2006-02-23
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I would like to update the House on the status of the $2bn Alcan G3 expansion, the largest construction project currently under way in the Territory. In general terms, the project involves constructing a third refinery train or processing facility within the existing plant. It will increase the production capacity of the refinery from around 2 million tonnes to 3.8 million tonnes of alumina each year. The expanded plant will be a world-class facility which, through technological improvements and economies of scale, will be globally competitive.
The expansion will increase our gross state product by $200m per annum; increase the value of our alumina exports by $420m; secure an increase in local expenditure by Alcan in the order of $122m per year; and see an additional 120 people directly employed within the new plant. The technology improvements will also mean better environmental outcomes in alumina production including a 28% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in each tonne of alumina produced.
Construction is slightly ahead of schedule and within budget with completion expected in November this year. Alcan is negotiating with PNG Gas and is seeking 43.5 petajoules of gas per annum with deliveries to start in 2009. The changes in Gove and in the town of Nhulunbuy are significant and include the completion of a 1470 room construction village with an ensuite in each room; the pouring of 45 000 m of concrete; and the arrival and installation of 300 preassembled modules, or PAMs for short, which represent nearly half of the PAMs needed for the project.
A number of Top End firms have been involved in the construction of these PAMs. As part of the process, premises in the Hudson Creek Industrial Estate were leased and $40m worth of contracts will have been undertaken by local fabricators at the completion of the project. The Top End PAM components are now complete, but the fabricators continue to contribute to the expansion through the provision of urgent products needed to keep things moving.
Some of the other projects in Nhulunbuy include the start of a number of housing developments that address the identified long-term demand in Nhulunbuy; the $8m upgrade to the Gove Airport; the reopening of the quarry and the brickworks; and the redevelopment the Woolworths Shopping Centre. A development of this size obviously has the potential to have a significant social impact on the Gove Peninsula. To that end we have approved a social impact management plan for the construction phase. Alcan has also worked closely with traditional owners during the project and has recently reached agreement on the use of additional recreation areas for the use of Alcan G3 workers and we are seeing the first specific tourism project developed from that initiative.
I congratulate the Territory firms who have contributed to the expansion. The Alcan expansion clearly exhibits our growing capacity to meet the high demands of major developments and really is a shining example of why the Territory economy keeps moving ahead.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, indeed we welcome this report. It is an indication of the power of the resource sector in spreading wealth and benefit across our entire community.
I acknowledge, however, the issue of the gas coming from PNG. I find it difficult to forget that this government made no reference whatsoever prior to the election that the parameters had changed; that the gas was no longer coming through Wadeye from the Blacktip project, when everyone in Mitchell Street and around the traps knew that the deal had collapsed. With hand on heart, our honourable members on the other side were able to say: ‘Honestly, we knew nothing about it’. As the member for Wanguri often exhorts us to get out there and have a listen, we and everybody else heard that prior to the election but it was never articulated - which is a great disappointment, nonetheless.
The benefit of this project by Alcan will apply to the McArthur River project. They have, to my knowledge, complied with every NT government requirement. They have responded to the issues that have been raised in the draft EIS public review. They have conducted extensive consultation and addressed concerns raised and proposed action plans to respond to those issues. Exactly the same benefits as described for the Alcan project in form will apply to the McArthur River project. I look forward to the announcement today, and I only hope, echoing the strength of this statement, that we will have the same endorsement for the project at McArthur River so that we can have additional benefits to Territorians.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, briefly replying on the issue of gas, the arrangements that Alcan are making do not involve government in the first instance. Alcan is negotiating with PNG Gas over their future gas supplies. Although government is all powerful this is not part of our operation. Likewise with the Blacktip gas discussions between Alcan and Woodside/Eni, we were not part of those negotiations. We had done considerable facilitation, and we are aware of the difficulties of the project. I was never in a public backing-off from that. It was a difficult project and, unfortunately, it did not get across the line. We are very pleased to be having discussions with Eni about domestic gas supplies and those discussions will be rigorous over the next few months.
Update of Planning Reforms
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to provide this update to the Assembly on the progress of planning reforms in the Northern Territory.
The draft bill to amend the Planning Act was passed during the February 2005 sittings and following the preparation of the necessary amendments to the regulations, the new act was commenced on 30 September 2005.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure has been developing a new consolidated Northern Territory Planning Scheme. Members may recall this project from past statements to the Assembly or through two previous non-statutory periods of public consultations already conducted. During those periods of consultation, briefings were provided to the community and resident groups, professional organisations, industry bodies, councils, government agencies, the DCA and the media.
While the current controls have served their purpose, the continuation of fragmented and dated provisions is not in the best interest of the Territory. For the Territory to continue to prosper the rules governing the use and development of land need to be modernised and conform with leading practice. The proposed planning scheme rationalises the existing 22 control and town plans, 82 control plans on Aboriginal communities, over 400 statements of policy, 272 zones, and in excess of 800 land use definitions into a single scheme across the whole of the Territory. The only exception will be the Town of Jabiru which will remain as a specific planning scheme due to the administrative arrangements applying to the town.
At present, the town plans apply to individual municipal areas. One simple example of the inefficiencies is that, what are described in the Darwin Town Plan as cluster dwellings are called attached dwellings in Palmerston. There are many more. More importantly, the rules controlling such development are different in each area, and it makes sense that the rules and the terminology remain consistent wherever possible.
At present, there are five town or area plans encircling Darwin Harbour: one for each of the Darwin, East Arm, Palmerston, Litchfield and Cox Peninsula. A consequence of this is that the zoning cannot even be displayed on one map, so the community cannot readily appreciate the planning controls that apply geographically. A single planning scheme will resolve this.
Amongst other things, the new scheme will deliver:
These changes will deliver significant efficiencies to the community and industry.
Formal exhibition under the Planning Act will commence tomorrow, 24 February 2006. The proposed planning scheme will be on public exhibition for two months, and will be available for inspection at the Department of Planning and Infrastructure offices in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. The proposed planning scheme will be available on the department’s web site and free copies on CD. The proposed scheme will also be available at each electorate office, where I am sure members will make them available to be viewed by their constituents. Copies will also be provided to each municipal council where planning controls presently apply.
Officers of the department will be providing briefings to the councils and other stakeholders on request. Community information sessions will also be held in Darwin, Palmerston, Batchelor, Litchfield, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. Dates and locations will be advertised in newspapers.
Following an exhibition period, each division of the Development Consent Authority will hold a public hearing and report to me on the outcome of these hearings. I have appointed Mr John Pinney to conduct hearings in other areas as required, and to report similarly to me.
Madam Speaker, this was an election commitment by this party in opposition, and we have made significant improvements to the Planning Act in the Northern Territory and we are continuing that reform.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. I am aware that this was an election commitment. This is always a controversial area and emotions tend to run high pretty much across the board of all stakeholders.
I do not propose to say much more at this stage, because I believe it might be unwise for me to do so. I commend you on the scope of the community consultation. As you were getting towards the end of your speech, when you had not mentioned advertising in the newspapers, I was going to ask you to do that. However, you are doing that as well. The community information sessions will be well attended by those who feel very strongly, from so many different points of view, in this area. For our part, we look forward to hearing of the outcomes from those community information sessions.
If the overwhelming will of the community is to go down the path you have foreshadowed, then I have some confidence that you will respond in the appropriate way. I know it is not easy, I know there will be competing interests on almost every front, and I wish you well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also welcome the minister’s statement. The Northern Territory Planning Scheme has been a long time coming. It was in progress even before this government started.
My concern is that the government has put a lot of effort into producing new land use objectives for Litchfield Shire Council, including an area plan. A number of those zones in the Litchfield Shire are not compatible with the new Northern Territory Planning Scheme. I warned of this before. It may have made more sense to delay the changes to the Litchfield Shire until the NT Planning Scheme came out. What will probably happen now is the Litchfield land use objectives will again have to be changed so that they become uniform with the NT Planning Scheme. I have raised this issue before. I hoped , when the Litchfield Shire Council Planning Scheme came into operation, that it would have used zones from the NT Planning Scheme. That has not happened. It is a bit of a hybrid of both, and unfortunately, the land use objectives of the Litchfield Shire Council will have to be adjusted.
Be that as it may, I also thank the minister for saying there will be variations allowed. Regardless of uniformity in zones you have to allow for different geographical concerns that might come into place from Alice Springs to Darwin. I also thank you for allowing a decent amount of time for consultations; two months is good.
You talked about having problems with looking at the total planning schemes for Darwin Harbour. I suggest that what we need is a Development Consent Authority for that whole area with variations according to which municipalities it covers. At the moment, when it comes to decision-making in the Darwin area, it is a mixture of Development Consent Authority where people can have a say at public meetings, to a delegate of the minister. Looking at the rate at which Darwin Harbour is being developed and the areas around it, we need to change that.
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I welcome the comments by the Opposition Leader and cooperation from the opposition on this. It is good that we are embarking on community consultation in this regard.
Member for Nelson, regarding the Litchfield plan, it is my understanding that has been incorporated within the draft Planning Scheme. That document has been incorporated as a planning principle along with a couple of other documents, but there are many other documents of other areas that are quite dated. I disagree about the Litchfield plan. It went through quite an extensive phase of public consultation. Not everyone would agree with it but I believe that it is adequate and I am certainly trying to stick by it. Lastly, in terms of proliferation of consent authorities, I think the set-up we have is quite adequate and I will be sticking with that.
Ms LAWRIE (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, it is a great week in Darwin because the Western Bulldogs are in town - or the Darwin Doggies as we like to call them. They are here for tomorrow night’s clash with Melbourne at Marrara. We should also welcome Melbourne to the Territory especially as there are three prominent Territory lads playing with the Demons line-up: Matthew Whelan, Aaron Davey and Shannon Motlop are all products of the NTFL. While we will be going for the Doggies, I am sure that with these guys on board the Demons will enjoy plenty of home crowd support throughout their visit to the Top End.
The Doggies are not just here for the game. Territorians can also look forward to a great range of community activities that also form a part of our agreement with the AFL and the Bulldogs. Many Territory kids have already benefited from a free Auskick super clinic at Marrara on Tuesday afternoon. A picture on the front of yesterday’s NT News demonstrates just how much fun that was and today, on the back page of the paper, it is great to see the players with the kids out at Wadeye.
Bulldogs players today will be visiting the Don Dale Juvenile Detention Centre, some local high schools and aged care homes, Total Recreation, and the Royal Darwin Hospital. At all of these places they will meet kids, often disadvantaged kids, who will have some great fun and be inspired. I know that the Western Bulldogs themselves get immense joy and satisfaction from this aspect of their trips to Darwin. Perhaps not as much joy and satisfaction as they got when they thumped Carlton last year up here but still very rewarding.
Members will agree that it is great to see them getting out and involving a broad cross-section of our community. In August this year, the Bulldogs will be back for a regular season game against Port Adelaide. This game will be on the eve of the finals and, with both teams expected to be in contention, it has the potential to be one of the best AFL games we will see in the Territory. This game will mark the end of the three year agreement that the Martin government struck with the AFL to bring the very best football to the Territory. This agreement has brought some fantastic AFL games to the Territory and established a key second home relationship with the Western Bulldogs Football Club.
Members would be aware that last year the government and the Bulldogs put the package to the AFL to extend this agreement and to expand it to include two regular season games from this year. We were unsuccessful in getting two games scheduled for this year but the door is certainly still open for 2007. To this end a task force was established in November of last year. This task force includes the government, with the Chief Minister and me; and members from the AFL, Michael Long and Wayne Jackson; the Bulldogs CEO, Campbell Rose; AFL NT CEO, Tony Frawley; and the Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport CEO, Mike Dillon.
In addition to securing two home premiership games, the task force has the continuation of the NAB matches in Darwin and Alice Springs and the biennial All Stars match firmly in its sites. The support of the Bulldogs and willingness to establish themselves a firm base in the Territory has been at the fore of discussions.
I sincerely thank the Bulldogs for their past and present commitment to having the foresight to transfer home games to the Territory and we are working very hard to continue this relationship and reward them for their efforts. The task force is currently putting together strategies to meet our objectives. Having Wayne Jackson, the former CEO of the AFL, on board is an invaluable assistance to us in understanding what the AFL is looking for. The AFL scheduling is a very complex process as there are many considerations - current contracts with other venues, TV broadcasting agreements and the wishes of the clubs.
The task force has met twice and has requested that at this stage it will be beneficial that I meet with the AFL. At the invitation of the AFL, Tony Frawley and I will be meeting with the AFL CEO, Mr Andrew Demetriou, on 17 March in Melbourne. This meeting will be used to make clear to the AFL the proposed aims of the task force and to work on a collaborative approach to achieving these aims. We will be seeking from the AFL an indication on what they want to see in our submissions for two games from 2007. The full task force will then meet again following this meeting to advance our strategies. I very much look forward to engaging in a new round of negotiations with the AFL.
I am certain that Territorians can look forward to a bright future for the AFL in the Northern Territory. I personally am looking forward to an exciting game of AFL this weekend. I am confident that Territorians will once again show their support for the continuation of elite AFL football events in the Territory. Go the Darwin Doggies.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, we welcome the statement and it is understood that these kinds of activities are important in the aim of strengthening the local participation within the code and the flow-on benefits of having young people particularly starting to see a future in sport. Sport has a very important part to play in directing our young people down more positive pathways. I report that it is only in the last day or so that I have heard so many people talking about the opportunity to meet these AFL players as they are like heroes to them and it is good to hear of that engagement with the wider community. It is particularly impressive to see these young players of an AFL club investing their time so generously to inspire and encourage young people.
Of course if I was to mention once again, as I did before, any reference to say cost-benefit analysis, I would be in danger of been attacked as saying this is wrong and the CLP is going to cancel all these types of activities. If you want to proceed down that path go for it, but everyone else knows what is going on.
I also look forward to a statement that you will make on your rationale for the rumoured cut to 10 sports in the Arafura Games that is coming up, so that we have an understanding. That is probably an unpleasant statement to make. However, we do need to know that there is positive stuff happening and I am very pleased to hear it. I look forward to further negotiations to widen the code down to South Australia. That is all good stuff but what about the talk about the removal of sports from the Arafura Games? You need to make a statement about that so we can clarify that and understand the other side of your operations as Sports minister.
Ms LAWRIE (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his support for the Bulldogs game. He has finally realised what Labor has known for a long time - Territorians love their sport and they love these major league events coming to the Territory. It has been a Labor initiative to get events of this nature to the Territory. I am very honoured to be able to continue the good work done by the former minister, John Ah Kit. First of all, we were slammed for hosting the Wildcats this year and we were touched up about hosting the rugby league in Alice Springs. If you want to know cost-benefit analysis I will give you this little snippet from the rugby league in Alice Springs.
Both teams forwent any match payments: $60 000 in revenue is going to the Central Australian Rugby and Football League. That means that, of the $73 000 expenditure to get that game there, we have already realised $60 000 directly into the code in Alice Springs. That is not adding on top the benefits in tourism. Many players and officials took the extra days to travel out to Uluru, and spent their money around the Alice Springs environment. It is a fantastic event.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Young Territorians): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory government is proud of our young people and is committed to providing recreational activities and development opportunities for young Territorians. The Youth Round Table is a wonderful forum through which the views and aspirations of young people can be directly communicated to government. It gives our youth a tangible avenue for expressing their concerns and ideas, and encourages them to take an active role in the community.
The round table consists of 16 young people aged between 15 and 25, selected from applications received from across the Territory. Today, I am delighted to announce the new members of the 2006 Youth Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians. They are: from Darwin, Robert Dalton, David Johnson, Kevin Kadirgamar, Justin Murphy and Hannah Watts; Palmerston, Vanessa Matsen and Tammy-Jane Reece; from Darwin rural, Jaimie McIntyre; from Batchelor, Lisa Deveraux; from Katherine, Perri Fletcher; from Jabiru, Louisa Bayne; from Tennant Creek, Chee Lean; from Alice Springs, Kelsey Rodda and Emily Ryan; from Nhulunbuy, Rose Sadleir; and from Alyangula, Annalise Durilla.
These are 16 young people who are representative of the geographic, cultural and ethnic diversity in the Northern Territory. I look forward very much to working with my round table throughout the year and hearing their insight into current youth issues. Their advice will be invaluable in the development of government policies, programs and services for young Territorians. I encourage all young people to contact round table members to ensure their views and opinions are heard.
Today, it also gives me great pleasure to announce the recipients of the first round of Youth Grants for 2006. This round of Youth Grants funds activities for National Youth Week. National Youth Week continues to get bigger and better in the Northern Territory every year. This year, National Youth Week takes place from 1 to 9 April, and the theme is ‘celebrate and recognise the value of all young Australians in their community’. The Youth Grants program is a great way for government to support the community and get young people involved in a variety of activities and projects for National Youth Week. It provides young people and organisations with the means of putting their ideas into action.
The applications received were wonderful; it was great to see young people and youth organisations proposing such new and innovative activities. The list of projects and activities which are being funded makes for interesting reading. There is everything from Puppy Love, a program run by the RSPCA which is teaching young people about the importance of looking after and respecting animals, to leadership courses, cheerleading workshops, youth festivals, bicycle maintenance, circus activities, story telling workshops, mural projects, hip hop workshops - and the list goes on. These activities are spread across the Territory from Darwin and all our urban centres to Elliott, Areyonga, Milingimbi and other places. The applications themselves show just how creative and energetic our young people can be. The Youth Grants program is an important way to provide the means for them to turn their ideas into actions.
Madam Speaker, I table a full list of the successful grant recipients for this funding round. I take this opportunity to congratulate our wonderful young people; those appointed to the round table and those who have had their fabulous projects given the green light. All of them enrich the cultural and creative environment for our Territory.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, it is good to engage young people, particularly where the Chief Minister receives direct feedback from responsible young people who have been given the honour to be involved at this level. I encourage all members to find means to engage our young people. We may, at times, underestimate our position as elected members within our own communities. We also can conduct these sorts of activities at a more grassroots level.
We acknowledge the great role of this senior level against the office of Chief Minister and minister. This is a program that has existed in the Territory for some years. I think it was initiated by former Chief Minister, Shane Stone, and is replicated in a number of other states. It is a good thing. We should respect the voice of young people, not just through the process of consultation and have a listen to what they say, but actually go to the next stage and implement some of these ideas and give them direct feedback, otherwise we can easily and, sadly, fall into the trap of tokenism.
There has been an issue generated out of youth forums over the past few years, which I will lodge with the minister now, that being the proposal to allow younger people, perhaps 16-year-olds, to participate in local government elections by means of voting, because it is the issues of local government that most directly affect young people, and they can have a legitimate say in the decisions involving their own communities. So I put this before you, minister, if you could take that on board, because it is a proposal that has been generated from our young people over a number of years. I lodge it once again with you in this term of new government to consider ways where that could be applied. There may be some difficulties.
Recently I had a young person who wanted to be a member of the council, but was a little too young – they would have been an excellent member.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Reports noted.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Administrators Pensions Amendment Bill is to close the Administrators Pensions Scheme to future Administrators of the Northern Territory, and to provide for continuity of pension arrangements for the current Administrator, and retired Administrators and their partners.
By way of background, the Administrators Pensions Act provides for a lifetime pension equivalent to 60% of an Administrator’s base salary after five years service. In the event of death, a reversionary pension is payable to the partner of the former Administrator. The Governor-General, on advice from the Northern Territory government, appoints the Administrator of the Northern Territory and, under a cost sharing agreement the Australian government, as employer, is responsible for the payment of the Administrator’s salary and the Superannuation Guarantee. The Northern Territory is responsible for the Administrator’s office and household, and for the payment of superannuation in accordance with the Administrators Pensions Act.
The act provides for a substantial pension benefit, which accrues over a very short period of time and is out of step with the Superannuation Guarantee arrangements that apply to the general Northern Territory community. Closure of the scheme to future Administrators is consistent with the government’s decisions to close the Northern Territory’s Public Sector schemes in 1999 and, more recently, the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Scheme in 2004, and replacing these with Superannuation Guarantee Arrangements.
The Australian government has been consulted on this issue, and has indicated that it has no concerns with the Northern Territory closing the scheme to future Administrators, and that the Australian government will continue to be responsible for the payment of Superannuation Guarantee for Administrators.
I commend the bill to the House, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Adoption of Children Act to enable the issue of full Australian birth certificates for overseas-born adopted children.
The primary document for a child to establish their identity is a birth certificate. Presently, the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages can only issue a birth extract for overseas-born adopted children. While an extract has the same evidentiary value as a full birth certificate, adoptive parents have cited instances where its value is queried, if not declined.
In December 1998, the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption came into force in Australia. The Convention provides for a cooperative framework between source and receiving countries, ensures international standards, remedies in the best interests of the child, and mitigates the risk of child abduction and trafficking for adoption.
One outcome of the convention is that it permits overseas adoption authorities to finalise adoption orders in the source country, and to require automatic recognition of those orders by the receiving country. China, and more recently Thailand, have chosen to exercise this prerogative. Prior to this, the typical practice in Australian jurisdictions was for the overseas adoption to be finalised in an Australian court, the adoption registered, and a birth certificate or extract subsequently issued for the child. Because some adoptions are now automatically recognised under Australian law when they are finalised by a foreign court, they do not trigger the requirements for birth registration in states and territories because there is no domestic order for adoption. As a result, these adopted children cannot be issued with an Australian birth certificate.
Last year, the Commonwealth House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services conducted an inquiry into the adoption of children from overseas. In its report of November last year, the committee highlighted this discriminatory anomaly and provided recommendation 11 which advocates the following:
I am pleased that the Northern Territory is the first jurisdiction to bring before its legislature a measure to rectify this anomaly. The bill provides for a birth registration system which applies irrespective of whether the overseas adoption is finalised in the Northern Territory local court, or under a foreign adoption law which is automatically recognised by Australia, or by way of a foreign court order subsequently the subject of a declaration of validity by the local court. The bill provides a mechanism which ensures the necessary birth information is entered into the adoptions register and this, in turn, is able to be linked to the register of births.
Obviously, an Australian birth certificate can only be issued if the source country supplies sufficient birth information. The minimum requisite for information for the child includes their name before and after adoption, sex, date and place of birth. I would like to point out that there may be a very small number of cases where some of this information is not available from the overseas adoption authority because of the circumstances in which the child was abandoned. In such cases a birth extract will be available.
Application of the bill will be retrospective to 3 May 1994, to cover all overseas children adopted under the present act. The registrar will have the discretion to issue birth certificates prior to this if the information is available and reliable. Birth extracts will continue to be available to those who want them. The bill provides appropriate procedural safeguards. The adoption must be registered in the Northern Territory adoptions register. This measure is designed to safeguard against the possible risk of parents of overseas-born adopted children in other jurisdictions who may be tempted to seek an Australian birth certificate from the Northern Territory Registrar of Birth, Deaths and Marriages when they are unable to obtain such a certificate in their home state. However, it will not deny former residents a birth certificate as long as the adoption was finalised by the Northern Territory administration. Also, the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages must not register any child if that child is already registered in another jurisdiction. This is to safeguard against the risk of Australian double entry, and possible fraud.
Madam Speaker, this system will, for the first time anywhere in Australia, enable the issue of full birth certificates for overseas-born children adopted by Northern Territory families under foreign laws recognised by Australia whenever sufficient birth information is supplied by the overseas adoption authority.
The secondary purpose of the bill is to append to section 5 of the act, that section which defines the jurisdiction of the local court, a note that the Commonwealth Family Law (Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption) Regulations 1998 apply in the Northern Territory. These regulations give effect to Australia’s obligations and entitlements under the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, and already apply in the Northern Territory pursuant to the Commonwealth/State Agreement on Intercountry Adoption of 1998. This is intended as a courtesy reminder for magistrates in the local court that they have the power to exercise this jurisdiction in cases where it may be appropriate to do so.
In future, the Northern Territory will use the regulations to convert adoption orders from Thailand if anticipated advice from The Hague to Australia indicates this is necessary to remove residual Thai inheritance rights from such orders.
To conclude, this bill will enable the issue of a full Australian birth certificate for overseas born adopted children not to hide the adoption but to give the children a single universally recognised document that will affirm their birth details and their adoption to their parents. As a result it will confer dignity and equality of treatment for children adopted by Northern Territory families regardless of where they were born.
As I have outlined it provides a mechanism for ensuring that the necessary birth information is entered into the adoptions register and that this in turn is able to be linked to the register of births regardless of whether the adoption order is made and whenever sufficient birth information is supplied by the source country. In doing so, it establishes sufficient procedural safeguards to discourage non-resident adopted families and protect against double entry and possible fraud. Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members. I table the accompanying explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the member for Nhulunbuy for this day as the member is away on official business.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Commercial Passenger Vehicles Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 (Serial 32) passing through all stages.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I wish to comment on the urgency debate. I am not objecting to the urgency but I have some concerns that I would not mind the minister answering. I am always a bit concerned about urgency debates unless I can be shown that there is good reason why we bring them on.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, this is a motion about the suspending of standing orders if you are making comment about the suspension of standing orders you can now. If you are only talking about the urgency then you can talk now. It was not clear at this stage.
Mr WOOD: If the minister is suspending standing orders because this bill is so urgent now, why was it not passed last year? I believe it was on the Notice Paper but was not brought on in December. If you took that a bit further, if it was not urgent enough to be debated then, one could argue that there is no urgency now. I am just asking the government to clarify its reasons for asking for this suspension of standing orders. If they say it was not urgent enough in December then why is it urgent now?
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I still have concerns about passing legislation on urgency in this parliament. These sittings have been particularly thin on the ground in regards to legislation. The government seems to not have done the job very well. This legislation probably could have waited till the March sittings; it is only four weeks away. The intent of the government has been clearly heralded throughout the Territory and I would imagine not much would happen if within the month, anyone would slip through the cordon to avoid this legislation. It is just a matter process.
We have a system here within the parliament and it means that the four weeks would have allowed members to take this bill back to their constituency and get some feedback. We are not talking about not supporting the bill or anything like that. However, because it has been brought in on urgency there has been very little time to consult, to find out what exactly is happening with the Taxi Council and also to clarify whether there should not be other issues or points put in the legislation to make it even stronger for those people who should not have a taxi licence.
Madam Speaker, I believe government should justify why they have brought it on urgency because, at the moment, there is probably no reason why it should not stand for four weeks on the books.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, speaking to the queries about the urgency motion, I say, as Leader of Government Business, we do not bring on legislation on urgency unless we believe there is a very good reason to do so.
I have to correct the member for Nelson. This legislation was not on the Notice Paper in December; it was put on to the Notice Paper on Tuesday last week. It has certainly been the intent of this government - without debating the context of the bill; we will do that in the second reading debate - to clarify the parliament’s intent as to who is a fit and proper person to hold a commercial passenger vehicle licence. We announced our intent to amend this legislation. There have been complex legal issues that have had to be worked through, and they can be discussed when we debate the bill in the second reading. However, I say to both honourable members: we do not bring urgency in lightly. We believe there are very real issue that have to be address urgently.
In regards to the capacity to take the legislation back particularly to the taxi and commercial passenger vehicle industry, that is why, as I explained last week, we suspended standing orders to put the bill on the table on Tuesday last week, as opposed to giving notice on Tuesday and bringing it in on Wednesday: to give the industry opportunity and two weeks to look at the bill and raise any concerns with government, opposition or Independent members. The industry has had two weeks to consider this legislation …
Dr Burns: And been briefed.
Mr HENDERSON: … and to be briefed - and thoroughly briefed. My understanding is, and the minister can speak to it, that the industry does not have concerns.
In the event that honourable members may seek to amend legislation, there is always an opportunity to bring in amendments to legislation. I assure both honourable members we do not do this lightly; we do not introduce legislation on urgency unless we believe, as a Cabinet - and it is a Cabinet decision - that there is a very real imperative to do so. I believe industry has been thoroughly briefed. They have had two weeks to consider the impact of this legislation. I urge honourable members to support the motion.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 14 February 2006.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I raised some serious concerns in this Assembly in November 2005 about the suitability of a particular person licensed to drive a commercial passenger vehicle, and the amendments to this bill today are a result of that concern.
I am not used to seeing government move so quickly, if you consider the number of other promises from the 2001 election that are outstanding. Nevertheless, minister, it is good to see that you have your priorities right on this one.
I thank the minister and his department for looking to amend this legislation as a matter of urgency in an attempt to overcome any future similar situations occurring.
Unlike the member for Braitling, I have had plenty of time to consult industry and they are very happy to see this amendment. I have read the bill and there is not an aspect of it that I find offensive. In fact, it represents what I was talking about last year. There is an issue of concern that we in the opposition have in relation to the amendments, however, I am going to leave that to the Leader of the Opposition to discuss with the minister. It is a legal matter and I trust her learned skills.
I also note that the bill has a retrospective element to that. Normally, that would make me a little bit nervous, however, in this case I believe you have to look at what is being achieved. Because it is such an emotive issue, it is important to keep a level head. It is worth noting that some people that this legislation will touch have obtained their licences lawfully and within the rules established for the issue of such licences. They are valuable property and they represent an income for the people who hold them.
It is clear, from my adjournment debate, that at least one person will lose their income as a direct consequence of this bill. There may well be more.
This bill is not aimed at any individual person. Any such law would be revolting in my eyes if it was aimed at one person. It actually puts a shield around people who are vulnerable. The shield I think of is when I caught a cab in Sydney many years ago and could not believe this great plastic bubble the drivers were sitting in. It was quite obvious that the drivers needed protection from a small majority of passengers they carried. It would be a very small minority, probably 1% or 2% of people who may cause injury to them.
In this case, what we are doing is putting a shield of protection, with this amendment, around the passengers, and they are the vulnerable people who need protection from the 1% of undesirable people we would prefer not to see ferrying passengers. They are people who have committed assaults, and also some sexual offences. As I have said before in my adjournment, Madam Speaker, these are the sort of people we do not want to have ferrying our children around. I am a parent and a grandparent, as are many people in this room, and I am sure they feel exactly the same.
In recent years, sexual offenders, and especially those who prey on our children, have become outcasts in society, and so they jolly well should. The difference is that, in our society, our lepers have become what they are because they have made a choice, and the effect of this legislation says that such choices will haunt you forever. For that, I do not apologise. It is my experience that many people who commit an offence of this nature do so again. That does not mean all of them, but many of them do. I believe that this legislation puts protection around the children who are the most vulnerable in our community. The question is, are we prepared to take the risk when we consider the precious nature of the cargo that these drivers carry, and it is my desire not to see that happen.
I have said before that we need to put a shield around the minority of passengers that are being carried, and it is not intended to attack or embarrass any taxi driver or any commercial vehicle driver. It is intended to shield against people who have a history of violent or sexual crimes. This brings me back to the question, minister: are we prepared to take the risk of exposing vulnerable passengers to people who have a history of violent or sexual offences? The bill is the answer to this, and it clearly says, no, we are not prepared to put up with that. It says no to people who will commit these offences in the future, and it reaches back in time to those who committed these offences in the past.
Madam Speaker, there are appeal processes in place and the Local Court can still hear applications that are in relation to this and you will get a fair hearing in the Local Court. Nevertheless, the balance must tip in favour of the innocent people in our society and this is what this bill intends to achieve. For that reason I am supportive of the bill. I thank the minister and his department for looking to amend this legislation as a matter of urgency and hopefully we will not have this situation occurring in the future.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I say from the outset that I agree with my colleague, the member for Katherine, in relation to the matters she put as to why in so many respects this is good legislation. This is also important legislation and I congratulate the member for Katherine, who raised this issue many months ago, and the minister.
However, there are three or four aspects of this legislation from a legal perspective that are arguably troubling. It is appropriate that I put those concerns on the Parliamentary Record. Subject to your reply, we may not need to go into committee. I am not having a go at you pre-emptively about that, but if your reply is unsatisfactory, then I think it is incumbent upon me as a lawyer and as a member of parliament to explore various issues as far as I can.
I say from the outset, however, that the points I intend to raise are not to be and should not be read by anyone as saying that I support child abusers driving taxis - I do not. Any suggestion or inference made after my contribution this morning that I am supportive of such people will be vehemently and passionately shouted down. We have had experience in the Chamber before where I had a bit to say about particular legislation and your government, stupidly in my view and I think members on your side acknowledged that it was an unwise act that was undertaken by, I suspect staffers, where a media release issued in the name of the Attorney-General suggested that I was sympathetic to child abusers.
We dealt with that at the time and I do not want to see a repeat of that. It made us all look absolutely atrocious. Minister, even though you do not know my previous experience in the law in this area, I feel and hope that you know me well enough to know that the matters that I intend to put on the Parliamentary Record should not and cannot possibly be read as me being supportive of child abusers and people convicted of various sexual offences against children. I certainly do not support those people driving taxis. In many respects I do not support them at all, but we can save that for dinner party conversation.
The points I raise are as follows. In relation to clause 4(1), to start with what I consider to be at its highest strange drafting when compared to the terminology in clause 3, that is, where it describes in clause 3(a) and 3(b): ‘an offence against a law of the Territory’, I am pleased to see that in clause 4(1) the word conviction or convicted has appeared; that is a digression.
In any case, in relation to clause 4, I note that 4(1)(b) refers to a person having been convicted of a disqualifying offence. Clause (c) says: ‘is otherwise considered by the Director not a fit and proper person to hold, or continue to hold, an accreditation’.
I am troubled, minister, by the definition of ‘fit and proper person’. I ask what the criteria for this is because it is not to be found in the bill. I also ask is it a subjective test to be undertaken, or a subjective analysis to be undertaken, by the director? If it is an objective test, where are the guidelines and what are they? If there are no guidelines, I ask: is it fair or just for a director, an individual, to make what could be considered a subjective opinion which could impact on the rights of another person?
The next point I raise is in relation to proposed clause 75(d); it is a similar series of questions to that which I have just raised. You will note that in paragraph 2(a) of clause 75(d) it states that the director may request the Commissioner of Police to provide the director with: ‘(a) a written report of the criminal history for the person’, and ‘(b) other evidence in relation to the character of the person’. I ask again, what is the criteria for that? That is, I am dealing specifically with sub paragraph ‘(b) other evidence in relation to the character of the person’. The question is: what is the criteria for this? Is it a subjective analysis? If it is objective, where are the guidelines and what are they? If there are no guidelines, is it fair and just for what is a subjective analysis to impact on the rights of another person?
The next point I raise is in relation to clause 75(b) and that relates to the suspension of accreditation of a disqualifying offence. I note that if a person is charged with a disqualifying offence - I stress charged - the director may suspend the accreditation. If a person is charged then under our legal system there is a presumption of innocence. Yes, in this case and the intent of the bill there is a public interest argument, one that I feel strongly about. However, I ask whether it is best left to the courts to make orders that can protect children such as imposing strict bail conditions instead of giving the director the power to suspend an accreditation? This would have the effect of balancing the public interest and the protection of children with the rights of someone who our law and our justice system deems innocent until proved guilty.
I note that a person cannot sue in the event that they are suspended and subsequently not convicted. Hence, any loss of income cannot be recovered. I simply ask, minister, whether we as legislators need to ensure that our laws, including this very bill, uphold some of the most fundamental and well understood principles of our legal system - the presumption of innocence. I am fully aware that it is a balance of very strong competing interests and arguments. The same can be said, minister, in relation to clause 76 which is the section that deals with the reviews by the chief executive officer disqualifying offences; that is the mechanism and process that kicks in after an accreditation has been suspended, after a person has been charged.
In relation to the schedule there is a very detailed and lengthy list of disqualifying offences and it is clear from your second reading speech and the circumstances leading to the bill before us today and being put to us on the basis of urgency, that I can well understand most of the offences referred to therein. However, there are certainly two - at a stretch three - offences that do not fit within the intent of this bill as outlined in your second reading speech. They are robbery, which is one that I describe at a pinch but, more significantly, Nos 13 and 14; that is, section 177 of the Criminal Code: ‘acts intended to cause grievous harm or prevent apprehension’ and section 181 ‘grievous harm’.
Minister, I am sure you would hate to see a situation where some young bloke in his 20s goes to the pub, has far too much to drink, and clocks another bloke. The other bloke has a permanent injury - say a permanently busted nose or a dodgy arm for ever and a day - thus fulfilling, from memory, the prerequisites of an offence for grievous harm. I ask: is it the case that it is this sort of person you intend to be covered by this legislation? I would like your answer on that.
Similarly, in relation to grievous harm or prevent apprehension, is it not the case that, if the same bloke who is half-tanked clocks someone, the police are called, they pick him up, he struggles and, in the course of the struggle, he clocks a copper, whether by reason of his actions he is always going to be precluded?. Is that the sort of person who you contemplate or want to be covered by this legislation?
Another concern is in relation to retrospectivity. Of course, not surprisingly, as a lawyer I have a knee-jerk reaction, and not a good one at that, about retrospective legislation. There are all sorts of good reasons for that. I do not know how much legislation has come before the parliament since I have been a member that has been retrospective. I cannot think of any - there may have been, but I cannot think of any. It shows that it is unusual and I am sure you would agree. Presumably, you have been advised of this; that there is and has always been a trend for parliaments not to introduce legislation that is retrospective. It is not a good practice to get into. I have an inbuilt difficulty with retrospectivity. I am troubled because, in your second reading speech, with respect, you did not put the case. All you said was and I quote: ‘This aspect of the legislation is retrospective but clearly in the public interest’. My view is that that is not a sound argument in and of itself in favour of retrospectivity. I say that in the event we see any more legislation coming into this Chamber that is retrospective in nature, anyone who prepares a second reading speech will at least, because of the unusual nature of any such legislation, do better than a one liner about why it is retrospective.
I have turned to my faithful Pearce’s Statutory Interpretation in Australia book. I was at university when it was in Edition 2; it is now Edition 5. The final point relates to the fundamental issue about retrospective legislation, but is more detailed, in a sense. You will agree by the time you have finished hearing what I have to say that the points I raise may well be considered quite unusual. Because of the urgent nature of the legislation and because we have been sitting, I have not had the opportunity to carefully research this matter in the way that I might ordinarily research other legislation that I have a real interest in. All I can say in the course of putting to you the concerns I have in relation to this particular point is, forgive me if I am not providing you with as much information as I would like, but I am sure with your resources and your advisors and others around you that you would be able to give these issues proper consideration.
My final point, and it is an unusual one, is related to the retrospective nature of the bill. I have not been able to make certain that a licence to drive the vehicles referred to in this legislation is a form of intangible property. Lawyers would call it a chosen action, which is a form of a property right. We know that a licence of this nature is a thing of value, therefore, I proceed on the assumption that a driver’s licence for these vehicles is a form of property and attracts the sort of things that property rights usually do, and I will come back to that.
In the context of the Northern Territory Criminal Code, the definition of ‘property’ includes intangible things and things in motion. My question is, do you say that a driver’s licence affecting these vehicles is property? In proposed section 75A(9) there is a line that reads: ‘The Territory is not liable for any loss or damage suffered by the operator because of the decision’. From there, minister, I will refer you to section 50 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act which effectively acts as the Northern Territory’s constitution. Section 50 the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act is about acquisition of property on just terms. I will not trouble you too much, however, I believe it is important that I read what is contained in section 50 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act.
Subparagraph (1) says:
Subparagraph (2) says:
I know that the courts take licences away from people all the time, so you would think, at first glance, that that does not cause a problem. However, my point is that, on closer examination, there may be a problem in relation to the bill. The bill is intended to work retrospectively. There is a general presumption against this. However, if a parliament intends a bill to work retrospectively, the presumption is defeated. In short, a parliament can deem a bill to operate retrospectively, which is fine. However, if a bill is designed to work retrospectively, and it acquires a property right that was lawfully held or gained, then the acquisition must be settled on just terms, because that is what the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act says.
In this regard, and I refer to page 256 of Pearce’s Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 5th Edition, where it says:
Section 50 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act is expressed in the same terms as the Australian Constitution because it is intended to operate in the same terms as the Australian Constitution in the Northern Territory. So, if it applies to the Commonwealth, it must therefore apply to us in the Northern Territory.
There is a case, Georgiadis v Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corp 1994 119 ALR 629, and as a result of that case, it is uncertain if this applies beyond the common law. In other words, it is yet to be settled.
So, the problem, minister, is that you may not be able to legislate for retrospective immunity from liability to acquire property rights because the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and Australian Constitution forbids it. I would have thought that is potentially a problem. We, as legislators, do our best to ensure that does not happen, and that the legislation we pass is good legislation. Put simply, does the bill remove a property right? If so, what is the effect of its retrospectivity? Will challenges be made? What sort of problem is that going to be for the Territory government?
Please do not patronise me in response by saying: ‘Oh yes, the member for Araluen thinks she is important’. I know exactly where I am. I also take my responsibilities as a legislator very seriously. I will not sit around, as I have said in this Chamber time and time again, nodding to legislation because it is easy. I feel that I have a contribution to make. That is why I got into politics. Please take my contribution in the spirit in which it is intended.
I am hopeful that you will be able to answer the last point I have raised and I look forward to your answers, minister. I say in conclusion that none of the points I raise are in any way an attack on the intent of the bill, or indeed your intentions as minister. I did understand that there were three government members who were going to talk on this legislation. I assume from discussions before that perhaps one Independent was going to talk about it as well. I think it is important that we get detailed answers to these questions. Perhaps I have missed something - if it is all straightforward please tell me - but it may well be fortunate that we go up to 12 o’clock because some of the matters may well need to be looked at over the luncheon adjournment.
Minister, please accept my contribution in the spirit in which it is intended. I look forward to hearing from you.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I lend my support to the Commercial Passenger Vehicles Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. I have lived in quite a number of cities and towns throughout the Commonwealth. Big cities like Melbourne and Brisbane; smaller cities like Townsville and Canberra, and towns like Wagga Wagga. I can honestly say that in all of those places I have lived I have always used whatever public transport is available, be it trains, trams, buses or taxis.
The degree of availability of mass transit public transport and its limitations of service, be it either in areas of route selection or availability of service, has meant that on more occasions than I could ever possibly recall I have had to catch taxis. It is, I feel, with some authority borne of experience that I say to members that the taxi services throughout the Northern Territory are the equal to, if not even better, than other taxi services across Australia.
I fully agree with the minister where he says all members of the community have the right to expect that those licensed to drive or operate commercial passenger vehicles are fit and proper. Let me place on the public record that I am of the belief that the vast majority of those who drive or operate commercial passenger vehicles in the Territory meet community expectations. However, as we have identified over the last number of months, not all individuals within the industry fit the bill.
The minister has outlined and spoken of what is defined as a disqualifying event and I feel no great need to restate what is already on the public record. What I would like to focus on are the benefits that I believe will flow on to all owners and operators of commercial passenger vehicles in the territory because of this bill.
When this bill is passed passengers will have a level of assurance far beyond what they have previously enjoyed, in that the stranger in whose skill and character they place so much trust has indeed been examined by an independent authority and found to be a fit and proper person. I know that I will have a greater degree of comfort and peace of mind should I have to send my children unaccompanied in a taxi to a friend or relative’s house or off to school, if for some reason I am unable to drive them myself.
This is somewhat similar to the comments - which I support - from the member for Katherine with her views as a parent or grandparent, and as a person who is responsible for the care of children. You would not be pulling anyone off the street and saying: ‘In you go, in you pop in with him and Jack over here will drive you home’, well it is very similar to taxis. Sure, you have that contractual arrangement where you will pay, but honestly you really do not know who you are getting in with. It is important that you understand that the person to whom you are entrusting yourself or your children has been assessed and that is what this bill is all about. I think the comfort that that brings to parents and caregivers is something to be commended. I fully support the member for Katherine and her views on that point.
Madam Speaker, it was an unfortunate circumstance that a sensitive issue such as the trusting of strangers who elect to play a role in our transport system should become the fodder of political opportunity. The intemperate outburst by opposition inferring all manner of inappropriate behaviours and questionable conduct needs to be condemned.
Once again I get back to the point that the member for Katherine made about the need for trust and the responsibilities that these caregivers have. To go out and make political mileage of what is a sensitive issue and then to put the frighteners into parents that their kids are jumping in with some sort of monster, and that every taxi has a potential for carrying a monster driver is so intemperate it damages the industry. I have many of friends who are taxi drivers and CPV operators. Let me say that they are at a bit of a loss as to why these types of allegations should be levelled at them.
The thought was that we had all the precautions in place to cover any eventualities such as this; however, we found over the last couple of months that things needed to be strengthened. Well we are; we are strengthening them and once again I condemn the political opportunism the opposition has made of this issue. It is a serious issue; it is something that we really need to address, it is something that the minister is addressing and I commend him for that. So once again let us get the politics out of this. This is something that we are trying to do for the community, something the community called upon. It is redressing and strengthening what we thought was already a – as a matter of fact I think it was a previous Chief Minister from many times ago, because you had changed Chief Ministers quite a number of times, who actually pushed for these changes to come through.
Evidently that bill was not quite strong enough; it could be interpreted in other ways. Now it is left to this government, as in many other cases, to get on with the job. Member for Katherine, I am sure you would agree that the minister is getting on with the job. I commend him for that.
It is not the first time, Madam Speaker, that this minister has had to come in and sweep up after the previous CLP governments because they have not done their job properly.
Mrs Miller: Stop making this political! Just talk to the bill.
Mr KIELY: I will pick that interjection from the member from Katherine about not making it political. I did not start out to make this whole issue political. We thought that it was right and fair and proper - all sorted out. It was not until the opposition started making it political. You wonder why you get these responses – well, this is why. You cannot have your cake and eat it; you cannot say: ‘Do not make this political’, when you have been running on this for months, dining out on it, scaring the populous to no end. Now you are trying to make out this is some kind of draconian law that we are bringing in, when it is actually a law that meets community expectations. It is rectifying an issue that we thought was sorted out in 1998; and we are doing that.
Let us not make it political. Let us not have the other speakers get up and say: ‘What about this; what about that?’ On the one hand, you are saying the whole thing has gone to wrack and ruin - we are fixing it up – and on the other you are saying: ‘Oh, yes, but …’. No, you cannot have it both ways. I know you can try to, but you cannot.
Madam Speaker, with the bar raised, the industry, the passengers, and those individuals who are at the coalface driving day and night to help us all get about our cities and towns, are the winners. Those who have lost are the drivers and operators who go before our courts and are found not to be of fit and proper character. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have just a few comments. I would like to thank the member for Wanguri for explaining to me the reasons for urgency. My apologies for saying the bill was on the Notice Paper; I obviously got that wrong. That occasionally happens.
I did ring the Taxi Council when the bill was first introduced to parliament. I spoke to Colin Newman and he was happy with the changes. I did ring one of bus companies at that stage and, as this affects the operating manager, I know that particular operating manager did not know anything about the bill. I am presuming bus companies and people outside of the Taxi Council do know that this bill is going through.
The reasons, I gathered from the briefing, that this bill has been brought in is, basically, because the existing bill talks about a ‘fit and proper person’. The definition of a ‘fit and proper person’ appears to be not broad enough, or it could be seen as too broad so that when it went to court, there were no guidelines as to what that really meant. I am presuming here that there was a particular court case where a person appealed to the local court, as is allowed under the present act, and was permitted to have his taxi licence. What this bill is saying is that we would like to make that more prescriptive. We have set out a series of disqualifying offences, and those disqualifying offences will have to be taken into account if, for instance, it goes to the CEO or to local court, especially if it goes through an appeal.
I did mention at the briefing that I understand why they have these disqualifying offences. The Opposition Leader has also raised a number of issues about assault and robbery. I also had a concern that some of these offences could have occurred a long time ago, because you go back to when a person is 16 years of age in some of these offences. They could have simply been a misadventure of youth at that stage which, although not proper according to the law, things do happen when people are young. Now, 30 years on, that offence is still going to go with that person. I would hate to say that, just because someone committed an offence then, that they are necessarily someone who is a paedophile or has been continuing along that line of offences. I am hoping that a person’s misadventure or something which was done, against the law but never repeated, is not held forever and a day. They might have had to pay a fine or go to gaol for a short period, but you cannot call all those offences, necessarily, an offence which would make you a risk if you were a person driving a commercial vehicle. That is all I am saying.
I hope there is enough flexibility in there not to condemn someone for the rest of their life for a transgression done many years ago, that they paid the penalty for, and have never done it again. We are dealing with human beings here and I hope there is enough movement in the act to allow those things to be taken into consideration.
The other thing I would ask, and I was hoping that it would come out in the urgency debate, is why is it that the government has not stated clearly the case of urgency, in trying to introduce this legislation? I understand that the reason there is retrospectivity is because there is a certain person out there who obviously received a licence after going to the Local Court. Without going into the details of the person, I would have thought it appropriate for the government to say: ‘This is the reason why we are bringing in retrospectivity. We do not believe that that person should be driving a taxi. We are disagreeing with the court. We are introducing legislation basically to override that decision’. I believe it is important that the government does state the reasons more clearly as to why retrospectivity has been brought into this legislation.
I am nowhere near as qualified as the Leader of the Opposition to discuss the matters of property rights, but it had occurred to me as well about the legality of taking someone’s licence as, in this case, if they had been given a licence via a Local Court, and regardless of the person - I do not know enough of the history - you have made legislation which says although a court has given you a licence to drive a taxi, we are going to take it away.
I do not know the legalities of that, but the Leader of the Opposition has raised some important issues regarding the government taking away one’s property rights, in this case, the right to earn a living by a taxi licence. I would be interested in that debate. It is a very interesting point to raise in this debate. I would not have been able to put it in such legal language, however, it did occur to me that it at least needed an explanation by the government as to why they have done it, and are there any other consequences that would spin off by introducing and passing that legislation?
I need to make it clear: I support the legislation. The matters I have raised are not signalling that I would like people to be driving around who are not appropriate, but we are dealing with legislation that deals with people who, like all of us, sometimes make mistakes in life. So legislation, while it needs to be affirming that governments will not support people driving public vehicles that could be at risk to the community, also recognise that there may be some people who have had a misdemeanour in their life somewhere that that should be held against them for ever and a day. If those people have done their punishment and prove to be good citizens, we should not hold that against them forever.
I welcome the government bringing on this legislation. The opposition did raise this issue as well. The Taxi Council has also raised the issue. The government has responded, and I will support the legislation.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I rise to support this legislation on urgency this morning. Every member who has contributed to this debate has said that they support the intent of what government is trying to do here and there are some questions around specific and ethical issues. However, in discussing those issues, let us not lose sight that this legislation is all about protecting the public, and it is all about the public having confidence that when they get into a commercial passenger vehicle, particularly a taxi or a private hire car, that they are going to be safe. The public has an absolute imperative right to expect that the people the government licences to drive these vehicles are fit and proper people and are not a threat to the public.
Members have talked about children; as a parent I have a right to expect that if any of my children get into a taxi or a hire car or a bus, that the person who is driving that vehicle is a fit and proper person, that they are someone who can be trusted to care for my children. That is fundamentally what we are trying to achieve with this bill.
The previous legislation talked about a fit and proper person, and community expectations. This parliament’s expectations are that if somebody has, for example, a conviction of a sexual assault against a minor, that that person is not a fit and proper person to be holding a commercial passenger vehicle licence and be the sole custodian in a vehicle particularly with children. I would have thought that the broad community understanding of what a fit and proper person is in that respect would exclude those types of people. I am sure that that is what this parliament intended when it passed the legislation initially with the fit and proper clause in there.
What this bill is doing today, through the disqualifying offences, is defining and clarifying for the department which issues the licences and our courts which might interpret and be called upon to consider any appeals, that this parliament is clearly saying that people who have convictions under the disqualifying offences appended to this bill are people who we, as the elected representatives of the Northern Territory, believe are not fit and proper people to be in receipt of a commercial passenger vehicle licence.
Actually, when you go through all of those disqualifying offences, I am sure that in the court of public opinion, I am absolutely convinced of this, that 100% of the people will say: ‘Yes, that is right, people with these types of convictions against their name should not hold a commercial passenger vehicle licence’. I am absolutely confident that the public would be in 100% support of this legislation and would probably have believed that under the previous definition of a fit and proper person that if somebody with a conviction under these disqualifying offences - and I have to say no matter how long ago - the public would say: ‘Yes, I do not want somebody with a conviction for one of these offences, no matter if it was 50 years ago, being responsible and entrusted with my child, or my girlfriend, or my wife, in a vehicle.’
It really is quite simple what we are trying to achieve today. I am very confident that the public will support this 100%. Not only is it good for the general public, it is good for the industry. The industry relies upon the public having trust and confidence in the industry and that is why the industry has given support to this legislation. If the community generally felt that there was a potential for people with improper motives to be driving taxis or private hire cars, or buses, then any reasonable parent would probably stay away from that industry and not entrust their children, their loved ones, into the care of these people. So it is good for the industry as well.
It gives the industry confidence and certainty that the regulatory and licensing authority is going to exclude these people with these disqualifying offences from the industry. There has been concern in the public as a result of particular interpretations in the courts that somehow bad people are getting into the industry and I think the public will have renewed confidence in the licensing regime as a result of this bill.
The Leader of the Opposition talks about the retrospective elements of the bill and inherently as legislators, and I am not lawyer and have not had any legal training but have come to understand that retrospective legislation is always difficult and should not be enacted unless it is the responsible thing to do. In regard to the retrospective elements of this bill if it comes to pass that there are people who currently have licences but also have convictions for these disqualifying offences in the industry that those people will retrospectively be, no matter how long they have been driving that motor vehicle for, excluded from the industry. I think the public will support that, but the public has to have confidence that when it gets into a taxi, hire car or a bus that that person is a fit and proper person.
I have no problems at all with the retrospective nature of this legislation because paramount first and foremost is the safety and protection of the public and that is the reason for the retrospective nature of this bill. I believe that it meets community expectations. It certainly meets industry expectations and for the life of me I cannot see how anybody could argue that this legislation is somehow detrimental to the public good.
As I have said the amendments will apply to all categories of commercial passenger vehicle licenses. Those disqualifying offences also include offences committed in other jurisdictions and have no time limits. The member for Nelson talked about the elements of people making mistakes when they are younger but when you actually look at those offences and they are there on the public record, they are offences at the highest level of culpability in impacts against individuals, and the Leader of the Opposition said robbery is on the margins. Well if you have a conviction for robbery regardless of how long ago it was, you are a person who has stolen from another individual.
Regardless of the circumstances of that when potentially you are one on one in a vehicle with a vulnerable person the public has a right to expect that when they get into a taxi that the driver who they are getting into the taxi with does not have a conviction of robbing another individual. Although the Leader of the Opposition says that it is on the margins, I agree it is on the margins, but at the end of the day it comes back to the public’s expectation as to who is a fit and proper person.
If somebody has a conviction for robbery then there are probably many other avenues of earning an income where they could earn a living quite legitimately which does not put them in a one-on-one confined space environment with vulnerable people. This legislation is all about the public’s confidence in the industry, and as for individuals who make mistakes in their younger days, well, we all learn from our mistakes as we are punished by the courts, but the public’s right to have confidence particularly in this industry must be paramount. There are many other areas that people with that type of conviction can derive work that are much more suitable than driving taxis. For all of the other disqualifying offences, I would like to hear an argument that it happened 30 years ago and, somehow, that excludes people. Again, in the court of public opinion, most people would say those people should not be driving a taxi or a private hire car.
I explained earlier the reasons for urgency. I believe this does have broad industry and public support. The Opposition Leader is quite right to seek technical explanations but, again, I urge her in the role that she has, that that is the reason in part why briefings are provided by departmental officers, legal people who put the structure of legislation together. Members of parliament are offered those briefings so that, if there are specific and technical issues that need to be clarified, they have the opportunity to speak directly to the legal authors and constructors of the legislation. I urge the Leader of the Opposition and any member of this House, if they really want to understand the legal technical details of how legislation is constructed and how it might conflict with other legislation, that that opportunity is there and has been since Tuesday last week.
The Leader of the Opposition had a briefing; she has had time to consider the briefing and further look at the legislation. I am sure that, particularly given that this bill is on urgency, if she wanted further discussion with departmental officers and officers from Parliamentary Counsel who constructed the bill, I am certain that my colleague, the minister, would have given her that opportunity. That is not in any way trying to counter anything that the Leader of the Opposition said; I am just trying to helpful here by saying that those opportunities are genuinely offered to members if they really want to understand the technical and legal details of the bill.
We will provide every opportunity for people to ask those questions and receive that information, as well as standing up and answering questions in the House - especially if legislation is brought in on urgency. We do not do it often; we do not do it lightly and, when we do it, there is good reason for it. If any member really wants two or three goes at understanding the legislation and the reason that it is brought in on urgency, all you have to do is ask and we will give you that opportunity.
Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague, the minister, will answer the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I urge all members to support this bill; it is commonsense. It is all about the safety of the general public, protecting the public, ensuring that the public has confidence in the industry, and the industry having confidence in the regulatory and licensing authority that licence people for commercial passenger vehicles. It is pretty much commonsense. Madam Speaker, I urge all honourable members to support this bill.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the family of the member for Arnhem. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of visitors to Parliament House as part of the public tour program. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome as well.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution to the debate. The member for Katherine raised a number of issues and she made the statement that she was quite happy with the legislation. She accepted the issue of retrospectivity. She raised issues such as lost income, which I will come to a bit later. However, most of all she highlighted the importance of protection of the vulnerable. She called it a shield and that is quite appropriate. She believed that people who did have their licences taken away would get a fair hearing in the local courts. I welcome the comments by the member for Katherine.
The Leader of the Opposition made a very good contribution to this debate. She prefaced her remarks by saying she hoped that what she had to say would not be misconstrued by others. I hope that that is the case, because the issues the member for Araluen raised - particularly the legal issues - are very important.
The question of why the legislation took so long from last year to come into the parliament was asked by the member for Nelson. The reason is that there were quite complex legal issues that needed to be worked through. The member for Araluen has highlighted a number of those issues and I will attempt to address the issues that she raised in as much detail that I can. I took notes of what the member for Araluen had to say and I hope that I can give an adequate response to her concerns.
First, she went to clause 4(1)(b) of the legislation. In essence, the member for Araluen said that she was troubled by the lack of definition of what ‘fit and proper’ really means within the legislation. I suppose the first thing is to say it is my understanding that there is a body of case law that pertains to what constitutes ‘fit and proper’ that is quite considerable. There is context for each particular profession, in the way I understand it, of what constitutes ‘fit and proper’. It can fit a particular profession, but there is quite a wide body of case law associated with that. The department currently does have guidelines that apply to this. There needs to be acceptance of the body of case law of what is ‘fit and proper’. I hope that addresses the concerns raised by the member for Araluen regarding clause 4(1)(b).
The member for Araluen then went to clause 75D and highlighted the issue of a written report and other evidence, and what is required there. She wondered whether the written report and other evidence was a subjective test, or an objective test. I am advised that there are written guidelines that already exist for ‘fit and proper’ and they have been used in the past in determining who is fit and proper to hold one of these licences. The guidelines alluded to by the member for Araluen are being developed around the appeal process for disqualifying offences. Once these are developed they will become publicly available. There will be access so the public can ascertain, both with the guidelines and also the appeal process, as to what is involved. She was concerned about whether it was a wholly subjective or objective process. There will be codified guidelines and processes but, within any process, whether it is in a court of law, there is an element of subjectivity that comes into people’s judgments. There will always be that element of subjectivity but, nonetheless, what we are striving for are substantially objective guidelines and processes.
She asked what the other evidence or other criteria might be that is talked about in clause 75D. I am advised that these could be, for instance, supplied by police. They might relate to a person’s interaction with the police over the years. It might relate to someone’s driving record in how many times they have been pinged for speeding, etcetera. These are other elements that could be taken into account by the Registrar and the CEO in determining an appeal process. I hope that answers the queries by the member for Araluen in terms of clause 75D.
The member for Araluen then went to section 75B, which is all about if someone is charged with a serious offence whilst they are coming to trial, that their licence is suspended. The member for Araluen said that, basically, she understands that. Her exact words were: ‘How is the public interest balanced against the presumption of innocence, which is really a cornerstone of our legal system’. That, once again, is a very good point that was raised by the member for Araluen.
The director may suspend; it is not obligatory for the director to suspend, so there is an element of judgment in what the director does, but I am assured that, basically, this would be exercised sparingly and judiciously. It would only be the most serious forms of offence that would really be involved here. The director would have to have a view about the seriousness of the offence and the potential impact in terms of the travelling public.
The Leader of the Opposition suggested that it might be more appropriate for a magistrate to determine whether someone should have their commercial passenger vehicle licence taken off them when they come to court for a particular offence. She thought that that might be a better way. I have been advised that, unless the offence is specifically related to taxi driving, the magistrate is unlikely to include prohibition on driving in the bail condition. It is probably a better process in terms of addressing each particular case, that the director actually looks at each individual case and assesses the need there.
Turning to the fourth issue the member for Araluen raised. This relates to schedule 3, at the back of the legislation, which lists all of the disqualifying offences. The member for Araluen believed that there two or three offences in there that did not really seem to fit with the rest of the schedule. She pointed to three in particular. She talked of ‘acts intended to cause grievous harm or prevent apprehension’, No 13, or ‘grievous harm’, No 14, or robbery, No 24 and in particular she pointed to robbery as probably something that did not fit the criterion.
I looked further into this charge of robbery, and it is usually a person who is armed, in this particular case. There is also violence, or the threat of violence involved in that particular offence. It is important that we realise that this not just a case of someone jumping a back fence to take a couple of mangoes off someone’s tree and take them home and eat them. This is robbery. This is on another scale again. It is quite a serious offence. I believe it fits in there.
However, the member of Araluen, rightly so, along with the member for Nelson, raised the possibility, that someone could have been in youth, they might be 20 years old, they have had some drinks, they have been involved in an altercation, the police turn up, they might get involved in an altercation with the police, and why should they suffer for something that happened 20 or 30 years ago, which is a very good point.
There are a couple of issues associated with that. If the offence was not all that serious, it could become a spent conviction and not be considered under the legislation for disqualification. Also, we have an appeals mechanism, where people who are in this particular boat can have an appeal to the CEO, and ultimately to a Magistrates Court, to argue their case.
There is no doubt in a number of offences within the schedule that there is reason for commonsense to prevail. People who might have had some sort offence, as the member for Araluen said, 20 or 30-odd years ago and they have not offended since, they have been good citizens, they might have been in the CPV industry for sometime, they are good operators and good taxi drivers, there is no reason why their appeal to the CEO should not be successful, or ultimately to a magistrate.
We are not trying to penalise everyone here, but I believe there is an expectation by the public that the bar be raised in terms of the commercial passenger vehicle industry and that we have some commonsense in doing that. There are elements of the industry that I do not think the public want to see in there and it behoves us as legislators to really listen to what the public is saying and act upon it.
I hope I have covered all of those issues in relation to Schedule 3.
A very important issue that the member for Araluen mentioned was in relation to retrospectivity of the legislation and property rights. This is a very important aspect that the member for Araluen and others have raised. She is quite correct when she asserts that any government or parliament legislating retrospectively should take care. It is a step that should not be taken lightly, and I completely agree with the member for Araluen about this. This is probably one of the reasons why it has taken a little more time than I would have liked to bring this legislation to the parliament, but there were important legal matters that needed to be considered and weighed against the advice we were given.
Before I get into the issue property rights and retrospectivity, there was an issue that the member for Araluen raised in further justifying the reason why we were bringing in retrospectivity. In my second reading speech, I talked about that the public interest called for retrospectivity in this particular legislation. To flesh it out a bit more, there are quite a number of elements. Generally speaking, the public, whether it is in the teaching profession, and now in the CPV industry, are looking for a higher standard, a higher bar, of people who work in particular professions or industry. The public has moved along and basically set the bar higher. That is one aspect.
Another aspect is that over the years the police have improved criminal history checking processes. Previously, only name checks were conducted in the Northern Territory. This allows the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to recheck those in the industry. I suppose technology has improved, there is better reciprocity and cooperation between the states and the Commonwealth, both nationally and overseas in terms of these criminal checks. That is probably another reason. I also come back to the issue of the public’s expectations and we as legislators need to take heed of that. Even though there is a retrospective aspect of the legislation, people still do have a right of appeal firstly to the CEO and secondly to a Magistrates Court.
On to the important issue that the member for Araluen raised about the acquisition of property rights and she talked about clause 75A(9) I have written down here that this particular legislation basically says the Northern Territory is not liable. She also pointed to section 50 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and she went to a couple of clauses within the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act that really in a nut shell talk about acquisition of property on just terms. This is an important issue that the member for Araluen has raised. It was one issue that was concerning me deeply and I sought advice from the Solicitor-General on this particular issue. I was assured in writing by the Solicitor-General that accreditation or a licence is not property, therefore when a licence or accreditation is cancelled, there is no corresponding acquisition of property by the Crown. There has always been in section 86 of the Commercial Passenger (Road) Transport Act a provision of property to be acquired on just terms. It has always been there, and we are also advised by the Solicitor-General that we should include that part 75A(9) as a precautionary measure, and we took the Solicitor-General’s advice.
I suppose at a simplistic level my own thinking is that we have professional registration whether it is for medical practitioners, pharmacists or legal practitioners and that can be taken away from someone through a disciplinary process. That person has no right of comeback, as I understand it, for any lost earnings or any inconvenience they might incur. In my mind, a licence or a registration, in this particular instance, does not confer a property right. It is something that is given. It cannot be used by anyone else. It is not transferable. I cannot transfer my registration as a pharmacist to anyone else, the same as the member for Greatorex cannot transfer his medical registration to anyone else, and similarly with a CPV licence holder. It is not a property that you can actually transfer to someone else. It is something that someone has and through disciplinary actions it can be taken away.
Those were the issues that were raised by the member for Araluen and I tried to address them as fully as I can, because I will say it on the record again, that the member for Araluen raised some important issues and they are ones that I have been wrestling with over the last couple of months in terms of bringing this legislation into the House. I commend the member for Araluen for her thoughtful contribution to this debate and I hope that I have adequately answered her questions.
The member for Sanderson talked, as the member for Katherine did, about the need for protection of vulnerable people who are travelling in commercial passenger vehicles and he also made a very good point about the number of good people in the industry, and I think sometimes we lose sight of that, in any industry there are undesirable types. There are always bad apples in the barrel wherever you look, and I do not think we should be overly fixated on those bad applies in the commercial passenger vehicle industry. We have got to protect the public against them, but I have met a hell of a lot of people in that industry, who are very hardworking people. They work long hours. They work very hard and they are dedicated to giving service to the public, particularly the ones here in Darwin, they will always go that extra mile to be helpful to residents and tourists alike. I get very good, positive feedback about our people in the commercial passenger vehicle industry.
The member for Nelson raised the issue of offences that go back a long time and that people might have made mistakes in their younger days, or there may be circumstances around an offence that needs to be considered, and I agree with the member for Nelson. That is why we have built in an appeal process both to the CEO and to the Magistrates Court and we have tried to make that as timely as we can. I have said to the department that any of these cancellations that come up should be dealt with expeditiously wherever possible because people’s livelihoods are at stake and I am very mindful of that. However, the public has requested a higher bar and we have to go through the process, but we have to make it as expeditious and as fair as possible.
He talked about flexibility and I addressed this issue. He also mentioned that he believed that there has been a lack of consultation with people outside the Taxi Council or the taxi industry. That may be the case in some instances, and I will take responsibility for that. However, I will be endeavouring to communicate the meaning and the impact of this legislation outside the industry.
The member for Nelson wanted details of a specific case. He wanted to find out more about that. I am not going on the public record to talk about any specific case. However, I will say that there has been intense public interest and some public debate about standards within the commercial passenger vehicle industry. This is why government is moving to address public concerns about it. That is all I will say about that.
The member for Wanguri emphasised the need to have safety and surety in transport within the commercial passenger vehicle industry, and how it is incumbent on us as legislators to hear what the public is saying to us about these issues. I commend him for his contribution to this debate.
Overall, everyone has made a good contribution to this. I hope that I have adequately addressed the issues that have been raised, particularly by the member for Araluen who, I will say again, has raised some valid and pertinent issues. I have tried to address them as best I can. I have received advice all the way along, and tried to be sure that what we are doing, particularly with the issue of retrospectivity which, I will say again, is not something that legislators should do easily. It is something that we should give a lot of thought to. It is an unusual step, as the member for Araluen has said, and we need to be cognisant of the ramifications. However in my own heart of hearts, I am sure we are doing the right thing; we are moving along the right path. It might seem simple to some people, but there are actually underlying complex legal issues underneath. I hope that I have addressed them.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole:
Ms CARNEY: Mr Chairman, I thank you for your forbearance. I owe you an apology, minister. I do not always sadly miss committee stages or replies to legislation - but I am genuinely unhappy that I missed what you had to say. However, I did ask my staff to listen in, and I am sure they have given me a very faithful report of what you have had to say. I say thank you for not being rude and patronising, because I meant what I said about being a lawyer and a politician, and that I take my role very seriously. Thank you for not sinking to the depths that some of your colleagues do.
I understand that you referred to advice from the Solicitor-General. I have only two questions in relation to that. The first question is, when did you first get that advice, and my apologies if you have said that?
Dr BURNS: I do not have it right in front of me here, member for Araluen, but I believe I received that advice with the submission that went to Cabinet. I requested that advice from the Solicitor-General, as well as other elements that I was interested in, including the issue of possible ministerial discretion in this particular area, which is an area I really did not want to get into, and I would not want to subject any future minister to. I was in a quandary with a range of other issues.
There may have been further advice in January, but initially in December, I am advised, member for Araluen. 24 November, I have been advised.
Ms CARNEY: My second question is perhaps obvious, as I suspect the answer is: will you table a copy of that advice?
Dr BURNS: I do not believe that I have it here, but I do not mind sending that to you.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you very much.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported, report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the Third Report of the Tenth Assembly of the Standing Orders Committee. This report relates to standing orders affecting Assembly committees.
MOTION
Print Paper – Standing Orders Committee – Third Report of the Tenth Assembly - Assembly Committees
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.
This is a report from the Standing Orders Committee relating to the period since the commencement of the Tenth Assembly. The Standing Orders Committee has undertaken a review of Standing Orders relating to the operation of Assembly committees. The main purpose of the review was to rewrite and restructure standing orders to reflect contemporary Assembly committee practice, and to draft new material to be more reader-friendly. The committee requested that the Clerk prepare a draft proposal for the committee’s consideration.
In response to this request, the Clerk convened a working group of Assembly officers, which was formed into three teams, which collated relevant materials and conducted a comparative analysis of the committee related standing orders of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth.
As described in the report, due care was taken to faithfully reflect the meaning and intention of existing standing orders but also to reflect contemporary practice. The opportunity was also taken to remove some obsolete provisions. A draft report of the review was considered by the committee at its meeting on 30 November, 2005. A revised report was circulated to members during the Christmas recess and considered by the committee at its meeting on 15 February, 2006. The draft report was adopted after discussion and amendments. The proposed new Chapter 7 will contain all relevant standing orders relating to the operation of all Assembly committees.
In order to minimise the requirement for renumbering, the committee agreed not to incorporate the provisions of Chapter 4 relating to standing committees. This report marks the first stage of the comprehensive and detailed review of the full body of Assembly standing orders. The committee has requested the Clerk to prepare a draft for the committee’s consideration with a view to making the standing orders more logical, intelligible and readable, and to exclude gender specific language.
I thank the committee for its work and thank the working group for their contribution to the report and, in particular, Robyn Smith for her role in the preparation of the final proposal.
Madam Speaker, this Assembly is run according to standing orders as well as all committees of this parliament and it is appropriate, from time to time, that the parliament actually reviews the standing orders to see if they are still relevant, still contemporary as parliamentary practice evolves. Parliamentary practice has certainly evolved over many hundreds of years in the Westminster context, and I commend the Clerk and the working group. It is a huge body of work to go through those standing orders clause by clause, line by line, gather contemporary standing orders from other jurisdictions, and make assessments and recommendations given the practice that has evolved in this Assembly as to suggestions for members in terms of consideration of the evolution of our standing orders.
I am pleased to table the standing orders relating to committees and the Standing Orders Committee will further consider, probably in mid-year this year, proposals for amendments to the full body of the standing orders. Obviously those proposals will be circulated to members before final deliberation of the Standing Orders Committee.
I suppose it is a bit of a dry piece of work but it is very important in terms of the appropriate running of this Assembly and also to update the standing orders so they can be more user friendly and people can get to the relevant materials they are looking at as they require. I commend the sub-committee, the Clerk and Robyn Smith for their roles in the preparation of the proposal. I commend the recommendations of the committee to the Assembly.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, as a member of the Standing Orders Committee I support the minister’s statement about the standing orders relating to committees. I felt that it streamlines the way committees will work. It sets out in a concise manner the terms of the operations of committees and I really have nothing very much to disagree with. We spent a lot of time as a committee discussing many of the clauses in there, but at the end of that, with input from all members of the committee, I believe this is a very suitable document.
Motion agreed to; paper adopted.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I rise to talk about the most significant environmental challenge facing the global community, one that will affect all our children, grandchildren and generations beyond. Climate change will challenge the way Territorians live, where we live and the industries we create. In short, it will affect the quality of life of every Territorian. If we do nothing as a community, as a nation and globally, then these changes will be catastrophic for future generations, but there are opportunities too, opportunities that can only be realised if we plan and act now.
In 2005, Australia recorded its warmest year on record. Australia’s annual mean temperature for 2005 was 1.09C degrees above the standard 1961 to 1990 average. Since 1910 when widespread temperature recordings commenced, Australia’s temperatures have increased by approximately 0.9C. Since 1950 the Northern Territory’s average annual maximum temperature has increased by about 0.12C per decade and the minimum by 0.17C per decade. Madam Speaker, 2005 was the hottest year on record. The Bureau of Meteorology has attributed this to our change in climate. Governments and scientists around the world are convinced that though uncertainty still exists, human induced climate change is occurring and future changes in our climate are inevitable.
These changes are attributed to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activity, with the most significant of these gases being carbon dioxide. I could not begin to do justice to the mounting global evidence for climate change and its impact on our planet and our civilisation. It is a fascinating and sometimes terrifying area to study. It is also controversial. Some scientists, such as the physicist, Stephen Hawking, claim that within 1000 years increasing carbon dioxide will boil the surface of our planet and humans will need to seek refuge elsewhere. This is an extreme view. More mainstream are the likes of Jared Diamond who has studied the collapse of ancient civilisations and whose excellent series on this subject you may have seen recently on television.
Rapid shifts to another kind of climate place stress on society as it alters the location of sources of water and food, as well as their volume, by changing climatic boundaries. For an explanation of climate change and what it means to our futures, I urge all members to read Tim Flannery’s book The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change. It is a fascinating book and one that will in some ways shape your thinking of climate change.
For the Territory, the implications of future climate change are potentially very significant. In 2004, the government received a report it commissioned from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, or CSIRO, which revealed that the Northern Territory is projected to warm between 0.2 and 2.2 by 2030. Wet and Dry Season rainfall is likely to decrease over most of the Territory. The impacts of these changes include an increase in fire risk, increased energy demand for cooling, and heat stress to humans, animals and crops. It will also potentially impact on water supplies.
A report published by the Australian government last year highlighted a number of regions as being particularly vulnerable to the impact of climate change. Those regions of importance to the Northern Territory are low lying coastal populations and resort centres, tropical and subtropical population centres and remote indigenous communities.
Responding to these changes will be a huge challenge. It will require international action at all levels of government across the global community. Internationally, efforts to address climate change are governed by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to which Australia is an active participant, and under which the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated. The Kyoto Protocol is now operative and, for those on this side of politics, it remains a source of great national shame that, having become a signatory to the protocol, our federal government will not ratify it.
Let me make it clear that Labor’s position, both federally and in the Territory, is that Australia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol. It simply does not make sense, as John Howard maintains, that Australia will voluntary meet its Kyoto Protocol emissions targets, but then deny Australia the opportunities of emissions trading and development of clean technologies that would come from ratification. I do not, for one moment, presume that the Kyoto Protocol is perfect or that it is sufficient. Indeed, discussions on further developing these protocols have been occurring, most recently in Montreal late last year. However, it is a starting point and we should be a party to it.
The Kyoto agreement establishes two things: the assignment of greenhouse emission targets to developed countries, and arrangements for emissions trading of the six most important greenhouse gases, a trade which is valued at $US10bn. Because carbon dioxide is by the far the most significant of the greenhouse gases, you can think of Kyoto as establishing a new currency, a sort of ‘carbon dollar’, the trade of which allows industries to cost-effectively reduce emissions. It sounds like a very sensible scheme.
Australia has the highest per capita greenhouse emissions of any industrialised country, and our growth in emissions over the last decade has been faster than that of other OECD countries - and the Australian government still refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Under Kyoto, Australia needs to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 108% above 1990 levels by the period 2008 to 2012.
Australia is a nation that has taken significant steps to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. The latest national projections indicate that we are on track to meet our Kyoto target. Notwithstanding our differences on the Kyoto Protocol, the Territory government continues to support federal government initiatives such as the greenhouse challenge-plus program and the mandatory renewable energy target.
Furthermore, in a recent communiqu by the Council of Australian Governments, federal, state and territory governments recognised that, while Australia’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions means that we are on track to meet our Kyoto targets, significant further effort is required to stabilise greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere to avoid dangerous climate change. The information before COAG also recognised that, as witnessed in 2005, the impacts of the changing climate are already upon us. Action is now required to prepare for the environmental, social and economic impacts that may result from climate change. As a result of this recognition, a COAG plan of collaborative action on climate change will be implemented, focusing on areas where practical progress can be made for national cooperation. It signals a renewed effort of national support and cooperation on climate change and includes a number of significant new initiatives.
Government went to the last election with a clear proposal to introduce mandatory public reporting of major industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Government firmly believes that the community has the right to know about major industry emissions into the environment. Public reporting will stimulate public debate and act as a tool to drive competitive greenhouse gas emission reductions. Public reporting will also provide the information required by investors, business planners and government, enabling better policy and investment decisions to be made. Ideally, public reporting of greenhouse emissions should occur in every jurisdiction. A streamlined national framework for reporting greenhouse gas emission is urgently required that includes mandatory reporting for all emissions above a set threshold; site specific reporting in accordance with estimation or measurement protocols; independent verification of reporting; and public release of a level of information that avoids compromising commercially sensitive data.
I am pleased to inform members that significant progress towards these objectives is occurring. Consistent with our election pledge, the Territory EPA, along with a number of other states, is assisting the Victorian government in trialling the use of a national pollutant inventory to report on greenhouse gas emissions. A pilot program was launched this week by the Victorian government, and I am very pleased to see both the Darwin City Council and Power and Water Corporation participating in the pilot, along with some of Australia’s largest companies.
While negotiations on national mandatory reporting continue, the Territory will move forward on its commitment to introduce reporting locally, and in a consistent manner to any emerging national framework.
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the federal government continues to stick its head in the sand on emissions trading. Emissions trading is a market-based approach to environmental improvement that allows parties to buy and sell permits for emissions. It provides real targets for cuts in greenhouse emissions, while enabling the market to determine the lowest cost approach to meeting such targets, yet more importantly, an emissions trading scheme sends a clear price signal to the economy, that environmental emissions must be factored into investment decisions.
It is the states and territories which have shown national leadership in this area, by working together to investigate the feasibility of establishing national emissions trading and options for its implementation. A set of key design principles for an emissions trading scheme has been endorsed by premiers, chief ministers and a green paper elaborating on elements of the design of a preferred national emissions trading scheme is expected to be endorsed by government for public consultation in the middle of this year. It is still early days, and an acceptable model may not emerge.
Territory participation in any eventual scheme will only be made once all the environmental, economic and social implications for the Northern Territory have been assessed, but I reiterate that it is an option that should be explored, and it makes no sense to rule it out before all the information is in.
In summary, this government is playing an important role in national efforts to address climate change. In working with other jurisdictions, the government aims to ensure that the Territory’s circumstances and interests are given appropriate consideration in collective work to reduce emissions. The government believes that, given our current low emissions and relatively undeveloped state, the Northern Territory should not be disadvantaged by future national greenhouse policies that do not reflect our circumstances.
A Northern Territory Strategy for Greenhouse Action 2006: against this background of national action, government has also developed and implemented many local initiatives to address climate change. During the Year of the Built Environment, government initiated a ‘Build a Greenhouse’ competition. This very successful competition promoted and rewarded the design and construction of greenhouse friendly, environmentally sustainable and affordable housing. The winning houses in Palmerston and Alice Springs generated considerable interest and portrayed innovative measures for minimising energy and water use within our home.
Government commissioned CSIRO to provide updated climate projections for the Territory. These projections provided us with an indication of what we can expect from climate change, which is crucial if we are to begin planning for the potential impacts of the change in climate.
With support from the Commonwealth, the government has implemented a range of renewable energy programs aimed at assisting the uptake of renewable energy across the Territory. One of these, the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program, has generated an estimated saving of two million litres of diesel fuel and over 5000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per annum. This program has also provided rebates for the construction of solar power stations at Hermannsburg, Yuendumu and Lajamanu.
Government has also funded the Northern Territory Cool Communities program, which is designed to educate people about climate change, and encourage individuals and households to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
I acknowledge that we need to do more, and I am therefore very proud to present to the Assembly the Northern Territory Strategy for Greenhouse Action 2006. This strategy was developed in consultation with the Territory community and in line with the Northern Territory Greenhouse Policy framework, which was endorsed by the government in April 2002. The strategy illustrates government’s ongoing commitment to sustainable development through managing greenhouse gas emissions and responding to the threat of climate change. It provides for the delivery of cost-effective greenhouse initiatives that are Northern Territory focused, practical, measurable and achievable without unduly compromising our economic competitiveness.
Our new strategy outlines measures to minimise greenhouse gas emissions and respond to climate change in the short term. Importantly, the strategy also sets a foundation for future action to address climate change by establishing good practices to enable reductions in greenhouse emissions in the longer term. It is a flexible strategy reflecting the Territory’s unique circumstances and it allows for future climate change policy development at the international and national levels. Our focus is not only minimising emissions in the Territory, but also identifying opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in the world.
The Northern Territory has an abundant supply of offshore natural gas within close proximity. Government is committed to bringing Timor Sea gas onshore to provide the Territory with energy security and a strong basis for economic development into the future. The strategic development of Timor Sea gas reserves will create new jobs, and expand business and investment opportunities. It will also lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions in the Territory. However, the production of natural gas in the Territory has significant potential to reduce the greenhouse intensity of energy use overseas. Natural gas is less greenhouse intensive than other fossil fuels such as coal. While the production of liquefied natural gas in the Territory, for example, may increase our own greenhouse gas emissions, the supply of Northern Territory gas overseas to replace the use of coal or diesel can provide a nett greenhouse gas benefit on a global scale.
I have already briefly mentioned that the Territory has special environmental, social, and economic circumstances which will influence our approach to climate change. This is exemplified in our greenhouse gas emissions profile which is unique. Based on the latest estimates, the Northern Territory emitted about 17.7million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2002. This was equivalent to 3.3% of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions for that year. While we only contribute a small percentage of emissions to the Australian total, Territorians are the highest greenhouse gas emitters per head of population in the country. In 2002, each Territorian contributed an average of 89 tonnes per year. This is the highest of any state or territory and compares to the national average of 27 tons per capita.
Our high per capita emissions can largely be attributed to the source of our emissions, the majority of which are generated from savanna burning which contributes 46% of our emissions. Contributing factors also include our relatively small population high per capita energy use, high transport emissions due to the long distances for freight and passenger travel, and our economic growth. Stationary energy production in the Northern Territory contributes 23% of our emissions. It is largely sourced from gas, meaning that it is already relatively greenhouse efficient compared to other energy sources such as coal.
As the Northern Territory economy continues to develop through major projects such as the ConocoPhillips liquefied natural gas plant at Wickham Point, and the expansion of the Alcan Alumina Refinery at Gove, our greenhouse gas emissions are expected to increase. However, we are in a relatively advantageous position in our development path as we are able to take greenhouse gas emissions and anticipated climate change into account during early stages of development. The measures put forward in this strategy will minimise the Northern Territory’s greenhouse gas emissions as we continue to develop a strong base for our economy and provide a foundation for further reductions in the longer term.
I now turn to the strategy in detail. The strategy has seven objectives and sets out actions designed to achieve each of these. The objectives are:
Government leading by example: this government recognises that we all have a responsibility to respond to climate change and we intend to lead the Northern Territory challenge to reduce greenhouse gas emission. The strategy I am releasing today sets emission targets for government activity. It outlines government commitment to achieving a 10% reduction in greenhouse emission resulting from electricity consumption in government-controlled commercial buildings by 2011, beginning with a 1.5% reduction by the end of the next financial year.
Similarly, government will require reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the government’s passenger vehicle fleet of 5% per employee by the end of June 2007. In addition, greenhouse friendly behaviour will be promoted across government as part of a greening government initiative. Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and where relevant, adaptation to climate change will be considered in areas such procurement and waste minimisation and recovery. Actions as simple as using recycled paper can lead to a large reduction in waste, to land fill and to associated greenhouse gas emission.
Minimising greenhouse gas emissions by managing savanna burning: as I have already indicated, fires produce the majority of the Territory’s greenhouse gas emissions - about 8.1 million tonnes. Across northern Australia, fires in savanna woodlands are responsible for almost 3% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emission. Since savanna burning is the cause of almost half of the Territory’s greenhouse gas emissions, there is potential for significant savings in emissions through a changed fire management and this will be a priority under our new strategy.
In cooperation with the Australian Greenhouse Office, CSIRO and the CRC for Tropical Savanna management, government has been actively engaged in improving its understanding of greenhouse emissions from savanna fires. We now have an established methodology for us to estimating emissions from burning, crucial for assessing the impact of fire management practices. In partnership with the Northern Land Council, and industry, government has also undertaken on ground trials of fire management in Western Arnhem Land.
These trials have confirmed that by changing a fire regime dominated by late Dry Season fires to one that is dominated by early Dry Season fires, less of the landscape will be burned each year resulting in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In Arnhem Land alone, there is a potential for community-based fire management to reduce greenhouse emissions by more than 300 000 tonnes annually. Better fire management across the Territory landscape not only offers significant greenhouse gas reduction it will have biodiversity benefits as well as reducing the smoke population that is an every day part of life during the dry.
For indigenous Territorians better fire management offers the opportunity to re-establish cultural practices and get more people back on country with consequent economic and employment benefits. In the Territory we have limited opportunities to grow more trees to offset increasing industrial greenhouse gas emission, but reducing emissions from fires offers similar opportunities if we can get the investment and the environment right. Better managing our fires will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and therefore be the catalyst for exciting new opportunities in regional and remote communities across the Territory but to do this we need to bring in other partners, particularly industry.
These partners will want the business certainty that their investment in reducing greenhouse emissions through better fire management will be recognised nationally as a valid method for offsetting industrial emissions. Ensuring this recognition is a critical area of partnership for the Territory and Commonwealth governments and industry, which will be progressed under our new strategy.
The Northern Territory has already had a positive response from the federal government that it is willing to look favourably at recognising fire management as a legitimate method for offsetting emissions. I hope to make an announcement of a major emissions offset project for the Territory in the near future.
Land use management and greenhouse sinks: another significant cause of emissions from land use arises from clearing native vegetation. Under government’s new strategy, land clearing approvals will be required to consider greenhouse implications in addition to biodiversity and other land management issues. Government will also introduce legislation to recognise carbon rights in the Northern Territory, compatible with arrangements existing in other jurisdictions. This will provide the legal certainty for an emissions trading system to operate should an acceptable arrangement emerge.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I ask you to remove that mobile phone.
Mr KIELY: I shall go and drown this thing, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much, member for Sanderson. It is a dreadful tune, I must say.
Mr KIELY: It is the member for Johnston’s, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Understandable! Minister, continue.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Good tune, Madam Speaker.
Transport and land use planning: the Greenhouse Strategy also sets out a range of actions aimed at minimising greenhouse gas emissions from transport. These actions focus on increasing the use of greenhouse friendly fuels, strengthening the link between transport and land use planning, and facilitating a greater use of public and other greenhouse-friendly modes of transport.
Members will be aware that a $70m biodiesel plant is proposed at Darwin Business Park by Natural Fuels Australia. This will be Australia’s largest renewable fuel plant. In support of this facility and to investigate the use of greenhouse-friendly fuel, the Northern Territory government is planning a series of biodiesel trials in Darwin’s bus fleet and in Parks and Wildlife generators at Wildman River and Walkers Creek. The Power and Water Corporation will also be trialling biodiesel at its Daly Waters Power Station.
The use of biodiesel and other biofuels as an alternative to other fossil fuels can potentially lead to positive air quality and greenhouse outcomes where they are sustainably produced from renewable sources. These trials could lead to the more widespread use of biodiesels in the Northern Territory.
Electricity supply and use: energy use is the second biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the Territory. There is considerable scope for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by increasing our use of renewable energy and improving the efficiency with which we use energy. From a national perspective, energy efficiency is among the most cost-effective of Australia’s responses to greenhouse gas emissions. Actions identified in the strategy aim to increase the uptake of renewable energy in the Territory and to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. The government will continue to promote sustainable housing by working with industry to introduce best practice guidelines which encourage energy efficient building designs. The government will also assess the potential use of housing energy rating schemes for various climatic conditions in the Northern Territory.
The government’s efforts will not be limited to sustainable housing. Sustainable design principles are equally important for commercial buildings. The government has promised to create an environment hub in Rapid Creek, enabling community environment groups to co-locate. A green office refit for the environment hub will showcase ways to reduce waste and energy and water use within the office.
The Territory government will also consult with industry regarding the best possible introduction of the Australian building greenhouse rating scheme. This scheme provides star ratings for commercial buildings based on their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
As outlined in the strategy, the government will continue to assist the community in assessing the Australian government grants for the uptake of renewable energy, and we will continue to support Alice Springs’ bid to become an Australian solar city. To date, government has committed $115 000, plus in kind support to the bid. I am very pleased to note that the Alice Springs bid to be part of this Australian government program has been shortlisted in the selection process.
Industrial process emissions: greenhouse gas emissions from waste and industrial processes are relatively small in the Northern Territory. However, with future industrial growth, these emissions would be expected to increase. Government will therefore require the management of greenhouse emissions and the impact of climate change to be considered in the environmental impact assessment of development proposals.
In the case of the Darwin LNG plant at Wickham Point, for example, environmental assessment of this proposal has led to a commitment by ConocoPhillips to offset a proportion of the greenhouse gas emissions from the plant.
Community awareness: climate change is an issue for government and for all Territorians. This strategy will only succeed if it is embraced by local councils, industry, land councils, community groups and Territorians going about their everyday life. We can all do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is why government has funded the Darwin and Alice Springs CoolMobs, and why, next financial year we will be doubling their funding to $100 000 per year over the next three years.
Government will also require greenhouse gas emissions information to be placed on power bills, so that it will be easy for consumers to see how much greenhouse gas their electricity consumption is generating, and how this could change by implementing energy efficient measures.
Every Territorian can contribute to reducing emissions by making some simple changes in their life. Using energy efficient whitegoods, for example, can achieve a 50% reduction in household emissions from electricity. Using energy efficient light globes gives a 10% reduction in household emissions. Using triple A rated shower heads, installing a solar hot water system, checking the fuel efficiency of your car, small things, but they all contribute to emissions reduction. If enough of us do it, it will make a difference.
I have outlined the implications of climate change for the Northern Territory and some of the significant actions that will be taken by government. The Northern Territory Greenhouse Strategy is far more comprehensive than I have had time to illustrate to you today. It is a strategy that sets out practical initiatives to take advantage of our opportunities, while ensuring the Northern Territory fulfils its national and global commitment to limit human-induced climate change. It is a strategy that aims for minimising greenhouse gas emissions in the short term to medium term, while providing solid foundations for further action in the longer term.
Through this strategy, the government is demonstrating that it is committed to sustainable development, and that it is willing to lead the challenge to reduce the Territory’s greenhouse gas emissions. More importantly, this strategy will involve all sectors of the community in achieving the vision of Territorians working together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limiting the negative impact of climate change, while also cooperating at a national level on areas of common ground.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, to those who claim that society will simply adapt to climate change, which will solve the problem, I finish with a word of warning from Tim Flannery. He says:
The threat posed by climate change is very real and I urge each and every one of us to educate ourselves about it and to take action.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement today on national and Northern Territory action on climate change. There is no doubt about it: we should all be concerned about climate change and ensure that we gain as much knowledge as possible and be prepared to implement the changes where we can, and when we can.
When I look back over the years at the way the seasons have changed, and I have had a few seasons to observe it, there are some quite noticeable shifts in pattern. I can remember when I was growing up on a mixed farm in Smoky Bay in South Australia, the distinct pattern that farmers worked by. That was the seeding and the harvesting of the grain crops. You could almost guarantee that the ploughing would be done in March, the seeding in April/May, and the harvest would be done in October. The winter rains we had in Smoky Bay and on the west coast of South Australia were probably six to 10 inches of rain per year whereas in the Northern Territory in the Wet Season we would probably have that in a day. It was a huge shock to me to come to the Northern Territory and experience so much rain falling on the ground and just running away.
As kids, we used to really look forward to the harvest time being over by December. If dad was still harvesting at that time of year we absolutely hated it because it was a threat to our Christmas holiday at the beach. We timed Christmas so that dad would be finished the harvest and we would be able to go to the beach and have our summer holiday. You could not go to the beach without dad, of course; you could not leave him on the farm coping with all of that harvest himself. So the memories of the patterns of the seasons when I was growing up are quite vivid.
I now gauge it and judge it a little differently because those farmers who live at Smoky Bay and around the west coast of South Australia have a complete change of pattern in the weather. With the cycle that I described before, the ploughing, seeding and harvesting now happens at least six weeks later. And it is not just an odd year. It seems to happen every year that the seasons are coming later and later. It might not sound too dramatic to the everyday person in the street, but it certainly is to farmers and it has changed the way some of those have had to operate their farms. If you consider the short space of time in which I could judge exactly when those seasons and patterns were to occur, there have been some dramatic changes, and that to me is evidence of climate change.
When Mike and I arrived in Katherine in 1989, it was the first time that we had experienced living where there are only two seasons - a Wet Season, and a Dry Season. We had both come from summer, autumn, winter and spring. The first few years during the Wet Season it was really noticeable that you could put a timer on the afternoon storms that would hit Katherine. They were usually around 4 pm so you could guarantee almost daily that that is what was going to happen. That was only 17 years ago and the changes to the Wet Season storm patterns in Katherine are considerably different to what they were in that time. There does not seem to be a pattern at all these days.
I was born and raised in one of the drier areas in Australia where the annual rainfall was six to 10 inches of rain. With that low rainfall the undergrowth is not terribly prolific and all pasture in those areas is treated like gold because it is to feed your stock through to the next winter rains and that can be sometime away. When those grasses in those drier areas dry off in the summer months there is a lot of caution taken by those farmers to ensure that there are no bushfires to destroy their feed. It is very valuable.
Whenever there is any sign of smoke and a threat of a bushfire every stop was pulled out to make sure that the fire is extinguished. It was a complete contrast when we came to Katherine, where the Wet Season in full swing can dump as much rain in 24 hours as my birthplace receives in a whole year.
I have to admit that one of the most attractive features for both Mike and I when we arrived in the Top End was we had left such a dry parched land in South Australia to arrive in the Northern Territory to magnificent lush green scenery for hundred of kilometres and water literally everywhere. With all of that rainfall of course comes the tallest, the thickest undergrowth that I also had ever seen for hundreds of kilometres and I was ill prepared for the Dry Season in the Northern Territory when all of this thick lush undergrowth turns to thick, dry, fire tinder and resulted in what I found out to be traditional, annual burn-offs of savanna grasses and savanna grasses was another new terminology for me as well.
Because of my previous experiences with bushfires, which in some instances were unfortunately devastating, you can imagine how surprised and mortified I was to experience the size of the fires and the numbers of burn-offs here in the Dry Season. I could not tell you the number of tourists who use to come into Red Gum Tourist Park and into shops in the main street of Katherine who were quite panicked when they had been driving along the highway to see these raging bushfires. They were not use to seeing such a sight and they would come in to report it and ask us to ring the fire brigade to let them know there was a big bushfire down the road. It used to take some time to reassure them that in the Territory that this is considered normal. I believe that burn-off is the most serious issue to deal with in the Northern Territory and the minister in her statement has highlighted that savanna burning contributes to 46% of our greenhouse omissions. That is the first area and the most serious area that we have to deal with.
Also living in the tropics, building design is important. Another experience I had when we first came to Katherine was when we were provided with a home, a bank house, it had no windows across the front. It was a solid brick ground level house, with a flat roof. A very nice home but totally unsuitable for the climate we have here. It was a southern design and you could not live in the house unless you had airconditioning. The airconditioners were on, ceiling fans were on and it was the only way you could possibly live in it. The design of housing in the Territory certainly needs to change so that it addresses the climate that we have here and of course these days they need people far more conscience of having energy efficient buildings.
Some people were enterprising back in those days as well. Back in the late 1980s and into the 1990s there were a couple of houses that were built in Katherine which were designed so that they did not need airconditioning. They were beautiful cool houses and those people still enjoy not having to pay huge power bills.
For the Build a Greenhouse competition that the minister talked about, a block was allocated in Katherine to be part of that competition. It was cleared ready for the house to be built. It was never built but, if I remember correctly when I have spoken about that before, the minister has said that there were no tenders received for that building. Maybe the minister can confirm that for me in her reply. That house would have been a good example to show builders what designs to build that are suitable to our climate. That would have also raised community awareness of how important it is to reduce the emissions by cutting down on your airconditioning.
The high-level houses that have been around for a very long time in the Territory are a very sensible design. I am fortunate enough that I live in one that was built pre-cyclone, I believe. It is a high-level place that is pretty old, but it is very comfortable for us. It is a sensible design because it has louvres all the way round. While the ceiling fans go most of the time, airconditioning is not required all of the time.
One of the things that the Northern Territory has the opportunity to do is harness the sun’s energy. We have plenty of it in the Territory. I have always advocated it. and I believe that this happening. The minister, in her statement, was talking about promoting Alice Springs as a solar city. That is a great idea; to have Alice Springs encouraged to change to solar power. The problem with that is that solar energy is expensive to change to. This is where governments of all persuasions should encourage residents and businesses to look at solar power by subsidising the installation or change over to solar power. While it might be very expensive in the initial stages, I believe that the long-term benefits from solar power would far outweigh that initial outlay.
Solar power has also shown how advantageous it can be in regional and remote areas where conventional power plants are usually diesel and not environmentally friendly. I had the opportunity to have a look at some solar infrastructure at Hermannsburg, and that is a perfect example of how solar power can benefit a community.
On a much smaller scale, the Intensive Learning Unit at Katherine High School has a small pond in one corner of their garden. They have developed a pond feature and surrounded it with plants. However, the special part is that they operate their fountain in this pond with the smallest solar-powered panels that I have ever seen. These students are being educated, introduced to solar energy and an energy-saving device while they are learning how to live independently. That is really important.
One of the areas that I wanted to also address regarding solar power is that, not long after I first went to Katherine, this particular place I worked in - so it must have been about 14 years ago - had an area that it shared in its business with a man who ran a service company to look at solar power equipment. At that time, he installed quite a few solar power panels and equipment in rural houses. I can remember the dramas that those people had with that solar powered equipment. I hope that the technology has improved over time so that people would be encouraged to use solar power because, at that particular time, it was a big headache. We really need to ensure that people have the technical knowledge available to them in the area to look after their solar power.
I have spoken about community awareness. People generally want to do the right thing by their environment, so community awareness programs need to happen, and that means educating our young people. Young people these days seem to be more in tune with what is damaging to the environment than we were as we grew up. I believe educating young people is very important.
Another area that has always annoyed me is the black smoke that cars and trucks belch out from their exhausts. I find that so annoying. I hope the minister and her department can look at ways to educate the public about vehicle emission, because it is darned annoying. It is not only annoying for me, for people who suffer from asthma and hayfever and other medical conditions, it must be extremely annoying as well.
Other areas to look at in the future include biodiesel. I know the minister is dead against this, but there is no doubt that nuclear energy will be considered in the future if the governments are serious about addressing climate change.
In one way, I was relieved to hear that 2005 was the hottest year on record, because I thought it was just me, getting older and a bit soft, but it is not just me. So many people who are long-term Territorians have been complaining in the last 12 to 18 months of how hot it is, and, ‘gosh, I cannot cope with it anymore’, so I was relieved to hear in one way that it was the year and it was not just me, there is no doubt about it,
I do support the minister’s statement today, in that we all have a responsibility ensuring that we address climate change into the future, and the sooner we start to address it the better. I thank the minister for her statement.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I tend to agree with my colleague, the member for Katherine. I felt the same – are we getting older, are we getting softer, have we been in Darwin for too long - every year seems to be hotter. However, the reality is I started getting news from my family back in Greece that every year it was colder. I recall very well, in the past two years, my sister rang from Athens telling me that she is not going to work because there was so much snow in the streets that the buses and the cars could not drive through the streets. We are talking about a city very similar to Darwin, very close to the sea, in a temperate climate, and I grew up there until I was 26 years old and I remember snow only twice in my life there. So things obviously have changed.
A few months ago, I read Tim Flannery’s book The Weather Makers, and I thought that was a pretty frightening book. Then I went to a ministerial council down south for primary industries, and during that ministerial council we were given a copy of the CSIRO Status on the Climatic Change and its Effect in Australia. When I looked at it I thought Tim Flannery’s book was actually quite mild, because the study done by CSIRO was frightening. However, I did not have to go far you only have to look at the international authors.
A few days ago I was given a paper, which was written by Phillip Stuart and Dr Vemuri from Charles Darwin University, and it was co-authored by L R Brown from the University of South Africa, and C J de W Rautenbach from the University of Pretoria. This paper, which is going to be published in an international journal, gives a very clear picture of what is happening in the world today. Let me quote from that paper, selectively:
Now, 0.3C is not much but for the first 300 metres of the ocean to change so much in such a short period of time, is quite frightening.
What will be the effects of climatic warming? Yes, it is getting hotter, it is getting colder, and we can deal with it. But is this the only effect? The implications for the economy, they write in the paper, due to the climate change are enormous. The cost to the global insurance industry, agriculture and environment may be staggering with an increase in extreme weather events, desertification and sea level rise.
The impacts on human health, medical costs to governments are other facts which will have an impact on the global economy. According to Fleming other resource problems are likely to be affected by climatic change such as weeds, insects, and other agricultural pests may be redistributed. Studies have shown a pole-ward movement of the pest ranges. This has implications for production and cost thereof. With a warmer climate there may be an increased demand for water supply for crop growth and where this demand for water is not offset by increased precipitation or rainfall, climate change may further intensify the competition between growing urban, industrial, recreational, environmental and agricultural users of water.
What would be the impact on Australia? Australia’s climate is strongly influenced by the surrounding oceans and the climatic features include tropical cyclones and monsoons in northern regions and mid-latitude storm systems to the south, and the El Nino southern oscillation phenomenon. In 1998, Australia recorded its highest mean annual temperature since 1910 of 22.54C which was 0.73C higher than the average for 1961 to 1990. The main mean temperature during this period was 16.2C which was 1C above the 1961 to 1990 average. While the hottest temperature went up by a little bit, the median temperature went up by a whole degree which is a significant change in the temperature.
There is a trend where the mean average temperature in Australia is increasing and much of the increase has been since the 1970s. So since the 1970s there has been a significant increase in temperature in Australia. The CSIRO has produced two scenarios for 2030 and 2070 where temperature increases of up to 0.3C to 1.4C and rainfall changes of up to 10%. The projected change for 2070 is twice that of the 2030 scenario.
The impact will not only be on the weather or the heat but will be an impact on rainfall and certainly there will be an impact due to the rise of the sea level. It has been predicted that sea levels could rise between 25 cm and 80 cm by the year 2100, with the [IPCC] estimating a 50 cm rise. This may result in an inundation of coast, increase of coastal erosion, flooding, salt water intrusion, and the loss of coastal wetlands. If you consider the changes in the Mary River wetlands in the past few years where the temperatures are still similar and very low, you can imagine what an 80 cm increase in sea level will do to low lying areas in the Territory or in south eastern Australia or in other places.
I had a read of this paper and I was very impressed that our local scientists in cooperation with the people from South Africa produced a high quality paper. It is technical in some areas but very simple to understand. However, it gives a frightening picture of what will happen if nothing happens to at least stop the increase of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere because the climatic change direct effect of the greenhouse gases presence in the atmosphere. Let me tell you, 400 000 years ago to a million years ago there was a significant volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. With the evolution of bacteria in plants that utilise the carbon dioxide for their biomass in releasing oxygen, the composition of the atmosphere has changed significantly.
400 000 years ago, the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere was between 180 parts per million to 225 parts per million. That has risen gradually, however, during the ice periods we have had a decrease in the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. Since industrialisation, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is constantly increasing and today we have reached a stage where the content of carbon dioxide is in the mid-300 parts per million. Carbon dioxide together with other gases are [inaudible]. When the solar radiation comes in and is reflected back a lot of it would be re-reflected back to earth, so it is good to see then that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases act as a blanket. They do not allow the release of the heat back to space, and thus accumulating the temperature in the earth’s atmosphere and oceans.
The most frightening thing is the heating of the earth’s oceans because oceans are the generators of the climatic events. When I was in Port Hedland the meteorological department during the wet period would measure the temperature of the oceans. Every time the temperature of the oceans was rising above 28C, they would issue a warning for cyclone season, because oceans are the powerhouses of cyclones. Cyclones are always formed in the ocean, they accumulate strength and power in the ocean, and dissipate when they cross they land. If you have a look at the pattern of cyclones in the Northern Territory most of these cyclones would happen in the Gulf of Carpentaria, a shallow gulf that hits very quickly, and generates a lot of heat, which emits to the atmosphere and the cyclones are forming in that area.
Have a look in the past few hundred years where cyclones are formed in shallow warm waters. If the ocean temperature increases the strength of the cyclones will increase. And do you think I am wrong? Have a look at the Gulf of Mexico and the last cyclone that hit New Orleans. In American records there has never been such a cyclone recorded and the intensity of the cyclone was incredible.
In the last few years in the Territory we have seen cyclones of category 4 and in some cases category 5 for the first time in many years, so there is something happening out there and, excuse the pun, something is brewing. Unless we do something to arrest the increase of greenhouse gases, things will not look very good in the future.
How do we arrest the increase in greenhouse gases? Of course, by reducing emissions. We are not talking about closing down factories tomorrow, but make sure this is strategic, and targets emissions. If they are going to beat reduction what kind of energy will we use? Is coal the best resource to use for the production of energy? Is solar energy the best way to go? Is it tidal systems we can use? They all have their benefits and there are disadvantages. Coal is plentiful in Australia. We have enough coal for 800 years in Queensland. Very cheap to excavate and process and carry. The problem with coal is that it emits significant volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases every time we use it in a power station.
By switching power stations from coal to gas we are reducing the emission for greenhouse gases by four times because of the difference between coal and gas. Gas is much cleaner. Still emits greenhouse gases but for the same units of power produced by gas we get four times less greenhouse gas emitted than when we use coal.
The problems with tidal, the problems with wind and solar is the biggest amount is the base load. The base load we need to have for electricity so we need something that will operate 24 hours a day to produce a base load and that will commit the increased demands by using solar power, or by using the wind turbines. It does not blow all the time, sometimes there is wind, sometimes there is not, and of course we live in a system that we have got twelve hours solar, well sun, twelve hours it is night. So we have to get some substitute or compensate for the times of inactivity. Even with tidal waves, tide comes in, tide goes out but there is a time that the movement of water is not significant to actually immobilise the turbines to produce electricity.
There is a suggestion that nuclear energy might be the way to go. It might be, but the prohibitive cost of building nuclear stations, plus the added cost of storing safety nuclear waste is something that we have to overcome first before we say that nuclear energy is the way to go. Unless we discover a new way of producing energy by fusion that it is overcome so the problems of nuclear energy.
Of course, the Territory is a very young jurisdiction, virtually undeveloped, and we face problems. By actually adopting some of these standards they have in other industrial countries, it is like ordering Territorians and the Territory not to develop anymore. We have to develop strategically but, at the same time, we must not compromise our development by adopting the strict standards that other states in Australia may adopt. Let us not forget that other states in Australia they have been industrialised for the past 200 years, and emitting greenhouse gases and pollution for that period. They cannot demand the Territory cut down emissions when the Territory has a very small industrial base, nearly non-existent.
The only greenhouse gases the Territory produces is by savannas burning. Only 46% of the greenhouse gas produced in the Territory comes from burning grass out in the bush. The rest of it comes from emissions from small industrial plants. Certainly, there will be a significant increase when the LNG plant comes into full production because of the processing and because of the greenhouse gas that will be released in the atmosphere during the process of LNG. At the same time, while we may see an increase in greenhouse gas in the Territory, this will be compensated, many times over, if other companies and other productive plants in Australia or power plants in Australia switch from coal to gas. We might actually have a small increase in percentage in the Territory, but the increase of emissions from other industrial places will be many times over.
The other thing, of course, is the government can promote the responsible use of energy, the use of lights that are actually energy efficient. The difference between an incandescent globe and a fluorescent is at least seven to eight times less electricity for a fluorescent globe. Leaving things switched on at night, because, okay, they just go to sleep and they do not use energy, that is not true. If you leave your computer monitor on at night and it goes to the screensaver and then switches off, it still consumes electricity - not much, but it does - even 1 kW in eight hours. If five million Australians leave their computer monitors on for one night, that is 5 million kW consumed for something that does nothing.
There are other things such as the design of houses, and buildings. Look at this building. If the lights go off, it will be absolutely pitch black. Why, in the old times, were buildings and government offices built with enormous windows, with atriums in the middle? Because they did not have the ability to illuminate them and they did not want to close them. If you go to old buildings, you find out you can turn all the lights off and can still see each other, still write and still read a book. But what do we do? We build ourselves inside cubes with no way that we can illuminate them. In some cases, we have to provide airconditioning because there is no natural movement of air. We should start thinking again of the design of our houses, government buildings, and our factories.
For 2000 years people did not have fluorescent light or airconditioners, but they survived. They survived at home, by actually doing the things they could do during the day time. There were certain things they could do at the night time, but they had things that, today - we are modern people; forget them; we have power! You go into the house, turn on the light, turn on the airconditioning - she will be right! The problem is, the hotter it gets out, the more airconditioning we will put in, the more energy it will consume, the more fuel has to be used, the more greenhouse gas has to be emitted.
Another problem is government has enormous fleets of cars, and most of them will be using petrol or diesel. If governments decide that they will not buy full diesel, or petrol driven cars, but will go for hybrids, they will do several things. First, they will cut their fuel bills. Second, they encourage companies to put more money in to produce more efficient hybrid cars. Third, they are significantly reducing the production of greenhouse gases from the cars. A government like ours probably has about 1500 cars. If we say that they are using 40 L of petrol a week, that would be 60 000 L of petrol, and the emissions from that 60 000 L is enormous. By cutting down this emission, it would be a substantial cut and would show a good example to citizens in every jurisdiction.
The member for Katherine said that she hates seeing buses and trucks emitting black smoke. I agree with her; it is terrible. Why do we have to use these diesel buses? Why can’t we switch to not only biodiesel, but compressed natural gas? It has happened before; it happens in other places. One thing I have seen returning to big cities in Europe is the old trams and trolley buses. Yes, you have to generate the power somewhere to power these cars, but you do not generate it in a city, you do not create a thermal island. The power can be generated up to 30 km away, somewhere area away from the city, and you have all the metros, trams and trolleys moving in the city, moving people around without creating any pollution in the city.
One thing I would like to say, apart from the fact that we encourage the use of gas for our power plants and power generation, is that if we are utilising liquified natural gas in Australia, we can counteract the production of greenhouse emissions by reducing a significant production of greenhouse gases in the rest of Australia where they would be using our gas. This is a plus. Even the Territory, having Alcan switch from heavy oil to LNG for the new plant, we will have a significant saving in the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The other thing we have to talk about is the sequestration of carbon dioxide, and I am very pleased to say my department has actually been involved in discussions about carbon dioxide sequestration. There are still technical problems, but we are working to resolve them. One thing we were talking about was injecting carbon dioxide deep in the sea. Tim Flannery has a section in the book about this. The cost is enormous. The other option is to into inject in land. One very easy way to reduce carbon dioxide sequestration is to plant trees, and forests.
In every city, we allow thousands of litres of ethanol to go down to the ocean. This ethanol can be treated with a second treatment and can be utilised to irrigate new areas that can be planted, areas that have been previously cleared. In Western Australia there are areas which have been cleared and now we have salinity in the area. It is useless for agriculture, but there would be species which can tolerate salt and can be planted in these areas and we can find a way to do that.
The other thing is to promote not individual houses, but whole cities, from energy hungry processes to energy friendly processes to become solar cities. Alice Springs put in a bid for these solar cities and I believe she is in with a good chance. This government is prepared to support Alice Springs in its endeavour to become a solar city.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, I move that an extension of time be granted to the Minister for Mines and Energy pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion negatived.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the minister from finishing his statement.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, as I said before, we can sit here and play politics as much as we like. The reality is that what is happening out there will affect all of us, it does not matter which side of politics we are on.
I would say that it is very important that we develop cities as solar cities, and certainly explore other energy sources. Recently, we have found that underneath McArthur Basin to the south-east of Katherine there is a significant body of rock that can provide enough thermal energy for us to produce electricity by using techniques as utilised in South Australia. These are all the initiatives which can be used and promoted by government.
I commend my colleague, the minister for the Environment, for her statement. This is a very important statement. I have to say I was pleased to hear the member for Katherine make such a constructive contribution to the discussion because, as I said before, we can sit here and play politics as much as we like, but the reality is, out there something is happening that is going to affect us, it is going to affect our children and, even worse, it is going to affect our children’s children.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I add comments on this very important issue of global warming and the faith that government policy has in addressing that, albeit from a small population, but a very resource-rich place within our nation and within the world. We have obligations to attend to matters that allow us to play our part. We have those responsibilities. Before starting, however, those who make such statements would be well advised to consider what capacity they have to implement some of the grander ideas that are espoused in this statement. That is the test. You can argue and talk about these sorts of things and touch gently on areas far and wide, but the real test of genuineness comes when you can actually apply these principles.
One opportunity which I expected the member who was speaking just before me would have seized upon and I would have expected, too, that the minister bringing forth this statement would have contained it right in the centre of the statement as the core element to demonstrate the substance, and that is that the NT Fleet policy could be formulated to ensure that the fuel efficiency of NT Fleet could be addressed by way of government policy, and government could lead by example.
These are just ideas. There are plenty of ideas that float around the marketplace. It was not until late last year when my wife and I were considering a new small car for my wife, and I had the job as blokes often get to test the different cars and make a recommendation - the recommendation of colour was not my choice; that is someone else’s job - but in terms of the vehicle itself, and which would be the most efficient, the best resale value, and good solid car, safe and all. However, in that process I came across for the very first time the opportunity to drive a car that had new technology which allowed it to be exceptionally fuel efficient. It was quite an amazing experience to be in a car that I am sure the member for Casuarina was referring to in a former incarnation, as the type of vehicle that NT Fleet could take up. Expensive perhaps in the initial purchase, but very efficient economically in the longer term, but more importantly, showing leadership of the things that are important and thereby changing the way we view issues related to global warming and environmental issues. We can all talk about these things but the test is when we have the opportunity to apply it that is when real substance and strength comes to our position.
I call upon government to reassess its position with regards to the use of policy to allow greater use of more fuel efficient vehicles within NT Fleet. There are plenty out there that moved forward in a very quick space of time, and quite an amazing vehicle - and I will not refer to any by brand name - but the motor vehicle industry recognises as well the need …
A member interjecting.
Mr MILLS: That is a ripper! It is amazing to sit in a car that just quietly stops when it is at the lights. It is not smoking away, doing nothing, it is just sitting there quietly and when you decide to move off it quietly starts and away it goes. What a difference that would make.
There is the first issue: the opportunity to demonstrate by action and to show some leadership. There is an opportunity there. Honourable members opposite may instantly rankle and think: ‘Oh, you are having a go at us’. No, I am not. There is an opportunity. However our opportunity is an obligation and that is to raise such matters, because sadly, honourable members opposite would, out of timidity or sensitivity for future prospects, not raise such criticisms that are obvious to anyone who would read with eyes wide open.
The next matter is one that I have raised before and other members in this House have raised or responded to and it is to do with this issue of global warming in the broader context. We must never underestimate the power of an idea and to even investigate the power of an idea we must have the freedom to consider the idea and to talk about it unencumbered by fear and in our trade fear is a tool that is too easily employed to achieve a political end at the expense of doing what is right. It is easy to do. Marketers do it all the time. Sadly politicians resort to it all too often in the fundamental purpose of getting re-elected. If we follow that line down we ultimately end up in an ever decreasing spiral downwards.
What I am referring to in this debate is nuclear energy and instantly there would be with the mention of that word for those hearing, an emotional reaction, a little twinge of fear. I have gotten over that, maybe it is because I am a lot older now, but when I was in my university days even though I thought I was reasonably well educated and I was endeavouring to be more so, I still had an emotional response to the issue of nuclear energy.
Having experienced a lot more, read a lot, thought a lot and balanced up different arguments, I find myself in the position where I can say quite plainly that I am not afraid of nuclear energy, I am not afraid of uranium. Members opposite may immediately respond by saying I am actually pro-nuclear, pro-uranium and I want to make the Territory the nuclear state of Australia. No, I have not said any such thing.
First, to generate creative energy we must be able to deal with ideas. In order to do that we must be free of fear and recognise the part that emotion plays in debate. That is why the nuclear issue must be on the table and we must enter it with maturity and talk about it plainly as Australians with an eye to the future outside of the electoral cycle.
Leadership has already been shown around the country in this regard. People are starting to talk this way. Australia for some strange reason has held a position that has shown itself to be at odds with the development of these ideas in other countries. Rightly or wrongly, it is time to assess. We all know the enormous potential of the Territory is contingent upon energy. We know that the rest of the world is clamouring for our resources. One of those is uranium.
If we are true to our ideology and our convictions and disallow exploration even of a debate of nuclear energy in Australia and thereby do not support it, then it also follows that we should not permit it to be exported. Those two actions clash. That is one logical reason why we need to talk about such matters, unencumbered by the temptation to use fear and play on emotion.
Tim Flannery, a man I had the good fortune to meet not long ago at the launch of this book in Palmerston - while I am mentioning Palmerston, I commend the council of Palmerston for the good work they are doing in drawing citizens’ attention to ways that they can conserve energy. It is an ongoing task and it is bearing results.
As someone who has worked in education for 17 years, you can see the change that has occurred in the mind-set of our community, our society. Starting in the schools and as those young people have grown up, they start to think differently, they think about conserving energy. That all starts with an idea, to be able to promote an idea, to discuss things, and then creativity is released.
Interestingly, Tim Flannery at that launch referred to nuclear energy. That makes many stop and think again. I quote from chapter 30 of Tim Flannery’s book. I use this opportunity to mention Tim Flannery because he was referred to in the statement - not that I have heard clearly enough, but I suspect not this chapter. Chapter 30’s title is ‘Nuclear Lazarus’ as in can the nuclear issue come back from the dead? It appears so. The federal Leader of the Opposition wants to keep Lazarus in the grave. My understanding of the official position of the federal Labor Party is ‘No, leave it where it is; do not talk about it - not on our agenda, not on our watch’. As the member of Wanguri said when I raised this issue initially: ‘Not for a very long time and not here in the Territory; let us not talk about it’. That brings out the Irishman in me. When someone says ‘do not do something’, it stirs me up …
Mr Wood: I thought you were English.
Mr MILLS: There is an Irishman inside too. Anyway …
Mr Kiely: When did you become a paid-up member of the party? What do you know?
Mr MILLS: I will not be distracted. I am trying to be a much better member of parliament by not being distracted.
So it is a new line, it is a new revival, a new movement at the station. The chaps will all gather to the fray and have a chat about this - I hope:
Says Tim Flannery:
And it goes on. It is very interesting reading and I commend Tim Flannery for a very well balanced book. By reading that excerpt, do not take the impression that he is all for it. What he is for is exactly what I am saying: time to stop and think about it, informed intelligent debates from a position of looking to the future longer term than an electoral cycle. Do not be afraid.
I just happened to hear on the World News program -- FM 102.5, News Radio; a great radio station - reference to someone internationally speaking about some new technology that is going to be tried out in the north of Australia. I am only putting this out there because I could not gain from this broadcast where it was going to be and what it was. It sounded like it might be in the Northern Territory. It was actually being broadcast from the United Kingdom. It was solar towers for power generation. If anyone reading Hansard or in this Chamber knows about this project of the installation of solar towers in the north of Australia, I will be very interested to hear more about it. It sounds like a trial project that will be trialled here in Australia but will have implications around the world.
With that being said, the underlying aspect of this, we are talking about greenhouse gas emissions and global warming - we must do all that we can to ensure that we can power all that we can from our vast gas resources. But please, at the same time, we need to consider other opportunities and start by open debate, unencumbered by fear and sensitivity, just to talk about it.
I welcome the statement. I am glad that we have this opportunity to have these discussions. I do hope that it does go somewhere, particularly in reference to identifying the sorts of things that government can do and, primarily, NT Fleet would be a great place to start.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, today I talk in support of the statement on climate change by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage. Last year, 2005, was Australia’s hottest year on record, with the annual average temperature more than one degree above average. During the Territory, since 1950, maximum temperatures have risen by more than half a degree on average. It seems now that any doubts people may have had in the past about the impact human activities are having on the global climate can be put to rest. The Bureau of Meteorology has attributed the high temperatures of 2005 to the changing climate, and it is now accepted by governments and scientists around the world that at least some of this climate change has been brought about the activities of humans.
The greenhouse effect is a natural effect. Radiation from the sun hits the earth, with roughly 30% being reflected by clouds, the atmosphere and the earth’s surface. The remaining solar radiation is absorbed, mostly by the land and oceans, but also by the atmosphere and clouds, heating the atmosphere and the surface of the earth. With greenhouse gases, mainly water vapour and carbon dioxide, the heat would escape each night as thermal radiation, cooling the surface of the earth. Instead, greenhouse gases absorb the heat given up by the planet and redistribute it out in all directions, re-absorbing and redistributing it over and over. This keeps the earth’s surface relatively warm and the average temperature comfortable. The greenhouse effect is vital to the earth’s ability to stay warm and sustain life.
Human induced intensification of the natural greenhouse effect poses a serious risk for our environment and for the global community as a whole. The release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere traps heat that would otherwise have been radiated into space. The resulting rise in temperature can have wide-ranging implications, from increased fire risk, heat stress for humans and animals, impact on water supplies leading to the deterioration of farming land, to widespread flooding and large scale weather events.
This is a global problem with global repercussions. Everyone needs to do their bit to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. I am going to speak a bit about a few renewable energy sources that could help cut these emissions. As the minister mentioned, with support from the Commonwealth, the government has implemented a Renewable Remote Power Generation Program. Many communities, not on the main power grid, are reliant on diesel fuel generators to supply electricity.
Power and Water is already one of Australia’s cleanest power generators through its use of natural gas. It is now looking at ways to reduce emissions further through investment in renewable energies. It is estimated that the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program has generated savings of two million litres of diesel and over 5000 tonnes of greenhouse emissions per annum. Power and Water is behind several projects pioneering the use of renewable energy in isolated locations. These projects are jointly funded by Power and Water and Australian Greenhouse Office’s Renewable Energy Rebate Program, administered by the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines. Solar photovoltaic panels convert solar energy into electricity.
Two remote communities, Bulman in Arnhem Land and Kings Canyon in the Centre, are being used to test the viability of flat plate solar photovoltaic technology to reduce consumption of more conventional fuels. These panels are easily transportable and easy to install. They add approximately 30% capacity to the power plant in an efficient way. As peak demand in the Northern Territory closely matches the availability of solar power over the course of a day. The use of solar photovoltaic panels in unison with the conventional generator means that a smaller diesel engine can be running efficiently, as the solar power provides for the peak load without the need for costly storage batteries. Once installed, solar panels reduce the need for diesel, reduce greenhouse emissions and contain the cost of power generation.
The Bulman project was completed in November 2002, and generates 56 kW peak, saving approximately 70 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year. The Kings Canyon project, completed in December 2003, generates 241 kW peak to support the electricity needs of this whole community. The project, worth $3.6m, is the largest single installation of its kind in Australia and the panels are expected to have a life of 25 years.
I have been to the Kings Canyon array; it is monitored from the power station at Uluru. It is a fantastic initiative. It works very well for Kings Canyon and the technology is really marvellous to have a look at and I commend the government for that initiative. I would say to all members, get down there and have a look at it, see something that is actually working. It is a great project, it still has a bit of work to do, but the initiative is fantastic.
Hermannsburg, Lajamanu and Yuendumu have been identified as communities off the main power grid that are heavily reliant on diesel fuel. The traditional owners in these locations are supportive of the $6m federally and privately funded project. Solar dish concentrators are 40 m wide with 130 m of curved mirrors which concentrate the sun 500 times and generate 24 kW peaks of electricity each. It is a technology that is easily upgraded with the installation of more efficient cells at the focal point of the dishes.
The projects in these three communities are at various stages of completeness. In Hermannsburg, the project is complete with the dishes up and running and selling power back to the grid. The testing is currently under way at the facility at Yuendumu and the equipment is still being installed at Lajamanu. I have also had a look at this project and I am pleased to advise that while the main community there is making savings and generating its own electricity, they have actually run a grid to the outstations. This, in effect, is saving a lot of diesel fuel at those remote outstations. It has improved the quality of life for the people out there. It is a fantastic initiative. By starting up these solar initiatives out in areas that are off the grid they too can start their own small grids up and it is great.
The investments in both of these solar technologies with different characteristics will identify the most practical solution for remote locations. Power and Water participates in the solar buy back scheme offered by the Australian government. The Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development offers a rebate on the purchase of the solar equipment. Power and Water enters into contractual arrangements with customers for the purchase of electricity. Power and Water also offers customers a rebate on the purchase of solar hot water systems.
Harnessing the power of the wind is also being looked at as a renewable energy source in remote communities. Power and Water currently has an 80 kW wind turbine installed at Epenarra and is realising cost savings in diesel consumption and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Wind data has been monitored and Power and Water believes that the Barkly region offers the best prospects for wind turbine electricity generation in the Territory.
These projects use two of the few energy sources that could be said to contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation by removing energy directly from the atmosphere without nett emissions of greenhouse gases. Further, these are technologies that while still developing are available today and importantly do not produce harmful waste products.
As we have just heard from the member for Katherine and the member for Blain, no one in this Chamber is a stranger to the issue of nuclear power or the waste it produces. Nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gases; in this sense they are emission free. What nuclear power plants do produce in abundance is radioactive waste. I am certainly not afraid to talk about nuclear power, member for Blain.
Nuclear waste can be generally classified as either low level radioactive waste or high level radioactive waste. Low level nuclear waste usually includes material used to handle the highly radioactive parts of nuclear reactors such as those at Lucas Heights, and waste from medical procedures involving radioactive treatment or X-rays. The level of radioactivity and the half life of the radioactive isotope in low level waste is relatively small. Storing the waste for a period of 10 to 50 years will allow most of the radioactive isotopes in low level waste to decay at which point the waste can be disposed of as a normal refuse.
High level radioactive waste is usually waste taken from the core of the nuclear reactor. This waste is made up of uranium, plutonium and other highly radioactive elements made during fission. The radioactive isotopes in high level waste release large amounts of radiation and have very long half lives with some longer than 100 000 years meaning long periods of time before the waste will reach safe levels of radioactivity. The method for dealing with this high level waste pretty much comes down to burying it and forgetting about it. We have heard that debate in here and that is certainly the option that the federal government is putting. Let me say that the quisling approach of some members in this place about saying it is the national interest and selling out the interest of the Northern Territory is deplorable.
Mr Wood: That was very good.
Mr KIELY: Short term storage - and you are the one I am referring to, member for Nelson ...
Mr Wood: I know that. I said it was very good, yes.
Mr KIELY: … so let us get it right.
Short-term storage is the first stage in dealing with high level waste. Ten years in storage can decrease radioactivity levels by 100 times. Sounds like a good start, but a start is all it is. Radioactive material decays exponentially. A further 100 times reduction in radioactivity will take 100 years and the next 1000 years. One thousand years after this material has stopped being useful it is still dangerous to humans, animals and the environment. After storing the waste for 10 years the reduction in radioactivity makes handling shipment possible. After short-term storage the rods will be sent for long-term storage.
Long-term storage of this harmful waste is over a thousand years. Planning for and building a storage facility for this kind of period is expensive and difficult for thousands of years. Not for your five-minute-fix that you keep on running around saying, member for Nelson. Lets tell the truth in this. Any exposure of this waste with the outside environment must be avoided. Accidental or intentional exposure by humans leaking of the waste into the water supply and exposure from geological activity has to be planned for and avoided.
This secure storage of waste must be sustained over a long period of time. If you look at these time frames in the context of ancient civilisations, the Egyptian Empire was building in pyramids only 3000 years ago. However, some high level radioactive waste will take over 20 000 years to decay. Adding to the difficulty …
Dr Lim: That is right.
Mr KIELY: … well.
Dr Lim: That is right. I am agreeing with you.
Mr KIELY: Thank you member for Greatorex. I was waiting for the member for Blain who said: ‘Be afraid, be very afraid’. Well you should be afraid, member for Blain.
Adding to the difficulties in storing this waste is that some waste, plutonium, in particular, is not only radioactive but poisonous as well. Plutonium is one of the most toxic elements known and is not something you want to be burying in your backyard. It is not something you want anywhere really. The way I see it nuclear energy might provide a cleaner energy in terms of greenhouse emissions but the waste it does produce is not acceptable. I am sure no one in this Chamber would want to live near one of these storage facilities. Nor would they want their friends and families to live near one. Even if all possible precautions are taken an accident or an unforeseen event could have catastrophic consequences.
Nuclear power is simply not a clean energy as some might claim to be. It is stop gap at best. The technology is already in use in the Territory in harnessing solar and wind energy is much cleaner and more sustainable and we have the means to implement them now.
A couple of developing renewable technologies may also find a use in the Territory. The ocean’s energy in the form of tidal and wave power is being harnessed to generate electricity. Countries like France, Canada and Russia have been using the energy in large tidal ranges to generate electricity since the 1960s. The method for this is similar to the conventional hydroelectric dam - a basin is filled by the incoming tide and the water not allowed to escape with the outgoing tide. On low tide the trapped water can be used to turn turbines as it is released. With Darwin Harbour’s large tidal range this could be an option worth looking at in further detail. Any possible use of this technology would have to take into account the environmental impacts of trapping large amounts of water and the fact that it would only be able to generate electricity in bursts with the tide. Maybe it is not a viable technology in the Territory but certainly worth mentioning anyway.
Generating power from waves is another technology being looked at closely around Australia and in other parts of the world. Probably the most practical onshore wave power generator involves directing wave energy using walls to a central point and into a pipe containing a turbine. The water being forced into a narrow pipe creates a rush of air which turns the turbine producing electricity. Unfortunately the Territory coastline is not known for its large waves. However, this technology causes very little environmental impact and is emission free, clean and renewable energy. This type of generator can be put to good use in other parts of Australia and who knows maybe we can build a really big powerline to get this clean green power for the Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement. I want to repeat what the minister said at the beginning of her statement:
She went on to say:
The minister has two parts to her statement; one is a broad approach and the other is a more narrow approach concentrating on what we can do in the Northern Territory to reduce greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, when dealing with the broader issues there is no mention of uranium, hydrogen or geothermal energy. There is some mention of solar but, until the member for Sanderson spoke, there was nothing of tidal or wind.
If we are to be fair dinkum about reducing greenhouse gases we have to be fair dinkum about producing electricity from non-fossil sources of energy. One of these fuels is uranium. You would think that, no matter what your thoughts are about nuclear power, when writing a debate on reducing greenhouse gases, you would at least mention the subject. I do not know whether the Department of NRETA is very well endowed with people with a nuclear bent, but I doubt it. Does the department only have advisors who believe that nuclear does not have a place?
Be that as it may, I wish to mention the nuclear alternative because the Northern Territory produces 19% of the world’s reserves of uranium. We should be discussing the use of uranium as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. After all, most of the electricity produced in the NT is a contributor to greenhouse gas.
Why does this statement, which talks about acting globally, not look at the paper by James Lovelock as a basis for a debate? James Lovelock, when he speaks on global change says:
And I will mention this later:
He goes on to say:
What James Lovelock is saying, is that he is not necessarily supporting nuclear energy forever and a day, he is saying that, because we have gone so far today, the only available source of clean energy in large quantities is the nuclear energy. I certainly have concerns about the waste material from that. We should be looking at alternatives, but if you are really serious about halting greenhouse gases, then you have to do something now, otherwise we are literally tinkering around the edges.
I also noticed there was no debate on hydrogen, there is nothing mentioned in this paper. Hydrogen is the simplest, most abundant element in the universe. It is the lightest known element, it is a colourless, odourless gas, it is non-toxic, it burns readily with oxygen, produces no carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide emission, produces small amounts of nitrogen oxide when burnt in air at very high temperatures, reduces the heat of combustion that is two or three times higher than any other fuel, it can be used in fuel cells to provide electrical energy, and holds the potential to be the backbone of a clean and sustainable energy system for the future.
We soon will have a company called Clean Fuels which is looking at establishing a plant in Darwin which will produce hydrogen as a by-product of its proposed new condensate processing facility at East Arm Port. The government should talk to Clean Fuels and see if trials in the Darwin Bus Service using hydrogen should be achieved. Presently, in Perth, there is a trial which started in 2004. This trial is made up of three Mercedes Benz buses, which will run on normal Perth bus routes, have an anticipated range of 200 km, top speed of 80 km/h and a capacity for 70 buses at a time. They are also trialling these buses in other cities throughout the world. So the technology is there. I believe the Northern Territory, as it is going to have hydrogen available from this new condensate processing facility, should certainly be talking to the company and asking whether we could do a trial also.
Of course, production of hydrogen using fossil fuels rather defeats the purpose of reducing greenhouse emissions, but while hydrogen is a by-product of existing facilities, it would still reduce the amount of fossil fuel being used. The ultimate way of using hydrogen would be by using it as solar or wind. The University of New South Wales has been doing some exciting work on solar hydrogen, that is, they are developing processes which will allow the production of hydrogen using solar light. With so much free sunlight in the Territory, I wonder if our government should be looking at a really great opportunity to lead the world in developing solar hydrogen in conjunction with the University of New South Wales, or CSIRO, which is also doing some work. Now they may be doing that work, but there was nothing in the paper.
There is geothermal technology, one of my pets - not mentioned in the statement. The minister for Mines mentioned some changes to the legislation in parliament the other day to allow for the exploration of this important source of clean energy, with the possibility of geothermal sources being found in the Territory.
Geodynamics, the company working on this technology in Innamincka, is now building the prototype to show this form of energy does really work.
Mrs Miller: A good little place, too.
Mr WOOD: I have not been there yet. I would advise people to get on the web site as there is a short video on the Geodynamics project happening at Innamincka. I do hope the government would take a more active interest in this project, because this type of energy source has the potential to provide much of Australia with a clean form of electricity. There is, hopefully, potential to tap into this source of hot rocks as it is called between Arnhem Land and Timber Creek, going across Mataranka and Katherine. Of course, that is yet to be developed.
The minister also had talks about trials in the Darwin Bus Fleet using biodiesel. Now, biodiesel, I believe, needs to have some discussion. It is countered by the minister when she says on page 25 of her statement: ‘The use of biodiesel and other biofuels as an alternative to other fossil fuels can potentially lead to a positive air quality and greenhouse outcomes when they are sustainably produced from renewable sources. These trials could lead to the more widespread use of biodiesel in the Northern Territory’.
I think this whole biofuel debate is a little bit lopsided and needs to be looked at more broadly. I quote from a gentleman called George Monbiot which was published in The Guardian, on 22 November 2004. Regardless of his qualifications which were not put in here, he raises some very important issues regarding biofuels. He says: ‘Everyone seems happy about this. The farmers and the chemicals industry can develop new markets, the government can meet its commitments to cut carbon emissions, and environmentalists can celebrate the fact that plant fuels reduce local pollution as well as global warming. Unlike hydrogen fuel cells, biofuels can be deployed straight away’.
He goes on to say that originally when Rudolph Diesel invented, I presume, the diesel engine he demonstrated how he could run that engine on vegetable oils, especially peanuts. That is partly where we have today’s idea of using biofuels. He says that some enthusiasts are predicting that as the fossil fuel prices continue to rise then the use of biofuels will become viable. Mr Monbiot says: ‘I hope not. Those who have been promoting these fuels are well intentioned but wrong. They are wrong because the world is finite. If biofuels take off, they will cause a global humanitarian disaster’, and he give an example what the problem is:
So I just say that people might get up here and proclaim the benefits of biodiesel. I think you have to look at the bigger picture. If we are going to replace good arable land that is being used for food by using that same land to produce oil, we are going to have a lot of countries that are starving because there is not enough food being produced because other countries, first world countries, are so desperate for another form of fuel that good agricultural land has not being used for what it should be.
I make another note: I have never been able to quite work this out. If you are going to grow a crop for biodiesel or biofuel, you do not put fertilizer down there. You cannot just keep producing a crop and not expect to put some food in there. Fertilizer comes from fossil fuels. So why, if you put fossil fuels down into a plant form and then use that plant form to create fuel. Does that make sense? You might as well just take the fossil fuels in the first place and turn them into fuel. I am not sure about the logic of this but I really have my doubts that this is the way to go.
Planning is an important issue when it comes to greenhouse gases. Who controls planning? The government does. Why have we got small blocks of land, and big buildings that require airconditioning? Because the government gives approvals for those things so the government has to look at itself and say ‘Are we are developing towns that require high energy uses, are we allowing designs of buildings and houses that high require energy use?” I say, yes we are. We are making people living close together because that is all they can afford or that is what is allowed by the Planning Authority or that is what is permitted by the government. People live one and a half metres apart and get a whole lot of airconditioners on one side, never get a breeze. The only people to allow that to happen is the government because it allows that within the planning structure. If it did not allow it, it would make lots bigger and make sure building envelopes are smaller. I can guarantee if you go to Parap Grove and have a look at close those people live …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: … well, we are not short of land, but we just let the market go on and people having trouble being able to afford a house. The only houses they can afford are on little blocks. It is unfortunate, they do not have the ability to buy a larger block of land and buy a house that you do not have to have airconditioning in.
There is another area that the minister mentioned which was about waste. The one area I think we do pull in and does affect greenhouse gases is recycling. I know the government is looking at recycling, it has put out a tender and I know the government does not want to hear me mentioning the word ‘CDL’, but we are not recycling and recycling is a major way to reduce emissions for greenhouse gases. For instance, this is from the Department of Environment and Conservation, News South Wales –
They also go and talk about the benefits.
It also talked about the energy saving from recycling.
That is not even mentioned in the greenhouse strategy. Recycling is an important way to reduce greenhouse gases. It is not in this document and unfortunately we have a government that just does not want to have container deposit legislation and that is the way to maximise recycling. Anyone who has been to South Australia knows it. The Acting Deputy Speaker knows it and we are not doing enough and unfortunately we are just burying it. There is some kerbside recycling in Palmerston and Darwin but I guarantee that not a lot ends up being recycled and of course the ratepayers subsidise that particular project. We should be looking at container deposit legislation.
There is the issue of savanna burning and the talk about changing when we should be burning. My only concern there is if you start changing the timing of the burning, you have to study the effect on native vegetation. Plants that have their flowers and seeds at the beginning of the Wet Season generally are not expecting to get burnt out. When you change your fire strategy, you have to look at what effect it has on the native vegetation.
I would like to talk about solar and wind but we really do not have time. They are important. I think the government in a statement should have spoken more about those things.
Mrs MILLER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that an extension of time be granted to the member for Nelson pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: What I would like to say is our future will not rely on just one source of energy. There are a number of sources which will be used according to the situation. The member for Sanderson had a go about nuclear energy and I say again, I read Mr Lovelock’s statement about why we need to do something now.
The statement supporting nuclear energy is not a statement that says ‘I support it forever and a day’. I would like to see hydrogen as the main source of energy but, if you read the CSIRO’s document, the technology is not there yet to produce large-scale quantities of hydrogen. However, hydrogen, to me, is the way we need to go. What Mr Lovelock is saying is, if you wait for that technology to occur and you do not do something right now - something that will have a real effect on greenhouse emissions - we will be in serious trouble. We are in serious trouble right now. We can have our solar here and our wind there - that is okay, I do not have any problem with that. However, that will not change what is happening. The electricity we are talking about is the electricity that builds ships, makes motor cars, drives large power plants and industrial estates. That is the energy that is required and the only place you are going to get that energy that is not going to give you greenhouse emissions, at the moment, is nuclear.
Hopefully, we will not need nuclear further into the future. We can produce a form of energy such as geothermal. If you have a look at the web site, they will tell you there is possibly enough geothermal energy in Innamincka to supply the whole eastern side of Australia with energy. I am not up here to sprout that nuclear energy is the be-all and end-all; I am saying that there is an environmental scientist here who says if you do not do something now it will be too late. Solar, wind, hydrogen, even geothermal energy, at the present time are not going to do that. Obviously, from when you read his paper, he is not a great supporter of nuclear, but he is saying if we have to do that to save the planet, then we should be doing that. I believe we should give some serious debate in this country.
At the same time, we should be going full steam ahead with finding out how we can run our energy sources on hydrogen and we should be doing more exploration in the Northern Territory looking for geothermal sources of energy. Anyone who has been around Mataranka and Daly River will know there are many hot springs in that area, so there is the potential that we have a large area of what is called hot rocks between Timber Creek and the Arnhem Land area. If we had a great source of hot rocks in that area, we could produce some of the cleanest electricity in the world.
I quickly add one thing. The member for Blain talked about the hybrid cars produced. Honda has one of them and one of the other companies like Nissan, I think, now produces one. Maybe the Northern Territory government has to look at converting most of its fleet to gas. People say that gas is a bit more greenhouse friendly than petroleum. Perhaps there is a requirement to turn most of fleet over, where possible, to gas. I know the car I have, if you order it, they actually make a ute that is fitted out already. It is not an extra; it is just that you have to order it. I do not know whether it costs more, and the cost of buying the gas equipment is not worth it. Someone would have to show me the economics behind that. However, if you are looking at a way of reducing greenhouse gases. that is certainly an option.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement. This is an area we could debate for a long time. It is an area worth debating. However, if we do not do something or put pressure on the governments - the people who can make the decisions - will we be here in 50 or 60 years? Or will cities like Darwin be partly flooded? That is what we are looking at: rising water levels and higher temperatures. The member for Katherine will be exhausted by that time from the hotter climate. We need to do something. We can argue over certain philosophies about nuclear energy, but we have to, get together and do something now, otherwise it will be too late.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, like all members in this Assembly I, too, am taken aback by the realisation that global warming is a reality. I still have not been able to fully appreciate what this means in practical terms. Even my training in science has not prepared me for what possibly lies ahead. For those people who do not understand what all this talk about global warming and greenhouse is about, I will try to give you a layman’s version.
It is all about what happens in our atmosphere. That is the area of sky between the Earth’s surface and outer space, beyond the Earth’s gravity. Even though it looks clear and empty, it is made up of elements. The main two elements in the atmosphere are oxygen and nitrogen. Oxygen is the basis of the air we breath, and nitrogen is essential for the production of protein, and hence the growth of all living organisms. While both oxygen and nitrogen allow most of the incoming solar radiation heat to reach the Earth, they also allow infrared radiation heat coming from the Earth to move outwards and escape the Earth. Historically, this process has been a natural balance, which allows all life on Earth to survive and, indeed, flourish.
Besides oxygen and nitrogen, there are also several minor constituents in our atmosphere, especially water vapour and carbon dioxide, and trace elements like nitrous oxide, methane, and halocarbons. While water vapour, carbon dioxide and the trace elements mainly allow incoming solar radiation to reach the Earth, they do not allow much of the infrared radiation heat coming from the Earth to move outward and escape the Earth. In fact, some of the infrared radiation gets directed back to the Earth’s surface, where it increases the warmth of the Earth’s surface. But because water vapour, carbon dioxide and the trace elements have historically been in low proportions in our atmosphere compared to oxygen and nitrogen, this surface warming has been negligible.
Unfortunately, in recent times the amount of water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, halocarbons and nitrous oxide, the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’, have increased in our atmosphere due to man-made activities. Consequently, more and more infrared radiation heat has been directed back to the Earth’s surface and, consequently, our atmosphere is beginning to act like a huge gardener’s greenhouse around our Earth, keeping more of the heat trapped inside, and this is the problem of global warming.
I will now try to put this into some sort of perspective. In pre-industrial times, the level of carbon dioxide was about 280 parts per million. Today it stands at over 370 parts per million. It is not the level of carbon dioxide, but the increase that matters. This is over a 30% increase. Most of this comes from the burning of fossil fuels, as well as land clearing to a lesser extent. And why land clearing, you may ask? Because plants are the great absorbers of carbon dioxide. Euphemistically, it is what the plants breathe in, and they breathe out the oxygen in our air for us to breathe back in.
One of the atmospheric greenhouse gases is methane. Atmospheric methane concentrations have increased by 150% in the last 250 years. Methane is generated naturally in wetlands and bogs. All livestock grazing and land fill activities are a couple of the man-made sources.
Halocarbons, or CFCs as they are more commonly known, is another group of greenhouse gases, but this is one of the good news stories. We have known for some time that these gases are quite insidious as both a greenhouse gas, as well as a major factor in the depletion of the atmospheric ozone layer. Fortunately, following the implementation of the Montreal Protocol Regulations, the atmospheric abundance of halocarbons peaked in 1994 and is slowly declining. Obviously, we can make a difference when we want to. Maybe our Prime Minister should take serious note of this when he ponders his government’s decision not to join the Kyoto Protocol. If not for our generation he should do this for our children and our children’s children and generations to come after that.
A greenhouse gas that is particularly noteworthy to us here in the Northern Territory is nitrous oxide, because it is generated, along with carbon dioxide, from bush fires. Unfortunately, nitrous oxide in our atmosphere has increased by some 16% in the last 250 years.
I now want to bring the debate down to a local level which will make sense for my constituents in Goyder and what the issues we in the rural area need to be aware of. To do this in the time that I have left, I need to focus on what is a principal source of greenhouse gas emissions, in particular, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide here in the Top End. I am, of course, referring to our Top End tropical savanna bushfires. Fire consumes about 40% of the Top End each year; just on 3% of bushfire greenhouse gas emissions from all of Australia come from Territory savanna fires. Consequently, if we were to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fires by 1% to 2%, this would clearly have an impact on national levels. I believe this is achievable. As an example, if we targeted East Arnhem Land, where some 60 000 km is burnt every year, reducing the national greenhouse gas emissions by 1% to 2%, as I said before, would be realistically achievable.
I want to spend a few moments telling the Assembly what we are doing as a government. A range of research projects which are closely related to greenhouse gas emissions in the Northern Territory is currently being undertaken by Bushfires NT, in collaboration with the CSIRO and the Tropical Savanna Cooperative Research Centre. Most of this work relates to carbon flow through savanna eco-systems and the uptake of carbon dioxide during the Wet Season and carbon dioxide emissions during the Dry Season due to bushfires. Much of the research into Top End bushfires in general is summarised in plain terms in the book Savanna Burning – Understanding and Using Fire in the Northern Territory, and I will show it to you here. This book reflects a fruitful partnership between pastoralists, scientists and Aboriginal people. I can personally recommend it. It is essential reading for those in the Top End who live in areas likely to be affected by bushfires.
Fire mapping is being carried out in the Darwin rural area using final resolution Landsat imagery. This work provides a framework for looking at the extent of bushfires where they are occurring, how often they occur in specific areas, and the seasonal difference in bushfires which occur. This is the basis for fire management planning and greenhouse gas emission estimation. I certainly encourage the government to fund more of this work.
Let us not forget our tropical savannas in their unburnt state also act as sinks for carbon dioxide. So by reducing bushfires, we not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also increase those areas which absorb greenhouse gases, therefore the benefits are doubled. Research into carbon storage in savannas, principally in trees, grasses and soils, is also under way. The main interest is the flow of carbon in the savanna with one of the objectives of the research being to determine carbon storage could be another economic land use for Territory savanna.
Further to this point, the Tropical Savanna CRC currently measures carbon fluxus at a site in Howard Springs. Hopefully this work will continue and other greenhouse gases will be measured as well. This further work will then lead toward a good numerical understanding of the greenhouse implications of burning in the rural area.
It should be noted that as Australia becomes carbon constrained, major companies are on the brink of entering partnerships with Bushfires NT, Aboriginal organisations and the Tropical Savannas CRC to manage fire in the NT. Of course, the size, frequency and intensity of Top End bushfires have major implications beyond greenhouse gas emissions.
Work is also being done by Charles Darwin University and the Menzies School of Health Research through the Darwin Smoke Project. This, and previous studies, clearly demonstrates the relationship between asthma, respiratory ailments, and particulates from polluting fires, especially large, uncontrolled wild fires. The Darwin Smoke Project is funded by the Australian Research Council with generous financial contributions from the NT government departments of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts; Health and Community Services; and Business, Economic and Regional Development; the Bureau of Meteorology; Flinders University; Australian National University; CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research; and the Top End Division of General Practice; and Asthma NT.
The project is drawing to a close with data collection complete. A meeting on 11 November 2005 discussed the findings with both funders and stakeholders. Unfortunately, there is a wildcard in this whole issue and that is the invasive exotic gamba grass. Gamba and other large exotic perennial grasses pose the most significant hazard to health, life, property, the environment and, of course, global warming. Given the very large fuel loads of about 30 tonnes per hectare for gamba grass compared to about five tonnes per hectare for our native grasses there is a strong risk that in future we will face very high fire intensities. This is a rapidly emerging fire and health management issue which in turn has significant greenhouse emission implications in the longer term. The Charles Darwin University is also researching the effects of gas emissions from hot gamba grass fires.
I acknowledge the work of Patrick Skewes, Hazard Abatement Officer with the NTFRS. Patrick is collaborating with Bushfires NT on gamba grass issues and fire management workshops for the rural dwellers. The next major fire management workshop is scheduled for April at Humpty Doo. On a precautionary note if gamba grass really takes hold then we are likely to face the type of fire storms experienced in eastern and southern states. With fuel load increases of six times normal, this is a real possibility. I grew up in a fire storm zone around outer Sydney’s rural area. I know first-hand what impact such fires can have and I hope we never have to face these types of fires, but sadly I fear the worst.
The cooperative work by Bushfires NT, the Tropical Savanna CRC and CSIRO recognises that social engagement is the key. Community engagement has multiple benefits from a fire management strategy perspective. There are also private and commercial opportunities in fire mitigation such as potential trading of greenhouse gas offsets if it becomes a commercial commodity. Under the Bushfires Act it is the land-holders’ responsibility to manage fire. Big fires last year were only stopped because of fire scars from the previous year’s burn, but to make matters worse the damage of fires has not been truly reflected in the true cost to the community.
However, a positive move has been the reinforcement of section 47 of the Bushfires Act following a 10 year education campaign. Section 47 provides Bushfires NT with the ability to issue bushfire infringement notices to enforce the construction of fire breaks. In 2005, of the 8000 or so properties in the Darwin rural area, 3045 were inspected and 12 of these inspected areas were found to be noncompliant. The prosecution success rate so far has been 100%. In conclusion, we have an enormous but very important task ahead of us but we really do need the federal government to get serious about the Kyoto agreement. I commend the minister for her statement.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to contribute to this statement but coming from a completely different perspective. When a minister delivers a statement such as this on the environment, whether it is on climate change or any other issue, we need to talk about balance. Bringing in a Chinese perspective, you talk about the five elements of wood, fire, earth, metal and water - that is a balance, that is the Earth. James Lovelock talks about the Gaia principle - not so much from James Lovelock - that Earth is a living organism, a living thing, and therefore any impact on any aspect of the environment will have a counter-impact on another aspect. Whatever we do it has to be in a balance.
We recognise that there is increased carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. I would definitely not be so firm as to say it is the cause of global warming. The cause and effect I do not believe has been clearly established but, yes, there is increased carbon dioxide production worldwide. Yes, there is global warming in this current phase of our life cycle but cause and effect are completely different things altogether. I do not know whether one has led to the other or they have both just coincidently occurred at this phase of our life cycle.
I believe when the minister speaks about climate change, or anything that the Northern Territory wants to do, it needs to be in balance. I believe her statement should have included more detailed discussions about solar energy and what the Territory can do in regards to that, apart from the solar city project in Alice Springs.
We should be talking about tidal energy, considering that the Top End of the Territory has tidal movement of up to 10 m on some days. We should be able to harness that energy. Ten metres of hydro-energy is a tremendous amount. Regarding wind energy, anybody living in the Barkly region would know what having constant wind is like. There are many places in the Territory that we can harvest wind energy as an alternate source. Geothermal energy has been spoken about by the member for Nelson on many occasions. Obviously, that is also another source. Nuclear energy is another aspect that must be discussed.
In talking about climate change, we need to bring in all these factors and be secure enough in ourselves to say, yes, we should be discussing this without pre-empting any decisions on these issues. These are issues that we should be openly discussing, rather than coming in with a particular position and saying: ‘We will talk about this, that, or the other, but the last one is a taboo subject’. That is a pity because, then, you do not have an honest and open debate about the issues that affect us in this modern world.
Whether Australia ratifies the Kyoto Protocol or not, if every country and nation and every human being in this world observes every aspect of the Kyoto principles, I am led to believe that it will take a minimum of 30 years to turn around the impact of a global warming as we understand it today. For the people of Tuvalu and Kiribati and all these low-lying South Pacific islands, it is going to be too late, anyway. Let us think a bit more out of the box to see if there is anything that can be done.
When the minister spoke about this issue, I recalled the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting that I attended with the current member for Millner in July 2002, soon after the election before last. A paper was presented by the Green’s member from Western Australia. She entitled her dissertation ‘The Impact of Climate Change, Particularly on the Pacific Island Communities’. Many of the issues raised today by many speakers were raised back then, four years ago. Believe you me, the delegates from the South Pacific Islands were particularly concerned about the impact of rising sea levels on the island nations. In fact, the delegates from Kiribati, Fiji and Samoa contributed to the debate, expressing their concerns.
I would like to raise some points made by the delegate from New Zealand, Hon Douglas Kidd. At the time he attended the conference, he was near the end of his term. He told us that he was a former minister for Energy in New Zealand and had been involved in renewable energy issues. In fact, he established an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority in New Zealand. While he denied that he was Green, he said he was seen by many of his colleagues as having a green tinge. In his time as the minister for Energy, he put a lot of time and work into global warming issues. To his mind, there were too many people who were always voicing doom and gloom, and that we cannot use the caution effect to hide the relationship between global warming and carbon dioxide emissions.
There are many issues in agriculture that occur in the Northern Territory that may not be the cause of carbon dioxide emissions. I find the burning each Dry Season in the Top End personally very distressing. I used to fly a light aircraft between Alice Springs and Darwin quite regularly, for a period of some 10 years. As you come over the sky between Katherine and Darwin during the Dry Season, the number of fires you see and the haze that you have to fly through is quite significant. Whether that causes a lot of carbon dioxide emission, well, the experts tell us so. It is, however, important to understand that the experts tell us that we have to do this burning to prevent worse fires when the natural fuel increases to a level where it is not possible to just leave it alone.
I understand that fires have been a natural occurrence in the Top End for millennia, and those fires are necessary for the propagation of certain plants. Now, if that is the case, with human beings altering the fire patterns, would that bring about greater impacts in the longer term? I am sure nobody has done any desktop predictions about that, and the minister has not given notice that her department had considered that issue in any detail. It is well and good to say that we have to do certain things to prevent carbon dioxide emissions but, on the other hand, are we altering things again without due thought and continuing to push things further.
The Northern Territory government, under the Country Liberal Party, fought very hard against Australia signing the Kyoto Protocol because it would have had a major impact upon us with regards to our gas and petroleum industry that may be exploited up here. I am pleased to see that the government realises that and has continued to foster the gas and petroleum industry in the Top End.
I believe it is important, though, that government needs to undertake some studies to find out that, in the event that the Kyoto Protocol is ever signed off, what would happen. It is no good to say to the Australian government that the Northern Territory government, in this current persuasion, supports the Kyoto Protocol and it would like to see it signed off - what are the impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on the Northern Territory? We need to know that.
I would also like to talk about nuclear energy. Several members have already spoken about it. Some suggested that there should be an open debate so that Territorians can decide for themselves the way we go in regard to nuclear energy. At the moment, we are not even talking about it. The member for Sanderson said we cannot talk about it at all because it is going to leave us with waste that will last for 20 000 years, and how can we deal with that? I understand that, currently, Australia does not produce any high grade nuclear waste, so this is not what we should be talking about. We should be talking about the nuclear industry per se. Are we going to allow for the exploration and the mining of uranium in the Northern Territory? That is important because if you say we have gas and we sell the gas to China or any other country that wants to buy it, in that way we can excuse ourselves for having a gas industry. We can excuse ourselves for increasing the carbon dioxide emissions. You can turn around and say: ‘Hang on a minute, we do not have to sell gas, we can sell uranium instead and there will be less carbon dioxide’.
There are pros and cons in this debate, and it is important for government to allow this debate to take place. Let it take place so that Territorians can be fully informed and then we can make a collective decision as to which way we should go. At the moment by committing to one aspect of the debate it will never be a balanced debate.
I have been very interested in biodiesel. I was at a CPA conference the year before last in Malaysia where we were taken to a palm oil factory where they were converting palm oil into biodiesel. That is quite a different thing to converting rape or canola to biodiesel. In Australia that is the current source of oil that it to be used. One thing good about biodiesel, from whatever source it comes from, is that it is biodegradable and it does not cause any significant environmental damage. In time, the biodiesel will break down into its natural components and disappear into the earth. As the member for Nelson says, to grow enough biological material of whatever kind to convert to biodiesel is going to take up more arable land than we can possibly have to produce enough biological material for biodiesel as well as feed the world population. Therein lies the problem. If we look at perhaps 10% or 20% dilutions of current diesel with biodiesel and make a saving that way, that might be about the best we can do without causing any more hassles.
Biodiesel or diesel, I am sure they both produce almost the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions. The minister did not explain whether it does and I would like the minister to offer us the right answer. I am not sure. Is the minister suggesting that by going to biodiesel it will be a good way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, or only that it is a good way to use it as an alternate source of fuel from fossil fuel? I suspect that carbon dioxide emissions will probably be about the same.
Solar energy: I am really pleased that Alice Springs is one of the short-listed candidates for the Australian solar city project. It is something that we should have as a right. Alice Springs would probably have the most sunny days out of any other large towns or cities in Australia, and to not conduct solar city experiments in Alice Springs is absolutely ludicrous.
For years now we have hoped that the development of some sort of a solar array in Alice Springs would be something we can look forward to, in fact 12 years ago I made a speech hoping that by 2004 Alice Springs would actually be the site for a solar array. Unfortunately, it has not come to pass but with the solar city project hopefully coming to fruition we can look forward to that and it would be something that Alice Springs people can be very proud of and can be a centre for research as part of the Desert Knowledge Centre.
I found it interesting, though, when the minister was speaking about solar energy and energy efficient white goods or any other equipment including installation of solar hot water systems that we continue to build Territory Housing properties with electric hot water systems. It is something that should have been addressed a long while ago. I believe that all Territory Housing properties should have solar hot water systems. particularly in Darwin bungalows or single level homes on concrete slabs in a tropical region. I believe Territory Housing needs to look seriously at that and at other ways of building energy efficient homes including the installation of solar hot water systems across all Territory Housing properties. The reason why that has not been done at the moment I suspect is so that government can pass the cost of the heating of water to the tenant rather than taking the cost onto itself. By installing a hot water system it would save the tenant, the poor pensioner, the person who is in assisted housing, substantial amounts of money each year and it would be a positive way for the government to contribute towards saving energy in the Territory.
Finally, as the member for Blain said earlier, there was a big song and dance by the minister, the member for Casuarina, saying that he will produce more energy efficient cars such as the Toyota Prius into the NT Fleet. I have yet to see a whole heap of them being used in the Territory. I know there are a few but hardly enough to suggest that government is being very conscious about its energy savings in its car fleet.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank all the members for their contributions to what is a very important debate about climate change. The member for Katherine’s contribution, was quite positive. She welcomed the statement and agreed that we are implementing strategies where we can. She talked about how seasons have changed, the timing of seasons and I agree totally. I suppose coming from a region like Katherine and having lived there for awhile you see the issue of burn-offs and bushfires, and she agrees with the strategy to reduce savanna burning because as we pointed out they do produce 46% of our greenhouse emissions. She also touched on building designs.
It was obvious from the opposition that they seem to think that I am right against nuclear power or uranium. I have yet to have any considered debate or discussion with any members of the opposition to even give them any indication as to what my position is. I do not have a problem with the whole issue of nuclear energy. The debate is something that is occurring at a national level, and whether nuclear energy should be considered as a long-term option to address climate change.
I thank the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries for his contribution. He talked about how things have changed, and they have under our government. There are a number of things that we have put in place. He comments on Tim Flannery’s book and his analysis. It was the minister who actually passed his copy of his book to me to read. We both agreed that it is mild and conservative compared to some of the CSIRO studies and other reports that we have read. You can have the extreme view on these things, or you can pick up a book like Tim Flannery’s and see that it is quite balanced; it is not one way or another. It actually gives people a balanced view about climate change. He talked about the enormous changes to the economy and that we should all cut down energy consumption. That was something that I had emphasised through my statement. Whilst the whole issue of greenhouse is both national and international we, as individuals can certainly do our part. Government is doing that. He talked about electricity, fuels, and cars to use gas or biodiesel.
The member for Blain talked about the capacity of government to implement what he called ‘grand ideas’. I do not think they are grand ideas; they are very realistic and achievable ideas or goals. Government is fully committed, unlike the CLP in government, which just did not want to know about these issues. They are not grand ideas; they are realistic, and our government has given a commitment to that strategy. The member for Blain also talked about the Tim Flannery book. I suppose that was one thing that we agreed on; it was good reading. He also referred to nuclear energy and quoted from the book about it, welcomed my statement, but wants it to go somewhere. He talked about NT Fleet, the nuclear debate and I do not think that anyone was disagreeing with him,
The member for Sanderson also touched on the nuclear debate and talked about how it produces no emissions. What gets lost in that whole debate is, yes, there are no emissions with all of this, but it is the process in which you get to that part - and the member for Sanderson talked about the radioactive waste.
All members touched on the fuel efficiency of biodiesel, as well as NT Fleet. Overall, I believe all members agree it is an issue for us in the Territory, and for Australia, generally. However, it is an issue for all of us because it is a global issue. We all have to do our bit to try to reduce greenhouse gases.
The member for Nelson welcomed the statement. He agreed with most of the actions in the ministerial statement, again, nuclear energy and the need for future debate. He talked about planning, the need to allow bigger blocks so there is better design. Certainly, I will pass that on to my colleague, the member for Johnston, who is the Planning minister. The member for Nelson talked about CDL and revisiting that issue,. He has talked about it a number of times and also the issue of hot rocks and geothermal energy. I will certainly look at that, member for Nelson.
I thank the member for Goyder for his detailed explanation of global warming and projects happening to reduce burning, etcetera, and I commend his comments.
The member for Greatorex, and I am not trying to be facetious either with this, I sat here trying to listen to some of the words that he said. One thing that I did pick up towards the end was about Territory Housing, and that Territory Housing would need to adjust their housing designs. As I understand it, some of the Territory Housing houses have solar power, particularly the old ones, and I believe many of the new Territory Housing houses have adjusted to that.
I thank all members. It has been quite a productive debate. Well, I would not say debate, because there was general consensus by everybody that climate change and global warming is an issue that all of us can play a role in trying to reduce.
In summing up, I thank all members who contributed to the debate.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 28 March 2006 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Tonight I pay tribute to one of the true pioneers of Alice Springs, Reg Harris, who died unexpectedly this week. Reg was 81 years old, but his death came as a shock. He was always full of life with a keen interest in the affairs of the Alice and the Territory. Reg was a wonderful story teller, and he could entertain you for hours with his yarns. My sympathy to his wife, Marge, and sons, Roger and Scotty, and his grandchildren.
Reg arrived in Alice Springs on 24 May 1947, coincidentally, the day the Centralian Advocate was first published. He told me he still has a copy of that very first paper. During the next 58 years, Reg and Marge played major roles in the development of Alice Springs. As a businessman, he was associated with many milestones.
He first came to Alice to work in the new Hotel Alice Springs and installed the NT’s first lift in the hotel. During the early 1950s, Reg introduced evaporative airconditioning, which cooled the entire home, to Alice Springs through his electrical business, and I am sure many glasses were raised to this achievement in the summer months. He was instrumental in setting up Alice Springs Commercial Broadcasters, which owns and operates Radio 8HA and SunFM. Reg was always keen to promote the town and new initiatives through the stations.
Reg was also keenly aware of Alice Springs’ tourist potential. In 1965, he built the Midland Motel, which was then one of only three motels in town. Midland still stands as a backpackers. He chaired the Northern Territory Tourist Board for five years, and was a life member of the Central Australian Tourist Association, and won a Brolga Award for Excellence in 1991.
Looking at the list of community organisations and boards Reg gave his time to, I wonder when he had time for anything else. He was involved with Rotary, the NT Town Planning Board, and the Alice Springs Town Planning Board. However, Reg managed to find the time not only for play but to encourage the development of sport in Alice Springs. He was a keen sportsman and he played in the first organised games of Aussie Rules in Alice Springs in 1947, and he was one of the first players to be made a CAFL life member, and was a life member of Federals Football Club.
He was a trustee of Anzac Oval and worked hard to develop this as one of the town’s premier sporting facilities, and was appointed chair of the Traeger Park Board in the 1960s before the town council took over Traeger Park management. Reg Harris was a big fan of basketball, as was his wife Marge, and in 1948 he introduced the game to the town. He built Alice Springs’ first basketball courts at his own expense and then coached the men’s team, with Marge coaching the women. They even shared the umpiring duties. I always say that couples who umpire together stay together and it has certainly worked for Reg and Marge.
Reg was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia, an AM, in 1982 and also was one of the 200 remarkable Territorians honoured by a plaque in Darwin’s Bicentennial Park.
Reg Harris will be sorely missed in Australia. He is one of the old never-to-be-replaced pioneer stock who built our town up. When Reg first came to the town just after the World War II, it would have been a very small, rough and dusty place. He often said to me that he was always amazed at how quickly the town developed around him.
I mention one anecdote from the point of view of one of the many times where people have beaten up health issues around Alice Springs, and there was a particularly determined campaign going about the Alice Springs Hospital. ‘Not enough doctors’, people were saying. Reg rang me - I was needing a bit of support as there was some concerted politics going on - and said: ‘How many doctors have you got in the hospital?’ I said a bit over a hundred of the ordinary ones, and then all the senior clinicians on top of that. He said: ‘That is interesting. For most of the time I have lived in Alice Springs we had two doctors and, goodness me, we are still alive. It makes you wonder what the other 98 doctors are doing with their time in the hospital’. That was Reg. He was always very down to earth and keen to let everyone know where Alice Springs’ roots were and the Alice Springs’ attitude to things.
I also want to clear up a matter which was raised by the member for Araluen. She raised in an adjournment debate last week the appointment of Mr Richard Coates to the Office of the Northern Territory Director of Public Prosecutions. Not only has she made false assertions regarding Mr Coates’ experience and expertise in the practice of criminal law, but she accused the government, and me in particular, of cronyism in the appointment, and made serious allegations that the process of appointment not only lacked independence, but that it was, and designed to be, a corrupt process in order to achieve the outcome of the appointment of Mr Coates to the position.
Of course she seeks to make these scurrilous assertions and personal attacks under the cover of parliamentary privilege, disingenuously seeking to cover them by asserting that she needs to record her objections to the appointment for historical purposes.
On more than one occasion, the member for Araluen stressed the need for integrity and independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions; ironically she relies on that very independence and integrity because she knows full well that for these reasons, Mr Coates will not enter publicly into debate to protect his reputation, and therefore embroil himself and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in a political game which she seeks to play.
As Attorney-General, I am not prepared to let her comments and assertions go unchecked. Not only do the member for Araluen’s comments attack the reputation of Mr Coates, they also insult and call into question the independence and competence of the members of the selection committee who provided to me the recommendation for appointment of Mr Coates as the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I do not propose to go into detail about Mr Coates’ qualifications for the job because this is a matter of detail for the independent selection panel in making their recommendations to me. However, let me say this: Mr Coates is a very highly qualified and very experienced criminal lawyer. He worked in criminal law in private practice for some 12 years before moving to the Territory to work with the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service in Alice Springs. He served as a Magistrate in the Northern Territory from 1988 to 1990 and was apparently considered suitably experienced for that appointment and his later appointment as inaugural director of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission by the CLP government. Mr Coates has depth of experience across criminal law in the Northern Territory held by very few people. In addition, Mr Coates brings to the position a solid understanding of issues within the justice system but peculiar to the Northern Territory, in particular indigenous justice issues as well as management and administrative skills of the highest order.
The member for Araluen suggested that I may wish to provide details of the individuals on the committee and whether they are the same individuals who were originally on the committee. I am more than happy to provide that information to the House. I would have been happy to provide that to the member for Araluen at any time but she did not seek that information. Rather, she decided that she should put that on public record for historical purposes, assertions about the process that were completely false. Let me start by outlining the sequence of events.
Expressions of interest for the position were advertised nationally. Mr Coates initially did not have interest in the position and, as the usual practice as CEO, his name was included in the advertisement as the person who might be contacted for information. Subsequently, before the close of the date for receipt of expressions of interest, he advised me that he was considering throwing his hat into the ring. I requested that if he decided to do so, he should ask the Acting Executive Director of Legal Services within the department, Ms Sue Oliver, to take the department role in coordinating the selection process. That is what occurred. Mr Coates made a formal expression of interest and had no further participation in the process, other than as candidate. Let me make it quite clear at this point: no selection panel has been put in place prior to Mr Coates’ expressing his interest in the position. On assuming the coordination of the process, Ms Oliver consulted the Solicitor-General, inviting him to be a part of the process. They were both of the view that in order to ensure that the process be both independent and free from criticism, that well qualified and entirely independent members of the panel should be obtained.
Consequently, the Solicitor-General approached the Solicitor-General for Tasmania, Mr Bill Bail, QC, and the Director for Public Prosecutions for the ACT, Mr Richard Refshauge, SC, who agreed to be part of the selection process. All members of the panel considered the expressions of interest received and by telephone conference agreed on five persons who should be interviewed for the position. Mr Coates was one of those persons. The short-listed candidates were then informed of the selection for interview and were also informed of the composition of the panel that would be interviewing them and making recommendations to me.
The process could not have been made more transparent to all those involved. Mr Bail and Mr Refshauge both gave generously of their valuable time to travel to Darwin to participate in the interview of the short-listed candidate face-to-face. All candidates were asked the same questions and given the same opportunity to present themselves as the best person for the position. Referees were contacted for their views of the applicants. In Mr Coates’ case, the person spoken to in support of his application was a very senior director of Public Prosecutions, and a current, and former judge. All spoke highly of his ability and suitability for appointment. The selection panel was unanimous in their recommendations to me for the appointment of Mr Coates to the position.
Let me summarise, two Solicitor-Generals, a Director of Public Prosecutions, and a senior legal officer from my department all recommended Mr Coates for appointment to the position. They confirm their views of suitability by seeking the views of another DPP and two judicial officers. If that was not an independent process, then I do not know what further process the member for Araluen would suggest.
I previously wrote to Mr Refshauge and Mr Bail thanking them for their generosity in lending their time and considerable experience and expertise to assist with one of the key positions for an effective and fair criminal justice system, and informing them that my confidence in the selection process and outcome was enhanced by their participation.
I feel that I must now apologise to them and to the other two members of the panel for the comments that have been made about the process and membership of the panel. The member for Araluen’s comments attacked not only the independence of the process, but also the competence of those involved to assess and advise on the appointment. I trust that, in due course, she might, likewise, see fit to make an apology.
I will close by congratulating Mr Richard Coates on his appointment, and welcome his first victory as a prosecutor in our courts here in the Northern Territory. I believe he will bring continued high status and independence to that position.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about a couple of issues in Alice Springs. On 8 February, there was a power failure of a substantial length of time in Alice Springs, affecting mostly the old East Side. As you all will know, in Alice Springs over the last two and a half months or so, we have had very hot summer temperatures consistently above 40C for many days running. Early this month, the temperatures were, likewise, very high. The power went off around 4 pm on the afternoon of 8 February and, as I said, the old East Side was affected.
I had a note from a person living along Undoolya Road who thought: ‘The power has gone off, what is so unusual about that in Alice Springs?’ He waited about 10 minutes and nothing happened. There are other people living in that home, including an elderly woman. In Alice Springs, when we have a power failure, sometimes Power and Water would switch to some other generators, I assume. Normally, after a while you expect power to come back. Twenty minutes after the power went off, nothing had happened.
It was a hot day and the whole house was starting to heat up. There was nothing they could do about it. Fortunately, this home had just recently installed a generator. I will come to the reason why they put in a generator later on. Fortunately, they had a new generator installed and so this man was able to start the generator up and then the house got electricity back. Obviously, the radio stations were on and his radio was on. He listened to the radio and the radio station was talking about additional loads being put onto the power station because of the hot summers. Also, it was coincidental that the program was being broadcast right at the time that the power had gone off. Much to the relief of the people in the house, especially the elderly woman, there was electricity and she felt safe as well.
The generator was installed at that house because she has very bad respiratory problems. She requires the normal medication that she has, but she also has an oxygen generating system that requires electricity to run. Without that, she would have severe respiratory problems and, without oxygen, she would be in dire straits.
Anyway, the power came back and she was fine, she was safe. She happened to get on the phone and spoke to one of her neighbours a little further down the road who was also sitting in her little unit without any power. This other woman she was talking to was 85 years of age, living in one of the Territory Housing pensioner flats. The poor woman was sitting there in the heat trying to cope with the temperature as best she could. About 45 minutes to an hour after the power went off, this man finally rang up the ABC to let the ABC know that there was power failure in the old East Side. The ABC said: ‘We will ring Power and Water and see what is going on’. Barry Nichols, one of the announcers - or his producer, I am not sure - then rang Power and Water to find out what was going on. Power and Water told Barry Nichols that was the first they knew there was no power in the old East Side. That was almost an hour later. For an hour, the power is out and Power and Water did not know the power was out, and that was announced over the radio.
It was after that phone call by the ABC to Power and Water that action then commenced. Had the person not rung the ABC in the first instance, then Power and Water would not have known about it. This man then said:
That is another ABC journalist:
This is an indictment on a government-run enterprise that it does not know from one day to the next what one hand is doing with other. Surely if a power failure occurred in any part of the town, Power and Water should be the first agency to find out about it, apart from the people who suffered the power failure of course, and then get something down. This time, it was not until the ABC contacted Power and Water, and the ABC Bulletin went on air, before Power and Water found out that power was off in the old East Side, and then they responded.
The minister should look into this. How is it that Power and Water had to be informed by an ABC news bulletin that there was no power in the old East Side? I believe the minister should ensure that Power and Water does not have to rely on the ABC news bulletin in the future.
The other issue that Power and Water has in Alice Springs is in the golf course. The new turbine, well, not new anymore, it has been there almost six months, at the Ron Goodin Power Station continues to spew out excessive noise and soot. As recently as today, I received another e-mail with a letter attached complaining about the noise that continues to be generated by the new turbine installed at the Ron Goodin Power Station. That noise goes on all day, and you can imagine, during this hot summer, how much electricity is being used by Alice Springs, and how much the generator has to be run each day to cope with the power demand.
It was not until just before Christmas last year, when there was a threat of a class action that Power and Water then compromised and said: ‘Oh, we will turn off the generator at 8 pm each night and have a curfew until 6 am the next morning’. Well, they have not observed the curfew. I know that, because people start ringing me in the middle of the night, sometimes even at 10 pm, and say: ‘Hear this, hear this’. I could hear over the telephone how noisy it was. There were complaints made. Some people rang Power and Water, and even rang the minister in Darwin and said: ’You want to live with this?’. Power and Water was then forced to observe the curfew. However, according to this letter that I received today, they have broken the curfew again and they are still generating well after 8 pm.
People are complaining of getting sick from the noise, with the chronic exposure to the noise, the smell, the soot that is being generated from the power station, and it just goes on every day. People cannot stay outdoors in the evenings when it is now starting to get cooler. They would like to spend time outdoors, go in the swimming pool; they cannot do that because of the noise, the smell and the soot. These people are actually shut inside the house all day. They have to close the windows so the noise cannot come through, but to close the windows in the middle of the day means there is no ventilation. It means you have to turn on the airconditioner.
In Alice Springs when the most efficient airconditioning is the swamp cooler, the evaporative airconditioner, you need to have at least window or two open to achieve maximum benefit. You cannot open the windows so you end up using a refrigerator airconditioner to cool the house down. Guess how much it is going to cost the resident? It is a lot of money. The whole mess with this new turbine has to be sorted out. It has been going for too long now and people are complaining, their health is now affected and there is still no solution.
The last we heard from Power and Water is: ‘We cannot do anything until June’. Well, come June there will not be as much demand on electricity for cooling but there will be a demand on electricity for warming. As you know, Alice Springs in the middle of winter gets down into the minus degrees Celsius. Some nights it goes down to two or three degrees and people expect to heat their homes. So there is not going to be a convenient time. You have to sort it out now.
Ideally, the best way to do this is to install any new additions to the power generation system in Alice Springs at Brewer Estate. If you put everything new at Brewer Estate in the course of the next 10, 20, 30 years, eventually, the equipment gets replaced at Ron Goodin Power Station, and the whole power station would be shifted to a better location. If you wait to shift the Ron Goodin Power Station to another location, it will cost you an arm and a leg and no government can afford that, and I accept that. No government can afford this; it is too expensive. But if you install all new equipment at another location then over a period of time the whole power station will be shifted because over the next 20, 30 years you can bet your last dollar that things will be replaced, all the turbines will be replaced.
I ask the minister to seriously consider this and fix it up so that people can go back to their normal lives. If not, if that turbine is going to stay there, will the government compensate those people whose residences have been devalued because of this intrusion? And devalued they are. Properties have been devalued. So what you do then?
The last point I want to raise tonight is about Tennant Creek Hospital. Tennant Creek Hospital has been struggling to get a doctor for a long time. I know its more senior doctor, Mike Pearson. I have known him for many years. He is a very learned person who has worked very hard for the community. He has been frustrated by the way that he has not been able to get the government to get doctors in Tennant Creek, the hospital in particular. And he has finally left. I think he is still on long service leave and he is not going to return to the hospital. A very senior doctor who for many years whose knowledge and skills are now gone. The hospital is now run by short-term locums from the East Coast, some staying as little as a couple of weeks. They probably do not know much about bush medicine but they are there and you have no choice, you have nobody else to work there.
Then this week, the General Manager of the Tennant Creek Hospital - I think he is in Darwin this week, probably at a crisis meeting, and I understand he is not going to return to Tennant Creek Hospital, either.
Mr McAdam: Actually, he has a new job.
Dr LIM: It does not matter if he has a new job, you have no general manager at the hospital either. That is the problem, isn’t it? You do not have a general manager at the hospital, you do not have a senior doctor at the hospital.
I hear that the discussions are that the government is going to convert the Tennant Creek Hospital into a triage centre. A hospital in that town with 3500 people with high incidence of trauma whether it be from physical violence or from motor vehicle accidents, and there are lots of motor vehicle accidents around that region, and we are going to convert that place into a triage centre.
Mr McAdam: You do not know that.
Dr LIM: The minister interjects: ‘You do not know that’. I know, minister, that you might not know yourself.
Mr McAdam: Well, we do not know.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly!
Dr LIM: The discussions are under way at the very moment …
Mr McAdam: I know that.
Dr LIM: … with your government that Tennant Creek would likely become a triage centre. Well, the minister needs to know then, doesn’t he? The fundamental duty is to provide health care to Territorians in Tennant Creek. With the bucket load of money that they have and he keeps telling me that he puts in so much money into health care, here you are downgrading a hospital service. Tennant Creek deserves more than that. Tennant Creek deserves a fully operational hospital.
Mr McAdam: Why don’t you go up there and work as a doctor?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly!
Dr LIM: I did work there, member for Barkly, I did work there.
Mr McAdam: No now, do it now if you care so much about the place.
Dr LIM: I worked there for quite a long while and believe you me people in the Barkly region still think that they got good service from me …
Mr McAdam: I do not think they would want you back up there to be honest.
Dr LIM: ... and I …
Mr McAdam: They know all about you…
Dr LIM: … remember …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly!
Dr LIM: … when it was a useful thing to do for the Tennant Creek people …
Mr McAdam: They know you.
Dr LIM: … and at least they respected it.
Mr McAdam: There are a few people who remember you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, your time has expired.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about two Territorians from very different walks of life.
In November, I had the pleasure of launching the autobiography of Mrs Gusti Daws, Left Behind To Ponder, and just last week hosted the Darwin launch of, They Started Something - A biography of Bern and Aileen Kilgariff by Peter and Sheila Forrest.
Mrs Gusti Daws, a Jewish Australian originally from Cologne, Germany, moved to Darwin with her husband and children in 1972. Gusti’s book, Left Behind to Ponder tells the story of her life starting as a six year old living in Germany in the early 1930s before the outbreak of World War II. Gusti’s father, concerned at the growing hostility towards the Jewish people and rise of the Nazi party in Germany, packed up his young family and began the journey into Palestine to start a new life. In her book, Gusti tells of her memories as a young girl arriving by ship in her new home, one of many migrants of a range of nationalities, all starting a new life and learning a new language.
Amid the turmoil preceding World War II, Gusti grew up and went to school, finishing her studies shortly after the war reached Palestine. She got a taste of mechanical training in one of her first jobs as a civilian at the British Army workshops, the Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers at the age of 16, dismantling and repairing motorbikes. Like many of her generation, as Gusti neared her 18th birthday she advanced her birth date by three months and joined the Army early leaving a note for her parents and heading to the barracks.
Posted by the British Army to Egypt, Gusti served as a driver loading and unloading trucks with a forklift before being transferred to an Army workshop where she worked as a mechanic and then as a driver. However, the British Army’s Middle East personnel were demobilised, Gusti returned to Palestine and, following the establishment of the State of Israel, joined the Israeli Army as a driver in a bomb disposal unit. It was here with the help of lady luck in the form of a flat tyre that Gusti met her husband-to–be, Teddy. They were soon married and living in Israel, moved into their first house and started a family. After the Six-Day War, Gusti and Teddy along with their daughters left Israel for the United Kingdom and moved to Yorkshire where they lived and worked for a time before applying to move to Australia.
Following the applications being processed, the family moved to Perth flying via Lebanon, India and Singapore and arriving in May 1970. In 1972, the company Teddy was working for was opening a branch in Darwin and sent him up to work. Gusti and her daughters loaded the car on a boat and sailed up to Darwin to meet Teddy. After the devastation of Cyclone Tracy in which their house was destroyed and many possessions were lost, Gusti and her family temporarily moved back to Perth. After moving back to Darwin, Teddy fell ill and endured the first of a number of trips to Brisbane for treatment, first having an operation for an aneurism and over the coming years having a number of other treatments. Shortly after his 70th birthday, Teddy became ill once again, flying to Brisbane this time being diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour. Coming back to Darwin Teddy spent the rest of his life between the hospital and home care before passing away in his home.
Gusti has been left for the past nine years as a widow and talks of the great sadness of losing a life long partner and soul mate. She has a vision of a different kind of accommodation for seniors where those who are not eligible for public housing could live in a kibbutz-like fashion, sharing facilities and friendship. I wish her well for her future and I hope that her dream eventuates.
Tonight I also discuss another book launch. This is They Started Something – A Biography of Bern and Aileen Kilgariff by Peter and Sheila Forrest. I know that all members would be aware of the Kilgariff family and what they have done for the Territory. I was pleased to launch this book in Parliament House last week.
Bern Kilgariff arrived in Alice Springs with his parents in 1929 and, living at the Stuart Arms Hotel for three years whilst growing up, he was able to participate in and observe the spurt of growth to the town once the railway came from Oodnadatta.
Starting school at the newly-opened Hartley Street School, Bern was one of the first students to complete his Intermediate Certificate in the Northern Territory with the assistance of Sisters from the Catholic school. Missing out on a scholarship by one mark, Bern’s parents could not afford to send him to continue his schooling, so he went into the work force as a 16- year- old, with his first job being an ‘odd jobs boy’ for EJ Connellan, who was in the Centre to start an aviation company, Connellan Airways.
When World War II started, Bern served in Australia’s Armed Forces in New Guinea as part of the 2/5th Battalion, 6th Division AIF. He was quick to volunteer for a post in New Guinea as he wanted to serve somewhere warm. After the war, Bern went back to Alice Springs where he met Aileen, and they began raising a family, first on a poultry farm and later using the land to open the Oasis Motel which he built with his father, offering travellers the luxury of self-contained units. Along with running a business, Bern found time to serve on and be chair of numerous committees around the town in areas as diverse as arts, education, tourism, and Legacy.
Appointed to be the first NT Housing Commissioner in 1959, a year later, Bern went on to be appointed a non-official member of the Northern Territory’s Legislative Council. Bern was one of the signatories to the Remonstrance presented to the Commonwealth Parliament in 1962 by the Legislative Council. This document is now on permanent display in Parliament House.
Bern was asked by Administrator Clarrie Archer to join the Legislative Council. He is quoted as saying in the book:
In 1960, Bern was sworn as a member of the Legislative Council, beginning a 27-year career in representative politics. He served on the council for eight years before becoming an elected member for Alice Springs in the Legislative Council in 1968. His campaign leaflet for this campaign outlined his achievements:
You have to wonder, at the age of 44, how he fitted all that in.
Bern was a member of the Legislative Council through the last 14 years of its existence, from the Seventh Council in 1960 to the Eleventh Council in 1974.
When a fully-elected Legislative Assembly was established in 1974, Bern was elected its first Speaker and sworn in on 20 November 1974. Within a few months, Darwin had been hit by Cyclone Tracy and the Legislative Assembly building badly damaged. In the book, Bern quoted a very interesting story about what happened immediately following the cyclone. I want to read this into the Parliamentary Record:
That is Cyclone Tracy:
Certainly the parliament has changed a lot since those times.
In 1975, Bern became one of the first Senators for the Northern Territory and served in the Senate until 1987. For seven years, Bern was the Government Whip, including during the difficult times after the dismissal of the Whitlam Government. Sir John Carrick says in the book:
During Bern’s time in the Senate, he served on a number of Senate and Joint Committees, and these included social welfare, public works, foreign affairs and defence and, importantly, Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory.
Bern and Aileen are great Territorians, and it was my pleasure to be able to assist in launching this book in Darwin. I have to say that there was an extraordinary group of people at the launch. It is not very often that you get the current Administrator, a former Administrator, the Catholic Bishop of Darwin, various former members, current members – it was a fantastic group of people who obviously recognised a very important pair of Territorians.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about the passing of Napanangka, a senior traditional owner of the Warumungu people. Napanangka was born at the Seven Mile Station, otherwise known as Tennant Creek Station. Her mother was a station cook and her father a horse breaker. Napanangka and her sisters used to wait every day for their mother to finish work at nine o’clock at night, near the station house under a tall gum tree. That tree still stands today and will forever remind me of this remarkable woman.
Napanangka’s childhood was spent attending the Seven Mile Missionary School, on the other side of the creek from the station. She and her sisters would wash the station employees’ clothes in the creek and, once finished, have a swim. They would hunt goanna, collect bush food, like bush tomato, berries, yams and bush coconuts, which grow prolifically in that area.
Napanangka met her first husband, Juppurula Williams, at the station and they had six children together. Their eldest child, Judy Nixon, was born at the station, Cliffy, now deceased, Lenny, Dorothy and Ross were born at Phillip Creek Mission, and the youngest, Kenny, was born at Alekerange.
Juppurula Williams passed away a few years later at Alekerange. Napanangka cared for her large family alone for several years until she married Mr Nelson in 1963. They had two children, Noelene and Digger. Later on, Napanangka and other Warumungu families moved back to their country, firstly at Banka Banka Station and then to Tennant Creek, which is where she spent the rest of her life.
Napanangka led a busy life, bringing up her children as well as her grandchildren, and her great grandchildren. She also found time to work for Mr and Mrs Ford, Mr and Mrs Allen and Mr and Mrs Heaney.
She was always active in the community as well, as is her family to this very day. She was a founding member of the Warumungu Papulu Housing Association, Anyinginyi Health, Papulu Apparr-Kari Language Centre, and most recently, Nyinkka Nyunyu Cultural Centre.
Napanangka was a key stakeholder in the long-running Warumungu land claim and gave critical evidence to Justice Maurice’s inquiry.
Napanangka was a keen supporter of her family’s involvement in sport. She would always be found sitting on the sidelines at the baseball, softball, basketball, cricket, or football. In other words, whatever sport her family was involved in, she was there. However, her number one sporting passion was the Eagles Football Club and she would always go to footy very early so that she could secure her seat under her favourite tree. Almost, week in, week out she was always there.
Perhaps beside her family, Napanangka’s greatest legacy to Tennant Creek and the Barkly as a whole was her inspirational commitment and involvement in the development of Nyinkka Nyunyu. She saw this wonderful cultural centre as the best way to bring indigenous and non-indigenous worlds together. This woman had no hatred in her, only love. She was always looking to bring the various communities of Tennant Creek together for the benefit of all.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to extend my sincere condolences to the Williams, Fitz and Nelson families.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in my adjournment this evening I would like to respond to the announcements today by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage on her decision not to allow Xstrata’s plans for the diversion of the McArthur River to go ahead. On my entry into this parliament in June last year there was such a public statement with the dancing in of the Yanyuwa people and the ngardiji dancers here into the parliament and was recognised at the time right across the Northern Territory and in such a public display of my heritage of where I come from and it would be remiss of me not to be able to at least speak my thoughts in terms of the Yanyuwa, Garrwa, Mara and Kudanji people today.
It is indeed quite an extraordinary day for the traditional owners of the region, in particular the Salt Water people. Sitting here in the parliament and listening to the discussions that crossed the floor makes me acutely aware of the position that I find myself in, but at the same time, deeply grateful to work beside and within a government that cares considerably for the environment and the protection of the environment and, in this case, the recommendation not to divert the McArthur River, but at the same time asking all businesses, all industries to do the work, to talk to the people. In this case, I just want to share just some of my thoughts.
There has been confusion and division that has occurred within the four language groups within the Borroloola region and I wanted to share that. It is not a coincidence that I am placed in a position such as this at this important time. I do not lose sight of that; it is something that I carry deeply. My families have been forced to choose over periods of times in a situation of extremes on an uneven playing field and from an unjust starting point. It is a position that is echoed in the history of black and white relations in this country. People have been forced to choose over time between money or care of country, between services or care of country, between family and care of country. It is an all too familiar theme when Aboriginal people face the plans of major companies.
Businesses involved with McArthur River Mine may argue that it is the harsh reality of business, of life even, and perhaps that is so. But as a jungkayi and ngimirringki –a traditional owner - belonging to the Yanyuwa and Garrwa people, I would fail in my cultural duties and obligations to not speak on behalf of my families, my people and may the spirits of my ancestors, my family and my elders judge me accordingly.
I ask those businesses: where are your goals? What are your aspirations? Naturally you want the best for your future and your family, and so do I. But my family is not just my husband and two sons. It is my extended family and clan groups. It is the care and concern for all the clans and language groups all of whom want to work, all of whom want a good future, all of whom want a good home, education to aspire to those things that bring them to the full potential in each one of us to contribute to society in a manner that enhances not only our own lives but the lives of all who live beside us, all who live within our community.
But do such aspirations have to come at the cost of giving away that which we believe in? Does it have to come at the loss of our identity as a people, the loss of our cultural and spiritual beliefs and our language? Why must we have to compromise that for economic development. All of this is threaded together in the web of our life as a people whose spiritual origin comes from the sea. Our duty is to care for country and this is the role of Lianthatawirriyarra Sea Rangers. It is the duty of all the sea people to protect and maintain the kujika, the stories of our people passed on from generations to generations. Kujika that sings the stories of the land, kujika that explain why we are so inextricably linked to the country of our ancestors, kujika that form the basis of our identity, kujika that set out our kinship.
The idea of stakeholders that people such as mining companies like to throw around conveys the notion of all people being equal but it is never so. It is always the powerful and the educated who become the stakeholders and most stakeholders have other interests they can stake hold in but where do the Yanyuwa go? We have high unemployment in Borroloola, we have huge problems with alcohol and domestic violence, our children wonder aimlessly wondering about their future and there are not enough houses. This mining company has been a huge shadow over our existence since the 1940’s and we have never quite known if it is friend or foe. A mining company is a business, yes, and it is about making profits, we understand that but surely there must be a social and moral responsibility that comes with it.
In this age of a fair go for all that includes strategies to empower the impoverished, the helpless and the hungry or is that just meant only in Sunday school? Surely we must live it in our daily lives, at work and at home, in how we negotiate in major multi-billion deals with communities. Surely there is at the core of humanity. I am absolutely confident, that genuine investment in these core values in the beginning will result in rewards for all in the long run. I understand the deep disappointment now being felt by the mines, by Xstrata. It is the taste so bitter that my families have tasted it many times over the years in 1976 at the beginning of the land claims, in 1985 when the Aboriginal Community Council Government was dismissed.
In all these years, we understand and we sympathise but we also ask and we put out the challenge that do you dare to walk away will you come back, will you talk, will we now begin from a point of equality. The river is the lifeblood for the Yanyuwa, Mara, Garrwa and Kudjani people. It is home to the dugong and sea turtle, animals of significance, spiritual and cultural importance. It is the Yanyuwa and Mara people of the saltwater who speak loudly for the protection. If we want to see a better future for all we have to believe in it. Truly believe in it so that our actions reflect what we say, what we think so that our hearts have nothing to hide. That is the way of the Yanyuwa, we look with our hearts and we speak from our hearts, it is there we are most at peace.
I have listened to the concerns of the clans in each of the four language groups, the Yanyuwa, Garrwa, Kudjani and Mara and it is fair to say that everyone worries for the protection of the McArthur River. I call upon my brothers and sisters of the Yanyuwa people to remember what we were taught in a time where grog did not have its poisonous grip on our souls and where the spear of fear did not even exist in our concern for country and culture and to remember when knowledge of the land and seas was respected and valued for the wisdom it contained. Knowledge that cannot be bought or sold and knowledge that can only be valued with respect. Remember this because it is in our memory, our living memory, it is in our childhood memories, it lives on in our hearts, not in history books, not in dusty shelves of the cultural museums of the western world.
The Yanyuwa spirit and law lives on in each of us, we owe it to those who have walked before us to hold on to that. I ask my families to remember this because that is why our people struggled for the past 30 years for the land of our ancestors. We were the first under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to claim land in 1976 and this year we are preparing to receive our islands back. So many of our leaders have died in that time but we honour their memory by passing on to our children the story of our struggle. A marine park, tourism, the fishing industry, small businesses associated with island living, this is what we dream about, where language and cultural identity of the first peoples of this area come first.
Now in 2006 we have the chance to prosper on the islands and seas of our ancestors but we want to do it right. The islands are the key to our future prosperity for generations to come not just the Yanyuwa, Mara, Garrwa and Kudjani descendents but for all people who call the Gulf region their home. We embrace all peoples but first let us embrace ourselves, our identity and our homeland so that we may share it with you who are respectful of our attachment to it which has been the way for well over 60 000 years.
Such attachment cannot simply be ignored because big business wants it to. I challenge Xstrata when it says the mine will close if it cannot divert the river. I say to Xstrata: find another way, find a better way. In recent years, and especially in recent months, Xstrata has said so many things to the citizens and supporters of the Borroloola and Gulf Regions and, yet today, you have said you will run away. I urge you Xstrata, to keep to your commitments to the Mawurli Aboriginal Corporation, and your financial commitments to them. Keep to your other promises you have made in recent months. Do not leave it, Xstrata, just as sweet talk, just as a bit of sugar, as my people would describe it. Back up your professed support of the people of the region with the type of long-term commitment that will leave a level of human and financial capital that would survive for generations to come - not just the next 10 or 20 years.
I have spoken tonight of my people. I also believe I speak, in some sense, for the non-indigenous people whom I have known for so long in the region, and who see themselves as belonging there and who have lived there for generations. To think that Xstrata speaks of living because it is going to be a bit harder to meet the environmental safeguards Territorians want in any development. Perhaps now is the time when true, fair and just dialogue can begin, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Update on Alcan G3 Expansion
Update on Alcan G3 Expansion
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I would like to update the House on the status of the $2bn Alcan G3 expansion, the largest construction project currently under way in the Territory. In general terms, the project involves constructing a third refinery train or processing facility within the existing plant. It will increase the production capacity of the refinery from around 2 million tonnes to 3.8 million tonnes of alumina each year. The expanded plant will be a world-class facility which, through technological improvements and economies of scale, will be globally competitive.
The expansion will increase our gross state product by $200m per annum; increase the value of our alumina exports by $420m; secure an increase in local expenditure by Alcan in the order of $122m per year; and see an additional 120 people directly employed within the new plant. The technology improvements will also mean better environmental outcomes in alumina production including a 28% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in each tonne of alumina produced.
Construction is slightly ahead of schedule and within budget with completion expected in November this year. Alcan is negotiating with PNG Gas and is seeking 43.5 petajoules of gas per annum with deliveries to start in 2009. The changes in Gove and in the town of Nhulunbuy are significant and include the completion of a 1470 room construction village with an ensuite in each room; the pouring of 45 000 m of concrete; and the arrival and installation of 300 preassembled modules, or PAMs for short, which represent nearly half of the PAMs needed for the project.
A number of Top End firms have been involved in the construction of these PAMs. As part of the process, premises in the Hudson Creek Industrial Estate were leased and $40m worth of contracts will have been undertaken by local fabricators at the completion of the project. The Top End PAM components are now complete, but the fabricators continue to contribute to the expansion through the provision of urgent products needed to keep things moving.
Some of the other projects in Nhulunbuy include the start of a number of housing developments that address the identified long-term demand in Nhulunbuy; the $8m upgrade to the Gove Airport; the reopening of the quarry and the brickworks; and the redevelopment the Woolworths Shopping Centre. A development of this size obviously has the potential to have a significant social impact on the Gove Peninsula. To that end we have approved a social impact management plan for the construction phase. Alcan has also worked closely with traditional owners during the project and has recently reached agreement on the use of additional recreation areas for the use of Alcan G3 workers and we are seeing the first specific tourism project developed from that initiative.
I congratulate the Territory firms who have contributed to the expansion. The Alcan expansion clearly exhibits our growing capacity to meet the high demands of major developments and really is a shining example of why the Territory economy keeps moving ahead.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, indeed we welcome this report. It is an indication of the power of the resource sector in spreading wealth and benefit across our entire community.
I acknowledge, however, the issue of the gas coming from PNG. I find it difficult to forget that this government made no reference whatsoever prior to the election that the parameters had changed; that the gas was no longer coming through Wadeye from the Blacktip project, when everyone in Mitchell Street and around the traps knew that the deal had collapsed. With hand on heart, our honourable members on the other side were able to say: ‘Honestly, we knew nothing about it’. As the member for Wanguri often exhorts us to get out there and have a listen, we and everybody else heard that prior to the election but it was never articulated - which is a great disappointment, nonetheless.
The benefit of this project by Alcan will apply to the McArthur River project. They have, to my knowledge, complied with every NT government requirement. They have responded to the issues that have been raised in the draft EIS public review. They have conducted extensive consultation and addressed concerns raised and proposed action plans to respond to those issues. Exactly the same benefits as described for the Alcan project in form will apply to the McArthur River project. I look forward to the announcement today, and I only hope, echoing the strength of this statement, that we will have the same endorsement for the project at McArthur River so that we can have additional benefits to Territorians.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, briefly replying on the issue of gas, the arrangements that Alcan are making do not involve government in the first instance. Alcan is negotiating with PNG Gas over their future gas supplies. Although government is all powerful this is not part of our operation. Likewise with the Blacktip gas discussions between Alcan and Woodside/Eni, we were not part of those negotiations. We had done considerable facilitation, and we are aware of the difficulties of the project. I was never in a public backing-off from that. It was a difficult project and, unfortunately, it did not get across the line. We are very pleased to be having discussions with Eni about domestic gas supplies and those discussions will be rigorous over the next few months.
Update of Planning Reforms
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to provide this update to the Assembly on the progress of planning reforms in the Northern Territory.
The draft bill to amend the Planning Act was passed during the February 2005 sittings and following the preparation of the necessary amendments to the regulations, the new act was commenced on 30 September 2005.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure has been developing a new consolidated Northern Territory Planning Scheme. Members may recall this project from past statements to the Assembly or through two previous non-statutory periods of public consultations already conducted. During those periods of consultation, briefings were provided to the community and resident groups, professional organisations, industry bodies, councils, government agencies, the DCA and the media.
While the current controls have served their purpose, the continuation of fragmented and dated provisions is not in the best interest of the Territory. For the Territory to continue to prosper the rules governing the use and development of land need to be modernised and conform with leading practice. The proposed planning scheme rationalises the existing 22 control and town plans, 82 control plans on Aboriginal communities, over 400 statements of policy, 272 zones, and in excess of 800 land use definitions into a single scheme across the whole of the Territory. The only exception will be the Town of Jabiru which will remain as a specific planning scheme due to the administrative arrangements applying to the town.
At present, the town plans apply to individual municipal areas. One simple example of the inefficiencies is that, what are described in the Darwin Town Plan as cluster dwellings are called attached dwellings in Palmerston. There are many more. More importantly, the rules controlling such development are different in each area, and it makes sense that the rules and the terminology remain consistent wherever possible.
At present, there are five town or area plans encircling Darwin Harbour: one for each of the Darwin, East Arm, Palmerston, Litchfield and Cox Peninsula. A consequence of this is that the zoning cannot even be displayed on one map, so the community cannot readily appreciate the planning controls that apply geographically. A single planning scheme will resolve this.
Amongst other things, the new scheme will deliver:
- (1) overarching statements of policy relating to government’s expectations of land use and development outcomes;
(2) modernised land use controls that meet the expectations of the community;
(3) adoption of common terminology across the Territory;
(4) elimination of contradictory provisions, for example, between statements of policy and the rules controlling development;
(5) clear and objective rules and tests for development proposals;
(6) provision for local variations between centres where there is a clear policy basis for such variations; and
(7) the capacity to call up guidelines such as a community safety design guide.
These changes will deliver significant efficiencies to the community and industry.
Formal exhibition under the Planning Act will commence tomorrow, 24 February 2006. The proposed planning scheme will be on public exhibition for two months, and will be available for inspection at the Department of Planning and Infrastructure offices in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. The proposed planning scheme will be available on the department’s web site and free copies on CD. The proposed scheme will also be available at each electorate office, where I am sure members will make them available to be viewed by their constituents. Copies will also be provided to each municipal council where planning controls presently apply.
Officers of the department will be providing briefings to the councils and other stakeholders on request. Community information sessions will also be held in Darwin, Palmerston, Batchelor, Litchfield, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. Dates and locations will be advertised in newspapers.
Following an exhibition period, each division of the Development Consent Authority will hold a public hearing and report to me on the outcome of these hearings. I have appointed Mr John Pinney to conduct hearings in other areas as required, and to report similarly to me.
Madam Speaker, this was an election commitment by this party in opposition, and we have made significant improvements to the Planning Act in the Northern Territory and we are continuing that reform.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. I am aware that this was an election commitment. This is always a controversial area and emotions tend to run high pretty much across the board of all stakeholders.
I do not propose to say much more at this stage, because I believe it might be unwise for me to do so. I commend you on the scope of the community consultation. As you were getting towards the end of your speech, when you had not mentioned advertising in the newspapers, I was going to ask you to do that. However, you are doing that as well. The community information sessions will be well attended by those who feel very strongly, from so many different points of view, in this area. For our part, we look forward to hearing of the outcomes from those community information sessions.
If the overwhelming will of the community is to go down the path you have foreshadowed, then I have some confidence that you will respond in the appropriate way. I know it is not easy, I know there will be competing interests on almost every front, and I wish you well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also welcome the minister’s statement. The Northern Territory Planning Scheme has been a long time coming. It was in progress even before this government started.
My concern is that the government has put a lot of effort into producing new land use objectives for Litchfield Shire Council, including an area plan. A number of those zones in the Litchfield Shire are not compatible with the new Northern Territory Planning Scheme. I warned of this before. It may have made more sense to delay the changes to the Litchfield Shire until the NT Planning Scheme came out. What will probably happen now is the Litchfield land use objectives will again have to be changed so that they become uniform with the NT Planning Scheme. I have raised this issue before. I hoped , when the Litchfield Shire Council Planning Scheme came into operation, that it would have used zones from the NT Planning Scheme. That has not happened. It is a bit of a hybrid of both, and unfortunately, the land use objectives of the Litchfield Shire Council will have to be adjusted.
Be that as it may, I also thank the minister for saying there will be variations allowed. Regardless of uniformity in zones you have to allow for different geographical concerns that might come into place from Alice Springs to Darwin. I also thank you for allowing a decent amount of time for consultations; two months is good.
You talked about having problems with looking at the total planning schemes for Darwin Harbour. I suggest that what we need is a Development Consent Authority for that whole area with variations according to which municipalities it covers. At the moment, when it comes to decision-making in the Darwin area, it is a mixture of Development Consent Authority where people can have a say at public meetings, to a delegate of the minister. Looking at the rate at which Darwin Harbour is being developed and the areas around it, we need to change that.
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I welcome the comments by the Opposition Leader and cooperation from the opposition on this. It is good that we are embarking on community consultation in this regard.
Member for Nelson, regarding the Litchfield plan, it is my understanding that has been incorporated within the draft Planning Scheme. That document has been incorporated as a planning principle along with a couple of other documents, but there are many other documents of other areas that are quite dated. I disagree about the Litchfield plan. It went through quite an extensive phase of public consultation. Not everyone would agree with it but I believe that it is adequate and I am certainly trying to stick by it. Lastly, in terms of proliferation of consent authorities, I think the set-up we have is quite adequate and I will be sticking with that.
AFL Game in Darwin
Ms LAWRIE (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, it is a great week in Darwin because the Western Bulldogs are in town - or the Darwin Doggies as we like to call them. They are here for tomorrow night’s clash with Melbourne at Marrara. We should also welcome Melbourne to the Territory especially as there are three prominent Territory lads playing with the Demons line-up: Matthew Whelan, Aaron Davey and Shannon Motlop are all products of the NTFL. While we will be going for the Doggies, I am sure that with these guys on board the Demons will enjoy plenty of home crowd support throughout their visit to the Top End.
The Doggies are not just here for the game. Territorians can also look forward to a great range of community activities that also form a part of our agreement with the AFL and the Bulldogs. Many Territory kids have already benefited from a free Auskick super clinic at Marrara on Tuesday afternoon. A picture on the front of yesterday’s NT News demonstrates just how much fun that was and today, on the back page of the paper, it is great to see the players with the kids out at Wadeye.
Bulldogs players today will be visiting the Don Dale Juvenile Detention Centre, some local high schools and aged care homes, Total Recreation, and the Royal Darwin Hospital. At all of these places they will meet kids, often disadvantaged kids, who will have some great fun and be inspired. I know that the Western Bulldogs themselves get immense joy and satisfaction from this aspect of their trips to Darwin. Perhaps not as much joy and satisfaction as they got when they thumped Carlton last year up here but still very rewarding.
Members will agree that it is great to see them getting out and involving a broad cross-section of our community. In August this year, the Bulldogs will be back for a regular season game against Port Adelaide. This game will be on the eve of the finals and, with both teams expected to be in contention, it has the potential to be one of the best AFL games we will see in the Territory. This game will mark the end of the three year agreement that the Martin government struck with the AFL to bring the very best football to the Territory. This agreement has brought some fantastic AFL games to the Territory and established a key second home relationship with the Western Bulldogs Football Club.
Members would be aware that last year the government and the Bulldogs put the package to the AFL to extend this agreement and to expand it to include two regular season games from this year. We were unsuccessful in getting two games scheduled for this year but the door is certainly still open for 2007. To this end a task force was established in November of last year. This task force includes the government, with the Chief Minister and me; and members from the AFL, Michael Long and Wayne Jackson; the Bulldogs CEO, Campbell Rose; AFL NT CEO, Tony Frawley; and the Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport CEO, Mike Dillon.
In addition to securing two home premiership games, the task force has the continuation of the NAB matches in Darwin and Alice Springs and the biennial All Stars match firmly in its sites. The support of the Bulldogs and willingness to establish themselves a firm base in the Territory has been at the fore of discussions.
I sincerely thank the Bulldogs for their past and present commitment to having the foresight to transfer home games to the Territory and we are working very hard to continue this relationship and reward them for their efforts. The task force is currently putting together strategies to meet our objectives. Having Wayne Jackson, the former CEO of the AFL, on board is an invaluable assistance to us in understanding what the AFL is looking for. The AFL scheduling is a very complex process as there are many considerations - current contracts with other venues, TV broadcasting agreements and the wishes of the clubs.
The task force has met twice and has requested that at this stage it will be beneficial that I meet with the AFL. At the invitation of the AFL, Tony Frawley and I will be meeting with the AFL CEO, Mr Andrew Demetriou, on 17 March in Melbourne. This meeting will be used to make clear to the AFL the proposed aims of the task force and to work on a collaborative approach to achieving these aims. We will be seeking from the AFL an indication on what they want to see in our submissions for two games from 2007. The full task force will then meet again following this meeting to advance our strategies. I very much look forward to engaging in a new round of negotiations with the AFL.
I am certain that Territorians can look forward to a bright future for the AFL in the Northern Territory. I personally am looking forward to an exciting game of AFL this weekend. I am confident that Territorians will once again show their support for the continuation of elite AFL football events in the Territory. Go the Darwin Doggies.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, we welcome the statement and it is understood that these kinds of activities are important in the aim of strengthening the local participation within the code and the flow-on benefits of having young people particularly starting to see a future in sport. Sport has a very important part to play in directing our young people down more positive pathways. I report that it is only in the last day or so that I have heard so many people talking about the opportunity to meet these AFL players as they are like heroes to them and it is good to hear of that engagement with the wider community. It is particularly impressive to see these young players of an AFL club investing their time so generously to inspire and encourage young people.
Of course if I was to mention once again, as I did before, any reference to say cost-benefit analysis, I would be in danger of been attacked as saying this is wrong and the CLP is going to cancel all these types of activities. If you want to proceed down that path go for it, but everyone else knows what is going on.
I also look forward to a statement that you will make on your rationale for the rumoured cut to 10 sports in the Arafura Games that is coming up, so that we have an understanding. That is probably an unpleasant statement to make. However, we do need to know that there is positive stuff happening and I am very pleased to hear it. I look forward to further negotiations to widen the code down to South Australia. That is all good stuff but what about the talk about the removal of sports from the Arafura Games? You need to make a statement about that so we can clarify that and understand the other side of your operations as Sports minister.
Ms LAWRIE (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his support for the Bulldogs game. He has finally realised what Labor has known for a long time - Territorians love their sport and they love these major league events coming to the Territory. It has been a Labor initiative to get events of this nature to the Territory. I am very honoured to be able to continue the good work done by the former minister, John Ah Kit. First of all, we were slammed for hosting the Wildcats this year and we were touched up about hosting the rugby league in Alice Springs. If you want to know cost-benefit analysis I will give you this little snippet from the rugby league in Alice Springs.
Both teams forwent any match payments: $60 000 in revenue is going to the Central Australian Rugby and Football League. That means that, of the $73 000 expenditure to get that game there, we have already realised $60 000 directly into the code in Alice Springs. That is not adding on top the benefits in tourism. Many players and officials took the extra days to travel out to Uluru, and spent their money around the Alice Springs environment. It is a fantastic event.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Youth Initiatives
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Young Territorians): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory government is proud of our young people and is committed to providing recreational activities and development opportunities for young Territorians. The Youth Round Table is a wonderful forum through which the views and aspirations of young people can be directly communicated to government. It gives our youth a tangible avenue for expressing their concerns and ideas, and encourages them to take an active role in the community.
The round table consists of 16 young people aged between 15 and 25, selected from applications received from across the Territory. Today, I am delighted to announce the new members of the 2006 Youth Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians. They are: from Darwin, Robert Dalton, David Johnson, Kevin Kadirgamar, Justin Murphy and Hannah Watts; Palmerston, Vanessa Matsen and Tammy-Jane Reece; from Darwin rural, Jaimie McIntyre; from Batchelor, Lisa Deveraux; from Katherine, Perri Fletcher; from Jabiru, Louisa Bayne; from Tennant Creek, Chee Lean; from Alice Springs, Kelsey Rodda and Emily Ryan; from Nhulunbuy, Rose Sadleir; and from Alyangula, Annalise Durilla.
These are 16 young people who are representative of the geographic, cultural and ethnic diversity in the Northern Territory. I look forward very much to working with my round table throughout the year and hearing their insight into current youth issues. Their advice will be invaluable in the development of government policies, programs and services for young Territorians. I encourage all young people to contact round table members to ensure their views and opinions are heard.
Today, it also gives me great pleasure to announce the recipients of the first round of Youth Grants for 2006. This round of Youth Grants funds activities for National Youth Week. National Youth Week continues to get bigger and better in the Northern Territory every year. This year, National Youth Week takes place from 1 to 9 April, and the theme is ‘celebrate and recognise the value of all young Australians in their community’. The Youth Grants program is a great way for government to support the community and get young people involved in a variety of activities and projects for National Youth Week. It provides young people and organisations with the means of putting their ideas into action.
The applications received were wonderful; it was great to see young people and youth organisations proposing such new and innovative activities. The list of projects and activities which are being funded makes for interesting reading. There is everything from Puppy Love, a program run by the RSPCA which is teaching young people about the importance of looking after and respecting animals, to leadership courses, cheerleading workshops, youth festivals, bicycle maintenance, circus activities, story telling workshops, mural projects, hip hop workshops - and the list goes on. These activities are spread across the Territory from Darwin and all our urban centres to Elliott, Areyonga, Milingimbi and other places. The applications themselves show just how creative and energetic our young people can be. The Youth Grants program is an important way to provide the means for them to turn their ideas into actions.
Madam Speaker, I table a full list of the successful grant recipients for this funding round. I take this opportunity to congratulate our wonderful young people; those appointed to the round table and those who have had their fabulous projects given the green light. All of them enrich the cultural and creative environment for our Territory.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, it is good to engage young people, particularly where the Chief Minister receives direct feedback from responsible young people who have been given the honour to be involved at this level. I encourage all members to find means to engage our young people. We may, at times, underestimate our position as elected members within our own communities. We also can conduct these sorts of activities at a more grassroots level.
We acknowledge the great role of this senior level against the office of Chief Minister and minister. This is a program that has existed in the Territory for some years. I think it was initiated by former Chief Minister, Shane Stone, and is replicated in a number of other states. It is a good thing. We should respect the voice of young people, not just through the process of consultation and have a listen to what they say, but actually go to the next stage and implement some of these ideas and give them direct feedback, otherwise we can easily and, sadly, fall into the trap of tokenism.
There has been an issue generated out of youth forums over the past few years, which I will lodge with the minister now, that being the proposal to allow younger people, perhaps 16-year-olds, to participate in local government elections by means of voting, because it is the issues of local government that most directly affect young people, and they can have a legitimate say in the decisions involving their own communities. So I put this before you, minister, if you could take that on board, because it is a proposal that has been generated from our young people over a number of years. I lodge it once again with you in this term of new government to consider ways where that could be applied. There may be some difficulties.
Recently I had a young person who wanted to be a member of the council, but was a little too young – they would have been an excellent member.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Reports noted.
ADMINISTRATORS PENSIONS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 37)
(Serial 37)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Administrators Pensions Amendment Bill is to close the Administrators Pensions Scheme to future Administrators of the Northern Territory, and to provide for continuity of pension arrangements for the current Administrator, and retired Administrators and their partners.
By way of background, the Administrators Pensions Act provides for a lifetime pension equivalent to 60% of an Administrator’s base salary after five years service. In the event of death, a reversionary pension is payable to the partner of the former Administrator. The Governor-General, on advice from the Northern Territory government, appoints the Administrator of the Northern Territory and, under a cost sharing agreement the Australian government, as employer, is responsible for the payment of the Administrator’s salary and the Superannuation Guarantee. The Northern Territory is responsible for the Administrator’s office and household, and for the payment of superannuation in accordance with the Administrators Pensions Act.
The act provides for a substantial pension benefit, which accrues over a very short period of time and is out of step with the Superannuation Guarantee arrangements that apply to the general Northern Territory community. Closure of the scheme to future Administrators is consistent with the government’s decisions to close the Northern Territory’s Public Sector schemes in 1999 and, more recently, the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Scheme in 2004, and replacing these with Superannuation Guarantee Arrangements.
The Australian government has been consulted on this issue, and has indicated that it has no concerns with the Northern Territory closing the scheme to future Administrators, and that the Australian government will continue to be responsible for the payment of Superannuation Guarantee for Administrators.
I commend the bill to the House, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
ADOPTION OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 38)
(Serial 38)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Adoption of Children Act to enable the issue of full Australian birth certificates for overseas-born adopted children.
The primary document for a child to establish their identity is a birth certificate. Presently, the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages can only issue a birth extract for overseas-born adopted children. While an extract has the same evidentiary value as a full birth certificate, adoptive parents have cited instances where its value is queried, if not declined.
In December 1998, the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption came into force in Australia. The Convention provides for a cooperative framework between source and receiving countries, ensures international standards, remedies in the best interests of the child, and mitigates the risk of child abduction and trafficking for adoption.
One outcome of the convention is that it permits overseas adoption authorities to finalise adoption orders in the source country, and to require automatic recognition of those orders by the receiving country. China, and more recently Thailand, have chosen to exercise this prerogative. Prior to this, the typical practice in Australian jurisdictions was for the overseas adoption to be finalised in an Australian court, the adoption registered, and a birth certificate or extract subsequently issued for the child. Because some adoptions are now automatically recognised under Australian law when they are finalised by a foreign court, they do not trigger the requirements for birth registration in states and territories because there is no domestic order for adoption. As a result, these adopted children cannot be issued with an Australian birth certificate.
Last year, the Commonwealth House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services conducted an inquiry into the adoption of children from overseas. In its report of November last year, the committee highlighted this discriminatory anomaly and provided recommendation 11 which advocates the following:
- The … states and territories … amend their legislation for the registration of births so that adoptions completed overseas and recognised by Australian law will be registered and lead to the issue of a birth certificate.
I am pleased that the Northern Territory is the first jurisdiction to bring before its legislature a measure to rectify this anomaly. The bill provides for a birth registration system which applies irrespective of whether the overseas adoption is finalised in the Northern Territory local court, or under a foreign adoption law which is automatically recognised by Australia, or by way of a foreign court order subsequently the subject of a declaration of validity by the local court. The bill provides a mechanism which ensures the necessary birth information is entered into the adoptions register and this, in turn, is able to be linked to the register of births.
Obviously, an Australian birth certificate can only be issued if the source country supplies sufficient birth information. The minimum requisite for information for the child includes their name before and after adoption, sex, date and place of birth. I would like to point out that there may be a very small number of cases where some of this information is not available from the overseas adoption authority because of the circumstances in which the child was abandoned. In such cases a birth extract will be available.
Application of the bill will be retrospective to 3 May 1994, to cover all overseas children adopted under the present act. The registrar will have the discretion to issue birth certificates prior to this if the information is available and reliable. Birth extracts will continue to be available to those who want them. The bill provides appropriate procedural safeguards. The adoption must be registered in the Northern Territory adoptions register. This measure is designed to safeguard against the possible risk of parents of overseas-born adopted children in other jurisdictions who may be tempted to seek an Australian birth certificate from the Northern Territory Registrar of Birth, Deaths and Marriages when they are unable to obtain such a certificate in their home state. However, it will not deny former residents a birth certificate as long as the adoption was finalised by the Northern Territory administration. Also, the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages must not register any child if that child is already registered in another jurisdiction. This is to safeguard against the risk of Australian double entry, and possible fraud.
Madam Speaker, this system will, for the first time anywhere in Australia, enable the issue of full birth certificates for overseas-born children adopted by Northern Territory families under foreign laws recognised by Australia whenever sufficient birth information is supplied by the overseas adoption authority.
The secondary purpose of the bill is to append to section 5 of the act, that section which defines the jurisdiction of the local court, a note that the Commonwealth Family Law (Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption) Regulations 1998 apply in the Northern Territory. These regulations give effect to Australia’s obligations and entitlements under the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, and already apply in the Northern Territory pursuant to the Commonwealth/State Agreement on Intercountry Adoption of 1998. This is intended as a courtesy reminder for magistrates in the local court that they have the power to exercise this jurisdiction in cases where it may be appropriate to do so.
In future, the Northern Territory will use the regulations to convert adoption orders from Thailand if anticipated advice from The Hague to Australia indicates this is necessary to remove residual Thai inheritance rights from such orders.
To conclude, this bill will enable the issue of a full Australian birth certificate for overseas born adopted children not to hide the adoption but to give the children a single universally recognised document that will affirm their birth details and their adoption to their parents. As a result it will confer dignity and equality of treatment for children adopted by Northern Territory families regardless of where they were born.
As I have outlined it provides a mechanism for ensuring that the necessary birth information is entered into the adoptions register and that this in turn is able to be linked to the register of births regardless of whether the adoption order is made and whenever sufficient birth information is supplied by the source country. In doing so, it establishes sufficient procedural safeguards to discourage non-resident adopted families and protect against double entry and possible fraud. Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members. I table the accompanying explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Nhulunbuy
Member for Nhulunbuy
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the member for Nhulunbuy for this day as the member is away on official business.
Motion agreed to.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages
Pass Bill through all Stages
Dr BURNS (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Commercial Passenger Vehicles Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 (Serial 32) passing through all stages.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I wish to comment on the urgency debate. I am not objecting to the urgency but I have some concerns that I would not mind the minister answering. I am always a bit concerned about urgency debates unless I can be shown that there is good reason why we bring them on.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, this is a motion about the suspending of standing orders if you are making comment about the suspension of standing orders you can now. If you are only talking about the urgency then you can talk now. It was not clear at this stage.
Mr WOOD: If the minister is suspending standing orders because this bill is so urgent now, why was it not passed last year? I believe it was on the Notice Paper but was not brought on in December. If you took that a bit further, if it was not urgent enough to be debated then, one could argue that there is no urgency now. I am just asking the government to clarify its reasons for asking for this suspension of standing orders. If they say it was not urgent enough in December then why is it urgent now?
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I still have concerns about passing legislation on urgency in this parliament. These sittings have been particularly thin on the ground in regards to legislation. The government seems to not have done the job very well. This legislation probably could have waited till the March sittings; it is only four weeks away. The intent of the government has been clearly heralded throughout the Territory and I would imagine not much would happen if within the month, anyone would slip through the cordon to avoid this legislation. It is just a matter process.
We have a system here within the parliament and it means that the four weeks would have allowed members to take this bill back to their constituency and get some feedback. We are not talking about not supporting the bill or anything like that. However, because it has been brought in on urgency there has been very little time to consult, to find out what exactly is happening with the Taxi Council and also to clarify whether there should not be other issues or points put in the legislation to make it even stronger for those people who should not have a taxi licence.
Madam Speaker, I believe government should justify why they have brought it on urgency because, at the moment, there is probably no reason why it should not stand for four weeks on the books.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, speaking to the queries about the urgency motion, I say, as Leader of Government Business, we do not bring on legislation on urgency unless we believe there is a very good reason to do so.
I have to correct the member for Nelson. This legislation was not on the Notice Paper in December; it was put on to the Notice Paper on Tuesday last week. It has certainly been the intent of this government - without debating the context of the bill; we will do that in the second reading debate - to clarify the parliament’s intent as to who is a fit and proper person to hold a commercial passenger vehicle licence. We announced our intent to amend this legislation. There have been complex legal issues that have had to be worked through, and they can be discussed when we debate the bill in the second reading. However, I say to both honourable members: we do not bring urgency in lightly. We believe there are very real issue that have to be address urgently.
In regards to the capacity to take the legislation back particularly to the taxi and commercial passenger vehicle industry, that is why, as I explained last week, we suspended standing orders to put the bill on the table on Tuesday last week, as opposed to giving notice on Tuesday and bringing it in on Wednesday: to give the industry opportunity and two weeks to look at the bill and raise any concerns with government, opposition or Independent members. The industry has had two weeks to consider this legislation …
Dr Burns: And been briefed.
Mr HENDERSON: … and to be briefed - and thoroughly briefed. My understanding is, and the minister can speak to it, that the industry does not have concerns.
In the event that honourable members may seek to amend legislation, there is always an opportunity to bring in amendments to legislation. I assure both honourable members we do not do this lightly; we do not introduce legislation on urgency unless we believe, as a Cabinet - and it is a Cabinet decision - that there is a very real imperative to do so. I believe industry has been thoroughly briefed. They have had two weeks to consider the impact of this legislation. I urge honourable members to support the motion.
Motion agreed to.
COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 32)
(Serial 32)
Continued from 14 February 2006.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I raised some serious concerns in this Assembly in November 2005 about the suitability of a particular person licensed to drive a commercial passenger vehicle, and the amendments to this bill today are a result of that concern.
I am not used to seeing government move so quickly, if you consider the number of other promises from the 2001 election that are outstanding. Nevertheless, minister, it is good to see that you have your priorities right on this one.
I thank the minister and his department for looking to amend this legislation as a matter of urgency in an attempt to overcome any future similar situations occurring.
Unlike the member for Braitling, I have had plenty of time to consult industry and they are very happy to see this amendment. I have read the bill and there is not an aspect of it that I find offensive. In fact, it represents what I was talking about last year. There is an issue of concern that we in the opposition have in relation to the amendments, however, I am going to leave that to the Leader of the Opposition to discuss with the minister. It is a legal matter and I trust her learned skills.
I also note that the bill has a retrospective element to that. Normally, that would make me a little bit nervous, however, in this case I believe you have to look at what is being achieved. Because it is such an emotive issue, it is important to keep a level head. It is worth noting that some people that this legislation will touch have obtained their licences lawfully and within the rules established for the issue of such licences. They are valuable property and they represent an income for the people who hold them.
It is clear, from my adjournment debate, that at least one person will lose their income as a direct consequence of this bill. There may well be more.
This bill is not aimed at any individual person. Any such law would be revolting in my eyes if it was aimed at one person. It actually puts a shield around people who are vulnerable. The shield I think of is when I caught a cab in Sydney many years ago and could not believe this great plastic bubble the drivers were sitting in. It was quite obvious that the drivers needed protection from a small majority of passengers they carried. It would be a very small minority, probably 1% or 2% of people who may cause injury to them.
In this case, what we are doing is putting a shield of protection, with this amendment, around the passengers, and they are the vulnerable people who need protection from the 1% of undesirable people we would prefer not to see ferrying passengers. They are people who have committed assaults, and also some sexual offences. As I have said before in my adjournment, Madam Speaker, these are the sort of people we do not want to have ferrying our children around. I am a parent and a grandparent, as are many people in this room, and I am sure they feel exactly the same.
In recent years, sexual offenders, and especially those who prey on our children, have become outcasts in society, and so they jolly well should. The difference is that, in our society, our lepers have become what they are because they have made a choice, and the effect of this legislation says that such choices will haunt you forever. For that, I do not apologise. It is my experience that many people who commit an offence of this nature do so again. That does not mean all of them, but many of them do. I believe that this legislation puts protection around the children who are the most vulnerable in our community. The question is, are we prepared to take the risk when we consider the precious nature of the cargo that these drivers carry, and it is my desire not to see that happen.
I have said before that we need to put a shield around the minority of passengers that are being carried, and it is not intended to attack or embarrass any taxi driver or any commercial vehicle driver. It is intended to shield against people who have a history of violent or sexual crimes. This brings me back to the question, minister: are we prepared to take the risk of exposing vulnerable passengers to people who have a history of violent or sexual offences? The bill is the answer to this, and it clearly says, no, we are not prepared to put up with that. It says no to people who will commit these offences in the future, and it reaches back in time to those who committed these offences in the past.
Madam Speaker, there are appeal processes in place and the Local Court can still hear applications that are in relation to this and you will get a fair hearing in the Local Court. Nevertheless, the balance must tip in favour of the innocent people in our society and this is what this bill intends to achieve. For that reason I am supportive of the bill. I thank the minister and his department for looking to amend this legislation as a matter of urgency and hopefully we will not have this situation occurring in the future.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I say from the outset that I agree with my colleague, the member for Katherine, in relation to the matters she put as to why in so many respects this is good legislation. This is also important legislation and I congratulate the member for Katherine, who raised this issue many months ago, and the minister.
However, there are three or four aspects of this legislation from a legal perspective that are arguably troubling. It is appropriate that I put those concerns on the Parliamentary Record. Subject to your reply, we may not need to go into committee. I am not having a go at you pre-emptively about that, but if your reply is unsatisfactory, then I think it is incumbent upon me as a lawyer and as a member of parliament to explore various issues as far as I can.
I say from the outset, however, that the points I intend to raise are not to be and should not be read by anyone as saying that I support child abusers driving taxis - I do not. Any suggestion or inference made after my contribution this morning that I am supportive of such people will be vehemently and passionately shouted down. We have had experience in the Chamber before where I had a bit to say about particular legislation and your government, stupidly in my view and I think members on your side acknowledged that it was an unwise act that was undertaken by, I suspect staffers, where a media release issued in the name of the Attorney-General suggested that I was sympathetic to child abusers.
We dealt with that at the time and I do not want to see a repeat of that. It made us all look absolutely atrocious. Minister, even though you do not know my previous experience in the law in this area, I feel and hope that you know me well enough to know that the matters that I intend to put on the Parliamentary Record should not and cannot possibly be read as me being supportive of child abusers and people convicted of various sexual offences against children. I certainly do not support those people driving taxis. In many respects I do not support them at all, but we can save that for dinner party conversation.
The points I raise are as follows. In relation to clause 4(1), to start with what I consider to be at its highest strange drafting when compared to the terminology in clause 3, that is, where it describes in clause 3(a) and 3(b): ‘an offence against a law of the Territory’, I am pleased to see that in clause 4(1) the word conviction or convicted has appeared; that is a digression.
In any case, in relation to clause 4, I note that 4(1)(b) refers to a person having been convicted of a disqualifying offence. Clause (c) says: ‘is otherwise considered by the Director not a fit and proper person to hold, or continue to hold, an accreditation’.
I am troubled, minister, by the definition of ‘fit and proper person’. I ask what the criteria for this is because it is not to be found in the bill. I also ask is it a subjective test to be undertaken, or a subjective analysis to be undertaken, by the director? If it is an objective test, where are the guidelines and what are they? If there are no guidelines, I ask: is it fair or just for a director, an individual, to make what could be considered a subjective opinion which could impact on the rights of another person?
The next point I raise is in relation to proposed clause 75(d); it is a similar series of questions to that which I have just raised. You will note that in paragraph 2(a) of clause 75(d) it states that the director may request the Commissioner of Police to provide the director with: ‘(a) a written report of the criminal history for the person’, and ‘(b) other evidence in relation to the character of the person’. I ask again, what is the criteria for that? That is, I am dealing specifically with sub paragraph ‘(b) other evidence in relation to the character of the person’. The question is: what is the criteria for this? Is it a subjective analysis? If it is objective, where are the guidelines and what are they? If there are no guidelines, is it fair and just for what is a subjective analysis to impact on the rights of another person?
The next point I raise is in relation to clause 75(b) and that relates to the suspension of accreditation of a disqualifying offence. I note that if a person is charged with a disqualifying offence - I stress charged - the director may suspend the accreditation. If a person is charged then under our legal system there is a presumption of innocence. Yes, in this case and the intent of the bill there is a public interest argument, one that I feel strongly about. However, I ask whether it is best left to the courts to make orders that can protect children such as imposing strict bail conditions instead of giving the director the power to suspend an accreditation? This would have the effect of balancing the public interest and the protection of children with the rights of someone who our law and our justice system deems innocent until proved guilty.
I note that a person cannot sue in the event that they are suspended and subsequently not convicted. Hence, any loss of income cannot be recovered. I simply ask, minister, whether we as legislators need to ensure that our laws, including this very bill, uphold some of the most fundamental and well understood principles of our legal system - the presumption of innocence. I am fully aware that it is a balance of very strong competing interests and arguments. The same can be said, minister, in relation to clause 76 which is the section that deals with the reviews by the chief executive officer disqualifying offences; that is the mechanism and process that kicks in after an accreditation has been suspended, after a person has been charged.
In relation to the schedule there is a very detailed and lengthy list of disqualifying offences and it is clear from your second reading speech and the circumstances leading to the bill before us today and being put to us on the basis of urgency, that I can well understand most of the offences referred to therein. However, there are certainly two - at a stretch three - offences that do not fit within the intent of this bill as outlined in your second reading speech. They are robbery, which is one that I describe at a pinch but, more significantly, Nos 13 and 14; that is, section 177 of the Criminal Code: ‘acts intended to cause grievous harm or prevent apprehension’ and section 181 ‘grievous harm’.
Minister, I am sure you would hate to see a situation where some young bloke in his 20s goes to the pub, has far too much to drink, and clocks another bloke. The other bloke has a permanent injury - say a permanently busted nose or a dodgy arm for ever and a day - thus fulfilling, from memory, the prerequisites of an offence for grievous harm. I ask: is it the case that it is this sort of person you intend to be covered by this legislation? I would like your answer on that.
Similarly, in relation to grievous harm or prevent apprehension, is it not the case that, if the same bloke who is half-tanked clocks someone, the police are called, they pick him up, he struggles and, in the course of the struggle, he clocks a copper, whether by reason of his actions he is always going to be precluded?. Is that the sort of person who you contemplate or want to be covered by this legislation?
Another concern is in relation to retrospectivity. Of course, not surprisingly, as a lawyer I have a knee-jerk reaction, and not a good one at that, about retrospective legislation. There are all sorts of good reasons for that. I do not know how much legislation has come before the parliament since I have been a member that has been retrospective. I cannot think of any - there may have been, but I cannot think of any. It shows that it is unusual and I am sure you would agree. Presumably, you have been advised of this; that there is and has always been a trend for parliaments not to introduce legislation that is retrospective. It is not a good practice to get into. I have an inbuilt difficulty with retrospectivity. I am troubled because, in your second reading speech, with respect, you did not put the case. All you said was and I quote: ‘This aspect of the legislation is retrospective but clearly in the public interest’. My view is that that is not a sound argument in and of itself in favour of retrospectivity. I say that in the event we see any more legislation coming into this Chamber that is retrospective in nature, anyone who prepares a second reading speech will at least, because of the unusual nature of any such legislation, do better than a one liner about why it is retrospective.
I have turned to my faithful Pearce’s Statutory Interpretation in Australia book. I was at university when it was in Edition 2; it is now Edition 5. The final point relates to the fundamental issue about retrospective legislation, but is more detailed, in a sense. You will agree by the time you have finished hearing what I have to say that the points I raise may well be considered quite unusual. Because of the urgent nature of the legislation and because we have been sitting, I have not had the opportunity to carefully research this matter in the way that I might ordinarily research other legislation that I have a real interest in. All I can say in the course of putting to you the concerns I have in relation to this particular point is, forgive me if I am not providing you with as much information as I would like, but I am sure with your resources and your advisors and others around you that you would be able to give these issues proper consideration.
My final point, and it is an unusual one, is related to the retrospective nature of the bill. I have not been able to make certain that a licence to drive the vehicles referred to in this legislation is a form of intangible property. Lawyers would call it a chosen action, which is a form of a property right. We know that a licence of this nature is a thing of value, therefore, I proceed on the assumption that a driver’s licence for these vehicles is a form of property and attracts the sort of things that property rights usually do, and I will come back to that.
In the context of the Northern Territory Criminal Code, the definition of ‘property’ includes intangible things and things in motion. My question is, do you say that a driver’s licence affecting these vehicles is property? In proposed section 75A(9) there is a line that reads: ‘The Territory is not liable for any loss or damage suffered by the operator because of the decision’. From there, minister, I will refer you to section 50 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act which effectively acts as the Northern Territory’s constitution. Section 50 the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act is about acquisition of property on just terms. I will not trouble you too much, however, I believe it is important that I read what is contained in section 50 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act.
Subparagraph (1) says:
- The power of the Legislative Assembly conferred by section 6 in relation to the making of laws does not extend to the making of laws with respect to the acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms.
Subparagraph (2) says:
- Subject to section 70, the acquisition of any property in the Territory which, if the property were in a State, would be an acquisition to which paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution would apply, shall not be made otherwise than on just terms.
I know that the courts take licences away from people all the time, so you would think, at first glance, that that does not cause a problem. However, my point is that, on closer examination, there may be a problem in relation to the bill. The bill is intended to work retrospectively. There is a general presumption against this. However, if a parliament intends a bill to work retrospectively, the presumption is defeated. In short, a parliament can deem a bill to operate retrospectively, which is fine. However, if a bill is designed to work retrospectively, and it acquires a property right that was lawfully held or gained, then the acquisition must be settled on just terms, because that is what the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act says.
In this regard, and I refer to page 256 of Pearce’s Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 5th Edition, where it says:
- So if making legislation retrospective has the effect of removing from a person a property right, the provision is invalid. In that case, the amending legislation purported to deprive a person of an existing common law right of action against the Commonwealth with effect from a date earlier than the commencement of the Act. This was viewed as a deprivation of a property right and invalid as no compensation for the loss of the right was provided.
- This is a significant limitation on the capacity of the Commonwealth to backdate the effective legislation as very often legislation will have the effect of depriving a person of an existing right.
Section 50 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act is expressed in the same terms as the Australian Constitution because it is intended to operate in the same terms as the Australian Constitution in the Northern Territory. So, if it applies to the Commonwealth, it must therefore apply to us in the Northern Territory.
There is a case, Georgiadis v Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corp 1994 119 ALR 629, and as a result of that case, it is uncertain if this applies beyond the common law. In other words, it is yet to be settled.
So, the problem, minister, is that you may not be able to legislate for retrospective immunity from liability to acquire property rights because the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and Australian Constitution forbids it. I would have thought that is potentially a problem. We, as legislators, do our best to ensure that does not happen, and that the legislation we pass is good legislation. Put simply, does the bill remove a property right? If so, what is the effect of its retrospectivity? Will challenges be made? What sort of problem is that going to be for the Territory government?
Please do not patronise me in response by saying: ‘Oh yes, the member for Araluen thinks she is important’. I know exactly where I am. I also take my responsibilities as a legislator very seriously. I will not sit around, as I have said in this Chamber time and time again, nodding to legislation because it is easy. I feel that I have a contribution to make. That is why I got into politics. Please take my contribution in the spirit in which it is intended.
I am hopeful that you will be able to answer the last point I have raised and I look forward to your answers, minister. I say in conclusion that none of the points I raise are in any way an attack on the intent of the bill, or indeed your intentions as minister. I did understand that there were three government members who were going to talk on this legislation. I assume from discussions before that perhaps one Independent was going to talk about it as well. I think it is important that we get detailed answers to these questions. Perhaps I have missed something - if it is all straightforward please tell me - but it may well be fortunate that we go up to 12 o’clock because some of the matters may well need to be looked at over the luncheon adjournment.
Minister, please accept my contribution in the spirit in which it is intended. I look forward to hearing from you.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I lend my support to the Commercial Passenger Vehicles Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. I have lived in quite a number of cities and towns throughout the Commonwealth. Big cities like Melbourne and Brisbane; smaller cities like Townsville and Canberra, and towns like Wagga Wagga. I can honestly say that in all of those places I have lived I have always used whatever public transport is available, be it trains, trams, buses or taxis.
The degree of availability of mass transit public transport and its limitations of service, be it either in areas of route selection or availability of service, has meant that on more occasions than I could ever possibly recall I have had to catch taxis. It is, I feel, with some authority borne of experience that I say to members that the taxi services throughout the Northern Territory are the equal to, if not even better, than other taxi services across Australia.
I fully agree with the minister where he says all members of the community have the right to expect that those licensed to drive or operate commercial passenger vehicles are fit and proper. Let me place on the public record that I am of the belief that the vast majority of those who drive or operate commercial passenger vehicles in the Territory meet community expectations. However, as we have identified over the last number of months, not all individuals within the industry fit the bill.
The minister has outlined and spoken of what is defined as a disqualifying event and I feel no great need to restate what is already on the public record. What I would like to focus on are the benefits that I believe will flow on to all owners and operators of commercial passenger vehicles in the territory because of this bill.
When this bill is passed passengers will have a level of assurance far beyond what they have previously enjoyed, in that the stranger in whose skill and character they place so much trust has indeed been examined by an independent authority and found to be a fit and proper person. I know that I will have a greater degree of comfort and peace of mind should I have to send my children unaccompanied in a taxi to a friend or relative’s house or off to school, if for some reason I am unable to drive them myself.
This is somewhat similar to the comments - which I support - from the member for Katherine with her views as a parent or grandparent, and as a person who is responsible for the care of children. You would not be pulling anyone off the street and saying: ‘In you go, in you pop in with him and Jack over here will drive you home’, well it is very similar to taxis. Sure, you have that contractual arrangement where you will pay, but honestly you really do not know who you are getting in with. It is important that you understand that the person to whom you are entrusting yourself or your children has been assessed and that is what this bill is all about. I think the comfort that that brings to parents and caregivers is something to be commended. I fully support the member for Katherine and her views on that point.
Madam Speaker, it was an unfortunate circumstance that a sensitive issue such as the trusting of strangers who elect to play a role in our transport system should become the fodder of political opportunity. The intemperate outburst by opposition inferring all manner of inappropriate behaviours and questionable conduct needs to be condemned.
Once again I get back to the point that the member for Katherine made about the need for trust and the responsibilities that these caregivers have. To go out and make political mileage of what is a sensitive issue and then to put the frighteners into parents that their kids are jumping in with some sort of monster, and that every taxi has a potential for carrying a monster driver is so intemperate it damages the industry. I have many of friends who are taxi drivers and CPV operators. Let me say that they are at a bit of a loss as to why these types of allegations should be levelled at them.
The thought was that we had all the precautions in place to cover any eventualities such as this; however, we found over the last couple of months that things needed to be strengthened. Well we are; we are strengthening them and once again I condemn the political opportunism the opposition has made of this issue. It is a serious issue; it is something that we really need to address, it is something that the minister is addressing and I commend him for that. So once again let us get the politics out of this. This is something that we are trying to do for the community, something the community called upon. It is redressing and strengthening what we thought was already a – as a matter of fact I think it was a previous Chief Minister from many times ago, because you had changed Chief Ministers quite a number of times, who actually pushed for these changes to come through.
Evidently that bill was not quite strong enough; it could be interpreted in other ways. Now it is left to this government, as in many other cases, to get on with the job. Member for Katherine, I am sure you would agree that the minister is getting on with the job. I commend him for that.
It is not the first time, Madam Speaker, that this minister has had to come in and sweep up after the previous CLP governments because they have not done their job properly.
Mrs Miller: Stop making this political! Just talk to the bill.
Mr KIELY: I will pick that interjection from the member from Katherine about not making it political. I did not start out to make this whole issue political. We thought that it was right and fair and proper - all sorted out. It was not until the opposition started making it political. You wonder why you get these responses – well, this is why. You cannot have your cake and eat it; you cannot say: ‘Do not make this political’, when you have been running on this for months, dining out on it, scaring the populous to no end. Now you are trying to make out this is some kind of draconian law that we are bringing in, when it is actually a law that meets community expectations. It is rectifying an issue that we thought was sorted out in 1998; and we are doing that.
Let us not make it political. Let us not have the other speakers get up and say: ‘What about this; what about that?’ On the one hand, you are saying the whole thing has gone to wrack and ruin - we are fixing it up – and on the other you are saying: ‘Oh, yes, but …’. No, you cannot have it both ways. I know you can try to, but you cannot.
Madam Speaker, with the bar raised, the industry, the passengers, and those individuals who are at the coalface driving day and night to help us all get about our cities and towns, are the winners. Those who have lost are the drivers and operators who go before our courts and are found not to be of fit and proper character. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have just a few comments. I would like to thank the member for Wanguri for explaining to me the reasons for urgency. My apologies for saying the bill was on the Notice Paper; I obviously got that wrong. That occasionally happens.
I did ring the Taxi Council when the bill was first introduced to parliament. I spoke to Colin Newman and he was happy with the changes. I did ring one of bus companies at that stage and, as this affects the operating manager, I know that particular operating manager did not know anything about the bill. I am presuming bus companies and people outside of the Taxi Council do know that this bill is going through.
The reasons, I gathered from the briefing, that this bill has been brought in is, basically, because the existing bill talks about a ‘fit and proper person’. The definition of a ‘fit and proper person’ appears to be not broad enough, or it could be seen as too broad so that when it went to court, there were no guidelines as to what that really meant. I am presuming here that there was a particular court case where a person appealed to the local court, as is allowed under the present act, and was permitted to have his taxi licence. What this bill is saying is that we would like to make that more prescriptive. We have set out a series of disqualifying offences, and those disqualifying offences will have to be taken into account if, for instance, it goes to the CEO or to local court, especially if it goes through an appeal.
I did mention at the briefing that I understand why they have these disqualifying offences. The Opposition Leader has also raised a number of issues about assault and robbery. I also had a concern that some of these offences could have occurred a long time ago, because you go back to when a person is 16 years of age in some of these offences. They could have simply been a misadventure of youth at that stage which, although not proper according to the law, things do happen when people are young. Now, 30 years on, that offence is still going to go with that person. I would hate to say that, just because someone committed an offence then, that they are necessarily someone who is a paedophile or has been continuing along that line of offences. I am hoping that a person’s misadventure or something which was done, against the law but never repeated, is not held forever and a day. They might have had to pay a fine or go to gaol for a short period, but you cannot call all those offences, necessarily, an offence which would make you a risk if you were a person driving a commercial vehicle. That is all I am saying.
I hope there is enough flexibility in there not to condemn someone for the rest of their life for a transgression done many years ago, that they paid the penalty for, and have never done it again. We are dealing with human beings here and I hope there is enough movement in the act to allow those things to be taken into consideration.
The other thing I would ask, and I was hoping that it would come out in the urgency debate, is why is it that the government has not stated clearly the case of urgency, in trying to introduce this legislation? I understand that the reason there is retrospectivity is because there is a certain person out there who obviously received a licence after going to the Local Court. Without going into the details of the person, I would have thought it appropriate for the government to say: ‘This is the reason why we are bringing in retrospectivity. We do not believe that that person should be driving a taxi. We are disagreeing with the court. We are introducing legislation basically to override that decision’. I believe it is important that the government does state the reasons more clearly as to why retrospectivity has been brought into this legislation.
I am nowhere near as qualified as the Leader of the Opposition to discuss the matters of property rights, but it had occurred to me as well about the legality of taking someone’s licence as, in this case, if they had been given a licence via a Local Court, and regardless of the person - I do not know enough of the history - you have made legislation which says although a court has given you a licence to drive a taxi, we are going to take it away.
I do not know the legalities of that, but the Leader of the Opposition has raised some important issues regarding the government taking away one’s property rights, in this case, the right to earn a living by a taxi licence. I would be interested in that debate. It is a very interesting point to raise in this debate. I would not have been able to put it in such legal language, however, it did occur to me that it at least needed an explanation by the government as to why they have done it, and are there any other consequences that would spin off by introducing and passing that legislation?
I need to make it clear: I support the legislation. The matters I have raised are not signalling that I would like people to be driving around who are not appropriate, but we are dealing with legislation that deals with people who, like all of us, sometimes make mistakes in life. So legislation, while it needs to be affirming that governments will not support people driving public vehicles that could be at risk to the community, also recognise that there may be some people who have had a misdemeanour in their life somewhere that that should be held against them for ever and a day. If those people have done their punishment and prove to be good citizens, we should not hold that against them forever.
I welcome the government bringing on this legislation. The opposition did raise this issue as well. The Taxi Council has also raised the issue. The government has responded, and I will support the legislation.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I rise to support this legislation on urgency this morning. Every member who has contributed to this debate has said that they support the intent of what government is trying to do here and there are some questions around specific and ethical issues. However, in discussing those issues, let us not lose sight that this legislation is all about protecting the public, and it is all about the public having confidence that when they get into a commercial passenger vehicle, particularly a taxi or a private hire car, that they are going to be safe. The public has an absolute imperative right to expect that the people the government licences to drive these vehicles are fit and proper people and are not a threat to the public.
Members have talked about children; as a parent I have a right to expect that if any of my children get into a taxi or a hire car or a bus, that the person who is driving that vehicle is a fit and proper person, that they are someone who can be trusted to care for my children. That is fundamentally what we are trying to achieve with this bill.
The previous legislation talked about a fit and proper person, and community expectations. This parliament’s expectations are that if somebody has, for example, a conviction of a sexual assault against a minor, that that person is not a fit and proper person to be holding a commercial passenger vehicle licence and be the sole custodian in a vehicle particularly with children. I would have thought that the broad community understanding of what a fit and proper person is in that respect would exclude those types of people. I am sure that that is what this parliament intended when it passed the legislation initially with the fit and proper clause in there.
What this bill is doing today, through the disqualifying offences, is defining and clarifying for the department which issues the licences and our courts which might interpret and be called upon to consider any appeals, that this parliament is clearly saying that people who have convictions under the disqualifying offences appended to this bill are people who we, as the elected representatives of the Northern Territory, believe are not fit and proper people to be in receipt of a commercial passenger vehicle licence.
Actually, when you go through all of those disqualifying offences, I am sure that in the court of public opinion, I am absolutely convinced of this, that 100% of the people will say: ‘Yes, that is right, people with these types of convictions against their name should not hold a commercial passenger vehicle licence’. I am absolutely confident that the public would be in 100% support of this legislation and would probably have believed that under the previous definition of a fit and proper person that if somebody with a conviction under these disqualifying offences - and I have to say no matter how long ago - the public would say: ‘Yes, I do not want somebody with a conviction for one of these offences, no matter if it was 50 years ago, being responsible and entrusted with my child, or my girlfriend, or my wife, in a vehicle.’
It really is quite simple what we are trying to achieve today. I am very confident that the public will support this 100%. Not only is it good for the general public, it is good for the industry. The industry relies upon the public having trust and confidence in the industry and that is why the industry has given support to this legislation. If the community generally felt that there was a potential for people with improper motives to be driving taxis or private hire cars, or buses, then any reasonable parent would probably stay away from that industry and not entrust their children, their loved ones, into the care of these people. So it is good for the industry as well.
It gives the industry confidence and certainty that the regulatory and licensing authority is going to exclude these people with these disqualifying offences from the industry. There has been concern in the public as a result of particular interpretations in the courts that somehow bad people are getting into the industry and I think the public will have renewed confidence in the licensing regime as a result of this bill.
The Leader of the Opposition talks about the retrospective elements of the bill and inherently as legislators, and I am not lawyer and have not had any legal training but have come to understand that retrospective legislation is always difficult and should not be enacted unless it is the responsible thing to do. In regard to the retrospective elements of this bill if it comes to pass that there are people who currently have licences but also have convictions for these disqualifying offences in the industry that those people will retrospectively be, no matter how long they have been driving that motor vehicle for, excluded from the industry. I think the public will support that, but the public has to have confidence that when it gets into a taxi, hire car or a bus that that person is a fit and proper person.
I have no problems at all with the retrospective nature of this legislation because paramount first and foremost is the safety and protection of the public and that is the reason for the retrospective nature of this bill. I believe that it meets community expectations. It certainly meets industry expectations and for the life of me I cannot see how anybody could argue that this legislation is somehow detrimental to the public good.
As I have said the amendments will apply to all categories of commercial passenger vehicle licenses. Those disqualifying offences also include offences committed in other jurisdictions and have no time limits. The member for Nelson talked about the elements of people making mistakes when they are younger but when you actually look at those offences and they are there on the public record, they are offences at the highest level of culpability in impacts against individuals, and the Leader of the Opposition said robbery is on the margins. Well if you have a conviction for robbery regardless of how long ago it was, you are a person who has stolen from another individual.
Regardless of the circumstances of that when potentially you are one on one in a vehicle with a vulnerable person the public has a right to expect that when they get into a taxi that the driver who they are getting into the taxi with does not have a conviction of robbing another individual. Although the Leader of the Opposition says that it is on the margins, I agree it is on the margins, but at the end of the day it comes back to the public’s expectation as to who is a fit and proper person.
If somebody has a conviction for robbery then there are probably many other avenues of earning an income where they could earn a living quite legitimately which does not put them in a one-on-one confined space environment with vulnerable people. This legislation is all about the public’s confidence in the industry, and as for individuals who make mistakes in their younger days, well, we all learn from our mistakes as we are punished by the courts, but the public’s right to have confidence particularly in this industry must be paramount. There are many other areas that people with that type of conviction can derive work that are much more suitable than driving taxis. For all of the other disqualifying offences, I would like to hear an argument that it happened 30 years ago and, somehow, that excludes people. Again, in the court of public opinion, most people would say those people should not be driving a taxi or a private hire car.
I explained earlier the reasons for urgency. I believe this does have broad industry and public support. The Opposition Leader is quite right to seek technical explanations but, again, I urge her in the role that she has, that that is the reason in part why briefings are provided by departmental officers, legal people who put the structure of legislation together. Members of parliament are offered those briefings so that, if there are specific and technical issues that need to be clarified, they have the opportunity to speak directly to the legal authors and constructors of the legislation. I urge the Leader of the Opposition and any member of this House, if they really want to understand the legal technical details of how legislation is constructed and how it might conflict with other legislation, that that opportunity is there and has been since Tuesday last week.
The Leader of the Opposition had a briefing; she has had time to consider the briefing and further look at the legislation. I am sure that, particularly given that this bill is on urgency, if she wanted further discussion with departmental officers and officers from Parliamentary Counsel who constructed the bill, I am certain that my colleague, the minister, would have given her that opportunity. That is not in any way trying to counter anything that the Leader of the Opposition said; I am just trying to helpful here by saying that those opportunities are genuinely offered to members if they really want to understand the technical and legal details of the bill.
We will provide every opportunity for people to ask those questions and receive that information, as well as standing up and answering questions in the House - especially if legislation is brought in on urgency. We do not do it often; we do not do it lightly and, when we do it, there is good reason for it. If any member really wants two or three goes at understanding the legislation and the reason that it is brought in on urgency, all you have to do is ask and we will give you that opportunity.
Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague, the minister, will answer the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I urge all members to support this bill; it is commonsense. It is all about the safety of the general public, protecting the public, ensuring that the public has confidence in the industry, and the industry having confidence in the regulatory and licensing authority that licence people for commercial passenger vehicles. It is pretty much commonsense. Madam Speaker, I urge all honourable members to support this bill.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the family of the member for Arnhem. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of visitors to Parliament House as part of the public tour program. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome as well.
Members: Hear, hear!
COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 32)
(Serial 32)
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution to the debate. The member for Katherine raised a number of issues and she made the statement that she was quite happy with the legislation. She accepted the issue of retrospectivity. She raised issues such as lost income, which I will come to a bit later. However, most of all she highlighted the importance of protection of the vulnerable. She called it a shield and that is quite appropriate. She believed that people who did have their licences taken away would get a fair hearing in the local courts. I welcome the comments by the member for Katherine.
The Leader of the Opposition made a very good contribution to this debate. She prefaced her remarks by saying she hoped that what she had to say would not be misconstrued by others. I hope that that is the case, because the issues the member for Araluen raised - particularly the legal issues - are very important.
The question of why the legislation took so long from last year to come into the parliament was asked by the member for Nelson. The reason is that there were quite complex legal issues that needed to be worked through. The member for Araluen has highlighted a number of those issues and I will attempt to address the issues that she raised in as much detail that I can. I took notes of what the member for Araluen had to say and I hope that I can give an adequate response to her concerns.
First, she went to clause 4(1)(b) of the legislation. In essence, the member for Araluen said that she was troubled by the lack of definition of what ‘fit and proper’ really means within the legislation. I suppose the first thing is to say it is my understanding that there is a body of case law that pertains to what constitutes ‘fit and proper’ that is quite considerable. There is context for each particular profession, in the way I understand it, of what constitutes ‘fit and proper’. It can fit a particular profession, but there is quite a wide body of case law associated with that. The department currently does have guidelines that apply to this. There needs to be acceptance of the body of case law of what is ‘fit and proper’. I hope that addresses the concerns raised by the member for Araluen regarding clause 4(1)(b).
The member for Araluen then went to clause 75D and highlighted the issue of a written report and other evidence, and what is required there. She wondered whether the written report and other evidence was a subjective test, or an objective test. I am advised that there are written guidelines that already exist for ‘fit and proper’ and they have been used in the past in determining who is fit and proper to hold one of these licences. The guidelines alluded to by the member for Araluen are being developed around the appeal process for disqualifying offences. Once these are developed they will become publicly available. There will be access so the public can ascertain, both with the guidelines and also the appeal process, as to what is involved. She was concerned about whether it was a wholly subjective or objective process. There will be codified guidelines and processes but, within any process, whether it is in a court of law, there is an element of subjectivity that comes into people’s judgments. There will always be that element of subjectivity but, nonetheless, what we are striving for are substantially objective guidelines and processes.
She asked what the other evidence or other criteria might be that is talked about in clause 75D. I am advised that these could be, for instance, supplied by police. They might relate to a person’s interaction with the police over the years. It might relate to someone’s driving record in how many times they have been pinged for speeding, etcetera. These are other elements that could be taken into account by the Registrar and the CEO in determining an appeal process. I hope that answers the queries by the member for Araluen in terms of clause 75D.
The member for Araluen then went to section 75B, which is all about if someone is charged with a serious offence whilst they are coming to trial, that their licence is suspended. The member for Araluen said that, basically, she understands that. Her exact words were: ‘How is the public interest balanced against the presumption of innocence, which is really a cornerstone of our legal system’. That, once again, is a very good point that was raised by the member for Araluen.
The director may suspend; it is not obligatory for the director to suspend, so there is an element of judgment in what the director does, but I am assured that, basically, this would be exercised sparingly and judiciously. It would only be the most serious forms of offence that would really be involved here. The director would have to have a view about the seriousness of the offence and the potential impact in terms of the travelling public.
The Leader of the Opposition suggested that it might be more appropriate for a magistrate to determine whether someone should have their commercial passenger vehicle licence taken off them when they come to court for a particular offence. She thought that that might be a better way. I have been advised that, unless the offence is specifically related to taxi driving, the magistrate is unlikely to include prohibition on driving in the bail condition. It is probably a better process in terms of addressing each particular case, that the director actually looks at each individual case and assesses the need there.
Turning to the fourth issue the member for Araluen raised. This relates to schedule 3, at the back of the legislation, which lists all of the disqualifying offences. The member for Araluen believed that there two or three offences in there that did not really seem to fit with the rest of the schedule. She pointed to three in particular. She talked of ‘acts intended to cause grievous harm or prevent apprehension’, No 13, or ‘grievous harm’, No 14, or robbery, No 24 and in particular she pointed to robbery as probably something that did not fit the criterion.
I looked further into this charge of robbery, and it is usually a person who is armed, in this particular case. There is also violence, or the threat of violence involved in that particular offence. It is important that we realise that this not just a case of someone jumping a back fence to take a couple of mangoes off someone’s tree and take them home and eat them. This is robbery. This is on another scale again. It is quite a serious offence. I believe it fits in there.
However, the member of Araluen, rightly so, along with the member for Nelson, raised the possibility, that someone could have been in youth, they might be 20 years old, they have had some drinks, they have been involved in an altercation, the police turn up, they might get involved in an altercation with the police, and why should they suffer for something that happened 20 or 30 years ago, which is a very good point.
There are a couple of issues associated with that. If the offence was not all that serious, it could become a spent conviction and not be considered under the legislation for disqualification. Also, we have an appeals mechanism, where people who are in this particular boat can have an appeal to the CEO, and ultimately to a Magistrates Court, to argue their case.
There is no doubt in a number of offences within the schedule that there is reason for commonsense to prevail. People who might have had some sort offence, as the member for Araluen said, 20 or 30-odd years ago and they have not offended since, they have been good citizens, they might have been in the CPV industry for sometime, they are good operators and good taxi drivers, there is no reason why their appeal to the CEO should not be successful, or ultimately to a magistrate.
We are not trying to penalise everyone here, but I believe there is an expectation by the public that the bar be raised in terms of the commercial passenger vehicle industry and that we have some commonsense in doing that. There are elements of the industry that I do not think the public want to see in there and it behoves us as legislators to really listen to what the public is saying and act upon it.
I hope I have covered all of those issues in relation to Schedule 3.
A very important issue that the member for Araluen mentioned was in relation to retrospectivity of the legislation and property rights. This is a very important aspect that the member for Araluen and others have raised. She is quite correct when she asserts that any government or parliament legislating retrospectively should take care. It is a step that should not be taken lightly, and I completely agree with the member for Araluen about this. This is probably one of the reasons why it has taken a little more time than I would have liked to bring this legislation to the parliament, but there were important legal matters that needed to be considered and weighed against the advice we were given.
Before I get into the issue property rights and retrospectivity, there was an issue that the member for Araluen raised in further justifying the reason why we were bringing in retrospectivity. In my second reading speech, I talked about that the public interest called for retrospectivity in this particular legislation. To flesh it out a bit more, there are quite a number of elements. Generally speaking, the public, whether it is in the teaching profession, and now in the CPV industry, are looking for a higher standard, a higher bar, of people who work in particular professions or industry. The public has moved along and basically set the bar higher. That is one aspect.
Another aspect is that over the years the police have improved criminal history checking processes. Previously, only name checks were conducted in the Northern Territory. This allows the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to recheck those in the industry. I suppose technology has improved, there is better reciprocity and cooperation between the states and the Commonwealth, both nationally and overseas in terms of these criminal checks. That is probably another reason. I also come back to the issue of the public’s expectations and we as legislators need to take heed of that. Even though there is a retrospective aspect of the legislation, people still do have a right of appeal firstly to the CEO and secondly to a Magistrates Court.
On to the important issue that the member for Araluen raised about the acquisition of property rights and she talked about clause 75A(9) I have written down here that this particular legislation basically says the Northern Territory is not liable. She also pointed to section 50 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and she went to a couple of clauses within the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act that really in a nut shell talk about acquisition of property on just terms. This is an important issue that the member for Araluen has raised. It was one issue that was concerning me deeply and I sought advice from the Solicitor-General on this particular issue. I was assured in writing by the Solicitor-General that accreditation or a licence is not property, therefore when a licence or accreditation is cancelled, there is no corresponding acquisition of property by the Crown. There has always been in section 86 of the Commercial Passenger (Road) Transport Act a provision of property to be acquired on just terms. It has always been there, and we are also advised by the Solicitor-General that we should include that part 75A(9) as a precautionary measure, and we took the Solicitor-General’s advice.
I suppose at a simplistic level my own thinking is that we have professional registration whether it is for medical practitioners, pharmacists or legal practitioners and that can be taken away from someone through a disciplinary process. That person has no right of comeback, as I understand it, for any lost earnings or any inconvenience they might incur. In my mind, a licence or a registration, in this particular instance, does not confer a property right. It is something that is given. It cannot be used by anyone else. It is not transferable. I cannot transfer my registration as a pharmacist to anyone else, the same as the member for Greatorex cannot transfer his medical registration to anyone else, and similarly with a CPV licence holder. It is not a property that you can actually transfer to someone else. It is something that someone has and through disciplinary actions it can be taken away.
Those were the issues that were raised by the member for Araluen and I tried to address them as fully as I can, because I will say it on the record again, that the member for Araluen raised some important issues and they are ones that I have been wrestling with over the last couple of months in terms of bringing this legislation into the House. I commend the member for Araluen for her thoughtful contribution to this debate and I hope that I have adequately answered her questions.
The member for Sanderson talked, as the member for Katherine did, about the need for protection of vulnerable people who are travelling in commercial passenger vehicles and he also made a very good point about the number of good people in the industry, and I think sometimes we lose sight of that, in any industry there are undesirable types. There are always bad apples in the barrel wherever you look, and I do not think we should be overly fixated on those bad applies in the commercial passenger vehicle industry. We have got to protect the public against them, but I have met a hell of a lot of people in that industry, who are very hardworking people. They work long hours. They work very hard and they are dedicated to giving service to the public, particularly the ones here in Darwin, they will always go that extra mile to be helpful to residents and tourists alike. I get very good, positive feedback about our people in the commercial passenger vehicle industry.
The member for Nelson raised the issue of offences that go back a long time and that people might have made mistakes in their younger days, or there may be circumstances around an offence that needs to be considered, and I agree with the member for Nelson. That is why we have built in an appeal process both to the CEO and to the Magistrates Court and we have tried to make that as timely as we can. I have said to the department that any of these cancellations that come up should be dealt with expeditiously wherever possible because people’s livelihoods are at stake and I am very mindful of that. However, the public has requested a higher bar and we have to go through the process, but we have to make it as expeditious and as fair as possible.
He talked about flexibility and I addressed this issue. He also mentioned that he believed that there has been a lack of consultation with people outside the Taxi Council or the taxi industry. That may be the case in some instances, and I will take responsibility for that. However, I will be endeavouring to communicate the meaning and the impact of this legislation outside the industry.
The member for Nelson wanted details of a specific case. He wanted to find out more about that. I am not going on the public record to talk about any specific case. However, I will say that there has been intense public interest and some public debate about standards within the commercial passenger vehicle industry. This is why government is moving to address public concerns about it. That is all I will say about that.
The member for Wanguri emphasised the need to have safety and surety in transport within the commercial passenger vehicle industry, and how it is incumbent on us as legislators to hear what the public is saying to us about these issues. I commend him for his contribution to this debate.
Overall, everyone has made a good contribution to this. I hope that I have adequately addressed the issues that have been raised, particularly by the member for Araluen who, I will say again, has raised some valid and pertinent issues. I have tried to address them as best I can. I have received advice all the way along, and tried to be sure that what we are doing, particularly with the issue of retrospectivity which, I will say again, is not something that legislators should do easily. It is something that we should give a lot of thought to. It is an unusual step, as the member for Araluen has said, and we need to be cognisant of the ramifications. However in my own heart of hearts, I am sure we are doing the right thing; we are moving along the right path. It might seem simple to some people, but there are actually underlying complex legal issues underneath. I hope that I have addressed them.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole:
Ms CARNEY: Mr Chairman, I thank you for your forbearance. I owe you an apology, minister. I do not always sadly miss committee stages or replies to legislation - but I am genuinely unhappy that I missed what you had to say. However, I did ask my staff to listen in, and I am sure they have given me a very faithful report of what you have had to say. I say thank you for not being rude and patronising, because I meant what I said about being a lawyer and a politician, and that I take my role very seriously. Thank you for not sinking to the depths that some of your colleagues do.
I understand that you referred to advice from the Solicitor-General. I have only two questions in relation to that. The first question is, when did you first get that advice, and my apologies if you have said that?
Dr BURNS: I do not have it right in front of me here, member for Araluen, but I believe I received that advice with the submission that went to Cabinet. I requested that advice from the Solicitor-General, as well as other elements that I was interested in, including the issue of possible ministerial discretion in this particular area, which is an area I really did not want to get into, and I would not want to subject any future minister to. I was in a quandary with a range of other issues.
There may have been further advice in January, but initially in December, I am advised, member for Araluen. 24 November, I have been advised.
Ms CARNEY: My second question is perhaps obvious, as I suspect the answer is: will you table a copy of that advice?
Dr BURNS: I do not believe that I have it here, but I do not mind sending that to you.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you very much.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported, report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Standing Orders Committee – Third Report of the Tenth Assembly - Assembly Committees
Standing Orders Committee – Third Report of the Tenth Assembly - Assembly Committees
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the Third Report of the Tenth Assembly of the Standing Orders Committee. This report relates to standing orders affecting Assembly committees.
MOTION
Print Paper – Standing Orders Committee – Third Report of the Tenth Assembly - Assembly Committees
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
MOTION
Adopt Paper – Standing Orders Committee – Third Report of the Tenth Assembly - Assembly Committees
Adopt Paper – Standing Orders Committee – Third Report of the Tenth Assembly - Assembly Committees
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.
This is a report from the Standing Orders Committee relating to the period since the commencement of the Tenth Assembly. The Standing Orders Committee has undertaken a review of Standing Orders relating to the operation of Assembly committees. The main purpose of the review was to rewrite and restructure standing orders to reflect contemporary Assembly committee practice, and to draft new material to be more reader-friendly. The committee requested that the Clerk prepare a draft proposal for the committee’s consideration.
In response to this request, the Clerk convened a working group of Assembly officers, which was formed into three teams, which collated relevant materials and conducted a comparative analysis of the committee related standing orders of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth.
As described in the report, due care was taken to faithfully reflect the meaning and intention of existing standing orders but also to reflect contemporary practice. The opportunity was also taken to remove some obsolete provisions. A draft report of the review was considered by the committee at its meeting on 30 November, 2005. A revised report was circulated to members during the Christmas recess and considered by the committee at its meeting on 15 February, 2006. The draft report was adopted after discussion and amendments. The proposed new Chapter 7 will contain all relevant standing orders relating to the operation of all Assembly committees.
In order to minimise the requirement for renumbering, the committee agreed not to incorporate the provisions of Chapter 4 relating to standing committees. This report marks the first stage of the comprehensive and detailed review of the full body of Assembly standing orders. The committee has requested the Clerk to prepare a draft for the committee’s consideration with a view to making the standing orders more logical, intelligible and readable, and to exclude gender specific language.
I thank the committee for its work and thank the working group for their contribution to the report and, in particular, Robyn Smith for her role in the preparation of the final proposal.
Madam Speaker, this Assembly is run according to standing orders as well as all committees of this parliament and it is appropriate, from time to time, that the parliament actually reviews the standing orders to see if they are still relevant, still contemporary as parliamentary practice evolves. Parliamentary practice has certainly evolved over many hundreds of years in the Westminster context, and I commend the Clerk and the working group. It is a huge body of work to go through those standing orders clause by clause, line by line, gather contemporary standing orders from other jurisdictions, and make assessments and recommendations given the practice that has evolved in this Assembly as to suggestions for members in terms of consideration of the evolution of our standing orders.
I am pleased to table the standing orders relating to committees and the Standing Orders Committee will further consider, probably in mid-year this year, proposals for amendments to the full body of the standing orders. Obviously those proposals will be circulated to members before final deliberation of the Standing Orders Committee.
I suppose it is a bit of a dry piece of work but it is very important in terms of the appropriate running of this Assembly and also to update the standing orders so they can be more user friendly and people can get to the relevant materials they are looking at as they require. I commend the sub-committee, the Clerk and Robyn Smith for their roles in the preparation of the proposal. I commend the recommendations of the committee to the Assembly.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, as a member of the Standing Orders Committee I support the minister’s statement about the standing orders relating to committees. I felt that it streamlines the way committees will work. It sets out in a concise manner the terms of the operations of committees and I really have nothing very much to disagree with. We spent a lot of time as a committee discussing many of the clauses in there, but at the end of that, with input from all members of the committee, I believe this is a very suitable document.
Motion agreed to; paper adopted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
National and Northern Territory Action on Climate Change
National and Northern Territory Action on Climate Change
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I rise to talk about the most significant environmental challenge facing the global community, one that will affect all our children, grandchildren and generations beyond. Climate change will challenge the way Territorians live, where we live and the industries we create. In short, it will affect the quality of life of every Territorian. If we do nothing as a community, as a nation and globally, then these changes will be catastrophic for future generations, but there are opportunities too, opportunities that can only be realised if we plan and act now.
In 2005, Australia recorded its warmest year on record. Australia’s annual mean temperature for 2005 was 1.09C degrees above the standard 1961 to 1990 average. Since 1910 when widespread temperature recordings commenced, Australia’s temperatures have increased by approximately 0.9C. Since 1950 the Northern Territory’s average annual maximum temperature has increased by about 0.12C per decade and the minimum by 0.17C per decade. Madam Speaker, 2005 was the hottest year on record. The Bureau of Meteorology has attributed this to our change in climate. Governments and scientists around the world are convinced that though uncertainty still exists, human induced climate change is occurring and future changes in our climate are inevitable.
These changes are attributed to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activity, with the most significant of these gases being carbon dioxide. I could not begin to do justice to the mounting global evidence for climate change and its impact on our planet and our civilisation. It is a fascinating and sometimes terrifying area to study. It is also controversial. Some scientists, such as the physicist, Stephen Hawking, claim that within 1000 years increasing carbon dioxide will boil the surface of our planet and humans will need to seek refuge elsewhere. This is an extreme view. More mainstream are the likes of Jared Diamond who has studied the collapse of ancient civilisations and whose excellent series on this subject you may have seen recently on television.
Rapid shifts to another kind of climate place stress on society as it alters the location of sources of water and food, as well as their volume, by changing climatic boundaries. For an explanation of climate change and what it means to our futures, I urge all members to read Tim Flannery’s book The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change. It is a fascinating book and one that will in some ways shape your thinking of climate change.
For the Territory, the implications of future climate change are potentially very significant. In 2004, the government received a report it commissioned from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, or CSIRO, which revealed that the Northern Territory is projected to warm between 0.2 and 2.2 by 2030. Wet and Dry Season rainfall is likely to decrease over most of the Territory. The impacts of these changes include an increase in fire risk, increased energy demand for cooling, and heat stress to humans, animals and crops. It will also potentially impact on water supplies.
A report published by the Australian government last year highlighted a number of regions as being particularly vulnerable to the impact of climate change. Those regions of importance to the Northern Territory are low lying coastal populations and resort centres, tropical and subtropical population centres and remote indigenous communities.
Responding to these changes will be a huge challenge. It will require international action at all levels of government across the global community. Internationally, efforts to address climate change are governed by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to which Australia is an active participant, and under which the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated. The Kyoto Protocol is now operative and, for those on this side of politics, it remains a source of great national shame that, having become a signatory to the protocol, our federal government will not ratify it.
Let me make it clear that Labor’s position, both federally and in the Territory, is that Australia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol. It simply does not make sense, as John Howard maintains, that Australia will voluntary meet its Kyoto Protocol emissions targets, but then deny Australia the opportunities of emissions trading and development of clean technologies that would come from ratification. I do not, for one moment, presume that the Kyoto Protocol is perfect or that it is sufficient. Indeed, discussions on further developing these protocols have been occurring, most recently in Montreal late last year. However, it is a starting point and we should be a party to it.
The Kyoto agreement establishes two things: the assignment of greenhouse emission targets to developed countries, and arrangements for emissions trading of the six most important greenhouse gases, a trade which is valued at $US10bn. Because carbon dioxide is by the far the most significant of the greenhouse gases, you can think of Kyoto as establishing a new currency, a sort of ‘carbon dollar’, the trade of which allows industries to cost-effectively reduce emissions. It sounds like a very sensible scheme.
Australia has the highest per capita greenhouse emissions of any industrialised country, and our growth in emissions over the last decade has been faster than that of other OECD countries - and the Australian government still refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Under Kyoto, Australia needs to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 108% above 1990 levels by the period 2008 to 2012.
Australia is a nation that has taken significant steps to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. The latest national projections indicate that we are on track to meet our Kyoto target. Notwithstanding our differences on the Kyoto Protocol, the Territory government continues to support federal government initiatives such as the greenhouse challenge-plus program and the mandatory renewable energy target.
Furthermore, in a recent communiqu by the Council of Australian Governments, federal, state and territory governments recognised that, while Australia’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions means that we are on track to meet our Kyoto targets, significant further effort is required to stabilise greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere to avoid dangerous climate change. The information before COAG also recognised that, as witnessed in 2005, the impacts of the changing climate are already upon us. Action is now required to prepare for the environmental, social and economic impacts that may result from climate change. As a result of this recognition, a COAG plan of collaborative action on climate change will be implemented, focusing on areas where practical progress can be made for national cooperation. It signals a renewed effort of national support and cooperation on climate change and includes a number of significant new initiatives.
Government went to the last election with a clear proposal to introduce mandatory public reporting of major industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Government firmly believes that the community has the right to know about major industry emissions into the environment. Public reporting will stimulate public debate and act as a tool to drive competitive greenhouse gas emission reductions. Public reporting will also provide the information required by investors, business planners and government, enabling better policy and investment decisions to be made. Ideally, public reporting of greenhouse emissions should occur in every jurisdiction. A streamlined national framework for reporting greenhouse gas emission is urgently required that includes mandatory reporting for all emissions above a set threshold; site specific reporting in accordance with estimation or measurement protocols; independent verification of reporting; and public release of a level of information that avoids compromising commercially sensitive data.
I am pleased to inform members that significant progress towards these objectives is occurring. Consistent with our election pledge, the Territory EPA, along with a number of other states, is assisting the Victorian government in trialling the use of a national pollutant inventory to report on greenhouse gas emissions. A pilot program was launched this week by the Victorian government, and I am very pleased to see both the Darwin City Council and Power and Water Corporation participating in the pilot, along with some of Australia’s largest companies.
While negotiations on national mandatory reporting continue, the Territory will move forward on its commitment to introduce reporting locally, and in a consistent manner to any emerging national framework.
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the federal government continues to stick its head in the sand on emissions trading. Emissions trading is a market-based approach to environmental improvement that allows parties to buy and sell permits for emissions. It provides real targets for cuts in greenhouse emissions, while enabling the market to determine the lowest cost approach to meeting such targets, yet more importantly, an emissions trading scheme sends a clear price signal to the economy, that environmental emissions must be factored into investment decisions.
It is the states and territories which have shown national leadership in this area, by working together to investigate the feasibility of establishing national emissions trading and options for its implementation. A set of key design principles for an emissions trading scheme has been endorsed by premiers, chief ministers and a green paper elaborating on elements of the design of a preferred national emissions trading scheme is expected to be endorsed by government for public consultation in the middle of this year. It is still early days, and an acceptable model may not emerge.
Territory participation in any eventual scheme will only be made once all the environmental, economic and social implications for the Northern Territory have been assessed, but I reiterate that it is an option that should be explored, and it makes no sense to rule it out before all the information is in.
In summary, this government is playing an important role in national efforts to address climate change. In working with other jurisdictions, the government aims to ensure that the Territory’s circumstances and interests are given appropriate consideration in collective work to reduce emissions. The government believes that, given our current low emissions and relatively undeveloped state, the Northern Territory should not be disadvantaged by future national greenhouse policies that do not reflect our circumstances.
A Northern Territory Strategy for Greenhouse Action 2006: against this background of national action, government has also developed and implemented many local initiatives to address climate change. During the Year of the Built Environment, government initiated a ‘Build a Greenhouse’ competition. This very successful competition promoted and rewarded the design and construction of greenhouse friendly, environmentally sustainable and affordable housing. The winning houses in Palmerston and Alice Springs generated considerable interest and portrayed innovative measures for minimising energy and water use within our home.
Government commissioned CSIRO to provide updated climate projections for the Territory. These projections provided us with an indication of what we can expect from climate change, which is crucial if we are to begin planning for the potential impacts of the change in climate.
With support from the Commonwealth, the government has implemented a range of renewable energy programs aimed at assisting the uptake of renewable energy across the Territory. One of these, the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program, has generated an estimated saving of two million litres of diesel fuel and over 5000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per annum. This program has also provided rebates for the construction of solar power stations at Hermannsburg, Yuendumu and Lajamanu.
Government has also funded the Northern Territory Cool Communities program, which is designed to educate people about climate change, and encourage individuals and households to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
I acknowledge that we need to do more, and I am therefore very proud to present to the Assembly the Northern Territory Strategy for Greenhouse Action 2006. This strategy was developed in consultation with the Territory community and in line with the Northern Territory Greenhouse Policy framework, which was endorsed by the government in April 2002. The strategy illustrates government’s ongoing commitment to sustainable development through managing greenhouse gas emissions and responding to the threat of climate change. It provides for the delivery of cost-effective greenhouse initiatives that are Northern Territory focused, practical, measurable and achievable without unduly compromising our economic competitiveness.
Our new strategy outlines measures to minimise greenhouse gas emissions and respond to climate change in the short term. Importantly, the strategy also sets a foundation for future action to address climate change by establishing good practices to enable reductions in greenhouse emissions in the longer term. It is a flexible strategy reflecting the Territory’s unique circumstances and it allows for future climate change policy development at the international and national levels. Our focus is not only minimising emissions in the Territory, but also identifying opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in the world.
The Northern Territory has an abundant supply of offshore natural gas within close proximity. Government is committed to bringing Timor Sea gas onshore to provide the Territory with energy security and a strong basis for economic development into the future. The strategic development of Timor Sea gas reserves will create new jobs, and expand business and investment opportunities. It will also lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions in the Territory. However, the production of natural gas in the Territory has significant potential to reduce the greenhouse intensity of energy use overseas. Natural gas is less greenhouse intensive than other fossil fuels such as coal. While the production of liquefied natural gas in the Territory, for example, may increase our own greenhouse gas emissions, the supply of Northern Territory gas overseas to replace the use of coal or diesel can provide a nett greenhouse gas benefit on a global scale.
I have already briefly mentioned that the Territory has special environmental, social, and economic circumstances which will influence our approach to climate change. This is exemplified in our greenhouse gas emissions profile which is unique. Based on the latest estimates, the Northern Territory emitted about 17.7million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2002. This was equivalent to 3.3% of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions for that year. While we only contribute a small percentage of emissions to the Australian total, Territorians are the highest greenhouse gas emitters per head of population in the country. In 2002, each Territorian contributed an average of 89 tonnes per year. This is the highest of any state or territory and compares to the national average of 27 tons per capita.
Our high per capita emissions can largely be attributed to the source of our emissions, the majority of which are generated from savanna burning which contributes 46% of our emissions. Contributing factors also include our relatively small population high per capita energy use, high transport emissions due to the long distances for freight and passenger travel, and our economic growth. Stationary energy production in the Northern Territory contributes 23% of our emissions. It is largely sourced from gas, meaning that it is already relatively greenhouse efficient compared to other energy sources such as coal.
As the Northern Territory economy continues to develop through major projects such as the ConocoPhillips liquefied natural gas plant at Wickham Point, and the expansion of the Alcan Alumina Refinery at Gove, our greenhouse gas emissions are expected to increase. However, we are in a relatively advantageous position in our development path as we are able to take greenhouse gas emissions and anticipated climate change into account during early stages of development. The measures put forward in this strategy will minimise the Northern Territory’s greenhouse gas emissions as we continue to develop a strong base for our economy and provide a foundation for further reductions in the longer term.
I now turn to the strategy in detail. The strategy has seven objectives and sets out actions designed to achieve each of these. The objectives are:
- provide leadership to the community by demonstrating how government is addressing greenhouse gas emissions generated by its own activity;
minimise greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and land use changes and encourage the enhancement of carbon sinks;
minimise greenhouse gas emissions through improved management of transport and urban land use;
minimise greenhouse gas emissions from the supply and use of electricity;
minimise greenhouse gas emissions from industry and waste; and
support efforts to increase our understanding of likely climate change and the actions needed to prepare for adaptation to the change in climate.
Government leading by example: this government recognises that we all have a responsibility to respond to climate change and we intend to lead the Northern Territory challenge to reduce greenhouse gas emission. The strategy I am releasing today sets emission targets for government activity. It outlines government commitment to achieving a 10% reduction in greenhouse emission resulting from electricity consumption in government-controlled commercial buildings by 2011, beginning with a 1.5% reduction by the end of the next financial year.
Similarly, government will require reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the government’s passenger vehicle fleet of 5% per employee by the end of June 2007. In addition, greenhouse friendly behaviour will be promoted across government as part of a greening government initiative. Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and where relevant, adaptation to climate change will be considered in areas such procurement and waste minimisation and recovery. Actions as simple as using recycled paper can lead to a large reduction in waste, to land fill and to associated greenhouse gas emission.
Minimising greenhouse gas emissions by managing savanna burning: as I have already indicated, fires produce the majority of the Territory’s greenhouse gas emissions - about 8.1 million tonnes. Across northern Australia, fires in savanna woodlands are responsible for almost 3% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emission. Since savanna burning is the cause of almost half of the Territory’s greenhouse gas emissions, there is potential for significant savings in emissions through a changed fire management and this will be a priority under our new strategy.
In cooperation with the Australian Greenhouse Office, CSIRO and the CRC for Tropical Savanna management, government has been actively engaged in improving its understanding of greenhouse emissions from savanna fires. We now have an established methodology for us to estimating emissions from burning, crucial for assessing the impact of fire management practices. In partnership with the Northern Land Council, and industry, government has also undertaken on ground trials of fire management in Western Arnhem Land.
These trials have confirmed that by changing a fire regime dominated by late Dry Season fires to one that is dominated by early Dry Season fires, less of the landscape will be burned each year resulting in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In Arnhem Land alone, there is a potential for community-based fire management to reduce greenhouse emissions by more than 300 000 tonnes annually. Better fire management across the Territory landscape not only offers significant greenhouse gas reduction it will have biodiversity benefits as well as reducing the smoke population that is an every day part of life during the dry.
For indigenous Territorians better fire management offers the opportunity to re-establish cultural practices and get more people back on country with consequent economic and employment benefits. In the Territory we have limited opportunities to grow more trees to offset increasing industrial greenhouse gas emission, but reducing emissions from fires offers similar opportunities if we can get the investment and the environment right. Better managing our fires will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and therefore be the catalyst for exciting new opportunities in regional and remote communities across the Territory but to do this we need to bring in other partners, particularly industry.
These partners will want the business certainty that their investment in reducing greenhouse emissions through better fire management will be recognised nationally as a valid method for offsetting industrial emissions. Ensuring this recognition is a critical area of partnership for the Territory and Commonwealth governments and industry, which will be progressed under our new strategy.
The Northern Territory has already had a positive response from the federal government that it is willing to look favourably at recognising fire management as a legitimate method for offsetting emissions. I hope to make an announcement of a major emissions offset project for the Territory in the near future.
Land use management and greenhouse sinks: another significant cause of emissions from land use arises from clearing native vegetation. Under government’s new strategy, land clearing approvals will be required to consider greenhouse implications in addition to biodiversity and other land management issues. Government will also introduce legislation to recognise carbon rights in the Northern Territory, compatible with arrangements existing in other jurisdictions. This will provide the legal certainty for an emissions trading system to operate should an acceptable arrangement emerge.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I ask you to remove that mobile phone.
Mr KIELY: I shall go and drown this thing, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much, member for Sanderson. It is a dreadful tune, I must say.
Mr KIELY: It is the member for Johnston’s, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Understandable! Minister, continue.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Good tune, Madam Speaker.
Transport and land use planning: the Greenhouse Strategy also sets out a range of actions aimed at minimising greenhouse gas emissions from transport. These actions focus on increasing the use of greenhouse friendly fuels, strengthening the link between transport and land use planning, and facilitating a greater use of public and other greenhouse-friendly modes of transport.
Members will be aware that a $70m biodiesel plant is proposed at Darwin Business Park by Natural Fuels Australia. This will be Australia’s largest renewable fuel plant. In support of this facility and to investigate the use of greenhouse-friendly fuel, the Northern Territory government is planning a series of biodiesel trials in Darwin’s bus fleet and in Parks and Wildlife generators at Wildman River and Walkers Creek. The Power and Water Corporation will also be trialling biodiesel at its Daly Waters Power Station.
The use of biodiesel and other biofuels as an alternative to other fossil fuels can potentially lead to positive air quality and greenhouse outcomes where they are sustainably produced from renewable sources. These trials could lead to the more widespread use of biodiesels in the Northern Territory.
Electricity supply and use: energy use is the second biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the Territory. There is considerable scope for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by increasing our use of renewable energy and improving the efficiency with which we use energy. From a national perspective, energy efficiency is among the most cost-effective of Australia’s responses to greenhouse gas emissions. Actions identified in the strategy aim to increase the uptake of renewable energy in the Territory and to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. The government will continue to promote sustainable housing by working with industry to introduce best practice guidelines which encourage energy efficient building designs. The government will also assess the potential use of housing energy rating schemes for various climatic conditions in the Northern Territory.
The government’s efforts will not be limited to sustainable housing. Sustainable design principles are equally important for commercial buildings. The government has promised to create an environment hub in Rapid Creek, enabling community environment groups to co-locate. A green office refit for the environment hub will showcase ways to reduce waste and energy and water use within the office.
The Territory government will also consult with industry regarding the best possible introduction of the Australian building greenhouse rating scheme. This scheme provides star ratings for commercial buildings based on their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
As outlined in the strategy, the government will continue to assist the community in assessing the Australian government grants for the uptake of renewable energy, and we will continue to support Alice Springs’ bid to become an Australian solar city. To date, government has committed $115 000, plus in kind support to the bid. I am very pleased to note that the Alice Springs bid to be part of this Australian government program has been shortlisted in the selection process.
Industrial process emissions: greenhouse gas emissions from waste and industrial processes are relatively small in the Northern Territory. However, with future industrial growth, these emissions would be expected to increase. Government will therefore require the management of greenhouse emissions and the impact of climate change to be considered in the environmental impact assessment of development proposals.
In the case of the Darwin LNG plant at Wickham Point, for example, environmental assessment of this proposal has led to a commitment by ConocoPhillips to offset a proportion of the greenhouse gas emissions from the plant.
Community awareness: climate change is an issue for government and for all Territorians. This strategy will only succeed if it is embraced by local councils, industry, land councils, community groups and Territorians going about their everyday life. We can all do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is why government has funded the Darwin and Alice Springs CoolMobs, and why, next financial year we will be doubling their funding to $100 000 per year over the next three years.
Government will also require greenhouse gas emissions information to be placed on power bills, so that it will be easy for consumers to see how much greenhouse gas their electricity consumption is generating, and how this could change by implementing energy efficient measures.
Every Territorian can contribute to reducing emissions by making some simple changes in their life. Using energy efficient whitegoods, for example, can achieve a 50% reduction in household emissions from electricity. Using energy efficient light globes gives a 10% reduction in household emissions. Using triple A rated shower heads, installing a solar hot water system, checking the fuel efficiency of your car, small things, but they all contribute to emissions reduction. If enough of us do it, it will make a difference.
I have outlined the implications of climate change for the Northern Territory and some of the significant actions that will be taken by government. The Northern Territory Greenhouse Strategy is far more comprehensive than I have had time to illustrate to you today. It is a strategy that sets out practical initiatives to take advantage of our opportunities, while ensuring the Northern Territory fulfils its national and global commitment to limit human-induced climate change. It is a strategy that aims for minimising greenhouse gas emissions in the short term to medium term, while providing solid foundations for further action in the longer term.
Through this strategy, the government is demonstrating that it is committed to sustainable development, and that it is willing to lead the challenge to reduce the Territory’s greenhouse gas emissions. More importantly, this strategy will involve all sectors of the community in achieving the vision of Territorians working together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limiting the negative impact of climate change, while also cooperating at a national level on areas of common ground.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, to those who claim that society will simply adapt to climate change, which will solve the problem, I finish with a word of warning from Tim Flannery. He says:
- Humans seem to be eternally optimistic about their capacity to adapt, and in the face of such possibility those I have spoken to have suggested deriving water from hydrogen power plants, towering icebergs or growing crops hydroponically as solutions. All of these responses may assist a privileged few, but so enormous is the problem and so long would it take to ramp up any such solutions to a global scale, that in the face of swift climatic change they offer no hope for the great majority of us.
The threat posed by climate change is very real and I urge each and every one of us to educate ourselves about it and to take action.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement today on national and Northern Territory action on climate change. There is no doubt about it: we should all be concerned about climate change and ensure that we gain as much knowledge as possible and be prepared to implement the changes where we can, and when we can.
When I look back over the years at the way the seasons have changed, and I have had a few seasons to observe it, there are some quite noticeable shifts in pattern. I can remember when I was growing up on a mixed farm in Smoky Bay in South Australia, the distinct pattern that farmers worked by. That was the seeding and the harvesting of the grain crops. You could almost guarantee that the ploughing would be done in March, the seeding in April/May, and the harvest would be done in October. The winter rains we had in Smoky Bay and on the west coast of South Australia were probably six to 10 inches of rain per year whereas in the Northern Territory in the Wet Season we would probably have that in a day. It was a huge shock to me to come to the Northern Territory and experience so much rain falling on the ground and just running away.
As kids, we used to really look forward to the harvest time being over by December. If dad was still harvesting at that time of year we absolutely hated it because it was a threat to our Christmas holiday at the beach. We timed Christmas so that dad would be finished the harvest and we would be able to go to the beach and have our summer holiday. You could not go to the beach without dad, of course; you could not leave him on the farm coping with all of that harvest himself. So the memories of the patterns of the seasons when I was growing up are quite vivid.
I now gauge it and judge it a little differently because those farmers who live at Smoky Bay and around the west coast of South Australia have a complete change of pattern in the weather. With the cycle that I described before, the ploughing, seeding and harvesting now happens at least six weeks later. And it is not just an odd year. It seems to happen every year that the seasons are coming later and later. It might not sound too dramatic to the everyday person in the street, but it certainly is to farmers and it has changed the way some of those have had to operate their farms. If you consider the short space of time in which I could judge exactly when those seasons and patterns were to occur, there have been some dramatic changes, and that to me is evidence of climate change.
When Mike and I arrived in Katherine in 1989, it was the first time that we had experienced living where there are only two seasons - a Wet Season, and a Dry Season. We had both come from summer, autumn, winter and spring. The first few years during the Wet Season it was really noticeable that you could put a timer on the afternoon storms that would hit Katherine. They were usually around 4 pm so you could guarantee almost daily that that is what was going to happen. That was only 17 years ago and the changes to the Wet Season storm patterns in Katherine are considerably different to what they were in that time. There does not seem to be a pattern at all these days.
I was born and raised in one of the drier areas in Australia where the annual rainfall was six to 10 inches of rain. With that low rainfall the undergrowth is not terribly prolific and all pasture in those areas is treated like gold because it is to feed your stock through to the next winter rains and that can be sometime away. When those grasses in those drier areas dry off in the summer months there is a lot of caution taken by those farmers to ensure that there are no bushfires to destroy their feed. It is very valuable.
Whenever there is any sign of smoke and a threat of a bushfire every stop was pulled out to make sure that the fire is extinguished. It was a complete contrast when we came to Katherine, where the Wet Season in full swing can dump as much rain in 24 hours as my birthplace receives in a whole year.
I have to admit that one of the most attractive features for both Mike and I when we arrived in the Top End was we had left such a dry parched land in South Australia to arrive in the Northern Territory to magnificent lush green scenery for hundred of kilometres and water literally everywhere. With all of that rainfall of course comes the tallest, the thickest undergrowth that I also had ever seen for hundreds of kilometres and I was ill prepared for the Dry Season in the Northern Territory when all of this thick lush undergrowth turns to thick, dry, fire tinder and resulted in what I found out to be traditional, annual burn-offs of savanna grasses and savanna grasses was another new terminology for me as well.
Because of my previous experiences with bushfires, which in some instances were unfortunately devastating, you can imagine how surprised and mortified I was to experience the size of the fires and the numbers of burn-offs here in the Dry Season. I could not tell you the number of tourists who use to come into Red Gum Tourist Park and into shops in the main street of Katherine who were quite panicked when they had been driving along the highway to see these raging bushfires. They were not use to seeing such a sight and they would come in to report it and ask us to ring the fire brigade to let them know there was a big bushfire down the road. It used to take some time to reassure them that in the Territory that this is considered normal. I believe that burn-off is the most serious issue to deal with in the Northern Territory and the minister in her statement has highlighted that savanna burning contributes to 46% of our greenhouse omissions. That is the first area and the most serious area that we have to deal with.
Also living in the tropics, building design is important. Another experience I had when we first came to Katherine was when we were provided with a home, a bank house, it had no windows across the front. It was a solid brick ground level house, with a flat roof. A very nice home but totally unsuitable for the climate we have here. It was a southern design and you could not live in the house unless you had airconditioning. The airconditioners were on, ceiling fans were on and it was the only way you could possibly live in it. The design of housing in the Territory certainly needs to change so that it addresses the climate that we have here and of course these days they need people far more conscience of having energy efficient buildings.
Some people were enterprising back in those days as well. Back in the late 1980s and into the 1990s there were a couple of houses that were built in Katherine which were designed so that they did not need airconditioning. They were beautiful cool houses and those people still enjoy not having to pay huge power bills.
For the Build a Greenhouse competition that the minister talked about, a block was allocated in Katherine to be part of that competition. It was cleared ready for the house to be built. It was never built but, if I remember correctly when I have spoken about that before, the minister has said that there were no tenders received for that building. Maybe the minister can confirm that for me in her reply. That house would have been a good example to show builders what designs to build that are suitable to our climate. That would have also raised community awareness of how important it is to reduce the emissions by cutting down on your airconditioning.
The high-level houses that have been around for a very long time in the Territory are a very sensible design. I am fortunate enough that I live in one that was built pre-cyclone, I believe. It is a high-level place that is pretty old, but it is very comfortable for us. It is a sensible design because it has louvres all the way round. While the ceiling fans go most of the time, airconditioning is not required all of the time.
One of the things that the Northern Territory has the opportunity to do is harness the sun’s energy. We have plenty of it in the Territory. I have always advocated it. and I believe that this happening. The minister, in her statement, was talking about promoting Alice Springs as a solar city. That is a great idea; to have Alice Springs encouraged to change to solar power. The problem with that is that solar energy is expensive to change to. This is where governments of all persuasions should encourage residents and businesses to look at solar power by subsidising the installation or change over to solar power. While it might be very expensive in the initial stages, I believe that the long-term benefits from solar power would far outweigh that initial outlay.
Solar power has also shown how advantageous it can be in regional and remote areas where conventional power plants are usually diesel and not environmentally friendly. I had the opportunity to have a look at some solar infrastructure at Hermannsburg, and that is a perfect example of how solar power can benefit a community.
On a much smaller scale, the Intensive Learning Unit at Katherine High School has a small pond in one corner of their garden. They have developed a pond feature and surrounded it with plants. However, the special part is that they operate their fountain in this pond with the smallest solar-powered panels that I have ever seen. These students are being educated, introduced to solar energy and an energy-saving device while they are learning how to live independently. That is really important.
One of the areas that I wanted to also address regarding solar power is that, not long after I first went to Katherine, this particular place I worked in - so it must have been about 14 years ago - had an area that it shared in its business with a man who ran a service company to look at solar power equipment. At that time, he installed quite a few solar power panels and equipment in rural houses. I can remember the dramas that those people had with that solar powered equipment. I hope that the technology has improved over time so that people would be encouraged to use solar power because, at that particular time, it was a big headache. We really need to ensure that people have the technical knowledge available to them in the area to look after their solar power.
I have spoken about community awareness. People generally want to do the right thing by their environment, so community awareness programs need to happen, and that means educating our young people. Young people these days seem to be more in tune with what is damaging to the environment than we were as we grew up. I believe educating young people is very important.
Another area that has always annoyed me is the black smoke that cars and trucks belch out from their exhausts. I find that so annoying. I hope the minister and her department can look at ways to educate the public about vehicle emission, because it is darned annoying. It is not only annoying for me, for people who suffer from asthma and hayfever and other medical conditions, it must be extremely annoying as well.
Other areas to look at in the future include biodiesel. I know the minister is dead against this, but there is no doubt that nuclear energy will be considered in the future if the governments are serious about addressing climate change.
In one way, I was relieved to hear that 2005 was the hottest year on record, because I thought it was just me, getting older and a bit soft, but it is not just me. So many people who are long-term Territorians have been complaining in the last 12 to 18 months of how hot it is, and, ‘gosh, I cannot cope with it anymore’, so I was relieved to hear in one way that it was the year and it was not just me, there is no doubt about it,
I do support the minister’s statement today, in that we all have a responsibility ensuring that we address climate change into the future, and the sooner we start to address it the better. I thank the minister for her statement.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I tend to agree with my colleague, the member for Katherine. I felt the same – are we getting older, are we getting softer, have we been in Darwin for too long - every year seems to be hotter. However, the reality is I started getting news from my family back in Greece that every year it was colder. I recall very well, in the past two years, my sister rang from Athens telling me that she is not going to work because there was so much snow in the streets that the buses and the cars could not drive through the streets. We are talking about a city very similar to Darwin, very close to the sea, in a temperate climate, and I grew up there until I was 26 years old and I remember snow only twice in my life there. So things obviously have changed.
A few months ago, I read Tim Flannery’s book The Weather Makers, and I thought that was a pretty frightening book. Then I went to a ministerial council down south for primary industries, and during that ministerial council we were given a copy of the CSIRO Status on the Climatic Change and its Effect in Australia. When I looked at it I thought Tim Flannery’s book was actually quite mild, because the study done by CSIRO was frightening. However, I did not have to go far you only have to look at the international authors.
A few days ago I was given a paper, which was written by Phillip Stuart and Dr Vemuri from Charles Darwin University, and it was co-authored by L R Brown from the University of South Africa, and C J de W Rautenbach from the University of Pretoria. This paper, which is going to be published in an international journal, gives a very clear picture of what is happening in the world today. Let me quote from that paper, selectively:
- Human-induced climatic change is now beyond question due to the overwhelming consensus among scientists that thropogenic climate change is happening. Observations show that the earth’s annual global mean surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.60C between 1861 and 1997. Twelve of the warmest years have occurred in the 1900s. Ten occurred between 1987 and 1998. These warmings have occurred in two distinct periods – 1920 to 1940 - and again in the 1970s to the present. 1900 stands as the warmest century which has an unprecedented rate of warming. There has also been an associated warming of the world’s oceans by 0.3C in the top 300 metres since the mid-1950s.
Now, 0.3C is not much but for the first 300 metres of the ocean to change so much in such a short period of time, is quite frightening.
What will be the effects of climatic warming? Yes, it is getting hotter, it is getting colder, and we can deal with it. But is this the only effect? The implications for the economy, they write in the paper, due to the climate change are enormous. The cost to the global insurance industry, agriculture and environment may be staggering with an increase in extreme weather events, desertification and sea level rise.
The impacts on human health, medical costs to governments are other facts which will have an impact on the global economy. According to Fleming other resource problems are likely to be affected by climatic change such as weeds, insects, and other agricultural pests may be redistributed. Studies have shown a pole-ward movement of the pest ranges. This has implications for production and cost thereof. With a warmer climate there may be an increased demand for water supply for crop growth and where this demand for water is not offset by increased precipitation or rainfall, climate change may further intensify the competition between growing urban, industrial, recreational, environmental and agricultural users of water.
What would be the impact on Australia? Australia’s climate is strongly influenced by the surrounding oceans and the climatic features include tropical cyclones and monsoons in northern regions and mid-latitude storm systems to the south, and the El Nino southern oscillation phenomenon. In 1998, Australia recorded its highest mean annual temperature since 1910 of 22.54C which was 0.73C higher than the average for 1961 to 1990. The main mean temperature during this period was 16.2C which was 1C above the 1961 to 1990 average. While the hottest temperature went up by a little bit, the median temperature went up by a whole degree which is a significant change in the temperature.
There is a trend where the mean average temperature in Australia is increasing and much of the increase has been since the 1970s. So since the 1970s there has been a significant increase in temperature in Australia. The CSIRO has produced two scenarios for 2030 and 2070 where temperature increases of up to 0.3C to 1.4C and rainfall changes of up to 10%. The projected change for 2070 is twice that of the 2030 scenario.
The impact will not only be on the weather or the heat but will be an impact on rainfall and certainly there will be an impact due to the rise of the sea level. It has been predicted that sea levels could rise between 25 cm and 80 cm by the year 2100, with the [IPCC] estimating a 50 cm rise. This may result in an inundation of coast, increase of coastal erosion, flooding, salt water intrusion, and the loss of coastal wetlands. If you consider the changes in the Mary River wetlands in the past few years where the temperatures are still similar and very low, you can imagine what an 80 cm increase in sea level will do to low lying areas in the Territory or in south eastern Australia or in other places.
I had a read of this paper and I was very impressed that our local scientists in cooperation with the people from South Africa produced a high quality paper. It is technical in some areas but very simple to understand. However, it gives a frightening picture of what will happen if nothing happens to at least stop the increase of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere because the climatic change direct effect of the greenhouse gases presence in the atmosphere. Let me tell you, 400 000 years ago to a million years ago there was a significant volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. With the evolution of bacteria in plants that utilise the carbon dioxide for their biomass in releasing oxygen, the composition of the atmosphere has changed significantly.
400 000 years ago, the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere was between 180 parts per million to 225 parts per million. That has risen gradually, however, during the ice periods we have had a decrease in the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. Since industrialisation, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is constantly increasing and today we have reached a stage where the content of carbon dioxide is in the mid-300 parts per million. Carbon dioxide together with other gases are [inaudible]. When the solar radiation comes in and is reflected back a lot of it would be re-reflected back to earth, so it is good to see then that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases act as a blanket. They do not allow the release of the heat back to space, and thus accumulating the temperature in the earth’s atmosphere and oceans.
The most frightening thing is the heating of the earth’s oceans because oceans are the generators of the climatic events. When I was in Port Hedland the meteorological department during the wet period would measure the temperature of the oceans. Every time the temperature of the oceans was rising above 28C, they would issue a warning for cyclone season, because oceans are the powerhouses of cyclones. Cyclones are always formed in the ocean, they accumulate strength and power in the ocean, and dissipate when they cross they land. If you have a look at the pattern of cyclones in the Northern Territory most of these cyclones would happen in the Gulf of Carpentaria, a shallow gulf that hits very quickly, and generates a lot of heat, which emits to the atmosphere and the cyclones are forming in that area.
Have a look in the past few hundred years where cyclones are formed in shallow warm waters. If the ocean temperature increases the strength of the cyclones will increase. And do you think I am wrong? Have a look at the Gulf of Mexico and the last cyclone that hit New Orleans. In American records there has never been such a cyclone recorded and the intensity of the cyclone was incredible.
In the last few years in the Territory we have seen cyclones of category 4 and in some cases category 5 for the first time in many years, so there is something happening out there and, excuse the pun, something is brewing. Unless we do something to arrest the increase of greenhouse gases, things will not look very good in the future.
How do we arrest the increase in greenhouse gases? Of course, by reducing emissions. We are not talking about closing down factories tomorrow, but make sure this is strategic, and targets emissions. If they are going to beat reduction what kind of energy will we use? Is coal the best resource to use for the production of energy? Is solar energy the best way to go? Is it tidal systems we can use? They all have their benefits and there are disadvantages. Coal is plentiful in Australia. We have enough coal for 800 years in Queensland. Very cheap to excavate and process and carry. The problem with coal is that it emits significant volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases every time we use it in a power station.
By switching power stations from coal to gas we are reducing the emission for greenhouse gases by four times because of the difference between coal and gas. Gas is much cleaner. Still emits greenhouse gases but for the same units of power produced by gas we get four times less greenhouse gas emitted than when we use coal.
The problems with tidal, the problems with wind and solar is the biggest amount is the base load. The base load we need to have for electricity so we need something that will operate 24 hours a day to produce a base load and that will commit the increased demands by using solar power, or by using the wind turbines. It does not blow all the time, sometimes there is wind, sometimes there is not, and of course we live in a system that we have got twelve hours solar, well sun, twelve hours it is night. So we have to get some substitute or compensate for the times of inactivity. Even with tidal waves, tide comes in, tide goes out but there is a time that the movement of water is not significant to actually immobilise the turbines to produce electricity.
There is a suggestion that nuclear energy might be the way to go. It might be, but the prohibitive cost of building nuclear stations, plus the added cost of storing safety nuclear waste is something that we have to overcome first before we say that nuclear energy is the way to go. Unless we discover a new way of producing energy by fusion that it is overcome so the problems of nuclear energy.
Of course, the Territory is a very young jurisdiction, virtually undeveloped, and we face problems. By actually adopting some of these standards they have in other industrial countries, it is like ordering Territorians and the Territory not to develop anymore. We have to develop strategically but, at the same time, we must not compromise our development by adopting the strict standards that other states in Australia may adopt. Let us not forget that other states in Australia they have been industrialised for the past 200 years, and emitting greenhouse gases and pollution for that period. They cannot demand the Territory cut down emissions when the Territory has a very small industrial base, nearly non-existent.
The only greenhouse gases the Territory produces is by savannas burning. Only 46% of the greenhouse gas produced in the Territory comes from burning grass out in the bush. The rest of it comes from emissions from small industrial plants. Certainly, there will be a significant increase when the LNG plant comes into full production because of the processing and because of the greenhouse gas that will be released in the atmosphere during the process of LNG. At the same time, while we may see an increase in greenhouse gas in the Territory, this will be compensated, many times over, if other companies and other productive plants in Australia or power plants in Australia switch from coal to gas. We might actually have a small increase in percentage in the Territory, but the increase of emissions from other industrial places will be many times over.
The other thing, of course, is the government can promote the responsible use of energy, the use of lights that are actually energy efficient. The difference between an incandescent globe and a fluorescent is at least seven to eight times less electricity for a fluorescent globe. Leaving things switched on at night, because, okay, they just go to sleep and they do not use energy, that is not true. If you leave your computer monitor on at night and it goes to the screensaver and then switches off, it still consumes electricity - not much, but it does - even 1 kW in eight hours. If five million Australians leave their computer monitors on for one night, that is 5 million kW consumed for something that does nothing.
There are other things such as the design of houses, and buildings. Look at this building. If the lights go off, it will be absolutely pitch black. Why, in the old times, were buildings and government offices built with enormous windows, with atriums in the middle? Because they did not have the ability to illuminate them and they did not want to close them. If you go to old buildings, you find out you can turn all the lights off and can still see each other, still write and still read a book. But what do we do? We build ourselves inside cubes with no way that we can illuminate them. In some cases, we have to provide airconditioning because there is no natural movement of air. We should start thinking again of the design of our houses, government buildings, and our factories.
For 2000 years people did not have fluorescent light or airconditioners, but they survived. They survived at home, by actually doing the things they could do during the day time. There were certain things they could do at the night time, but they had things that, today - we are modern people; forget them; we have power! You go into the house, turn on the light, turn on the airconditioning - she will be right! The problem is, the hotter it gets out, the more airconditioning we will put in, the more energy it will consume, the more fuel has to be used, the more greenhouse gas has to be emitted.
Another problem is government has enormous fleets of cars, and most of them will be using petrol or diesel. If governments decide that they will not buy full diesel, or petrol driven cars, but will go for hybrids, they will do several things. First, they will cut their fuel bills. Second, they encourage companies to put more money in to produce more efficient hybrid cars. Third, they are significantly reducing the production of greenhouse gases from the cars. A government like ours probably has about 1500 cars. If we say that they are using 40 L of petrol a week, that would be 60 000 L of petrol, and the emissions from that 60 000 L is enormous. By cutting down this emission, it would be a substantial cut and would show a good example to citizens in every jurisdiction.
The member for Katherine said that she hates seeing buses and trucks emitting black smoke. I agree with her; it is terrible. Why do we have to use these diesel buses? Why can’t we switch to not only biodiesel, but compressed natural gas? It has happened before; it happens in other places. One thing I have seen returning to big cities in Europe is the old trams and trolley buses. Yes, you have to generate the power somewhere to power these cars, but you do not generate it in a city, you do not create a thermal island. The power can be generated up to 30 km away, somewhere area away from the city, and you have all the metros, trams and trolleys moving in the city, moving people around without creating any pollution in the city.
One thing I would like to say, apart from the fact that we encourage the use of gas for our power plants and power generation, is that if we are utilising liquified natural gas in Australia, we can counteract the production of greenhouse emissions by reducing a significant production of greenhouse gases in the rest of Australia where they would be using our gas. This is a plus. Even the Territory, having Alcan switch from heavy oil to LNG for the new plant, we will have a significant saving in the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The other thing we have to talk about is the sequestration of carbon dioxide, and I am very pleased to say my department has actually been involved in discussions about carbon dioxide sequestration. There are still technical problems, but we are working to resolve them. One thing we were talking about was injecting carbon dioxide deep in the sea. Tim Flannery has a section in the book about this. The cost is enormous. The other option is to into inject in land. One very easy way to reduce carbon dioxide sequestration is to plant trees, and forests.
In every city, we allow thousands of litres of ethanol to go down to the ocean. This ethanol can be treated with a second treatment and can be utilised to irrigate new areas that can be planted, areas that have been previously cleared. In Western Australia there are areas which have been cleared and now we have salinity in the area. It is useless for agriculture, but there would be species which can tolerate salt and can be planted in these areas and we can find a way to do that.
The other thing is to promote not individual houses, but whole cities, from energy hungry processes to energy friendly processes to become solar cities. Alice Springs put in a bid for these solar cities and I believe she is in with a good chance. This government is prepared to support Alice Springs in its endeavour to become a solar city.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, I move that an extension of time be granted to the Minister for Mines and Energy pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion negatived.
_____________________________
Suspension of Standing Orders
Extension of time
Extension of time
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the minister from finishing his statement.
Motion agreed to.
____________________________
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, as I said before, we can sit here and play politics as much as we like. The reality is that what is happening out there will affect all of us, it does not matter which side of politics we are on.
I would say that it is very important that we develop cities as solar cities, and certainly explore other energy sources. Recently, we have found that underneath McArthur Basin to the south-east of Katherine there is a significant body of rock that can provide enough thermal energy for us to produce electricity by using techniques as utilised in South Australia. These are all the initiatives which can be used and promoted by government.
I commend my colleague, the minister for the Environment, for her statement. This is a very important statement. I have to say I was pleased to hear the member for Katherine make such a constructive contribution to the discussion because, as I said before, we can sit here and play politics as much as we like, but the reality is, out there something is happening that is going to affect us, it is going to affect our children and, even worse, it is going to affect our children’s children.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I add comments on this very important issue of global warming and the faith that government policy has in addressing that, albeit from a small population, but a very resource-rich place within our nation and within the world. We have obligations to attend to matters that allow us to play our part. We have those responsibilities. Before starting, however, those who make such statements would be well advised to consider what capacity they have to implement some of the grander ideas that are espoused in this statement. That is the test. You can argue and talk about these sorts of things and touch gently on areas far and wide, but the real test of genuineness comes when you can actually apply these principles.
One opportunity which I expected the member who was speaking just before me would have seized upon and I would have expected, too, that the minister bringing forth this statement would have contained it right in the centre of the statement as the core element to demonstrate the substance, and that is that the NT Fleet policy could be formulated to ensure that the fuel efficiency of NT Fleet could be addressed by way of government policy, and government could lead by example.
These are just ideas. There are plenty of ideas that float around the marketplace. It was not until late last year when my wife and I were considering a new small car for my wife, and I had the job as blokes often get to test the different cars and make a recommendation - the recommendation of colour was not my choice; that is someone else’s job - but in terms of the vehicle itself, and which would be the most efficient, the best resale value, and good solid car, safe and all. However, in that process I came across for the very first time the opportunity to drive a car that had new technology which allowed it to be exceptionally fuel efficient. It was quite an amazing experience to be in a car that I am sure the member for Casuarina was referring to in a former incarnation, as the type of vehicle that NT Fleet could take up. Expensive perhaps in the initial purchase, but very efficient economically in the longer term, but more importantly, showing leadership of the things that are important and thereby changing the way we view issues related to global warming and environmental issues. We can all talk about these things but the test is when we have the opportunity to apply it that is when real substance and strength comes to our position.
I call upon government to reassess its position with regards to the use of policy to allow greater use of more fuel efficient vehicles within NT Fleet. There are plenty out there that moved forward in a very quick space of time, and quite an amazing vehicle - and I will not refer to any by brand name - but the motor vehicle industry recognises as well the need …
A member interjecting.
Mr MILLS: That is a ripper! It is amazing to sit in a car that just quietly stops when it is at the lights. It is not smoking away, doing nothing, it is just sitting there quietly and when you decide to move off it quietly starts and away it goes. What a difference that would make.
There is the first issue: the opportunity to demonstrate by action and to show some leadership. There is an opportunity there. Honourable members opposite may instantly rankle and think: ‘Oh, you are having a go at us’. No, I am not. There is an opportunity. However our opportunity is an obligation and that is to raise such matters, because sadly, honourable members opposite would, out of timidity or sensitivity for future prospects, not raise such criticisms that are obvious to anyone who would read with eyes wide open.
The next matter is one that I have raised before and other members in this House have raised or responded to and it is to do with this issue of global warming in the broader context. We must never underestimate the power of an idea and to even investigate the power of an idea we must have the freedom to consider the idea and to talk about it unencumbered by fear and in our trade fear is a tool that is too easily employed to achieve a political end at the expense of doing what is right. It is easy to do. Marketers do it all the time. Sadly politicians resort to it all too often in the fundamental purpose of getting re-elected. If we follow that line down we ultimately end up in an ever decreasing spiral downwards.
What I am referring to in this debate is nuclear energy and instantly there would be with the mention of that word for those hearing, an emotional reaction, a little twinge of fear. I have gotten over that, maybe it is because I am a lot older now, but when I was in my university days even though I thought I was reasonably well educated and I was endeavouring to be more so, I still had an emotional response to the issue of nuclear energy.
Having experienced a lot more, read a lot, thought a lot and balanced up different arguments, I find myself in the position where I can say quite plainly that I am not afraid of nuclear energy, I am not afraid of uranium. Members opposite may immediately respond by saying I am actually pro-nuclear, pro-uranium and I want to make the Territory the nuclear state of Australia. No, I have not said any such thing.
First, to generate creative energy we must be able to deal with ideas. In order to do that we must be free of fear and recognise the part that emotion plays in debate. That is why the nuclear issue must be on the table and we must enter it with maturity and talk about it plainly as Australians with an eye to the future outside of the electoral cycle.
Leadership has already been shown around the country in this regard. People are starting to talk this way. Australia for some strange reason has held a position that has shown itself to be at odds with the development of these ideas in other countries. Rightly or wrongly, it is time to assess. We all know the enormous potential of the Territory is contingent upon energy. We know that the rest of the world is clamouring for our resources. One of those is uranium.
If we are true to our ideology and our convictions and disallow exploration even of a debate of nuclear energy in Australia and thereby do not support it, then it also follows that we should not permit it to be exported. Those two actions clash. That is one logical reason why we need to talk about such matters, unencumbered by the temptation to use fear and play on emotion.
Tim Flannery, a man I had the good fortune to meet not long ago at the launch of this book in Palmerston - while I am mentioning Palmerston, I commend the council of Palmerston for the good work they are doing in drawing citizens’ attention to ways that they can conserve energy. It is an ongoing task and it is bearing results.
As someone who has worked in education for 17 years, you can see the change that has occurred in the mind-set of our community, our society. Starting in the schools and as those young people have grown up, they start to think differently, they think about conserving energy. That all starts with an idea, to be able to promote an idea, to discuss things, and then creativity is released.
Interestingly, Tim Flannery at that launch referred to nuclear energy. That makes many stop and think again. I quote from chapter 30 of Tim Flannery’s book. I use this opportunity to mention Tim Flannery because he was referred to in the statement - not that I have heard clearly enough, but I suspect not this chapter. Chapter 30’s title is ‘Nuclear Lazarus’ as in can the nuclear issue come back from the dead? It appears so. The federal Leader of the Opposition wants to keep Lazarus in the grave. My understanding of the official position of the federal Labor Party is ‘No, leave it where it is; do not talk about it - not on our agenda, not on our watch’. As the member of Wanguri said when I raised this issue initially: ‘Not for a very long time and not here in the Territory; let us not talk about it’. That brings out the Irishman in me. When someone says ‘do not do something’, it stirs me up …
Mr Wood: I thought you were English.
Mr MILLS: There is an Irishman inside too. Anyway …
Mr Kiely: When did you become a paid-up member of the party? What do you know?
Mr MILLS: I will not be distracted. I am trying to be a much better member of parliament by not being distracted.
- I quote from Tim Flannery’s book, Chapter 30, ‘Nuclear Lazarus’:
- It’s often said that the Sun is nuclear energy at a safe distance. In this era of climate crisis, however, the role of Earth-based nuclear power is being reassessed, and what was, until recently a dying technology may yet create its own day in the sun. The revival began in earnest in May 2004, …
So it is a new line, it is a new revival, a new movement at the station. The chaps will all gather to the fray and have a chat about this - I hope:
- …when environmental organisations around the world were shocked to hear the originator of the Gaia hypothesis, James Lovelock, deliver a heartfelt plea for a massive expansion of the world’s nuclear energy programs, Lovelock did so, he said, because he believed that climate change was advancing so rapidly that nuclear power was the only option available to stop it. He compared our present situation with that of the world in 1938 - on the brink of war and nobody knowing what to do. Organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth immediately rejected his call. Yet, Lovelock has a point, …
Says Tim Flannery:
- … for all power grids need reliable ‘baseload’ generation, and there remains a big question mark over the capacity of renewable technologies to provide it.
And it goes on. It is very interesting reading and I commend Tim Flannery for a very well balanced book. By reading that excerpt, do not take the impression that he is all for it. What he is for is exactly what I am saying: time to stop and think about it, informed intelligent debates from a position of looking to the future longer term than an electoral cycle. Do not be afraid.
I just happened to hear on the World News program -- FM 102.5, News Radio; a great radio station - reference to someone internationally speaking about some new technology that is going to be tried out in the north of Australia. I am only putting this out there because I could not gain from this broadcast where it was going to be and what it was. It sounded like it might be in the Northern Territory. It was actually being broadcast from the United Kingdom. It was solar towers for power generation. If anyone reading Hansard or in this Chamber knows about this project of the installation of solar towers in the north of Australia, I will be very interested to hear more about it. It sounds like a trial project that will be trialled here in Australia but will have implications around the world.
With that being said, the underlying aspect of this, we are talking about greenhouse gas emissions and global warming - we must do all that we can to ensure that we can power all that we can from our vast gas resources. But please, at the same time, we need to consider other opportunities and start by open debate, unencumbered by fear and sensitivity, just to talk about it.
I welcome the statement. I am glad that we have this opportunity to have these discussions. I do hope that it does go somewhere, particularly in reference to identifying the sorts of things that government can do and, primarily, NT Fleet would be a great place to start.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, today I talk in support of the statement on climate change by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage. Last year, 2005, was Australia’s hottest year on record, with the annual average temperature more than one degree above average. During the Territory, since 1950, maximum temperatures have risen by more than half a degree on average. It seems now that any doubts people may have had in the past about the impact human activities are having on the global climate can be put to rest. The Bureau of Meteorology has attributed the high temperatures of 2005 to the changing climate, and it is now accepted by governments and scientists around the world that at least some of this climate change has been brought about the activities of humans.
The greenhouse effect is a natural effect. Radiation from the sun hits the earth, with roughly 30% being reflected by clouds, the atmosphere and the earth’s surface. The remaining solar radiation is absorbed, mostly by the land and oceans, but also by the atmosphere and clouds, heating the atmosphere and the surface of the earth. With greenhouse gases, mainly water vapour and carbon dioxide, the heat would escape each night as thermal radiation, cooling the surface of the earth. Instead, greenhouse gases absorb the heat given up by the planet and redistribute it out in all directions, re-absorbing and redistributing it over and over. This keeps the earth’s surface relatively warm and the average temperature comfortable. The greenhouse effect is vital to the earth’s ability to stay warm and sustain life.
Human induced intensification of the natural greenhouse effect poses a serious risk for our environment and for the global community as a whole. The release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere traps heat that would otherwise have been radiated into space. The resulting rise in temperature can have wide-ranging implications, from increased fire risk, heat stress for humans and animals, impact on water supplies leading to the deterioration of farming land, to widespread flooding and large scale weather events.
This is a global problem with global repercussions. Everyone needs to do their bit to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. I am going to speak a bit about a few renewable energy sources that could help cut these emissions. As the minister mentioned, with support from the Commonwealth, the government has implemented a Renewable Remote Power Generation Program. Many communities, not on the main power grid, are reliant on diesel fuel generators to supply electricity.
Power and Water is already one of Australia’s cleanest power generators through its use of natural gas. It is now looking at ways to reduce emissions further through investment in renewable energies. It is estimated that the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program has generated savings of two million litres of diesel and over 5000 tonnes of greenhouse emissions per annum. Power and Water is behind several projects pioneering the use of renewable energy in isolated locations. These projects are jointly funded by Power and Water and Australian Greenhouse Office’s Renewable Energy Rebate Program, administered by the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines. Solar photovoltaic panels convert solar energy into electricity.
Two remote communities, Bulman in Arnhem Land and Kings Canyon in the Centre, are being used to test the viability of flat plate solar photovoltaic technology to reduce consumption of more conventional fuels. These panels are easily transportable and easy to install. They add approximately 30% capacity to the power plant in an efficient way. As peak demand in the Northern Territory closely matches the availability of solar power over the course of a day. The use of solar photovoltaic panels in unison with the conventional generator means that a smaller diesel engine can be running efficiently, as the solar power provides for the peak load without the need for costly storage batteries. Once installed, solar panels reduce the need for diesel, reduce greenhouse emissions and contain the cost of power generation.
The Bulman project was completed in November 2002, and generates 56 kW peak, saving approximately 70 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year. The Kings Canyon project, completed in December 2003, generates 241 kW peak to support the electricity needs of this whole community. The project, worth $3.6m, is the largest single installation of its kind in Australia and the panels are expected to have a life of 25 years.
I have been to the Kings Canyon array; it is monitored from the power station at Uluru. It is a fantastic initiative. It works very well for Kings Canyon and the technology is really marvellous to have a look at and I commend the government for that initiative. I would say to all members, get down there and have a look at it, see something that is actually working. It is a great project, it still has a bit of work to do, but the initiative is fantastic.
Hermannsburg, Lajamanu and Yuendumu have been identified as communities off the main power grid that are heavily reliant on diesel fuel. The traditional owners in these locations are supportive of the $6m federally and privately funded project. Solar dish concentrators are 40 m wide with 130 m of curved mirrors which concentrate the sun 500 times and generate 24 kW peaks of electricity each. It is a technology that is easily upgraded with the installation of more efficient cells at the focal point of the dishes.
The projects in these three communities are at various stages of completeness. In Hermannsburg, the project is complete with the dishes up and running and selling power back to the grid. The testing is currently under way at the facility at Yuendumu and the equipment is still being installed at Lajamanu. I have also had a look at this project and I am pleased to advise that while the main community there is making savings and generating its own electricity, they have actually run a grid to the outstations. This, in effect, is saving a lot of diesel fuel at those remote outstations. It has improved the quality of life for the people out there. It is a fantastic initiative. By starting up these solar initiatives out in areas that are off the grid they too can start their own small grids up and it is great.
The investments in both of these solar technologies with different characteristics will identify the most practical solution for remote locations. Power and Water participates in the solar buy back scheme offered by the Australian government. The Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development offers a rebate on the purchase of the solar equipment. Power and Water enters into contractual arrangements with customers for the purchase of electricity. Power and Water also offers customers a rebate on the purchase of solar hot water systems.
Harnessing the power of the wind is also being looked at as a renewable energy source in remote communities. Power and Water currently has an 80 kW wind turbine installed at Epenarra and is realising cost savings in diesel consumption and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Wind data has been monitored and Power and Water believes that the Barkly region offers the best prospects for wind turbine electricity generation in the Territory.
These projects use two of the few energy sources that could be said to contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation by removing energy directly from the atmosphere without nett emissions of greenhouse gases. Further, these are technologies that while still developing are available today and importantly do not produce harmful waste products.
As we have just heard from the member for Katherine and the member for Blain, no one in this Chamber is a stranger to the issue of nuclear power or the waste it produces. Nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gases; in this sense they are emission free. What nuclear power plants do produce in abundance is radioactive waste. I am certainly not afraid to talk about nuclear power, member for Blain.
Nuclear waste can be generally classified as either low level radioactive waste or high level radioactive waste. Low level nuclear waste usually includes material used to handle the highly radioactive parts of nuclear reactors such as those at Lucas Heights, and waste from medical procedures involving radioactive treatment or X-rays. The level of radioactivity and the half life of the radioactive isotope in low level waste is relatively small. Storing the waste for a period of 10 to 50 years will allow most of the radioactive isotopes in low level waste to decay at which point the waste can be disposed of as a normal refuse.
High level radioactive waste is usually waste taken from the core of the nuclear reactor. This waste is made up of uranium, plutonium and other highly radioactive elements made during fission. The radioactive isotopes in high level waste release large amounts of radiation and have very long half lives with some longer than 100 000 years meaning long periods of time before the waste will reach safe levels of radioactivity. The method for dealing with this high level waste pretty much comes down to burying it and forgetting about it. We have heard that debate in here and that is certainly the option that the federal government is putting. Let me say that the quisling approach of some members in this place about saying it is the national interest and selling out the interest of the Northern Territory is deplorable.
Mr Wood: That was very good.
Mr KIELY: Short term storage - and you are the one I am referring to, member for Nelson ...
Mr Wood: I know that. I said it was very good, yes.
Mr KIELY: … so let us get it right.
Short-term storage is the first stage in dealing with high level waste. Ten years in storage can decrease radioactivity levels by 100 times. Sounds like a good start, but a start is all it is. Radioactive material decays exponentially. A further 100 times reduction in radioactivity will take 100 years and the next 1000 years. One thousand years after this material has stopped being useful it is still dangerous to humans, animals and the environment. After storing the waste for 10 years the reduction in radioactivity makes handling shipment possible. After short-term storage the rods will be sent for long-term storage.
Long-term storage of this harmful waste is over a thousand years. Planning for and building a storage facility for this kind of period is expensive and difficult for thousands of years. Not for your five-minute-fix that you keep on running around saying, member for Nelson. Lets tell the truth in this. Any exposure of this waste with the outside environment must be avoided. Accidental or intentional exposure by humans leaking of the waste into the water supply and exposure from geological activity has to be planned for and avoided.
This secure storage of waste must be sustained over a long period of time. If you look at these time frames in the context of ancient civilisations, the Egyptian Empire was building in pyramids only 3000 years ago. However, some high level radioactive waste will take over 20 000 years to decay. Adding to the difficulty …
Dr Lim: That is right.
Mr KIELY: … well.
Dr Lim: That is right. I am agreeing with you.
Mr KIELY: Thank you member for Greatorex. I was waiting for the member for Blain who said: ‘Be afraid, be very afraid’. Well you should be afraid, member for Blain.
Adding to the difficulties in storing this waste is that some waste, plutonium, in particular, is not only radioactive but poisonous as well. Plutonium is one of the most toxic elements known and is not something you want to be burying in your backyard. It is not something you want anywhere really. The way I see it nuclear energy might provide a cleaner energy in terms of greenhouse emissions but the waste it does produce is not acceptable. I am sure no one in this Chamber would want to live near one of these storage facilities. Nor would they want their friends and families to live near one. Even if all possible precautions are taken an accident or an unforeseen event could have catastrophic consequences.
Nuclear power is simply not a clean energy as some might claim to be. It is stop gap at best. The technology is already in use in the Territory in harnessing solar and wind energy is much cleaner and more sustainable and we have the means to implement them now.
A couple of developing renewable technologies may also find a use in the Territory. The ocean’s energy in the form of tidal and wave power is being harnessed to generate electricity. Countries like France, Canada and Russia have been using the energy in large tidal ranges to generate electricity since the 1960s. The method for this is similar to the conventional hydroelectric dam - a basin is filled by the incoming tide and the water not allowed to escape with the outgoing tide. On low tide the trapped water can be used to turn turbines as it is released. With Darwin Harbour’s large tidal range this could be an option worth looking at in further detail. Any possible use of this technology would have to take into account the environmental impacts of trapping large amounts of water and the fact that it would only be able to generate electricity in bursts with the tide. Maybe it is not a viable technology in the Territory but certainly worth mentioning anyway.
Generating power from waves is another technology being looked at closely around Australia and in other parts of the world. Probably the most practical onshore wave power generator involves directing wave energy using walls to a central point and into a pipe containing a turbine. The water being forced into a narrow pipe creates a rush of air which turns the turbine producing electricity. Unfortunately the Territory coastline is not known for its large waves. However, this technology causes very little environmental impact and is emission free, clean and renewable energy. This type of generator can be put to good use in other parts of Australia and who knows maybe we can build a really big powerline to get this clean green power for the Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement. I want to repeat what the minister said at the beginning of her statement:
- Climate change will challenge the way Territorians live, where we live and the industries we create. In short, it will affect the quality of life of every Territorian. If we do nothing - as a community, as a nation and globally - then these changes will be catastrophic for future generations.
She went on to say:
- These changes are attributed to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activity, the most significant of these gases being carbon dioxide.
The minister has two parts to her statement; one is a broad approach and the other is a more narrow approach concentrating on what we can do in the Northern Territory to reduce greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, when dealing with the broader issues there is no mention of uranium, hydrogen or geothermal energy. There is some mention of solar but, until the member for Sanderson spoke, there was nothing of tidal or wind.
If we are to be fair dinkum about reducing greenhouse gases we have to be fair dinkum about producing electricity from non-fossil sources of energy. One of these fuels is uranium. You would think that, no matter what your thoughts are about nuclear power, when writing a debate on reducing greenhouse gases, you would at least mention the subject. I do not know whether the Department of NRETA is very well endowed with people with a nuclear bent, but I doubt it. Does the department only have advisors who believe that nuclear does not have a place?
Be that as it may, I wish to mention the nuclear alternative because the Northern Territory produces 19% of the world’s reserves of uranium. We should be discussing the use of uranium as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. After all, most of the electricity produced in the NT is a contributor to greenhouse gas.
Why does this statement, which talks about acting globally, not look at the paper by James Lovelock as a basis for a debate? James Lovelock, when he speaks on global change says:
- Global warming, like a fire, is accelerating and almost no time is left to act. So what should we do? We can just continue to enjoy a warmer 21st century while it lasts, and make cosmetic attempts, such as the Kyoto Treaty, to hide the political embarrassment of global warming, and this is what I fear will happen in much of the world. When, in the 18th century, only one billion people lived on Earth, their impact was small enough for it not to matter what energy source they used. But, with six billion, and growing, few options remain; we cannot continue drawing energy from fossil fuels and there is no chance that the renewables, wind, tide and water power can provide enough energy and in time. If we had 50 years or more we might make these our main sources, But we do not have 50 years; the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stopped all fossil fuels burning immediately, the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1000 years. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendants and civilisations.
Worse still …
And I will mention this later:
- … if we burn crops grown for fuel this could hasten our decline. Agriculture already uses too much of the land needed by the Earth to regulate its climate and chemistry. A car consumes 10 to 30 times as much carbon as its driver; imagine the extra farmland required to feed the appetite of cars.
By all means, let us use the small input from renewables sensibly, but only one immediately available source does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy. True, burning natural gas instead of coal or oil releases only half as much carbon dioxide, but unburnt gas is 25 times as potent a greenhouse agent as is carbon dioxide. Even a small leakage would neutralise the advantage of gas.
He goes on to say:
We have stayed in ignorance for many reasons; important among them is a denial of climate change in the US where governments have failed to give their climate scientists the support they needed. The Green lobbies, which should have given priority to global warming, seem more concerned about threats to people than threats to the Earth, not noticing that we are part of the Earth and wholly dependant upon its wellbeing.
Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen, oxygen. If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger, which is global warming, we may die even sooner, as did more than 20 000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last year.
I find it sad and ironic that the UK, which leads the world in the quality of its Earth and climate scientists, rejects their warnings and advice, and prefers to listen to the Greens. But I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded approach to nuclear energy. Even if they were right about its dangers, and they are not, its worldwide use as our main source of energy would pose an insignificant threat compared with the dangers of intolerable and lethal heat waves and sea levels rising to drown every coastal city in the world.
We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear - the one safe, available, energy source - now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.
What James Lovelock is saying, is that he is not necessarily supporting nuclear energy forever and a day, he is saying that, because we have gone so far today, the only available source of clean energy in large quantities is the nuclear energy. I certainly have concerns about the waste material from that. We should be looking at alternatives, but if you are really serious about halting greenhouse gases, then you have to do something now, otherwise we are literally tinkering around the edges.
I also noticed there was no debate on hydrogen, there is nothing mentioned in this paper. Hydrogen is the simplest, most abundant element in the universe. It is the lightest known element, it is a colourless, odourless gas, it is non-toxic, it burns readily with oxygen, produces no carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide emission, produces small amounts of nitrogen oxide when burnt in air at very high temperatures, reduces the heat of combustion that is two or three times higher than any other fuel, it can be used in fuel cells to provide electrical energy, and holds the potential to be the backbone of a clean and sustainable energy system for the future.
We soon will have a company called Clean Fuels which is looking at establishing a plant in Darwin which will produce hydrogen as a by-product of its proposed new condensate processing facility at East Arm Port. The government should talk to Clean Fuels and see if trials in the Darwin Bus Service using hydrogen should be achieved. Presently, in Perth, there is a trial which started in 2004. This trial is made up of three Mercedes Benz buses, which will run on normal Perth bus routes, have an anticipated range of 200 km, top speed of 80 km/h and a capacity for 70 buses at a time. They are also trialling these buses in other cities throughout the world. So the technology is there. I believe the Northern Territory, as it is going to have hydrogen available from this new condensate processing facility, should certainly be talking to the company and asking whether we could do a trial also.
Of course, production of hydrogen using fossil fuels rather defeats the purpose of reducing greenhouse emissions, but while hydrogen is a by-product of existing facilities, it would still reduce the amount of fossil fuel being used. The ultimate way of using hydrogen would be by using it as solar or wind. The University of New South Wales has been doing some exciting work on solar hydrogen, that is, they are developing processes which will allow the production of hydrogen using solar light. With so much free sunlight in the Territory, I wonder if our government should be looking at a really great opportunity to lead the world in developing solar hydrogen in conjunction with the University of New South Wales, or CSIRO, which is also doing some work. Now they may be doing that work, but there was nothing in the paper.
There is geothermal technology, one of my pets - not mentioned in the statement. The minister for Mines mentioned some changes to the legislation in parliament the other day to allow for the exploration of this important source of clean energy, with the possibility of geothermal sources being found in the Territory.
Geodynamics, the company working on this technology in Innamincka, is now building the prototype to show this form of energy does really work.
Mrs Miller: A good little place, too.
Mr WOOD: I have not been there yet. I would advise people to get on the web site as there is a short video on the Geodynamics project happening at Innamincka. I do hope the government would take a more active interest in this project, because this type of energy source has the potential to provide much of Australia with a clean form of electricity. There is, hopefully, potential to tap into this source of hot rocks as it is called between Arnhem Land and Timber Creek, going across Mataranka and Katherine. Of course, that is yet to be developed.
The minister also had talks about trials in the Darwin Bus Fleet using biodiesel. Now, biodiesel, I believe, needs to have some discussion. It is countered by the minister when she says on page 25 of her statement: ‘The use of biodiesel and other biofuels as an alternative to other fossil fuels can potentially lead to a positive air quality and greenhouse outcomes when they are sustainably produced from renewable sources. These trials could lead to the more widespread use of biodiesel in the Northern Territory’.
I think this whole biofuel debate is a little bit lopsided and needs to be looked at more broadly. I quote from a gentleman called George Monbiot which was published in The Guardian, on 22 November 2004. Regardless of his qualifications which were not put in here, he raises some very important issues regarding biofuels. He says: ‘Everyone seems happy about this. The farmers and the chemicals industry can develop new markets, the government can meet its commitments to cut carbon emissions, and environmentalists can celebrate the fact that plant fuels reduce local pollution as well as global warming. Unlike hydrogen fuel cells, biofuels can be deployed straight away’.
He goes on to say that originally when Rudolph Diesel invented, I presume, the diesel engine he demonstrated how he could run that engine on vegetable oils, especially peanuts. That is partly where we have today’s idea of using biofuels. He says that some enthusiasts are predicting that as the fossil fuel prices continue to rise then the use of biofuels will become viable. Mr Monbiot says: ‘I hope not. Those who have been promoting these fuels are well intentioned but wrong. They are wrong because the world is finite. If biofuels take off, they will cause a global humanitarian disaster’, and he give an example what the problem is:
- Road transport in the United Kingdom consumes 37.6 m tonnes of petroleum products a year. The most productive oil crop which can be grown in this country is rape. The average yield is 3 - 3.5 tonnes per hectare. One tonne of rapeseed produces 415kg of biodiesel. So every hectare of arable land could provide 1.45 tonnes of transport fuel. To run the country’s cars and buses and lorries on biodiesel, in other words, would require 25.9 m hectares. There are 5.7 m hectares in the United Kingdom.
Even the EU’s more modest target of 20% by 2020 would consume almost all available crop land.
Green fuel is not just a humanitarian disaster; it is also an environmental disaster. Those who worry about the scale and intensity of today’s agriculture should consider what farming would look like when it is run by the oil industry. Moreover, if we try to develop a market for rapeseed biodiesel in Europe, it will immediately develop into a market for palm oil and soya oil. Oil palm can produce four times as much biodiesel per hectare as rape, and it is grown in places where labour is cheap. Planting it is already one of the world’s most major causes of tropical forest destruction. Soya has a lower oil yield that rape, but the oil is a by-product in the manufacture of animal feed.
So I just say that people might get up here and proclaim the benefits of biodiesel. I think you have to look at the bigger picture. If we are going to replace good arable land that is being used for food by using that same land to produce oil, we are going to have a lot of countries that are starving because there is not enough food being produced because other countries, first world countries, are so desperate for another form of fuel that good agricultural land has not being used for what it should be.
I make another note: I have never been able to quite work this out. If you are going to grow a crop for biodiesel or biofuel, you do not put fertilizer down there. You cannot just keep producing a crop and not expect to put some food in there. Fertilizer comes from fossil fuels. So why, if you put fossil fuels down into a plant form and then use that plant form to create fuel. Does that make sense? You might as well just take the fossil fuels in the first place and turn them into fuel. I am not sure about the logic of this but I really have my doubts that this is the way to go.
Planning is an important issue when it comes to greenhouse gases. Who controls planning? The government does. Why have we got small blocks of land, and big buildings that require airconditioning? Because the government gives approvals for those things so the government has to look at itself and say ‘Are we are developing towns that require high energy uses, are we allowing designs of buildings and houses that high require energy use?” I say, yes we are. We are making people living close together because that is all they can afford or that is what is allowed by the Planning Authority or that is what is permitted by the government. People live one and a half metres apart and get a whole lot of airconditioners on one side, never get a breeze. The only people to allow that to happen is the government because it allows that within the planning structure. If it did not allow it, it would make lots bigger and make sure building envelopes are smaller. I can guarantee if you go to Parap Grove and have a look at close those people live …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: … well, we are not short of land, but we just let the market go on and people having trouble being able to afford a house. The only houses they can afford are on little blocks. It is unfortunate, they do not have the ability to buy a larger block of land and buy a house that you do not have to have airconditioning in.
There is another area that the minister mentioned which was about waste. The one area I think we do pull in and does affect greenhouse gases is recycling. I know the government is looking at recycling, it has put out a tender and I know the government does not want to hear me mentioning the word ‘CDL’, but we are not recycling and recycling is a major way to reduce emissions for greenhouse gases. For instance, this is from the Department of Environment and Conservation, News South Wales –
- Assessing the greenhouse gas savings from recycling, the study found that a typical house-hold that is recycling 3.76 kg per week (net) is avoiding the greenhouse gas emissions from 50% of the electricity used for lighting their home, or 40% of the electricity used for their cooking. On a state wide basis this is equivalent to taking 55 000 cars off the road permanently.
They also go and talk about the benefits.
- A significant benefit is also associated with the recycling of glass, mainly from the avoided processing of soda ash and lime, necessary to produce virgin based glass.
On a weight for weight basis, the recycling of aluminium also results in significant greenhouse gas avoidance, due to the high energy requirement of refining alumina to produce primary aluminium ingots.
It also talked about the energy saving from recycling.
- The energy savings from recycling HDPE and PET are also high due to the energy products (oil and gas) which are used as feedstock to manufacture plastic.
That is not even mentioned in the greenhouse strategy. Recycling is an important way to reduce greenhouse gases. It is not in this document and unfortunately we have a government that just does not want to have container deposit legislation and that is the way to maximise recycling. Anyone who has been to South Australia knows it. The Acting Deputy Speaker knows it and we are not doing enough and unfortunately we are just burying it. There is some kerbside recycling in Palmerston and Darwin but I guarantee that not a lot ends up being recycled and of course the ratepayers subsidise that particular project. We should be looking at container deposit legislation.
There is the issue of savanna burning and the talk about changing when we should be burning. My only concern there is if you start changing the timing of the burning, you have to study the effect on native vegetation. Plants that have their flowers and seeds at the beginning of the Wet Season generally are not expecting to get burnt out. When you change your fire strategy, you have to look at what effect it has on the native vegetation.
I would like to talk about solar and wind but we really do not have time. They are important. I think the government in a statement should have spoken more about those things.
Mrs MILLER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that an extension of time be granted to the member for Nelson pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: What I would like to say is our future will not rely on just one source of energy. There are a number of sources which will be used according to the situation. The member for Sanderson had a go about nuclear energy and I say again, I read Mr Lovelock’s statement about why we need to do something now.
The statement supporting nuclear energy is not a statement that says ‘I support it forever and a day’. I would like to see hydrogen as the main source of energy but, if you read the CSIRO’s document, the technology is not there yet to produce large-scale quantities of hydrogen. However, hydrogen, to me, is the way we need to go. What Mr Lovelock is saying is, if you wait for that technology to occur and you do not do something right now - something that will have a real effect on greenhouse emissions - we will be in serious trouble. We are in serious trouble right now. We can have our solar here and our wind there - that is okay, I do not have any problem with that. However, that will not change what is happening. The electricity we are talking about is the electricity that builds ships, makes motor cars, drives large power plants and industrial estates. That is the energy that is required and the only place you are going to get that energy that is not going to give you greenhouse emissions, at the moment, is nuclear.
Hopefully, we will not need nuclear further into the future. We can produce a form of energy such as geothermal. If you have a look at the web site, they will tell you there is possibly enough geothermal energy in Innamincka to supply the whole eastern side of Australia with energy. I am not up here to sprout that nuclear energy is the be-all and end-all; I am saying that there is an environmental scientist here who says if you do not do something now it will be too late. Solar, wind, hydrogen, even geothermal energy, at the present time are not going to do that. Obviously, from when you read his paper, he is not a great supporter of nuclear, but he is saying if we have to do that to save the planet, then we should be doing that. I believe we should give some serious debate in this country.
At the same time, we should be going full steam ahead with finding out how we can run our energy sources on hydrogen and we should be doing more exploration in the Northern Territory looking for geothermal sources of energy. Anyone who has been around Mataranka and Daly River will know there are many hot springs in that area, so there is the potential that we have a large area of what is called hot rocks between Timber Creek and the Arnhem Land area. If we had a great source of hot rocks in that area, we could produce some of the cleanest electricity in the world.
I quickly add one thing. The member for Blain talked about the hybrid cars produced. Honda has one of them and one of the other companies like Nissan, I think, now produces one. Maybe the Northern Territory government has to look at converting most of its fleet to gas. People say that gas is a bit more greenhouse friendly than petroleum. Perhaps there is a requirement to turn most of fleet over, where possible, to gas. I know the car I have, if you order it, they actually make a ute that is fitted out already. It is not an extra; it is just that you have to order it. I do not know whether it costs more, and the cost of buying the gas equipment is not worth it. Someone would have to show me the economics behind that. However, if you are looking at a way of reducing greenhouse gases. that is certainly an option.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement. This is an area we could debate for a long time. It is an area worth debating. However, if we do not do something or put pressure on the governments - the people who can make the decisions - will we be here in 50 or 60 years? Or will cities like Darwin be partly flooded? That is what we are looking at: rising water levels and higher temperatures. The member for Katherine will be exhausted by that time from the hotter climate. We need to do something. We can argue over certain philosophies about nuclear energy, but we have to, get together and do something now, otherwise it will be too late.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, like all members in this Assembly I, too, am taken aback by the realisation that global warming is a reality. I still have not been able to fully appreciate what this means in practical terms. Even my training in science has not prepared me for what possibly lies ahead. For those people who do not understand what all this talk about global warming and greenhouse is about, I will try to give you a layman’s version.
It is all about what happens in our atmosphere. That is the area of sky between the Earth’s surface and outer space, beyond the Earth’s gravity. Even though it looks clear and empty, it is made up of elements. The main two elements in the atmosphere are oxygen and nitrogen. Oxygen is the basis of the air we breath, and nitrogen is essential for the production of protein, and hence the growth of all living organisms. While both oxygen and nitrogen allow most of the incoming solar radiation heat to reach the Earth, they also allow infrared radiation heat coming from the Earth to move outwards and escape the Earth. Historically, this process has been a natural balance, which allows all life on Earth to survive and, indeed, flourish.
Besides oxygen and nitrogen, there are also several minor constituents in our atmosphere, especially water vapour and carbon dioxide, and trace elements like nitrous oxide, methane, and halocarbons. While water vapour, carbon dioxide and the trace elements mainly allow incoming solar radiation to reach the Earth, they do not allow much of the infrared radiation heat coming from the Earth to move outward and escape the Earth. In fact, some of the infrared radiation gets directed back to the Earth’s surface, where it increases the warmth of the Earth’s surface. But because water vapour, carbon dioxide and the trace elements have historically been in low proportions in our atmosphere compared to oxygen and nitrogen, this surface warming has been negligible.
Unfortunately, in recent times the amount of water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, halocarbons and nitrous oxide, the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’, have increased in our atmosphere due to man-made activities. Consequently, more and more infrared radiation heat has been directed back to the Earth’s surface and, consequently, our atmosphere is beginning to act like a huge gardener’s greenhouse around our Earth, keeping more of the heat trapped inside, and this is the problem of global warming.
I will now try to put this into some sort of perspective. In pre-industrial times, the level of carbon dioxide was about 280 parts per million. Today it stands at over 370 parts per million. It is not the level of carbon dioxide, but the increase that matters. This is over a 30% increase. Most of this comes from the burning of fossil fuels, as well as land clearing to a lesser extent. And why land clearing, you may ask? Because plants are the great absorbers of carbon dioxide. Euphemistically, it is what the plants breathe in, and they breathe out the oxygen in our air for us to breathe back in.
One of the atmospheric greenhouse gases is methane. Atmospheric methane concentrations have increased by 150% in the last 250 years. Methane is generated naturally in wetlands and bogs. All livestock grazing and land fill activities are a couple of the man-made sources.
Halocarbons, or CFCs as they are more commonly known, is another group of greenhouse gases, but this is one of the good news stories. We have known for some time that these gases are quite insidious as both a greenhouse gas, as well as a major factor in the depletion of the atmospheric ozone layer. Fortunately, following the implementation of the Montreal Protocol Regulations, the atmospheric abundance of halocarbons peaked in 1994 and is slowly declining. Obviously, we can make a difference when we want to. Maybe our Prime Minister should take serious note of this when he ponders his government’s decision not to join the Kyoto Protocol. If not for our generation he should do this for our children and our children’s children and generations to come after that.
A greenhouse gas that is particularly noteworthy to us here in the Northern Territory is nitrous oxide, because it is generated, along with carbon dioxide, from bush fires. Unfortunately, nitrous oxide in our atmosphere has increased by some 16% in the last 250 years.
I now want to bring the debate down to a local level which will make sense for my constituents in Goyder and what the issues we in the rural area need to be aware of. To do this in the time that I have left, I need to focus on what is a principal source of greenhouse gas emissions, in particular, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide here in the Top End. I am, of course, referring to our Top End tropical savanna bushfires. Fire consumes about 40% of the Top End each year; just on 3% of bushfire greenhouse gas emissions from all of Australia come from Territory savanna fires. Consequently, if we were to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fires by 1% to 2%, this would clearly have an impact on national levels. I believe this is achievable. As an example, if we targeted East Arnhem Land, where some 60 000 km is burnt every year, reducing the national greenhouse gas emissions by 1% to 2%, as I said before, would be realistically achievable.
I want to spend a few moments telling the Assembly what we are doing as a government. A range of research projects which are closely related to greenhouse gas emissions in the Northern Territory is currently being undertaken by Bushfires NT, in collaboration with the CSIRO and the Tropical Savanna Cooperative Research Centre. Most of this work relates to carbon flow through savanna eco-systems and the uptake of carbon dioxide during the Wet Season and carbon dioxide emissions during the Dry Season due to bushfires. Much of the research into Top End bushfires in general is summarised in plain terms in the book Savanna Burning – Understanding and Using Fire in the Northern Territory, and I will show it to you here. This book reflects a fruitful partnership between pastoralists, scientists and Aboriginal people. I can personally recommend it. It is essential reading for those in the Top End who live in areas likely to be affected by bushfires.
Fire mapping is being carried out in the Darwin rural area using final resolution Landsat imagery. This work provides a framework for looking at the extent of bushfires where they are occurring, how often they occur in specific areas, and the seasonal difference in bushfires which occur. This is the basis for fire management planning and greenhouse gas emission estimation. I certainly encourage the government to fund more of this work.
Let us not forget our tropical savannas in their unburnt state also act as sinks for carbon dioxide. So by reducing bushfires, we not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also increase those areas which absorb greenhouse gases, therefore the benefits are doubled. Research into carbon storage in savannas, principally in trees, grasses and soils, is also under way. The main interest is the flow of carbon in the savanna with one of the objectives of the research being to determine carbon storage could be another economic land use for Territory savanna.
Further to this point, the Tropical Savanna CRC currently measures carbon fluxus at a site in Howard Springs. Hopefully this work will continue and other greenhouse gases will be measured as well. This further work will then lead toward a good numerical understanding of the greenhouse implications of burning in the rural area.
It should be noted that as Australia becomes carbon constrained, major companies are on the brink of entering partnerships with Bushfires NT, Aboriginal organisations and the Tropical Savannas CRC to manage fire in the NT. Of course, the size, frequency and intensity of Top End bushfires have major implications beyond greenhouse gas emissions.
Work is also being done by Charles Darwin University and the Menzies School of Health Research through the Darwin Smoke Project. This, and previous studies, clearly demonstrates the relationship between asthma, respiratory ailments, and particulates from polluting fires, especially large, uncontrolled wild fires. The Darwin Smoke Project is funded by the Australian Research Council with generous financial contributions from the NT government departments of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts; Health and Community Services; and Business, Economic and Regional Development; the Bureau of Meteorology; Flinders University; Australian National University; CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research; and the Top End Division of General Practice; and Asthma NT.
The project is drawing to a close with data collection complete. A meeting on 11 November 2005 discussed the findings with both funders and stakeholders. Unfortunately, there is a wildcard in this whole issue and that is the invasive exotic gamba grass. Gamba and other large exotic perennial grasses pose the most significant hazard to health, life, property, the environment and, of course, global warming. Given the very large fuel loads of about 30 tonnes per hectare for gamba grass compared to about five tonnes per hectare for our native grasses there is a strong risk that in future we will face very high fire intensities. This is a rapidly emerging fire and health management issue which in turn has significant greenhouse emission implications in the longer term. The Charles Darwin University is also researching the effects of gas emissions from hot gamba grass fires.
I acknowledge the work of Patrick Skewes, Hazard Abatement Officer with the NTFRS. Patrick is collaborating with Bushfires NT on gamba grass issues and fire management workshops for the rural dwellers. The next major fire management workshop is scheduled for April at Humpty Doo. On a precautionary note if gamba grass really takes hold then we are likely to face the type of fire storms experienced in eastern and southern states. With fuel load increases of six times normal, this is a real possibility. I grew up in a fire storm zone around outer Sydney’s rural area. I know first-hand what impact such fires can have and I hope we never have to face these types of fires, but sadly I fear the worst.
The cooperative work by Bushfires NT, the Tropical Savanna CRC and CSIRO recognises that social engagement is the key. Community engagement has multiple benefits from a fire management strategy perspective. There are also private and commercial opportunities in fire mitigation such as potential trading of greenhouse gas offsets if it becomes a commercial commodity. Under the Bushfires Act it is the land-holders’ responsibility to manage fire. Big fires last year were only stopped because of fire scars from the previous year’s burn, but to make matters worse the damage of fires has not been truly reflected in the true cost to the community.
However, a positive move has been the reinforcement of section 47 of the Bushfires Act following a 10 year education campaign. Section 47 provides Bushfires NT with the ability to issue bushfire infringement notices to enforce the construction of fire breaks. In 2005, of the 8000 or so properties in the Darwin rural area, 3045 were inspected and 12 of these inspected areas were found to be noncompliant. The prosecution success rate so far has been 100%. In conclusion, we have an enormous but very important task ahead of us but we really do need the federal government to get serious about the Kyoto agreement. I commend the minister for her statement.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to contribute to this statement but coming from a completely different perspective. When a minister delivers a statement such as this on the environment, whether it is on climate change or any other issue, we need to talk about balance. Bringing in a Chinese perspective, you talk about the five elements of wood, fire, earth, metal and water - that is a balance, that is the Earth. James Lovelock talks about the Gaia principle - not so much from James Lovelock - that Earth is a living organism, a living thing, and therefore any impact on any aspect of the environment will have a counter-impact on another aspect. Whatever we do it has to be in a balance.
We recognise that there is increased carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. I would definitely not be so firm as to say it is the cause of global warming. The cause and effect I do not believe has been clearly established but, yes, there is increased carbon dioxide production worldwide. Yes, there is global warming in this current phase of our life cycle but cause and effect are completely different things altogether. I do not know whether one has led to the other or they have both just coincidently occurred at this phase of our life cycle.
I believe when the minister speaks about climate change, or anything that the Northern Territory wants to do, it needs to be in balance. I believe her statement should have included more detailed discussions about solar energy and what the Territory can do in regards to that, apart from the solar city project in Alice Springs.
We should be talking about tidal energy, considering that the Top End of the Territory has tidal movement of up to 10 m on some days. We should be able to harness that energy. Ten metres of hydro-energy is a tremendous amount. Regarding wind energy, anybody living in the Barkly region would know what having constant wind is like. There are many places in the Territory that we can harvest wind energy as an alternate source. Geothermal energy has been spoken about by the member for Nelson on many occasions. Obviously, that is also another source. Nuclear energy is another aspect that must be discussed.
In talking about climate change, we need to bring in all these factors and be secure enough in ourselves to say, yes, we should be discussing this without pre-empting any decisions on these issues. These are issues that we should be openly discussing, rather than coming in with a particular position and saying: ‘We will talk about this, that, or the other, but the last one is a taboo subject’. That is a pity because, then, you do not have an honest and open debate about the issues that affect us in this modern world.
Whether Australia ratifies the Kyoto Protocol or not, if every country and nation and every human being in this world observes every aspect of the Kyoto principles, I am led to believe that it will take a minimum of 30 years to turn around the impact of a global warming as we understand it today. For the people of Tuvalu and Kiribati and all these low-lying South Pacific islands, it is going to be too late, anyway. Let us think a bit more out of the box to see if there is anything that can be done.
When the minister spoke about this issue, I recalled the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting that I attended with the current member for Millner in July 2002, soon after the election before last. A paper was presented by the Green’s member from Western Australia. She entitled her dissertation ‘The Impact of Climate Change, Particularly on the Pacific Island Communities’. Many of the issues raised today by many speakers were raised back then, four years ago. Believe you me, the delegates from the South Pacific Islands were particularly concerned about the impact of rising sea levels on the island nations. In fact, the delegates from Kiribati, Fiji and Samoa contributed to the debate, expressing their concerns.
I would like to raise some points made by the delegate from New Zealand, Hon Douglas Kidd. At the time he attended the conference, he was near the end of his term. He told us that he was a former minister for Energy in New Zealand and had been involved in renewable energy issues. In fact, he established an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority in New Zealand. While he denied that he was Green, he said he was seen by many of his colleagues as having a green tinge. In his time as the minister for Energy, he put a lot of time and work into global warming issues. To his mind, there were too many people who were always voicing doom and gloom, and that we cannot use the caution effect to hide the relationship between global warming and carbon dioxide emissions.
There are many issues in agriculture that occur in the Northern Territory that may not be the cause of carbon dioxide emissions. I find the burning each Dry Season in the Top End personally very distressing. I used to fly a light aircraft between Alice Springs and Darwin quite regularly, for a period of some 10 years. As you come over the sky between Katherine and Darwin during the Dry Season, the number of fires you see and the haze that you have to fly through is quite significant. Whether that causes a lot of carbon dioxide emission, well, the experts tell us so. It is, however, important to understand that the experts tell us that we have to do this burning to prevent worse fires when the natural fuel increases to a level where it is not possible to just leave it alone.
I understand that fires have been a natural occurrence in the Top End for millennia, and those fires are necessary for the propagation of certain plants. Now, if that is the case, with human beings altering the fire patterns, would that bring about greater impacts in the longer term? I am sure nobody has done any desktop predictions about that, and the minister has not given notice that her department had considered that issue in any detail. It is well and good to say that we have to do certain things to prevent carbon dioxide emissions but, on the other hand, are we altering things again without due thought and continuing to push things further.
The Northern Territory government, under the Country Liberal Party, fought very hard against Australia signing the Kyoto Protocol because it would have had a major impact upon us with regards to our gas and petroleum industry that may be exploited up here. I am pleased to see that the government realises that and has continued to foster the gas and petroleum industry in the Top End.
I believe it is important, though, that government needs to undertake some studies to find out that, in the event that the Kyoto Protocol is ever signed off, what would happen. It is no good to say to the Australian government that the Northern Territory government, in this current persuasion, supports the Kyoto Protocol and it would like to see it signed off - what are the impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on the Northern Territory? We need to know that.
I would also like to talk about nuclear energy. Several members have already spoken about it. Some suggested that there should be an open debate so that Territorians can decide for themselves the way we go in regard to nuclear energy. At the moment, we are not even talking about it. The member for Sanderson said we cannot talk about it at all because it is going to leave us with waste that will last for 20 000 years, and how can we deal with that? I understand that, currently, Australia does not produce any high grade nuclear waste, so this is not what we should be talking about. We should be talking about the nuclear industry per se. Are we going to allow for the exploration and the mining of uranium in the Northern Territory? That is important because if you say we have gas and we sell the gas to China or any other country that wants to buy it, in that way we can excuse ourselves for having a gas industry. We can excuse ourselves for increasing the carbon dioxide emissions. You can turn around and say: ‘Hang on a minute, we do not have to sell gas, we can sell uranium instead and there will be less carbon dioxide’.
There are pros and cons in this debate, and it is important for government to allow this debate to take place. Let it take place so that Territorians can be fully informed and then we can make a collective decision as to which way we should go. At the moment by committing to one aspect of the debate it will never be a balanced debate.
I have been very interested in biodiesel. I was at a CPA conference the year before last in Malaysia where we were taken to a palm oil factory where they were converting palm oil into biodiesel. That is quite a different thing to converting rape or canola to biodiesel. In Australia that is the current source of oil that it to be used. One thing good about biodiesel, from whatever source it comes from, is that it is biodegradable and it does not cause any significant environmental damage. In time, the biodiesel will break down into its natural components and disappear into the earth. As the member for Nelson says, to grow enough biological material of whatever kind to convert to biodiesel is going to take up more arable land than we can possibly have to produce enough biological material for biodiesel as well as feed the world population. Therein lies the problem. If we look at perhaps 10% or 20% dilutions of current diesel with biodiesel and make a saving that way, that might be about the best we can do without causing any more hassles.
Biodiesel or diesel, I am sure they both produce almost the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions. The minister did not explain whether it does and I would like the minister to offer us the right answer. I am not sure. Is the minister suggesting that by going to biodiesel it will be a good way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, or only that it is a good way to use it as an alternate source of fuel from fossil fuel? I suspect that carbon dioxide emissions will probably be about the same.
Solar energy: I am really pleased that Alice Springs is one of the short-listed candidates for the Australian solar city project. It is something that we should have as a right. Alice Springs would probably have the most sunny days out of any other large towns or cities in Australia, and to not conduct solar city experiments in Alice Springs is absolutely ludicrous.
For years now we have hoped that the development of some sort of a solar array in Alice Springs would be something we can look forward to, in fact 12 years ago I made a speech hoping that by 2004 Alice Springs would actually be the site for a solar array. Unfortunately, it has not come to pass but with the solar city project hopefully coming to fruition we can look forward to that and it would be something that Alice Springs people can be very proud of and can be a centre for research as part of the Desert Knowledge Centre.
I found it interesting, though, when the minister was speaking about solar energy and energy efficient white goods or any other equipment including installation of solar hot water systems that we continue to build Territory Housing properties with electric hot water systems. It is something that should have been addressed a long while ago. I believe that all Territory Housing properties should have solar hot water systems. particularly in Darwin bungalows or single level homes on concrete slabs in a tropical region. I believe Territory Housing needs to look seriously at that and at other ways of building energy efficient homes including the installation of solar hot water systems across all Territory Housing properties. The reason why that has not been done at the moment I suspect is so that government can pass the cost of the heating of water to the tenant rather than taking the cost onto itself. By installing a hot water system it would save the tenant, the poor pensioner, the person who is in assisted housing, substantial amounts of money each year and it would be a positive way for the government to contribute towards saving energy in the Territory.
Finally, as the member for Blain said earlier, there was a big song and dance by the minister, the member for Casuarina, saying that he will produce more energy efficient cars such as the Toyota Prius into the NT Fleet. I have yet to see a whole heap of them being used in the Territory. I know there are a few but hardly enough to suggest that government is being very conscious about its energy savings in its car fleet.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank all the members for their contributions to what is a very important debate about climate change. The member for Katherine’s contribution, was quite positive. She welcomed the statement and agreed that we are implementing strategies where we can. She talked about how seasons have changed, the timing of seasons and I agree totally. I suppose coming from a region like Katherine and having lived there for awhile you see the issue of burn-offs and bushfires, and she agrees with the strategy to reduce savanna burning because as we pointed out they do produce 46% of our greenhouse emissions. She also touched on building designs.
It was obvious from the opposition that they seem to think that I am right against nuclear power or uranium. I have yet to have any considered debate or discussion with any members of the opposition to even give them any indication as to what my position is. I do not have a problem with the whole issue of nuclear energy. The debate is something that is occurring at a national level, and whether nuclear energy should be considered as a long-term option to address climate change.
I thank the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries for his contribution. He talked about how things have changed, and they have under our government. There are a number of things that we have put in place. He comments on Tim Flannery’s book and his analysis. It was the minister who actually passed his copy of his book to me to read. We both agreed that it is mild and conservative compared to some of the CSIRO studies and other reports that we have read. You can have the extreme view on these things, or you can pick up a book like Tim Flannery’s and see that it is quite balanced; it is not one way or another. It actually gives people a balanced view about climate change. He talked about the enormous changes to the economy and that we should all cut down energy consumption. That was something that I had emphasised through my statement. Whilst the whole issue of greenhouse is both national and international we, as individuals can certainly do our part. Government is doing that. He talked about electricity, fuels, and cars to use gas or biodiesel.
The member for Blain talked about the capacity of government to implement what he called ‘grand ideas’. I do not think they are grand ideas; they are very realistic and achievable ideas or goals. Government is fully committed, unlike the CLP in government, which just did not want to know about these issues. They are not grand ideas; they are realistic, and our government has given a commitment to that strategy. The member for Blain also talked about the Tim Flannery book. I suppose that was one thing that we agreed on; it was good reading. He also referred to nuclear energy and quoted from the book about it, welcomed my statement, but wants it to go somewhere. He talked about NT Fleet, the nuclear debate and I do not think that anyone was disagreeing with him,
The member for Sanderson also touched on the nuclear debate and talked about how it produces no emissions. What gets lost in that whole debate is, yes, there are no emissions with all of this, but it is the process in which you get to that part - and the member for Sanderson talked about the radioactive waste.
All members touched on the fuel efficiency of biodiesel, as well as NT Fleet. Overall, I believe all members agree it is an issue for us in the Territory, and for Australia, generally. However, it is an issue for all of us because it is a global issue. We all have to do our bit to try to reduce greenhouse gases.
The member for Nelson welcomed the statement. He agreed with most of the actions in the ministerial statement, again, nuclear energy and the need for future debate. He talked about planning, the need to allow bigger blocks so there is better design. Certainly, I will pass that on to my colleague, the member for Johnston, who is the Planning minister. The member for Nelson talked about CDL and revisiting that issue,. He has talked about it a number of times and also the issue of hot rocks and geothermal energy. I will certainly look at that, member for Nelson.
I thank the member for Goyder for his detailed explanation of global warming and projects happening to reduce burning, etcetera, and I commend his comments.
The member for Greatorex, and I am not trying to be facetious either with this, I sat here trying to listen to some of the words that he said. One thing that I did pick up towards the end was about Territory Housing, and that Territory Housing would need to adjust their housing designs. As I understand it, some of the Territory Housing houses have solar power, particularly the old ones, and I believe many of the new Territory Housing houses have adjusted to that.
I thank all members. It has been quite a productive debate. Well, I would not say debate, because there was general consensus by everybody that climate change and global warming is an issue that all of us can play a role in trying to reduce.
In summing up, I thank all members who contributed to the debate.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 28 March 2006 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Tonight I pay tribute to one of the true pioneers of Alice Springs, Reg Harris, who died unexpectedly this week. Reg was 81 years old, but his death came as a shock. He was always full of life with a keen interest in the affairs of the Alice and the Territory. Reg was a wonderful story teller, and he could entertain you for hours with his yarns. My sympathy to his wife, Marge, and sons, Roger and Scotty, and his grandchildren.
Reg arrived in Alice Springs on 24 May 1947, coincidentally, the day the Centralian Advocate was first published. He told me he still has a copy of that very first paper. During the next 58 years, Reg and Marge played major roles in the development of Alice Springs. As a businessman, he was associated with many milestones.
He first came to Alice to work in the new Hotel Alice Springs and installed the NT’s first lift in the hotel. During the early 1950s, Reg introduced evaporative airconditioning, which cooled the entire home, to Alice Springs through his electrical business, and I am sure many glasses were raised to this achievement in the summer months. He was instrumental in setting up Alice Springs Commercial Broadcasters, which owns and operates Radio 8HA and SunFM. Reg was always keen to promote the town and new initiatives through the stations.
Reg was also keenly aware of Alice Springs’ tourist potential. In 1965, he built the Midland Motel, which was then one of only three motels in town. Midland still stands as a backpackers. He chaired the Northern Territory Tourist Board for five years, and was a life member of the Central Australian Tourist Association, and won a Brolga Award for Excellence in 1991.
Looking at the list of community organisations and boards Reg gave his time to, I wonder when he had time for anything else. He was involved with Rotary, the NT Town Planning Board, and the Alice Springs Town Planning Board. However, Reg managed to find the time not only for play but to encourage the development of sport in Alice Springs. He was a keen sportsman and he played in the first organised games of Aussie Rules in Alice Springs in 1947, and he was one of the first players to be made a CAFL life member, and was a life member of Federals Football Club.
He was a trustee of Anzac Oval and worked hard to develop this as one of the town’s premier sporting facilities, and was appointed chair of the Traeger Park Board in the 1960s before the town council took over Traeger Park management. Reg Harris was a big fan of basketball, as was his wife Marge, and in 1948 he introduced the game to the town. He built Alice Springs’ first basketball courts at his own expense and then coached the men’s team, with Marge coaching the women. They even shared the umpiring duties. I always say that couples who umpire together stay together and it has certainly worked for Reg and Marge.
Reg was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia, an AM, in 1982 and also was one of the 200 remarkable Territorians honoured by a plaque in Darwin’s Bicentennial Park.
Reg Harris will be sorely missed in Australia. He is one of the old never-to-be-replaced pioneer stock who built our town up. When Reg first came to the town just after the World War II, it would have been a very small, rough and dusty place. He often said to me that he was always amazed at how quickly the town developed around him.
I mention one anecdote from the point of view of one of the many times where people have beaten up health issues around Alice Springs, and there was a particularly determined campaign going about the Alice Springs Hospital. ‘Not enough doctors’, people were saying. Reg rang me - I was needing a bit of support as there was some concerted politics going on - and said: ‘How many doctors have you got in the hospital?’ I said a bit over a hundred of the ordinary ones, and then all the senior clinicians on top of that. He said: ‘That is interesting. For most of the time I have lived in Alice Springs we had two doctors and, goodness me, we are still alive. It makes you wonder what the other 98 doctors are doing with their time in the hospital’. That was Reg. He was always very down to earth and keen to let everyone know where Alice Springs’ roots were and the Alice Springs’ attitude to things.
I also want to clear up a matter which was raised by the member for Araluen. She raised in an adjournment debate last week the appointment of Mr Richard Coates to the Office of the Northern Territory Director of Public Prosecutions. Not only has she made false assertions regarding Mr Coates’ experience and expertise in the practice of criminal law, but she accused the government, and me in particular, of cronyism in the appointment, and made serious allegations that the process of appointment not only lacked independence, but that it was, and designed to be, a corrupt process in order to achieve the outcome of the appointment of Mr Coates to the position.
Of course she seeks to make these scurrilous assertions and personal attacks under the cover of parliamentary privilege, disingenuously seeking to cover them by asserting that she needs to record her objections to the appointment for historical purposes.
On more than one occasion, the member for Araluen stressed the need for integrity and independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions; ironically she relies on that very independence and integrity because she knows full well that for these reasons, Mr Coates will not enter publicly into debate to protect his reputation, and therefore embroil himself and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in a political game which she seeks to play.
As Attorney-General, I am not prepared to let her comments and assertions go unchecked. Not only do the member for Araluen’s comments attack the reputation of Mr Coates, they also insult and call into question the independence and competence of the members of the selection committee who provided to me the recommendation for appointment of Mr Coates as the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I do not propose to go into detail about Mr Coates’ qualifications for the job because this is a matter of detail for the independent selection panel in making their recommendations to me. However, let me say this: Mr Coates is a very highly qualified and very experienced criminal lawyer. He worked in criminal law in private practice for some 12 years before moving to the Territory to work with the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service in Alice Springs. He served as a Magistrate in the Northern Territory from 1988 to 1990 and was apparently considered suitably experienced for that appointment and his later appointment as inaugural director of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission by the CLP government. Mr Coates has depth of experience across criminal law in the Northern Territory held by very few people. In addition, Mr Coates brings to the position a solid understanding of issues within the justice system but peculiar to the Northern Territory, in particular indigenous justice issues as well as management and administrative skills of the highest order.
The member for Araluen suggested that I may wish to provide details of the individuals on the committee and whether they are the same individuals who were originally on the committee. I am more than happy to provide that information to the House. I would have been happy to provide that to the member for Araluen at any time but she did not seek that information. Rather, she decided that she should put that on public record for historical purposes, assertions about the process that were completely false. Let me start by outlining the sequence of events.
Expressions of interest for the position were advertised nationally. Mr Coates initially did not have interest in the position and, as the usual practice as CEO, his name was included in the advertisement as the person who might be contacted for information. Subsequently, before the close of the date for receipt of expressions of interest, he advised me that he was considering throwing his hat into the ring. I requested that if he decided to do so, he should ask the Acting Executive Director of Legal Services within the department, Ms Sue Oliver, to take the department role in coordinating the selection process. That is what occurred. Mr Coates made a formal expression of interest and had no further participation in the process, other than as candidate. Let me make it quite clear at this point: no selection panel has been put in place prior to Mr Coates’ expressing his interest in the position. On assuming the coordination of the process, Ms Oliver consulted the Solicitor-General, inviting him to be a part of the process. They were both of the view that in order to ensure that the process be both independent and free from criticism, that well qualified and entirely independent members of the panel should be obtained.
Consequently, the Solicitor-General approached the Solicitor-General for Tasmania, Mr Bill Bail, QC, and the Director for Public Prosecutions for the ACT, Mr Richard Refshauge, SC, who agreed to be part of the selection process. All members of the panel considered the expressions of interest received and by telephone conference agreed on five persons who should be interviewed for the position. Mr Coates was one of those persons. The short-listed candidates were then informed of the selection for interview and were also informed of the composition of the panel that would be interviewing them and making recommendations to me.
The process could not have been made more transparent to all those involved. Mr Bail and Mr Refshauge both gave generously of their valuable time to travel to Darwin to participate in the interview of the short-listed candidate face-to-face. All candidates were asked the same questions and given the same opportunity to present themselves as the best person for the position. Referees were contacted for their views of the applicants. In Mr Coates’ case, the person spoken to in support of his application was a very senior director of Public Prosecutions, and a current, and former judge. All spoke highly of his ability and suitability for appointment. The selection panel was unanimous in their recommendations to me for the appointment of Mr Coates to the position.
Let me summarise, two Solicitor-Generals, a Director of Public Prosecutions, and a senior legal officer from my department all recommended Mr Coates for appointment to the position. They confirm their views of suitability by seeking the views of another DPP and two judicial officers. If that was not an independent process, then I do not know what further process the member for Araluen would suggest.
I previously wrote to Mr Refshauge and Mr Bail thanking them for their generosity in lending their time and considerable experience and expertise to assist with one of the key positions for an effective and fair criminal justice system, and informing them that my confidence in the selection process and outcome was enhanced by their participation.
I feel that I must now apologise to them and to the other two members of the panel for the comments that have been made about the process and membership of the panel. The member for Araluen’s comments attacked not only the independence of the process, but also the competence of those involved to assess and advise on the appointment. I trust that, in due course, she might, likewise, see fit to make an apology.
I will close by congratulating Mr Richard Coates on his appointment, and welcome his first victory as a prosecutor in our courts here in the Northern Territory. I believe he will bring continued high status and independence to that position.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about a couple of issues in Alice Springs. On 8 February, there was a power failure of a substantial length of time in Alice Springs, affecting mostly the old East Side. As you all will know, in Alice Springs over the last two and a half months or so, we have had very hot summer temperatures consistently above 40C for many days running. Early this month, the temperatures were, likewise, very high. The power went off around 4 pm on the afternoon of 8 February and, as I said, the old East Side was affected.
I had a note from a person living along Undoolya Road who thought: ‘The power has gone off, what is so unusual about that in Alice Springs?’ He waited about 10 minutes and nothing happened. There are other people living in that home, including an elderly woman. In Alice Springs, when we have a power failure, sometimes Power and Water would switch to some other generators, I assume. Normally, after a while you expect power to come back. Twenty minutes after the power went off, nothing had happened.
It was a hot day and the whole house was starting to heat up. There was nothing they could do about it. Fortunately, this home had just recently installed a generator. I will come to the reason why they put in a generator later on. Fortunately, they had a new generator installed and so this man was able to start the generator up and then the house got electricity back. Obviously, the radio stations were on and his radio was on. He listened to the radio and the radio station was talking about additional loads being put onto the power station because of the hot summers. Also, it was coincidental that the program was being broadcast right at the time that the power had gone off. Much to the relief of the people in the house, especially the elderly woman, there was electricity and she felt safe as well.
The generator was installed at that house because she has very bad respiratory problems. She requires the normal medication that she has, but she also has an oxygen generating system that requires electricity to run. Without that, she would have severe respiratory problems and, without oxygen, she would be in dire straits.
Anyway, the power came back and she was fine, she was safe. She happened to get on the phone and spoke to one of her neighbours a little further down the road who was also sitting in her little unit without any power. This other woman she was talking to was 85 years of age, living in one of the Territory Housing pensioner flats. The poor woman was sitting there in the heat trying to cope with the temperature as best she could. About 45 minutes to an hour after the power went off, this man finally rang up the ABC to let the ABC know that there was power failure in the old East Side. The ABC said: ‘We will ring Power and Water and see what is going on’. Barry Nichols, one of the announcers - or his producer, I am not sure - then rang Power and Water to find out what was going on. Power and Water told Barry Nichols that was the first they knew there was no power in the old East Side. That was almost an hour later. For an hour, the power is out and Power and Water did not know the power was out, and that was announced over the radio.
It was after that phone call by the ABC to Power and Water that action then commenced. Had the person not rung the ABC in the first instance, then Power and Water would not have known about it. This man then said:
- I remember an interview Stuey Brash …
That is another ABC journalist:
- … had with a Power and Water manager on ABC radio only one to two weeks ago, in which this manager of Power and Water generation was exactly that. When Brashy commented on the blackouts in Gillen a while ago, he said that it was not his problem and that a separate section of Power and Water looked after distribution.
This is an indictment on a government-run enterprise that it does not know from one day to the next what one hand is doing with other. Surely if a power failure occurred in any part of the town, Power and Water should be the first agency to find out about it, apart from the people who suffered the power failure of course, and then get something down. This time, it was not until the ABC contacted Power and Water, and the ABC Bulletin went on air, before Power and Water found out that power was off in the old East Side, and then they responded.
The minister should look into this. How is it that Power and Water had to be informed by an ABC news bulletin that there was no power in the old East Side? I believe the minister should ensure that Power and Water does not have to rely on the ABC news bulletin in the future.
The other issue that Power and Water has in Alice Springs is in the golf course. The new turbine, well, not new anymore, it has been there almost six months, at the Ron Goodin Power Station continues to spew out excessive noise and soot. As recently as today, I received another e-mail with a letter attached complaining about the noise that continues to be generated by the new turbine installed at the Ron Goodin Power Station. That noise goes on all day, and you can imagine, during this hot summer, how much electricity is being used by Alice Springs, and how much the generator has to be run each day to cope with the power demand.
It was not until just before Christmas last year, when there was a threat of a class action that Power and Water then compromised and said: ‘Oh, we will turn off the generator at 8 pm each night and have a curfew until 6 am the next morning’. Well, they have not observed the curfew. I know that, because people start ringing me in the middle of the night, sometimes even at 10 pm, and say: ‘Hear this, hear this’. I could hear over the telephone how noisy it was. There were complaints made. Some people rang Power and Water, and even rang the minister in Darwin and said: ’You want to live with this?’. Power and Water was then forced to observe the curfew. However, according to this letter that I received today, they have broken the curfew again and they are still generating well after 8 pm.
People are complaining of getting sick from the noise, with the chronic exposure to the noise, the smell, the soot that is being generated from the power station, and it just goes on every day. People cannot stay outdoors in the evenings when it is now starting to get cooler. They would like to spend time outdoors, go in the swimming pool; they cannot do that because of the noise, the smell and the soot. These people are actually shut inside the house all day. They have to close the windows so the noise cannot come through, but to close the windows in the middle of the day means there is no ventilation. It means you have to turn on the airconditioner.
In Alice Springs when the most efficient airconditioning is the swamp cooler, the evaporative airconditioner, you need to have at least window or two open to achieve maximum benefit. You cannot open the windows so you end up using a refrigerator airconditioner to cool the house down. Guess how much it is going to cost the resident? It is a lot of money. The whole mess with this new turbine has to be sorted out. It has been going for too long now and people are complaining, their health is now affected and there is still no solution.
The last we heard from Power and Water is: ‘We cannot do anything until June’. Well, come June there will not be as much demand on electricity for cooling but there will be a demand on electricity for warming. As you know, Alice Springs in the middle of winter gets down into the minus degrees Celsius. Some nights it goes down to two or three degrees and people expect to heat their homes. So there is not going to be a convenient time. You have to sort it out now.
Ideally, the best way to do this is to install any new additions to the power generation system in Alice Springs at Brewer Estate. If you put everything new at Brewer Estate in the course of the next 10, 20, 30 years, eventually, the equipment gets replaced at Ron Goodin Power Station, and the whole power station would be shifted to a better location. If you wait to shift the Ron Goodin Power Station to another location, it will cost you an arm and a leg and no government can afford that, and I accept that. No government can afford this; it is too expensive. But if you install all new equipment at another location then over a period of time the whole power station will be shifted because over the next 20, 30 years you can bet your last dollar that things will be replaced, all the turbines will be replaced.
I ask the minister to seriously consider this and fix it up so that people can go back to their normal lives. If not, if that turbine is going to stay there, will the government compensate those people whose residences have been devalued because of this intrusion? And devalued they are. Properties have been devalued. So what you do then?
The last point I want to raise tonight is about Tennant Creek Hospital. Tennant Creek Hospital has been struggling to get a doctor for a long time. I know its more senior doctor, Mike Pearson. I have known him for many years. He is a very learned person who has worked very hard for the community. He has been frustrated by the way that he has not been able to get the government to get doctors in Tennant Creek, the hospital in particular. And he has finally left. I think he is still on long service leave and he is not going to return to the hospital. A very senior doctor who for many years whose knowledge and skills are now gone. The hospital is now run by short-term locums from the East Coast, some staying as little as a couple of weeks. They probably do not know much about bush medicine but they are there and you have no choice, you have nobody else to work there.
Then this week, the General Manager of the Tennant Creek Hospital - I think he is in Darwin this week, probably at a crisis meeting, and I understand he is not going to return to Tennant Creek Hospital, either.
Mr McAdam: Actually, he has a new job.
Dr LIM: It does not matter if he has a new job, you have no general manager at the hospital either. That is the problem, isn’t it? You do not have a general manager at the hospital, you do not have a senior doctor at the hospital.
I hear that the discussions are that the government is going to convert the Tennant Creek Hospital into a triage centre. A hospital in that town with 3500 people with high incidence of trauma whether it be from physical violence or from motor vehicle accidents, and there are lots of motor vehicle accidents around that region, and we are going to convert that place into a triage centre.
Mr McAdam: You do not know that.
Dr LIM: The minister interjects: ‘You do not know that’. I know, minister, that you might not know yourself.
Mr McAdam: Well, we do not know.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly!
Dr LIM: The discussions are under way at the very moment …
Mr McAdam: I know that.
Dr LIM: … with your government that Tennant Creek would likely become a triage centre. Well, the minister needs to know then, doesn’t he? The fundamental duty is to provide health care to Territorians in Tennant Creek. With the bucket load of money that they have and he keeps telling me that he puts in so much money into health care, here you are downgrading a hospital service. Tennant Creek deserves more than that. Tennant Creek deserves a fully operational hospital.
Mr McAdam: Why don’t you go up there and work as a doctor?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly!
Dr LIM: I did work there, member for Barkly, I did work there.
Mr McAdam: No now, do it now if you care so much about the place.
Dr LIM: I worked there for quite a long while and believe you me people in the Barkly region still think that they got good service from me …
Mr McAdam: I do not think they would want you back up there to be honest.
Dr LIM: ... and I …
Mr McAdam: They know all about you…
Dr LIM: … remember …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly!
Dr LIM: … when it was a useful thing to do for the Tennant Creek people …
Mr McAdam: They know you.
Dr LIM: … and at least they respected it.
Mr McAdam: There are a few people who remember you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, your time has expired.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about two Territorians from very different walks of life.
In November, I had the pleasure of launching the autobiography of Mrs Gusti Daws, Left Behind To Ponder, and just last week hosted the Darwin launch of, They Started Something - A biography of Bern and Aileen Kilgariff by Peter and Sheila Forrest.
Mrs Gusti Daws, a Jewish Australian originally from Cologne, Germany, moved to Darwin with her husband and children in 1972. Gusti’s book, Left Behind to Ponder tells the story of her life starting as a six year old living in Germany in the early 1930s before the outbreak of World War II. Gusti’s father, concerned at the growing hostility towards the Jewish people and rise of the Nazi party in Germany, packed up his young family and began the journey into Palestine to start a new life. In her book, Gusti tells of her memories as a young girl arriving by ship in her new home, one of many migrants of a range of nationalities, all starting a new life and learning a new language.
Amid the turmoil preceding World War II, Gusti grew up and went to school, finishing her studies shortly after the war reached Palestine. She got a taste of mechanical training in one of her first jobs as a civilian at the British Army workshops, the Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers at the age of 16, dismantling and repairing motorbikes. Like many of her generation, as Gusti neared her 18th birthday she advanced her birth date by three months and joined the Army early leaving a note for her parents and heading to the barracks.
Posted by the British Army to Egypt, Gusti served as a driver loading and unloading trucks with a forklift before being transferred to an Army workshop where she worked as a mechanic and then as a driver. However, the British Army’s Middle East personnel were demobilised, Gusti returned to Palestine and, following the establishment of the State of Israel, joined the Israeli Army as a driver in a bomb disposal unit. It was here with the help of lady luck in the form of a flat tyre that Gusti met her husband-to–be, Teddy. They were soon married and living in Israel, moved into their first house and started a family. After the Six-Day War, Gusti and Teddy along with their daughters left Israel for the United Kingdom and moved to Yorkshire where they lived and worked for a time before applying to move to Australia.
Following the applications being processed, the family moved to Perth flying via Lebanon, India and Singapore and arriving in May 1970. In 1972, the company Teddy was working for was opening a branch in Darwin and sent him up to work. Gusti and her daughters loaded the car on a boat and sailed up to Darwin to meet Teddy. After the devastation of Cyclone Tracy in which their house was destroyed and many possessions were lost, Gusti and her family temporarily moved back to Perth. After moving back to Darwin, Teddy fell ill and endured the first of a number of trips to Brisbane for treatment, first having an operation for an aneurism and over the coming years having a number of other treatments. Shortly after his 70th birthday, Teddy became ill once again, flying to Brisbane this time being diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour. Coming back to Darwin Teddy spent the rest of his life between the hospital and home care before passing away in his home.
Gusti has been left for the past nine years as a widow and talks of the great sadness of losing a life long partner and soul mate. She has a vision of a different kind of accommodation for seniors where those who are not eligible for public housing could live in a kibbutz-like fashion, sharing facilities and friendship. I wish her well for her future and I hope that her dream eventuates.
Tonight I also discuss another book launch. This is They Started Something – A Biography of Bern and Aileen Kilgariff by Peter and Sheila Forrest. I know that all members would be aware of the Kilgariff family and what they have done for the Territory. I was pleased to launch this book in Parliament House last week.
Bern Kilgariff arrived in Alice Springs with his parents in 1929 and, living at the Stuart Arms Hotel for three years whilst growing up, he was able to participate in and observe the spurt of growth to the town once the railway came from Oodnadatta.
Starting school at the newly-opened Hartley Street School, Bern was one of the first students to complete his Intermediate Certificate in the Northern Territory with the assistance of Sisters from the Catholic school. Missing out on a scholarship by one mark, Bern’s parents could not afford to send him to continue his schooling, so he went into the work force as a 16- year- old, with his first job being an ‘odd jobs boy’ for EJ Connellan, who was in the Centre to start an aviation company, Connellan Airways.
When World War II started, Bern served in Australia’s Armed Forces in New Guinea as part of the 2/5th Battalion, 6th Division AIF. He was quick to volunteer for a post in New Guinea as he wanted to serve somewhere warm. After the war, Bern went back to Alice Springs where he met Aileen, and they began raising a family, first on a poultry farm and later using the land to open the Oasis Motel which he built with his father, offering travellers the luxury of self-contained units. Along with running a business, Bern found time to serve on and be chair of numerous committees around the town in areas as diverse as arts, education, tourism, and Legacy.
Appointed to be the first NT Housing Commissioner in 1959, a year later, Bern went on to be appointed a non-official member of the Northern Territory’s Legislative Council. Bern was one of the signatories to the Remonstrance presented to the Commonwealth Parliament in 1962 by the Legislative Council. This document is now on permanent display in Parliament House.
Bern was asked by Administrator Clarrie Archer to join the Legislative Council. He is quoted as saying in the book:
- I must admit if Clarrie Archer had not asked me to be a member of the Legislative Council I doubt I would have ever become involved in politics. It was just one of those things in my life when I thought, ‘Oh well, I will give it a go’, so I did.
In 1960, Bern was sworn as a member of the Legislative Council, beginning a 27-year career in representative politics. He served on the council for eight years before becoming an elected member for Alice Springs in the Legislative Council in 1968. His campaign leaflet for this campaign outlined his achievements:
- Aged 44, married with five sons and six daughters, member of the Legislative Council since 1960 with almost 100% attendance. Lifetime knowledge, local conditions as a farmer for 14 years and motel manager for eight years, member of Administrator’s Council for seven years, longest-serving member, Northern Territory Housing Commission member for 10 years, Army service for four years 2/5th Infantry Battalion New Guinea, chairman for five years Children’s Holiday Camp Scheme, 20 years service Legacy, Alice Springs RSL committee member, P & F, Alice Springs High School committee member, life and foundation member Alice Springs Memorial Club, and chairman Alice Springs Agricultural Council for five years.
You have to wonder, at the age of 44, how he fitted all that in.
Bern was a member of the Legislative Council through the last 14 years of its existence, from the Seventh Council in 1960 to the Eleventh Council in 1974.
When a fully-elected Legislative Assembly was established in 1974, Bern was elected its first Speaker and sworn in on 20 November 1974. Within a few months, Darwin had been hit by Cyclone Tracy and the Legislative Assembly building badly damaged. In the book, Bern quoted a very interesting story about what happened immediately following the cyclone. I want to read this into the Parliamentary Record:
- Then we convened an emergency sittings of the Assembly to begin on 2 January 1975, just eight days after the blow …
That is Cyclone Tracy:
- … we had to pass emergency legislation to allow so many things to be done in a hurry. I will never forget it. When we sat there, there was about an inch of water over the floor of the Chamber. A lot of the roof had gone and some of the walls had been blown in. There was still no electricity, so there was no airconditioning or anything like that. There was broken guttering hanging down from the ceiling with water running down into the committee room. It was very humid, so I used to call things off every half hour or so, so everyone could go out and cool off. No one complained about that under the conditions so I said to everyone: ‘You can wear what you wish. We will sit for an hour-and-a-half and go out for a 10-minute break and then we will continue’. You would not want to wear white shirts and ties under those conditions. People probably did not have them anyway. So members turned up in everything including thongs and stubby shorts. I remember the laminate on the tops of the desks in the Chamber were starting to curl up and roll off.
- Hansard was actually Ray Chin, one of the Clerks, carrying around a tape recorder. One speaker would get up and Ray would paddle and splash through the water and hand the microphone to him. When the speech was finished, he would dash back and retrieve it for the next fellow on his feet. If anyone wanted to interject, they put up their hand. Ray would paddle over and record what they wanted to say, and then go back to the member who had the floor.
Certainly the parliament has changed a lot since those times.
In 1975, Bern became one of the first Senators for the Northern Territory and served in the Senate until 1987. For seven years, Bern was the Government Whip, including during the difficult times after the dismissal of the Whitlam Government. Sir John Carrick says in the book:
- The years when Bern was Whip might have been especially a difficult time. Tensions were never far from the surface because it was not long after the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975 and the bitterness was still deep-seated within the opposition ranks. In the aftermath of the dismissal, passions were often high and animosity still raw. This made the Whip’s job of achieving agreement across parties, across factions and across personal lines, very challenging. The government did not have an absolute majority in the Senate, and it would have been quite easy for the opposition to block all business in the Senate.
During Bern’s time in the Senate, he served on a number of Senate and Joint Committees, and these included social welfare, public works, foreign affairs and defence and, importantly, Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory.
Bern and Aileen are great Territorians, and it was my pleasure to be able to assist in launching this book in Darwin. I have to say that there was an extraordinary group of people at the launch. It is not very often that you get the current Administrator, a former Administrator, the Catholic Bishop of Darwin, various former members, current members – it was a fantastic group of people who obviously recognised a very important pair of Territorians.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about the passing of Napanangka, a senior traditional owner of the Warumungu people. Napanangka was born at the Seven Mile Station, otherwise known as Tennant Creek Station. Her mother was a station cook and her father a horse breaker. Napanangka and her sisters used to wait every day for their mother to finish work at nine o’clock at night, near the station house under a tall gum tree. That tree still stands today and will forever remind me of this remarkable woman.
Napanangka’s childhood was spent attending the Seven Mile Missionary School, on the other side of the creek from the station. She and her sisters would wash the station employees’ clothes in the creek and, once finished, have a swim. They would hunt goanna, collect bush food, like bush tomato, berries, yams and bush coconuts, which grow prolifically in that area.
Napanangka met her first husband, Juppurula Williams, at the station and they had six children together. Their eldest child, Judy Nixon, was born at the station, Cliffy, now deceased, Lenny, Dorothy and Ross were born at Phillip Creek Mission, and the youngest, Kenny, was born at Alekerange.
Juppurula Williams passed away a few years later at Alekerange. Napanangka cared for her large family alone for several years until she married Mr Nelson in 1963. They had two children, Noelene and Digger. Later on, Napanangka and other Warumungu families moved back to their country, firstly at Banka Banka Station and then to Tennant Creek, which is where she spent the rest of her life.
Napanangka led a busy life, bringing up her children as well as her grandchildren, and her great grandchildren. She also found time to work for Mr and Mrs Ford, Mr and Mrs Allen and Mr and Mrs Heaney.
She was always active in the community as well, as is her family to this very day. She was a founding member of the Warumungu Papulu Housing Association, Anyinginyi Health, Papulu Apparr-Kari Language Centre, and most recently, Nyinkka Nyunyu Cultural Centre.
Napanangka was a key stakeholder in the long-running Warumungu land claim and gave critical evidence to Justice Maurice’s inquiry.
Napanangka was a keen supporter of her family’s involvement in sport. She would always be found sitting on the sidelines at the baseball, softball, basketball, cricket, or football. In other words, whatever sport her family was involved in, she was there. However, her number one sporting passion was the Eagles Football Club and she would always go to footy very early so that she could secure her seat under her favourite tree. Almost, week in, week out she was always there.
Perhaps beside her family, Napanangka’s greatest legacy to Tennant Creek and the Barkly as a whole was her inspirational commitment and involvement in the development of Nyinkka Nyunyu. She saw this wonderful cultural centre as the best way to bring indigenous and non-indigenous worlds together. This woman had no hatred in her, only love. She was always looking to bring the various communities of Tennant Creek together for the benefit of all.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to extend my sincere condolences to the Williams, Fitz and Nelson families.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in my adjournment this evening I would like to respond to the announcements today by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage on her decision not to allow Xstrata’s plans for the diversion of the McArthur River to go ahead. On my entry into this parliament in June last year there was such a public statement with the dancing in of the Yanyuwa people and the ngardiji dancers here into the parliament and was recognised at the time right across the Northern Territory and in such a public display of my heritage of where I come from and it would be remiss of me not to be able to at least speak my thoughts in terms of the Yanyuwa, Garrwa, Mara and Kudanji people today.
It is indeed quite an extraordinary day for the traditional owners of the region, in particular the Salt Water people. Sitting here in the parliament and listening to the discussions that crossed the floor makes me acutely aware of the position that I find myself in, but at the same time, deeply grateful to work beside and within a government that cares considerably for the environment and the protection of the environment and, in this case, the recommendation not to divert the McArthur River, but at the same time asking all businesses, all industries to do the work, to talk to the people. In this case, I just want to share just some of my thoughts.
There has been confusion and division that has occurred within the four language groups within the Borroloola region and I wanted to share that. It is not a coincidence that I am placed in a position such as this at this important time. I do not lose sight of that; it is something that I carry deeply. My families have been forced to choose over periods of times in a situation of extremes on an uneven playing field and from an unjust starting point. It is a position that is echoed in the history of black and white relations in this country. People have been forced to choose over time between money or care of country, between services or care of country, between family and care of country. It is an all too familiar theme when Aboriginal people face the plans of major companies.
Businesses involved with McArthur River Mine may argue that it is the harsh reality of business, of life even, and perhaps that is so. But as a jungkayi and ngimirringki –a traditional owner - belonging to the Yanyuwa and Garrwa people, I would fail in my cultural duties and obligations to not speak on behalf of my families, my people and may the spirits of my ancestors, my family and my elders judge me accordingly.
I ask those businesses: where are your goals? What are your aspirations? Naturally you want the best for your future and your family, and so do I. But my family is not just my husband and two sons. It is my extended family and clan groups. It is the care and concern for all the clans and language groups all of whom want to work, all of whom want a good future, all of whom want a good home, education to aspire to those things that bring them to the full potential in each one of us to contribute to society in a manner that enhances not only our own lives but the lives of all who live beside us, all who live within our community.
But do such aspirations have to come at the cost of giving away that which we believe in? Does it have to come at the loss of our identity as a people, the loss of our cultural and spiritual beliefs and our language? Why must we have to compromise that for economic development. All of this is threaded together in the web of our life as a people whose spiritual origin comes from the sea. Our duty is to care for country and this is the role of Lianthatawirriyarra Sea Rangers. It is the duty of all the sea people to protect and maintain the kujika, the stories of our people passed on from generations to generations. Kujika that sings the stories of the land, kujika that explain why we are so inextricably linked to the country of our ancestors, kujika that form the basis of our identity, kujika that set out our kinship.
The idea of stakeholders that people such as mining companies like to throw around conveys the notion of all people being equal but it is never so. It is always the powerful and the educated who become the stakeholders and most stakeholders have other interests they can stake hold in but where do the Yanyuwa go? We have high unemployment in Borroloola, we have huge problems with alcohol and domestic violence, our children wonder aimlessly wondering about their future and there are not enough houses. This mining company has been a huge shadow over our existence since the 1940’s and we have never quite known if it is friend or foe. A mining company is a business, yes, and it is about making profits, we understand that but surely there must be a social and moral responsibility that comes with it.
In this age of a fair go for all that includes strategies to empower the impoverished, the helpless and the hungry or is that just meant only in Sunday school? Surely we must live it in our daily lives, at work and at home, in how we negotiate in major multi-billion deals with communities. Surely there is at the core of humanity. I am absolutely confident, that genuine investment in these core values in the beginning will result in rewards for all in the long run. I understand the deep disappointment now being felt by the mines, by Xstrata. It is the taste so bitter that my families have tasted it many times over the years in 1976 at the beginning of the land claims, in 1985 when the Aboriginal Community Council Government was dismissed.
In all these years, we understand and we sympathise but we also ask and we put out the challenge that do you dare to walk away will you come back, will you talk, will we now begin from a point of equality. The river is the lifeblood for the Yanyuwa, Mara, Garrwa and Kudjani people. It is home to the dugong and sea turtle, animals of significance, spiritual and cultural importance. It is the Yanyuwa and Mara people of the saltwater who speak loudly for the protection. If we want to see a better future for all we have to believe in it. Truly believe in it so that our actions reflect what we say, what we think so that our hearts have nothing to hide. That is the way of the Yanyuwa, we look with our hearts and we speak from our hearts, it is there we are most at peace.
I have listened to the concerns of the clans in each of the four language groups, the Yanyuwa, Garrwa, Kudjani and Mara and it is fair to say that everyone worries for the protection of the McArthur River. I call upon my brothers and sisters of the Yanyuwa people to remember what we were taught in a time where grog did not have its poisonous grip on our souls and where the spear of fear did not even exist in our concern for country and culture and to remember when knowledge of the land and seas was respected and valued for the wisdom it contained. Knowledge that cannot be bought or sold and knowledge that can only be valued with respect. Remember this because it is in our memory, our living memory, it is in our childhood memories, it lives on in our hearts, not in history books, not in dusty shelves of the cultural museums of the western world.
The Yanyuwa spirit and law lives on in each of us, we owe it to those who have walked before us to hold on to that. I ask my families to remember this because that is why our people struggled for the past 30 years for the land of our ancestors. We were the first under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to claim land in 1976 and this year we are preparing to receive our islands back. So many of our leaders have died in that time but we honour their memory by passing on to our children the story of our struggle. A marine park, tourism, the fishing industry, small businesses associated with island living, this is what we dream about, where language and cultural identity of the first peoples of this area come first.
Now in 2006 we have the chance to prosper on the islands and seas of our ancestors but we want to do it right. The islands are the key to our future prosperity for generations to come not just the Yanyuwa, Mara, Garrwa and Kudjani descendents but for all people who call the Gulf region their home. We embrace all peoples but first let us embrace ourselves, our identity and our homeland so that we may share it with you who are respectful of our attachment to it which has been the way for well over 60 000 years.
Such attachment cannot simply be ignored because big business wants it to. I challenge Xstrata when it says the mine will close if it cannot divert the river. I say to Xstrata: find another way, find a better way. In recent years, and especially in recent months, Xstrata has said so many things to the citizens and supporters of the Borroloola and Gulf Regions and, yet today, you have said you will run away. I urge you Xstrata, to keep to your commitments to the Mawurli Aboriginal Corporation, and your financial commitments to them. Keep to your other promises you have made in recent months. Do not leave it, Xstrata, just as sweet talk, just as a bit of sugar, as my people would describe it. Back up your professed support of the people of the region with the type of long-term commitment that will leave a level of human and financial capital that would survive for generations to come - not just the next 10 or 20 years.
I have spoken tonight of my people. I also believe I speak, in some sense, for the non-indigenous people whom I have known for so long in the region, and who see themselves as belonging there and who have lived there for generations. To think that Xstrata speaks of living because it is going to be a bit harder to meet the environmental safeguards Territorians want in any development. Perhaps now is the time when true, fair and just dialogue can begin, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016