.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mr WOOD: Minister, I am asking for more in-depth clarification of my query in relation to 25AN, Application of Division. Clause 8 of the Explanatory Statement reads:
My understanding of your answer to that during the debate was that it will only apply to land that is not subject to an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. The nullification …
Ms Lawrie: I said ALRA land, not ILUA.
Mr WOOD: Oh, sorry, ALRA land. I beg your pardon. What is the guarantee in the act? What actually says that you cannot do …
Ms Lawrie: You cannot, under ALRA, exclude the land councils. You know that.
Mr WOOD: That is right. Where does it say that …
Ms Lawrie: Section 23.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I know that. That is what we are dealing with. Where does it say under 25AN that is the case?
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Nelson, I am advised that section 23 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act stipulates that requirement. Okay? We cannot ignore the requirements of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act that is in existence. The way we have framed these amendments are in keeping with the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. I repeat: this provision applies to land that is not ALRA land. It provides for a mechanism where we can negotiate with the traditional owners of land that is not scheduled as ALRA land.
Mr WOOD: All right. But say I took an example of the one I was talking about, land near Bulgul, and say the people came to you and said: ‘We want to put the Perron Islands in a national park’. That land is ALRA land?
Ms Lawrie: Yes, it is. Yes.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I will take one step back. Are you saying that this amendment does not apply in this case?
Ms LAWRIE: That is right. If it is ALRA land, then no, that amendment does not apply because the government will negotiate with the Northern Land Council as well as the traditional owners.
Mr WOOD: All right, but when you read 25AN, it reads:
Subsection 1(b) reads:
23A(1) reads:
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, that is right in the case of where the land is not ALRA land. For example, the traditional owners may not want the land council involved in their negotiations for land that is not ALRA land. On ALRA land, very clearly, the role of the land council is stated by the ALRA legislation, and we are not going outside of that.
Mr WOOD: I understand that. What I was wondering is why there would not have been a clause which said ‘subject to’ because the way it is written is …
Ms LAWRIE: But it is subject to.
Mr WOOD: I would have to go to the Explanatory Statement, which says something that is not in the bill. It says ‘may be modified or nullified’. Is the Explanatory Statement not quite correct? The clause says ‘subject to exclusion or modification’. Maybe it is the same thing. I am confused as to whether having that in there, and not stating clearly the role of the land councils, it could be interpreted that the minister can override and make an agreement without consulting. If that is what it says, then this bill is illegal because it is inconsistent with the Land Rights act.
Ms LAWRIE: Well, no. Gerry, I do not know how many more times I have to repeat it: we are not in breach of ALRA. Where it is ALRA land, the land councils are absolutely in the negotiations. Where it is not ALRA land, it provides the option for if, and it is a big if, the traditional owners want to negotiate directly with the Territory government on a joint management agreement for their traditional lands, they have the opportunity to do that.
Mr WOOD: All right.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of a former member of the Victorian parliament, Mr George Cox, who was a Member of the Legislative Assembly from 1976 to 1982, and a Member of the Legislative Council from 1988 to 1996. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of our public tour program, with members of Palmerston’s University of the Third Age. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion, notice of which was given earlier this day, relating to a referendum for a nuclear waste facility.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr Wood: No!
Madam SPEAKER: There being an objection, leave is denied.
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion, notice of which was given earlier this day, relating to a referendum for a nuclear waste facility forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that - The Assembly request that:
Madam Speaker, what we have seen in the Howard government’s overriding of Territorians’ wishes in respect of our legislation to prevent a nuclear waste dump in the Territory is really a litany of broken promises. It starts with a broken promise. There was an iron-clad election commitment from the Howard government that there would be no nuclear waste dump in the Territory. We saw that election commitment broken.
We are now asking for the Howard government to ensure that Territorians get to have their say. That is, the John Howard promise of a referendum on nuclear facilities anywhere in Australia should obviously include nuclear facilities such as the nuclear waste dump in Tennant Creek.
We are also asking for the Howard government to come clean. Has the Howard government, or any minister of the government, Julie Bishop or someone else, signed anything agreeing to the nuclear waste dump facility in the Northern Territory?
There are significant issues around a nuclear waste dump in the Territory. We have always argued: have a look at a nuclear waste dump in the context of the science. We are prepared to cop any decision based on science. We have said that. The Chief Minister has articulated that. The previous minister for the Environment has articulated it. That is our position. But this decision by the Howard government to put a nuclear waste dump near Tennant Creek at Muckaty Station is not …
Mr Wood: They have not announced that decision yet.
Ms LAWRIE: … based on science …
Mr Wood: That is not true. It is a nominated site.
Ms LAWRIE: … is not based on site, it is pure politics.
Mr Wood: That is not true.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Nelson is interjecting …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. Ten, I believe is required.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe we have a quorum.
Ms Carney: Here they are. You could not even get enough people to listen to your motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please continue, minister.
Mr Bonson: We do not want to hear your conflicted contribution.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Carney: It is your motion, sport, if you can read it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the Commonwealth government, the Howard government, chose the Northern Territory as the site for a nuclear waste dump for one reason only: it was the path of least political resistance. Put quite simply, we do not have the same number of marginal seats as other states. If the Howard government gets away with this, then there is a message to all future governments in Canberra. If the Howard government wins Solomon again, then the message is clear: you cannot be heard politically in the Northern Territory so send your political problems north.
We know that the Commonwealth broke their promise, but there is an opportunity to undo this deceit by offering a referendum. If you put the plans to the people and they support the plans, then fair enough.
The Commonwealth initially announced three potential sites, but then backed down on all of those. They are now looking at Tennant Creek and a site at nearby Muckaty Station.
Mr Wood: It is not nearby.
Ms LAWRIE: Tennant Creek will soon be announced as the nation’s home of nuclear waste …
Mr Wood: It is 120 km away. Another twist of the truth.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … as soon as the upcoming election is over.
Mr Wood: Bloody geography.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Kiely: Stick it in your electorate.
Mr Wood: Put it in a townhouse in Sanderson.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, despite the interjections from the member for Nelson, we know that a deal has been done. We know this because many people, both within the Commonwealth and the Northern Land Council, are not happy about it. We know that the Commonwealth is waiting until after the election to announce the deal. This motion is simply asking the Commonwealth to come clean on the deal. How much money is being paid? Who is getting the money? Under what conditions is it being provided? Has the Commonwealth done a deal with the Northern Land Council to bypass the need for a proper environmental assessment? This motion is about saying the Commonwealth government needs to come clean and answer these very important questions before the federal election.
Tennant Creek is a wonderful town with wonderful people. Surely the people of this town deserve some honesty in relation to these plans. Tell the people of the region what the current status is and let the people have a say. We know that Tennant Creek has been targeted because of political opportunism. We know that it has nothing to do with science. Tennant Creek is one of the most seismically active parts of the country. It defies belief that you would put a nuclear waste dump in one of the most geographically unstable parts of the country.
It is not just an issue for Tennant Creek. It is an issue for the whole of the Territory. The waste will be coming from everywhere, on our roads or on our trains, from Lucas Heights in Sydney, and through our port from France …
Mr Wood: What happened to the gauges from Mt Todd? Will you move those to America?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson!
Ms LAWRIE: … so let the Territory have their say.
Howard has announced he wants to build 25 nuclear power plants in Australia and is facing mounting political opposition. He has guaranteed local referendums on each. Each one of these plants is going to have nuclear waste, and it is all going to come here into the nuclear waste dump. To pretend that they will build another dump for all the waste is absolutely nave. The waste dump will house the nastiest results of these plants, so why should not its location be subject to a referendum? The nuclear power plants will have a limited lifetime, but this dump is going to have to store the high-level waste for up to tens of thousands of years.
Mr Kiely: Intergenerational responsibility, Gerry.
Mr Wood: Make it up as you go along.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: The CLP and the Independent members of this House should support this motion. The CLP supported our legislation banning a nuclear waste dump, and they supported our motion against the Commonwealth’s announcement that they were going to overturn this legislation. As the Leader of the Opposition said in parliament on 16 August 2005:
Therefore, the CLP should have no problems supporting this motion today.
In introducing this motion, we are giving the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to ensure that the CLP remains crystal clear, because the CLP’s colleagues in Canberra have been far from crystal clear. Dave Tollner voted to overturn the NT legislation, legislation that his own party in the Territory had voted for. There is also Nigel Scullion who famously said ‘not on my watch’, and then watched as the vote in Canberra to overturn our legislation was taken. This motion gives the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify the CLP’s position. She can show some leadership, defy her federal colleagues and stand up for the Territory.
Last week, we saw the media asking where was the promised CLP paper on uranium enrichment. ‘Don’t talk to me’, said the Leader of the Opposition, ‘talk to Dave Tollner’. Then we heard: ‘Don’t ask me’, said Dave Tollner, ‘talk to the CLP’. It is fair to say that the CLP probably has not thought this issue through.
This motion calls on all Territory members of parliament in Canberra to back the cause for a referendum. We know that the member for Solomon supports having a nuclear waste dump in the Territory, but that does not mean he has to be opposed to Territorians getting to have their own say in a referendum. The strange thing is that he cannot use the standard Howard government line that we need nuclear power to cope with climate change because he does not believe in climate change.
We are urging all members of this House to support the motion. This is about standing up for the rights of Territorians to be heard in Canberra. It is about not letting the Territory become the dumping ground for political problems and nuclear waste. This is about a broken election commitment. We want a referendum. We want to give Territorians the opportunity to have their say. We are asking for John Howard to come clean. Have any deals been done? Has he or any of his ministers signed off on a deal to put a nuclear waste dump near Tennant Creek?
Finally, something that sums up this debate: if it is so safe to have a nuclear waste dump, then why transport that nuclear waste halfway across the country? Why not put it right next to the source of nuclear waste in Australia at Lucas Heights if it is so safe?
If we are to believe the naivety of the member for Nelson who tells us that we will not be getting higher level radioactive waste, that we will not be getting the spent fuel rods from France, that we will not be getting the spent fuel rods from all of the nuclear power stations that John Howard is saying Australia will get, if it is so safe, then why have a nuclear waste dump near Tennant Creek? Why not put nuclear waste right next to Lucas Heights? Why not contain it in the secure and safe security environment of Lucas Heights?
Madam Speaker, it is very clear. We are fundamentally saying: give Territorians the opportunity to have their say. We are calling on the Howard government to commit to a referendum on the issue of a nuclear waste dump anywhere in the Territory. We are saying come clean. Have deals been done? If so, what are the details of those deals? We do not want to see broken promises this coming federal election. Commit to the people of the Territory to have a say on the issue of a nuclear waste dump. The Territory government is opposed to a nuclear waste dump in the Territory.
We will accept a federal government process looking at the science to support where a nuclear waste dump should go. However, we have not seen the science; we have seen the politics. We have seen opportunistic politics from the Howard government. It is time to listen to the people of the Territory and let them have their say.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, what an abysmal performance. The minister had 30 minutes to prosecute her motion. She filled up about 11 minutes, 12 at the most, in support of a motion that, in the words of the minister and members of government, is vitally important. This is one of the worst performances I have seen since I have been in this place since 2001. It was ably read by the minister as she was going through her, no doubt, size 16 font at 1.5 spacing. That was a dreadful performance.
Let us look at what this is: it is a stunt. Now, who would be in town late this afternoon? I am thinking a Prime Minister will be here late this afternoon. On the one hand, we have the offensive vitriol of the minister and yet, probably tomorrow, later today perhaps, the Chief Minister is meeting with the Prime Minister. What a curious relationship this government seeks to have with a federal government.
I was genuinely surprised by the minister’s performance; it was not our motion, it was government’s motion and she could not fill the space. I propose to be relatively brief.
A member interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: It is not our motion; it is your motion. You are the ones who need to prosecute your argument. You have 30 minutes to do it. There is no way in hell that you did it within the 11 minutes you had. You just followed the bouncing balls and read your speech.
Madam Speaker, this is an attempt not only at a stunt; this is an attempt to play politics and get a headline somewhere in the media. No doubt they will. This is one of the most poorly drafted motions I have seen. God knows who wrote it, but they probably need a break.
In relation to paragraph (a), what a shocker. Paragraph (a) asserts that there is bipartisan opposition to plans to locate the repository in the Northern Territory: ‘widespread and bipartisan opposition’. Let us think about that. Is Mike Rann, the Premier of South Australia, opposed to the siting of this facility in the Northern Territory? I think not. Why is he not opposed? Because if he had done the decent thing, had he taken responsibility for radioactive waste, it would be in South Australia. I do not think Mike Rann would be in anyway opposed to the siting of this facility in the Northern Territory.
Does the government in paragraph (a) seriously assert that other Australians are strongly opposed, regardless of their politics, let us say even the Labor voters – do you reckon that Labor voters in South Australia are opposed to this facility being in the Northern Territory? I do not think so. It asserts that there is ‘widespread and bipartisan opposition’ to the plan. That is not the case. It is misleading in the extreme. It is an extremely poorly drafted paragraph. What is it up to now, member for Blain? About $8m to $10m spent on wages alone for staff on the fifth floor, the government floor, of this building. I am not sure that Territorians are getting much bang for their buck when you look at a paragraph so very poorly drafted as paragraph (a). It might be the case that the minister may wish to amend her own motion so that it makes some degree of sense, but that is a matter for her.
The issue of the location and the siting of this facility in the Northern Territory has been dealt with up hill and down dale in this parliament. They should be governing for all Territorians, but they get bored and take their eye off the wheel. They must sit around in the back rooms and say: ‘What can we possibly do? Let us do the nuclear waste repository’. So it is that time again, which coincidentally happens to be on the same day that the Prime Minister of this country arrives in Darwin.
Members opposite will have difficulty grasping this, so I will speak slowly. The CLP remains disappointed with the initial decision made in relation to the facility in the Territory. Why? We said it at the time and we will say it again: there was no consultation and it was imposed on the people of the Northern Territory. One wonders why it is that members of the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party are so sanctimonious and so self-righteous that they do not apparently have the wit or the honesty to concede that had they supported the push for statehood prior to 2001, the Northern Territory would not be in this position. You lot were out there marching on the streets, throwing yourselves in front of your fellow Territorians saying: ‘For God’s sake, do not vote for statehood’. It has been on the CLP’s platform for – what? – 25 or 27 years or thereabouts. Everyone knew where we stood. Yet members of government have the audacity to now come into this place and assert, in a self-righteous manner, that we have been hard done by because we are not a state. You should have done the decent thing in the first place and campaigned in favour of statehood. I believe we have adequately dealt with that paragraph, Madam Speaker.
As a result of the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party being so passionate and so vigorous and so resistant to statehood in the Northern Territory, we are in a position where any Commonwealth government, whether it is on the conservative side of politics or yours, and you blokes better be careful what you wish for because if Kevin 07 comes good, you will rue the day. You will rue the day! It will be a nightmare for you. You will not have anyone else to blame. You will need to blame your little friends in Canberra. Mummy’s little helpers in Canberra are the ones you will need to pull apart. You have been reasonably articulate at pulling apart the federal government, minister by minister, whenever it suits you. If Kevin 07’s lot get in, you will be obliged to do the same.
So, Madam Speaker, what happened? The Commonwealth came in and said: ‘This is what is going to happen’. As a result, we have this facility in the Northern Territory. Here is the difference between the CLP and ALP Northern Territory branches. The CLP, not unlike the Northern Land Council, I hasten to add, adopted the position that this was a fait accompli because amongst other things, the Australian Labor Party over the years, so viciously on occasion, fought against statehood. We have this facility, so what do we do? What do we do? We have to get used to it. The delusional people opposite who still, whenever they are bored, make a statement about this issue, need to get with the times. They need to, like the Northern Land Council, say: ‘This is what is happening and we are going to make the best of the situation’. They are so delusional, not to mention arrogant, that they simply refuse to do so. That is the difference, and those opposite should be ashamed of themselves. If only they had the intellect to dig deep and pursue that personal option.
Let us have a look at your paragraph (b), that the Commonwealth government honour its election promise not to locate the facility in the Northern Territory. It is not here yet, and Territorians and other Australians will have an opportunity to cast their vote for John Howard or Kevin 07, probably in November. The federal government has not built this facility during this term and Territorians can make the decision, just like other Australians, whether they want John Howard or Kevin 07.
That leads very nicely, I think, to what a Rudd Labor government will do. Labor federally, very conveniently, has pretty much squibbed on this issue. I invite members opposite to refer us to the record of any federal member of the Labor Party as to their plans about what to do with radioactive waste. Has Kevin Rudd said under no circumstances will it be in the Northern Territory? If he has, where else can it go? I suppose he might pick up the phone to Mike Rann and say: ‘Well, buddy, how about it go where it should properly go, where most Australians think it should go?’, that is in the north of South Australia. One wonders what Kevin Rudd will do. The minister said we want everyone to reveal the details of deals have been done. What are the deals currently being done by the federal Labor Party and the other states and territories in relation to this issue? Is it the case that federal Labor, if elected in November, have declared, have decreed, that they will not have this facility in the Northern Territory? I once again invite ministers to show me anywhere on the record that a federal Labor minister or, indeed, the Opposition Leader himself, has made that pledge.
Madam Speaker, in relation to paragraph (c), a very poorly drafted paragraph, if I may say so, it refers to a ‘binding referendum which was promised by the Prime Minister last week’, etcetera. Well, the Prime Minister is on the record. He said, in his media release dated 23 August:
With that part of paragraph (c), albeit it is clumsily worded, that is clearly supportable because that is what has been promised. It has been promised in relation to power stations, nuclear power generation, so I am not sure why it was that this government was insistent that such a sentence be included in the paragraph.
In relation to other parts of the motion, we certainly do not object to paragraph (f), that is, that the Speaker forward the terms of the motion to the President of the Senate and the House of Representatives. We encourage you to do so. One wonders whether this government will follow through with what appears to be a promise here in paragraph (f) by forwarding it to the relevant people. If they do, I hope they forward the entire debate. Do not just frame up your clumsily-worded motion and pop that in the post. Have the guts to include the entire debate. I look forward to the contributions from others. I know the member for Nelson, as always on this subject, will have a bit to say and I look forward to hearing from him. No doubt it will be more coherent than what can only be described as the drivel by the minister who moved this motion.
Madam Speaker, there are just so many parts to go on this one. Paragraph (c) wants a referendum on a nuclear facility in Australia. I ask this: does it include facilities using isotopes and x-ray machines? If so - I am reading from my media release issued this afternoon - if so, the Martin government wants a referendum on the promised oncology unit at RDH. What about any new uranium mines in the Territory? Now, here is the inherent inconsistency with Territory Labor’s position: later today, there will be a statement from the Minister for Mines and Energy. He will be waxing lyrical about the mining industry in the Northern Territory. He and his colleagues have waxed lyrical, no doubt privately, but certainly publicly, about the benefits of uranium mining. That is why federal Labor, at its last annual conference, decided that they would get with the times and withdraw their decision to oppose further mining of uranium.
In the Territory, we have government ministers, it appears on occasion, almost falling over themselves to get in front of a microphone to say ‘mine uranium, mine uranium. Mine it; get it out of the ground, do something with it as fast as you possibly can. The benefits to the Territory economy are immeasurable’. The inconsistency is that on the one hand, Labor is happy to pull it out of the ground but, when it comes to dealing with the waste, they will not touch it with a barge pole: ‘Oh, it is too hard, we will just blame John Howard for that’. You people need to be honest with yourselves, with each other and the people of the Northern Territory. Do you not get that it is internally inconsistent to wax lyrical about the benefits of uranium, fall over yourselves to pull it out of the ground, and then say: ‘Oh no, we do not want to deal with the waste’? Nowhere in the comments of the minister today or, if my memory serves me correctly, on any other of the seemingly countless times a motion like this has come before us, have I heard a government minister talk about the waste that is sitting in the basement at Royal Darwin Hospital. That is a significant issue. I am advised that radioactive waste is currently stored at Royal Darwin Hospital. Members opposite would prefer it to be housed in the basement of a hospital as opposed to moved to a purpose-built facility. I always find inconsistency a challenge. However, I am sure if members opposite wanted to dig deep within themselves they might even come to the realisation that they look a bit silly pushing these sorts of arguments.
In the event that Kevin Rudd becomes Prime Minister, he will apparently have the option to leave the waste materials stored at Royal Darwin Hospital or put it in a purpose-built facility somewhere in this country ...
Mr Mills: Schools, perhaps.
Ms CARNEY: You never know, member for Blain, indeed. Another glaring omission from the minister’s delivery today, in her carefully read statement that she went word for word, full bottle all the way, is that nowhere did she say: ‘This is what my federal colleagues will do should Kevin 07 cross the line in November’. That is the question to be answered. Every time I see Labor members opposite getting excited about the opinion polls, I say: ‘Be careful what you wish for’. Be careful what you wish for because, if Kevin 07 comes good, you will need to deal with this issue. You will not have the whipping boy of the federal government any more. Well, you might, but they are going to have to be yours, and you have nowhere to go. You will have to wrestle with your own hypocrisy and inconsistencies. I doubt there is much you are going to do about your poorly-worded motion. I expect to see them in this Chamber over and over and over again. However, I digress.
Madam Speaker, we have an amendment to this motion, and we sincerely urge members opposite to vote in support because this is the motion that should be put.
I move that the motion be amended by omitting all words after ‘that’ and inserting in their place the following:
(1) endorses and welcomes the announcement by the Prime Minister for a referendum in respect to building of nuclear power facilities as a pre-condition;
(2) notes the Commonwealth government has honoured its election promise not to locate a radioactive waste facility in the Northern Territory in the current term of office;
(4) request the federal government publish the number and types of treatments that benefit from the isotopes produced in Australia, in particular cancer sufferers and the projected number of cancer sufferers who would benefit from such isotopes when the radiation oncology unit is built in Darwin;
(6) calls on the Commonwealth government to make public the current status of plans in respect of the location of a national repository, understood to be located near Muckaty Station;
(7) calls on the Northern Territory members of the Commonwealth Parliament to congratulate the Prime Minister on his announcement of a referendum in respect to nuclear power facilities; and
(8) the Speaker forward the terms of the motion and associated debate to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Madam Speaker, I would like now to speak to the motion. It is the case I have covered certainly much more time than the minister but there is so much to say. I would like to visit some of those issues again. So as to paragraph (1) ‘endorses and welcomes the announcement by the Prime Minister for a referendum …’, members opposite would not have too much difficulty with that, I would not have thought. Paragraph (2) ‘notes the Commonwealth government has honoured its election promise …’, look around you, I do not see a national nuclear waste repository in the Northern Territory. Paragraph (3) …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker. In relation to item two of the amendment, while I clearly recollect the Commonwealth government election promise not to locate a radioactive facility in the Northern Territory, I am not aware of, nor can I, as hard as I try, recall the words ‘in the current term of office’. I think we need clarity on this because I would hate the Leader of the Opposition to be misleading this House inadvertently. I do not want to see her get in trouble …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is on her feet and I am sure she will clarify these points. Member for Sanderson, you have the opportunity to speak in the debate.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hearing from the member for Sanderson is never an edifying experience at all. He really should do what his colleagues tell him to do and just sit down and say as little as possible.
In relation to paragraph (3), which I would have thought would be of particular interest to some members opposite, ‘calls on the Northern Territory government to move to immediately seek permission from the federal government to house the Territory’s radioactive waste, currently stored at locations around the Territory including Royal Darwin Hospital, in the national waste repository to be constructed after the federal election due this year’. Put simply, Kevin 07, if he gets over the line, where is it going to be, Kevin? Further, if this Territory Labor government backs Kevin 07, then they should not have any problem at all with our paragraph (3).
Similarly, in respect to paragraph (4), it requests the federal government ‘publish the number and types of treatments that benefit from the isotopes produced in Australia …’. It is my understanding that something in the order of 500 000 patients in this country are treated with nuclear medicines each year; that is a lot. The waste, as we all know, and I know this is what seems to offend members opposite, but it is the case that if you want these life saving procedures then …
Mr Henderson: Wrong.
Ms CARNEY: You say it is wrong but you provide the evidence, mate, because I defy you, I defy anyone here to say that certain treatments and medicines, that is involving the production of nuclear medicines, does not save peoples lives. It would be a very brave politician indeed, whether it is in the Northern Territory or elsewhere, to say to their fellow Australians: ‘No, we do not want you to have this treatment’. Not only would that offend everyone, but it would be deeply offensive.
You cannot say to 500 000 patients or thereabouts – that is the figure I have; it might be a bit more or it might be fewer – who are treated with nuclear medicines each year: ‘Sorry, but we do not want it located anywhere in this country’. I defy any member of parliament to say that there are not life-saving medicines that result from the various processes. Do I want people like my aunt, who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer, to have the best possible chance of being treated? Do I want her to explore every possible treatment available? Too right, I do. I would have thought that every member of parliament would say the same not only in respect of a member of their family, but in respect of their fellow Territorians and their fellow Australians.
I look forward to a specific response in relation to paragraph (4). This is not a trap, but I will tell you what: if members opposite assert, either actually or by inference, that life-saving treatment is not something that they want their fellow Australians to experience, be it on their heads.
Paragraph (5) requests the federal government to ‘set out alternative arrangements necessary so as to continue to be able to provide nuclear medicine …’. I refer to what I just said in relation to nuclear medicine: you cannot have it both ways. I know you want to. On the one hand, I think you are going to say you welcome the advances in modern medicine, but you do not want the waste. On the one hand, you say it was an election promise, prior to 2001, by Territory Labor that you would deliver an oncology unit in Darwin. You cannot say that you want that but you do not want to deal with the waste. You cannot say, on the one hand, that wherever uranium is in the Northern Territory, dig it up but you do not want to deal with the waste.
Government members seem to think that Territorians are silly and stupid. That is not a view I share. People will have real difficulty with a sensible argument on this issue. I appreciate that members opposite will want to politicise this. I know there is a federal election coming up; we all do. They can go their hardest, and I am sure they will, but it is incumbent upon members opposite to be honest when they are debating these issues. It is certainly incumbent on a minister who comes into parliament, announces it this morning, to do better than 11 or 12 minutes’ worth. What an extraordinary contribution, one of which she will, I am sure, at some stage in the future be very embarrassed about.
The federal government, like so many other Australians and members of parliament, has to deal with this very difficult decision. Do I think the Commonwealth should have done it better in the first place? Absolutely. Do we think so? Absolutely. However, Territory Labor needs to, not unlike the Northern Land Council, say: ‘Okay, this is what is happening. Do we have a choice?’ Well, because members of the Labor Party campaigned so viciously and strongly against statehood; hoisted on your own petard is an expression that comes to mind, Madam Speaker.
There are a number of additional points, and I certainly look forward to the contribution from the member for Blain. I guess there are some questions that should be asked in the context of this debate. I take it, from what the minister is saying, that she is opposed to the establishment of a waste facility in the Territory. I ask: should the facility proceed, will she rule out, and she has an opportunity to do so, storing the Territory’s radioactive waste in the national waste repository? If not, what do you propose to do with it? Do you want to keep it forever and a day at Royal Darwin Hospital? Will you commit to establishing a separate facility? If so, could you give us some details? Are you proposing that radioactive waste be stored at RDH permanently? Do you want a stand-alone facility in the Territory so it is away from RDH? Where do you believe Kevin Rudd, if elected in November, will put the repository? Do you expect him, seriously, to pick up the phone to Mike Rann and say: ‘Look, it served politicians in the Labor Party in the Territory well for the last year and a half by having it in the Territory, how about it be housed in South Australia?’ So many questions, Madam Speaker; so little time.
The amended motion is the motion to support. It is certainly better drafted. It is more sensible, more intelligent and worthy of support.
Madam SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, I remind you of the procedure when we have an amendment before the Chair. All speakers from now on are speaking to both the original motion and to the amended motion. Speakers prior to the movement of the motion, which was only the minister, have the option to speak to the amended motion as well as in closing debate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have spoken on this issue many times in parliament. I should say at the outset that I have done my best to look at all these issues in a positive way. I have visited Lucas Heights twice, once when it had a HIFAR reactor, and the second time was the opening of the new OPAL reactor. I am very impressed by that facility. All Australians who have visited it, I believe, would be proud to know that it is part of our research facilities in Australia for science, not just for medical isotopes, but for science in general. It is a very important part of Australia’s future.
I have also visited the Queensland Radioactive Waste Store at Esk, which is stationed approximately 3 km out of the town of Esk approximately 110 km from Brisbane, and looked at that facility, which sits alone in the forestry land and is maintained by the local council. I have visited the nuclear power plant in Ohio to see how waste is stored and to basically look at where they locate it. I have visited Westmead Hospital to see where nuclear medicine is used, and Westmead Hospital would probably be one of the leaders in the use of medical isotopes.
I have said many times that I am not particularly happy with the federal government intervening. However, the reality is that if you want to continue with the advancement of science, that is, the development of Lucas Heights, part of their licence was that in the development of this new OPAL reactor was to find a purpose-built site for the radioactive waste, which could also be used for other waste such as the waste that is sitting at Woomera which came from Fishermen’s Bend and other waste at Defence sites.
I have put much serious time into thinking about this issue. I have spoken in this House in detail about what Lucas Heights does, and I do not intend to go back down that path at this stage. I believe this debate is worthy of me repeating some comments because I stand here as a Territorian, I am proud of that, but I also stand here as an Australian. This is an Australian issue. Although it might hurt us to have this facility placed in our Territory without us having a great say in it, the fact is that we need it.
I would rather say let us find a spot in Australia, in the Territory, let us show some leadership. Some of this argument would have disappeared if the government had said: ‘Okay, you are doing it’, a little bit like the intervention that is occurring now, because, when the intervention by Mr Brough was called for, the Territory government came on board and said: ‘We will support you’. There was no talk about: ‘We are all opposed to this’. They knew the matter was serious, and the Chief Minister is on record saying we are doing this, not so much because it is good for the Territory, but it is good for the country. That is in Hansard from Question Time last week. I am saying exactly that: this is good for our country. It is a bigger issue than just the Northern Territory. That is why I support the idea of a radioactive waste facility.
However, the problem I have is that this government’s push for a referendum in relation to nuclear facilities is nothing more than a Labor stunt lined up for the Prime Minister’s visit. Anyone who has listened to Labor’s diatribe on this issue in parliament will know they do not tell the truth about nuclear issues and deliberately twist the facts. The facts were twisted again today. I have visited the Muckaty Station site. Put your hand up if you have visited the Muckaty site. It is the nominated site; it is not the chosen site. It is 120 km north of Tennant Creek …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: Okay, at least I went and had a look, which is more than the minister could do.
They twist the facts to convince people in the Territory that nuclear is evil. If people were given all the facts about a radioactive waste facility and nuclear energy there could be a reasonable chance for a fair referendum to occur. However, Labor would make sure this would not occur because, along with its free rent mates at the Rapid Creek Environment Hub, they would run a campaign so well-funded and biased that alternative views like mine will be overwhelmed.
Instead of wasting parliamentary hot air and adding to climate change with this inane motion, the Labor government should say when it plans to shut down the polluting gas-fired power stations as well as the polluting Wickham Point gas plant which all adds to global warming. When will they tell people what power source they are going to use as the base load power for manufacturing? Where does this power come from when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow? I am not against solar and I am not against wind energy, but the reality is that if you are opposing certain forms of energy then you must give us the energy options and this government does not do that.
This motion, or rather this joke, comes from a Labor government that supports uranium going overseas to nuclear power plants. You are worried about a nuclear power plant in Australia, but your ideological morality ceases if the uranium leaves Australia. You worry about a low-level radioactive waste site in the Northern Territory, but you do not care enough about storage in other countries to which you are happy to export uranium. That speaks for itself; it is hypocrisy.
The minister talked about the transport of this material. How did the radioactive gauges from Mt Todd get to the United States recently? Was it transported along the road? Was it shipped by sea? Which company took it in America? I have no doubt at all that it would have been exported safely because the requirements for moving radioactive waste are exceptionally stringent. It would have been, I believe, by road from Mt Todd, through Darwin and by ship to the United States. Was that advertised? No, no, no! ‘We could not advertise that, it is too sensitive’. However, you were not at least willing to say: ‘We can move radioactive waste safely according to the international guidelines required for moving waste’. If it is done that way, then it can be done quite safely. That is what would happen with radioactive waste in Australia.
The comrades, including the one who is so far to the left he is over the hill and far away, yells: ‘Put the radioactive waste facility in the Nelson electorate’. This shallow argument, if taken seriously, would mean that I could argue that the new powerhouse should be in the Sanderson electorate, Dow Chemicals will be in Fannie Bay, and live cattle yards built on the lawns of Parliament House. The fact is if I owned a suitable piece of land in an appropriate location, I would be willing to sell or lease it to the Commonwealth to store low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste.
Mr Kiely: For $12m, it is all right, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Yes, if it was a suitable site. No person is going to use that silly argument: ‘Well, put it in your back yard’. You find a suitable site …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: You find a suitable site; you use the science. You have to remember that the Muckaty site still has to go through an environmental impact statement. I believe that the waste can be stored safely. I support the Lucas Heights research facility which is something the Labor Party will not come out and publicly say. If the government really wants a plebiscite on the radioactive waste facility, then why not have a plebiscite on whether Territorians want an oncology unit at Royal Darwin Hospital? Or does Labor not know where the medical isotopes come from? The reality is that there is not going to be a nuclear power plant in the Territory whilst we have gas because, if you believe the Chief Minister, gas is a very clean form of energy, which I do not actually believe, and we will continue to run our power plants on gas for some time to come.
This debate is a load of claptrap initiated by an old technological party that is a prisoner of the loony left, the extreme Greens and with no capability of understanding the science. If Labor believes solar and wind will power the energy requirements of our manufacturing industry, then it must have rocks in its head. If that was hot rocks, they of course would get my support, but the rocks of Labor are cold and inert.
This debate is a waste of our energy and deserves short shrift. I must finish there. It is time to leave the preschool and do something more useful. I will leave you with this little ditty. I am sure it will put you off to sleep:
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage, in her call for the Commonwealth government to immediately make public its plans to construct a nuclear waste dump in the Territory, most likely in my electorate.
I also support the minister’s call to the Commonwealth government to allow the people of the Northern Territory to express their views on whether they are agreeable to having this waste dump in the Territory; an opportunity to say if we agree to forever looking after nuclear waste being generated in other parts of Australia and, in particular, the potentially large amounts of high-grade waste that will be generated by the 25 or more nuclear power stations that John Howard seems to think the nation must have.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that he will allow a binding referendum as a mandatory pre-condition prior to allowing the development of any nuclear facility in regional Australia. The people in the Barkly say that we should have that right available to us in relation to the proposed waste dump for nuclear waste material. If it is good enough for our friends in other places, surely it should be good enough for us here in the Territory. I have spoken in here before, as have other members from Central Australia, on our sense of outrage that people in other places have taken upon themselves to badge our community as the nuclear waste dump of Australia.
We should have the opportunity to right that wrong. We can have a voice, and I call on the Prime Minister as the supposed champion, or reinventing himself as the champion, of grassroots democracy to support Territorians in having their say whether they see this waste facility as an exciting new commercial opportunity for the Territory, or for what it really is: a short-cut plan to solve the dilemma that no one in any other part of Australia wants.
In usual style, our Commonwealth government has taken the soft out-of-sight-and-mind option, inching ever closer to a final solution of imposing a national, perhaps international, nuclear waste dump on people in the Barkly.
Some will say I am being alarmist. Australia will never take other countries’ nuclear waste, the Prime Minister has told us that, but I remember a time 30 years ago when the then Prime Minister of Australia, seeking support for the expansion of uranium mining in this country, promised Australia would never sell uranium to a country that is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Recently, we heard of steps being taken to sell our uranium to India, which will not join the non-proliferation treaty. Minister Lawrie, in her motion, noted that there is also evidence of widespread and bipartisan opposition from Territorians to the Commonwealth’s plans for a nuclear waste dump in the Territory. To the few proponents, the champions of nuclear energy and those who seek to ingratiate themselves with the Commonwealth, I say yes, you are in the minority.
To those who worry about the impacts on the environment, those who worry about the long-term security of nuclear waste dumps, those who worry about accidents during transportation and storage, those who worry about the likely scenario of this facility becoming Australia’s central repository for future high level waste, I say you are in the majority. To those of you in the Barkly who worry about the future of the town being badged as the nuclear waste dump of Australia, I will continue to say, and I will continue to support all those communities, all those people, who clearly do not want it to be in their community and indeed in their electorate.
I am deeply concerned about the potential effects of a nuclear waste dump on the Barkly’s reputation as a clean, green source of high quality beef. Pastoral production in the Barkly region has long been an important part of the Territory’s economy. The reputation and value of Barkly beef can only continue to grow, and yet we have the crazy circumstances where all this is at risk because the Barkly seems a convenient place in political terms to store Australia’s nuclear waste.
I am opposed to the location of a nuclear dump in the Barkly because I know there are many countrywomen and countrymen, custodians of sites and other indigenous people in the Barkly, who are deeply troubled knowing that their lands are to be a permanent home of Australia’s nuclear waste.
I do not think we can ever really overestimate the impact that this will have on the Barkly and the people who make the Barkly their home. I have said in this House before that there are some very large Northern Territory pastoral property owners who are troubled by this action because they worked hard over a very long period to build up their industry to make it very viable. The Commonwealth government has a responsibility to take the pastoralists’ points of view into consideration.
I want to speak briefly about indigenous people. Much has been said in this House about this nuclear waste dump. I will continue to say that the exercise of arriving at this decision was not open; it was not transparent. I say this because I was at a public meeting, around mid-October 2006, when the nuclear waste facility was being discussed for Muckaty in particular, but there were other sites that were under consideration in other people’s electorates, including Mt Everard near Harts Range and Fishers Ridge. It turned into Barkly in terms of Muckaty. I recall attending a public meeting which was convened at reasonably short notice and attended by 60 to 70 people, people who were not so much opposed, but were interested in hearing precisely what the rumour was about. All those people wanted was the opportunity to be able to be engaged in a consultation process which would allow them to be party to the decision. That opportunity was taken away from them because of subsequent action by the Commonwealth government in amending national legislation.
It is very important that when we make these types of decisions, we are mindful of people’s concerns. Clearly, on this occasion, that has not occurred. As I said in another forum, the cornerstone of democracy is the right to express your point of view. Having access to information and the ability to make an informed decision is central to our democracy. In reviewing the debate about a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory, or at Muckaty, it is clear that there is one thing that all commentators are calling for, and that is for serious and thoughtful consideration of all the facts.
I reiterate what I said: no matter which electorate you live in, no matter what industry you have, no matter who you might be, indigenous or non-indigenous, whether you are a member of a community like Tennant Creek, people should be able to access all the facts. People should be part of a democratic process. Clearly, the only reason the Commonwealth government has done this is because they can. It is simple: pure politics. I do not mind if they want to re-engage in the process and do it on a scientific basis. Let us be real about this. There is genuine concern in my electorate not only from the pastoral industry, but from indigenous people and the community of Tennant Creek. We are happy to engage in discussion about it, but let us be part of the process.
Do not impose something on us without us knowing fully the facts because it is we who live in this community. I would imagine that the member for Nelson or even the members for Blain and Araluen would not disagree with that principle: if you propose something, and at the very least you put in place an opportunity for people to have a say. That is critical. It is central to everything we do as a government, not only from the Territory perspective, but from a Commonwealth perspective as well.
In conclusion, I support the minister’s motion because it is a very serious issue, not only in the context of us as Territorians, but as Australians. Remember, this decision, or the intent, was made quite some time out from election. We have seen the intervention of late. We have seen the political exercise in respect of the states, with the hospital in Tasmania, we have seen it with industrial relations, and we have seen it with the Murray-Darling. I suppose you have to ask yourself: where do we as a nation end up in the future? I honestly believe that is a very important question not only in regard to the existing position put by John Howard, but indeed, by Kevin Rudd. We have to ask that question: where are we heading in the sense of not wanting to listen to people on the ground any more, the people who have put us into these places?
Madam Speaker, I ask the Commonwealth government to clearly indicate if it is the Muckaty site. That is all we need to know. We just need to know. The people of the Barkly need to know. I urge the Prime Minister, maybe Northern Land Council would like to tell us, if such is the case, if it has been signed, if it has been delivered. I do not know. At the very least, I can understand people not wanting to tell me what the decision might be, but I reckon there is a very important principle here, which is that the people of the Barkly, at the very least, should be told.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, listening to the honourable member for Barkly’s comments, I could not help but see through to the heart of this matter.
For members of our community who may take the time to sit in our gallery, and I notice we have not drawn too much of a crowd, it is not hard for anyone to see through this game playing. The member for Barkly’s heartfelt comments were about making sure that people know what it is that is being done unto them. He continued at some length. In fact, he spoke for longer than the first speaker who moved this very important motion and who spoke for about 11 minutes. All they seem to be interested in is a political stunt to excite some little group to think we are still in the 1970s, and we cannot think beyond hysterical thoughts about matters that should engage us in a proper and sensible manner. This is completely unhelpful. I digress.
The member for Barkly spoke about things being done unto others without proper consultation, and you have to walk in step, etcetera. I cannot believe what I am hearing. Is that not exactly the same angst that is being felt in our own community right now about the shire amalgamations? People across the Territory are wondering how on earth this government can have the audacity to decide something, employ someone to create the impression that everyone has been consulted but, coming ready or not, through on urgency, implement it and away you go.
At the same time, you stand in parliament and complain about a similar process and describe it in similar terms. What sort of thinking processes go on internally that you can stand here and pretend to be sincere? I, for one, can see through it; I am sure many others can. I just hope there are members in this Chamber who can have a look at that and think through the inconsistencies of the positions that have been put. They are completely inconsistent. It has only to do with the fact that the Prime Minister is in town and that there is a federal election coming, so here is an opportunity to pump up a bit of political smoke and create some kind of impression for a short-term political gain. Get over it!
I do not like to be reminded, as anyone in the CLP or anyone in this Chamber, of the fact that we are not a fully-fledged member of the Commonwealth; a state. I do not like that. That is why I retain my position as a member of the Statehood Steering Committee and am happy to do so. It is a fight that commenced a long time ago and will continue. I do not like being a citizen of this nation not having the same rights as an Australian in another state. I do not like that. As a result, we have this decision made. What do we do? Bay at the moon and scream when we get the opportunity to make some kind of hysterical statement that is going to appeal to those who cannot think through things beyond the emotional reaction? That is a fact, a sad fact, but we must work on that.
We have already been reminded of the complicity that was brought to bear on that very question that was brought before this community, that members of the Labor Party played in that process. We do not need to visit that, but it has been turned over before. You know very well one side of town is giving one story, and there are members no longer in this Chamber who, quite openly, admitted playing the counter message behind the scenes …
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Mr MILLS: The member for Wanguri will say ‘rubbish’. I can verify for you words of your own former parliamentary colleagues who have already owned up.
Mr HENDERSON: Okay, who? Who? Come on, tell us. You have parliamentary privilege.
Mr MILLS: No, I will not. I have privilege but …
Mr Henderson: There you go, you have no evidence.
A member: Bluff!
Mr MILLS: It is not bluff at all. The honourable member who is using a few words to puff himself up a bit, knows very well what I am talking about. He uses the opportunity to bandy words around, not taking the time to consider what he is saying. I am interested in what is right in this debate; going a little beneath this and thinking about it. The honourable member knows exactly who I am referring to ...
Mr Henderson: No, I do not. Shane Stone was the person who wrecked statehood. He took it from 80% support to losing the referendum.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Anyway, I will proceed because that remains an historic fact and can be easily proven. However, I digress from that point.
The fact is we are not a state; we are left in a constitutionally inferior position. That has a consequence in decisions that are made that have national importance. Can you not see that? It has national importance. There is a need for this nation to sort this business out. It was decided that it be South Australia. However, because South Australia, and the current Premier, was in a constitutionally superior position, and particularly interested in garnering some political mileage out of an issue that can easily be fed to those who are ill-informed and provide, therefore, no real leadership, played this and exploited this for political benefit. As a result, the Territory is the place that it has to come because it is a matter that has already been decided and established by a parliamentary committee some time ago of which a former Labor Opposition Leader was a member.
So now we have it. There is a consequence. You can either bay at the moon, squeal and scream, provide no real leadership, or you can accept that fact and then work from this position. That is the position that I would prefer to work from.
I was at university in the 1970s. I have gotten over that and I have grown up. I can think a little bit more carefully about matters that once consumed those in the 1970s who thought that we were going to inherit some terrible catastrophe. Our whole globe is engaged in this debate, our entire planet is discussing this matter. It is very difficult business. We know where things are going. You can play the short-term game, get a little bit of support from the peanut gallery, but in fact you are elected to provide some leadership. You are required to provide leadership, so when your job is done, you can say: ‘At least I did the right thing. I thought through the issues and I did what I believed was the right thing in the long-term interests, not in my own political interests, but in what was right for those that I was elected to represent, and their children, and their children after them’.
As a result, we have this decision. I am not interested in stunts. I find it demeaning that we would pull a stunt like that: 11 minutes of a prepared speech. It is like Politics 101 or even less than that. It is like some little university group in the 1970s writing up a manifesto and out comes some character who writes a little speech: ‘You read that one and you read that one. I think we have got them. We are going to change the world, comrade’. Think about it, for goodness’ sake.
I take the position that acknowledging what has been discussed in our community, around the world, that we should take a measured and sensible approach to that which we cannot do much about until we are in the same constitutional position as other states. We have an inferior bargaining position and the cards have been dealt in this way. I am not terrified by that which is nuclear. I am happy to have a look at it and I am prepared now as a Territorian to say: ‘Okay, on this basis, let us make sure we get the best deal possible’. That is the position I take, and that is the position the CLP has taken. We are happy now to work with the position that we have been placed in.
I will give no support whatsoever for the stunt that has been pulled so poorly by members who are supposed to be elected to government and to govern us and lead us. It is an ill-considered and shallow stunt that will receive no support from the member for Blain, or from the Territory opposition.
I urge members to, if they have taken the time - probably not because they have their blinkers on, they have their riding instructions, and they will be bullied if they say anything to the contrary – to read the amendment. Have a look at it, perhaps on the quiet, and see if you can find it within yourself to do the right thing do what is sensible and right for the country and for the Territory.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, like the member for Blain, I am standing here on behalf of my constituents. I, too, am concerned on behalf of my constituents, and for my children, my neighbour’s children and their children. The point of what we are debating today is inter-generational.
The member for Blain made the accusation that we are all hypocrites and how can we call for a plebiscite on a uranium waste dump in the Territory when we are going to be imposing amalgamations and that people out in the newly proposed shires do not get a say. Well, they are not the same, no way are they the same. We are dealing with a matter of governance, of just plain old, good old community governance in trying to get things working more efficiently and better for citizens.
On the other hand, when it comes to this nuclear waste dump, we are talking about something which is going to be sitting around the community not for five years, not for 10 years, not in my lifetime, not in my kids’ lifetime, not in my great, great, great grandkids’ lifetime. We are talking about something that can be hanging around which goes way beyond any recorded or pre-recorded history that we know as humankind on this earth. It is an important issue. To try to link it into the shire argument is fallacious at best. It is disingenuous. It gets no shift with me. It is a pretty pathetic linking. That is all I will say on that.
The member for Blain and the Leader of the Opposition said it is all South Australia’s fault. That is really where we should be focusing all our attention and bile; it is certainly not the fault of the Howard government. In 1992, the Commonwealth government, with the support of state and territory governments, announced the project to construct the new service repository for the disposal of Australia’s low level and short-lived intermediate radioactive waste. This was going to be in Woomera. On 7 July 2003, the Commonwealth, using the urgency provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act, compulsorily acquired one of the sites and its associated access routes.
In 2001 in a separate development, the Howard government announced that it would establish a safe purpose-built facility on Commonwealth land for the storage of long-lived intermediate level radioactive waste produced by government agencies. So we have gone from low level to intermediate level.
When it came to having a look at the sites at Woomera that were being assessed, the minister for Science, Peter McGauran, and his department, a Commonwealth department and a Howard minister, objected because the repository was to be located beside a missile test firing range. The Department of Defence, supported by the Defence Minister, Robert Hill, objected to the Science department’s environmental impact statement, claiming the site was too risky. If an errant missile landed on the waste dump, radioactive particles could be scattered throughout the area. A third federal minister, the minister for the Environment, another minister in the Howard government, was also embroiled in the controversy.
This is all going on at the federal level, so of course the South Australian Labor Premier, Mike Rann, smelt a rat. Of course he opposed locating Australia’s first permanent low level, and soon to be intermediate level that they won’t talk about, in South Australia. So he protested. They tried all sorts of legal tools to prevent the dump from happening and it went to the Federal Court, and they said no.
The main reason that the feds pulled out of South Australia was that it was too hot to handle. Three seats were going to be placed in jeopardy. Three Liberal Party seats in the state of South Australia were in great jeopardy if that dump had gone ahead. Those are the reasons why it did not happen in South Australia. It had little to do with the position of the Premier. The Premier was looking after his people, just as we are trying to do today. We are not about trying to look after political positions like the CLP are trying to look after their Liberal mates.
Mrs Miller interjecting.
Mr KIELY: If you had been here, member for Katherine, and heard what I said, then you would have understood it. Stick in here and listen to what I am saying and then make comment. Do not walk through the door and make snide remarks.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a predictable one. In fact, there are two. One is the member well knows he is not to refer to the presence or otherwise of a member in the Chamber, and, second, he is to address his remarks through you and to go easy on his hostility and rudeness.
Mr STIRLING: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In principle, the Leader of the Opposition might have it right. However, how else is the member to allude to remarks to a member who has just entered the Chamber, has not participated in the debate, nor listened to the context of what was being said? How else is the member to allude to those remarks without making reference to whether the member was in the Chamber?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer. I will rule on this. As all members are aware, you cannot refer to the presence or otherwise of members in the House. That includes the member for Katherine who was referring to her absence also. On the second point of order, member for Sanderson, please address your remarks through me. Please continue.
Mr KIELY: Certainly, I am happy to comply, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also found it ironic in this debate that we had to put up with the tirade from the Leader of the Opposition about us following federal Labor’s lead; that we are the ones, when federal Labor says do this or do that, who react in a certain way. In these past weeks, we have been at odds with our federal colleagues on a number of issues. We have one position on standing up for Territorians. They have another. We can live with that. On the other hand, you have this once proud independent party who has no affiliations with Canberra, the CLP, the Territory party, and what are they doing? They are toeing the Liberal line. All the way through, the once independent, the great and proud – I can understand truly why this is so. When you have an Opposition Leader who is one day Bob Brown and the next day Bronwyn Bishop, of course there is going to be a mix up on which way they are going with policy development, their stand and how they stand up for Territorians.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are another couple of points I found quite interesting in the contributions of the members for Nelson and Blain. I also thought it was a pretty dicey and low card for the Leader of the Opposition to be playing when she was saying: ‘If you do not support the dump, you do not support the reactor at Lucas Heights, and all the good work that it does, you are saying to people who have cancer and need treatment from isotopes that you are against that’. You go and tell them; it would be a pretty bold politician, a pretty heartless politician, to say that. It was a pretty low thing to be saying. I just did not see the relevance of that sort of comment in this debate.
It is pretty clear that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Blain – I know he is not shadow Health, so I guess he does not need to know – and the member for Nelson, who reckons he has been to every nuclear medicine facility in the world and knows everything you need to know about what comes out of Lucas Heights, let me say to you that most of the radioisotopes used in medicine are produced at the National Medical Cyclotron and it does not use uranium as fuel. It does not produce any spent nuclear fuel and it generates only a fraction of low and intermediate level radioactive waste created by a nuclear reactor.
I went to the Department of Health and asked them how much of the product coming out of Lucas Heights we will be using in our oncology unit. They got back to me and I shall quote verbatim their response:
So, yes, Lucas Heights does produce life saving nuclear medicines. Are they in use in the Territory? No. Let us put that one firmly to bed, shall we? Let us get off that ‘I care for people, you do not care for people’ rubbish that is getting around. While we are on about rubbish, let us talk about the nuclear waste that we hold at the hospital. The Northern Territory produces a minute quantity of short-lived low level radiopharmaceutical waste from the privately-run nuclear medicine facility at Royal Darwin Hospital. The waste is placed in a secure laboratory for several days where it decays to normal radiation background levels, and is then considered to be no longer radioactive and is disposed of safely with other clinical waste from RDH. No other health facility in the Northern Territory produces radioactive pharmaceutical waste.
It was the issue of the gauges that the member for Nelson seemed so hot about. The Northern Territory has the lowest volume of low level radioactive waste, about two cubic metres in Australia, which is safely and securely stored in the Northern Territory government interim waste facility, which is a thick, concrete-walled storeroom with lead-lined doors. The waste comprises mainly spent industrial sources and disused gauges that can be stored safely for an indefinite period of time and pose no public health risk to personnel. Okay. By the way, radioactive waste is no longer accepted for storage in that facility.
Once again, we are accused of trying to call up the bogeyman of radioactive waste, but I put it to you that it is not us calling up the bogeyman; it is those others who are running the lines for Canberra in this political year. I ask them to really think hard about just what they are saying, where that is all going, and to look after the Territory, to have them to look after the Territory’s long-term concerns for its kids and its future generations.
I am concerned that the placing of a low-level national waste dump may well encourage acceptance of intermediate-level and high-level nuclear waste in the future from Sydney and from reprocessed fuel rods. Because it is out of sight, out of mind, it is going to grow. The thoughts are that we start off with an above ground storage unit for intermediate- and low-level waste. Let me say that there are a couple of types of intermediate waste, short-lived and long-lived, and when they say ‘long-lived’, they mean long-lived waste. The thoughts are, as I understand it, that this facility will be used for somewhere like maybe 50 or 60 years. It will sit out there and get topped up every year with waste from around the country generated by the Commonwealth which, by the way, generates 90% of nuclear waste in Australia. That is going to sit out there for 50 or 60 years, while they look at, perhaps, creating some deep inground geological repository.
The volume of waste generated in Australia at the moment is not worth the dollars that it costs to build something quite as enormous and as strong as this great cavernous repository in the ground should be. For that $12m, we are signing up these people around Muckaty Station to have a repository sitting on their land, above ground, getting filled up for 50 or 60 years, with no commitment to move it out. No government can possibly give a commitment for 60 years into the future, let alone 100, 200, 300 or 400 years. It is absolute nonsense.
My issue is with the blindness, the political expediency and the so-called independent CLP members who have proven themselves to be no more than puppets of the Liberal Party in Canberra. They do not give a hoot about the people of the Territory now or in the future, and it is demonstrated in this debate. They said this debate is all hot air just to score political points. Well, it is not. I am not here trying to score political points; I am trying to get the facts. I want this parliament to act. I want this parliament and the people of Territory to have a say, just like they promised about the nuclear reactors, just as the feds said. I want them to have a say. Put it to a vote and let us see how it goes. Let us get it out there.
There is no linkage whatsoever between a plebiscite for a nuclear waste dump in the middle of the Territory and the amalgamation of shires. Let us get that clear. Let us have that vote and let us get the CLP right behind us. Let us have that vote, let us make it binding, and let us get dinkum about this. Let us stop all this ‘I am holier than you; you do not love my relatives, they need help from the Lucas Heights business’. It has nothing to do with it. It never was, never will be. In my opinion, the reason we have this dump stuck out at Muckaty Station, at political expediency, is because the federal government could not get the OPAL reactor online and commissioned unless they had a nuclear dump. That is why it is there. That is why it is not on Commonwealth land because they think: ‘We can go off, buy our way in over here and say we have done public consultation’.
If the member for Nelson reckons everything is so safe, and that the above ground storage is so good, then I call on the media to ask him to say: ‘Yes, it is so safe I will have it in my back yard. I will have it in Nelson’. I do not reckon they are safe. I am not saying put it in Sanderson, in Alice Springs or in Tennant Creek. I am not saying put it anywhere. Get it right. Get it as part of the fuel cycle. Let us get the proper science done on this, and then let us see where we go.
To have it the way it is right now, with the CLP and the member for Nelson turning their backs on the people of the Territory and on the kids who will be the future voters of the Territory is pathetic. They should be ashamed of themselves. I ask them to reconsider their position. Stop doing a prcis of the motion to be sent to Canberra saying: ‘I do not like the way it is drafted’. Look at the content, the intent, and at what we are trying to achieve for our community. Get behind and support it.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the minister’s motion and thank her for bringing it to the House. I have listened to all the speakers and, yes, it has been an interesting debate. We have heard from the opposition. If anyone is playing politics with this, it is them. They are talking about statehood, that it is our fault and it has cost us. We did not vote for statehood at the referendum, so blame Territorians. I totally disagree with that sentiment.
You can talk about the science. You can talk about all the other issues that we heard from the member for Nelson, but, quite simply, the motion is about Territorians having a say in the future of the Northern Territory. What is wrong with that? What is causing so much angst and hurt amongst the opposition today? It is very simple: it is about giving Territorians an opportunity to say what they think about a nuclear waste dump in our back yard. It is all our back yards really, the whole of the Territory.
The people of Stuart have voiced their opinion. One case is Chris Poulson, a traditional owner from the Pikilyi area in my electorate. He has been a very vocal and a very strident opponent of nuclear waste in his back yard in the Tanami. I would like to quote something he said about his country:
That is a very strong message for all of us in this debate. Certainly, one voice which needs to be heard in this debate is the voices of indigenous people. Much of the land we are talking about, the sites that we know have been put up as possible sites, whether it is Mount Everard, Harts Range or Fishers Ridge have strong connections to the indigenous people in that area. I am sure they have a very strong opinion on this issue. It really does come down to consultation, not only with the wider Territory community but with indigenous people who have some affiliation to their country where these sites are located. They are very important aspects to this debate that we should consider as well.
The history of this is important, as the minister said. We are blaming each other for the politics, but it does get down to that. The basic issue is that it is a broken promise from our federal CLP members before the last election. It is amazing how things go round in circles. In the cycle of an election three or four years ago, the same issue came up and Territorians were promised that it was not going to happen in our back yard from the CLP member at the time. I think the line was ‘not on my watch’. Well, it is about broken promises, about politics and it is very timely. It is a cycle we are going through. We are two or three months out from a federal election, and what better time than to put the current federal government on notice? Ask them: let’s put this whole issue to a referendum. Why not? They have broken a promise over the last four years in regard to this.
In her contribution the minister asked if there is a deal being done. These are important questions all Territorians have every right to ask. I do not know why people get so upset or defensive when we ask these questions. It is critical to the Northern Territory that we get answers. It is two or three months out from an election. Let’s ask the Prime Minister while he is here for the answers. There is nothing wrong with that.
I am interested in the contributions by members from Alice Springs in this debate. I recall great numbers of Central Australian people, particularly in Alice Springs, showing their opposition to the waste dump. We had thousands of people sign petitions voicing their opinion on the waste dump. Those voices should not be ignored by Canberra, let alone this parliament. It is very important that the thousands of people who signed petitions, the hundreds and thousands of people who have marched the streets of Alice Springs, are heard in this debate. It is important that I, as a member of the Alice Springs community, place that on the public record. There are thousands of people who have voiced their opinions through petitions and marches, particularly through the streets of Alice Springs. I have been there, walking side by side, with those Central Australian people.
They are the critical areas for me. It is important that Territorians do have a say and that they have an answer before the next election because it is a critical issue for the Northern Territory. I have been concerned for quite some time about the way things have been done in regard to the sites and the consultation with indigenous people. It has caused much division amongst our communities and they are the things that we must be very careful about when we are talking about major developments on Aboriginal land and throughout the remote areas of the Northern Territory. Consultation has to be done appropriately and properly with the right people.
This motion is about giving Territorians the opportunity to have some a say on such an important issue. We must remind people that this is a broken promise and we want a referendum to have a proper say on this vitally important issue.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I have a few comments on the minister’s motion, which I support. It is a festering sore on the Northern Territory and parts of regional Northern Territory which have been rocked by this proposal by the federal government.
I remember at the Katherine Show in July 2005, and the member for Katherine would remember this because she was equally shocked, when the news reports came from Brendan Nelson that they were going to impose a nuclear waste dump on the Territory at a site close to Katherine, Fishers Ridge. It was shocking because we had iron clad guarantees during the federal election the year before that this would not happen; there would never be a nuclear waste dump in the Territory; never, ever. People were reassured by that. So it was very shocking, very concerning, that this was happening, and happened so swiftly, less than 12 months after the federal election. We should remember, coming up to the next federal election, these broken promises and what the Howard government promises Territorians and Australians. So swiftly, they break those promises. They do not lose any sleep over it. They have no conviction about their comments or what their decisions will do to people. The federal Liberal government is a serial deceiver.
Initially, I would give credit to the member for Katherine who supported the opposition on the imposition of a nuclear waste dump in the Katherine region, but she has been pulled into line, tapped on the shoulder and told to shut up and toe the Johnny Howard line. She has been very, very quiet on the issue of late.
Mrs Miller interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs Miller: He is looking to the seat of Katherine. He is pretty keen on it, Madam Speaker.
Mr KNIGHT: I am, Madam Speaker, very keen on it. It is a lovely seat. I hear it is quite marginal.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: The story is getting around, member for Katherine. You are leaving. The story is getting around. They are lining up. I want to line up as well. You never know. Anyway, I digress.
Of particular relevance to me was the Fishers Ridge site, which is a very deceptive name. Fishers Ridge is actually away from the proposed site, the block of land that Defence owns. The actual site is on a limestone ridge with creeks running through it. I visited one site nearby, it would have been less than 5 km away, and there was a sinkhole the size of this Chamber which appeared only a Wet Season before, and it has been increasing. That is the area the Commonwealth is proposing for a nuclear waste dump. It is still on the cards. They are still doing assessments. You could have an above ground storage facility, as the member for Nelson said, but you could have an underground facility overnight basically because the thing might fall through the limestone caves. It is a very unusual site to be proposing for a nuclear waste facility.
Adjacent to that site is a small farm and a cattle property, as I have discussed before in this House, owned by Barry and Val Utley. They are beautiful people, the salt of the earth, worked all their lives in the agriculture and pastoral industry south of Mataranka. They are in their 60s and still doing it tough. They muster their cattle basically by hand. There is only the two of them. They live in very basic but very comfortable accommodation. They are in no way rich. They cannot afford any staff. They were absolutely shocked that this beautiful bit of pastoral land for which they had saved and bought was going to have a nuclear waste dump slapped right beside them, and on the opposite side of a watercourse, the King River. It was absolutely shocking and these people were absolutely devastated. I visited them. The member for Nelson did not visit them. The member for Nelson did not go to the Fishers Ridge site. He did not care. He says he cares about people and looking after them. He did not talk to the Utleys, beautiful people, worried out of their minds about this facility, and they are still worried about it.
Adjacent is the King River Station owned by Joe and Judith Tapp who are great people. The Tapp family is a long-standing pastoral family in the Northern Territory. They recently bought the property and are working very hard to upgrade it. Joe recently bought a $70 000 bull from Queensland. They are trying to develop the place. He is trying to breed up particular lines of cattle. The risk to his property from having a nuclear waste dump beside it would be incredible. You know, ‘The King River Station is adjacent to a nuclear waste dump; please take my bull to service your cows’. The potential users of that bull or buyers of those cattle, I am sure, would be scared away.
These are very concerned people. They are genuine Territorians. The CLP seems to have forgotten and drifted away from these genuine Territorians, and the Territory Labor government seems to be battling and fighting for them. The member for Blain calls people like Val and Barry Utley, and Joe and Judith Tapp ‘the peanut gallery’. Apparently they are a peanut gallery. What a disgusting comment about these people who have legitimate concerns; these cattle people, these senior Territorians, calling them a part of a peanut gallery. That is disgusting. I hope the member for Blain apologises to those people. They are wonderful people.
The member for Araluen sometimes seems to forget about democracy and speaking out for the people. She bags Darwin constantly and supports, supposedly, Alice Springs. She forgets there was petition signed in Alice Springs by 6000 people telling us they did not want the waste dump there. What did she do? She defended the Howard government and said this is a good thing. Forget about the petition. She does not stand up for Darwin. We know she hates Darwin, hates the rural area, hates so many things. She will not stand up for her own constituency within Alice Springs.
This motion calls for letting people have their say. Let us have a plebiscite on this issue; it is an important issue. It is nothing like the local government reform, nothing like it at all. Other speakers have alluded to that. Let us have a say about it.
I have spent some time in Tennant Creek. My son has family at Blue Bush Community, which is adjacent to Muckaty Station. The word has gone out that the federal government has done a deal; the federal government has signed up a deal to have the waste dump on Muckaty Station. That is the word coming to me. John Howard should not hide from this; he should come out and tell Territorians before the federal election: ‘Guess what? We have one; it is going to be at Muckaty Station. We are going to give you a waste dump at Muckaty Station’. Come out and reveal it. You have hidden so much, you have lied so much, come out and tell people exactly what you are doing: there is going to be a waste dump and it is going to be at Muckaty Station.
The motion calls on the Prime Minister to have some guts, honesty and integrity and to tell Territorians the truth. You have lied to them constantly. How about coming out and telling the truth?
My speech has gone for nine minutes. It was only going to be a short speech. The member for Blain alluded to the fact that other speakers have spoken for only 11 minutes. To correct the record, the member for Blain spoke for nine minutes. He was that disinterested that he waffled and rambled, calling salt-of-the-earth Territorians ‘peanuts’. How disgusting is that? The proud CLP, the party which hates everyone in the Territory, mostly people in Darwin and the rural area, now hates pastoralists and senior Territorians. They really have got away from themselves. They should close themselves down and become a branch of the Liberal Party and buckle down to Howard. You have done it already; be honest about it.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion.
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker I thank all members for their contributions. It was really important that, with the Prime Minister’s visit to the Territory, we raised this critically important question regarding whether the Howard government remains determined to push ahead with forcing a nuclear waste dump on Territorians in the Territory.
If that this the case, despite the wishes of this parliament and despite our legislative agenda to resist it, there needs to be a referendum to give people the opportunity to have their say. That is what we are calling for: give people the opportunity to have their say in a referendum on the introduction of a nuclear waste dump to the Territory, one in which all Territorians can participate because it will affect all Territorians.
We are also asking the Prime Minister to take the opportunity while in the Territory to come clean. Has there been a deal done by his government on Muckaty? If so, what is it? What type of deal has occurred for a nuclear waste dump near Tennant Creek? Will there be scientific data of the suitability of the site? Will there be an environmental assessment? What type of nuclear waste facility is proposed for Muckaty? What levels of radioactive waste will be dumped at Muckaty near Tennant Creek? They are necessary questions to ask the Prime Minister when he is in the Territory.
CLP members, in their contributions, seemed offended at the timing of these questions and this motion. They referred to it as a political stunt. It is not a stunt. These are legitimate questions for parliamentarians in the Territory to ask the Commonwealth about the rights of Territorians being overridden by the Commonwealth. We are clearly saying: ‘Give Territorians a say’.
There has been much misinformation and scurrilous allusions in this debate to shutting down treatment available to cancer patients. The Territory government is on the record saying we have no issue with storing our own waste. It is medical waste. We store it now and we will continue to store it. That is not at issue. We are also on the record as saying that we are calling for a scientific process across Australia to determine where any nuclear waste facility should be built. We have said that an open and transparent process based on the science is something we will cop fairly. We maintain that sites nominated in the Territory are not geographically appropriate for a nuclear waste dump. The site near Tennant Creek is in an earthquake zone.
I will be amending the motion that I have put to the Chamber. However, it will not be in line with the amendments proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. I will be amending the motion in terms of paragraph (a), which currently reads:
I will be removing the words ‘and bipartisan’ so that it will now read:
Whilst the Leader of the Opposition did her best to squib on the CLP’s position, what was once a position of clarity is now mud, absolute muckraking mud.
The Leader of the Opposition was right about her proposed amendment: no one has a problem with endorsing and welcoming referenda in respect of building nuclear power facilities as a precondition. That must be the case. Where the government differs from the CLP’s opposition is that we say included in the definition of nuclear facilities should be the nuclear waste dump.
The Leader of the Opposition is trying to rewrite history in the second paragraph of her amendment. She is trying to say, and trying to mislead this parliament, that the Commonwealth government has honoured its election promise not to locate a radioactive waste facility in the Northern Territory ‘in the current term of office’. That is an absolute rewriting of history. It is on the public record: the CLP gave a commitment prior to the last federal election that there would not be a nuclear waste dump in the Territory. They did not qualify it by saying ‘in the current term of office’. The Leader of the Opposition is on very dangerous ground when she tries to mislead not just this parliament, but the people of the Territory; very dangerous ground indeed.
The third paragraph calls on the Territory government to move to ‘immediately seek permission from the federal government to house the Territory’s radioactive waste’, and it goes on to deal with medical waste. We do not have to go cap in hand to Canberra to seek permission to store our own waste. We are a jurisdiction which very proudly takes care of its own affairs. We store our waste now. We will continue to store our waste. We do not need to seek permission, cap in hand, toadying to Canberra. That is an offensive proposition.
The fourth part of the Leader of the Opposition’s proposed amendment deals with publishing ‘the number and types of treatment that benefit from the isotopes produced in Australia, in particular cancer sufferers and the projected number of cancer sufferers who will benefit from such isotopes when the radiation oncology unit is built in Darwin’. We heard a contribution from the member for Sanderson in relation to the myth that has been perpetrated mainly by the member for Nelson, but now picked up and continued by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Blain. There is nothing in the motion that the government has proposed that would prevent the ongoing treatment of cancer sufferers, and nothing that would prevent the establishment and functioning of the oncology unit. It really is politics at an all-time new low to try to whip up fear amongst cancer sufferers that they will not be able to get the treatment they need. We are saying, as a government: let Territorians have their say about a nuclear waste dump and come clean on whether deals have been done. It is an all-time new low.
The sixth paragraph is about the Commonwealth government making public ‘the current status of its plans in respect of location of the national repository’. It is interesting they use the words ‘national repository’ instead of ‘nuclear waste dump’. It is more of the shadows in which they will lurk to try to avoid the real issue. We have been calling on the Howard government to come clean with the deal. Has the Prime Minister or any of his ministers signed a deal on a nuclear waste dump for the Territory? We are hearing they have. If the CLP know they have, why have they not come clean in debate today? It is despicable.
We are certainly not going to be congratulating the Prime Minister for his actions. I will congratulate the Prime Minister if he agrees to a referendum on the nuclear waste dump. I will congratulate the Prime Minister if he comes clean on any deal he has done, and explains in an open and transparent way exactly what the deal comprises and what the environmental and scientific processes around it will be to give us some certainty about the future of any facility in the Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition wanted to know, if there is a change of government at the federal level, where Labor stands on this issue. I will quote the policy of federal Labor:
That goes to the heart of what we are arguing today. Do not impose something on a people without at least giving them a chance to have their say in whether they want it. Do not impose a nuclear waste dump on the Territory without giving Territorians a say in a referendum. That is fundamental to democracy. Labor’s policy, federally, is:
Madam Speaker, the debate has been very disappointing from the opposition. Previously, they have been bipartisan in their opposition to a nuclear waste dump being imposed on the Territory, being imposed on Territorians. Now we hear words such as ‘get over it’, that we are in an inferior bargaining position and that they want to do what is ‘sensible and right’ for the country.
We are elected to represent first and foremost the people of the Territory. If a nuclear waste dump is essential for the country, then let there be a fair, open and transparent process based on science to identify where a dump should go. That is at the heart of what our government has argued and will continue to argue right up until the federal election and, if necessary, beyond.
We will not duck and hide. We will not slink in the shadows on the issue of a nuclear waste dump. We suspect, particularly given the directions of the federal government’s nuclear policy and the directions and statements from the Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer in terms of deals being done with nations which are not members of the non-proliferation treaty, we suspect and can only suspect because there is no information provided, no clarity around any deals, that a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory will, in fact, take high level radioactive waste. It will take the spent fuel rods from France. Will it take the spent fuel rods from China? Will it take spent fuel rods from elsewhere?
In Australia, the federal government proceeds with its nuclear power plants dotted around the country. Will we become the dumping ground for not only Australia but the world in terms of high-level radioactive waste? If that is the case, then absolutely there is strong argument that it should not be put in the Northern Territory, geographically unstable country.
This is a serious matter. This has been a serious debate. The CLP might want to brush it under the carpet and describe it as a political stunt. It is far from a political stunt. It is absolutely appropriate with the Prime Minister in our Territory to call him to answer some appropriate questions about what is being done in regard to a nuclear waste dump deal; and call on him to make sure that Territorians have a say in a referendum on whether they want a dump in the Territory. We witnessed the broken promises of the past. We are giving the Commonwealth government an opportunity to make amends. Be honest, be open and allow a referendum on a facility that will be a legacy for thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years.
Madam SPEAKER: I will now put the amendment to the motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition.
Amendment negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, did you want to move your amendment to the motion?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move that we amend the motion that I put before the House and remove the words ‘and bipartisan’ from paragraph (a).
Madam SPEAKER: We have two motions before the Chair. The first is an amendment moved by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage to paragraph (a) of the motion, and the second is the original motion. The question is that the amendment as moved by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the main motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Note Statement - Desert Knowledge Australia
Continued from 23 August 2007.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Minister for Regional Development’s statement on a critically important industry for the people living in the arid and semi-arid areas of the Northern Territory, Desert Knowledge. If there are two words that best describe my electorate they would be ‘desert’ and ‘knowledge’. ‘Desert’ because of the landscapes of the electorate of Stuart, such as the Tanami, the Great Sandy Desert to the west and the Lake Eyre Basin to the east. ‘Knowledge’ because 85% of my electorate is indigenous, and the powerful knowledge that these people in the desert have been able to develop over thousands years is unique and special. When you put the two words together, desert knowledge, you really get a sense of something truly exciting and innovative. When you put the two words together, desert knowledge, they represent the importance of bringing together indigenous and non-indigenous people to reap the hidden benefits of the desert.
I will give credit where credit is due, and the previous CLP government must take some accolade for their planting of the seeds of Desert Knowledge. However, I am proud that, as a member of the Martin Labor government, we have continued and demonstrated much support and commitment to the Desert Knowledge project reaching its full potential. This government’s commitment to Central Australia is demonstrated by the Moving Alice Ahead project. Desert Knowledge is one of 11 individual projects now under way as part of Moving Alice Ahead.
Desert Knowledge, as it will happen, includes creating a Desert Knowledge Precinct to provide the physical centre for Desert Knowledge Australia, and supporting desertSMART, a community business and government partnership that provides a holistic approach to energy use, building design, water and water issues and preserving water supplies by linking government and community together. We are also continuing to support recognition of Alice Springs as Australia’s solar centre, a program to demonstrate how solar power energy efficiency and new approaches can combine to provide a sustainable future. What it will mean for the residents is opportunities for more jobs and a stronger, more diverse economy, improving indigenous education and employment opportunities and outcomes, opportunities to take up sustainable living measures and a more environmentally sustainable town.
The Desert Knowledge Precinct is the face of Desert Knowledge Australia. Not only are the Desert Knowledge Australia headquarters going to be based at the precinct, but projects such as the Desert Knowledge Business Innovation Centre, the Desert Peoples Centre and, very soon, the solar demonstration facility, are beginning to grow amongst the spectacular corkwood trees at the precinct.
I have been very fortunate to attend some very important milestones for the Desert Knowledge Precinct. On 12 April this year, I had the privilege of representing the Northern Territory government at the turning of the first sod ceremony of the $5m Stage 1 of the Desert Peoples Centre at the precinct. I was joined by Mr Jim Bray, representing the Centre for Appropriate Technology, Barb Richards representing Batchelor Institute, and Mr Harold Furber as a member of the Desert Peoples Board.
Of all of the Desert Knowledge projects, this would have to be my favourite. I say that because I first became involved in the Desert Peoples Centre concept many years ago, in fact about 10 years ago. One of my earliest recollections of my involvement was a meeting of Batchelor College, the Centre for Appropriate Technology and the Institute for Aboriginal Development when they were involved in the project at the CRC Building. The late Mr Djerrkura was a strong advocate for the Desert Peoples Centre and, despite being from saltwater country, he gives me my best recollection. Mr Djerrkura was doing his best to support the three indigenous education providers to move in partnership. It was his words to the effect of ‘You desert mob have something special here, you are even beating us saltwater people in growing our knowledge and working together for our young people’. It is a moment that I often think about because it is true.
This Desert Knowledge concept is special. The Desert Peoples Centre is about opening the door for our young people. The importance of the Desert Peoples Centre is no more evident than in our government’s Closing the Gap initiatives. A case in point is when we look at the education part of our Closing the Gap strategy. The approach that we are taking is starting school early, improving attendance rates, providing high-quality teaching and leaving school later, all essential to improving literacy and numeracy skills amongst our indigenous children in the bush. Preschool and early education programs have been associated with increased levels of school completion, and improved literacy and social skills necessary for school success.
Also from our Closing the Gap generational plan, another important part relating to the Desert Knowledge project is employment. I quote from the plan, in particular the Local Jobs for Local People section of the plan:
The Desert Peoples Centre will provide those people living in my electorate of Stuart and other desert communities with opportunities to become real participants in the Central Australian and Northern Territory economy.
I would like to acknowledge a few people who in those earlier days were involved in the Desert Peoples Centre concept and the early meetings, including Dr Bruce Walker, Mr Jim Bray, Mrs Rosie Kunoth-Monks, Mr Harold Furber and Mrs Jenny Kroker. The other positive spin-offs from the Desert Peoples Centre is for the business community. I acknowledge and congratulate Sitzler Brothers, a local contractor, which has been awarded the contract to build the first five buildings for the Desert Peoples Centre. Completion of this work is on target for December 2007 in preparation for the 2008 school year.
I would like to repeat some of the figures the minister for Education mentioned in his contribution to the statement the other day. I quote:
Once again, in the context of this government’s Closing the Gap plan, it is very important that these challenges ahead for the communities and the people who live in the bush and in the desert are to be met. The Desert Knowledge Precinct, the Desert Knowledge Project and the Desert Peoples Centre are vitally important in meeting those figures and those challenges.
As the minister stated, Desert Knowledge Australia is a statutory corporation through the Desert Knowledge Act passed by this House in 2003. The act facilitated establishment of the Desert Knowledge Australia Board. I would like to briefly mention the board members of Desert Knowledge Australia, who include the Deputy Chair, Mr Harold Furber, a local Aboriginal man with a wealth of experience and someone I have had a lot to do with over many years including the earlier days when we were talking about the concept for the Desert Peoples Centre: Mr Alwyn McKenzie; Ms Sharon Hocking; Ms Beryl Meiklejohn; Ms Janet Turner, a local lady and a representative of Lhere Artepe Organisation and an IAD board member; Dr Bruce Walker, currently the CEO for the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Alice Springs; Mr Des Rogers, a local Aboriginal businessman; Mrs Kathy Finlayson; and Mr John Baskerville, the Northern Territory government senior representative.
Desert Knowledge Australia was asked by local Aboriginal groups to facilitate an indigenous education and employment task force for Alice Springs. This task force aims to build improved education, training and employment outcomes for indigenous people. One of the projects the taskforce has been successful in attracting is the Partnerships for Success program in Alice Springs, which I had the pleasure of launching at the Desert Lantern Restaurant in Alice Springs recently. The Partnership for Success program is a partnership between DEET, DEST, Centrecorp and the Graham ‘Polly’ Farmer Foundation. This program provides support and mentoring to indigenous secondary students to help them achieve Year 12 and then a university place, apprenticeship or job. I believe there are currently 33 indigenous secondary school students who have been selected to participate in the new program to help them complete Year 12 and transition to tertiary education, further training, apprenticeships or jobs.
The other exciting area of Desert Knowledge Australia is the Cooperative Research Centre. For my electorate, this is one of the exciting areas of the project in terms of research. I would just like to briefly mention a few of those projects that the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries mentioned in his speech. They include the Arid Zone Research Institute, which I have visited on a number of occasions. I also acknowledge Mr Phil Anning who has shown me around quite a few times; he is a local bloke who has been around the traps for a long time and is doing a great job at AZRI. Other projects which are exciting and relate to my electorate include: the Alice Springs Water Recycling Scheme; the Solar Technology Demonstration Facility; the CRC Bush Food System research trial; the 21st Century Pastoral Project; and the first Northern Territory Indigenous Pastoral Program.
The Indigenous Pastoral Program is achieving some great outcomes in the bush. The Central Land Council is a strong supporter of it and a partner with the Indigenous Land Corporation, the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines, the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. I would like to quote from a media release from the Central Land Council some time ago in relation to the Indigenous Pastoral Program. The CLC Director, David Ross, said:
They are highly relevant words in today’s climate, given the recent intervention from Canberra.
For many of the pastoral properties in my electorate, the work that the Cooperative Research Centre is doing is fantastic, particularly looking at those projects which will help create sustainable desert livelihoods and communities. A few of those projects include a walkover weighing system for cattle with a remote programmable telemetry system to significantly improve herd management and understanding the changing demography in the desert. Most recently, a research study to understand mobility in Alice Springs Town Camps is an exciting research project they have undertaken.
A key aspect of Desert Knowledge is involving indigenous people. I acknowledge the Lhere Artepe Aboriginal Corporation, which became signatories to the Desert Knowledge Precinct Indigenous Land Use Agreement. I recall the earlier days in the precinct when Lhere Artepe became involved initially with land clearances, but during the recent public open day for the Desert Knowledge Precinct, they were again involved so it is great to see the Lhere Artepe Aboriginal organisation staying involved in the project from the beginning.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion I am very excited about the Desert Knowledge Australia project. It is going to provide real opportunities for all Central Australians and in particular, the rapidly growing indigenous population. It is very exciting to be a member of the government who lives in Alice Springs to see the Desert Knowledge Precinct taking shape and Desert Knowledge projects becoming a reality. These types of partnerships are essential because of the dramatic increase in our indigenous population and the growing need for these types of facilities. I close by thanking Mr Fred Chaney for his leadership and his board’s leadership, and I look forward to more good news coming from the Desert Knowledge Precinct in the future.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions to the Desert Knowledge Australia statement.
We were debating about who is the father of the Desert Knowledge Australia. The reality is it might have been conceived during the CLP days, but we are the ones who saw through incubation and delivery of the baby. We helped it take its first step and become a reality from an idea from Dr Bruce Walker. I must apologise to Dr Walker; I referred to him in my statement as Mr Bruce Walker.
I thank members for their contributions. I thank the member for Drysdale who touched on the diversity of thought and endeavour being undertaken at DKA: bush food; solar demonstrations; kinetic plant improvements; improving the economic viability of pastoral properties; pre-employment courses; high speed data transfers; water storage and control; water recycling; and the list goes on. I thank the member for Barkly who stressed the partnerships that have been built and had to be built to create Desert Knowledge Australia. Organisations such as the Centre for Appropriate Technology, the Batchelor Institute, the Chief Minister’s Department, Desert Knowledge, CLC, DBERD, DPIFM, Indigenous Education and many others which came together.
I thank the member for Wanguri who had carriage of the implementation process and who spoke about the difficulties and confusion that reigned at the time concerning funding responsibilities. He also informed the Assembly how he was sold the vision for Desert Knowledge Australia by Dr Bruce Walker, Mrs Rosie Kunoth-Monks and Mr Harold Furber. At the time, the vision was still emerging, but their enthusiasm captivated him.
I was a bit troubled when the member for Katherine made some very interesting statements. First, she made a comment that my statement about DKA was a party political broadcast on behalf of the ALP. In contrast, the member for Araluen, the Leader of the Opposition, said it was a good news story. It is a good news story. The member for Katherine further said that, in terms of contribution, more than two-thirds of the contribution was made by the Howard Liberal National Coalition government, and she is wrong. As a matter of fact, the Northern Territory government contributes $30.2m over three years, and this money is spread as $2.5m for the Business Innovation Centre that houses the staff of the DKA; $17m for stage one of the Desert Peoples Centre; and $10.7m for headworks. On the other hand, the Commonwealth contribution is $9.6m: a $1.25m grant to support the Business Innovation Centre; and $8.4m for the Desert Peoples Centre. So it is not a majority contribution by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has come to the party, together with the states like South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. We all have common interests; we share an arid environment and we want to work together.
The member for Katherine sought answers to a number of questions concerning construction, occupancy and content. I am happy to provide these answers. There are two stages to the Desert Knowledge Precinct. The first stage involves construction of 16 buildings that will be home to Desert Knowledge Australia, the Desert Knowledge CRC, the Centre for Appropriate Technology and the Batchelor Institute for Indigenous Tertiary Education. The remaining 12 buildings will cater for up to 700 students and administrative offices. The additional buildings will be occupied by administrative services, a library, a Living Desert Centre, workshop, meeting rooms, student facilities, teachers’ areas, a health clinic and an arts and crafts studio.
I thank the member for Araluen for her constructive comments. It is a good news story. Irrespective of when it was conceived, who thought about it first, the reality is it is now there. It was very good work from people from many different political sides of government, but it became a reality and will continue to evolve. I know that the then Chief Minister, Denis Burke, spoke about it in 2000; and minister Baldwin spoke about it 1999. However, our government, when elected in 2001, took it over. We agreed with the ideas provided to us by Dr Walker and everyone else who supported it. We knew it was a good idea. We decided to support it because we believe desert knowledge is something that can provide prosperity for people in arid environments and create wealth.
The member for Katherine was a bit confused; confused that prosperity sharing and wealth creation would be wealth redistribution. Desert Knowledge Australia is not about wealth distribution. It is about using the knowledge of the people living in the arid environment, utilising this knowledge to address some of the problems, as the member for Stuart mentioned - water conservation, solar energy, living in the desert, mining in the desert, production in the desert - and use this experience, not only to sell it in Australia, but sell it overseas. It is a fact that as our world becomes more and more arid, more and more people will live in an arid environment and more and more people will require these solutions.
Many times I and other people have wondered what Desert Knowledge Australia will look like when it is finished, but our enthusiasm is still there. We believe in Desert Knowledge Australia and we support Desert Knowledge Australia. Thank you to the Chair, Fred Chaney, for his enthusiasm. We have worked together very closely, as was the case with my predecessor, the member for Wanguri when he was the minister, and we believe that there is a big future for Desert Knowledge Australia.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I am looking forward to a big and bright future for Desert Knowledge Australia.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s August 2007 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
Mr STIRLING (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Minister, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Minister, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and the Chief Minister have leave to continue her remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I inform the House of the outcomes of my Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines’ Building the Territory’s Resource Base investment attraction program, and the way forward with our new program, Bringing Forward Discovery, in short, to highlight the support government is providing to ensure we continue to encourage a strong and robust mining and exploration sector in the Territory; that is, the measures we are taking to secure the Territory’s minerals growth.
The Northern Territory’s economy is performing strongly on the back of mining and petroleum activity. Our economy grew by 7.5% in 2005-06, the highest of all Australian jurisdictions, and the resources sector contributed more than 50% of that growth. The mining and petroleum sectors currently account for over 25% of the Northern Territory economy, and that rises to over 40% if you include alumina and LNG production, a clear demonstration of the importance of this sector to the Territory economy.
In 2003, the government announced $15.2m funding over four years for an integrated mineral and petroleum exploration investment strategy named Building the Territory’s Resource Base, comprising four inter-related elements: continued acquisition and provision of high-quality pre-competitive geoscientific data; increased capacity to process and manage exploration and mining tenure; enhanced indigenous community engagement and land access support; and promotion of the Territory as an attractive destination for exploration and mining investment. As the program picked up speed, it was clear to all involved that substantial progress was being made. However, rather than rely on anecdotal evidence of the program’s success, the government commissioned a formal assessment.
An independent review of the progress and strategic direction of Building the Territory’s Resource Base was undertaken by ACIL Tasman in 2005-06 and reported to government in June 2006. The review gave a positive assessment, with particular emphasis on the quality and targeting of geoscientific programs and promotional activities, as well as the dramatic increase in the new exploration licence applications. The Building the Territory’s Resource Base initiative came to an end on 30 June this year. I am pleased to say that the success of this program has contributed to a 72% increase in mineral exploration expenditure over the past four years, and has left the Territory well poised to take advantage of the current global resources boom. Perhaps more importantly, the Territory has also begun to increase its share of Australian exploration expenditure after years of decline.
The mining industry in the Territory is now booming and six new mining and processing operations have commenced in the last 18 months. These are:
the Bootu Creek Mine of OM Holdings, which has opened approximately 110 km north of Tennant Creek. This is the first major mining development in the Tennant/Barkly region for several years. The mine currently employs 150 staff and contractors, and is producing up to 600 000 tonnes per year of manganese. The ore is trucked to the railhead, rail freighted to Darwin, and then exported through the new Darwin port facility to China. To date, 12 shipments have been exported to China;
the Union Reef gold processing plant near Pine Creek was recently opened by GBS Gold. This is the only operating processing plant in the historic Pine Creek goldfield. GBS will be progressively developing a series of mining operations from Adelaide River to Katherine over the next eight to 10 years, and transporting the ore to Union Reef for processing. GBS is currently mining in the Brocks Creek and Fountain Head mines and, later this year, will be developing the Mottrams and Chinese South open cut pits at the old Cosmo Howley mine. GBS currently employs around 151 staff and an additional 139 contractors. The project will create up to 300 direct jobs with the development of further sites. GBS aims to build up to a consistent annual gold production rate at 300 000 ounces by 2009;
the Old Tom’s Gully mine near Mount Bundy has been reopened by Renison Consolidated Mines to develop a significant underground gold resource. Recently, this mine has also been purchased by GBS Gold. The mine will produce about 45 000 ounces per year;
the Matilda Minerals zircon-sand mining operation on Melville Island is the first commercial mining operation on the Tiwi Islands. The mine has a small permanent workforce of eight people and will produce 107 000 tonnes of zircon and rutile mineral sands over a 3.5 to 4 year mine life. The mineral sands are exported directly from Port Melville, with the first export shipment occurring earlier this year; and
the Peko Rehabilitation Project has commenced re-treatment and processing of old tailings dumps at the Peko Mine, about 14 km east of Tennant Creek. Reprocessing of the dumps will produce significant quantities of magnetite, gold, copper and cobalt, and at the same time contribute to the rehabilitation of the old mine site. The magnetite plant is now in production. Development of the gold and copper extraction plants is expected to commence later this year; the cobalt plant is scheduled to start in 2008. The mine currently employs about 12 people, plus contractors, and this is expected to increase to about 15 employees when in full production. The mine has an expected life of about seven years.
In addition, Territory Resources has recently reopened the Frances Creek iron ore mine north of Pine Creek. This mine employs about 70 people and will initially produce one million tonnes of iron ore per year. The ore is trucked to the railway, rail freighted to Darwin, and then stockpiled at the port for export through the new Darwin bulk loading facilities to China. The first export shipment is scheduled for late next month. The mine has a current life of about five years, however this is expected to significantly increase as exploration continues to identify additional oil reserves.
Up to six more projects are expected or likely to commence operations during the next 12 to 18 months. These include the Brown’s Oxide Polymetallic Project, which Compass Resources is developing near Batchelor. The approved project has a four year life, and will process two million tones of oxide ore from an open cut pit to produce 10 000 tonnes of copper cathode, 1000 tonnes of cobalt chemical, and 850 tonnes of nickel chemical per year. Capital expenditure is estimated at up to $100m. At current metal prices, it is anticipated that approximately $170m per year could be added to the Northern Territory export value. During the nine-month construction period, up to 150 people are employed at the site. The operations phase will provide jobs for over 80 people, including approximately 20 mine contractors. Development of the site is about 85% completed, and the plant is scheduled for commissioning in October this year.
GBS Gold will be developing the Mottrams and Chinese South open pit gold deposits at Cosmo Howley later this year. Subject to the successful outcome of environmental assessments, GBS proposes next year to develop the Princess Louise and North Point gold deposits north of Pine Creek and the Maud Creek gold mine near Katherine.
Olympia Resources is scheduled to commence development of its garnet sands project at Harts Range north-east of Alice Springs later this year or early next year. The project has a long mine life of more than 20 years, and will create local employment as well as new export products for the Northern Territory.
Thor Mining PLC has recently completed the environmental assessment process for its tungsten and molybdenum project at Molyhill, 240 km north east of Alice Springs. Subject to the successful completion of some additional studies, the project is likely to proceed in 2008.
North Australian Diamonds is evaluating the feasibility of reopening the Merlin diamond mine in the Gulf of Carpentaria for open cut and underground mining operations.
Redbank Mines has identified further copper deposits at the Redbank Mine site, also in the Gulf of Carpentaria. The company is assessing the feasibility of establishing a new copper flotation plant to process the identified 4.2 mega-tonnes of ore at 1.5% copper over a five to seven year period.
There are other projects in the pipeline which are lined up for development in the medium term. For example, Arafura Resources’ Nolan’s Bore Project and the Browns sulphide development of Compass Resources. It is also worth noting that the five existing major mines - Alcan Gove, which produces bauxite and alumina, the GEMCO maganese mine, ERA’s Ranger Uranium mine, the zinc-lead mine of McArthur River Mining, as well as Newmont’s Callie gold mine - all have extensions or expansions of their operations under way or proposed.
In the context of this mining industry expansion, several new Northern Territory project offices have recently been opened. Compass Resources and Arafura Resources have opened offices in Darwin, and GBS Gold has opened an office in Katherine. Although mining and exploration activity is healthy, more major new greenfields discoveries are needed to sustain the industry into the future. This is where Bringing Forward Discovery, the successor of Building the Territory’s Resource Base, comes in.
There remains a highly competitive market for minerals and petroleum exploration investment both nationally and internationally. All other Australian jurisdictions have government-funded exploration investment attraction programs tailored to their particular geological and legislative environments. The Territory needs to build on its success and increase its share of the total exploration investment in Australia. The Territory’s share currently sits at 6%, fifth behind Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales.
In order to meet this challenge, the Northern Territory government has recently launched the new four-year $12m exploration investment attraction program Bringing Forward Discovery to build on the achievements of previous initiatives. The focus of this new program is to bring forward major mineral and petroleum discoveries which are essential to guarantee the long term wealth-generating capacity of the Territory’s most significant industry sector. It is worth noting that of all the industry sectors, it is mining which has the potential to provide jobs and sustainable economic development to many remote indigenous communities. The program aims to increase exploration activity in the Territory and lower exploration risk, thus increasing the likelihood of new discoveries. It also seeks to maximise outcomes from the commodity boom by working with miners, developers and investors to convert many of the known deposits and prospects into operational mines as soon as possible. The programs of Bringing Forward Discovery will be undertaken by three main teams in my department.
The Northern Territory Geological Survey team will be undertaking a series of programs where they focus on targeted data acquisition. These are designed to open up new areas of mineral and petroleum exploration to lower exploration risk and thereby increase the chances of new discoveries. The Geological Survey team will achieve these goals by developing an improved three-dimensional understanding of the Territory’s geology and providing the necessary data to decrease exploration risk in greenfield areas, especially those under cover. This will involve regional gravity surveys, high quality targeted geoscience, detailed prospectivity analysis of greenfield terrains and improved online access to data and information. Initial areas of focus include Arnhem Land, the eastern Arunta Region, and parts of the southern McArthur Basin.
The Northern Territory Geological Survey has a history of providing high quality geoscientific data and has almost completed airborne magnetic and radiometric coverage of the entire Northern Territory. To complement this data-set, the survey is committed to spending $3m on a campaign to acquire regional gravity data at a station spacing of 4km or less over poorly exposed greenfield terrains. This will provide a completed data-set, which has not been available previously, for prospective explorers.
The second team is the Minerals and Energy Titles team. The grant of titles for exploration and mining is fundamental for the development of the mining and petroleum sectors. The number of granted exploration licences is at an all-time high of 972 and the applications continue to stream in. This team is responsible for those grants.
The Titles team provides vital information and assistance to explorers and miners by the provision of an Internet-based Titles Information System. This provides clients with the tools to search the Territory for land available for exploration and to find out status and cadastre details of that land at the click of a button. Furthermore, the Titles team charts, advertises, assesses and grants titles for both mineral and petroleum exploration and mining, as well as providing timely administration of all mining and petroleum tenure. The team also provides a high level of tenure information to all stakeholders to assist in gaining the best outcomes of land access for all concerned.
Importantly, the Native Title and Land Rights Unit, in conjunction with the Customer Service Unit, continues to assist companies to get onto the ground by guiding them through the land access legislation, the Native Title Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, and providing streamlined processes, including the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act. The expedited procedure under the Native Title Act has proved particularly successful. This process provides explorers with a clear and timely process for the grant of exploration licences on pastoral lease land.
Arrangements to access Aboriginal freehold land and the government’s role of assisting explorers and miners in this quest has changed due to the recent amendments by the Commonwealth to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. These changes are being picked up in the Territory by the Mining and Petroleum (Aboriginal Land Rights) Amendment Bill, which is currently before the House. The changes provide the Territory with greater involvement in the process of obtaining access to Aboriginal freehold land for exploration and allow Territory representatives to attend the initial meetings between traditional owners and the exploration company.
Access to Aboriginal freehold land for explorers, however, remains a challenge, with the high level of interest driven by the commodity market resulting in a significant number of outstanding exploration licence applications over Aboriginal freehold land. At 30 June this year, there were 522 outstanding exploration licences on Aboriginal freehold land compared with 387 outstanding applications at the same time last year. The grant of these licences has the potential to provide benefit to indigenous landholders and all parties must strive to break the backlog. I am optimistic the recent changes to the Commonwealth legislation, which we will be mirroring, will assist that process.
Third, the Resource Development and Policy Team will be promoting the Territory as an exploration and investment location, both nationally and internationally, and will assist the industry through the facilitation of mining developments.
Plans have been made to promote Bringing Forward Discovery to the Australian market through a seminar series to be held in Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth. The official launch of the new investment attraction program will showcase geoscience data and the capabilities of the Northern Territory Geological Survey to assist industry to identify exploration and investment opportunities. The seminar series will be supported by private sector partner KPMG and will target 200 companies in the resource sector. These seminars will be held in parallel with existing conferences, Mining 2007 in Brisbane, and the AMEC National Congress in Perth, which allows us to promote Bringing Forward Discovery to a further 700 executives in the industry.
The springboard used to bring the Bringing Forward Discovery program to the attention of target audiences is the Top End Secret campaign. This highly successful initiative is currently being updated. The refreshed campaign, called Top End Secret 2, will be launched to re-ignite the resource sector excitement in the possibilities of exploring and investing in the Northern Territory’s mineral potential. The new campaign theme will be applied to marketing collateral, website and event displays. I will be able to report on the results of this launch at a later date.
I have reported previously to the House on my visit to China last year. I am now pleased to report that the Territory is the only jurisdiction in Australia with a targeted investment attraction program aimed squarely at China.
My department has developed a China Minerals Investment Attraction Strategy which aims to competitively position the Northern Territory in the China market, and to assist mining and exploration companies with projects in the Territory to identify and develop Chinese business links. The strategy’s promotional theme is ‘Australia’s Northern Territory – Vast Land, Rich Minerals, Future Opportunity’. Chinese language kits have been prepared, modelled on the Top End Secret campaign. This plan looks at the future and is a six-year strategy that aims to: raise the profile of the Northern Territory in China through ministerial and other Northern Territory delegations to China, plus inbound visits; develop partnerships with key Chinese networks to promote businesses operating in the Territory; build relationships with potential Chinese investors; and broker contacts and assist companies with Chinese business liaison.
There are strong historical links and growing mining links between the Territory and China. China is important both as an investor and a market. Several Territory mines export product to China, and a major China mining joint venture was recently signed in the Territory between Compass Resources and Hunan Nonferrous Corporation, covering the Browns polymetallic project and regional exploration. Chinese investment interest in the mining sector is evident. Our task is to filter and direct the contacts, and to match potential investors with explorers and developers.
In the last year, we have undertaken two missions to China, including my delegation last November and a technical team last May. A number of key results have been achieved since my visit: 10 Chinese organisations have visited Darwin, with a number of organisations making multiple visits; two local companies are in partnering discussions with potential Chinese investors; several exploration licence applications have been submitted by Chinese companies; Sinosteel has announced sponsorship of the Darwin Symphony Orchestra; and cooperation agreements have been drafted with the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Metals and Minerals and the China Mining Association. These will be put before Cabinet for a decision shortly.
Chinese investment in the Territory’s mineral sector will increase exploration expenditure, increase the potential for mineral discoveries, and support the development of the Territory’s mining industry. Most of the major Chinese companies operating or seeking to invest overseas and are state-owned enterprises. In other words, they are controlled by the central government. This means that it is appropriate and necessary for the Northern Territory government to be involved in developing the relationships and networks which are a bridge for industry to build relationships. There has been strong industry participation and support for all activities, outbound and inbound, under the China strategy. It is anticipated that five to six companies will participate in my proposed delegation to China in November this year.
The strength and growth of our resources industry is currently underpinning much of the Territory’s economy, but we need to take care of the longer term, too. Many of the new and upcoming developments I mentioned earlier are based on long-known deposits, and we need more major greenfield discoveries. The message Bringing Forward Discovery gives prospective investors and explorers is simple and compelling: the Territory is under-explored and not fully tested by modern exploration techniques, so the chances of new discoveries are considered high, and now is the time to become involved.
I should note the infrastructure development that has been, and is being, undertaken by government and industry in support of the mining sector. Foremost examples are the railway and the bulk handling and ship loading facility at the East Arm port. We understand the importance of a multi-pronged strategy that addresses all of the infrastructure issues, both hard and soft. Securing the growth of the mining sector in the Territory will help us move the Territory ahead and promote economic development and job opportunities within the Territory.
The mining and energy industries account for over 25% of the Territory’s GSP and, if we want to maintain and grow this figure, we must ensure that we are at the forefront of data acquisition and promotion. We must also continue to highlight and promote the exploration and development potential of the Territory and sustain the enormous contribution made by the resources sector to the Territory economy. Bringing Forward Discovery will ensure that we not only build on our past but that we create new successes.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement, which was very well read. This is a very important part of the Northern Territory and has been in force for many years since the discovery of uranium at Rum Jungle in the late 1940s or early 1950s. The length and breadth of the Northern Territory presents opportunities for mining: Gove, Groote Eylandt, Ranger, McArthur River, Granites, Pine Creek, the list goes on. This is a wonderful place for mineral exploration. Governments in the past, and this government as well, try to ensure that the benefits presented from mining flow on to everyone in the Northern Territory, albeit in direct and indirect ways.
The minister is one of the luckiest ministers in the Cabinet having somewhat remarkably retained his portfolio of Mining. It is remarkable because his performance as Mining minister amounts to a joke since he took on the portfolio. Members will recall, we said it in the Chamber, the senior people particularly in the mining industry were very concerned that an industry of this significance had as a minister a new minister, and a junior minister at that. That remains an ongoing concern. People need only look back at the minister’s woeful performance when it comes to McArthur River Mine to be reminded of his very unremarkable, ordinary and woeful performance as minister. I note in his report he referred to an ‘open cut pit’. I hope the minister has now learned the difference and of course I am referring to what can only be described as the McArthur River debacle.
I should say that this minister embarrassed the Northern Territory both nationally and in mining circles internationally with the way the McArthur River mine debacle was handled, or indeed it would be more accurate to say mishandled. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber joins with me in wishing this minister would do better. I am sure that he is able to do better, or at the very least I am very happy to give him the benefit of the doubt in that regard. He certainly needs to do better.
I am reminded of what he said in Estimates on 29 June this year. I asked about a uranium refinement plant that may be built in Darwin Harbour. This minister said, and I quote:
That is an extraordinary thing for a minister for Mines to say. This is a bloke who unfortunately demonstrated then, and he is still doing it, that he really does not have much of an understanding of the portfolio. Having said that, the opposition along with so many other Territorians, really want him to do well because the importance of mining to the Territory cannot be underestimated.
I note that he referred to the exploration initiative. That is not new. The CLP, under Denis Burke, announced that initiative in 2000-01. The government announced $16m for an exploration initiative, and the intention then was to provide quality geoscientific data for use by Territory explorers into the next century. I am pleased the minister sees fit to continue this initiative, and I think the figure he mentioned was $12m. This is a worthy investment by any government, regardless of its political colour.
The minister referred to benefits in employment which arise as a result of mining in the Territory. A good example is McArthur River Mine. We said at the time, and we will continue to say it: MRM is a very good corporate citizen. It does a lot for its local community, as does every other mining investor. The minister referred to the Darwin Symphony Orchestra. In times gone by, we have had mining companies in the Territory who have had relationships with the Darwin Symphony Orchestra, and they have made various contributions. Every mining company we have in the Territory is a good corporate citizen, and this is what we would expect. We expect to see the benefits of employment and exploration flow throughout the Northern Territory, and we can look to our mining industry for leadership in that regard.
The effect, it seems to me, of the minister’s statement was that the mining industry is doing well, with a suggestion it is all because of this government. If it was the minister’s intention to represent that as the case, I would like to call him out on it. There is a view the mining industry is doing well in the Territory despite this government. It is a fact the current minerals boom and interest in the Northern Territory has been driven by commodity prices, and we all know this government does not have anything to do with commodity prices.
One thing I do not believe the minister said in his statement is what the government is going to do if the current cycle changes. Governments must not only focus on the positives, but they must have contingency plans. In the event the current booming cycle changes, is there a contingency plan by the government to see if it can address any shortfalls or, indeed, if the projection of the boom in any way falls short? That would obviously have ongoing or wide-ranging effects on the Northern Territory, whether it is from a financial or employment point of view and so on.
The government cannot, and I know others share this view, take any credit for new companies coming to the Territory because it is the individual companies which take the risk. It is fair to say that this government generally is perceived as being relatively lacklustre when it comes to developing the industry. I do not assert the government has not done a single thing; certainly there are things which any government should do.
I do not think the spin we are increasingly seeing from this government is desirable in dealing with the mining industry. We all want to see good results and those involved in mining can separate substance from spin. It is the innovative companies which take the risks. Any government should try to assist them, but there is a perception that the government is a lacklustre one. I understand there remains a lack of taxation of economic incentives and on the ongoing issue of difficulty with land access. I am not entirely satisfied the government has any answers.
I will refer to a couple of specific points the minister made. The Browns Oxide Polymetallic mine is welcome, and congratulations to the company. You have to ask, though, if the government will be just as supportive and enthusiastic when the company, if it does, announces that it wants to develop a new uranium mine. As I understand, it has pretty good prospects at Mount Fitch, I believe it is.
In addition, while it is the case that some companies have moved offices to Darwin, I believe the minister referred to two, the question has to be asked: what is government doing to encourage more companies to do the same? We must have a forward projection, the graph has to go up, notwithstanding there is the necessity to have plans in place in the event that the projections are not as good as we would all like. I ask: what is government doing to ensure that we get even more mining companies here? Companies, as I have already said, take the risk and commit to the Territory not because of the existence of a Labor government; they do so because of high levels of mineral prospectivity that exist in the Territory and have been developed and explored since about the 1950s. I ask: what will the government’s position be? Will the minister be as seemingly enthusiastic when the Nolans Bore proponent wants to build its processing plant in or around Darwin to process the rare earths and uranium deposit just north of Alice Springs?
The minister will remember that we raised this in Estimates, and he did not seem to know very much about it. On 29 June he said:
The geoscience program is good. There should be money for geoscience programs and further development. It should be second nature to a government. Presumably the minister issues a media release every time there is some money moving from point A to point B. It is not something that you need to necessarily crow about. It is the work of government. When we see this government doing its daily work, we see media releases pumped out from this entity called the newsroom, as if to say to people, ‘Aren’t we wonderful?’ Well, it is your job. This minister, although he does not have his head around it as well as some of his colleagues, needs to appreciate that it is the daily work of a mining minister to ensure development, to cultivate relationships, to harness existing relationships and to increasingly look at the long term.
Clearly, geoscience programs need to be maintained and, indeed, if they are not improved and further developed, then a view could be put that the competitive edge with its minerals competitive states and countries might be diminished over time unless the minister gets it right. I understand that Cabinet struggled to understand what role government plays in attracting investment by providing pre-competitive geoscience information. I further understand that it took significant lobbying from industry to secure the funding. It should be noted that $12m is not all for geoscience, but across the department. If the minister has a contrary view, I invite him to put that view in his response. In real terms, there is a view that the government may have, over time, decreased funding for geoscience programs, given the spread across the department.
In relation to all of the project information, of course, that is good news. Why is government trying to rate mineral leases, which will see some small operators forced out of business, and the extractive industry possibly forced to the wall due to the excessive rates they will have to pay. Can the minister give a categorical guarantee in his response that government will not rate exploration licences? I invite the minister to respond to those issues in his response.
There is no doubt that the potential of the Territory’s mining industry is seemingly limitless. Certainly in the current climate, explorations are to be encouraged, and they should be. That should be the work of government. If government wants to further develop the industry, it can count on the opposition’s support. As I said when I opened, the mining sector not only is important to the Territory, but it covers the length and breadth of the Territory. All of us in our areas, with the obvious exception of Darwin urban areas, know of or have mining developments or potential projects in or next to our electorates. I know that our constituents and, in turn, the people of the Northern Territory, value very much. It is incumbent on government to do everything it can to encourage the industry. We have to have a can-do government.
I am very pleased that federal Labor decided to overturn its position on uranium mining. We have huge amounts of uranium in the Territory and, provided that the standard safeguards are adhered to, uranium should be mined. I am pleased to see the ideological blockages of Territory Labor and, indeed, federal Labor, move on. That is to be welcomed.
Minister, I sincerely wish you well. I cannot look you in the eye and say I have enormous confidence that you will do well. However, for the sake of the Northern Territory and those involved in the mining industry, I certainly hope that you can do well in this very important portfolio. I thank you very much for your statement today.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have said before that the mining industry has the potential to make a substantial contribution to regional and indigenous economic development of the Territory. It was very interesting to listen to the Leader of the Opposition’s comments about mining; that mining in the Territory just happens because the commodity price is high. There is no doubt that, if the commodity price is very high, mining companies will go to the places where there are these commodities and will explore or excavate.
I remind the member for Araluen that when the CLP was in government, by their own ministerial admission, it was very sad to see the number of mines declining. From so many mines, it was down to only seven left in the Territory. That lasted for a long time because the word out there was that you could not have access to land in the Territory. Was the access to land a problem of the indigenous people, or because it was impossible to negotiate a lease with the Northern Land Council, or because the then CLP government decided to play political games by not issuing exploration licences to people who wanted to explore the Territory?
My colleague, the member for Wanguri, when he became the minister for Mines, was advised that there were a number of licence applications sitting on the desk, unattended for many years because the then CLP government wanted to play political games and tell the mining industry the only reason they cannot have access to the exploration leases in the Territory is because the blackfellas won’t let them do it. As a result of that, the Territory was in a very abysmal place in the Fraser Institute index. The Fraser Institute is an international organisation which assesses different jurisdictions around the world and categorises them with regards to mineral potential, the ease with which you can do business in that area and how easily you can access land. The Territory was down 26 or 27 on the Fraser Institute index. I am very pleased that when I left the portfolio, the Territory was sixth on the Fraser Institute index.
The Leader of the Opposition commented that no new companies were brought here because of the government, and that is wrong. The reason companies come to the Territory is because we are able to provide them with vital information that other jurisdictions do not provide. I have attended many mining conferences in different jurisdictions, in different states, and I was told by many mineral companies that all they received from the Department of Mines in Western Australia or Queensland or even in South Australia were coasters and pens, while from the Northern Territory they received information on CDs or hard publications about exploration, the geophysical data that the department collects and they were provided free of charge. The department has also developed tools on the Internet which companies, wherever they are in the world, can access to find out who has the title, the exploration licences, what was found in the area, when it was found, the tonnage and who is the current owner. These companies find this information very useful and it helps them make decisions about exploring in the Territory.
In the old times it was the big companies which did the exploration. The big companies had the ability and the capital to invest in exploration. Times have changed. Now the big companies are publicly listed and they do not want to waste shareholders’ money in exploration. Here, small companies are doing the exploration and then selling the results to the big companies which will proceed to mine.
Our government has facilitated development of new mines in the Territory not only by providing the information, the geophysical data, not only by fast tracking applications for exploration licences, but also facilitating the establishment of these companies in the Northern Territory. I am very pleased to see that my successor, the member for Drysdale, has followed my example and has travelled everywhere in the world to promote the Territory as a mining destination. We are competing against Western Australia and now Queensland, but we have to remember that the Western Australian mining tenements are taken already or have been taken for many years, and it is very difficult to find a parcel of land for exploration. The Territory is virtually unexplored with a very small number of exploration companies and a very small number of drill holes so it becomes very attractive for the companies to explore in the Territory.
Mining companies have the potential to make a substantial contribution to the regional economic development of the Territory and to employ many Territorians and many indigenous Territorians. My department is working very closely with the department of Mines and with the mining companies in order to identify pathways and opportunities for indigenous businesses. For example, the McArthur River Mine Community Benefit Trust was established to ensure that people in Borroloola and Gulf region take advantage of the opportunities the expanding mine will bring. Mining is one industry that offers opportunities for Aboriginal participation in remote parts of the Northern Territory. The role of facilitating Territory business participation in the mining industry is a core role of my department and will continue under the new Bringing Forward Discovery initiative of the department of Mines. Additionally, DBERD will also assist indigenous business to actively participate in the mining industry.
The time has never been better as evidenced by the willingness of mining companies to engage with local stakeholders. All of the older established companies and newer companies operating in the Territory are quietly getting on with the job. A recent success has been the Coyote gold mine in the Tanami where Central Desert Enterprises Capital, a Northern Territory indigenous enterprise, secured contracts which resulted in significant employment opportunities for indigenous people.
Mining developments that flow from exploration success present a major component of whole-of-government approach for supporting a viable future for indigenous people. The mining and petroleum sector was the major Northern Territory economic growth provider of 2005-06 accounting for 56% of total Territory growth. The mining sector, by far the biggest contributor to Territory economy, now comprises 26% or $3bn of the Northern Territory economy. This compares with 22% and $2.3bn in the previous year. This growth is expected to continue.
The mining sector has relatively low linkages with other production sectors of the Northern Territory economy. Its strongest links are with the manufacturing sector as the supplier of inputs and, of course, for every $1m invested in the mining sector in the Northern Territory, $770 396 of output is created in the rest of the economy. For every 100 jobs created in the mining sector, 184 jobs are created in the rest of the Northern Territory economy.
Recently, I signed documents giving force to the McArthur River Mine Community Benefit Trust in Borroloola on 4 July 2007. This completed nine months of negotiation with the company, and established all elements needed to deliver at least $32m of benefit to the Gulf region. It was pleasing to see so many people at this event representing a wide diversity of people, and it was an historic moment for the Gulf region and the Territory.
What we have done is enter into an agreement with MRM which does three things: confirm the commitment we share to develop the region; identify the targets to which the company is committed; and establish the structure for the most important vehicle, the trust. MRM will continue annual payments to the trust for the life of the mine. In turn, the trust will distribute these funds to projects which help with the task of building a sustainable economy in the region. These projects will be focused around employment and training, enterprise development and community infrastructure. To make sure we maximise the plans developed for projects, both MRM and ourselves have committed to contribute key administrative services for the trust on a separate basis. MRM will provide secretariat services and the government will provide a project development role.
I take this opportunity to welcome the first directors and trustees of this organisation: Ms Sue Sara as Chair of the trust; Mr Col Fuller as the MRM independent Director; Mr Richard Galton, my Chief Executive of DBERD; Ms Shirley McPherson, the Chair of the Indigenous Land Corporation and the government’s independent director; Mr Sammy Evans from the Mara; Ms Adrienne Friday from the Yanuwa; Mr Tony Jack from the Garrawa; and Mr Ronny Raggett from the Kurdanji. The first meeting occurred on 20 August 2007, and I wish them well in their task. They now have two challenges they must meet. The first is to identify key projects that provide the job and business opportunities everyone wants. The second is to demonstrate to the wider community how this partnership between companies, government and the community can deliver lasting change.
I acknowledge MRM for its commitment to Gulf region, and thank the officials from MRM and this government who have built this model for regional development. This is the first of many such agreements because it is the intention of this government that these kinds of agreements will be implemented with any new company which wants to open a mining venture in the Territory.
My department and the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines have worked together to include the requirements for an Industry Participation Plan in mining operations. These will be required for construction of new mining operations or expansions to existing operations where the cost could exceed $5m. This amount is in line with existing requirements for Industry Participation Plans. This process will give competitive Territory businesses the opportunity to compete for business in the future growth of the Territory and enhance Territory business and industry capability.
DBERD staff are currently working with Olympia Resources and Thor Mining to assist them to draw up Industry Participation Plans which are realistic to their expectations and to which the companies can commit. In addition to the formal process of IPPs, DBERD staff in Darwin and Alice Springs have undertaken a number of different activities to improve the local community’s access to opportunities created by mines, which include working closely with mining companies to identify local support capability. As an example, last year the Mining Opportunities Road Show was held in Berry Springs, Batchelor, Pine Creek and Katherine to highlight the opportunities available for local businesses from the Compass Resources and GBS Gold operations.
The Mining Supply and Services expo is held each year in Alice Springs in conjunction with the annual Geoscience Exploration symposium. At the event earlier this year, we had 48 companies exhibiting their wares, and large volumes of business people from a broad cross-section of the mining and exploration industries. Feedback from the exhibitors was positive, and to ensure we get it right again in 2008, we are currently interviewing all the exhibitors to get their views on how the event can be improved.
As part of the Mining Supply and Services Expo, DBERD also ran a seminar where mining companies in Central Australia were given the opportunity to provide information on their projects, with particular focus on supply and service requirements, to an audience of Central Australian business people with an interest in providing support to the mining industry.
The Northern Territory Industry Capability Network, which is funded by the Northern Territory government, is the impartial recognised leader in procurement research and industry capability information which matches competitive sellers and legitimate bidders to create maximum local content in Northern Territory business and projects.
During the first week of September, DBERD is leading a delegation of 10 organisations to attend the Asia Pacific International Mining Exhibition in Sydney. This expo, which is only held every four years, is Sydney’s internationally recognised platform for Australian and overseas suppliers to showcase their mining technology, equipment and services. We are going to be there to provide the opportunity for our industry to mingle, meet and do business with companies, not only from around Australia, but from around the world.
Mining operations - current, under feasibility study and under exploration - will provide future opportunities for micro-, small- and medium-sized indigenous business development in Central Australia. Similarly, as the Red Centre Way is sealed, a range of business opportunities are likely to emerge along the route in tourism, hospitality and other industry areas for indigenous Territorians.
To meet future demand, DBERD is in the process of recruiting a person for the new regional development position in Alice Springs. This position will provide an additional AO6 resource and, among other roles, focus on the development of indigenous business enterprise in Central Australia. The new DBERD officer is to assist indigenous people with business development, professional development and personal development. In addition, the new officer will also establish an indigenous business network for Central Australia to help, aimed at existing but also new indigenous business owners, gain confidence through meeting regularly with other Indigenous business owners and to share information and experiences.
Let us have a look at the mining and exploration activities in Central Australia:
Newmont Australia - Granites Gold Mine, 500 km north-west of Alice Springs, has operated for some 20 years now, with a predicted mine life to 2020. It produces 400 000 ounces of gold per annum. Alice Springs is a supply base for some consumables and services;
the Mud Tank Mine, 100 km north-east of Alice Springs, is a small vermiculite mining operation which commenced in 1995. The expected mine life is beyond 2020. Alice Springs is a general supply base;
Tanami Gold is situated 200 km across the WA border along the Tanami Road. Some supplies come from Alice Springs;
Thor Mining – Molyhill Molybdenum Tungsten deposit, 240 km north-east of Alice Springs. Mine infrastructure is currently under way; the owners hope to commence mining operations this year. It has a predicted mine life of six years, and current requirements are being sourced from Alice Springs;
Olympia Resources - Harts Range Abrasives Project is situated 130 km east of Alice Springs on the Plenty Highway. Plans are being finalised and some infrastructure is complete. Mining commencement is planned for this year, with a mine life of 23 years;
Arafura Resources - the Nolans Bore Rare Earth/Uranium/Phosphates project is near Aileron, 110 km north of Alice Springs. It is a world class deposit. The planning process is well under way, and my department, together with DPIFM will establish a committee to facilitate a very quick processing and advancement of this project, which will generate significant income for the Territory, particularly since Arafura Resources’ intent is to process their product in Darwin. Despite the scare campaign by the Leader of the Opposition, their facility in Darwin will be the same size as the Bunnings hardware store near the airport. It will not be near the water, it will be inland, and there certainly will not be uranium processing. It will be a processing of rare earths and superphosphates, with the uranium being a by-product of that processing;
the Pamela Angela uranium deposit is 25 km south of Alice Springs, and some 50 exploration licence applications have been received. Several of these are from overseas. DPIFM will assess these applications in September 2007; and
Central Petroleum - oil and gas exploration in Central Australia has shown encouraging indicators.
Other mines operating in Central Australia are Bootu Creek and Peko Tailings near Tennant Creek; Callie deposit that is mined by Newmont; and White Range north-east of Alice Springs; and of course, MRM. I was particularly pleased to find out that MRM had initiated a training program with 13 indigenous people in Borroloola either going into training or about to finish their training in the next few weeks. It is encouraging that when these people finish their training they are not going to be driving lawn mowers, or the things that we usually see, or we used to see in mining companies, but they will be driving the real big trucks, the dozers, the plants, with a salary of $70 000 per year. In addition to that, an extra 40 trainees will be taken on by the mine in order to fulfil the needs and the lack of skills that the mines are experiencing at this time.
The same happened with GEMCO. During a recent visit to Groote Eylandt, I was advised by the manager of GEMCO that a lot of indigenous people now want to work in the mine, and GEMCO provides all the necessary training, working together with Anindilyakwa Land Council and contractors. They have a joint employment and training operation in order for indigenous people from Groote Eylandt to drive the big trucks.
Newmont currently has 94 indigenous employees, and has started a pre-vocational program where 10 out of 14 people who were selected are now in the transitional stage and getting ready to move into real jobs. In Gove, Alcan’s contracting includes Delta Reef Housing Services with 50% indigenous participation; the Yirrkala Dhanbul Land Care ongoing contracts with G3 and they also do the maintenance of the walkways at Alcan. YBE, Yirrkala Business Enterprises, has $9m per annum worth of contracts which are ongoing with digging up and the hauling of bauxite, general maintenance around the plant and township that is on Alcan property.
Three skills shortage trades employer incentives have been allocated to mines: MRM; Alcan; and Newmont. DEET currently funds the Chamber of Commerce to deliver a pre-employment project at McArthur River Mine, and has done so for several years. No other specific funding has been provided from BuildSkills, nor pre-employment funding directly to mining companies although all operating and planned mines have been advised of the availability through personal visits and liaison with DPIFM and the Northern Territory Minerals Council.
DBERD, DEET and DPIFM have a joint funding agreement with the Welding Technology Institute of Australia to provide services to the mining industry, and has been very active at Alcan. Funding is for 2006 through to 2009 and is $120 000 per year. DEET also funded two programs in non-destructive testing in 2006 and 2007 through Advanced Training International. Each program is for $40 000, and several mining companies have had participants in the program. The funding is sourced from BuildSkills NT project funding. BuildSkills funding of $15 000 has been provided to the Australian Drilling Industry Training Council to provide assessments for a small number of water drillers in the Northern Territory.
Mining is providing opportunities, not only for indigenous people, but also all Territorians. A very good example is the Hi-Way Inn. When Al, Brenda and their son, Gary Hoeksema purchased the struggling Hi-Way Inn in 2002, it would be no understatement to suggest that they must have been extremely optimistic to think they could turn it around. However, with 30 years experience in the Territory, they could see a huge opportunity. The Hi-Way Inn is not close to Darwin; it is about 600 km south of Darwin at the junction of the Stuart and the Carpentaria Highways in the Daly Waters area. An operation like this is equivalent to running a small town. It is actually now a small town. The inn has a staff of 16 people recruited from all around the world. Recently, when I went to Borroloola, I stayed overnight and I was very impressed by the operation. Not only have they upgraded the facilities, but they have invested in the facility by providing a demountable block of four en suite rooms, and are about to increase that by another four. In addition, the installation of $100 000 rainwater tank to improve the water quality has added to the customer experience. They have done all this keeping debt to a minimum and keeping the bottom line healthy.
However, because of Sweetpea Petroleum, which is an oil and gas explorer, they have had very good information about prospective tenements of oil and gas in the Beetaloo Basin. They have worked out an agreement with the Hi-Way Inn to operate from the inn. The inn provides accommodation and meals for the crew, fuel and water and on-site services, as well as an operational base for their equipment. This had a significant effect on the operation providing a steady stream of income. Depending on the outcome of the exploration, it could be the start of something big for the Daly Waters region and, indeed, the rest of the Territory, if a significant gas and oil field becomes a reality. The information I had from people and the geologists from Sweetpea is that the results are very encouraging.
I have said before, and I will say it again, that oil and gas are a significant industry for the Territory and provides the opportunity for regional growth and regional development, providing hundreds of jobs to Territorians …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr VATSKALIS: … and, in particular, to indigenous Territorians.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for DBERD for his comprehensive addition to the statement. In some ways, that should have been part of the statement to thicken it up a little. The minister’s statement is certainly welcome, but it is an information statement about what is happening. Whilst that is important, from my point of view, it does not address some of the areas of mining that I would like to hear more comment on. I specifically would have liked to have had more information on the extractive mining industry. Without the extractive mining industry, we basically could not build our cities. Many of the projects the minister talked about are export projects and, no doubt, they are important.
However, what builds the Territory is extractive mining; sand and gravel are certainly keys for the development of Darwin. That mainly comes from the rural area. It would have been good to have expanded on some of these areas. Whilst the extractive mining industry in dollar terms may not be as great as the export industry, it is a vital part of the Territory’s growth. For some reason it rarely gets a mention. Yet if you live in Litchfield Shire I am sure you will be affected by it as you see triple after triple going along the Arnhem Highway or out Girraween Road or out of Howard Springs Road. There is a substantial amount of gravel and sand continually being moved from the rural area. Perhaps the minister could expand on that in another statement.
Whilst I am a great supporter of the extractive mining industry, we have to weigh that up against a couple of issues. One is good planning in relation to where these industries develop so that they do not clash with the expanding residential areas in the rural area. This has been a problem in two ways. One is if the development of extractive industries is too close to residential areas. When that occurs, you get complaints about dust or noise. The other one is that the extractive mining industry does not want to see potentially good areas of gravel or sand being swallowed up by residential development. There needs to be good forward planning to ensure that those things do not clash.
The other aspect is the environmental impact of extractive mining. Extractive mining, when it comes to sand, is nearly always done in wet areas. Whilst I do not have concerns about the use of those areas for the extraction of sand, I hope that the government, in its support of development and the economy, does not forget that rehabilitation of the sites where sand is taken from should also be a key priority.
It is great to see the economy growing. It is great to see businesses making profits, but let us make sure that the areas from which they make those profits are looked after, and that some of the benefits of the economy growing are put back into those areas to make sure the environmental damage that is done when you have sand mining is repaired. I do not get enough time, or probably have not got the money, to get up in a helicopter because that is probably the only way you are going to check on whether this particular matter is being addressed.
You only have to look in the paper on a Thursday to see the number of applications for extractive industries and how many come from the rural area. It is increasing all the time because of the demand in a growing city, and I include Palmerston in that, for the requirement for gravel and sand. If some of these particular minerals have to come from further out, you are going to add costs to the provision of these materials and that will add onto the cost of housing. As you would know, there is a debate here about the affordability of housing for young people. Well, if there is a requirement that companies involved in supplying these materials have to go further and further away from Darwin, then obviously there will be some costs involved in the transportation of those materials to Darwin, and that will increase the cost of housing. We need to make sure there is a reasonable balance there.
The other issue about the environment is one that I have harped on about before and it is the middle of the harbour which the minister for DBERD mentioned in relation to Arafura Resources. Unfortunately, it has been set aside for industry. The way it has been set aside for industry is simply that the government has allowed, in the mining reserve, that area to be scraped for gravel - not sand. The minister may enlighten me, but I doubt very much if that land is being rehabilitated at all. I doubt if there is any weed control. Anyone who has driven along that area knows that gamba grass has taken a big hold. The Middle Arm Peninsula was pristine until fairly recent times. Unfortunately, government policy between the planners and the mining department basically said it will be industry.
I had a briefing with Arafura Resources. Yes, they do need a facility only as big as Bunnings. That is what I am talking about. It is not necessarily that these industries could not develop in the middle of the harbour, but the centre of the harbour will then become industrial. Unfortunately, we now have this area in the centre of the harbour which the department of Mines has allowed to be developed by the minister giving approval. We have basically ruined what could potentially have been a great national park for the centre of the harbour. Environmental issues need to be kept at the forefront in relation to extracted minerals and, unfortunately, in the middle of the harbour, that has not been a goal simply because there has been an agreement with the Planning department that the middle of the harbour will be industrial, so why bother with any environmental rehabilitation?
The other area that should have been covered in this statement, which is headed ‘Securing Territory Minerals Growth’, is the effect of changes to local government. I am not necessarily opposed to extractive mining having to pay something towards local government. They do use our roads. They also use Northern Territory roads and someone has to repair and maintain those roads. In some cases, they do that themselves. In other cases, the local council has to pick up some of the tab, and in other cases the Northern Territory government has to do the same. There should be some contribution. Many would argue that they pay enormous amounts of money in registration, but from a local government perspective, that does not necessarily come back to local government.
The key issue is that the rate struck for the mining industry is a fair rate, not a rate that will cause hardship to the small companies, especially. Some companies are big enough to absorb a large increase in their costs due to local government rates, but we need to be realistic. If you put a large rate on some of these mining areas, especially extractive mining, you add to the cost of the production of the material and that can go on to the cost of the house. On the other hand, you do not want the rate payers who live in the area having to subsidise the extractive mining industry for removal of that material within their shire and having to then find funds to repair roads which have been worn out by the amount of traffic that uses those roads. There needs to be a statement from the minister in relation to what effect local government rates will have on the industry and what industry is saying to the minister would have been something worth adding to this statement. As I said, it is about securing Territory minerals growth and rates, like other things, are another impost on the industry so it would have been good to talk about that as well.
The minister speaks a fair bit about China, and whilst that is very informative, I believe the key mineral missing is uranium. My understanding is that China is building quite a few nuclear powered reactors. I believe we presently export some uranium to China. There should have been a strong mention of where we are in relation to exporting uranium. After all, the Territory is one of the biggest suppliers of uranium in the world. China is desperately looking for uranium for its expanding nuclear power industry. Even though we are debating another issue today, it is certainly related to the government’s policy in exporting uranium to China. I would have liked more discussion on that in this statement.
The minister for DBERD mentioned Aboriginal employment. Again, I believe the minister’s statement could have had covered much of what the minister for DBERD said.
I visited Bootu about five weeks ago, and I must thank the management of Bootu for having the time to show me around the mine. The minister said that there are currently 150 staff and contractors employed there. Now, we have to be realistic: Bootu is a long way from anywhere, regardless of what people say. It is about 120 km north of Tennant Creek. Renner Springs would be the closest little place to it. It is not exactly the centre of a high population, but it would be interesting to know how many indigenous people are employed at that mine. I believe one of the key factors in this intervention program, and I hope to speak to that before the sitting finishes, is employment. It is a key factor to overcome some of the indigenous disadvantage. In fact, in the Wild/Anderson Report, they say it is the most important factor.
We are opening up these mines, they are operating. Many of them have fairly large numbers of people. I accept that the minister for DBERD touched on this, but, in light of many of the issues we are debating at the moment, that is, about the intervention into Aboriginal communities, the high unemployment rates and the very low literacy and numeracy rates, it would have been good to include some of that discussion.
I did not quite catch all that the minister said, but it would be interesting to know, in relation to improving literacy and numeracy, what role the mining department or the mining industry itself is playing in upgrading or improving the literacy and numeracy skills of indigenous people. My understanding is that that is a key problem to employing more people in the industry. If we are really serious about changing things around, we have to do our best from not only the government side of things, but the private industry as well. That is not a criticism of the private industry. I imagine that some of these companies are doing their best but that is something that could have made this statement more fulsome.
I have raised a few issues. I do not have any problem with what you put in your statement. It is a statement about mining, but it could have covered more things. As you say, mining is a very important part of the Northern Territory. I am not sure that it is the greatest export earner, along with the live cattle, and you have both portfolios so you should be able to tell me. If it is, it is something that we should recognise. It is something we should promote but, at the same time, we need to have the key factors of trying to get more indigenous employment in this area because in many cases, mining is in remote areas. Second, we should not lose sight of the environmental issues. They are important, especially in the extractive minerals area. We do not want to see another Mt Todd debacle. We want to ensure that we have sustainable development, which I am all for.
The minister, perhaps in another statement, could discuss some of the ideas I raised today.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I can just check with the minister; I thought I was correct. The answer to the member for Nelson, mining by way of export in dollars returned to Australia is far and away the most lucrative industry in the Northern Territory, not in employment numbers but in the dollars that it returns to this country, far and away.
I support the mining minister’s statement on Building the Territory’s Resource Base. As Treasurer and member for Nhulunbuy, I see the massive benefit flowing to the Territory economy from resource sector projects, particularly such as the giant Alcan G3 expansion at Gove. It will be completed late this year. It will nearly double alumina processing capacity of 3.8 million tonnes per annum, one of the biggest mining projects in Australia in its own right. As well as its construction phase boost to employment, it has had upwards of 1600 people there now for the last couple of years. It will increase that total ongoing operations phase jobs by an estimated 1200 people. The expansion also brings with it extensive indirect benefits relating to indigenous employment, training and business opportunities, and a boost to local supply and service businesses which my colleague, the Minister for Regional Development outlined.
The Alcan G3 project is also a significant value-adding project for the Territory and Australian economy. It involves local processing of more of the raw bauxite resource into higher value alumina. Just as this government makes the case for more value adding to offshore gas production, for example the establishment of the petrochemical project, we support more local processing of other minerals wherever feasible. Most significantly, bauxite reserves will last at least another 30 years, so the benefits will continue to flow for the long term. Conceivably, the refinery could process third party bauxite, so the operation could go even longer. That would likely be the case, given the capital investment now wrapped up within the plant. Alcan and its predecessor, Nabalco, have already been operating in Gove for 30 years. It is a long-term operation which has and will continue to underpin the Gove regional economy and community for decades to come.
While on Alcan operations in Gove, I take the opportunity to thank Klaus Helms, Director of Government and Community Relations for Alcan South Pacific who announced his resignation yesterday. Klaus has been with Alcan both in Gove, and more recently, Brisbane for many years. The driving force behind the development and maintenance of good relations between Alcan and traditional owners in the Northern Territory, he worked and had responsibility to develop a world-wide indigenous peoples’ policy for Alcan. Well, it does not get much bigger than that in scope and importance of task. It underlines how Alcan regarded Klaus Helms to give him such an important role within the organisation.
His contribution to the Territory - for many years with Perkins Shipping as Coastal Shipping Manager, I think 21 years, and Territory mining now, in particular - has not gone unnoticed. We thank him for it. I understand Klaus will continue to work with the traditional owners of Arnhem Land and, hopefully, in and around those areas of employment and training, literacy and numeracy to which the member for Nelson was referring.
Klaus Helms has behind his name the formation of YNOTS, which was the forerunner to ALERT. This is very much the transition to work. Often, these people are illiterate or suffer poor literacy, poor numeracy, poor work skills, and are not job ready. That was the basis for the formation of YNOTS. YNOTS has more recently transposed into ALERT, which is moving to longer-term training with the support of this government and DEWR from the federal government in the case of YNOTS. I imagine ALERT will be structured along similar lines with support from both governments. However, it shows that Alcan recognised this some years ago, and Klaus put a lot of work into this. That is why one of his very important contributions to the company was to see YNOTS up and running, now being renamed ALERT.
I quote from a letter from Kurt Thurnherr, who is the President of Pacific Operations, Alcan South Pacific Pty Ltd. You are getting very high up the tree in the Alcan organisation when you refer to Mr Thurnherr. He said that:
As I said, they do not come too much higher in the organisation than Kurt and that is a wonderful tribute to Klaus. I, and indeed this government, would also wish Klaus Helms all the very best in his future endeavours.
Nhulunbuy and Groote Eylandt communities, Borroloola, Pine Creek among others, are pretty dependent on the strength of the commodity sector and the mining that occurs in their own localities. Mining and exploration offers significant and achievable long-term opportunities for indigenous communities and that is the sort of opportunities that we will see picked up and recognised through programs such as ALERT with Alcan. We would all like to see more benefits flow to the Territory economy and regional communities from both mine and plant construction and operations. As I said, work is being undertaken by government to achieve this goal as well. Mining royalties are a significant contributor to Treasury and will become more so as the projects come on stream. For some major projects like Alcan, royalties are also paid to indigenous organisations, and are providing much valued assistance and support for those clans and communities as well. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the mining industry is, without doubt, extremely important to the Northern Territory economy, and regional Northern Territory welcomes the additional employment opportunities to encourage the growth of our centres.
Pine Creek is a perfect example of what happens when mining declines in a town. Pine Creek suffered terribly with the population dropping drastically and had a huge effect on the morale of the residents. There were fears that the whole town would just die. Properties were almost given away due to the lack of demand. Those people who purchased properties when things were at their lowest are now smiling at the change of events which sees their lovely town absolutely booming with the entry of GBS Gold at Union Reef. What a change of fortune. A sight I thought I would never see is the sign on the highway advising that there is no accommodation available. It is absolutely great for the residents of Pine Creek and provides much needed employment.
The impact of mining is significant for regional Northern Territory. When I travel on the highway coming to Darwin I know there are between 40 and 60 triple trucks on the road each day between Fountain Head and GBS Gold. It is a good sight to see. It means there is going to be a reasonably long life for that mine, and it means the security of Pine Creek will be going for quite a few years yet.
The member for Barkly would certainly be able to testify the importance of mining for the Tennant Creek region. The same can be said for the benefits of the Mt Todd mine which provided much needed employment for many families in Katherine; it had a significant financial impact on Katherine when the mine closed.
When Maud Creek resumes operations in the not too distant future, GBS Gold has committed to apprenticeship employment on an ongoing basis. That will be of great benefit to those young people who take the opportunity that is being offered.
Apart from the economic benefit from employment and the flow-on effect to regional towns, the announcement by McArthur River Mining that, through the establishment of a Community Benefit Trust, they will be investing some $32m into the Borroloola region over the life of the mine will ensure long-term economic and social benefits to the region. The partnership that MRM has developed with the community and the Northern Territory government will address issues and opportunities around employment, education, enterprise and job creation, environment, social and community development, health, culture and arts. This is vitally important for regional development and falls in line nicely with areas that have been highlighted by the recent Wild/Anderson report.
Minister, some comments that you have made since you became minister last year give good reason about your capability to do the job. It was just a few months ago that you told the television audience of Darwin that you did not have much influence over mining exploration in the Territory. A short time later, you were promoting Territory flowers – the day after Valentine’s Day – and not long after that, you were confused by the difference between an open cut and an underground mine. Despite MRM’s warnings, you proceeded down that path anyway. The Minister for Not-My-Responsibility is openly derided and laughed about in the primary industry sector. I heard someone recently refer to a complete stuff-up as ‘a Natt attack’. I do not mean to diminish anything that has been done in the mining sector by the companies referred to by the minister. Their work continues to deliver rewards, jobs and growth for the Territory, but that is achieved despite rather than because of this minister. The longer the Chief Minister leaves him in that portfolio, the more damage he seems to be doing.
The mining industry is doing well not because of government or its policies, but despite government. The current minerals boom and interest in the Northern Territory is being driven by commodity prices, which government has absolutely nothing to do with. More importantly, what does this government have up its sleeve for counteraction when the current cycle changes, as it will in due course? That is just the way it goes. The only problem is we do not know when that cycle will change. I ask the minister: what strategies is government putting in place for when that will change?
This government cannot take credit for anything in the industry. As you have already said, minister, you do not have much to do with it. In Estimates, you said it has nothing to do with you, and that you approve mining applications. The individual companies have taken the risk despite a lacklustre government, and lack of key taxation and economic incentives in addition to difficulties with land access.
In relation to the statement, congratulations to the Browns Oxide Polymetallic venture. Will the government and minister be as supportive and enthusiastic when the company announces that it wants to develop a new uranium mine? It has very good prospects at Mt Fitch.
Some companies have opened offices in Darwin, but what is government doing to encourage more to do the same? There is nothing in the minister’s statement to answer that. Again, companies take the risk and commit to the Northern Territory not because of government, but because of the mineral prospectivity.
Will your government be as supportive and keen when the Nolans Bore proponent wants to build a processing plant in or around Darwin to process the rare earths, thorium and uranium deposit located just north of Alice Springs? I look forward to seeing how you handle that because any time anyone mentions uranium in this place, everyone’s eyes light up.
Minister, in your reply, could you tell the House what role this government plays in attracting investment to the Northern Territory by providing pre-competitive geoscience information, and what sort of funding has government committed to this? All mining projects are welcomed by the Country Liberal Party. One of the challenges that face future projects is whether mineral leases will be rated in the future. This will highly likely see some small operators forced out of business which could, unfortunately, see the extractive industry in the Northern Territory forced to the wall due to the excessive rates that they will have to pay. Minister, could you get a categorical guarantee from your colleague, the Minister for Local Government, that your government will not rate exploration licences under the new shire amalgamation? It is extremely important for the future of the extractive industry.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I look forward to hearing the response from the minister to hear if he can answer any of the important issues that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition and me, which will add something new to his statement that the people of the Northern Territory do not already know. The statement that I read was a statement of what is happening in the Northern Territory. It did not give me anything new at all. I would appreciate it if the minister, in his response, could answer the questions.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the ministerial statement, Outcomes of Building the Territory’s Resource Base. I am encouraged by the fact that the minister announced the follow-on from the Building the Territory’s Resource Base insofar as the new program, Bringing Forward Discovery, which is basically taking our involvement as a government in the industry to another level. It facilitates further development and location of mineral deposits throughout the Northern Territory. When you look at all sectors of the government across the board, we initiate many of programs. We have come from a fairly low base because of what we inherited, and we have taken the whole staged approach very seriously. It is like a good business - you develop it as you go and you have plans and forward-looking plans to do it.
The shallow comments of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Katherine are disappointing. That is fairly typical of the opposition. The deposits are there, okay. We are naturally endowed. But they do not just pop out of the ground, hop themselves into some processing plant, get processed, go off on a train to a boat – it just does not happen by itself. It is not all mechanised. It is not something that just happens. A lot of planning goes into it. A critical part of that is the government’s role in ensuring we can help industry. We can help the whole sector advance by doing our bit in developing the industry. In the early stages that includes the location of deposits by mining companies and exploration companies.
As the minister said, the Northern Territory Geological Survey is focusing on a targeted data acquisition to open up new areas for mineral and petroleum exploration, to lower exploration risk, and thereby increase the chance of new discoveries. That is a very important part.
I will now talk about two other aspects. One, I am going to talk about that particular point, and I would like to start by just adding that the Geological Survey history is extreme in essence as far as comparison to other states and the provision of high quality geoscientific data. That is essential to help the industry, but it is something we are very proud of here and something we do of a very high calibre.
When I look at this whole topic, I could not help but think back to my days as a geologist and …
A member: Tell us more!
Mr WARREN: I certainly will. When I started reading into the background of this, I started getting into the geology. I am going to concentrate a little bit on the geological background. I know it is digressing a bit, however, with due respect to my geological colleagues in the Territory, particularly those in the NTGS, I owe it to them to talk about the particular deposits that the minister discussed – not all of them, just some of them.
In doing so, I have a few references here. I seek leave to table them rather than read them out, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr WARREN: Thank you. I will read some small pieces but, because much of it is in technical jargon, I will tell you what it actually means. I get excited about the geological science aspects of it, particularly when you look at the interrelationship between the different regions in the Territory in a geological sense. It is very interesting. I will quote and then explain it as I go, as it is very technical. This is what has been put together by my colleagues, principally in the NTGS, but also other geologists throughout the Territory.
I will talk about Brown’s deposit near Batchelor first. It is a textbook mineral province of its type. You have to go back to the regional geology.
Therefore, are very old. These basins are …
Mr Kiely: They were Rhyacian, weren’t they?
Mr WARREN: Sorry?
Mr Kiely: They were Rhyacian, not Proterozoic?
Mr WARREN: Proterozoic. Rhyacian is too late. These basins are amongst some of the oldest in the world.
It is an interesting fact that you have that change in environments in the sediments; therefore, there must have been some faulting.
as you have the intrusion there.
These are two of the classic geological formations in that area. Because mineralisation has been located in other regions close by within that formation, you tend to find people look for the same sequence. That is what geology is about.
This is unusual because we do expect things to be stratigraphically based. Geologists can unravel the history based on the sequences, and particularly the faulting involved. It is a field of its own and is very interesting.
That is typical of these types of deposits.
That is typical of when you are getting into the outcrops; those types of oxidised minerals are fairly typical in that region.
That is a little bit about that particular deposit. I know it does not mean a lot to you guys, but it is quite important to the geological fraternity and they certainly understand what I am talking about.
This is where the linkage comes back to throughout the Territory and I want to move on to the Redbank copper deposit in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
They are very well known and well documented.
They are geological shelves. It is not like you would think of a shelf. It is a facies change there.
There is a time gap there. That means that something has happened. It has eroded down and has come back up in the ore deposit there. So that is called unconforming or disconforming.
A fairly typical sequence, but then again there are some elements in there which are unique to that particular area. They are indicator minerals and they are certainly specific to that area.
Supergene enrichment, as it suggests, is re-injection of that area so you get the enrichment of it over a series of mineral enrichment phases.
When you start talking about those sorts of things it is very hard not to find it quite encompassing in respect of the scale of things that were are talking about in geological time, geological history, geological formation, and the geography at that particular time.
It is very common, again, to indicate that transgression from the oxidized zones to deeper zones.
That is a pretty interesting deposit, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
There are other deposits that I want to talk about – and I am not going to have time to talk about them all. I will talk to those I can talk about in the time I have.
I would like to get on now to the Merlin Diamonds project.
So it is in that same regional area there.
What is interesting about the kimberlite pipes that we are talking about is the way that they are often located – they are very unusual features when you see them in the field situation. I have had the fortunate situation of seeing one in Western Australia. They are unique and when you start knowing what you are looking for – people can walk over them, but they are unique.
In other words, as the pipes have come up, they have intruded the country and you get the brecciation around a circular dome.
These fields are quite poor. They are unlike the Merlin deposits. They are a slightly different age but they can be confused and mineral companies can spend a lot of time unless they can identify the difference between the different areas.
In other words, the material has got inside the top of these domes of the kimberlite pipe depressions.
I would like now to talk about Bootu Creek because it is one of those deposits I have had a bit of involvement with through my own involvement.
It was a project I had involvement with in my engineering capacity, but certainly some very interesting formations are there, particularly the manganese deposits themselves and some of the stromatolitic associations there.
When we are talking about synclines, we are talking about something that goes like that – three dimensional - but when you cut it off at the top, you get a circular shape out of the whole thing.
that is why I was talking about the biogenetic relationship to it all, the stromatolites -
as a consequence of that. You can see this sort of biogenetic history captured in the deposits themselves.
I could go on and on about it. I am enjoying this, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take it you are.
Mr WARREN: We will start to wrap it up now, but I hope I have given you some idea of a little bit of the geology behind these projects. They are not just names; they are not just about the mineral economics of it. They are not about the politics of it. These are real and actual history lessons, geological lessons for us all. These are really important deposits. They are unique and many of them are interrelated in the geological stratigraphy throughout the Territory. Some of this can be traced not only interstate and across Australia, but right around the world in different places, particularly from fossil records that some of this can relate to. We can actually determine the age of these deposits.
These are the kinds of things that the Northern Territory Geological Survey geologists go out and look for, the kinds of things that indicate minerals. That is what we are doing here, that is what we are promoting. That was just a little taste of what our geologists do; a little bit about their reporting and how they describe things. It might have seemed very technical, but it is important that people understand that it is a very exacting science. It has moved from the ages of very much a fossicker’s type of environment to one where now it is a very focused science. I congratulate the minister and his department for his efforts to move to the Bringing Forward Discovery program because it is important that we do take things to that next level. I commend the minister for his report.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will just acknowledge to Hansard that the member for Goyder will be supplying some of his paperwork. I am sure they are quite worried at the moment about all the terminology.
Mr WARREN: I will go through that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the member for Goyder will provide that to them in due course.
Mr WARREN: I do not think so because most of it was spoken.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions to this statement. The Leader of the Opposition recognised the importance of the mining industry to the Northern Territory, and the benefits that flow to Territorians and our economy as a result of the boom that we are experiencing at the moment. She also recognised the worthy contribution the government is making to this program, and was glowing about this program following the previous program’s great success. However, I was disappointed that she took up valuable time in attacking me as the leader – as the minister.
Mrs Braham: The leader! Ooh, we have a leadership spill!
Mr NATT: I believe the Leader of the Opposition should focus on her own performance and not mine. I note that she does not spend a lot of time addressing the substance of this statement. That is because she perhaps does not understand it as well as she should.
She spoke about Arafura Resources and, again, I believe she needs to get her facts right. She went through the Estimates questioning of me about the Nolans Bore project. If the proposal is received from the company for the processing facility, that will be addressed through the normal processes. There are planning processes, zoning processes and environmental processes that the company has to go through. That will be undertaken if and when we get a proposal from Arafura Resources.
She brought up McArthur River Mine. I do not understand why she opposed the expansion of McArthur River Mine. We were concerned about providing certainty for the expansion of the mine. We did that. I can assure her that, by doing that, I have had several contacts from employees of the mine congratulating me on the decision we made. I cannot see why she was opposed to the expansion of that mine and the processes we had to go through to ensure that the surety was there.
The Opposition Leader raised land access issues. We recognise that there have been land access issues in the past. We are working to expedite the procedures under the Native Title Act, and with the new changes under the LRA, which is the bill before the House, we are very optimistic that this will speed up the process and assist companies with their access to land.
She also raised the rating of mining leases, as did the members for Nelson and Katherine. All I can say is that representation has been put before the consultation committee from the mining sector. They have all had an opportunity under that consultation process to put their matters forward and they will be duly considered.
Another area she raised was the contingency plan if the commodity boom was to deflate in any way. The whole concept of the Bringing Forward Discovery program is to ensure that there is intense interest maintained in the Northern Territory. That is there to bring forward the major mining and petroleum industries’ discoveries which guarantee long-term wealth, and generating wealth in the mining sector. It is important that she understands that the progression of this program is to ensure that we do have that surety behind us in the future.
She raised uranium under the Brown’s oxide project. We support uranium mining; simple as that. I am hoping that the Chinese will raise that with me when I visit them in November. I certainly will not be taking the Leader of the Opposition’s advice on how to undertake my ministerial duties in the future. I felt her response was very arrogant and shallow, and that it is typical of her; she loves playing the man and not the ball. Some of what she said in her wrap-up of my statement were disgraceful. .
I thank the Minister for Business and Economic Development for his input. Obviously, he supports the statement through the business perspective. He has provided information on companies that have benefited from the mining sector. Employment has a huge flow-on effect in the mining industry under his portfolio and the flow that does exist from mining companies into supply businesses in and around Darwin, actually the whole of the Territory. Alice Springs is really benefiting from this mining boom as well. It is important that that be recognised. Another thing he recognised was indigenous employment. One of the flow-on effects of the mining industry is that there are incredible benefits for our indigenous population. The employment prospects in mining companies are huge.
I acknowledge the Indigenous Mining Enterprise Task Force. I understand they are in the 10th year and they have been working closely over that time with Newmont and the Central Land Council. They have an employment program running at the Newmont mine in the Tanami Desert and have had wonderful results. I visited the Tanami site a couple of months ago. I did a tour through the mine and spent the night there, and also spoke to some of the employees and mine managers. They are working hard to ensure that local indigenous people can get employment. I understand they are working towards an objective of 20% of their workforce to be indigenous. That is great news for the communities in and around the Tanami Newmont site.
That is not all. I know the McArthur River Mine is working on it. Every other mining company that I speak to would like to get the indigenous population involved in the mining industry. They are all happy to undertake various employment roles to ensure that our indigenous population gets jobs in the mines. It is terrific to see some of the incentives the mining companies are undertaking to ensure that indigenous people from the local communities have the opportunity to get into the workforce.
Part of that can be seen with the new McArthur River Mine’s community benefit package. The package was undertaken under the minister’s portfolio, in consultation with the local traditional owners and McArthur River Mine. They have come up with a wonderful package to ensure that the local community receives benefits over the life of the mine. We are working as a department on this on all other mine sites that set up in the Northern Territory. GEMCO is another mine site that is working closely with their indigenous people, and ERA at Jabiru. All of the big mines have done that and all of the prospective mines that will be setting up in the Territory will be encouraged to do the same. It was great to hear the Minister for Business and Economic Development highlight some of the benefits that mining is showing in his portfolio.
The member for Nelson spoke extensively on the extractive industry. We recognise the contribution that the extractive industry plays in the Northern Territory. The Bringing Forward Discovery program is all about attracting mine interest in base metals in the Northern Territory. It is encouraging exploration. It is encouraging investment in growing our mining sector. The extractives industry probably did not fit into this statement but I am happy to discuss the extractive industries with the member for Nelson at some other time. The member for Nelson raised the uranium issue and also indigenous employment which I covered that under the minister’s portfolio. I thank the member for Nelson for his input. He also realises the importance of mining in the Northern Territory.
I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for his support. He is very heavily involved with mining coming from Gove. Alcan has a long term operation within that community and it has incredible benefits for the community of Gove. He outlined a number of the benefits the community receives from the mine in his contribution. He mentioned Klaus Helms. I know Klaus personally and I know that he has been a huge contributor to the indigenous people within the area and working on some of their policies within Alcan’s framework. His contribution to mining over the years has been extensive. I extend my congratulations to Klaus on his pending retirement and wish him all the very best, and thank him for the time and effort he has put into the Gove community and into mining in the Northern Territory.
The member for Goyder; well, what can I say? The member for Goyder blinded us with his geological background and his science from the field. I thank him for his support. I do not know how Hansard got on typing all of those large and difficult words! I thank him for his support. He too recognised that mining is a huge part of the Northern Territory economy and the benefit that it does bring to the Northern Territory.
There is intense interest in the Northern Territory from the mining sector, from not only the Australian sector but also the international sector. That has been borne out by the Fraser Institute. The Fraser Institute prints a yearly update on the mining sector in several different areas, and it confirms our performance in exploration and attraction is improving. We are up in the top three or four in a couple of those areas, and that was taken from a number of mining companies throughout the world. For the Northern Territory to figure in the top two or three in several instances is a pat on the back for everyone involved at the Mines department for the work they have done.
We need to nurture and promote the industry as much as we can. We want more greenfields discoveries, and that is why we are pushing the Bringing Forward Discovery program into another realm. If we can get a couple more greenfields discoveries in the Territory, it will set us on an upward curve and boost our economy. That is what it is all about: benefits for Territorians. As I said in my statement, this sector accounts for about 25% of GSP in the Northern Territory, so it is significant. We are doing our utmost to ensure that growth is maintained.
We are proud of our achievements and outcomes. We are looking forward to promoting our vast land, our rich minerals, and future opportunity in the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I inform the House of a forthcoming book launch at Hermannsburg. The Hermannsburg Mission is celebrating 130 years since its establishment in 1877 and Jose Petrick has written a book titled Kuprilya Springs: Hermannsburg and Other Things.
Anyone who knows Jose knows how dedicated she is to making sure everything she puts in it is so right. It is a wonderful story about Hermannsburg and how the drought affected the mission and how it could easily have closed. There is an amazing story of a Melbourne artist, Violet Teague, who, in 1933, hired a taxi to take her and her sister, Una, from Melbourne to Hermannsburg – a distance of 5000 km return trip. That was pretty amazing for those days. Violet had heard of the disastrous effect the drought had on the people and that the mission might be closed. Pastor Friedrich Wilhelm Albrecht, who was there at the time, showed the sisters the clean running water of Kuprilya Springs, seven kilometres from the mission. Through Violet and Una’s initiative money was raised for a water scheme. Aboriginal men hand dug a trench seven kilometres long and one metre deep to lay the water pipe from the springs to Hermannsburg.
It is a fantastic story. It is being launched at Hermannsburg on 16 September, and will be launched in Alice Springs at The Residency on 19 September. It would be great if you are able to get to Hermannsburg to celebrate the 130th anniversary. If you can get a copy of Jose’s book, you will be intrigued by the story. I have seen the proof. There are some wonderful old photographs in the book. There are people you will know in the photographs, although they were very young. That is what is wonderful when we see these stories collated. This is the amazing story of how Kuprilya Springs, which is such a beautiful spot and where the water comes out clean and fresh, saved the Hermannsburg Mission during the drought years. I commend Jose and I urge all members, if they possibly can, to get to that launch.
There is a lot going on in Alice Springs at the moment. Preparations are well advanced for our 2007 Alice Desert Festival, with over 60 events throughout the 10 days. It will start with a grand parade. There are many unique things – Desert Song, the home cooking/culinary competition using wild foods and bush foods, and Cinema in the River. As well as that, we have managed to scoop Maggie Beer from The Cook and the Chef ABC television program, and that is going to be tremendous boost for the wild foods competition.
I have to admit the festival committee work so jolly hard and often are not recognised for all the work they put in. There will be activities continuously over this day. The Lane Restaurant is going to be a bit of a hub. Luckily, the lawns of the Town Council have been cleared of asbestos so we will have the Hub Space happening there. We will also have activities under the sails for young people. Later on, we have the Wearable Arts Awards on 6 October. I am pleased to say that I am sponsoring a new Children’s Award this year. Last year, we found there were some very young children under 12 who entered but competing against adults is pretty hard for a nine or 10-year-old. So I am sponsoring a new award for children under 12. It is to do with their creativity and their ability to showcase what they can do. It will be intriguing to see what the children come up with, not just the sewing or technical side, but how they create these wonderful items that we see in the Wearable Arts.
If you happen to be in Alice Springs on 6 October – and I hope the minister gets down to that – please come to the festival and the Wearable Arts. I want to thank Eugene Ragghianti. This is the second year he has been in Alice Springs to organise the festival. It is a real coup that we have managed to keep him, and I hope he stays there for another year because he has such tremendous contacts in Adelaide. He has such enthusiasm for the Alice Festival. It rubs off on all those people who are involved. So congratulations to Eugene who has put together a tremendous program and we are certainly looking forward to it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the program for the festival. If anyone would like a copy, I am only too happy to get one for them. I seek leave to table the program.
Leave granted.
Mrs BRAHAM: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. While I am on my feet also, I want to make comment on a young lad in Alice Springs who has achieved quite a lot and too often we tend not to pat people on the back who do great things. I am talking about Sam Sherrin. Sam was born in Lajamanu in 1987. He was educated at the OLSH College in Alice Springs. He joined the Army in January last year as an officer cadet at Duntroon in Canberra. He graduated this year in June as a Lieutenant in the Infantry Corps and was posted to the 1st Royal Australian Regiment in Townsville in Queensland.
I mention this, because Sam comes from a family, the Sherrins, who have done a lot within communities around Alice Springs. Alex Sherrin has been very involved in the Afghan mosque. Remember the great celebration we had when we brought the camel trains through? Jo Sherrin is a teacher. His family have been part of the Centre, just doing their job without any recognition. They are very proud that young Sam has decided to go into the army and has achieved what he wants. I hope for Sam this career choice will give him great satisfaction.
Alice Springs has produced many young kids who do tremendous work. We should not always concentrate on what is bad in our towns. We have to celebrate the good things. I wish Sam well and I am pleased that he has managed to achieve his goals so far.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is lovely to hear the member for Braitling talking about the good things, and particularly for Alice Springs, there are many, many good things.
One of the pleasing things is the effect of the new public dry areas legislation; the response has been terrific. The initiatives we have put in place will take time to get there, but at this stage, for Alice Springs community, many of the public areas which were problem areas are going well. We will keep our fingers crossed.
One of the major events during the Territory’s NAIDOC celebrations was the NAIDOC Ball, held in Darwin last month. It was a wonderful evening, made even more memorable when two inspiring Territorians won major community awards. The multi-talented Simone Liddy won the NAIDOC National Youth of the Year. Simone has many strings to her bow. She is in her third year of a Bachelor of Pharmacy at CDU, and was honoured for her impressive academic achievements, athletic prowess – she is a talented hockey player – and her mentoring of Aboriginal students. Simone is an NT Institute of Sports scholarship holder, and now plays for the Territory Pearls, and is captain of the Territory’s Under 21 women’s hockey team. I congratulate Simone on her achievement.
Our second award winner received one of the greatest receptions you can imagine when he was announced as winner of the NAIDOC Lifetime Achievement award. It goes without saying that Jack Ah Kit deserves this recognition. The sustained applause spoke volumes about his popularity and the respect in which he is held. How appropriate that another of our own, His Honour, Ted Egan, presented Jack with his award.
As you know, Jack grew up in the Parap Camp and, as a teenager, worked in a variety of jobs as a labourer, truck driver, and a stockman. It was during this time he experienced first-hand the blatant inequalities at work in our society, and the plight of Aboriginal people. These early experiences had a profound impact on Jack, and he decided then to do something to help his people. The rest, as they say, is history.
Jack could never have achieved what he has without the support of his family. In particular, I pay tribute to his wife, Gail, who has stood firm and given him so much strength over the years. Jack Ah Kit is a big man with a big heart, although he promised when he left politics he would get rid of some of that big man. It is going slowly.
He is a man who is proud of his heritage, and proud to call himself a Territorian. He is also a passionate man who continues to fight injustice where he sees it and, as the applause at the awards ceremony showed, he is a man of the people.
A number of students from Stuart Park Primary School participated in competitions at last month’s Darwin Show. The show always gives schools, and young people generally, the opportunity to enter and participate in a wide range of events and activities, either individually or as part of class projects. I congratulate all the students who participated for having a go - a great effort.
Four students deserve a special mention for their clay creations: Andrea Mullins - first prize, plus Champion Other Junior Craft Exhibit for her clay dingo head; Jeremy Uyloan took out first prize for his clay dragon; Harrison Mu, third prize for his clay frog; and Shae Dureau, third prize for her clay seal. Congratulations to all the Stuart Park Primary students on their efforts.
I want to inform the House about a major milestone in education in Central Australia. Chris Tudor recently celebrated 21 years at the helm of St Philip’s College and, at the same time, made history by becoming Alice Springs’ longest-serving school principal – that is a wonderful achievement. Chris is well known in the Alice Springs community as someone dedicated to his profession. His philosophies on education have seen St Philip’s become a highly respected school, and one which is renowned for producing confident and active students who engage with their community.
Chris has been widely recognised for his commitment to the education of young Centralians, and for his contribution to the Alice Springs community. In 1997, he won the Southern Region Territorian of the Year Award and, in 2004, became a Member of the Order of Australia. I congratulate Chris on his remarkable achievements, and wish him all the best for his future.
I also congratulate all those people who gave up their time on National Tree Day on 29 July to do their bit for the environment. In particular, I make mention of the 100 or so people who gathered at Finlayson Park in the heart of Gillen in Alice Springs. Their aim was to rejuvenate the park, and to make it a better and more enjoyable place for local residents to spend their time. Days such as this take a lot of organising, and require a great deal of support from both business and the community.
I extend my thanks and congratulations to the Peter Kittle Motor Company; Origin Energy; the Alice Springs Town Council; Alice Tinting; Big O Mitre 10; Auskick, Imparja, Sun FM and Apex, and to Geoff Miers and the members of the Gillen Residents Association who donated their resources and time to help make the day such a success. It was a great effort and many thanks.
Finally, thank you to all the residents living in and around Finlayson Park who attended the event. All up they planted around 500 native trees and shrubs and did a great job on the day. I have seen the work firsthand and they should feel very proud.
Last week, I had the pleasure of joining 350 other people for the 2007 Telstra Business Awards here in Darwin. These awards acknowledge and celebrate business excellence in the Territory. They not only recognise our high achievers but also raise awareness of just how important the business sector is to our rapidly growing economy.
Darwin business, SRA Information Technology, took out the 2007 Telstra Northern Territory Business of the Year. Telstra CEO, Sol Trujillo, presented the award and pointed to the company’s leadership and outstanding contribution to the Territory economy. SRA offers corporate custom software solutions to organisations right around Australia, and provides services such as systems analysis, website and web-based application development, IT strategic planning, and training and support. In 2004, they developed an environmental information management system called Envirosys. This system allows organisations in the government, mining and oil and gas sectors to better manage environmental impacts including greenhouse gas emissions, natural resource management, water, air quality, weather and pollutants. SRA also won two category awards, the Hudson Business Award for businesses with more than 50 employees but fewer than or equal to 100; and the AMP Innovation Award which recognises business that have recently introduced an innovative product service or process.
Other successful category award winners in this year’s Territory Business Award were the Alice Springs Physiotherapy and Sports Injury Clinic which took out the Australian Government Micro-Business Award for businesses with five employees or fewer; Northern Stainless from Winnellie was the winner of the MYOB Business Award for businesses with more than five but less than or equal to 20 employees; and fire protection specialists, N TESS Fire Consultants from Berrimah won the Panasonic Australia Business Award for businesses with more than 20 employees but fewer than 50.
The Territory award winners will now compete against the southern states and territory award winners at the national titles which will be held in Sydney next month on 21 September. To all the winners and to our finalists, my congratulations and best wishes for the future.
The wonderful thing about the Telstra Business Awards is that even though there is only one winner in each category, when you talk to the businesses which have entered those different categories, the process that it puts you through, the information that you have to think about your business and present as a participant in the awards, each business said how much it had contributed to the growth of their business. So it is very genuinely one of those cases where it is not all about winning.
The 11th Alice Springs Beanie Festival was held this year between 29 June and 2 July. It proved to be bigger and better than ever. The weekend saw more than 8400 people pass through the Araluen Centre to marvel at the creations and to buy a beanie. This year, over 4500 beanies were submitted with the turnover at the event reaching an all time high of more than $140 000. That is a truly remarkable figure when you consider most of the money came from the sale of beanies.
The Beanie Festival is quickly becoming one of the Territory’s, indeed Australia’s, premier regional festivals attracting visitors and exhibits from interstate and overseas. This year we had exhibits from Japan, New Zealand, the United States, Denmark and the Netherlands, and visitors from New Zealand and the United States came to Alice Springs specifically for the event. Two tour groups of 20 people each came from interstate for the festival and stayed on for 10 days to take in the beauty of Central Australia. Aboriginal women from Areyonga, Titjikala, Ernabella, Balgo and the Irrekelantye participated demonstrating the capacity of the humble beanie to overcome cultural barriers and bring people together. The impact the Beanie Festival is having on tourism is fantastic and is a credit to Jo Nixon, the event’s principal organiser. Well done, Jo.
The Beanie Festival has commenced its three-year tour around Australia. The first exhibition at the Museum of South Australia was an outstanding success and is being followed by the opening of the exhibition at Floriade, Canberra’s famous flower exposition starting in September. Exposure of the festival to a new national audience will see its reputation grow and ensure that the event continues to be one of regional Australia’s finest.
I congratulate, again, Jo Nixon, Liz Scott, Annie Farthing, Margaret McDonnell, Margi Craig, Nicky Schonkala, Karen Jones, Meren Hughes, Adi Dunlop, Gay Epstein, Heather Smith, Lisa Waller, and all the other people involved in organising and supporting this year’s festival. All of you have done Alice Springs and the Territory proud.
The 5th annual Alice Springs Breast Cancer Golf Day was held earlier this month at the Alice Springs Golf Club. It is an event that has become something of an institution in the town, and this year proved the most successful yet. Approximately 260 women participated, the highest yet, and more than $20 000 was raised, which is a wonderful achievement.
The day is particularly important for Central Australian women. While 50% of the funds raised are donated to the National Breast Cancer Foundation for ongoing research into prevention and potential cures, the other half provides much needed practical assistance to Centralians who are diagnosed with breast cancer. Over 13 000 women and approximately 100 men are diagnosed annually with breast cancer. The good news is that while the rates of diagnosis are increasing due to early detection, survival rates are also improving dramatically.
While the purpose of the day is very serious, the golf played is not. Though I could not be there this year, I was delighted to be able to support the day through sponsorship and the donation of the first prize. I am told by my staff who participated that it was a magnificent day, with golf carts decked out in balloons and streamers, teams decked out in fancy dress, and plenty of champagne and food to keep up the golfers’ spirits, which might explain why the golf was not of the highest standard. It sounds fun, even if it is champagne-induced.
Days like this would not be so successful if it was not for the generosity of local businesses and organisations. A big thank you to Centralian Motors, GE Money, the Alice Springs Wine Club, the Alice Springs Golf Club, Zonta International Alice Springs, Oh My Nails, the National Breast Cancer Foundation, and all the other sponsors of the breast cancer golf day. Most importantly, I pay tribute to the organisers of the event and congratulate them on their great efforts. To Karen Jones, Deb Pepper and Jo Hansen, well done and thank you for your hard work and dedication.
Finally tonight, Mr Deputy Speaker, I extend my warmest appreciation and best wishes to Drs Frans Seda AM, who has retired from his position as the Northern Territory’s representative in Indonesia. During his time in the position, Drs Seda has been a valuable contact point in our engagement with Indonesia. He was instrumental in developing the Northern Territory’s strong relationship with our northern neighbour over the last decade or so.
Drs Seda has had a long and distinguished life in politics, serving, extraordinarily, under five Indonesian presidents as minister, ambassador and advisor, as well as heading up various business organisations over the years. Drs Seda was Co-Chair of our Joint Policy Committee, a body that was set up after the signing of the NT’s 1992 MOU with Indonesia, to foster close links with eastern Indonesia. He was also instrumental in assisting with government-to-government negotiations around the committee, which in turn led to initiatives such as the establishment of the Indonesian Customs pre-inspection facility in Darwin and regular Garuda flights linking Darwin and Indonesia.
His legacy is the foundation on which we will continue to build our relationship with Indonesia. We will maintain and nurture the important relationships built up over the years by Drs Seda and his consultants, Dr Joseph Halim and Dr Budi Haliman. In doing so, my department will work closely with the Indonesian Consulate in Darwin and the Australian Embassy in Jakarta.
I congratulate Indonesia on its recent 62nd anniversary of independence. Once again, on behalf of all Territorians, I extend my heartfelt thanks and appreciation to Drs Seda and his staff for their extraordinarily important contribution to the Territory, and wish Frans Seda, now that he is in his 84th year, all the very best and the best health for his future.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, it must be Celebrate Alice Springs night tonight because I also want to talk about something that happened in Alice Springs at the weekend.
Last Saturday, I had the pleasure of attending the National Road Transport Hall of Fame Reunion 2007 in Alice Springs. The event began on Thursday, 23 August, and finished with a farewell barbecue on Sunday, 26 August, with events being held at the National Road Transport Hall of Fame on the edge of Alice Springs.
The first function for Saturday morning was the Induction Ceremony of some 54 pioneers who have contributed to Australia’s road transport industry. This most moving and nostalgic ceremony was the highlight for me, listening to the pioneer stories and then watching the recipients receive their award. They were of all ages, from as young as myself to the more mature ages, and had made such a great effort to be there to receive their award. It was very fitting and it highlighted the prestige of the event that so many recipients travelled from all over Australia to attend the Induction Ceremony. Many of these people had family members with them, which made the ceremony even more enjoyable and so very special, and highlighted the important contribution that whole of family have made to the industry.
Liz Martin, who is the inspiration of the National Road Transport Hall of Fame and the Road Transport Museum, and Alice Springs Deputy Mayor, David Koch, welcomed the large gathering to the Hall of Fame. A short history of each inductee was read out as they or a family representative came forward to receive their award.
I am honoured to include all the names of the recipients in my adjournment tonight. They are: Cedric Abood, who passed away in 2001; Pasquale Amorosa, who is known as Peter; Bill Andrews; Arthur and Eileen Battle; John Blyth; Norman Bradshaw; Brian Canny; Fred Champion; Gary Darlington; Dick Deen; Louie Deen; Laurence Dyson; Don Evans; Greg Finnen; Wayne Foote; Keith Forster; John Franklin; Alan Greensill; Victor Haber; Edward Hall; Donald Hazel; Des and Vin Heffernan; Cliff Hill; John Jarvis; Colin Bird; Ted Stevens and Spencer Watling; Graeme Johnson; Graeme Killick; Lindsay King; Leon Macklin; Kerry Mannix; Frank Marchetti; John McCallum, known as Jack; Stuart McColl; Max McGrath; Betty Morgan; Neil Mulcahy; James Nicholson; John Oldfield; Ian Pearse; Keith Reid; Bob Richardson; Liz and Owen Schmidt; Bill Shaw; Barry Sky; Shirley and Terry Smith; Bill Smith; Steward Terry; James Warden; Peter Warnock; Wallace Wathan; and Tom Wilkinson.
Quite a few of those people have been associated with the Northern Territory in one way or another during their transport careers. Tonight, I would like to expand a little on one of the recipients, John Blyth, who is a dinky di Territorian. I also have a special interest in this particular recipient because he is a brother of my Electorate Officer, who was also born here. It was a fairly special occasion for all of the family.
John, son of Dave and Carrie Blyth, was born in Darwin in 1955. John’s father, Dave, was a member of Darwin Truck Owners. At age 13, John was behind the wheel of a Chevy Blitz out on the Marrakai Plains, with his mother, Carrie, often lamenting, ‘that boy has diesel in his veins and wheels for brains’.
John went to work for McKay Transport, carting livestock, and from there for Stevens in Darwin hauling fuel along the Stuart Highway. In 1974, he went into business with his sister, Pat and brother-in-law, Phillip Witte, forming B & W Transport, carting general freight in addition to pulling fuel tanks for Ascot down the track. This partnership continued for four years until John changed to livestock transport.
In 1979, he married Tess. He drove transports for Sherwin, which later became Barkly Transport, for Buntine, and also for Chapman at Cloncurry. With a passion for owning his own business, John and Tess formed J & T Haulage and he commenced hauling livestock and general freight for McKays in the Top End, aggregates for Territory Aggregate Supplies around the Katherine region, and also running general freight out of Brisbane for Sam Brough. J & T Haulage built up four units, and John and Tess spent some time living in Toowoomba. Their children, Darcy and Emma, were born 1985 and 1990. With a young family, John gave away the open road in late 1991, and joined Gulf in January 1992.
John managed the Granites and Tanami operations for some years and, during this time, the Blyth family were firmly Alice Springs-based. In 1996, the family moved back to Darwin with John taking the responsibility of Group Operations Manager, a position he still holds. John understands road transport inside and out and, most importantly, knows his drivers.
It is people such as John Blyth who have contributed so much to the road transport industry in the Northern Territory and, for that, it was fitting that he was inducted into the Shell Rimula Hall of Fame in 2007.
Following the induction ceremony, everyone enjoyed walking through the museum area, reliving memories of transport days gone by. The number of exhibits, the way they are displayed, and the transport history, which has been collected in this location in Alice Springs are a credit to Liz Martin. The Kenworth Hall was a truckies heaven for the fantastic collection of trucks on display. One of them has done over seven million kilometres, and still looks a mean machine in great condition.
Following the Meet the Mile Maker lunch, I had the pleasure of being part of the book launch for Stories from the Road which, again, the energetic and enthusiastic Liz Martin was so involved with, and committed to. Liz and her partner, Kelvin Davis, told me the idea for the book developed from a conversation over a glass of red win with Peter Rocke the day after last year’s celebrations were over. There is no doubt that from little things big things grow because, here we are, just 12 months later, with the launch of this great publication of stories from the road. I have a copy here. There are over 90 stories and coloured pictures telling about the challenges and achievements of Australia’s road transport heroes in this book, and the story focus is on second generation involvement in the transport industry. It is a book I recommend members of this Assembly make sure they read. I know it will open your eyes as to how Australia would not be the nation it is today without the dedication and commitment of the road transport pioneers.
Some of the stories included in the book are of Territorians and include Robert, John and Frank Bilato of G & S Transport; Jim and Jamie Cooper of Gulf Transport; Dick David of Dick David Fuel Supplies, now known as Ausfuel; Brian and Judy Cogan of ABC Transport; Russ and Liz Driver of Outback Vehicle Recovery; Dean McBride of McBride Transport; and, very fittingly, Liz Martin OAM for preserving the trucking industry heritage.
When launching the book, Lew Couper made an important point when he said there are not enough young people coming into the industry; there is a shortage nationally of young people taking up truck driving as a career. I was impressed by his commitment to visit as many schools as he can now he is retired, to talk to young people about the benefits of truck driving as a career. It is people such as Lew, who have so much experience, who can be a positive influence to young people who would consider the trucking industry as a career.
I have to say I would not mind getting behind the wheel of a couple of those mean looking Kenworths which were there. I did climb up and have a look in the cockpit - I call it a cockpit because it was up so high - and they were magnificent machines.
The book, Stories from the Road, talks about the challenges and achievements of Australia’s road transport heroes, would be very helpful when talking to young people, as it demonstrates the diversity of the transport industry. There are plenty of opportunities for those willing to work in it.
I want to finish with a story from the book about Liz Martin, who thoroughly deserves all the accolades she gets. Without passion, dreams do not get realised. There is no doubt Liz has plenty of passion for the transport industry. As a result, the industry will be forever grateful for the Transport Museum which is appropriately located in Central Australia, which will be a lasting tribute to transport heritage in Alice Springs.
I quote the extract from Stories from the Road:
That is the end of the extract from the book.
I encourage all members of this Assembly to visit the Transport Museum when in Alice Springs. You are in for a very pleasant surprise, and you will find something there for all members of the family to appreciate. My husband, Michael, and I certainly needed more time there to take in the history that has been so lovingly collected and displayed, and the time to read the contributions of the Hall of Fame inductees. Well done to all involved.
I would like to now talk about Katherine, my electorate, and about a woman called Christine Clarence. Christine has really shown that she has been quite motivated by undertaking challenges to show that women are capable of achieving what ever they want to do. Christine is over 50 now and she lives in the tropics which is not really an ideal background for some of the challenges she has taken on. She believes that you need to continually challenge yourself to do your best. She has taken opportunities that provide role models for other Territorian women, particularly those who are over 50. I will talk a little of what she has done in the last couple of years.
Between February and March 2006 she was a volunteer at the Annual Iditarod Dog Sled Race in Anchorage, Alaska. She was assistant to the Race Starter, so helped out at the start line and met all the competitors and all their dogs. After assisting in the days before the race and at the start of the race she spent five weeks dog sledding and cross country skiing in Alaska and the Yukon. From January to April 2007, she was seconded to the United Nations UNICEF to work in Nepal. She was working with the Maoist Army on reunification and reintegration of child soldiers with their families and communities. She found this very interesting and rewarding work when it went according to plan.
I am going to run out of time tonight so I will continue with that adjournment tomorrow night on what Christine Clarence has achieved in the last few years.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to place on the Parliamentary Record the names and activities of some residents of Alice Springs who are doing great things in their community. Given what some of them have done recently it is timely to make public mention of their achievements. I wish to talk about James Green from the Police Credit Union, Grant Behrendorff from Bushlight, and Dave Douglas of Dave Douglas Tyre City.
James Green is the Manager of the Police Credit Union Alice Springs branch, and I am happy to say that I have an account there. James was recently apprehended and locked up - all for a good cause. James participated in ‘Lock Up Your Boss’ day and raised $521 for the Kids Helpline. I thank James very much for what he did. Also a big thank you to his staff, Emma Hunt, Fiona Loney and Angela Roepcke. I was invited to attend at the Police Credit Union for the lock-up. I jumped at the chance and was there together with some other people to see James being locked up. The proceeds of the money James and so many other people around the Territory raised that day went to Kids Helpline.
Kids Helpline is Australia’s only free confidential and anonymous 24-hour telephone and online counselling service specifically for young people aged between five and 25. Kids Helpline counsellors respond to more than 10 000 calls each week about issues ranging from relationship breakdown and bullying to sexual abuse, homelessness, suicidal thoughts and drug and alcohol use, and so on. Kids Helpline aims to empower young people by assisting them to develop options, identify and understand the consequences of a particular course of action, facilitate more productive relationships with family and friends, and provide information on local support services. Kids Helpline counsellors are fully qualified professionals who undergo additional accredited training at Kids Helpline.
James Green wore a prisoner’s jumpsuit and a very stylish black mullet when he was apprehended and locked up in his Credit Union office for an hour. What a dashing young man he is. Staff of the Police Credit Union also decorated his office with crepe paper strips going down his front window to imitate prison cells. During his one-hour apprehension, James frantically called friends and colleagues to raise the necessary $500 minimum bail. James succeeded in raising the bail plus an extra $21 and then he was freed. I am pleased to say that I contributed to the money raised. All of the bail money raised is sent to Kids Helpline and that is a wonderful thing. Kids Helpline exists to assist people to develop strategies and skills which enable them to more effectively manage their own lives.
Grant Behrendorff is another resident of Alice Springs who has recently been recognised for his contribution, winning Engineers Australia Engineering Technologist of the Year for the Northern Division. Grant is the manager of the Bushlight Program. Bushlight is a project of the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Alice Springs with staff based in Alice, Cairns, Derby and Darwin. Bushlight is funded by the Australian Greenhouse Office of the Department of Environment and Heritage and the Department of Family and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
The Bushlight program aims to improve the livelihood choices of targeted remote indigenous communities in Western Australia, Northern Territory, Queensland and South Australia. The aim is achieved though increasing access to sustainable – this is, affordable, consistent and reliable – renewable energy services. Bushlight is an innovative and interesting program with the objectives of improving the reliability of renewable energy systems in remote indigenous communities, improving the capacity and confidence of communities to choose and manage their renewable energy services, and to establish a technical service network to service and maintain renewable energy services in remote communities. Bushlight commenced in 2002, originally as a four year project and, by mid-2006, had installed over 90 renewable energy systems providing very reliable 24 hour power to over 2000 people living in remote communities in Australia. On the basis of these achievements, the Australian government extended Bushlight for a further two years to June 2008.
In addition to the personal achievement of Grant Behrendorff recently winning the Engineering Technologist of the Year for the Northern Division, in November 2006, Bushlight was honoured with one of the engineering profession’s highest accolades, an Engineers Australia National Engineering Excellence Award. Forty-one engineering projects from around Australia were short-listed for the annual awards, which recognise a project’s significance as benchmarks of Australian engineering contribution to the national economy and impact on quality of life in relevant communities. In Bushlight winning this award, it is a valued recognition of the efforts of the Centre for Appropriate Technology which, as a not-for-profit organisation, has for 20 years sought to support indigenous people with knowledge and access to science and technology.
A significant feature of the Bushlight program is its focus on working with communities to develop community energy plans which document community choices and decisions on how they use energy now and into the future. Bushlight designs, specifies and manages for the manufacture and installation of robust, renewable energy systems to meet identified community needs and ensures appropriate maintenance and support arrangements are in place.
A well-known Centralian identity is Dave Douglas, who owns Dave Douglas Tyre City. Dave Douglas Tyre City opened in 1991, and is one of Alice Springs largest independently owned and operated tyre retailers, boasting over 35 years in the industry. Dave Douglas Tyre City provides quality tyres, retreads and batteries at the best prices, with the ultimate in customer service.
Dave Douglas is also involved in a range of community activities, and in particular the Variety Club. I am sure members, even those from the Top End, have seen Dave’s very bright, old fire engine that he has had painted up in bright red, that he uses both to promote his business and the Variety Club, and so many other worthy causes.
Dave Douglas is a character and he is well regarded in Alice Springs. The reputation of his business, owned with his wife, Chris, has been even getting better. It is well known that Dave has a range of interests and is committed to the betterment of the Alice Springs community. Dave is also a member of Advance Alice and wants to ensure that Alice Springs receives the very best that it can in terms of a range of services that the town needs so that it is well equipped to improve into the future and be the real jewel of the crown in this country. The geographic position of Alice Springs is almost in the centre; it is regarded as the Centre. Dave Douglas wants Alice Springs to be the centre of attention almost on a daily basis, and we commend his efforts.
Alice Springs is full of many talented people, and it is always my pleasure to detail their contributions to the community. I take this opportunity to congratulate James, Grant and Dave, and together with members of this House, extend our congratulations and thanks for what you have done and our best wishes for the future.
Madam Speaker, I would like to put on the Parliamentary Record the long awaited opening of the Alice Springs Community Bank, which was officially opened last Thursday. I am happy to say that I have an account at the new Alice Springs Community Bank in relatively recent times, and I was really excited for the management team and the staff, and the Alice Springs community, because there is a new banking option in Alice Springs. The new office is located at Shop 25 in the Coles complex.
I believe it is important to place the names of those involved over the years on the Parliamentary Record. They are: Chair, Raelene Beale; Vice Chair, Rosemary Weise; Treasurer, Sergei Jansons; Public Officer, Noel Thomas; Directors, Andrew McGauchie; Glenyce McGauchie; Gary Carter; Toni-Maree Elferink; and Jennifer Howard; and Associate Director, Hugh Bland. Those people have worked over a long period of time to ensure that the Bendigo Bank is up and running. In particular, I believe that Rosemary Weise is the only existing member of the board of directors who went to the first meeting in July 2005.
Rosemary and others since have worked very hard. They have been at the Sunday markets every fortnight in Alice Springs, using the markets as a forum, promoting it on a very impressive level, and they did very well. They now have 360 shareholders, and their total shareholding is, I understand, some $835 000. This is a community bank, and one which is to be welcomed, and all of those who have worked long and very hard to get the bank operational are to be congratulated.
Bendigo Bank is the franchiser of the Alice Springs Community Bank, and it is often awarded for its social responsibility because of the work it undertakes with communities. It is almost as if the Bendigo Bank has tagged a social conscience onto their business strategy.
The town of Bendigo was where I grew up, so naturally I have a bit of a soft spot for Bendigo Bank. I look forward the role it plays in the Alice Springs community.
The Community Bank branch is a franchise business of Bendigo Bank Limited, and all the banking products offered by community bank branches are issued by Bendigo Bank. Bendigo Bank’s community banking program is an innovative concept developed to provide communities with a means for facilitating economic revitalisation and the enhancement of local services and infrastructure.
The Community Bank branch is a franchise, with the community owning the rights to operate a Bendigo Bank branch. Community Bank branches provide communities with an opportunity to enhance control over their community’s capital, ensuring more money stays in the district for local investment. The branch also provides communities with the certainty of banking services, and enables communities to bank the way they want, whether that is face-to-face, electronically, or over the phone. The business strategy of Bendigo Bank is to work for the benefit of the customers and their communities, and that is to be welcomed in the banking centre. Banking and community go hand-in-hand at the Bendigo Bank, and they realise that you cannot run a successful business in an unsuccessful community. Therefore, if the bank can help the community prosper, then their customer base will be strengthened. If Bendigo Bank is an essential part of the community fabric, then they are more likely to be supported and build a sustainable business.
The Bendigo Bank has been able to build a number of successful business models on simple methods; that is, to encourage local people to commit to buying more services through a company committed to retaining at least some of its earnings in their community. This way, the company employs locals and retains local earnings, which is what the community wants and, of course, the community wins from such an approach. The Bendigo Bank wins too because there is more money and, therefore, more available banking in the local community.
In early 2005, the Bendigo Bank’s charitable arm, the Community Enterprise Foundation, was launched. The foundation creates a pool of money that is put to work to build stronger Australian communities through funding programs for family, youth, health, education, environment, the arts and lots more. Donations are collected in a tax-effective way from individuals, businesses, and governments, and donors are able to gift within their own community, with the trustees distributing money in consultation with community leaders. In the late 1990s, few people thought local communities could influence banks. Now, they are running successful branches that are contributing many hundred of thousand of dollars into building better communities.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am sure that all members will join with me to congratulate every person involved, particularly those on the board who have worked tirelessly over the last few years to ensure that the bank is open and running. It is important that the bank be supported by the community, and I am sure the community of Alice Springs will embrace it. The Alice Springs Community Bank has pursued its vision and it asks for community support. On the basis of what I have seen today, that support is worthy of being provided to the bank. I take this opportunity to wish all involved a strong and prosperous future in Alice Springs and, once again, thank those who have worked tirelessly over the last couple of years to ensure that Alice Springs has a Bendigo Bank.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I will talk about my bushfire brigade in the rural area and out beyond that area. The Bushfire Brigade in the Northern Territory does a fabulous job. It was only last night that I was reminded of what great work they do. I was driving in the rural area and noticed there were several fires in the Humpty Doo area, and in the Darwin River area. I knew, at that time, that there would be volunteers jumping in their cars, leaving their families, and heading out to those fires, and they could be spending all night fighting those fires with no payment whatsoever. A lot of time, they actually use their own vehicles. They get a skip unit or a trailer, put it on the back and take their own vehicles out.
I say a big thank you to these many volunteers and various brigades like the Acacia Hills, Beatrice Hill, Berry Springs, Cox Peninsula, Darwin River and various other brigades throughout the rural area and beyond. Livingston brigade do a fabulous job - I have been to their functions - and also Manton.
I remember last year we had a meeting at Berry Springs and a gentleman came in after those big fires that came through, and he had been on the job for 24 hours fighting a fire. He had not slept, he was covered head to toe in soot, and he just popped in and was going back to bed after 24 hours on the job. That is the type of commitment the volunteers have and the great work they do.
I was recently in Batchelor for the opening of the new headquarters of the Bushfire Brigade there. At that particular event they had a demonstration of the new air tractor, which is a plane which they have brought up from South Australia on a trial, to combat these bushfires. It was a great demonstration with the use of foam and it impressed everyone who was there. It is curious with the air tractor – it flew 3000 km from South Australia and arrived in Batchelor with a full tank of fuel, mainly because it had 3000 litres up where they usually put the water, so it was an interesting concept.
The fire threat in the rural area and the regional areas is huge. There is obviously an issue with gamba grass and various other grasses and vacant blocks. The Bushfire Brigade volunteers do 200 controlled burns a year. They combat 300 to 500 bushfires a year in the rural area. They are kept busy for a good six months of the year and do a fabulous job.
The facility that was opened by the minister for Natural Resources at the time, Marion Scrymgour, was a great vote of confidence in the Volunteer Bushfire Brigade because they have occupied a very old set of demountables for so long and worked from those facilities trying to provide the best possible service to their brigade. That facility is a great vote of confidence in the area.
It was rather curious and disappointing for me, having such a feeling for those volunteer brigades, that I heard that during the Greatorex by-election, the Leader of the Opposition, Jodeen Carney, was insulted and disappointed by the fact that the Martin Labor government had committed $200 000 to this facility at Batchelor. This facility, which looks after the volunteer Bushfire Brigade members, has been long needed in that area. I was disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition would object to such a facility being built. It is disgusting that she would turn her back on these volunteers who put in countless hours. They provide their own vehicles, they put their lives on the line, they leave their families late at night to fight fires, and they get no pay for it whatsoever. So when this government puts in some decent money to provide some decent facilities for these people, the Leader of the Opposition is insulted by it – that we actually bothered to put money in there and she is disappointed by it. Those are her words – ‘disappointed that the Martin Labor government put money into the Bushfire Brigade’. I am astounded that she would say such a thing. It is reprehensible and I will certainly be circulating those media releases that she put out, turning her back on these great volunteers out there. She needs to get her head out of Alice Springs and have a good look around the rest of the Territory – have a look into the rural area, where there are good people out there working very hard to protect other people in the district, and all they want is a bit of help with equipment and facilities.
That is what this government has done. It has doubled its Bushfires Brigade funding under the previous minister, and has put in a permanent facility at Batchelor. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to give an apology to these Bushfire Brigade volunteers for such insulting comments about what they deserve. She is obviously someone who does not know much about people in Darwin and the rural area. She does not bother to get around, she does not care about getting around and meeting these people, or appreciating what they do and what they sacrifice for their fellow community members.
I thank the Chief Minister for committing the dollars to the Bushfire Brigade, and condemn the Leader of the Opposition for her derogatory and insulting comments about facilities for the Bushfire Brigade. The Martin government is about governing for all Territorians, whereas the CLP has said: ‘Alice Springs is all we are about. We don’t give a stuff about anyone else in the Territory. They should not get anything up in the rural area and people in Darwin should not get anything. We are just going to look after Alice Springs and that’s it’. Well, that is not good enough. It is not what the Martin Labor government is about. We are about governing for all. I condemn the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about an important program operating in our secondary schools, and that is Workready - Preparing our Future Workforce.
I will refer to a media release issued by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training on 2 May. It heralds welcome support for the area of Workready. I will read extracts of it before I make my comments:
A good program.
The numbers, I understand, that are involved in Workready are somewhere around 50 students at Casuarina at the moment, but that will double next year. To manage the Workready program which is, as I outlined from that media release of 2 May, quite a difficult and complicated, but very important, process.
I notice that the sequence of title is ‘employment, education and training’. Ultimately, the education endeavour is about employment. So that interface requires a lot of work for any teacher. I know some teachers involved in this issue work very hard to ensure that the kids are getting their education needs met, that they are being prepared for work, but have that important liaison with the workforce.
There appears to be a problem with regard to the managing of the transition because, this year, from my understanding - and I would be very pleased for the minister to look into this, I am not putting a media release out at this stage, I just hope the problem can be fixed - it appears that the two positions that are established were established on the understanding that in the transitionary period no teacher would lose their position or have their position altered in any way.
Two teachers, one from Nightcliff, one from Dripstone – the one from Dripstone has 11 years experience - moved across to manage the Workready Program now based at Casuarina Senior College, and were horrified to discover only last week that, he being the coordinator of this heralded program of 2 May, his position will no longer exist into 2008, and is put in the awful position of having to go to other schools which will be preparing to bring their students across to Casuarina Senior College and talk to them about how the program will run next year when, in fact, the program, at this point, does not have a coordinator. The teacher who has been given the assurance that this position is an established position, moving across after 11 years experience from Dripstone, now finds that that position which has been held for this year does not exist for next year.
I urge the minister to bear some attention on this issue. I agree with the minister, as outlined in this media release, that this is a very important and a good program, and a difficult program to run in schools. It is made more difficult if the teachers who are in the coordinating role do not have the confidence of the system with regards their tenure. These teachers are deeply concerned, and I say even further than that, are offended by the lack of respect or understanding of the position that they thought they had that does not transfer into next year. I hope that issue can be fixed.
I am also pleased that the galleries are full. The ministers are all sitting there waiting for this long awaited briefing on Taiwan. Just to give some background to my interest in Taiwan, before coming to the Northern Territory in the 1980s, I worked with a number of Taiwanese families in Western Australia. That renewed my interest from my early days in history, going back to learning about the battle of the Nationalists versus the Communists, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong, and the fleeing of the Nationalists across the strait to what was then Formosa and establishing their base in Taiwan. In many respects, those battlelines exist today, 50 years later. Then, meeting with a number of families that I worked with in Western Australia from Taiwan renewed my interest. I grew up with it being Formosa, Taiwan, and I found it a fascinating place that I did not really understand, and I find that many people do not understand Taiwan.
The reason that I have focused in recent times on Taiwan is because I like to assess the basis for my position. I accept that Indonesia, our near neighbour, is our near neighbour and will always be so. Therefore we are obligated, particularly in the Northern Territory, to establish a meaningful relationship and a constructive dialogue, and to learn about our neighbour and to build bridges. That is a difficult process, but one we must remain committed to. I remain of that view. However, I noticed in times past, when we had the strength of the economy, particularly of Indonesia and some of the other Asian Tigers, as they were described at the time, whence they were diminished, and particularly the crash in Indonesia, that it appeared that, almost overnight, interest in our near neighbour vanished and reappeared on China. China then became economically attractive and interesting. From the school perspective, our students were learning about Indonesia, learning about Indonesian culture, and there was a strong whole-of-government focus on how better to understand and work with our neighbour and to build those constructive links. They seemed to deteriorate overnight and then we had this same sort of life being breathed into a need to engage China.
I do not mind that, but we need to assess our thinking as a community. I will say again that Indonesia remains our neighbour and we are obligated, particularly in the Territory, to work hard to establish those links. As a citizen, I found it difficult at that stage to transfer my enthusiasm from one place to another, when I realised it was only about the possibility of earning some money. It took me some time and, in going through that process, I came back to my former connections with Taiwan. As a matter of principle, I lodge on Taiwan, being a country which has gone through a political reformation; it is now a democratic society and has made its own decisions. It has gone from the dark days, I have discovered in my reading and from my meeting with the Taiwanese, under the Kuomingtang under Chiang Kai-shek and his son, and then the transition from the Kuomingtang to political reform to open free elections, which were conducted for the first time in 2000.
I am also aware that, as a society, they have made their decision to go down the path of political reform and are to be commended for that. They face terrible odds with the People’s Republic of China across the strait, which is still determined to see the demise of Taiwan. In many respects, Taiwan suffers from political apartheid. Many citizens around the world who do think too deeply about these things can overlook them and look straight at China.
I am not talking about a concern I might have with the people of China; it is that China itself has not undergone political reform. That is a fact. I have had a long interest in China, and I know that if anyone would care to look, there are some very serious concerns about what lies behind the curtains in China. It does not mean that I will trade or engage or learn more, but I cannot just simply accept, that because there is money to be made, I can ignore those other things.
I commend the people of Taiwan for the path that they have walked. I am prepared to stand up and support their right for an independent existence. I believe that the existence of Taiwan is a conundrum - politically difficult, difficult to understand, and difficult to find a path through that we are required to. There are people around who have taken this challenge to find a constructive path because China, as we know, bears great influence on our society, and it is influenced too.
The Olympic Games are coming up and there will be greater awareness of China. I believe that there is the possibility for constructive dialogue and the creating of innovative pathways for developing better options for what is currently a deadlock. I have that interest and I remain fixed on that. I will be presenting, over the next couple of nights, further comment on Taiwan. Why I came to a renewed interest in Taiwan is, I believe, right at the bottom - if we are talking about economic interests with political principle aside - economically, Taiwan presents a wonderful opportunity for the Northern Territory. We are resource rich; we have a friendly, open and multicultural society. We also have a strong indigenous element within our society that we are learning to develop and establish and empower.
Surprisingly, Taiwan is the same. Taiwan has a significant indigenous population. It was not always a part of China or populated by the Chinese. Initially, it was populated by the Indonesian language group. If you look at a map, you will see that Taiwan is at the top of the archipelago that goes down into Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. There is about 2% of the population who are aboriginal or indigenous, and their language groups marry all the way through Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia. Interestingly too, I found that the facial tattoos on the indigenous people of Taiwan match the facial tattoos of the Maori and there is, and I observed this and I have heard a little bit about this before – but I was surprised to learn that even words in Maori are the same as words that are in the traditional Taiwanese languages. It is understood by matching traditional stories from the Maori that their forebears came from the north in canoes. It is an accepted version of events that the forebears of the Maori, particularly the male line, I think, comes from Taiwan.
There is a very interesting history there and a great interest in land rights, the rights of the indigenous and the needs of the indigenous people of Taiwan who have suffered too with colonisation. I will be continuing my comments on this matter over the next couple of days because there are so many complex and very interesting aspects to Taiwan which I remain interested In. As a member of this Chamber, I will just make my contribution. I have fixed my attention on Indonesia and also on Taiwan, and I will further explore commercial links, as well as social and political links with Taiwan. To be continued.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Sacred Heart Primary School, Year 5 students accompanied by teacher, Mr Bill Bemelmans, participating in the Parliament of Wizards as part of the Celebrating Democracy Week. Honourable members are welcome to watch the Parliament of Wizards in the Chan Building from 1.20 pm to 1.45 pm today. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
NOTICE OF MOTION
Nuclear Waste Facility
Nuclear Waste Facility
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I give notice that later this day I shall move a motion relating to a referendum for a nuclear waste facility. I will move:
That the Assembly request that:
(a) the Commonwealth government acknowledges the widespread and bipartisan opposition to its plans to locate a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory;
(c) the Commonwealth government allows Territorians to have a say on the nuclear waste dump planned for the Northern Territory. A binding referendum which was promised by the Prime Minister last week should be a mandatory precondition for introducing any new nuclear facilities to any region in Australia;
(d) the Commonwealth government immediately make public the current status of its plans to locate a nuclear waste dump near Tennant Creek at Muckaty Station;
(e) Northern Territory members of the Commonwealth parliament stand up for the Territory and support a referendum; and
(f) 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.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Equine Influenza Protection
Equine Influenza Protection
Mr NATT (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I report to the Assembly the situation regarding the outbreak of equine influenza in New South Wales and Queensland, and the response implemented in the Territory.
Equine influenza is an exotic, highly contagious disease of horses, mules, donkeys and other equine species. It is not generally fatal to horses; however, fatalities may occur in old or infirm horses and foals. The main clinical signs of equine influenza are a sudden increase in temperature, a watery nasal discharge which quickly turns thick with a strong odour, and a deep, dry hacking cough.
Australia and New Zealand are amongst the few countries which have significant equine industries free from the disease. Humans are not affected by equine influenza, but can spread the virus to horses via infected clothing. Between 17 and 20 August, two sites in New South Wales reported horses with suspected equine influenza, with subsequent testing leading to equine influenza being diagnosed. National emergency animal disease arrangements were enacted with state disease control headquarters being focused on all jurisdictions. The Territory response has been run from our state disease control centre which is located at Berrimah Farm. This response is tried and tested, having been utilised in a number of crisis simulation exercises in the past.
Part of the national response is a national standstill. Under the standstill, no horse can be moved from its current location without a permit from the Chief Veterinary Officer, or his delegates. The standstill gives officers time to trace the movements of any suspect horses and to prevent any further spread of the disease. It also allows time to establish effective quarantine zones at the infected properties in New South Wales.
The Territory standstill will be reviewed on Thursday afternoon, when I will receive expert advice from the Consultative Committee of Emergency Animal Diseases. This is the national group of experts coordinating a national response to the exotic disease outbreak.
I stress that the risk in the Territory is low, and there has been no movement of horses from infected areas. However, this is not to say that we are not taking every precaution. There are two thoroughbred horses which have been moved to the Territory from non-infected parts of New South Wales since mid-August. The animals are healthy and are under management of the Darwin racecourse vet. There was also a shipment of six horses from Queensland which were intercepted and stopped at Katherine. These horses were allowed to move to their destination following confirmation that there was no contact with suspect infected animals.
Late last weekend, after consultation with the Chief Veterinary Officer of the Territory, the Darwin Turf Club implemented a horse standstill at its course. The operations at Fannie Bay are somewhat unique as the race horses have been stabled at the course and no other horses have arrived. For this reason, the race meeting could proceed despite the standstill. In contrast, interstate races see horses moved from large numbers of private off-course stables to the course on race day. What will happen this weekend will depend on the analysis of risks being undertaken by my department. As I mentioned earlier, we will meet again on Thursday and, in light of information to hand at that time, will decide on our next move.
Race meetings at Alice Springs and Darwin can proceed this weekend, providing the current health status of the horses is maintained. The Chief Veterinary Officer will be meeting with racecourse management on Thursday also. I do appreciate that the standstill will impact on Territorians; it means that horses cannot be moved unless a permit has been issued by the Chief Vet. It may affect polocrosse and dressage events planned for this weekend.
In conclusion, I assure all horse owners in the Northern Territory that if they are at all concerned that their animals have a fever, nasal discharge or a hacking cough, please contact my department or their local vet. I extend my thanks to all members of the horse industry, those involved in the Territory’s response effort at the State Disease Control Headquarters, and other departments for their cooperation in this most important matter.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the opposition welcomes the report. It is timely and it appears to be well responded to in the Northern Territory. It is tremendous to see that high level of coordination and cooperation across borders when it comes to matters to do with the concern about the health of horses. It is a shame that there is not the same level of coordination and cooperation shown on other matters which require a high level of coordination and cooperation in the best interests of the vulnerable.
That aside, I would like to know what measures are in place with regards to donkeys and wild horses …
Mrs Braham: And camels.
Mr MILLS: I do not know whether camels can be affected, but certainly donkeys and wild horses. What sort of measures are in place to monitor any incursion of the infection into our feral animal population? I am wondering too, just for advice to the House, how is it transmitted? I understand how it came in to the country, but how is it transmitted? Would birds be able to carry the virus? As there is such a large population of donkeys and wild horses, it would be interesting to have a report on that.
Mr NATT (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his inquiries. I understand the disease is an airborne virus that can be carried on people’s clothing and it can be swept through by the winds. Therefore, studs or horse properties that are in close proximity to each other can be affected so they are keeping a close eye on it. As for the wild animals, the department is well aware of the circumstances that could arise from that. At this stage it is a very low risk but I am sure the department will stay on top of that.
While I am standing, I would like to say how disappointed I was with the facts that were printed in the paper on the weekend. If you knew the facts and read the newspaper article, you would understand that the article, and the concept, was clearly wrong. I would like to put that story straight. I also again thank the Commonwealth officials and the state officials who have acted very quickly to stop the disease. It could be a tragic event if it spread and they have done a wonderful job to contain it as quickly as they have.
Indigenous Art Buyers Mission
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to talk about the success of recent inbound indigenous arts and crafts buyers’ missions. Over the past three years we have been working with indigenous art centres to increase exports of indigenous arts and crafts. I am pleased to report that our work is paying off and providing real opportunities for indigenous artists from many different communities.
This year we have hosted delegations of indigenous art and craft buyers from the US and Europe. The European mission was made up of buyers from France, Italy and Sweden, and both missions were again undertaken in partnership with Austrade. The results speak for themselves. Immediate purchases made by the buyers were in excess of $700 000 and we are still counting. Future international exhibitions are being planned for a number of art centres in America and Europe. Over 20 indigenous art centres were visited by the buyers, providing an opportunity to establish solid relationships with international buyers.
The five inbound missions that we have hosted to date had delivered significant, tangible outcomes to indigenous art centres and artists. The money that buyers spend in the art centres helps the centres maintain and improve their operations and their place in the life of their communities. The total sales from all inbound missions currently stand at around $1.2m. That is an impressive figure, and the coverage we are getting is not bad either.
Countries that have been represented in the missions include Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Bahrain, Singapore, United States, France and Italy, and this bodes well for the future. The number of buyers who have participated in the missions stands at 28, but it is not the quantity of buyers we are after; it is the quality. For example, the recent American mission included high-profile gallery owners, private collectors, and curators from the University of Virginia and Harvard University. It is these types of buyer who can deliver to us not only immediate outcomes in the form of sales, but also longer-term export development activities in their home countries.
The inbound missions are a great example of the role that we can play in assisting indigenous art centres to grow their business through export. We are currently planning future missions from the United States and Europe for next year. The importance and benefits that the missions provide has been recognised by a number of private sector businesses that had interests in assisting indigenous communities. Both the American and European missions receive sponsorship from Newmont, Rio Tinto, ERA and the Kimberley Development Corporation. I extend my thanks and gratitude to these organisations for sharing our vision to grow our indigenous arts and crafts industry.
The success of the missions has much to do with warm welcome buyers receive in the communities they visit and at the art centres. Our art centre managers play a critical role, and I take this opportunity to thank them for their efforts and for being wonderful ambassadors for the Territory: Cecilia Alfonso from Warlukurlangu Artists at Yuendumu; Clive Scollay from Maruku Arts at Mutitjulu; Quentin Sprague from Jilamara Arts and Crafts at Milikapiti; Anthony Murphy from Injalak Arts and Crafts at Oenpelli; and Andrew Blake from Buku Larrnggay Mulka at Yirrkala. They all did a marvellous job and have my thanks.
There is no doubt that the ongoing development of our indigenous arts and crafts industry, particularly in some of our remote communities, has the potential to strengthen the economic base of those communities for many years to come and, importantly, create sustainable jobs. I will keep the House updated on the outcomes of future missions.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her report this morning. We are fully supportive, on this side of the House, of all inbound and outbound missions on indigenous art. It is a wonderful initiative to get people to come here, but it is also very important to take the artists on outbound missions so that potential buyers can speak to the artists.
There is, obviously, a future for indigenous art in the Northern Territory that is still untapped. We only have to look at the amount of money that has been spent by buyers in the last couple of months in purchasing significant indigenous art to see how much the value has increased in such a short time. We have a long way to go in promoting Northern Territory indigenous art.
EnvironmeNT Grants
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, today I report on the EnvironmeNT Grants Program.
The program was introduced by Labor in 2004 as recognition of, and commitment to, the important role that our community plays in protecting and managing the environment. This grants program has provided some $460 000 each year towards community activities. I am pleased to announce that this year, school project grants received some $18 660; individual program grants received some $278 960; and the operational grants had an allocation of $200 000. This exceeds the yearly $460 000 available to the EnvironmeNT Grants Program because an additional $33 960 was made available through the Litter Abatement Fund.
School project grants are an extremely important element of the grants program, as it allows us to encourage young Territorians to engage in positive action to protect their environment. It is critical that they understand that personal action can make a difference. The school recipients this year include Anula Primary School; Durack Primary School; Living Waters Lutheran School; Nightcliff Primary School; Pularumpi School; St Paul’s Primary School; Tennant Creek Primary School; Wagaman Primary School; Wulagi Primary School, and Yipirinya School.
Operational grants are available to non-profit environment organisations to assist in meeting their ongoing operational expenses. Through this scheme, government commits around $200 000 per year to key environmental organisations. Organisations that have received funding since the introduction of this grants program have included: The Environment Centre NT; the Arid Lands Environment Centre; Keep Australia Beautiful Council; the Environmental Defenders office; and the Australian Marine Conservation Society.
Individual project grants provide up to $10 000 to community groups, industry and individuals for a wide range of activities designed to provide significant benefit to the environment through direct action, research and education. Since the grant program began, more than $1m has been allocated to these individual grants. This year, there have been 23 successful submissions which will share a total of approximately $279 000.
Some of those successful applicants include: Lajamanu, for a container deposit scheme; the Keep Australia Beautiful Council for Rethinking Waste in Schools Challenge; Central Australian Football League for a Cash for Cans refund program; Alice Springs Town Council for their We Can Can our Can approach; the Keep Australia Beautiful Council’s Tidy Towns Forums; Girraween Landcare Group for water monitoring of the Girraween Lagoon; the Arid Lands Environment Centre for Home Energy Audits; the Centre for Sustainable Arid Towns for a desertSMART Gardens promotion; COOLmob for some fact sheets and Ecospecifier seminar; Oz GREEN, to provide a Darwin Youth LEAD 2008 program; Northern Territory Recycling Solutions; the Centre for Sustainable Arid Towns for a rainwater resource calculator for the Territory; the Environment Centre NT will have a forum on the Northern Territory’s Tropical Rivers Conservation; and we have the Land for Wildlife WA Low Ecological Services that will look at the implementation of a Garden for Wildlife Off-Reserve Conservation in Alice Springs. Coomalie Council received some funding for the Batchelor landfill, the analysis of their waste reduction strategy. We gave some funding to the Chamber of Commerce for Rethinking Waste in Industry; and the Motor Traders Association for a Green Stamp Plus Eco-efficiency Program.
Madam Speaker, in my role as Environment minister, I have the benefit of being able to provide financial assistance through these grants programs to the community, industry and councils to ensure the preservation and protection of both our natural and built environments. There is no doubt that both these grant programs bring enormous benefits to the Northern Territory. I am committed to ensuring the success of the grant programs into the future.
Yesterday morning, I launched Keep Australia Beautiful’s week of activities. The theme this year is ‘Save the World and Start at Home’. I urge all members of the Chamber to take on a personal challenge in greening their home, whether it is putting in an environmental energy-saving light globe, recycling their mobile phones or their cartridges from their various machines, and filling up that recycling bin instead of dumping everything into the rubbish bin.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report this morning. I am a great believer in school-based programs; we need to teach and educate our young for the future. I thank the minister for funding all of those little projects that many people throughout the Territory are working on.
One of my passions is recycling. The member for Nelson will probably talk about recycling also. I believe an extremely important part of our environment is the recycling of cans and bottles, and plastic containers, etcetera. I would like to hear from the minister about recycling plans. I know there are a few of us in this House who are very passionate about recycling.
KESAB is very important. I know that, the Katherine area, my electorate, has been quite successful over the years in their KESAB program, and that is a great way to educate the young as well. We could talk about the environment in the Northern Territory for quite some time. I thank the minister for her statement and I am sure there will be plenty more to come.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I think the member for Katherine meant the KABNT, not the KESAB.
Mrs Miller: Yes, I did.
Mr WOOD: That is her South Australian origin.
I thank the minister for her statement. It is important that we help many of those voluntary groups to get out and do something, especially Landcare groups. You mentioned the Girraween Landcare Group, which is doing a marvellous job trying to preserve Girraween Lagoon, which will, soon I think, be the subject of a major subdivision proposal, which will need very careful evaluation before it is approved. By giving funds to these groups, you at least encourage and show recognition to these people that what they are doing is important. If we did not have these people, then the government would have to find ways of doing it themselves, or it would never be done at all.
The member for Braitling has asked me to inquire regarding issues in Alice Springs. For instance, how many people have taken up the subsidy for rainwater tanks? What is the percentage, or the number of people who have taken that up?
I also was very interested to know that you had given some funds to add to the Environment Awards to the Litter Abatement Fund, which is not exactly my way of thinking how things should be done. As you know, I have been pushing for many years for container deposit legislation. You have mentioned that Yuendumu has had a project that was announced at the KAB AGM this year. That is something that should be evaluated by the government.
However, it was funny when the minister spoke this morning about having a referendum over nuclear waste, as she would know that there were surveys taken throughout the Northern Territory, and about 90% of people wanted container deposit legislation. You know that and the government knows that and has done nothing about it. I see a little hollow stump coming up this afternoon because, when people have asked for this government to do something about the environment, you have not. You have been paid off by the beverage industry and you have not bothered to do something on the ground …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: … and something that people want. You just could not be bothered!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Katherine for her wholehearted support for these community-based grants programs, and for recognising that the grant programs going to the schools are critically important to sustaining the environment into the future. Our kids are great examples of how they are very aware and in tune with the need to protect our environment.
Keep Australia Beautiful are advocates of the way the government is approaching a range of community-based grants programs now. They see the sense in working at community level in recycling programs.
Community-based container deposit schemes, which are emerging across small communities, are really starting to take shape. You misrepresent the government. We have been on the record as saying we need to be part of a national container deposit scheme …
Members interjecting.
Mr Wood: That is an excuse! South Australia is not part of a national program and it works very well.
Ms LAWRIE: It is not an excuse. We have done the figures and we know we need to be a part of a national scheme for it to be viable for the Territory.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
SURVEILLANCE DEVICES BILL
(Serial 100)
(Serial 100)
Continued from 20 June 2007.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this bill is supported. I note that the Attorney-General’s second reading speech was relatively short. This bill is supported for the reasons outlined in his speech. Although it is invariably the case that, with legislation of this nature, people - and I think each and every one of us in the Chamber - are keen to ensure that the appropriate checks and balances are in place. That always has to be balanced with the intention of what can rightly be described as far-reaching legislation of this nature. Getting the balance right can often be a challenge.
The opposition’s view is that the balance is right with this bill. I feel certain that the government, and the Attorney-General in particular, will not be backwards in coming forward in the event that changes need to be made to this bill down the track.
The bill seems to offer an improvement on the existing legislation and the capacity to assist across borders as part of a national system to boost crime fighting capacity. There is judicial oversight and that is welcomed.
I am not sure that the opposition can or needs to add much more than that. The reasons for the support of the bill are those as I have articulated, and in addition to the comments that you raised in your second reading speech. We support the bill.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Araluen and the opposition for their support. The points she raised regarding checks and balances are extremely important when you are increasing the powers of police as we are with this legislation. In her view the balance is about right, and that is the government’s view as well. The reporting activities on a six-monthly basis through the Ombudsman’s Office, which I am required to table in this parliament, will gives us all the opportunity to monitor pretty closely the operations of this bill in ensuring that we are, in fact, correct in our assumption at the outset that the checks and balances are right. I thank the member for Araluen for her supportive comments.
Surveillance, of course, is a critical tool in effective policing and law enforcement. We have had many advances in technology which, of course, provides criminals and others wishing to harm our community with ever easier ways and more innovative ways to carry out their activities. The world has changed quite dramatically in technology since the current Surveillance Devices Act commenced in 2000. We all know organised crime and terrorism do not stop at our state borders. Neither should the ability of governments and police forces to monitor them stop at the borders. The laws must keep pace with newest technology and the criminals who use it to provide the best possible regime for law enforcement.
The bill implements the electronic surveillance model legislation that was developed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the Australasian Police Ministers Council Joint Working Group. It came in response to Resolution 15 of the Leaders Summit on Terrorism and Multijurisdictional Crime. In April 2002, the Prime Minister, state Premiers and territory Chief Ministers agreed to legislate, through model laws, a national set of powers for cross-border investigations.
The bill consolidates and updates the current regulatory regime of the use of surveillance devices. It provides for regulation of surveillance devices and investigation of local and cross-border crime; comprehensive reporting and recording requirements; and introduces that extra accountability through scrutiny by the Ombudsman of police records of surveillance device use. It also restricts the use of all information gathered through the use of surveillance devices. The misuse of any such information will carry a heavy penalty.
By adopting the model provisions and making some amendments recommended by Northern Territory Police for operational reasons, the bill presents a modern, consolidated set of laws governing the use of surveillance devices. We think it provides the necessary balance, on the one hand, to allow best use of an essential policing tool and, on the other, protecting people from unnecessary intrusion in personal privacy.
It is part of a package further to come that will address cross-border crime, which will include assumed identity, controlled operations, and witness identity protection legislation. Most importantly, it facilitates cross-border investigation and will allow for the recognition of surveillance device warrants issued in jurisdictions with corresponding legislation. It also addresses operational difficulties experienced by police; for example, it clarifies that a law enforcement officer may make an application for the instillation, use and maintenance of more than one device, and devices of a different type. It allows for police to be wired; they now will be able to use a listening device without a warrant where the officer is acting in a performance of his or her duty and the use is for purposes of safety. It allows police to use optical surveillance without warrant if use is in the course of duty and does not involve trespassing, and it allows for installation of an optical surveillance device without warrant if the occupier’s consent is obtained and installation is for the purposes of protection of lawful interests.
Importantly, it increases reporting, accountability and protections. It requires officers to provide a detailed report to the judge who issued a warrant detailing use of the device. It requires the Ombudsman to order police records and to report every six months to the minister on compliance by police with the act. These reports are to be tabled by the minister. It requires the law enforcement chief officer to keep a register of warrants and emergency authorisations and statements detailing use of warrants, thereby providing an audit trail for the Ombudsman’s inspections. It also provides penalties for the unlawful communication of information obtained by the use of surveillance device.
Other important features are that it removes the limitation on installation of data surveillance devices for persons other than law enforcement. To keep ahead of criminal knowledge, it provides protection of surveillance device technologies and methods. It provides for emergency use of listening or optical devices in the public interest where there is a serious and urgent matter, but it does require a report to a judge on any such device used in emergency circumstances.
One of the bill’s main purposes is to address the operational difficulties experienced by the police force in the Northern Territory, while easing restrictions on cross-border operations through implementation of the model provisions. The changes are made to allow police, in the course of their duty and without warrant, to record conversations to which they are a party, record conversations to which they are not a party with the consent of a party, and where they reasonably believe necessary to do so for the protection of someone’s safety, or use optical surveillance devices where consent of an occupier of the premises is obtained, or where the use of the device does not involve trespass to property or person.
It contains stringent regulation over the use of these devices and strong accountability requirements. They include clear parameters for lawful recording of conversations; a requirement to keep details of the use of information obtained through use of the device; oversight of the records by the Ombudsman; and, perhaps most importantly, there is a requirement that the person responsible for executing the warrant to report to the judge who issued the warrant to ensure the warrant was validly executed. If the judge is not satisfied that all requirements are met, the judge may order the information inadmissible and to be destroyed.
Police also have strong internal accountability and application processes for surveillance devices as part of general orders.
Finally, hefty penalties for the unlawful communication of information and reports obtained as a result of the use of a surveillance device are provided for.
The police, of course, were closely involved with the development of this legislation. It is clear that what was good law seven years ago has fallen behind today. Law enforcement officials must be able to make the most of the latest technology to keep pace with criminals’ rapid technological sophistication. That is the why the bill modifies the current surveillance legislation by allowing a warrant to be issued in respect of one or more kinds of surveillance device; ensuring evidence obtained under emergency authorisation may be used in court proceedings; setting out exact requirements to lawfully retrieve devices; recognition of corresponding warrants and authorisations, compliance and monitoring; specifically protecting surveillance device technology and method of use from disclosure; providing more extensive reporting and record keeping; setting out requirements for destruction of records; inclusion of evidentiary certificates which will provide prima facie evidence relating to the warrant application process; and the use of surveillance devices.
The bill closely adheres to model provisions, but it includes some Territory-specific provision for operational reasons. One minor, but important, amendment was made to the reporting mechanism in the model provisions, clause 58. Under the model provision, a report to the issuing judge must contain the name of the each person involved in the execution of the warrant. Because of the close nature of the Territory community, particularly in smaller centres, Northern Territory police strongly recommended against this being a requirement in our legislation because the risk of putting informants and personnel at risk. Government, therefore, decided it was unnecessary to adhere strictly to the model provision in this case, particularly as the provision was already adding another layer to the accountability contained in existing legislation.
Madam Speaker, the Martin government has worked hard over the last six years to strengthen community safety and protection. This was most evident in the Chief Minister’s landmark policy addressed last week to close the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians. This bill is another component of the government’s commitment to protect the community. It is about giving police the tools they need to monitor and prosecute those who would seek to harm others.
It will complement other recent reforms in the Justice portfolio such as victims of crime support which commenced earlier this year, the bail changes that were introduced to parliament last week, and the domestic violence legislation to come later this year. In particular, surveillance devices laws will work in conjunction with the tough anti-gang laws which came into force late last year and which included components specifically targeted at organised criminal syndicates operating here and across our borders.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TERRITORY PARKS AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT
(JOINT MANAGEMENT PARKS) BILL
(Serial 103)
(JOINT MANAGEMENT PARKS) BILL
(Serial 103)
Continued from 21 June 2007.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I speak for the first time as shadow minister for Parks and Wildlife to respond to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment (Joint Management Parks) Bill (Serial 103). At the outset, I just want to say that the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act was introduced not long after I became the member for Katherine. It is without doubt that it certainly stirred up a lot of anger, not only from the members on this side of the House, but also across the Northern Territory. That angst was due to several reasons, but included the fact that this government based its decision to introduce the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment (Joint Management Parks) Bill on two legal positions and opinions. The whole parks giveaway is based on these two legal opinions.
What is really interesting, and also very frustrating, is that this government has never made those opinions available, and has repeatedly and flatly refused to do so on several occasions. When legal opinions on an issue as important as the parks giveaway are not revealed by government for whatever reason, it is only natural that suspicion arises. Can the minister verify if, out of the 49 parks originally identified as parks which could have been claimed, there was only originally a real threat to three of those parks? Curiously, while the original number of parks was 49, the minister has made comment that 27 parks were under claim. In fact, there was only a potential for the parks to be claimed. That potential had not been realised when the government decided to give the parks away.
Government, in its refusal to make public their legal advice which led to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, has done nothing to address these rumours. What is there to hide? If this legislation is seen by government as such an important step forward, Territorians would appreciate you advising them on what advice you based your decision. I ask the minister to table the legal documents so that you can back up your position. This will disprove the rumours once and for all.
It is also interesting to note that this government has always chanted the mantra in this process about negotiation rather than litigation when they are going to the High Court on Blue Mud Bay and when they fight traditional claimants over native title in Darwin. Why is it, when a claim affects Darwin residents, such as amateur fisherman or Darwin parks and median strips, the policy of negotiation rather than litigation evaporates into a cloud of lawyers? It does present an interesting scenario, don’t you think?
In relation to the amendments to the act that the minister has presented, most of them appear to be minor to enable some joint use agreements to brought into the scope of the joint management scheme. The biggest changes to the act relate to the principles of joint management, and they are quite significant.
The original act, section 25AC, lists the objectives to be achieved by managing the park or reserve in accordance with the following principles:
and
and
(d) recognising that community living areas in or in close proximity to parks and reserves are an integral part of the natural and cultural resource management of parks and reserves;
The reasons for this occurring could be numerous. First, the cultural components of this approach of joint management may well be making the operation of the legislation impossible because of the capacity or even the motivation of the new joint managers. This means that management is beginning to be drawn back to the exclusive role of the Northern Territory. This is good for the parks estate but represents a defeat for government because your lofty ideals have been struck down by the reality of the incapacity for many of the new landowners to participate in joint management arrangements.
Another possible interpretation is that the existing section implies a financial commitment by the new owners through their land councils. Clearly, the land councils do not want to foot the bill for the management of this new land they now own. Therefore, government may well be softening the legislation to assume greater responsibility for the land that the Northern Territory no longer owns. Put simply, this means that government has given away the land, leased it back for $1m per year, and will now pay extra for the privilege of managing it.
While these amendments will not be voted against by the opposition, it is very important that government realises that Territorians are still extremely annoyed by the original decision to give their parks away, which may have been totally unnecessary. What it has done is ensure that Territorians are committed to paying for the lease on parks that they did not need to, and it is a lot of money that could have been spent in other areas.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Children Services)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I support this amendment for two important reasons. First, it is the responsibility of government to do its best to continually improve the management of public assets. The days of ‘near enough is good enough’ are no longer acceptable. The management of national parks and conservation reserves in the Northern Territory is a high priority. Not only do they represent some of the nation’s most important conservation areas, they are, in a large part, pristine.
Our parks have other than environment value as well. With the steady increase in the importance of tourism to our economy, the need to manage our parks is paramount. The fact that so many of our parks are in such good condition is that they have not been disturbed by the intensive settlement or agricultural practices so common elsewhere in Australia; indeed, throughout much of the world.
Conversely, this lack of intensive settlement and agriculture also reflects the historical reality of colonialism in Australia. Because the Northern Territory was affected by settler society much later than elsewhere in Australia, our parks are far closer in time to traditional Aboriginal land management practices - closer in time but also closer in reality. Because so much traditional intellectual knowledge is still closely held by Aboriginal traditional owner groups in the Northern Territory we have been able, and uniquely for Australia, to benefit from this knowledge through embracing joint management practices for our national parks and conservation reserves.
This is no accidental or idle advantage. To the extent that we are able to utilise traditional intellectual knowledge through joint management, we are making an invaluable investment in the future of our parks estate through learning from the past. Joint management is, therefore, best practice if we are to maintain our parks’ heritage. Joint management whereby traditional Aboriginal intellectual knowledge can be married with contemporary western science is simply the best way to improve the management of these valuable public assets.
From my period as minister with responsibility for Parks and Wildlife, I developed a high regard for the staff of the parks’ service both at the head office and on the ground in our national parks. What most impressed me was the way the joint management was seen by so many senior non-indigenous staff as a critical path forward in the management of our parks. It was also interesting to see that staff, even before the days when we first moved to joint management under the Framework for the Future policy and legislation, had been embracing joint management principles. I recall, for example, John De Koning taking me through the Gregory National Park and explaining how joint management was working on the ground through flexible employment strategies, the full-time employment and training of Aboriginal rangers, the payment of cultural advisors in both management and research functions, and the awarding of local contracts to local Aboriginal organisations.
The twist in this tail was that Parks and Wildlife had been advancing these practices even in the days of the previous CLP government. It had been clear, especially from the time of the establishment of Nitmiluk in 1989, that joint management was the best way to go. The irony was that this was going on under the noses of a succession of CLP governments bitterly opposed to the extension of joint management practices to parks other than Nitmiluk. The park rangers and traditional owners were voting with their feet. It was best practice back in 1989, and remains that way today.
That is the first reason to support this legislation. The amendments that we pass today will follow the formalisation of those best practice management options and Umbrawarra Gorge, Barranyi and Tjuwaliyn Hot Springs. More importantly, it will seamlessly allow the extension of this principle to the other lands in the future.
The second reason for supporting the amendments relates to the enormous potential joint management offers us in Aboriginal employment and enterprise development. Joint management represents environmental advantages – we know that. Joint management also offers social, cultural and economic advantages. As we move over the next 20 years to fulfilling the Closing the Gap program introduced by the Chief Minister last week, national parks and conservation reserves will play an increasingly important role as a source of employment and wealth generation. The majority of our parks estate is in remote areas of the Northern Territory and that is also where the majority of Aboriginal Territorians live and work. Jointly managed parks and conservation reserves are already showing returns on investment in the training and employment of Aboriginal rangers. In addition, other land management groups such as the Djelk Rangers at Maningrida and Dhimurru at Yirrkala are increasing the pool of Aboriginal people employed in biodiversity conservation and biosecurity programs funded by this and the federal governments.
The future employment growth for Aboriginal Territorians is inextricably tied up with joint management of our parks, and through mechanisms such as the West Arnhem Fire Management Project, or indigenous protected areas such as that on Groote Eylandt. The establishment of Aboriginal enterprises on and near our parks has the potential for employment, obviously, but also significant advantages to the Territory’s economy through investment.
The late Bangardi Lee from Nitmiluk National Park was often fond of pointing out that Aboriginal people were not likely at any time soon to be investing their profits on the Gold Coast or overseas tax shelters. Aboriginal investment would stay in the Northern Territory, thereby increasing the wealth of all Territorians, not just Aboriginal Territorians.
There is another reason why these amendments should be supported, and the opposition should take careful note of this rather than the rhetoric we have heard time and time again from them where they have constantly tried to divide the Northern Territory. However, I believe that the Northern Territory has moved on. It has matured; it no longer panders to the redneck element that constantly divides Aboriginal Territorians from non-indigenous Territorians. This Territory has matured; it is moving forward. When we passed the legislation in the last parliament to enact joint management over our 27 national parks and conservation reserves in the Territory. We did so for the reasons that I have outlined very clearly.
The then CLP - and the opposition needs to look at this now - showed their true colours when it came to advancing the causes of Aboriginal training and employment, not to mention internationally respected best practice when it comes to biodiversity conservation. They bitterly opposed joint management of our parks. If they campaigned on anything other than their crazy power scheme, they campaigned against joint management of our parks. History shows that the electorate overwhelmingly rejected the negativity of the CLP when it came to joint management of our parks and conservation reserves, and overwhelmingly favoured supporting a long-term future for Aboriginal employment and commercial investment.
Labor had a mandate to continue the process of moving to joint management of our parks and reserves. These amendments further advance that principle, endorsed by the electorate. That is why we should now endorse the amendments. Madam Speaker, I support the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, people have been discussing the general framework around this amendment, so I should say at the outset that I support the government’s policy on joint management arrangements for these parks.
When you look at the parks that were nominated as those suitable for joint management agreements in the cold light of day, it would be very difficult to say that those parks did not have traditional owners. This was based on the court’s decision that these parks were subject to land rights claims. I looked at this issue long and hard. I know the CLP does not agree with me, but I felt in this case that to take these matters to court - although that could have been in the public’s viewpoint possibly the technically correct way to go - would have lost you the case. You have to remember that the traditional owners of those areas would have had to be certified by the land councils. So, if we were not putting the traditional owners into those joint management agreements, I am pretty sure someone would be suing the land councils for having people involved in incorrect joint management arrangements.
Coming back to the amendment, I have some concerns. Unless those concerns are corrected, I may have some problems with supporting the amendment. My concerns relate to the role of land councils in this matter. Clause 8 substitutes the section to lessen the role of land councils for those agreement executed solely by the minister. This is section 25AN, ‘Application of Division’, the division being Division 6, Role of Land Councils. Currently, section 25AN simply states that the division applies to parks and reserves in Schedules 2 and 3, that is park freehold title and various reserves of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act.
The amendment adds that to any park or reserve where the minister has executed a joint management arrangement. That is a new section in clause 5, ‘… the minister may execute on behalf of the Territory a joint management agreement for a park or reserve’. The clause 8 amendment then adds that for those parks and reserves executed by the minister, ‘the application of this Division is subject to exclusion or modification by the agreement or any ILUA’. The explanatory statement interprets this as ‘The application of the Division may be modified or nullified through the joint management agreement or any ILUA’. This means the role of the land councils may be modified or nullified for those parks where the minister has declared an agreement. There is no mention of this in the second reading, although the Northern Territory government could argue that these are most likely to be parks and reserves not on Aboriginal land. However, this is not explicit in the bill.
The advice we have received is that this amendment is inconsistent with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and, therefore, may be invalid; that is, under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, land councils must be consulted in land management issues - being a Commonwealth act, it takes precedence over Northern Territory law.
The second point I raise is related to clause 5, which inserts a new section allowing the minister to execute an agreement. However, there is no reference to any need for informed consent from the traditional owners or other relevant bodies, and no mention of what happens if traditional owners et al do not want an agreement. I need some fairly clear ratification of whether what I have said is right.
In relation to the bill as a whole, I was interested when, in the second reading, you referred to a number of parks. One is Tjuwaliyn, which is the Douglas Hot Springs Park, one is the Upper Daly land claim, and the other one is Umbrawarra Gorge. I have mentioned in parliament that I spent a week or so travelling the Barkly and visited the Davenport Ranges. If anyone has picked up a map of the Davenport Ranges, you will see in brackets that word ‘proposed’. I did speak to some people in the area as to why it is being still proposed, because it has been proposed since 1993, I gather. That is an awful long time for a national park to be proposed. I am interested to know why that park has still not been declared an official national park. Would this particular amendment to the act have any bearing on whether that park will eventually become a fully-fledged park? I ask the minister if she could give some detail on what is happening on the case of Davenport Ranges National Park.
Minister, whilst I understand the overall intent of the bill, which is to allow Aboriginal people to propose areas of land, and not necessarily Aboriginal people only, they would like as part of our parks estate so a joint management agreement can be set out, and that is an excellent concept, I would be interested in how that fits into budgetary requirements for Parks and Wildlife. From my anecdotal evidence, Parks and Wildlife does not have a lot of money. They do not have a lot of money to fix Howard Springs; they do not have a lot of money to fix the boardwalk at Fogg Dam. I do not know whether they have any other boardwalks. I am interested to know the status of all the boardwalks. However, the feeling I get is that they do not have a lot of money. I will give you another example: I have had many complaints about pigs in the Howard Springs Nature Park. It requires money to solve that problem, but that problem is not being solved as far as I know.
Whilst it is all very well to have the bill, it will be interesting to know what the ramifications are of taking on extra parks. From my wife’s country, for instance, there has been some talk about some land there being available as a national park. It might be a great idea, good to have joint management arrangements, and it will be great for employment for people there, but we have to be realistic. If you take on parks, you take on a very large budget. Whilst we are saying this, I am interested to hear whether the government is planning for the future. Does it intend to put more money into parks to make this process work? If so, can they say what that budget will be?
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I also support this bill, which takes in a great many areas within my electorate, parts that are included in the original bill and parts that may be included in the future.
I pick up on a comment from the member for Nelson. He is obviously talking about the Bulgul area …
Mr Wood: The Perron Islands.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, the Perron Islands. There are great opportunities for joint management, opportunities for commercial development for Aboriginal people to use both a newly formed park to attract people to the area and develop commercial activities within the park. There are huge opportunities within joint management for traditional owners to open up land and manage it in a sustainable way. That is what many traditional owners are trying to do.
There has been a negative campaign against this. I have seen CLP members in Katherine sitting at card tables, woolly stare, a bit lonely with their little plaque saying: ‘You are giving away our parks’, which has been going on for at least a year. It obviously did not have much resonance in the last election. They were told fairly clearly that their negative, racist, redneck campaign comes more out of the late 1990s than it does from the early 2000s. They should give it up, realise that people see through their racist rhetoric and realise that this is sensible, sustainable legislation. It moves the Territory forward and gives rights to the people who have the land. They should stop being so racist about what they are saying.
The Gregory National Park is one of the key parks of the original legislation ...
Mrs Miller: It has nothing to do with racism.
Mr KNIGHT: The shadow minister wants to comment. When did you last go out to Gregory National Park, shadow minister?
Mrs Miller: It has nothing to do with racism.
Mr KNIGHT: I do not think you have been out there. When did you last go out to Flora National Park? No, have not been out there. Keep River National Park - no, have not been out there. There is a range of parks that the shadow minister cannot even bother to get out and have a good look at, and talk to the traditional owners of those areas to see what they think. Talk to the traditional owners of Gregory National Park about the workshops and the camps they have been conducting and you will see that they are thoroughly engaged with it; that opportunities exist in those areas and they are making use of it. The places are not locked up and they are not being given away. They are there for every Territorian, every Australian to visit. Those places will keep developing.
I have a lot to do with VRD areas, and I can tell you people are engaging in those workshops and camps. I have just been talking to a friend who is adjacent to the Flora National Park. He is working with Parks and has some work out of these joint management arrangements. It is part-time work at the moment, but I hope that will continue.
This legislation opens up opportunities in areas like that for the future. The Daly River or Mt Nancar Conservation Reserve is part of an area which may have some adjustment in the future; it may be incorporated into a larger park. Obviously it is up to the traditional owners to look at …
Mr Wood: It needs a road.
Mr KNIGHT: Mt Nancar? Yes, right. That is another issue for the minister for Infrastructure and Transport, but it is certainly an opportunity for the Mt Nancar area to be incorporated into a large park, to open up that area, to bring infrastructure and facilities. The Douglas Daly Esplanade Conservation Area is another which could be opened up where people, if they agree, could make this a jointly managed park and put more facilities down there. I visited the Tjuwaliyn, or Douglas Daly Hot Springs as people like to call it, more like boiling springs at the moment, on Saturday. There would have been about 60 or 70 vehicles in the camp ground and in the picnic area, there would have been about another 20 vehicles. The park experiences high visitation; it is a highly sought after area and it is a fabulous facility. I hope that through this process we can open up other areas in the Douglas Daly so it is not just one destination area and people can make use of other parks.
The Mary River area is on a bit of a hold at the moment with negotiations going on, but I hope the Mary River area comes aboard, too. Umbrawarra Gorge is another key part of the original and this legislation. It is a beautiful area adjacent to Pine Creek. I hope there will be improvements in road access.
Just on Tjuwaliyn and Umbrawarra, the CLP say: ‘You are giving it away’. Well, it was a CLP government that actually negotiated the handing of those portions of land to the traditional owners in lieu of entering into a joint management agreement. Here we have two areas where you were doing what we did, and that was 13 years ago, a very different climate then I am sure, but you gave back the park in lieu of joint management. Now, the CLP government sat on its hands, really showed its racist tendencies by not entering into formal joint management arrangements, and here we are doing it now. We are formalising it, getting the traditional owners involved and making it all happen.
This is an excellent third tranche that opens up areas, provides greater opportunities for government to invest in parks, and opens them for every Territorian, every Australian to visit the Territory. I thank the minister. I am delighted that areas within my electorate are being opened and given maximum opportunity to develop. People in these areas are gaining greater opportunities for employment and commercial development. I congratulate the minister on her bill.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support the amendments to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. As the minister and my colleagues have stressed, it is about certainty. That what good governments are about: ensuring that there is adequacy and certainty in legislation.
My understanding is that the bill amends the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act which enables joint management standards to be applied consistently across the Territory. Consistency is the key because we have legislation which is a hangover from the CLP days which was inconsistent, and it comes back to what I said earlier: it is about certainty.
All of the parks and reserves would come under the jointly managed parks and wildlife aspects of this act, with the exception of parks and reserves managed under the joint management legislation such as Nitmiluk, Garig Gunak Barlu, which is Cobourg National Park, or where there is a joint management agreement already in place.
There are specific aspects of this that I would like to touch on for my constituents. They are the aspects covered under the Framework to date. These include Indigenous Land Use Agreements and leases that have been signed and registered for the 27 parks and reserves scheduled under the Framework act, apart from the proposed Mary River National Park where an objection to the registration of the Indigenous Land Use Agreement is under consideration by the Native Title Tribunal.
Joint management camps and induction workshops have been conducted with traditional owner groups, as I understand it, across the new jointly managed parks. These have been of much interest and have combined contemporary and traditional ways of looking after country. I am very keen to see how that progresses. In total, over 200 owners and over 60 Parks and Wildlife staff have participated in joint management induction workshops to date. So this government is about doing things, trying to redress past imbalances.
Another aspect is the flexible employment and training programs including innovative job sharing arrangements which have been developed to assist traditional owners with employment opportunities in joint management of the parks. This has provided an avenue for traditional owners to gain access to both full- and part-time positions, another thing that the Martin Labor government is doing.
Despite the assertions about parks being given away, which seems to be very much the opposition’s rhetoric and a catch cry they have latched onto, the Territory Labor approach to resolving land and native title claims over parks and reserves is seen both nationally and internationally as quite visionary and forward-looking. It is part of 21st century best practice park management.
These amendments are designed to broaden the application of joint management provisions in the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act so they can apply to proposed jointly managed parks and reserves within the Territory. That is the essence of the amendments.
My understanding is that these amendments are needed because under previous CLP administrations, some aspects were left incomplete and, in particular, some of our parks were left with an uncertain future because of lack of consultation by the previous administration. That is sad. Specifically, the two areas we are talking about are Umbrawarra Gorge and Douglas Hot Springs. A condition of settlement of the land grants was for the parks to be jointly management by traditional owners and the Northern Territory government. When I talk about Douglas Hot Springs, despite over six years of opportunities, no formal agreement over the management of the area had been reached and the legal basis for its management remains uncertain. That is what alerts you to problems with the existing legislation. The amendment will help to formalise the joint management agreement for Douglas Hot Springs and Umbrawarra Gorge.
I would like now to talk about some of the parks in my electorate. The Vernon Islands Conservation Reserve, in the Gunn Point area, is Crown land subject to land claim. It is not in a situation right now, but it could benefit from this if the land claim is approved. The same applies to Tree Point Conservation Reserve and the Shoal Bay Coastal Reserve. All are Crown land reserves and provided we get the bill passed, they will be unaffected by the amendments.
The Channel Island Conservation Reserve comes under the Power and Water Corporation. The land is owned by the corporation and is unaffected by these amendments. The Middle Point and Lambells Lagoon area in my electorate, in particular Fogg Dam Conservation Reserve, the Harrison Dam Conservation Reserve, the Black Jungle/Lambells Lagoon Conservation Reserve and the Melacca Swamp Conservation Area are all included in Schedule 3 of the Frameworks act.
Bynoe Harbour is right on the boundary with the Daly; and the Indian Island Conservation Area is still subject, as is the whole Cox Peninsula, to the Kenbi Land Claim. Even though it has been recommended for grant, it is possible that at some time in the future, joint management will be part of the Bynoe Harbour Marine Park proposal, which is something the government will be looking at in the future.
I turn to the opposition’s contribution to this debate, which has been pretty shallow, pretty hollow. It is all about division; it is rhetoric about ‘giving away’. The CLP clearly does not understand the amendments and what we are talking about, and the fact that they provide certainty. Why don’t they? They were talking about supporting it. I will leave that to my fellow colleagues to determine. The other aspect is that they may not want to acknowledge the surety of this bill. They are peddling misinformation, which they continue to do for their own purposes. It suits their purposes and divisive nature; they would like to see a divisive Territory. That is unfortunate. They are a bit of a paradox.
The member for Katherine talked about lack of disclosure. There are documents she would like us to table. I remind the House that we are still waiting on the Leader of the Opposition to table Dr Annie Cossins’ independent analysis of the Little Children are Sacred Report. I remind the Leader of the Opposition of that, and if she would like to table the report, we would all welcome it. The whole of the CLP debate was based on that independent analysis, and I would like to see it. I am sure every member on this side of the House would like to see it. If you are talking about tabling and disclosure, maybe you could think about disclosing some aspects of what your case has been in other areas of debate.
I conclude by reiterating what my colleagues have stated. This is not about the CLP style of division. We are not about that. We are about a whole-of-Territory approach. We are about engaging all Territorians. I am proud to be part of the Martin Labor government that has that as its basic philosophy; not one of division, separation or pointing out the differences between Territorians, but one of engaging Territorians and looking at joint management of our parks.
This is a process which will take us into the 21st century. It is best practice parks management. I was keen to hear that the opposition supports it, but they have to get their rhetoric right. They have to add a bit of substance to their debate in future because it was quite shallow. That is very disappointing because this House is supposed to be a place where you put a bit of effort into what you present, a bit of thought, and unfortunately the CLP has failed in that area again. I look forward, though, to the Leader of the Opposition tabling Dr Cossins’ comments and her report.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for fixing the wrongs of the previous CLP administration.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, this is all about a political argument about who should own the parks and who should manage them. We now have to accept that we do have these agreements, and we hope that they will not, in any way, interfere with people who want to enjoy national parks; that there will be benefits for all Territorians from them. We need to move on and government needs to ensure that what they have put in place is for the benefit of us all.
I always get frustrated with the little rules. I am trying to be polite about this, but rangers introduce so many rules and regulations in many of our parks: do not camp here, do not get off the path, do not pee here, do not do this, do not do that. You cannot even take your dog any more. That used to be one of the fun trips for families. However, that is by the by. We are over, we are done: you have this in place; make sure it works.
What I want to clarify, minister, is where we stand with our parks with regard to the federal legislation. We all heard over the weekend that at Uluru, tourists will not be able to enjoy a wine at the sunset viewing. Do these restrictions apply to other parks, our parks? Has an alcohol ban been imposed? I am thinking of some of the tourism operators. There is one particular operator who takes out specialist groups like artists and they may stop at Rainbow Valley or Palm Valley. These artists basically work all day, come back to the camp at night, enjoy the campfire, enjoy a meal prepared for them and enjoy a beer or a wine. I am concerned that the Federal government restrictions may also affect those people who earn their living from utilising our parks: good operators who do not do any damage to the environment, who add to the economy of the Territory. That is my concern. Will these tourism operators be allowed to have permits to continue operating the way they have and will they have to apply for them? It needs to be clarified. There is a lot of concern out there. I guess it applies in the Top End, but particularly around Central Australia, as the member for Stuart knows, and those operators who go out with specialised groups. I would like the minister to clarify for me exactly what effect, if any, the federal intervention has on the use of the parks by the tour operators.
Ms LAWRIE (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, in the debate today, what I believe is appropriate to do is to bring members of the Chamber back to the comments of minister Scrymgour during the second reading speech, and put into context what these amendments are about.
I was concerned about the rhetoric of the member for Katherine. Whilst indicating that the opposition will support these amendments and recognising that they are eminently sensible and reasonable, the rhetoric of the past returned, talking about a parks giveaway, which is absolutely and completely wrong.
The framework for parks is all about joint management. A shining example of that is Nitmiluk National Park. It is an example of effective joint management. When national and international tourists are surveyed, much of the feedback is that they come to the Territory to see our beautiful, unique environment and to gain an experience of Aboriginal culture. The most appropriate way in which to experience both situations is to expand and enhance our joint management parks base, which is exactly what the original legislation did.
The Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment (Joint Management Parks) Bill is about joint management standards that can be applied consistently across the Territory’s jointly managed parks and reserves. It is providing for standards and principles, it is identifying negotiations that should occur and it is putting safeguards in place for those negotiations.
I will go to the member for Nelson’s concerns in my response. In terms of the effectiveness of the action taken in the original Framework act, I want to go back to minister Scrymgour’s comments in the second reading speech. She said that the legislative changes had been instrumental in resolving uncertainty about the future of many of the Territory’s parks and reserves and had established a win-win situation for both indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians. The joint management provisions provide an overarching structure for the administration and management of jointly managed parks. The provisions define the objectives and principles of joint management. They define the role and responsibilities of both joint management partners. They provide a way the joint management plan must be prepared and give some consistency and understanding of informed consent, which is what the member for Nelson’s queries were about. It provides for the manner in which by-laws must be applied. It provides for the function and roles of the land council and, in relation to your query, member for Nelson, of course the Northern Land Council must be involved in any negotiations on ALRA land. The amendments provided for in the legislation we have before us today provide for circumstances that do not involve ALRA land. I will go to an example of that in my comments, member for Nelson. A number of other details with respect to the administration and management of jointly managed parks and reserves have been established under that Framework act.
The legislation was rolled out and the new joint management arrangements across the Territory are being facilitated. To date, we have Indigenous Land Use Agreements and leases that have been signed and registered for those 27 parks and reserves scheduled under the original act, apart from the Mary River National Park where there is an objection to the registration of the ILUA under consideration by the Native Title Tribunal.
Joint management camps and induction workshops have been conducted with traditional owner groups and Parks staff across the new jointly managed parks. There has been interest generated by both groups in combining contemporary and traditional ways of looking after country. Some 200 traditional owners and more than 60 Parks and Wildlife staff have participated in joint management induction workshops to date.
Flexible employment and training programs, including innovative job sharing arrangements, have been developed to assist traditional owners with employment opportunities in these jointly managed parks. This has provided an avenue for traditional owners to gain access to full- and part-time positions. As part of the new joint management arrangements, a total of 11 trainee and permanent indigenous ranger positions have been filled to date. The newly created flexible employment program has 176 registered participants. Over the past 12 months, participants have engaged in 52 on-park projects. New training and capacity building programs have resulted in 35 indigenous people enrolled in Certificate II and III accredited courses in conservation and land management. Accredited training has also been provided to traditional owners in job-related training such as chemical use, first aid, fire management, chainsaw operation and, importantly, tour guiding.
Works contracts have been provided to indigenous communities at Gregory National Park, Flora River Nature Reserve and the Alice Springs Telegraph Station. It is likely that additional contracts will be awarded to indigenous groups to undertake maintenance and construction works associated with joint management parks over time.
Traditional owners of a number of joint management parks have expressed an interest in developing ecotourism opportunities. These are being explored through on-ground workshops and feasibility studies. Joint management planning workshops have taken place for the majority of new jointly managed parks and reserves, and the first joint management plans under the new arrangements are expected to be released for public comment in the near future. A new joint management monitoring and evaluation program is being established in cooperation with Charles Darwin University. A pilot program is under way at the Flora River Nature Park and a $500 000 Australian Research Council grant application has been submitted to assist in the broader implementation of this program. The monitoring and evaluation program uses innovative and participatory techniques to capture the breadth of joint management outcomes.
Despite the uninformed assertions about parks being given away, the Territory’s approach to resolving its land and native title claims over parks and reserves is seen nationally and internationally as forward-looking and visionary. Other Australian states are taking note of the Territory’s far-sighted approach and following suit in resolving land and native title claims.
The amendments to the act are designed to broaden the application of joint management provisions within the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act so that these provisions can apply to newly proposed jointly managed parks and reserves within the Territory. I will give an example. Under the CLP government, Tjuwaliyn, which is the Douglas Hot Springs Park, was granted to the Wagiman Land Trust in 1994 and in 1999, the Upper Daly Repeat Land Claim was settled, guaranteeing the Wagiman people freehold title over the Umbrawarra Gorge National Park. A condition of settlement of these land grants was for the parks to be jointly managed by the traditional Aboriginal owners and the Northern Territory government, but despite the lapse of some 13 years and six years, no formal agreement over the management has ever been reached and the legal basis for their management remains uncertain. The amendments proposed in the bill will help formalise joint management arrangements for these parks.
The parks and conservation master plan provides a vision for an enhanced park estate which would include, with the agreement of traditional owners, the addition of Aboriginal lands under joint management arrangements. However, there is presently no straightforward legal mechanism for this to occur. The amendments proposed in this bill provide a mechanism for joint management to be formalised for Tjuwaliyn, which is Douglas Hot Springs Park, Umbrawarra Gorge National Park and Barranyi (North Island) National Park, and provides a mechanism for the minister to establish on behalf of the Territory joint management agreements over new areas of land for inclusion in the parks estate.
The framework sets high standards for achieving joint management in the Territory. These standards recognise and value Aboriginal culture and tradition and require that indigenous knowledge is incorporated into park management decision-making processes. These standards require that the public is guaranteed access on a no entry fee, no permit basis. The standards require that the public has a say in the joint management planning processes, the plans of management are passed through this House before being legally adopted, a joint management park reserve is managed in accordance with a joint management plan and joint management principles, and that statutory procedures are in place for developing, amending and, if necessary, revoking a joint management plan. The bill before us allows a far more consistent, transparent and equitable approach to be applied to jointly managed parks and reserves in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, in relation to comments by the member for Katherine, I can say that there have been no problems with the cultural components of joint management. We have found we work effectively with the traditional owners and the land councils. The Rainbow Valley joint management plan is evidence of that. The Devils Marbles plan is close to completion, as is the Flora River plan.
These amendments do not change the principles of joint management. The Framework act was established following the Ward decision in Western Australia and provided a way to resolve land and native title questions over parks and reserves. It provided a way to do so both effectively and efficiently. This has enabled the development of partnerships between the Territory and traditional owners to ensure the long-term security and future of our parks and reserves. This act will enable parks over which there has been uncertainty for many years, like Tjuwaliyn and Umbrawarra, to move forward with certainty.
Member for Nelson, in respect of your concern about clause 8, I can advise that land councils’ roles on ALRA land is not changed by this amendment. Not all jointly managed parks are on or will be on ALRA land, and an example of that is Umbrawarra. The joint management agreement provides that it is an agreement between the Territory and the traditional owners, and therefore it cannot be executed unilaterally by the minister. The joint management objectives explicitly require equitable partnership. Joint management principles recognise the need for institutional support and capacity building. These ensure appropriate, informed decision making.
Member for Nelson, in terms of the Davenport Ranges, it is one of the 27 scheduled parks and reserves under the Framework act. ALRA title will be granted when the Commonwealth introduces legislation to amend ALRA to schedule the land under the act. Until ALRA title is granted and the lease is executed, it would be inappropriate to declare the park. Timing of the introduction of the amendments to ALRA is in the hands of the Commonwealth.
I can advise the member for Nelson that the Commonwealth minister, Mal Brough, has written to the Chief Minister informing her that although the ALRA amendments are listed for the spring sitting of the Commonwealth parliament, he does not expect that there will be time to introduce them. Obviously, this is very disappointing news for the Northern Territory government. We are very keen to see the Commonwealth schedule the Davenport Ranges. It is naturally lending itself to the next stage of a national park, but until this is resolved by Commonwealth scheduling, we cannot move on it.
I can advise the member for Braitling that yes, the Northern Territory government shares her concerns about the federal intervention in terms of alcohol restrictions on ALRA land. Our advice to date is that this does affect our parks that have ALRA land within them, so it is very concerning. The Minister for Alcohol Policy has provided information consistently to the Commonwealth government that their amendments are completely opposite to what should occur. Why can’t someone enjoy a glass of Chardonnay while watching the sun set at Uluru, and why can’t someone enjoy a drink within the normal rules that apply across our parks network? It is a difficult and foolish action by the Commonwealth government that does affect our parks.
We will continue to talk to the Commonwealth government and urge them to amend the legislation and take heed that there are tremendous economic opportunities across the Northern Territory in our magnificent parks and reserves. They provide real opportunity for joint management. I am enormously proud of the actions taken by the Chief Minister and the former minister for the Environment to pursue the parks framework. It is glaringly obvious to anyone with any sense who understands parks management, who understands parks within the Northern Territory, that joint management is the way forward.
It provides for the traditional owners to benefit from their ownership of the land, but to share this beautiful parks estate with all Territorians and all visitors from across Australia and overseas. As we have heard from what I have said today, it will provide real jobs for traditional owners in our parks estate. They have appropriate skills to become park rangers. It is great to see the flexibility in employment relationships that provide for opportunities for a vast number of traditional owners to participate in the care and protection of our parks estate.
I note that the member for Braitling expressed some concern about the existence of by-laws and how strictly managed our parks estates are, but it is recognition that they are pristine environments. We need to ensure that whilst people have access to these beautiful parks and reserves, we do not see a destruction of what is a great asset for Territorians. We have seen the introduction of feral species and the impact those species have had on our pristine environment. I can understand that whilst some people may be responsible dog owners and want to take them to a park, the issue of introduced animals to the parks can be very problematic. So underlying each of the by-laws are some very practical reasons as to why we need to protect the integrity of our parks estates.
I note that the member for Nelson, quite appropriately, raised the issue of whether there is funding provided to move the parks forward and to underpin the joint management opportunities that exist. Obviously, the policy decision taken by government is a significant one. We have already expanded the indigenous range of programs in funding in this budget. We are working across government agencies. We are talking to Tourism, for example, and Planning and Infrastructure in terms of recognising the opportunities that exist within the parks estate, recognising the improvements in infrastructure.
Access to the estates is another issue, for example, in terms of roads. Litchfield, for example, and the Mereenie Loop are clear examples of where we are putting in road infrastructure to provide access to some of our beautiful parks and reserves areas.
This will be a continued budgetary requirement from government. There is no doubt about that. However, it does, by the nature of joint management, lend itself to a range of funding opportunities, particularly in the area of ecotourism. It lends itself to those small business enterprises to be established by traditional owners with the support and advice of government as well. It is not just a case of saying government can foot the bill for everything; it is a case of being able to work in true partnership and open up magnificent tracts of the Territory for people to see and to enjoy.
I know there was divisive debate about the introduction of the Framework act. I note that the member for Arafura, the previous minister, very clearly articulated that despite the shameful CLP campaigning on what was a complete fallacy, saying that the park estates were about to be given away. The estate was not given away; joint management is not a giveaway, we all know that. Despite that, the Territory public rejected that nonsense and said the government has a mandate to move forward with joint management of parks and reserves. We have put a whole lot of principles, objectives and standards in place to ensure that what we do, we do in a very fair way; that we do not impose our view on traditional owners or the land councils, but we sit down and, park by park, reserve by reserve, provide a framework for negotiation to deliver a joint management of that park or reserve. It provides certainty into the future of how people will be able to access those very pristine and magnificent areas of the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions. I thank the members for Daly and Goyder for talking about the beauty of the parks and reserves within their electorates. It is one of the privileges of our job to be able to travel throughout the Territory and see our magnificent parks and reserves.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment (Joint Management) Parks Bill 2007 (Serial 103). I seek advice from the member for Nelson about which areas he would like to cover.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, I would like to deal with clauses 5 and 8.
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, proposed section 23A(1) states:
- The minister may execute, on behalf of the Territory, a joint management agreement for a park or reserve.
You said that, basically, because it would be an equitable partnership, traditional owners would be involved. However, proposed section 23A(2) reads:
- The terms of the joint management agreement must provide that access to the park or reserve is to be open to the public without payment of an entry fee.
That has been included as a specific item. In relation to proposed section 23A(1), I wonder why the phrase ‘in consultation with traditional owners where relevant’ should have been included to clarify that they are to be consulted.
My argument is that you are saying it is already there, but in the next clause you include something which is already in the framework agreement, the business about access to the park being open to the public without payment. I thought that was already implied, but we have added it here as a specific item. Why not have specific consultation with the TOs as required?
Ms LAWRIE: You query goes to the definition of a joint management agreement for a park or reserve, which means ‘an agreement between the Territory and the traditional Aboriginal owners of the park or reserve about the management of the park reserve’. It is enshrined in the definition of a joint management agreement that the TOs are consulted.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mr WOOD: Minister, I am asking for more in-depth clarification of my query in relation to 25AN, Application of Division. Clause 8 of the Explanatory Statement reads:
- The section broadens the application of the Division to include joint management parks which have been declared under section 23A(1).
In the case of a joint management park where a joint management agreement is executed under section 23A(1) the application of the Division may be modified or nullified through the joint management agreement or any indigenous land use agreement applying to the park or reserve.
My understanding of your answer to that during the debate was that it will only apply to land that is not subject to an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. The nullification …
Ms Lawrie: I said ALRA land, not ILUA.
Mr WOOD: Oh, sorry, ALRA land. I beg your pardon. What is the guarantee in the act? What actually says that you cannot do …
Ms Lawrie: You cannot, under ALRA, exclude the land councils. You know that.
Mr WOOD: That is right. Where does it say that …
Ms Lawrie: Section 23.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I know that. That is what we are dealing with. Where does it say under 25AN that is the case?
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Nelson, I am advised that section 23 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act stipulates that requirement. Okay? We cannot ignore the requirements of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act that is in existence. The way we have framed these amendments are in keeping with the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. I repeat: this provision applies to land that is not ALRA land. It provides for a mechanism where we can negotiate with the traditional owners of land that is not scheduled as ALRA land.
Mr WOOD: All right. But say I took an example of the one I was talking about, land near Bulgul, and say the people came to you and said: ‘We want to put the Perron Islands in a national park’. That land is ALRA land?
Ms Lawrie: Yes, it is. Yes.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I will take one step back. Are you saying that this amendment does not apply in this case?
Ms LAWRIE: That is right. If it is ALRA land, then no, that amendment does not apply because the government will negotiate with the Northern Land Council as well as the traditional owners.
Mr WOOD: All right, but when you read 25AN, it reads:
- However, in regard to a park or reserve referred to in subsection 1(b) …
Subsection 1(b) reads:
- A park or reserve for which a joint management agreement has been executed under 23A(1) …
23A(1) reads:
- The minister may execute, on behalf of the Territory, a joint management agreement for a park or reserve.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, that is right in the case of where the land is not ALRA land. For example, the traditional owners may not want the land council involved in their negotiations for land that is not ALRA land. On ALRA land, very clearly, the role of the land council is stated by the ALRA legislation, and we are not going outside of that.
Mr WOOD: I understand that. What I was wondering is why there would not have been a clause which said ‘subject to’ because the way it is written is …
Ms LAWRIE: But it is subject to.
Mr WOOD: I would have to go to the Explanatory Statement, which says something that is not in the bill. It says ‘may be modified or nullified’. Is the Explanatory Statement not quite correct? The clause says ‘subject to exclusion or modification’. Maybe it is the same thing. I am confused as to whether having that in there, and not stating clearly the role of the land councils, it could be interpreted that the minister can override and make an agreement without consulting. If that is what it says, then this bill is illegal because it is inconsistent with the Land Rights act.
Ms LAWRIE: Well, no. Gerry, I do not know how many more times I have to repeat it: we are not in breach of ALRA. Where it is ALRA land, the land councils are absolutely in the negotiations. Where it is not ALRA land, it provides the option for if, and it is a big if, the traditional owners want to negotiate directly with the Territory government on a joint management agreement for their traditional lands, they have the opportunity to do that.
Mr WOOD: All right.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of a former member of the Victorian parliament, Mr George Cox, who was a Member of the Legislative Assembly from 1976 to 1982, and a Member of the Legislative Council from 1988 to 1996. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of our public tour program, with members of Palmerston’s University of the Third Age. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION –
Nuclear Waste Facility – Leave Denied
Nuclear Waste Facility – Leave Denied
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion, notice of which was given earlier this day, relating to a referendum for a nuclear waste facility.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr Wood: No!
Madam SPEAKER: There being an objection, leave is denied.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion Forthwith –
Nuclear Waste Facility
Move Motion Forthwith –
Nuclear Waste Facility
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion, notice of which was given earlier this day, relating to a referendum for a nuclear waste facility forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Nuclear Waste Facility
Nuclear Waste Facility
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that - The Assembly request that:
- (a) the Commonwealth government acknowledge the widespread and bipartisan opposition to its plans to locate a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory;
- (b) the Commonwealth government honour its election promise to not locate a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory;
(c) the Commonwealth government allow Territorians to have a say on the nuclear waste dump planned for the Northern Territory. A binding referendum which was promised by the Prime Minister last week should be a mandatory pre-condition for introducing any new nuclear facilities to any region in Australia;
- (d) the Commonwealth government immediately make public the current status of its plans to locate a nuclear waste dump near Tennant Creek at Muckaty Station;
- (e) Northern Territory members of the Commonwealth Parliament stand up for the Territory and support a referendum; and
- (f) 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, what we have seen in the Howard government’s overriding of Territorians’ wishes in respect of our legislation to prevent a nuclear waste dump in the Territory is really a litany of broken promises. It starts with a broken promise. There was an iron-clad election commitment from the Howard government that there would be no nuclear waste dump in the Territory. We saw that election commitment broken.
We are now asking for the Howard government to ensure that Territorians get to have their say. That is, the John Howard promise of a referendum on nuclear facilities anywhere in Australia should obviously include nuclear facilities such as the nuclear waste dump in Tennant Creek.
We are also asking for the Howard government to come clean. Has the Howard government, or any minister of the government, Julie Bishop or someone else, signed anything agreeing to the nuclear waste dump facility in the Northern Territory?
There are significant issues around a nuclear waste dump in the Territory. We have always argued: have a look at a nuclear waste dump in the context of the science. We are prepared to cop any decision based on science. We have said that. The Chief Minister has articulated that. The previous minister for the Environment has articulated it. That is our position. But this decision by the Howard government to put a nuclear waste dump near Tennant Creek at Muckaty Station is not …
Mr Wood: They have not announced that decision yet.
Ms LAWRIE: … based on science …
Mr Wood: That is not true. It is a nominated site.
Ms LAWRIE: … is not based on site, it is pure politics.
Mr Wood: That is not true.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Nelson is interjecting …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. Ten, I believe is required.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe we have a quorum.
Ms Carney: Here they are. You could not even get enough people to listen to your motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please continue, minister.
Mr Bonson: We do not want to hear your conflicted contribution.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Carney: It is your motion, sport, if you can read it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the Commonwealth government, the Howard government, chose the Northern Territory as the site for a nuclear waste dump for one reason only: it was the path of least political resistance. Put quite simply, we do not have the same number of marginal seats as other states. If the Howard government gets away with this, then there is a message to all future governments in Canberra. If the Howard government wins Solomon again, then the message is clear: you cannot be heard politically in the Northern Territory so send your political problems north.
We know that the Commonwealth broke their promise, but there is an opportunity to undo this deceit by offering a referendum. If you put the plans to the people and they support the plans, then fair enough.
The Commonwealth initially announced three potential sites, but then backed down on all of those. They are now looking at Tennant Creek and a site at nearby Muckaty Station.
Mr Wood: It is not nearby.
Ms LAWRIE: Tennant Creek will soon be announced as the nation’s home of nuclear waste …
Mr Wood: It is 120 km away. Another twist of the truth.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … as soon as the upcoming election is over.
Mr Wood: Bloody geography.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Kiely: Stick it in your electorate.
Mr Wood: Put it in a townhouse in Sanderson.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, despite the interjections from the member for Nelson, we know that a deal has been done. We know this because many people, both within the Commonwealth and the Northern Land Council, are not happy about it. We know that the Commonwealth is waiting until after the election to announce the deal. This motion is simply asking the Commonwealth to come clean on the deal. How much money is being paid? Who is getting the money? Under what conditions is it being provided? Has the Commonwealth done a deal with the Northern Land Council to bypass the need for a proper environmental assessment? This motion is about saying the Commonwealth government needs to come clean and answer these very important questions before the federal election.
Tennant Creek is a wonderful town with wonderful people. Surely the people of this town deserve some honesty in relation to these plans. Tell the people of the region what the current status is and let the people have a say. We know that Tennant Creek has been targeted because of political opportunism. We know that it has nothing to do with science. Tennant Creek is one of the most seismically active parts of the country. It defies belief that you would put a nuclear waste dump in one of the most geographically unstable parts of the country.
It is not just an issue for Tennant Creek. It is an issue for the whole of the Territory. The waste will be coming from everywhere, on our roads or on our trains, from Lucas Heights in Sydney, and through our port from France …
Mr Wood: What happened to the gauges from Mt Todd? Will you move those to America?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson!
Ms LAWRIE: … so let the Territory have their say.
Howard has announced he wants to build 25 nuclear power plants in Australia and is facing mounting political opposition. He has guaranteed local referendums on each. Each one of these plants is going to have nuclear waste, and it is all going to come here into the nuclear waste dump. To pretend that they will build another dump for all the waste is absolutely nave. The waste dump will house the nastiest results of these plants, so why should not its location be subject to a referendum? The nuclear power plants will have a limited lifetime, but this dump is going to have to store the high-level waste for up to tens of thousands of years.
Mr Kiely: Intergenerational responsibility, Gerry.
Mr Wood: Make it up as you go along.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: The CLP and the Independent members of this House should support this motion. The CLP supported our legislation banning a nuclear waste dump, and they supported our motion against the Commonwealth’s announcement that they were going to overturn this legislation. As the Leader of the Opposition said in parliament on 16 August 2005:
- 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.
Therefore, the CLP should have no problems supporting this motion today.
In introducing this motion, we are giving the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to ensure that the CLP remains crystal clear, because the CLP’s colleagues in Canberra have been far from crystal clear. Dave Tollner voted to overturn the NT legislation, legislation that his own party in the Territory had voted for. There is also Nigel Scullion who famously said ‘not on my watch’, and then watched as the vote in Canberra to overturn our legislation was taken. This motion gives the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify the CLP’s position. She can show some leadership, defy her federal colleagues and stand up for the Territory.
Last week, we saw the media asking where was the promised CLP paper on uranium enrichment. ‘Don’t talk to me’, said the Leader of the Opposition, ‘talk to Dave Tollner’. Then we heard: ‘Don’t ask me’, said Dave Tollner, ‘talk to the CLP’. It is fair to say that the CLP probably has not thought this issue through.
This motion calls on all Territory members of parliament in Canberra to back the cause for a referendum. We know that the member for Solomon supports having a nuclear waste dump in the Territory, but that does not mean he has to be opposed to Territorians getting to have their own say in a referendum. The strange thing is that he cannot use the standard Howard government line that we need nuclear power to cope with climate change because he does not believe in climate change.
We are urging all members of this House to support the motion. This is about standing up for the rights of Territorians to be heard in Canberra. It is about not letting the Territory become the dumping ground for political problems and nuclear waste. This is about a broken election commitment. We want a referendum. We want to give Territorians the opportunity to have their say. We are asking for John Howard to come clean. Have any deals been done? Has he or any of his ministers signed off on a deal to put a nuclear waste dump near Tennant Creek?
Finally, something that sums up this debate: if it is so safe to have a nuclear waste dump, then why transport that nuclear waste halfway across the country? Why not put it right next to the source of nuclear waste in Australia at Lucas Heights if it is so safe?
If we are to believe the naivety of the member for Nelson who tells us that we will not be getting higher level radioactive waste, that we will not be getting the spent fuel rods from France, that we will not be getting the spent fuel rods from all of the nuclear power stations that John Howard is saying Australia will get, if it is so safe, then why have a nuclear waste dump near Tennant Creek? Why not put nuclear waste right next to Lucas Heights? Why not contain it in the secure and safe security environment of Lucas Heights?
Madam Speaker, it is very clear. We are fundamentally saying: give Territorians the opportunity to have their say. We are calling on the Howard government to commit to a referendum on the issue of a nuclear waste dump anywhere in the Territory. We are saying come clean. Have deals been done? If so, what are the details of those deals? We do not want to see broken promises this coming federal election. Commit to the people of the Territory to have a say on the issue of a nuclear waste dump. The Territory government is opposed to a nuclear waste dump in the Territory.
We will accept a federal government process looking at the science to support where a nuclear waste dump should go. However, we have not seen the science; we have seen the politics. We have seen opportunistic politics from the Howard government. It is time to listen to the people of the Territory and let them have their say.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, what an abysmal performance. The minister had 30 minutes to prosecute her motion. She filled up about 11 minutes, 12 at the most, in support of a motion that, in the words of the minister and members of government, is vitally important. This is one of the worst performances I have seen since I have been in this place since 2001. It was ably read by the minister as she was going through her, no doubt, size 16 font at 1.5 spacing. That was a dreadful performance.
Let us look at what this is: it is a stunt. Now, who would be in town late this afternoon? I am thinking a Prime Minister will be here late this afternoon. On the one hand, we have the offensive vitriol of the minister and yet, probably tomorrow, later today perhaps, the Chief Minister is meeting with the Prime Minister. What a curious relationship this government seeks to have with a federal government.
I was genuinely surprised by the minister’s performance; it was not our motion, it was government’s motion and she could not fill the space. I propose to be relatively brief.
A member interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: It is not our motion; it is your motion. You are the ones who need to prosecute your argument. You have 30 minutes to do it. There is no way in hell that you did it within the 11 minutes you had. You just followed the bouncing balls and read your speech.
Madam Speaker, this is an attempt not only at a stunt; this is an attempt to play politics and get a headline somewhere in the media. No doubt they will. This is one of the most poorly drafted motions I have seen. God knows who wrote it, but they probably need a break.
In relation to paragraph (a), what a shocker. Paragraph (a) asserts that there is bipartisan opposition to plans to locate the repository in the Northern Territory: ‘widespread and bipartisan opposition’. Let us think about that. Is Mike Rann, the Premier of South Australia, opposed to the siting of this facility in the Northern Territory? I think not. Why is he not opposed? Because if he had done the decent thing, had he taken responsibility for radioactive waste, it would be in South Australia. I do not think Mike Rann would be in anyway opposed to the siting of this facility in the Northern Territory.
Does the government in paragraph (a) seriously assert that other Australians are strongly opposed, regardless of their politics, let us say even the Labor voters – do you reckon that Labor voters in South Australia are opposed to this facility being in the Northern Territory? I do not think so. It asserts that there is ‘widespread and bipartisan opposition’ to the plan. That is not the case. It is misleading in the extreme. It is an extremely poorly drafted paragraph. What is it up to now, member for Blain? About $8m to $10m spent on wages alone for staff on the fifth floor, the government floor, of this building. I am not sure that Territorians are getting much bang for their buck when you look at a paragraph so very poorly drafted as paragraph (a). It might be the case that the minister may wish to amend her own motion so that it makes some degree of sense, but that is a matter for her.
The issue of the location and the siting of this facility in the Northern Territory has been dealt with up hill and down dale in this parliament. They should be governing for all Territorians, but they get bored and take their eye off the wheel. They must sit around in the back rooms and say: ‘What can we possibly do? Let us do the nuclear waste repository’. So it is that time again, which coincidentally happens to be on the same day that the Prime Minister of this country arrives in Darwin.
Members opposite will have difficulty grasping this, so I will speak slowly. The CLP remains disappointed with the initial decision made in relation to the facility in the Territory. Why? We said it at the time and we will say it again: there was no consultation and it was imposed on the people of the Northern Territory. One wonders why it is that members of the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party are so sanctimonious and so self-righteous that they do not apparently have the wit or the honesty to concede that had they supported the push for statehood prior to 2001, the Northern Territory would not be in this position. You lot were out there marching on the streets, throwing yourselves in front of your fellow Territorians saying: ‘For God’s sake, do not vote for statehood’. It has been on the CLP’s platform for – what? – 25 or 27 years or thereabouts. Everyone knew where we stood. Yet members of government have the audacity to now come into this place and assert, in a self-righteous manner, that we have been hard done by because we are not a state. You should have done the decent thing in the first place and campaigned in favour of statehood. I believe we have adequately dealt with that paragraph, Madam Speaker.
As a result of the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party being so passionate and so vigorous and so resistant to statehood in the Northern Territory, we are in a position where any Commonwealth government, whether it is on the conservative side of politics or yours, and you blokes better be careful what you wish for because if Kevin 07 comes good, you will rue the day. You will rue the day! It will be a nightmare for you. You will not have anyone else to blame. You will need to blame your little friends in Canberra. Mummy’s little helpers in Canberra are the ones you will need to pull apart. You have been reasonably articulate at pulling apart the federal government, minister by minister, whenever it suits you. If Kevin 07’s lot get in, you will be obliged to do the same.
So, Madam Speaker, what happened? The Commonwealth came in and said: ‘This is what is going to happen’. As a result, we have this facility in the Northern Territory. Here is the difference between the CLP and ALP Northern Territory branches. The CLP, not unlike the Northern Land Council, I hasten to add, adopted the position that this was a fait accompli because amongst other things, the Australian Labor Party over the years, so viciously on occasion, fought against statehood. We have this facility, so what do we do? What do we do? We have to get used to it. The delusional people opposite who still, whenever they are bored, make a statement about this issue, need to get with the times. They need to, like the Northern Land Council, say: ‘This is what is happening and we are going to make the best of the situation’. They are so delusional, not to mention arrogant, that they simply refuse to do so. That is the difference, and those opposite should be ashamed of themselves. If only they had the intellect to dig deep and pursue that personal option.
Let us have a look at your paragraph (b), that the Commonwealth government honour its election promise not to locate the facility in the Northern Territory. It is not here yet, and Territorians and other Australians will have an opportunity to cast their vote for John Howard or Kevin 07, probably in November. The federal government has not built this facility during this term and Territorians can make the decision, just like other Australians, whether they want John Howard or Kevin 07.
That leads very nicely, I think, to what a Rudd Labor government will do. Labor federally, very conveniently, has pretty much squibbed on this issue. I invite members opposite to refer us to the record of any federal member of the Labor Party as to their plans about what to do with radioactive waste. Has Kevin Rudd said under no circumstances will it be in the Northern Territory? If he has, where else can it go? I suppose he might pick up the phone to Mike Rann and say: ‘Well, buddy, how about it go where it should properly go, where most Australians think it should go?’, that is in the north of South Australia. One wonders what Kevin Rudd will do. The minister said we want everyone to reveal the details of deals have been done. What are the deals currently being done by the federal Labor Party and the other states and territories in relation to this issue? Is it the case that federal Labor, if elected in November, have declared, have decreed, that they will not have this facility in the Northern Territory? I once again invite ministers to show me anywhere on the record that a federal Labor minister or, indeed, the Opposition Leader himself, has made that pledge.
Madam Speaker, in relation to paragraph (c), a very poorly drafted paragraph, if I may say so, it refers to a ‘binding referendum which was promised by the Prime Minister last week’, etcetera. Well, the Prime Minister is on the record. He said, in his media release dated 23 August:
- My government has decided there will be binding local plebiscites conducted in communities where power stations are proposed to be built. This would follow extensive community consultation.
With that part of paragraph (c), albeit it is clumsily worded, that is clearly supportable because that is what has been promised. It has been promised in relation to power stations, nuclear power generation, so I am not sure why it was that this government was insistent that such a sentence be included in the paragraph.
In relation to other parts of the motion, we certainly do not object to paragraph (f), that is, that the Speaker forward the terms of the motion to the President of the Senate and the House of Representatives. We encourage you to do so. One wonders whether this government will follow through with what appears to be a promise here in paragraph (f) by forwarding it to the relevant people. If they do, I hope they forward the entire debate. Do not just frame up your clumsily-worded motion and pop that in the post. Have the guts to include the entire debate. I look forward to the contributions from others. I know the member for Nelson, as always on this subject, will have a bit to say and I look forward to hearing from him. No doubt it will be more coherent than what can only be described as the drivel by the minister who moved this motion.
Madam Speaker, there are just so many parts to go on this one. Paragraph (c) wants a referendum on a nuclear facility in Australia. I ask this: does it include facilities using isotopes and x-ray machines? If so - I am reading from my media release issued this afternoon - if so, the Martin government wants a referendum on the promised oncology unit at RDH. What about any new uranium mines in the Territory? Now, here is the inherent inconsistency with Territory Labor’s position: later today, there will be a statement from the Minister for Mines and Energy. He will be waxing lyrical about the mining industry in the Northern Territory. He and his colleagues have waxed lyrical, no doubt privately, but certainly publicly, about the benefits of uranium mining. That is why federal Labor, at its last annual conference, decided that they would get with the times and withdraw their decision to oppose further mining of uranium.
In the Territory, we have government ministers, it appears on occasion, almost falling over themselves to get in front of a microphone to say ‘mine uranium, mine uranium. Mine it; get it out of the ground, do something with it as fast as you possibly can. The benefits to the Territory economy are immeasurable’. The inconsistency is that on the one hand, Labor is happy to pull it out of the ground but, when it comes to dealing with the waste, they will not touch it with a barge pole: ‘Oh, it is too hard, we will just blame John Howard for that’. You people need to be honest with yourselves, with each other and the people of the Northern Territory. Do you not get that it is internally inconsistent to wax lyrical about the benefits of uranium, fall over yourselves to pull it out of the ground, and then say: ‘Oh no, we do not want to deal with the waste’? Nowhere in the comments of the minister today or, if my memory serves me correctly, on any other of the seemingly countless times a motion like this has come before us, have I heard a government minister talk about the waste that is sitting in the basement at Royal Darwin Hospital. That is a significant issue. I am advised that radioactive waste is currently stored at Royal Darwin Hospital. Members opposite would prefer it to be housed in the basement of a hospital as opposed to moved to a purpose-built facility. I always find inconsistency a challenge. However, I am sure if members opposite wanted to dig deep within themselves they might even come to the realisation that they look a bit silly pushing these sorts of arguments.
In the event that Kevin Rudd becomes Prime Minister, he will apparently have the option to leave the waste materials stored at Royal Darwin Hospital or put it in a purpose-built facility somewhere in this country ...
Mr Mills: Schools, perhaps.
Ms CARNEY: You never know, member for Blain, indeed. Another glaring omission from the minister’s delivery today, in her carefully read statement that she went word for word, full bottle all the way, is that nowhere did she say: ‘This is what my federal colleagues will do should Kevin 07 cross the line in November’. That is the question to be answered. Every time I see Labor members opposite getting excited about the opinion polls, I say: ‘Be careful what you wish for’. Be careful what you wish for because, if Kevin 07 comes good, you will need to deal with this issue. You will not have the whipping boy of the federal government any more. Well, you might, but they are going to have to be yours, and you have nowhere to go. You will have to wrestle with your own hypocrisy and inconsistencies. I doubt there is much you are going to do about your poorly-worded motion. I expect to see them in this Chamber over and over and over again. However, I digress.
Madam Speaker, we have an amendment to this motion, and we sincerely urge members opposite to vote in support because this is the motion that should be put.
I move that the motion be amended by omitting all words after ‘that’ and inserting in their place the following:
(1) endorses and welcomes the announcement by the Prime Minister for a referendum in respect to building of nuclear power facilities as a pre-condition;
(2) notes the Commonwealth government has honoured its election promise not to locate a radioactive waste facility in the Northern Territory in the current term of office;
- Mr Henderson interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: You should listen:
- … permission from the federal government to house the Territory’s radioactive waste, currently stored in locations around the Territory including Royal Darwin Hospital, in the national waste repository to be constructed after the federal election due later this year;
(4) request the federal government publish the number and types of treatments that benefit from the isotopes produced in Australia, in particular cancer sufferers and the projected number of cancer sufferers who would benefit from such isotopes when the radiation oncology unit is built in Darwin;
(6) calls on the Commonwealth government to make public the current status of plans in respect of the location of a national repository, understood to be located near Muckaty Station;
(7) calls on the Northern Territory members of the Commonwealth Parliament to congratulate the Prime Minister on his announcement of a referendum in respect to nuclear power facilities; and
(8) the Speaker forward the terms of the motion and associated debate to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Madam Speaker, I would like now to speak to the motion. It is the case I have covered certainly much more time than the minister but there is so much to say. I would like to visit some of those issues again. So as to paragraph (1) ‘endorses and welcomes the announcement by the Prime Minister for a referendum …’, members opposite would not have too much difficulty with that, I would not have thought. Paragraph (2) ‘notes the Commonwealth government has honoured its election promise …’, look around you, I do not see a national nuclear waste repository in the Northern Territory. Paragraph (3) …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker. In relation to item two of the amendment, while I clearly recollect the Commonwealth government election promise not to locate a radioactive facility in the Northern Territory, I am not aware of, nor can I, as hard as I try, recall the words ‘in the current term of office’. I think we need clarity on this because I would hate the Leader of the Opposition to be misleading this House inadvertently. I do not want to see her get in trouble …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is on her feet and I am sure she will clarify these points. Member for Sanderson, you have the opportunity to speak in the debate.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hearing from the member for Sanderson is never an edifying experience at all. He really should do what his colleagues tell him to do and just sit down and say as little as possible.
In relation to paragraph (3), which I would have thought would be of particular interest to some members opposite, ‘calls on the Northern Territory government to move to immediately seek permission from the federal government to house the Territory’s radioactive waste, currently stored at locations around the Territory including Royal Darwin Hospital, in the national waste repository to be constructed after the federal election due this year’. Put simply, Kevin 07, if he gets over the line, where is it going to be, Kevin? Further, if this Territory Labor government backs Kevin 07, then they should not have any problem at all with our paragraph (3).
Similarly, in respect to paragraph (4), it requests the federal government ‘publish the number and types of treatments that benefit from the isotopes produced in Australia …’. It is my understanding that something in the order of 500 000 patients in this country are treated with nuclear medicines each year; that is a lot. The waste, as we all know, and I know this is what seems to offend members opposite, but it is the case that if you want these life saving procedures then …
Mr Henderson: Wrong.
Ms CARNEY: You say it is wrong but you provide the evidence, mate, because I defy you, I defy anyone here to say that certain treatments and medicines, that is involving the production of nuclear medicines, does not save peoples lives. It would be a very brave politician indeed, whether it is in the Northern Territory or elsewhere, to say to their fellow Australians: ‘No, we do not want you to have this treatment’. Not only would that offend everyone, but it would be deeply offensive.
You cannot say to 500 000 patients or thereabouts – that is the figure I have; it might be a bit more or it might be fewer – who are treated with nuclear medicines each year: ‘Sorry, but we do not want it located anywhere in this country’. I defy any member of parliament to say that there are not life-saving medicines that result from the various processes. Do I want people like my aunt, who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer, to have the best possible chance of being treated? Do I want her to explore every possible treatment available? Too right, I do. I would have thought that every member of parliament would say the same not only in respect of a member of their family, but in respect of their fellow Territorians and their fellow Australians.
I look forward to a specific response in relation to paragraph (4). This is not a trap, but I will tell you what: if members opposite assert, either actually or by inference, that life-saving treatment is not something that they want their fellow Australians to experience, be it on their heads.
Paragraph (5) requests the federal government to ‘set out alternative arrangements necessary so as to continue to be able to provide nuclear medicine …’. I refer to what I just said in relation to nuclear medicine: you cannot have it both ways. I know you want to. On the one hand, I think you are going to say you welcome the advances in modern medicine, but you do not want the waste. On the one hand, you say it was an election promise, prior to 2001, by Territory Labor that you would deliver an oncology unit in Darwin. You cannot say that you want that but you do not want to deal with the waste. You cannot say, on the one hand, that wherever uranium is in the Northern Territory, dig it up but you do not want to deal with the waste.
Government members seem to think that Territorians are silly and stupid. That is not a view I share. People will have real difficulty with a sensible argument on this issue. I appreciate that members opposite will want to politicise this. I know there is a federal election coming up; we all do. They can go their hardest, and I am sure they will, but it is incumbent upon members opposite to be honest when they are debating these issues. It is certainly incumbent on a minister who comes into parliament, announces it this morning, to do better than 11 or 12 minutes’ worth. What an extraordinary contribution, one of which she will, I am sure, at some stage in the future be very embarrassed about.
The federal government, like so many other Australians and members of parliament, has to deal with this very difficult decision. Do I think the Commonwealth should have done it better in the first place? Absolutely. Do we think so? Absolutely. However, Territory Labor needs to, not unlike the Northern Land Council, say: ‘Okay, this is what is happening. Do we have a choice?’ Well, because members of the Labor Party campaigned so viciously and strongly against statehood; hoisted on your own petard is an expression that comes to mind, Madam Speaker.
There are a number of additional points, and I certainly look forward to the contribution from the member for Blain. I guess there are some questions that should be asked in the context of this debate. I take it, from what the minister is saying, that she is opposed to the establishment of a waste facility in the Territory. I ask: should the facility proceed, will she rule out, and she has an opportunity to do so, storing the Territory’s radioactive waste in the national waste repository? If not, what do you propose to do with it? Do you want to keep it forever and a day at Royal Darwin Hospital? Will you commit to establishing a separate facility? If so, could you give us some details? Are you proposing that radioactive waste be stored at RDH permanently? Do you want a stand-alone facility in the Territory so it is away from RDH? Where do you believe Kevin Rudd, if elected in November, will put the repository? Do you expect him, seriously, to pick up the phone to Mike Rann and say: ‘Look, it served politicians in the Labor Party in the Territory well for the last year and a half by having it in the Territory, how about it be housed in South Australia?’ So many questions, Madam Speaker; so little time.
The amended motion is the motion to support. It is certainly better drafted. It is more sensible, more intelligent and worthy of support.
Madam SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, I remind you of the procedure when we have an amendment before the Chair. All speakers from now on are speaking to both the original motion and to the amended motion. Speakers prior to the movement of the motion, which was only the minister, have the option to speak to the amended motion as well as in closing debate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have spoken on this issue many times in parliament. I should say at the outset that I have done my best to look at all these issues in a positive way. I have visited Lucas Heights twice, once when it had a HIFAR reactor, and the second time was the opening of the new OPAL reactor. I am very impressed by that facility. All Australians who have visited it, I believe, would be proud to know that it is part of our research facilities in Australia for science, not just for medical isotopes, but for science in general. It is a very important part of Australia’s future.
I have also visited the Queensland Radioactive Waste Store at Esk, which is stationed approximately 3 km out of the town of Esk approximately 110 km from Brisbane, and looked at that facility, which sits alone in the forestry land and is maintained by the local council. I have visited the nuclear power plant in Ohio to see how waste is stored and to basically look at where they locate it. I have visited Westmead Hospital to see where nuclear medicine is used, and Westmead Hospital would probably be one of the leaders in the use of medical isotopes.
I have said many times that I am not particularly happy with the federal government intervening. However, the reality is that if you want to continue with the advancement of science, that is, the development of Lucas Heights, part of their licence was that in the development of this new OPAL reactor was to find a purpose-built site for the radioactive waste, which could also be used for other waste such as the waste that is sitting at Woomera which came from Fishermen’s Bend and other waste at Defence sites.
I have put much serious time into thinking about this issue. I have spoken in this House in detail about what Lucas Heights does, and I do not intend to go back down that path at this stage. I believe this debate is worthy of me repeating some comments because I stand here as a Territorian, I am proud of that, but I also stand here as an Australian. This is an Australian issue. Although it might hurt us to have this facility placed in our Territory without us having a great say in it, the fact is that we need it.
I would rather say let us find a spot in Australia, in the Territory, let us show some leadership. Some of this argument would have disappeared if the government had said: ‘Okay, you are doing it’, a little bit like the intervention that is occurring now, because, when the intervention by Mr Brough was called for, the Territory government came on board and said: ‘We will support you’. There was no talk about: ‘We are all opposed to this’. They knew the matter was serious, and the Chief Minister is on record saying we are doing this, not so much because it is good for the Territory, but it is good for the country. That is in Hansard from Question Time last week. I am saying exactly that: this is good for our country. It is a bigger issue than just the Northern Territory. That is why I support the idea of a radioactive waste facility.
However, the problem I have is that this government’s push for a referendum in relation to nuclear facilities is nothing more than a Labor stunt lined up for the Prime Minister’s visit. Anyone who has listened to Labor’s diatribe on this issue in parliament will know they do not tell the truth about nuclear issues and deliberately twist the facts. The facts were twisted again today. I have visited the Muckaty Station site. Put your hand up if you have visited the Muckaty site. It is the nominated site; it is not the chosen site. It is 120 km north of Tennant Creek …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: Okay, at least I went and had a look, which is more than the minister could do.
They twist the facts to convince people in the Territory that nuclear is evil. If people were given all the facts about a radioactive waste facility and nuclear energy there could be a reasonable chance for a fair referendum to occur. However, Labor would make sure this would not occur because, along with its free rent mates at the Rapid Creek Environment Hub, they would run a campaign so well-funded and biased that alternative views like mine will be overwhelmed.
Instead of wasting parliamentary hot air and adding to climate change with this inane motion, the Labor government should say when it plans to shut down the polluting gas-fired power stations as well as the polluting Wickham Point gas plant which all adds to global warming. When will they tell people what power source they are going to use as the base load power for manufacturing? Where does this power come from when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow? I am not against solar and I am not against wind energy, but the reality is that if you are opposing certain forms of energy then you must give us the energy options and this government does not do that.
This motion, or rather this joke, comes from a Labor government that supports uranium going overseas to nuclear power plants. You are worried about a nuclear power plant in Australia, but your ideological morality ceases if the uranium leaves Australia. You worry about a low-level radioactive waste site in the Northern Territory, but you do not care enough about storage in other countries to which you are happy to export uranium. That speaks for itself; it is hypocrisy.
The minister talked about the transport of this material. How did the radioactive gauges from Mt Todd get to the United States recently? Was it transported along the road? Was it shipped by sea? Which company took it in America? I have no doubt at all that it would have been exported safely because the requirements for moving radioactive waste are exceptionally stringent. It would have been, I believe, by road from Mt Todd, through Darwin and by ship to the United States. Was that advertised? No, no, no! ‘We could not advertise that, it is too sensitive’. However, you were not at least willing to say: ‘We can move radioactive waste safely according to the international guidelines required for moving waste’. If it is done that way, then it can be done quite safely. That is what would happen with radioactive waste in Australia.
The comrades, including the one who is so far to the left he is over the hill and far away, yells: ‘Put the radioactive waste facility in the Nelson electorate’. This shallow argument, if taken seriously, would mean that I could argue that the new powerhouse should be in the Sanderson electorate, Dow Chemicals will be in Fannie Bay, and live cattle yards built on the lawns of Parliament House. The fact is if I owned a suitable piece of land in an appropriate location, I would be willing to sell or lease it to the Commonwealth to store low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste.
Mr Kiely: For $12m, it is all right, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Yes, if it was a suitable site. No person is going to use that silly argument: ‘Well, put it in your back yard’. You find a suitable site …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: You find a suitable site; you use the science. You have to remember that the Muckaty site still has to go through an environmental impact statement. I believe that the waste can be stored safely. I support the Lucas Heights research facility which is something the Labor Party will not come out and publicly say. If the government really wants a plebiscite on the radioactive waste facility, then why not have a plebiscite on whether Territorians want an oncology unit at Royal Darwin Hospital? Or does Labor not know where the medical isotopes come from? The reality is that there is not going to be a nuclear power plant in the Territory whilst we have gas because, if you believe the Chief Minister, gas is a very clean form of energy, which I do not actually believe, and we will continue to run our power plants on gas for some time to come.
This debate is a load of claptrap initiated by an old technological party that is a prisoner of the loony left, the extreme Greens and with no capability of understanding the science. If Labor believes solar and wind will power the energy requirements of our manufacturing industry, then it must have rocks in its head. If that was hot rocks, they of course would get my support, but the rocks of Labor are cold and inert.
This debate is a waste of our energy and deserves short shrift. I must finish there. It is time to leave the preschool and do something more useful. I will leave you with this little ditty. I am sure it will put you off to sleep:
- Nuclear is for us to fear, they twist the truth and love to cheer,
Typical of the hypocrisy you will find in the ALP.
Now radioactive waste we stand and support oncology to a man,
Typical of the hypocrisy you will find in the ALP.
No nuclear power will come to us but send it overseas, no fuss,
Typical of the hypocrisy you will find in the ALP.
Burn our gas or send it north, global warming we have taught,
Typical of the hypocrisy you will find in the ALP.
For Territorians, one and all, when you are asked to vote on call, just remember
The hypocrisy, you will find it in the ALP.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage, in her call for the Commonwealth government to immediately make public its plans to construct a nuclear waste dump in the Territory, most likely in my electorate.
I also support the minister’s call to the Commonwealth government to allow the people of the Northern Territory to express their views on whether they are agreeable to having this waste dump in the Territory; an opportunity to say if we agree to forever looking after nuclear waste being generated in other parts of Australia and, in particular, the potentially large amounts of high-grade waste that will be generated by the 25 or more nuclear power stations that John Howard seems to think the nation must have.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that he will allow a binding referendum as a mandatory pre-condition prior to allowing the development of any nuclear facility in regional Australia. The people in the Barkly say that we should have that right available to us in relation to the proposed waste dump for nuclear waste material. If it is good enough for our friends in other places, surely it should be good enough for us here in the Territory. I have spoken in here before, as have other members from Central Australia, on our sense of outrage that people in other places have taken upon themselves to badge our community as the nuclear waste dump of Australia.
We should have the opportunity to right that wrong. We can have a voice, and I call on the Prime Minister as the supposed champion, or reinventing himself as the champion, of grassroots democracy to support Territorians in having their say whether they see this waste facility as an exciting new commercial opportunity for the Territory, or for what it really is: a short-cut plan to solve the dilemma that no one in any other part of Australia wants.
In usual style, our Commonwealth government has taken the soft out-of-sight-and-mind option, inching ever closer to a final solution of imposing a national, perhaps international, nuclear waste dump on people in the Barkly.
Some will say I am being alarmist. Australia will never take other countries’ nuclear waste, the Prime Minister has told us that, but I remember a time 30 years ago when the then Prime Minister of Australia, seeking support for the expansion of uranium mining in this country, promised Australia would never sell uranium to a country that is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Recently, we heard of steps being taken to sell our uranium to India, which will not join the non-proliferation treaty. Minister Lawrie, in her motion, noted that there is also evidence of widespread and bipartisan opposition from Territorians to the Commonwealth’s plans for a nuclear waste dump in the Territory. To the few proponents, the champions of nuclear energy and those who seek to ingratiate themselves with the Commonwealth, I say yes, you are in the minority.
To those who worry about the impacts on the environment, those who worry about the long-term security of nuclear waste dumps, those who worry about accidents during transportation and storage, those who worry about the likely scenario of this facility becoming Australia’s central repository for future high level waste, I say you are in the majority. To those of you in the Barkly who worry about the future of the town being badged as the nuclear waste dump of Australia, I will continue to say, and I will continue to support all those communities, all those people, who clearly do not want it to be in their community and indeed in their electorate.
I am deeply concerned about the potential effects of a nuclear waste dump on the Barkly’s reputation as a clean, green source of high quality beef. Pastoral production in the Barkly region has long been an important part of the Territory’s economy. The reputation and value of Barkly beef can only continue to grow, and yet we have the crazy circumstances where all this is at risk because the Barkly seems a convenient place in political terms to store Australia’s nuclear waste.
I am opposed to the location of a nuclear dump in the Barkly because I know there are many countrywomen and countrymen, custodians of sites and other indigenous people in the Barkly, who are deeply troubled knowing that their lands are to be a permanent home of Australia’s nuclear waste.
I do not think we can ever really overestimate the impact that this will have on the Barkly and the people who make the Barkly their home. I have said in this House before that there are some very large Northern Territory pastoral property owners who are troubled by this action because they worked hard over a very long period to build up their industry to make it very viable. The Commonwealth government has a responsibility to take the pastoralists’ points of view into consideration.
I want to speak briefly about indigenous people. Much has been said in this House about this nuclear waste dump. I will continue to say that the exercise of arriving at this decision was not open; it was not transparent. I say this because I was at a public meeting, around mid-October 2006, when the nuclear waste facility was being discussed for Muckaty in particular, but there were other sites that were under consideration in other people’s electorates, including Mt Everard near Harts Range and Fishers Ridge. It turned into Barkly in terms of Muckaty. I recall attending a public meeting which was convened at reasonably short notice and attended by 60 to 70 people, people who were not so much opposed, but were interested in hearing precisely what the rumour was about. All those people wanted was the opportunity to be able to be engaged in a consultation process which would allow them to be party to the decision. That opportunity was taken away from them because of subsequent action by the Commonwealth government in amending national legislation.
It is very important that when we make these types of decisions, we are mindful of people’s concerns. Clearly, on this occasion, that has not occurred. As I said in another forum, the cornerstone of democracy is the right to express your point of view. Having access to information and the ability to make an informed decision is central to our democracy. In reviewing the debate about a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory, or at Muckaty, it is clear that there is one thing that all commentators are calling for, and that is for serious and thoughtful consideration of all the facts.
I reiterate what I said: no matter which electorate you live in, no matter what industry you have, no matter who you might be, indigenous or non-indigenous, whether you are a member of a community like Tennant Creek, people should be able to access all the facts. People should be part of a democratic process. Clearly, the only reason the Commonwealth government has done this is because they can. It is simple: pure politics. I do not mind if they want to re-engage in the process and do it on a scientific basis. Let us be real about this. There is genuine concern in my electorate not only from the pastoral industry, but from indigenous people and the community of Tennant Creek. We are happy to engage in discussion about it, but let us be part of the process.
Do not impose something on us without us knowing fully the facts because it is we who live in this community. I would imagine that the member for Nelson or even the members for Blain and Araluen would not disagree with that principle: if you propose something, and at the very least you put in place an opportunity for people to have a say. That is critical. It is central to everything we do as a government, not only from the Territory perspective, but from a Commonwealth perspective as well.
In conclusion, I support the minister’s motion because it is a very serious issue, not only in the context of us as Territorians, but as Australians. Remember, this decision, or the intent, was made quite some time out from election. We have seen the intervention of late. We have seen the political exercise in respect of the states, with the hospital in Tasmania, we have seen it with industrial relations, and we have seen it with the Murray-Darling. I suppose you have to ask yourself: where do we as a nation end up in the future? I honestly believe that is a very important question not only in regard to the existing position put by John Howard, but indeed, by Kevin Rudd. We have to ask that question: where are we heading in the sense of not wanting to listen to people on the ground any more, the people who have put us into these places?
Madam Speaker, I ask the Commonwealth government to clearly indicate if it is the Muckaty site. That is all we need to know. We just need to know. The people of the Barkly need to know. I urge the Prime Minister, maybe Northern Land Council would like to tell us, if such is the case, if it has been signed, if it has been delivered. I do not know. At the very least, I can understand people not wanting to tell me what the decision might be, but I reckon there is a very important principle here, which is that the people of the Barkly, at the very least, should be told.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, listening to the honourable member for Barkly’s comments, I could not help but see through to the heart of this matter.
For members of our community who may take the time to sit in our gallery, and I notice we have not drawn too much of a crowd, it is not hard for anyone to see through this game playing. The member for Barkly’s heartfelt comments were about making sure that people know what it is that is being done unto them. He continued at some length. In fact, he spoke for longer than the first speaker who moved this very important motion and who spoke for about 11 minutes. All they seem to be interested in is a political stunt to excite some little group to think we are still in the 1970s, and we cannot think beyond hysterical thoughts about matters that should engage us in a proper and sensible manner. This is completely unhelpful. I digress.
The member for Barkly spoke about things being done unto others without proper consultation, and you have to walk in step, etcetera. I cannot believe what I am hearing. Is that not exactly the same angst that is being felt in our own community right now about the shire amalgamations? People across the Territory are wondering how on earth this government can have the audacity to decide something, employ someone to create the impression that everyone has been consulted but, coming ready or not, through on urgency, implement it and away you go.
At the same time, you stand in parliament and complain about a similar process and describe it in similar terms. What sort of thinking processes go on internally that you can stand here and pretend to be sincere? I, for one, can see through it; I am sure many others can. I just hope there are members in this Chamber who can have a look at that and think through the inconsistencies of the positions that have been put. They are completely inconsistent. It has only to do with the fact that the Prime Minister is in town and that there is a federal election coming, so here is an opportunity to pump up a bit of political smoke and create some kind of impression for a short-term political gain. Get over it!
I do not like to be reminded, as anyone in the CLP or anyone in this Chamber, of the fact that we are not a fully-fledged member of the Commonwealth; a state. I do not like that. That is why I retain my position as a member of the Statehood Steering Committee and am happy to do so. It is a fight that commenced a long time ago and will continue. I do not like being a citizen of this nation not having the same rights as an Australian in another state. I do not like that. As a result, we have this decision made. What do we do? Bay at the moon and scream when we get the opportunity to make some kind of hysterical statement that is going to appeal to those who cannot think through things beyond the emotional reaction? That is a fact, a sad fact, but we must work on that.
We have already been reminded of the complicity that was brought to bear on that very question that was brought before this community, that members of the Labor Party played in that process. We do not need to visit that, but it has been turned over before. You know very well one side of town is giving one story, and there are members no longer in this Chamber who, quite openly, admitted playing the counter message behind the scenes …
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Mr MILLS: The member for Wanguri will say ‘rubbish’. I can verify for you words of your own former parliamentary colleagues who have already owned up.
Mr HENDERSON: Okay, who? Who? Come on, tell us. You have parliamentary privilege.
Mr MILLS: No, I will not. I have privilege but …
Mr Henderson: There you go, you have no evidence.
A member: Bluff!
Mr MILLS: It is not bluff at all. The honourable member who is using a few words to puff himself up a bit, knows very well what I am talking about. He uses the opportunity to bandy words around, not taking the time to consider what he is saying. I am interested in what is right in this debate; going a little beneath this and thinking about it. The honourable member knows exactly who I am referring to ...
Mr Henderson: No, I do not. Shane Stone was the person who wrecked statehood. He took it from 80% support to losing the referendum.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Anyway, I will proceed because that remains an historic fact and can be easily proven. However, I digress from that point.
The fact is we are not a state; we are left in a constitutionally inferior position. That has a consequence in decisions that are made that have national importance. Can you not see that? It has national importance. There is a need for this nation to sort this business out. It was decided that it be South Australia. However, because South Australia, and the current Premier, was in a constitutionally superior position, and particularly interested in garnering some political mileage out of an issue that can easily be fed to those who are ill-informed and provide, therefore, no real leadership, played this and exploited this for political benefit. As a result, the Territory is the place that it has to come because it is a matter that has already been decided and established by a parliamentary committee some time ago of which a former Labor Opposition Leader was a member.
So now we have it. There is a consequence. You can either bay at the moon, squeal and scream, provide no real leadership, or you can accept that fact and then work from this position. That is the position that I would prefer to work from.
I was at university in the 1970s. I have gotten over that and I have grown up. I can think a little bit more carefully about matters that once consumed those in the 1970s who thought that we were going to inherit some terrible catastrophe. Our whole globe is engaged in this debate, our entire planet is discussing this matter. It is very difficult business. We know where things are going. You can play the short-term game, get a little bit of support from the peanut gallery, but in fact you are elected to provide some leadership. You are required to provide leadership, so when your job is done, you can say: ‘At least I did the right thing. I thought through the issues and I did what I believed was the right thing in the long-term interests, not in my own political interests, but in what was right for those that I was elected to represent, and their children, and their children after them’.
As a result, we have this decision. I am not interested in stunts. I find it demeaning that we would pull a stunt like that: 11 minutes of a prepared speech. It is like Politics 101 or even less than that. It is like some little university group in the 1970s writing up a manifesto and out comes some character who writes a little speech: ‘You read that one and you read that one. I think we have got them. We are going to change the world, comrade’. Think about it, for goodness’ sake.
I take the position that acknowledging what has been discussed in our community, around the world, that we should take a measured and sensible approach to that which we cannot do much about until we are in the same constitutional position as other states. We have an inferior bargaining position and the cards have been dealt in this way. I am not terrified by that which is nuclear. I am happy to have a look at it and I am prepared now as a Territorian to say: ‘Okay, on this basis, let us make sure we get the best deal possible’. That is the position I take, and that is the position the CLP has taken. We are happy now to work with the position that we have been placed in.
I will give no support whatsoever for the stunt that has been pulled so poorly by members who are supposed to be elected to government and to govern us and lead us. It is an ill-considered and shallow stunt that will receive no support from the member for Blain, or from the Territory opposition.
I urge members to, if they have taken the time - probably not because they have their blinkers on, they have their riding instructions, and they will be bullied if they say anything to the contrary – to read the amendment. Have a look at it, perhaps on the quiet, and see if you can find it within yourself to do the right thing do what is sensible and right for the country and for the Territory.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, like the member for Blain, I am standing here on behalf of my constituents. I, too, am concerned on behalf of my constituents, and for my children, my neighbour’s children and their children. The point of what we are debating today is inter-generational.
The member for Blain made the accusation that we are all hypocrites and how can we call for a plebiscite on a uranium waste dump in the Territory when we are going to be imposing amalgamations and that people out in the newly proposed shires do not get a say. Well, they are not the same, no way are they the same. We are dealing with a matter of governance, of just plain old, good old community governance in trying to get things working more efficiently and better for citizens.
On the other hand, when it comes to this nuclear waste dump, we are talking about something which is going to be sitting around the community not for five years, not for 10 years, not in my lifetime, not in my kids’ lifetime, not in my great, great, great grandkids’ lifetime. We are talking about something that can be hanging around which goes way beyond any recorded or pre-recorded history that we know as humankind on this earth. It is an important issue. To try to link it into the shire argument is fallacious at best. It is disingenuous. It gets no shift with me. It is a pretty pathetic linking. That is all I will say on that.
The member for Blain and the Leader of the Opposition said it is all South Australia’s fault. That is really where we should be focusing all our attention and bile; it is certainly not the fault of the Howard government. In 1992, the Commonwealth government, with the support of state and territory governments, announced the project to construct the new service repository for the disposal of Australia’s low level and short-lived intermediate radioactive waste. This was going to be in Woomera. On 7 July 2003, the Commonwealth, using the urgency provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act, compulsorily acquired one of the sites and its associated access routes.
In 2001 in a separate development, the Howard government announced that it would establish a safe purpose-built facility on Commonwealth land for the storage of long-lived intermediate level radioactive waste produced by government agencies. So we have gone from low level to intermediate level.
When it came to having a look at the sites at Woomera that were being assessed, the minister for Science, Peter McGauran, and his department, a Commonwealth department and a Howard minister, objected because the repository was to be located beside a missile test firing range. The Department of Defence, supported by the Defence Minister, Robert Hill, objected to the Science department’s environmental impact statement, claiming the site was too risky. If an errant missile landed on the waste dump, radioactive particles could be scattered throughout the area. A third federal minister, the minister for the Environment, another minister in the Howard government, was also embroiled in the controversy.
This is all going on at the federal level, so of course the South Australian Labor Premier, Mike Rann, smelt a rat. Of course he opposed locating Australia’s first permanent low level, and soon to be intermediate level that they won’t talk about, in South Australia. So he protested. They tried all sorts of legal tools to prevent the dump from happening and it went to the Federal Court, and they said no.
The main reason that the feds pulled out of South Australia was that it was too hot to handle. Three seats were going to be placed in jeopardy. Three Liberal Party seats in the state of South Australia were in great jeopardy if that dump had gone ahead. Those are the reasons why it did not happen in South Australia. It had little to do with the position of the Premier. The Premier was looking after his people, just as we are trying to do today. We are not about trying to look after political positions like the CLP are trying to look after their Liberal mates.
Mrs Miller interjecting.
Mr KIELY: If you had been here, member for Katherine, and heard what I said, then you would have understood it. Stick in here and listen to what I am saying and then make comment. Do not walk through the door and make snide remarks.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a predictable one. In fact, there are two. One is the member well knows he is not to refer to the presence or otherwise of a member in the Chamber, and, second, he is to address his remarks through you and to go easy on his hostility and rudeness.
Mr STIRLING: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In principle, the Leader of the Opposition might have it right. However, how else is the member to allude to remarks to a member who has just entered the Chamber, has not participated in the debate, nor listened to the context of what was being said? How else is the member to allude to those remarks without making reference to whether the member was in the Chamber?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer. I will rule on this. As all members are aware, you cannot refer to the presence or otherwise of members in the House. That includes the member for Katherine who was referring to her absence also. On the second point of order, member for Sanderson, please address your remarks through me. Please continue.
Mr KIELY: Certainly, I am happy to comply, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also found it ironic in this debate that we had to put up with the tirade from the Leader of the Opposition about us following federal Labor’s lead; that we are the ones, when federal Labor says do this or do that, who react in a certain way. In these past weeks, we have been at odds with our federal colleagues on a number of issues. We have one position on standing up for Territorians. They have another. We can live with that. On the other hand, you have this once proud independent party who has no affiliations with Canberra, the CLP, the Territory party, and what are they doing? They are toeing the Liberal line. All the way through, the once independent, the great and proud – I can understand truly why this is so. When you have an Opposition Leader who is one day Bob Brown and the next day Bronwyn Bishop, of course there is going to be a mix up on which way they are going with policy development, their stand and how they stand up for Territorians.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are another couple of points I found quite interesting in the contributions of the members for Nelson and Blain. I also thought it was a pretty dicey and low card for the Leader of the Opposition to be playing when she was saying: ‘If you do not support the dump, you do not support the reactor at Lucas Heights, and all the good work that it does, you are saying to people who have cancer and need treatment from isotopes that you are against that’. You go and tell them; it would be a pretty bold politician, a pretty heartless politician, to say that. It was a pretty low thing to be saying. I just did not see the relevance of that sort of comment in this debate.
It is pretty clear that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Blain – I know he is not shadow Health, so I guess he does not need to know – and the member for Nelson, who reckons he has been to every nuclear medicine facility in the world and knows everything you need to know about what comes out of Lucas Heights, let me say to you that most of the radioisotopes used in medicine are produced at the National Medical Cyclotron and it does not use uranium as fuel. It does not produce any spent nuclear fuel and it generates only a fraction of low and intermediate level radioactive waste created by a nuclear reactor.
I went to the Department of Health and asked them how much of the product coming out of Lucas Heights we will be using in our oncology unit. They got back to me and I shall quote verbatim their response:
- In regard to your query as to whether the linear accelerator in the radiation oncology unit will be using any products from Lucas Heights, the response is a resounding no. The linear accelerators produce their own x-rays and do not require any other products. When the linear accelerator is off it is a very safe machine allowing access to provide maintenance with no risk to personnel. The radioactive treatments called brachotherapy use radioactive substances such as iridium. There are no immediate plans to provide this specialised service in the Northern Territory as it requires experts to implant the isotopes within a safe nuclear medical unit.
So, yes, Lucas Heights does produce life saving nuclear medicines. Are they in use in the Territory? No. Let us put that one firmly to bed, shall we? Let us get off that ‘I care for people, you do not care for people’ rubbish that is getting around. While we are on about rubbish, let us talk about the nuclear waste that we hold at the hospital. The Northern Territory produces a minute quantity of short-lived low level radiopharmaceutical waste from the privately-run nuclear medicine facility at Royal Darwin Hospital. The waste is placed in a secure laboratory for several days where it decays to normal radiation background levels, and is then considered to be no longer radioactive and is disposed of safely with other clinical waste from RDH. No other health facility in the Northern Territory produces radioactive pharmaceutical waste.
It was the issue of the gauges that the member for Nelson seemed so hot about. The Northern Territory has the lowest volume of low level radioactive waste, about two cubic metres in Australia, which is safely and securely stored in the Northern Territory government interim waste facility, which is a thick, concrete-walled storeroom with lead-lined doors. The waste comprises mainly spent industrial sources and disused gauges that can be stored safely for an indefinite period of time and pose no public health risk to personnel. Okay. By the way, radioactive waste is no longer accepted for storage in that facility.
Once again, we are accused of trying to call up the bogeyman of radioactive waste, but I put it to you that it is not us calling up the bogeyman; it is those others who are running the lines for Canberra in this political year. I ask them to really think hard about just what they are saying, where that is all going, and to look after the Territory, to have them to look after the Territory’s long-term concerns for its kids and its future generations.
I am concerned that the placing of a low-level national waste dump may well encourage acceptance of intermediate-level and high-level nuclear waste in the future from Sydney and from reprocessed fuel rods. Because it is out of sight, out of mind, it is going to grow. The thoughts are that we start off with an above ground storage unit for intermediate- and low-level waste. Let me say that there are a couple of types of intermediate waste, short-lived and long-lived, and when they say ‘long-lived’, they mean long-lived waste. The thoughts are, as I understand it, that this facility will be used for somewhere like maybe 50 or 60 years. It will sit out there and get topped up every year with waste from around the country generated by the Commonwealth which, by the way, generates 90% of nuclear waste in Australia. That is going to sit out there for 50 or 60 years, while they look at, perhaps, creating some deep inground geological repository.
The volume of waste generated in Australia at the moment is not worth the dollars that it costs to build something quite as enormous and as strong as this great cavernous repository in the ground should be. For that $12m, we are signing up these people around Muckaty Station to have a repository sitting on their land, above ground, getting filled up for 50 or 60 years, with no commitment to move it out. No government can possibly give a commitment for 60 years into the future, let alone 100, 200, 300 or 400 years. It is absolute nonsense.
My issue is with the blindness, the political expediency and the so-called independent CLP members who have proven themselves to be no more than puppets of the Liberal Party in Canberra. They do not give a hoot about the people of the Territory now or in the future, and it is demonstrated in this debate. They said this debate is all hot air just to score political points. Well, it is not. I am not here trying to score political points; I am trying to get the facts. I want this parliament to act. I want this parliament and the people of Territory to have a say, just like they promised about the nuclear reactors, just as the feds said. I want them to have a say. Put it to a vote and let us see how it goes. Let us get it out there.
There is no linkage whatsoever between a plebiscite for a nuclear waste dump in the middle of the Territory and the amalgamation of shires. Let us get that clear. Let us have that vote and let us get the CLP right behind us. Let us have that vote, let us make it binding, and let us get dinkum about this. Let us stop all this ‘I am holier than you; you do not love my relatives, they need help from the Lucas Heights business’. It has nothing to do with it. It never was, never will be. In my opinion, the reason we have this dump stuck out at Muckaty Station, at political expediency, is because the federal government could not get the OPAL reactor online and commissioned unless they had a nuclear dump. That is why it is there. That is why it is not on Commonwealth land because they think: ‘We can go off, buy our way in over here and say we have done public consultation’.
If the member for Nelson reckons everything is so safe, and that the above ground storage is so good, then I call on the media to ask him to say: ‘Yes, it is so safe I will have it in my back yard. I will have it in Nelson’. I do not reckon they are safe. I am not saying put it in Sanderson, in Alice Springs or in Tennant Creek. I am not saying put it anywhere. Get it right. Get it as part of the fuel cycle. Let us get the proper science done on this, and then let us see where we go.
To have it the way it is right now, with the CLP and the member for Nelson turning their backs on the people of the Territory and on the kids who will be the future voters of the Territory is pathetic. They should be ashamed of themselves. I ask them to reconsider their position. Stop doing a prcis of the motion to be sent to Canberra saying: ‘I do not like the way it is drafted’. Look at the content, the intent, and at what we are trying to achieve for our community. Get behind and support it.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the minister’s motion and thank her for bringing it to the House. I have listened to all the speakers and, yes, it has been an interesting debate. We have heard from the opposition. If anyone is playing politics with this, it is them. They are talking about statehood, that it is our fault and it has cost us. We did not vote for statehood at the referendum, so blame Territorians. I totally disagree with that sentiment.
You can talk about the science. You can talk about all the other issues that we heard from the member for Nelson, but, quite simply, the motion is about Territorians having a say in the future of the Northern Territory. What is wrong with that? What is causing so much angst and hurt amongst the opposition today? It is very simple: it is about giving Territorians an opportunity to say what they think about a nuclear waste dump in our back yard. It is all our back yards really, the whole of the Territory.
The people of Stuart have voiced their opinion. One case is Chris Poulson, a traditional owner from the Pikilyi area in my electorate. He has been a very vocal and a very strident opponent of nuclear waste in his back yard in the Tanami. I would like to quote something he said about his country:
- This is a living land. The hills, ground, trees, springs and water tell stories. We can teach the children stories from the land which they can pass on from generation to generation.
That is a very strong message for all of us in this debate. Certainly, one voice which needs to be heard in this debate is the voices of indigenous people. Much of the land we are talking about, the sites that we know have been put up as possible sites, whether it is Mount Everard, Harts Range or Fishers Ridge have strong connections to the indigenous people in that area. I am sure they have a very strong opinion on this issue. It really does come down to consultation, not only with the wider Territory community but with indigenous people who have some affiliation to their country where these sites are located. They are very important aspects to this debate that we should consider as well.
The history of this is important, as the minister said. We are blaming each other for the politics, but it does get down to that. The basic issue is that it is a broken promise from our federal CLP members before the last election. It is amazing how things go round in circles. In the cycle of an election three or four years ago, the same issue came up and Territorians were promised that it was not going to happen in our back yard from the CLP member at the time. I think the line was ‘not on my watch’. Well, it is about broken promises, about politics and it is very timely. It is a cycle we are going through. We are two or three months out from a federal election, and what better time than to put the current federal government on notice? Ask them: let’s put this whole issue to a referendum. Why not? They have broken a promise over the last four years in regard to this.
In her contribution the minister asked if there is a deal being done. These are important questions all Territorians have every right to ask. I do not know why people get so upset or defensive when we ask these questions. It is critical to the Northern Territory that we get answers. It is two or three months out from an election. Let’s ask the Prime Minister while he is here for the answers. There is nothing wrong with that.
I am interested in the contributions by members from Alice Springs in this debate. I recall great numbers of Central Australian people, particularly in Alice Springs, showing their opposition to the waste dump. We had thousands of people sign petitions voicing their opinion on the waste dump. Those voices should not be ignored by Canberra, let alone this parliament. It is very important that the thousands of people who signed petitions, the hundreds and thousands of people who have marched the streets of Alice Springs, are heard in this debate. It is important that I, as a member of the Alice Springs community, place that on the public record. There are thousands of people who have voiced their opinions through petitions and marches, particularly through the streets of Alice Springs. I have been there, walking side by side, with those Central Australian people.
They are the critical areas for me. It is important that Territorians do have a say and that they have an answer before the next election because it is a critical issue for the Northern Territory. I have been concerned for quite some time about the way things have been done in regard to the sites and the consultation with indigenous people. It has caused much division amongst our communities and they are the things that we must be very careful about when we are talking about major developments on Aboriginal land and throughout the remote areas of the Northern Territory. Consultation has to be done appropriately and properly with the right people.
This motion is about giving Territorians the opportunity to have some a say on such an important issue. We must remind people that this is a broken promise and we want a referendum to have a proper say on this vitally important issue.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I have a few comments on the minister’s motion, which I support. It is a festering sore on the Northern Territory and parts of regional Northern Territory which have been rocked by this proposal by the federal government.
I remember at the Katherine Show in July 2005, and the member for Katherine would remember this because she was equally shocked, when the news reports came from Brendan Nelson that they were going to impose a nuclear waste dump on the Territory at a site close to Katherine, Fishers Ridge. It was shocking because we had iron clad guarantees during the federal election the year before that this would not happen; there would never be a nuclear waste dump in the Territory; never, ever. People were reassured by that. So it was very shocking, very concerning, that this was happening, and happened so swiftly, less than 12 months after the federal election. We should remember, coming up to the next federal election, these broken promises and what the Howard government promises Territorians and Australians. So swiftly, they break those promises. They do not lose any sleep over it. They have no conviction about their comments or what their decisions will do to people. The federal Liberal government is a serial deceiver.
Initially, I would give credit to the member for Katherine who supported the opposition on the imposition of a nuclear waste dump in the Katherine region, but she has been pulled into line, tapped on the shoulder and told to shut up and toe the Johnny Howard line. She has been very, very quiet on the issue of late.
Mrs Miller interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs Miller: He is looking to the seat of Katherine. He is pretty keen on it, Madam Speaker.
Mr KNIGHT: I am, Madam Speaker, very keen on it. It is a lovely seat. I hear it is quite marginal.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: The story is getting around, member for Katherine. You are leaving. The story is getting around. They are lining up. I want to line up as well. You never know. Anyway, I digress.
Of particular relevance to me was the Fishers Ridge site, which is a very deceptive name. Fishers Ridge is actually away from the proposed site, the block of land that Defence owns. The actual site is on a limestone ridge with creeks running through it. I visited one site nearby, it would have been less than 5 km away, and there was a sinkhole the size of this Chamber which appeared only a Wet Season before, and it has been increasing. That is the area the Commonwealth is proposing for a nuclear waste dump. It is still on the cards. They are still doing assessments. You could have an above ground storage facility, as the member for Nelson said, but you could have an underground facility overnight basically because the thing might fall through the limestone caves. It is a very unusual site to be proposing for a nuclear waste facility.
Adjacent to that site is a small farm and a cattle property, as I have discussed before in this House, owned by Barry and Val Utley. They are beautiful people, the salt of the earth, worked all their lives in the agriculture and pastoral industry south of Mataranka. They are in their 60s and still doing it tough. They muster their cattle basically by hand. There is only the two of them. They live in very basic but very comfortable accommodation. They are in no way rich. They cannot afford any staff. They were absolutely shocked that this beautiful bit of pastoral land for which they had saved and bought was going to have a nuclear waste dump slapped right beside them, and on the opposite side of a watercourse, the King River. It was absolutely shocking and these people were absolutely devastated. I visited them. The member for Nelson did not visit them. The member for Nelson did not go to the Fishers Ridge site. He did not care. He says he cares about people and looking after them. He did not talk to the Utleys, beautiful people, worried out of their minds about this facility, and they are still worried about it.
Adjacent is the King River Station owned by Joe and Judith Tapp who are great people. The Tapp family is a long-standing pastoral family in the Northern Territory. They recently bought the property and are working very hard to upgrade it. Joe recently bought a $70 000 bull from Queensland. They are trying to develop the place. He is trying to breed up particular lines of cattle. The risk to his property from having a nuclear waste dump beside it would be incredible. You know, ‘The King River Station is adjacent to a nuclear waste dump; please take my bull to service your cows’. The potential users of that bull or buyers of those cattle, I am sure, would be scared away.
These are very concerned people. They are genuine Territorians. The CLP seems to have forgotten and drifted away from these genuine Territorians, and the Territory Labor government seems to be battling and fighting for them. The member for Blain calls people like Val and Barry Utley, and Joe and Judith Tapp ‘the peanut gallery’. Apparently they are a peanut gallery. What a disgusting comment about these people who have legitimate concerns; these cattle people, these senior Territorians, calling them a part of a peanut gallery. That is disgusting. I hope the member for Blain apologises to those people. They are wonderful people.
The member for Araluen sometimes seems to forget about democracy and speaking out for the people. She bags Darwin constantly and supports, supposedly, Alice Springs. She forgets there was petition signed in Alice Springs by 6000 people telling us they did not want the waste dump there. What did she do? She defended the Howard government and said this is a good thing. Forget about the petition. She does not stand up for Darwin. We know she hates Darwin, hates the rural area, hates so many things. She will not stand up for her own constituency within Alice Springs.
This motion calls for letting people have their say. Let us have a plebiscite on this issue; it is an important issue. It is nothing like the local government reform, nothing like it at all. Other speakers have alluded to that. Let us have a say about it.
I have spent some time in Tennant Creek. My son has family at Blue Bush Community, which is adjacent to Muckaty Station. The word has gone out that the federal government has done a deal; the federal government has signed up a deal to have the waste dump on Muckaty Station. That is the word coming to me. John Howard should not hide from this; he should come out and tell Territorians before the federal election: ‘Guess what? We have one; it is going to be at Muckaty Station. We are going to give you a waste dump at Muckaty Station’. Come out and reveal it. You have hidden so much, you have lied so much, come out and tell people exactly what you are doing: there is going to be a waste dump and it is going to be at Muckaty Station.
The motion calls on the Prime Minister to have some guts, honesty and integrity and to tell Territorians the truth. You have lied to them constantly. How about coming out and telling the truth?
My speech has gone for nine minutes. It was only going to be a short speech. The member for Blain alluded to the fact that other speakers have spoken for only 11 minutes. To correct the record, the member for Blain spoke for nine minutes. He was that disinterested that he waffled and rambled, calling salt-of-the-earth Territorians ‘peanuts’. How disgusting is that? The proud CLP, the party which hates everyone in the Territory, mostly people in Darwin and the rural area, now hates pastoralists and senior Territorians. They really have got away from themselves. They should close themselves down and become a branch of the Liberal Party and buckle down to Howard. You have done it already; be honest about it.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion.
Ms LAWRIE (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker I thank all members for their contributions. It was really important that, with the Prime Minister’s visit to the Territory, we raised this critically important question regarding whether the Howard government remains determined to push ahead with forcing a nuclear waste dump on Territorians in the Territory.
If that this the case, despite the wishes of this parliament and despite our legislative agenda to resist it, there needs to be a referendum to give people the opportunity to have their say. That is what we are calling for: give people the opportunity to have their say in a referendum on the introduction of a nuclear waste dump to the Territory, one in which all Territorians can participate because it will affect all Territorians.
We are also asking the Prime Minister to take the opportunity while in the Territory to come clean. Has there been a deal done by his government on Muckaty? If so, what is it? What type of deal has occurred for a nuclear waste dump near Tennant Creek? Will there be scientific data of the suitability of the site? Will there be an environmental assessment? What type of nuclear waste facility is proposed for Muckaty? What levels of radioactive waste will be dumped at Muckaty near Tennant Creek? They are necessary questions to ask the Prime Minister when he is in the Territory.
CLP members, in their contributions, seemed offended at the timing of these questions and this motion. They referred to it as a political stunt. It is not a stunt. These are legitimate questions for parliamentarians in the Territory to ask the Commonwealth about the rights of Territorians being overridden by the Commonwealth. We are clearly saying: ‘Give Territorians a say’.
There has been much misinformation and scurrilous allusions in this debate to shutting down treatment available to cancer patients. The Territory government is on the record saying we have no issue with storing our own waste. It is medical waste. We store it now and we will continue to store it. That is not at issue. We are also on the record as saying that we are calling for a scientific process across Australia to determine where any nuclear waste facility should be built. We have said that an open and transparent process based on the science is something we will cop fairly. We maintain that sites nominated in the Territory are not geographically appropriate for a nuclear waste dump. The site near Tennant Creek is in an earthquake zone.
I will be amending the motion that I have put to the Chamber. However, it will not be in line with the amendments proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. I will be amending the motion in terms of paragraph (a), which currently reads:
- the Commonwealth government acknowledges the widespread and bipartisan opposition to its plans to locate a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory;
I will be removing the words ‘and bipartisan’ so that it will now read:
- the Commonwealth government acknowledges the widespread opposition to its plans to locate a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory;
Whilst the Leader of the Opposition did her best to squib on the CLP’s position, what was once a position of clarity is now mud, absolute muckraking mud.
The Leader of the Opposition was right about her proposed amendment: no one has a problem with endorsing and welcoming referenda in respect of building nuclear power facilities as a precondition. That must be the case. Where the government differs from the CLP’s opposition is that we say included in the definition of nuclear facilities should be the nuclear waste dump.
The Leader of the Opposition is trying to rewrite history in the second paragraph of her amendment. She is trying to say, and trying to mislead this parliament, that the Commonwealth government has honoured its election promise not to locate a radioactive waste facility in the Northern Territory ‘in the current term of office’. That is an absolute rewriting of history. It is on the public record: the CLP gave a commitment prior to the last federal election that there would not be a nuclear waste dump in the Territory. They did not qualify it by saying ‘in the current term of office’. The Leader of the Opposition is on very dangerous ground when she tries to mislead not just this parliament, but the people of the Territory; very dangerous ground indeed.
The third paragraph calls on the Territory government to move to ‘immediately seek permission from the federal government to house the Territory’s radioactive waste’, and it goes on to deal with medical waste. We do not have to go cap in hand to Canberra to seek permission to store our own waste. We are a jurisdiction which very proudly takes care of its own affairs. We store our waste now. We will continue to store our waste. We do not need to seek permission, cap in hand, toadying to Canberra. That is an offensive proposition.
The fourth part of the Leader of the Opposition’s proposed amendment deals with publishing ‘the number and types of treatment that benefit from the isotopes produced in Australia, in particular cancer sufferers and the projected number of cancer sufferers who will benefit from such isotopes when the radiation oncology unit is built in Darwin’. We heard a contribution from the member for Sanderson in relation to the myth that has been perpetrated mainly by the member for Nelson, but now picked up and continued by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Blain. There is nothing in the motion that the government has proposed that would prevent the ongoing treatment of cancer sufferers, and nothing that would prevent the establishment and functioning of the oncology unit. It really is politics at an all-time new low to try to whip up fear amongst cancer sufferers that they will not be able to get the treatment they need. We are saying, as a government: let Territorians have their say about a nuclear waste dump and come clean on whether deals have been done. It is an all-time new low.
The sixth paragraph is about the Commonwealth government making public ‘the current status of its plans in respect of location of the national repository’. It is interesting they use the words ‘national repository’ instead of ‘nuclear waste dump’. It is more of the shadows in which they will lurk to try to avoid the real issue. We have been calling on the Howard government to come clean with the deal. Has the Prime Minister or any of his ministers signed a deal on a nuclear waste dump for the Territory? We are hearing they have. If the CLP know they have, why have they not come clean in debate today? It is despicable.
We are certainly not going to be congratulating the Prime Minister for his actions. I will congratulate the Prime Minister if he agrees to a referendum on the nuclear waste dump. I will congratulate the Prime Minister if he comes clean on any deal he has done, and explains in an open and transparent way exactly what the deal comprises and what the environmental and scientific processes around it will be to give us some certainty about the future of any facility in the Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition wanted to know, if there is a change of government at the federal level, where Labor stands on this issue. I will quote the policy of federal Labor:
- Labor will not arbitrarily impose a nuclear waste facility without agreement on any community anywhere in Australia.
That goes to the heart of what we are arguing today. Do not impose something on a people without at least giving them a chance to have their say in whether they want it. Do not impose a nuclear waste dump on the Territory without giving Territorians a say in a referendum. That is fundamental to democracy. Labor’s policy, federally, is:
- Labor will not arbitrarily impose a nuclear waste facility without agreement on any community anywhere in Australia.
Madam Speaker, the debate has been very disappointing from the opposition. Previously, they have been bipartisan in their opposition to a nuclear waste dump being imposed on the Territory, being imposed on Territorians. Now we hear words such as ‘get over it’, that we are in an inferior bargaining position and that they want to do what is ‘sensible and right’ for the country.
We are elected to represent first and foremost the people of the Territory. If a nuclear waste dump is essential for the country, then let there be a fair, open and transparent process based on science to identify where a dump should go. That is at the heart of what our government has argued and will continue to argue right up until the federal election and, if necessary, beyond.
We will not duck and hide. We will not slink in the shadows on the issue of a nuclear waste dump. We suspect, particularly given the directions of the federal government’s nuclear policy and the directions and statements from the Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer in terms of deals being done with nations which are not members of the non-proliferation treaty, we suspect and can only suspect because there is no information provided, no clarity around any deals, that a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory will, in fact, take high level radioactive waste. It will take the spent fuel rods from France. Will it take the spent fuel rods from China? Will it take spent fuel rods from elsewhere?
In Australia, the federal government proceeds with its nuclear power plants dotted around the country. Will we become the dumping ground for not only Australia but the world in terms of high-level radioactive waste? If that is the case, then absolutely there is strong argument that it should not be put in the Northern Territory, geographically unstable country.
This is a serious matter. This has been a serious debate. The CLP might want to brush it under the carpet and describe it as a political stunt. It is far from a political stunt. It is absolutely appropriate with the Prime Minister in our Territory to call him to answer some appropriate questions about what is being done in regard to a nuclear waste dump deal; and call on him to make sure that Territorians have a say in a referendum on whether they want a dump in the Territory. We witnessed the broken promises of the past. We are giving the Commonwealth government an opportunity to make amends. Be honest, be open and allow a referendum on a facility that will be a legacy for thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years.
Madam SPEAKER: I will now put the amendment to the motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition.
Amendment negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, did you want to move your amendment to the motion?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move that we amend the motion that I put before the House and remove the words ‘and bipartisan’ from paragraph (a).
Madam SPEAKER: We have two motions before the Chair. The first is an amendment moved by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage to paragraph (a) of the motion, and the second is the original motion. The question is that the amendment as moved by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the main motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Note Statement - Desert Knowledge Australia
Continued from 23 August 2007.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Minister for Regional Development’s statement on a critically important industry for the people living in the arid and semi-arid areas of the Northern Territory, Desert Knowledge. If there are two words that best describe my electorate they would be ‘desert’ and ‘knowledge’. ‘Desert’ because of the landscapes of the electorate of Stuart, such as the Tanami, the Great Sandy Desert to the west and the Lake Eyre Basin to the east. ‘Knowledge’ because 85% of my electorate is indigenous, and the powerful knowledge that these people in the desert have been able to develop over thousands years is unique and special. When you put the two words together, desert knowledge, you really get a sense of something truly exciting and innovative. When you put the two words together, desert knowledge, they represent the importance of bringing together indigenous and non-indigenous people to reap the hidden benefits of the desert.
I will give credit where credit is due, and the previous CLP government must take some accolade for their planting of the seeds of Desert Knowledge. However, I am proud that, as a member of the Martin Labor government, we have continued and demonstrated much support and commitment to the Desert Knowledge project reaching its full potential. This government’s commitment to Central Australia is demonstrated by the Moving Alice Ahead project. Desert Knowledge is one of 11 individual projects now under way as part of Moving Alice Ahead.
Desert Knowledge, as it will happen, includes creating a Desert Knowledge Precinct to provide the physical centre for Desert Knowledge Australia, and supporting desertSMART, a community business and government partnership that provides a holistic approach to energy use, building design, water and water issues and preserving water supplies by linking government and community together. We are also continuing to support recognition of Alice Springs as Australia’s solar centre, a program to demonstrate how solar power energy efficiency and new approaches can combine to provide a sustainable future. What it will mean for the residents is opportunities for more jobs and a stronger, more diverse economy, improving indigenous education and employment opportunities and outcomes, opportunities to take up sustainable living measures and a more environmentally sustainable town.
The Desert Knowledge Precinct is the face of Desert Knowledge Australia. Not only are the Desert Knowledge Australia headquarters going to be based at the precinct, but projects such as the Desert Knowledge Business Innovation Centre, the Desert Peoples Centre and, very soon, the solar demonstration facility, are beginning to grow amongst the spectacular corkwood trees at the precinct.
I have been very fortunate to attend some very important milestones for the Desert Knowledge Precinct. On 12 April this year, I had the privilege of representing the Northern Territory government at the turning of the first sod ceremony of the $5m Stage 1 of the Desert Peoples Centre at the precinct. I was joined by Mr Jim Bray, representing the Centre for Appropriate Technology, Barb Richards representing Batchelor Institute, and Mr Harold Furber as a member of the Desert Peoples Board.
Of all of the Desert Knowledge projects, this would have to be my favourite. I say that because I first became involved in the Desert Peoples Centre concept many years ago, in fact about 10 years ago. One of my earliest recollections of my involvement was a meeting of Batchelor College, the Centre for Appropriate Technology and the Institute for Aboriginal Development when they were involved in the project at the CRC Building. The late Mr Djerrkura was a strong advocate for the Desert Peoples Centre and, despite being from saltwater country, he gives me my best recollection. Mr Djerrkura was doing his best to support the three indigenous education providers to move in partnership. It was his words to the effect of ‘You desert mob have something special here, you are even beating us saltwater people in growing our knowledge and working together for our young people’. It is a moment that I often think about because it is true.
This Desert Knowledge concept is special. The Desert Peoples Centre is about opening the door for our young people. The importance of the Desert Peoples Centre is no more evident than in our government’s Closing the Gap initiatives. A case in point is when we look at the education part of our Closing the Gap strategy. The approach that we are taking is starting school early, improving attendance rates, providing high-quality teaching and leaving school later, all essential to improving literacy and numeracy skills amongst our indigenous children in the bush. Preschool and early education programs have been associated with increased levels of school completion, and improved literacy and social skills necessary for school success.
Also from our Closing the Gap generational plan, another important part relating to the Desert Knowledge project is employment. I quote from the plan, in particular the Local Jobs for Local People section of the plan:
- Identify those jobs within the 1500 existing jobs that are suitable for transition to local employment and implement through training and mentoring – existing resources
The Desert Peoples Centre will provide those people living in my electorate of Stuart and other desert communities with opportunities to become real participants in the Central Australian and Northern Territory economy.
I would like to acknowledge a few people who in those earlier days were involved in the Desert Peoples Centre concept and the early meetings, including Dr Bruce Walker, Mr Jim Bray, Mrs Rosie Kunoth-Monks, Mr Harold Furber and Mrs Jenny Kroker. The other positive spin-offs from the Desert Peoples Centre is for the business community. I acknowledge and congratulate Sitzler Brothers, a local contractor, which has been awarded the contract to build the first five buildings for the Desert Peoples Centre. Completion of this work is on target for December 2007 in preparation for the 2008 school year.
I would like to repeat some of the figures the minister for Education mentioned in his contribution to the statement the other day. I quote:
- On completion of Stage 1, at the end of 2008, the Desert Peoples Centre complex will cater for up to 700 students in both VET and higher education areas. Stage 2, when complete, will cater for up to 1100 full time students.
Once again, in the context of this government’s Closing the Gap plan, it is very important that these challenges ahead for the communities and the people who live in the bush and in the desert are to be met. The Desert Knowledge Precinct, the Desert Knowledge Project and the Desert Peoples Centre are vitally important in meeting those figures and those challenges.
As the minister stated, Desert Knowledge Australia is a statutory corporation through the Desert Knowledge Act passed by this House in 2003. The act facilitated establishment of the Desert Knowledge Australia Board. I would like to briefly mention the board members of Desert Knowledge Australia, who include the Deputy Chair, Mr Harold Furber, a local Aboriginal man with a wealth of experience and someone I have had a lot to do with over many years including the earlier days when we were talking about the concept for the Desert Peoples Centre: Mr Alwyn McKenzie; Ms Sharon Hocking; Ms Beryl Meiklejohn; Ms Janet Turner, a local lady and a representative of Lhere Artepe Organisation and an IAD board member; Dr Bruce Walker, currently the CEO for the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Alice Springs; Mr Des Rogers, a local Aboriginal businessman; Mrs Kathy Finlayson; and Mr John Baskerville, the Northern Territory government senior representative.
Desert Knowledge Australia was asked by local Aboriginal groups to facilitate an indigenous education and employment task force for Alice Springs. This task force aims to build improved education, training and employment outcomes for indigenous people. One of the projects the taskforce has been successful in attracting is the Partnerships for Success program in Alice Springs, which I had the pleasure of launching at the Desert Lantern Restaurant in Alice Springs recently. The Partnership for Success program is a partnership between DEET, DEST, Centrecorp and the Graham ‘Polly’ Farmer Foundation. This program provides support and mentoring to indigenous secondary students to help them achieve Year 12 and then a university place, apprenticeship or job. I believe there are currently 33 indigenous secondary school students who have been selected to participate in the new program to help them complete Year 12 and transition to tertiary education, further training, apprenticeships or jobs.
The other exciting area of Desert Knowledge Australia is the Cooperative Research Centre. For my electorate, this is one of the exciting areas of the project in terms of research. I would just like to briefly mention a few of those projects that the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries mentioned in his speech. They include the Arid Zone Research Institute, which I have visited on a number of occasions. I also acknowledge Mr Phil Anning who has shown me around quite a few times; he is a local bloke who has been around the traps for a long time and is doing a great job at AZRI. Other projects which are exciting and relate to my electorate include: the Alice Springs Water Recycling Scheme; the Solar Technology Demonstration Facility; the CRC Bush Food System research trial; the 21st Century Pastoral Project; and the first Northern Territory Indigenous Pastoral Program.
The Indigenous Pastoral Program is achieving some great outcomes in the bush. The Central Land Council is a strong supporter of it and a partner with the Indigenous Land Corporation, the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines, the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. I would like to quote from a media release from the Central Land Council some time ago in relation to the Indigenous Pastoral Program. The CLC Director, David Ross, said:
- These are exactly the sorts of programs we need to build the bush and get Aboriginal people back into work and on the path to a better future.
They are highly relevant words in today’s climate, given the recent intervention from Canberra.
For many of the pastoral properties in my electorate, the work that the Cooperative Research Centre is doing is fantastic, particularly looking at those projects which will help create sustainable desert livelihoods and communities. A few of those projects include a walkover weighing system for cattle with a remote programmable telemetry system to significantly improve herd management and understanding the changing demography in the desert. Most recently, a research study to understand mobility in Alice Springs Town Camps is an exciting research project they have undertaken.
A key aspect of Desert Knowledge is involving indigenous people. I acknowledge the Lhere Artepe Aboriginal Corporation, which became signatories to the Desert Knowledge Precinct Indigenous Land Use Agreement. I recall the earlier days in the precinct when Lhere Artepe became involved initially with land clearances, but during the recent public open day for the Desert Knowledge Precinct, they were again involved so it is great to see the Lhere Artepe Aboriginal organisation staying involved in the project from the beginning.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion I am very excited about the Desert Knowledge Australia project. It is going to provide real opportunities for all Central Australians and in particular, the rapidly growing indigenous population. It is very exciting to be a member of the government who lives in Alice Springs to see the Desert Knowledge Precinct taking shape and Desert Knowledge projects becoming a reality. These types of partnerships are essential because of the dramatic increase in our indigenous population and the growing need for these types of facilities. I close by thanking Mr Fred Chaney for his leadership and his board’s leadership, and I look forward to more good news coming from the Desert Knowledge Precinct in the future.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions to the Desert Knowledge Australia statement.
We were debating about who is the father of the Desert Knowledge Australia. The reality is it might have been conceived during the CLP days, but we are the ones who saw through incubation and delivery of the baby. We helped it take its first step and become a reality from an idea from Dr Bruce Walker. I must apologise to Dr Walker; I referred to him in my statement as Mr Bruce Walker.
I thank members for their contributions. I thank the member for Drysdale who touched on the diversity of thought and endeavour being undertaken at DKA: bush food; solar demonstrations; kinetic plant improvements; improving the economic viability of pastoral properties; pre-employment courses; high speed data transfers; water storage and control; water recycling; and the list goes on. I thank the member for Barkly who stressed the partnerships that have been built and had to be built to create Desert Knowledge Australia. Organisations such as the Centre for Appropriate Technology, the Batchelor Institute, the Chief Minister’s Department, Desert Knowledge, CLC, DBERD, DPIFM, Indigenous Education and many others which came together.
I thank the member for Wanguri who had carriage of the implementation process and who spoke about the difficulties and confusion that reigned at the time concerning funding responsibilities. He also informed the Assembly how he was sold the vision for Desert Knowledge Australia by Dr Bruce Walker, Mrs Rosie Kunoth-Monks and Mr Harold Furber. At the time, the vision was still emerging, but their enthusiasm captivated him.
I was a bit troubled when the member for Katherine made some very interesting statements. First, she made a comment that my statement about DKA was a party political broadcast on behalf of the ALP. In contrast, the member for Araluen, the Leader of the Opposition, said it was a good news story. It is a good news story. The member for Katherine further said that, in terms of contribution, more than two-thirds of the contribution was made by the Howard Liberal National Coalition government, and she is wrong. As a matter of fact, the Northern Territory government contributes $30.2m over three years, and this money is spread as $2.5m for the Business Innovation Centre that houses the staff of the DKA; $17m for stage one of the Desert Peoples Centre; and $10.7m for headworks. On the other hand, the Commonwealth contribution is $9.6m: a $1.25m grant to support the Business Innovation Centre; and $8.4m for the Desert Peoples Centre. So it is not a majority contribution by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has come to the party, together with the states like South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. We all have common interests; we share an arid environment and we want to work together.
The member for Katherine sought answers to a number of questions concerning construction, occupancy and content. I am happy to provide these answers. There are two stages to the Desert Knowledge Precinct. The first stage involves construction of 16 buildings that will be home to Desert Knowledge Australia, the Desert Knowledge CRC, the Centre for Appropriate Technology and the Batchelor Institute for Indigenous Tertiary Education. The remaining 12 buildings will cater for up to 700 students and administrative offices. The additional buildings will be occupied by administrative services, a library, a Living Desert Centre, workshop, meeting rooms, student facilities, teachers’ areas, a health clinic and an arts and crafts studio.
I thank the member for Araluen for her constructive comments. It is a good news story. Irrespective of when it was conceived, who thought about it first, the reality is it is now there. It was very good work from people from many different political sides of government, but it became a reality and will continue to evolve. I know that the then Chief Minister, Denis Burke, spoke about it in 2000; and minister Baldwin spoke about it 1999. However, our government, when elected in 2001, took it over. We agreed with the ideas provided to us by Dr Walker and everyone else who supported it. We knew it was a good idea. We decided to support it because we believe desert knowledge is something that can provide prosperity for people in arid environments and create wealth.
The member for Katherine was a bit confused; confused that prosperity sharing and wealth creation would be wealth redistribution. Desert Knowledge Australia is not about wealth distribution. It is about using the knowledge of the people living in the arid environment, utilising this knowledge to address some of the problems, as the member for Stuart mentioned - water conservation, solar energy, living in the desert, mining in the desert, production in the desert - and use this experience, not only to sell it in Australia, but sell it overseas. It is a fact that as our world becomes more and more arid, more and more people will live in an arid environment and more and more people will require these solutions.
Many times I and other people have wondered what Desert Knowledge Australia will look like when it is finished, but our enthusiasm is still there. We believe in Desert Knowledge Australia and we support Desert Knowledge Australia. Thank you to the Chair, Fred Chaney, for his enthusiasm. We have worked together very closely, as was the case with my predecessor, the member for Wanguri when he was the minister, and we believe that there is a big future for Desert Knowledge Australia.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I am looking forward to a big and bright future for Desert Knowledge Australia.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPER
Auditor-General’s August 2007 Report
to the Legislative Assembly
Auditor-General’s August 2007 Report
to the Legislative Assembly
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s August 2007 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
MOTION
Print Paper - Auditor-General’s August 2007 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Print Paper - Auditor-General’s August 2007 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Mr STIRLING (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Minister, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s August 2007 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s August 2007 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Mr STIRLING (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Minister, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and the Chief Minister have leave to continue her remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Securing Territory Minerals Growth
Securing Territory Minerals Growth
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I inform the House of the outcomes of my Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines’ Building the Territory’s Resource Base investment attraction program, and the way forward with our new program, Bringing Forward Discovery, in short, to highlight the support government is providing to ensure we continue to encourage a strong and robust mining and exploration sector in the Territory; that is, the measures we are taking to secure the Territory’s minerals growth.
The Northern Territory’s economy is performing strongly on the back of mining and petroleum activity. Our economy grew by 7.5% in 2005-06, the highest of all Australian jurisdictions, and the resources sector contributed more than 50% of that growth. The mining and petroleum sectors currently account for over 25% of the Northern Territory economy, and that rises to over 40% if you include alumina and LNG production, a clear demonstration of the importance of this sector to the Territory economy.
In 2003, the government announced $15.2m funding over four years for an integrated mineral and petroleum exploration investment strategy named Building the Territory’s Resource Base, comprising four inter-related elements: continued acquisition and provision of high-quality pre-competitive geoscientific data; increased capacity to process and manage exploration and mining tenure; enhanced indigenous community engagement and land access support; and promotion of the Territory as an attractive destination for exploration and mining investment. As the program picked up speed, it was clear to all involved that substantial progress was being made. However, rather than rely on anecdotal evidence of the program’s success, the government commissioned a formal assessment.
An independent review of the progress and strategic direction of Building the Territory’s Resource Base was undertaken by ACIL Tasman in 2005-06 and reported to government in June 2006. The review gave a positive assessment, with particular emphasis on the quality and targeting of geoscientific programs and promotional activities, as well as the dramatic increase in the new exploration licence applications. The Building the Territory’s Resource Base initiative came to an end on 30 June this year. I am pleased to say that the success of this program has contributed to a 72% increase in mineral exploration expenditure over the past four years, and has left the Territory well poised to take advantage of the current global resources boom. Perhaps more importantly, the Territory has also begun to increase its share of Australian exploration expenditure after years of decline.
The mining industry in the Territory is now booming and six new mining and processing operations have commenced in the last 18 months. These are:
the Bootu Creek Mine of OM Holdings, which has opened approximately 110 km north of Tennant Creek. This is the first major mining development in the Tennant/Barkly region for several years. The mine currently employs 150 staff and contractors, and is producing up to 600 000 tonnes per year of manganese. The ore is trucked to the railhead, rail freighted to Darwin, and then exported through the new Darwin port facility to China. To date, 12 shipments have been exported to China;
the Union Reef gold processing plant near Pine Creek was recently opened by GBS Gold. This is the only operating processing plant in the historic Pine Creek goldfield. GBS will be progressively developing a series of mining operations from Adelaide River to Katherine over the next eight to 10 years, and transporting the ore to Union Reef for processing. GBS is currently mining in the Brocks Creek and Fountain Head mines and, later this year, will be developing the Mottrams and Chinese South open cut pits at the old Cosmo Howley mine. GBS currently employs around 151 staff and an additional 139 contractors. The project will create up to 300 direct jobs with the development of further sites. GBS aims to build up to a consistent annual gold production rate at 300 000 ounces by 2009;
the Old Tom’s Gully mine near Mount Bundy has been reopened by Renison Consolidated Mines to develop a significant underground gold resource. Recently, this mine has also been purchased by GBS Gold. The mine will produce about 45 000 ounces per year;
the Matilda Minerals zircon-sand mining operation on Melville Island is the first commercial mining operation on the Tiwi Islands. The mine has a small permanent workforce of eight people and will produce 107 000 tonnes of zircon and rutile mineral sands over a 3.5 to 4 year mine life. The mineral sands are exported directly from Port Melville, with the first export shipment occurring earlier this year; and
the Peko Rehabilitation Project has commenced re-treatment and processing of old tailings dumps at the Peko Mine, about 14 km east of Tennant Creek. Reprocessing of the dumps will produce significant quantities of magnetite, gold, copper and cobalt, and at the same time contribute to the rehabilitation of the old mine site. The magnetite plant is now in production. Development of the gold and copper extraction plants is expected to commence later this year; the cobalt plant is scheduled to start in 2008. The mine currently employs about 12 people, plus contractors, and this is expected to increase to about 15 employees when in full production. The mine has an expected life of about seven years.
In addition, Territory Resources has recently reopened the Frances Creek iron ore mine north of Pine Creek. This mine employs about 70 people and will initially produce one million tonnes of iron ore per year. The ore is trucked to the railway, rail freighted to Darwin, and then stockpiled at the port for export through the new Darwin bulk loading facilities to China. The first export shipment is scheduled for late next month. The mine has a current life of about five years, however this is expected to significantly increase as exploration continues to identify additional oil reserves.
Up to six more projects are expected or likely to commence operations during the next 12 to 18 months. These include the Brown’s Oxide Polymetallic Project, which Compass Resources is developing near Batchelor. The approved project has a four year life, and will process two million tones of oxide ore from an open cut pit to produce 10 000 tonnes of copper cathode, 1000 tonnes of cobalt chemical, and 850 tonnes of nickel chemical per year. Capital expenditure is estimated at up to $100m. At current metal prices, it is anticipated that approximately $170m per year could be added to the Northern Territory export value. During the nine-month construction period, up to 150 people are employed at the site. The operations phase will provide jobs for over 80 people, including approximately 20 mine contractors. Development of the site is about 85% completed, and the plant is scheduled for commissioning in October this year.
GBS Gold will be developing the Mottrams and Chinese South open pit gold deposits at Cosmo Howley later this year. Subject to the successful outcome of environmental assessments, GBS proposes next year to develop the Princess Louise and North Point gold deposits north of Pine Creek and the Maud Creek gold mine near Katherine.
Olympia Resources is scheduled to commence development of its garnet sands project at Harts Range north-east of Alice Springs later this year or early next year. The project has a long mine life of more than 20 years, and will create local employment as well as new export products for the Northern Territory.
Thor Mining PLC has recently completed the environmental assessment process for its tungsten and molybdenum project at Molyhill, 240 km north east of Alice Springs. Subject to the successful completion of some additional studies, the project is likely to proceed in 2008.
North Australian Diamonds is evaluating the feasibility of reopening the Merlin diamond mine in the Gulf of Carpentaria for open cut and underground mining operations.
Redbank Mines has identified further copper deposits at the Redbank Mine site, also in the Gulf of Carpentaria. The company is assessing the feasibility of establishing a new copper flotation plant to process the identified 4.2 mega-tonnes of ore at 1.5% copper over a five to seven year period.
There are other projects in the pipeline which are lined up for development in the medium term. For example, Arafura Resources’ Nolan’s Bore Project and the Browns sulphide development of Compass Resources. It is also worth noting that the five existing major mines - Alcan Gove, which produces bauxite and alumina, the GEMCO maganese mine, ERA’s Ranger Uranium mine, the zinc-lead mine of McArthur River Mining, as well as Newmont’s Callie gold mine - all have extensions or expansions of their operations under way or proposed.
In the context of this mining industry expansion, several new Northern Territory project offices have recently been opened. Compass Resources and Arafura Resources have opened offices in Darwin, and GBS Gold has opened an office in Katherine. Although mining and exploration activity is healthy, more major new greenfields discoveries are needed to sustain the industry into the future. This is where Bringing Forward Discovery, the successor of Building the Territory’s Resource Base, comes in.
There remains a highly competitive market for minerals and petroleum exploration investment both nationally and internationally. All other Australian jurisdictions have government-funded exploration investment attraction programs tailored to their particular geological and legislative environments. The Territory needs to build on its success and increase its share of the total exploration investment in Australia. The Territory’s share currently sits at 6%, fifth behind Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales.
In order to meet this challenge, the Northern Territory government has recently launched the new four-year $12m exploration investment attraction program Bringing Forward Discovery to build on the achievements of previous initiatives. The focus of this new program is to bring forward major mineral and petroleum discoveries which are essential to guarantee the long term wealth-generating capacity of the Territory’s most significant industry sector. It is worth noting that of all the industry sectors, it is mining which has the potential to provide jobs and sustainable economic development to many remote indigenous communities. The program aims to increase exploration activity in the Territory and lower exploration risk, thus increasing the likelihood of new discoveries. It also seeks to maximise outcomes from the commodity boom by working with miners, developers and investors to convert many of the known deposits and prospects into operational mines as soon as possible. The programs of Bringing Forward Discovery will be undertaken by three main teams in my department.
The Northern Territory Geological Survey team will be undertaking a series of programs where they focus on targeted data acquisition. These are designed to open up new areas of mineral and petroleum exploration to lower exploration risk and thereby increase the chances of new discoveries. The Geological Survey team will achieve these goals by developing an improved three-dimensional understanding of the Territory’s geology and providing the necessary data to decrease exploration risk in greenfield areas, especially those under cover. This will involve regional gravity surveys, high quality targeted geoscience, detailed prospectivity analysis of greenfield terrains and improved online access to data and information. Initial areas of focus include Arnhem Land, the eastern Arunta Region, and parts of the southern McArthur Basin.
The Northern Territory Geological Survey has a history of providing high quality geoscientific data and has almost completed airborne magnetic and radiometric coverage of the entire Northern Territory. To complement this data-set, the survey is committed to spending $3m on a campaign to acquire regional gravity data at a station spacing of 4km or less over poorly exposed greenfield terrains. This will provide a completed data-set, which has not been available previously, for prospective explorers.
The second team is the Minerals and Energy Titles team. The grant of titles for exploration and mining is fundamental for the development of the mining and petroleum sectors. The number of granted exploration licences is at an all-time high of 972 and the applications continue to stream in. This team is responsible for those grants.
The Titles team provides vital information and assistance to explorers and miners by the provision of an Internet-based Titles Information System. This provides clients with the tools to search the Territory for land available for exploration and to find out status and cadastre details of that land at the click of a button. Furthermore, the Titles team charts, advertises, assesses and grants titles for both mineral and petroleum exploration and mining, as well as providing timely administration of all mining and petroleum tenure. The team also provides a high level of tenure information to all stakeholders to assist in gaining the best outcomes of land access for all concerned.
Importantly, the Native Title and Land Rights Unit, in conjunction with the Customer Service Unit, continues to assist companies to get onto the ground by guiding them through the land access legislation, the Native Title Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, and providing streamlined processes, including the expedited procedure under the Native Title Act. The expedited procedure under the Native Title Act has proved particularly successful. This process provides explorers with a clear and timely process for the grant of exploration licences on pastoral lease land.
Arrangements to access Aboriginal freehold land and the government’s role of assisting explorers and miners in this quest has changed due to the recent amendments by the Commonwealth to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. These changes are being picked up in the Territory by the Mining and Petroleum (Aboriginal Land Rights) Amendment Bill, which is currently before the House. The changes provide the Territory with greater involvement in the process of obtaining access to Aboriginal freehold land for exploration and allow Territory representatives to attend the initial meetings between traditional owners and the exploration company.
Access to Aboriginal freehold land for explorers, however, remains a challenge, with the high level of interest driven by the commodity market resulting in a significant number of outstanding exploration licence applications over Aboriginal freehold land. At 30 June this year, there were 522 outstanding exploration licences on Aboriginal freehold land compared with 387 outstanding applications at the same time last year. The grant of these licences has the potential to provide benefit to indigenous landholders and all parties must strive to break the backlog. I am optimistic the recent changes to the Commonwealth legislation, which we will be mirroring, will assist that process.
Third, the Resource Development and Policy Team will be promoting the Territory as an exploration and investment location, both nationally and internationally, and will assist the industry through the facilitation of mining developments.
Plans have been made to promote Bringing Forward Discovery to the Australian market through a seminar series to be held in Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth. The official launch of the new investment attraction program will showcase geoscience data and the capabilities of the Northern Territory Geological Survey to assist industry to identify exploration and investment opportunities. The seminar series will be supported by private sector partner KPMG and will target 200 companies in the resource sector. These seminars will be held in parallel with existing conferences, Mining 2007 in Brisbane, and the AMEC National Congress in Perth, which allows us to promote Bringing Forward Discovery to a further 700 executives in the industry.
The springboard used to bring the Bringing Forward Discovery program to the attention of target audiences is the Top End Secret campaign. This highly successful initiative is currently being updated. The refreshed campaign, called Top End Secret 2, will be launched to re-ignite the resource sector excitement in the possibilities of exploring and investing in the Northern Territory’s mineral potential. The new campaign theme will be applied to marketing collateral, website and event displays. I will be able to report on the results of this launch at a later date.
I have reported previously to the House on my visit to China last year. I am now pleased to report that the Territory is the only jurisdiction in Australia with a targeted investment attraction program aimed squarely at China.
My department has developed a China Minerals Investment Attraction Strategy which aims to competitively position the Northern Territory in the China market, and to assist mining and exploration companies with projects in the Territory to identify and develop Chinese business links. The strategy’s promotional theme is ‘Australia’s Northern Territory – Vast Land, Rich Minerals, Future Opportunity’. Chinese language kits have been prepared, modelled on the Top End Secret campaign. This plan looks at the future and is a six-year strategy that aims to: raise the profile of the Northern Territory in China through ministerial and other Northern Territory delegations to China, plus inbound visits; develop partnerships with key Chinese networks to promote businesses operating in the Territory; build relationships with potential Chinese investors; and broker contacts and assist companies with Chinese business liaison.
There are strong historical links and growing mining links between the Territory and China. China is important both as an investor and a market. Several Territory mines export product to China, and a major China mining joint venture was recently signed in the Territory between Compass Resources and Hunan Nonferrous Corporation, covering the Browns polymetallic project and regional exploration. Chinese investment interest in the mining sector is evident. Our task is to filter and direct the contacts, and to match potential investors with explorers and developers.
In the last year, we have undertaken two missions to China, including my delegation last November and a technical team last May. A number of key results have been achieved since my visit: 10 Chinese organisations have visited Darwin, with a number of organisations making multiple visits; two local companies are in partnering discussions with potential Chinese investors; several exploration licence applications have been submitted by Chinese companies; Sinosteel has announced sponsorship of the Darwin Symphony Orchestra; and cooperation agreements have been drafted with the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Metals and Minerals and the China Mining Association. These will be put before Cabinet for a decision shortly.
Chinese investment in the Territory’s mineral sector will increase exploration expenditure, increase the potential for mineral discoveries, and support the development of the Territory’s mining industry. Most of the major Chinese companies operating or seeking to invest overseas and are state-owned enterprises. In other words, they are controlled by the central government. This means that it is appropriate and necessary for the Northern Territory government to be involved in developing the relationships and networks which are a bridge for industry to build relationships. There has been strong industry participation and support for all activities, outbound and inbound, under the China strategy. It is anticipated that five to six companies will participate in my proposed delegation to China in November this year.
The strength and growth of our resources industry is currently underpinning much of the Territory’s economy, but we need to take care of the longer term, too. Many of the new and upcoming developments I mentioned earlier are based on long-known deposits, and we need more major greenfield discoveries. The message Bringing Forward Discovery gives prospective investors and explorers is simple and compelling: the Territory is under-explored and not fully tested by modern exploration techniques, so the chances of new discoveries are considered high, and now is the time to become involved.
I should note the infrastructure development that has been, and is being, undertaken by government and industry in support of the mining sector. Foremost examples are the railway and the bulk handling and ship loading facility at the East Arm port. We understand the importance of a multi-pronged strategy that addresses all of the infrastructure issues, both hard and soft. Securing the growth of the mining sector in the Territory will help us move the Territory ahead and promote economic development and job opportunities within the Territory.
The mining and energy industries account for over 25% of the Territory’s GSP and, if we want to maintain and grow this figure, we must ensure that we are at the forefront of data acquisition and promotion. We must also continue to highlight and promote the exploration and development potential of the Territory and sustain the enormous contribution made by the resources sector to the Territory economy. Bringing Forward Discovery will ensure that we not only build on our past but that we create new successes.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement, which was very well read. This is a very important part of the Northern Territory and has been in force for many years since the discovery of uranium at Rum Jungle in the late 1940s or early 1950s. The length and breadth of the Northern Territory presents opportunities for mining: Gove, Groote Eylandt, Ranger, McArthur River, Granites, Pine Creek, the list goes on. This is a wonderful place for mineral exploration. Governments in the past, and this government as well, try to ensure that the benefits presented from mining flow on to everyone in the Northern Territory, albeit in direct and indirect ways.
The minister is one of the luckiest ministers in the Cabinet having somewhat remarkably retained his portfolio of Mining. It is remarkable because his performance as Mining minister amounts to a joke since he took on the portfolio. Members will recall, we said it in the Chamber, the senior people particularly in the mining industry were very concerned that an industry of this significance had as a minister a new minister, and a junior minister at that. That remains an ongoing concern. People need only look back at the minister’s woeful performance when it comes to McArthur River Mine to be reminded of his very unremarkable, ordinary and woeful performance as minister. I note in his report he referred to an ‘open cut pit’. I hope the minister has now learned the difference and of course I am referring to what can only be described as the McArthur River debacle.
I should say that this minister embarrassed the Northern Territory both nationally and in mining circles internationally with the way the McArthur River mine debacle was handled, or indeed it would be more accurate to say mishandled. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber joins with me in wishing this minister would do better. I am sure that he is able to do better, or at the very least I am very happy to give him the benefit of the doubt in that regard. He certainly needs to do better.
I am reminded of what he said in Estimates on 29 June this year. I asked about a uranium refinement plant that may be built in Darwin Harbour. This minister said, and I quote:
- It has nothing to do with me. I approve the mining application.
That is an extraordinary thing for a minister for Mines to say. This is a bloke who unfortunately demonstrated then, and he is still doing it, that he really does not have much of an understanding of the portfolio. Having said that, the opposition along with so many other Territorians, really want him to do well because the importance of mining to the Territory cannot be underestimated.
I note that he referred to the exploration initiative. That is not new. The CLP, under Denis Burke, announced that initiative in 2000-01. The government announced $16m for an exploration initiative, and the intention then was to provide quality geoscientific data for use by Territory explorers into the next century. I am pleased the minister sees fit to continue this initiative, and I think the figure he mentioned was $12m. This is a worthy investment by any government, regardless of its political colour.
The minister referred to benefits in employment which arise as a result of mining in the Territory. A good example is McArthur River Mine. We said at the time, and we will continue to say it: MRM is a very good corporate citizen. It does a lot for its local community, as does every other mining investor. The minister referred to the Darwin Symphony Orchestra. In times gone by, we have had mining companies in the Territory who have had relationships with the Darwin Symphony Orchestra, and they have made various contributions. Every mining company we have in the Territory is a good corporate citizen, and this is what we would expect. We expect to see the benefits of employment and exploration flow throughout the Northern Territory, and we can look to our mining industry for leadership in that regard.
The effect, it seems to me, of the minister’s statement was that the mining industry is doing well, with a suggestion it is all because of this government. If it was the minister’s intention to represent that as the case, I would like to call him out on it. There is a view the mining industry is doing well in the Territory despite this government. It is a fact the current minerals boom and interest in the Northern Territory has been driven by commodity prices, and we all know this government does not have anything to do with commodity prices.
One thing I do not believe the minister said in his statement is what the government is going to do if the current cycle changes. Governments must not only focus on the positives, but they must have contingency plans. In the event the current booming cycle changes, is there a contingency plan by the government to see if it can address any shortfalls or, indeed, if the projection of the boom in any way falls short? That would obviously have ongoing or wide-ranging effects on the Northern Territory, whether it is from a financial or employment point of view and so on.
The government cannot, and I know others share this view, take any credit for new companies coming to the Territory because it is the individual companies which take the risk. It is fair to say that this government generally is perceived as being relatively lacklustre when it comes to developing the industry. I do not assert the government has not done a single thing; certainly there are things which any government should do.
I do not think the spin we are increasingly seeing from this government is desirable in dealing with the mining industry. We all want to see good results and those involved in mining can separate substance from spin. It is the innovative companies which take the risks. Any government should try to assist them, but there is a perception that the government is a lacklustre one. I understand there remains a lack of taxation of economic incentives and on the ongoing issue of difficulty with land access. I am not entirely satisfied the government has any answers.
I will refer to a couple of specific points the minister made. The Browns Oxide Polymetallic mine is welcome, and congratulations to the company. You have to ask, though, if the government will be just as supportive and enthusiastic when the company, if it does, announces that it wants to develop a new uranium mine. As I understand, it has pretty good prospects at Mount Fitch, I believe it is.
In addition, while it is the case that some companies have moved offices to Darwin, I believe the minister referred to two, the question has to be asked: what is government doing to encourage more companies to do the same? We must have a forward projection, the graph has to go up, notwithstanding there is the necessity to have plans in place in the event that the projections are not as good as we would all like. I ask: what is government doing to ensure that we get even more mining companies here? Companies, as I have already said, take the risk and commit to the Territory not because of the existence of a Labor government; they do so because of high levels of mineral prospectivity that exist in the Territory and have been developed and explored since about the 1950s. I ask: what will the government’s position be? Will the minister be as seemingly enthusiastic when the Nolans Bore proponent wants to build its processing plant in or around Darwin to process the rare earths and uranium deposit just north of Alice Springs?
The minister will remember that we raised this in Estimates, and he did not seem to know very much about it. On 29 June he said:
- We are in constant conversation with them.
As we have stated before, there has been a committee set up to work with them, to help them undertake the vital decisions they have to make on a commercial basis later on down the track. That is where we sit at the moment.
The geoscience program is good. There should be money for geoscience programs and further development. It should be second nature to a government. Presumably the minister issues a media release every time there is some money moving from point A to point B. It is not something that you need to necessarily crow about. It is the work of government. When we see this government doing its daily work, we see media releases pumped out from this entity called the newsroom, as if to say to people, ‘Aren’t we wonderful?’ Well, it is your job. This minister, although he does not have his head around it as well as some of his colleagues, needs to appreciate that it is the daily work of a mining minister to ensure development, to cultivate relationships, to harness existing relationships and to increasingly look at the long term.
Clearly, geoscience programs need to be maintained and, indeed, if they are not improved and further developed, then a view could be put that the competitive edge with its minerals competitive states and countries might be diminished over time unless the minister gets it right. I understand that Cabinet struggled to understand what role government plays in attracting investment by providing pre-competitive geoscience information. I further understand that it took significant lobbying from industry to secure the funding. It should be noted that $12m is not all for geoscience, but across the department. If the minister has a contrary view, I invite him to put that view in his response. In real terms, there is a view that the government may have, over time, decreased funding for geoscience programs, given the spread across the department.
In relation to all of the project information, of course, that is good news. Why is government trying to rate mineral leases, which will see some small operators forced out of business, and the extractive industry possibly forced to the wall due to the excessive rates they will have to pay. Can the minister give a categorical guarantee in his response that government will not rate exploration licences? I invite the minister to respond to those issues in his response.
There is no doubt that the potential of the Territory’s mining industry is seemingly limitless. Certainly in the current climate, explorations are to be encouraged, and they should be. That should be the work of government. If government wants to further develop the industry, it can count on the opposition’s support. As I said when I opened, the mining sector not only is important to the Territory, but it covers the length and breadth of the Territory. All of us in our areas, with the obvious exception of Darwin urban areas, know of or have mining developments or potential projects in or next to our electorates. I know that our constituents and, in turn, the people of the Northern Territory, value very much. It is incumbent on government to do everything it can to encourage the industry. We have to have a can-do government.
I am very pleased that federal Labor decided to overturn its position on uranium mining. We have huge amounts of uranium in the Territory and, provided that the standard safeguards are adhered to, uranium should be mined. I am pleased to see the ideological blockages of Territory Labor and, indeed, federal Labor, move on. That is to be welcomed.
Minister, I sincerely wish you well. I cannot look you in the eye and say I have enormous confidence that you will do well. However, for the sake of the Northern Territory and those involved in the mining industry, I certainly hope that you can do well in this very important portfolio. I thank you very much for your statement today.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have said before that the mining industry has the potential to make a substantial contribution to regional and indigenous economic development of the Territory. It was very interesting to listen to the Leader of the Opposition’s comments about mining; that mining in the Territory just happens because the commodity price is high. There is no doubt that, if the commodity price is very high, mining companies will go to the places where there are these commodities and will explore or excavate.
I remind the member for Araluen that when the CLP was in government, by their own ministerial admission, it was very sad to see the number of mines declining. From so many mines, it was down to only seven left in the Territory. That lasted for a long time because the word out there was that you could not have access to land in the Territory. Was the access to land a problem of the indigenous people, or because it was impossible to negotiate a lease with the Northern Land Council, or because the then CLP government decided to play political games by not issuing exploration licences to people who wanted to explore the Territory?
My colleague, the member for Wanguri, when he became the minister for Mines, was advised that there were a number of licence applications sitting on the desk, unattended for many years because the then CLP government wanted to play political games and tell the mining industry the only reason they cannot have access to the exploration leases in the Territory is because the blackfellas won’t let them do it. As a result of that, the Territory was in a very abysmal place in the Fraser Institute index. The Fraser Institute is an international organisation which assesses different jurisdictions around the world and categorises them with regards to mineral potential, the ease with which you can do business in that area and how easily you can access land. The Territory was down 26 or 27 on the Fraser Institute index. I am very pleased that when I left the portfolio, the Territory was sixth on the Fraser Institute index.
The Leader of the Opposition commented that no new companies were brought here because of the government, and that is wrong. The reason companies come to the Territory is because we are able to provide them with vital information that other jurisdictions do not provide. I have attended many mining conferences in different jurisdictions, in different states, and I was told by many mineral companies that all they received from the Department of Mines in Western Australia or Queensland or even in South Australia were coasters and pens, while from the Northern Territory they received information on CDs or hard publications about exploration, the geophysical data that the department collects and they were provided free of charge. The department has also developed tools on the Internet which companies, wherever they are in the world, can access to find out who has the title, the exploration licences, what was found in the area, when it was found, the tonnage and who is the current owner. These companies find this information very useful and it helps them make decisions about exploring in the Territory.
In the old times it was the big companies which did the exploration. The big companies had the ability and the capital to invest in exploration. Times have changed. Now the big companies are publicly listed and they do not want to waste shareholders’ money in exploration. Here, small companies are doing the exploration and then selling the results to the big companies which will proceed to mine.
Our government has facilitated development of new mines in the Territory not only by providing the information, the geophysical data, not only by fast tracking applications for exploration licences, but also facilitating the establishment of these companies in the Northern Territory. I am very pleased to see that my successor, the member for Drysdale, has followed my example and has travelled everywhere in the world to promote the Territory as a mining destination. We are competing against Western Australia and now Queensland, but we have to remember that the Western Australian mining tenements are taken already or have been taken for many years, and it is very difficult to find a parcel of land for exploration. The Territory is virtually unexplored with a very small number of exploration companies and a very small number of drill holes so it becomes very attractive for the companies to explore in the Territory.
Mining companies have the potential to make a substantial contribution to the regional economic development of the Territory and to employ many Territorians and many indigenous Territorians. My department is working very closely with the department of Mines and with the mining companies in order to identify pathways and opportunities for indigenous businesses. For example, the McArthur River Mine Community Benefit Trust was established to ensure that people in Borroloola and Gulf region take advantage of the opportunities the expanding mine will bring. Mining is one industry that offers opportunities for Aboriginal participation in remote parts of the Northern Territory. The role of facilitating Territory business participation in the mining industry is a core role of my department and will continue under the new Bringing Forward Discovery initiative of the department of Mines. Additionally, DBERD will also assist indigenous business to actively participate in the mining industry.
The time has never been better as evidenced by the willingness of mining companies to engage with local stakeholders. All of the older established companies and newer companies operating in the Territory are quietly getting on with the job. A recent success has been the Coyote gold mine in the Tanami where Central Desert Enterprises Capital, a Northern Territory indigenous enterprise, secured contracts which resulted in significant employment opportunities for indigenous people.
Mining developments that flow from exploration success present a major component of whole-of-government approach for supporting a viable future for indigenous people. The mining and petroleum sector was the major Northern Territory economic growth provider of 2005-06 accounting for 56% of total Territory growth. The mining sector, by far the biggest contributor to Territory economy, now comprises 26% or $3bn of the Northern Territory economy. This compares with 22% and $2.3bn in the previous year. This growth is expected to continue.
The mining sector has relatively low linkages with other production sectors of the Northern Territory economy. Its strongest links are with the manufacturing sector as the supplier of inputs and, of course, for every $1m invested in the mining sector in the Northern Territory, $770 396 of output is created in the rest of the economy. For every 100 jobs created in the mining sector, 184 jobs are created in the rest of the Northern Territory economy.
Recently, I signed documents giving force to the McArthur River Mine Community Benefit Trust in Borroloola on 4 July 2007. This completed nine months of negotiation with the company, and established all elements needed to deliver at least $32m of benefit to the Gulf region. It was pleasing to see so many people at this event representing a wide diversity of people, and it was an historic moment for the Gulf region and the Territory.
What we have done is enter into an agreement with MRM which does three things: confirm the commitment we share to develop the region; identify the targets to which the company is committed; and establish the structure for the most important vehicle, the trust. MRM will continue annual payments to the trust for the life of the mine. In turn, the trust will distribute these funds to projects which help with the task of building a sustainable economy in the region. These projects will be focused around employment and training, enterprise development and community infrastructure. To make sure we maximise the plans developed for projects, both MRM and ourselves have committed to contribute key administrative services for the trust on a separate basis. MRM will provide secretariat services and the government will provide a project development role.
I take this opportunity to welcome the first directors and trustees of this organisation: Ms Sue Sara as Chair of the trust; Mr Col Fuller as the MRM independent Director; Mr Richard Galton, my Chief Executive of DBERD; Ms Shirley McPherson, the Chair of the Indigenous Land Corporation and the government’s independent director; Mr Sammy Evans from the Mara; Ms Adrienne Friday from the Yanuwa; Mr Tony Jack from the Garrawa; and Mr Ronny Raggett from the Kurdanji. The first meeting occurred on 20 August 2007, and I wish them well in their task. They now have two challenges they must meet. The first is to identify key projects that provide the job and business opportunities everyone wants. The second is to demonstrate to the wider community how this partnership between companies, government and the community can deliver lasting change.
I acknowledge MRM for its commitment to Gulf region, and thank the officials from MRM and this government who have built this model for regional development. This is the first of many such agreements because it is the intention of this government that these kinds of agreements will be implemented with any new company which wants to open a mining venture in the Territory.
My department and the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines have worked together to include the requirements for an Industry Participation Plan in mining operations. These will be required for construction of new mining operations or expansions to existing operations where the cost could exceed $5m. This amount is in line with existing requirements for Industry Participation Plans. This process will give competitive Territory businesses the opportunity to compete for business in the future growth of the Territory and enhance Territory business and industry capability.
DBERD staff are currently working with Olympia Resources and Thor Mining to assist them to draw up Industry Participation Plans which are realistic to their expectations and to which the companies can commit. In addition to the formal process of IPPs, DBERD staff in Darwin and Alice Springs have undertaken a number of different activities to improve the local community’s access to opportunities created by mines, which include working closely with mining companies to identify local support capability. As an example, last year the Mining Opportunities Road Show was held in Berry Springs, Batchelor, Pine Creek and Katherine to highlight the opportunities available for local businesses from the Compass Resources and GBS Gold operations.
The Mining Supply and Services expo is held each year in Alice Springs in conjunction with the annual Geoscience Exploration symposium. At the event earlier this year, we had 48 companies exhibiting their wares, and large volumes of business people from a broad cross-section of the mining and exploration industries. Feedback from the exhibitors was positive, and to ensure we get it right again in 2008, we are currently interviewing all the exhibitors to get their views on how the event can be improved.
As part of the Mining Supply and Services Expo, DBERD also ran a seminar where mining companies in Central Australia were given the opportunity to provide information on their projects, with particular focus on supply and service requirements, to an audience of Central Australian business people with an interest in providing support to the mining industry.
The Northern Territory Industry Capability Network, which is funded by the Northern Territory government, is the impartial recognised leader in procurement research and industry capability information which matches competitive sellers and legitimate bidders to create maximum local content in Northern Territory business and projects.
During the first week of September, DBERD is leading a delegation of 10 organisations to attend the Asia Pacific International Mining Exhibition in Sydney. This expo, which is only held every four years, is Sydney’s internationally recognised platform for Australian and overseas suppliers to showcase their mining technology, equipment and services. We are going to be there to provide the opportunity for our industry to mingle, meet and do business with companies, not only from around Australia, but from around the world.
Mining operations - current, under feasibility study and under exploration - will provide future opportunities for micro-, small- and medium-sized indigenous business development in Central Australia. Similarly, as the Red Centre Way is sealed, a range of business opportunities are likely to emerge along the route in tourism, hospitality and other industry areas for indigenous Territorians.
To meet future demand, DBERD is in the process of recruiting a person for the new regional development position in Alice Springs. This position will provide an additional AO6 resource and, among other roles, focus on the development of indigenous business enterprise in Central Australia. The new DBERD officer is to assist indigenous people with business development, professional development and personal development. In addition, the new officer will also establish an indigenous business network for Central Australia to help, aimed at existing but also new indigenous business owners, gain confidence through meeting regularly with other Indigenous business owners and to share information and experiences.
Let us have a look at the mining and exploration activities in Central Australia:
Newmont Australia - Granites Gold Mine, 500 km north-west of Alice Springs, has operated for some 20 years now, with a predicted mine life to 2020. It produces 400 000 ounces of gold per annum. Alice Springs is a supply base for some consumables and services;
the Mud Tank Mine, 100 km north-east of Alice Springs, is a small vermiculite mining operation which commenced in 1995. The expected mine life is beyond 2020. Alice Springs is a general supply base;
Tanami Gold is situated 200 km across the WA border along the Tanami Road. Some supplies come from Alice Springs;
Thor Mining – Molyhill Molybdenum Tungsten deposit, 240 km north-east of Alice Springs. Mine infrastructure is currently under way; the owners hope to commence mining operations this year. It has a predicted mine life of six years, and current requirements are being sourced from Alice Springs;
Olympia Resources - Harts Range Abrasives Project is situated 130 km east of Alice Springs on the Plenty Highway. Plans are being finalised and some infrastructure is complete. Mining commencement is planned for this year, with a mine life of 23 years;
Arafura Resources - the Nolans Bore Rare Earth/Uranium/Phosphates project is near Aileron, 110 km north of Alice Springs. It is a world class deposit. The planning process is well under way, and my department, together with DPIFM will establish a committee to facilitate a very quick processing and advancement of this project, which will generate significant income for the Territory, particularly since Arafura Resources’ intent is to process their product in Darwin. Despite the scare campaign by the Leader of the Opposition, their facility in Darwin will be the same size as the Bunnings hardware store near the airport. It will not be near the water, it will be inland, and there certainly will not be uranium processing. It will be a processing of rare earths and superphosphates, with the uranium being a by-product of that processing;
the Pamela Angela uranium deposit is 25 km south of Alice Springs, and some 50 exploration licence applications have been received. Several of these are from overseas. DPIFM will assess these applications in September 2007; and
Central Petroleum - oil and gas exploration in Central Australia has shown encouraging indicators.
Other mines operating in Central Australia are Bootu Creek and Peko Tailings near Tennant Creek; Callie deposit that is mined by Newmont; and White Range north-east of Alice Springs; and of course, MRM. I was particularly pleased to find out that MRM had initiated a training program with 13 indigenous people in Borroloola either going into training or about to finish their training in the next few weeks. It is encouraging that when these people finish their training they are not going to be driving lawn mowers, or the things that we usually see, or we used to see in mining companies, but they will be driving the real big trucks, the dozers, the plants, with a salary of $70 000 per year. In addition to that, an extra 40 trainees will be taken on by the mine in order to fulfil the needs and the lack of skills that the mines are experiencing at this time.
The same happened with GEMCO. During a recent visit to Groote Eylandt, I was advised by the manager of GEMCO that a lot of indigenous people now want to work in the mine, and GEMCO provides all the necessary training, working together with Anindilyakwa Land Council and contractors. They have a joint employment and training operation in order for indigenous people from Groote Eylandt to drive the big trucks.
Newmont currently has 94 indigenous employees, and has started a pre-vocational program where 10 out of 14 people who were selected are now in the transitional stage and getting ready to move into real jobs. In Gove, Alcan’s contracting includes Delta Reef Housing Services with 50% indigenous participation; the Yirrkala Dhanbul Land Care ongoing contracts with G3 and they also do the maintenance of the walkways at Alcan. YBE, Yirrkala Business Enterprises, has $9m per annum worth of contracts which are ongoing with digging up and the hauling of bauxite, general maintenance around the plant and township that is on Alcan property.
Three skills shortage trades employer incentives have been allocated to mines: MRM; Alcan; and Newmont. DEET currently funds the Chamber of Commerce to deliver a pre-employment project at McArthur River Mine, and has done so for several years. No other specific funding has been provided from BuildSkills, nor pre-employment funding directly to mining companies although all operating and planned mines have been advised of the availability through personal visits and liaison with DPIFM and the Northern Territory Minerals Council.
DBERD, DEET and DPIFM have a joint funding agreement with the Welding Technology Institute of Australia to provide services to the mining industry, and has been very active at Alcan. Funding is for 2006 through to 2009 and is $120 000 per year. DEET also funded two programs in non-destructive testing in 2006 and 2007 through Advanced Training International. Each program is for $40 000, and several mining companies have had participants in the program. The funding is sourced from BuildSkills NT project funding. BuildSkills funding of $15 000 has been provided to the Australian Drilling Industry Training Council to provide assessments for a small number of water drillers in the Northern Territory.
Mining is providing opportunities, not only for indigenous people, but also all Territorians. A very good example is the Hi-Way Inn. When Al, Brenda and their son, Gary Hoeksema purchased the struggling Hi-Way Inn in 2002, it would be no understatement to suggest that they must have been extremely optimistic to think they could turn it around. However, with 30 years experience in the Territory, they could see a huge opportunity. The Hi-Way Inn is not close to Darwin; it is about 600 km south of Darwin at the junction of the Stuart and the Carpentaria Highways in the Daly Waters area. An operation like this is equivalent to running a small town. It is actually now a small town. The inn has a staff of 16 people recruited from all around the world. Recently, when I went to Borroloola, I stayed overnight and I was very impressed by the operation. Not only have they upgraded the facilities, but they have invested in the facility by providing a demountable block of four en suite rooms, and are about to increase that by another four. In addition, the installation of $100 000 rainwater tank to improve the water quality has added to the customer experience. They have done all this keeping debt to a minimum and keeping the bottom line healthy.
However, because of Sweetpea Petroleum, which is an oil and gas explorer, they have had very good information about prospective tenements of oil and gas in the Beetaloo Basin. They have worked out an agreement with the Hi-Way Inn to operate from the inn. The inn provides accommodation and meals for the crew, fuel and water and on-site services, as well as an operational base for their equipment. This had a significant effect on the operation providing a steady stream of income. Depending on the outcome of the exploration, it could be the start of something big for the Daly Waters region and, indeed, the rest of the Territory, if a significant gas and oil field becomes a reality. The information I had from people and the geologists from Sweetpea is that the results are very encouraging.
I have said before, and I will say it again, that oil and gas are a significant industry for the Territory and provides the opportunity for regional growth and regional development, providing hundreds of jobs to Territorians …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr VATSKALIS: … and, in particular, to indigenous Territorians.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for DBERD for his comprehensive addition to the statement. In some ways, that should have been part of the statement to thicken it up a little. The minister’s statement is certainly welcome, but it is an information statement about what is happening. Whilst that is important, from my point of view, it does not address some of the areas of mining that I would like to hear more comment on. I specifically would have liked to have had more information on the extractive mining industry. Without the extractive mining industry, we basically could not build our cities. Many of the projects the minister talked about are export projects and, no doubt, they are important.
However, what builds the Territory is extractive mining; sand and gravel are certainly keys for the development of Darwin. That mainly comes from the rural area. It would have been good to have expanded on some of these areas. Whilst the extractive mining industry in dollar terms may not be as great as the export industry, it is a vital part of the Territory’s growth. For some reason it rarely gets a mention. Yet if you live in Litchfield Shire I am sure you will be affected by it as you see triple after triple going along the Arnhem Highway or out Girraween Road or out of Howard Springs Road. There is a substantial amount of gravel and sand continually being moved from the rural area. Perhaps the minister could expand on that in another statement.
Whilst I am a great supporter of the extractive mining industry, we have to weigh that up against a couple of issues. One is good planning in relation to where these industries develop so that they do not clash with the expanding residential areas in the rural area. This has been a problem in two ways. One is if the development of extractive industries is too close to residential areas. When that occurs, you get complaints about dust or noise. The other one is that the extractive mining industry does not want to see potentially good areas of gravel or sand being swallowed up by residential development. There needs to be good forward planning to ensure that those things do not clash.
The other aspect is the environmental impact of extractive mining. Extractive mining, when it comes to sand, is nearly always done in wet areas. Whilst I do not have concerns about the use of those areas for the extraction of sand, I hope that the government, in its support of development and the economy, does not forget that rehabilitation of the sites where sand is taken from should also be a key priority.
It is great to see the economy growing. It is great to see businesses making profits, but let us make sure that the areas from which they make those profits are looked after, and that some of the benefits of the economy growing are put back into those areas to make sure the environmental damage that is done when you have sand mining is repaired. I do not get enough time, or probably have not got the money, to get up in a helicopter because that is probably the only way you are going to check on whether this particular matter is being addressed.
You only have to look in the paper on a Thursday to see the number of applications for extractive industries and how many come from the rural area. It is increasing all the time because of the demand in a growing city, and I include Palmerston in that, for the requirement for gravel and sand. If some of these particular minerals have to come from further out, you are going to add costs to the provision of these materials and that will add onto the cost of housing. As you would know, there is a debate here about the affordability of housing for young people. Well, if there is a requirement that companies involved in supplying these materials have to go further and further away from Darwin, then obviously there will be some costs involved in the transportation of those materials to Darwin, and that will increase the cost of housing. We need to make sure there is a reasonable balance there.
The other issue about the environment is one that I have harped on about before and it is the middle of the harbour which the minister for DBERD mentioned in relation to Arafura Resources. Unfortunately, it has been set aside for industry. The way it has been set aside for industry is simply that the government has allowed, in the mining reserve, that area to be scraped for gravel - not sand. The minister may enlighten me, but I doubt very much if that land is being rehabilitated at all. I doubt if there is any weed control. Anyone who has driven along that area knows that gamba grass has taken a big hold. The Middle Arm Peninsula was pristine until fairly recent times. Unfortunately, government policy between the planners and the mining department basically said it will be industry.
I had a briefing with Arafura Resources. Yes, they do need a facility only as big as Bunnings. That is what I am talking about. It is not necessarily that these industries could not develop in the middle of the harbour, but the centre of the harbour will then become industrial. Unfortunately, we now have this area in the centre of the harbour which the department of Mines has allowed to be developed by the minister giving approval. We have basically ruined what could potentially have been a great national park for the centre of the harbour. Environmental issues need to be kept at the forefront in relation to extracted minerals and, unfortunately, in the middle of the harbour, that has not been a goal simply because there has been an agreement with the Planning department that the middle of the harbour will be industrial, so why bother with any environmental rehabilitation?
The other area that should have been covered in this statement, which is headed ‘Securing Territory Minerals Growth’, is the effect of changes to local government. I am not necessarily opposed to extractive mining having to pay something towards local government. They do use our roads. They also use Northern Territory roads and someone has to repair and maintain those roads. In some cases, they do that themselves. In other cases, the local council has to pick up some of the tab, and in other cases the Northern Territory government has to do the same. There should be some contribution. Many would argue that they pay enormous amounts of money in registration, but from a local government perspective, that does not necessarily come back to local government.
The key issue is that the rate struck for the mining industry is a fair rate, not a rate that will cause hardship to the small companies, especially. Some companies are big enough to absorb a large increase in their costs due to local government rates, but we need to be realistic. If you put a large rate on some of these mining areas, especially extractive mining, you add to the cost of the production of the material and that can go on to the cost of the house. On the other hand, you do not want the rate payers who live in the area having to subsidise the extractive mining industry for removal of that material within their shire and having to then find funds to repair roads which have been worn out by the amount of traffic that uses those roads. There needs to be a statement from the minister in relation to what effect local government rates will have on the industry and what industry is saying to the minister would have been something worth adding to this statement. As I said, it is about securing Territory minerals growth and rates, like other things, are another impost on the industry so it would have been good to talk about that as well.
The minister speaks a fair bit about China, and whilst that is very informative, I believe the key mineral missing is uranium. My understanding is that China is building quite a few nuclear powered reactors. I believe we presently export some uranium to China. There should have been a strong mention of where we are in relation to exporting uranium. After all, the Territory is one of the biggest suppliers of uranium in the world. China is desperately looking for uranium for its expanding nuclear power industry. Even though we are debating another issue today, it is certainly related to the government’s policy in exporting uranium to China. I would have liked more discussion on that in this statement.
The minister for DBERD mentioned Aboriginal employment. Again, I believe the minister’s statement could have had covered much of what the minister for DBERD said.
I visited Bootu about five weeks ago, and I must thank the management of Bootu for having the time to show me around the mine. The minister said that there are currently 150 staff and contractors employed there. Now, we have to be realistic: Bootu is a long way from anywhere, regardless of what people say. It is about 120 km north of Tennant Creek. Renner Springs would be the closest little place to it. It is not exactly the centre of a high population, but it would be interesting to know how many indigenous people are employed at that mine. I believe one of the key factors in this intervention program, and I hope to speak to that before the sitting finishes, is employment. It is a key factor to overcome some of the indigenous disadvantage. In fact, in the Wild/Anderson Report, they say it is the most important factor.
We are opening up these mines, they are operating. Many of them have fairly large numbers of people. I accept that the minister for DBERD touched on this, but, in light of many of the issues we are debating at the moment, that is, about the intervention into Aboriginal communities, the high unemployment rates and the very low literacy and numeracy rates, it would have been good to include some of that discussion.
I did not quite catch all that the minister said, but it would be interesting to know, in relation to improving literacy and numeracy, what role the mining department or the mining industry itself is playing in upgrading or improving the literacy and numeracy skills of indigenous people. My understanding is that that is a key problem to employing more people in the industry. If we are really serious about changing things around, we have to do our best from not only the government side of things, but the private industry as well. That is not a criticism of the private industry. I imagine that some of these companies are doing their best but that is something that could have made this statement more fulsome.
I have raised a few issues. I do not have any problem with what you put in your statement. It is a statement about mining, but it could have covered more things. As you say, mining is a very important part of the Northern Territory. I am not sure that it is the greatest export earner, along with the live cattle, and you have both portfolios so you should be able to tell me. If it is, it is something that we should recognise. It is something we should promote but, at the same time, we need to have the key factors of trying to get more indigenous employment in this area because in many cases, mining is in remote areas. Second, we should not lose sight of the environmental issues. They are important, especially in the extractive minerals area. We do not want to see another Mt Todd debacle. We want to ensure that we have sustainable development, which I am all for.
The minister, perhaps in another statement, could discuss some of the ideas I raised today.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I can just check with the minister; I thought I was correct. The answer to the member for Nelson, mining by way of export in dollars returned to Australia is far and away the most lucrative industry in the Northern Territory, not in employment numbers but in the dollars that it returns to this country, far and away.
I support the mining minister’s statement on Building the Territory’s Resource Base. As Treasurer and member for Nhulunbuy, I see the massive benefit flowing to the Territory economy from resource sector projects, particularly such as the giant Alcan G3 expansion at Gove. It will be completed late this year. It will nearly double alumina processing capacity of 3.8 million tonnes per annum, one of the biggest mining projects in Australia in its own right. As well as its construction phase boost to employment, it has had upwards of 1600 people there now for the last couple of years. It will increase that total ongoing operations phase jobs by an estimated 1200 people. The expansion also brings with it extensive indirect benefits relating to indigenous employment, training and business opportunities, and a boost to local supply and service businesses which my colleague, the Minister for Regional Development outlined.
The Alcan G3 project is also a significant value-adding project for the Territory and Australian economy. It involves local processing of more of the raw bauxite resource into higher value alumina. Just as this government makes the case for more value adding to offshore gas production, for example the establishment of the petrochemical project, we support more local processing of other minerals wherever feasible. Most significantly, bauxite reserves will last at least another 30 years, so the benefits will continue to flow for the long term. Conceivably, the refinery could process third party bauxite, so the operation could go even longer. That would likely be the case, given the capital investment now wrapped up within the plant. Alcan and its predecessor, Nabalco, have already been operating in Gove for 30 years. It is a long-term operation which has and will continue to underpin the Gove regional economy and community for decades to come.
While on Alcan operations in Gove, I take the opportunity to thank Klaus Helms, Director of Government and Community Relations for Alcan South Pacific who announced his resignation yesterday. Klaus has been with Alcan both in Gove, and more recently, Brisbane for many years. The driving force behind the development and maintenance of good relations between Alcan and traditional owners in the Northern Territory, he worked and had responsibility to develop a world-wide indigenous peoples’ policy for Alcan. Well, it does not get much bigger than that in scope and importance of task. It underlines how Alcan regarded Klaus Helms to give him such an important role within the organisation.
His contribution to the Territory - for many years with Perkins Shipping as Coastal Shipping Manager, I think 21 years, and Territory mining now, in particular - has not gone unnoticed. We thank him for it. I understand Klaus will continue to work with the traditional owners of Arnhem Land and, hopefully, in and around those areas of employment and training, literacy and numeracy to which the member for Nelson was referring.
Klaus Helms has behind his name the formation of YNOTS, which was the forerunner to ALERT. This is very much the transition to work. Often, these people are illiterate or suffer poor literacy, poor numeracy, poor work skills, and are not job ready. That was the basis for the formation of YNOTS. YNOTS has more recently transposed into ALERT, which is moving to longer-term training with the support of this government and DEWR from the federal government in the case of YNOTS. I imagine ALERT will be structured along similar lines with support from both governments. However, it shows that Alcan recognised this some years ago, and Klaus put a lot of work into this. That is why one of his very important contributions to the company was to see YNOTS up and running, now being renamed ALERT.
I quote from a letter from Kurt Thurnherr, who is the President of Pacific Operations, Alcan South Pacific Pty Ltd. You are getting very high up the tree in the Alcan organisation when you refer to Mr Thurnherr. He said that:
- Klaus has elected to leave Alcan to pursue his work with the traditional owners. His dedication to, and love of the land and its people, have been the hallmark of his work. Klaus first came to Arnhem Land in 1967 with an Alusuisse exploration team investigating the bauxite reserves now mined by Alcan Gove. He worked on and off with Alusuisse and Nabalco in variety of roles both in Gove and overseas until the late 1980s.
In 1999, he returned to Nabalco, now Alcan Gove, as General Manager Community Affairs. In 2005, he relocated to Brisbane to take up his current role. Throughout his career, Klaus has been a vital part of Alcan’s community relations activities. He was instrumental in the role of defining and implementing an Australian strategy for Aboriginal matters and contributing to securing Alcan’s long term operations and activities in Australia.
Most notably, he played a central role in developing and implementing Alcan’s world-wide indigenous people’s policy. He was the driving force behind Alcan’s commitment to being a responsible recognised international leader for its relationships with indigenous people. In 2005, his contribution with the establishment of the YNOTS Indigenous Training Program was recognised by the Australian Prime Minister’s award and the Nathaniel V Davis award, Alcan’s highest honour. His good nature and wise counsel will be sorely missed.
On behalf of Alcan I would like to thank Klaus for his many years of valued service and wish him satisfaction and success in his future endeavours.
Kurt Thurnherr, President, Pacific Operations, Alcan South Pacific.
As I said, they do not come too much higher in the organisation than Kurt and that is a wonderful tribute to Klaus. I, and indeed this government, would also wish Klaus Helms all the very best in his future endeavours.
Nhulunbuy and Groote Eylandt communities, Borroloola, Pine Creek among others, are pretty dependent on the strength of the commodity sector and the mining that occurs in their own localities. Mining and exploration offers significant and achievable long-term opportunities for indigenous communities and that is the sort of opportunities that we will see picked up and recognised through programs such as ALERT with Alcan. We would all like to see more benefits flow to the Territory economy and regional communities from both mine and plant construction and operations. As I said, work is being undertaken by government to achieve this goal as well. Mining royalties are a significant contributor to Treasury and will become more so as the projects come on stream. For some major projects like Alcan, royalties are also paid to indigenous organisations, and are providing much valued assistance and support for those clans and communities as well. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the mining industry is, without doubt, extremely important to the Northern Territory economy, and regional Northern Territory welcomes the additional employment opportunities to encourage the growth of our centres.
Pine Creek is a perfect example of what happens when mining declines in a town. Pine Creek suffered terribly with the population dropping drastically and had a huge effect on the morale of the residents. There were fears that the whole town would just die. Properties were almost given away due to the lack of demand. Those people who purchased properties when things were at their lowest are now smiling at the change of events which sees their lovely town absolutely booming with the entry of GBS Gold at Union Reef. What a change of fortune. A sight I thought I would never see is the sign on the highway advising that there is no accommodation available. It is absolutely great for the residents of Pine Creek and provides much needed employment.
The impact of mining is significant for regional Northern Territory. When I travel on the highway coming to Darwin I know there are between 40 and 60 triple trucks on the road each day between Fountain Head and GBS Gold. It is a good sight to see. It means there is going to be a reasonably long life for that mine, and it means the security of Pine Creek will be going for quite a few years yet.
The member for Barkly would certainly be able to testify the importance of mining for the Tennant Creek region. The same can be said for the benefits of the Mt Todd mine which provided much needed employment for many families in Katherine; it had a significant financial impact on Katherine when the mine closed.
When Maud Creek resumes operations in the not too distant future, GBS Gold has committed to apprenticeship employment on an ongoing basis. That will be of great benefit to those young people who take the opportunity that is being offered.
Apart from the economic benefit from employment and the flow-on effect to regional towns, the announcement by McArthur River Mining that, through the establishment of a Community Benefit Trust, they will be investing some $32m into the Borroloola region over the life of the mine will ensure long-term economic and social benefits to the region. The partnership that MRM has developed with the community and the Northern Territory government will address issues and opportunities around employment, education, enterprise and job creation, environment, social and community development, health, culture and arts. This is vitally important for regional development and falls in line nicely with areas that have been highlighted by the recent Wild/Anderson report.
Minister, some comments that you have made since you became minister last year give good reason about your capability to do the job. It was just a few months ago that you told the television audience of Darwin that you did not have much influence over mining exploration in the Territory. A short time later, you were promoting Territory flowers – the day after Valentine’s Day – and not long after that, you were confused by the difference between an open cut and an underground mine. Despite MRM’s warnings, you proceeded down that path anyway. The Minister for Not-My-Responsibility is openly derided and laughed about in the primary industry sector. I heard someone recently refer to a complete stuff-up as ‘a Natt attack’. I do not mean to diminish anything that has been done in the mining sector by the companies referred to by the minister. Their work continues to deliver rewards, jobs and growth for the Territory, but that is achieved despite rather than because of this minister. The longer the Chief Minister leaves him in that portfolio, the more damage he seems to be doing.
The mining industry is doing well not because of government or its policies, but despite government. The current minerals boom and interest in the Northern Territory is being driven by commodity prices, which government has absolutely nothing to do with. More importantly, what does this government have up its sleeve for counteraction when the current cycle changes, as it will in due course? That is just the way it goes. The only problem is we do not know when that cycle will change. I ask the minister: what strategies is government putting in place for when that will change?
This government cannot take credit for anything in the industry. As you have already said, minister, you do not have much to do with it. In Estimates, you said it has nothing to do with you, and that you approve mining applications. The individual companies have taken the risk despite a lacklustre government, and lack of key taxation and economic incentives in addition to difficulties with land access.
In relation to the statement, congratulations to the Browns Oxide Polymetallic venture. Will the government and minister be as supportive and enthusiastic when the company announces that it wants to develop a new uranium mine? It has very good prospects at Mt Fitch.
Some companies have opened offices in Darwin, but what is government doing to encourage more to do the same? There is nothing in the minister’s statement to answer that. Again, companies take the risk and commit to the Northern Territory not because of government, but because of the mineral prospectivity.
Will your government be as supportive and keen when the Nolans Bore proponent wants to build a processing plant in or around Darwin to process the rare earths, thorium and uranium deposit located just north of Alice Springs? I look forward to seeing how you handle that because any time anyone mentions uranium in this place, everyone’s eyes light up.
Minister, in your reply, could you tell the House what role this government plays in attracting investment to the Northern Territory by providing pre-competitive geoscience information, and what sort of funding has government committed to this? All mining projects are welcomed by the Country Liberal Party. One of the challenges that face future projects is whether mineral leases will be rated in the future. This will highly likely see some small operators forced out of business which could, unfortunately, see the extractive industry in the Northern Territory forced to the wall due to the excessive rates that they will have to pay. Minister, could you get a categorical guarantee from your colleague, the Minister for Local Government, that your government will not rate exploration licences under the new shire amalgamation? It is extremely important for the future of the extractive industry.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I look forward to hearing the response from the minister to hear if he can answer any of the important issues that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition and me, which will add something new to his statement that the people of the Northern Territory do not already know. The statement that I read was a statement of what is happening in the Northern Territory. It did not give me anything new at all. I would appreciate it if the minister, in his response, could answer the questions.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the ministerial statement, Outcomes of Building the Territory’s Resource Base. I am encouraged by the fact that the minister announced the follow-on from the Building the Territory’s Resource Base insofar as the new program, Bringing Forward Discovery, which is basically taking our involvement as a government in the industry to another level. It facilitates further development and location of mineral deposits throughout the Northern Territory. When you look at all sectors of the government across the board, we initiate many of programs. We have come from a fairly low base because of what we inherited, and we have taken the whole staged approach very seriously. It is like a good business - you develop it as you go and you have plans and forward-looking plans to do it.
The shallow comments of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Katherine are disappointing. That is fairly typical of the opposition. The deposits are there, okay. We are naturally endowed. But they do not just pop out of the ground, hop themselves into some processing plant, get processed, go off on a train to a boat – it just does not happen by itself. It is not all mechanised. It is not something that just happens. A lot of planning goes into it. A critical part of that is the government’s role in ensuring we can help industry. We can help the whole sector advance by doing our bit in developing the industry. In the early stages that includes the location of deposits by mining companies and exploration companies.
As the minister said, the Northern Territory Geological Survey is focusing on a targeted data acquisition to open up new areas for mineral and petroleum exploration, to lower exploration risk, and thereby increase the chance of new discoveries. That is a very important part.
I will now talk about two other aspects. One, I am going to talk about that particular point, and I would like to start by just adding that the Geological Survey history is extreme in essence as far as comparison to other states and the provision of high quality geoscientific data. That is essential to help the industry, but it is something we are very proud of here and something we do of a very high calibre.
When I look at this whole topic, I could not help but think back to my days as a geologist and …
A member: Tell us more!
Mr WARREN: I certainly will. When I started reading into the background of this, I started getting into the geology. I am going to concentrate a little bit on the geological background. I know it is digressing a bit, however, with due respect to my geological colleagues in the Territory, particularly those in the NTGS, I owe it to them to talk about the particular deposits that the minister discussed – not all of them, just some of them.
In doing so, I have a few references here. I seek leave to table them rather than read them out, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr WARREN: Thank you. I will read some small pieces but, because much of it is in technical jargon, I will tell you what it actually means. I get excited about the geological science aspects of it, particularly when you look at the interrelationship between the different regions in the Territory in a geological sense. It is very interesting. I will quote and then explain it as I go, as it is very technical. This is what has been put together by my colleagues, principally in the NTGS, but also other geologists throughout the Territory.
I will talk about Brown’s deposit near Batchelor first. It is a textbook mineral province of its type. You have to go back to the regional geology.
- The geology of the Batchelor region comprises two Archaean granitic complexes which form the basement to sedimentary basins that developed in the Lower Proterozoic era.
Therefore, are very old. These basins are …
Mr Kiely: They were Rhyacian, weren’t they?
Mr WARREN: Sorry?
Mr Kiely: They were Rhyacian, not Proterozoic?
Mr WARREN: Proterozoic. Rhyacian is too late. These basins are amongst some of the oldest in the world.
- These basins after initial deposition of a coarse clastic formation evolved into a period of shallow water chemical sedimentation with stromatolitic carbonate reef developments. The shallow water carbonates are interfingered with and overlain by deeper water black shales.
It is an interesting fact that you have that change in environments in the sediments; therefore, there must have been some faulting.
- Faulting was active during the basin formation impacting changing thicknesses of the carbonate and shale and providing structural conduits for mineralisation which probably changed the original carbonates to the dolomite
as you have the intrusion there.
- On a world-wide basis, this type of environment is conducive to the development of major base metal deposits.
These deposits can also carry speciality metals such as cobalt and nickel, which is the case in the Batchelor region. Most of the known mineralisation in the region occurs close to the contact of the Coomalie Dolomite with black shales of the Whites Formation.
These are two of the classic geological formations in that area. Because mineralisation has been located in other regions close by within that formation, you tend to find people look for the same sequence. That is what geology is about.
- The geological setting of the Brown’s deposit is similar to the other Embayment area deposits. Mineralisation is within cabonaceous shale of the Whites Formation close to the contact with the Coomalie Dolostone. At depth, the sheet-like orebody dips steeply to the south, but rolls into shallower dips near the surface. In places, the deposit is vertically zoned, with the copper stratigraphically below the lead, whilst the cobalt/nickel overlaps both. However, in many cases, zonation is either more complex or actually reversed, with the lead below the copper without any evidence of stratigraphic inversion.
This is unusual because we do expect things to be stratigraphically based. Geologists can unravel the history based on the sequences, and particularly the faulting involved. It is a field of its own and is very interesting.
- The regional metamorphic grade is low to sub greenschist facies and the iron magnesium chlorite, sericite, graphite and quartz are the main minerals. Andalusite porphyroblasts are common in the hanging wall of the lode and these are totally retrograded to sericite-quartz assemblage.
- Siegenite, which is a cobalt nickel sulphide, is the main carrier of nickel and cobalt. It is primarily present in small anhedral aggregates in fine-grained, polymineralic grains, generally as inclusions within galena.
That is typical of these types of deposits.
- Other minerals include digenite, bornite, plumgogummite, asenopyrite, gersdorffite, and wittichenite. Secondary minerals such as malachite, cerrusite, pyromorphite and minor chrysocolla are present in the surface samples.
That is typical of when you are getting into the outcrops; those types of oxidised minerals are fairly typical in that region.
- Quartz is the principal gangue mineral. It is closely associated with sulphide minerals, either as small microcrystalline aggregates, individual euhedral crystals within sulphides, or small veinlets that cross-cut the host rock. In addition to quartz, subordinate amounts of carbonate may be present in quartz-dominant veins or, less commonly, forming separate veinlets.
That is a little bit about that particular deposit. I know it does not mean a lot to you guys, but it is quite important to the geological fraternity and they certainly understand what I am talking about.
This is where the linkage comes back to throughout the Territory and I want to move on to the Redbank copper deposit in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
- The Redbank project is hosted in rocks of the McArthur River basin.
They are very well known and well documented.
- They are a mid-Proterozoic epicratonic basin exposed over an area of about 0.2 million km in the Northern Territory [and it extends across to Queensland across the Barkly area]. The McArthur River basin has two major subdivisions exposed: the Bauhinia Shelf and the Wearyan Shelf …
They are geological shelves. It is not like you would think of a shelf. It is a facies change there.
- … the latter which hosts the Redbank copper project. Deposition in the McArthur River Basin was unconformably over the early Proterozoic Pine Creek Orogen which we were talking about before, Arnhem Block and Murphy Inlier. The McArthur River Basin is itself overlain unconformably by Paleozoic and Mesozoic basins.
There is a time gap there. That means that something has happened. It has eroded down and has come back up in the ore deposit there. So that is called unconforming or disconforming.
- The majority of the McArthur River Basin and the Redbank area are part of the Tawallah Group, a northwest dipping package of sedimentary volcanic and carbonate rocks with a maximum thickness of over 4800 metres. This contains all the volcanic rocks in the McArthur River Basin sequence. Mineralisation at Redbank is found in the group of steeply plunging semi-circular breccia pipes hosted by Proterozoic sediments of the McArthur River Basin that hosts the world-class McArthur River lead/zinc/silver project. The pipes comprise various proportions of microbreccia, dolomite, quartz, chlorite, celadonite, hematite, potassium, feldspar and apatite, with minor barite, rutile, galena and pyrobitumen.
A fairly typical sequence, but then again there are some elements in there which are unique to that particular area. They are indicator minerals and they are certainly specific to that area.
- The majority of the breccia fragments are derived from surrounding McArthur River volcanics. Supergene enrichment has been identified in at least one of the breccia pipes, and the area has some identified low-grade strata bound mineralisation.
Supergene enrichment, as it suggests, is re-injection of that area so you get the enrichment of it over a series of mineral enrichment phases.
- The breccia pipes were formed by the release of fluids from a carbonated trachtic magna two to three kilometres below the surface.
When you start talking about those sorts of things it is very hard not to find it quite encompassing in respect of the scale of things that were are talking about in geological time, geological history, geological formation, and the geography at that particular time.
- In the upper oxidized zone, copper minerals include azurite, malachite, chalcotrichite, libethenite, pseudomalachite and chrysocola.
Chalcocite is common at the base of the oxidized zone.
It is very common, again, to indicate that transgression from the oxidized zones to deeper zones.
- The primary mineralisation is predominantly chalcopyrite and pyrite.
That is a pretty interesting deposit, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
There are other deposits that I want to talk about – and I am not going to have time to talk about them all. I will talk to those I can talk about in the time I have.
I would like to get on now to the Merlin Diamonds project.
- The Merlin field is located about 50 km south east of McArthur River deposit.
So it is in that same regional area there.
- The kimberlite pipes intrude the Neoproterozoic Bukalara Sandstone and Cretaceous Mullaman Beds.
What is interesting about the kimberlite pipes that we are talking about is the way that they are often located – they are very unusual features when you see them in the field situation. I have had the fortunate situation of seeing one in Western Australia. They are unique and when you start knowing what you are looking for – people can walk over them, but they are unique.
- The Bukalara Sandstone unconformably overlies the McArthur River Group sedimentary rocks. On a local scale of 15 degrees trending fractures hosts many of the pipes. These fractures have been found to contain indicator minerals and possibly acted as conduits for the kimberlite pipes. Concentric fracturing and marginal sandstone breccias have been observed around the pipes.
In other words, as the pipes have come up, they have intruded the country and you get the brecciation around a circular dome.
- The E.Mu pipes are much larger in size and have a clear topographical expression; other pipes have no topographical expression and poor magnetic response.
These fields are quite poor. They are unlike the Merlin deposits. They are a slightly different age but they can be confused and mineral companies can spend a lot of time unless they can identify the difference between the different areas.
- All the pipes are steep sided, generally cylindrical in shape and maintain their surface diameter to depths exceeding 100 metres.
- [It is interesting that] fossil evidence based on the presence of deep water ammonite Australiceras indicate a Cretaceous age for the fill Sandstone and mudstone.
In other words, the material has got inside the top of these domes of the kimberlite pipe depressions.
- These sedimentary rocks are devoid of kimberlite indicator minerals or diamonds [which is quite unusual because that indicates] a time hiatus which allowed erosion and removal of the kimberlite ejecta [prior to the deposit of sedimentation, again stressing the difference in the geological time frames we are talking about].
I would like now to talk about Bootu Creek because it is one of those deposits I have had a bit of involvement with through my own involvement.
- The Bootu Creek deposit is situated within the Banka Banka pastoral lease, which is about 110 km north of Tennant Creek and 10 km east of the Stuart Highway.
It was a project I had involvement with in my engineering capacity, but certainly some very interesting formations are there, particularly the manganese deposits themselves and some of the stromatolitic associations there.
- The Bootu Creek manganese occurrences lie within the lower Bootu Formation. This unit is folded around the Bootu Syncline which plunges gently to the north north-west.
- The manganiferous horizon can be discontinuously traced for 24 km around the syncline as a series of black ridges and knolls.
When we are talking about synclines, we are talking about something that goes like that – three dimensional - but when you cut it off at the top, you get a circular shape out of the whole thing.
- Manganese oxides, predominately as amorphous and massive cryptomelane occur as epigenetic lens and vein replacements in a dolomitic siltstone bed. An overlying scarp-forming sandstone bed is also mineralised, as is a stromatolitic dololutite bed above the hanging wall sandstone …
that is why I was talking about the biogenetic relationship to it all, the stromatolites -
- … which has been pervasively replaced with manganese oxide.
- … are also present in the manganese horizon and at slightly higher levels in the stratigraphy. Carbonaceous siltstone and dolomite have been intersected below the manganese horizon. The manganese replaces quartz sandstone or partially replaces the siltstone and bedding is often preserved …
as a consequence of that. You can see this sort of biogenetic history captured in the deposits themselves.
- Gangue minerals include quartz, barite, chalcedony, calcite and gypsum.
I could go on and on about it. I am enjoying this, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take it you are.
Mr WARREN: We will start to wrap it up now, but I hope I have given you some idea of a little bit of the geology behind these projects. They are not just names; they are not just about the mineral economics of it. They are not about the politics of it. These are real and actual history lessons, geological lessons for us all. These are really important deposits. They are unique and many of them are interrelated in the geological stratigraphy throughout the Territory. Some of this can be traced not only interstate and across Australia, but right around the world in different places, particularly from fossil records that some of this can relate to. We can actually determine the age of these deposits.
These are the kinds of things that the Northern Territory Geological Survey geologists go out and look for, the kinds of things that indicate minerals. That is what we are doing here, that is what we are promoting. That was just a little taste of what our geologists do; a little bit about their reporting and how they describe things. It might have seemed very technical, but it is important that people understand that it is a very exacting science. It has moved from the ages of very much a fossicker’s type of environment to one where now it is a very focused science. I congratulate the minister and his department for his efforts to move to the Bringing Forward Discovery program because it is important that we do take things to that next level. I commend the minister for his report.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will just acknowledge to Hansard that the member for Goyder will be supplying some of his paperwork. I am sure they are quite worried at the moment about all the terminology.
Mr WARREN: I will go through that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the member for Goyder will provide that to them in due course.
Mr WARREN: I do not think so because most of it was spoken.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions to this statement. The Leader of the Opposition recognised the importance of the mining industry to the Northern Territory, and the benefits that flow to Territorians and our economy as a result of the boom that we are experiencing at the moment. She also recognised the worthy contribution the government is making to this program, and was glowing about this program following the previous program’s great success. However, I was disappointed that she took up valuable time in attacking me as the leader – as the minister.
Mrs Braham: The leader! Ooh, we have a leadership spill!
Mr NATT: I believe the Leader of the Opposition should focus on her own performance and not mine. I note that she does not spend a lot of time addressing the substance of this statement. That is because she perhaps does not understand it as well as she should.
She spoke about Arafura Resources and, again, I believe she needs to get her facts right. She went through the Estimates questioning of me about the Nolans Bore project. If the proposal is received from the company for the processing facility, that will be addressed through the normal processes. There are planning processes, zoning processes and environmental processes that the company has to go through. That will be undertaken if and when we get a proposal from Arafura Resources.
She brought up McArthur River Mine. I do not understand why she opposed the expansion of McArthur River Mine. We were concerned about providing certainty for the expansion of the mine. We did that. I can assure her that, by doing that, I have had several contacts from employees of the mine congratulating me on the decision we made. I cannot see why she was opposed to the expansion of that mine and the processes we had to go through to ensure that the surety was there.
The Opposition Leader raised land access issues. We recognise that there have been land access issues in the past. We are working to expedite the procedures under the Native Title Act, and with the new changes under the LRA, which is the bill before the House, we are very optimistic that this will speed up the process and assist companies with their access to land.
She also raised the rating of mining leases, as did the members for Nelson and Katherine. All I can say is that representation has been put before the consultation committee from the mining sector. They have all had an opportunity under that consultation process to put their matters forward and they will be duly considered.
Another area she raised was the contingency plan if the commodity boom was to deflate in any way. The whole concept of the Bringing Forward Discovery program is to ensure that there is intense interest maintained in the Northern Territory. That is there to bring forward the major mining and petroleum industries’ discoveries which guarantee long-term wealth, and generating wealth in the mining sector. It is important that she understands that the progression of this program is to ensure that we do have that surety behind us in the future.
She raised uranium under the Brown’s oxide project. We support uranium mining; simple as that. I am hoping that the Chinese will raise that with me when I visit them in November. I certainly will not be taking the Leader of the Opposition’s advice on how to undertake my ministerial duties in the future. I felt her response was very arrogant and shallow, and that it is typical of her; she loves playing the man and not the ball. Some of what she said in her wrap-up of my statement were disgraceful. .
I thank the Minister for Business and Economic Development for his input. Obviously, he supports the statement through the business perspective. He has provided information on companies that have benefited from the mining sector. Employment has a huge flow-on effect in the mining industry under his portfolio and the flow that does exist from mining companies into supply businesses in and around Darwin, actually the whole of the Territory. Alice Springs is really benefiting from this mining boom as well. It is important that that be recognised. Another thing he recognised was indigenous employment. One of the flow-on effects of the mining industry is that there are incredible benefits for our indigenous population. The employment prospects in mining companies are huge.
I acknowledge the Indigenous Mining Enterprise Task Force. I understand they are in the 10th year and they have been working closely over that time with Newmont and the Central Land Council. They have an employment program running at the Newmont mine in the Tanami Desert and have had wonderful results. I visited the Tanami site a couple of months ago. I did a tour through the mine and spent the night there, and also spoke to some of the employees and mine managers. They are working hard to ensure that local indigenous people can get employment. I understand they are working towards an objective of 20% of their workforce to be indigenous. That is great news for the communities in and around the Tanami Newmont site.
That is not all. I know the McArthur River Mine is working on it. Every other mining company that I speak to would like to get the indigenous population involved in the mining industry. They are all happy to undertake various employment roles to ensure that our indigenous population gets jobs in the mines. It is terrific to see some of the incentives the mining companies are undertaking to ensure that indigenous people from the local communities have the opportunity to get into the workforce.
Part of that can be seen with the new McArthur River Mine’s community benefit package. The package was undertaken under the minister’s portfolio, in consultation with the local traditional owners and McArthur River Mine. They have come up with a wonderful package to ensure that the local community receives benefits over the life of the mine. We are working as a department on this on all other mine sites that set up in the Northern Territory. GEMCO is another mine site that is working closely with their indigenous people, and ERA at Jabiru. All of the big mines have done that and all of the prospective mines that will be setting up in the Territory will be encouraged to do the same. It was great to hear the Minister for Business and Economic Development highlight some of the benefits that mining is showing in his portfolio.
The member for Nelson spoke extensively on the extractive industry. We recognise the contribution that the extractive industry plays in the Northern Territory. The Bringing Forward Discovery program is all about attracting mine interest in base metals in the Northern Territory. It is encouraging exploration. It is encouraging investment in growing our mining sector. The extractives industry probably did not fit into this statement but I am happy to discuss the extractive industries with the member for Nelson at some other time. The member for Nelson raised the uranium issue and also indigenous employment which I covered that under the minister’s portfolio. I thank the member for Nelson for his input. He also realises the importance of mining in the Northern Territory.
I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for his support. He is very heavily involved with mining coming from Gove. Alcan has a long term operation within that community and it has incredible benefits for the community of Gove. He outlined a number of the benefits the community receives from the mine in his contribution. He mentioned Klaus Helms. I know Klaus personally and I know that he has been a huge contributor to the indigenous people within the area and working on some of their policies within Alcan’s framework. His contribution to mining over the years has been extensive. I extend my congratulations to Klaus on his pending retirement and wish him all the very best, and thank him for the time and effort he has put into the Gove community and into mining in the Northern Territory.
The member for Goyder; well, what can I say? The member for Goyder blinded us with his geological background and his science from the field. I thank him for his support. I do not know how Hansard got on typing all of those large and difficult words! I thank him for his support. He too recognised that mining is a huge part of the Northern Territory economy and the benefit that it does bring to the Northern Territory.
There is intense interest in the Northern Territory from the mining sector, from not only the Australian sector but also the international sector. That has been borne out by the Fraser Institute. The Fraser Institute prints a yearly update on the mining sector in several different areas, and it confirms our performance in exploration and attraction is improving. We are up in the top three or four in a couple of those areas, and that was taken from a number of mining companies throughout the world. For the Northern Territory to figure in the top two or three in several instances is a pat on the back for everyone involved at the Mines department for the work they have done.
We need to nurture and promote the industry as much as we can. We want more greenfields discoveries, and that is why we are pushing the Bringing Forward Discovery program into another realm. If we can get a couple more greenfields discoveries in the Territory, it will set us on an upward curve and boost our economy. That is what it is all about: benefits for Territorians. As I said in my statement, this sector accounts for about 25% of GSP in the Northern Territory, so it is significant. We are doing our utmost to ensure that growth is maintained.
We are proud of our achievements and outcomes. We are looking forward to promoting our vast land, our rich minerals, and future opportunity in the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I inform the House of a forthcoming book launch at Hermannsburg. The Hermannsburg Mission is celebrating 130 years since its establishment in 1877 and Jose Petrick has written a book titled Kuprilya Springs: Hermannsburg and Other Things.
Anyone who knows Jose knows how dedicated she is to making sure everything she puts in it is so right. It is a wonderful story about Hermannsburg and how the drought affected the mission and how it could easily have closed. There is an amazing story of a Melbourne artist, Violet Teague, who, in 1933, hired a taxi to take her and her sister, Una, from Melbourne to Hermannsburg – a distance of 5000 km return trip. That was pretty amazing for those days. Violet had heard of the disastrous effect the drought had on the people and that the mission might be closed. Pastor Friedrich Wilhelm Albrecht, who was there at the time, showed the sisters the clean running water of Kuprilya Springs, seven kilometres from the mission. Through Violet and Una’s initiative money was raised for a water scheme. Aboriginal men hand dug a trench seven kilometres long and one metre deep to lay the water pipe from the springs to Hermannsburg.
It is a fantastic story. It is being launched at Hermannsburg on 16 September, and will be launched in Alice Springs at The Residency on 19 September. It would be great if you are able to get to Hermannsburg to celebrate the 130th anniversary. If you can get a copy of Jose’s book, you will be intrigued by the story. I have seen the proof. There are some wonderful old photographs in the book. There are people you will know in the photographs, although they were very young. That is what is wonderful when we see these stories collated. This is the amazing story of how Kuprilya Springs, which is such a beautiful spot and where the water comes out clean and fresh, saved the Hermannsburg Mission during the drought years. I commend Jose and I urge all members, if they possibly can, to get to that launch.
There is a lot going on in Alice Springs at the moment. Preparations are well advanced for our 2007 Alice Desert Festival, with over 60 events throughout the 10 days. It will start with a grand parade. There are many unique things – Desert Song, the home cooking/culinary competition using wild foods and bush foods, and Cinema in the River. As well as that, we have managed to scoop Maggie Beer from The Cook and the Chef ABC television program, and that is going to be tremendous boost for the wild foods competition.
I have to admit the festival committee work so jolly hard and often are not recognised for all the work they put in. There will be activities continuously over this day. The Lane Restaurant is going to be a bit of a hub. Luckily, the lawns of the Town Council have been cleared of asbestos so we will have the Hub Space happening there. We will also have activities under the sails for young people. Later on, we have the Wearable Arts Awards on 6 October. I am pleased to say that I am sponsoring a new Children’s Award this year. Last year, we found there were some very young children under 12 who entered but competing against adults is pretty hard for a nine or 10-year-old. So I am sponsoring a new award for children under 12. It is to do with their creativity and their ability to showcase what they can do. It will be intriguing to see what the children come up with, not just the sewing or technical side, but how they create these wonderful items that we see in the Wearable Arts.
If you happen to be in Alice Springs on 6 October – and I hope the minister gets down to that – please come to the festival and the Wearable Arts. I want to thank Eugene Ragghianti. This is the second year he has been in Alice Springs to organise the festival. It is a real coup that we have managed to keep him, and I hope he stays there for another year because he has such tremendous contacts in Adelaide. He has such enthusiasm for the Alice Festival. It rubs off on all those people who are involved. So congratulations to Eugene who has put together a tremendous program and we are certainly looking forward to it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the program for the festival. If anyone would like a copy, I am only too happy to get one for them. I seek leave to table the program.
Leave granted.
Mrs BRAHAM: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. While I am on my feet also, I want to make comment on a young lad in Alice Springs who has achieved quite a lot and too often we tend not to pat people on the back who do great things. I am talking about Sam Sherrin. Sam was born in Lajamanu in 1987. He was educated at the OLSH College in Alice Springs. He joined the Army in January last year as an officer cadet at Duntroon in Canberra. He graduated this year in June as a Lieutenant in the Infantry Corps and was posted to the 1st Royal Australian Regiment in Townsville in Queensland.
I mention this, because Sam comes from a family, the Sherrins, who have done a lot within communities around Alice Springs. Alex Sherrin has been very involved in the Afghan mosque. Remember the great celebration we had when we brought the camel trains through? Jo Sherrin is a teacher. His family have been part of the Centre, just doing their job without any recognition. They are very proud that young Sam has decided to go into the army and has achieved what he wants. I hope for Sam this career choice will give him great satisfaction.
Alice Springs has produced many young kids who do tremendous work. We should not always concentrate on what is bad in our towns. We have to celebrate the good things. I wish Sam well and I am pleased that he has managed to achieve his goals so far.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is lovely to hear the member for Braitling talking about the good things, and particularly for Alice Springs, there are many, many good things.
One of the pleasing things is the effect of the new public dry areas legislation; the response has been terrific. The initiatives we have put in place will take time to get there, but at this stage, for Alice Springs community, many of the public areas which were problem areas are going well. We will keep our fingers crossed.
One of the major events during the Territory’s NAIDOC celebrations was the NAIDOC Ball, held in Darwin last month. It was a wonderful evening, made even more memorable when two inspiring Territorians won major community awards. The multi-talented Simone Liddy won the NAIDOC National Youth of the Year. Simone has many strings to her bow. She is in her third year of a Bachelor of Pharmacy at CDU, and was honoured for her impressive academic achievements, athletic prowess – she is a talented hockey player – and her mentoring of Aboriginal students. Simone is an NT Institute of Sports scholarship holder, and now plays for the Territory Pearls, and is captain of the Territory’s Under 21 women’s hockey team. I congratulate Simone on her achievement.
Our second award winner received one of the greatest receptions you can imagine when he was announced as winner of the NAIDOC Lifetime Achievement award. It goes without saying that Jack Ah Kit deserves this recognition. The sustained applause spoke volumes about his popularity and the respect in which he is held. How appropriate that another of our own, His Honour, Ted Egan, presented Jack with his award.
As you know, Jack grew up in the Parap Camp and, as a teenager, worked in a variety of jobs as a labourer, truck driver, and a stockman. It was during this time he experienced first-hand the blatant inequalities at work in our society, and the plight of Aboriginal people. These early experiences had a profound impact on Jack, and he decided then to do something to help his people. The rest, as they say, is history.
Jack could never have achieved what he has without the support of his family. In particular, I pay tribute to his wife, Gail, who has stood firm and given him so much strength over the years. Jack Ah Kit is a big man with a big heart, although he promised when he left politics he would get rid of some of that big man. It is going slowly.
He is a man who is proud of his heritage, and proud to call himself a Territorian. He is also a passionate man who continues to fight injustice where he sees it and, as the applause at the awards ceremony showed, he is a man of the people.
A number of students from Stuart Park Primary School participated in competitions at last month’s Darwin Show. The show always gives schools, and young people generally, the opportunity to enter and participate in a wide range of events and activities, either individually or as part of class projects. I congratulate all the students who participated for having a go - a great effort.
Four students deserve a special mention for their clay creations: Andrea Mullins - first prize, plus Champion Other Junior Craft Exhibit for her clay dingo head; Jeremy Uyloan took out first prize for his clay dragon; Harrison Mu, third prize for his clay frog; and Shae Dureau, third prize for her clay seal. Congratulations to all the Stuart Park Primary students on their efforts.
I want to inform the House about a major milestone in education in Central Australia. Chris Tudor recently celebrated 21 years at the helm of St Philip’s College and, at the same time, made history by becoming Alice Springs’ longest-serving school principal – that is a wonderful achievement. Chris is well known in the Alice Springs community as someone dedicated to his profession. His philosophies on education have seen St Philip’s become a highly respected school, and one which is renowned for producing confident and active students who engage with their community.
Chris has been widely recognised for his commitment to the education of young Centralians, and for his contribution to the Alice Springs community. In 1997, he won the Southern Region Territorian of the Year Award and, in 2004, became a Member of the Order of Australia. I congratulate Chris on his remarkable achievements, and wish him all the best for his future.
I also congratulate all those people who gave up their time on National Tree Day on 29 July to do their bit for the environment. In particular, I make mention of the 100 or so people who gathered at Finlayson Park in the heart of Gillen in Alice Springs. Their aim was to rejuvenate the park, and to make it a better and more enjoyable place for local residents to spend their time. Days such as this take a lot of organising, and require a great deal of support from both business and the community.
I extend my thanks and congratulations to the Peter Kittle Motor Company; Origin Energy; the Alice Springs Town Council; Alice Tinting; Big O Mitre 10; Auskick, Imparja, Sun FM and Apex, and to Geoff Miers and the members of the Gillen Residents Association who donated their resources and time to help make the day such a success. It was a great effort and many thanks.
Finally, thank you to all the residents living in and around Finlayson Park who attended the event. All up they planted around 500 native trees and shrubs and did a great job on the day. I have seen the work firsthand and they should feel very proud.
Last week, I had the pleasure of joining 350 other people for the 2007 Telstra Business Awards here in Darwin. These awards acknowledge and celebrate business excellence in the Territory. They not only recognise our high achievers but also raise awareness of just how important the business sector is to our rapidly growing economy.
Darwin business, SRA Information Technology, took out the 2007 Telstra Northern Territory Business of the Year. Telstra CEO, Sol Trujillo, presented the award and pointed to the company’s leadership and outstanding contribution to the Territory economy. SRA offers corporate custom software solutions to organisations right around Australia, and provides services such as systems analysis, website and web-based application development, IT strategic planning, and training and support. In 2004, they developed an environmental information management system called Envirosys. This system allows organisations in the government, mining and oil and gas sectors to better manage environmental impacts including greenhouse gas emissions, natural resource management, water, air quality, weather and pollutants. SRA also won two category awards, the Hudson Business Award for businesses with more than 50 employees but fewer than or equal to 100; and the AMP Innovation Award which recognises business that have recently introduced an innovative product service or process.
Other successful category award winners in this year’s Territory Business Award were the Alice Springs Physiotherapy and Sports Injury Clinic which took out the Australian Government Micro-Business Award for businesses with five employees or fewer; Northern Stainless from Winnellie was the winner of the MYOB Business Award for businesses with more than five but less than or equal to 20 employees; and fire protection specialists, N TESS Fire Consultants from Berrimah won the Panasonic Australia Business Award for businesses with more than 20 employees but fewer than 50.
The Territory award winners will now compete against the southern states and territory award winners at the national titles which will be held in Sydney next month on 21 September. To all the winners and to our finalists, my congratulations and best wishes for the future.
The wonderful thing about the Telstra Business Awards is that even though there is only one winner in each category, when you talk to the businesses which have entered those different categories, the process that it puts you through, the information that you have to think about your business and present as a participant in the awards, each business said how much it had contributed to the growth of their business. So it is very genuinely one of those cases where it is not all about winning.
The 11th Alice Springs Beanie Festival was held this year between 29 June and 2 July. It proved to be bigger and better than ever. The weekend saw more than 8400 people pass through the Araluen Centre to marvel at the creations and to buy a beanie. This year, over 4500 beanies were submitted with the turnover at the event reaching an all time high of more than $140 000. That is a truly remarkable figure when you consider most of the money came from the sale of beanies.
The Beanie Festival is quickly becoming one of the Territory’s, indeed Australia’s, premier regional festivals attracting visitors and exhibits from interstate and overseas. This year we had exhibits from Japan, New Zealand, the United States, Denmark and the Netherlands, and visitors from New Zealand and the United States came to Alice Springs specifically for the event. Two tour groups of 20 people each came from interstate for the festival and stayed on for 10 days to take in the beauty of Central Australia. Aboriginal women from Areyonga, Titjikala, Ernabella, Balgo and the Irrekelantye participated demonstrating the capacity of the humble beanie to overcome cultural barriers and bring people together. The impact the Beanie Festival is having on tourism is fantastic and is a credit to Jo Nixon, the event’s principal organiser. Well done, Jo.
The Beanie Festival has commenced its three-year tour around Australia. The first exhibition at the Museum of South Australia was an outstanding success and is being followed by the opening of the exhibition at Floriade, Canberra’s famous flower exposition starting in September. Exposure of the festival to a new national audience will see its reputation grow and ensure that the event continues to be one of regional Australia’s finest.
I congratulate, again, Jo Nixon, Liz Scott, Annie Farthing, Margaret McDonnell, Margi Craig, Nicky Schonkala, Karen Jones, Meren Hughes, Adi Dunlop, Gay Epstein, Heather Smith, Lisa Waller, and all the other people involved in organising and supporting this year’s festival. All of you have done Alice Springs and the Territory proud.
The 5th annual Alice Springs Breast Cancer Golf Day was held earlier this month at the Alice Springs Golf Club. It is an event that has become something of an institution in the town, and this year proved the most successful yet. Approximately 260 women participated, the highest yet, and more than $20 000 was raised, which is a wonderful achievement.
The day is particularly important for Central Australian women. While 50% of the funds raised are donated to the National Breast Cancer Foundation for ongoing research into prevention and potential cures, the other half provides much needed practical assistance to Centralians who are diagnosed with breast cancer. Over 13 000 women and approximately 100 men are diagnosed annually with breast cancer. The good news is that while the rates of diagnosis are increasing due to early detection, survival rates are also improving dramatically.
While the purpose of the day is very serious, the golf played is not. Though I could not be there this year, I was delighted to be able to support the day through sponsorship and the donation of the first prize. I am told by my staff who participated that it was a magnificent day, with golf carts decked out in balloons and streamers, teams decked out in fancy dress, and plenty of champagne and food to keep up the golfers’ spirits, which might explain why the golf was not of the highest standard. It sounds fun, even if it is champagne-induced.
Days like this would not be so successful if it was not for the generosity of local businesses and organisations. A big thank you to Centralian Motors, GE Money, the Alice Springs Wine Club, the Alice Springs Golf Club, Zonta International Alice Springs, Oh My Nails, the National Breast Cancer Foundation, and all the other sponsors of the breast cancer golf day. Most importantly, I pay tribute to the organisers of the event and congratulate them on their great efforts. To Karen Jones, Deb Pepper and Jo Hansen, well done and thank you for your hard work and dedication.
Finally tonight, Mr Deputy Speaker, I extend my warmest appreciation and best wishes to Drs Frans Seda AM, who has retired from his position as the Northern Territory’s representative in Indonesia. During his time in the position, Drs Seda has been a valuable contact point in our engagement with Indonesia. He was instrumental in developing the Northern Territory’s strong relationship with our northern neighbour over the last decade or so.
Drs Seda has had a long and distinguished life in politics, serving, extraordinarily, under five Indonesian presidents as minister, ambassador and advisor, as well as heading up various business organisations over the years. Drs Seda was Co-Chair of our Joint Policy Committee, a body that was set up after the signing of the NT’s 1992 MOU with Indonesia, to foster close links with eastern Indonesia. He was also instrumental in assisting with government-to-government negotiations around the committee, which in turn led to initiatives such as the establishment of the Indonesian Customs pre-inspection facility in Darwin and regular Garuda flights linking Darwin and Indonesia.
His legacy is the foundation on which we will continue to build our relationship with Indonesia. We will maintain and nurture the important relationships built up over the years by Drs Seda and his consultants, Dr Joseph Halim and Dr Budi Haliman. In doing so, my department will work closely with the Indonesian Consulate in Darwin and the Australian Embassy in Jakarta.
I congratulate Indonesia on its recent 62nd anniversary of independence. Once again, on behalf of all Territorians, I extend my heartfelt thanks and appreciation to Drs Seda and his staff for their extraordinarily important contribution to the Territory, and wish Frans Seda, now that he is in his 84th year, all the very best and the best health for his future.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, it must be Celebrate Alice Springs night tonight because I also want to talk about something that happened in Alice Springs at the weekend.
Last Saturday, I had the pleasure of attending the National Road Transport Hall of Fame Reunion 2007 in Alice Springs. The event began on Thursday, 23 August, and finished with a farewell barbecue on Sunday, 26 August, with events being held at the National Road Transport Hall of Fame on the edge of Alice Springs.
The first function for Saturday morning was the Induction Ceremony of some 54 pioneers who have contributed to Australia’s road transport industry. This most moving and nostalgic ceremony was the highlight for me, listening to the pioneer stories and then watching the recipients receive their award. They were of all ages, from as young as myself to the more mature ages, and had made such a great effort to be there to receive their award. It was very fitting and it highlighted the prestige of the event that so many recipients travelled from all over Australia to attend the Induction Ceremony. Many of these people had family members with them, which made the ceremony even more enjoyable and so very special, and highlighted the important contribution that whole of family have made to the industry.
Liz Martin, who is the inspiration of the National Road Transport Hall of Fame and the Road Transport Museum, and Alice Springs Deputy Mayor, David Koch, welcomed the large gathering to the Hall of Fame. A short history of each inductee was read out as they or a family representative came forward to receive their award.
I am honoured to include all the names of the recipients in my adjournment tonight. They are: Cedric Abood, who passed away in 2001; Pasquale Amorosa, who is known as Peter; Bill Andrews; Arthur and Eileen Battle; John Blyth; Norman Bradshaw; Brian Canny; Fred Champion; Gary Darlington; Dick Deen; Louie Deen; Laurence Dyson; Don Evans; Greg Finnen; Wayne Foote; Keith Forster; John Franklin; Alan Greensill; Victor Haber; Edward Hall; Donald Hazel; Des and Vin Heffernan; Cliff Hill; John Jarvis; Colin Bird; Ted Stevens and Spencer Watling; Graeme Johnson; Graeme Killick; Lindsay King; Leon Macklin; Kerry Mannix; Frank Marchetti; John McCallum, known as Jack; Stuart McColl; Max McGrath; Betty Morgan; Neil Mulcahy; James Nicholson; John Oldfield; Ian Pearse; Keith Reid; Bob Richardson; Liz and Owen Schmidt; Bill Shaw; Barry Sky; Shirley and Terry Smith; Bill Smith; Steward Terry; James Warden; Peter Warnock; Wallace Wathan; and Tom Wilkinson.
Quite a few of those people have been associated with the Northern Territory in one way or another during their transport careers. Tonight, I would like to expand a little on one of the recipients, John Blyth, who is a dinky di Territorian. I also have a special interest in this particular recipient because he is a brother of my Electorate Officer, who was also born here. It was a fairly special occasion for all of the family.
John, son of Dave and Carrie Blyth, was born in Darwin in 1955. John’s father, Dave, was a member of Darwin Truck Owners. At age 13, John was behind the wheel of a Chevy Blitz out on the Marrakai Plains, with his mother, Carrie, often lamenting, ‘that boy has diesel in his veins and wheels for brains’.
John went to work for McKay Transport, carting livestock, and from there for Stevens in Darwin hauling fuel along the Stuart Highway. In 1974, he went into business with his sister, Pat and brother-in-law, Phillip Witte, forming B & W Transport, carting general freight in addition to pulling fuel tanks for Ascot down the track. This partnership continued for four years until John changed to livestock transport.
In 1979, he married Tess. He drove transports for Sherwin, which later became Barkly Transport, for Buntine, and also for Chapman at Cloncurry. With a passion for owning his own business, John and Tess formed J & T Haulage and he commenced hauling livestock and general freight for McKays in the Top End, aggregates for Territory Aggregate Supplies around the Katherine region, and also running general freight out of Brisbane for Sam Brough. J & T Haulage built up four units, and John and Tess spent some time living in Toowoomba. Their children, Darcy and Emma, were born 1985 and 1990. With a young family, John gave away the open road in late 1991, and joined Gulf in January 1992.
John managed the Granites and Tanami operations for some years and, during this time, the Blyth family were firmly Alice Springs-based. In 1996, the family moved back to Darwin with John taking the responsibility of Group Operations Manager, a position he still holds. John understands road transport inside and out and, most importantly, knows his drivers.
It is people such as John Blyth who have contributed so much to the road transport industry in the Northern Territory and, for that, it was fitting that he was inducted into the Shell Rimula Hall of Fame in 2007.
Following the induction ceremony, everyone enjoyed walking through the museum area, reliving memories of transport days gone by. The number of exhibits, the way they are displayed, and the transport history, which has been collected in this location in Alice Springs are a credit to Liz Martin. The Kenworth Hall was a truckies heaven for the fantastic collection of trucks on display. One of them has done over seven million kilometres, and still looks a mean machine in great condition.
Following the Meet the Mile Maker lunch, I had the pleasure of being part of the book launch for Stories from the Road which, again, the energetic and enthusiastic Liz Martin was so involved with, and committed to. Liz and her partner, Kelvin Davis, told me the idea for the book developed from a conversation over a glass of red win with Peter Rocke the day after last year’s celebrations were over. There is no doubt that from little things big things grow because, here we are, just 12 months later, with the launch of this great publication of stories from the road. I have a copy here. There are over 90 stories and coloured pictures telling about the challenges and achievements of Australia’s road transport heroes in this book, and the story focus is on second generation involvement in the transport industry. It is a book I recommend members of this Assembly make sure they read. I know it will open your eyes as to how Australia would not be the nation it is today without the dedication and commitment of the road transport pioneers.
Some of the stories included in the book are of Territorians and include Robert, John and Frank Bilato of G & S Transport; Jim and Jamie Cooper of Gulf Transport; Dick David of Dick David Fuel Supplies, now known as Ausfuel; Brian and Judy Cogan of ABC Transport; Russ and Liz Driver of Outback Vehicle Recovery; Dean McBride of McBride Transport; and, very fittingly, Liz Martin OAM for preserving the trucking industry heritage.
When launching the book, Lew Couper made an important point when he said there are not enough young people coming into the industry; there is a shortage nationally of young people taking up truck driving as a career. I was impressed by his commitment to visit as many schools as he can now he is retired, to talk to young people about the benefits of truck driving as a career. It is people such as Lew, who have so much experience, who can be a positive influence to young people who would consider the trucking industry as a career.
I have to say I would not mind getting behind the wheel of a couple of those mean looking Kenworths which were there. I did climb up and have a look in the cockpit - I call it a cockpit because it was up so high - and they were magnificent machines.
The book, Stories from the Road, talks about the challenges and achievements of Australia’s road transport heroes, would be very helpful when talking to young people, as it demonstrates the diversity of the transport industry. There are plenty of opportunities for those willing to work in it.
I want to finish with a story from the book about Liz Martin, who thoroughly deserves all the accolades she gets. Without passion, dreams do not get realised. There is no doubt Liz has plenty of passion for the transport industry. As a result, the industry will be forever grateful for the Transport Museum which is appropriately located in Central Australia, which will be a lasting tribute to transport heritage in Alice Springs.
I quote the extract from Stories from the Road:
- Growing up on a remote cattle station, Liz was mesmerised by Noel Buntine’s B-model Macks loaded with cattle when she was barely six years old. She grew up to become one of this industry’s most enthusiastic advocates, working tirelessly to record the industry’s history. She said: ‘This is an industry whose great history has been forgotten, downplayed and even misrepresented by mainstream historians, and has been left up to us as an industry to ensure we have been given our rightful place in history. Go into any school library and you will find plenty of books about planes, trains, ships and teamsters, but you will not find much if anything about road transport’.
- Liz was involved in line-haul between Adelaide and Darwin when the ‘Old South Road’ was dirt from Port Augusta to Alice Springs. She learnt to drive a truck by ‘having a steer’ of her husband’s SAR Kenworth. Liz and her husband worked their trucks on mine site haul roads and on remote area road construction throughout Central Australia, and operated a heavy vehicle parts business in Alice Springs. Liz was one of the founders of the National Road Transport Hall of Fame and, 15 years later, is the only original committee member on the team, having served 13 years as President and the last two as Chief Executive Officer.
Liz won the prestigious Cummins Road Transport Industry Woman of the Year in 2004, and in 2005 married her ‘soul mate’ and fellow transport enthusiast, Kelvin Davis. She capped off her career by winning an OAM in 2007.
That is the end of the extract from the book.
I encourage all members of this Assembly to visit the Transport Museum when in Alice Springs. You are in for a very pleasant surprise, and you will find something there for all members of the family to appreciate. My husband, Michael, and I certainly needed more time there to take in the history that has been so lovingly collected and displayed, and the time to read the contributions of the Hall of Fame inductees. Well done to all involved.
I would like to now talk about Katherine, my electorate, and about a woman called Christine Clarence. Christine has really shown that she has been quite motivated by undertaking challenges to show that women are capable of achieving what ever they want to do. Christine is over 50 now and she lives in the tropics which is not really an ideal background for some of the challenges she has taken on. She believes that you need to continually challenge yourself to do your best. She has taken opportunities that provide role models for other Territorian women, particularly those who are over 50. I will talk a little of what she has done in the last couple of years.
Between February and March 2006 she was a volunteer at the Annual Iditarod Dog Sled Race in Anchorage, Alaska. She was assistant to the Race Starter, so helped out at the start line and met all the competitors and all their dogs. After assisting in the days before the race and at the start of the race she spent five weeks dog sledding and cross country skiing in Alaska and the Yukon. From January to April 2007, she was seconded to the United Nations UNICEF to work in Nepal. She was working with the Maoist Army on reunification and reintegration of child soldiers with their families and communities. She found this very interesting and rewarding work when it went according to plan.
I am going to run out of time tonight so I will continue with that adjournment tomorrow night on what Christine Clarence has achieved in the last few years.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to place on the Parliamentary Record the names and activities of some residents of Alice Springs who are doing great things in their community. Given what some of them have done recently it is timely to make public mention of their achievements. I wish to talk about James Green from the Police Credit Union, Grant Behrendorff from Bushlight, and Dave Douglas of Dave Douglas Tyre City.
James Green is the Manager of the Police Credit Union Alice Springs branch, and I am happy to say that I have an account there. James was recently apprehended and locked up - all for a good cause. James participated in ‘Lock Up Your Boss’ day and raised $521 for the Kids Helpline. I thank James very much for what he did. Also a big thank you to his staff, Emma Hunt, Fiona Loney and Angela Roepcke. I was invited to attend at the Police Credit Union for the lock-up. I jumped at the chance and was there together with some other people to see James being locked up. The proceeds of the money James and so many other people around the Territory raised that day went to Kids Helpline.
Kids Helpline is Australia’s only free confidential and anonymous 24-hour telephone and online counselling service specifically for young people aged between five and 25. Kids Helpline counsellors respond to more than 10 000 calls each week about issues ranging from relationship breakdown and bullying to sexual abuse, homelessness, suicidal thoughts and drug and alcohol use, and so on. Kids Helpline aims to empower young people by assisting them to develop options, identify and understand the consequences of a particular course of action, facilitate more productive relationships with family and friends, and provide information on local support services. Kids Helpline counsellors are fully qualified professionals who undergo additional accredited training at Kids Helpline.
James Green wore a prisoner’s jumpsuit and a very stylish black mullet when he was apprehended and locked up in his Credit Union office for an hour. What a dashing young man he is. Staff of the Police Credit Union also decorated his office with crepe paper strips going down his front window to imitate prison cells. During his one-hour apprehension, James frantically called friends and colleagues to raise the necessary $500 minimum bail. James succeeded in raising the bail plus an extra $21 and then he was freed. I am pleased to say that I contributed to the money raised. All of the bail money raised is sent to Kids Helpline and that is a wonderful thing. Kids Helpline exists to assist people to develop strategies and skills which enable them to more effectively manage their own lives.
Grant Behrendorff is another resident of Alice Springs who has recently been recognised for his contribution, winning Engineers Australia Engineering Technologist of the Year for the Northern Division. Grant is the manager of the Bushlight Program. Bushlight is a project of the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Alice Springs with staff based in Alice, Cairns, Derby and Darwin. Bushlight is funded by the Australian Greenhouse Office of the Department of Environment and Heritage and the Department of Family and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
The Bushlight program aims to improve the livelihood choices of targeted remote indigenous communities in Western Australia, Northern Territory, Queensland and South Australia. The aim is achieved though increasing access to sustainable – this is, affordable, consistent and reliable – renewable energy services. Bushlight is an innovative and interesting program with the objectives of improving the reliability of renewable energy systems in remote indigenous communities, improving the capacity and confidence of communities to choose and manage their renewable energy services, and to establish a technical service network to service and maintain renewable energy services in remote communities. Bushlight commenced in 2002, originally as a four year project and, by mid-2006, had installed over 90 renewable energy systems providing very reliable 24 hour power to over 2000 people living in remote communities in Australia. On the basis of these achievements, the Australian government extended Bushlight for a further two years to June 2008.
In addition to the personal achievement of Grant Behrendorff recently winning the Engineering Technologist of the Year for the Northern Division, in November 2006, Bushlight was honoured with one of the engineering profession’s highest accolades, an Engineers Australia National Engineering Excellence Award. Forty-one engineering projects from around Australia were short-listed for the annual awards, which recognise a project’s significance as benchmarks of Australian engineering contribution to the national economy and impact on quality of life in relevant communities. In Bushlight winning this award, it is a valued recognition of the efforts of the Centre for Appropriate Technology which, as a not-for-profit organisation, has for 20 years sought to support indigenous people with knowledge and access to science and technology.
A significant feature of the Bushlight program is its focus on working with communities to develop community energy plans which document community choices and decisions on how they use energy now and into the future. Bushlight designs, specifies and manages for the manufacture and installation of robust, renewable energy systems to meet identified community needs and ensures appropriate maintenance and support arrangements are in place.
A well-known Centralian identity is Dave Douglas, who owns Dave Douglas Tyre City. Dave Douglas Tyre City opened in 1991, and is one of Alice Springs largest independently owned and operated tyre retailers, boasting over 35 years in the industry. Dave Douglas Tyre City provides quality tyres, retreads and batteries at the best prices, with the ultimate in customer service.
Dave Douglas is also involved in a range of community activities, and in particular the Variety Club. I am sure members, even those from the Top End, have seen Dave’s very bright, old fire engine that he has had painted up in bright red, that he uses both to promote his business and the Variety Club, and so many other worthy causes.
Dave Douglas is a character and he is well regarded in Alice Springs. The reputation of his business, owned with his wife, Chris, has been even getting better. It is well known that Dave has a range of interests and is committed to the betterment of the Alice Springs community. Dave is also a member of Advance Alice and wants to ensure that Alice Springs receives the very best that it can in terms of a range of services that the town needs so that it is well equipped to improve into the future and be the real jewel of the crown in this country. The geographic position of Alice Springs is almost in the centre; it is regarded as the Centre. Dave Douglas wants Alice Springs to be the centre of attention almost on a daily basis, and we commend his efforts.
Alice Springs is full of many talented people, and it is always my pleasure to detail their contributions to the community. I take this opportunity to congratulate James, Grant and Dave, and together with members of this House, extend our congratulations and thanks for what you have done and our best wishes for the future.
Madam Speaker, I would like to put on the Parliamentary Record the long awaited opening of the Alice Springs Community Bank, which was officially opened last Thursday. I am happy to say that I have an account at the new Alice Springs Community Bank in relatively recent times, and I was really excited for the management team and the staff, and the Alice Springs community, because there is a new banking option in Alice Springs. The new office is located at Shop 25 in the Coles complex.
I believe it is important to place the names of those involved over the years on the Parliamentary Record. They are: Chair, Raelene Beale; Vice Chair, Rosemary Weise; Treasurer, Sergei Jansons; Public Officer, Noel Thomas; Directors, Andrew McGauchie; Glenyce McGauchie; Gary Carter; Toni-Maree Elferink; and Jennifer Howard; and Associate Director, Hugh Bland. Those people have worked over a long period of time to ensure that the Bendigo Bank is up and running. In particular, I believe that Rosemary Weise is the only existing member of the board of directors who went to the first meeting in July 2005.
Rosemary and others since have worked very hard. They have been at the Sunday markets every fortnight in Alice Springs, using the markets as a forum, promoting it on a very impressive level, and they did very well. They now have 360 shareholders, and their total shareholding is, I understand, some $835 000. This is a community bank, and one which is to be welcomed, and all of those who have worked long and very hard to get the bank operational are to be congratulated.
Bendigo Bank is the franchiser of the Alice Springs Community Bank, and it is often awarded for its social responsibility because of the work it undertakes with communities. It is almost as if the Bendigo Bank has tagged a social conscience onto their business strategy.
The town of Bendigo was where I grew up, so naturally I have a bit of a soft spot for Bendigo Bank. I look forward the role it plays in the Alice Springs community.
The Community Bank branch is a franchise business of Bendigo Bank Limited, and all the banking products offered by community bank branches are issued by Bendigo Bank. Bendigo Bank’s community banking program is an innovative concept developed to provide communities with a means for facilitating economic revitalisation and the enhancement of local services and infrastructure.
The Community Bank branch is a franchise, with the community owning the rights to operate a Bendigo Bank branch. Community Bank branches provide communities with an opportunity to enhance control over their community’s capital, ensuring more money stays in the district for local investment. The branch also provides communities with the certainty of banking services, and enables communities to bank the way they want, whether that is face-to-face, electronically, or over the phone. The business strategy of Bendigo Bank is to work for the benefit of the customers and their communities, and that is to be welcomed in the banking centre. Banking and community go hand-in-hand at the Bendigo Bank, and they realise that you cannot run a successful business in an unsuccessful community. Therefore, if the bank can help the community prosper, then their customer base will be strengthened. If Bendigo Bank is an essential part of the community fabric, then they are more likely to be supported and build a sustainable business.
The Bendigo Bank has been able to build a number of successful business models on simple methods; that is, to encourage local people to commit to buying more services through a company committed to retaining at least some of its earnings in their community. This way, the company employs locals and retains local earnings, which is what the community wants and, of course, the community wins from such an approach. The Bendigo Bank wins too because there is more money and, therefore, more available banking in the local community.
In early 2005, the Bendigo Bank’s charitable arm, the Community Enterprise Foundation, was launched. The foundation creates a pool of money that is put to work to build stronger Australian communities through funding programs for family, youth, health, education, environment, the arts and lots more. Donations are collected in a tax-effective way from individuals, businesses, and governments, and donors are able to gift within their own community, with the trustees distributing money in consultation with community leaders. In the late 1990s, few people thought local communities could influence banks. Now, they are running successful branches that are contributing many hundred of thousand of dollars into building better communities.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am sure that all members will join with me to congratulate every person involved, particularly those on the board who have worked tirelessly over the last few years to ensure that the bank is open and running. It is important that the bank be supported by the community, and I am sure the community of Alice Springs will embrace it. The Alice Springs Community Bank has pursued its vision and it asks for community support. On the basis of what I have seen today, that support is worthy of being provided to the bank. I take this opportunity to wish all involved a strong and prosperous future in Alice Springs and, once again, thank those who have worked tirelessly over the last couple of years to ensure that Alice Springs has a Bendigo Bank.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I will talk about my bushfire brigade in the rural area and out beyond that area. The Bushfire Brigade in the Northern Territory does a fabulous job. It was only last night that I was reminded of what great work they do. I was driving in the rural area and noticed there were several fires in the Humpty Doo area, and in the Darwin River area. I knew, at that time, that there would be volunteers jumping in their cars, leaving their families, and heading out to those fires, and they could be spending all night fighting those fires with no payment whatsoever. A lot of time, they actually use their own vehicles. They get a skip unit or a trailer, put it on the back and take their own vehicles out.
I say a big thank you to these many volunteers and various brigades like the Acacia Hills, Beatrice Hill, Berry Springs, Cox Peninsula, Darwin River and various other brigades throughout the rural area and beyond. Livingston brigade do a fabulous job - I have been to their functions - and also Manton.
I remember last year we had a meeting at Berry Springs and a gentleman came in after those big fires that came through, and he had been on the job for 24 hours fighting a fire. He had not slept, he was covered head to toe in soot, and he just popped in and was going back to bed after 24 hours on the job. That is the type of commitment the volunteers have and the great work they do.
I was recently in Batchelor for the opening of the new headquarters of the Bushfire Brigade there. At that particular event they had a demonstration of the new air tractor, which is a plane which they have brought up from South Australia on a trial, to combat these bushfires. It was a great demonstration with the use of foam and it impressed everyone who was there. It is curious with the air tractor – it flew 3000 km from South Australia and arrived in Batchelor with a full tank of fuel, mainly because it had 3000 litres up where they usually put the water, so it was an interesting concept.
The fire threat in the rural area and the regional areas is huge. There is obviously an issue with gamba grass and various other grasses and vacant blocks. The Bushfire Brigade volunteers do 200 controlled burns a year. They combat 300 to 500 bushfires a year in the rural area. They are kept busy for a good six months of the year and do a fabulous job.
The facility that was opened by the minister for Natural Resources at the time, Marion Scrymgour, was a great vote of confidence in the Volunteer Bushfire Brigade because they have occupied a very old set of demountables for so long and worked from those facilities trying to provide the best possible service to their brigade. That facility is a great vote of confidence in the area.
It was rather curious and disappointing for me, having such a feeling for those volunteer brigades, that I heard that during the Greatorex by-election, the Leader of the Opposition, Jodeen Carney, was insulted and disappointed by the fact that the Martin Labor government had committed $200 000 to this facility at Batchelor. This facility, which looks after the volunteer Bushfire Brigade members, has been long needed in that area. I was disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition would object to such a facility being built. It is disgusting that she would turn her back on these volunteers who put in countless hours. They provide their own vehicles, they put their lives on the line, they leave their families late at night to fight fires, and they get no pay for it whatsoever. So when this government puts in some decent money to provide some decent facilities for these people, the Leader of the Opposition is insulted by it – that we actually bothered to put money in there and she is disappointed by it. Those are her words – ‘disappointed that the Martin Labor government put money into the Bushfire Brigade’. I am astounded that she would say such a thing. It is reprehensible and I will certainly be circulating those media releases that she put out, turning her back on these great volunteers out there. She needs to get her head out of Alice Springs and have a good look around the rest of the Territory – have a look into the rural area, where there are good people out there working very hard to protect other people in the district, and all they want is a bit of help with equipment and facilities.
That is what this government has done. It has doubled its Bushfires Brigade funding under the previous minister, and has put in a permanent facility at Batchelor. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to give an apology to these Bushfire Brigade volunteers for such insulting comments about what they deserve. She is obviously someone who does not know much about people in Darwin and the rural area. She does not bother to get around, she does not care about getting around and meeting these people, or appreciating what they do and what they sacrifice for their fellow community members.
I thank the Chief Minister for committing the dollars to the Bushfire Brigade, and condemn the Leader of the Opposition for her derogatory and insulting comments about facilities for the Bushfire Brigade. The Martin government is about governing for all Territorians, whereas the CLP has said: ‘Alice Springs is all we are about. We don’t give a stuff about anyone else in the Territory. They should not get anything up in the rural area and people in Darwin should not get anything. We are just going to look after Alice Springs and that’s it’. Well, that is not good enough. It is not what the Martin Labor government is about. We are about governing for all. I condemn the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about an important program operating in our secondary schools, and that is Workready - Preparing our Future Workforce.
I will refer to a media release issued by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training on 2 May. It heralds welcome support for the area of Workready. I will read extracts of it before I make my comments:
- ‘The Territory government is committed to ensuring our future generations are well prepared for the transition from school into the workforce, which is why we are expanding the Workready program’.
The Workready program assists Year 11 and 12 students with the transition from school to work and will be rolled out to schools across the Territory as part of Jobs Plan 3.
Under Workready, students undertake Year 11 and 12 subjects two days a week, attend Vocational Education and Training courses one day a week and work for their employer two days a week.
A good program.
- This arrangement allows students to study for their Northern Territory Certificate of Education while preparing for the life ahead in the workforce.
…
Where possible, the program is linked to areas of skills shortage, such as refrigeration, electrical and plumbing.
The numbers, I understand, that are involved in Workready are somewhere around 50 students at Casuarina at the moment, but that will double next year. To manage the Workready program which is, as I outlined from that media release of 2 May, quite a difficult and complicated, but very important, process.
I notice that the sequence of title is ‘employment, education and training’. Ultimately, the education endeavour is about employment. So that interface requires a lot of work for any teacher. I know some teachers involved in this issue work very hard to ensure that the kids are getting their education needs met, that they are being prepared for work, but have that important liaison with the workforce.
There appears to be a problem with regard to the managing of the transition because, this year, from my understanding - and I would be very pleased for the minister to look into this, I am not putting a media release out at this stage, I just hope the problem can be fixed - it appears that the two positions that are established were established on the understanding that in the transitionary period no teacher would lose their position or have their position altered in any way.
Two teachers, one from Nightcliff, one from Dripstone – the one from Dripstone has 11 years experience - moved across to manage the Workready Program now based at Casuarina Senior College, and were horrified to discover only last week that, he being the coordinator of this heralded program of 2 May, his position will no longer exist into 2008, and is put in the awful position of having to go to other schools which will be preparing to bring their students across to Casuarina Senior College and talk to them about how the program will run next year when, in fact, the program, at this point, does not have a coordinator. The teacher who has been given the assurance that this position is an established position, moving across after 11 years experience from Dripstone, now finds that that position which has been held for this year does not exist for next year.
I urge the minister to bear some attention on this issue. I agree with the minister, as outlined in this media release, that this is a very important and a good program, and a difficult program to run in schools. It is made more difficult if the teachers who are in the coordinating role do not have the confidence of the system with regards their tenure. These teachers are deeply concerned, and I say even further than that, are offended by the lack of respect or understanding of the position that they thought they had that does not transfer into next year. I hope that issue can be fixed.
I am also pleased that the galleries are full. The ministers are all sitting there waiting for this long awaited briefing on Taiwan. Just to give some background to my interest in Taiwan, before coming to the Northern Territory in the 1980s, I worked with a number of Taiwanese families in Western Australia. That renewed my interest from my early days in history, going back to learning about the battle of the Nationalists versus the Communists, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong, and the fleeing of the Nationalists across the strait to what was then Formosa and establishing their base in Taiwan. In many respects, those battlelines exist today, 50 years later. Then, meeting with a number of families that I worked with in Western Australia from Taiwan renewed my interest. I grew up with it being Formosa, Taiwan, and I found it a fascinating place that I did not really understand, and I find that many people do not understand Taiwan.
The reason that I have focused in recent times on Taiwan is because I like to assess the basis for my position. I accept that Indonesia, our near neighbour, is our near neighbour and will always be so. Therefore we are obligated, particularly in the Northern Territory, to establish a meaningful relationship and a constructive dialogue, and to learn about our neighbour and to build bridges. That is a difficult process, but one we must remain committed to. I remain of that view. However, I noticed in times past, when we had the strength of the economy, particularly of Indonesia and some of the other Asian Tigers, as they were described at the time, whence they were diminished, and particularly the crash in Indonesia, that it appeared that, almost overnight, interest in our near neighbour vanished and reappeared on China. China then became economically attractive and interesting. From the school perspective, our students were learning about Indonesia, learning about Indonesian culture, and there was a strong whole-of-government focus on how better to understand and work with our neighbour and to build those constructive links. They seemed to deteriorate overnight and then we had this same sort of life being breathed into a need to engage China.
I do not mind that, but we need to assess our thinking as a community. I will say again that Indonesia remains our neighbour and we are obligated, particularly in the Territory, to work hard to establish those links. As a citizen, I found it difficult at that stage to transfer my enthusiasm from one place to another, when I realised it was only about the possibility of earning some money. It took me some time and, in going through that process, I came back to my former connections with Taiwan. As a matter of principle, I lodge on Taiwan, being a country which has gone through a political reformation; it is now a democratic society and has made its own decisions. It has gone from the dark days, I have discovered in my reading and from my meeting with the Taiwanese, under the Kuomingtang under Chiang Kai-shek and his son, and then the transition from the Kuomingtang to political reform to open free elections, which were conducted for the first time in 2000.
I am also aware that, as a society, they have made their decision to go down the path of political reform and are to be commended for that. They face terrible odds with the People’s Republic of China across the strait, which is still determined to see the demise of Taiwan. In many respects, Taiwan suffers from political apartheid. Many citizens around the world who do think too deeply about these things can overlook them and look straight at China.
I am not talking about a concern I might have with the people of China; it is that China itself has not undergone political reform. That is a fact. I have had a long interest in China, and I know that if anyone would care to look, there are some very serious concerns about what lies behind the curtains in China. It does not mean that I will trade or engage or learn more, but I cannot just simply accept, that because there is money to be made, I can ignore those other things.
I commend the people of Taiwan for the path that they have walked. I am prepared to stand up and support their right for an independent existence. I believe that the existence of Taiwan is a conundrum - politically difficult, difficult to understand, and difficult to find a path through that we are required to. There are people around who have taken this challenge to find a constructive path because China, as we know, bears great influence on our society, and it is influenced too.
The Olympic Games are coming up and there will be greater awareness of China. I believe that there is the possibility for constructive dialogue and the creating of innovative pathways for developing better options for what is currently a deadlock. I have that interest and I remain fixed on that. I will be presenting, over the next couple of nights, further comment on Taiwan. Why I came to a renewed interest in Taiwan is, I believe, right at the bottom - if we are talking about economic interests with political principle aside - economically, Taiwan presents a wonderful opportunity for the Northern Territory. We are resource rich; we have a friendly, open and multicultural society. We also have a strong indigenous element within our society that we are learning to develop and establish and empower.
Surprisingly, Taiwan is the same. Taiwan has a significant indigenous population. It was not always a part of China or populated by the Chinese. Initially, it was populated by the Indonesian language group. If you look at a map, you will see that Taiwan is at the top of the archipelago that goes down into Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. There is about 2% of the population who are aboriginal or indigenous, and their language groups marry all the way through Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia. Interestingly too, I found that the facial tattoos on the indigenous people of Taiwan match the facial tattoos of the Maori and there is, and I observed this and I have heard a little bit about this before – but I was surprised to learn that even words in Maori are the same as words that are in the traditional Taiwanese languages. It is understood by matching traditional stories from the Maori that their forebears came from the north in canoes. It is an accepted version of events that the forebears of the Maori, particularly the male line, I think, comes from Taiwan.
There is a very interesting history there and a great interest in land rights, the rights of the indigenous and the needs of the indigenous people of Taiwan who have suffered too with colonisation. I will be continuing my comments on this matter over the next couple of days because there are so many complex and very interesting aspects to Taiwan which I remain interested In. As a member of this Chamber, I will just make my contribution. I have fixed my attention on Indonesia and also on Taiwan, and I will further explore commercial links, as well as social and political links with Taiwan. To be continued.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016