2003-11-26
- Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of students from Certificate II in Family and Community Services at Nungalinya College, accompanied by Amanda Donohoe. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITIONS
Rename Steve Irwin Locomotive
Rename Steve Irwin Locomotive
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 597 petitioners praying that Great Southern Railway rename the Steve Irwin Locomotive. The petition bears the Clerk’s Certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory:
We, the undersigned, respectfully showeth the locomotive to power the Alice Springs to Darwin railway is named after media personality Mr Steve Irwin. It is our belief that his public persona and television antics with crocodiles are not representative of the people or spirit of the Northern Territory. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the Northern Territory government to persuade Great Southern Railway to rename the locomotive to better reflect the spirit and the history of the Territory and her people, who have pursued the railway’s construction for more than a century. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Gender Law Reform Bill
Dr TOYNE (Stuart)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 760 people not conforming with standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, may I ask one question of the motion? I would like the minister to advise the House when he received this petition.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think that is necessary under standing orders. He is presenting it today. The petition is to be read.
Dr TOYNE: Yesterday. It has been through the Clerk’s office, as per normal.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The petition is to be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
We, the undersigned, being citizens of the Northern Territory of Australia, petition you and your government that you will remove from the parliament the Gender Law Reform Bill. Furthermore, we petition you that this bill is not returned to parliament without further consultation.
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petitions No 39, No 40 and No 41 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of responses will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
- Petition No 39
Control over animals – Proposed Litchfield Shire Planning Scheme
Date Presented: 8 October 2003
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Lands and Planning
Date response due: 25 February 2004
Date response received: 25 November 2003
Date response presented: 26 November 2003
Response:
- Proposed amendments to the Northern Territory Planning Scheme (Litchfield Area Plan 1992) were placed on public exhibition, in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Planning Act from 23 May 2003 until 23 June 2003. The period for lodgement of submissions was extended until 19 September 2003.
In accordance with the act, the Litchfield Division of the Development Consent Authority will hold a hearing in relation to the proposed amendments and report to me in relation to the hearing and to submissions received.
It is appropriate that the matters raised in Petition No. 39 be considered in the context of the statutory process for public consultation and consideration of submissions received as part of that process.
Every attempt is being made to ensure that the final outcome with regard to the proposed amendments will address potential impacts on amenity and recognise community concerns.
- Petition No 40
- Date Presented: 8 October 2003
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Lands and Planning
Date response due: 25 February 2004
Date response received: 25 November 2003
Date response presented: 26 November 2003
Response:
Proposed amendments to the Northern Territory Planning Scheme (Litchfield Area Plan 1992) were placed on public exhibition, in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Planning Act from 23 May 2003 until 23 June 2003. The period for lodgement of submissions was extended until 19 September 2003.
In accordance with the act, the Litchfield Division of the Development Consent Authority will hold a hearing in relation to the proposed amendments and report to me in relation to the hearing and to submissions received.
It is appropriate that the matters raised in Petition No. 40 be considered in the context of the statutory process for public consultation and consideration of submissions received as part of that process.
Every attempt is being made to ensure that the final outcome with regard to the proposed amendments will address potential impacts on amenity and recognise community concerns.
- Petition No 41
- Date Presented: 8 October 2003
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Lands and Planning
Date response due: 25 February 2004
Date response received: 25 November 2003
Date response presented: 26 November 2003
Response:
Proposed amendments to the Northern Territory Planning Scheme (Litchfield Area Plan 1992) were placed on public exhibition, in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Planning Act from 23 May 2003 until 23 June 2003. The period for lodgement of submissions was extended until 19 September 2003.
In accordance with the act, the Litchfield Division of the Development Consent Authority will hold a hearing in relation to the proposed amendments and report to me in relation to the hearing and to submissions received.
It is appropriate that the matters raised in Petition No. 41 be considered in the context of the statutory process for public consultation and consideration of submissions received as part of that process.
Every attempt is being made to ensure that the final outcome with regard to the proposed amendments will address potential impacts on amenity and recognise community concerns.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
AustralAsia Railway – Certification
and Hand Over
AustralAsia Railway – Certification
and Hand Over
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am proud to inform the House that an historic milestone was achieved on 31 October, when certificates of completion were issued by the independent certifier to ADrail for the section of new track between Alice Springs and Darwin, as well as the rail causeway track works and facilities within the container terminal at the port.
The design and construction contractors, ADrail, have now handed over the railway to FreightLink, the operating arm of Asia Pacific Transport. The construction of the Alice to Darwin Railway is a splendid example of what governments can achieve through an effective public/private partnership. Despite the enormousness of the task and the challenges of construction in difficult conditions spanning vast distances, this world-class project has been delivered some five months ahead of schedule to high standards, with no industrial disputation.
This successful outcome has been achieved through the efforts of many individuals. However, the roles of ADrail project director, Al Volpe, APT construction superintendent, Bob Cush, Franco Moretti and officers of the AustralAsia Railway Corporation should be acknowledged for the manner in which the project has been managed.
With the completion of construction, it is appropriate to reflect on the great achievements and benefits the project has already brought to the Territory, and the direct benefits which have flowed to communities along the route. The magnitude of the construction task is staggering: the 1420 km of track required more than 15 000 000 m of earth works, 2 000 000 sleepers, 90 major bridges, culverts at 1500 locations, 146 000 tons of rail, 104 000 flash butt welds, 2.8 million tonnes of ballast, consumed more than 45 000 000 litres of fuel and required the processing of nearly 73 000 invoices for payment.
Permanent construction depots at Tennant Creek and Katherine were established to manufacture concrete sleepers, along with the development of quarries to produce ballast for the track and provide employment for these centres. The Local Industry and Aboriginal Participation Plan, LIAPP, was aimed at maximising benefits to the Territory and South Australia by committing to procure at least 75% of the construction costs locally. At the end of construction, the actual value of local commitment achieved is 95%. More than $1.08bn in contracts were committed to the construction project, of which some $680m was awarded to Territory companies, comprising 1682 contracts and 27 782 purchase orders.
Along with the expertise and highly specialised equipment provided by ADrail, Territory industry played a major support role in servicing the project, and a local firm provided an innovative solution to the logistical challenges of transporting 146 000 tonnes of rail to the depots at Katherine and Tennant Creek, again demonstrating the pool of specialist expertise available in the Territory.
In total, 5.5 million man hours were expended on construction and, at its peak, the project directly employed more than 1450 people, with 1.1 million meals served in the construction camps. ADrail’s commitment to Occupational Health and Safety, the adoption of world’s best practice and provision of extensive training programs have set new industry benchmarks. More than 1 000 000 man hours were worked without recording a lost time incident. More than 1200 individual enrolments were recorded in project-related training courses, and 87% of individuals completed the courses. This outcome is an outstanding result by industry standards and will provide a skilled work force for future construction projects in the Territory.
With assistance from the Northern and Central Land Councils in the recruitment process, indigenous employment in the project exceeded the target figure of 100 positions under LIAPP, with 155 indigenous Territorians employed directly by ADrail and a further 45 by subcontractors.
I congratulate ADrail, the D and C joint venturers, and the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium on their dedication to ensuring effective outcomes under the provision of LIAPP and the remarkable achievement of an early completion.
In preparation for the commencement of freight train services, FreightLink will now begin operational testing of rolling stock, including locomotive performance trials and driver familiarisation. The arrival of the first freight train into Darwin on Saturday 17 January 2004 will be an historic day for the Territory and Australia, and will be an opportune time to promote the Territory, as a great place to live, work and invest not only across Australia, but internationally.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I join the Chief Minister to place the opposition’s congratulations on the record for the early completion.
Notable is the reference to IR issues and indigenous training provided through this great project. However, the important lesson to be learnt from this project is that it began as an idea many years ago, around Federation, and was pursued until it became a reality. It is a testament to the capacity for people to dream, to take risks and to make something happen. In that case, due credit must be paid to the former member for Blain, Mr Barry Coulter, and the member for Brennan as well as many in the public service who carried this vision through and made it happen. If we all stood back and hope that someone would make it happen, it simply would not have occurred.
There are many aspects that could be reported here, but what we really need to deal with in the same spirit in which the railway was built is to address what lies ahead. The next chapter is equally challenging, and that is the freight line that will operate effectively from 17 January. I want to make sure that the industrial park is completed on time. I was down there the other day. It is a concern that I have. There looks to have been a fair bit of work to be completed. We need the language ramped up, the engagement strategies to be kicking in so that we understand how much freight will cost on this line, what sort of plans we have to make sure it is going to work, that the representations you make to interstate builds confidence in this so that the infrastructure will produce the dreams of great economic outcomes for the Northern Territory.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his contribution, but when he says we have to understand the costs and freight rates, I do not think he understands that this is a private operation that was put in place by the then CLP government. FreightLink is running this line for 50 years.
They have made a considerable investment; $800m of private money, matched with nearly $500m of taxpayers’ money in the new trade route.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: What it means for the operators, FreightLink, is that they have to operate competitive rates for, first of all - and I would appreciate if the member for Greatorex would be quiet. They have to offer …
Dr Lim interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, FreightLink must offer competitive rates not only domestically to get that freight from road to the rail, but also internationally. That work is being done. May I just make mention of Swire Shipping giving a great vote of confidence to the new trade link and already operating a once-weekly service to Singapore. This route is under way, but a lot of work has to be done.
____________________
Distinguished Visitor
Madam SPEAKER: I wish to draw members attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mr John Bailey, former member for Wanguri in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. On behalf of all members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________
Racing Ministers Forum
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, last month I attended a meeting in Sydney with fellow Racing ministers from other states and territories and New Zealand to discuss issues in and around the Australian racing industry.
A number of issues discussed were of particular relevance to the Territory, relating to the activities of corporate bookmakers, a number of which are licensed up here. Issues discussed included the imposition of a product fee on bookmakers who use interstate racing product, the use of payouts based on tote-based dividends by bookmakers, and the operation of bet exchanges in Australia.
The issue of bookmakers making a return to Australian racing by way of a product fee has been under consideration for quite some time. The Territory made its position clear some 13 months ago. That is, we support a product fee in principle, so long as it is fair and equitable and it has to take into consideration the contribution that corporate bookmakers in the Northern Territory already make to the industry through commercial rental and sponsorship arrangements.
At the October meeting, ministers resolved for the racing industry to undertake negotiations with bookmakers to establish a framework and appropriate rate for a product fee. We are due to complete negotiations with the industry by 31 December. It is expected a nationally uniform rate will be determined for all bookmakers across the country, though different rates may be applied to bets taken remotely by telephone or Internet, as distinct from bets taken by oncourse bookmakers.
That said, it is critical the product fee is reasonable and sustainable and nothing will be gained by Australia by imposing a rate so high that these corporate bookmakers are forced offshore. That is no good for the racing industry, locally or nationally, nor any good for us.
A further matter discussed of serious concern was a resolution seeking the unanimous prohibition on bookmakers providing products where the payouts are based on totalisator dividends. Most NT corporate bookies use tote odds dividend-based products, and if that had been carried, it would have had serious business and revenue repercussions for them.
Victoria supported the Northern Territory against that motion, and we were pleased to have the support of the Victorian minister, John Pandazopoulos, on that matter. As a result, at the next sittings the government will seek to pass the Racing and Betting Amendment Bill, which was mentioned yesterday as having been on the books for some time. Whilst it was introduced in March 2002, it was really an act of good faith by this government that we wouldn’t pass it until these matters were close to resolved at the Racing Ministers’ Forum. We believe we are now clear to pass that legislation.
The third issue discussed at the meeting was around bet exchanges, a new form of Internet based betting. Most jurisdictions are seeking a prohibition on licensing bet exchanges because of the perception they may impact negatively on the integrity of the industry and concerns about the return they make to industry.
At the meeting, both the Territory and Tasmania made the point that Australians already access overseas bet exchanges, particularly BetFair. Prohibition won’t resolve this; it will simply see Australian money continuing to flow to offshore operations with no benefit and no return to government or industry in Australia.
However, both the Territory and Tasmania made it clear they will not licence a bet exchange until questions of integrity and industry revenue are resolved, but I did reiterate that we reserve the right, here in the Territory, to issue a bet exchange licence for sports or overseas racing where no local racing product is involved.
They were the main issues considered by the conference. The Northern Territory corporate bookmakers and racing industry should be well satisfied with the positive outcomes achieved, and that has been the feedback received thus far.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, a very interesting report, and I note it with active capacity to make notes, look at Hansard and will report in due time as we have the legislation, which you have indicated will now be passed.
With regards to the third point you made on Internet betting exchanges, reference to a decision being made in due course, I note that there would be many who would be interested in the outcome of your decision, minister. Would you be able to inform us as to a time frame when a decision will be made with regards to betting exchanges?
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, our position is clear, and I have put it on the record. There are a number of starting points that we want to see. It will be done with the collaboration and agreement of the Australian Racing Board, and there will be a satisfactory return to racing.
Other than that, if another jurisdiction jumped in a licensed one, we would see nothing holding us back on the basis that integrity and the revenue issues were squared away.
I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition has been somewhat busy lately. We did brief the former spokesman on all of these matters, and I would be most happy if he were to contact my office before the next sittings and we will go right through the detail of all these issues.
Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I have much pleasure in tabling in the House today the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management.
Members will recall that in August 2002, I appointed the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee to oversee the development of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. Today, I can report that this committee has presented to me the plan of management and brings to fruition the long held belief by this government that a plan of management for Darwin Harbour was needed to help shape future development of the region.
I would particularly like to pay tribute to the work of the Chair of the Committee, Mr John Bailey, all members of the committee and the excellent support given by my department to the committee in the production of the plan. The development of the plan was a centrepiece in this government’s election platform in 2001, and I am very pleased today to be able to deliver on this promise.
The establishment of a community-based reference group to oversee the development of the plan has been central to the process. This government values the active involvement of the community and recognises that they must participate in saving the future use of our natural resources such as the Darwin Harbour. Reflecting the long-term interests and activities of all stakeholders is essential, and community aspirations and values are vital underpinning principles within the framework established by the committee.
The consultation process that the Advisory Committee embarked on has established a comprehensive, participatory approach and reached a wide cross-section of community. To account for the extensive rates of interest in developing the plan, a range of options were presented to the community to facilitate public contribution. Opportunities for public participation in the first phase of consultation were initiated in November 2002 with written submissions. Later, from February to April 2003, the committee actively engaged stakeholders and the public in forums, hearings, public presentations and workshops.
On the completion of this first round of public consultation, the committee released its first draft of the plan in August 2003. Completion of the initial draft was achieved within four months of the challenging consultation process. Further testimony to their effort can also be seen in the number of valuable reference documents the committee, together with support staff and the working group, have produced during this development period to inform management decisions. Some seven additional documents have been published in conjunction with the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management.
I commend the committee on their efforts to deliver the plan within such a demanding time frame and achieving inclusive and productive consultation outcomes.
The committee has successfully overseen this extensive development process and completed all milestones with significant consensus. The members of the committee have worked extremely well, given the complex nature of the project and the diverse range of interests and values that members represent. The committee highlights in the plan that there is a strong desire for a harbour and catchment to remain biologically productive, for water quality and habitats be protected, and for recreational opportunities and the region’s tropical character to be maintained.
The plan also acknowledges that the harbour is a working port essential to economic progress and a growing industry base in the region. Striking a balance with these sometimes conflicting values and uses and addressing the many complex issues associated with management of the region is a key outcome of the plan.
In tabling this plan in the House today, I am publicly releasing it for the community’s consideration. This government will consider the plan and its recommendations over the coming months and formally respond to the recommendation of the committee early next year in the form of a formal statement to the House.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly note this report and the tabling of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, in fairness to the minister, I could not hear every word that he said but I have generally received good feedback about the work of the steering committee and those who were involved in the process; there is no doubt about that.
The real issue is this: prior to the last election, the Martin Labor government said: ‘Let’s make the Darwin Harbour a park, let’s make it a reserve; let’s protect it’. This is not living up to their promise. We know that the Darwin Harbour is a working harbour, people fish there, it is important for tourism and it is going to be the hub of a fairly important gas development. Territorians are not going to be fooled by this plan as some sort of fulfilment of that promise to protect Darwin Harbour, which the Labor government made prior to the last election.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would also like to congratulate Mr John Bailey on an excellent job in developing the Darwin Harbour Plan of Management. It is an excellent volume for people to look at. I should just say that it is just that: a plan of management. People should realise that you must have a plan somewhere that you can then apply the plan of management to. We do not have that plan yet.
As I have said many times in this House, sadly, we are still digging up the centre of the harbour, the very harbour that the minister has said is most important for all Territorians, and I agree. I would like the minister one day, as he promised, to come with me and I will show an alternative site for extraction industries and show him the reason why the centre of the harbour should be left as it is. There is no need for industry in the middle of the harbour.
Hopefully, minister, you and I can take a trip out there. We might be able to develop a plan for the harbour at the same time. It appears, from what you told me recently, we seem to have arrived at a good little plan together about how to fix some problems in the Litchfield plan; maybe we can so some work on the harbour.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions, not that I expected anything positive from the member for Goyder. As I said before, according to the member for Goyder, everything that goes wrong on this planet is the Martin government’s fault.
The feedback we have received from the community is very positive. I would like to congratulate John Bailey and the committee. It is very difficult to put together in the same room people who have conflicting interests and finish with a consensus decision. The harbour is a working harbour, it will continue to be a working harbour. It is going to get busier – we know that – with industry, international boating and with visiting naval vessels.
We have here the framework and the basis for a plan of management for the harbour. The government will consider it and will come back here with decisions for debate.
Quarantine and Export Inspection –
Return of Powers to the Commonwealth
Return of Powers to the Commonwealth
Dr BURNS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I rise to report to the Assembly on the recent return of quarantine and export inspection powers previously managed by the Territory to the Commonwealth.
Last Thursday, together with the Commonwealth Minister for Agriculture, Warren Truss, I attended a ceremony to mark the transfer of direct management of the international quarantine and export inspection functions in the Territory from the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development back to the Commonwealth. These functions are being resumed by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, or AQIS, due to the view of the Commonwealth that there is an increased need for integrated border control arrangements with other Commonwealth agencies.
We agree with that and, although it was sad to pass those functions back and to see the people associated with those functions going to AQIS, we believe it is a step in the right direction.
There have been highly publicised outbreaks of stock diseases amongst some of our trading partners in recent years, and these have highlighted the importance of strong quarantine provisions. The Territory government agrees that these matters are best dealt with on a nation-wide basis. A recent Senate inquiry on Australia’s quarantine functions noted that a single border agency throughout Australia would reflect the increased importance of quarantine functions at a time when awareness of bio-security issues is greater than ever before.
As part of the return of these services to the Commonwealth, Territory Quarantine and Export Inspection staff formerly working within DBIRD have been offered positions within AQIS on the same employment conditions and pay scales as other AQIS staff in Australia. A working group of DBIRD staff, unions and AQIS staff have settled outstanding issues that relate to working conditions, pay scales, management structure and superannuation. I understand that most staff have decided to accept the offer of employment with AQIS.
As well as this, a number of bio-security issues concerning exotic pests that are of particular concern to the Territory have been negotiated and settled to the satisfaction of the Northern Territory. I commend the officers who have been involved in these negotiations for their work.
The Territory has played an important front line role in managing Australia’s quarantine arrangements for many years. Since the commencement of these duties, managed by some eight staff in 1978, the work force has grown to around 35 permanent and permanent part-time staff in recent years. It was my pleasure to meet most of those people at the function I attended with minister Truss the other day, and most of them are long-term Territorians. Some of them worked in the Territory long before 1978, and I commend them for their efforts and their service.
The increase I just mentioned from eight staff in 1978 to 35 today is a reflection of the increase in demand for quarantine and export control services over that time. Territory officers have engaged in a number of tasks in that time, including remote quarantine surveys and quarantine pre-clearances over vessels in a number of overseas ports of departure. Our officers have participated in operations and programs involving East Timor, both from Darwin and in-country, working out of Dili, to help develop quarantine services and awareness in one of the world’s newest nations. Once again, here are Territory people giving their expertise and helping one of our nearest neighbours, East Timor, to develop their services. I commend that as well.
Also, importantly for the Territory economy, our quarantine staff have been central to the development of our highly successful export cattle trade from the early days of the late 1970s and early 1980s to the high numbers of cattle we see exported today through the Port of Darwin. Here, staff have helped establish and maintain our well deserved reputation as a source of high quality, healthy beef cattle, free from the pests and diseases that are a risk in other markets, and guaranteeing us stable markets even during disease outbreaks in other parts of the global beef trade.
Once again, I extend my congratulations and thanks on behalf of all Territorians to this dedicated band of men and women who carried out this role in the past. I wish them all the best in their shift over to AQIS, and I trust that the Commonwealth will maintain what is a very important function. We are at the front line. We did receive undertakings from minister Truss, and I believe that the Commonwealth will provide a better service through a number of agencies.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I put on the record the CLP’s thanks to those dedicated staff. The minister is correct in congratulating them for the fantastic job they have done over many years.
You only have to look at the production of the Northern Territory and how it has increased in the last 30 years, for instance, and the exposure that we have had to markets, particularly to our north, both inward and outward, to understand what the service provided by these offices has been. It has been an excellent service. You can look at all sorts of issues, and the minister mentioned a few of them, but think of the Black Striped Mussel. Those sorts of incursions, if they are not dealt with quickly and professionally, can have a serious effect on the productivity of the Northern Territory.
It is great to see that most of those staff are going to transfer to AQIS and be looked after at the same pay levels. I am sure there is all sorts of representation involved. I wish them well, hope they do stay in the service and that AQIS looks after them - and I am confident that they will.
I hope minister Truss realises – and I am sure the government has talked to minister Truss about this-- that we intend to increase the productivity of the Northern Territory over the next couple of decades, not just with the port and the shipping that we hope to put in place, but the north of Australia is going to become one of the most productive areas in the country. AQIS will need to gear appropriately for that. I am sure representations to that end have been made to the minister so that he is aware of the increases that are going to be needed in that service in the future.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
MOTION
Postponement of Business
Interpretation Amendment Bill
(Serial 190)
Postponement of Business
Interpretation Amendment Bill
(Serial 190)
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that consideration of General Business Orders of the Day number 1 standing in my name relating to the Interpretation Amendment Bill 2003 (Serial 190) be postponed until the next general business day.
Motion agreed to.
LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL (No 3)
(Serial 189)
(Serial 189)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
It was my hope that I would not have to introduce this bill and that the minister would move this amendment himself. The intent of the bill is very straight forward, indeed. It is aimed at fixing a problem with the Liquor Act caused by an amendment passed in this House last November. Members may recall the vigorous debate and the concerns raised at the time.
The amendment I propose changes section 47F of the Liquor Act to add under subsection (2) that an objection may be made on the ground that the grant of a licence may or will adversely affect: (b) health, education, safety or social conditions in the community.
It also inserts a subsection so that any person, organisation or group may make an objection on the grounds specified in subsection (2)(b).
During the debate on the amendments last November, I highlighted a potential problem, and I am sorry that I have to stand here today and say: ‘I told you so’. Back then, I asked the minister responsible for the Liquor Commission, the member for Nhulunbuy, to delay debate on the bill so we could get it right, and not cut from the objection process those groups and individuals who had legitimate concerns. The minister, if you recall, at the time reassured me that the intent of the amendments was not to stop people with legitimate public interest objections to liquor applications from making objections, but that is not what is starting to happen.
These were the minister’s words in relation to ‘amenity’ to parliament during the second reading debate:
- Any concerns over that definition should be allayed by stating there is no intention to prohibit any objection based on social, health or lifestyle issues and it is those kind of issues that it is envisaged would be captured in the public amenity ground.
Unfortunately, the definition of ‘amenity’ is not included in the bill and, as I have said on a number of occasions, if a bill is not clear, then confusion can arise.
I asked the government to delay the bill so the community could have a closer look at the proposed changes to the objection regime. Unfortunately, the government refused. I did a ring around in Alice Springs and found that none of the major groups dealing with alcohol-related problems in that town knew about the proposed changes before I called them. There had, again, been no community consultation. It was those groups that raised valid concerns before the Liquor Commission in the past that now, under the present act, can have their objections ruled out of order.
I will go over a couple of the relevant issues I raised in parliament a year ago, and then I will highlight the problem that has arisen since by referring to Liquor Commission decisions.
When an application for a liquor licence or variation occurs, be it in Darwin, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs or wherever, it obviously generates a lot of community interest. We all admit in Alice Springs that we have concerns about the number of liquor licences. The Minister for Central Australia has, in fact, been quite active in the work that he has been doing to address this problem. He knows full well that any application for a licence will be closely scrutinised and perhaps even criticised by the local community.
In the debate last year, the minister accepted that it was legitimate for a community group to make an objection to the proposed liquor licence as long as it was relevant and not frivolous. The government accepted that section 47F(3) would include a provision that a community based organisation or group could make that objection and, if you recall, that was one of the things that I had discussed prior to this.
The problems arising now are mainly due to the fact that objections can only be made on one ground, and that is amenity. That leaves no scope for objections on the basis of wider social or health problems that a particular application for a liquor licence may provoke. For instance, when the Tangentyere Club in Alice Springs asked for a takeaway licence some years ago, Aboriginal Congress said the original constitution of the Tangentyere Club included educating people in responsible drinking. That was their objection to a takeaway licence: education, responsible drinking. I am convinced that today, a similar objection would not be allowed under the act because that is what we see has happened.
Congress was also concerned about the number of deaths that occurred on the railway line. This was a safety issue. Under ‘amenity’, and the way it is now being interpreted so narrowly, I do not believe that safety objection would be allowed. Congress said the takeaway licence would adversely affect women and children using the Women’s Health and Birthing Centre near St Mary’s. Under the new regime, that objection would not be allowed.
During debate last year, I felt as though the government was making amendments to fix a problem in Darwin, and I see this over and over again. You have a problem in Darwin, so let us change the legislation without thinking about the ramifications elsewhere. You may recall the particular commercial reason that gave rise to the government’s amendments. The two cases to which I will refer both occurred outside Darwin. That is what you have to be careful about; you introduce legislation to fix a problem in Darwin, but you cause problems elsewhere in the Territory.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the government has narrowed the scope for objections so much that those people who might object from a broader view are not going to be heard. The Liquor Commission is now interpreting ‘amenity’ very narrowly. There are no other grounds for objection. Lawyers working for applicants, as you would expect, are arguing their cases on the letter of the law. They are not going back to the minister’s speech in parliament and saying: ‘The minister said all these health, social, education and safety issues would be accepted’. No. They are saying: ‘I have a client who wants a liquor licence and all those pesky objectors, we can get rid of them now because they are not arguing about amenity’.
The government has not taken into account that the effects of alcohol raise many issues in the community: health, education, safety and social issues. They are the majority of objections that are raised continually, not just in Alice Springs but in other parts of the Territory. They are not based on commercial grounds. I say again: in my mind, it is almost a contradiction of philosophy of this government that on one hand, we hear the Minister for Central Australia saying: ‘We have a huge alcohol problem, we will have an alcohol framework, a review of the Liquor Act and a Substance Abuse Committee’, but on the other hand, the government is saying: ‘If there is a licence application, we are going to restrict those people who can object and we will restrict the grounds on which they can object’. You really have a contradiction in the philosophy of this government.
I will highlight some of the problems that have arisen since the amendments were passed last year. The following two Liquor Commission decisions highlight the problems that I identified in my speech to parliament in November 2002. The decisions came from preliminary hearings held to determine if the objections were valid under the Liquor Act and would be referred to the actual hearing of the liquor application later on.
The first relates to the Outback Bar and Grill in Alice Springs and the decision was handed down on 5 September this year. The proprietor wanted to vary the licence conditions and the commission received an objection from Jenny Deveraux, a policy officer and a drug diversion coordinator, who is employed by the police service. Her objection was dismissed. It was rejected because she was not a member of the police force so she did not satisfy section 47F(3)(c), which says an objector should be ‘a member of the police force’, not an employee. The objection was also rejected because Ms Deveraux did not fit any of the other legal criteria. Being Darwin based, she certainly did not live in the neighbourhood of the bar. She was not an agency or a public authority performing functions relating to public amenities. Her submission referred to a police perspective, but the Liquor Commission found that she should have been writing on behalf of a specific member of the police force.
To my mind, that is legalistic nit picking and not what the community would want. This is exactly the sort of objection that the community would see as valid. This is an expert employed by the police service giving their view to the Liquor Commission. Unfortunately, it was not accepted. During last year’s debate on the amendments aimed at eliminating some objectors, the minister said genuine objections on the basis of health or social or community harm would still be regarded as valid, but in this case, a drug expert’s views on an application to extend trading hours was ruled invalid on technicalities.
The second example relates to an application from the Batchelor General Store for a takeaway licence and was handed down in September. There were 12 objections lodged. All of them were ruled valid by the Liquor Commission’s Jill Huck, but only on the grounds that the granting of the Liquor Commission would affect the amenity of the neighbourhood. I quote Ms Huck:
- Those issues identified in my findings as not involving the amenity of the neighbourhood are, however, to be excluded from the hearing of the objections.
So any objections not involving amenity, she would exclude. It is interesting because there were some very valid reasons for the objections. I will give a couple of examples, and I quote Ms Huck:
- Mr Otway also raises a concern about the potential effect on school students of any increased alcohol abuse on the part of their parents. While this is a genuine concern, it does not raise issues of amenity of the neighbourhood …
Thus, an objection based on a concern for social or community impact is no longer valid. The minister said last November that this would not be the case. Another example is Veronica Arbon, and I quote from Ms Huck:
- Ms Arbon sought to lodge her objection under subsection 47F(3)(e), an agency or public authority providing functions relating to public amenities, however, it is not clear whether educational institution such as Batchelor Institute would fit into this category.
So if Ms Arbon had not qualified under another section as a person residing and working in the area, her objection would have been dismissed. It begs the question that if a member of Batchelor Institute’s Board had made the objection, who did not live at Batchelor, would the objection have been ruled invalid? Would the Batchelor Institute qualify as a community based group under section 47F? Why should a major employer, an institution in a small town, be precluded from commenting on the social and safety aspects of a proposed licence?
The minister said last November that despite argument about the possible interpretations of ‘neighbourhood’ and ‘amenity’, if an objection was relevant, it would be accepted. Isn’t it relevant that a police employee with drug policy program experience has an objection? Isn’t it relevant that the Batchelor Institute believes there could be a downside to a takeaway licence? Isn’t it relevant that school students might be affected by a takeaway licence?
A further example concerns an application from the Beachfront Hotel in which police objections about disturbances in the area at closing time were admitted, but other matters that did not have a direct link the amenity were not.
You can see what is happening. There are problems arising since those amendments have been passed. We have gone from a very open process to a very narrow one. We have this long list of groups and individuals who can validly object, but still some valid objectors are being ruled out, and we only have this narrow ground of amenity.
This legislation has gone too far and we have to put some balance back. To do this, this bill amends section 47F by adding other grounds for objection to subsection (2). Not only will it be acceptable to object on the grounds of amenity, but under the new subsection (2)(b), people can object on the grounds that the granting of a liquor application will adversely affect the health, education, safety and social conditions of the community. All this rings too clearly to all of us who sit in the parliament and are well aware of the effect of alcohol on those conditions of any community. To ensure that any group or individual with a relevant comment to make on these grounds can lodge an objection a new subsection (3)(a) is created.
As the minister decides whether or not to support this amendment, I remind the House of what he said during the committee stages of debate last year, and I quote:
Allow the commission to exercise its judgment on the facts of the case before it in relation to neighbourhood. If it goes wrong and people are unfairly knocked out in any of these categories or they do not have the opportunity to put their objection where previously they would…if it turned out to be the case, we would very quickly have another look at it…
You don't change a law and turn your back and never look at it again
The minister’s words. People are being unfairly knocked out of the process, and I am asking the minister to have another look at it.
I wrote to the minister on 19 September this year, as soon as it came to my attention that there was a problem, and I asked him to draft amendments to fix it. Unfortunately, other than the usual letter of acknowledgement, and despite contacting the minister’s office on a couple of occasions, I have had no response. Hence, this amendment.
This matter is too important to be treated lightly. An application before the Liquor Commission should be fully debated. It is now apparent that the amendment passed in November 2002 has left loopholes that have disadvantaged the general public who want to have their objections considered as valid.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table a copy of the Statement of Reasons for Decisions that I have to date.
Leave granted.
Mrs BRAHAM: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend these amendments to all members.
Debate adjourned.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS (RANDOM DRUG TESTING) BILL
(Serial 199)
(Serial 199)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
If we go straight to the purpose of the bill at clause 4:
- The purpose of this bill to implement a policy of zero tolerance in respect of unlawful drug use by MLAs.
In this parliament, there are probably only two drugs policies, and both would appear to relate to where rather than how much a particular drug is consumed and, of course, that relates to both alcohol and nicotine.
It would appear that there is widespread delinquency regarding at least nicotine and possibly alcohol in this building, and it is something we should look at. This bill does not look in any way, shape or form at the consumption of licit drugs. The bill merely looks at the consumption of illicit drugs by members of this parliament.
A member interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: There is some tsking going on. I am not sure what that might mean.
There is a need to establish and understand the fundamentals. First, the National Drug Strategy Household Survey of 1998 established that 20% of people used an illicit drug in the last 12 months. That would equate, if we are representative of society, to some five parliamentarians in this parliament. It is also a current contemporary feature of society that sports people, mine workers; particularly Bechtel over there at Wickham Point and on other sites throughout the Territory, professional drivers, defence personnel, which has been reported on recently, and airline personnel are subject to random drug testing, and often to quite significant sanctions that can include termination of employment.
I believe there is an expectation that politicians represent the people, and if we are truly representative of the community of the Northern Territory one would expect that the 20% that applies to the community out there would also apply in this House.
I also believe that the community has higher expectations of behaviour and standards amongst elected representatives. Those people elected to this place have a duty to exhibit higher standards of behaviour than those that are the norm in the greater community.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: We spent many hours yesterday debating the issue of equality before the law. There is the significant problem of impaired judgment as a problem of intoxicating illicit substances. In any workplace …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! It is not proper conduct for members to interject while a member is conducting a second reading speech.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr BURKE: My point of order is that when a minister delivers a second reading speech, he is heard in silence, and the same courtesy should be afforded during a Private Member’s Bill or to a member of the opposition.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will try my best to afford the member for Drysdale as much protection as is standard in this House.
Mr DUNHAM: I had not heard them, apart from the tsk-tsking from the member for Johnston. I will go back to that point because it is possible that it was not heard.
Impaired judgment is a problem in any workplace and is potentially dangerous, but I submit that in this parliament, that is even more paramount. In this parliament we are making decisions on behalf of the people and I believe that it is therefore important that our judgment is not impaired by illicit drugs.
In drafting this bill, I did not look to any other precedent in any other parliament. I did not look to canvass opinions of any other parliament and, apart from my colleagues, I did not canvass opinions of other parliamentarians. I did go to Drager, a company with a very fine record in matters relating to random drug testing, particularly on mine sites. They have an office in Darwin and they were very good in providing information on the technicalities of obtaining samples, the types of drugs for which they can test, and the convenience and capability of the science and technology in this area. They are well and truly able to provide, in a very short time frame, a variety of devices that can check, for instance, for cannabis, opiates, cocaine, methamphetamines and benzodiazepine. It is fairly simple to undertake such a test.
I would like to thank, at this juncture, Gale Jamieson, who, at fairly short notice, drafted this bill. As I said, to my knowledge, it is without precedent. There are some significant issues that do not exist in the wider community. For instance, it is a very difficult thing to terminate the employment of somebody who is in this House. The attempt in drafting in this bill was to use existing systems. Members will notice that the Clerk – a man who is known to all of us for his independence, impartiality and as a fine officer of this parliament has been given a job. I am sure he will thank me for that - features in the bill, as does the Misuse of Drugs Act. Dangerous drugs are defined in accordance with existing legislation. The route for a hearing and deciding is through our Privileges Committee.
It has not been my intention to set up bodies other than those that exist. We know the technology is available and is used locally. We know that we have an independent person who is able to conduct the tests. We know that drugs are adequately defined in current legislation, and we know that there is a capacity to refer members to a very well-established and well-defined committee of this parliament. Therefore, it is my intention to use all of those existing organs and processes and protocols, and to have a fairly easy regime of random testing for politicians where, in any 12 month period, each politician must undergo a test and, at any other time, the Clerk can request a test. The tests do not take much time and are certainly not intrusive in the body samples that are required. I suggest that if there are some hundreds and hundreds of people in the community that are subject to regimes of this type, it is not something that is beyond our call to do.
I ask the government to sign off on the purpose of the act, and I will read it out again:
- The purpose of this act is to implement a policy of zero tolerance in respect of unlawful drug use by MLAs.
Of course, there are people who may have drugs in their bloodstream that are scheduled under the Dangerous Drugs Act. A defence to this obviously would be that they had a script for these drugs and were not using them illicitly.
Members will also note that I have given the running of this to the government on two counts. First, its commencement date; and, second, that it will be prescribed in regulation. While it is the capability, privilege and duty of members to bring matters such as this forward by way of a Private Member’s Bill, I believe it is a matter for parliament and for the government to decide the regulations on how this might work, the instrumentation that might be used, whether training and accreditation is required by the Clerk, whether there is the capacity for delegation. I see that if the government is happy to sign off on the intent – and I am pretty sure all of us would – those matters of commencement and regulation are matters that the government could take up. I would signal at this early time that if that is tardy, it is easy enough to put into the main act by the same process of a Private Member’s Bill, but I see that as subordinate legislation and reasonably the province of government.
This is not some wowser, finger-wagging exercise to say: ‘Tsk, tsk’, if I can quote the member for Johnston, about people who are addicted to various substances. It is a tragedy in our society that many people are addicted to illicit substances and, in fact, licit substances as well, and it could well be that there is a member of this House who has an addiction. It is not my intention therefore to put a spotlight on that person in the sense of embarrassing them.
Given that Private Members Bills do take some time, I believe there is ample opportunity for detox, withdrawal or behaviour modification if there is a member of this parliament who is engaging in the use of recreational illicit or other drugs that would offend this bill. There is ample time for people who are in the unfortunate position of being addicted to illicit substances to be able to take another route before this bill comes into play. I see no problem with all 25 of us being able to say: ‘I believe that my bloodstream should never contain unlawful drugs while I am a member of this House’. If people are unable to do that, I ask that they look to the reasons why they cannot do that and whether community expectations are being met by their continued presence in this place. In the several months that now exist, I ask each of the party rooms and Independents to consider this matter.
I am in the fortunate position of having taken it to my party room, and I have the endorsement of the CLP parliamentary wing to present this bill. It is done with the best of intentions. It is not some sort of bear trap intended to catch addicted members of parliament; it is merely to say to the community that the laws that we make in this place, that affect you and your behaviours and can result in the termination of your employment, should also impact on us. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Postponement of Business
Traffic Amendment Bill (Serial 124)
Postponement of Business
Traffic Amendment Bill (Serial 124)
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that consideration of General Business Orders of the Day Notice No 1 standing in my name relating to the Traffic Amendment Bill (Serial 124) be postponed until the next general business day.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Postponement of Business
Sentencing Amendment Bill (Serial 126)
Postponement of Business
Sentencing Amendment Bill (Serial 126)
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that consideration of General Business Orders of the Day Notice No 2 standing in my name relating to the Sentencing Amendment Bill (Serial 126) be postponed until the next general business day.
Motion agreed to.
CONTAINER DEPOSIT BILL
(Serial 131)
(Serial 131)
Continued from 13 August 2003.
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, let me say from the outset that I have the deepest respect for the member for Braitling, her commitment to container deposit legislation, her reasons and motives for presenting this bill. I quote from her second reading speech:
- My main aim has always been to see the litter problem in the Northern Territory addressed.
I share that aim with the member for Braitling. I will try to outline today and put a case why, at this stage, container deposit legislation and the model proposed by the member for Braitling is not the way to comprehensively address the litter problem in the Northern Territory.
In her second reading speech, the member for Braitling outlined some of the history of her proposal. Initially, she proposed a model, which she acknowledged within her second reading speech had constitutional and legal difficulties. She went to the Solicitor-General for an opinion, then saw the parliamentary draftsman and developed the Private Member’s Bill that we have before us in relation to container deposit legislation.
The main difference between the first and second models, and I might stand corrected, is within the first model the benefit, if you like, from unredeemed deposits would go into a community fund and would benefit the community. In the second model, the one before us, the benefit from unredeemed deposits would reside with the packaging and beverage industry. Those benefits probably would be substantial in the Northern Territory; I am informed it could be up to $1m per annum. The member for Braitling acknowledged that at the end of her speech, when she said:
If there are individuals or community groups who will not support this bill because it does not have a community fund, then I challenge them to question their motives in wanting container deposit legislation. Is it only about funding? If you want a cleaner environment, if you want reduce litter, if you want to increase recycling and make manufacturers more responsible for their products, then this bill will do it.
I acknowledge that the bill may very well have some of those effects, but I will argue today that our comprehensive Litter Abatement and Resource Recovery Strategy is the way to go. It is a more comprehensive way to address litter abatement in the Northern Territory. I have outlined where I am coming from, except to say that I remain committed to container deposit legislation in the longer term, but I believe it is something that has to be addressed at a national level between all states and territories and the Commonwealth, and I will outline my reasons for that.
I have already stated that the most appropriate means for pursuing CDL is for national and uniform legislation, and we will be raising this through the appropriate ministerial council meetings. I have said that we all agree that we need to improve our efforts in reducing litter and improving recycling. The industry has to lift its game and the community needs to be encouraged to do the right thing in this respect. I recognise the concerns that have led to the push for CDL.
As I said, our comprehensive Litter Abatement and Resource Recovery Strategy is the way to go, and I rebut any suggestion, and it has been made in the media, that somehow this government or the minister was bought off by the beverage industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is a very cynical thing to say. There is no doubt that the beverage industry is a fairly vociferous and powerful opponent of CDL, and they argue, for example, that beverage containers comprise 10% of the litter stream. I suppose in their counting, they count the myriad of small items such as cigarette butts and lolly wrappers to pad out their statistics.
There is no doubt in my mind that beverage containers comprise a significant amount of our litter stream, and the estimates that have been given to me about the Territory are somewhere around 20%. As I travel through the Territory, I look at the litter stream. I do not see just beverage containers; I see a whole range of litter. Plastic bags are one item I have talked about in this House, and how the environment ministers are actively addressing the issue of our litter stream. There is no doubt, even if you just look around Darwin, the mess made by takeaway containers from McDonalds, Colonel Sanders and a range of retailers can be seen everywhere.
We have to be open and honest about this. A significant amount of the litter we see around the place comes from Aboriginal people or, often, long grassers. In my electorate, it is something that upsets me. It is a cultural thing. As we are brought up in western culture, or whatever you want to call it, our parents drum into us about litter, but I don’t think Aboriginal people see it the same way. I don’t think they’re lazy about litter; I just don’t think it is part of their thinking. That is why, within our Litter Abatement and Resource Recovery Strategy, it is very important to have education to make people more aware about litter.
It is not just about beverage containers; it is about plastic bags, and the litter that is associated with fast food. Going out to an Aboriginal community recently, there were so many old plastic toys and bikes. You know, if the wheel falls off, the kids leave it there.
Everyone is always comparing the Territory with South Australia. Container deposit legislation works in South Australia, so it should work here in the Territory for our litter problem. I disagree. We have a different litter problem because we have a different culture and thinking about litter itself, and we need to comprehensively address those things. I do not think container deposit legislation by itself is going to do that.
We have to look at the whole of the litter stream and what is involved in it. Although the beverage industry tries to argue that it is a lot lower than it is, there are a lot of other components in our litter stream that we need to seriously address.
I want to state for the record that I have approached this issue with an open mind and critical eye with respect to arguments on both sides. I am not here as an apologist for the beverage industry. If I were, the Territory would simply sign up to the National Packaging Covenant and make this issue go away. I place on the record that we are not signing the covenant and we are not giving the beverage industry everything they want because nothing would make them happier than for the Territory to sign up to the National Packaging Covenant.
I have talked about the development of our comprehensive Litter Abatement and Resource Recovery Strategy. As a government, we have extracted a significant and substantial commitment from the beverage industry that will see them invest or fund $1.5m over the next three years on litter and recycling issues. That was another furphy that was put about: somehow, the beverage industry was putting money straight into the pocket of government. Nothing could be further from the truth. The monies that have been put on the table from the beverage industry in relation to this will be expended in a very transparent way, and I will come to that soon.
I have mentioned the fast food sector and plastic bags. I have written to other industry sectors seeking meaningful financial commitments to the initiatives in this strategy. To those who see this a some sort of pay-off for not implementing container deposit legislation, I ask whether they want to see industry contributing to litter solutions or do they just want the consumer to be hit again?
I will be ensuring that industry fulfils these voluntary commitments to the Territory community and, as I indicated in my statement to the Assembly in August, if they fall short of the mark, I will not hesitate to implement other mandatory measures to make them take their share of responsibility for the problems that their packaging creates. On the other side of the equation, there are some responsibilities on the part of consumers.
We need to look at all the issues and approach them in a rational and balanced way. I believe we have done this as a government, and we have come to the view that CDL is not right option at this point of time for a number of reasons, and I will try and enunciate them now.
Most importantly, CDL will increase beverage prices. That is a given. Everyone says if it is 5 and if it is a carton of beer, you multiply it by 24, and if it is a carton of 12 bottles of distilled water, you multiply five by 12. While it has been suggested that South Australia pays the same for its beer as elsewhere in Australia, this ignores the economic analysis commissioned by the South Australian government, which reveals that the beverage industry has spread the cost of the scheme nationally. Many in the Chamber and listening today would probably have seen the Four Corners program, and there was no dispute about that. It was acknowledged in that program that the cost of the scheme in South Australia has been spread nationally and, in effect, we are all paying for South Australia’s scheme.
It is folly to think that this will always occur, particularly in the face of a beverage industry opposed to CDL. Indeed, informal advice from the South Australian EPA provided to my office suggests that prices for beverage products that were recently added to their CDL scheme have increased by up to 10 cents per unit earlier this year. Members may be aware that South Australia pulled in a lot of beverage containers other than soft drink – probably the cartons of fruit juice, a whole range of different beverages - and now the price per unit has increased by up to 10 cents per unit.
We all know that the Territory is expensive in all sorts of ways. In the recovery of the containers and all the costs associated with it, if South Australians and the beverage industry nationally find it hard to pin it back to 5 per item, I believe it would be substantially more than 5 within the Northern Territory. This is something people need to think about very seriously because by increasing the price per unit, you are increasing the cost of living for Territorians.
Realistically, the deposit and handling fees envisaged under this bill could add at least $2.40 to the purchase price of a carton of beer, for example, or soft drink. While half of this may be redeemed through the deposit, this still leaves at least $1.20 per carton and possibly more if the beverage manufacturers decided to opportunistically increase prices on the back of introduction of CDL. It is entirely conceivable that, as the beverage industry foreshadowed, there would be substantial increases to a lot of beverages. It could even add up to $5 to the weekly shopping bill of many Territory families. At this stage, the government is not prepared to run the risk of adding costs to Territory families when there are less costly options available that should be explored first.
I am advised that this bill does not raise constitutional issues associated with taxation. However, we need to understand how this has been achieved. It has been achieved by charging a deposit on all beverage products consumed by Territorians, and allowing the beverage manufacturers to retain the unredeemed component. This is a significant amount of money. By some estimates, as I said previously, it is upwards of $1m per annum that will come out of the pockets of Territory consumers and into the coffers of large and already profitable beverage companies. So here are all these unredeemed deposits, people are paying more for their beverage containers, and here is $1m going in the back pocket of these large companies. I do not think that is a particularly good idea when there are other ways it can be done without necessarily dipping into the pockets of consumers.
This is the way that South Australia has done it, and while South Australians love their CDL, if you ask them whether they would do it differently now, most would say the answer is yes. If you ask them whether it is efficient for each manufacturer to separately arrange for collection of their empties, as envisaged under this bill, or whether they think the unredeemed deposits should be retained by industry, I believe that the answer would be a resounding no. They would probably prefer a single collection system by which their money goes back into community initiatives rather than into the balance sheets of already large and profitable companies. This is what the Territory community has told us it wants originally. Many people are still under the impression that the model we may even be talking today – I am talking about the public – is all about that model where there is a community benefit through unredeemed deposit. The model being proposed is relatively inefficient because it lines the pockets of industry.
The problem, however, is that the model supported by the community is the one that has inherent legal risks for the Territory. Legal advice to government, as I said before, contends that the vesting of unredeemed deposits with a single materials coordinator would be construed as a tax and/or an acquisition of property. Government is not willing to risk costly legal challenges on an untested model, nor is it willing to implement the tested model incorporated in this bill, which gives the beverage industry a windfall. If CDL is to be pursued in Australia, government believes that the Commonwealth government, working along with state and territory governments, has the power to implement a model that is socially responsible and legally defensible. To this end, I will be actively participating in discussions with my interstate and Commonwealth ministerial colleagues through the Environment Protection and Heritage Council during the review of the National Packaging Covenant.
Notwithstanding the legal soundness of this bill, there are other risks; most importantly, competition policy. There is little doubt that this bill has anti-competitive elements or elements that could be construed as being anti-competitive. It applies an additional cost on some beverage products but not others. A successful challenge to the National Competition Council could see competition payments to the Territory reduced with an associated impact on the Territory budget and services to all Territorians.
The bill also presents significant logistical difficulties in its implementation to remote communities, and there has been quite some discussion about this. Establishing collection and deposit redemption points across the Territory would be difficult and expensive. While it might be tempting to draw from the South Australian experience and suggest that reasonable implementation will be straight forward, we need to look a little closer. South Australia’s CDL scheme was enacted in the 1970s when that state already had a network of collection depots established to service a voluntary deposit scheme. No such arrangements exist in the Territory; we would need to start from scratch, and at considerable expense.
It is all right to say you can backload on a truck returning from a community; but that is all added costs. The whole issue of establishing the infrastructure and getting the products back cannot be glossed over with a simplistic: ‘Well, it works in South Australia’ or ‘Just throw it on the back of a truck’. I do not think it works like that.
We also need to recognise that price increases associated with CDL will have comparatively greater impact on remote communities, many of which have a higher per capita consumption of packaged beverage products and lower disposable income. I am not for one moment defending or lauding the fact that on remote communities people tend to drink a lot more packaged beverage products. I believe that they are ruinous on health and people’s teeth and they are not desirable products for children to be drinking rather than water. However, it happens and that is the way it is. Basically, you would be slugging people for beverage products, and those people have lower disposable incomes. It is the same as increasing the price of tobacco products. This goes against what a lot of other people say in this particular area: that increasing tobacco products decreases demand. That has not been my experience on Aboriginal communities. People will still buy tobacco and I believe they will still buy their beverages no matter what the cost. There are other elements to this.
There is a significant risk with CDL that Territorians in these communities would pay the higher prices for their beverage but have more limited options for redeeming their deposits. Government could not, in good conscience, expect everyone to pay increased prices to fund the deposit unless everyone could be provided with reasonable access to redemption points. While I acknowledge that support for CDL is strong in some of these communities, government also has a responsibility to ensure that it does not make decisions that will adversely impact on sectors of our community that are already disadvantaged.
There are some remote communities such as Santa Teresa which do, I am told – I have not witnessed it first-hand, but I am interested in it - have a local deposit scheme. They see that as the best way for them to tackle the litter problem. That is possibly a model under our Litter Abatement and Resource Recovery Strategy that we can support. We shall see whether it can be piloted elsewhere.
The Litter Abatement and Resource Recovery Strategy I outlined in my statement in August is about local people initiating local solutions for local problems, and that is the Territory way. The Litter Abatement Advisory Committee will therefore consider local deposit schemes where local conditions are conducive and the community is supportive. However, we are not going to impose CDL on all communities.
We also need to look seriously at the impact of this bill on kerb side collection schemes that have been established in Darwin and Palmerston. Local government, responding to calls from ratepayers, have made considerable investment in kerb side collection. CDL will make some of the items collected under kerb side far more valuable, with the consequence that they may well be diverted away from kerb side and residents choose to redeem the deposit rather than place the empty into the yellow recycling bin.
While the net impact of CDL on kerb side collection is fertile ground for economic analysis and spin, I suppose, I draw members’ attention to the recent analysis conducted for the ACT and Victorian governments. A study conducted by the Centre for Environmental Solutions in 2002 for the ACT government found:
- This analysis shows that the implementation of CDL would effectively double or triple the ACT’s current costs of kerb side recycling.
Similarly, studies conducted by Nolan-ITU, sustainability consultants, for the Victorian government and peer reviewed by Perchards a UK-based consultancy company found the following:
- This suggests that there may be more economical ways of capturing additional materials for recycling than the introduction of CDL
The point is that there is a risk when you introduce CDL on top of a pre-existing kerb side collection system. We need to be very careful not to threaten the long-term viability of kerb side collection in the Territory.
Taking the needs of all Territorians into account, I believe that effective and cheaper solutions to litter and recycling are possible through a mixture of specifically-targeted initiatives. That is why government is pursuing the Litter Abatement and Resource Recovery Strategy.
I remind members of some of the significant initiatives in the strategy:
$1.5m over the next three years for small grants and strategic projects;
$225 000 over the next three years to coordinate the strategy and implement initiatives aimed at
strengthening litter and waste management laws and monitoring performance;
Together, these initiatives represent an investment of $2.385m over the next three years to tackle litter problems and develop recycling in the Territory at no cost to the Territory consumer.
My office of Environment and Heritage has commenced recruitment for an officer to coordinate the Litter Abatement and Resource Recovery Strategy and undertake legislative reviews. The office has also called for nominations to the Litter Abatement Advisory Committee that will oversee the strategy. Nominations have been received and I anticipate that the committee will be established before the end of the year. Agreement has been reached with the beverage industry for the provision of their first financial contribution, which will allow the Litter Abatement Advisory Committee to call for bids for community grants early in the new year.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I reiterate that I am absolutely committed to seeing real improvements in the litter hotspots around the Territory. I believe, however, that the problem requires a comprehensive, flexible approach through specifically targeted initiatives that deliver at the least cost to Territory families. It requires an approach that looks at all contributors to the litter problem: plastic bags, wrappers, fast food containers, old plastic toys, you name it, not just beverage containers. The strategy delivers this. The bill does not, and, for that reason, the government will not be supporting the bill.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this gives us an insight into the psychology of the government: if they are presented with a very well focussed campaign by a lobby group, they will be frightened into adopting that position. Prior to coming to government, they were quite warm to the idea of CDL because they knew, once tapped into the wider fabric of our community, that it makes very good sense.
However, coming into government with a sense of euphoria, a honeymoon that seemed to last for some time, they were awakened to reality by the fierce lobbying capacity of the beverage and packaging industry. Try as you might, minister, to explain and rationalise your current position with nodding assent to yes, we still support CDL, you are standing in two positions. It is quite clear that there is no will to adopt CDL.
There is an old Newcastle song: Never let a chance go by, old son. You have let a chance go by. You let a chance go by, demonstrated by a previous decision, when a small and well focussed group was able to deliver an agenda which then modified your ideology, focussed your intent and you drove it through. Once again, you have abandoned your own position. You call it a comprehensive Litter Abatement and Resource Recovery Strategy. I did not add that to my list of strategies that this government has produced, an extraordinary number of strategies, but you have done a comprehensive backflip. Secretly, you would know that you have taken a position that is contrary to your own belief. Maybe we should have a conscience vote on this as well. Come clean! What really is your position?
I saw the Four Corners program, too, and I know, as tough as you sound, the beverage and packaging industry has a lot at stake and they play a hard game. Try as you might to convince me that they did not faze you, I saw the look in that lady’s eye and I tell you what: she will do a good job.
Remember that we are representing the Northern Territory. Remember that Territorians have the capacity to lead and not follow. Remember that we can solve our own problems. Remember that we can deal with these issues. If there is a will, there is a way. If there was no will, there would be no railway; there would be no infrastructure in our place; we would be just talking about things and we would have piles of paper of strategies and wonderful things we can tick off and put in people’s letterboxes saying: ‘Look at this, look at that. Look at this program that we are going to be implementing next year in a phased approach to making a difference, which we will review in due course’.
There is the capacity here – and you have let this chance go by – to do something. There have been some quite unusual positions taken. It took nearly 20 minutes to go right through this so that we would be convinced that you had made the right decision. It has been rationalised and you have taken your position. As my mother-in-law would say. ‘You make that bed; you are going to lie in it’. It is done, finished. Now the opportunity presents itself for the alternative government at the next election to present quite clearly the capacity to approach this issue in a very constructive but courageous way and to make sure that we are actually representing the best interests of Territorians.
You touched on a very interesting area with regards to the cultural aspects of litter. I found that a bit awkward to hear that we are culturally accustomed to tidying up but indigenous folk who live on communities do not have that same cultural value. I do not really want to go there, because it is pretty sensitive country …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: … you are tiptoeing into and you had better whack your toe out of that area because that is not a place to go.
I have been to a couple of different countries, and I have seen different approaches to litter. A noticeable one was Indonesia. On a number of occasions, I took educational exchanges to Indonesia. When I had Australian students in Indonesia, when they had their little packages of tucker to eat, which were always very interesting because there were unusual things in their little boxes. They have their version of a Popper and Twisties, and a strange green cake and funny bun, and a rolled up bit of steamed rice. When they had finished exploring all the possibilities of their lunch box, they wondered what on earth to do with it, sitting on a bus, and the Indonesian host said: ‘What is the issue? Throw it out the window’. The kids on the bus thought this was amazing: ‘We have never been able to do this, it is not part of our culture just to throw this stuff out the window’. The kids were looking for things to find so they could throw it out the window. Sadly, there was a bit of cross-pollination, by the time they got back to Australia they still had their enthusiasm up for throwing things out the window, but we certainly curtailed that in a flash and brought them back to reality.
It is nothing to do with genes of Indonesians that they throw rubbish out windows; it is the way we have structured the whole package. It is education, but it is not just education. I could sit my son down every evening and give him a very well presented discussion on the importance of keeping his room tidy, get him out in the lounge room and go through it point by point, perhaps even do a glossy, and post it to him, and explain to him the virtues of tidiness in his own room. We could have little slogans, perhaps even tattoos made that we could put on his arm that say: ‘Tidiness is next to Godliness’. We could slowly influence his behaviour so that he would end up with a magically tidy room; one morning he would get up and slowly move in that direction and he would have a cultural change.
I tell you I got his room tidy by providing incentives to do so. We had the framework there for him; we knew that was the direction he was meant to go, but with the application of an incentive, his room was tidy. Sometimes those incentives were quite powerful in the sense of: you ain’t going anywhere until that room is tidy. He might cry, he might get upset, and he has some very important social engagements, but he did not go anywhere until his room was tidy. The application of incentives are very important. It is not just education. If we unpack this, and if there is a will, there is a way. There is a way to make this work. There is a way to provide real leadership. There is a way to solve difficult problems, and we can do it.
If you listen to one group, they will persuade you with seductive arguments. I heard the lines being trotted out here; the explanation, the rationalisations of why it cannot work. They are considered, good and well constructed arguments. We had well constructed arguments here yesterday on a debate. They were quite varied. Some arguments were very compelling and quite seductive, but I fundamentally disagree with them. It does not make a good argument by virtue of itself to be right; you can go on any old track and justify it.
Let us go back to the basic issue. The community wants CDL, and they want a government to apply the will and make it work, not find reasons why we cannot approach it at this point and we are going to wait for someone else to provide the leadership, like the whole nation will provide that kind of leadership and we will follow along. At the outset, I mentioned the psychology of the government, and inherent in that is all the indicators of following, not leading.
The position of the CLP on CDL is that we will find a way to sort out this issue. We will not be ascribing our complete support to this model, but we reaffirm our commitment to finding a solution to this issue. The issue, as far as the CLP is concerned, is this: the litter stream can be altered beneficially, not just with the application of education and the repackaging of strategies, the re-branding of initiatives creating the effect of some whole new thing; it is taking a real approach to the fundamental issue that CDL can work. If there is a will, there will be a way.
The CLP will not support this bill in detail but, generally speaking, supports CDL. Coming up to the next election is more the point for the CLP. The issue is like the song Never Let a Chance Go By, Old Son. You have let a chance go by and now it will fall to the next government to present a clear and courageous response to an issue that is of primary concern to our community.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, every so often you walk into this Chamber and hear astonishing rot, and this minister has exemplified the highest levels of that achievement.
To suggest that Aboriginal people are culturally dirty is the most extraordinary tripe I have ever heard. If you consider that across the courtyard over here, there are numerous Aboriginal communities vying desperately with each other to claim the Territory Tidy Town prize. I was dismayed. The reason that the member for Johnston has people littering in his electorate is not because they are Aboriginal; it is because there is an element of dysfunction. I bet that when he has people drinking and those sorts of things in his electorate, it does not matter whether they are Aboriginal or not. They could be white people sitting in the cemetery at McMillans Road. Guess what? They will be littering, too. It is not a genetic predisposition that Aboriginal people are going to litter, so we have to apologise for them. Get real!
Your own minister assisting on Aboriginal affairs has said Aboriginal people have to become responsible for these things. That is what Tidy Towns is about. To walk in here and suggest that there is some sort of preordained genetic disposition, or it is culturally appropriate for Aboriginal people to litter is rot! There are numerous examples, and I will give you a classic: Wallace Rockhole in electorate. As you drive into Wallace Rockhole, there is a huge billboard with little panels. Each panel says: ‘We are the tidiest town’; ‘We are the tidiest town in this category’; ‘We are the tidiest town in that category’; ‘We are the tidiest town this year’. There are several signs as you drive up to that billboard that say: ‘We were the tidiest town in 1997, 1998’.
I took the shadow minister for Aboriginal Affairs from Western Australia into Wallace Rockhole the other day and I saw a plastic bag up against a fence and I thought: ‘Oh, my God, that is the first piece of litter that I have seen in this community in six years’. I wonder how they would feel if they knew that the Minister for Tourism – and they operate a tourism venture out at that community – said that they had a genetic or cultural predisposition to littering. They would be horrified. I cannot believe that this minister suggested it.
There are communities in my electorate that are covered in litter. Guess what? If you drill down into those communities, there is a problem; there is management dysfunction in those communities. Now, there is something to address. There is something for the minister to talk about. That is the outward sign of other problems inside the community. Finke was a classic example. They did something very simple; they put up some fences around their community, little garden fences about waist high and let the plastic bags - this was their first step in dealing with rubbish years ago under Bill South’s administration – and rubbish blow up against the fence. Once a day, it was the job for a CDEP worker to go around the fence, pick up all the rubbish and stick it the rubbish bin and they took it down to the dump and they threw it away. It was not a particularly difficult thing to do. Evacuations for health problems dropped by 70%. A dysfunctional community becoming functional. It has nothing to do with their culture. Gee whiz! Go over there and say it, minister. Go into Tidy Towns competition and say: ‘Look, folks, I know why you are here but you are wasting your time. This is a cultural problem you have.’ Astonishing. Absolutely astonishing.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, turning my attention to the bill, The CLP supports CDL …
Dr Burns: They would be interested in your support for land rights, as well, ALRA land. I am sure they will be very interested in that.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Macdonnell has the floor.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the problem with CDL is getting the right model. I tried to think through the way this model is going to work. I tried to figure out how it is going to work, not only in Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and such places, but how is it going to work in remote communities where there is litter? There are various types of litter. What the minister did correctly point out was that there are many types of litter that will not become subject to CDL. Car bodies are very difficult to deal with, especially in remote places in the Northern Territory because you do not get any money back for recovering a car body; it is far too expensive to go and recover one to get the value out of it, yet they are littered all over my electorate, especially around communities. It would be very nice to have a container deposit legislation on a car body, but how much would that be?
You have other things like nappies. Disposable nappies are very convenient, but in many communities they are a problem. You would not have people lining up 10 deep on that container deposit legislation. Those other aspects do not prevent us looking at the products that do attract a deposit, which the honourable member has suggested: cans bottles, those sorts of things. The model is, as I understand it from the second reading speech, quite simple. You get a deposit when you take your bottle into the collection depot, the manufacturer goes to the collection depot, picks up the bottles and then pays on the deposit. Therefore, the manufacturer has the responsibility for collection. Running that model through the physical process in an Aboriginal community might be a bit difficult.
There is a suggestion that companies are prepared to backload, but that really relies on the good will of those companies. If there is somebody who now has paid out a few thousand dollars to various people and bought various containers in, it then sits in the depot at the community and then they have to try and get the manufacturer to come out. Is it worth the manufacturer’s while to drive out, pick up this stuff, and then pay for the privilege of taking it out? It is a tough question. Even if there is a back-load, and it is economically viable, do the manufacturers want to pay? I would love to find a model that works for everyone, and we will certainly be looking at it. The model before us I am not convinced would be entirely effective, but I thank the member for introducing it, encouraging the debate and keeping it alive because the debate is important to have. I would love to find a way of dealing with disposable nappies. Talk about a health risk! I would love to find a way to deal with car bodies and drink containers and plastic bags and the like.
The CLP will not support this bill, but it is a shame that we cannot come up with a better model. We are going to be working to come up with a much better model and we certainly will not be blaming Aboriginal people for cultural shortcomings when we finally come up with that model.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take up the Opposition Leader’s point of where there is a will, there is a way. Really, I do not think the government has its heart in CDL. The reason I say that is recently I met with three members of the South Australian Recycling Association who came up in the first week of November. They had some very interesting ideas but, sadly, the minister did not meet with them. He sent his ministerial staff who had very little idea about recycling in the Northern Territory, yet here was a group of people who had first-hand experience in recycling and they did not meet the minister personally. That is a shame because it would have given the minister an opportunity to discuss some of the issues. He has raised some legitimate issues here today, but he could have discussed those issues with people who have hands on knowledge of how container deposit legislation works. It is very sad.
A member from Scouts Australia and myself had a meeting with these people who believe there are ways around the taxation issue. They were referring to the ruling about mutual recognition as distinct from a tax. They certainly gave us the impression that there were ways of getting around the constitutional issues of tax. They should have been talking to the minister directly about that so the minister could at least have the chance to put his views, as he has done today, and allowed those people to comment on those views. That would have been a very valuable exercise and would have shown us who support CDL that the government is fair dinkum. The minister said he does support the concept, but in reality, it is hard to believe that when there was a lost opportunity to talk to the very people who understand it. I find that a little bit sad.
The minister said a lot of things that bring back memories of what the beverage industry has said year after year after year. The same old things are trotted out. For instance, kerb side. I always say for one, there are no kerb sides in Litchfield or Yuendumu or a lot of other places in the Northern Territory. There are about three places in the Territory that have kerb side recycling. If you go down to the West Torrens Council in South Australia, they have kerb side and a container receiving depot. It does not matter whether people put all their containers on their kerb side because they take them down the receiving depot and get their money there, and they have an increase in recycling rates by having the two operating at once.
I say to the minister: do not read all these great reports. Go and have a look at one of the councils operating. That is exactly what I did. In fact, I was paid by the beverage industry to go. They put me up in the flashest hotel on the beach, flew me down and showed me around. I took an extra day to go and have a look without the beverage industry. I went out and had a look at West Torrens. That trip, including the time that I spent courtesy of the beverage industry, is the thing that sold me for life on CDL. An old bloke had a little basket on the front of his bike, came down the street, emptied out the containers, they sorted them on the spot, paid him some money, and off he went. It has that real grass roots philosophy about it.
Minister, when you talk about Aboriginal communities, and I heard the member for Macdonnell talk about dysfunctional communities, it does not matter. If those containers on the ground are worth some money, they will be picked up, dysfunctional community or not, because money speaks louder than words. Little kids will see that: that is 10, 5 or whatever it is. They will grab that. They know they can make some money and get another drink or a lolly or something. It will be picked up. That is how it used to work when we were kids. When we went to the football, I got the money to buy a pie on the way home by collecting the bottles under the seats after footy. We did it in Darwin for years. It worked. The only reason that we do not have it today is basically that because industry said: ‘You will have throw away containers’. Nobody ever asked you. They just told you how wonderful plastic bottles are or how wonderful the new fandangle packaging is. They did not tell you in the process that it would all end up at the tip.
The litter abatement scheme is not new. Anyone who was on the Territory Anti-Litter Committee would know that it is recycled TALC stuff. We have been down the path of coordination, special projects, waste management. It does not work. It might work for a short time, but it does not work. The other reason that this strategy is wrong is because the litter ends up in land fill. CDL does far more than deal with litter. CDL recycles because people bring waste to a point and receive money. Therefore you have collected the stuff that was on the road or in the bin at home. It does not go into land fill. When you talk about the cost to the community, it is all very well to say it is an extra cost on the product. It is a reduction on the ratepayers’ obligation to cover their tips with all this material that should be recycled.
One of the best illustrations in the Northern Territory is Cash a Can run by the Scouts. That is basically container deposit legislation. Depending on the price of metal, it is about a quarter of a cent per can. Out of all the materials that are recycled in the Northern Territory, aluminium is the highest. Why? Because it has a value. In this case, it is not an artificial value like you would have on CDL for a plastic bottle. It is a value based on the market price of the aluminium. That is why people take cans back and have them recycled. If it were 5, I can tell you that the rates of cans would be much higher than they are. But it is proof in the pudding that it does work. In this case, I am not sure if it is the people who make the cans that get the money; it is probably Alcoa, the producers of aluminium, who get it back. There is a manufacturer that does recover. It can work. I remember the school at Bathurst Island needed a vehicle and had to buy it. They had the kids out every day with a brick, flattening cans. They pack them into a bale and put them on the barge. The barge used to take them back for nothing. Eventually, they bought a mini-van. That is the value in recycling, in container deposit. It has that capacity.
I understand where the minister was coming from when you talked about Aboriginal communities. I know it is easy to take make fun of that, and I don’t believe you intended it in a negative way, but you have to be very careful making generalisations. I have visited communities that are certainly terrible. I was at Nauiyu Nambiyu at Daly River, and I know it very well. It is still a beautifully clean place, and I noticed the CDEP blokes there picking up rubbish the other day when I was there. It is a fine place. Wallace Rockhole is another example. It is dangerous to generalise, but, fair enough, there are some places that are terrible. I have been around on the Substance Abuse Committee and looked at places and I said: ‘Wow! What a place for container deposit legislation’. It is those dirty places that reinforce the view that we, by introducing container deposit legislation, would help those communities regarding health and the way they look.
As I have always said, give young kids in those communities some entrepreneurial skills. They will go out there and earn some money by picking up bottles and cans. You cannot always put a value on that. The beverage industry will talk about costs , but some of these social values are far more important, especially in isolated communities.
The minister also said you cannot compare with South Australia. I believe you can. Way back when I first looked at container deposit legislation, I thought: ‘Well, if you are going to apply it to the Territory, how does it work and can you compare it with South Australia?’ I looked up a map, and you have places like Marla Bore, Kangaroo Island, which is probably similar to Bathurst Island, Ceduna out on the whoop-whoop coast. I rang three places, the post office, and said: ‘Do you have any problem getting your cans back to Adelaide?’. They said: ‘No’. It has become so normal. They have a place in the community that collects the cans. Kangaroo Island sticks them on the barge; Ceduna and Marla Bore stick them on the road train. It is built into the system, of course. It is more than 5; there is an extra bit of money there to pay for the handling of the goods. It does work.
I have friends who live at Ernabella. There is an Aboriginal community in the Pitjantjatjara land way out the back of whoop-whoop. That is a Yuendumu-type place, way out from any major centre. They get their stuff back to the community; backloading is no problem. I suppose you might say there is a problem putting the cans somewhere. There is, but I cannot imagine it being too difficult to put cans in a locked up, reinforced metal …
Dr Lim: Shipping container.
Mr WOOD: Yes, container or whatever. It would not be hard. I am always reminded, when we talk about putting cans somewhere, of the now Minister for Lands and Planning’s famous put-off of container deposit legislation, that they would all blow away in a cyclone. I have trouble thinking that is a problem. It would be more of a problem if the rubbish on the ground blew away in a cyclone. You just put the rest in a big container and that would be it.
Minister, you can compare us with South Australia. They are Australians. There are Aboriginal people there; all sorts of people. They have long distances, desert country, cold country, all sorts of country, but it works.
I thought I should say a few things about the Beverage Industry Environment Council. I know that you say, minister, we have not been bought off. ‘Bought off’ is not meant to be personal. I lived under the previous government in the Territory Anti-Litter Committee and I know why CDL was not introduced: there was a bucket of money out here. This government has done exactly the same. You might not say it comes to you, but there is a bucket of money out here; you agree for this bucket of money that we will not introduce CDL.
If you talked to the representatives from South Australia, they know the power of the BIEC. They know what they do. You saw Four Corners and anyone who saw the ad in the paper afterwards knew the power of those companies. It was a terrible ad. They took two full-page ads in the NT News. I believe BIEC ran a full-page newspaper ad that ended by saying it was rubbish that was coming of critics’ mouths. One of those critics is sitting in this parliament today. That is a terrible thing to say. They were just bad-mouthing people who know what the industry is about. Because they are so powerful, they were able to use the power and the money they have to make false assertions about somebody who criticised them. That is what it is like.
I have been at the table of the Territory Anti-Litter Committee and you could not raise the issue because of the beverage industry. You could not raise the issue of CDL. So much for freedom of speech. They do not want to know about it. ‘If you want this money, shut up’. That is the power this group has.
I would just like to say a few things about the Beverage Industry Environment Council because they released a report on the introduction of CDL last October. I want to raise a couple of issues, and the minister probably referred to some of them. One of them was that because we have low, dispersed populations with significant travel distances and weather constraints, and that this would have a tremendous impact on the cost of providing waste management and recycling in the Territory. If you accept that that statement is true, and I do not, one way of reducing those costs would be to have the beverage industry pay some of them through the handling fee instead of all the costs being borne by remote communities. The fact that there are small populations in remote areas is irrelevant. As I said before, if you look at South Australia, it works. Transport costs would be negligible through backloading on trucks and barges. As I have always said, the truck goes out there with cornflakes and soft drinks and goes back with empty containers. I do not see great difficulty with that. If the system worked where you basically fork-lift the container on to the vehicle, it is not going to cost a lot to do.
As I said at the outset: where there is a will, there is a way. I believe you can do it. You do not need some high tech storage system for bottles and cans; you need something that is pretty practical. Design it on-site for whatever system of transport you need. I do not think it would be a big cost.
BIEC also claimed the direct cost of CDL far outweighed the direct benefits. Again, they forget about all the other spin-offs such as, as I said before, reducing landfill, which is really important. Litchfield Shire Council pays $550 000 a year to cover up its rubbish. You might say that is not a great amount, but it is for a small council to get gravel to cover up the rubbish, and a lot of that rubbish is containers. If you go down there and have a look, I would say it is far more than 20%. When I mentioned the amount in the litter stream, the minister is dead right about how they trick people into believing things that are not exactly true because they do not explain it. When they say that it is only so many percent of the litter stream, they do not really come out with bright lights saying: ‘We have counted the cigarette butts and the straws in the audit’. What they need to be talking about is volume, and I certainly think it is a lot higher than 20% of the litter stream.
They also claim that monetary incentive programs have caused little or no change in social behaviour in the Northern Territory. They mean that there is no proof that by having to pay for a product or getting money back in return for a product has changed anything, I would ask them to look at aluminium cans. There is the proof it does work; the highest returned product in the Territory. Why? Because you get money in the pocket. But they do not want to know about that. They also claim that there are no nett employment benefits to introducing CDL, a finding consistent with recent CDL studies in South Australia and New South Wales. This is really a startling claim and clearly wrong:
- The most detailed research into the viability of CDL was carried out in New South Wales in 2001 by the Institute of Sustainable Futures. This major report estimated that there would be a nett employment increase of between 1000 and 1500 full-time jobs in that state if CDL were implemented.
Yet we have the beverage industry claiming there would be no nett employment benefits. We know that employment is not doing too well in the Northern Territory at the moment, so CDL would be an opportunity to increase it. That is a very good reason for the government looking at it. We have a very slow economy at the moment. As people have said, there are businesses closing down here and there. I believe that this would create some extra jobs throughout the Territory. I gather that since South Australia has introduced recycling on some of their flavoured milk cartons, that has increased the number of people in South Australia who have been employed.
Another quote:
- It would be difficult and expensive to provide even the most basic opportunities for consumers to redeem their beverage containers.
Again, if it can be done in South Australia, it can be done here. Collection depots can be set up at the local dumps, or groups such as the Scouts could do it, or it can be set up at stores in communities. Again, where there is a will there is a way. I do not think there is the will. You are putting up all these reasons why it will not happen, and that is bad. If we said we are going to go down that path – and that is the path that about 90% of Territorians said they wanted to take – I reckon we could do it. We are not doing our best.
The beverage industry world-wide has invested huge resources in fighting container deposit schemes because they hurt profits. The industry resents the government or community trying to make it more responsible for the waste it produces. The beverage industry wants the community to continue paying for disposing of its rubbish. In the United States, Coca-Cola, Pepsi and their soft drink allies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat more than 2000 container deposit schemes over the past three decades. The industry got off cheaply in the Northern Territory at a cost of just $0.5m a year. Yet this pro-development Labor government should have relished the opportunity to privatise a function that previously had been funded by the government, that of litter reduction.
This Labor government has missed an ideal opportunity to address an emerging litter problem. There are hundreds of thousands more beverage containers now than there were a decade ago. What happened in that time is a result of the beverage industry’s relentless search for new markets. Those people who were not drinking soft drinks that are high in sugar and looking for a healthy drink now consume sports drinks, fruit juice and iced tea. Let us not forget the number of bottled water containers. So the number of containers had increased remarkably.
Territorians are consuming bottled water in increasing amounts, and there is a huge growing market producing even more containers that the community has to dispose of at landfill or just ends up as litter. If you look overseas, the province of British Colombia in Canada is large and has huge remote areas, remote communities and bad weather in winter. In the year 2000, residents returned 95% of their beer cans, 84% of their soft drink cans and 73% of their plastic bottles. A study concluded that container deposit had far superior environmental performance in all categories investigated compared with all other reduction strategies.
Another study conducted in British Colombia in 1998 found 96% of the community supported the deposit scheme despite residents paying an extra 7 per unit under that scheme. The main reason for their support was that it encouraged recycling, not litter. People wanted to do something to save the environment and resources.
I know the minister has spoken about the extra cost on beer, but people knew that when they filled out that form. They knew there would be some extra cost, but they were willing to pay some extra cost to save the environment, and that is what is being missed here. People said it would be. Of course the hotels don’t want to do it. They are claiming it will cost more and that their product will be uncompetitive. The minister talked about the ACCC. All that is a furphy. All the drink containers will have this extra amount on them, anyway, and if 90% of the people surveyed do not drink beer, I would be very surprised because they obviously knew that there would be an increase in the beer price, and they said that they are willing to accept some increases.
The Labor government is putting in place a series of measures aimed at litter abatement and increasing recycling. I hope, minister, that your department is doing some baseline research, that we are aware of the size of the problem and conduct an evaluation to see if these problems have any impact at all because I will be asking for proof that they work, and I will be asking the Local Government Association to let me know if the schemes have any impact at all on the amount of landfill they have to deal with.
The latest report on Australia’s environment, the issues and trends from the Bureau of Statistics provides us with some information against which we will be able to gauge change over the next few years. This is published every two years, and the latest one was released at the end of July. It shows in the Northern Territory, only 15% of steel cans are recycled - compare that with aluminium cans - compared with a national target of 45%, and a recycle rate in Queensland of 46%. In other words, Queensland is doing three times better than the Territory in recycling steel cans.
The report also shows that only 46% of Territory households have access to recycling services and activities, which then translates into Australia’s lowest recycling for glass, cans and plastic bottles.
Therefore, this report tells us the Territory, more than any other jurisdiction in Australia, needs a wide ranging container deposit scheme, one like that proposed in this bill.
I pick up what the member for Macdonnell said. I agree that this should be wider than just containers. Chemical containers would be a classic example where the Territory could say they have a deposit on them - it could be $10 – so they are returned. They are a real problem in landfill in my area because that is a major horticultural area. I imagine in Katherine it is the same; they are very difficult containers to get rid of. You would have a deposit that meant that the purchaser took it back to the supplier, and if there was some fee deducted from the deposit so that the supplier could return it to the manufacturer, it would work.
We are turning our backs on an opportunity to create jobs in the Territory at a time when, until recently, the unemployment rate had been growing every month and when we were suffering nett job losses. According to the environment minister in South Australia, by the year 2000 the state’s container deposit scheme had been employing 800 people directly, involving 140 businesses with a flow on effect of another 1700 jobs. Many of these businesses are in regional areas. We are giving up on the opportunity to provide meaningful work in remote communities.
In South Australia nine years ago, the then environment minister was being lobbied by the beverage industry to abolish the container deposit scheme. He issued it with a challenge: develop a voluntary scheme where the container deposit component would be as effective as the legislative scheme. Well, the industry couldn’t come up with such a scheme and the minister’s proposal will not have the same impact as CDL.
The month of March this year was National Plastic Bag Action Month, the centrepiece of the litter reduction strategy supported by the packaging industry and the Federal government. Did anyone here notice any action during that month? Are there fewer plastic bags in the Territory? The only place there were fewer plastic bags is Bunnings, who put a 10 charge on it. That hurt the pocket and had an effect, a classic example of CDL in reverse. It works. We know it works. We just need the will. It is a pity the government just cannot do it.
Debate suspended.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of participants in the Fifth Parliamentary Retreat in Darwin. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear.
CONTAINER DEPOSIT BILL
(Serial 131)
(Serial 131)
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, the contribution made by the minister was nothing more than an apology for why this government has taken no position on the CDL other than a lot of procrastination. He apologised about his actions. What he said in his speech represented much of what the industry has told him and he did not take any credence of the information that was provided to him by local government, by Territorians, the trials that were conducted, especially in Alice Springs, and the high percentage of people who want CDL introduced in the Territory.
He then talked about the indigenous population and their cultural attitudes towards litter. I marvel at a man who is supposedly an academic, supposed to know a lot about research and understand intellectual things, to come up with such a statement. Here we have a group of people from our communities at the Tidy Towns Competition workshop this week, which will culminate in a presentation night, all vying for Tidy Towns awards, working very hard to ensure that their communities are clean, tidy and free of litter, and here is a minister saying: ‘Don’t worry about our indigenous people, that’s how they grew; that’s how they are, therefore it is something we have to live with’. What a lot of hogwash! In every community, we strive to have healthier lives and hygiene is an essential part of all that.
The problem that we on this side of the House have with the member for Braitling’s bill is that it imposes upon industry the bulk of responsibility for recycling beverage containers. It is important to understand that beverage containers are not the only thing that causes the litter stream that we all experience. It is better if we look at containers of all kinds, rather than just beverages and deal with the issue in a more holistic manner.
The reason I rose is to cite a South Australian paper that was presented by the Honourable David Ridgeway, MLC of South Australia at a CPA Regional Conference held in Adelaide last year, which the member for Millner and I attended. Unfortunately, the member for Millner did not stay very long and missed David Ridgeway’s contribution, which was entitled Containing Waste: Container Deposit Legislation in South Australia.
I am going to quote quite extensively from the paper because the minister this morning quoted the South Australian experience and tried to tell us that the reality of South Australia’s experience is not as effective as it really is. The Honourable David Ridgeway said:
- The difference in the amount of litter on the side of the roads in Victoria compared with those in South Australia, especially with respect to beverage containers, is quite noticeable.
He lives on the border between South Australia and Victoria, so he travels between the two states quite extensively. Again, I quote:
- In this paper, I will outline some of the current challenges and argue for a national approach to container deposit legislation. In the end, it is experience that counts, and our experience is that CDL works and a national approach would make it work even better.
Further on in his paper, he said:
- In 1974, it was estimated the number of cans sold in South Australia each year was 100 million. Today it is estimated to exceed 200 million. It is really only with hindsight that we can appreciate how forward looking this legislation was. Even though opposition was probably not as organised as it would be today, the legislation was still a bold initiative in the face of considerable resistance from industry, which argued strongly against forced participation in recycling and for voluntary provisions and better public education.
He continued:
- South Australia’s container deposit legislation was entrenched in the state’s Environment Protection Act in 1993.
The legislation has bipartisan political support as well as support from 90% of South Australia’s community.
It is important that if the community, if the people of a place support recycling, then it will work. It is about political and social will. If there is no will, of course it is not going to work. I quote again:
- The state’s recycling industry claims that 83% of glass, 70% of plastic and 82% of aluminium beverage containers are now recycled. Such has been the success of the scheme that new regulations have recently been gazetted effective from January 2003 to extend the scope of the act to include containers of fruit juice, fruit juice drinks, flavoured milk and sports drinks.
So they are now starting to look at more than just aluminium and steel cans. Then David Ridgeway went on to quote some interesting overseas examples:
- It is interesting to look at what happens in other countries. Quite a few countries, including Canada, several European countries and Israel have CDL systems operating. The United States has 10 states with a mandated, refundable deposit on containers, but has no national legislation. Available figures show that after legislation, litter is reduced by an average of at least 75% in all states of the United States. Germany this year legislated for a deposit on all one-way beverage containers and introduced reverse vending machines to collect used beverage containers.
- The views that favour the introduction of CDL are summarised in an EPA fact sheet, which states that CDL has:
providing substantial employment for the local community;
enabled many community and charitable organisations to raise money through the collection
of containers;
supporting CDL;
not resulted in price increases; and
road sides, parks and benches, reduced costs of kerb side collection and savings in landfill space,
estimated to be 44 250 tonnes of materials in excess of the targets.
Obviously, the South Australian experience is very positive. It would be of value for the government to inform the minister to take some notice of that. While I say that we support CDL, it is important to understand that there are lots of issues that need to be worked through. The technical detail that has been sadly lacking in this debate poses a major problem. We have said many times that the devil is in the detail. I propose that the CLP will have a position that supports the CDL, but without putting an undue burden on business. I hope the CLP will be able to come back to Territorians with a policy that will demonstrate that very clearly.
It was interesting that today, of all days, during this debate, the ABS released a paper, completed in March of 2003, entitled Environmental Issues: People’s Views and Practices. It was embargoed until 11.30 this morning.
- This publication presents the results of a survey of environmental practices in Australian households conducted in March 2003
Says the introduction. As you go through the report, it states:
- Each Australian household generates about 400 kg of waste per year, placing us amongst the top 10 generators of household waste in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.
That is, OECD countries. It is very significant that of all the countries that are classified as developed, we are one of the top 10 generators of household waste. If we do not start looking at how we deal with our waste stream, obviously it is going to be more and more difficult for us in terms of landfills, as the member for Nelson said.
It is important for all of us to understand that CDL can work if there is a political will. At this moment, I am sad to say that the government has not been willing to explore this in greater detail. It has continued to mouth platitudes about its overall litter stream management scheme, whatever that means. It is important that this government considers CDL seriously, works through the detail, and reports back to Territorians so that we can see where we go. Industry is obviously very concerned. However, if we ensure that the scheme that is developed does not place undue burdens on industry, that both private Territorians and industry combine to share in the load, then it is very possible. If there is political will, I am sure then that money can be found and, with the support of the community, which, at this stage, has over 90% supporting CDL and other litter stream management, then I am sure it will be successful.
It is good that this matter comes before us on a regular basis to remind us that the desire for CDL is alive and well. I am sure our people in Tidy Towns will never let us forget that it is in their interest to see CDL get up. Many community groups themselves would like to see CDL start so that they can use recycled material as a means of fund raising.
I support the member for Braitling’s intent of finding a workable system of container deposit legislation. I will support her in any way I can but, at the end of the day, it must be a practical system that is easily implemented, does not cause the collecting depots unnecessary grief, and does not put excessive burden on manufacturers or distributors. Otherwise, the whole thing will fall over.
With the completion of the railway line, there is obviously a huge opportunity for us to backload many of the containers that would otherwise be going back empty to places like Adelaide where the material could be recycled and reused. Prior to the completion of the railway, things would have been a lot more difficult. I recall when I was on the Alice Springs Town Council, Aldermen Harvey Millard and I shared some time working out the arithmetic to see whether we could recycle materials from Alice Springs back into to Adelaide. It turned out to be way too expensive for us to do anything. The problem was not only the tyranny of distance, but also because of our lower population base and, therefore, our low volumes of litter.
On page 14 of the ABS report that I cited earlier, it is interesting to note items recycled and/or reused in households. There are tables that compare every state and territory with the statistics collected in March 2003. Interestingly, dwelling on aluminium cans for instance, South Australia collected 497 700 cans whereas the Northern Territory collected or recycled 32 300. The difference is about 16 times. In steel cans, South Australia had 380 800 and the Northern Territory had only 24 500. When I calculated it out the difference, again, was about 16 times. Obviously, something is working in South Australia. It is not just the population; that is barely five to six times that of the Northern Territory. So unless South Australians are drinking three times as many beverages as Northern Territorians per head of population, CDL might be might be one of the reasons why there are 16 times more aluminium and steel cans being recycled in South Australia than in the Northern Territory.
These figures are very interesting. It is worthwhile for everybody to go onto the web site and download that document. I am happy to provide the web site to anybody who wants to look at it. Waste recycling is a reality. Everybody in the world today is very conscious of the environment and recycling of the waste stream will, obviously, be one of the ways to look after our environment. People are now more sensitive to it, and will expect governments to be equally sensitive to their wishes.
I commend the member for Braitling for introducing the bill. However, whilst we support CDL, we need to see more of the technical details as to how we will implement this. If it is going to fall on deaf ears, as it will at the conclusion of this debate, the CLP will be formulating a policy that will support CDL without …
Mrs Braham interjecting.
Dr LIM: No, we are not. … a policy that will not place an undue burden on business.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I do not have any statistics in front of me, but I feel fairly strongly about CDL. I thought I would talk about my experiences with CDL in South Australia.
I attended a presentation of this proposed legislation in Alice Springs at a local government conference where the member for Braitling made a presentation and, I must confess that I have to get around all of the details again. I cannot remember what the details were, so I do need to get a copy of that again. However, I am going to refer to my experiences in South Australia. While the minister said he did not think we should be referring to South Australia, I do not see why not. It has worked very successfully there. I was born in South Australia and lived in a very tidy, clean area with no litter, no cans and no bottles. That is because there was a return deposit on cans and bottles.
As you can imagine, all the kids used to make their pocket money out of these bottles and cans. At any football or cricket matches that we attended, there were never any litter afterwards because the kids would clean it up. Of course, sporting clubs also collected those cans and bottles and made money from them as well as a fundraiser.
The roadsides are not littered. The minute you drive across any of the borders, they are. As soon as you drive over the Northern Territory border coming from South Australia you start to see the rubbish immediately, and it is really quite upsetting. The same when you go into Victoria and into Western Australia. Despite the fact it might sound like containers of cans, bottles and plastic containers might not cover every single bit of litter that we need to take care of, they are an extremely important bulky part of that garbage that we need to take care of. I do not think we should pass it off lightly. It is a very good example set by South Australia.
The argument that the container deposit has to be put back onto the beverage industry – well, big deal! What is 5 a container? We think nothing of that when we buy any other article somewhere; we do not bat an eyelid if the price goes up 20. So if everybody has to pay for litter; that is a fact of life.
We also had newspaper and cardboard carton collections in South Australia They were recycled. I lived in a country area and was 700 km away from the city. We did not have any problem in returning any of that recycled garbage to Adelaide. It usually went back on freight trains that were empty. I do not know what the challenges are here in the Territory because I have not studied it. I need to look at that. Obviously, there is a cost factor to it. However, do not forget we are also going to have a train. Hopefully, it will be full of freight going back down the railway line but, if not, maybe we could utilise that as well.
It is about education and a will to accept change, take it by the teeth and get on with it. In Vancouver, my daughter was living on the 22nd floor of an apartment block, and their container deposit legislation compelled her to carry her garbage down in three separate receptacles to go in three separate areas and she did not bat an eyelid. They just did it. It was what was expected of them. I do not see a problem when we just have to walk out a back door.
Of the statistics that the minister presented from the ABS in relation to the number of cans that there are in South Australia in relation to the Northern Territory, I wonder if that includes all of the cans that have not been collected in the Northern Territory and taken back. Is that in the cans that have been sold? I do not know. If it is not, I would suggest that number will be increased considerably when every single can has a 5 return on it and is collected, and I am sure you will not have any lying around on the roads.
It seems to me that industry is saying that this is all too hard and putting it back on us and making us look at difficult ways to address CDL. I do not think it is hard at all; it is getting a mind set around it and getting on with it because we owe it to the Territory, our tourism industry and ourselves to maintain clean roadways, rivers, etcetera.
As a sideline, four weeks ago, six of us in Katherine decided that we would have a clean up under the High Level Bridge and we attempted an area that was only half a kilometre wide. In the space of less than two hours, we collected just over 300kg of mainly bottles and cans. There were a few plastic bags, but it was mainly bottles and cans and it highlighted the fact even more that we need to have some sort of returnable deposit on bottles and cans.
My idea of CDL is that yes, we need to look at it sooner rather than later. As I have said, member for Braitling, I have not studied your proposal very well, but I am sure that if we could ensure there were no undue impost on rate payers, we will be looking at CDL.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it looks like I am in for a bit of a hiding here today.
Mr Wood: No, no. We Independents will stick together.
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, the member for Nelson and I will stick together.
I thank the members who have contributed. I am quite sure that members of the opposition do not really understand the difficulty in having legislation that is valid. I did offer them a briefing similar to the one I gave the Local Government Association and, as the member for Katherine said, after they looked at it, they agreed that it would and could work.
It is disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition also did not take the opportunity to know exactly what I am talking about because it is very difficult to find a bill that fits all criteria, but I am quite sure if the Labor Party were in opposition and this bill had come before them, they would have been up here cheering for it because I remember in the past how strongly they supported CDL. It is interesting, now that they are in government, how they have backed off a bit.
Mr Wood: It is the air on that side, the atmosphere.
Mrs BRAHAM: Is that what it is?
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am disappointed that the government has chosen not to go ahead and support the bill and I am disappointed that the opposition has not either, because I do not think they know what they are talking about. It is as simple as that.
This was our opportunity to lead the rest of Australia. Sure, South Australia has it, but they have had that legislation for a long time. Other states have been looking for legislation that would be valid and acceptable. We could have adopted this and shown that it can work.
It is very disappointing for us, not just for the member for Nelson and myself, but the thousands of Territorians who want their environment cleaned up, who want container deposit legislation for a vast number of reasons. I am quite sure they will remember the fact that it was not supported. We only have to look at our environment, and I know people keep talking about this, but you do travel down to South Australia, as the member for Katherine said, and it is clean. You travel from Darwin to Alice Springs, it is not clean because people have no reason to keep their containers. They just throw them out the window or if they are parked in a park, they throw them on the ground. They do not have any incentive to recycle them.
As well as that, we all know that our community councils are putting their rates up and up because the cost of landfill is growing each year. We have to get to the stage where we should be seriously thinking, as a government, about resources and how we can preserve them. We need to encourage recycling. It is not happening. Sure, you have kerb side recycling in Darwin, but what do they say? Most of the bins are polluted, and most of what goes into recycling bins ends up in the dump, anyway, because there is really no incentive for people to do it properly.
It is unfortunate that the minister feels that by taking this money from the beverage industry, he can introduce litter abatement programs that will fix the problem. We have seen Tidy Towns try to do it for years. We have seen Keep Australia Beautiful trying to do it for years. We have had community councils trying to do it for years. It does not work. I suppose, in a way, you almost need a carrot and stick approach for people to do this.
The minister talked about changing the Litter Act. I have never, ever seen anyone pulled up, or fined, or council people implement it. It is a joke. You have a Litter Act, but nothing ever happens. It would be interesting to see how many charges have been laid under the Litter Act.
Mr Wood: Cigarette butts.
Mrs BRAHAM: Cigarette butts, no! We talk about plastic bags and things like this, but what we already have is just not working, and it will not work if we do not get some incentive into the population to start collecting the cans.
I remind the minister also that it really does break a promise that Labor made when they were in opposition. I recall having a debate in the House on this issue and Labor making that undertaking. I am not quite sure why they have backed away.
The biggest thing I have heard from the minister is all about the price of a slab of beer. I am not quite sure why this is so important …
Mr Wood: The Hotels Association are saying that.
Mrs BRAHAM: Oh, is that what it is? They are getting pressure from the hoteliers saying we do not want to put the beer up. Perhaps the minister can tell me why the price of beer has gone up recently? It certainly was not because of CDL. Is it called competition? Is it called the marketplace? You might find it is.
Remember Pauls had a collect-a-cap program for schools? Did Territorians mind that they put 5 on that? No, I never heard anyone complain whatsoever, because they knew that was for community good. If someone like Pauls can do it with their collect-a-cap program, it demonstrates that the Territory community is prepared to pay that little bit extra if it is of some benefit to the community.
In South Australia and 11 states of the United States, the increased costs associated with CDL have been absorbed by the beverage industry, and consumers pay no more for their drinks than elsewhere. The minister said that is what happened. The beverage industry has said: ‘We absorb the cost of South Australia’s CDL and pass it on right across Australia’. What makes him think that would not continue to happen if we did the same thing? Why would we be targeted by the beverage industry to pay more, particularly as we are such a good customer in the Northern Territory?
I will stress again that there is broad community support. Minister, I remind you of some of the letters that you have had recently: the Arid Lands Environment Centre have written to you; Borroloola Community Government Council. Let me quote a little:
Borroloola has the problem of cans littering the town and feels that the legislation would encourage individuals and organisations to pick up cans and make a reasonable income on recycling. The council recycles cans, but the isolation means that the cost of recycling does not cover costs.
Pine Creek:
We refer to the container deposit scheme proposed by Loraine Braham’s legislation. In April 2001, we signed a petition in relation to CDL to the Katherine Landcare Group, which highlighted the significant benefits. The Pine Creek Council strongly supports Mrs Braham’s scheme.
Maningrida:
- Enclosed for your interest are recent editions of our news, which features one of your visits. You went out there for a new generator. Because you were visiting Maningrida in your capacity as minister, one issue which we don’t believe was raised with you during the visit was that of CDL.
It goes on saying:
As a large Aboriginal community, Maningrida generates a huge quantity of soft drink cans and bottles each year. Most, but unfortunately by no means all, end up at our dump. The proposed CDL legislation is offering us an ideal opportunity to not only clean up our community but to implement an ongoing process by which we continue to keep our community and community dump free of bottle and cans rubbish. I don’t pretend for a minute that we can solve the problem of rubbish in communities but if there is value placed on some of the rubbish, then at least we can make a start.
That, minister, is what you missed. You missed that window of opportunity to make a start for Territorians to have a cleaner environment. They go on to say:
Council has instructed me to advise you of council’s full support for the proposed CDL, and that we are hoping the Northern Territory government will support the bill when it is presented.
We also had one from the Environment Centre recently. It says at the bottom:
- We urge you not to break your pre-election commitment and to reconsider the introduction of that.
LGANT says:
You are definitely not listening. The President was stunned by minister Burns’ agreement with BIEC to not anticipate the introduction of CDL in the NT for over three years.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I stress again the broad community support. I have not heard anyone who has said they mind if they pay 5 or 10 extra, as long as they know there is some benefit at the end of the day.
The minister mentioned that the South Australian government had increased the containers covered under their legislation. I want to ask him: why? Why do you think they did that? Let me say that in South Australia, the beer and soft drink sector of the beverage industry complained that CDL discriminated against it because all beverage containers were not included, so the South Australian government gave the other sectors - fruit juice, cider, flavoured milk - two years to reduce their litter by 25%; by a quarter. Guess what? They could not reduce it. They could not even reduce it by a quarter so the government included all those containers under CDL at the beginning of this year, while predicting that extension would also create a number of jobs.
I have mentioned the support from Aboriginal communities. You mentioned Santa Teresa. What you failed to realise is that even though Santa Teresa have this container deposit return, when they are returned, the community then has to backfill it to Adelaide. What do they get? They get the market value of aluminium cans at the time, which is minimal. It is nothing. If they knew the beverage industry was going to return that 5 or that extra bit then, of course, they would.
Unfortunately, research suggests to us that indigenous communities consume soft drinks at more than five times the national rate. That is a health problem, we know that, but it also represents a very big litter problem. I am trying to find the bit where I have said that one of the councils informed me that they had a million cans each year in their community. One million, minister, at one of our big Aboriginal communities. What do they do with them? You really have to understand that we are not talking small numbers; we are talking large numbers; and we are talking about people’s health, land fill, resources. It is much broader than a litter abatement program.
We have also had some research showing that the Territory communities will have to deal with another 140 million containers a year. That is a figure that the local government association quotes. That is a lot of cans and bottles, minister. A South Australian MP told parliament in May last year, and I believe the member for Nelson quoted this:
… having been to the Northern Territory recently, I can only strongly recommend that the Territory have a look at container deposit schemes because the amount of litter between Alice Springs and Ayers Rock was significant and, indeed, disappointing.
His comments would reflect what many of our tourists say.
I have never said that implementing a container deposit scheme would be easy or would be without teething problems. We would have to have strong government support behind it, and that is why I say to the members of the opposition: it is not an easy thing to do or write. We realise that. If we do not do this, what are we going to do? You are really looking for an excuse by putting up this litter abatement program to say to the Territory community that you are trying. To be honest, you are not. It is the community that has been bearing the cost of this litter for decades in the Territory. I guess we all know that the community councils and local government councils realise that most of all.
It is a little unfortunate that the minister has carried on his campaign of disinformation. He is ignoring the fact that, in the major survey, Territory residents say they are willing to pay 10. You claimed earlier this year that we would see an increase of $5 per slab; today he is saying it is $2.40. He said many times that this bill will cause problems because there is a tax; today he admits that this bill does not cause a problem from a tax point of view. He also says the beverage industry would pocket $1m a year under my scheme. So, why would you think the beverage industry has argued against my bill if it could pocket $1m a year? Does that make sense? My bill would make it mandatory for the beverage industry to get the empty containers recycled. That means they have to spend some of that money getting the containers to interstate recycling plants. They would not be able to drive the empty containers to a dump. That is the problem in the Territory; everything ends up at the dump.
The minister also claimed in his speech that my bill will fall foul of National Competition Policy. This is not so because this bill proposes a measure that will help the environment. I am sure the minister for the Environment would understand it would attract an exemption provision of the Commonwealth act that deals with cross-border trade. That is in the Mutual Recognition Act. That is the way it works.
It is a little unfortunate that he said remote communities would not be able to take part in CDL. The member for Macdonnell made enough comment on that, so I do not think I need to go on very much about it. I recall the member for Nelson mentioning that Bunnings introduced a 10 charge on the plastic bag, and the consumption of plastic bags went down by 80% to 90%. What we are saying is that there are lots of examples around the place where you could be a leader in the Territory; you could help our Territory be a good, clean environment for our tourists and for our residents. You could make sure that jobs are available by introducing a scheme such as this. Unfortunately, minister, you have decided that you will not support it. That is extremely disappointing. People who voted for the Labor Party will be really disappointed that you have done this.
You have to start some time. This parliament, one day, has to make this move. One day we are going to have to bite the bullet and introduce it, otherwise our Territory will continue to be a dumping ground for all the rubbish around the place.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to thank Lorraine Davies, my Research Officer, for the assistance she has given me on this project. I thank Parliamentary Counsel for the many hours they spent working on legislation that would be valid and could not be thrown out on any grounds, and they have done that. I want to thank the member for Nelson for his continued support on this. We will not give up.
Mr Wood: No, we will not.
Mrs BRAHAM: I also want to thank all those people who participated in the debate. If they do not support the bill, they are making a mistake.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 2 Noes 19
Mrs Braham Mrs Aagaard
Mr Wood Mr Ah Kit
Mr Baldwin
Mr Bonson
Dr Burns
Ms Carney
Ms Carter
Mr Dunham
Mr Henderson
Ms Lawrie
Mr McAdam
Mr Maley
Ms Martin
Mrs Miller
Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
BAIL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 135)
(Serial 135)
Continued from 13 August 2003.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting this bill, but I would like to say we are doing it respectfully. We are not denying that there is an issue here to be responded to.
It is worth remembering at the outset that the purpose of bail in the criminal justice system is to allow a person who has been charged with an offence but who is innocent until proven guilty to go free where appropriate until he or she faces trial. Under the Bail Act, there is a presumption in favour of granting bail for most offences. For some serious violent offences, there is no presumption in favour of bail, and for certain offences, such as murder or serious drug offences, there is a presumption against bail.
However, in granting or refusing bail, the court applies various tests set out in the act. Section 24, which would be amended by this bill, sets out the criteria to be considered in determining bail conditions. It is probably informative to go through some of the section 24 criteria against the situation that the member for Macdonnell is considering in his proposed amendment.
The criteria to be considered fall into several groups. Subsection (1) looks at the probability, in part A, of whether or not a person will appear in court in respect of the offence for which the bail is being considered, having regard to such things as the person’s background and community ties, as indicated by the history and details of his residence; employment; family situation and, if known, his prior criminal record. Subsection (2): any previous failure to appear in court pursuant to recognisance of the bail entered into before the commencement of this section or pursuant to the bail undertaking. Subsection (3): the circumstances of the offence, the strength of evidence against the person and the severity of the penalty or probable penalty; and, subsection (4): any specific evidence indicating whether or not it is probable that the person will appear in court.
None of those provisions go particularly to the situation of an alleged offender who may be facing a potential payback in their home community. It is really assessing whether the offender is likely to appear, as required under the bail conditions, in court for further hearing of the matter.
In subsection (b), the court can also consider the interests of the person, having regard to the period that that person may be obliged to spend in custody, if bail is refused, the conditions under which he would be held in custody. Subsection (2): the needs of the person to be free to prepare for his appearance in court or obtain legal advice or both; and subsection (3): the needs of the person to be free for any lawful purpose not mentioned in subparagraph 2, and whether or not the person is, in the opinion of the authorised member of the court, incapacitated by intoxication, injury or use of a drug, or otherwise in danger of physical injury or in need of physical protection.
Those provisions may actually mediate against the granting of bail if there is some indication that physical injury may result if the person is let out, but they are certainly not provisions under which a magistrate could consider bail to go and face a payback.
Subsection (c) is the protection and welfare of the community, having regard only to whether or not the person has failed, or been arrested for an anticipated failure to observe a reasonable bail condition previously imposed in respect of the offence. Subsection (2): the likelihood of the person interfering with evidence, witnesses or jurors; (3): the likelihood that the person will or will not commit an offence while on bail; and (4) where the offence is alleged to have been committed against, or in respect of a child within the meaning of the Community Welfare Act.
Again, those provisions are really looking at potential for re-offending by the alleged offender if they are released on bail into the community, rather than the reverse that we are considering in this case of the offender suffering an offence.
Subsection (d): where the offence is alleged against the accused person involved in contravention of or failure to comply with an order under the Domestic Violence Act. It is basically curtailing bail conditions being offered where there is a chance that a person will commit further domestic violence offences against a partner.
The other subsection of these conditions under which bail may be granted is a very broad clause which, basically, offers strong discretion to the court. It reads:
- For the purposes of this section, the authorised member or court may take into account any evidence or information which the authorised member of the court considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances, including hearsay evidence.
That is a catch-all clause to give the magistrate full discretion in determining whether bail is the appropriate way to go. That would clearly be the most likely ground on which a granting of bail in the case of the recent release to face a payback would be based. The magistrate would have taken evidence outside the other provisions of the granting of bail and decided that because of that discretion, they had the ability to release the person, knowing that they were going to face payback. So far, we have a problem if you are wanting to prevent the practice of release to face payback.
Essentially, these criteria go to the likelihood or otherwise of the accused person appearing at the trial, the safety of the community, particular witnesses, and the interests of the individual concerned. In other words, there is a wide range of different factors that the court or authorised police officer takes into account when determining whether to grant bail.
The bill we are debating today is a reaction to an incident that occurred at Nyirripi where the accused was released on bail and underwent traditional punishment. Many of the participants were intoxicated and the accused was seriously injured. Reacting to one case, though, can often make bad law. In the government’s terms of reference, in response to the NT Law Reform Committee Inquiry into Aboriginal Customary Law, we have made it very clear that customary law will only be recognised to the extent that it does not contravene the existing law, including the NT Criminal Code and international standards of human rights.
The government has also said that Aboriginal law and justice plans will be used to advance forms of payback like monetary payments, which do not breach the Criminal Code or the general law. The bill is inconsistent with that policy approach of recognising customary law, where it is consistent with the general law and human rights standards. This bill would prevent a court from releasing an accused on bail to undergo punishment which was not unlawful. For example, it would prevent release on bail where an accused chose to undergo a punishment that did not involve physical punishment.
Section 24(2) of the Bail Act, to which I have referred, is a catch-all clause and, as I said, would be most likely to have been used by the magistrate in this case to identify the reasons for the bail release to go and face payback. However, the common law of the Northern Territory has been set by Steven Barnes v R (1997) NTSC 123, and that is very clear. That case clearly provides that a court cannot release an accused on bail to undergo traditional punishment that is unlawful and may amount grievous bodily harm. It also provides that when determining a bail application, the court cannot take into consideration any benefits to the community that might come about as a result of releasing an accused on bail. As we have seen within the Bail Act itself, the key criteria is actually the safety of the community, not the safety of the accused. The court is also obliged to protect the accused person from physical harm, as we have seen in one of the criteria that I went through, which is section (b)(4).
These three elements provide a sound framework for our courts when determining these matters but do not rule out release for forms of payback which do not breach the general law. What the government proposes in replacement of the solution proposed in the bill today is to permit the existing common law to continue to operate. There is not an anomaly in the Bail Act. Rather, like most areas of the law, the act and the common law operate together. The common law, as stated in the decision of the Northern Territory Supreme Court in Barnes is clear. It is not necessary to legislate to further elucidate that principle. We believe that with a reiteration of the common law position within the NT justice system as set down by the Supreme Court, with the introduction of processes within our communities based on the law and justice plans and the Aboriginal law and justice methodologies, we can develop, with the involvement of indigenous people and with the continuation of customary law as a social framework for indigenous people, alternatives to forms of payback that actually contravene the Criminal Code and international human rights standards.
We have made it very clear we do not tolerate those, and we certainly do not want our courts to aid and abet illegal activities through decisions made regarding release on bail. Let me make it very clear: we do not approve of courts releasing an alleged offender to a community in the full knowledge that a physical punishment will be carried out on that person. That is outside the common law; it is outside the intent of the Bail Act provisions as they stand today.
Equally, we are reaffirming for indigenous Territorians our commitment to the continuation of customary law arrangements to the degree that they can be beneficial both to the communities and the indigenous people themselves, and to the operation of the justice system as a whole. We believe there is a more creative path available to us than simply disallowing customary law practices in a blanket provision and, instead, by curtailing the sphere of action of those customary law arrangements to areas that are legal and accord with international human rights. That is the position of the government. We will certainly commit not only to pursuing that, but also to bringing back reports on a regular basis to this House on our efforts to elucidate those practices.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the member for Macdonnell for bringing this bill to the House. Obviously, we spoke about it some time ago. I commend him for it and compliment him on it. I am sure the Attorney-General and others would agree that the second reading speech was certainly very thorough. I know that the member for Macdonnell is studying law. I also know that he is succeeding and getting through it with flying colours. The second reading speech is testament to his efforts in that regard.
I thought it was a very interesting amendment because certainly, it emanates from one case in Alice Springs where a man, presumed innocent, was released on bail for tribal punishment. That was one example, but I suspect that there have been others. I have not researched how many there are, but I reckon it would be a fair bet that this has happened a few times before in the Northern Territory.
I note that in the Attorney-General’s response, he referred to the Barnes case and recited the common law position with respect to bail and payback in the Northern Territory. Having done so, with great respect, the Attorney-General did not actually address the problem. It is inconsistent to say: ‘Here is the law of the Northern Territory and that is a really good law. Everyone is happy’ and yet apparently sanction one case – and I am sure there are others – where an offender is released on bail and receives tribal punishment. In other words, I do not think the Attorney-General has properly risen to the challenge and responded to this issue. Notwithstanding the law of the Northern Territory, the fact of the matter is this man was released on bail for tribal punishment. He is, under the law of the Northern Territory, presumed innocent until his matter is heard either at hearing or by way of a plea of guilty.
Whether we like it or not, this has happened. All I have heard from the Attorney-General is: ‘Yes, it happened, but the law of the Northern Territory is this’. What I and many others would like to see is government actively addressing this problem, doing something in order to overcome it. I know that the Department of Justice has a number of interesting things on the table at present in dealing with Aboriginal offenders, getting into Aboriginal communities and so on, but that does not overcome the difficulty created by a case, to which the member for Macdonnell has referred, and upon which he has based his amendment.
I suggest that it is necessary for government to do something about this. The Attorney-General referred to various creative things that the Department of Justice is doing but, with respect, he can be as creative as he likes. This man, the example referred to in the act, was improperly and unfairly the recipient of tribal punishment sanctioned by a magistrate in the Northern Territory. I do not think that is acceptable at all.
I know the issue of payback generally is an extremely complex area and I do not profess to be an expert in it. However, as a citizen of the Northern Territory, I see, repeatedly, the troublesome consequences being created by payback. Members will recall the bills I introduced in August, the Criminal Code Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill, that we will come to later. Regarding the sentencing provisions, members will recall that I suggested that customary law, a part of which comprises payback, be removed from the court’s deliberations when sentencing. One of the reasons for that was that it would send a message to violent Aboriginal men that they could no longer hide behind the veil of customary law in their attempts to mitigate their sentences.
Members will also recall that in the course of my second reading speech, I said:
The concept of payback is often relied upon as a mitigating factor by defence lawyers and is taken into account by judges and magistrates when sentencing.
I went on and said:
It is important for members to understand that submissions about an offender having received payback will no longer be able to be put as a result of this amendment.
In my second reading speech, I amply demonstrated the difficulties that customary law and payback present. One needs to be very careful about what a government does and how a government tackles these sorts of issues, but is it not time to draw a line in the sand and say in respect of sentencing if we are fair dinkum about the violence perpetrated by violent Aboriginal men on women and children who are predominantly their victims: we need to do something about customary law and payback?
Is it also not the case that when we have albeit just one – in many respects it does not matter if this is the only example – but this has happened under the existing law of the Northern Territory, and I would suggest that it is incumbent upon government to turn its collective mind to doing something about it. If it is fair dinkum about protecting the rights of all of the citizens of the Northern Territory, then is it not the case that government should act in relation to this? If it does not, this man, the subject of this example, may just be one of many in future who will be unfairly affected by the existing law. I would like to have heard the Attorney-General perhaps say that he is giving some thought to working out a way to overcome the problem. Sadly, that is not the case.
This bill and, indeed, the one I introduced in August presented an opportunity for government to rise to the challenge, to tackle head on, in a very honest and thoughtful way, the difficulties that customary law and, in particular, payback in the case of this bill presents to citizens of the Northern Territory. The message that this man, who was released on bail, would receive from this government is: ‘Well, it happened. You get that. Bad luck’. With the greatest of respect, I do not think that is appropriate.
I commend the member for introducing this bill. He has a predominantly Aboriginal electorate. He knows, I would suggest, more about this sort of stuff than many other members in the House, and certainly more than me. I am disappointed by the Attorney-General’s response because it was a bit light on, frankly.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for approaching this issue with respect, and he started out saying that he would and, indeed, kept his comments to sober observation, and I am grateful to him for that. I also thank the member for Araluen for supporting my position. I know that she has read my second reading debate and discussed these issues. I have to say it is a little disappointing that not more members are speaking on this because it is an important issue.
Before I go any further, it is worth making some observations. First, Aboriginal customary law. I will not pretend for one moment that I am an expert or even have a working knowledge of Aboriginal customary law. Anyone who says they do is immediately making a mistake: I have seven Aboriginal customary legal systems that I can count operating in my electorate alone. There are some 40, I would guess, throughout the Northern Territory, some 400 prior to the arrival of Europeans throughout Australia. So you have a multitude of legal systems operating. I have taken time over the years to be very careful to try and learn as much as I can along the way. As a former policeman in the Northern Territory, you cannot help but be confronted from time to time by payback in particular.
Aboriginal customary law is an enormous system. It is a body of law, which I know for at least one group in my electorate, takes about 30 years to learn. It takes about 30 years to learn all of the songs that you need to become a custodian of the law. I was under the impression, through my ignorance in former years, that once you went through a business process, you were initiated and you became a man or a woman through whatever tribal group you were attached to. The truth of the matter is that there is a whole staggered series of advancement through the traditional process, and it takes many, many years to learn those things. You learn them by learning the songs for your country, and those songs, I thought, typical of people who are not familiar with these sorts of things, I had this nice, romantic notion about knowing the songs for your country is a nice, spiritual environment, everybody sits around and feels good about it.
The fact is that learning the songs for your country is a vitally important amassing of knowledge. To learn songs for your country is to learn the rules on how your country operates land management, where your food supplies were traditionally, which is less important now but, more importantly, the areas of family law, contract law, tort law, all of those things are encapsulated in traditional songs. The reason is because there was very little or no way to write down these laws.
The reason it is done in song is because the brain is effectively a rhythmic tool. If I was to ask people in this Chamber the third line to the chorus of Bye Bye Miss American Pie, you would actually have to go sing the song to get to the line. I started to discover many years ago that when I asked questions particular of Aboriginal law of two old men and women, they would actually start singing the song. I would think: ‘What on earth are they doing?’ They were opening a mental drawer in their mind, opening the file, and finding the bit of information for which I was asking. You hold the song for your land if you are a senior person, and that song describes where your land boundaries are, what your next door neighbours boundaries are, all those sorts of things.
In the same way that a High Court judge has to go through law school, do articles, enter the bar, become a junior barrister, get full silk at some point, and then take a Supreme Court position somewhere or a magistrate’s position and work your way up. It takes about 30 years for a High Court judge, I would imagine, to reach the High Court. You have this graduated process of learning the law for your land, your country. Suddenly, you start to realise that having the song for your country is an immensely powerful thing.
It is very important to understand this because we talk about customary law as though it is spearing. That is the way it seems to translate. The criminal aspect of customary law is tiny. If you go to law school today, you will study criminal law for six months or a year, depending on which school you go to. That six months or a year is of a six-year degree. In the same way as you learn criminal law through customary law, it is a small part of the overall body of customary law. Then you get down to punishment. That is a small part of criminal law in the same way that punishment is a small part of customary law. We are talking about a tiny piece of customary law which, fortunately or unfortunately, offends the sensibilities of our legal system. I want to make sure that my comments in relation to the Bail Amendment are seen inside that framework: we are talking about a tiny part of customary law, and I have learnt to have great regard for the legal systems that are around.
Aboriginal customary law is different in many ways from European law, although there are parallels. In some ways, their contract law is unusual because if you have a contract, you can bind a person who does not yet exist. There is a classic example of this in Areyonga, where the father of a person who is the traditional owner of the area gave the Pitjantjatjara people permission to continue to reside in the community of Areyonga and that permission was written out. The land was not gifted, it was held on trust; it is effectively trust law. Both of the Pitjantjatjara and Arrernte people understand that and, even today, the son of the person, Mr Malbunka, who originally laid the property on trust still considers himself bound by the trust arrangement. There are differences. It is a very powerful legal system because Mr Malbunka has never made any attempt to separate or remove himself from his father’s promise.
The issue we have before us puts me, the Attorney-General, and the Supreme Court at one. We can have a love-in. We can have flower chains around our necks and hold hands because we agree that it is beyond the ability of a magistrate to be able to bail a person to suffer tribal punishment. That was established in Barnes. I thank the minister for raising the case. It was certainly reiterated by the member for Araluen. The minister himself acknowledges it. That is the purpose of this legislation, and the reason is quite simple: a person who has been charged with an offence is not guilty of that offence until a court says otherwise. That is why there is a presumption of bail. The instance that drew my attention to this matter was that the fellow who had been charged with an offence had a presumption of bail operating for him. He had the right to be at liberty rather than in custody. The indication, as I understand it – my memory is a bit sketchy on it – but my understanding was that the very purpose that bail given was to allow this person to undergo this payback situation. This is problematic because the suggestion is then that ‘I would not have granted bail under the normal conditions available to me under the Bail Act except for this person to undergo this punishment’.
Ultimately, this chap suffered multiple stab wounds and a broken ankle, if memory serves me correctly.
If I understand the system correctly, this fellow would have gone back to Nyirripi and there would have been a court case through the tribal process, which means that he would have been brought before a council of his peers or seniors. Evidence would have been heard, the matter would have been discussed and a penalty settled upon. The idea is, of course, that person then suffers the penalty and it is over; it is finished; it does not go any further. Hopefully, that person then comes back into town, receives the penalty through the normal system and goes to gaol. Sadly, there seems to be, from time to time, suggestions that this traditional process is starting to erode and fray around the edges. It has come to my attention, and I saw an article about it in the newspaper, that this particular chap ran into relatives of the family concerned in gaol and had to be separated out because if he they been brought together into the same place, payback would continue. I am not sure what the lawful situation is in relation to that continual payback, but perhaps there may be some room for Corrections to bring a senior person in to have a stern chat to the people who are trying to continue something that should have been settled.
It is also worthwhile talking briefly about what I class as pseudo-payback. You hear of court cases in which people are charged with various offences and a lawyer will stand up and say: ‘It was all to do with payback’ when it does not reflect a traditional system of punishment at all. It is just someone stabbing someone else because they are drunk or they do not like the look of that person but, because they are Aboriginal, we will use the excuse that it was payback and everything will be sweet. That is not how it works.
I pick up some of the suggestions by the Review of Customary Law about getting more information in. Perhaps it would be good to see a senior Aboriginal person of the particular legal system involved giving advice to a magistrate, saying, ‘Ah, ah. When that lawyer stands up and says that his client was dishing out payback, that is rubbish, magistrate’. It would be useful for that to occur and is not necessarily a bad thing.
The final problem, of course, is that as we are all of one mind - the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General, the member for Araluen and I - one would immediately expect that the Attorney-General would allow this amendment. The only argument he raised is that common law already deals with this. If the common law already deals with this, Attorney-General, and you quoted Barnes, why was this person bailed in the first place in breach of the common law? To suggest that because the common law already exists it is beyond the realm of legislation, I would argue with the Attorney-General and suggest that there are a number of areas of common law intruded upon by legislation that actually reflects the common law.
There is no shortage of legislation, like the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, for argument’s sake, which reflects the propositions built up over centuries in common law contract. So you have propositions that introduce certain ideas of equity and the like reflected in the legislative process. That legislative process and the common law work in harmony because, as the magistrate and lawyers in a particular case will sit down and open up an act; let us say to do with contract law, they will very quickly be able to find the cases that apply to that act because when the parliament passed the legislation, they were doing it on advice from lawyers who knew those cases anyhow and the principle that is trying to be captured by that legislation often tries to do nothing more than simplify the process that the common law has made, for one reason or another, excessively complex.
It is easier to read legislation and a couple of cases in point than it is to read case after case after case on an area of common law. I suggest to the minister that this is an attempt to do nothing else other than the same as that. Common law and this amendment to the Bail Act are as one, but unfortunately, the only real problem the minister has is that it is a tradition all too often in the Westminster system that because an opposition or non-government member sponsors a bill, we ignore the contents. I accept that is just the argy-bargy of politics.
However, I am quite happy to see this bill defeated and the minister sponsor the same or a slightly amended bill next week that says the same thing. The member for Casuarina is quite good at doing that. He has done it with the hooning bill and the Bushfires Bill. I cannot see any reason why the Attorney-General cannot follow suit.
It is disappointing that it has been indicated that this will be defeated. It is a good and necessary legislative amendment. It is not an enormous intrusion upon customary law; it is not an intrusion on the ability of magistrates to assess bail for lawful reasons. Therefore, I suggest that it is very good legislation as acknowledged by the Attorney-General himself.
Motion negatived.
MOTOR VEHICLES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 171)
(Serial 171)
Continued from 13 August 2003.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Goyder wishes to amend the Motor Vehicles Act to create a special registration scheme to register quad bikes for recreational use on Northern Territory roads.
Quad bikes are four-wheeled vehicles and are more like tractors than bikes. They have similar performance characteristics to tractors. These vehicles generally fall into the category of all terrain vehicles, referred to as ATVs. ATVs are inherently unsafe and are considered high crash risk vehicles Australia-wide. Road safety practitioners around the country generally agree that ATVs should not interact with other road users, and this is reflected in policy on the road use of these vehicles.
I have to admit although they are slow, cumbersome and dangerous, they are great fun to drive around. My kids and I have spent hours on a friend’s property driving around on his quads, but there were a couple of hairy moments when we nearly tipped over because of the high centre of gravity. Of course, with the combination of speed, terrain and misjudgment sometimes, you can actually bring them down on top of you.
The government will not support the member for Goyder’s proposal for the reasons I will outline today. This is not a decision I have taken lightly because I really enjoy driving ATVs, and will continue to enjoy it, but we have to consider certain issues associated with these vehicles.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau allows the import of these vehicles for off-road use only and not for use on roads. They do not meet the necessary minimum safety standards for use on Australian roads. Manufacturers clearly reflect these use restrictions in the documentation provided with the vehicles. Australian compliance plates are not fixed to ATVs and therefore they cannot be registered for general use on public roads or in public places. The vehicles are primarily designed for agricultural purposes or off-road use.
My department has applied a policy of allowing ATVs onto roads only for certain events or for work related uses under strict operational conditions where other vehicle types are inappropriate. For example, restrictions may apply on times of use, where they may be used, the route of travel, speed limitation and required safety equipment. This policy is a sensible approach to treating vehicles of this nature and there is no reason why it should not continue.
Let us not forget that these vehicles cannot be registered for normal road use because they do not meet minimum safety standards. Because of stability issues and the danger these vehicles present to unskilled operators and other road users, the police and the Road Safety Council have expressed grave fears at the possibility of these vehicles gaining general access to the road network, particularly in the manner described by the member for Goyder. Members will recall the terrible accident that occurred near Tennant Creek recently involving two teenagers and a quad bike. The risk of further serious accidents resulting from allowing these vehicles greater access on public roads is too great to be contemplated.
The additional insurance risk to the Northern Territory Motor Accident Compensation Scheme from registering these vehicles for general use on public roads is an area of concern, too, and while the specific registration costs of these vehicles may be low, the third party insurance component would be high to reflect the increased risk. For example, other high risk vehicles, such as motor cycles, contribute up to $592 in third party premiums to MACA. Owners of these vehicles can continue to use the vehicles for recreational use on private property at their own risk. I am also aware of tour operators that use these vehicles as part of organised tours, but on private property.
Some people might think I am a party pooper, but the reality is that despite the fact I really enjoy driving quads, they are great fun, but on private property. Unfortunately, under the current situation, without approval from the appropriate authorities, without Australian compliance plates, from the reaction from the police, the increased risk and insurance risk, the government will not support amendments to the legislation proposed by the member for Goyder.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have to start off with a declaration of interest: I am the owner of a quad bike. I also have to start off with another little declaration of interest: I am the owner of a tractor, a Kubota. I do not know what the experience of the minister is, but I have driven both, and the handling characteristics of a quad bike and tractor are not even close to similar. I understand where the minister is coming from …
Dr Burns: You probably have a Harley quad.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection from the Minister for Tourism. I am the owner of two tractors: I own a Kubota and a Harley Davidson.
The issue of stability of a quad bike is that when I park my quad bike in the shed, it does not fall over without a side stand; a motorcycle does. It is quite possible for a motorcycle to be a registered vehicle. In fact, I have one, the Harley Davidson I just mentioned. It has a registration plate on the back. As far as the stability argument goes, when it is stationery, if I do not put the kick stand down, it falls over, which is about a $2000 exercise when it is stationary.
To argue on stability reasons is a little bit disappointing, because there are many less stable vehicles out there. A forklift has a high centre of gravity. To say that a quad bike is naturally slow, well, mine is a 400cc and is easily capable of doing 60 km/h or 70 km/h and, as the Attorney-General knows, being a fan of the Finke Desert Race that he is, quad bikes are capable of doing a whole lot more than that. So that is not a reason to oppose this.
The bottom line is that a lot of quad bikes probably do not come with indicators and those sorts of things. That might be a reason to say he would not do this, but it is possible to put indicators equipment like that. I am not sure of whether the manufactures create those. I hoped that the minister would come in here with some better reasons. There are special types of registrations, such as pastoral registration, under which unroadworthy vehicles are allowed on public roads under certain limitations. Perhaps the minister would like to suggest some ideas there.
It is sad to see that the minister has just walked in here and said: ‘No, we are not going to do it. It does not suit us’. It is a shame that the minister is taking that approach. I have no major problem with what the member for Goyder is trying to do. He lives in an electorate where there are numerous people who use quad bikes, and sometimes they cross unregistered roads. He wanted to look after those people to allow them to go from place to place with a quad bike. Maybe some sort of solution could be found between what the member for Goyder is trying to achieve and what the minister says. However, to can it without trying to seek a briefing, I presume, from the member for Goyder and finding a way through this is a little sad, but the nanny state rules supreme.
Mr Vatskalis: The federal government provides the compliance plates, not this government.
Mr Elferink: Well, why didn’t you say that instead of telling us how wonderful a quad bike is?
Mr Vatskalis: I did say that. You did not hear it. The police said no.
The whole aim of the bill was, of course, to remove the discretion from the registrar not to register quad bikes. In other words, he is compelled to register these quad bikes providing a number of statutory prerequisites have been met. It is only a short bill, but even of a short bill, it seems, the Labor government have demonstrated a fairly poor grasp of the legislation. They have failed to understand its true effect and purport. It is not surprising that they have come to the conclusion that in all the circumstances, the safety Nazis are going to get up and say: ‘We are not going to support it’ …
The Martin Labor government is all about, it seems, trying to find excuses as to why they cannot do anything, and this is a typical response: ‘Oh look, it is too dangerous’ and ‘Oh God, we do not trust rural people, we do not trust real hard-working Territory people. We do not trust them enough to drive out of their front gate and down to the local creek for a bit of a swim’. It is pretty typical.
For the last two years, Territory people have been battered with reams of legislation, it seems, on the very basis of this is what they do down south. This is what our Labor mentors in Canberra are telling us we have to do. This is the motion. We will introduce it because this is what they are doing down south. There are a couple of examples where the Attorney-General properly considered it. Though this problem has not arisen in the Northern Territory, here is a piece of legislation that we have copied from another jurisdiction just in case it arises.
There is a rural registration scheme in some other jurisdictions. There are similar schemes where interstate Labor governments have enough sense to trust rural people. What do they do here? The hypocrisy speaks for itself. They come along and say: ‘No, no, no. We found somebody who says it is too dangerous, so let us not support rural people, not support the lifestyle’. The message that their response to this legislation sends out is: ‘We do not trust you. We do not trust farmers. The Labor government does not trust young families living on a five acre block in the rural area’.
That is fairly obvious and is an attitude that is going to take them to task at the next election: Clare Martin’s Labor government does not trust you enough to let you ride the old farm quad bike down to local creek for a dip. Clare Martin’s Labor government does not trust you enough to let you ride the old farm quad bike down to the local creek for a dip. Clare Martin’s Labor government does not trust you enough to let you ride your old quad bike, put it out of the gate, go a few kilometres down the road to the local creek for a swim because they spoke to somebody who said there might be a drama and it is all too hard and plus it was introduced, of course, by the opposition. The Martin Labor government sought and received the trust of Territorians in August 2001, but since then, they have systematically assaulted that trust, and this is just another nail in their political coffin. They have abused the trust which Territory folk have placed in them.
By this uncaring, untrusting, Labor government not supporting this bill, they are effectively slapping the face of Territory people who own quad bikes. It is a slap in the face for rural people who have quite sensibly come to me and said: ‘This would be something that would help preserve our lifestyle’. There is always, of course, the risk that somebody will abuse it, but it seems they are so concerned about that absolute minority that their response is to can this idea for lots of good, law abiding, decent people and the sooner the Labor government heads off back down south where they have come from, the better off we are going to be.
The Martin Labor government is all too keen to give away our parks to a select group of people, rush the gay law reform issues into this parliament, but they will not help or trust average Territorians who want to ride their quad bike down to the local creek for a swim after work or on the weekend, and they stand condemned for their position on this.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mrs Miller Ms Martin
Mr Mills Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Postponement of Business
Criminal Code Amendment Bill (No. 3)
(Serial 173)
Postponement of Business
Criminal Code Amendment Bill (No. 3)
(Serial 173)
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that debate on this bill be adjourned until the next general business day.
May I put on the record that I spoke to the Attorney-General a few moments ago, and he has given an undertaking that this will be referred to the NT Animal Welfare Committee, which will review the issue and make recommendations about the way in which best to legislate to deal with it. The Attorney-General has undertaken to allow me to introduce the resultant bill into parliament.
Motion agreed to.
LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 172)
(Serial 172)
Continued from 13 August 2003.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the bill seeks to deal with serial or habitual drunks and strengthen section 122 of the Liquor Act by requiring the Police Commissioner to maintain a register of people picked up for being drunk and disorderly three times in six months.
Such a record then places the person before a court, which could order assessment, treatment, ban from certain places, or residing in a particular location. The bill also creates the further offence where the person has failed to comply with a court order. Licensees cannot sell liquor to people under prohibition orders, and the Liquor Commission is advised by the Police Commissioner of such orders.
A similar plan was proposed by the chairman of the parliamentary substance abuse committee, the member for Arafura, following work her committee has been doing. The government is not completely opposed to the principles embodied in this bill. Elements of it have merit, but we cannot and will not endorse one reform to the Liquor Act out of context and in isolation from the major framework review that is being undertaken now.
That review is being headed by two prominent Territorians, Daryl Manzie and Donna Ah Chee, supported by respected lawyer, Gordon Renouf. It may well be that the principles in this bill emerge in some form through that review process, and if they do, we will know that they are emerging as part of an integrated package of reform after an holistic review of the act. I do not want to derail that process by ad hoc amendments to the acts prior to the review’s report.
Whilst there is a Liquor Act amendment proceeding through these sittings, it is as a result of competition policy review. Jurisdictions were required to have these reviews through by this year. Again, for members opposite, through the National Competition Council and the NCP process, if jurisdictions did not have legislation through parliament, there is a financial penalty imposed through the NCC. So it really is a case of having to put the NCP review through the House in order to safeguard additional funding from Canberra.
I thank the member for Macdonnell for his interest in reform in this area. I trust it is an interest that will continue, and I would urge members opposite, either as individual members or collectively through their parliamentary wing, to make a contribution to the Liquor Act review that is under way at the moment.
Whilst we will not be supporting this bill today, it may be that a form of these ideas emerges from the work of the Alcohol Framework Review and, again, this review is probably the single most important review that government is undertaking at the moment, given all members of this House agree that the biggest single contributing factor to social harm across the Northern Territory is the abuse of alcohol. We all have a responsibility to constructively engage with that review body and, as a parliament, determine legislation and practices that will, hopefully, lead to better social outcomes across the Northern Territory.
Again, I thank the member for Macdonnell for proposing this bill. It was done in good faith and it will be considered as part of a holistic review of that legislation.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is heartening to hear the comments from members opposite on the bill before this Chamber introduced by the member for Macdonnell.
I also commend him for engaging intellectually an issue of great concern to the community, something we encounter often. Once we see a problem, we are obliged and, in fact, required – more so as community leaders - to find a solution. It is most refreshing to see that process has borne fruit, not just as talk of wouldn’t it be good if someone did something; the member for Macdonnell has gone to the extent of carrying an idea all the way through and embedding its eventual outcome in proposed legislation.
I applaud the idea. We know the level of community concern about public drunkenness and substance abuse is rising to a degree that it requires this kind of response. No more can we waste our resources endeavouring to maintain the rotating door policy. We have to have a full stop. We have to have the mechanism to be able to address the issue that requires management, not just for the sake of sustaining our economy and our capacity to meet needs of this nature, but for individual themselves and their own support network. There has to be a full stop. There has to be a way of pulling that up. It is good to hear that the tenor of this idea has been carried by government but, of course, there is just the natural reservation that if this be incorporated into the major framework reform review process, the intent is not diluted.
In fact, I hope it is improved and increased if possible. The member for Macdonnell has produced a mechanism to deal with a serious social problem that has resulted in calls from Cape York Peninsula to ban on the destructive substance that is destroying that community by Noel Pearson. Our community is ready for this kind of response. I see it in Palmerston. I am sure every member here sees the recurrent problem, and all we are able to do generally is to observe it and hope that there is some kind of improvement. It is good to see this mechanism, which allows a central register to be maintained so that if a person does appear three times in six months, there is a consequence: appearance before a court. By that mechanism, the court is able to determine an appropriate response, sending the message that it cannot go on and on and on.
I take in good faith what was offered by the member opposite and add my compliments to the member for MacDonnell for taking the time to carry an idea through to this level. I hope for the sake of those families who suffer as a result of this level of abuse and our society generally, if this be implemented, we will see an improvement, and the resources in our community will produce a more beneficial outcome.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for acknowledging the spirit in which this bill was presented to the House. It was decent of him to say that he realises that this was not an attempt to be political or play politics, and recognised that it was a genuine attempt to find a solution to a pressing problem.
The minister and Deputy Chief Minister in conversation outside of this Chamber have indicated that work is being done. There is a committee of this parliament, the Substance Abuse Committee, which is also looking into these sorts of things. The only comment I make is that I wish that, on both sides of this House, there was more conversation on this topic. We have a select committee that looks into this stuff and I would like to have heard from those members in relation to this stuff from both sides of the House. However, but be that as it may, we know the processes and it was accepted, generally, that this bill was not going to survive passage.
It is probably the single most important social issue facing the people of the Northern Territory. Beyond drugs - when I say drugs, I mean illicit drugs - smoking, renal dialysis, and so many other things, alcohol is the most chronic and expensive burden on our community. The pain caused by alcohol that I have witnessed over the years is one inspiration for this bill. The other inspiration is the original, almost common law-type feel that it was intended to induce in giving a court enormous power to be able to deal with the person brought before it.
This concept dates back hundreds of years through the common law system, where a constable or person had the power to bring a person before a court and then the common law dictated what happened. I intended, in the flavour of this bill, to capture that; where a person is brought before a court by quite onerous means. I acknowledge that it is an onerous way of bringing a person before the court. Entering the court is like entering a realm of judgment where the widest possible range of options is open. So I created a bill – actually, the Parliamentary draftsman created it, it was formed to my idea, and I thank them for it. The bill created an environment in which, once you entered court, it could choose to do almost anything within reason.
Do nothing is the first option. Some poor old fellow walks out of Bojangles in Alice Springs three times in three months and is accidentally locked up because he is in the wrong spot and the wrong time. He likes a drink and probably drinks a bit too much, but is not a social problem. It was never intended to capture him. It was intended to capture that habitual person that we all, in this Chamber and community, see nearly every day. The idea was to try to give courts the power to force these people into rehab programs, to go back to their communities, to do any number of things. It is a very singular way of getting a person before the courts and then the wisdom of that court to draw on any number of things, including evidence way beyond the normal realms of evidence, hearsay, secondary evidence, those sorts of things can all be drawn together to try to find the best possible outcome for that individual. That outcome may be nothing at all or quite draconian: ‘You can only live in that community’.
However, I do accept that the government is trying to draw up a complete plan. It would, I agree, be inconsistent with drawing up a complete plan to allow something like this to fire off without having lined up all your ducks. I thank the government for being honest with me. I know that the Deputy Chief Minister spoke to me months ago about this.
Mr Stirling: Always honest. Always honest.
Mr ELFERINK: I will remind you of that. The Deputy Chief Minister spoke to me and he spoke to me earnestly and sincerely a few months ago when I presented the bill. I know that the Attorney-General asked for it to be held off for a while whilst other things were being done. That is fine, I appreciate all of that.
The Deputy Chief Minister spoke to me again just before I rose today and acknowledged what the police minister has said: that this bill in substance may well find its way back into this House as part of other legislation. Without having seen that, of course, I would certainly support that plan.
I also thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments. It is nice to get a compliment once in a while. It does not happen often enough in this parliament. I wish a few more had spoken, but I thank honourable members for their input.
Motion negatived.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 165)
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 166)
(Serial 165)
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 166)
Continued from 13 August 2003.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, these two bills are related, and I assume we are dealing with them cognate but I will nevertheless take them in two parts because they do deal with two separate issues.
The first issue is that if the member for Araluen studied the bill that went through this House yesterday, and I am sure that she did, she would be aware that we have removed the marriage defence from the whole range of child abuse offences. That is a pretty good response to the issue she raised. Under the definitions within the Criminal Code Act there is no longer a reference to ‘unlawful’. In other words, defining a boundary between marriage and non-marriage. From there, we go through to sexual intercourse or gross indecency involving a child over 16 years under special care; no defence available there. The attempts to procure a child under 16 years; no marriage defence available. Sexual relationship with a child; no marriage defence available. Indecent dealing with a child under 16 years; no marriage defence available. Abduction, enticement or detention of a child under 16 years for immoral purpose; no marriage defence available. Abduction of a child under 16 years; no marriage defence.
We have comprehensively removed the marriage defence not only in the case of what we would see as a traditional mainstream body of society marriages, but any form of a marriage-like relationship such as de facto, customary law, same-sex de facto. It is off the menu, basically. We will not be allowing anyone to take up sexual relationships with a girl less than 16 years old under the guise of a claim of a marriage arrangement. I assume that in the light of that, you would basically withdraw the provisions you wanted to argue for today.
The second part is amendments to the Sentencing Amendment Act and I would like to go through these because we do differ on our approach to the role of customary law issues in the sentencing process within our courts. At the recent release of government responses to the Inquiry into Customary Law, we made it very clear that we will be supporting the use of customary law claims within court processes as part of the body of evidence that a court will take into account when it is determining sentence.
I will go through the problems with the amendment proposed. These are the main points. The government believes there are a number of problems with the proposed amendments. First, the bill would exclude the customary beliefs of one particular group in our society. This is only directed against Aboriginal customary law and not against other types of customary law. In a multicultural society such as the Northern Territory, there are many cultures that embody customary arrangements, which could be considered customary law and could be claimed as such in court proceedings.
Second, the blanket exclusion of Aboriginal customary law such is proposed in the bill is inconsistent with the policy to which I was just referring of recognising Aboriginal customary law where it is relevant and consistent with the general law and human rights standards. The bill fails to recognise that in some cases customary law can be considered as an aggravating factor in the sentencing process. For example, in cases of sexual assault where there is an avoidance relationship between the offender and the victim according to Aboriginal customary law, the courts have taken this into account regarding relevance to the gravity of the offence as an aggravating factor when sentencing the offender. The bill is a reaction, we presume, to the Pascoe matter, which certainly attracted a lot of publicity around the time that the member proposed this. I see you are not saying that is the case …
Ms Carney: The first part was, but not the sentencing stuff wasn’t, not really.
Dr TOYNE: That is not key to our argument. In the Pascoe case, the public perception was that a claim of a customary law relationship with the girl concerned was taken by the court to be a mitigating factor to too great an extent. That case was appealed and has been presented to the High Court on application. We shall see what comes out of the court processes.
The issue of to what degree customary law claims can be claimed in the sentencing process in a court, either in mitigation or aggravation of the offence, is under active consideration through the court system. As far as the government is concerned, we would consider it to be a part of the body of evidence that a court would take into account to explain or understand the basis of the alleged offender’s conduct and to assess the culpability of the offender.
It is evidence, just as many factors might be presented in evidence during a court hearing; no more, no less. As evidence, we propose that while customary law claims should continue to be allowed within the body of evidence in a court, like all evidence, it should rigorously be tested. We believe that courts, and particularly our public prosecutors, need to be empowered to fully test customary law claims as evidence either through assessment by senior custodians of the law, expert in the correct action of the law, or by anthropologists who have a knowledge of customary law structures in which an alleged offender may be operating. In each case, that testing of the evidence should be available to both sides advocating to a court and any claims should be open to such rigorous testing.
As I stated, that could be to the benefit of the accused at the point at which the sentence is being determined or, indeed, it could be an aggravating factor to the detriment of the accused. It will be viewed as part of the body of evidence.
We recognise, under our policy, that where custom and law are inconsistent, the law should prevail. We said that repeatedly during the customary law inquiry: customary law claims and practices must lie within the overall constraints of the NT Criminal Code and standards of international human rights. That is the over-arching framework on our entire response to issues of customary law within our community. We will not be condoning or enshrining, in the practice of our courts or in the body of the general law, arrangements whereby one group of Territorians are exposed to practices that would be either illegal under our own law or unacceptable within a human rights framework.
We recognise that customary law does not always provide an adequate response to violence against women and children, and that customary law has been used by people accused of violence to excuse or minimise their actions. The views of Aboriginal women and children on these issues are not always properly argued or put before the courts. As I have already indicated, the courts have used customary law as an aggravating factor in sentencing for offences of violence against Aboriginal women and children. It is important that the courts continue to be able to do this.
In one of these cases, R v Lee, the court was able to take into account the culturally offensive nature of an offence, where the Aboriginal man was sentenced for a sexual assault against a woman who was, according to custom, his aunt. In another case, a sexual assault on a child, R v SVA, the court was able to take into account that the child was a ‘poison cousin’ to the offender, and that any sexual relationship was banned under customary law. We believe a process that would resolve conflicts between customary law and the rights of the individuals on a case-by-case basis is a much better approach. This would retain the flexibility necessary for the courts to be able to consider customary law when it is an aggravating feature of a case, but to reject customary law claims where they are inconsistent with the general law and human rights standards. Problems with the way courts have determined issues of customary law in the sentencing process have arisen where the court is not fully informed about the customary law or practice, or where the Aboriginal women have not had the opportunity to place their views before the courts.
In some cases, the courts have had to rely on evidence adduced only by the defendant, with the result that the court has not had access to full information about the case. The submission by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner to the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee’s inquiry into customary law has recommended the adoption of a flexible case-by-case approach to taking customary law into account in the sentencing process.
His recommendation also proposed that customary law claims should only be taken into account where they are relevant and consistent with upholding the human rights of the victim, including the right to equality before the law. Similarly, the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commissioner supports a case-by-case approach that incorporates an open and transparent process that is consistent with human rights standards. Work has started to implement this case-by-case approach. It may involve the development of legislation to regulate the way in which courts are informed about customary law issues in the sentencing process. Alternatively, legislation may provide for courts to develop their own rules to regulate this process. It is also necessary to take into account the existing duty of the prosecution to assist the court when issues such as relevance of customary law in sentencing are raised.
I hope the member for Araluen can see that while differing in the basic approach to this, we believe it is unacceptable to single out one of our cultures within the Northern Territory, particularly the culture that pre-existed non-indigenous people coming to the Territory, and to say to them, and them alone, that their customary practices are not tenable in a court as part of the body of evidence to explain the behaviour of the offender and, perhaps, the victim of an alleged offence.
Equally, we believe that general law and the operation of human rights have to be superimposed on customary law practices to protect the rights of indigenous people within the Territory, to ensure that they are not living in a separate social system in which those universal protections that are available to all other Territorians are not available to indigenous people. It is a complex issue and it is going to require the courts to work on a case-by-case basis as they have in the past; but with this additional ability to test the customary law claims that come to them as part of the evidence in a particular case.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is an issue that, quite rightly, should have been brought by the member for Araluen before this House. We have indicated that, as part of the strong body of work that was done on the inquiry into customary law, that the government’s position has now been framed. As I said earlier to the member for Macdonnell, I intend to bring regular reports to the House on our progress on these matters. I would be happy to see that scrutinised by this parliament. In summary and, again, with respect, we will not be supporting this bill in this form. The government has chosen a fundamentally different approach to this problem.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for his comments. Because these bills are cognate and because I am satisfied, for the want of a better word, as to the settlement, if you like, of the difficulties that arose around the Criminal Code Amendment Bill that I introduced - that is, those matters were dealt with in the bill yesterday – it, therefore, follows that the Sentencing Amendment Bill is doomed. Obviously, I am philosophical about that. However, I am not terribly worried about it because it gives me the opportunity to make some points in relation to it, and to assure you that I will continue to ask, whenever it is appropriate, government to act in this area because it terribly important. I will come back to that.
At the outset, the amendment proposed by government in the bill we debated yesterday has adequately dealt with the Criminal Code Amendment Bill that I introduced. I thank the government for dealing with that. Members will recall that the amendment I proposed to the Criminal Code would have ensured that offenders who have sexual intercourse with or who commit acts of gross indecency upon Aboriginal girls under the age of 16 years could not rely upon the veil of marriage as a defence. For my part, I wanted to ensure that Aboriginal girls were afforded the same protection as non-Aboriginal or non-indigenous girls under our legal system.
Members will also recall that I sought to change the definition of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ in the Code. In its present form, it provides a defence to the offences committed under section 129. The defence provided was that the parties were married and that existed by virtue of the definition of ‘unlawful’ under section 126 of the Code. I proposed changing the definition of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, which would have removed that defence to Aboriginal men. The government dealt with the problem in a different but satisfactory way. I warmly welcome those amendments of the bill from yesterday.
I note that the government’s bill was introduced to parliament before the committee finalised its recommendations in the inquiry into Aboriginal customary law. Hence, I would suggest that if my original bill played even a small part in encouraging government to remedy this problem, then clearly I am delighted.
Certainly, there has been a great deal of pressure on government to make the change to protect Aboriginal girls under 16 years of age. I and many others are pleased with the government’s response. Unfortunately, however, and the Attorney-General and I know it, we differ in relation to our views of the Sentencing Amendment Bill and the role customary law plays in sentencing generally. I have read the public comments made by the Attorney-General about rejecting the idea of removing customary law from the deliberations of the courts. I am unmoved by his arguments. I will continue to urge him to reconsider his views. I hope that others will be moved to continue to apply pressure on government so that perhaps one day, government will shift in its position.
It is appropriate for the purposes of Hansard that I remind members about the purpose of the amendment, which was the inclusion of a new section 5A that states:
- The court shall not have regard to any aspect of Aboriginal customary law in sentencing.
It would preclude the courts taking customary law into account when sentencing. That amendment covered all crimes of violence and not just sexual offences. I will restate until the cows come home that I proposed the amendment because it is predominantly Aboriginal women and children who are the victims of violence in the Northern Territory. As I said in my second reading speech, one might therefore expect that the legal system of the Northern Territory might afford them some protection, and that we as legislators might do what we can to assist them.
Again, I say that there is nothing culturally appropriate about men bashing women. Only those who think that there is could possibly oppose this amendment. The fact is that customary law is used as a shield to mitigate sentences that follow a finding of guilt or a plea of guilty. Offenders who invoke customary law do so for their own benefit.
In relation to some of the comments the Attorney-General has made publicly since the release of the inquiry into Aboriginal customary law, there are some comments I wish to make. I note that he said on TOP-FM on 10 November and I quote:
- We are not prepared to single out our customary law beliefs and say that you alone - to indigenous people - cannot bring any of that to our justice system.
That was, with respect, a juvenile response to the issue of customary law and the role it plays in our criminal justice system and in particular in light of the sentencing bill I introduced. The Attorney-General should recall that I did not suggest that customary law has no place in our justice system. In fact, I was at pains to make the point of saying in my second reading speech that it does exist, and the CLP is supportive of that, and under the CLP it was incorporated into our justice system in areas such as the Community Welfare Act, the Adoption of Children Act, the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act, the Status of Children Act and others. So, the minister’s response was less than persuasive.
On ABC radio on 6 November he said:
- We believe that there is no basis to single out just in indigenous people on not being able to talk about their culture and their background to help explain their behaviour.
This comment completely misses the point and conveniently glosses over the fact that every week in the Northern Territory, customary law is used by indigenous violent men to mitigate their sentences. So in most of the interviews that I read or heard, the Attorney-General said that he was not moved to act in relation to customary law.
It is also the case that in some of his interviews, and he said it again today, he said that customary law can be considered to increase the sentences handed down to indigenous offenders, and today he named two cases. I invite the Attorney-General to let me know in due course how many more there are because I would bet London, to a brick, there are not very many more. It is the case that the second one he mentioned is not the common or garden variety case that is the subject of proceedings in courts of the Northern Territory on a daily basis. If the Attorney-General could name half a dozen, I would be surprised. There he was, on radio, saying: ‘Oh, no, customary law is terrific because sometimes the courts even use it to increase sentences’. Absolute rubbish!
What has been truly disappointing is that there have been numerous statements in this House made by government members condemning the outrageously high levels of violence perpetrated in Aboriginal communities. We all know what the figures are, and we all know about the effects of this endemic violence on victims who are predominantly women and children. The same government members can rightly be called hypocrites because they refuse to act and the Attorney-General is one of them. They sanction the use of customary law by violent Aboriginal men to reduce their sentences. They condone violent Aboriginal men relying on and hiding behind the veil of customary law when they appear before the courts of the Northern Territory for sentencing. They say that there is something culturally appropriate about men bashing women and they do so by their failure to do anything about it.
The government has lost all credibility on this issue, and all government members, particularly those who say that they are appalled by the high levels of indigenous violence, should be ashamed of themselves.
In relation to a couple of matters raised by the Attorney-General in his reply, I cannot let them go without making further comment. He suggested, almost in an accusatory way, that the purpose of this bill was deliberately targeted at the Aboriginal community. Too right they are. Absolutely they are targeted at the Aboriginal community. I invite the Attorney-General and others to look around them. I know he is a busy man, but he may like to go to the Magistrates Court or the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory any day of the week and he will see what is happening. We all know what is happening.
This government sent one of its ministers to the summit called by the Prime Minister some months ago, a national summit, such is the overwhelming concern about the high levels of indigenous violence. The people there, according to the reports I read, declared their outrage at the high levels of indigenous violence and their commitment to do something about it. Is my amendment to the Sentencing Act aimed at the Aboriginal community? Absolutely, and I make no apology for it. As I said in an earlier debate, there comes a point when all of us must draw a line in the sand and get on with the job, and we must protect the victims.
I note that the Attorney-General referred to human rights and UN conventions, but the question I ask is: whose rights? There are conflicting interests in this debate and they cannot be reconciled. My question is: whose rights does he prefer? Does he prefer the rights of Aboriginal women and children who are predominantly the victims of male violence, or does he prefer the rights of violent Aboriginal men? From his response, I can only conclude that he puts the rights of violent Aboriginal men over the rights of Aboriginal women and children. I find that sickening and disgusting.
I will be at you forever and a day so that you will do something about this. You are the one who comes into this place, and you declare your undying commitment to help the world, and in particular the indigenous community. Yet, you hypocrite, you sit here and say; ‘No, no, we are not going to touch it’. Do something, for God’s sake! People of the Northern Territory want you to do it, Mr Attorney-General, and you are in a position that you can. Your refusal to do so is nothing short of an outrage. I will hunt you on this issue. I will continue to do it until I see some progress and action. It is disgusting.
Dr Toyne: Yes, and I said I would come back and report.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Postponement of Business
Postponement of Business
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that consideration of Government Business Notice Numbers 5, 6, 9 and 10 relating to the Food Bill, the Health Practitioners Bill and electoral legislation be postponed until Thursday 27 November 2003.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Order of Business
Order of Business
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that Government Business Order of the Day Number 3 take priority and be called on forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
MINING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 191)
(Serial 191)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Mining Act in response to certain of the recommendations made in the consultant’s report arising from a review of the act pursuant to National Competition Principles Agreement.
The amendments in the bill provide for the following: the insertion of an objects clause in the act and a statement as to how those objects are best achieved. It is proposed to remove the size restrictions on the maximum area that can be held under exploration licences and a mineral lease. Currently, the size restrictions are set at a maximum of 5000 blocks in the case of any individual explorer, and a limit of 4000 hectares for a mineral lease. In the case of the former, the limit has always been able to be exceeded at the discretion of the minister. Maintaining the arbitrary size limit of a mineral lease to a maximum of 4000 hectares has the potential to work against the best interests of the tenement holder. This may occur through restricting the size of mining activities and operations or by requiring the miner to hold more than one mineral lease to cater for mining activity.
In addition, the bill repeals the restriction that currently requires an applicant for a mineral lease to specifically identify the minerals to be mined. Once the mineral lease is granted, the lease holder is restricted to mining only those minerals specifically listed on the lease document. It is proposed to remove this unnecessary restriction, and in future there will be no need to specifically nominate the minerals that are to be mined on the lease area. In effect, the holder of a mineral lease will be free to mine any mineral that may occur within the lease area. This will avoid the need for a miner to have to reapply for an additional approval and variation of the lease documents to take advantage of some other mineral that is found during the course of conducting mining activities. In practice, however, the government is well aware of the minerals that exist on leases and the scope of the mining activity that is possible. There is a proviso in the amendment to allow for the exclusions of specific minerals where it is considered necessary that the excluded minerals must be specified on the lease.
The proposed amendments represent the removal of some minor anti-competitive restrictions that are no longer considered appropriate in the administration of modern resource legislation. The changes represent an important element in meeting the Northern Territory’s obligation under the National Competition Principles Agreement, to which all jurisdictions are a party. The restrictions that these amendments repeal will remove the administration of the act to mutual benefit of the mining industry and the broader community, and provide additional flexibility for the resource industry in the Northern Territory. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL (No 4)
(Serial 193)
(Serial 193)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Liquor Act following the National Competition Policy or NCP Review of the Territory’s liquor legislation. The amendments presented today address the recommendations made in the review, with the exception of recommendations concerning Sunday trading and objections to restricted area application. It should be noted that not all the review’s recommendations require legislative change.
Before commenting specifically on the amendments presented today, I want to comment on the National Competition Policy Review. The review was undertaken in accordance with government’s commitment to the Competition Principles Agreement to examine and remove anti-competitive requirements or restrictions that cannot be justified to achieve the legislation’s objectives. The overall objective of the review was to make reforms that will enable the liquor industry participants to carry on their business in an environment as free from bureaucratic restrictions as possible whilst ensuring the licensing system of regulation upholds the aims of harm minimisation and the amenity of community life. A consultative paper was produced that identified the issues relevant to the review and sought public comment on those issues.
The issues on which comment was sought included objectives of the legislation, licence types, licence issues, complaints and objections, restricted areas hearings and alterations to premises. I want to thank organisations and individuals that made submissions to the review, including the Office of the NT Anti-Discrimination Commissioner; Jabiru Town Council; Curtain Springs Wayside Inn; Darwin City Council; Katherine Town Council; Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Katherine Branch); Australian Hotels Association (NT Branch); Council for Aboriginal Alcohol Program Services Inc; Liquorland Australia Pty Ltd; Liquor Stores Association of the Territory; Darwin Community Legal Service; Living with Alcohol Darwin; Woolworths Ltd; Kakadu-West Arnhem Gunbang Action Group; ATSIC; Foundation of Rehabilitation with Aboriginal Alcohol Related Difficulties; Amity Community Services; Living with Alcohol Tennant Creek; NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services; Tangentyere Council; Janet McIntyre; Shirley McKerrow; NT Tourist Commission; John Withnall; Alice Springs Town Council; Northern Land Council; Office of the Director of Licensing, Racing and Gaming and Licensing Division, Northern Region; Menzies School of Health Research; NT Licensing Commission; and Tyeweretye Clubs Incorporated.
Submissions contained a variety of views from which the following recommendations based on competition principles were developed. I turn now to the proposed amendments.
The bill proposes that the long title of the act be amended to reflect the changes made through inserting an objects section into the act. Given the intention to have an objects section included, it is appropriate to amend the long title to clearly state what the legislation is about. That is, an act to regulate the sale, provision, promotion and consumption of liquor so as to minimise the harm associated with the consumption of liquor and to take into account the public interest and for related purposes.
The bill proposes that an objects section be included in the act. The reason for this is to make clear the purpose of the legislation, which is that harm minimisation and the public interest are the overriding considerations in regulating liquor in the Northern Territory. As the NCP Review noted:
- The liquor industry is one such situation in which economic goals conflict with wider community interests. Liquor is not just another ordinary commodity, but one that has the potential to cause harm to individuals in the community and its supply should therefore be regulated with respect to both economic and social activity. This is because of the negative health and social consequences associated with the misuse of liquor, and the considerable tangible and intangible costs that these consequences subsequently cause to the community.
Accordingly, in proposing to insert an objects section into the Liquor Act, prominence is given to the regulation of the sale, provision, promotion and consumption of liquor so as to minimise the harm associated with liquor consumption. It is important to note the act is not just regulating the sale of liquor, but also responsible promotion and consumption.
Another feature of the objects section is the public interest. The public interest is included, replacing the ‘needs and wishes’ criterion, which is vague and uncertain. The public interest criterion is recognised as being appropriate because a licensing approach based on competitive outcomes alone may significantly reduce the welfare and amenity of the community through negative health and social consequences. Hence, the bill proposes the public interest should be the standard against which applications including licence condition variations are sought. By including the public interest in the objects, and further defining public interest later in the amendment bill, applications may be prepared in respect to the public interest and the need to minimise harm and uphold the amenity of community life.
Objects relating to protection and enhancement of the community, regulation to aid management of liquor, and having a diversity of licensed premises and associated services for the benefit of the community are also included. These further objects recognise the need to protect the community, regulate liquor sale as part of responsible industry development, and facilitate development of a diversity of premises for the benefit of the community.
Currently the act provides that ‘material alterations’ cannot be made to licensed premises without the express consent of the Licensing Commission. However, the term is not defined and has led to consent being required even when the alteration does not detract from public amenity or harm minimisation concerns. Accordingly, the bill proposes a definition of ‘material alteration’ be added to the legislation because it is not currently defined, nor are applicants required to advise the community of their intentions. The definition includes increases or decreases to the size of the area where liquor is sold or consumed, structural alterations, changes to entry and exits of the premises, or changes to the external appearance of the premises. It is also proposed that those seeking a material alteration to a licensed premises be required to lodge an advertisement containing details of their intentions in newspapers as nominated by the Licensing Commission.
The bill proposes that the restriction on a licensee whose licence has been cancelled by the Licensing Commission applying for a new licence within three years of the cancellation without permission of the commission is a duplication of other provisions of the act. Similarly, the restriction on the use of a premises the subject of a cancellation under section 26A is also a duplication. Both are necessarily restrictive and, accordingly, both are repealed.
The bill proposes that the section concerning inquiries regarding applicants is reworded to more closely mirror the requirements contained under section 25 of the Gaming Machine Act to ensure the integrity of those seeking to become licensees. The Gaming Machine Act focusses on disclosure by applicants concerning certain persons who may be able to influence the applicant or expect a benefit from the applicant if the licence is granted.
The effect of this amendment is to ensure an applicant who is a natural person and persons with an interest in the applicant that is a body corporate will have to be able to demonstrate that they are a fit and proper person to hold or maintain an interest in a liquor licence. Bringing the fit and proper test in to line with the requirements of the Gaming Machine Act also establishes a clearer benchmark for both industry and the community and ensures that persons who should not become liquor licensees are unable to do so.
The bill proposes that the Licensing Commission, in considering the licence application on grounds contained under section 29 of the act, may only consider issues related to the objects of the act. The National Competition Policy Review found that the Liquor Act should be limited to liquor related issues that are in the public interest and should not contain scope whereby the Licensing Commission could be drawn into the responsibilities of other government agencies, such as deciding the use of parcels of land. Land use matters are dealt with by relevant government agencies prior to any licence application being considered by the Licensing Commission. It should be noted that if approval for a certain type of building suitable for a licensed premises is given, the Licensing Commission still has to consider grant of a liquor license for that building. In determining this matter, the Licensing Commission bases its consideration on the objects of this legislation, which includes that grant of a license is in the public interest.
The issue of the location of liquor outlets is a sensitive and complex issue. Those who have views on the Licensing Commission’s involvement in determining the location of licensed premises are encouraged to make a submission to the Alcohol Framework.
The bill proposes that provision be made for the establishment of categories of licence so that when the Licensing Commission issues a licence, it does so according to licence categories prescribed by the regulations. The categories of licence will have general licence conditions specified for each category, for example, hours of trade and whether or not a meal is to be served with liquor. The commission will be also be able to set specific licence conditions in addition to those of the licence category as long as these conditions address the public interest. The inclusion of licence categories with general conditions for each category of licence is included because it enables the public to have a reasonable expectation as to the type of services and products to be provided by licensed premises. Liquor licence categories also aid the regulatory process in what licensing inspectors should and should not find during inspections of licensed premises.
The licence categories and conditions for each category have yet to be determined. Further consultation will occur with industry and other key stakeholders before the categories and conditions are finalised and included in the Liquor Regulations.
As mentioner earlier, the bill proposes that the ‘needs and wishes of the community’ criteria used in the process to determine licence conditions is replaced with criteria addressing the ‘public interest’. The public interest will also be used in determining whether or not a licence should be granted, a permanent variation made, or a licence is transferred. Given the importance of using the public interest as the basis for determining licence applications, public interest has also been included in the objects of the act. The criteria defining public interest is included in the amendment bill.
The bill proposes that licensees should have the right to apply to the commission to vary the conditions or type of license issued subject at all times to the public interest. The amendment is considered necessary as it affords licensees the opportunity to seek a license variation without necessarily having to have a hearing.
The bill proposes that the division relating prescribed fees be repealed. Following the 1997 High Court decision regarding business franchise fees and excise which make the collection of liquor fees by states and territories illegal, it is not longer appropriate that the act contain a section on business franchise fees. However, establishment of an appropriate regulatory fee regime is another matter. It is the government’s view that this matter should be part of the community and industry consultation to occur through development of an overarching approach to liquor in the Territory known as the Alcohol Framework.
The bill proposes that the restriction on the transfer of a liquor license be amended to require the Licensing Commission to have regard to the public interest in authorising any application for the transfer of a liquor license. The amendment is consistent with making public interest one of the primary considerations for the Licensing Commission’s exercise of its powers and functions.
The bill proposes that an amendment be made to the section dealing with substitution of premises. The amendment will enable the Licensing Commission to approve a substitution application if it has received and approved a properly submitted application where no objections to the application have been lodged. Before approving a substitution application, the application must be advertised in newspapers nominated by the Licensing Commission. The amendment is sought because it enables licensees to be proactive in improving the quality of the premises provided there are no objections, without the additional costs incurred by the hearing process. An objection to a substitution application may be made under the amendments to section 47 of the act.
The bill proposes that objections, as well as being made to the grant of a license, will also be allowed concerning an application for substitution of premises, an application to make a material alteration or a license condition variation application where the Licensing Commission views the opportunity for community objections is in the public interest. The amendment is included because previously, objections concerning substitution of premises and material alterations were not allowed and it was not clear as to when the objections to license condition variations would be allowed. It is viewed as being in the public interest that such objections should be possible.
The bill proposes that a licensee should have the opportunity to request a hearing if an application for a variation of their license conditions or an application for material alterations has been refused without a hearing. In conduct of these hearings, the Licensing Commission must have regard to the objects of the act. The amendment is included because it provides licensees with the option of recourse to the commission should an application to vary license conditions or for a material alteration without a hearing be unsuccessful.
The bill proposes that a new provision be made for forfeiture of vehicles in cases where an offender who owns a vehicle fails to appear before the court on the date allotted to answer charges in relation to seizure of the vehicle or where the owner of a vehicle seeks from a third party against whom a prosecution has been commenced has not made application for the return of that vehicle within 30 days of the vehicle being seized. The provision is necessary as some vehicles have been held by police on behalf of the Chairman of the Licensing Commission for more than two years and are in a state of deterioration. Clearly, a process is needed to enable timely disposal of the vehicles where the owner has not sought for the vehicle to be returned.
Madam Speaker, earlier I mentioned this amendment bill does not address the recommendations concerning Sunday trading for liquor stores and supermarkets and allowing of objections for restricted areas. Members of the House would be aware I announced on 3 April the government’s five point plan to address liquor issues. As part of the five point plan, it was announced that the current arrangements for takeaway liquor sales on Sundays and the consequent restrictions against stores and supermarkets selling takeaway liquor on Sundays would be maintained pending the development of the comprehensive whole-of-government Alcohol Framework. Deferring consideration of the Sunday trading issue to the Alcohol Framework development process will enable further consultation with affected and interested parties before a final decision is made. Given the time frame of the Alcohol Framework, I expect to be able to advise the House mid-next year as to government’s view on Sunday trading for liquor stores and supermarkets.
The other recommendation not addressed here concerns the issue of objections to restricted area applications. Currently, the act does not allow for objections to restricted area applications to be heard, with affected persons being able to submit an opinion as to the merits of the application. As this matter is one of particular sensitivity for Aboriginal communities, the issue of restricted area objections has been referred to the alcohol framework. It will enable Aboriginal communities and indigenous organisations in the community further opportunity to consider this matter and make submissions to the alcohol framework.
It should be noted the other recommendations in the NCP report relating to restricted areas and concerning decisions based on the public interest and forfeiture of vehicles have been included in the amendments presented today. Deferring Sunday trading and restricted areas objections matters also enables the government to proceed with the amendment to the Liquor Act based on the recommendations of the NCP Liquor Act review.
Accordingly I have today introduced an amendment bill which addresses all but two of the 29 recommendations made by the review. The action shows the government is taking seriously the commitment made to National Competition Policy principles and the Competition Policy reform process.
This amendment bill also shows that the government is serious about protection of the Northern Territory community from the harms that result from liquor abuse. This, and the NCP Liquor Act review, has recommended that an objects section be included in the legislation, which places up-front the government’s and, I believe, the community’s concern that we need to have a safer community where liquor is regulated in the public interest.
I must say thanks to the staff who prepared this comprehensive second reading speech. I cannot think of any angle that has not been covered, and when I find the person who wrote this, I will kill them, I think. It has covered everything, and I congratulate them.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Liquor Amendment Bill (No 4) to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL (No 2)
(Serial 192)
(Serial 192)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to make consequential amendments to various Northern Territory laws following passage of the Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Bill, and the Associations Bill in the October 2003 sittings of the Legislative Assembly, and the recent amendments to Part IIA of the Criminal Code.
None of the amendments reflect substantive changes in policy. The bill updates references in other laws to reflect the repeal of the Commercial Tenancies Act and the Associations Incorporation Act, and their replacement with the Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act and the Associations Act respectively. Other amendments reflect changes in terminology used in the Associations Act. For example, the term ‘constitution’ is now used instead of ‘rules’. These amendments are self-explanatory.
Part 8 of the Law of Property Act deals with leases and tenancies. Section 114(1) sets out that if a provision of other specific tenancy legislation is capable of applying, then the provisions of Part 8 do not apply. Section 114(2) then goes on to set out, so as to avoid doubt, which provisions of the act do or do not apply in various situations. Section 114(2)(c) sets out which provisions of the Law and Property Act apply to leases under the Commercial Tenancies Act, now Part 13 of the Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act. Once such provision is section 137, which sets out the procedure for terminating a tenancy and gaining possession of the premises under the Law of Property Act. However, the Commercial Tenancies Act, now Part 13 of the Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act, also sets out a procedure for terminating a tenancy and gaining possession of premises. Imposing two quite different procedures in different courts for terminating a tenancy and gaining possession of the property is clearly not intended.
Accordingly, this bill omits the reference to section 137 of the Law of Property Act from section 114(2)(c) and instead moves the reference to section 114(2)(d), making it clear that the provisions of the Commercial Tenancies Act, now Part 13 of the Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act relating to terminating a tenancy and gaining possession of a property, apply to leases under that act, not the provisions under Part 8 of the Law of Property Act.
The Mental Health and Related Services Act is amended so as to omit a reference to section 382 of the Criminal Code, which no longer exists. The reference to section 382 should be replaced with a reference to Part IIA of the Criminal Code.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
FIREARMS AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 194)
(Serial 194)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
As honourable members will recall, amendments to the Firearms Act were passed on 19 June this year. These amendments were intended to complement and complete the government’s reform package in relation to the possession, use and storage of firearms, and will greatly assist in the administration of the act. The majority of these amendments involve minor administrative changes. Some, however, involve a change of direction significant enough to warrant special comment.
First, however, there are two amendments I would like to raise. These amendments clarify amendments which were made in the earlier bill. The first of these relates to the unintended effect of requiring a person to obtain a permit to attend an open day at a firearms club, and shoot a category H firearm under supervision. A category H firearm is, as honourable members will recall, a hand gun or an air pistol. This was impracticable and unworkable, both for the firearms clubs and for administrative workability. This government has no intention of kerbing a firearms club from attracting new members. Therefore, where a firearms club wishes to hold an open day, the club, as opposed to the visitor attending, will be required to obtain the relevant permit. This permit will cater for any visitor attending the open day at the club.
The second amendment clarifies that the restriction of possession of firearms manufactured after 31 December 1947 by the holder of the firearms collectors licence, who is also a student of arms under section 35C(2) is to be limited to category H firearms only. As the provision was previously worded, the collector was unable to possess any category of firearm.
I now turn to the specific provisions under the bill. To complete the government’s reform obligations under the Australasian Police Ministers Council National Firearms Traffic and Policy Agreement, offences of trafficking in firearms have been inserted into the act. The penalties for the offences are significant. A person will be taken to be trafficking in firearms if the person sells a firearm in contravention of the amended sale procedures on three or more occasions over a 30-day period. Where a firearm sold and at least one of the contraventions was a prohibited firearm, the penalty is to be aggravated to a term of imprisonment of 15 years. Where, however, each sale involved a prohibited firearm, the penalty is imprisonment for 20 years. As I mentioned, it is proposed to insert new procedures for the selling of a firearm.
It will also include offences for the purchase of a firearm. Essentially, where a sale or a purchase is to occur, it must be arranged through the holder of a firearms dealer’s licence, or be witnessed by a member of the police force. In addition, the seller is to, first, sight the purchaser’s licence or permit; second, complete the particulars of the sale on the permit authorising the purchase; and finally, return the permit to the commissioner within seven days of the sale. It is an offence not to comply with each of these procedures.
The bill contains a provision relating to procedures to do with selling ammunition. In recent days, police discussions with firearms council representatives have identified some workability issues about this measure. Consistent with this government’s approach of working cooperatively with shooting interests, and taking on board the issues that are raised, I have asked police to work through these matters and put to government suggestions that will address the issues that have been identified. On that basis, I foreshadow that I will be proposing committee stage amendments to deal with this measure during consideration of this bill in the February sittings. Any such amendment will be made available before the matter comes on for debate through the usual channels and, if requested, a briefing can be facilitated.
The next APMC amendment concerns the offence of, amongst other things, conspiring, aiding or soliciting a person in the Territory to commit an offence in a place outside of the Territory in circumstances that correspond to the provision under the act. For example, where a person conspires with another person in the Territory to commit an offence under a law in New South Wales, and a similar offence exists in the act and the offence is carried out in New South Wales, the person is deemed to have committed the offence in the Territory and is liable to the same penalty as if the offence were carried out in the Territory.
I turn to the remainder of the proposed amendments to the Firearms Act. The first amendment adopts the recommendations of Chief Magistrate Bradley to review the appeal procedures against any decision or action of the commissioner. As the act currently stands, the appeal procedures are unclear and uncertain. It is proposed to clarify the appeal process and allow the chairperson who is a magistrate, to determine questions of law or procedure without the need to convene a tribunal. This is intended to save time and costs for both parties and other members of the tribunal. Procedures relating to, amongst others, witnesses, rules of evidence, an extension period for the lodgment of notices of appeal and costs are also included. Finally, an appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law is inserted.
Other proposed amendments will remove a number of anomalies under the act and I will briefly discuss them.
The first includes clarifying that the grant of a licence is not a renewal of the person’s licence. It results from a fresh application. This amendment was considered necessary because it was never intended that a licence or permit holder would have a legitimate expectation that his or her licence or permit would be renewed. It is a new application. Where the commissioner refuses to grant a new licence, permit or certificate, the person must deliver up any firearms to which the licence, permit or certificate relates within the period specified in the notice. This includes any ammunition relating to the firearm.
The next amendment clarifies that a certain extract or copy of entry in the register kept by the commissioner is to be received by a court as evidence of the particulars contained in the entry without the need to produce the register. In addition, a certificate signed by the commissioner is to be taken by a court to prima facie evidence of the matters stated in the certificate and of the facts on which they are based.
The third amendment clarifies that the holder of a firearms corporate licence is not to permit a person to possess or use a firearm under the corporate licence unless the person is the holder of a firearms employee licence or a firearms instructor licence. The penalty for the offence remains unamended. If the commissioner or a court suspends or revokes an employee’s or instructor’s licence, the commissioner must inform the holder of the corporate licence of the fact. Without this provision, the holder of the corporate licence would not be in the position of being able to be informed of the employee’s or the instructor’s suspension or revocation of its licence and would therefore inadvertently be in breach of the act.
Madam Speaker, with the introduction of the automatic revocation of a person’s licence or permit for various offences under the act, including serious offences under the Criminal Code and the Misuse of Drugs Act, the commissioner has ended up providing de facto storage facilities for a number of surrendered or seized firearms. This has caused administrative and security difficulties. Where a firearm is unable to be returned to a firearms owner because his or her licence or permit has been suspended or revoked, it is proposed to give the commissioner the power to serve a notice on the person directing that he or she sell or dispose of the firearm. On the other hand, where the commissioner is holding a person’s firearm and there is no legal requirement for him to do so, the commissioner may serve a notice on the person directing the person to take possession of the firearm. If after 28 days or such other period the commissioner specifies, the person fails to comply with the direction, the firearm is deemed to be unclaimed property for the purposes of section 166 of the Police Administration Act and may be sold or otherwise disposed of. In addition, the commissioner will be able to charge fees for the storage of any firearms.
Other minor consequential amendments have been made to the act and regulations and provide a much fairer and easily administered Firearms Act for all Territorians. A balance needs to be drawn between firearms ownership and control and the threat that firearms can pose to the community in general. The government feels that these amendments strike that balance and provides a fairer system for those Territorians who possess and use firearms.
Finally, I recognise the support and assistance given by the Northern Territory Shooters Council, now the Northern Territory Firearms Council, in putting these amendments together.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT BILL (No 3)
(Serial 200)
(Serial 200)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
All members will be aware of the increasing community concerns and annoyance in relation to antisocial driving behaviour, commonly referred to as ‘hooning’. Hooning activities primarily involve young people illegally racing their vehicles on public streets or participating in burn-out displays, placing themselves, their passengers, spectators and other road users at risk of serious injury. The Martin government has had many representations from members of the community asking the government to do something that will address antisocial driving behaviour.
The member for Nelson, Mr Gerry Wood, introduced a Private Member’s Bill in the February 2003 Legislative Assembly sittings to address hooning behaviour. This bill is an extension of that member’s proposals and has been developed in close consultation with the police and relates only to the use of motor vehicles on roads or public places. In addressing the issue, the government has taken a responsible approach by developing balanced legislation that specifically addresses hooning behaviour. However, it is fair because punitive action can only be taken through the judicial process.
The practice of hooning not only causes annoyance to the community, it is a downright dangerous practice that has potentially disastrous outcomes of serious injury or loss of life to those involved and innocent bystanders.
Young drivers are at significantly greater risk of being involved in a road crash in the Northern Territory, and this risk is compounded when young people combine with high powered vehicles and high risk activities such as street racing on a road or in a public place. It is important to note that we are not talking about organised off-street events held at racetracks or the like. The practice of hotting up cars and racing is not new and has probably been going on for the last 50 years.
However, cars and technologies have advanced greatly. Vehicles nowadays are tuned by laptops and algorithms. The cars are not necessarily big thumping V8s. Small four-cylinder cars can be modified and tuned to reach extreme speeds. The more mildly modified cars can reach speeds of about 140 km/h over a quarter mile. When the fully worked vehicles come out, it becomes truly scary. These cars easily reach speeds of more than 200 km/h. Speeds of this magnitude may be okay on race tracks in a controlled environment, however out in a public street, the story is different. Police advise that most accidents occur when innocent people pull out of a car park or side street, unaware of the oncoming racers or their speed.
I certainly would not want my children riding with young inexperienced drivers at these speeds, and I am sure most parents in the community would agree with me. The unlawful races are highly organised and they use latest technology to set up meetings, issue challenges and avoid law enforcement.
Current laws provide powers for police to issue infringement notices for creating undue noise or careless driving and, for more serious offences, they charge offenders with dangerous driving or driving at dangerous speeds. However, the existing penalties appear to have provided little deterrence.
I will address the major features and powers for police contained in this bill. For a first offence of hooning behaviour, police can issue an infringement notice. The issue of an infringement notice will be taken as a finding of guilt by a court. Any subsequent hooning offences brought before a court will result in further convictions being recorded against an offender.
When a second conviction has been recorded, the court can make an order to take the offender’s vehicle for 48 hours. For a third conviction, the court can make an order to have the offender’s vehicle impounded for up to three months. For a fourth conviction, the court can make an order to have the offender’s vehicle forfeited to the Territory. If the court is satisfied that impounding or forfeiting the vehicle to the Territory will cause severe financial or physical hardship to the owner or the usual driver, the court can order that the vehicle be returned to the owner or usual driver and can impose such conditions that the court considers appropriate.
The amendments will result in:
the establishment of a new part of the Traffic Act for the enforcement of antisocial driving behaviour
and vehicle use;
use including organising, promoting, participating in and attending street racing and driving in a reckless
manner such as doing burnouts; and
nature strips. This offence is in line with the concerns expressed by Mr Wood in his second reading speech
for his Private Member’s Bill introduced in February 2003.
The proposed amendments will allow police to issue an infringement notice and impound the vehicle only after the second occurrence and only on application to the court. The bill protects people whose vehicle have been stolen, are rental cars, owned by finance companies or otherwise have an interest in the vehicle. However, such persons must satisfy the court that the offence was committed without their knowledge or consent. If the owner of the vehicle had knowledge of the offence, or it was committed with their consent, there is no protection.
The bill also provides that all financial responsibility for the towing, storing and impounding the vehicle lies with the offender. The police do not wish to assume responsibility or liability for collecting or looking after impounded vehicles. In this respect, it is intended that police appoint a commercial tow truck operator on a period contract to manage the process, including collecting the vehicle, storing the vehicle and collecting fees for storing the vehicle, and disposing of the vehicle should it reach that level of seriousness.
The proceeds for the eventual sale of the vehicle are to go to the Territory, following the allocation of funds for the cost of selling the vehicle. This includes storage and handling costs, and any amount owing to a third party with a security interest in the vehicle.
The bill includes the requirement for a review of the first five years of operation of the legislation. The bill also clarifies the current regulation making powers contained in the Traffic Act, and excludes section 38, driving at dangerous speed, from being a regulatory offence. This offence is considered serious.
This bill is about preserving the rights of Territorians to move safely and freely about the community, without being harassed or put at risk by the life-endangering actions of a small few, nor shall we tolerate our open-air lifestyle being constantly disrupted by these antisocial activities.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COUNCIL (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 198)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The National Environment Protection Council is a ministerial body established under the Commonwealth National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 and under complementary legislation in all states and territories. The council has two primary functions. First, to make national environment protection measures and, second, to assess and report on the implementation of national environment protection measures and their effectiveness in participating jurisdictions.
To date, the council has made six national environment protection measures covering ambient air quality, assessment of site contamination, movement of hazardous waste between jurisdictions, national pollutant inventory, diesel vehicle emissions, and used packaging.
The principal advisory body to the council is the National Environment Protection Committee, which comprises the executive officer, who manages the council’s service corporation, one nominee of each council member, and a non-voting observer appointed by the president of the Australian Local Government Association. The service corporation assists the council and committee by providing secretariat, project management and administrative services. The statutory functions of the council now come under the umbrella of the Environment Protection and Heritage Council.
The Commonwealth National Environment Protection Council Amendment Act 2002 was assented to on 19 December 2002. This act includes two primary amendments. First, recognition of other ministerial councils with responsibility for environmental protection and, second, provisions to facilitate minor variations to national environment protection measures without the full consultation required under the original act.
Minor variations are those that do not alter the requirement of national environment protection measures. Such minor measures would include changing spelling errors, name changes to organisations referred to in the measure, or other administrative modifications. The public consultation for such minor variations will be simplified. Before making a minor variation, council must publish a notice in the Commonwealth Gazette and a Northern Territory newspaper inviting submissions to council on the proposed variation. Submissions will be received for at least one month after the publication of the notice, and the council must consider any submissions received.
Any proposed changes that would substantially alter a national environment protection measure by, for example, adding or deleting substances to be monitored or changing monitoring procedures would still require the full statutory public consultation process to be carried out. In addition, the Commonwealth National Environment Protection Council Act has been subject to amendments through two other legislative changes that affect minor administrative procedures of the councils and the service corporation.
These are, first, the Audit (Transitional and Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 1997, which includes amendment to the Commonwealth National Environment Protection Council Act, which placed requirements on the service corporation. The two functions of that particular act are: first, to prepare an annual report for each financial and provide this to the Commonwealth minister and all ministers in the ministerial council; and second, for banking, investment and financial accounting arrangements.
The second major area that I mentioned previously is the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Act 1999 which includes amendments to the Commonwealth National Environment Protection Council Act dealing with conditions of employment of the executive officer and the staff of the service corporation.
All jurisdictions are required to maintain corresponding legislation for the National Environment Protection Council Act. As per the 1992 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, Commonwealth legislative changes affecting the National Environment Protection Council Act must be incorporated into corresponding legislation in all states and territories. In recognition of these changes and of the Territory’s requirement to maintain corresponding legislation, the draft National Environment Protection Council Northern Territory Amendment Bill 2003 has been prepared.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 1 of 2003
Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 1 of 2003
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I table the Remuneration Tribunal Report and Determination No 1 of 2003.
MOTION
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report
and Determination No 1 of 2003
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report
and Determination No 1 of 2003
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper.
The Leader of Government Business provided a written submission to the Remuneration Tribunal Chair on behalf of government on 13 October of this year. You, Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson, the Clerk of the Assembly, and the opposition made written submissions. Additional evidence was also taken in Darwin from 8 to 11 October. This determination does not recommend substantial changes to members’ entitlements. The tribunal made structural changes to the format of Determination No 2 of 2002 to increase clarity and simplicity in relation to members’ entitlements. This report continues that process without fundamentally changing the scope of members’ entitlements.
The tribunal notes entitlements as office holders remuneration and electoral allowances have not been substantially increased for some time, and remuneration for officer holders is progressively declining in relation to the base salary of members. Similarly, the real value of electorate allowances is also declining. The tribunal has recommended a CPI increase of approximately 1.8% to office holders’ salaries and to electorate allowances.
The tribunal has also made some structural changes to the report to set out more logical arrangements of the determination, particularly in relation to travel. Further, the report has clarified some uncertainties and anomalies in previous determinations. Changes include an increase in the flexibility of use of trips within the Northern Territory by the opposition. The tribunal has determined travelling allowance nights and the number of trips can be pooled and used by shadow ministers collectively, increasing their flexibility in travelling around the Territory, and there will be no additional cost to taxpayers.
In relation to communications, the tribunal has recommended that the mobile phone allowance paid to members be discontinued and, in line with current practice for senior public servants and ministers, members will be provided with mobile phones and broadband Internet access to complete their duties on their constituents’ behalf more efficiently. The tribunal has recommended members reimburse 15% of mobile phone charges, with this amount to remain under review by the tribunal.
The tribunal has also recommended electorate allowances be adjusted for the increase in the standard letter rate of postage, in addition to Darwin’s CPI increase to electorate allowances generally.
In summary, the reduction in the mobile phone allowance, the increase in the stamp costs and the application of the CPI amount will mean no change in the rate of electorate allowances payable to urban members, and very little change in the rate paid to regional members.
Madam Speaker, there is very little change overall, but it continues the process of clarification and removing anomalies. The report covers other matters for members and it should be read by all. The government accepts the tribunal determination. I place on record my thanks to tribunal Chair, Otto Alder and his team for their work.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
PARKS AND RESERVES (FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE) BILL
(Serial 180)
(Serial 180)
Continued from 8 October 2003.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this bill is yet another example of the way that this Labor government twists and turns events to implement policies it knows may not be popular with the bulk of Territorians.
The Chief Minister passes off this bill as a brilliant resolution of a problem presented to her by the activities of the previous government and exposed by a High Court decision. That is how it is passed off: ‘We are just solving the problems left behind by that other mob,’ the Chief Minister claims. If she was honest with Territorians, she would admit right up-front that this is not solving a problem but rather, an opportunity to implement another policy that was never mentioned before the election; an opportunity to change the Territory forever and pay off some of the many debts that Labor owes to the major land councils.
The Chief Minister makes it clear in the opening remarks of the second reading speech:
- The Territory’s parks and reserves will be substantially enriched by recognition of traditional ownership.
Why proceed with this charade without solving a crisis caused by a court decision? Why doesn’t the government move to make all the Territory’s parks Aboriginal land? Is it because they are not game to do it and are using this so-called crisis to begin the process? Let’s go back to October last year when the Chief Minister revealed the problem. She said then legal advice showed that:
- A recent High Court decision has the effect of 50 of the Northern Territory parks being invalidly declared.
Ms Martin: Forty-nine.
Mr MILLS: In fact, it was 49 parks or reserves and not 50. For 38 of the parks, it related to native title. They were declared under legislation that did not acknowledge native title. Why was that? Native title had not been enunciated by the High Court nor recognised by Australian law when the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly. Native title did not exist in law when the parks were declared. The Solicitor-General, in his advice to the government last year, made it clear the validity of these claims was only questionable under the High Court ruling if native title did in fact exist when they were originally declared. The Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act was amended in 1998 to acknowledge native title, and the quickest solution to the ‘potential’, that is the Solicitor-General’s word, the potential threat to the 38 parks was to re-declare them under the provisions of the amended act. The government moved rapidly to do this on 7 November last year, thereby making all 38 validly declared parks and reserves. That action left the question of native title - whether it existed or not, whether any claims had been made or not - to be sorted out on those 38.
The same issue arises in all Territory parks if a native title claim is made. However, this government has decided that it will accept the existence of native title on many of these parks and negotiate a deal without bothering to establish who has the native title rights, if anybody, or what those rights might be. The government needs to make it clear that it regards native title in the same way the court has: it is a ‘bundle of rights’ and not ‘underlying title to land’. It needs to make this clear not only inside negotiations, but publicly as well. It needs to make it clear that it is negotiating compensation regarding these bundle of rights and not handing over the underlying title because there is or may be some native title in existence. To do otherwise may set a precedent for later negotiations, or even litigation regarding native title in other parts of the Territory. To do otherwise may falsely and cruelly raise the hopes of native title claimants elsewhere in the Territory that native title does indeed give them title to the land. The courts have ruled that this is not the case. The Native Title Tribunal says this is not the case. The government needs to make it clear it believes that this is not the case.
Madam Speaker, what I have outlined is how the government moved to resolve the so-called crisis in relation to most of the parks, but the High Court decision meant another 10 parks and reserves and parts of the 11th were subject to valid claim under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The High Court decision meant this small group of parks had no underlying tenure and therefore any land claim made before the sunset clause of 1997 came into effect could now proceed.
That left the government with a choice: does it allow any land rights claims to proceed through the system of a land commissioner’s investigation, or does it proceed to establish the validity of any land rights claim to the parks through the courts, or does it negotiate some form of settlement?
The government chose the latter course but, in doing so, decided to negotiate not just in relation to the 11 parks and reserves subject to land rights claims, but many more of our parks and reserves. I do not have any problem with the government pursuing a negotiated settlement. As the Chief Minister has pointed out in this House, she is just following the precedent CLP governments set in trying to find negotiated settlements.
It was a rare moment of acknowledging the truth of what happened in the past rather than the Chief Minister’s normal distorting of history. However, it is the outcome of Labor’s negotiations that trouble this side of the House. She has negotiated with the land councils so well that before the negotiations are even finished, she has conceded she will move to have all 10 parks and the whole of the 11th declared Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act notwithstanding that they have only been claimed, not ruled, to be Schedule 1 land under the act.
To reinforce how good this Labor government is at negotiating, it has decided an additional three parks and reserves should become Aboriginal land even though they were not open to claim. It then decided it was not being tough enough in the negotiation to decide that another six parks, or proposed parks and reserves, should also become Aboriginal owned land under a new category of title it is introducing called ‘park freehold’. To ensure that everyone knew who was in charge of these tough negotiations, it threw in a further 12 parks that would come under joint management.
We are getting a bit ahead of ourselves. This bill is to establish a framework for the negotiations that are expected to run until 30 June next year, or possibly even December next year. The Chief Minister has given herself 12 months to convince the land councils that she will accede to their demands. It must be hard negotiating with this Labor government. You do not make any demands. You just say thanks, and thanks again; and you want to give us that as well? Well, thanks very much, and you are giving us that, too, well, thanks again.
The government has no mandate to hand over so much of the park estate that was, in effect, owned by all Territorians, to the ownership of small groups of Territorians, but it has the power and ability to do so. I just wish they were up-front and honest with Territorians, and told them that they, the Labor government, believe all this land should be owned by Aboriginal Territorians.
Instead, they hide behind a High Court decision. They pretend that they are solving a problem. They try to kid Territorians that they are negotiating a deal because they have to. Please, be honest. Why not stand and declare you think all this park estate should not be in common hands but rightfully belongs to the traditional people of the various areas? Be honest and state openly that this is no problem to be solved; this is a golden opportunity for you to implement Labor policy on land rights.
There are a number of other elements of this bill I wish to touch on. The first relates to money. How much is this going to cost Territorians both now and in years to come? In her comments during the debate in this House on this subject a year ago, the Chief Minister came up with a figure of $50m as compensation. I believe it is the only time she put any figures on this at all, apart from trying to suggest that it would cost $100m to take the whole matter through the courts.
What are the costs involved in this negotiated settlement? The Chief Minister has been unable to tell us, apart from that hint last year. The Chief Minister can estimate the cost of litigation, but she can not estimate the cost of negotiation. Will there be any up-front compensation for native title for all or any of the parks and reserves? Will there be any compensation up-front for the land that is now to become Schedule 1 land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act? Will there be any payment in relation to the land that is to now become park freehold land? What up-front payment will be paid for the Schedule 5 land, and exactly what does this land comprise?
You then move back to the arrangements of the 99 year leaseback of the land. In one of the question and answer briefs issued by the government, it says:
The leaseback arrangements provide for a moratorium on rental payments for the parks, after which rent will be repayable at rates to be calculated by the Australian Valuation Office.
However, there is no mention of this moratorium in the Schedule 4 principles for lease of the parks, nor did the Chief Minister mention it in her speech. Is there still to be a moratorium on rental payments? How long will it last? Will it be the same for all leases? Does the Chief Minister yet have any idea on how much her government and future governments of the Territory will have to put aside to lease back the parks they presently own or get for free? Between the issue of the draft legislation and the introduction of this bill, clause 5 of the principles has changed. In the draft, clause 5 of the core principles that must be agreed to read:
- The lease must require the lessee to permit Territorians and visitors to the Territory to use the park or reserve on a no fee, no permit basis.
This has now changed to:
- If the land the subject of the lease is Aboriginal land, the lease must require the lessor to permit Territorians and visitors to the Territory to enter the park or reserve without an entry permit.
I also presume that the parks and proposed parks that are to become park freehold land will be granted free of charge by the new Park Land Trusts. Although I note that if the government needs to acquire them back at any stage, they will have to pay a full price, and that price needs to be established, ignoring any restriction on the use of the land. In other words, it could well be an inflated price. The Park Land Trusts are to be set up by the Chief Minister, but it is not clear who will make up or control the trusts. The bill says the trust will hold the title:
- … for the benefit of Aborigines entitled by Aboriginal tradition to the use or occupation of the land over which the park freehold is granted.
It is worth noting that the trust is not holding the title for the traditional owners of the land, but it is more for those who may have a sort of native title on the land. However, there is a provision that at some later stage, the trust may surrender the park freehold title or parts of it so that the land can be granted to traditional owners. It is curious that the government has taken this two-step approach. If there are traditional owners, why does not the trust hold the land for them from the beginning? If there are not traditional owners now, where will they come from in the future? The absence of any method of establishing who are the Aborigines entitled to the use or occupation of land vested in the trust also suggests that the Chief Minister is going to set up these trusts and worry about who is going to benefit and who might or might not be owner sometime in the future. There is no suggestion or direction as to who will be part of the trust, and therefore actually control and own the land and receive the lease payments. It is all in the gift of the Chief Minister. In fact, between the draft of this bill and the one introduced, clauses relating to the trust receiving payments for the lease and distributing it to the traditional owners have disappeared.
Another area of this bill that concerns me is what happens to those who have developed visitor facilities in these parks? The core principles for the lease include the condition that preference be given to the participation of traditional owners in any commercial activities. The government, in the past, has spoken about business as usual and the protection of existing tourism concessions. But how long does that protection last? Is it not the case that once any commercial venture needs to renew its present permit to operate within a park, the new rules will apply, and preference will have to be given to participation of the traditional owners under the terms of the lease? The years and expense of building up commercial ventures in our parks, whether they be permanent structures or simply a permit to operate tours, etcetera, may well be lost very quickly under this preference clause. The government should look at compensating commercial operators should they have to either hand over the business wholly or in part to other parties because of this arrangement in the lease.
Given the questions I raised earlier about the parks freehold title and, in the spirit of the government’s intention with this bill, clause 6 of the principles for leaseback should be expanded to not only give preference to the traditional owners, but also those who will benefit from the trust. Not to do so would appear to exclude the six-part freehold title parks and reserves in Schedule 2 from this preference clause.
Yet another area of concern is the exclusion of Part 5, Division 2 of the Planning Act, which relates to public consultation, notification and display of development plans. There will be no need for public consultation on park freehold land unless the Planning minister decides it appropriate. It would appear anything can happen on park freehold land and only the Planning minister need know about it.
The six parks, reserves or proposed parks over which park freehold title is to be granted, are becoming more mysterious by the moment. This is not a framework for the future for our parks but, rather, it is a flawed way for this party to implement its policy. It will change forever the park estate of the Territory, yet we are expected to approve it without knowing what it is going to cost this and future generations. I believe there is an amount of goodwill within this community with regards to propositions such as those outlined here, but we certainly need a greater amount of time for these issues to be embedded in the wider community.
If the ownership of some parks need to be conceded, then so be it. But you do not hand over sections of the park estate that rightly belong to all Territorians. If you want to institute joint management plans or include traditional Territorians in the management of parks, do so, but that can be done without losing ownership.
Madam Speaker, we cannot support a bill that gives the Chief Minister the right to negotiate away our parks, and then make Territorians pay to lease them back. We do not support the way the government is going about this; we do not support the bill.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I must say how disappointed I am by the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition. One of two things happened in that he has got rid of the staff who worked for the former Leader of the Opposition and therefore has new speech writers who do not have any history in regards to …
Mrs Miller: Wrong.
Mr AH KIT: … historical happenings. I pick up the interjection ‘wrong’ from the member for Port Darwin …
Mrs Miller: No, no member for Katherine.
Mr AH KIT: The member for Katherine. Fine. She seems to know a lot and she has only been here a short time. I can tell her I have been here eight years. I have been around the Territory for a lot longer; born and bred here in the Northern Territory.
Mr Baldwin: Me, too.
Mr AH KIT: We will come to you shortly if you want. You are the person who had a protest in your electorate at the community of Wadeye with a couple of hundred people …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, get on with the debate.
Mr AH KIT: … complaining about how you looked after them.
It has not taken long for the new Leader of the Opposition to come out with this real redneck tag and start picking up the lines of the CLP such as ‘Let’s kick the living daylights out of the land councils and Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act’. He shakes his head, but that is what he is doing.
Yesterday we saw a situation with the amendment relating to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act being discriminatory. We shall certainly be out there telling Aboriginal people that your opposition and your leadership has not changed much at all in regards to how it is being run over the last 27 years.
However, what we face, with the parks and reserves legislation being considered today, is a choice between moving forward or moving backward. The Chief Minister has outlined the ways in which we will move forward, and I want to talk about particular aspects of the great potential this legislation will deliver to us, particularly in the area of regional development.
As I have said in this House and elsewhere on many occasions, if we abandon the regional and remote ares of the Northern Territory, our future will be very bleak indeed. As I have warned a number of times, we face the real danger of perpetuating a permanent under class with the Northern Territory operating as a financial basket case. This is not something that has developed overnight. It is something that has been growing, cancer-like, over the past 30 years for the simple reason that regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory were largely abandoned over that period.
Not since the construction of the beef roads in the 1960s has there been any serious attempt to capitalise and sustain the bush with one exception: that of national parks. Uluru Katajuta, Kakadu, Nitmiluk and Litchfield National Parks have been the only source of serious and sustainable employment growth in remote areas of the Northern Territory over the last 30 years. Through a combination of public and private investment, including key commercial investments at places like Nitmiluk and Kakadu by Aboriginal interests, we have seen the foundations of sustaining regional and remote economies and the benefits that can flow from that. The jobs that exist in and around our national parks now simply did not exist 30 years ago. It is an entirely new industry sector.
This is a profoundly important economic lesson for the Northern Territory, yet one that has been largely ignored. When, back in August 1988, the former CLP Chief Minister Marshall Perron signed off on agreements with the Jawoyn traditional owners of Nitmiluk to establish an interim board of management for the park, there was great hope that the era of confrontation over land rights had ended. Even the former member for Katherine, Mr Mike Reed, welcomed the bill to establish Nitmiluk, introduced by Conservation minister, Daryl Manzie, in February 1989. He said in this Legislative Assembly:
The processes and agreements that have been put in place will do much to heal the rifts that existed in the community previously and will lead, I believe, to racial harmony in Katherine as the two communities are brought together. That will be achieved through a variety of ways through the opportunity for the Jawoyn people to participate in the business community.
Yes, the former member for Katherine identified a key outcome for the economy: the engagement of Aboriginal people in the economy. Everyone here would agree that the achievements of the Jawoyn people in engaging with the mainstream economy have been exemplary. These achievements would not have been possible without their role as traditional owners at Nitmiluk and the joint management arrangements that were put in place back in 1989 by the CLP government of the time.
It is a pity that the former member for Katherine did not heed his own words. As a Conservation minister, more importantly, as Treasurer, he helped preside over 12 years of wasted opportunity with respect to resolving land rights and native title issues surrounding our national parks. This legislation provides the beginning of a blueprint that will, at long last, take up a challenge of properly developing national parks in the Northern Territory as well as consolidate the advances that have been achieved so far.
The first and fundamentally most important effect of this legislation is that national parks are identified for the first time as an industry sector in their own right. There is a clear recognition on both economic and scientific grounds that national parks are not a series of discrete, separate blocks of country, but must be viewed as a continuum of related ecosystems that must also speak to other forms of land users. It is an industry sector that, by definition, must work towards sustainability. National parks are not made up of raw materials that can be consumed or processed. They depend on biodiversity and other natural heritage values that must be maintained. More importantly, and inextricably linked to this, national parks in the Northern Territory must also depend on the cultural and social sustainability of the traditional owners and native title holders of these parks.
This is not rocket science: national parks in the Northern Territory depend utterly on both indigenous and non-indigenous knowledge systems and as an industry sector in its own right, the master planning process now being undertaken will be aimed at achieving sound relations with other industry sectors such as tourism, transport, pastoral, horticultural and construction.
The second important aspect of this legislation is the inclusion of indigenous interests through the land councils as partners in both the negotiation and master planning processes. The days of making decisions in some back room are over, which is precisely the reason the parameters of negotiation are so clearly spelt out in the legislation before us today.
Finally, the legislation identifies the essential role national parks will play in indigenous economic development, the most under-developed sector in the Territory. Was has been the response of those opposite? While the Martin Labor government is in the process of developing through its master planning process a modern, forward-looking approach to sustainable development, the opposition has adopted a backward looking approach. It seems their only idea of a national park is a kind of Jurassic Park populated by slow, lumbering small-brained creatures stumbling towards extinction, not dissimilar from the dinosaurs sitting across this Chamber. Their ideas belong to the prehistoric past, a past in which the Northern Territory economy was comprehensively and cruelly stripped by the costs of litigation. Yet this is exactly what these sad remnants of the Mesozoic era sitting across there want to continue doing. No wonder they face extinction!
There is one simple truth in all of this: litigation has not created a single job in the bush, not a single job for an indigenous Territorian, not a single job for a non-indigenous Territorian. Do visitors to the Northern Territory come to sit in the Supreme Court or Federal Court to watch a bunch of lawyers arguing over native title? I don’t think so. Does the money spent on litigation do anything to encourage tourists to visit the Territory? Of course not. Has the money that has been thrown at litigation built a single hotel room or opened up a single national park as a tourist destination? Not likely.
The Parks and Reserves Bill takes as part of its title Framework for the Future because that is what it is about: the future of all of us in the Territory. This bill is not isolated legislation; it fits in with the Building Stronger Regions - Stronger Futures strategy I announced in Alice Springs earlier this year and the Building a Better Territory strategy announced by the Chief Minister last year. It mirrors the growing number of regional development plans being drawn up in our regional and remote areas. It has important links to the outcomes of the Indigenous Economic Development Forum, Seizing our Economic Future, in Alice Springs earlier this year as well as the Indigenous Governance conference in Jabiru last month.
The kinds of cultural and social sustainability so necessary to our national parks I spoke of a few minutes ago are also reflected in the Building Strong Arts Business indigenous arts strategy released by the Chief Minister at the Garma Festival in August. It is no accident that so many of our announcements on the future of the Territory are made south of the Berrimah line in our regional and remote areas.
Madam Speaker, as events of the last few weeks have demonstrated, the age of the political dinosaur is drawing to a close. This government is about planning for and investing in the future of the Northern Territory, and that includes the development of our national parks as a strong, vibrant sector in our economy.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I find this bill difficult for two reasons. One, because I agree with the principle that Aboriginal people should be involved in parks. There is a great benefit to Aboriginal people living in areas where there are parks, and if they can improve their economic life by using the parks, that is terrific. The more Aboriginal people we have employed in parks, from a purely economic point of view, I am not even talking about a social point of view, encourages more tourists to the Northern Territory. The one thing I have heard over a number of years is that it is very hard to see an Aboriginal person employed in Kakadu. On tours, the guide is always a white person. I am not sure why that problem exists in some of our bigger parks, but that is what I have heard. People come from overseas to experience indigenous culture, and sometimes it is not there. Be that as it may, the goal of trying to encourage Aboriginal people into parks is a good one. What the member for Arnhem and the Chief Minister said is important.
I will not support the bill. This is not because I do not support what the government is going to do. I do not agree with the process. Process is important. I am not necessarily going down the path of the opposition here, either. I have some concerns about why certain parks are in certain categories. When we look at the things the Chief Minister is authorised to do, the Chief Minister has too much power. That is not being derogatory of the Chief Minister, but under this bill, the Chief Minister has power to execute a lease or a joint management agreement on behalf of the Territory.
The Chief Minister said earlier in Question Time, and it has been stated before, that they would be using the model of Nitmiluk National Park, which has a plan of management, which is not called a joint management agreement, by the way. When a draft plan of management has been prepared, the board will put a notice in the Gazette to state that it has been prepared, invite interested persons to make representations in connection with the draft plan of management by such a date, being not earlier than one month after the date of publication, etcetera.
Basically, you can have a public exhibition of the draft management plan. After a certain period of time and public comment, what happens under the Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park Act is that it must come back to the Legislative Assembly …
Ms Martin: It does.
Mr WOOD: But the Legislative Assembly signs off on it.
Ms Martin: It does.
Mr WOOD: But where does it say that in the bill? That is what I cannot see. I have gone through it and I cannot see it. We have tried to pull out the word ‘Assembly’. It says:
- The Chief Minister has the power to execute …
When I looked up the word ‘execute’, it means to sign or seal. The Nitmiluk National Park act says the Assembly is the entity that signs off. That is an important distinction because one of the things that concerns me is that we have three schedules. A number of these parks already exist and, I presume, already have plans of management. It would be responsible, if we are going to change those plans of management, to bring it back to the public. I imagine the 14 parks in Schedule 1 have existing plans of management. Under this change, they are automatically up for a joint management agreement, and that joint management agreement, from everything I can read in the bill, does not have to come back to the Legislative Assembly.
The same would apply to Schedule 2, and Schedule 3 especially, as Schedule 3, I presume, are parks that have no claim on them at all. The government, I presume, has made a decision, taking into account what the member for Arnhem said about economic development etcetera, and has picked out these parks. In fact, one of my questions will be: why these parks and why not the whole lot? Why were these parks pulled out?
Again, I do not necessarily have a problem with the philosophy. I am a bit worried about the process of how those parks were selected. They would also have management plans. I am fairly sure the Fogg Dam Conservation Reserve has a management plan. If you took the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, which I presume a park like Fogg Dam comes under, not the Nitmiluk model, it stipulates that as soon as practicable after a park or reserve has been declared, the commission shall prepare a plan of management. That plan of management is advertised under section 18 of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and people can comment on it. That would move from the Parks act model to the Nitmiluk National Park Act model. It is my understanding that under the Nitmiluk act, you would have a majority of traditional owners on the board and they would sit down and work out the plan. When the plan has been advertised, people can comment, and then it must come back to the Assembly. There is a section here where the Assembly has the power to disallow it. Then, if it is disallowed a second time, it actually does not go to the minister; it is sent to an Aboriginal Land Commissioner appointed under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act or a panel of three persons who shall consider it.
It is a fairly complex system designed to make the Legislative Assembly the body that will sign off on plans and management. Perhaps people do not think that is so important. However, because some of these parks exist and we are introducing a new sphere - that is, Aboriginal control and management of some of these parks - it has to have a process where it will come back to this parliament to discuss. Regardless of what you think of the member for Goyder’s statement on squatting in Litchfield National Park – and I do not think that is an appropriate word - the point is that people would perhaps be concerned that inappropriate development of housing in a national park, which would come under the plan of management, could, in theory happen. If the only person who signs off on it, according to the act, is the Chief Minister, then there is a void where the public could be involved, that is, through the Legislative Assembly and through advertising. The process in this bill does not seem to give you that right. Perhaps I am wrong, but I cannot see it. In fact, I am not even sure, maybe it is here, whether it specifies that we are going to use the Nitmiluk version, but I know it has been said.
It is not about the idea that Aborigines should not have involvement. The process has to enable the public to have a say and the Legislative Assembly, I believe, should sign off on it.
I am concerned by the phrase ‘execute on behalf of the Territory a lease’. I am certainly no expert and I would imagine the Territory has to negotiate to some extent in confidentiality, and the Chief Minister, I presume, has to have some power to sign off on a lease, but I do not know what the process is to come back to the Legislative Assembly and say this is the lease arrangement for each park, this is what has been negotiated or whether lease arrangements come back for debate in this parliament. It is the process that worries me.
I do have some questions regarding the parks themselves. The Opposition Leader gave an explanation, which was the first time I have heard that detailed an explanation. I know, Chief Minister, you said to me one day that this is awfully complicated, but I will put these questions anyway because it would be better to have the government’s answer in Hansard so I can understand it.
Reading from your speech, Chief Minister, you say there were 49 Territory parks that had a possibility of being invalid. Eleven of these were open to proceed to hearing by the land commissioner, and they are the 11 that I presume are now included in Schedule 1. My question is: what happened to the 38 that were re-declared? Are they still subject to land claim, and what happened to the probability of them being valid? Is it a high or low probability? Are those 38 in some sort of limbo? According to the Opposition Leader, they have satisfied all the rules that they can exist as they are because native title had not come into existence at the time of declaration of these parks. I would like to clarify that.
I should say that I did have a briefing - I do not want anyone hitting me over the head because I did not have a briefing - but it left a lot of questions. I went back and there were more questions, and sometimes …
Mr Stirling: You can have more than one, Gerry. Have as many as you like.
Mr WOOD: I understand that. Believe it or not, as an Independent, there were some other bills on my mind as well. I do not know what they were, but they were on my mind.
There are 14 parks in Schedule 1. Where did the three extra come from, why are they on that schedule, and which ones are they? I have a fair idea of which ones they are, but it needs to be clarified. At the briefing, we did sort of get an understanding of Schedule 2, but it was fairly philosophical to some extent; it was more native title on them. I do not know whether there is a legal reason that we have a Schedule 2 in the first place. Why is it there? What is so special about those parks as distinct from any other parks? It needs to be defined. The answer I received at the briefing was a little bit ‘iffy’ and it would be worth having that explained.
In relation to Schedule 3, whilst I do not have any problem with joint management, I do have a problem that 12 parks have been selected and there will be joint management plans for them. They are parks for all Territorians. I am not trying to be smart, but there are two philosophies about parks in the Territory. There are parks where we have joint management and recognise Aboriginal people as intricate players in the running of these parks. We also have the concept - and you might say I am an old fuddy-duddy and the parks I think of are from Victoria – of having parks that belonged to the community under the jurisdiction of the government. They were parks for all; they were not parks about which anyone could say: ‘I have a special hold on that park’.
I know in the Northern Territory we have native title and land rights, and I accept that, but Litchfield National Park has been pulled out for joint management. I do not have a problem so much, but was the community involved in the idea that these parks should be selected as joint management parks? What I am trying to say is that those parks have been declared legally as national parks in the Territory. Why have you selected the ones you have?
Ms Martin: Subject to claim.
Mr WOOD: Is Litchfield National Park subject to claim?
Ms Martin: Parts of.
Mr WOOD: All right. What about Fogg Dam Conservation Reserve? I would have thought was declared about whoop-whoop, back in hillbilly time. So you are saying Schedule 3 are subject to land claim or native title claim?
Ms Martin: No, not land claim.
Mr WOOD: All right.
Ms Martin: Schedule 3 native title and the 11 - anyway, I will answer that.
Mr WOOD: Yes, all right. That is one of the difficulties in all of this. I know, Chief Minister, you made a second reading speech. It was not really clear from the second reading speech and even after the briefing, I wondered what was going on. If one has to explain it to the public, then it has to be a lot clearer to convince the public that this is a good idea.
I do not have a problem with Schedule 1. I need to find out why the other three are in there.
Ms Martin: Look at schedule 5.
Mr WOOD: I understand schedule 5 is where …
Ms Martin: That is the reason the other three are in there.
Mr WOOD: They come from an agreement between the Aboriginal landowners and the neighbouring national parks, at least one of them is, Gregory National Park.
I suppose then one could ask in the case of Gregory National Park: you have two parks existing there already, what is the status of the combined park? Is there any test that the entire park is, for instance, belonging to one only Aboriginal group?
I have all the parks here; I know where to go for holidays. For most of them, it is very easy to work it out that particular people are the traditional owners because they are surrounded by defined Aboriginal land. In the case of Litchfield National Park, which would have a number of groups surrounding it, are we going to have a process that will test to make sure that the right traditional owners are the ones involved? If we say: ‘Yes, the traditional owners can be part of a joint management plan’, will there be any court process at all to make sure we do not discriminate against another group of Aborigines - not so much whether the land has a traditional owner, but whether we have the right traditional owner? My family knows very well what it is like when a land council declares a traditional owner and they disagree. There needs to be a mechanism there.
This sums it up: at present, I am uncomfortable with what I see. I support the philosophy of what the government is trying to do, but I am not convinced that there are enough checks and balances on behalf of the Territory population as a whole to make sure that your powers – again, I am not saying it in a derogatory manner – have some checks and balances through this Assembly so people will know that plans of management have been approved by this Assembly, which would allow for debate if there is controversy over the plan of management. I will be interested to hear the Chief Minister’s comments.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I had a briefing last week to look at the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Bill, and wish to make a few comments in relation to the proposal.
As you are aware, we are blessed with many parks and reserves, ranging in various sizes right across our beautiful Territory, which provide a diverse range of experiences and activities to Territorians and visitors alike. We are renowned nationally and internationally for the great outdoor lifestyle that we experience due to the climate, the parks and the river systems we are fortunate enough to have. Thousands of campers and fishermen enjoy the natural wonders and outdoor experiences in our parks each year. Of course, our parks need to be managed and developed in a sustained manner to ensure their long term viability.
I was pleased to see, under a very large heading, ‘Community Consultation’, and that the crucial success of this master plan will rely on the full engagement of the wider community. I am very heartened to hear that, as I have had concerns expressed to me in my electorate about some aspects of this proposal.
I agree that our parks being managed and developed in a sustained manner is the only option for the future, and I am sure that there would not be a person sitting in here that did not agree with that, but it is the process of how we go about it that concerns me.
Since when does native title on 11 parks turn into a deal that throws in the rest of the parks, just in case some issue might come up in the future? I am asking the Martin Labor government: why are you planning to give our parks away? There was no mandate for government to implement these changes to legislation, so why are you copping out so willingly on parks that have no native title issues? These are the questions I am being asked by the community.
Other areas of concern I have with the proposal when it is implemented following 30 June 2004, include security of access for existing tourism operators. Tourism operators need reassurance that their operations will still be viable following the offer period, and that they have capacity to develop their operations should they so choose. There are no guarantees that the new owners will not increase the cost of the permits required to operate in the park, or that they will even issue a permit, considering preference is to be given to the participation of traditional owners in any commercial activity conducted within the park.
While this master plan states that there will be no entry costs to parks, it should not be lost on anyone that these parks are going to cost Territorians. We are being asked to hand over thousands of square kilometres, and millions of dollars in assets, to be leased back at a cost of millions of dollars, hardly what I would classify as free entry. The parks and reserves belong to all Territorians.
Another issue that concerns me is that the bill authorises the Chief Minister to execute etcetera, so I believe it has to come back here to the Legislative Assembly. Until we go out to the wider community, and I have more expressions of interest passed on to me, I do not support the bill in its present form.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I fully support the Chief Minister and this groundbreaking legislation that we have tonight. It is also very practical legislation in response to a problem that occurred not as a result of this government being on a massive social reform agenda, but by a decision of the High Court that was totally unexpected, the Ward case. Let us get the conspiracy theories out of this debate and look at the bill that is before the House this evening.
As I said, I propose to focus my comments on the bill’s effect on mining and exploration. For those with mining and petroleum interests, the relevant core principles enshrined in the bill are:
resolution of land claims under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and native title issues
over certain NT parks and reserves by negotiation rather than litigation, a principle to which I would have thought
that every member in this House would aspire;
grant of titles is conditional - and there is that word, ‘conditional’ - upon the immediate lease back of the grant of
land and other Aboriginal lands, to the Territory for use as parks to be managed jointly with traditional Aboriginal
owners. So let us get away from this language of ‘giving’ our parks away and address the real issues here.
business as usual on NT parks and reserves during the offer period.
Mining and exploration activities on parks and reserves are currently subject to special conditions and Territory legislation. A parks master plan, to be developed, will address the issue of potential multiple use of land in existing and future parks. The applicable statutory regimes in relation to mining and petroleum, including those under the Native Title Act, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, the Mining Act and the Petroleum Act will continue to apply on all parks and reserves covered by the bill, as they do now.
The parks legislation contemplates that the tenure of various parks and reserves will change. Existing parks and reserves will remain in place with some additional areas which are currently Aboriginal land also becoming parks. I would have thought, again, that that would be something that all members of this House would support.
Some parks claimed under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act will be recommended to be scheduled as Aboriginal land, bringing the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act mining regime into effect on those areas. Other parks presently claimed under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act will, instead, become park freehold title over which the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act mining regime will have no application. Other areas which are already Aboriginal land and which will become parks will also continue to have the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act mining regime applied.
The NT Mining Act provides that the mining minister must not grant exploration interests over land in a park or reserve without first considering the opinion of the parks minister regarding the proposed grant.
Further, the Mining Act provides that a mineral lease, an extractive mineral lease or an extractive mineral permit may not be granted over land in a park or reserve except in accordance with the conditions specified by the parks minister. It is proposed that there will be a joint process by which the views of the relevant joint management group regarding the grant of mining and exploration interests in a park or reserve will be provided to the mining minister via the parks minister. That advice might include recommendations for conditions to which the grant should be subject. Those views will be required to be considered by the mining minister when deciding whether to grant such interests under the Mining Act.
The suggested conditions will be applied to the grant if, in the mining minister’s opinion, they are appropriate measures to protect the environment. It is anticipated that a similar regime will apply in respect of petroleum interests.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the bill provides that land within the parks and reserves listed in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 are:
(a) not the subject of an application for an exploration or mining interest but the date the bill was
introduced into parliament; or
From 19 September, they are reserved from occupation under section 178 of the Mining Act. Such reservations from occupation will continue until the end of the offer period, at which time the reservations from occupation will be revoked. These reservations from occupation will preclude the making of applications for exploration or mining interests in relation to the reserved land during the offer period.
If existing exploration or mining interests over land in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 expire during the offer period or existing applications for exploration or mining interests are withdrawn or refused during the offer period, the land in question will automatically become reserved from occupation under section 178 of the Mining Act. This means that no further applications for exploration or mining interests can be made over the parks and reserves during the offer period, but existing exploration and mining interests will continue to have the full force and affect.
The status of mining and petroleum interests, including exploration interests that are current at the end of the offer period will be unaffected by the proposed grants, lease backs and joint management agreements. Any further grants will be dealt with under the process I described earlier.
The Territory and the land councils have agreed on certain fast-tracking arrangements for processing mining and exploration applications that existed as at the day before the reservation from occupation came into effect. My department of DBIRD will contact existing applicants to determine whether they wish their application to be proceeded in this manner. If so, the application would be processed prior to the proposed grants and/or joint management agreements taking effect. Native Title Act provisions will have to be complied with as part of this process but the agreed arrangement is that with time frames set out in the act, they will be complied with.
All the above proposals have been canvassed with the NT Minerals Council and other key mining stakeholders; the feedback has been generally good. This is because the proposal successfully balanced mining industry, indigenous conservation, tourism, and the wider community interest.
Those are the specifics of my responsibility as minister for minerals and resources in the Northern Territory, and the application and impact this legislation will have on that industry. More broadly, there is an opportunity for the Territory to really move ahead in our parks regime. This legislation, if negotiated agreements can be reached, really does offer the Northern Territory a unique opportunity to develop a world class parks and reserves system. I mean world class; let us really set our sights high. We all know, love and understand, as Territorians, that our unique flora, fauna, landscapes, and indigenous culture are so much a part of the opportunity of developing our tourism industry. We understand that 36% of international visitors who make a purchasing decision to visit the Northern Territory do so because of indigenous art and culture. That is without a detailed, focussed, developed strategy and real partnerships in place with Aboriginal people to develop that tourism industry.
Imagine what we could achieve in a world class parks and reserve system, joint management boards, indigenous cultural tourism, arts and enterprises operating off that land. We have a unique product that is solely ours and has huge market appeal. That is the vision that we should have. That is what we should be aspiring to in this debate. Let us move away, once and for all, in the Northern Territory, from the language of division, from the language of divide and rule, from the language of ‘giving our parks away’.
Who does the opposition think we are proposing to give our parks away to? Foreigners? Southerners? We are all Territorians here and we all have equal rights and responsibilities under the law. This dog whistling that members opposite are sliding back into will take us backwards. It will not take us forward. We have an opportunity here and a challenge for the new Leader of the Opposition to step forward with the government in partnership with all Territorians to develop a world class parks and reserves system that will massively benefit our economy and the tourism industry, ensure the conservation status of our unique biodiversity in the Northern Territory, and absolutely guarantee for generations of Territorians access to those parks system.
That is the challenge, that is the big picture, not going back to the past with language of division and hatred. I urge members opposite not to go back to those old, tired, dog whistling ways. If we go to the Litchfield Times of Wednesday 15 October, we have the member for Goyder, who he just cannot help himself, participating in the dog whistling tactics of the past. The front page is ‘Houses in Litchfield National Park’. I will read the first paragraph.
Goyder MLA Peter Maley believes a new deal announced by the Northern Territory government will give Aboriginal traditional owners squatting rights in all 42 Territory national parks.
Is this language that is about uniting the Northern Territory, bringing us forward, trying to find practical solutions to a legal problem and heaven help having a vision for a world class park estate? No! It is the language of division and hatred. He goes on to say, and I quote from the article in the paper:
- He said the central plank of the agreement was the establishment of legal rights for traditional owners to live in the parks in the manner they choose.
‘In a worse case scenario, this could mean houses being built beside Wangi Falls in Litchfield National Park,’ he said.
Where does he get this stuff? He is supposed to be lawyer. He is supposed to be able to read legislation and understand what is in it. But no, no, no; he plays politics and goes back to the tired old ways of the bad old days of the Northern Territory.
The legislation is very clear. Community living areas could only reside in the park if consistent with and abiding by the management plans for the park and consistent with good management. They have to be approved by the board and the board is not just made up of traditional people, as the legislation sets out. It has to be signed off by the minister and tabled here in the parliament.
You would think, by reading this article in the Litchfield Times, that a deal is going to be done and people are going to be up there building humpies and have them approved in the middle of Litchfield Park. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t believe that the member for Goyder is ignorant, but I do believe that he is deliberately trying to divide the community on this issue by using such inflammatory language, which absolutely and patently cannot be the outcomes that he believes could be achieved under the act.
Further, why would people do this if we do achieve these joint management boards? Have we seen humpies and squatters camps are in Nitmiluk National Park? Have we seen this doomsday scenario in Nitmiluk or Cobourg? Are they recognised as being world class parks? These parks were established under the CLP regime, so why he would believe that somehow you are going to squatters camps at Wangi Falls is beyond belief unless it is deliberate mischief making.
At the end of the day, if these opportunities are grasped, traditional owners will have a substantial stake in the success of the park. People will want to see these parks being popular. They will want to see economic opportunity. They will want to jobs for Aboriginal people and people in our regional centres in the park. They won’t want to see those opportunities squandered by some sort of humpy set up around the most pristine areas. It just defies bloody belief and understanding.
Community living areas, if approved - and obviously they would only be approved if they were consistent with the management plans approved by the board, signed by the minister and tabled in the parliament - would be an asset for providing a mix of cultural and nature based tourism opportunities, which our tourists are telling us they want to experience and they will pay big dollars to come here and see that.
I urge all members in this House to put aside the division of the past, to move forward, to grasp the vision and the opportunity that is created by this bill to develop a world class park estate for the Northern Territory that gives us a unique opportunity to develop not only the ecological and environmental aspects of tourism in the Northern Territory, but also to really develop a cultural based tourism industry that will be absolutely world class and give us a unique competitive advantage as well as the ability to work with Aboriginal people, using their unique knowledge of the land to conserve it.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support this bill. Regarding my responsibilities as minister for resources in the Northern Territory, I believe that we have achieved a balance. I will continue to work with the mining industry to ensure that they are brought along regarding the development of this legislation. I would like to put on the record this evening my congratulations to the Chief Minister, who has taken a very close interest in the development of this legislation. In large part, it was the vision of the Chief Minister to create this world class park estate.
The challenge was laid by the new Leader of the Opposition in debate earlier today that this government has no vision, that we are just following our dreaded southern counterparts, those awful southerners that we call Australians and we were cheering on against England in the Rugby Union last week. According to them, they are just southerners, they have no place in the Northern Territory. Well, we are leading on this. We do have a vision for park estate that is world class, and I urge all members of this House to embrace that vision and to work with us to achieve those goals.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I had not intended contributing to this debate, but listening to the member for Wanguri, I was trying to get some clarity from his comments in relation to the legislation that is before us this evening.
As one hears the words coming from the government with regards to what they are trying to achieve with this legislation, on the surface they seem very fine words, indeed. I would be surprised if anyone in the Northern Territory objected to an aim, as stated by the Chief Minister, to enrich and strengthen our parks and reserves in the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, for many years we have had a situation where, under the challenges of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, and subsequently the Native Title Act, the government in power has had to grapple with those issues to find a balance the rights of Aboriginal people with regards to native title and land in the Northern Territory as against the Northern Territory population at large.
I do not know whether it is a purposeful strategy, and it may be a successful purposeful strategy, and that is to continually reinforce this perception that the CLP is incapable of moving with the times, that the CLP has only ever looked at these issues with a view to penalise and punish, intimidate, threaten an Aboriginal minority in the Northern Territory. I would have thought that any responsible government dealing with the land assets of the Territory population at large had a responsibility to act in the interests of all, not only in the interests of one particular group. Certainly, in my time in government, that is the way the CLP government acted. I believe that is the way the current Labor government is acting. Where accommodations and arrangements can be made in the best interests of all, they are made, and Nitmiluk is one example. Where there are issues that are clouded, where certainty needs to be tested, where claims need to be tested, obviously there are mechanisms by which that testing occurs. That has happened in the past, and I am sure, under this government, it will happen in the future.
The other thing we need to get into perspective is the benefit and enrichment that Aboriginal culture provides us as Territorians. No-one disagrees with that. What we should also understand is that the Territory Aboriginal population, whilst it is the largest population of any jurisdiction in Australia, is still only one-quarter of the Northern Territory population; 25%. We have to understand that when we deal with the land asset of the Northern Territory, we deal fairly and equitably in relation to all.
It is in that context that the CLP questions the way the decisions have been made and the way the legislation has been framed. I have heard on a number of occasions that this is quite complex, that one needs to really get around these issues and think about it for a long time before you can actually understand it. I do not know that it is too complex at all. The Chief Minister has said: ‘We are now in a new era. No longer do you have litigation. That is out the window; that is a waste of taxpayers’ money. That is all gone. What we now have is negotiation and settlement and, if you go my way, everyone will have a great future and the parks and reserves will be enriched and managed in a way that has never happened in the past’.
Okay, that is the way the government has decided to go, but the opposition has a right to question the way the legislation is framed. The legislation, as I look at it, is not all that difficult to understand. It starts off by giving the definition of Aboriginal land as having the same meaning as in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and it gives the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory extraordinary powers. Extraordinary powers. That might be a good thing, but the legislation, as you read it, gives the Chief Minister extraordinary powers. She is authorised to execute a new title called park freehold title over Schedule 2 land. That is given in clause 8(b) of this bill.
She has a number of other responsibilities but, essentially, the Chief Minister can determine that: ‘For certain amounts of land in the Northern Territory I am now going to establish a new title and it is called park freehold title’. The title, as given initially, is a limited title. That is, it is fee simple, but has certain restrictions. These restrictions on the title would, if you compared it with a normal freehold title for a residential block of land or any commercial block of land in the Northern Territory, are quite restrictive and, therefore, would devalue the commercial value of land as stated in the legislation.
The Chief Minister can decide that there are areas of land in the Northern Territory for which she will establish a new title, which is park freehold title, and that park freehold title is restricted. For example, the estate is granted subject to any native title rights and interest in the land; the estate cannot be sold and can only be transferred to another Park Land Trust in trust for the benefit of Aborigines; the estate cannot be mortgaged or otherwise encumbered; it is subject to joint management agreements; and, in fact, can be surrendered or claimed back by the Northern Territory government. Therefore, it is not a normal freehold title arrangement.
In order to deal with these blocks of land that the government has decided to create this new title over, they need someone to deal with. So they have decided that there is a mob called a Park Land Trust that will deal with these blocks of land with the government on behalf of the native title holders of those blocks. All this is done in an atmosphere of the native title owners as established by the legislation being clearly defined as that: they own the land. The land that they own is managed by a park trust, and that park trust deals with the government on that land. What is quite different from the way we operated in the past is that native title rights and claimants were considered to be claimants only, and they had a bundle of rights that did not extend to sole ownership. To establish any more than a bundle of rights, they had to go to the court, and that bundle of rights, over time, has been determined in different ways, but, certainly, it is not freehold title.
We have this Park Land Trust that now deals with the government on these blocks of land for which the government has established a new title, and that Park Land Trust then leases these blocks back to government, blocks that are in Schedules 1 and 2. The lease back to the government is created in forms of an indigenous land use agreement, which can involve a number of things but involves at the outset dealing with the compensation for the effect of the declaration and use of that land for these parks. So this legislation says at the outset that we have now established areas of land, given them new title, established people to manage the land, and in order to lease back the land, we have decided we will pay compensation for the lease back arrangements that we have to put into effect. That is all clearly there in the bill.
That is all fine and dandy. According to the Chief Minister, everything goes along swimmingly. We have a whole new regime in the Northern Territory. People who had native title interests now have ownership. Those native title interests are now compensated by the government in how they lease that land back. The definition of how much the government and Territorians at large, that is the three out of four Territorians who are paying for all this, is not determined, declared, or in any way enunciated by the Chief Minister in this legislation or anywhere. It is basically: ‘Sit back, trust me, you are a bunch of red necks on the other side, and if you all just trust me and listen to the rhetoric, everything will go along swimmingly’. That is the way the legislation is framed.
Under this legislation, tourists will come, Aboriginal people will benefit, Territorians will have access, and we will have a situation in the Northern Territory that we have never had in the past. How that arises is beyond me because there are joint management arrangements in many of our parks in the Northern Territory, and many of these new arrangements are no different from what existed in the past. The only thing that is different is that we do not know how much the government is paying, at the outset, for the indigenous land use agreements. We do not know what compensation has been decided.
We have another couple of clauses in here that have not been mentioned. For example, the Park Land Trust might decide that for whatever reason, they do not want the land any more and they want to hand it back to the government. It might be that the government decides they want to acquire the land, so they can acquire the land under this legislation from the Park Land Trust. It does not define, except in very general terms, the circumstances in which the land can be compulsorily acquired. It says that if the government says it wants to compulsorily acquire it, it can do it if it will confer a wider interest on the Territory or for a purpose that involves ‘infrastructure facility’. To find out what ‘infrastructure facility’ means, you have to go to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, where it is defined. But it may be that the Park Land Trust decides: ‘We can do a better deal than this. What is to say we do not want it? What say we decide we can do better for our interests and those we represent by having the government compulsorily acquire this land or by deciding we will hand it back to government?’
If the government decides to compulsorily acquire it, it does so under a different situation altogether. No longer do the caveats occur as to when it was granted because what was land with strict restrictions, therefore by commercial valuations would be worth less than if it were simply freehold, is now all gone. The land that was park freehold title, that is only granted subject to any native title rights and interests, that cannot be sold and can only be transferred to another Park Land Trust, cannot be mortgaged or otherwise encumbered. If it is acquired back by the Northern Territory government, it says under clause 9(h):
If the estate is compulsorily acquired under the Lands Acquisition Act, the compensation payable for the acquisition is to be determined as if the estate is an estate in fee simple, free of the restrictions and conditions specified in paragraph (a) to (g) inclusive.
Therefore, land that was worth a certain amount suddenly becomes worth much more and, by the way, when it was worth less, it was already in a situation where those who represented the interests of that land were already being paid compensation to a level about which we know nothing.
One wonders what this new regime is going to entail for Territorians. I say that not from a perspective of a bunch of red necks who are anti-Aboriginal. These are simply Territorians wishing to ensure that Territorians’ overall rights and interests are being protected. It is interesting that the minister representing mining has now left because he has a big map behind his chair that shows all of the land in the Northern Territory where exploration licences have been granted. I was going to ask the minister to point out the proposed Limmen Park.
I noticed also, as we began this debate this evening that, under an amendment proposed by the Chief Minister, Limmen Park has gone. The Member for Wanguri has now arrived. Knowing his close interests …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Referring to the presence or absence of a member in the Chamber is not on.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Brennan is aware of that. Would you withdraw, please?
Mr BURKE: Pardon?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Brennan would be aware of protocols in respect of references to the presence or absence of members in the Chamber.
Mr BURKE: Absolutely, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I would have thought that the minister would cooperate willingly on this. I am sure he could point with his pencil to where Limmen Park is. It is about 132 km north-west or north-east of Borroloola.
It is interesting because Limmen Park has probably the most prospective mineral leases in the Northern Territory. My understanding is that Limmen Park is very prospective for base metals: silver, lead and zinc and possibly manganese and bauxite. If there was one park in the Northern Territory that the Minerals Council was concerned is being hoisted into this new arrangement, it is Limmen Park. One has to be questioning, at the very least, that in this new regime that is so wonderful for Territorians, that will benefit Territorians dramatically in the future, all of a sudden Limmen Park has dropped away. It has gone.
Is that the mining interests that have succeeded in lobbying the government? Is it the mining interests who have said to the government: ‘Hang on. There are some damn big problems here for us in the future and for the economic benefit for Territorians in the future if this park is hoisted into this new legislative regime’. Perhaps the Chief Minister can explain to me, and I am sure she will do it easily, that there are very good reasons why Limmen Park has been excluded from Schedule 2.
Limmen Park would have provided a stark example, but I am sure you can find others. You could go to Gregory National Park or any of the parks in Schedules 1 or 2 and put yourself into this situation: the Labor government in the Northern Territory has decided that we are going to establish a new title of land that no longer belongs to Territorians, but now belongs to a group of Territorians, some of whose interests have never been tested or validated in any shape or form; they are simply native title claimants. On behalf of Territorians, we establish a new title, and we say: ‘This is now your land. It is estate in fee simple, but it has some restrictions. You have to use it as a park, you cannot mortgage it, you can submortgage it under the legislation, and you cannot deal with it, except that it has to remain a park, and by the way, you have to lease it back to us. Because we have put these parameters and definitions on you, we are going to compensate you’. What the CLP opposition on behalf of the other three out of four Territorians is asking, and I would imagine many of the other one out of four Aboriginal Territorians who are not included in this great deal, is: what is the compensation being paid at the outset? In the case of Limmen or Gregory Parks, it may be in the future that not too many tourists visit there. Some of these places are extremely remote, very isolated, and may not be overrun with caravans and tourists as is being proposed by the government.
It may be that the Park Land Trust in the future says there are better uses and benefits for the people we represent for these parks if they are given over to some other use. In giving over those parks to some other use, they are protected by the legislation in that they can be compulsorily acquired by the government, or handed back by the Park Land Trust, and one could even be suspicious and say the best deal could be organised so that they will compulsorily acquire it, for example, for mining interests. In doing that, the land would be paid for at full unencumbered value. So the people who the Park Land Trust represent, I would think, could be extremely wealthy overnight under this legislation, which is absolutely clear.
There is another catch-all in this bill: in dealing with all these interests, power is exercised by one person. You have one person dealing with one Park Land Trust on an area of land that the Chief Minister has said represents in total 17 700 km2 of the Northern Territory. This legislation, easily read, clearly written, provides one person in the Northern Territory, the Chief Minister, to deal with 17 000 km2 of the Northern Territory with a bunch of organisations that can not only trade amongst themselves, but can deal with the Northern Territory government, who receive at the outset a benefit that has not been tested in law in any shape or form, who receive a benefit at the outset by giving some benefit to Territorians for their land, which has never been decided is theirs, and can change the arrangements in the future to be of greater benefit to them, particularly if there is mineral prospectivity involved. Not only that, if things become too murky, you just go to clause 11, which says that the exercise of power is not impeachable by the Chief Minister.
The way the Chief Minister can deal with these arrangements is: the exercise by the Chief Minister of a power under clause 8 is not to be impeached because of an informality or irregularity in the compliance with any of the conditions specified in clause 10. On my interpretation of the legislation, no wonder Territorians might feel a bit concerned. It is one thing to go out there and say: ‘You are a bunch of rednecks, CLP. You never did anything for the Territory. We are all for Aboriginal people. You were not. We are going to make sure that we have a better parks reserve system than ever existed’ and we are yet to see one example of that, and: ‘We are going to set up this new regime that is going to be a wonderful future for Territorians’. Well, the legislation sets up a regime that is extraordinary - just extraordinary. Those are the checks and balances that we question, that we do not believe are in the legislation, and those are the issues that any responsible opposition would continue to take to Territorians until such time as the Chief Minister can assure Territorians that she is truly acting in their interests. It is one thing to say: ‘If we did not do it this way it would cost the Territory millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars’.
Mr Baldwin: $150m she said.
Mr BURKE: Well, give us some definition on the dollars that it would, in fact, cost. Give us some definition of the dollars it is going to cost at the outset because we have not received any indication of that. Give us an indication of where the long-term benefits of all Territorians are preserved in the future. That is not apparent in this legislation as it is currently written.
Mr VATSKALIS (Parks and Wildlife): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the Chief Minister on providing the leadership and vision required to resolve the issue of land claims over national parks and reserves in the Northern Territory.
The framework approach outlined in the legislation is a fair and balanced way to resolve this long-standing issue. It is an approach that will provide numerous benefits to the Territory and, combined with the development of a new parks and conservation master plan, will chart the course for an enhanced parks system that will be of national and international acclaim. It is an approach that will finally provide comfort and a sense of security to the Territory’s tourism industry, an industry that is dependant for its very survival on keeping the doors of our national parks open, an industry that has been unable to realise the potential of the parks estate as a consequence of uncertainty created by land claims.
The framework legislation will benefit the environment. Not only will it strengthen our existing parks system, but will provide the means to bring new important areas into the parks estate, including land added to the Gregory, Elsey and proposed Davenport Ranges national parks. May I add that these areas of land are Aboriginal owned and will be available for all Territorians to enjoy. The resolution of the outstanding land claims will allow, for the first time, parks that were previously undeclared, such as the proposed Mary River, Adelaide River and Davenport Ranges National Parks to finally be declared. This, in turn, will provide the opportunity for these and other parks to be developed, promoted and enjoyed without the current restrictions caused by uncertainty by unresolved claims under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and Native Title Act.
The government’s approach to resolving this issue has already improved and will continue to improve the relationship between traditional owners, land councils and the Territory. Tangible results of improved working relationships are already in evidence. Workshops have been held to explore ways in which indigenous people can participate more fully in the management of our parks and reserves.
The new parks and conservation master plan, which will be publicly launched today is another example of how this government is willing to work with industry, indigenous people and the land councils to maximise environmental, economic and social benefits for the Territory, which leads me to say that socioeconomic benefits from the approach adopted by the government are, importantly, likely to float the Territory’s most disadvantaged people: its traditional owners.
The resolution of land claims over our parks and reserves will not only enhance tourism and environmental factors, but will promote greatly improved lives for indigenous Territorians. Aboriginal people suffer from the highest level of unemployment, poor health and lowest life expectancy of all groups in the Territory, indeed in Australia. This government is seeking solutions to those problems. This government wants to create meaningful and lasting employment and training opportunities for indigenous Territorians and, as a matter of fact, for all Territorians.
Nitmiluk National Park is an example of how joint management can work. The Nitmiluk National Park agreement was made under the previous government. It was not a socialist agenda. It was an agreement between the parties. It was set in concrete, it worked and it continues to work. In Nitmiluk park, indigenous people are actively involved in the management of their country in cooperation with government. Under these plans, the tourism industry will be able to prosper, the natural environment will be managed effectively, and the local people and economy will be able to benefit.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have been listening to the interjections by the member for Drysdale about the socialist agenda, and I cannot help but quote a very good socialist, well known to the members of the other side, Mr Col Fuller, who wrote a paper from which I am going read, so the member for Macdonnell does not say I plagiarised. Col Fuller wrote the paper National Parks in Australia’s Northern Territory: The Concept of Joint Management. That paper was published on an independent web site, the Darwin Research Centre. Let me tell you what Mr Fuller says:
Joint management of national parks in the Northern Territory is now firmly on the political agenda. There are a number of agreements currently in place, mostly between the Northern Territory government and Aboriginal traditional owners, but also involving the Australian government and the icon-status parks of Kakadu and Uluru Kata Tjuta.
As it is the firm intention of the Northern Territory government to adopt an even more inclusive regime for the management of its parks where Aboriginal interests are evident, it is timely to develop some thoughts based on the experience gained to date to attempt to develop a strategy which can maximise the outcomes and benefits, while at the same time evading most of the known pitfalls.
- At the outset it is prudent in my view to identify some self-evident truths to put the issue into perspective.
(1) This form of park management is highly desirable because apart from recognising the legitimate interests of Aboriginal traditional owners, it introduces a new dimension into the style of park management and greatly enhances visitor experience.
Mr Fuller also says:
- (4) The progression to joint management is inevitable, and the key would be to effectively manage its implementation, rather than in resisting it.
A cursory view of the Northern Territory park estate is sufficient to show that at most locations, Aboriginal traditional owners have a legitimate interest often legally documented. With this background, it would be unreasonable to suggest that park management should not be influenced in some way by those interests.
- The challenge is to develop a management regime which, whilst recognising and incorporating those legitimate Aboriginal interests, nevertheless empowers the park management staff to effectively carry out their work.
The most important relationship, and in my view the easiest to foster is that between the park rangers on the ground and traditional owners resident in the area.
- Regrettably, when agreements are being negotiated, the opinions of these stakeholders are the last to be heard, if at all!
He is probably stating something from the previous government.
- No government can argue that its officers have greater rights or knowledge than Aboriginal traditional owners regarding the management of cultural or art sites in a park.
Clearly compromises are necessary and it cannot be too difficult to construct a regime where responsibility and accountability, together with appropriate resources, are provided to those best equipped to undertake the management of a particular function.
Mr Fuller also explores the issue of legislation. He said:
- Although it may be seen by some as a ‘sledge hammer to crack a walnut’, the option of enacting legislation for a joint management agreement where the size or sensitivity of the park warrants this is seen as desirable.
Some Aboriginal people derive great comfort from such legislation and see the value of the document as being second only to the title itself.
Specific legislation also moves away from the ‘one size fits all’ approach of generic agreements, and provides the opportunity to publicly identify the unique issues involved in each particular area. The associated parliamentary debate also affords valuable publicity to the agreement and to the value of or the addition to the parks estate.
I would not call Mr Fuller a socialist or a left wing ideologist. He is a very well known and Mr Fuller, to his credit, has recognised that times have changed and we have to move forward. That is exactly what this government is doing: moving forward, but without leaving behind, as the previous government always did, Aboriginal people, who are recognised all over Australia, as a matter of fact all over the world, as the most disadvantaged people in Australia.
I will go back to some of the issues that the ex-Leader of the Opposition raised, especially Limmen National Park, which was a clayton’s park because it came into existence by means of a section 74 agreement under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act with the Northern Territory Land Corporation over the former St Vidgeon, Nathan River, and Billengarrah pastoral leases.
Do not come to us and talk about that national park. We know very well what that national park was and its validity. As I said before, the government is looking forward. There were decisions to create a new reality in north western Australia and the Northern Territory, and we have to address some of the shortcomings of previous legislation, the way parks were declared, and we have to move forward, taking with us the people who are very close to the land and work with them to benefit all Territorians.
The Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Bill is based upon something that is known to work. It will build upon the successes that have already been achieved in the Territory with respect to joint management. It will see indigenous Territorians playing a substantial role in the management of their traditional lands; it will see past differences set aside; it will see future development for all Territorians to embrace and enjoy.
The bill paves the way for a prosperous future, one which is inclusive of all interest groups, indigenous and non-indigenous, and one that embraces the best elements of our society. It is not based on dividing the community; it is based on enhancing the social, environmental and economic opportunities that are available, which, in essence, is the first responsibility of every good government. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I comment the bill to honourable members.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for Parks and Wildlife for reading that great excerpt from Col Fuller’s paper, a great contribution it was. I agree that joint management arrangements are a good thing for our national parks. There is no doubt about it. In fact, if you go to the existing and Northern Territory Parks Master Plan that is current over a 15-year period, there are chapters on Aboriginal involvement. This is the CLP’s document, by the way, just so we are not confused.
This is the CLP’s document, and if you want to read it, there are pages and pages on joint management arrangements, Aboriginal involvement in parks. You can take any aspect of it, whether it is about Aboriginal people who have acquired substantial areas of land either through purchase or under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It says that Aboriginal people have a view to participate in the parks network.
I agree with Col Fuller, just to pick up on the minister. That seemed to be his king hit blow, but the one thing I did hear the minister say, and this is the crux of the whole argument here, and why we believe this legislation should be scrutinised on behalf of all Territorians, that Aboriginal people own these parks. He has also said it in Estimates. That is what the minister said: Aboriginal people own these parks.
I thought that the current title of these parks vested in the Crown, vested in the government on behalf of the Northern Territory. That is what I thought. The parks in these schedules here, I thought, vested in the ownership of all Territorians. They have certain interests, Aboriginal interests over them, depending on which schedule you are talking about. Under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, some have claims on them, not yet determined, as has been pointed out by the member for Brennan. Schedule 2 parks have native title interests. This legislation has been predicated on two things: one is a philosophy; and one is a belief that by doing what the CLP did, and that is test claims for validity on behalf of all Territorians, in the future is going to cost $150m. That is your estimate, Chief Minister: $150m. I would like to see the advice on that, if you have it. You stood in here a year ago, I think it was, November 2002, and cited $150m. Place that on the table. If you are so sure that it is going to cost $150m, put it on the table, otherwise do not talk about it. Do not say $150m.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Let us get down to it. Either we are dealing with facts here, or we are dealing with a spin doctor, and we are dealing with a spin doctor in the case of this legislation. We have never seen any validation of the figure of $150m, even though the Chief Minister has said it in the House.
What brings this legislation on is the philosophy that the Labor government is working on, confirmed by …
Mr Stirling: Go and tell this to Port Keats. Go and tell Port Keats your views on this.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes. I discussed these views - I will pick up on that interjection from the member for Nhulunbuy. We discuss these views all of the time.
Mr Stirling: Oh, sure.
Mr BALDWIN: Well, come with me any time. You are invited. Come with me.
The philosophy that the Labor government is working under is that Aboriginal people own these parks. The Chief Minister has said it. Native title, I thought, was all about a bundle of rights determined in various ways through various mechanisms. However, the Labor government believes, and they have shown this belief, that native title claims by Aboriginal people mean that they own the land. I do not think that has been tested anywhere in Australia and found to be right. Pure ownership; I do not think that is right.
That is what you believe, and you have shown that in dealing with the Larapinta issue where the minister for Parks during Estimates said: ‘They own that land, but we got a good deal, because we got half of it back’. That is not my understanding of the native title issue on that land. In fact, he said it was like Rosebery and Bellamack. It was nothing like Rosebery and Bellamack. We did not give away land to the Larrakia people in Rosebery and Bellamack. They bought the land, as you know, minister, very well. Totally different, and it was pointed out to you at the time by your officers, and you had to correct yourself, if you want to go back and read the Hansard.
So that is what this is all predicated on, a belief that the ownership does go directly to Aboriginal people without a test. The member for Brennan has shown, during this contribution that, in the past, those tests have been made, and in some cases, it was accepted without test that there was a direct ownership. That is why we now have a parks asset that includes 93 parks. It is a great parks network. There is nothing in what you are proposing to make new parks. There is the joining of some Aboriginal land into existing parks. Over the last 20 years, the CLP has put together, with joint management in some cases, and ownership of Aboriginal land, a great parks network. It is the way you are going about it that needs scrutiny.
The member for Brennan and others have raised the issue of dollars. It is something that you have been very silent on. That is a concern. It is not just the fact that the lease back arrangements have not been clarified in dollars. One of the questions I asked in the briefing, and I thank your officers for the briefing, although Jamie Gallacher gave me an undertaking on two things: to get back the land area that was involved …
Ms Martin: Delivered to the Opposition Leader’s office.
Mr BALDWIN: You have done today …
Ms Martin: Yesterday.
Mr BALDWIN: … some month after I asked for it. The other thing I asked him for was, in the park master planning that you are going to undertake, who makes up the advisory committee and what was the membership of that. Your officers were going to provide me with those names.
One of the issues of concern, another that you keep ducking, Chief Minister, is: what is the value of the land, the 17 700 km2? You tried to answer it today. Well, I do not think you did; you tried to skip around it. What value do you want to use? There is a value that can be placed on that land, isn’t there? You need to make that evident as well. We are talking about assets owned by Territory people, Territory assets …
Ms Martin: Not indigenous Territorians? You are making the distinction very clear …
Mr BALDWIN: All Territorians!
Ms Martin: … which is interesting. We might have to share your views with the constituents of Daly …
Mr BALDWIN: I am talking about everybody who calls themselves a Territorian …
Ms Martin: … because through your whole speech you have been very clear there are Territorians and then there are indigenous people.
Mr BALDWIN: … because at the moment, Chief Minister, this land is owned by the Crown on behalf of every Territorian and that is the difference. There can be value put to that land, I am sure. Am I right? Because a value can be put on any asset and, under accrual accounting - ask your Treasurer - a value is put on every asset. You can go tomorrow to the AVO and get a value if Treasury has not already done it, which I suspect they have, because you have to know what amount of value you are dealing with.
You sit there laughing but, on behalf of Territorians, I am asking you to clarify the value of the 17 700 km2. That is quite an asset. It is incumbent on government, especially an open and transparent government, to tell Territorians of the value of assets we are talking about in the case of these parks as described under the schedules in this legislation. That is what it is going to come down to for some people. They will want to know: what value are we trading? That is what it is all about, isn’t it? We can recognise rights of people. That is not a problem; we have done that in the past and we will do it in the future. They have those rights but, surely, we have to be able to say not only what value we will place on a lease back, but what value is on the land asset.
I was told that will become evident in the future, and it is a bit difficult to work out. However, at the end of the briefing, I was told, and it is in the slides, that AVO will determine and make a recommendation on the lease back fees. If they can make a determination on the lease back fees for a value of land asset, surely they can value the assets. I know they can because I have been dealing with the AVO for a lot of years. Therefore, it is incumbent on you, Chief Minister, and I would like you to make an attempt to give us some clarification on that in your wrap-up, that we will get the value described. Do not jump up and say: ‘Well, it depends on whether is it tourism value or not’ That is for the AVO to decide along with your Lands department. They can work that out, along with Treasury, your Surveyor-General and your Auditor-General. You have very specialised officers within your agencies who can put a value on this tomorrow. I am betting that you know right now. I am absolutely sure that you have some idea and it is incumbent on you to make that clear to Territorians rather than do this in a secret manner as you seem to be doing.
It was in a radio interview with you when you were in Alice Springs, we talked about lease back fees and you said: ‘Oh, it will be somewhere around $150 000 like Nitmiluk’. Okay, work out the total amount. $150 000 over the parks you propose over a 99-year lease term. Tell Territorians how much that is. Put those figures out in your glossy brochures because you do not mention any figures in those glossy brochures that have gone to everybody, and that is a bit poor.
A member interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: It is not about money? It is not about money? I am sure that somebody is going to ask the question and that Territorians are going to want to know.
I wanted to pick up on a couple of things that other speakers have said. The member for Arnhem said that the days of making decisions in back rooms are over. That is what he said. Yet this legislation, as has been pointed out, gives enormous and extraordinary powers to one person, the Chief Minister, who will negotiate under these arrangements because the legislation is the offer of the government to the land councils. This legislation says this is our offer and then she will negotiate from that point. It gives her powers to do that in various ways, in taking or adding to the schedules that are before us tonight. Extraordinary powers. One would imagine that she will do that with the land councils in a room somewhere. That is behind closed doors with one person. It is not an open and transparent arrangement until you bring it back in here when the deal is done. That is extraordinary. That is an extraordinary way to go about this. For the member for Arnhem to say the days of making decisions in a back room are over - I do not know it happened, but certainly it is about to happen with the Chief Minister.
The member for Wanguri said let us have a world class parks network. I believe we have one. We can always enhance it. That is what master planning is about. I am glad the master planning that is proposed under this is going to go ahead. It is going to be a very comprehensive biodiversity plan for the whole of the Northern Territory and it is going to be great, but we have a world class network already because you are not adding to these, the network is there. He also said: ‘Who are we going to give our parks away to? Foreigners? No, no,’ he said, ‘we are not giving them away to foreigners, we are going to given them to Territorians’. The point is that Territorians already own these parks. All Territorians own these parks, and yes, in the case of Schedule 1 under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, there are going to be some parks - maybe all of them, who knows? - that will probably, if you went through the normal processes, end up in Aboriginal ownership with the traditional owners.
To say that the only way to work through this under negotiation is not only to give them the 10 parks with the eleventh being Macdonnell because they are under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, then you have decided to add the three other parks under Aboriginal land rights land, then you have decided to add another six parks, which have some native title interests over them, and after that, you have added in 12 parks for joint management arrangement.
That sounds good on the surface, but as the member for Brennan said, there will be a majority of Aboriginal people on the joint management boards. I discovered in the briefing, and I asked about this issue for quite some time, the 12 parks that have joint management arrangements and a management board like Nitmiluk, remembering that these are parks that are already owned by all Territorians, so we set up a joint management board, we invite on to the board a majority of Aboriginal people and the fact is, as described to me in the briefing, and I have the note in front of me, the joint management board has the final say.
What we are doing is not only giving away all the parks, but for the ones we are not giving away, we are giving a majority say to Aboriginal people. That might be fine, but where does it stop? This is going to cause a lot of concern for Territorians. The member for Brennan talked at length about the Parks Land Trusts and sought clarification from the Chief Minister about whether that land could be taken back or handed back to government by the land trust and, indeed, pointed out that if it could, it would go back as land in fee simple. That seems to be correct, and one would assume that there will be compensation paid at that point, but one of the tenets of this legislation is that native title rights will not be extinguished.
I would like the Chief Minister to clarify that if that ever happened and that land reverted back in fee simple, what happens with the native title issues? Are they still claimable? One would assume they are because native title hasn’t been extinguished.
The other thing about the parks lands trust is that they can choose their own membership, which I find quite odd. I would like to dwell on this a little bit in the committee stages. If they can choose their own membership, obviously they can put any variation of members on there and not necessarily the traditional owners or even the original native title claimants. The Chief Minister might like to clarify that either in her wrap up speech or in committee.
As I said, based on an assumption that native title means ownership, the government has decided not only to give away nearly 11 parks that are affected under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, but all of the other parks that have yet to be tested under the other schedules because, as confirmed by the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, their belief is that native title means ownership, whereas I am sure the precedent around the country so far has described native title as a bundle of various rights and do not always include ownership. That is something that the government has decided is the case.
I would also like the Chief Minister to tell us about the remainder of the parks. We are dealing with parks in these schedules. What about the remainder of the parks network and reserves in the Northern Territory that one would assume are also affected by native title interests? What will happen to those? Perhaps she can clarify that point when she is on her feet, because there are something like 93 parks and reserves, and this deals with a minority of them, albeit quite a big land mass. In fact, out of 43 000 km2, this is 17 700 km2, as you have said, so it is quite a big land mass. It leaves quite a deal of other land as well. Of course, I am not talking about Uluru or Kakadu, but the other parks and reserves. I would like her to clarify that. A number of points of clarification would be nice so that we could then move into the committee stages.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is important that members speak on the bill because this will be a definitional argument at the next election. Before members start to run arguments of race card and whatever, it is important in this House that we stand up for the rights of Territorians.
This is, by virtue of various descriptions, a Robin Hood type of bill. Government believes that it has an asset of plenty, and it should be distributed to those who have little. Matters of socioeconomic status have come into this debate, and various elements of how it will benefit Aboriginal people, and that is good, so long as it is not the only motivating and driving force because we are sending someone off to play poker at a table, and there is only one person bringing anything to it. The Chief Minister is turning up with a bag of assets, no one else is, and she is saying: ‘I am going play poker and at the end of the game, you are all going to be winners’. That may be good, except that she should remember that the bag of assets she has is not hers.
The description of the elements in these various schedules are assets owned by the Territory. They are assets owned by all of us. If you talk about 17 000 km2 and the fact that it represents 1%, she is sitting at a table with players whose assets represent 300 000 km2 to 400 000 km2. If we are talking about an end point where various places of beauty, that are owned by Aboriginal people are open for the benefit of employment, exposure to the outside world and tourism product, there is a lot of it sitting in the 300 000 km2. There is a lot of Aboriginal land out there from which traditional owners want to make money. There are traditional owners who want to look at infrastructure investment, they want to look at the capacity to turn a massive and beautiful resource into something that can yield some money, some dollars.
We are turning up with our 1% at a table where people have 30% to 40% of land ownership in the Northern Territory, and we are not asking for any of that to be put on the table. I have had the good fortune of extensive travel through Aboriginal land, and I would have thought that if the government’s intention was to have arrangements where Aboriginal people could own their land, own their asset, have it as a tourism resource, reap the benefits that come from that, there are significant sites throughout the Northern Territory, absolutely stunningly beautiful sites on Aboriginal land where we could look at that. That is barleys, we are not going there.
We are not going to have any potential to look at the massive resource that exists throughout the Northern Territory that is owned by Aboriginal people because, for some reason, that is out of the negotiation. All we are negotiating about is those issues, those areas, those assets owned by Territory people, and they have already described an end point. The end point, in the description of this bill of saying it is owned by Aboriginal people, is not true. It has not been tested. It is unfortunate that sometimes this testing is litigious. Sometimes in the business of testing through courts and other devices that are thrust upon us, it is an adversarial situation. It is true that, in looking after the best interests of this place, because you have a litigant on one side who is Aboriginal and a litigant on the other side who is the Northern Territory government, therefore you are racist. That is a fairly impure argument because we look after everybody’s interests. We, this parliament, this government, looks after everybody’s interests. So to go to a negotiating table where you have already said you will only look after Aboriginal interests, you have already subsumed the interests of the rest of the Territorians into something that is really not a matter for this debate, sets you up as a sitting duck. I do not want you negotiating at that table on my behalf. You are carrying in a bucket of assets that you do not own, you are negotiating with people who are sitting there smiling. You keep saying that people are going to be really happy; Aboriginal love this. Of course, they love it. You are a sitting duck. You are the worst poker player I have ever seen.
You are sitting there with the stuff. At the end of the game, you have already admitted that you will not own it. You have already admitted that you are going to take this Territory asset in, sit at the table and lose it all. ‘Do not worry about that, because I will be able to go to somebody who will be able to give it back to be on a time share basis, loan basis, some basis with caveats’.
This is a massive speculative venture, potentially, as my colleague, the member for Brennan, pointed out. The potential for somebody to just sit back and do the sums and work out that you have a sitting duck government prepared to shower money all over you is, no doubt, as described by various players, a great thing for Aboriginal people and great thing for coffers and training and all the rest of it. Is it in the best interest of the Territory? I do not think so.
The Chief Minister will probably progress with this. We saw last night the dust, screaming and smoke that came up out of the gay law reform bill so that this thing could be put through. I can assure her that people will watch this. The unfortunate problem we have is that sending this one person - this one unskilled poker player off to the table, the only person who is holding any assets and everybody else is going to end up a winner except us - is that it will be very difficult to retrieve the situation. I ask her, when we are talking about 100 years into the future and everybody has these great notions of equality and asset sharing and all the Robin Hood ideals that go with it, to be pretty careful about it. To retrieve a situation where you have an adventurous government going in and not really understanding what they are doing - we have had speakers tonight, ministers of the Crown, Cabinet members, talk about this land being owned by Aboriginal people. That is patently not the case.
You are so misinformed, so ignorant, so foolish in your capacity to play poker. please do not do this. If you are going to do it, can you please hold off? I note you have some legal advisors present. Can you please make sure you know what you are doing because if you are trying to tell me that I am better served by moving my asset to somebody else and then leasing it back at an appropriate rate that equates to the value of the asset, I feel like I am paying for it twice. I also have the problem that if there are people …
Ms Martin: Why did the CLP flog off Channel Island’s generators?
Mr DUNHAM: No, this has nothing to do with CLP; this is to do with Territorians - and do not scowl because if you do that at the negotiating table, you have a really big problem. They know they have you already …
Ms Martin: What about the generators at Channel Island? Who owns those?
Mr DUNHAM: They know they have you already. Okay? You are a very foolish person to be carrying this capacity because you are doing it singularly. I would also say to you, Chief Minister that, as somebody who understands a little bit about audit, government fiance, probity, issues like that, this is a very brave position in which you are putting yourself. You are putting yourself in there as one minister capable of negotiating.
Let us look at another issue. Let us say you can negotiate with whoever wants to be the person who takes up the waterfront development site. There will be various developers; they will go and talk to the Chief Minister. This is only 25 hectares, mind you, so it pales into significance with the 17 700 km2. The Chief Minister will come back to this parliament with a lease and we will know the preferred consortia and off we go, and we will have a development down there. I would say to you: pretty dumb move because it leaves you exposed. It leaves you terribly exposed in probity, due process, audit, and allegations that could be made because, as anybody who has anything to do with audit will know, the fewer people you have involved, the greater the capacity for collusion. If you only have two, you only have to collude with one. If you have one, there is great potential for problems.
Here is some advice for you that has nothing to do with CLP, racism or parks: to put yourself up as the sole negotiator who will negotiate behind closed doors with a group of people who have pretty much nothing to lose and, at the end of the negotiation, you will have nothing left in your pocket, as I understand it, and you are the sole person, you have some difficulties. I would talk to the Auditor-General about these matters because matters of probity will interfere with this. People will want to know. People will want to know how these negotiations took place, how vast tracks of land changed hands, and when they see what we got in return, people might say: ‘Gee, that seems a bit short. This tract of land that was worth several millions of dollars changed hands. We are going to rent it back for some hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mm. Not a good deal’.
I would suggest that if the Chief Minister is going to be the sole responsible person in this bill, which she is, she seek some advice about matters relating to property transfers with only one minister involved, with probity, matters of audit, matters of collusion and all of those things that attend upon it, and that is free advice for you. I suggest that you are setting yourself up. At the end of the day, when we finally go to an election and people pose the questions we are posing to you tonight, we will say: ‘Well, there was only one responsible minister, and that is Chief Minister, Clare Majella Martin’. Your name is all over this. If you want to be the Robin Hood, that is good, and there will be certain people who benefit from this and who will be very, very pleased with you.
What you have to ask yourself is: are the people who will not benefit and who might be angry? I am saying that there are and they will be and with your name on this bill, we will be sending them to your door.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak about the tourism aspects of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Bill.
There has been a lot of talk tonight about the political dimensions to this. I will turn to the tourism side of it, but I just pick up on the member for Drysdale and what others have said. He specifically said of the next election that this will be, in his mind, a defining issue at the next election. I will say on the record that I will be proud to go to the next election with a successful parks and reserves framework that gives certainty to our parks and provides a cooperative framework for Aboriginal people and government and the tourism industry to work together for very positive outcomes. I am not going to back away from it. It is very good.
In every endeavour in life, there are risks, but in this case, the risk, if there are inherent risks, are worth taking to try to get away from that combat of the past, that antagonism and fight that used to go on. The member for Drysdale said government has everything coming to the table, I guess Aboriginal people have nothing. Aboriginal people have a lot invested in this because, on one side, they were litigants in all of this as well. That costs money, effort and a whole lot of things, as we saw with Kenbi. It leaves a residual bitterness that sometimes is hard to get around.
As a member of the government, I take on board what the member for Drysdale said. Sometimes you do have to test legal rights, but sometimes you have to try to work together to work through issues with people. I am not going to back away from that.
In relation to what the member for Drysdale said about a defining theme for the next election, I believe the member for Arnhem picked up about a reversion to type in some of the language that is being used here tonight by the members opposite in relation to this bill. He said it a lot more eloquently that I. Members opposite have to be a little bit careful about this. They might want to appeal to a certain part of the electorate; they might want to do a bit of dog whistling. I am quite aware of the sort of code that some members opposite use, and they need to be a little bit careful about that because the Territory electorate is a lot more sophisticated than they give credit for in relation to these things.
I am sure the CLP was formed on many tenets, but it seems to me that a lot of their support in the earlier days came from fairly strong opposition to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, and that became the cause and the philosophy and to some degree, some members are trying to revert to that type. It is a challenge for the new Opposition Leader to plot his own course in this. I suggest that he reads the Legend of Faust. Here we have Faust, quite an intelligent person wanting to attain knowledge and fulfilment, trying to have an experience of life and enlightenment. There is God on one side and Mephistopheles on the other, and there was a real battle for Faust’s soul. I am sure that the member for Blain is motivated by good, is motivated by good, but he needs to watch out for Mephistopheles. Mephistopheles might be Mr Peter Murphy, who might be trying to sell him those special elements that are going to transform him into the next Chief Minister. He needs to be very careful with that. There is a Roman Polanski movie called The Tenant, a very interesting movie. It is about this …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, Minister! Excuse me, could you perhaps get back to the debate on the bill? It is very interesting to hear your philosophy, but …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I shall just finish off. It is all about being transformed and changed into something that you are probably not to begin with, and that would be my warning to the Opposition Leader.
Madam Speaker, this bill provides for one of the most exciting developments for tourism that we have had in the Northern Territory. This new framework for parks has the potential to significantly strengthen the positioning of the Northern Territory in international and domestic markets as a place to go for fantastic natural environments and quality and authentic indigenous experiences that will never, never leave you.
There is no doubt in my mind that so many of our visitors, both international and domestic, come to the Northern Territory to have that experience. We do have beautiful landscapes and beautiful natural attractions, there is no doubt about that. But it is the indigenous component that really brings it all to life, gives it a lot more interpretation. It gives it a soul. It was my privilege at Easter this year to go out in the direction of Gregory National Park and it was my added privilege to spend some time with Mr Bill Harney. It was a fantastic experience to hear the stories, to see the places and to know that little bit more about that country. I felt very privileged to be able to spend some time with that old man and get some knowledge. It is that sort of thing that really attracts people. I am assured that people come from all over the world to have that experience with Bill Harney. They come back with their children and their grandchildren, so rich is that experience.
In the Territory, if we can have more of that, if we can get more Aboriginal people giving that interpretation to our visitors, they will never, never want to leave. They will want to bring their children and grandchildren back here. That is the beauty of this plan because it builds up partnerships and frameworks where that sort of thing can operate.
The Northern Territory Tourism Strategic Plan 2003 to 2007 was developed last year with considerable input from Territory tourism operators and the community. It identified two major building blocks for the Territory’s tourism future: nature based and cultural tourism experiences. This bill will provide opportunities for a whole new approach to the development of tourism ventures in these two main areas.
Results from the Northern Territory Travel Monitor show that more than 50% of holiday visitors from interstate or overseas undertake indigenous art and cultural experiences while in the Territory, for over one quarter specifically indicated that they were motivated to come to the Territory to experience real Aboriginal culture. There are some very good successes in this area across the Territory, but comparative to what is there, it has been largely unexplored to date. For many years, there has much talk about developing more ways for tourists to experience Aboriginal culture and for Aboriginal people to reap the economic benefits of being involved in the industry.
As I said, there are some good examples of how that has occurred in the Territory, but there needs to be a hell of a lot more of it. I am hoping, and I believe, that this bill will turn this into a reality for many Aboriginal groups across the Territory, and I highly commend it.
The bill goes way beyond talking about good ideas, to providing real and practical framework and partnerships for Aboriginal people to engage in tourism and parks management at a pace and level that does not set them up to fail. I believe it will provide opportunities for training and employment. It will also provide opportunities for joint management expertise to be gathered. It will actively allow for provision of concession related business opportunities. Importantly, it will provide a pathway for indigenous involvement in tourism, from land care and ranger activities right through to business establishment and management. I know the Jawoyn are becoming more and more active in this area. They are developing their business plan, and I commend that. For example, a training program for indigenous people to be employed as rangers will be developed and implemented. Workshops have already been conducted with land councils and the Parks and Wildlife Service to progress these initiatives. Training will also enhance the skills of existing staff to manage within this new environment.
It is not as if this has not been successfully tried before. Nitmiluk is one prime example of where joint management has really worked for the visitors, for indigenous people, for the Katherine region as a whole, and for Territorians as a whole, I might add, because there are a hell of a lot of Territorians who love to visit Nitmiluk. I have been delighted to hear the new shadow minister for Tourism recently speaking publicly about the need to develop more indigenous tourism product and indigenous tourism ventures, and the need for more support for that development to be successful.
The recent announcement of $27.5m over three years from the government to support the Northern Territory Tourist Commission includes $2m per year to support tourism development. Although this funding will not specifically be tied to development in parks, it will clearly support any parks-based initiatives that arise. I commend that.
In addition to the increased funds for tourism, increased funding for parks will guarantee improved visitor facilities and enhance visitor access to parks. It will allow new areas to be made available for the conservation of the Territory’s outstanding biodiversity, and enhance the range of recreational opportunities made available to visitors. On this note, I have asked the Tourist Commission, regarding a strategic plan for indigenous tourism, to tie very closely with the extra funding there for the parks, a whole range of issues, and developing indigenous tourism enterprises.
This bill also provides for enhanced access to Aboriginal land, with the development of tourist opportunities in selected areas. This will provide flow-on benefits to other tourism operators. The negotiated package will protect and preserve existing commercial concessions, and I know this was an issue the member for Katherine has raised and, before her, the member for Araluen. I would like to restate that the negotiated package will protect and preserve existing commercial concessions.
The removal of land claims over parks and reserves will introduce more certainty into commercial developments in the parks, and will pave the way for more substantial capital and other investment to occur. Furthermore, the option of sub-leasing and provision of concession-related business opportunities within parks will greatly enhance employment and regional development.
In summary, this new framework for the future will provide a better, more effective approach to managing our parks for the benefit of all Territorians. It will provide a real boost to our tourism industry and, in the longer term, to the engagement of indigenous people in the Tourist Commission.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House. It is a challenge for us all, that is true. It is a challenge for the opposition and, in particular, the Opposition Leader to have a constructive approach. I understand the job he has to do as Opposition Leader, but he has to be constructive. He has to move beyond the history of the past into the future because that is where Territorians want to go. It is the year 2003; we have a bright future. We have to work together to unlock the vast economic, social and cultural potential of this great Northern Territory.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contribution to this debate tonight. Whether I agree with a contribution or not is irrelevant in many ways, because I am pleased that we have had what is an important bill for this parliament given good analysis. Sometimes, I felt responsible that we did not have further briefings so that some of the analysis was based on fact rather than a level of political fantasy. However, I thank everyone for their contribution.
I would like to do a couple of things in my wrap for tonight to look at what we are broadly trying to do, but also to specifically answer some of the questions raised.
I was taken a bit by surprise at the Opposition Leader because when he came for a briefing – and I said this in the House today – it seemed that he thought this was a very straight forward way to progress what was a complex and unexpected issue. That was last week. This week, he came into the House with a very different attitude, covered in conspiracy theories, not recognising that a legal decision had happened last year that created a whole level of uncertainty and a need to find a solution for our parks and reserves. Yet the Opposition Leader came in here saying that this is basically a conspiracy by the Labor Party, a Labor Party agenda, that we almost created the situation and would run it regardless of what had happened, and said offensive things like: ‘This is the Labor Party paying off the land councils’.
I feel responsible that the briefing we gave the Opposition Leader did not explain to him adequately – and I take responsibility for this – what this bill is about and why this bill came about. The Opposition Leader came in here and claimed conspiracy theories, Labor Party agendas, paying off mates in the land councils, that we are in here determined to hand over the Territory estate, and that we are hiding behind a High Court decision. There is no logic in that. There is a lot of offence in that because there is an implication that we are doing some kind of closed door deal here. There is an implication that we set up a situation, yet, the reality is so very different. The reality is a High Court decision took most people by surprise when it was handed down in August last year it. We were faced with a very stark choice. We had 49 parks and reserves in the Territory that had been invalidly declared. I did not turn around as Chief Minister and blame the previous government. I said: ‘It is a fact of life. It has happened. Let us deal with it’.
We had to face the fact that there were going to be a number of parks that were available for claim under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, and the fact that the majority of other parks and reserves could be claimed under native title. Okay, fact of life! Yet, we have heard member after member in the opposition want to deny that this is a fact of life. Land rights have been in place since 1976 and our understanding of native title we have seen develop over the 1990s. It is certainly good to hear members of the opposition to talk about that bundle of rights, because that is probably the best way that we can describe, at this stage, what native title is. It is a bundle of rights. In some instances, it is a very thin bundle but, in other instances, it is a very substantial bundle.
I do not deny it; I am a fairly practical person. I have seen dealing with lawyers over many years on land rights, particularly in the Territory, and it costs a lot of money. The stark example of Kenbi, where it was litigated for millions upon millions of dollars for absolutely no outcome. Millions of dollars. I do not know what the time component was, but hundreds and hundreds of hours in time. What was the result? Nothing; still a stalemate. When you are confronted with that, why would you choose, in the first instance, a litigated approach? A litigated approach that said for all of those claims that are now eligible for land rights claim under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, we could litigate every one of them, we could take them through the process. We could also, over a long period of time, and you are probably looking at about 20 years, we could go through all those claims. We could take them through the various tribunals, we could take them through the National Native Title Tribunal and the assessment is somewhere between $100m and $150m if you base it on the current costs. That is not a fanciful figure.
The Member for Daly said: ‘How can you prove that figure?’ It is based on the experience of the last 20 years. That is what it is based on. It is based on lawyers costs. It is not rocket science. It is based lawyers costs. So when you look at what it would cost to undertake 20 years of litigation, you are looking at tens of millions of dollars. What is the outcome? Great for lawyers, great for lawyers! In the Kenbi example, where have you got? So you have the alternatives. You have litigation, the way of the past, or you could look at negotiation. You could look at a negotiated settlement, do something a little different that does not take us through that litigated approach, but we look at recognising the rights that are there, balancing, but set out clearly in any negotiation like this some clear principles. We set those clear principles out, so I cannot understand what all this closed door deal talk is about. As soon as we set out those clear principles, I went out publicly and announced them.
How is this doing secret deals? The clear principles of no fees, no permits; any land that changed title would be leased back for 99 years, just like Nitmiluk; that existing concessions will be recognised; mining interests will be recognised; that we will develop a parks master plan; that we would put litigation on hold while this happened. There were clear principles and they were agreed to by the land councils. So this is the kind of secret deal that is a honey pot for the land councils in the opposition’s mind. Not at all. Not at all.
The Opposition Leader said: ‘Just jump on’. What the Opposition Leader came in here and said was highly offensive. Not only highly offensive, but highly stupid. Claiming conspiracies, claiming set ups, claiming secret deals, claiming paying off mates …
Mr Baldwin: No, they are your words. They are your words.
Ms MARTIN: You did not hear what he said. That is what he said. Is highly offensive and it is so wrong. It is so wrong and is such a blast from the CLP. We should have realised this attitude would be articulated in a debate like this.
On one hand we have a practical solution. We have a transparent approach in this. You have to look at a balance in a negotiated settlement. This framework says where that balance is. There are different categories in the schedules of land. When the former Opposition Leader came for his first briefing, he agreed entirely that we should go and schedule the land that was now open for claim under land rights. Absolutely agreed entirely.
That position from the opposition seems to be shifting, but we recognise that. We also recognise others’ really strong interest in land and we recognise other varieties of interest, which come under joint management in Schedule 3. This is a package with different components to it. This is about recognising legitimate Aboriginal interests. When you have members here on the other side saying: ‘But test it, but test it’, what about during construction of the railway? The Larrakia interests in the railway corridor were recognised by the previous government with a grant of land at Bullocky Point. It was never tested. It was never tested. In granting land along the corridor, the previous government said: ‘We recognise Larrakia interest’.
Mr Baldwin: Was native title extinguished?
Ms MARTIN: We recognise Larrakia interests.
Mr Baldwin: Yes, native title was extinguished.
Ms MARTIN: No, native title was not established. The land was granted at Bullocky Point.
Madam Speaker, the principles we are following here are ones that the Country Liberal Party also followed. This is an open and transparent solution, a win-win solution for all Territorians. For land that currently we do not access because it is Aboriginal land ….
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
MADAM SPEAKER: Member for Daly, you have had your turn.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, if you look at Schedule 1 combined with Schedule 5, what we are proposing is that land that currently is not available in the parks comes into the parks. If you look at something like Gregory National Park and the central piece in that, which is not in the parks but contains the wonderful Jasper Gorge, we now have the opportunity to make a park including that accessible for all Territorians. How is that a loss for the Territory? How is that a loss for all Territorians, visitors to the Territory? How is that a loss?
Let us look at Elsey Park adjoining Aboriginal land with Red Lily Lagoon. What we are proposing is that that land comes in to the parks estate, it is accessible and builds an enhanced park at Elsey. A win-win, a real opportunity. The land is leased currently. The Red Lily Lagoon land is not accessible. Under our proposal, it will be leased back, no fees, no permits, for 99 years. We have committed infrastructure dollars. We are enhancing the parks through a master planning process.
What do tourists want? What do Territorians want? More places to go; greater environmental experiences; greater cultural experiences; indigenous experience. The proposals we have on one hand deal with a situation that otherwise would have to be litigated, where money would be spent not creating jobs, not creating enterprises, but spending money on lawyers in court. We are solving that situation, but we are also looking at how we build tourism, how we build opportunities for Territory business, how we build opportunities for creating jobs often in areas where it is difficult to create jobs. We have committed an additional $25m into the parks over the next five years to assist with that building infrastructure.
This is a comprehensive package. It is not a conspiracy, as we heard alleged by the Opposition Leader who, in a week, has changed his position on this bill very dramatically. One would almost say it smells of hypocrisy. What we have is a proposal that has no secrets about it. We do not have to come in here with legislation. We, as ministers, have the power to do the things articulated in this legislation, but what we have chosen to do is to say we will have legislation - and we have talked through this with the Commonwealth, which is very supportive - that spells out what we are going to do. There is nothing behind closed doors.
This is what we are going to do, these are the terms of what we are going to do, this is the land we are dealing with and this is the way we are dealing with it. It sets out very clearly a time frame: 30 June next year. I have the ability to extended that for a six month period, but what we are saying is we want agreement to this substantially by 30 June next year, so it is not open ended. It is a transparent process with a framework in legislation.
There has been a lot of discussion tonight about ‘the cash’. Opposition member after opposition member said: ‘compensation’. ‘How much is it worth? What is the cash?’ Let me disappoint the opposition. When we are talking about resolution of native titles issues, we are not talking, in terms of joint management, about cash. We are talking about compensation regarding that very joint management …
Mr Baldwin: What is the value of the land? Clarify it.
Ms MARTIN: Clarify it?
Mr Baldwin: The value of the land. The value of the assets.
Ms MARTIN: Since I am on my feet, I have the right to set what I talk about. We had member after member come in her and say: ‘Okay, you are going to resolve native title within these joint managements with indigenous land use agreements. So what is the compensation? What kind of cash are you going to pay? The indigenous …
Mr Baldwin: No, I did not say that.
Ms MARTIN: Your colleagues did. The indigenous land use agreements will deal with both past and future acts, and there will be no cash compensation for that because what we will see is joint management. In some cases, we will see land title and we will see resolution of those. That is part of the deal. What we are talking about is resolving those issues.
Regarding rentals, a moratorium for at least five years on paying any rentals at all. If you look at the rental put in place by the previous government when Nitmiluk was established, that is in the quantum of about $140 000 a year. So that would probably be at the very high end of any rentals. We are talking about parks and their value for rental. You are talking about how many visitors, what size they are. You are talking about their environmental values. There are a lot of those aspects that have still to be looked at. It was done with Nitmiluk, and we respect the way that was done. The model put in place by the Country Liberal Party for Nitmiluk is one we are following.
When you look at other models like Cobourg and the setting up of a land trust, that is the kind of model we are seeking for the holding of land title, exactly the same that is in place in Cobourg. You could say that in many ways, this is not rocket science. We are looking at what has worked in the past. We are looking at the successes the previous government had in Nitmiluk and Cobourg. With a combination of what has worked well in the past and how we can move that to the future, we have a great model here.
The attitude I heard from the opposition was very defensive: ‘You are just bagging what we have done in the past. You are drawing a line in the sand and you are saying all in the past was wicked and evil’. We are not saying that. What we are saying is that your approach predominantly in the past was litigious. There was a lot of money spent, a lot of cash spent on fighting in courts for no apparent outcome.
Mr Baldwin: Oh, wasn’t it! How many pieces of Aboriginal land have been handed over.
Ms MARTIN: For no apparent outcome. Look at Kenbi! I am not saying we are not in the courts, because in the case of Larrakia Part A, we are in the courts.
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, cease!
Ms MARTIN: We are assessing cases very carefully. In this case, the quantum of how to litigate and the duration was enormous. The money spent on lawyers was not going to create jobs for Territorians, was not going to create business opportunities, and was certainly not going to enhance our parks system. That is a greater opportunity to grasp.
We recognise in this the successful models put in place by the previous government, the Cobourg model, the trust model. We are looking at the joint management arrangements in Nitmiluk, and they will inform the plans of management that will be in place for all the jointly managed parks.
Let me look at some of the other issues raised. The member for Nelson was concerned that the Chief Minister is bestowed too much power in this bill. May I reassure him that the powers in this bill are powers ministers have for granting land; we have defined them in this bill to make it transparent. If you look at clause 10, the things I am authorised to do have very strict conditions attached to them. If you compare, say Part 2, clause 8 with what I am authorised to do with clause 10 and the conditions to which my authority is subject, it is very defined. In ministerial authority, set out in legislation are the conditions by which I must act. If you are going to talk about the power I have, it is very fettered. It is no more power than a minister has to do any part of their daily work. However, we have put it together in this bill to underpin the transparency and accountability by which we are going about this.
The member for Nelson also raised the issue of plans of management and whether they were going to be accountable or whether they were seen to be something that I would have too much authority over. Those plans of management come within the current Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, so they will be developed under the current legislation. They will be tabled and discussed here in parliament and they can be disallowed here in parliament. Regarding my authority in a plan of management, it is the Parks minister’s authority, it comes under that act, and is fully accountable to our parliament.
The questions specifically posed by the member for Nelson included the 38 parks that were subject to native title claims and how we assess them. In many of those parks and reserves, there is a high probability of claim. Many of those parks and reserves are adjacent to scheduled land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. We believe those claims were quite strong and the reason that the declaration of the parks previously was invalid was that they did not recognise any possibility of rights in those parks. We changed the act in the 1990s. We recognised that there was a time when we did not recognise, so that is why the whole 49 came up for invalidity.
He said there are three extra parks coming into the scheduling. If you look at Schedule 1, there are 11 parks and reserves that were open for land rights claim. We have added another three to that because we believe that there is a great advantage for Territorians to be able to access currently inaccessible Aboriginal land for the general public. Those, as indicated in Schedule 5, are Aboriginal land adjoining the Davenport Range National Park, the Aboriginal land I mentioned before, Red Lily Lagoon, which adjoins Elsey National Park, and the Aboriginal land that adjoins Gregory National Park. Those parcels of land we are proposing to be scheduled, but the whole new park will become leased to the Territory for 99 years: accessible, no fees, no permits. We believe that we will really enhance our parks estate.
Quite legitimately, we have set in our principles that existing concessions will be recognised in parks. I would like to deal with some of those, particularly in respect of concessions in parks currently. In providing an environment which will foster and encourage new commercial opportunities for indigenous people, the government has not forgotten existing concession holders. We have been mindful that there are currently only a very small number of concessions, many not involving any form of infrastructure investment on the part of the concession holder. Often, they are walking tours, mobile kiosks, that kind of thing. Across a number of parks, there are probably only 20 concessions in all. So you are looking at 49 parks with only 20 concessions, and those very limited in the form of any infrastructure. As it is, the majority of the existing concessions are guaranteed through the right of renewal beyond 2006 and, beyond that, where there is a reasonable expectation that a concession would be renewed, it will be.
We believe these arrangements are fair and reasonable. At the same time, we are seeking incentives for traditional owners to support continued use of the land as a park, and to actively engage in economic development. The resolution of native title and ALRA claims will create the necessary certainty to facilitate development, which will create much needed employment and training opportunities in the regions. Currently, certainty for concession holders simply is not there. They are not able to secure a lease and these changes, and changes we are proposing to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, will facilitate those leases in these new parks; which means that once you have a lease, you can work on infrastructure development.
We have also included provisions in the bill to put commercial activity on a more certain basis through allowing sub-leasing on parks held under NT parks freehold title. Furthermore, as I just mentioned, one of the recommendations made in the joint Northern Territory-Land Councils submission to the Commonwealth on reforms to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, provides for the streamlining of section 19 leasing arrangements to facilitate development. The historical arrangements now in place under by-law 13 concessions certainly need streamlining, and this will be achieved by the master planning process. May I say that the tourism industry has warmly welcomed these proposals to inject certainty into the development of commercial opportunities on Northern Territory parks and reserves.
Concerns were raised about control over parks and community living areas. To deal with that in the time remaining, the joint management of parks and reserves is not a new concept. The government has taken on board the lessons learnt at Nitmiluk, Kakadu and Uluru Kata Tjuta. We have developed an innovative and flexible model for joint management of parks by the Parks and Wildlife Service and traditional owners. It is worth remembering that as part of the offer laid out in the bill, both the government and the traditional owners will be signing off on agreed objectives for our parks system. These are: that a comprehensive and representative parks system is one that is developed in partnership between the Territory and traditional owners of the parks and reserves; benefits those traditional Aboriginal owners by recognising, valuing and incorporating indigenous culture, knowledge and decision making processes; protects biological diversity; serves the educational and recreational needs of Territorians and visitors; and enjoys widespread community support. We believe this sets the basis for good management of parks for all Territorians. All management decisions will be consistent with the jointly developed plans of management which, as I mentioned before, will be approved by the minister and the traditional owners and tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
It has been dealt with before, but the opposition has expressed concern about community living areas and parks, which is one of the things we dealt with through the plans of management. We had the member for Goyder in the Litchfield Times scaremongering, suggesting that a community the size of Wadeye, which is the best part of 3000 people, could spring up virtually on top of Wangi Falls. We have established a framework for the good management of parks, and community living areas will be managed within that framework and against the values and the aspirations I just mentioned. The establishment of any community living areas will need to be consistent with the plan of management and will be developed in a manner that is consistent with the good management of the park. By involving Aboriginal owners in the management of the park, they will have a substantial stake in the success of the park and would not wish to jeopardise that success.
Again, I refer to the Nitmiluk model. When you are looking at investment in parks and traditional owners taking advantage of the ownership recognised through the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act with Nitmiluk, we have a great partnership between the Jawoyn and Werner Sarny, and that has gone from strength to strength, and proved great opportunities for local Katherine people and local Aboriginal Katherine people.
Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contributions. This is an important bill and shows us a way for the future.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Bill 2003 (Serial 180) together with Schedule of Amendments number 67 circulated by the Chief Minister, Ms Martin. Is it the wish of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole?
Mr BURKE: Just a clarification. Are you saying we will approve the whole bill or are we taking it clause by clause?
Mr CHAIRMAN: We will take it as a whole and then deal with the amendments as printed unless you would like to comment on sections of the bill.
Mr BURKE: Clause by clause, please.
Ms MARTIN: Okay.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Brennan, do you have a particular clause that you would like to debate?
Mr BURKE: For ease, if we take clause 8, clause 9, clauses 10 and 11 and then take the rest of the bill as a whole. We can refer to the schedule as part of the Chief Minister’s amendments.
Clauses 1 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mr BURKE: I refer to clause 8(e). The Chief Minister has been given powers to execute on behalf of Territorians one or more indigenous land use agreements to enable the things referred to paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) to be done. (b), (c) and (d) include establishment of park freehold title over the parks and reserves specified in Schedule 2. The Chief Minister made a point of saying that in relation to land value that there would be no cash transfer involved. I ask her to clarify that in how one of these indigenous land use agreements would be struck, in her mind.
Ms MARTIN: Sorry, I missed the last bit. How many?
Mr BURKE: How it would be struck.
Mr Baldwin: In your mind.
Ms MARTIN: In my mind, in terms of?
Mr Dunham: The negotiator.
Ms MARTIN: The indigenous land use agreements will deal with past and future acts and will look at how we find a way to recognise those in that indigenous land use agreement. Regarding past acts, it will look at things like what has been built in one of the parks, it might look at a ranger station or a road and it will also look at future acts. There is no cash about that. That is quite clear. We are not talking cash here.
We will look at wrapping those issues up. For example, the level of compensation would be in joint management. It would be in Schedules 2 and 1 in land title. That is the extent of the indigenous land use agreements. I might not be giving you all the absolute details. I am not pretending I am an expert, but to deal with the heart of the member for Brennan’s question, it is not about cash. This is about looking at where the parks are, what has happened in the past, how to deal with future acts and how they are incorporated with an indigenous land use agreement.
Mr BURKE: With regards to powers that are given to the Chief Minister, it says fairly clearly here that you have the authority to deal with land in Schedules 1, 2 and 3. It also, and I ask you to clarify this, gives you the authority to execute indigenous land use agreements. You have spoken globally, and I understand the global vision and intent of the government, but it seems clear by this bill and the way it is framed that there would have to be a separate indigenous land use agreement struck for each of the parks and reserves that are scheduled in the bill. Is that correct?
Ms MARTIN: There would be a model for the indigenous land use agreement and that model would apply individually to each park and reserve.
Mr BURKE: Okay. That is why we get back to this question of: in striking this indigenous land use agreement, there must be a position that the Territory government has for a land use agreement with regards to one park, for example, Gregory Park on Schedule 1 or Watarrka in Schedule 2, where the government must have some understanding of the value of that park as Crown land as it currently exists. Surely, that would be part of the position and understanding of asset versus beneficial use for Territorians in the future that would be part of that indigenous land use agreement.
Ms MARTIN: The intention of this is to establish a parks system, so the valuation of land to which you are alluding is not relevant to establishing of a parks system. It is not relevant to the discussions we are having tonight because parks will be valued in terms of their biodiversity, their recreational capacity, where they are located, and their tourist experience. That is the value of a park.
Mr Baldwin: It is freehold land or it is leasehold land. You can put a value on it.
Ms MARTIN: That is the value of the park. This is about creating a parks system. Many of those areas of land are remote and, when you are valuing a park, what are we saying? We are looking at its value in tourism numbers, its biodiversity capacity, and the visitors. It is the same kind of the value that was examined for Nitmiluk then translated to an annual rental, a lease annually of $140 000. We are talking about building a parks system; we are not talking about building a waterfront development. We are talking about building a parks system and looking at the values inherent in that land.
Mr BALDWIN: Just on that subject, Chief Minister, now that you have raised it, are you saying that the land has no value?
Ms MARTIN: I have just indicated that the land as a park has great value.
Mr Dunham: What is it?
Ms MARTIN: The land as a park has great value in tourism, cultural experience and the other aspects that I talked about; the same as applied in a situation like Nitmiluk. I am assuming, at that time, a valuation was done on what the rental would be, looking at its accessibility, visitor numbers, its area, and its conservation value. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about creating a parks system. There is no lease payment for at least five years, but then looking, appropriately, at the model that the previous government put in place in Nitmiluk.
Mr BALDWIN: I just want to – are you on this same subject?
Mr BURKE: Yes. Surely it is a simple question. First, you are establishing a land use agreement that includes the granting of park freehold title. It is freehold tile with certain caveats on it. Not only is it park freehold title with certain caveats on it, if you compulsorily acquire that land back, you have to pay compensation without any restrictions or conditions. So there has to be a cash value involved in that land. To say otherwise is something that we on this side just do not understand, so you need to explain.
Ms MARTIN: The legislation, of course, must carry some land acquisition component. What if you wanted to build a gas pipeline? There are all kind of circumstances that might arise and would need to be dealt with appropriately through the Lands Acquisition Act. However, what we are talking about here is land that we are putting into a parks system. That is its intention. It is like saying: ‘What is the value of Nitmiluk? We are going to put R4 through it’. It does not make sense in this context. We are talking about a parks system. We are talking about land that, for 99 years, unless something exceptional happens, and it would be exceptional, would remain as a park. Those park values, then, are the ones that apply to that land. I do not think that it is illogical.
Mr BALDWIN: Chief Minister, sorry to harp on about this, but you seem to be saying that you cannot put a value on this land. My understanding is that for every piece of land in Australia, a value can be determined. It can be determined by the number of tourists, the commercial value, the economic value, the cultural value of the land. Those things can be determined by any number of people, particularly property valuers and the Australian Valuation Office. Are you saying that it cannot be determined? Is that what you are saying?
Ms MARTIN: What I am saying for this bill and what we are proposing as an enhanced parks system to create a value for Territorians and for visitors in recreation, tourism and biodiversity, the kind of value that you are talking about is irrelevant to this argument. What we are talking about is finding a solution to an issue that arose that we could litigate. We are recognising Aboriginal Territorians’ relationship to land, their undeniable rights to that land, particularly the land that is to be scheduled, balancing that recognition with land that we have leased for 99 years to be accessible by all Territorians.
This is a balancing act. This is a much better way to deal with a difficult situation than the litigation route. Alternatively, we could just say piece by piece, we will deal with this land. We will look at the land, we will go through the court process and spend millions of dollars. We are making a balance between joint management, land that does not change title and can be claimed under ALRA …
Mr Baldwin: You can put a value on it
Ms MARTIN: What value would you say that land that can be claimed under ALRA …
Mr Baldwin: Ask the AVO. They will tell you..
Ms MARTIN: It can be claimed under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
Mr Baldwin: Give them the commission to do it.
Ms MARTIN: It can be claimed under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. There was general agreement. What we are saying is that in this situation, we are looking at parks value.
Mr Baldwin: You are looking at giving it up.
Ms MARTIN: I have repeated myself adequately on that. We are getting into the repetitious.
Mr MILLS: On the issue of valuation, you would have noticed, Chief Minister, that the Great Barrier Reef, for example, has been valued in clear terms. Icons such as Uluru could be valued in real economic terms. That is currently on foot. Surely, a park can be given a real value to the nation and to Territorians so we know what we are dealing with, other than just woolly ideas. We really have to know what it is we are talking about. It can be done.
Ms MARTIN: Leader of the Opposition, I take the issue of Uluru. Its value is in its cultural status, its environmental status …
Mr Mills: It can be given an economic value.
Ms MARTIN: … or the hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. That is the economic value, the cultural recreational value of that land.
Mr MILLS: It can actually be worked out.
Ms MARTIN: We are talking about land that needs development. We are talking about enhancing other land so they can bring development to Territorians. This is a very important way to move forward.
Mr ELFERINK: I have a bean counter question as well while we are talking about values. For argument’s sake, let us say we take the Chief Minister’s assertion that this is actually a very valuable asset in all sorts of terms, but let us put a bean counter number on it. Let us say we are disposing of an asset that will reduce the nett worth of the Northern Territory by a certain amount. Under accrual accounting, assets have to be counted. The assets of the Northern Territory must have a dollar figure next to them. Say the asset value of 17 000 km2 of land plus built assets - roads, pipes, telephone poles, buildings, ranger stations, generator sets, water provision, and those sorts of things - are added to that, let us pull a figure out of the air: a couple of hundred million bucks worth.
Chief Minister, if we were to lower the nett worth of the Northern Territory by disposing of assets, which will have an effect on an accrual system’s bottom line, do you anticipate that we would then, as a result, against those assets, carry increased debts proportional to the amount of assets that we have? What is the flow on effect on the potential credit rating for the Northern Territory?
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: These are important issues. You may roll your eyes and laugh, but if I owned a company that had two buildings and I carried so much debt to pay for those two buildings, and I dispose of one of those buildings, I can tell you now, for free, my accountants would be getting nervous. So the question I am asking is: seeing we are getting rid of part of our assets, what is the flow on economic effect on the rest of the budget? Will our creditors become more nervous, seeing that we are disposing of assets in such a fashion? Have you at any stage calculated or asked this question of your own Treasury?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, it does not take much imagination to see that if you have a block out there and really nothing is occurring with it now …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: By way of agreement, we put in a sound development to make it a park. We get visitation through there, we get joint management of that park, we get employment and training programs for indigenous people to take a rightful place in the operation of this park, showing visitors over their land, the cultural spin-offs, the tourism value, the dollar spin-off from that, does the member for Macdonnell seriously believe that any one of us can stand here and say what would be the enhancement value from a piece of land out there that at the moment that is not returning anything to go through this process, develop the park, and get a valuable tourist dollar coming through …
Mr Elferink: Yes. I honestly believe that and I am asking you to put a value on it.
Mr STIRLING: Well, you are in cloud fairyland if you think you can put X number of dollars on that. We are talking about enhancing the value of this land so that it truly is a win-win situation. To talk about the investors getting nervous or Moody’s saying we are going to downgrade your credit rating from AA2 to whatever the downgrading might be as a result of this, where do you get off? You are just a joke. You just want to drag this out all night.
Mr ELFERINK: I am not going to be bullied by this Treasurer on this issue and I will tell you why: because this Treasurer and this Chief Minister are muddying the waters as much as they can. The Northern Territory Arts and Museums will have asset value on paintings, and a painting is an entirely subjective item. It is a bit of canvas with some oil smeared on in such a way that a subjective value is applied. Arts and Museums can value their stock for insurance purposes and all sorts of purposes, and they can say the paintings are worth what we get from people coming in through the front door. Now, if Arts and Museums can do it, surely Parks can. This is rubbish. This is a very shoddy little line that these guys are running.
Mr AH KIT: Mr Chairman, I would make a couple of comments. Last night, I sat in this Chamber that they are very selective in what they contribute to debates that involve Aboriginal people. What concerns me is that we have had the member for Macdonnell and members opposite on many occasions oppose Aboriginal people and the relationships that they are developing with this government. What we are doing is looking at the assets that we have collectively and how we use them wisely to move the Territory forward? That is what we are on about. We want to move the Territory forward in partnership.
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order! There is too much cross-Chamber talk.
Mr AH KIT: We always have the member for Macdonnell saying: ‘Where are these opportunities? Aboriginal people are big landowners out there. They are doing nothing with their country’. We have an opportunity now, and he swings the other way. He backflips, and now he is against it. When we have this debate, I would like members opposite to ensure that they include Aboriginal people as Territorians in this debate so that we can have a sensible debate, put the best legislation through, and work together collectively to move the Territory forward rather than playing humbug politics.
Ms MARTIN: The member for Macdonnell’s arguments are ridiculous. Currently the land is owned by the Conservation Land Corporation. It is not on the Territory account so it is not part of the valuation of the Territory. It is separate. Your arguments go nowhere.
Mr BURKE: Chief Minister, I thought you and I and the member for Daly were doing quite well. I do have confidence in your ability to deal with this committee stage amendments. The question is not churlish. If you cannot provide the answer now, could you undertake to provide an answer with your advice from Treasury?
There are land values set in your own documentation for the estate of the Northern Territory. I would think that there should be land value attached to these parks. We can move on from that issue, but it was asked in the context of you have established a park freehold title, which is estate fee in simple with caveats. Also by your legislation, if you compulsorily acquire that land, it has to be compulsorily acquired at a price. If it has no value in dollar terms going in transfer to Aboriginal interests, does the same apply if it is transferred back? Surely it would not. I would have thought that, for example, and also provided in clause 9(2)(f), that the estate may be surrendered back to the Territory government or it can be compulsorily acquired.
In doing so, I imagine there would have to be some dollar value put on it in negotiations of compulsory acquisition. So if there is a dollar value for transfer back, surely there is a dollar value that can be applied in the initial transfer. That is what the question was all about.
Ms MARTIN: Member for Brennan, we are talking about legislation that deals with something that might happen some time in the very distant future. The land acquisition component of clause 9(2)(g) is there in case something does happen in the future. You are dealing with the gas pipeline scenario. It is not considered something that will happen frequently. It is a capacity for government to be able to deal with land changes way in the future.
The assessment of value is not part of it. It is a mechanism in the legislation to enable a future act to happen. Maybe in 150 years, somebody wants to look at part of the park for something different. Maybe, but it is just a mechanism in the bill, which is in many acts, to cater for that eventuality.
The intention of this park freehold title, as it says, is not freehold title; it has covenants on it. It is park freehold title to create a park. That is what this is about. We are creating a park to be able to enhance our parks system, to be able to support jobs growth in remoter areas of the Territory, to be able to give certainty to concession holders.
We have a lot of concession holders across those parks, about 20 in all, but there is no substantial infrastructure because you cannot secure a lease. Freehold title will make that available, and we will start to see some real investment happening in the parks, the same kind of investment we have seen since Nitmiluk came into place, and the investments have made that such a wonderful attraction.
That is the intention of the parks freehold title. It has nothing to do with being able to say there is a land value now and what will you sell it for? That is not the intention, but you must have that component in the bill, that’s all.
Mr CHAIRMAN: A point of clarification: we were dealing with clause 8 and we have gone on to clause 9.
Ms MARTIN: It has gone all over the place, sorry, Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will clean up clause 8.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Mr BURKE: May I have confirmation of that in writing regarding the inability to establish a value of the parks?
Ms MARTIN: You want to get that in writing?
Mr BURKE: Can you confirm from Treasury that you cannot establish a dollar value on the parks in the Northern Territory, or any individual park that might be transferred to a Park Land Trust?
Ms MARTIN: It is on the Hansard record, my response to that, and it is very clear. I am not trying to be clever. I happily today gave the square kilometreage of the land but, in what we are achieving through this proposal, this framework, this is about values of jobs, enterprises, opportunities and tourism. That is the value.
Mr BURKE: Okay.. That is your answer. Chief Minister, will the Park Land Trusts be representative of the traditional owners of those parks, of each individual park?
Ms MARTIN: Yes, they will be. It will be very much based on the Cobourg model. There is a parks land trust model in place there, and the land trust would hold the title. It is a passive body. In the active, the plan of management is the active management of that park.
Mr BURKE: If we look at clause 9, the land is transferred estate in fee simple with caveats to a Park Land Trust. Compensation is decided. You have said that the compensation will not involve dollars, and that Park Land Trust will operate on behalf of the traditional owners. Can you explain, therefore, in subclause (f)(ii), where it says:
- (f) the estate may, with the agreement of the Territory, be surrendered in whole or in part to the Territory –
(ii) to facilitate the grant of the whole or part of the land to the traditional Aboriginal owners of
the land so it can be used by those traditional Aboriginal owners for a specified purpose;
It seems to me that, on the way the legislation is written, the land is acquired with compensation payable or otherwise, depending on how the indigenous land use agreement is struck, to the Park Land Trust acting on behalf of the traditional owners. At some later date, that Park Land Trust may surrender the estate back to the Northern Territory government for whatever reason. It may not even be compulsorily acquired, it may be surrendered because it is agreed by both parties that it is in the interest of development of the Northern Territory, but may involve compensation. Who are these new traditional owners? Are they the same traditional owners, or some other traditional owners?
Ms MARTIN: The new traditional owners who would be the Parks Land Trust.
Mr BURKE: It says the estate may be surrendered to the Territory to facilitate the grant of the whole or part of the land to the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land so that it can be used by those traditional Aboriginal owners for a specified purpose. Now, the way the legislation is written, and as I understand it, you have given the land over for specific purposes. You have absolute control as the Chief Minister, but at a later date, that land can be surrendered completely to the traditional owners for another purpose.
Ms MARTIN: Let me give you another example. You have the land held by the land trust. There is an opportunity to do something different, maybe with part of the land. That lease would have to be then redetermined by the minister. You can take the example of, say, a pastoralist who exchanges a title if the pastoralist wanted to have some part of the land go to horticulture rather than pastoralism. That is the intention. It would be returned to the same Parks Land Trust, but with different lease arrangements. That is all.
Mr BALDWIN: I want to be very clear on this, because clause 9(f)(ii) says: ‘to facilitate the grant of the whole or part of the land …’. The concern is the grant. Can you clarify that it would only be leasehold, or could it be in fee simple grant?
Ms MARTIN: In that situation, it will be up to the minister to decide what kind of grant it was, whether it was one or the other or something else.
Mr BALDWIN: It can be reverted out of park freehold and out of the trust and then converted to freehold, say it is five hectares, to build a hotel or whatever you want to do, or horticulture, and then it could be granted to Aboriginal traditional owners for a specified purpose in fee simple. That is the clarification.
Ms MARTIN: These are potential future acts. No, I do not see why the member for Daly is laughing and shaking his head ...
Mr Baldwin: Because there are specific purposes.
Mr Baldwin: Yes, I know. I know that; I have heard it.
Ms MARTIN: This is about identified pieces …
Mr Baldwin: I have heard it.
Ms MARTIN: You are sitting there smirking and going: ‘Oh yes, we told you so’ ...
Mr Baldwin: I am sorry. I am sorry. If it is offending you, I am really sorry.
Ms MARTIN: It was implying that there was some kind of ulterior motive in the act …
Mr Baldwin: No, I am clarifying it. That is the job here, to clarify.
Ms MARTIN: … and it is not. I am just saying that this is about creating a parks estate on land that is parks land with cultural and biodiversity values.
Mr Baldwin: Okay, good. I have heard all that. Still in clause 9, you mentioned under indigenous land use agreements there could be compensation, not cash. You have said that, and have confirmed that for the member for Brennan. Can you give an example of what that compensation could involve?
Ms MARTIN: That compensation can be the joint management. That is significant in involvement in the park. In Schedules 1 and 2, it is land title. That is not inconsiderable, either. They are some of the mechanisms that we are talking about regarding compensation. But I make it very clear: we are not talking about cash. We are not talking about cash.
Mr BALDWIN: Could it involve, for instance, infrastructure? Is that within the realms of it?
Mr BALDWIN: Chief Minister, on that issue of compensation, it is going to be a component of the indigenous land use agreement. Will those indigenous land use agreements be tabled as part of the plans of management? Do they come into this parliament? This is a technical question. Where do those ILUAs end up, and are they public knowledge?
Ms MARTIN: I will take advice on that. The indigenous land use agreements will be registered with the National Native Title Tribunal and will be on a public register, as ILUAs currently are. I say again that the plans of management will be under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, I know that.
Mr BURKE: Chief Minister, with regards to Schedule 3 land which is currently under …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Are we still dealing with clause 9?
Mr BURKE: Yes. With regards to Schedule 3 land in clause 8, you have authority to strike indigenous land use agreements including joint management arrangements. Can land that is in Schedule 3 be included in land that is dealt with under clause (9)(f)(ii)? At the moment, it is under joint management arrangements. Can that land in future, given the authority given to you in this bill, be transferred to traditional owners to facilitate land to be used by them for a specified purpose in the future?
Ms MARTIN: No. This bill is very clear on the land in Schedule 3. There is no change of title on land in Schedule 3. That is clearly the intention of this bill and is how that land will be treated in negotiations that will take place over the next eight months.
Mr MALEY: Chief Minister, clause 9(2)(a) refers to ‘… the benefit of Aborigines entitled by Aboriginal tradition to the use of the land’ blah, blah, blah. What sort of administrative inquiry are you going to undertake to determine which Aboriginal people are entitled to the use of this land? I know from experience, and you do, as a local person, that you have competing groups of Aboriginal people, some claiming they have a link and others claiming that they have not. One of the difficult jobs that the Land Commissioner has is determining who are the traditional owners. How are you going to do that? What sort of inquiry?
Ms MARTIN: It is not what we are going to do. We are working with the land councils and their task is quite properly to identify those traditional owners, and that is not always a simple process, but in many cases for the land we are dealing with, it is fairly established.
Mr MALEY: So in a case where it is not established, an example being we know there are three Larrakia-type groups involved in a native title claim over portions of Darwin. You have not built in any sort of legislative provision to enable that a person has a fair hearing. If I say I am an Aboriginal person but the NLC disagrees with that, what sort of mechanism are you going to bring into place to make sure that you determine who really are the traditional owners?
Ms MARTIN: There are prescribed processes under native title and under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act where those things are resolved. Again, I say sometimes they are complex and we have seen in the Larrakia situation that it is not easy. However, in many of the land areas we are talking about here, it is clear and established.
Mr MALEY: Obviously, this bill will bind future generations of Territorians. Two questions: is there a plan to limit the number of traditional owners or what, you know …
Mr Stirling: By what means are you suggesting? Arsenic in the flour?
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Mr MALEY: No. You have are going to specify the number of people who can have access to the land and obviously that number will increase. By what mechanism are you going to allow that increase to occur? Is there going to be an annual review to see how many kids are related or how many people come under the scope of traditional owners?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, the question suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of what a traditional owner is. You are either a traditional owner or you are not of a bit of country. If there are 57 traditional owners for this bit of land, how are you going to limit that? Are you going to say: ‘We are only going to take seven’, or ‘We are going to take 50 and leave seven out?’ You are a traditional owner or you are not a traditional owner and there are certain well defined processes to establish who is and who is not a traditional owner. That is it. There is no way of limiting or dividing up or saying: ‘No, we are only going to recognise half of you’. If you can get that fundamental understanding in your head, we might not have nonsense questions.
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, implicit in the member for Goyder’s question was access to land. We are talking, in all these schedules, about land that will be accessed by all Territorians. It is a no fee, no permit basis on land that is leased back to the Territory for 99 years. So the issue of access is not a constriction here. In fact, this bill is about more access rather than less.
Mr BALDWIN: Again, on clause 9, and just a point of clarification. Clause (9)(2)(d) says the estate that is being vested in the trust cannot be mortgaged or otherwise encumbered. On the following page at (e), it says:
- subject to the joint management agreement for the park or reserve the estate can be leased or sub-leased and the resulting leasehold or sub-leasehold interest can be mortgaged.
Would you explain that to me?
Ms MARTIN: What we are talking about is the mechanism to enable a proper leasing arrangement for concession holders and other operators in parks that currently is not there. The capacity is not there, so we are talking about providing certainty and real opportunities for that sub-leasing to happen in parks so that we can see the infrastructure develop.
Mr BALDWIN: So you can provide a lease and the lessor could go off and mortgage that lease on the basis of it being, I assume, a long-term lease, 99 years or 50 years, a bit like the Nhulunbuy situation, and the bank just takes the risk if the mortgage is not met at the end of the day? Mortgages are all about trading tenure in land or having security under tenure of land to underwrite the mortgage.
Ms MARTIN: You could talk to the member for Nhulunbuy, whose house is on a lease. You could talk to people in London who have leases on their houses. It is not an unknown form of lease arrangement. It will create the certainty we need to be able to have the infrastructure happen.
Mr BALDWIN: What would you see as being a reasonable term of lease that financial institutions might lend against for land that is a new title called park freehold? Have you done some sort of investigations with the financial institutions as to how they would view this new tenure and what sort of term they would like to see for a mortgage to be put against it?
Ms MARTIN: I am not a banker. I am not a financial expert. This kind of work will be done. It is a commercial arrangement. What we are dealing with today is putting in place the certainty to have those things happen, and we are confident they will.
We have a lot of work to do between now and next June or maybe the end of next year to achieve this so we can start looking at those opportunities to be developed. There will be great opportunities. The very minimal infrastructure we have seen in these areas identified today will change once certainty for investment is provided through this framework.
Mr BURKE: If we can go to clause 9(h): if the estate is compulsorily acquired, the bill says the compensation payable for the acquisition is to be determined as if the estate is an estate in fee simple, free of the restrictions and conditions specified in paragraphs (a) to (g) inclusive. Compensation payable Chief Minister, surely, in that context, involves dollars, is that correct?
Ms MARTIN: In an answer to the same question delivered previously, this is about the future. This is about something that might happen in a distant time. We are talking about the capacity, as we have in so many different acts, to have land acquisition.
Mr BURKE: You said a gas pipeline before. It could be a reason for compulsory acquisition.
Ms MARTIN: I do not think a gas pipeline is going to run through the Davenport Ranges at this stage. At this stage, there are no parks between Wadeye and Gove that will have the pipeline through them. Many acts include land acquisition capacity, but at this stage, we are talking about building a parks estate.
Mr MALEY: If the issue of compensation is something that you say is hypothetical and we should not be discussing it here, it would have been an option to dictate that effectively no compensation is payable. You have said, yes, compensation is payable, but have regard to paragraphs (a) to (g), and that is how you determine the approximate value. Are you going to say that offends the guarantee of acquisition on just terms under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, and this does not?
Ms MARTIN: Yes.
Mr MALEY: Is that what you are saying?
Ms MARTIN: Of course it does. We have the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act that requires, if you are going to acquire, there has to be compensation paid if you are building the gas pipeline.
Mr MALEY: Couldn’t you then build in to conditions for a trust, saying one of the terms of the land being held in trust for this as yet unspecified group of people, is that if for any reason future generations of Territorians have to acquire that land, then no compensation is payable. You are not giving it to them. One of the specific conditions is that it is on trust, but a condition of that trust is that future generations have to pay for it if they have to get it back. Why wouldn’t you do that?
Ms MARTIN: I am proud of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, and I believe that having capacity like that in an act is only fair and just, and I am sure you would agree. You would argue that case if you were a lawyer in court, let me tell you.
Mr MALEY: Indeed. So would your husband. I think you misunderstood the question. I understand that if you give someone something and want to acquire it back, there are safeguards under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act to acquire on just terms, any proper and ethical lawyer would act for either party to the best of his ability. What I am saying is the whole issue of compensation could be avoided if build in a condition that if, for any reason, land is required to come back to the Territory for the good of all people, then no compensation is payable. Would you not avoid running the gauntlet then of the Lands Acquisition Act and avoid running the gauntlet of taking property back, which is not necessarily on just terms? Is it possible to do that? Is it something you have considered?
Ms MARTIN: Member for Goyder, you are just trying to create issues where there are none. This bill is about finding a solution to what was a difficult and complex problem. It is about building a parks estate in tourism, recognising legitimate indigenous interests, and building jobs and enterprises. It is not about these kind of hypothetical, ‘how long is a piece of string’ argument. That is it. I have answered enough of those questions.
Mr BALDWIN: Chief Minister, still on clause 9 - and this is my last question on this clause - over the page at clause 9(8), it says:
- (8) The Regulations may provide for –
(b) the procedures of a Park Land Trusts …
Etcetera. Could you clarify for me the phrase ‘the regulations may provide for’? Is it correct to assume that the regulations are made by the park land trust, or is that by the minister, or the Chief Minister in this case?
Ms MARTIN: There are regulations that will go with this bill and they are made by me, and will go through the Subordinate Legislation Committee.
Mr BALDWIN: May I say then, Mr Chairman, that I am happy to let clause 9 go. Clause 10 I will not deliberate on. I do want to ask a couple of quick questions on clause 11 and then we will go to the schedule.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Mr BALDWIN: This is the clause dealing with a non-impeachable power for informality and irregularity. I understand you cannot be impeached because of an informality or irregularity in compliance with the conditions. Could you give an example of what those sorts of things might be?
Ms MARTIN: I will give you detail, but it is about making sure that there is not some small, technical thing that unravels the greater framework here. For instance, a minor technical breach or something that has not been done to absolute technical perfection does not undermine what we are trying to do here. That is all. I will give you an example: a technical argument over one of the boundaries of the land in the schedules should not cause a major problem with the rest of what we are trying to do here. That is all. It is fairly straightforward.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Chairman, I am not going to ask any more questions except when we reach the schedules for which the Chief Minister has amendments, in any event.
Clauses 12 to 17, by leave, taken together and agreed to.:
Schedule 1:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 67.1 to Schedule 1: omit ‘Elery’ and substitute with ‘Ellery’.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2:
Ms MARTIN: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 67.2 to Schedule 2: to omit from Keep River National Park ‘and adjacent Spirit Hills pastoral lease’ and amendment 67.3 to Schedule 2, omit: ‘Limmen National Park (proposed)’.
Mr BALDWIN: The Chief Minister, I thought, was going to explain this, but I will ask the question. Chief Minister, can you explain why this was in the schedule and now is not in the schedule?
Ms MARTIN: Yes, certainly. One of the conditions we put on the principles involving this framework and what was in the schedules was that all litigation had to finish. It was a very important part of the core principles. The advice from traditional owners has been that, with both Limmen National Park and Spirit Hills areas, traditional owners have rejected the offer by the government at this stage. They have rejected it because they intend to keep litigating. We have withdrawn those two aspects. They are litigating pursuant ALRA, so with the Land Commissioner. We have then said that they are withdrawn from this bill. It just simple. The bill stipulates that there has to be no litigation against any of these parks and reserves and the traditional owners have made the decision, quite appropriately for them, that Limmen and Spirit Hills will be removed from Schedule 2.
Mr BALDWIN: So just to clarify that, under ALRA, they are litigating against the government through the Land Commissioner. Is that right?
Ms MARTIN: Federal government. Land rights.
Mr BALDWIN: So the government is defending a position? That is s the question I am asking.
Ms MARTIN: Sorry, the government …
Mr BALDWIN: The government, which owns this land at the moment, is defending a position against litigation that is going on by the claimants?
Ms MARTIN: No. Essentially, the claimants have decided that they do not wish to accept this offer from the government in this framework, and they have rejected it. That is simply it. There are reasons for that, but they have said to us they do not wish to accept the offer made to them in this framework and so those two portions, Spirit Hills and Limmen National Park, have been removed from Schedule 2.
Mr BALDWIN: One would understand from that, though, they are pursuing a land rights claim under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act currently before the Commissioner?
Ms MARTIN: Yes, they are pursuing it.
Mr BALDWIN: And the government usually has a position because you are the owner at this stage of Limmen. Can you tell me what your position is in relation to this land and the litigation?
Ms MARTIN: I cannot give you chapter and verse on that …
Mr BALDWIN: You have your legal advisors there.
Ms MARTIN: No, what I am saying is that what we are talking about tonight is an offer, that …
Mr BALDWIN: That is not want I am asking.
Ms MARTIN: No, I am telling you. I am dealing with this bill tonight, and it is an important bill. We have put a proposal to traditional owners within this framework, and traditional owners have between now and the 30 June, perhaps a little extension, to decide whether they will accept those offers or not. That is incorporated in this bill. Those particular traditional owners have decided at this early stage they do not want those two portions to be part of this. So they have been withdrawn, straight forward.
Mr BALDWIN: Chief Minister, this is Crown land and this is your offer to Aboriginal people. What you are actually saying is that these are parks and reserves over which park freehold title is to be granted so they could have the grant under this legislation when it takes effect. But no, they have decided, quite rightly, to pursue it under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. This is your offer, this is not their offer. This is your offer to Aboriginal people. Why did you take it out? If litigation is before the Land Commissioner, what is your position on behalf of all Territorians to that claim? What is the government’s position on it?
Ms MARTIN: We are testing the claim, quite properly. The traditional owners have not accepted this offer for park freehold title from the Territory government. So these two portions of land are not part of the framework offer. That is quite simple. Traditional owners have the right to make that choice; that is what this is all about. What I am saying to our traditional owners is: ‘We think this is a very fair deal. We think this has a mix of options in it. We think it has great opportunities for growing jobs, developing businesses, enhancing our parks estate’. That is the offer that is being put to traditional owners, but they have every right to reject it. We, as the Territory government, have every right to go back and litigate each one, one by one. I have made that very clear from the start.
Mr BALDWIN: You have just confirmed that you are contesting this claim against Limmen, that’s what you’ve just said …
Ms Martin: We are testing, absolutely, quite properly.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, we did it for a lot of years. You just had a go at us, about $150m worth. So you are contesting this claim. Is it they who have asked you to withdraw it, or is it on your grounds that you have withdrawn it from this bill?
Ms MARTIN: We have withdrawn it from the bill because the offer has been rejected. This title offer has been rejected. It is not complex. There is no other agenda here. ‘Here is the offer’, ‘No, we don’t want it. We have other intentions in mind’. That’s it; it’s out. I am not mucking about here. This is an offer and if portions are withdrawn, they are withdrawn.
Mr BALDWIN: In this schedule, Chief Minister, and I asked this during the briefing, how did you arrive at these six particular parks? Why didn’t the schedule, for instance, include two parks or 16 parks? I can understand Schedule 1 because they are affected under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, but in Schedule 2, how did you arrive at the six to begin with?
Ms MARTIN: The offer is a balance between different titles. It is a mix, and that is why I am really committed to making sure that the offer as a whole, as much as we can, is accepted, because it is a balance. There are titles that do not change. There are titles that are very strong under ALRA, the ones we have accepted. There are other land areas that have a very strong traditional owner interest or potential participation in these parks.
If you look at Dulcie, Keep and Watarrka particularly, that opportunity is there. Those parks have a lot of potential to develop and further engage the traditional owners in their joint management. That was the basis on which these became park freehold, but it is a balance between parks that are offered to schedule, those that have the freehold title and those where title doesn’t change. If you look at Schedule 3, there is a considerable number where the title does not change; the offer is not to change title. The offer is a very good one for joint management.
Mr BALDWIN: I am trying to establish how you arrived at six. I understand the balance, the mix you have, the Aboriginal land rights affected, the parks in Schedule 2, and the joint management arrangements in Schedule 3. Why, for instance, didn’t you say Litchfield National Park or Daly River (Mt Nancar) Conservation area would go into Schedule 2? Was it based on this much area or you just picked six? How did you hone it down to end up with six in Schedule 2 and all these others in Schedule 3?
Ms MARTIN: We did some very careful assessment. It was done by experts within parks and wildlife and lands. They very careful assessed the parks, the effectiveness of joint management, how we could further enhance traditional owners being involved in those parks. It was all put together in a mix and that is the offer that we have put on the table. A combination of many different elements went to this, and the expertise and care that went into it adds up to many, many hours.
The balance of this is a very fair offer. It is not an overly generous offer at all. It is a very fair offer and it certainly strikes a balance between recognising very strong Aboriginal interests on one hand under ALRA and ones where joint management and existing title are most appropriate.
Mr BALDWIN: Chief Minister, I will not hold you up much longer. What you are saying to me is that you had a lot of expert opinion to narrow it down to …
Ms Martin: Expert advice is fairer.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay. Advice, I am sorry.
Ms Martin: No, no. It is advice.
Mr BALDWIN: I am not trying to be smart. You arrived at that. My understanding is that you were in talks with the land councils and so forth, as you put this together. You made mention that this was not done in isolation; you were talking to representatives of the land councils and so on. They would have, prior to this offer being put together, your bill, I am sure they would have said: ‘Yes, that is a good staring point; that is a good framework’. You have made mention of that.
Usually, when there is an amendment to legislation, we like to go to those who are affected. You do the same; you go and consult. What sort of effect has the retraction of Limmen had, in your talks with the land councils? Have they had time to look at it?
Ms MARTIN: The land councils are acting on behalf of those traditional owners, and presented us with the option. May I say that the framework was put together with expert advice from our parks and wildlife people, and that offer was then put on the table. Over the last few months, there has been a lot of work done towards the principles of joint management, and a lot of other aspects associated with this bill, in working with the land councils. Now it is the land councils’ job to go and put these options to the traditional owners. Already, two groups of traditional owners have said: ‘No, it is not acceptable’.
Mr BALDWIN: Thank you, Chief Minister. One would assume that until June or July next year, that will happen as they go out more and more to traditional owners. Just in that regard, as the land councils do go out and consult with traditional owners, do you expect that - and this might sound a bit silly - something else could be included? Once they talk to the people on the ground who are the traditional owners and they find, for instance, what has been suggested is a good idea. Is there any other parts of a land trust or anything that the land councils might not have considered that could be included …
Ms MARTIN: Definitely not. Definitely not.
Mr BALDWIN: Why would that be?
Ms MARTIN: This is the offer. The bill is the offer that, between now and next June - and there is capacity to extend that if we think it is close to agreement. We are saying: ‘This is the offer, it is on the table’. There is one opportunity to withdraw other pieces - only one opportunity - to come back to me and say: ‘We cannot reach agreement on maybe one or two bits’. However, what I want and what this government is committed to is getting the mix right. We want this offer to be able to resolve those issues and move us forward into job creation and enterprise. What I am saying to the land councils is: ‘We want your best endeavours for this package to be agreed to’, while accepting that maybe there might be one or two, but we are hoping this package will be agreed to.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, but there could be one or two that the traditional owners do not agree with and want pulled out of here. What I am saying is: for the traditional …
Ms Martin: Nothing in. No, no.
Mr Stirling: That is the deal.
Ms MARTIN: That is the deal. The deal has been made.
Mr BALDWIN: A traditional owner cannot say to the government: ‘I want my piece of land that has been identified placed into the park estate’. Is that what you are saying?
Mr Stirling: It is too late. It should have been done by now.
Ms MARTIN: This is …
Mr BALDWIN: You have not even consulted with them yet. This is what this is about.
Ms MARTIN: This is the offer, okay? This is the offer.
Mr BALDWIN: If they want to increase the asset, are they able to? That is my question.
Ms MARTIN: This is the offer. We are dealing with known parks and reserves here. We are dealing with the ones that came up because of the Ward High Court decision, and we are not dealing with little extraneous bits of land that might be associated. They are very clearly identified in here. They are tackling a problem that has emerged because of a High Court decision and this is the resolution of it.
Mr BALDWIN: We are also dealing in the schedules with land that is already owned by Aboriginal people who want to add this estate. Yes. All I am asking you is: what if they have another portion that is already in a land trust that they want to add to the park estate? Is that a consideration? We have heard that a consideration will be that you will pull land out if the traditional owners do not want it included in the offer. All I am asking is: can you add some in?
Ms MARTIN: Having taken some advice on this, if the Aboriginal owners of land want to lease their land as a park, they can always do that. There is no need for that to be in this bill. This bill deals with a specific situation, but it does not exclude traditional owners if they think that this is an opportunity for them to do it in other ways. This is a solution to the particular issue that arose last year.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay. This is my last question on this: outside of this offer, there is nothing else that is currently Aboriginal land or under claim that can be added to either this offer or by way of an agreement subject to this legislation that can be dealt with in terms of the park estate?
Ms MARTIN: This legislation is, as I have said, making open and transparent a proposal to deal with these portions of land, our parks and reserves …
Mr BALDWIN: You can take some out, but you cannot add some in, is that what you are saying?
Ms MARTIN: Yes. I am saying it quite simply.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay. No worries.
Ms MARTIN: They are the terms of the offer.
Mr BALDWIN: Very good.
Ms MARTIN: There is nothing secret or underhand about it; they are the terms of the offer.
Mr BALDWIN: No I am not saying there is. Very good.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will keep it short because it is a long time since we went to bed. I want to say one thing: this is a very complicated bill and, even though I said earlier that I did not agree with it, having listened to debate from both sides, which is one advantage of being an Independent, I can listen to the various points of view, and there is a certain amount of politics in that, and there is a certain amount of real concern, and it is trying to weigh up what is best for the Territory. I suppose it is trying to weigh up: if we go this way, is that too risky?
As I said earlier, I support the concept of Aboriginal people being involved in parks. I am satisfied, having looked through all the acts and seeking advice from the advisors, that issues about management plans will come back to this Assembly for us to approve. That includes living areas. It is an area that the member for Goyder raised some time ago about which I also had concerns, but if those management plans come back to this parliament, that is good. As representatives of the people, it is our duty to make sure we do look at those management plans and comment on them.
That has dealt with one of my concerns. I heard enough debate tonight about fees simple and myriad other titles. You have to be real estate expert! It is fairly complex material that we have had to go over. I have spoken to some of my constituents about this, and I know that there is a tendency to say that we are selling our land, but we have quite a number of parks that already have 99 year leases on them.
I am willing to take the risk. I will support the bill. There might be problems and, Chief Minister, I believe you should report back to the House at least at the end of June and, if the time frame is extended, you need to report back again. I would like to know what’s happening in this area. There are issues about cost and what sort of rental arrangements you enter into. It would be good for the public to know exactly what the government is doing in that area.
I still have one concern, and either the member for Daly or Goyder raised it, which is the mechanism of working out the traditional owners. I am not against traditional owners being part of this process, but, from personal experience, I know there are some times, regardless of what the Northern Land Council or other land councils say, there can be conflicts that are not easy to work out.
Mr Stirling: That is part of the process of working it out.
Mr WOOD: I realise that, but having lived with someone who has trying to work a process out for a long time, through the system …
Mr Stirling: I did not say it was easy!
Mr WOOD: No, I did not say it was easy, either. It is a concern for the right Aboriginal people to work in with these parks.
Madam Speaker, I will support the bill, but I will be watching carefully. I am not going to support it with no conditions. If I believe it is going off the rails, I will say in parliament that it is no good.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Just quickly, Madam Speaker, picking up on the member for Nelson’s viewpoint on management plans, I know he has had an undertaking from government that those management plans would come back in here for parliament’s approval. You might find that what happens with management plans is that they are tabled in here. We may not get to debate them, except in a tabling statement, but maybe the Chief Minister might explain that.
Chief Minister, I am not going to give up on the value of the land asset, having just sourced the annual report of the Northern Territory Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment and looking at their balance sheet, they have an amount in there for some hundreds of millions of dollars in not building, but land asset valuations.
You know and I know that all land can be valued. I would still like you to give an undertaking that you will come in here, and I don’t care what value the AVO determines it at; whether it is tourism, parks, park freehold, whatever you like, but put a value on it because it is important in the debate. Territorians have a right to know what we are talking about in value. That value is easily offset and argued against the cultural values and all the other things that go with it: tourism, enhancement of the parks network.
I don’t know why you are being so difficult about it because it can be valued and your Lands minister will tell you that it can. He could get on the phone, and so could you, tomorrow during business hours, ring the AVO, with whom you have a contract, and say: ‘Give us an estimation of the value of the 17 700 km’. It is very easily done: one phone call.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
The Gove Peninsula Surf Lifesaving Club hosted the annual surf lifesaving club titles in Gove last month. Teams included 66 competitors from Darwin, four from Arafura Club, 35 from Broome and 90 from the Gove club. Gove knew they were against tough competition with the arrival of such a large contingent. Gove was the clear winner of the junior competition and second in the senior patrol competition, with many great performances from the senior Gove team. Leanne Rushforth was placed first in the female masters; Jacki Ritchie, third in the open women; Luke Hutchinson, third in the under 19 males; and Cecilia Bulters, first in the under 16 females. Top performances from Gove juniors included Shane Coffey, Brinkley Dennerly and Teagan Lynch.
Bob Creek, President of Surf Lifesaving NT, made a special presentation of Life Membership to two important and long-standing members of the Gove Peninsula Surf Lifesaving Club: Col Fleming and Alex Peters for their service to surf lifesaving in the NT and the movement in general. Col and Alex have held executive positions on the Surf Lifesaving Board of the NT and have represented the NT at national board meetings. Both are club examiners, and have held a number of positions within the Gove club, as well as being active members. I congratulate both Col and Alex for their commitment to Territory surf lifesaving.
The following weekend, the Annual Gove Sprint was held. Thirty swimmers who were in Gove for the surf carnival stayed on to compete. The weekend commenced with a two-day clinic with Australia’s national youth coach, Leigh Nuggent on pool deck to offer some advice and take the swimmers and coaches through some great drills. Level 2 coaches Mark Davies and Clare Lobowich from Darwin also ran sessions throughout the two days. The weekend concluded two successive weekends of great competition.
A 14-year-old Nhulunbuy high school student, Hamish Bowden, has played in the NT state basketball team for the past two years. Although he did not play for the team this year, he continued to train independently toward his future career goal, with his eyes set on the NBA. In November, Hamish will join the Queensland basketball team that accepted his application to play with them. The team, headed by a former Brisbane Bullets coach, is made up of players mostly from state basketball teams in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. Hamish will be the only player representing the Territory on the team when they commence a two-week tour in the US, playing many of the high school teams, and attending clinics with local college coaches. Hamish hopes to get a basketball scholarship to an American university.
The inaugural John Jones Memorial Bill Fish Challenge was held recently, and a record registration of 58 anglers and 19 boats battled windy conditions and large seas to contest the various sections. Congratulations to father and son team, Ralph and Kelly Pellenat, who won the highest pointscoring bill fish team category with two sailfish tagged and released for 1400 points. The Jones family sponsor the perpetual trophy. Dawn Jones presented the trophy on behalf of the family, and in memory of John’s enjoyment of fishing the local waters and the friendly yet competitive and challenging nature of bill fishing.
Year 8 Nhulunbuy High School student Lauren Crabbe won the Nhulunbuy Corporation’s award in the Young Territorian Author Awards. This was Lauren’s second win, having won the award last year. It was launched in 1991 to provide an avenue for young Territorians to share their writing and to have them recognised. A collection of the books produced by young people for the awards are kept in the Young Territory Authors collection at the Casuarina Public Library.
Students from Nhulunbuy Primary School demonstrated outstanding skills in English when they participated in the recent Australasian Schools English Competition. There were 430 000 participants from Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific. John Dewhurst and Gemma Fleming both received high distinction awards. Nhulunbuy Primary School also received two distinctions, 11 credits and two achievements.
Nhulunbuy Primary School Tournament of Minds team Jessica and Hannah Brodie, Caitlin Jones, Edward O’Brien, Marley Brown, Sarah Schultz, and Stephen Jarvis, shared the honourable mention with Queensland at the National Tournament of Minds competition held in Darwin. The primary school worked with facilitator Toni Brodie for the two months prior to the competition to develop the required skills in team work, time management, spontaneous problem solving, cooperation, and brainstorming to impress the judges. Nhulunbuy High School team of Ashley Webb, Hannah Putland, Taliska Kiebat, Lizzy Garland, Emma Mitchell and Brooke Murdy were up against some very experienced teams, especially the winners from New South Wales who were competing for the fourth year.
The Nhulunbuy students were fantastic ambassadors for the region and the Northern Territory. It was a great pleasure for me to be there to share the excitement of them both winning the regional competition and to see them do so well in the nationals. It gave me great pleasure to present the Tournament of Minds team with their awards at the Nhulunbuy Primary School Assembly.
My old mate, Rob Thomson, Jason Rosevear, Jason Gates, Russell Gurriwiwi, Matthew Henger and James Haddock got together to film an Aussie Haka for Roy and HG’s show around the Rugby Union World Cup and Gove again showed it can do it by winning the competition. The guys each won a trip down to the World Cup final, and I am looking forward to catching up with them on the weekend to see how much they enjoyed it.
Local Gove Variety members Glenys Cummings, Debbie Doust and Kellie Franics were crowned the Territory’s top fundraisers for the last 12 months, raising $41 000 for Variety. Gove Variety also earned the honour for top fundraising over the past two years with $90 000 in total and, for the last eight years, they have been the top fundraiser five times. Every cent raised goes to Territory Variety for distribution to disadvantaged, underprivileged and needy kids.
Nurse Sharon Weymouth from my electorate was recently awarded a scholarship to pursue study at La Trobe University to prepare herself to be in a support role for women in our region who develop breast cancer. Sharon has lived and worked in remote areas for over 20 years as a nurse, and I congratulate her on winning the scholarship.
With the proposed Alcan expansion making good progress, Alcan announced its commitment to the region with the upgrade of Gove Airport. The $8.8m upgrade will include a new, modern terminal, runway extension and an upgrade of security, all of which will ultimately improve first impressions to the region. Floor space of 1200 m will include an air-conditioned departure lounge and indoor baggage collection. Maybe it is time to leave Nhulunbuy. The parking and drop-off facilities will also be improved.
Ian McColl, with wife Joan and family member Michael Sloan, have been visiting East Arnhem Land at this express invitation of Dhukal Wirrpanda, grandson of the legendary Dhakiyarr of Caledon Bay. The visit flows on from the Wukidi ceremony held at Darwin’s Supreme Court in June, when members of Dhakiyarr’s and Constable McColl’s family joined together for ceremonies in Darwin to bring about forgiveness and reconciliation between the two families. Dhukal has worked for eight years on this project, and it is the first time that the two families have come together in East Arnhem Land. Ian McColl said the visit is a continuation of building a bridge to better understanding between two families. Reconciliation is now truly a family to family process that the McColls cherish.
I want to send Christmas greetings and thanks to all the staff of the Legislative Assembly who look after us not just during sittings, but on a day to day basis: Madam Speaker, the Clerk, Deputy Clerk, Table Office staff, the Hansard staff, who have put in some long hours this week but do a great job in getting Hansard back to us, and the staff in my ministerial office, headed by Chief of Staff Alf Leonardi. I give Alf credit for a great team that has built up and his tremendous support on a day to day basis. It is an enormous privilege being a minister, and I am very appreciative of the staff that I have to make sure we are able to tick everything off along the way. I want to thank staff of my electorate office: Jenny and Jenny do a great job between them keeping an eye on the electorate whilst I am here in Darwin. I do appreciate their efforts and thank them for all of their work through out the year.
I extend Seasons Greetings to all members of the Assembly, and particularly to yourself, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, several weeks ago, along Bagot Road, residents were stunned to see that a number of rather magnificent trees had been cut down. I am sure honourable members in the Darwin area know what I am talking about. It gained some media the following day. I gather that it was put down, by the minister, to the fact that the trees had termites in them. On the day that they were cut down, I was in the Mobil service station, and the staff there said to me: ‘Sue, what is going on with the trees?’ and I said: ‘It must have something to do with the storms; they must be getting too close to powerlines or something like that’. People were quite disturbed about it.
The media coverage reported that termites were the cause. Since then, I have had a couple of phone calls from people to say they inspected the trees and there was not sign of termites. I would like to put on the record the disquiet in the community about the loss of those trees because they were beautiful trees in an area that probably, to a degree, lacks beauty. If the minister would like to make a comment tonight or tomorrow as to why those trees were cut down, it would be appreciated.
On another matter in the area of health, there has been another cutting, and that has been the imminent closure of the Mitchell Street Community Health Centre in my electorate. We are advised that, as of 12 December, general services to the public will cease at that clinic. I put on the record my significant disappointment at the loss of this inner city health service. We have been told by the minister that the reason for the closure is that there has been a 7% fall in use of the clinic over the last year or two. That claim has been met with a certain amount of cynicism within the community, and the reason is because we have learnt that, over the last couple of years, access to services has been cut significantly.
In particular, the child/baby clinic was cut from providing a drop-in, four and a half day a week service; you did not have to make an appointment. For four and a half days a week, mums could drop in if they had been having problems with their baby and have a nurse help them out. Over the last year or so, that service has been cut down to two days on an appointment-only system. Because babies are not convenient and do not schedule their problems for Mondays or Fridays, on the Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, parents have to travel to other community health centres. That fact is known to me, because you can track a patient’s activities in Darwin by accessing certain data. I have been advised that you can see that children who had been presenting at the Darwin Community Health Centre on a Monday were turning up at other community health centres like Casuarina on other days of the week, perhaps Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.
To say that the clinic has had a 7% fall in use and ergo must be closed is a bit of a furphy because it was being set up to show a decline in use. Given that, it is terribly disappointing to see that the clinic is going to close. The end result, of course, will be that people who are arguably are not well off and who had been enjoying what was a free service are now going to have to make the decision of whether or not they pay for a GP to provide a service within the CBD, and I can tell you there are very few GPs in the CBD who bulk bill, or make their way to a more remote community health centre, for example, Casuarina. I am sure all honourable members would appreciate that at this time of year to get to the bus stop, catch a bus out to Casuarina and walk a significant distance from the bus stop to the community health centre is really going to try some people. If they are already having problems, for example with leg ulcers, this is going to be a major problem.
My concern is that people are going to defer taking action on their health until the last stages of a problem. For example, if they have a leg ulcer, they will wait until it is quite bad before they seek help, the end result being that they may well find themselves in the accident and emergency area of Royal Darwin Hospital, creating a problem that we would certainly like to see less of, given the problems the hospital has with shortages of beds. Now we are going to see people having to be admitted for more serious conditions who, if we still had the community health centre open, may have avoided being admitted to hospital.
I ask the minister, if she chooses to respond to these issues, how much money do you think is going to be saved by the closure of the Mitchell Street Community Health Centre? I am given the assurance that no staff will be sacked and, in fact, they will be relocated to the Casuarina Community Health Centre where, no doubt, they will be providing a service to the inner-city Darwin people who are able to make their way out there.
The building will not be closed. The clinic is on the ground floor of Health House in Mitchell Street and, instead of having a general clinic providing a variety of services, the area will house the sexually transmitted diseases service known as Clinic 34. It is a real shame that we have lost a general health service. It would have been great to move Clinic 34 into Health House, expanding the health services available to our inner city residents.
I am delighted to say that it will be a CLP policy at the next election to reopen that service, expanding it, and promoting it to people because often people are not aware of the sort of government services that are available in their community.
Another closure has now occurred within the Health Department in Darwin. That has been the formal acknowledgment of closure of the rehabilitation ward on the top floor of Royal Darwin Hospital. I raised this issue in the last sittings of parliament, as I was concerned about what was happening there. A couple of weeks ago, it was announced by the department that in fact that unit was not to be reopened. Members will remember that at this time last year, the minister announced that there would be temporary closure of the rehab ward, an eight-bed unit because Christmas was coming and we were having a few problems with staffing and we could move everyone down on to 4A, the medical ward, and once things settle down after Christmas we will reopen rehab ward. Everyone waited and waited, and the rehab ward never opened again. It is a great disappointment to see that special unit close down.
Members will be aware that Darwin’s population is ageing and we are having more and more people, as a result of the ageing process, suffer conditions such as strokes that require careful rehabilitation to get them up to peak optimal physical and mental capability so they can be discharged home as soon as possible. That unit provided special care in specialist surrounds with an ethos of ensuring the patients worked hard every day to get home quickly in an independent capacity as best as possible. Instead, these patients have been gobbled up by a busy medical ward where it is rush, rush, rush and the best and the quickest way to get somebody to the toilet and then back to the bed is to pop them into a wheelchair. On a rehab ward, that is not going to happen and you are going to be encouraged to walk, even though it might take half an hour for someone who has had a stroke. The end result, though, is that weeks in advance, the person goes home. It is a huge disappointment that we have lost the rehab ward at Royal Darwin Hospital. Obviously the reason …
Dr Lim: And the Alice Springs Hospital.
Ms CARTER: And, of course, Alice Springs Hospital. The reason is cost cutting, which will be more apparent as we go into the second half of the financial year. There can be no other reason why that eight-bed unit was closed. I urge the minister to reopen the unit, and to invest some money into the rehab facility in the grounds of Royal Darwin Hospital, the day care unit where the physios and speechies are. That unit is in desperate need of some TLC and any money that could go there would be gratefully received, I am sure, by staff and patients.
Finally, I was wondering whether the minister, if she has an opportunity over the next day or so, could inform Territorians about what is going on with the extra 75 nurses that were promised for Territory hospitals two years ago. Could she advise where any of them are? We are two years into the term, halfway into the term, 75 were promised. I do not think it would be too much to ask where 25 of them are. Would she actually pinpoint the positions that have been created, extra positions in the wards of our hospital, to ease the burden of workload for nurses and to improve the care for our patients? It would be great to see where those extra positions are rather than just recruiting extra nurses, for example Filipino nurses, to pick up the slack where we have nurses off on things like stress and sick leave. Where are the extra positions?
On a happy note, I would like to wish everybody all the very best for Christmas and the New Year, and all your staff all the best. I hope to see everyone back here safe and sound in February.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, first, I agree with the member for Port Darwin. I was shocked when I saw the trees felled on the corner of Bagot and Totem Roads. When I asked, I received the same explanation: it was a termite problem. When I pushed the matter, it was a combination of termites and the trees approaching the electrical cables or the lines, and I suppose that PowerWater requested that the trees be cut down because of the approaching Wet Season.
Of course, this afternoon we saw on the news a large mahogany tree had been uprooted during a storm and fell on the Gray Primary School. The reality is that African mahoganies are not suitable trees for Darwin. If they are not planted correctly, they can cause problems. At the same time, they are magnificent trees. They are termite resistant and have beautiful timber. Following this incident, I spoke to my department and directed that no tree be cut down until they provide absolutely accurate evidence that it is termite infested or there is some other issue such as safety or interference with electrical cables.
I feel very strongly about trees, especially these. They will be replaced with fast growing Australian native trees, but we did lose trees that took about 25 years to grow and were magnificent. I absolutely agree with the member for Port Darwin that they should not have been cut down. The reasons they were cut down I can understand, but, still, they could have found a better solution.
To electorate matters. I am very supportive of students in primary and high schools, and I am very proud when I hear of their achievements. First, I congratulate Sharon Neane and Kate Newman of Nakara Primary School for being the best students of the month, and Chantelle Rodriguez and Shaun Gray of Alawa Primary School, who I was very pleased to provide with the Kon Vatskalis Achievement Award, something I present every month to the best students of the schools in my electorate.
I would also like to congratulate 17 Dripstone High School students who recently competed in the Australia Mathematics Competition for the Westpac Award 2003. The awards were held under exam conditions. The questions are designed to test and develop students’ understanding of mathematical concepts. All students performed well, with the following awards being given: Amber-Lou Santer, Shashank Ramakrishna, Shaun Eckoff, Carmen Chau, Carissa Gadil, Jasmine Stevens, Susan Glencross, Kira Bigney, Fiona Ku in Year 8 all received credits. In Year 9, Nomikas Rakkas received a distinction with Stephanie Davies, Alicia Bahler and Paul Abbott receiving credits. In the Year 10 intermediate exams, Yvonne Chau received a credit and Stella Ku, Irene Hourdas and Matthew Crookes received credits.
I would like to speak about Mr Geoff Fong, who works in the Conservation and Natural Resources group of DIPE and will be retiring from the Northern Territory Public Service with effect from 3 December 2003 after working for the government for 37 years. Geoff has provided cartographic and engineering drafting expertise to the many variations of the Northern Territory lands and water resources division, including the Power and Water Authority. For most of his 37 years in the public service, Geoff’s work has supported the investigation, evaluation and development of the Territory’s water resources.
When Geoff started his career, it was a time when the tools of the trade included ink pens, drafting film, dark rooms and dye line printers. Today, Geoff is an expert in the use of sophisticated CAD and digital software, producing high quality maps, figures, drawings and presentation material on high resolution inkjet printers. Geoff has made a valuable contribution to the development of knowledge in a specialist technical field in the Northern Territory. I commend Geoff on his effort over many years, and I wish him a happy and fulfilling retirement.
Another year comes to its end and Christmas is less than a month away. As is customary, I would like to record my appreciation to all those people who in the past 12 months have supported me, put up with me, worked with me and generally provided support in my ministerial and electorate offices as well as my role as a husband and father, and as a member of the Legislative Assembly.
First, I thank my wife Margaret for the continuous support and my sons Alexander and Michael and apologise for not being there all the time. They are growing up and I can tell that they are missing their father, the same way that other members’ children have missed their fathers and mothers when they are in the Legislative Assembly.
I thank very much Margreet Sadlo, my previous electorate officer who now lives in Canberra. She is going to be married soon, but has been a great support in the past 12 months. I thank my new electorate officer, Debbie Rowlands, who took over from Margreet and is doing an excellent job in Casuarina.
My office staff here in parliament: ex-Chief of Staff, Alf Leonardi, who now works for the Treasurer, and my current Chief of Staff, Sean Kennedy. My thanks to Lesley Cameron, otherwise known as Carmen, Chandra Seneviratne, Eunice De Ramos, Jailee Wilson, Nikola Lekias, Sue Hakala and Kent Rowe, who provide fantastic support. They work very hard. Things can get very hectic up there, but they do extremely well.
My very good friends and supporters, Andrew, Cheryl and Natasha Fyles, who provide excellent support in my role as the MLA for Casuarina. All the staff at DIPE for their hard work and commitment in all areas. They have put up with a lot of things during the year as public servants and, of course, as we all know, public servants are never right, but they do an excellent job and have my full support, particularly my CEO and managerial staff.
To Alawa, Nakara and Dripstone Schools, teaching staff, students, parents and the school councils. The officer in charge and the police officers in Casuarina, a fantastic effort. We have already seen the changes with their presence in Casuarina Shopping Square, patrolling Casuarina Coastal Reserve and the neighbourhoods in Casuarina. People see the police out there, prepared to support the public and defend public safety from petty criminals or other people who are not very considerate. They do an excellent job. It will be really hard during Christmas because the pressure on the police force increases.
To my comrades on this side and my colleagues on the other side of the House, I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. To the Independents, Madam Speaker and you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and the staff of the Assembly. To all of you, wherever you are, have a very Merry Christmas with your family and a Happy New Year.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, my best wishes to the member for Casuarina and I thank him for his kind wishes about Christmas cheer for everybody. I join him in passing my Christmas greetings to everyone in the Chamber. I will come back to that in a little while.
At the last sittings during adjournment, I spoke about Dr Rob and Mrs Gloria Dominguez of 48 Taylor Street, and their saga continues. I hope the minister will take note of what I have to say because this is an unresolved issue that is going to go on for some time yet. It is important that the department gets right to the very bottom of it and ensures that everything is done equitably for both property owners at 46 and 48 Taylor Street.
At the last sittings, I spoke about a response from the Chief Minister to Dr and Mrs Dominguez. I had not had enough time to go through the letter in detail. I might repeat some of what I said in the last adjournment speech. The Chief Minister wrote to the Dominguez on 10 October, and I might read this in full:
Dear Mrs Dominguez,
She scratched that out and wrote ‘Gloria’:
- Thank you for meeting with me during my visit to Alice Springs last month, and for bringing me up to date with your concerns regarding your neighbour’s house at 46 Taylor Street.
While I have sympathy with any person who has a hostile relationship with their neighbours, the fact remains that the house at 46 Taylor Street has been lawfully constructed in all respects.
Government, at both ministerial and departmental level, has gone to considerable lengths to help you and your neighbours achieve a resolution of the dispute and reach an acceptable compromise. That this has not eventuated, even after undertaking an independent mediation process that canvassed a number of settlement options is most regrettable.
I sincerely believe that, at this stage, the government has exhausted its options for resolving what is essentially a dispute between neighbours.
Clare Martin.
- As we mentioned before, the house was built without following the approved plan. It was not amended until well after the house was built. To build without an approved plan under the Building Act is a $10 000 fine. This was not imposed on anyone. The builder, by damaging our property, broke the law. He was not fined. The certifier who approved the house retrospectively somehow had the paper work passed through the DIPE system. It should be all recorded there and we have not been furnished with those details. It would appear to be not transparent at all.
At paragraph 3, he quoted the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister who said the government ‘… has gone to considerable lengths’. Dr Dominguez replied:
- Yes, they have. Considerable lengths to ignore us. It took some 10 months to even get the first reply from the minister. The minister, or someone in his department even authorised Peter Bannister, an Environmental Scientist, to do work for the neighbours at no cost to them to produce a report that they intend to use in court against us. The minister has been a busy boy. I would like to know how government equipment and funds were allocated to help them with their court case when they were not allocated to us. Yes, he was there helping them, and we have the photos to prove it.
At paragraph 4 of the Chief Minister’s letter, she used the words ‘independent mediation’. Dr Dominguez replied:
- There was nothing independent about that. We had already organised a mediator. The minister, when he heard about it, cancelled it and appointed his own. Then, halfway through the proceedings, he cancelled the mediator’s funding. The reason the mediation did not work was because the other party was not interested in any form of mediation. The only thing that happened with mediation was that the solicitors made a lot of money. They racked up our costs by calling each other and not keeping us abreast of any progress. The legal costs were horrendous.
- In relation to mediation: we have given in to all demands and proposals. We have given, I think, something like eight ‘final’ offers, but it was never good enough. We never received any written offer at all from the other side, only verbal information and not directly to us. It was between the lawyers. The mediation process was a complete and utter joke because the mediator had no power to solve the issues and he had no authority to reveal who was recalcitrant and not playing the game in good faith.
He goes to paragraph 5 and, quoting the Chief Minister’s words again: ‘… neighbours doing some work on the house ...’, Dr Dominguez replied:
- They have done very little at all, just enough to give the appearance that they are doing something. It is by no means a solution. It just aggravates and prolongs the process in an effort to intimidate and wear us out.
They settled out of court and evidently the terms of settlement were made on 17 October 2003. One of the terms was:
… that the defendants will install black plastic on the uprights of the house until the fence is built, but otherwise the defendants will not paint the uprights. The black plastic will be installed within 14 days of the date hereof, 17 October 2003.
I understand that by 31 October, which was 14 days later, nothing had been installed on the offending pole. So this is one breach of the terms of settlement.
It was not until something like 3 November when, instead of installing black plastic over the pole, the pole was painted. The terms included a specific point that the poles or uprights were not to be painted, but painted it was. The second term of settlement was:
The spoon drain is to be built in accordance with specifications prepared by a competent civil engineer (and the plaintiff has accepted Duncan Cooke in accordance with the defendants’ proposal), which specifications are to be prepared within 14 days of the date hereof.
So those plans were also to be done within 14 days of settlement. As of 21 November 2003, which is 35 days after the settlement, the plaintiffs have yet to see any plans of the engineered spoon drain by Duncan Cooke.
There are four other terms of settlement that are yet to come to pass, so I won’t go into them, but obviously, there are significant issues. It is important that the minister gets himself reinvolved in the whole situation and tries to settle this. I understand that the Dominguez sought advice form the department as early as November 2002 when they first noticed that the house that was being built next door to them was not being constructed according to plan. They had sought the department’s advice as to how to stop the building from proceeding and to see whether something could be done prior to any further works.
Unfortunately, there was no response. No action was taken, and by the time the first official response was made to the Dominguez, it was well into early this year and the house was pretty well complete, so it was very difficult then to do any anything further.
The other point that needs to be addressed is the issue of a builder constructing a home that is not consistent with the plans that were signed off by the Building Board. Not only was that the case, what happened was, once the house was completed and prior to the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy, the people were living in the house. Then a revised plan was sent through by the certifier and dated well after the builder had signed a form that said he had completed building the house according to the plan.
I have seen all those documents, and I wonder where all this is going wrong. We have private certifiers who are supposed to do the right thing according to the law; we have a department that is supposed to provide some degree of comfort for private citizens that people are performing according to the law. These people, time and time again, have not been provided with the necessary public service support. I wonder where this is at the moment. They are struggling. They have already spent $56 000 plus, it appears that there is going to be a lot more money to be spent.
In respect of the builder’s declaration, on 27 February 2003, the builder signed off that he had completed the works at 46 Taylor Street. On 12 March 2003, the certifier lodged an amended plan of the house with DIPE. Then, on 30 April 2003, the certifier lodged a Permit to Occupy and Inspection Report with the department while the owners had moved into the house some two months earlier on 19 February 2003. There is a problem. Those dates are correct because I have checked them. It is important for the minister to check it out and see where his system has fallen over. It is important so we can have issues resolved. These people are waiting desperately to get their home back with the same amenity that they had prior to the other house being built next door. I am not saying that they are right or wrong, bit I am saying there is a problem and the government must get involved and sort it out once and for all.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to thank quite a number of people in my electorate for their support over the year. First and foremost, I would like to thank my wife Marie and our two young children Ned and Claire for all the enjoyment they have given me over the year, all the understanding, all the latitude to be able perform the duties of this office. I, and just about every other member in this House who has a family to consider, acknowledge that without their support, none of us would be able to function at the levels that we do. Mine are certainly no special case in that regard, but let me say first and foremost that there is no way I could be doing this job without the full support of my wife and everything that she does, not only on the home front. She has her own career that she has to juggle. With some serious negotiation between ourselves, we manage, and that is important for professional couples.
I could not perform the duties of a good, effective local member without the help of a good and solid electorate officer. I am fortunate to have Therla Fowlestone who works hard for me and the people of Sanderson. We work as a team in my office. We keep each other abreast of the issues. Therla has good skills when it comes to dealing with the public. She also puts a lot into the job, way beyond the remuneration that is provided, way beyond what I ask her. She thoroughly enjoys her job and working with the people of Sanderson. As I said, I could not do my job without the support of my wife, neither could Therla without the support of her family, particularly her husband Tony, her son Anthony and daughter Lany, of whom she is very proud. They are two great, wonderful young adults making their way in the world. Anthony has a bright future. He has studied hard, done well at university, got his GIS ticket working well for the Territory government. He has a bright and promising future, and I wish him all the luck in his endeavours. Therla’s daughter supports her mum, which is wonderful. You can see they are people with good, stable solid families working for the community. Therla and I and our families - she lives in Northlakes; I live in Anula - reflect the demographics of Sanderson, so we understand the issues. We know the people. We have lived with the people for a long time. We are part of that community and we are really happy to be given the opportunity to look after it.
While I am talking about being part of the community, there are so many organisations and associations around Sanderson that deserve a mention. I will probably forget a few, but I will ask for their forgiveness. In particular is Darwin Golf Club, which sits in the middle of the Northlakes estate. It is part of the estate and what makes that community. It is a focal point. Not everyone who lives in Northlakes is a member of the golf club, but almost everyone utilises the golf club in some way or another, either its aesthetics or for recreational use. The club management and committee understand this, and they work closely with the community to maintain a good relationship. The club itself is very active. They have many great events; they have all the golfing days and tournaments, which are regular events, and they have great presentation nights. They have a wonderful ball in the Dry Season. It could not be done without the hard work of the committee and without the particularly hard work of Robyn Miller, the manager, who is ably supported by her partner, Ian Smith. Robyn has been working wonders with the club. I wish the club all the best for the next year and give this commitment: they have my full support and always will have. They are fabulous.
There are a number of clubs along Baton Road. Sanderson is a bit of a United Nations when it comes to clubs. We have the Filipino community building, the Darwin North RSL of which I am patron. I pass on my best wishes to Zita, the secretary, Alan Brown, president, and Di behind the bar. I was over watching the world cup on Saturday at that club, and it is a great little club. They could do with more members. They, too, extend a hearty welcome to visitors. On Saturday night, they had the Buff Club over there, and this is the way that they can progress. They also have a strong bowls club, and I look forward to giving them my support.
The Cypriot Hall is just down the road, with Kerrie Kyriaco and Leon Cleanthous. This is another great community club. They have a big night at the end of the Dry. It is fabulous. Half of Darwin gets down there: great barbeques, great entertainment. I wish that club all the best. I have been to many a function, particularly the Hakka Association, which tends to use the Cypriot Hall quite a bit. In the Hakka Association are Jason Lee, Henry Yap is the new president. They have a function coming up in early December for their celebrations for their new administration, which goes over every year. I will be going to that. The Hakka Club works well with their community. They are very community minded and do a lot around town. Similar to the Hakka is the Chung Wah Society, with which I have a little bit to do, with Adam Lowe and all the rest. I understand that the Deputy Opposition Leader is a patron over there. It is great. He is patron of Chung Wah; we have the Leader of Government Business, Paul Henderson, who is the patron of the Hakka. It goes to show the diversity of the community when you can have Paul, an Australian, and Richard, a Malaysian Chinese, as patrons of these clubs. It is great. Then we have the Kalymnian Club and the Portuguese-Timorese Club, another club at which I have attended quite a number of functions over the year.
I have many clubs and associations that come in use my office for meetings and so on: Neighbourhood Watch do a fantastic job around the Sanderson area; COGSO meet regularly in my office; the RSPCA; the Down Syndrome Association; Casuarina Junior Football League; the Enrolled Nurses Special Interest Group; NT Callisthenics; NT Irish Association; Australian Chinese Friendship Society; the NT ARAFMI; Adreal Northern Territory; the New Zealand Association of the NT; the NT Surf Lifesaving Club; the Sri Lankan Australian Friendship Association; and Marrara Dragons Soccer Club. The Darwin Youth Orchestra and Children’s Choir meet there, as do the Sing Song Signers who have their rehearsals there. Ours is a very active community office. I am glad to be able to support these people in some small way. If they wish me to do more for them, I am more than happy to.
I would like to make a quick mention for the Filipino Community. Therla is actually Filipino Australian, and we have close ties in with FILCCONT. They work tirelessly for the Filipino people, their partners and families. There is a myriad of clubs under FILCCONT: Pinoy Australian Club, the Filipiniana Senior Citizens Organisation, Filipino Club of Darwin, the Filipino Maharlika Association of Palmerston Incorporated. They are all part of it, and I had the pleasure of being at their 105th Independence celebrations this year, and I hope to be at their 106th’s next year. My full and hearty support goes to the Filipino community and all that they stand for.
I was a bit perturbed about the letter that I received from Mr John Rivas on behalf of the Filipino community about their position on the gay and lesbian law reform, but I understand their position. The joys and strengths of our community are that we are able to hold different views on different issues, get along and work together. I am sure that over the coming years, our relationship will not suffer, that we will have divergent views from time to time, but that is how it is. We are here to govern on behalf of all of the Northern Territory and not just one particular group.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am a great supporter of the Cancer Council of the NT. We had a great function over at our office this year for Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea. What was so good about it was the support from all the local businesses in the Northlakes Shopping Centre, where my office is. There was Brian from Liquorland next door, Kalotina from the hairdressing salon, Tony Brangan from the Chemist shop, and Tony is heading off next month, which is a bit of a shame. He is going back to Queensland with his wife. She has come here, she has studied and now they are returning to Queensland. There was Stephanie over at the Golden Star Restaurant. All these people contribute to that event, that is the sort of community spirit at the Northlakes Shops.
There are also the other shopping centres. There is Allison down at the Anula Supermarket who is a great favourite of the community. I have had some dealings with her trying to get the public toilets, of all things, opened at the back of the Anula shops because the council has the position of having those locked during the week when the kids are down there playing. So they come to the shop and she lets the kids and everyone go to the toilets. I have been speaking to the council about that, but we have not managed to move them too much. The council is installing a new swing set at the back of the Anula shops, so I am hopeful that they will revise their policy on opening up the public toilets. We are going to have a great community asset there; it will be a shame if they do not open up the toilets.
If we go down to Wulagi, we have Scotty in the Supermarket down there who works tirelessly for his customer base. He is a little five star independent working hard up against the big chain stores, but he is making a go of it. Roger at the Wulagi Fish and Chips Shop has arguably the best fish and chips in the northern suburbs; I recommend him to everyone and anyone.
In my community, I have a couple of great schools: Anula School, Wulagi Primary School and Sanderson High School. I cannot speak highly enough about Sanderson High. It is doing a marvellous job pumping the kids through. As I said, recently I was at the Stage 2 awards ceremony. They do work hard for their student base and the rewards that come from it are not only for the school, but for the wider community.
I am just about to wrap up. I am patron of quite a number of clubs, and I would like to wish them a Merry Christmas and a happy, prosperous and successful New Year. The clubs are Casuarina Australian Rules Junior Football League, a great organisation. This will be about my fourth year as patron. Also the Darwin Rugby League Referees Association with Doggy, Bozo, Gaybar, Glen Foy, Trina - they are all there, great ones. Bonnet. They are a great bunch of people. We do have to do more as a community to get behind our referees and our volunteers in these games because, without the referees and umpires, the games are going nowhere. That is something I would certainly like to concentrate my efforts on in the future.
I am out of time, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank everyone in the House, up on the minister’s floors, for all the support they have given us during the year. I look forward to it next year. My thanks to my colleagues, both on the this side and on the opposition.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to place my thanks on the Parliamentary Record. I will not go through, as the member for Sanderson did, all of those organisations. He has a very interesting electorate, but no, I will not go through the 13-odd schools and all those organisations and police stations, health clinics, sporting clubs, footy teams and councils. I do wish all the residents of the electorate of Daly a very Merry Christmas and a great New Year for next year. I pay the same respects to my parliamentary colleagues in this Chamber and to the staff of the Leader of the Opposition’s office, who have done a fantastic job once again this year in providing services to members of the opposition. To all of them, thanks very much for their help and assistance over this past year. I look forward to working with them next year.
I also pay my respects and thanks both to my Electorate Officer and my wife for the support they give, both at home and in the workplace. They are both very good workers. Sometimes I get them mixed up, actually. In fact - no, I will not say that. To Sandy, for a great job and to the family for the support, thank you very much.
To all the Legislative Assembly staff, thank you, too, for your assistance and great work through this year’s parliamentary sittings. They do an excellent job. I am sure they get bored like hell listening to this at 12 midnight, looking through the window and thinking: ‘Please go home. Please be quiet and go home’. Well, thanks, guys, for putting up with us and for making our job a lot easier, and that includes all of the committee staff those who support members in this House throughout their terms.
With that, I look forward to sittings and seeing you all again next year, after tomorrow, of course. We have one more day, but I thought I would get in early and wrap it up.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to speak briefly on the issue of the earlier debate on the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) bill, in particular about the general approach of those on the other side of the House to the future of our national parks in the Territory.
What we have heard from the opposition tonight represents a complete absence of any kind of vision for the future. We have witnessed people from the other side trawling around the rubbish heap of a failed past. There is one message we have received from the other side tonight. They say that we are giving away land that belongs to the Northern Territory, and that we will all be ruined as a result.
If you think that sounds familiar, you are correct. It is the same sort of nonsense that was pedalled back in the 1980s and we know who was doing it: people like Paul Everingham, who now, of course, lives in Queensland; people like Ian Tuxworth, who now, of course, lives in Perth. In other words, they are ideas and attitudes of people who are no longer with us, but were regurgitated tonight as though they are Biblical truth. Let us face it: this rhetoric of the 1980s is part of ancient history. Remember when they said that Aboriginal people owning national parks would be the end of the world as we know it? I do.
I remember in particular Yami Lester at the hand back of Yulara, who joked back in 1985 about the accusations that Aboriginal people would take the rock away. Of course, as we know, the rock is still there, attracting more visitors and providing more jobs for Territorians.
Allow me say something about who is giving things away here. It is opposition that is giving away the future of the Northern Territory. They say we should give away between $100m and $150m to lawyers. They say we should be giving away jobs and give away future economic development. They are saying that we should give away indigenous knowledge and skills in looking after this beautiful Northern Territory. They say we should give away the future of our kids and our grand kids. It is they across this Chamber who are giving things away.
Back in 1993, again with Marshall Perron at the helm, as part of the Mt Todd agreement, the Jawoyn people gave away Aboriginal land at Eva Valley to increase the size of Nitmiluk by 50%. The Jawoyn people put their land into a national park to be shared by all Territorians and visitors to the Territory, the same generosity that is possible under the legislation we considered tonight. Of the approximate 18 000 km being considered as part of this historic settlement for the future, around 10% is land that already belongs to Aboriginal people. In other words …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is a standing order that a member should not be referring to a statement or a motion that was debated during the same session of the sittings. What the member from Millner is doing is using adjournment speech to refer to the debate on parks that was conducted only a couple of hours ago.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will take advice on that, member for Greatorex. What standing order number is it?
Dr LIM: I cannot find standing order number, but I know it is there. The Clerk can advise you.
Dr BURNS: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, speaking of the point of order, we aware of the standing order the member for Greatorex is speaking about. The member for Millner is to some degree referring to a debate that occurred earlier tonight, but I have the sense that the member for Millner is actually making a political analysis of that debate and I am sure that once he proceeds, he will make that political analysis clear without going over the particulars of the debate.
Dr LIM: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I believe that the member has no right to refer to anything that has preceded tonight’s adjournment and, in particular, referring to the parks debate that occurred in the name of the Chief Minister. He should, as of this moment, stop referring to that all together.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, we will stop the clock while I take advice.
Member for Greatorex, I have taken advice. There is no point of order. I ask the member for Millner to be careful that he does not reflect on debate that occurred during the same session of sittings. If he is providing political analysis, fine, but do not go into the substance of debate that has gone before. Start the clock, please.
Mr BONSON: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. What I am doing is providing and overview of the historical perspective of the CLP’s policy over the past 26 years. I pick up on the point of order from the member for Greatorex. It does not surprise me that he comes in here at this late hour to make a pedantic and silly point. He could not cite the relevant standing order. He came in here shooting off his mouth, and when asked, he could not cite the standing order to which he referred. That is an example of the character of the opposition.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, it is late. We are trying to get through this. The fewer interjections, the sooner we will be through it.
Mr BONSON: The result, of course, is that more people are visiting Nitmiluk and there are more jobs at the park. At least the CLP Chief Minister at the time, Marshall Perron, got it right and negotiated a deal, the same sort of deals we have been talking about tonight.
Of the approximate 18 000 km being considered as part of this historic settlement for the future, around 10% is land that already belongs to Aboriginal people. In other words, there is the potential, if we negotiate instead of litigate, to expand the size of our national parks, and that is an important point. It is an ideological point that the CLP does not seem to be able to grasp. This means a potential to increase the national park estate that can be shared by all Territorians, which means increased jobs, tourism, economic development and this is what the opposition wants to give away.
I will tell the opposition something for nothing: history will leave you behind. When this new parks system comes into being, we will see the same kind of joint ventures, cultural centres and indigenous enterprises that have commenced elsewhere in national parks. Territorians will get on with the job and work towards a better future, creating the jobs and wealth that the opposition wants to give away.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in summary, I look forward to the future, partnerships for all Territorians, economic development, and increasing the potential of 28% of our population. I look forward to the time when they are seen by all political parties as an important part of the future, past and present of the Northern Territory.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to advise members, upon the receipt of Hansard, and some of the clubs and incorporated associations of the Northern Territory of the history of the government’s introduction of the Associations Bill.
Members will recall that it was passed during the last sittings. In particular, I would like to place various grave concerns on the Parliamentary Record so that members of those clubs and associations are aware of the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the Labor government and, in particular, of the Attorney-General in relation to the passage of the Associations Bill.
Members will recall that the government, and in particular, the Attorney-General, assured us in the last sittings that there had been extensive consultation with respect to the Associations Bill, and certainly gave the impression that the clubs and associations around the Northern Territory were supportive of the significant changes to the bill.
After the last parliamentary sittings, I wrote to a random selection of clubs and associations all around the Territory, and I advised them of some of the changes that had been made by virtue of the Associations Bill. In fact, I wrote to approximately 300 clubs. I have received about 50 replies so far, either by fax, e-mail or telephone, and the information members of these clubs have given to me is very definitely at odds with the picture painted by the Attorney-General. It is important that I recount some of the things the Attorney-General said in the last parliamentary sittings with respect to this bill.
I asked whether the associations of the Northern Territory, of which there are 1700, were well advised of the draft bill and the amendments. The Attorney-General said that roughly 100 e-mails and phone discussions had occurred, and then he said: ‘… so fairly extensive’ were the consultations about this bill. Later, he said there had been extensive consultations on this bill and, from memory, I think the minister for Health also chipped in and said that, yes, there had been extensive consultations about this bill. The minister went on to say:
- There was a wide advertising campaign in newspapers and media coverage of the discussion paper and draft bill that was circulated; it was on the Department of Justice web page. Seminars were held in every major centre at which the 200 hard copies were distributed that were referred to in the second reading speech. However, in addition to those 200 copies, countless other copies were distributed by mail and downloaded from the Internet in response to direct requests from clubs and associations.
This government says that they have widely consulted about this bill. ‘Rest assured, member for Araluen, the consultations have been extensive’. I would like to recount some of the replies I have received by fax, telephone and e-mail from the clubs and associations all around the Northern Territory ranging from pistol clubs, swimming clubs, women’s groups, netball clubs and the like. The list is endless. When I speak of endless lists, the list is endless in the replies I have received and the advice that there had been no consultation. I will quote a number of comments that were made:
- No, we were not consulted with regard to the proposed changes. They are yet another example of over governance and it is an insult to the elected committee of …
… and the whole AGM process.
- I have not heard a single sound about these changes until I read your letter. I am flabbergasted.
I wish to advise that we have not been consulted.
Another club said:
We knew nothing about these changes.
Yet another club said:
- We did not receive any communication with regard to these changes to the act.
A representative of another club said:
- I have not been consulted.
Another club said that their committee was not consulted in any way in regards to the proposed changes to the act, and was not aware of the changes until receipt of my information leaflet.
I will come back to the disturbing picture that paints. Members may recall, for those who are interested, and certainly no one on the other side of this Chamber is, that I asked the Attorney-General whether he thought that any of the changes brought about by this Labor government might be detrimental to the operation of clubs and associations, whether, in particular, some of the outrageously high penalties might harshly impact on the operation of some of those clubs. On 15 October, I said:
- We are also concerned as, indeed, are the people to whom I have spoken that these very high penalties place a high onus on volunteers who, we all know, are very thin on the ground. If they think that the future of their association might be at risk because of very high fines imposed for some fairly routine oversights, then there is a concern that has been expressed to me that organisations may not be able to attract volunteers. I undertook to put that argument on the Parliamentary Record.
In his reply, the Attorney–General said:
- If the upshot of that is that we are making life harder for the volunteer workers or volunteer public office holders, we will certainly move to curtail that.
One club wrote:
- Wow! Who would want to be a public officer?
Another club wrote:
- These changes seem astronomical, and it is unrealistic to expect not for profit organisations to have such funds. It will definitely affect our ability to attract a public officer to the position. What volunteer would want this type of financial responsibility?
Another reply received was they were not consulted on the changes, but:
- We are an NGO with a voluntary committee of management – it is difficult for us to get women to be on our committee and legislation such as the new Associations Act is a further disincentive.
Another club wrote:
- We have had no consultation whatsoever …
A consistent theme, I might say.
- … Most committees are made up of unpaid parents who do it because they want to be involved in their child’s sport. By increasing penalties for non-compliance, it will become harder and harder to find parents willing to put their hands up at AGMs.
Another organisation wrote:
- We did not know of these changes and it is going to be hard for us to replace office bearers.
They are just a sample of the replies I received from the clubs and associations throughout the Northern Territory, and I only wrote to 300. The Attorney-General is on the record as saying there are 1700 clubs and associations in the Northern Territory. He is also on the record as saying that the consultation was extensive and certainly the indication from his speech was that he was well satisfied that everybody was happy and that all the interested stakeholders knew all about these changes. Absolute rubbish! They did not. The hit rate for my letter or information leaflet, I thought, was significant. They are still coming in. We have a situation where on the one hand, the Attorney-General was saying: ‘All is fine. Do not worry, member for Araluen’, and on the other hand from the real people, that is not the members of the Labor government, we are hearing something else entirely. Of course, as we know, certainly on this side of the House, that is not anything new. We have a Labor government that constantly rewrites history, constantly spins even the most simple things so that reality changes shape and substance before our very eyes.
On this issue, the government has been caught out and it ought properly stand condemned for the way it has handled this important legislation. The Attorney-General has not acted well. He has obviously misrepresented the truth. He has misled Territorians and all of those who are interested in the debate, and you may rest assured that I sent the debate to representatives from clubs who were especially interested. He has misled those people by saying: ‘You were all consulted’ when, clearly, they were not. Clearly they were not consulted.
They were not consulted in the first place. The second issues is, yes, they are fearful that the very high penalties imposed by this bill will significantly impact on their association to the extent that they may not be able to find officer bearers. It will affect the AGM process; people will be at meetings asking people to put up their hands for office bearing positions, and it may be a situation where no hands are raised.
We all know, and I made a point at the time of saying, that volunteers are thin on the ground. Everyone is, it seems, increasingly busy these days. I raised that concern at the time of the debate and yet the Attorney-General had the audacity to seek to caress us through this legislation, to say all was well. I can say that all is not well, and I will continue to communicate with clubs and associations around the Northern Territory. I will say to them that we have an Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Northern Territory, who willingly and recklessly says: ‘We have consulted. Don’t you worry about that. All is fine’ when the reality is something quite different.
May I say in conclusion that the effect of this legislation on clubs and associations in the Northern Territory is terribly significant. All members in this Chamber are members of various clubs and associations. Most of us were prior to becoming members of parliament, and I am sure all of us are now that we are members of parliament. We know what it is like to go to those AGMs. We know what it is like to attend meetings where people say: ‘Oh well, so-and-so has been Treasurer for the last umpteen years. No one else is interested so we will choose him again’. That situation is going to become much worse as a result of this government’s actions with respect to the imposition of the outrageously high fines, ranging, from memory, up to $22 000. They are outrageously high fines.
I cannot remember off the top of my head, but I reckon a dope dealer would be fined significantly less than that for a first offence for a small amount of marijuana. Yet this government is penalising the good people of the Northern Territory, those very people who make up all of those clubs that are ingrained in our community: the swimming clubs, the netball clubs, the pony clubs, the pistol clubs, and so on.
I call upon the Attorney-General to come into this place and say to us that everyone was consulted. Clearly, they weren’t. I call upon the Attorney-General to get on with the information campaign, which he assured us would occur, and I call on the Attorney-General to reconsider the high fines that were imposed when this bill was introduced. Finally, I call upon the Attorney-General to try to soothe the very real concerns that members of clubs and associations throughout the Northern Territory have.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, on 19 October this year, a larger than life character, Mr Harry Tomes, passed away and I wish to thank Trevor Horman of PowerWater for supplying me with the following brief history of Harry’s work in the power and water area.
Harry spent a considerable part of his life working for Power and Water in the Territory before retiring in 1993, but continuing to work as a consultant until 2000.
Harry, with his family, came to Darwin in 1965 to work as a Maintenance Foreman with the then Department of Works and Housing. In 1974-75, Harry oversaw the rebuilding of Darwin’s electricity distribution system after the devastation of Cyclone Tracy. To ensure his crew was happy, Harry organised a soup kitchen to feed the workers involved in the restoration project. This project was a major feat, with electricity authorities from interstate sending crews and equipment. Without Harry’s experience and commitment, the restoration project would not have run as smoothly and as effectively as it did.
Harry was also responsible for the design and supervision of the powerline to Darwin River Dam in 1970. This project necessitated the design of a reliable line and its construction through near virgin bushlands to the Darwin River Dam site, over 100 km from Darwin. Parts of this line are still in service and they are in as good condition today as they were when they were erected.
Harry was also instrumental in identifying and establishing training for many current PowerWater employees. In 1978, he took a group of about 12 trainee line workers on a camp to Gunn Point to teach them line work and prepare them for training in Queensland. He was also a driving force in setting up the line workers’ training course at the then Darwin Community College in 1979. Harry’s involvement did not stop there; he was the main trainer for at least the first two years after the course’s inception.
Harry would probably be well known to many rural residents, as he contributed to the inception of the distribution system extension policy and negotiated the supply of electricity to many. His work in this area made electricity a viable option for many people. Harry had a love of fishing and socialising with friends and family, and he could often be found enjoying a quiet drink at the Trailer Boat Club.
Harry will be sorely missed by his wife, Nancy, his children, June, Gordon, Mal and Noel, and his many, many friends. My condolences to the family. Vale Harry Tomes.
On 1 November, I went to the Australian-Japanese Association Culture Day, along with my wife Elizabeth and daughter Amy, on Saturday 1 December. We enjoyed a wide range of activities and exhibits. There was quite a good crowd there and everyone really enjoyed themselves. There was a flower arrangement by Mrs Tomoyo Kainai, a tea ceremony, which I enjoyed greatly, as did my wife, also by Mrs Tomoyo Kainai. There were three assistants there was well. That green tea is especially invigorating; it has a great taste, and it is very special.
Calligraphy was carried out by Mrs Yoshie Masuno and Khim Mills. Oregami, that really got the kids going, that is paper folding, by Mrs Yumiko Shaw and some other people. They made some very interesting paper sculptures. I had a go at yo-yo fishing, but I did not catch one. It is a lot more difficult that it looks, with Mrs Sasumu Kubo. Quoits! I managed to get a few quoits on the board, with Mrs Sasumu Kubo. There was kumihimo, traditional Japanese belt making, by Mrs Ariko Randysek. The kids really enjoyed that. It is a simple but complex procedure that involves just weights over with thread attached to it and making quite strong belts and rope.
I particularly thank Chie Churcher, who is President of the Australian Japanese Association. She did a great job in organising that event, which was funded by the Territory government, with a lot of people from the Japanese community showcasing their culture to other Territorians.
On 5 November, I was privileged to attend a small dinner, a National Heart Foundation dinner honouring Mr Richard Ryan with Life Membership of the Northern Territory Division of the Heart Foundation. Richard Ryan has been in involved in the Heart Foundation for well over 20 years, both at local and national level. He has stepped down as national chair, and this is the way of the local Heart Foundation recognised his accomplishment.
Mr Graham Opie, the Executive Director, was there; Valerie Asche, well known to everyone, a tremendous worker in the community with long association with the Heart Foundation; Gwen Gabel likewise, I believe she is a foundation member; Sharon Mulholland was there; along with Rosie Warden and Reg Lowry, another great stalwart of the Heart Foundation. I believe Reg is going into semi-retirement down south. He will be spending half of his time in the Northern Territory carrying on his accounting business. He has family on the Gold Coast. There are many local organisations that will miss Reg Lowry’s contribution.
On 6 November, I was privileged to give a key address at the holistic health fundraiser held at the Happy Gardens restaurant. Lila Notley is a fantastic worker for that organisation and someone who has very strong beliefs, brought many different forms of holistic healing into the Darwin area, a stalwart in that organisation and also Life. Be In It. Brian Kennedy is well known to everyone. Brian was there working like a terrier. He is on crutches, but he is out there raising funds. It was very successful and fantastic to see Brian there. He is someone with a great commitment to that sort of activity.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, these are the last sittings before Christmas. I would like to, along with other members, extend seasons greetings to everyone. To my colleagues on both sides of the House: we sit here for long hours and sometimes tempers are frayed, but it is great that we are able to wish each other and families all the best. If we have one thing in common, we know the tremendous commitment that it takes to be a member of this Legislative Assembly, and work hard here, and everyone does work hard, and also for our families and children. We all realise what a challenge it is, but we all have tremendous support, and I know that we all appreciate it. I certainly do. My wife, Elizabeth, gives me fantastic support along with my daughter, Amy, and sons Daniel and David, who is currently with the Air Force in Adelaide. He will be back here for Christmas, which we are really looking forward to.
There have been a few sad events in the Johnston electorate over the last year. Sadly, Ozzie Dalton passed away. Ozzie was a great hero, a great worker in the community at a very local level. He will be sorely missed. Shirley Davies was a wonderful worker. I have mentioned Shirley’s work with St Vincent de Paul. John McDonough, a great little fighter, with great stories of his early life in Queensland. He will be sorely missed, too.
It has been a pleasure to work with residents’ groups, particularly Wagaman Residents Committee chaired by George Lambridinis, Paul Birch as secretary and, of course, Zita Hall. She does a fantastic job. I wish all the Wagaman residents group a very happy Christmas, along with Borella Park Residents Committee: Trevor Edwards in the chair, Jane Burford as secretary. They are moving along trying to eradicate crime and antisocial behaviour in the area. I wish them a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
It is great to work with the schools. Casuarina with Steve Sjoberg at the helm. Brian Bennett has moved away from Moil for a little while over to Nightcliff, but Helen Southam has taken up the reigns as principal. Jingili, with Lesley Wilcox; now Randall Cook has taken on that responsibility. Jingili Preschool: Mim Regan is a fantastic worker who is well loved by all the parents and children. Michelle Cody at Wagaman and Sharon Reeves at Alawa. I wish all the schools, all the children, all the teachers a very Merry Christmas, have a safe Christmas, enjoy yourself. I hope you get plenty of presents from Santa. I am sure you will and have a great rest over the Christmas period.
I have mentioned my wife. I guess the next one closer to that is your Electorate Officer, there is no doubt about it. Judy Herring is a great worker and someone for whom I have a lot of trust and admiration. She works hard. She knows the people at Johnston. She is a very understanding person. She knows how to be an advocate for people. She is of great assistance to me. I would be lost without Judy and I certainly compliment her.
Within my parliamentary office, Mark Hough. We have all been working together for about a year now. An ex-mathematician, he keeps me on the lines, he keeps the calculations right and I really appreciate Mark’s political advice. Ray, Patrick, Andrew, Andrea comes up every now and again from Alice Springs, Carol and Melina, Vanessa and Myrene, I wish you all a great Christmas. I am sure we are going to have a drink tomorrow night. I am looking forward to that and thank you for all your help.
All those in the departments, especially the CEOs, and those who liaise with the office, thanks for all the great support over the last year. I deeply appreciate it. It has been a learning curve for me. I wish you and your families all the best for the Christmas break.
I would like to particularly thank the Chief Minister and all my colleagues, both in caucus and Cabinet. They have been very supportive of me and very understanding, and I thank them for that.
I extend season’s greetings particularly to Madam Speaker, Katie and Kathy now, the Clerk, Ian McNeill, Deputy Clerk, David Horton, and all the staff of the Assembly for all your hard work, particularly Graham Gadd and all the crowd in there in the Table Office. Hansard, you do a great job; you get right nearly all of the time, just on the first go, I mean. Helen Allmich and all the people there, you do such a fantastic job. Long hours, but you are such a great group. Corporate Services, Vicki Long, thanks for all your support; we could not do without you. Building Services, Jan Bradley and, of course, Derek. I could see Derek in a bit of a worried state when the lights went off here today, but they came on very quickly. To all the people who work within this building, I extend season’s greetings. Have a great Christmas. I hope you enjoy your family, and I hope you enjoy your presents.
I particularly want to mention the Parliamentary Library. Marilyn Hawthorne does a fantastic job. Libraries are so important for our work and they just give us great support.
I could not end the night without giving particular thanks to Frank Moukaddem. He is such a hard worker for our party, for our branches, and, Frank, you are such a backstop to me. I do appreciate the way that you help in so many ways.
To the branch members, president and secretary of our branch and party, we have grown over the last year and will continue to grow. We will be strong at the next election. This has been a great year for us. The next year is going to be even better, and I am looking forward to it. I do not know whether I can take a holiday, I am looking forward to it that much, but I will. I will go down in the caravan, maybe wet a line, catch some fish, and I will be back here next year champing at the bit.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016