2004-04-01
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 211 petitioners praying that the decision to allow the existing tenants to live at the redeveloped Keith Lawrie units in Alice Springs be rescinded. 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.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 128 petitioners, praying that remedial action be taken on the Mandorah boat ramp. 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.
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to Petition Nos 42 and 43 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of responses will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
Petition No 42
Milikapiti Housing Association
Date presented: 9 October 2003
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Housing
Date response due: 26 February 2004
Date response received: 31 March 2004
Date response presented: 1 April 2004
Response:
Petition No 43
Bathurst Island Housing Association (BIHA)
Date presented: 9 October 2003
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Housing
Date response due: 26 February 2004
Date response received: 31 March 2004
Date response presented: 1 April 2004
Response:
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Northern Territory Council of Social Services, better known as NTCOSS, for successfully delivering its first Territory-wide conference. The views and experiences of non-government and community sectors are diverse, and reflect the different interest of families, groups, individuals and communities across our regions and localities. This conference provided the non-government sector with an opportunity to exchange information, network, and to highlight issues of concern. The conference was called Overcoming the Divide: Building Stronger Communities and a Strong Community Sector. Themes were structured around strengthening public policy, and building partnerships across government and non-government sectors; improving the capacity and opportunities for the non-government sector to contribute to decision-making; and creating change around important social justice issues.
NTCOSS is an independent, non-government organisation which, along with its members, works to improve the lives of people across the Territory who are affected by poverty and disadvantage. I am pleased to advise that my government was a major sponsor of the conference. By donating $35 000, government enabled 65 Territorians from remote and regional locations to attend. My government welcomes the contribution that the conference and the non-government sector is making to the public polity debate. The messages from the conference are clear - they are about strengthening families, focussing on prevention, but also about intervening and strengthening families and individuals so they are more resilient, and do not get to crisis point. Conference participants also identified the importance of improving the coordination of service delivery in communities and regions.
We need to strengthen our relationships and improve interaction between government and non-government agencies if we are to make a real change in the lives of Territorians. My government is working towards this end. We are creating overarching frameworks to improve the way government, community and special interest groups interact. We are developing social policies that reflect priority issues. NTCOSS and other community-based organisations are major contributors to this process.
My government has already introduced significant change in the public policy area. As a speaker during the opening session, I was able to identify a range of significant initiatives introduced by this government, and to outline the directions that we will plan taking over the coming years. Significant among these are:
A review of Northern Territory community service sector peak councils and networks has commenced, with the aim of creating new and more vigorous partnerships. This review is taking place in partnership with and the active involvement of NTCOSS, and other members of the non-government sector. As a result, the Northern Territory with develop a framework and principles to guide the roles, responsibilities and relationships between government and the non-government sector, particularly those of peak community service sector councils.
I am pleased to advise that the project has started well and is providing a real opportunity to recognise important advocacy groups, and regularise relationships. Participants at the conference were able to meet with Lyla Rogan, the expert engaged to undertake the review, and to begin to tease out issues of importance. Lyla Rogan has the benefit of extensive experience working on public policy issues in partnership with government and the community sector. Regional and community consultations aided by Aboriginal Liaison Officers will begin in May of this year.
Madam Speaker, there are many challenges facing government and the new approaches that we are adopting. These include our geography, a small and widely dispersed population, and finding new ways of working in partnership with communities. Nevertheless, this is the direction that my government is firmly committed to and I look forward to announcing the result of the review to parliament later this year.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I welcome the Chief Minister’s report on the Northern Territory Council of Social Services. As members would know, this is a peak body of NGOs in our community who work in collaboration with government to improve services to people in our community.
I agree, as I am sure all of us do, with the need to build and strengthen the relationships between the Northern Territory government and the NGOs. Through my work with the substance abuse committee, which has been on people’s minds over the last couple of days, we have interacted frequently over the last couple of years with NGOs throughout the Northern Territory who have expressed to us their frustration with the lack of funding that they perceive they get and the lack of coordination in the area of alcohol services provision. I hope the conference was able to provide some direction to government in this important area.
With regards to non-government organisations that NTCOSS often represents, I know that each year they put up a budget submission to the government seeking increased funding for various activities in their area. They have suffered, over the last few years, incredible frustration because their insurance premiums have absolutely skyrocketed and wages continue to increase. That is quite normal because it is very difficult for non-government organisations to attract and retain quality staff when they are paying at fairly basic levels. However, the insurance premium situation has caused major problems for many of them. In the last couple of Martin Labor government budgets, their only increase in funding has been a CPI increase, which has not been enough for them to deal with their insurance premiums.
The next parliamentary sitting day is the budget and we certainly hope that the Chief Minister will be putting her money where her mouth is.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to update the House on some impacts in Central Australia and the first ever Territory Jobs Plan launched by the Martin government in November last year.
Mr Dunham: Oh, that is working well. Jobs plan!
Mr STIRLING: I am told you made very supportive comments in some quarters about our Jobs Plan and voiced some regret that you blokes had not thought of it and done it when you were in government, so do not come in here with churlish comments. You have form!
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: You have already complimented it in some quarters, and we are appreciative of that support. However, do not come in here and demean it now when you have been reported to me as being highly complimentary - highly complimentary!
Madam Speaker, the government’s Jobs Plan is a plan for jobs across the Territory. The fruits of allocating more than $160m worth of training, and effectively focussing that effort, is improving the skills of our work force right across the Territory. It has improved, and will continue to improve, access to training and job opportunities for the people of Central Australia, the Alice Springs region and the Barkly.
We have specifically backed programs in the Barkly and Alice Springs regions that ensure employment opportunities in those regions will be maximised. We are working with business, industry, local government and communities in the regions to improve the skills of Territorians living in these areas.
Employment incentives of $2200 per trainee apprentice became available on 1 February this year. Eleven out of the 40 small business incentives have been taken up in Alice Springs; seven out of the 47 skill shortages assistance package of $7700 incentives per traditional trades apprentices areas have been taken up in Central Australia; and three of the four local government incentives - and I am pleased to see that. Eighteen government apprenticeship traineeships have been taken up; 13 in Alice Springs and five in Tennant Creek.
We have put money into a number of skilling programs to give people the skills they will need for a job. For example: Ali Curung, spending almost $50 000 on nine trainees for civil operations training; $30 000 going into a joint effort with Julalikari CDEP on earthmoving plant training for 18 people; 11 people being trained under this program in heavy rigid trucks at a cost of around $5000; Julalikari Women’s Art and Craft Centre, an arts training package to assist 20 women to provide product to major national outlets; and in the Alice Springs region, 144 people are being trained in driver’s licences, repairs and maintenance skills, and first aid certificates for skills development. Government also funds Charles Darwin University extensively to deliver training into the region in excess of $5m. It is being spent on recurrent programs and user choice. Over 70 programs are running in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Yulara.
One critical issue for employment and training in Central Australia and the Barkly is identifying the work force needs, and finding out what skills are required to get people into jobs in these areas. It has never been done, particularly in the remote parts of the Territory. That is why it is critical that the labour market analysis and the work force report underpinning the training strategy is set in train as quickly as possible. It is happening; the impact will be most significant in the Barkly and the Alice.
Part of the success of the training component of the Jobs Plan must be attributed to the success of the Get VET campaign launched last year. The campaign is having a continuing impact as business, community and industry, as well as individuals, see VET as the way to build a skilled, job-ready work force. The campaign was run in media outlets across the Territory, in particular in Central Australian media. Recognition of VET and its role has been a significant factor in improving take-up of training in the region. A recent post-evaluation of that program showed that, if you asked 71% of Territorians what VET was, they referred to jobs, employment and training - which is a pretty high take-up on the back of the one campaign - and only 1% thought that the question was referring to animal doctors. I thought that was a pretty good commendation of that marketing campaign, which we will revamp and run again later this year.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, the minister lauds his Jobs Plan, a jobs plan that was promised by this government prior to the last election. They were going to come into government with a jobs plan, and it took them two-and-a-half years to deliver the Jobs Plan, which then has hardly achieved anything. In their term of government, they have lost 3200 people from the Territory. Why? Because people are moving interstate to get jobs. Look at the Jobs Plan: get rid of Territorians down south where they can get their jobs - that is your jobs plan. You have lost 5700 jobs in the term of your government so far, so how many more are you going to lose over in two-and-a-half years.
Mr Ah Kit: Is this to substantiate your Deputy Leader’s position?
Dr LIM: Can we stop the clock while we call for order please?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is the problem with this government. The minister spoke about Charles Darwin University, and what it is doing in offering apprenticeships in Central Australia, yet they have cancelled Training Solutions, initially. They told Training Solutions they cannot do any more; and closed the shop down. Then, within the last few weeks: ‘Sorry, we made the wrong decision, we will open up Training Solutions again’. However, now you cannot make any offerings that will compete against Charles Darwin University. That is your Jobs Plan: protecting certain sections of education. If you are truly serious about a jobs plan, you will open up the market and allow fair competition. That is what the Jobs Plan is about, and then you can allow apprentices to do their work.
What about the trainer for the panel beating apprenticeship? We know that the student has now left the Territory, or intends to leave the Territory so that he can finish his apprenticeship. Where is your trainer? You promised a trainer, and he is not there, and that is your problem. Your Jobs Plan is nothing but a myth.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, the one area of concern that the member raised was that area of the paint and panel lecturer/instructor at Charles Darwin University. I am advised that the university does have someone, and they will be in place and that training will take place throughout April.
Dr Lim: But you have lost the apprentices, they are leaving.
Mr STIRLING: I said in the previous parliamentary session that government would see these apprentices trained, either by sending them interstate in the event that Charles Darwin University did not have someone on deck, or they would go to Charles Darwin University. The university has advised that that person is in place and the training will take place.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House of the accelerating pace of building and development activity in Palmerston. I recently had the opportunity to meet with industry peak bodies, developers, builders and the real estate industry in the course of the recent Palmerston Community Cabinet.
After several years of subdued activity stretching back to 1999, the builders told me that they are flat-out satisfying demand for housing and keeping up with the machinery turning off lots. The building industry in Palmerston is in a very dynamic state. In Farrar, the first two stages have been completed and Henry Walker Eltin expect to start Stage 3 after Easter. This will produce 10 to 30 lots. Only two lots in Stage 2 remain available.
Members may be aware that Henry Walker Eltin have announced their intention to withdraw from the land development industry, though they will complete their current obligations within the Territory. During the community Cabinet, Mr Ben Ganley, the Delfin Project Director, briefed me on the rapid expansion of building activity while he showed me the developments in and around The Chase - and that suburb is growing rapidly. I am told that Delfin had their best year in 1999 when approximately 300 lots were turned off and sold. However, they then suffered a number of flat or declining years coinciding with the last couple of years of the CLP administration.
Mr Dunham: Oh, right! So take the quote marks out before that? Righto, okay.
Dr BURNS: There were no quote marks. It is very pleasing to hear that things are now looking up ...
Mr Dunham: You are making it up now, are you? You are making it up!
Dr BURNS: Do not misrepresent what I am saying. Can I hear a toad croaking?
Delfin are anticipating about 160 sales this financial year …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: … and are projecting a further 25% expansion to achieve 200 sales in the coming year.
I will repeat that for the benefit of members opposite. Delfin are anticipating about 160 sales this financial year and are projecting a further 25% expansion to achieve 200 sales in the coming financial year. The evidence of increased building activity was there before my eyes with builders and contractors everywhere in a hive of construction activity. I saw roofers climbing over rooves, tilers laying tiles, blocklayers just swarming over multitudes of houses. It was a veritable hive of activity and it is fantastic to see …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: It was the same story at Darla, the residential subdivision in the suburb of Rosebery. The Larrakia Development Corporation is currently developing the 390-lot subdivision in a six-stage development. I was briefed by Mr Kelvin Costello, the coordinator of the Larrakia Nation and Mr Greg Constantine of the Larrakia Development Corporation. The Larrakia Development Corporation is the commercial arm of the Larrakia people and its main role is to promote and encourage business opportunities for the Larrakia.
This is very much a success story. In Stage 1 of Darla 57, house lots are completed and there are only five blocks left for purchase. The quality of the housing being constructed is of a very high standard, with the cost of houses in this stage averaging over $250 000, with no shortage of buyers. As an aside, I was interested to see the famous Esky house that has attracted a lot of media attention. A very pleasing aspect of Darla to me is that the Larrakia insisted on the retention of as much of the native vegetation as possible. I believe it makes a real difference to the appearance of the new development, and it has greatly assisted the retention of top soil over the past two Wet Seasons.
In Stage 2 of Darla another 59 lots are due for completion by the end of April, and already 48 lots have been sold off the plan. This is a very clear and direct indication of the buoyancy of the market and the level of consumer confidence in the Northern Territory. On that side also, I saw frenetic activity despite heavy overcast and rainy weather. The Darla project has created more than 20 jobs for Larrakia people in a range of roles. I was told consistently at both Darla and The Chase that there can be a wait of several months to engage a builder or other contractor. That is a strong indication, in my view, of the increasing demand and the level of building activity.
It was very pleasing for me also to see the Larrakia Nation developing turf and a turf farm there. However, all in all, it was fantastic to be there to see the building activity and the confidence in the future of the Northern Territory.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister. I have never seen a Labor minister so excited about CLP projects in the time that I have been in the parliament.
Dr Burns: Is Delfin owned by the CLP?
Mr BURKE: It really is encouraging that, through the minister’s comments he has given credit where credit really is due. In fact, if you want to go a little further, minister, you might want to send a transcript of that over to Perth this weekend where Palmerston is competing for the national Tidy Towns Competition. Everyone, I am sure, would wish them all the very best and hope that Palmerston is awarded the national award for the Territory’s tidiest town - helped over many years by strong support from the CLP government, strong representation from CLP local members and, may I say, a vibrant and exciting mayor.
Dr Burns: In which way?
Mr BURKE: In every respect.
If we look at, say, the suburb of Farrar that the minister speaks so strongly about, there is one thing the Northern Territory government could do - it is not a lot: get them a bus service. It is a developing suburb, it has more and more residential development there. They were supposed to get a bus service when the ring road was completed into The Chase; it has not occurred yet. When you speak strongly about the excitement in the suburb of Farrar - get them a bus service so that the kids can get to school and the people can get themselves up to the bus exchange. That is something the Northern Territory government could do.
This Northern Territory government, which reckons they are going to build a $600m development at the Stokes Hill wharf, cannot even get a roundabout in at Palmerston. If you want to talk about Darla, Rosebery, and Bellamack, the roundabout at the Lambrick Avenue intersection has been under construction for about six months now. It is an absolute disgrace. Notwithstanding what spin you put to the paper, we know the true story. Part of the story is this: the contractors walked off the job. They walked off the job because they were not being paid by the department. That was the way they demonstrated their confidence in the Northern Territory government. Therefore, when you go out there and say: ‘Aren’t things great in Palmerston?’ Yes, they are. But do a few things yourself like get a bus service in, and for God’s sake finish the roundabout.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the minister said but I there are some issues that have been covered over with the gloss of excitement here. One of the issues that will reverberate on some parts of Palmerston is that some suburbs were developed far too densely, where people live one-and-a-half metres apart is a crying shame in a tropical city. I hope that new developments do not follow that example. I have to say straight out that Delfin subdivisions do look very nice. However, in some cases, Delfin have over-developed land. I congratulate the Larrakia people for now developing reasonably sized blocks and allowing some of the bushlands to exist.
On another point, the preservation of Mitchell Creek is important. I do not believe there has been enough work done on it. There was originally a scheme which would allow Mitchell Creek to be removed from the subdivision. If you go past the Farrar subdivision you will see that one of the branches of Mitchell Creek was pleasantly engineer-designed; that is, it was turned into a drain, and there it sits today. There has to be some more work done on preserving Mitchell Creek which is an important natural area of Palmerston.
Regarding the bus service I agree with the member for Brennan. However, I would also like to highlight the fact that Howard Springs/Coolalinga are very close to Palmerston via Lambrick Avenue. I have asked many times for a bus service to go through that area. We have two buses in the morning and two buses at night. It is not acceptable for an area which has 11 000 people right next to its main, central regional district in Palmerston, to have such a lousy bus service. I hope that the government will start to put some real effort into providing services for the rural people next to Palmerston.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I take the points the member for Nelson has made, which were very good points; similarly, the member for Brennan. I acknowledge that the Lambrick Avenue roundabout has taken too long and I certainly have the whip about that.
On the issue of bus services, the member is probably aware that there is a review of bus services throughout Darwin and Palmerston currently ongoing. It was an issue that was raised with me when I was doorknocking in Palmerston. I spoke to some bus drivers and other residents out there.
However, the underlying thrust of my report here today is about economic activity, and revival from the doldrums since 1999. I am very glad it has happened and that the member for Brennan has welcomed it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, this government is moving the Territory ahead with a number of exciting, major developments planned for the near future. These projects are all at various stages of development. They include the expansion of Alcan alumina refinery at Gove; the trans-Territory pipeline; the Blacktip gas pipeline and processing plant; the Bayu/Darwin pipeline; the ConocoPhillips LNG plant; the redevelopment of the Darwin city waterfront site at Stokes Hill, and the Glyde Point industrial estate. All these projects will bring jobs and significant economic growth to the Territory, which fantastic.
However, this government is just as committed to protecting the Territory as we are to growing it. This government has a baseline position: we are absolutely committed to ensuring that our Territory environment and lifestyle is protected. This means that all large developments are required to undergo rigorous environmental assessments before receiving approval. Accordingly, this government has required environmental assessments at the highest level for these major developments. Five of the projects are currently undergoing major EIS processes.
The number of environmental impact assessments has always been a good indicator of economic activity and industry confidence, and this number of EIS assessments on the go at once really is quite unprecedented. The environmental assessment process is a statutory process which is facilitated by my Office of Environment and Heritage. Through a rigorous examination of potential environmental impacts, appropriate safeguards are developed to avoid problems down the track. However, it does not stop once a project has been approved. In recognition that significant environmental impacts can occur if a development is not managed properly on the ground, my Office of Environment and Heritage has a team dedicated to monitoring the ongoing compliance of development once approval has been granted. For example, my office is currently monitoring the construction activity of the Darwin LNG plant at Wickham Point and provides me with weekly inspection reports. This compliance action is only possible because of the additional resources this government has provided to the independent Office of the Environment and Heritage.
To cope with this unprecedented activity, we have two positions dedicated to monitoring compliance as development progresses. Not only is the number of EIS assessments unprecedented at this level, so is the level of community consultation that we are undertaking with each process. This consultation is a critical part of environmental assessment; a part that we on this side take very seriously. The Alcan Expansion Draft EIS, for example, will be available for public comment for approximately twice the statutory period. Alcan themselves have taken the consultation seriously and have had the executive summary of the EIS translated in to Yolngu Marta, one of the local indigenous languages.
Madam Speaker, this government is moving the Territory forward with jobs and economic growth. It is my job to ensure that we achieve environmentally sustainable development for all Territorians. We are protecting our unique environment and lifestyle.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Thank you, minister, for that report. It is a great report of what is going on: major projects of which we are all aware, some that were initiated in our time as members of government. What you have outlined is a fantastic environmental impact process that was also in place during our time. The only significant difference that you might have made in that ministerial report is that your government has put extra resources in to the Office of Environment and Heritage for monitoring - as you should. That is all I can say.
You are the government, there are major projects on the go. You have to make sure you comply with environmental processes, so you put more resources in to the Office of Environment and Heritage. It is absolutely logical that you would do that. There is nothing unusual about that and, from time to time when projects come along, you have to make sure the resources are there to not only do the environmental assessment, but also to monitor them …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Sorry?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Dunham: It is precedented.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, that is right.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister for getting some extra resources for her department, but it is something, as I said, that should happen as a major course when major projects are under way.
From the knowledge that I have of the way that the building of ConocoPhillips LNG is going, the teams that are working on that, including all of the local contractors, are doing a fantastic job. I understand they are on schedule and things are looking very good.
As for Blacktip, perhaps one of the ministers responsible for industry might like to give an update on that as far as they know where that project is.
Ms Martin: Would you like a briefing? Ask for a briefing.
Mr BALDWIN: No, I have had one from Woodside. I want to know what you know.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the minister’s report. I note, however, that the minister referred to Glyde Point. There have been some advertisements in the paper indicating that there would be an EIS on Glyde Point fairly soon. My concern is that we do not seem to look at options. Glyde Point has been designed like that under the Brown and Root industrial concept plan they have produced. I and you would know from the Litchfield plan that there are a number of areas there that are sensitive, like rainforests. This plan also removes around 480 hectares of mangroves.
I am not saying that that may not be necessary for this to develop, but it is a pity that, when plans are brought forward, there are not a series of options which look at minimal disruption to those sensitive areas, as well as designs which may end up being like this, and may be the only plan. There are times when our planners need to design things around the environment rather than through the environment, and at least allow people to look at various options so, when an environmental impact statement comes up, some of the issues, like the rainforests and mangroves here, would be looked at initially.
I am saying to the minister, yes, we need these big projects for sure, but sometimes the square line philosophy, or the square line design people get a little too carried away when sometimes a few circles and a few areas left out could do the job just as well.
Madam SPEAKER: I am afraid, minister, time has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
As we are all aware, Australian agriculture has experienced remarkable growth over the last 50 years. During this period, the use of agricultural and veterinary chemical products has increased significantly. The benefits gained from the use of these products include major increases in agricultural production and produce quality. Chemical products also pay an important role in public health and environmental protection. Misuse of these products carries a potential risk to people’s health, the environment, animal welfare and trade. There is increasing consumer awareness, both in Australia and amongst our export partners, of the potential risks posed by agricultural and veterinary chemicals, both from an environmental point of view and from the perspective of unacceptable chemical residues in agricultural produce. Market access will increasingly rely on the certainty that the Territory’s produce is clean and green.
The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority administers the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Agvet Code) on behalf of the states and territories, and is responsible for the registration of agriculture and veterinary chemical products to the point of sale in Australia. It is a state and territory responsibility to control their use.
The purpose of this bill is to provide controls over possession, sale and use of agricultural and veterinary chemical products; the manufacture, sale and use of fertiliser and stockfeed to manage the risk to people, the environment and animals, to protect export markets, and to ensure sustainable agriculture. While this legislation will serve to protect and assist our primary industries, its stakeholders are all Territorians.
Currently, Territory legislation provides for limited control over the use of pesticides, minimum control over the use of veterinary medicines, and no control over fertilisers and stockfeed. This bill will replace a small part of the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act, administered by the Department of Health and Community Services, that currently serves to control the use of pesticides. This bill will provide a one-stop shop for the regulation of agriculture and veterinary chemical products, fertilisers and stockfeed within the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development.
It is important to remember that we are one nation and that, wherever possible, legislation should be harmonised between states, not only for the convenience of our citizens, but also because our trading partners see us as one nation. Consequently, the proposed bill seeks to promote harmonisation of legislation within Australia and adopts, with some minor variations, nationally agreed principles for control of use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals and agreed maximum levels of heavy metal impurities in fertilisers.
It is important that the governance of agricultural and veterinary chemicals is as seamless as practicable and, hence, this bill uses definitions that are consistent with those in the Agvet Code. Similarly, the regulation of the use of agricultural and veterinary chemical products should be consistent with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority risk management process. The bill, therefore, proposes a use regime that is based on the direction of the registered product label, which encapsulate the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority risk management outcomes. As well, the bill is in accord with agreed national principles for control of use. Wherever possible, the provisions of the bill complement those of the Agvet Code in order to facilitate implementation of Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority decisions.
The bill provides general provisions that include a general duty of care (Part 2), and provisions in relation to agricultural and veterinary chemical products including control of container type, reading the label, making records of use, reuse of containers, disposal of empty containers, and use of the product (Part 3). The definition of an agricultural chemical product takes in a wide range of products including insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, growth regulators, and swimming pool disinfectants, including both commercial and domestic products. Naturally, the bill would be administered on a risk basis and, unless extraordinary circumstances arise, would concentrate on the commercial use of these products.
The cornerstone of the safe use of an agricultural chemical product is the product label. An agricultural chemical product must be used according to the label instruction or in accord with a permit issued by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Currently, low risk uses are not offences under the bill; for example, it is not an offence to use the product to control another pest that is not on the product label provided that other label conditions are adhered to. The national registration scheme is a complex world class scheme but it is not without some problems and, in some instances, the legal off-label use provisions of the bill will provide growers with some flexibility without unacceptable risk.
The definition of veterinary chemical products takes in a wide range of products, including ectoparasiticides, anthelmintics, antibiotics, hormonal growth promotants, vitamins, and mineral substance or additives that make a claim to alleviate or cure a condition. The definition includes products designed for animals of a food-producing species, as well as non-food-producing species including companion animals (Part 3, Division 4). The proposed bill regulates the use of veterinary chemical products consistent with nationally agreed principles. Again, legal use of a registered veterinary chemical product is based on product label instructions. A non-veterinarian must use a registered veterinary chemical product in accord with the registered label instructions, the written instructions of a veterinarian, or the instruction of a relevant Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority permit.
Because of their training, a vet has a right to prescribe; that is, to use a veterinary chemical product contrary to label instructions. The bill regulates a vet’s right to prescribe by restricting use of high risk areas, particularly in relation to use on animals of a food-producing species. Hence, unless authorised by an Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority permit, a vet cannot use, prescribe or recommend use of:
As well, the legislation places some restrictions on a vet’s right to prescribe, supply, use or recommend the use of an unregistered veterinary chemical product, including one formulation by the vet, or a registered human pharmaceutical on an animal that is not a food-producing species.
Communication is of paramount importance in the transmission of instructions and information. The bill defines the information and the manner of its provision in certain high-risk situations, including when:
There also requirements for identification of animals of a food-producing species that have been treated with a veterinary chemical product. For example, anyone treating an animal of a food-producing species belonging to another person must ensure that the animal is sufficiently identified.
To continue with veterinary chemical products we are all aware of the increasing problem caused to society by the illegal use of anabolic steroids. This bill will ensure that the use of injectable anabolic steroids is strongly controlled (Part 3, Division 5). The proposed legislation requires that an injectable anabolic steroid can only be administered by a vet or by a person in the presence of a vet. Additional securities provided with the requirements that vets make and keep records of use, secure storage requirements, controls over disposal, and obligation to report losses about a set volume in a period time.
Access to unregistered products - products designated as a strictly chemical product by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, and S7 dangerous poisons - are restricted (Part 3, Division 6). Possession of an unregistered chemical product is illegal other than defined circumstances including an authorisation under the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority permit. The strict control of access to S7 dangerous poisons will be maintained. S7 chemical products require an authorisation issued by the Chemicals Coordinator. Authorisation will be competency and needs based. Access to restricted chemical products will be confined to those persons authorised under the regulation to the bill, consistent with a registered label.
There are a range of significant protective measures conferred on the minister (Part 4). The minister may, after consultation with the minister primarily responsible for health or environment, as the case may be, prohibit the manufacture, possession, sale or use of a chemical product, fertiliser or stockfeed if it is necessary to protect the health of the general public, the environment or trade. The minister may direct a product to be recalled in these circumstances. As well, the minister can, after receiving advice, direct a person to deal with a chemical product, fertiliser, stockfeed or agricultural produce that contains or is likely to contain a substance at a concentration above that set by regulation or that poses a risk to health or trade. Reasonable costs of sampling and analysis may be recovered from the manufacturer of the fertiliser, the seller of the stockfeed or the grower of the agricultural produce, as the case may be. However, costs cannot be recovered if use of the substance was authorised under Territory legislation or the contamination was the result of an action that the person could not reasonably have known about. A person affected by such a decision under clause 56 may apply to the Chemicals Coordinator for compensation (clause 123).
There is no intention to duplicate legislation administered by other government agencies. Currently, there are powers to manage spray drift that adversely affects persons or the environment under legislation administered by WorkSafe and the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. This bill creates an offence to either cause direct damage to horticultural produce or contaminate agricultural produce such that the produce exceeds the standard established under the Regulations (Part 5). Under this legislation, the licensing of horticultural ground spray applicators and spray pilots (Part 5), will transfer from the Department of Health and Community Services to the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development. Consistent with national undertakings, businesses involved in professional spraying for fee or reward will be licensed. A single licence covers the owner/operator. A professional ground sprayer applicator includes a person in employed of the ground spraying business licensee; a person who carries out spraying on behalf of public authorities; and a person who uses an agricultural chemical product to treat turf on a sporting ground or recreational area.
The minister has some further powers under this legislation. He may, if he is satisfied that it is necessary to protect human health, the environment, or specified plants or animals, or to facilitate trade, declare a chemical control area in which the use of chemical products is restricted (Part 6, Chemical Controls). A detailed procedure of public consultation is laid down.
The minister is also empowered to give a direction to alleviate the risk of contamination of horticultural produce that is grown on contaminated land (Part 7). If necessary, the minister can order the preparation of a remedial plan in cooperation with the grower. Such an action is subject to cost recovery conditions previously described. Any person affected by such a decision can apply to the Chemicals Coordinator for compensation.
The minister may declare an agricultural emergency if extraordinary measures were necessary to protect industry and authorised counter-measures that otherwise would be an offence against the act (Part 8). The minister must appoint a Chemicals Coordinator to administer the act. The Chemicals Coordinator can appoint chemical advisors for the act. Their role will be to educate and collaborate with the community to achieve the aims of the legislation.
One of the best measures for compliance with control of use legislation is the status of chemical residues in agricultural produce. The current Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development program relies on growers’ goodwill, and does not have a legislative basis. Under this legislation, chemical advisors will conduct an enhanced chemical residue monitoring program that can be enforced if necessary. They have all the necessary powers for enforcement.
Importantly also, the minister has the ability to draw advice from the community. He may establish an advisory committee to inquire into any matters related to the use of chemical products, the manufacture, sale and use of fertilisers or stockfeed, the management of contaminated land or contaminated agricultural produce, or the administration of the act generally (Part 9). Membership will consist of the Chief Executive Officers of agencies primarily responsible for health, environment and business and trade or their delegates, depending on the issue and any other expert that the minister sees as appropriate. The minister may publish the terms of reference in the newspaper and invite submissions. The advisory committee’s report must be tabled before the Legislative Assembly within six sitting days after receipt.
A schedule of reviewable decisions, appealable to the Local Court, is provided in Part 11. The decision-maker of a reviewable decision must provide the affected person with certain information, including the reason for the decision and that the decision is appealable. As well, persons administering the legislation are governed by a confidentiality provision.
The minister may declare a code of practice under Part 12. The contravention of a code does not in itself constitute an offence. Before approving a code of practice, the minister must give notice of the code and invite comments within the time and in a manner that the minister determines as appropriate.
The minister may make regulations to the bill that are necessary or convenient to give effect to the bill including: standards for chemical products, fertilisers or stockfeed; competency standards for handling chemical products; standards for the concentration of substances in agricultural produce, fertilisers or stockfeed; standards for sampling and analysis and laboratory accreditation; and records of use or sale of chemical products, fertilisers or stock foods.
The bill contains the necessary transitional provisions for those persons who currently hold S7 authorisation under the provisions of the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act or possess a horticultural licence to apply chemical products including pilots under Part 13. The bill contains consequential amendments to the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act under Part 14.
There are currently concerns, originating on the eastern seaboard, about the use of industrial wastes as fertilisers. This bill introduces a nationally agreed definition of fertilisers and agreed standards for maximum levels of cadmium, lead and mercury contaminants. Standards that relate to other contaminants and label requirements to manage risks of use will be incorporated into the regulations to the bill when a national working party finishes deliberations. The bill incorporates a requirement for persons who manufacture or import fertilisers to take all measures that are reasonable and practical to ensure that the fertiliser does not contain an impurity at a concentration greater than that set by the regulations. The legislation also provides a framework to manage risks that could be caused by contaminated stockfeed.
The bill contains penalties similar to those in the states. The highest penalty is 500 penalty units for importation or manufacture of contaminated fertiliser. The bill contains infringement notices for ease of administration. The bill also contains a framework on which standards for, and controls over, stockfeed can be implemented should the occasion arise.
In summary, Madam Speaker, this proposal regulates the use of chemical products, fertilisers and stockfeed, and seeks to provide an essential contribution to sustainable agriculture in the Northern Territory. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Fisheries Act, in response to the recommendations made in the consultant’s report arising from the review conducted of the Fisheries Act in accordance with the National Competition Principles Agreement.
The amendments in the bill provide for the following:
As a consequence of these amendments to the act, it is also necessary for the Fisheries Regulations to be amended to modify certain aspects of the eligibility criteria currently used to assess an application for a licence. These changes will further reduce the restrictions on licensing.
Two other recommendations flowing from the competition review also require changes to be made to the Fisheries Regulations. These are:
The bill and the amended regulations represent a positive response to the recommendations made in the competition review of the act, and provide for the removal of identified anti-competitive restriction. These are statutory measures that are no longer considered appropriate in the administration of modern fisheries and aquatic resources legislation.
It is acknowledged that the current Fisheries Act remains principally a framework for licensing, and has been amended many times to keep pace with changes since its commencement 16 years ago. It is also recognised that the Northern Territory’s statutory approach to regulating these resources needs to focus more on the management and sustainability of the fisheries to meet future challenges.
Madam Speaker, you will recall that, during the last sittings I took the opportunity to inform the House that a thorough review of the fisheries legislation is to be conducted over the next 18 months. Once the review is completed, recommendations for change to the legislation will be proposed and will be brought forward to government for consideration. During the period of the legislative review, consultation will be conducted with all fishery and aquatic resource user groups and other stakeholders to emphasis the Territory-wide nature of the review.
However, these amendments that have been introduced into the House today arise from the competition review of the act. It is necessary for them to be immediately implemented and not wait for the outcomes in 18 months of the proposed wide-ranging legislative review. The immediate priority for the Northern Territory is to meet its obligation under the terms of the National Competition Principles Agreement by implementing those legislative changes recommended in the competition review.
The amendments in this bill will provide administrative efficiencies and greater transparency in the administration of the act that will be to the mutual benefit of fishery and aquatic users and the general community.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 19 February 2004.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, it is not the opposition’s intent to oppose any aspects of the bill; suffice that I signal that I will make a few comments in relation to the bill and its operation in the Northern Territory.
It is clear what the large slice of this bill is trying to do in what the minister has bought before us, and that is to tighten up procedures that currently exist in the Northern Territory in the operation of the Fire and Emergency Act, and the services which are delivered to the Northern Territory by the fire services. It is certainly not the opposition’s intention to prevent the delivery of the important services provided by the fire services being hampered in any way. Much of what this bill has in its flavour, is establishing the ability of the fire services to deliver those services.
A point in case is clauses 16 and 17 of the bill, which enables the Director of the Fire Services and his representatives to make orders, which give a legal standing to those orders. Any organisations that functions in a paramilitary way needs to be able to establish that it has to run in a way that, when orders are made they are followed. That stands for very good reasons, because you cannot fight fires by committee; you fight fires by command. I also notice that the clauses allow for the creation of general orders or standing orders – it has subordinate legislation effectively. Once again, the opposition is very supportive of that construct. Indeed, in light of the Mtis review into the fire service, such structures would probably not go awry inside the fire service at the moment.
There is also the tightening-up of general powers in relation to fire investigation, public awareness campaigns and entering into contracts. I wish to comment briefly on entering into contracts. At this stage, I wish to - although it is a remote possibility - declare an interest and place on the record that my wife will soon be starting a business in relation to the delivery of workplace inspection and training in relation to occupational health and safety issues. It is not likely that she is going to pick up any fire contracts that I am aware of at any point in the near future, but that does not preclude it from happening. It is for a matter of completeness that I place it on the record that she is in that field, and I am making comments in relation to training issues here in the Northern Territory.
I draw members’ attention to clause 7 of the bill. In the Powers and functions of Director, proposed new section 8(2)(h) says:
I read that in light of the proposed new section 27A in clause 10 of the bill, where there is a requirement - and I quote the appropriate last line in proposed new section 27A(1) in relation to fire safety:
The only reason that I raise this particular issue is that I seek a reassurance from the minister that, trained in essential fire safety and the fact that the fire services are able to provide, for a fee, training services, the core responsibilities and functions of the fire services will not be compromised by a new and commercial arm of the fire services which is more interested in delivering training outside of its organisation rather than training inside its organisation, and then again, its core function of fighting fires and responding to emergency situations as contemplated by this bill. That is the first point.
The second point is that I want to be sure - and there is certainly nothing in the way that I read the bill - that any other organisation is precluded from entering into fire training so long as it is properly authorised to do so. I am wondering if there is any regulatory scheme that the minister has in mind, or whether any organisation which is just a training provider and has the appropriate expertise in delivering fire service training, is able to deliver that without having to worry - or if there is a scheme that is there to prevent such organisations entering into the training sphere, or if there is any hurdle in place which would prevent such an organisation entering into the training scheme? I certainly hope that the minister will clarify that in his closing comments.
I notice also that there are changes which are designed to remove the effect of the Associations Incorporation Act. This House had before it not that long ago a change to the Associations Incorporation Act which made it a lot more difficult, I suppose, to maintain the reporting requirements under that act. The minister says that there were other reasons for these changes. I do not doubt the minister in relation to FERGs having liability cover for public liability issues, saying that the Work Health Act and the Personal Injuries, Liabilities and Damages Act covers FERGs. It is obvious that the reporting times of the Associations Incorporation Act would also have an affect here. Taking the pain of keeping those FERGs up to their reporting requirements under the Associations Incorporation Act is being removed by this bill. I have no major problem with that. It is more of a reflection on the Associations Incorporation Act than the Fire and Emergency Act.
Other than that, Madam Speaker, I see no problems with this bill. I hope that the fire service continues to deliver a service which is effective and, as the lead agency responding to emergencies in areas of fires, chemical spills, biological and radiological hazards on trains and trucks and the like, they should be empowered to do their job and do it effectively. The opposition supports the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the bill. However, I would just like to make a few comments on one particular section; the new section that has been added in relation to fire hazard reduction programs and back-burning. That is an important function of the NT Fire Service. Perhaps it is starting to reflect what needs to happen more with the NT Fire Service - it has a changing role.
Originally, it was a fire service that worried about buildings and cars that burnt down. Now it has to look after vast expanses of Crown land and private land in the rural area of Darwin, as well as places like Alice Springs, around Tennant Creek and Katherine. It now has taken on a role far bigger than what it originally started off with. Once we get into issues like fire hazard reduction, we also get into environmental issues. The area that the fire service needs to seriously look at is the employment of people who have some of those skills. That is not to say that people already in the fire service do not have some skills, but there now is a need for, perhaps, a specific person to deal with some of these issues. Fire hazard reduction is important, especially where large blocks of land - whether private or Crown - back onto residential land. You will find quite a bit of that in the rural area of Darwin. It has the potential to destroy houses and properties.
We do need fire reduction programs. The issue really is: when should we have those fire reduction programs? There certainly has been a lot of work done by CSIRO in regards to Kapalga experimental work on burning on reduction in fuel loads. One of those areas is using what they call Wet Season fire reduction. You may see at the moment around rural areas some areas that have been burnt off. The idea in burning that land off at the present time is that you have more or less a cold fire that has little chance of spreading very far but reduces the fuel load.
One of the problems that you can have with that is that you also are changing the environment, because a lot of plants are not at the stage that they are ready for a fire. In other words, they are producing their flowers and seeds at that particular time, and there may even be seedlings that are coming up, basically, getting ready to approach the Dry Season. Along comes a fire very early in the life cycle of this plant it eliminates that particular species. What could happen is that many of the species that are currently growing could be eliminated if this fire regime is continued. That is not to say that it should not be still an option, because it may be that one has to put the safety and the protection of property over the protection of the environment. That is a fair outcome of burning off. However, we have to look at why some areas are presently protected, and how we can balance the protection of the environment and property at the same time.
In Litchfield Shire, there are quite a number of areas that are wetlands, which certainly do not want fires too early in the year; otherwise that can cause major damage. However, they do need some fire control, which needs to be managed. It could be managed using mosaic burning; that is, you divide up the land into sections and you burn once every three years on a rotational system.
You also have issues of weeds which, as you would have seen in the paper the other day where someone was talking about the health hazards of gamba grass, will be a major issue for the fire brigade. When it comes to hazard or fuel load reduction, how you deal with these weeds is going to be a real problem. Gamba grass, as we know, has safety issues from a fire fighter’s point of view: we know that it explodes, especially when it is burnt late in the year. We know that it has environmental problems because, when it does burn, you have a 12-foot high stalk of grass burning amongst the bush, which can cause damage to native vegetation that has never been caused before under the natural regime. We have large areas of mission grass, which also burns later in the season than the native grasses.
There is a role, minister, for someone, full-time, to be working alongside, for instance, our Fire Hazard Control Officer, Patrick Skewes, who does a very good job. The two need to work in conjunction with one another. In the case of Litchfield Shire - and maybe with other councils - those councils could support that role because quite a bit of that land belongs to them. It would be appropriate for the government to approach those councils and maybe share the cost of a person who would look after managing these areas. There have been many arguments that the council should not remove some of this land from subdivisions because of the cost. There certainly is a cost, but the bigger cost would be that if we do not protect this land now, it will cost a lot more money in the future. There is a role with hazard reduction in combining not only the NT Fire Service, but also local government. That may require some discussion, but would be beneficial to both sides.
It is a complex issue, there is no doubt about it. It is a controversial issue. I am of the opinion that, in certain circumstances, people on small blocks, if well protected, should be able to do some minimal burning. The reason I say that is because the policy, generally, in the NT Fire Service on fuel reduction is to put in the slasher and mow around the trees. One problem is that people might like to want to retain a larger range of species. Once you put a slasher through, you reduce the chances of a lot of the smaller plants surviving, but you also reduce the chance of the bush regenerating naturally. The other major factor is that, once you disturb the land on a bush block, you introduce weed species.
If you look around the rural area to see where gamba grass and mission grass grows, it grows where there has been a disturbance. One vehicle driving down through the bush will introduce weeds. If you see where a grader has gone down a firebreak, the weeds grow on the fenceline or on the windrow that it has caused. If you are looking at a means of managing both hazard reduction and reducing the risk of spreading weeds, then fire has an important role. I am not saying we should have a carte blanche system of everyone being able to burn their five acre block. That would be the worst thing you could have. However, where people can put a case that they have their firebreaks in place, have adequate water control, have notified the neighbours and, if there it is a certain time of the year when, say, the fire danger is low or minimal, then perhaps they should be allowed to do some minimal burning on their block to control the level of fuel.
I referred earlier to large blocks of land backing onto smaller blocks of land. One of the problems, especially if you have a small block of land that has not been burnt or touched for a long time, and it backs onto a large block, I can guarantee if that fire goes across into that small block, it will go up in a big bang, literally. That has been seen before on Kowandi South many years ago, which was not burnt, and we actually nearly had a ground fire on Kowandi South. In certain circumstances - and I say that specifically - block owners should, with the permission of the NT Fire Service, at least be able to do some fuel reduction. Of course, if you had a person in the fire service who was employed as a fuel reduction officer, with some environment qualifications behind him, then perhaps that could only be done with approval from that particular person. I am not saying that we go ahead and burn the countryside down. I am saying, horses for courses, there is room for this type of fuel reduction to occur with the right approval, and with the right approach. It is possible.
I believe I have covered all the issues I would like to. It was an opportunity which I believe was too hard to miss, because this is an area the NT Fire Service has to start looking at. Environment is important. They will take on more and more residential land. I presume places like Litchfield Shire - if the new Litchfield Land Use Objectives are approved - will have an increasing number of two hectare and five acre blocks, especially south of Humpty Doo, to the north of Herbert where there is another series of blocks, and in the forestry land around Howard Springs. Their role is going to increase. They will probably have to expand the area which comes under their influence. It is now an opportune time for the Northern Territory Fire Service to look at a full-time environmental officer, which would be beneficial, not only for the fire service, but for the people in the rural area of the Northern Territory.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thank both members who contributed to the debate for this bill, and members, the opposition and the Independents for their support. This legislation is coming in seven years after the Fire and Emergency Act and regulations were introduced. It is a time to reinforce certain provisions, and also, with experience of the act and the regulations in place, to update certain sections of the act.
Without going through the entirety of the legislation, I pick up on the comments of members who have spoken in the debate. To the opposition spokesperson, certainly, we are not looking to have a new commercial arm of the fire service out there generating huge revenue streams. The issue regarding clause 7 giving legal capacity for the fire service to enter into contracts to provide training for organisations is really just in response to certain parts of the Territory where there are no commercial providers to provide that certainty and fee-for-service arrangement, where the NT Fire Service can train people within an organisation in fire management. The practice is, in all cases, where there is the capacity for a commercial service or training provider who can provide accredited training modules to work with a company to put fire management training in place. As a fire service, we refer those inquiries to the commercial arena. There are a number of companies who provide that training with very good accredited training modules. However, there are parts of the Territory where those companies do not reach, and it just provides a legal certainty to provide a fee for service. Therefore, no, we are not going out there to compete in the commercial world. Our fire services have plenty of work to do without establishing a new commercial arm.
It certainly will not be compromising core fire services. Our commitment as a government to increasing our capability in this area was the recruitment of an additional 16 firefighters in the Northern Territory during this term of government, and we are well on the way to doing that. The increased financial commitment of $2.5m to the training efforts of our firefighters as a result of the Mtis review shows this government is committed to increasing the number of firefighters in the Northern Territory and also improving their training.
The reality is that the fire service and the work that they do is changing from purely a firefighting force - and they do a great job there across the Northern Territory - to a much more community-based organisation working with the community in fire prevention, hazard management, risk management and much more. We are seeing our fire service work with and in the community.
I pick up on a very contribution from the member for Nelson. It really goes to show that this House can be, as apart from political point scoring, an opportunity for issues to be raised and taken up by government. The member for Nelson’s comments about working more closely with people in the rural area, such as the Litchfield Shire Council, regarding the increasing complexities in hazard reduction, back burning, and fuel load reduction as the rural area develops, is something that is a real opportunity with the establishment of the new fire service in Humpty Doo later this year, and the appointment of a station commander to that particular station, working with the Hazard Abatement Officer, Patrick Skewes.
What I am proposing is that, once that unit is up and running and people are appointed to those positions, we convene a forum with the five volunteer brigades there and Litchfield Shire Council and actually look at those issues that you are talking about. The fire management plans in the region, I am advised, are updated on an annual basis. However, there is going to be a new permanent facility at Humpty Doo and it is an opportunity to pull all of those issues together in a forum. Certainly, you would be invited to that and I will make sure that forum is convened to start looking at those issues. From the fire service’s point of view, as to it being an organisation, as the member for MacDonnell says, which has paramilitary functions, we do not operate that way. It is very much a community-based organisation and community controls and solutions to hazard reduction is much better than a strict application and enforcement of legislation and regulation.
It was a good contribution from the member for Nelson and, once we get that facility up and running, and appoint the station commander to that facility, it would be a good time to gather everybody in the Litchfield Shire area who are involved in firefighting, and the Litchfield Shire Council, and look at the way we do business there and if we can do business even better. Maybe that forum can be convened on a regular basis, particularly as we had some bad fires down in the Humpty Doo area last year and lessons were learned from those fires.
I thank all honourable members for their contribution and their support for this legislation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 27 November 2003.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, this bill incorporates into a single piece of legislation the Dental Act, the Health Practitioners and Allied Professionals Registration Act, the Medical Act, the Nursing Act, the Optometrists Act and the Pharmacy Act as recommended by the National Competition Council review of the Northern Territory legislation carried out in 2000. This legislative action is occurring in each Australian jurisdiction so as to improve the standard of service provided by health professionals, increase consumer involvement in the monitoring of the professionals, and increase the similarity of practice conditions and expectations across the professions.
Recently, the Nurses Registration Board in the Northern Territory made a number of major changes, many of which are now enshrined in all NT boards in this bill. The experience of the Nurses Registration Board has been used to guide the development of this legislation and, certainly, as a registered nurse, I have not found the changes onerous or intrusive.
A number of exciting changes are expected as a result of this legislation. These include: the addition of consumer representatives to boards to ensure their perspective is considered; increased flexibility in registration requirements so as to broaden the range of people who can become registered without necessarily reducing the standards - a vital move in this time of difficulty in sourcing health professionals to work in the Northern Territory; regular and ongoing assessment of practitioners’ competence; the facilitation for people to work in areas of ‘restricted practice’ such as suitably trained nurses doing certain dentistry activities, optometrists with suitable training using therapeutic drugs, and dental therapists working in the private sector and with adult clients; the expansion of nursing registration to include a category for direct entry midwives who can practice only as a midwife - very welcome to allow for such people to come here and work in this understaffed area; and a less punitive and more constructive disciplinary process. Health practitioners are very valuable people in this community and, where possible, every effort should be made to help those who have a problem, so we can retain their service.
The bill also highlights professional indemnity insurance and the then minister’s second reading speech also touched on this. Although I did have a briefing on the bill - in fact I have now had two - we will discuss this matter during the committee stage of this legislative process and I will seek greater clarification on the matter of professional indemnity insurance from the minister.
When the then minister, the member for Nightcliff, introduced this bill last year, she said that after its introduction, further community consultation would occur. I do know of individuals and groups who have made representations to government, expressing concerns with the content of the bill since it was introduced. I look forward to see if the new minister responds to any of these requests, some of which I will raise during this debate. Since I was briefed on this matter some months ago, I have now been approached by a number of individuals and groups who have put their concerns to me. Some of these I will pursue today in this debate.
I received a detailed submission from the Australian Dental Association NT Branch on the bill. I have studied their submission which raises a number of issues, some of which I will explore during the committee stage. In addition, the minister, whom I am sure has received a copy of the submission - and I seek leave to table a copy …
Leave granted.
Ms CARTER: … may like in his closing remarks to address this specific concern from the Australian Dental Association:
The board, far from being independent ...
They are referring to the new set-up of the Dental Board,
If possible, it would be good if the minister would like to address that concern of the Dental Board. As all of the members of the board will be appointed by the minister, the Australian Dental Association has a concern that it will pursue government policy and sectional interests. This is a real concern about the independence of the new board and I hope the minister will comment on this.
Also, the submission from the Australian Dental Association implied that, at some point, they were under the impression that there would be two parts to this legislation: what has been presented to date and a subsequent part, which they describe as professional specific part of the act which is yet to be written. Minister, this is not an aspect of this legislation which I am aware of, so perhaps you could update us as to whether there will be some subsequent related legislation or whether this has been a past idea that has been dropped.
Dental therapists are a group that will notice significant changes to their professional roles and the scope in which they can practice as a result of this bill. I am supportive of many of these changes. As members may know, dental therapists currently provide up to 95% of dental services to urban primary schoolchildren. They provide a significant service out bush in remote areas where dentists rarely visit.
Dental therapists are educated to perform a wide range of dental work which is currently limited in the Northern Territory to children aged 0 to 13 years, whereas, for example in Tasmania and Western Australia, they can also treat adult clients. Their work in the Territory includes examining teeth and gums, taking X-rays, cleaning and scaling teeth, filling caries, extracting teeth, referring clients to other service providers, and providing oral health education.
Members will recall that in the last sittings, the ministers released their Building Healthier Communities – A framework for health and community services 2004-09. One of the sections is called ‘Filling service gaps”. One of the gaps identified is oral health. Three dot points are provided in this area. Two of them are to improve access to oral health services, particularly in rural and remote areas; and develop a sustainable approach to the provision of children’s dental services. In order to do those things, it is my belief that this bill will go some way in assisting the expansion and scope of what role dental therapists undertake.
When the dental therapists contacted me, they raised an issue of concern about what the original bill had in it with regards to the definition of ‘supervision’. As a consequence, I prepared an amendment for that. In lieu of that, the government advised me yesterday afternoon of their new change to the definition of supervision to include direct and indirect. I am satisfied with that change and so I will, during the process of committee, withdraw my amendment to it. I am happy to see the change.
Another issue the Northern Territory Dental Therapists Association raised during the consultation period is the absence of a seat on the Dental Board of the Northern Territory for a dental therapist. In the bill, the board is to consist of seven members including four dentists - this is with an amendment that the minister will propose today - two user representatives and someone who is either a dental therapist, a dental hygienist or a dental prosthetist .
Yesterday afternoon, I was advised of a change to the bill through an amendment to be put today by the government. The original bill provided that the minister would appoint the chair of each of the boards. That has now been rescinded and, instead, the boards will choose their own chair. For example, the Dental Board was to have been a chair plus six members. It is now to be seven members and the board chooses the chair. To my mind, that frees up one position and it is my view that dental therapists should get a set position on the Dental Board. They provide a significant service that I believe shortly will begin to expand. They are a group, given their educational qualifications and the known quality of their work, that should be able to have a seat on the board. It is my view - and I will pursue in the committee stage - that we have three dentists, two members of the public as consumer representatives, a dental therapist and a person who has been chosen from either dental hygienists or dental prosthetists. We will debate that later and I have prepared an amendment to meet that need.
I note also this bill stipulates who can own a pharmacy. It decrees that a pharmacy must be owned by a pharmacist except where the minister can grant an exemption when the owner is to be an Aboriginal health service or, as we learnt from amendments that we received yesterday, a friendly society.
The bill does not stipulate who can own a doctor’s surgery. I am quite sure some are owned by people who are not doctors, but who employ doctors to provide a service. The bill does not stipulate who can own a radiography service and, likewise, I am sure some are not owned by radiologists. I would be interested to learn why this section in Schedule 8 is in the act. I am quite sure that if prescriptions are to be filled, the role of a pharmacy, then a pharmacist, will be needed to supply a prescription. Madam Speaker, I will pursue these matters as we go into committee stage.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have a few things to say on the Health Practitioners Bill. I have had a number of people contact me and some of the issues they raised were important. One issue was relating to the supervision of dental therapists. I believe the amendments that are presented today will cover that. It has gone from ‘supervision’ to ‘indirect supervision’, which would satisfy the dental therapist people. As it was, there was some doubt as to whether you could act as a dental therapist without having a dentist looking over your shoulder. Therefore, that amendment will be welcomed.
The main area I would like to talk on is one that the member for Port Darwin just raised: the issue of who can own a pharmacy. It seems to me that this legislation has now introduced restrictions that do not seem to exist in the existing legislation, and they are now going to restrict, by legislation, who can own a pharmacy. You have to look at pharmacies and ask: what are pharmacies today? They are not just places that sell medicines, make-up and prescriptions, they sell everything from toys to films, cameras, perfume, toilet paper, liquid soap, and soap powder. They are, in many ways, a grocery shop of some sort, with a pharmacy attached to it, because a pharmacy itself does not have to take up much room. It just needs a store room where the pharmacist can work, and from where they can sell their medicines and prescriptions. Over the year, pharmacies have expanded. Just as you have groups of people who sell groceries, like Woolworths, Coles, and Foodland, you now have people who own chains of pharmacies. I suppose, to some extent, those chains have looked at expanding their profitability by getting to areas of pharmacy that one would not normally associate with a pharmacy. Those areas are the ones I have just mentioned, selling a range of products, many of which you would find within a supermarket.
You wonder why governments would be concerned about who could own a pharmacy. In many ways, one could say a pharmacy now is a grocery store, or a departmental-type store, with a pharmacy attached. Yet, you cannot own one of those unless you are a pharmacist. The member for Port Darwin raised the issue that a business person can own a doctor’s surgery or a radiology surgery, but that person does not have to have any qualifications. Why are we making an exemption for pharmacies? What is wrong with competition in the pharmaceutical delivery industry? Is it because of a powerful group which represents, as I said, a group of pharmacies that have banded together, I suppose to help their buying power just like Foodland, Woolworths and Coles have, and that they do not want anyone to compete with that? Well, if we do not agree with that, then we certainly should be looking at a lot of other industries.
If you look at planning, for instance, in the Northern Territory, as long as the land is zoned in such-and-such a way, you can have 10 service stations side by side, and the government will say: ‘That is fine, that is competition’. However, when it comes to pharmacies, for some reason we have now introduced controlling legislation. What is strange about it is that it now allows an exclusion from that prohibition. We have allowed, under Schedule 8, clause 2(2):
Why should an Aboriginal health service be exempted. They do not have …
Ms Lawrie: Are you saying they should not be?
Mr WOOD: No. No, I am not …
Ms Lawire: Are you?
Mr WOOD: I am arguing that you are making an exception for someone to own a pharmacy here who is not a pharmacist, based on that …
Ms Lawrie: You know very well they dispense in remotes.
Mr WOOD: … based on that being in a remote community. What I am saying is, if you can make that exemption, why not make it for everybody? Why do you have that exemption there?
Mr Henderson: There are no commercial operators out there.
Mr WOOD: Well, leave it for the commercial operators to be ...
Mr Henderson: They will not go there.
Dr Toyne: It is not profitable.
Mr Henderson: It is not profitable.
Mr WOOD: That might be perfectly all right. I am not arguing a case that you should not do it. What I am saying is you are making an exemption …
Mr Henderson: It is the only way to do it.
Mr WOOD: That is right. But why should you make any exemptions? Why should you not allow pharmacists …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Why should you not allow a person to set up a pharmacy in Humpty Doo that is not a pharmacist? You are saying it is all right for an Aboriginal community based on these reasons - and I accept those reasons; they are good reasons. But why will you not allow someone who wants to set up a pharmacy in Adelaide River, who says: ‘I own the Post Office. I would like to have a pharmacy in my Post Office because that way we could probably make the thing work. I want to employ a pharmacist to run the pharmacy but I want to own it’. It will be part of the post office or might be part of a saddlery supplies or something. Why not? I cannot see any reason why not. It just seems to me that, for some reason, pharmacies have all of sudden become excluded from competition. I am no great fan of all things being subject to competition …
Dr Toyne: Swallowed up by Coles and Woolies.
Mr WOOD: Well, we do not have that problem at the moment; the act at the present time is silent. It does not say that you have to be a pharmacist to own a pharmacy. However, now in this bill it is specifically put in. Why? I believe that it is actually a retrograde step.
I should read a report that I have here which mentions the attitude of the National Competition Council regarding this, which is quoted here many times in parliament. It talks about the Northern Territory and it says:
Those restrictions, as I said, are on Aboriginal communities and, as also has been mentioned, the friendly societies:
That is what we have to look at:
I have not heard anything to that extent. We have a law that does not have a problem with that, and now we are introducing it. I would like to hear what the benefits are for people in the Northern Territory.
Does that mean that, unless you have a very good case as to why we should restrict pharmacies, the National Competition Council can say that the Northern Territory should have funds withheld because it is not fitting within the guidelines of competition policy? That is an argument used here many times over many pieces of legislation that come in here. We have seen lots of legislation that say: ‘If this legislation does not become consistent with National Competition Policy then there will be a withholding of funds’. Now, what is the reason for us restricting competition in pharmacies? There should be a pretty good reason because otherwise the Commonwealth is likely to restrict funds.
Is toilet paper in pharmacies going to be cheaper because there is a restriction on pharmacies? As I said, pharmacies are not just selling medicine, they are selling lots of things. If we want to restrict pharmacies to certain people, only to pharmacists, then let them only sell pharmaceuticals. Let us not have toilet paper, perfume and cameras. We do not restrict people from selling cameras. We do not have a restriction on camera outlets. Why have we done it just to pharmacists? It is an important question. It seems to me that there has been pressure put on to have this particular industry restricted. If I can see a good reason for it to be restricted, I would support it. I do not see a good reason for it being restricted.
It is not restricted under the existing act, but it has been deliberately restricted under the new act and it is a retrograde step. I hope the CLP would support what I am saying because, from a point of view of private enterprise - and I do not support monopolies - healthy competition is important for the consumer. By allowing other people to own pharmacies, that would be good for the Territory and for the consumers. I would be interested to see what the government has to say.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the Health Practitioners Bill before the House. This bill is as a result of the National Competition Council review of our legislation conducted in 2000 and the 1998 Professional Board’s review. It really is a consolidation of a number of pieces of legislation under one bill, and upgrading that legislation to further protect Territorians’ health and safety. The bill repeals the Dental Act, the Health Practitioners and Allied Professionals Act, the Medical Act, the Nursing Act, the Optometrists Act and the Pharmacy Act.
Certainly, the NCC review was done in 2000 and there has been a lengthy and ongoing consultation with all of the stakeholders who are affected and the professional groups and associations. There has been further extensive consultation since this bill was introduced in November last year. I would like to put on the record my commendation to the former Health minister, the member for Nightcliff, who introduced this legislation and conducted extensive discussions around the introduction of this bill with those professional bodies. The current Health Minister has been very active in concluding negotiations with people affected. In a very large part most or virtually all of the stakeholders have all been listened to and most of their concerns have been addressed in a series of amendments that the Health Minister will be progressing during the committee stages of the bill.
The bill streamlines and modernises regulatory frameworks of several vital professional areas, while still appropriately tailoring the regulatory framework to suit the areas in question. It is important to recognise that under this bill individual professional boards will continue to regulate specific professions as they did in the past.
I had not personally received representations from the ADA about their concerns about political interference and management, which I find quite strange. There are a vast number of boards in the Northern Territory that are appointed by various ministers. It is normally an open process. Either members of the public or, in regards to the professions their professional associations, are contacted by ministers and asked for nominations. Somebody has to make a decision as to who goes on the boards. However, to somehow allege that they would be subject to political interference and direction makes me query why they would say that and under what evidence. I am not aware of any allegations under the past or current governments - well, there was one - of political interference. I say with absolutely certainty that there would be no political direction or interference in their powers and responsibilities under this legislation. I am sure that, as the board is put in place under its new structure, they will get on with doing their business in a very professional way, totally without direction or interference from the minister.
The bill complies with the National Competition Council requirements. I will leave it to my colleague the Minister for Health to respond to the member for Nelson’s concerns with regards to the ownership of pharmacies and the public interest case. All I will say now is that there have been a number of developments over the last few weeks and I will leave it to my colleague to respond to those issues. As honourable members know, complying with these requirements is critical in ensuring that the Territory maximises revenue streams from the Commonwealth. We certainly would not be putting those revenue streams at risk unnecessarily unless it was specifically in the Territory interest.
The Health Practitioners Bill delves into some fairly intricate areas, and I will not endeavour to go through these in great detail, but rather will touch on a few points.
As I have said before, the core of this bill is the protection of the health and safety of Territorians. The key element of the bill is that the public will have an important role to play on health boards, with boards to be comprised of a broad range of practitioners and two public interest members. Importantly, the bill also moves to strengthen public confidence in the regulatory regimes for the areas covered.
Most of us would agree that we have seen a generational shift in doctor/patient relationships. We are becoming increasingly aware of medical and health issues and, as patients, we welcome doctors explaining conditions and diagnoses, and we take a more hands-on approach to our own health. The advent of the Internet has certainly opened up a world of information on health, medical, and pharmaceutical information that previously was not accessible to members of the general public. I am astounded – just from talking to people at a barbecue the other night - at the number of people who purchase pharmaceutical products over the Internet in bulk from wholesalers. These are not prescription medicines but, particularly for people with children and young families, there is a real shift to people wanting to understand more about their own health and medical conditions. They are using the Internet as a source and I was quite surprised by the amount of purchasing of medication that now occurs as a result of the Internet.
With this increasing awareness of medical issues comes an increase in media coverage of adverse medical incidents and the times when the health system lets the patient down. Territorians want reassurance that standards are being maintained in our health system. The bill provides mechanisms aimed at ensuring that practitioners maintain their competence to practice, and provisions to allow the board to take actions when concerns about an individual practitioner’s competence are raised.
Under the bill, practitioners cannot be automatically re-registered if they have been absent from the profession for a period of time. This is known as a ‘recency of practice requirement’ and the threshold, depending on the profession, is between two and five years. The bill provides for practitioners to renew their registration on an annual basis by renewing their annual practising certificates. This element is not new because, with the exception of pharmacists and optometrists, all registered practitioners are required to renew their practicing certificates annually.
I would like to speak briefly on the issue of dental therapists. I commend Debbie Beldham, the President of the Northern Territory Dental Therapists Association. She has worked very hard on behalf of her association in lobbying members of parliament - the opposition, Independents and government members - on her association’s concerns. I met with Debbie in my electorate office last week and I am pleased to see that the minister is accommodating the issues raised by the Dental Therapists Association. More importantly for the association, this bill is great news because it now allows for those dental therapists, who are very professional in the work that they do in oral health, to expand into the private sector. It is a great move. We have big problems attracting dentists to the Northern Territory, particularly in the public health system. The ability now for a dental therapists to provide routine oral care to members of the public in a private capacity is going to improve the oral health of Territorians. This is a fantastic move and I certainly wish the members of the Dental Therapists Association all the best in accessing a market that was previously restricted. I believe this is a good move for oral health in the Northern Territory.
The provisions of the bill will, in many cases, introduce a more robust annual renewal process. It will see annual practising certificates move from being, in effect, a membership subscription service to an assurance to the public that the health practitioner is competent to practice. Again, this is all about public confidence, and also ensuring that our health practitioners, in all areas that this bill covers, continually upgrade their skills to the latest levels of medical care that are being determined as science and care evolves. This is a significant move in ensuring that our medical practitioners are right up there with the latest medical advances. This goes to the core of the bill and the mandate of the board to protect the public. The strong and modern regulatory regime will also give our medical professionals certainty of the regime that they need to comply with, and allow them to get on with business.
The development of the Health Practitioners Bill has been a lengthy process, involving considerable work and consultation with a wide range of interested people. I commend all the professional associations in the Northern Territory that have worked with the department in getting this bill together. I believe this is a good move for public health in the Northern Territory and I support the bill.
Debate suspended.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday 18 May 2004 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to Sessional Order.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr TOYNE (Health) : Madam Speaker, at the outset, I thank all members for their contribution to this debate. This is a very far-reaching bill. It is going to set the framework for health professions and their practices into the future. As reported by the member for Port Darwin, it will supplant quite a range of existing legislation with a single uniform framework for these professions, supported with the detail of the codes of practice that each of the boards will generate in behind the legislation. As we said yesterday, with the Radiation Protection Bill debate, some of the detail of the operation of this legislation will obviously fall to the contents of the codes of practice as they are put in place by the boards. I offer the member access to that process as it unfolds so that you can see the sort of details that each of the boards want to apply.
I will now deal with some of the issues that were put forward during the second reading debate. The member for Port Darwin mentioned the question of professional indemnity. In my other portfolio role, it has been a subject of great attention for a couple of years. The National Competition Council has raised this issue in the reviews of the Dental Act, the Health Practitioners and Allied Professionals Act, the Medical Act, the Nursing Act, the Optometrists Act and the Pharmacy Act in the context of the use of a restricted title. The NCC specifically stated that the right of title provides a number of public benefits, including a reduction in the risk of professional liability, and in the cost of professional indemnity cover for practitioners. There is a strong public interest argument for the professional indemnity insurance as one of the requirements for registration. There should be an ability for the public to have access to financial assistance or compensation if harm is caused by a registered practitioner.
The NCC went on to state that most jurisdictions are now moving in the direction of empowering their registration boards to require, at their discretion, appropriate professional indemnity insurance cover as a condition of registration and/or of issuing a practising certificate. The following boards all require professional indemnity insurance as a requirement for registration: Victorian Dental Practice Board; Victorian Physiotherapists Registration Board; South Australian Dental Board; New South Wales Medical Board and the amendments to the Victorian Medical Practice Act. The Victorian Dental Practice Board allows for the professional indemnity insurance to be provided by an employer or company, but not necessarily the practising professional.
The respective NT boards will consult widely with national counterparts and relevant NT stakeholders when developing the policy framework to support the legislative provision that adequate professional indemnity arrangements are in place. That may give you some sort of feel for what is going on around the country as regards indemnity. It is very much work in progress, so there are working groups looking at indemnity issues, both in the Territory and elsewhere. National forums, both of the insurance ministers, Treasurers, and Attorneys-General, are all also working through these issues with the aim of minimising any further rises in indemnity insurance premiums, trying to restore coverage over areas of professional practice where the insurance industry has virtually withdrawn from being prepared to cover, and to generally curtail the levels of claims against professionals where that was seen to be excessive. There is a whole raft of reforms that will impact on that issue. Like you, we are going to have to keep watching the developments as they go through and contribute through our legislature.
You queried how we had responded to the various - I am sorry, it should be, to be correct - the member for Port Darwin has queried some of the issues that were brought to us by way of submission and how we have responded to them.
The Nursing Board was concerned about whether it should, under definitions, also include midwives. We have amended that definition throughout the bill, so it is now the Nursing and Midwifery Board.
Regarding the registrars, we have amended a clause to allow the minister to appoint an acting or interim registrar if the nominated registrar is unable to perform their duties for one reason or another.
Regarding the question as to whether an individual can be registered or enrolled at the same time, an enrolled nurse who would then choose to work as an Aboriginal health worker is one example where this could occur. We have taken out the prescription of being enrolled and registered at the same time. That is represented in the committee stage amendments which we will be debating later. This issue was brought forward by the Aboriginal Health Workers’ Board.
The Australian Dental Association has brought forward a concern about the current arrangements in the bill regarding registers. Clause 43(1) reads:
It is now going to be amended to:
A board must keep a register.
That is responding to the Dental Association.
Regarding the inspection of registers and rolls, we have removed the fees to be paid for either an inspection or a copy.
Clause 57(4) concerns the notification of the Commissioner for Health and Community Services Complaints that the complaint has been received. We are amending that to read:
There are a number of other smaller amendments to do with complaints that I will probably, for the sake of saving time, not go right through.
Under Schedule 4, clause 8(1), Representation, we are amending the clause to read that the applicant before a committee is entitled to attend an evaluation and to be represented by a legal practitioner or any other person. We have amended clause 8(2) to read:
Again, I guess the general issues around the hearing of complaints popped up in quite a few submissions that came through, and also representations I have had directly in meetings with people such as the Nurses Federation. We do not want to disadvantage people going before a complaints hearing to the point where they are not properly advocated.
We will deal with the definition of supervision in committee. However, the member for Port Darwin has already indicated that the proposed solution will take care of the dental therapists’ concerns. Regarding the board membership of dental therapists, I just want to clarify that the election of a chair by the nominated membership of a board does not actually gain us a board position. We will just simply nominate the same number of people onto the board, and the board members will then confirm who they want as the chair. I saw that as being a very important commitment to the independence of the board and the advice that they would be able to provide. We do not want to be reaching into a profession and, basically, choosing what sort of advice they are going to give us. We want to try and pick a representative group that does truly or as widely represent the professional group as possible, and then allow them to arrange their affairs around their leadership.
To give you some figures here of the dental auxiliary professions and the representation on the dental board in particular, there are 78 practising dentists on the register in the Northern Territory; 16 dental therapists; 10 dental hygienists; and 18 dental specialists. You can see that the three auxiliary professions are roughly equal in size in the Northern Territory. That is what makes the guaranteeing of a position for the dental therapists in particular on the board problematic, because the other two auxiliary professions could quite rightly say that is, basically, leaving them out of the equation.
Equally, if we put three auxiliary positions on a board of that size - one for each of the branches of auxiliary dental work - it would overload the board with auxiliary representatives compared to the dentists. We would either have to have a bigger board with three auxiliaries represented on it, or have a proper process where all three auxiliary groups could nominate, and we will pick who we believe is the best overall representative of the auxiliary professions. We do not want to, in any way, exclude any of the auxiliary groups from a proper input to the advice that the board might want to give to us. Therefore, what I am signalling to you is that we are not inclined to earmark a seat on the board for the dental therapist. We will, on the other hand, be very much encouraging all three auxiliary groups to work with us to identify a suitable representative.
It is important to distinguish between the general career status and development of dental therapists, and the issues that are involved in this particular legislation - which is to get an overall balance in the representation on each of the professional boards. It in no way is reflecting on the incredibly valuable work that dental therapists or any of the auxiliaries do within our community. They are vital parts of our professional life here. I just ask them to distinguish between the status and the symbolism of their profession - which can be expressed through all sorts of association within both the national level and at the local level - and this particular function of arranging for the regulation and the quality assurance, I guess, you need to allow professions operating in the Territory and, of course, enforcing that through the provisions for hearings and prescriptions.
I have dealt with our intentions as regards to independence of the board which the Australian Dental Association included in their submission. We made a pretty strong signal there that, by having the boards elect their chairs, we are not about trying to manipulate the relationship between the professions and us as a government. The question of the codes I have already mentioned.
This, like the Radiation Protection Bill yesterday, is a framework piece of legislation. It depends on the input from all these professions themselves to flesh out the actual operation of the legislation. Therefore, what we have here is the skeleton of the processes that are going to be involved in regulation: hearing of any malpractice, registration, and the accounting of the presence and activities of each of these professions within the Northern Territory.
Regarding the general points such as the contacts with the Australian Dental Association that you raised in the second reading debate, we have had quite a number of detailed discussions with the ADA. My staff met with ADA representatives on 13 February, which was the latest of the meetings, and all the matters that we have gone through in brief in this response were canvassed at that meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the ADA indicated general acceptance of the intent of the legislation. I am also advised that the ADA met with the Dental Board on 5 March to discuss the issues and, at the conclusion of that meeting, the ADA also indicated general acceptance. Therefore, I believe we are probably pretty right in trying to meet their concerns.
Pharmacy ownership is a key issue. The member for Nelson also raised the issue of why we have exemptions and why we have ministerial discretion to allow other groups alongside the pharmacists to operate pharmacies within the Northern Territory. I will go through some background on this. It is important to put our decision in the context of matters that are much bigger than the Territory in these sorts of decisions.
The community expects pharmacies to be owned and operated by health professionals and not by corporations, and that is our belief. We believe that the last thing Territorians want would be pharmacy retailing completely controlled by the big chains, and to lose the 70-plus small businesses that are based on pharmacist-owned pharmacies in the Northern Territory. There are 78, to be exact.
There are two things really: do you want this industry sector to be basically running through small business operations that are very localised and very much part of the community in which they operate, or do you want them to be increasingly sucked into the big supermarket chains and their operations? While there is no danger in dispensing pharmaceuticals because they would still have to be operated by a pharmacist in that section of the supermarket, there is no doubt that we would have fewer pharmacy outlets in bigger retail operations and less personal attention than we have in the current system.
That may or may not be an opinion with which you agree, but it is not my opinion alone. The findings were supported by the Prime Minister in a media release dated 2 August 2002 in which he said:
The Territory, as I said, has supported that approach. We, however, do not see an exclusive ownership by pharmacists of pharmacies as being to the maximum benefit of the Northern Territory. The member for Nelson said if you are going to let Aboriginal services of one sort or another potentially operate a pharmacy through an exemption issued by the minister, what about Humpty Doo or Adelaide River? That is what led us to also talk to the friendly societies that specialise in operating pharmacies in areas that may not be fully commercial in their context. The friendlies are not in the Territory at the moment. They certainly expressed interest to at least have the ability to access the Territory to extend their operations, specialising in more remote areas.
There may be some major possibility of having Aboriginal Medical Services or other Aboriginal organisations or, in fact, non-Aboriginal remote communities, sit down with the friendlies and see if they can work out a way of extending pharmacy services into the more remote and smaller places in the Territory. The Wilkinson review and the COAG working group’s recommendations supported retention of friendly society-owned pharmacies in those jurisdictions where they exist. The Northern Territory will also take up this recommendation.
The introduction of the proposed legislative regime was found to be in the public interest, as the cost of establishing offences to ensure that non-pharmacist-owned pharmacies maintain professional standard was considered to outweigh any gains from the increased competition. The imposition of pharmacy ownership restrictions, coupled with discretionary power to grant exemptions in the public interest, will ensure the proper balance for the NT and help develop a community capacity through the entities I have already been talking about – the Aboriginal health boards and friendlies.
Public interest arguments in favour of pharmacy ownership restrictions are supported by the findings of the Wilkinson report and the views of the Prime Minister I have already reported. To back up my assertions about the Prime Minister’s attitude, I will table both a letter from the Prime Minister to the Pharmacy Guild, and a letter from the Pharmacy Guild to myself, in which the guild reports back on a meeting they had with John Howard, where he affirmed absolutely that he was wanting to see pharmacist-owned pharmacy arrangements defended.
There has been some indication from the National Competition Council. They took a position earlier on where they were pushing us towards not going in that direction. We are still waiting to hear the results of a federal Cabinet meeting that was held last Tuesday, we suspect. You are never really told exactly what is on at a Cabinet meeting. However, the guild is pretty certain that the federal Cabinet was going to make a decision about these issues at that meeting.
We would want to see an absolute undertaking from the NCC to the Northern Territory government that we will not be penalised for what they might judge to be an anti-competitive arrangement prior to commencing that part of this legislation. To that end, we have brought forward a committee stage amendment which will allow us to commence the section of the bill - or act, as it will be - dealing with the pharmacist-owned pharmacy, at a different time to the act as a whole. That gives us a bit of flexibility. We can wait and see until we do get an absolute written undertaking from the NCC that we are not going to get dinged about $1m-plus if they take a dislike to it. However, we are very confident, on the basis that the Prime Minister has expressed such a clear direction and taken this matter to his Cabinet, that we should not have any problems with it.
Madam Speaker, that sums up the issues as I see them from the second-reading debate contributions. I suggest we move forward to committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Health Practitioners Bill 2003 (Serial 201) together with schedule of amendments No 79 circulated by the member for Port Darwin, Ms Carter, and schedule of amendments Nos 80 and 81 circulated by the Minister for Health, Dr Toyne.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.1. In order to comply with the National Competition Council requirements, in particular in relation to pharmacy ownership issues, Part 1, clause 2 is to be amended to provide for flexible dates, as I have just mentioned in the second reading reply speech. This will allow the bill to be passed and commenced.
Clause 129 of Part 9, Division 2, and Schedule 8 which deal exclusively with pharmacy ownership, will be commenced at a date yet to be determined by the federal response.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.2. The Nursing Board of the Northern Territory’s title is to be changed to The Nursing and Midwifery Board. The definition of Nursing Board in Part 1, clause 4 is to be changed to Nursing and Midwifery Board. All other reference to the Nursing Board will be altered accordingly. Having the whole title of the board throughout the bill reinforces the recognition of midwifery as an independent profession.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 8, by leave, taken together:
Ms CARTER: I will just seek some clarification as to the process, being somewhat of a novice in this procedure. The Dental Association have raised a number of issues. I am not going to touch on all of them, but a few of them as we go through just to get clarification on the record for some of them. At what point, Mr Chairman, do you want me to raise those issues as we go through, when you are pushing five or six clauses together and many of them fall in that moment?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Port Darwin, when I get to the amendments that you are putting forward, I will mention your name.
Ms CARTER: But some of these things are not amendments. They have actually been raised with regards to clauses by the Dental Association. For example, the one I want to talk about now is section 7. In the script that we have for this, it is clauses 5 to 8. Clause 7 does not get mentioned as a single item. I have a number of these …
Mr CHAIRMAN: You can raise it at that period. When I ask is it the wish of the committee that clauses 5 to 8 be taken together, then you stand and I will recognise you.
Ms CARTER: All right.
Dr TOYNE: Do you want to raise something there before we sign off on it?
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, I would like to raise an issue with regard to proposed clause 7, Establishment of Boards. The Dental Association has written asking for clarification in regard to the area of clause 7(4)(a) which is the naming of the boards and the categories with regard to health care workers.
Their issue is that, when an Aboriginal health care worker is performing acts in dentistry - and it will be the same for nurses as well, more than likely - which board oversights their practice? If it is an Aboriginal health worker performing dentistry, which board?
Dr TOYNE: The answer to that is the Dental Board.
Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.3. All board members are appointed by the minister to facilitate administrative efficiencies. I have agreed to the board members being empowered to elect the chair from the membership, rather than being appointed separately by the minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.4. As I no longer appoint the chair as a position in its own right, this clause now need only refer to the board members.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 13, by leave, be taken together and agreed to.
Clause 14:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.5. A new clause is to be inserted which states:
This is what I referred to in the second reading debate and is simply to make sure there is continuity of the function of a registrar.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 28, by leave, taken together:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, with regard to clause 17, the Australian Dental Association has raised the issue that, in this clause as it currently stands, the board provides a report by 31 December each year - which is a six month period in which they are to provide a report. The Dental Association feels that that is too long. I guess the concern is that if it is six months, and, if it is a couple of months extra because they are running late, suddenly it is February/March the following year. Their view is that three months would be adequate, just as it is, for example, in the Northern Territory Public Service.
Dr TOYNE: I am advised that the time period was to allow for a period in the financial year which is extremely busy. There is re-registration of the registered membership of the professions. There is a time period where there will be a decreased ability to carry through work as you approach the end of the year and the festive season. Therefore, for that reason, there was a wider time frame put around it.
Ms CARTER: Clause 20 as it currently stands refers to the qualifications that a person needs to have, or which a board may consider relevant, for a person to be registered in the range of health professions that we are talking about in this bill. The Australian Dental Association raises an issue, and I am actually going to read from their letter when they are talking about section 20(3).
Dr TOYNE: This is about dentists or …
Ms CARTER: Yes, dentists. Specific.
Dr TOYNE: The bill provides that a board has the power to accredit courses, but does not prescribe the process for this to occur. The new Dental Board will adopt the current policy, which states that any course accredited by ADC will be taken to have been accredited by the Dental Board. The ADA met with members of my staff on 13 February, and these matters were covered. While they gave general support, it included for that arrangement.
Ms CARTER: At this point, I move on to clause 22(1)(e), which is actually one of the criteria that people have to meet in order to become registered. It is that the person:
Dr TOYNE: I am advised that, first, it would be an unusual circumstance, given the level of professional indemnity coverage that normally occurs around the country which is in the millions of dollars range. However, the boards and, in particular that board, have indicated that they will make those assessments with advice from the insurance industry as to what might be adequate.
Ms CARTER: This is definitely a member for Port Darwin question: with regards to indemnity insurance, if a person cannot get cover or the board deems it inadequate, what happens? Does that mean they cannot be registered? An example would be independent midwives wanting to do homebirths?
Dr TOYNE: I will take you to the exact wording, which is ‘arrangements for professional indemnity insurance’. It will get down to a judgment for the board to make, which is not based on the particulars of the coverage, but on the safety of the public. Basically, that provision is there to say that, if a patient who has been mistreated by a professional of any description in the health area and who subsequently suffers a major disadvantage, will have access to adequate coverage. At the heart of it all there is a judgment to be made by one of the boards as to whether coverage is needed or the level of coverage.
In respect of midwives, I have been given some notes, which might be of help. The bill requires that all registrants have professional indemnity arrangements in place as a requirement of the registration. There is a strong public interest argument for professional indemnity arrangements to be one of the requirements for registration. There should be an ability for the public to have access to financial assistance or compensation if harm is caused by a registered practitioner. Of the 32 submissions received during the consultation phase, no objections were raised regarding this requirement. In relation to nursing and midwifery, submissions were received from the ANF NT Branch, the Royal College of Nursing Australia National Office and the Australian College of Midwives Incorporated, National Office and NT Branch. The national branch of the ACMI sought clarification on what a professional indemnity arrangement means, but raised no specific objection to the provision.
In Australia, midwives are employed in either the private or public sector. In the private sector, there are a number of midwives who practice as independent midwives, or homebirth midwives. Midwives who practice independently, or in homebirth settings, have found it increasingly difficult to access professional indemnity insurance. This has been due to the number of high profile professional conduct and negligent cases in recent years, where professional indemnity insurers are reluctant to insure midwives who work in these practice settings. Midwives who practice independently or in homebirth settings will need to satisfy the Nursing and Midwifery Board that they have a professional indemnity arrangement in place to be entitled to registration. We have one such individual in Alice Springs I am aware of, and there may be others in the Territory.
Ms CARTER: To confirm, minister, what you are saying there is that, if a midwife cannot get indemnity insurance, there is a reasonable chance that he or she will not be able to be registered.
Dr TOYNE: Yes, but I am also saying that the most extreme situation, if you like, is someone practising in the private sector in the community, independent of an organisation. Obviously, midwives working in the public system would be indemnified by being part of government as well.
Clauses 15 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.6. This clause, titled ‘Person cannot be registered or enrolled at the same time’, pertains to nurses only. Clause 29(1) provides for a generic prohibition of registered and enrolled practitioners. At present, enrolled nurses sometimes become Aboriginal health workers, as I have earlier stated. This works well as the two professions are quite distinct. Therefore, clause 29(1) is to be omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.7. Only the Nurses Board can grant registration to registered nurses or enrolment to enrolled nurses, therefore the inclusion of the words ‘by the Nursing Board’ are superfluous and are being omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.8. Only the Registrar of the Nursing Board can grant registration to registered nurses or enrolment to enrolled nurses. Therefore, the inclusion of the words ‘by the Registrar of the Nursing Board’ are superfluous and should be omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 37, by leave, taken together:
Ms CARTER: I refer now to clause 31(1). This was an issue raised by the Australian Dental Association in their submission to me. It refers to the fact that a board may declare an area of health care practice to be a ‘restricted practice area’. The Australian Dental Association seeks greater clarification as to what a restricted practice area is because, in the definition, we are asked to refer back to this clause for the information. It is hard to quite pick what it is.
Dr TOYNE: I will read these notes into Hansard to answer that issue. This refers to a provision at clause 31, as you have said, which states:
(1) The board may, in respect of the category of health care practice for which it is established, declare an area
of health care practice to be a restricted practice area.
The bill empowers the respective boards to declare areas of treatment which have a high probability of causing serious damage if practised by an inappropriately qualified person. The high-risk treatments are restricted and the board will require persons who wish to practice in such areas, irrespective of their professional classification, to demonstrate to the board’s satisfaction that they have sufficient training, experience and competence to practice in that particular area. The bill allows for a board to grant an authorisation to persons to practice in a restricted practice area. This may include, for example, Aboriginal health workers and remote areas nurses being authorised to provide certain dental services for which they are trained and competent to undertake. This will be of particular benefit to communities where oral health practitioners are not readily available.
The bill allows for disciplinary proceedings to commence where registrants undertake activities beyond their core competencies, and where unregistered persons carry out treatments for which they are not authorised. This approach will maximise the benefit to the community of an individual’s skills and training while maintaining consumer protection.
Clauses 30 to 37 agreed to.
Clause 38:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.9. The Nursing Board’s title is changed to the Nursing and Midwifery Board. The definition of Nursing Board in Part 1, clause 4, was changed to Nursing and Midwifery Board. This reference to the Nursing Board should be omitted and substituted with Nursing and Midwifery Board. It is fairly straightforward.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, as you know, I put in an amendment to this clause known as amendment 79.1. I would not like to withdraw it. I am happy with the amendment the government has submitted.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.10. Clause 40(2)(c)(i) provides that a dental therapist or a dental hygienist practise under the supervision of a dentist or a dental specialist. Supervision is defined under clause 4 as including oversight direction, guidance and support. The intent of the legislation is to allow for direct or indirect supervision to occur. In order to ease the concerns of practitioners in this area and ensure the intent of their legislation is clear, clause 40(2)(c)(i), which pertains to the supervision of dental therapists and dental hygienists, is to be amended to state ‘under the direct or indirect supervision’. This reflects the current supervision arrangements.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.11. The Nursing Board’s title was changed to the Nursing and Midwifery Board. The definition of Nursing Board in Part 1, clause 4, was changed to Nursing and Midwifery Board. This reference to the Nursing Board should be omitted and substituted with Nursing and Midwifery Board.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.12. Clause 40(3)(a) provides that the enrolled nurse practice under the supervision of a registered nurse. Supervision is defined under clause 4 as including oversight, direction, guidance and support. The intention of the legislation is to allow for direct or indirect supervision to occur. In order to ease the concerns and so on we are substituting ‘under the direct or indirect supervision’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 and 42, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 43:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.13. Each board should be responsible for its own register and the register should be called after the category of health practitioner that that board is convened to govern. For example, the Dental Register, Medical Register, Nursing Register.
Clause 43(1) of the bill, titled Registers, currently states that a board must keep a register called the Register for Health Practitioners. Therefore, the following words will be omitted: ‘called the Register of Health Practitioners’ and the clause 43 will now read ‘A board must keep a register’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.14. The Nurses Board title was changed to the Nursing and Midwifery Board and we are going to do it again.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.15. Only the Nursing Board is empowered to keep a role of enrolled nurses. The inclusion of the word ‘nursing’ is superfluous and, therefore, will be omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 and 46, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 47:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.16. Clause 47(1) requires that a fee must be paid to inspect the register or a roll. This clause is seen to be restrictive and anti-competitive to consumers. In other jurisdictions, most registers are now available for viewing on the Internet free of charge, and this will be the case in the Northern Territory in the near future. Collection of a fee to inspect the register is not a significant revenue-raising activity for government. The current inspection fee is $10. Annually, there are only a handful of requests to inspect the register and it is much more common for people to obtain details via a telephone call. Therefore, we will remove references to require payment.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.17. Similarly, the fees and charges for obtaining a copy or extract of the register or roll have been removed.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 58, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 58A:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.18. A new clause is to be inserted which allows for the boards to enter into mediation with the practitioners and a complainant if appropriate. Complaints should be resolved at the lowest level possible, and mediation is an important part of complaint resolution and should be an option made available to the boards.
Amendment agreed to.
Proposed clause 58A agreed to.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.19. This is a new clause that requires that a board must notify the complainant, as appropriate, of any action taken under the complaints section. Whilst it is already board practice to notify complainants of its decision, inclusion of this provision will allow for natural justice for the complainant to be enshrined in the legislation and not left as board policy decision.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.20. Clause 62 of the bill, entitled Establishment and constitution of Tribunal, pertains to the special members of the Health Professional Review Tribunal. Owing to the small numbers of registrants in the Northern Territory, interstate practitioners may be called upon to sit on a tribunal. Requiring current registration or enrolment in any jurisdiction in Australia ensures that the practitioners will have the currency of competence and recency of practice to enable them to perform duties as required for the tribunal.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 63 to 132, by leave, taken together:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, I refer now to clause 102, False claims. The Australian Dental Association in their submission have raised this issue, and it is an interesting one in that, pursuant to clause 102(3), a person must not hold himself or herself out to be a health professional when they are not. In other words, they must not impersonate a health practitioner. The penalty is 500 units. This a regulatory offence.
When you compare that to clause 105, Offences of dishonesty, which states a person must not forge or change a degree or diploma etcetera with regards to being a health practitioner, the penalty is 100 penalty units or imprisonment for six months.
According to this, if you hold yourself out to be a health practitioner such as a doctor, for example, you do not have to go to gaol. However, if you forge a degree or diploma, you run the risk of going to gaol. The Australian Dental Association and I wondered why is forgery seen as a less serious offence than fraud.
Dr TOYNE: I am advised - and I have personal experience of this - that the Department of Justice has a scale of penalties that calibrate all offences that government may be applying to different types of misbehaviour. It was the Department of Justice that decided on the relativity between those two offence categories.
I do not have the scale that they base that on or their rationale on this offence. I can get that for you for you if you like and we can get back to you on it. At this stage, what I ask you to accept is that it has been a formal judgment of the two offences, and that it would be in line with the overall scale of penalties applied across government.
Ms CARTER: Thank you. I and others would be interested to understand why it is that it is less of a serious nature to hold yourself out, for example, as a doctor, than it would be to actually forge a doctor’s certificate and stick it up on your bedroom wall. Which brings me also to the question: if a board was aware that somebody had fraudulently held themselves out to be a health practitioner, should they not be compelled to report that to the police and have it pursued as a criminal matter?
Dr TOYNE: I am advised that not only should a board report either a regulatory or criminal offence to the police if they become aware of it, but they actually have done so in the past on occasions.
Ms CARTER: I am pleased to hear that, but just for a point, it is not reflected in the legislation and it might be something to take into consideration when I am sure this legislation is reviewed at a later date.
Dr TOYNE: I guess, as a general principle, that anyone operating in our community, if they are aware of a law being broken, has a responsibility to report it to the police. That should overarch any particular function of a board under any particular part of our legislation.
Clauses 63 to 132 agreed to.
Schedule 1:
Dr TOYNE (by leave): Mr Chairman, I move amendments 80.21 to 80.50.
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, I will be voting against this amendment. The reason being - and I refer specifically to the Dental Board of the Northern Territory - under the changes brought about in the last short period of time with the government’s latest amendments, the decision has been made - and I agree - that the minister no longer appoints the chair to the boards. As a consequence now, it means that we have to go through a number of amendments to reflect that. One of those specifically refers to the Dental Board in Schedule 1 clause 3, in that they now have seven members who then elect their own chair. The original legislation had it that three of those seven members were to be dentists. Now it is going to be changed to four under this amendment. I urge the minister to adopt my amendment, which is that we retain three dentists, two members of the public, one person – and this is where my change comes in – who is either a dental hygienist or dental prosthetist and, additionally, we have a position for a dental therapist. That would create seven positions. I would like the minister to consider carefully this amendment of mine to allow for a dental therapist to hold a position on the board.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I have made our position fairly clear during the second reading response. We are not of a mind to select out of the three dental auxiliary professions the dental therapists and say: ‘We are going to guarantee you a position on the board’ with 16 therapists operating in the Territory, while not guaranteeing 10 dental hygienists or 18 dental specialists a similar representation. The board membership in the amendment is four dentists, one dental auxiliary and, as you said, two members of the public. We believe that we are better to go out to all three of the dental auxiliary groups, ask them to nominate who they believe would be the best representative, and then have one person representing those three auxiliary professions.
I guess if you have six people, you are trying to represent an area of health professional practice, and it is a matter of what judgment you want to place on that. However, that is certainly what we feel is the most appropriate balance between the different parts of that profession.
Ms CARTER: Minister, could you advise how many dentists are registered in the Northern Territory?
Dr TOYNE: Dentists? 78.
Ms CARTER: The make-up of the board as it sits under your amendment will be that there will be four dentists on the board representing nearly 80 dentists, and there will be one dental auxiliary representing 34 registered people who are in the categories of dental auxiliary: dental therapists, dental hygienists, and dental prosthetists. I just think it is not fair, if you look at the numbers, if you understand that what you are doing with this legislation - which I agree with - is expending the role of dental therapists. We have the five-year plan for health in the Northern Territory that identifies the gap in dental services in the Territory. I believe that dental therapists have a very valid, useful, worthwhile, affordable role to play in the provision of dental services in the Northern Territory. I believe we are going to see an increasing number of dental therapists in the Northern Territory.
What has happened now is a chance thing, with the government deciding to stop the minister designating exactly who is going to be the chair. It has freed up a position, and we could take this opportunity now to better represent the non-dentists on the Dental Board, who are health professionals providing a useful, valid health service here in the Northern Territory. It would still mean that we would have three dentists representing 78 registered dentists in the Northern Territory which, certainly compared to nursing, is a very healthy ratio. It would be great to be able to provide two, instead of having just one of those auxiliary positions on the board, and give one to dental therapists who are almost double the number of the two other dental auxiliary groups combined. It is a fair thing to do for what I perceive will be a growth industry.
Dr TOYNE: No, I am sorry. The figures are 16 dental therapists, 10 dental hygienists and 18 dental specialists, so the dental therapists are not even the largest group out of the three auxiliaries. However, let us get one thing straight. This is not a party-political system we are trying to establish on the board. The members of that board are representing the interests of the Northern Territory and the general public, as well as the profession that they come from. The people we will be looking for when we are deciding which six people should sit on that body, are people who can genuinely look widely across the interests of our Territory, as well as the total interests of the profession.
I would hate to think that in the room there are people who simply have a very narrow self-interest to their particular profession. They will often be asked to make decisions where they balance the interests of consumers against those of a particular professional who is practising. Therefore, that concept of what these boards are doing would mediate against a balancing-up on the scales: we have 17 of them therefore they deserve one, or that sort of approach to it. We are looking for people and there are some fine people operating around the Territory. We will find six very good people who can work well together and genuinely look across their whole profession and balance the interests that are going to be involved there.
I am not asking you to accept that I have a superior opinion about it. We are all going to have to see what comes out of the operation of these arrangements. However, what I can say is that, if you look around the rest of the country - I will just give you a quick overview. Victoria has a dedicated position for dental auxiliaries. I am not sure of the size of these boards, but we probably could find out. Queensland has a position for a dental therapist as they have only recently become a registered profession. Tasmania and South Australia have positions for therapists. New South Wales currently do not have position on the dental board because they are not a registered profession in New South Wales. The ACT do not have a position as they are not a registered profession there either, although the new Omnibus Bill similar to what we are doing is scheduled to be debated in May 2004, and it is proposed that there will be a dental therapist and a dental hygienist on their board. That is yet to be finalised. Western Australia has seven members on its board, five of whom must be dentists and the remaining two are appointed at the discretion of the minister and could be either a member of the public or dental auxiliary. There is a bit of a range around the country.
These things need to be tested and, if there is a problem with the way the board operates under its proposed membership, we will always come and revisit it. Having said that, I just want to repeat my comments about the type of outlook we want to see people take to those boards - not just the dental one but all 10 of them – so that they are thinking along with us for the best interests all around in the areas that they have to make decisions.
Ms CARTER: My apologies with regards to the arithmetic that I did. I actually thought you had said when you described 18 that they were dental prosthetists. I obviously must have had a bit of that wax, and I did not realise you were referring to dental specialists. I still hold to my argument though that dental therapists are going to be, I believe, a growing group in the Northern Territory. Based on the five-year health plan strategy that was launched a few weeks ago, there is going to be an increase in demand for their services here in the Northern Territory.
The set-up of the Dental Board will now result in four dentists and three people who are not dentists. I have a little disquiet with regards to vested interests within that area, because I am concerned that dentists will use their power and strength on that board to veto or stymie efforts by non-dentists to expand their practice and provide a broader service in the Northern Territory. I hope I am wrong and that that is not accurate. I also hope that, if there are concerns by any members of the board, they pass those concerns on, perhaps to the minister if that is appropriate, so that it can be an area that is monitored. I support the area of the five-year health plan that talks about oral health and I hope that these changes do go some way in improving the services for oral health in the Northern Territory.
Dr TOYNE: I can propose a pact that we will do everything we can to not only support dental therapists, but build them an increasing place in the dental services that we want to extend around the Territory. The five-year plan describes it as a challenge and that is what it is going to be. We do not want disincentives, and certainly not of the type where dentists in some way try to curtail their activities.
I have been very clear, both in the second reading debate and again now, that far from wanting to curtail the currency of dental therapists around the Territory, we actually want to see it extend. This bill will have the effect of allowing them further scope for extension. The fact that we have accepted the amendment regarding the supervision and indirect supervision is a very clear signal that that is what we are trying to do. Let us keep looking at it together. We will see how it rolls out over the next year or so and, if there is a blockage somewhere, we will clear it.
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule l, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2:
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 80.51. The chair is no longer appointed in its own right. This clause provides for administrative processes that allow the board to elect one of its members to be chairperson, and for the chair to resign in writing to the board. This clause also allows the chair to resign, but to remain a member, which will facilitate the continuity of corporate knowledge and allow for mentoring and support of a new chair.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3:
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 80.52. The Nursing Board’s name was changed to ‘Nursing and Midwifery Board’ and here we go again.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 4 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 8:
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 81.1. The bill as it stands prevents Australian Friendly Societies Pharmacies Association Inc, or the friendly societies, from owning a pharmacy. It was found that the friendly society pharmacies and surviving corporate pharmacies in Australia appear to work well and are competently managed and professionally sensitive pharmacy businesses. Further, the COAG working group reviewed and rejected Wilkinson’s recommendation that friendly society pharmacies should not be allowed to operate in the future in the Northern Territory when, at the time of the review, there were no friendly society pharmacies.
Amendment 80.53 originally provided in Schedule 8, clause 2(2) an amendment to empower the minister to grant an exemption to allow the Australian Friendly Societies Pharmacies Association Inc to own a pharmacy. We are actually referring to it as ‘or friendly society’ in amendment 81.1. We are moving it in this current form of amendment 81.1, in lieu of amendment 80.53.
The reason for the change is that, originally, it was referring to the Australian Friendly Societies Pharmacy Association Inc, and that entity is not the friendly society that we would be introducing into the Territory. Therefore, we needed to change the terminology.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 80.54. In order to ensure compliance with National Competition Council requirements, in particular in relation to pharmacy ownership issues, Schedule 8 will not commence until a date yet to be determined. Clause 129 allows for Schedule 8 to commence, and is, therefore, affected by the staggered commencement dates.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Schedule 10:
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 80.55. In order to ensure compliance with National Competition Council requirements, in particular in relation to pharmacy ownership issues, Schedule 8 will not commence until a date yet to be determined. Schedule 10 is to be amended to reflect that the remainder of the act will commence, and the savings and transitional provisions will take effect.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bill reported, report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 26 February 2004.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I continue my remarks on the Public Accounts Committee Report on Termination Payments for Chief Executive Officers and Executive Officers.
There appeared to be a perception within the public sector and the community at large that, prior to the Martin government taking office, as well as during the 18 months settling-in period post the August 2001 election, senior public servants may have been generously rewarded when termination payments were under consideration. Rightly or wrongly, it would be foolish not to acknowledge the public perception. With the report tabled by the Public Accounts Committee, we are now able to put to rest once and for all the innuendos and the assumptions that existed.
As early as August 2000, the then Auditor-General, Mr Iain Summers, noted in his August report to this Assembly that:
He went on to clarify that, although the variations appeared to be as a result of negotiations between the Commissioner for Public Employment and the agency where the officer was employed, they were appropriately approved. Unfortunately, what the Auditor-General found was that the support documentation relating to formal exit interviews and requisite particular discussions were not retained on any files within the commissioner’s office.
With this as background, the Auditor-General again revised the issue in January 2002 and, in doing so, took the decision to review the 18-month period, February 2000 to 31 December 2001. In selecting this period, the Auditor-General included the period either side of the Northern Territory election held in August 2001. The results of this audit were contained in his report tabled in February 2002 and, unfortunately, encountered the same problems with contractual variations and termination payments, with insufficient records supporting or clarifying the decisions.
It was against this backdrop that the Public Accounts Committee established its terms of reference to thoroughly investigate the whole issue of termination payments for chief executive officers and executive officers. In setting its terms of reference, the committee also took the decision to review a 12-month period prior to the August 2001 election, and a further period of 12 months immediately after.
For the information of those who were not present when the terms of reference were read at the commence of the public hearing, or have not had access to the committee’s tabled report, I take the opportunity to read them. The scope of the inquiry was separated into the following three specific areas:
(1) The framework, covering the process and entitlements for departures from NTPS agencies and how the
process was administered - with particular reference to the process relating to departures initiated by
the employer.
(2) The total cost brought about by reason of the employer initiating the departure and savings derived from employer-initiated departures for each period.
(3) Any improvements which are being implemented to the process administered by the Commissioner for
Public Employment to address the issues raised by the Auditor-General.
In framing these terms of reference, the committee was acutely aware of the need for sensitivity when acknowledging an individual’s right to privacy. It addressed this issue by establishing a process which clearly set out the parameters within which the public hearing would be conducted. The procedures to be adhered to throughout the public hearing ensured that, within the context of the scope of the inquiry, details associated with individual officers or departments would not be provided. To support this, the following preamble was included within the terms of reference:
This understanding is based on the committee’s commitment to respect and adhere to the important and long-standing right of people to privacy and the need to keep the personal records of government employees private and confidential; respect and adhere to employment instructions, employee records and NT Public Service principles, code of conduct, which bind all other branches of government, and are designed to protect people’s privacy and provide for an efficient and public service.
Mr John Kirwan, the Commissioner for Public Employment, and senior officers of the agency were invited to appear before the committee at a public hearing on Friday, 13 February 2003. The committee presented the commissioner with the specific terms of reference for his inquiry, and he was able to provide committee members with an information folder which addressed in detail the three criteria for the scope of the inquiry. The questioning of Mr Kirwan in regard to responsibility for employment at the various levels of employees was interesting.
I can honestly say that there existed a degree of confusion as to who had the overall responsibility to hire and fire. I would imagine similar uncertainty over this vexed issue may have existed across the public and private sector. Mr Kirwan was able to place on record the fact that, since 1 July 2002, his office had resumed the role of managing all the executive contracts, while employment of CEOs is the responsibility of the government of the day and the individual minister. There is, however, a form of safety mechanism which has recently been put in place: an executive remuneration review panel has been established which provides a level of scrutiny and advice on remuneration arrangements for chief executive officers.
To make sure the matter is clearly understood, I quote Mr Kirwan from transcript on Friday, 13 February 2003:
That statement was clear and concise and leaves no doubt as to who holds the ultimate responsibility.
The other area of questioning was the employment of press officers and ministerial staff within the ministers’ offices. Mr Kirwan was able to point out that the OCPE has no responsibility whatsoever for contractual arrangements for the minister’s personal staff. They are not considered employees under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. The committee’s terms of reference directed members to investigate the process and entitlements for departure from the Northern Territory Public Service. With Mr Kirwan’s acknowledgment that press officers and ministerial staff are not public sector employees, the issue was not pursued.
The committee’s second point within the scope of the inquiry was to consider the costs associated with any terminations/resignations, with the grand total of 30 officer-initiated redundancies occurring over the two-year period under review. Mr Kirwan alerted the committee to the pitfalls of attempting to apply any simple averaging exercise, as there are a number of long-term public sector employees included within a group of figures. In looking solely at the dollar value resulting from terminations/resignations, the information provided by OCPE indicated significant savings in both areas. Mr Kirwan made the point that, in the first instance, the committee should be aware that the actual payments associated with executive contract terminations were at the lower end of the national standards. He then drew the comparison between his previous interstate employment, where he would have had a statutory entitlement to 12 months payment in any redundancy action, as opposed to the maximum of six months within the Northern Territory.
Members of the committee also sought advice on the quantification of any indirect costs; for example, redistribution of responsibility, additional workload etcetera that could be associated with the termination process. In discussing the aspect of indirect costs, Mr Kirwan pointed out to the committee that there were no processes in place which quarantine information of this nature. He also explained that this was not unique to the Northern Territory, as a search of other jurisdictions’ methodologies proved unsuccessful in locating any recording process that featured these indirect costs. In making this point, Mr Kirwan suggested to the committee that any consideration of the process surrounding terminations should be cognisant of the individual rights which must be afforded to all employees. Basic staff motivation and the disruptive impact on the work force in general, where employees were dissatisfied or unhappy due to the continual uncertainty in the CEO and ECO positions, must have a major bearing in consideration of any indirect costs.
This point raised by Mr Kirwan cannot be overstated. It goes to the very core of productivity within our public sector. Unpalatable as it is, there are times when a termination or severance is the only option and, as long as the negotiations between all parties - and I emphasise all parties - are of a voluntary nature, a speedy outcome must be sought. Although the committee set out clearly its terms of reference, it was indeed sobering to be reminded of the broader human aspect associated with the terminations.
The final issue on which the committee sought clarification was any improvements for the process which were being implemented by OCPE. The detail contained within the information folder presented to all members by the OCPE at the beginning of the public hearing, certainly confirmed, beyond a doubt, that a significant change in attitude has taken place since appointment of Mr Kirwan as Commissioner in July 2002.
The concerns raised by Mr Summers, the previous Auditor-General, were accurate in that he could not find a documented audit trail to support payments over and above the contractual agreements. Mr Kirwan also acknowledged this shortfall in the agencies’ previous record-keeping process and, in conjunction with the senior officers, has put in place measures that members are advised are acceptable to Mr Mike Blake, the current Auditor-General.
Despite the fact that it is acknowledged that the paper trail to support variations to contractual payouts is important, it is also necessary to place on the public record the fact that both the previous Auditor-General and Mr Kirwan have stated that the payments were appropriately authorised. In Mr Kirwan’s case, he had personally reviewed all the files within the period under review and was satisfied that they were all genuinely justified as a redundancy process. It is important to highlight this issue because, as stated when I first rose to speak on the report, we need to make sure the issue of public perception is adequately addressed.
The committee included five key recommendations in its report. Information provided to the committee confirmed that the Office of the Commissioner of Public Employment plays an intrinsic role in the process of recruitment, through to the wind-up of executive contracts. The committee is of the view that procedures are in place and monitored to such an extent that the integrity of the processes can stand scrutiny. The committee also reached the conclusion that the quantification of indirect cost is not an issue which should be pursued, as the provision of direct costs associated with terminations provide sufficient data to determine a realistic valuation of the processes in place.
The information contained in the Auditor-General’s latest report of the establishment of an executive remuneration review panel, and the role he now plays in providing advice on CEO remuneration packages, led to the final two recommendations within the report. The recommendation that an executive remuneration review panel became involved and, through that process the Commissioner for Public Employment, at a consultative level in the recruitment process for CEOs aims at introducing a further level of accountability at the stage where individual ministers have entered into final negotiations with prospective applicants.
The final recommendation was an area that prompted lengthy, lively debate within the Public Accounts Committee. The issue of the disclosure of individual salary packages consumed many pages of transcript over the period of the public hearing, and there is really no need for me to attempt to reintroduce the arguments for and against in today’s debate. It is sufficient to say that the Auditor-General’s advice which was contained in a report, that such disclosure is a requirement of accounting standards issued by the International Federation of Accountants, and Mr Kirwan’s advice to the committee that at officer-to-officer level the issue of disclosure of senior officers’ remuneration in the notes attached to the financial statements of agencies is being investigated by Treasury, is a positive sign that the issue will be seriously considered by government.
I take this opportunity to thank Mr Mike Blake, the Auditor-General, who was able to accommodate the committee’s formal request to revisit the issue by examining the process currently in place within the OCPE. This request for an additional audit outside the set program for his office this financial year was conducted within an extremely tight time frame. The end result of his findings is that there now exists a level of accountability within the record-keeping process that satisfies his requirements for an adequate audit trail. On behalf of the committee, I would like to give a special mention to the Commissioner of Public Employment, Mr John Kirwan, and the staff of his agency for the preparation of the information folder made available to all committee members. The provision of such clear and concise documentation made the task of unravelling the issues surrounding the termination process far more straightforward.
Last but not least, I thank all members of the Public Accounts Committee for the effort they put in to working through the terms of reference. Although at times there was lengthy debate on particular aspects, it is a healthy sign that all members are actively contributing and the process is allowing individual views to be aired. This has been a truly bipartisan approach to what was seen as an inquiry into a sensitive issue.
Madam Speaker, the findings of the report are conclusive: there did appear to exist a culture within the OCPE that accepted the fact that, although correct procedures and approvals were always following and obtained, there was no follow-up to support by way of record keeping. This has been turned around by OCPE and should now only be a matter of course for the correct procedures to apply if and when senior workers work through the separation process. In addressing the terms of reference, the committee has been thorough in its research. I commend the report to honourable members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not go into as much detail as the member for Sanderson, but I support most of what he said. The inquiry was well worthwhile. When you recall that the inquiry was based on comments by the then Auditor-General, Mr Iain Summers, in February 2002, who said:
He went on to say:
The one good thing to emerge is that at least there was an open inquiry into what had occurred. When you then follow on from that statement to the review by the Auditor-General on 7 October 2003, you will see that most of the issues raised in the first Auditor-General’s report are pretty well covered. These were the key findings of the Auditor-General on 7 October 2003:
When you follow the report through, you will see that Mr John Kirwan did accept that there was a document trail which was less than perfect. He says that on page 21 of the report, where it states:
What has come out of all this is probably a better and more open process. I have one difference of opinion about the process that the member for Sanderson has. We argued - or discuss, sorry, I should say - long and hard the issue of whether one should be entitled to know what our CEO’s and ECO’s salaries are. There was certainly quite a bit of debate over that issue. Whilst one might be able to debate whether that should be public knowledge, I still believe that the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee should have the right to know what the government is paying its CEOs and ECOs, for them to have an independent assessment of whether they think the termination payments were correct. If the PAC does not have the power to look at what salaries are being paid to particular high-ranking officials within government, then you have to ask yourself: what is the use of the PAC?
The PAC is there to check on how the government spends taxpayers’ money. One could argue - and I do not necessarily agree with this argument - that the salaries of our ECOs and CEOs should not be made public. However, surely, for a PAC to be effective and be a body which is keeping an eye on things - and surely keeping an eye on things includes the Public Service Commission - we should be entitled to have a look at those salaries and whatever other payments go with those salaries. Whilst I agree with the recommendations in this report, I put on record that I believe the PAC should be entitled to see what payments are being paid to high-ranking public servants so that the public knows that there is a parliamentary body out there that does keep an eye on these things, above, you might say, the political rhetoric that sometimes occurs when these issues come to the front.
Finally, I accept the report on the termination payments, and I thank all those members on the PAC, plus the staff, for all the work they have done. These documents are not lightweight documents. Also, thanks to all those public service people who were interviewed and spent their time putting their input into our report.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Yes, there is no dissent to this report, Madam Speaker. It is genuinely a report of the bipartisan Public Accounts Committee. It does not mean, as the previous speaker, the member for Nelson said, that there are not some concerns. One of the issues, really, is a balance between privacy for public servants, which should be there, and the ‘A’ letter in PAC - and that is accountability in accounts.
I know when I visited the Public Accounts Committee in Queensland, for instance, they were very keen to look at issues relating to performance contracts. They were keen to look at matters relating to the contract for the senior executive, what his or her outputs were supposed to be, and whether they had adhered to that performance.
I tend to think that we should err on the side, possibly, of privacy. I am not sure how much of these contracts should be divulged in the public realm. However, there are remedies for that. We can meet in camera, and there are some confidentiality capabilities within the Public Accounts Committee that are available to government as a whole. That is an issue that talks to the general role of the PAC; that is, where we can go, how far we can go, and whether, by bringing the public spotlight to some of these issues, we are actually intruding on the privacy of senior public servants.
It is interesting to note that the previous and the current Commissioner for Public Employment admitted their record keeping was deficient, and have taken steps to remedy this. To some extent, that vindicates the system: the fact that the Auditor-General came upon a problem, the problem was brought to the attention of people, and it has been fixed. I guess, if anything, it shows the system can and does work.
It is also interesting that the Chief Minister came to power with a handwritten, signed piece of paper that gave various assurances as to consultancies and not sacking public servants. We know that now to be not the case. There is absolutely no doubt public servants have been sacked, and that is in direct contravention with a signed personal pact that was taken to the election.
With those few comments, I am not sure it is important to dwell on some of the issues. It is there for the reading, including transcripts. Members will note that there was some issues where the opposition was dissatisfied. They will find those in the transcripts of evidence, where there are some questions about where various responsibilities lie. That is probably a matter for another time. The report can sit as a successful report that changed a deficient style of record keeping, and that has now been remedied thanks to Auditor-General Summers. Commissioner Kirwan should also be mentioned and Commissioner Hawkes, all of whom were players during this period.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the members of the Public Accounts Committee for their contributions to the debate. I agree with the member for Drysdale that there is an issue of balance here between the privacy of the individual and accountability owed to the Public Accounts Committee. I believe we struck that balance. I can understand, and am well aware of, the views that the member for Nelson holds on this issue. However, I believe that the PAC has adequately tackled the problem, and the system’s integrity is guaranteed through the body such as the Executive Remuneration Review Panel and OCPE.
It was pleasing to hear the member for Drysdale say that an issue had been detected and investigated by the Auditor-General, the PAC investigated it, and it was a good bipartisan outcome that showed that the system worked. I am in full accord with that; it did show that the system works. This is a forward--looking report. The problem was identified, systems were investigated, new systems were put into place, and the situation remedied.
Once again, I would like to thank the secretariat. I would also like to note that I disagree with the member for Drysdale where he said words to the effect that this does prove that there were public servant sackings. This is quite on the contrary and nowhere, actually, in the transcripts. If people care to look there some time, they will find that is a complete falsehood. Once again, the member for Drysdale comes out with things, throws them out to the great void, and expects people to bite on them like a barramundi. Well, it does not work anymore; people are a wake-up to it. You just cannot come in here and roll out these petty accusations and walk out like you think you have done your job.
Anyway, it was a bipartisan report. That is a great thing for the PAC. I look forward to working with all members in the future, particularly with the upcoming Estimates Committee.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, in November last year, the Minister for Lands and Planning tabled the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management in this House. I am just getting my copy of it to put it before me here. The development of the plan is a significant element of the government’s election platform, and I am delighted today to be able to endorse the recommendations of the plan and reinforce the government’s commitment.
The Darwin Harbour region is greatly valued by all Territorians; it plays a significant role in our economy, lifestyle and the character of the Top End of the Northern Territory. Maintaining and enhancing the many uses of the region whilst preserving the values that we so prize is a challenge for all of us.
The Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management aims to provide a coordinated approach to these many challenges in order to assure balanced and sustainable outcomes that protect and enhance the diverse values and uses of the region. One of the most consistent values expressed by the community has been the importance of protecting significant ecosystems and ensuring the region remains biologically productive. In particular, the conservation of mangrove communities is held as a high priority by the community. The harbour’s distinctive mangrove communities play a fundamental role in the aquatic ecosystems of Darwin Harbour. The government has implemented protective measures for these significant ecosystems through the rezoning of mangroves in the Darwin Harbour region.
Approximately 26 200 hectares of mangroves are now protected under the rezoning amendment to the Northern Territory planning scheme. This constitutes over 90% of mangroves within the catchment boundary. This initiative, together with the development of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management, provides a sustainable framework for the ongoing protection and management of the harbour’s natural assets.
The advisory committee, which was appointed in August 2002, has delivered a comprehensive plan for the future of Darwin Harbour. The plan presents a sound framework for managing the natural resources of the region and development of an integrated approach to monitoring and research to preserve the harbour’s qualities. There is a broad range of issues identified in the plan and there are implications for a range of government agencies in delivering the actions that are outlined. The government has considered these and will be providing the necessary support to facilitate the priority actions and recommendations identified in the plan. I am going to state the four major areas here: the plan states the need for formal recognition of the plan; progressive implementation of the identified actions; formal recognition of an advisory committee; and the periodic review and evaluation of the plan.
It also proposes the development of a framework for integrating research and monitoring in the region. It is recommended that this be facilitated through the establishment of an ecosystem research group and an ecosystem monitoring group. A number of government agencies will have significant involvement in these groups. Government’s participation in this initiative will enhance the Territory’s capabilities and build partnerships with key research institutions and agencies. The role of the ecosystem research group will be to direct research in to strategic areas that will address knowledge gaps and information needs. The ecosystem monitoring group will coordinate monitoring activities to ensure that consistent protocols are developed, so that the collected data is comparable. This group will also be charged with ensuring that monitoring programs are complementary and accessible to all parties. A reporting system will also be established to communicate the results of monitoring and research to the community, scientists and the natural resource managers.
The more we know about our harbour, the better placed we are to manage it. In 2001, we stated in our commitments that the protection of mangroves and significant ecosystems of the Darwin Harbour region should be based on sound scientific data. Although significant research has been undertaken on many aspects of the harbour and its catchment, there are still many gaps and much work to be done; in particular, improved understanding of the harbour ecosystem processes is essential to appropriately managing this natural resource.
The extensive water quality monitoring regime undertaken by my department in Darwin Harbour demonstrates the government’s commitment to protecting the values of Darwin Harbour, and the need to base our decisions on sound scientific knowledge. There is an ongoing need to measure the health of the harbour in order to guide management, especially as the region is at the threshold of major development.
Long-term strategic water quality monitoring sites have been established and assessed over several years, with a focus on the impact of land use on water quality. Activities undertaken in the catchment can have a considerable bearing on the state of our waterways and a direct impact on the water quality of Darwin Harbour. The water quality of rivers flowing into the Darwin Harbour has been monitored at 10 strategically identified sites over several years. The monitoring has focussed on studying the effects that land development can have on the water quality that flows into the harbour. The water quality of regional rivers is, obviously, one of the most significant agents that can affect the water quality of our harbour.
Monitoring water quality is focussed on potential pollutants. I will list these now to emphasise the extent and thorough nature of the monitoring program. The rivers are monitored for sediment, which may affect the clarity of Darwin Harbour, smother living organisms and change the make-up of the harbour bed. The rivers are monitored for plant nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorous. These are applied as fertilisers in the catchment. If too much nutrient enters the harbour, this results in algal blooms. The rivers are monitored for pesticides. Pesticides can affect the welfare of plants and animals if they enter the harbour. The rivers are also monitored for metals such as lead, zinc and cadmium. These metals can also affect the welfare of plants and animals.
Monitoring of the rivers shows that it is mainly our urban use of the catchment that affects water quality. This, however, represents only 2% of the catchment area. Most of the water flowing into the Darwin Harbour is clean and not polluted. The water quality in the harbour has been monitored since early 1990, but most intensively over the past few years. There are about a dozen sites in Port Darwin. Recently, the program has been extended to include Shoal Bay. This is in recognition of the vision of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management.
Monitoring has revealed that the greatest impact on water quality in the harbour is, in fact, the tides. Big tides carry with them a lot of sediment from the mangroves. The water quality of small tides is clean and clear. The seasons also affect water quality in the harbour. In the Wet Season, increased volumes of fresh water enter the harbour so salinity is reduced.
The amount of metals in the harbour water is extremely low. In fact, the presence of some metals is so low that they cannot be measured. The amount of pesticides entering the harbour is also extremely small. The presence of what is detected is mainly residual pesticides that are no longer used today. Urban activities in cities the size of Darwin and Palmerston, and rural activities, do have an impact on the water quality of the harbour. Treated waste water is released into the harbour. Also, nutrients and sediment from urban areas have some effect on water quality. Whatever localised impacts there are, they do not significantly affect the current recreational use and ecological integrity of the harbour. Residents of other capital cities in Australia would envy the water quality of Darwin Harbour.
Management strategies to minimise these impacts have been developed in the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. The government’s support of the plan will ensure that the maintenance of good water quality in the harbour remains a focus in the plan’s implementation. The water quality of the harbour is very good and has not changed since monitoring commenced over 10 years ago. The water quality of the main body of Darwin Harbour meets national guidelines for marine water quality.
In total, over 30 types of water quality tests have been conducted on many hundreds of samples since monitoring commenced. Water quality monitoring provides information for managers and users of the harbour’s resources, as well as providing information to the public. It is part of my department’s ongoing commitment to informing the community of the harbour’s health.
Later in the year, a comprehensive report on all aspects of the water quality monitoring program will be produced. This will be a public document and available on the web for all Territorians. Darwin Harbour is an asset we all share, and its health is something in which we all have a vested interest. My department’s endeavours in water quality monitoring will continue to provide a sound basis for reporting on the harbour’s health into the future.
Furthermore, mangrove monitoring by my department has continued in the region since the establishment of the Mangrove Monitoring Program in 1997. Parallel to the government’s monitoring program, a number of scientific studies have been undertaken that have enhanced overall of mangrove ecosystems. We now have a considerable volume of historical data which will prove invaluable in managing the long-term health of mangrove ecosystems in Darwin Harbour.
The Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) is now undertaking research in Darwin Harbour and the northern waters of Australia. Work to be conducted in Darwin Harbour will assist us in accumulating the knowledge that is necessary for effective management of the watershed. A number of pre-eminent scientists from AIMS are already working with staff and scientists of my department on projects that relate to the water quality and hydrodynamics of the harbour. Collaborative efforts such as these will accelerate the accumulation of knowledge to inform our management decisions into the future.
The extensive consultation program undertaken by the advisory committee in preparing the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management was well received by the community. The committee established a broad range of mechanisms to facilitate public interaction in developing the plan. These included public forums, workshops, presentations, hearings, and stakeholder meetings. There will be an ongoing need to engage the community in the implementation and review of this plan. The advisory committee will continue to play a vital role in guiding future community engagement processes.
The plan recommends a broad range of actions. In all, some 192 actions have been identified. The committee did not recommend all the actions be undertaken in the first year of the plan. Actions will be prioritised on an annual basis as part of the plan’s ongoing investment strategy, and brought before government. Funding of priority actions and recommendations will be essential to the implementation process. Eighteen priority actions have been identified in the document for implementation in the first years of the plan. These include the support of an ongoing advisory committee and the establishment of groups to direct research and monitoring to promote community participation in the natural resource management.
I am pleased to confirm that the government has committed $365 000. I know I am supposed to keep to the text here, but I would like to repeat that particular statement. I am pleased to confirm that the government has committed $365 000 to support all of the priority actions identified in the plan for the 2004-05 year, and the ongoing role of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee. I will detail how that $365 000 will be spent:
These are all recommendations of the advisory committee. The government will provide support for these priority actions outlined in the plan, and support the ongoing processes for implementation as recommended by the advisory committee.
I congratulate the committee and its chairman, Mr John Bailey, who is present in the House today, on their concerted efforts to incorporate community values into the plan. This group has been paramount in assisting and advising government, providing a community-based sounding board on a range of matters affecting the health of the harbour and catchment. The advisory committee has performed an exemplary job in the development of the plan and, to demonstrate our commitment to their important role, the government proposes that the group continue to oversee its implementation. I believe all members will join me in congratulating the chair of the advisory committee, Mr John Bailey, for the outstanding work he has done in coordinating this group and facilitating the development of the plan of management. Mr Bailey’s enthusiasm for the harbour and his leadership of this group has provided us with a sound blueprint for the management of the Darwin Harbour region.
I also wish to extend my sincere thanks to all other members of the advisory committee. I believe the document that they have produced, which is this document here, is one of outstanding quality.
I am pleased to be able to confirm today that Mr Bailey has accepted my invitation to continue to chair a reconstituted advisory committee. The Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee will be established as a statutory advisory committee under proposed amendments to the Planning Act, with the plan of management constituting the working document of the statutory committee. Until the Planning Act is amended to establish the new statutory body, this committee can be formally constituted as an advisory committee under the Planning Act. I have endorsed the revised terms of reference for the advisory committee in its new role in overseeing the plan’s implementation. These amended provisions support the revised membership of the group to ensure that it is representative of stakeholders in the region and remains an effective and workable group.
The reconstitution of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee will provide for greater community representation, and heralds an important step in advancing the plan of management. Membership will be sought from groups representing a range of interests including Charles Darwin University, Darwin Regional Development Board, Larrakia Nation, Environment Centre NT, Darwin Port Corporation, Top End Regional Organisational of Council (TOPROC), Local Government Association of the NT (LGANT), the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce, the shipping industry, Horticultural Association of the NT, Landcare and, of course, the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT. As we stated earlier, an independent member will chair the committee - which is Mr Bailey - and I will soon be approaching representative groups seeking nominations to the committee.
The committee may be called upon to report on matters referred to it from time to time. However, its central role will be to oversee the review and implementation of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management and to facilitate community input. It will not operate as a duplicate, alternative consent authority under the Planning Act, but will be of enormous benefit in advising on and informing that consent process.
My predecessor, as Minister for Lands and Planning, stated in November 2003 that encompassing stakeholder and community values and aspirations was essential to the process. These values are vital underpinning principles that have been the foundation of the plan, and the government is committed to continuing with this participatory approach in implementing this valuable document.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I formally acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the former member for Wanguri, Mr John Bailey. On behalf of all members I wish you a warm welcome. And no, you cannot stand up and speak!
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I would to place on the record some of my observations about the ministerial statement regarding the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management.
Before I go to the minutiae contained in the statement, I want to put it in context. Prior to the election in August 2001, the then Martin Labor opposition, as all oppositions should do, went to the people of the Northern Territory and said they were an alternative and, on a number of issues, stated where they stood.
One of the issues was, of course, Darwin Harbour. The then Martin Labor opposition really was at pains to demonstrate a point of difference in relation to the attitude towards the harbour. The opposition, at that time, created a perception in the community that the environmental integrity of the harbour was being significantly eroded by constant development, and the CLP clearly did not care about the harbour. The Labor Party went as far as to create the expectation in the Territory people that there would be a form of protection, implying that marine parks were options - all these types of comments - there were mechanisms which would put the Darwin Harbour in this special category and it was something that the CLP were not doing. The harbour was under a real threat and, without Labor’s intervention, there were going to be some real problems. Certainly, a part of the protection of the harbour involved the development of a plan, but the Labor opposition created the impression that there was going to be a marine park and they were really going to get tough on this and protect the harbour.
The CLP, prior to the election, maintained the sensible position that this is a working harbour and there has to be a balance between, for example, recreational fishing and having a wharf smack bang in the middle of our harbour and we are going to have a gas plant there. It is resource which has to be shared. We have to monitor it and make sure that we look after it for future generations and it is going to be something which we can enjoy and use to our benefit. Those reasonable comments were criticised by the Labor members. Those reasonable comments were: ‘Look, that it is not enough. The harbour is under threat; it is being damaged and eroded. Unless we move to do something straightaway, then that is going to be the end of the harbour for future generations’.
The current Labor government forgot to mention in this ministerial statement that the CLP, in fact, instigated the comprehensive monitoring systems that are in place. The CLP was instrumental in a number of the scientific research-type projects which occurred. I do not have the exact number, but there are dozens and dozens of scientific-type projects which have occurred over the years, and the CLP had an important part in any event. The CLP also banned commercial crabbing and fishing in the harbour. Therefore, the CLP is in a position to say, quite properly, that an enormous amount of credit should be given to the previous governments for taking steps to protect the harbour, to make sure that it is going to be something that many people can enjoy, both now and into the future.
The CLP always maintained the position that it was a working harbour. The CLP still maintains the position that this is a working harbour. It is in a good state of health and there has to be a balance between the need for protecting the harbour for future generations, developing important infrastructure like the wharf, Cullen Bay, Bayview Haven, Tipperary Waters. There has to be a balance …
Mr Wood: I feel crook.
Mr Kiely: Yeah, good balance.
Mr MALEY: A good balance. I pick up on the interjection. The member for – what is his electorate?
Ms Carter: Sanderson.
Mr Kiely: Credit where credit is due.
Mr MALEY: The member for Sanderson is opposed to Cullen Bay, Tipperary Waters and Bayview? Can I put it on the record?
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, a point of order! If he wishes to put it on the record, I just said ‘credit where credit is due’. It was a CLP initiative, and I am giving you all the credit you need for it.
Mr Burke: You are a gutless wonder, you are.
Mr Kiely: I will not let him try to fit me up.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, you can have your say later.
Mr MALEY: There was a bit of a backflip there, Madam Speaker. A bit of a backflip.
In any event, the ministerial statement is an opportunity for this government to deliver to Territorians on the promise it gave or expectation it created prior to August 2001.
Let us have a look at what this statement really says and does. If you go through it, it has a number of feel-good motherhood statements about how important the harbour is. Quite frankly, any reasonable person would agree with many of the very general statements about the importance of the harbour: the fact that it has to be preserved and there has to be a balance between competing interests.
We know - and it is not the first time that it has been stated publicly - that there are 26 200 hectares of mangroves. We know that there are lots and lots of studies. An interesting aspect to this ministerial statement is that there really is a significant concession that the harbour really is in pristine condition. The minister said that they have tested for some heavy metals and the amounts are so small they did not register on the test.
Dr Burns: But where is the word ‘pristine’? Come on! I did not use the word ‘pristine’, so stick to the script.
Mr MALEY: Well, that implies that the harbour is in fairly good nick and the average person reading this statement for the first time could quite easily come to the conclusion that the harbour is in pristine condition.
Here we have the Labor government with some sort of scaremongering campaign prior to the last election, saying it was in complete disarray. The CLP policies have had a huge impact on the harbour, yet we see into the third year of their government, there is a significant concession that things look pretty good. The monitoring over the past decade, overwhelmingly instigated by the CLP, confirms that things are looking good and we are moving in the right direction. Whatever we have been doing, we should continue to do.
There will be some minor changes. It seems that there is going to be a revamped treated waste water system. I understand, and I only found out today, that the mechanics of the underground pipe system which comes from Larrakeyah is going to be redirected through a more formal plant at Fannie Bay. This is confirmation of exactly what the CLP have been saying for many years. The CLP said prior to the last election that this is a working harbour, and that they were going to make sure it was preserved for Territorians today and tomorrow, and that the balance was kept just right.
The statement delivered today does not deliver on Labor promises; it does not satisfy the legitimate expectations it created. To look at some of the comments of some commentators who have had a chance to look at the ministerial statement, I received an e-mail from the Northern Marine Campaign, Australian Marine Conservation Society. It is a media release dated today. At paragraph two of that media release, it says:
It goes on to say:
That is one particular group which had an expectation which certainly has not been met in the form of this ministerial statement.
If you look for new initiatives, we know there was $19m, the value of the road that was built to Wickham Point. We know that there are hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on the Wharf Precinct development and convention centre. If you look at what sort of commitment this government is giving to the implementation of this plan, there is a reference to $365 000. Well, I am not sure how much that is going to achieve. On the face of it, it seems it is going to achieve the ongoing monitoring, but there do not appear to be any significant steps in the direction of satisfying the promise which this government gave to people prior to the last election.
If you look closely at where that $365 000 is going to be spent that, in itself, also raises some pretty significant concerns. There are a number of things which make sense from a monitoring perspective, which I do not think anyone would cavil with – certainly, the CLP do not cavil with this ongoing monitoring. The $100 000 allocated to develop and implement a stormwater management strategy – well, that makes some sense to me. $55 000 to undertake a systematic survey - these are sensible allocations. You could go on and on. There is one which raises some concern, and perhaps the minister in reply can clarify the ambiguity. The drafting of the statement is confusing, but it talked about the ‘additional $120 000’, and what that is going to achieve.
Remember, we do have this ongoing advisory committee which is going to be formally recognised under the Planning Act. The advisory committee includes a whole heap of quite worthy stakeholders: amateur fishermen, Charles Darwin University, the Environment Centre, etcetera. It also talks about the Larrakia Nation being part of that advisory group, which is a good thing. They certainly should have a say, just like every other stakeholder in the harbour. Okay, we have that advisory group.
The difficulty is, the statement talks about this $120 000 for establishing an indigenous working group to provide and identify point of contact information to the plan of management. There are also some other points after the semi-colons. Minister, perhaps you can explain in your response how much of this money is going to be used to establish another working group, and where is that money going to be spent? Is a similar amount of money going to be given to other stakeholders, such as the Amateur Fishermen’s Association, the Chamber of Commerce, or the Darwin Port Corporation? Or is it a situation where the government is really playing favourites and giving money to establish another working group, which is somehow going to work in parallel with the advisory group that is being legally constituted, and will be annexed as an advisory group under the Planning Act?
There are many sporting groups in the northern suburbs who have put applications in for funding. Many of those have been knocked back. $120 000 is a lot of money to spend to establish an indigenous working group, when I suspect that money would be better spent in the northern suburbs, and on sporting groups at Freds Pass. It could be used to help some 2000 kids from 60 schools attend the Croc Festival in Katherine.
There is a reference, of course, to the hard work that the committee has undertaken. I also congratulate the committee and its chairman, Mr John Bailey. There is little doubt that, in the job that he was directed to do by the government under these terms of reference, he has done a good job. He should be acknowledged and, indeed, the opposition recognises his enthusiasm and energy that he brought to this management plan. It is good to see that he will continue in that position as the chairman of the advisory committee.
The political aspect of it is not a criticism of the hard work that John Bailey and other members of the advisory committee have put in. The political aspect of this is that this government created an expectation that they were going to do something significantly different to what was occurring. The truth is the CLP, the previous Northern Territory government, had implemented these monitoring systems, had already taken active steps to remove commercial fishing, and had done lots of things to protect the mangroves. There were a number of policies that were bandied about establishing certain benchmarks by which mangroves would be protected. There was a scientific study that said: ‘This is the percentage of mangroves that you have to maintain to keep the harbour in good condition’. The CLP knew that; they took that on board and publicly stated: ‘We are going to make sure that the harbour is protected. We are going to listen to the science, and this is the path we are going to go down’.
The Labor government today really has not delivered on the expectation it created. This ministerial statement contains lots of motherhood statements and rhetoric. Quite frankly, I believe it falls short of satisfying the legitimate expectation - the promise which it made to the community before the election in 2001. The government is attempting to diffuse the situation by the establishment of a credible advisory committee, which has consulted properly. However, at the end of the day, it is not just about consulting the stakeholders and trying to placate them by saying: ‘You have had your input, we are doing the right thing in making motherhood statements’. It is about this government being held to account to fulfil the promise and the expectation it created prior to the last election. This statement does not do that. The terms of reference for the establishment of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management does not satisfy that promise and does not discharge that legitimate expectation that which was created by people in the Northern Territory.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I support the ministerial statement delivered by the Minister for Lands and Planning, Dr Chris Burns. The Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management is really a fantastic development for all Territorians and, in particular, for Darwin where it is obviously having a huge effect. I recently travelled with the environment committee to Western Australia in Perth. We met with representatives from the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, there. One of their great resources is the Swan River. We were in these magnificent offices and, as we looked out the door of the chairperson’s office, there was this beautiful sight of this beautiful resource that they called The Narrows, but also widening out into Kings Park right down to the South Bank and around to the University of Western Australia.
We have a different climate and resource in the Darwin Harbour that is, in my mind, more significant than even the Swan River. Why do I say that? Well, we heard the minister talked about how it is valued by Territorians and Darwinites, and how it is economically valuable to everyone who lives here. But he also talked about the lifestyle and character of the Top End.
Let me briefly explain my experiences of the Darwin Harbour. I suppose the first time I started recognising Darwin Harbour, I would have been 5 or 6 years old, fishing off different wharf areas with my parents and catching bream, snapper and whatever else, and then going out on a boat onto the Darwin Harbour. During that period of time, an uncle and aunt of mine actually had the only fish trap operating in the Darwin Harbour. They made a business out of that fish trap which supplied food for 20 to 30 years to people in Stuart Park, Millner, Ludmilla - wherever they were in the northern suburbs – who were black, white, Greek families - it did not matter what colour or background they were. They came to my uncle and aunt’s house in Stuart Park in Henry Street and bought fish. That fish trap would be cleaned every change of the tide. It was of benefit to that family who were able to access economic benefit out of it. It is also did something else: it brought the whole community together as people were able to access fresh fish.
Those experiences of going out there and coming back to the house and being involved in all that is something that is ingrained in my life experience regarding Darwin Harbour. Of course, as you get older you realised there were other families who were fishing in those estuaries and this resource, such as the Long family, and the Hills who loved to go out at night spear fishing with a torch, catching barramundi and getting large amounts of barramundi out of the Darwin Harbour - and still doing it to this day, and also teaching their kids. Going out to Mud Island and dragging the net for prawns and getting fresh prawns there was always a fantastic experience, along with going to Talc Head, West Arm and Middle Arm, putting crab pots in and getting crabs, and fishing those areas as well.
I remember going out with a cousin of mine, Dookie Bonson. We drove up into this gutter, as we refer to it, into West Arm and the waves actually pushed up onto the bank and when the waves washed back down, there were barramundi and salmon stuck on the bank, flapping around. We drove the boat up to the side and I reached over the front and picked up the barramundi and salmon off the bank.
This is the resource that we have in Darwin Harbour and this is the reason why I commend the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. Unfortunately, this group of people do not have access to parliament. They do not have access to mechanisms to protect this resource which they use every day and often they are not considered when development of all things happen to the Darwin Harbour. They often comment about the changes. We all know changes are going to happen and we have to deal with those changes, but the idea is to make sure that they are measured, balanced and sustainable in the way we deliver them, because everyone has different values of what Darwin Harbour means to them. That can never be underestimated.
I understand the consistent evidence given to the advisory committee, and I am happy to say I felt strongly enough to give evidence. It was along the lines I am just given now. I understand there was consistent expression to the committee that people did value this resource in the community and they were interested in protecting its significant ecosystems and ensuring that the region remains biologically productive. In particular, people mentioned, I suppose, one of those campaigns that is being run about the conservation of mangrove communities. This is a high priority. As we all know, and will become more environmentally aware as we grow older, what we have in that resource of mangroves needs to be protected. I understand there is a balance there between development and nature.
However, we have to understand that one of the reasons why we love living in Darwin is the fact that if you are from Millner, which is a land-based suburb, you can literally drive less than five minutes and put your boat in at the Nightcliff boat ramp. In another 15 minutes you can go to Buffalo Creek and put your boat in, and another 15 minutes and you are in town at a number of different sites putting your boat in. In 25 minutes you can be back behind Palmerston at East Arm, putting your boat in there, going fishing around Channel Island. We have access to all these places. What does that add to your house? I tell you it has to add some value to your house. That has to be worth $50 000 or $60 000 more because, if you live in the middle of the desert or in a place where you did not have access to this beautiful water resource, then your house would not be the value it is now. I do not think people should underestimate that.
We know that there is a distinctive mangrove community in Darwin Harbour and its fundamental role is sustaining the aquatic ecosystems. I commend the minister and previous ministers for the work that they have done to implement protective measures for these significant ecosystems through the rezoning of mangroves in the Darwin Harbour region. I will quote from the minister’s statement tonight:
The minister continued:
This is a fantastic initiative by the Northern Territory government, of course. With the development of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management, we will have a framework that recognises that we have to sustain all our assets. We have to protect the resources that we have and manage the future of Darwin Harbour. We cannot underestimate the value of the harbour’s natural assets.
The advisory committee, as the minister said, was appointed in August 2002. It has done some fantastic work and credit must go to the former member for Wanguri, Mr John Bailey. The committee’s development of the plan is very comprehensive and, hopefully, will help protect Darwin Harbour into the future.
It is a sound framework. It is an ongoing framework on which we can really build a significant safety net for Darwin Harbour. Of course, I am interested in the Shoal Bay area as well. I could go on about Shoal Bay and the Vernon Islands and all the fishing and hunting that I have done around there. However, other families have done that and other people are doing that. I am just touching that issue about other people using it.
The RAAF Base is in my electorate and the most common theme when I hold or attend events there, as I am going to this Friday, is lifestyle. Lifestyle is very important to the Defence Force families when they came to the Territory. They love the fact that they are accepted and that they can go fishing and camping. These are people who might only be staying for a short period of time, but they value this resource. I am sure that they will value the resource in 20 or 30 years time. We need to multiply that feeling by a factor of 10 when we consider locals who, in some ways, have taken the Darwin Harbour for granted.
The committee states that there is a need for formal recognition of the plan, a progressive implementation of the identified actions, formal recognition of an advisory committee, and a periodic review and evaluation of the plan. That is a fantastic requirement because, as we know, the pressures in Darwin Harbour will change in the next 10 years and we need the ability to review and to evaluate that the plan is effective and what changes need to happen to ensure that we protect the most important natural asset we have.
I commend the minister for the research and monitoring that the development of this framework will undertake. I understand this will be facilitated through the establishment of an ecosystem research group and an ecosystem monitoring group. I will quote from the minister’s statement tonight so that people reading Hansard will understand the effect and role of this ecosystem research group. The minister said:
The fact that we have identified the need for a reporting system, which will be established, is fantastic. I also believe the minister identified in the statement the reason we want to develop a reporting system is to communicate the results of the monitoring and research to the community, scientists and natural resource managers. Obviously, we could develop that into a wider list of people. When we talk about a need to communicate what is actually happening in Darwin Harbour, people are very protective of it, and we need to communicate that. I look forward to a mechanism for doing that.
I also recognise in the minister’s statement the extensive water quality work being done in Darwin Harbour, and how that has been an ongoing commitment by this and previous governments. The idea is to create a measuring stick of where Darwin Harbour is, and the need to base our decisions on sound scientific knowledge, on which any decisions we make have to be based. We know the Northern Territory government recognises there is an ongoing need to measure the health of the harbour. The plan will ensure that we can adequately articulate what the health of Darwin Harbour is, especially when we consider the fact that we know major development is happening in the harbour, and we need to ensure that we can articulate the health of Darwin Harbour to reassure the community, scientists and natural resource managers.
I found it very interesting, reading in the statement about the water quality of rivers off the Darwin Harbour, and about the 10 strategic identified sites. I have fished in the Elizabeth and Blackmore Rivers etcetera, and taken them for granted, I suppose. They are a natural resource that needs protection and to be monitored. I thank the minister for explaining what is actually being monitored in the rivers. For instance, the sediment which, obviously, may affect the clarity of Darwin Harbour, living organisms within the harbour, and now with seasonal rainfall, the harbour bed itself. It is a reassurance to all of those in the community reading Hansard that we do test for plant nutrients, nitrate and phosphorous, and the fact that these are within fertilisers that may leach into the catchment. The need to do that is not only for the health and safety of human beings, but also because of the algal blooms that come about by this being too high. The community would be reassured that we are monitoring for pesticides because of the effect they could have on the animals in the area, human beings, and the health of all plants. I implore the minister to continue this work, and I know he will.
The fact that the rivers are monitored for heavy metals, such as lead, zinc and cadmium, and what the effects are, again, on the humans, animals and plants of that area, I find reassuring. To quote from the statement from the minister, he said:
That is a reassurance, minister.
The minister spoke about how residents of other capital cities in Australia would envy the water quality of Darwin Harbour, and I implore the minister and this government, and members of this House, to be vigilant. The reality is that is the case that we have now. We do not want to end up like Sydney Harbour, where they have spent, over the last 10 years, millions and millions of dollars to try and - what can I say? - reinvigorate Sydney Harbour. At the moment, we have it in the state that we know is not pristine but, compared to other resources in Australia, it is in fantastic condition - again for all the reason I have already spoken about, including the resource it is to the community as a whole.
I would also like to applaud the fact that, later this year, a comprehensive report on all aspects of water quality monitoring program will be produced. I thank the minister for making this a public document and for also putting it onto the web for access, obviously, by all Territorians. I see many people in this House using their laptops now and probably accessing information. Not only schoolchildren, but parents and seniors would be more than welcome to access this and make use of it.
I also thank the advisory committee in preparing the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. They used mechanisms to facilitate public interaction and, as the minister has already stated, they included public forums, workshops, presentations, hearings and stakeholder meetings. I have already stated I presented evidence at one of those hearings held in Parliament House, and I know the member for Nelson was there. What I tried to implore was more of a local view on what that resource means to me, my family and other members of the community. I thank the advisory committee for making the commitment to have an ongoing role in guiding future community engagement processes, because that communication of what we are actually doing in Darwin Harbour is vital.
I would like to finish with the initiatives that the government is presenting. There are many people who interested in my electorate, who asked: ‘Well, what is actually happening? What is your commitment as a government?’. I would like to read from the minister’s statement just to assure those living in the Millner electorate:
The minister and I can support that with the work that we did on the Australia Day Clean Up:
This is important to all Territorians:
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to all those in the House, and look forward to the work that the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management can fulfil.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement today. I would like to quote from the front cover of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management, November 2003. It says:
I hope that is what we can do with our harbour. I believe our harbour is still under threat from development that has no vision. The Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management is a good document; there is no doubt about it. It sets up the framework for monitoring, looking at programs; and developing strategies. All that is fine, and we certainly need those things to occur. However, if you do not have a vision for the harbour, then what are you trying to do? Are you just setting up lots of strategies, plans, committees and ideas without knowing where we are going?
I feel the government really does not have a vision set in its mind. We are waiting for the Litchfield Land Use Objectives to come out and perhaps that will tell me what the vision is. I do feel that the government has shifted ground. The CLP had a vision for Darwin Harbour, and that was to put industrial development in the middle of the harbour. However, they did make the proviso under the then Chief Minister that they would only put essential development which was, at that time, the LNG plant and some methanol plants that were planned for the centre of the harbour. I objected to the methanol plants, and I probably still would, simply because I do not believe they need access to the water that close. I used to argue that if you went to New Plymouth in New Zealand, you would find the methanol plant was set well away from the coast and they actually piped the gas to the port.
The CLP said that was all they were going to put in the middle of the harbour and the rest of the land would be left as it is. The problem I have is that one gets the impression that the ALP which fought that as well, has now given us a worse vision. It has said that it believes – and maybe I will not believe it when I see the Litchfield Land Use Objectives – that all this purple area except for one spot - that is a small island just to the south of the LNG plant and the other half of Wickham Point - will remain park land. All the rest of the land will become industrial. If I had to make the choice, I would have made the choice of the CLP’s vision. At least there was limited industrial development. Development in the case of methanol is practically non-polluting. Now we have gone to the case of having a totally industrialised harbour, and that is very sad. That does not fit in with what the member for Millner was just talking about. That does not fit in with a biologically rich and diverse marine and terrestrial environment.
I know I have harped on this for a long time. I suppose I have a vision - and people do not have to accept my vision – that we are at the stage in our development where, whatever we do now, will be a permanent change to the harbour. I see no reason why the centre of the harbour still cannot be retained as a national park to serve the needs of the 65 000-plus people who will live in Weddell, the 44 000 to 50 000 people whom I presume will live in Palmerston when it is completed, and the 70 000 to 90 000 people who live in Darwin. Of course, add on another 20 000-odd people who live in the rural area and surrounds. You would have a part of the harbour which was a beautiful part of the harbour where you could go for walks in the bush. I have been there over the last few years. I have commented about a gentleman called John O’Sullivan who, many years ago, used to take Aboriginal people to this very section of the harbour, the Middle Arm. He used to take people whom we would refer to as itinerants, there on the weekend to hunt. It is, or was, a very beautiful part of the harbour. However, unfortunately, it has changed.
I know I bring maps in here occasionally. I was over at the mapping area today. I have this map on my desk, and it is a 1939 map of Darwin. This case is slightly different than the normal map. It has Japanese writing written down one side because it was actually discovered in Tokyo after the war. Obviously, the Japanese had bought this map and put all the details about where to bomb Darwin on it, with all the coordinates - and that is the map. The good thing about this map is that it actually shows you a pristine Darwin Harbour – a really pristine Darwin Harbour. There was hardly any development except for the port. It shows the Middle Arm and that there was no clearing at that stage. Then, 60 years on, we now have this. This is a 2002 photograph of what was pristine. From Channel Island bridge, the land has been cleared in the form of gravel pits all the way around. In fact, this is not the latest map. I received another photograph today showing more development closer to the LNG plant.
I thank the minister who allowed me to go up in his helicopter on Saturday to have a look at the harbour…
Dr Burns: We were not delivering tyres to anyone.
Mr WOOD: That is right. As you would know, I did ask the previous minister if he would come up and have a look at the harbour because I wanted to show him that there are alternative sites for industry. I was simply appalled by what I saw of the harbour. What was really beautiful bushland has been destroyed in many parts - not only destroyed; it has not been rehabilitated in many parts as well. It is a crying shame.
If people knew how beautiful that bush was and how close to Darwin we had it, they would ask: why have we developed this? My theory is that we have a department that deals with planning. It believes that we should have a hub and that should be an industrial hub, and that hub should be - I will get the right map for you - East Arm port and Middle Arm port connected as one big industrial estate. That will only work if you put a bridge from Blaydin Point - on this photograph here - to East Arm. If we do not have a bridge, goods from East Arm have to go all the way around via Palmerston, which is a fairly long way. It is about 35 km from one end to the other. You will have to build an enormous bridge, according to this industrial states book, to make this hub work. My argument is: why the heck would we want to do that when we have land to the north of Howard Springs, which is just as close or even closer than the Channel Island Bridge, five minutes from Palmerston, which will be on the corridor to Glyde Point? It will have mainly high ground, and we flew over that high ground. There are some wet parts of land in there, minister, but in general, most of it is high ground. I brought the map so I could show you that most of the land is high ground. Why the heck would we want to destroy the beautiful centre of our harbour?
We can talk about the environment and about it being a working harbour - and it is a working harbour. However, it is a working harbour for ships, rail, the port, and that type of development, which does not mean the entire harbour has to be developed. It means that we know that there will be a requirement for water-based activities. We need to have a harbour that we can enjoy and that is something that is missed. Maybe there is a mention of it in here. However, at times we miss the importance of having those areas as part of our city. I keep referring to Sydney where there are Royal National Park, Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, and Botany Bay National Park of all places, right next to the oil refineries. Some visionary made a decision when Sydney was being planned - I would not say that parts of it were ever planned; they just happened – and said they should preserve those areas of land for the future. Therefore, we have Royal National Park, which I think is the oldest national park in Australia, because someone made a decision then.
We do not have anyone wanting to make a decision. I get up and talk about a park and people say: ‘Oh, no, you can not have a park, we have to use it for this and that and other things’. I despair, at times, that we cannot look past our noses at the bigger picture and ask: can we do this another way? I am all for industrial development because we require jobs and employment, but that does not mean it has to be at this particular spot because the planners thought it would be. That is what has happened. The planners have brought out this book based on the Brown and Root previous book, Darwin Regional Industrial Estates Planning and Development Overview March 2002. They have said all this should happen. In fact, they make a statement in this document, which would be interesting to include in Hansard. Perhaps this signifies what is being said:
These have never been formally endorsed by anyone. The community has never had a say, the government has never put its imprimatur on it, and we have ripped the living daylights out of the centre of our harbour based on the fact that someone said the middle of the harbour will be industrial, therefore miners declare extractive mining leases on the harbour. We have 20 extractive mining leases on the harbour that the government has allowed to occur, without any vision. That is what annoys me. If I lose the case that this should not be a park, it should be industrial, all right. Maybe I would say: ‘Fair enough, there is no need to keep the bush’. But no one has made a statement that this should be industrial - no government has said that. There have only been concept plans. Yet, here we are, talking about this Darwin Regional Plan of Management and, yet, we have not got to the very core of what we need to get to, which is: what is our harbour going to be like?
We are at the stage where we have to make some decisions. I firmly believe that that should be a national park. It has had development. The minister saw how widespread the gravel extraction development has occurred. He simply asked me how we would rehabilitate it. Well, to start with, these companies are required to rehabilitate. When I flew other that and had a look at the land near the Channel Island bridge, I would say there has been no rehabilitation. I have seen that land from the ground. It is covered in weeds, there are old mounds left there, there is ponding and there does not seem to be any great enforcement of rehabilitation. To rehabilitate that back to its natural state would require a lot of money and work. There is a requirement on the government – you might have to work in partnership with the companies that have removed this gravel – to bring it back to its original state.
We have not made up our mind that this will be industrial. I do not think the community really wants it industrial. It is just one of these things that has been snuck through what I call the planning department, without really letting people know exactly what they are pushing for. We have just as good or even better options, minister, for putting industry that is connected with the port. As you know, the corridor into Glyde Point will have a rail corridor on it. That is exactly what they said they want the land for - to be connected with the port and the railway. Therefore, you have this offshoot of the railway going right past this land north of Howard Springs. What an ideal place to put your industry. - land that has already been dug up for extraction. It is already zoned extractive under existing land use objectives for the Litchfield Shire. Why not use the existing land away from the harbour and retain the aesthetic beauty of our harbour? This is right in the guts of the harbour. Why would you want to look at a whole pile of sheds? To me, it would not be the greatest piece of viewing you can see as you come in on the plane. I am imploring the government, before it goes down the path of just accepting what the planners give you: sometimes I believe the government has to make its own decisions and put some vision into what it is doing.
I am not going to harp on that for too much longer. I might raise a couple of issues. One is the issue of mangroves. There was talk years ago that the CLP government wanted to destroy about 2% of the mangroves. I always argued that that was based on a fairly unknown piece of scientific evidence from some group in the United Nations somewhere. I have never seen that document to this day, to prove that. Then I pick up this document, minister, where you say we have 26 200 hectares of mangroves, and this constitutes over 90% of mangroves within the catchment boundary. In other words, 26 200 hectares of mangroves are actually rezoned. That leaves 10%. That is 8% more than what the CLP said they would protect, so I am asking: where is that 10%? I do not know why you would have to have 10% of the mangroves not protected. You should protect all the mangroves, and then, if someone wants to develop in those mangroves, they have to put a good argument as to why they should. I say they …
Dr Burns: Take me through the maths again, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: You should zone all the mangroves as open conservation. That does not preclude someone from developing within it. It just makes them argue their case better than presently would exist. We used to argue the case for the mangroves. I say the mangroves should be the base for the argument, and the industry should have to show reason why it should destroy the mangroves. A classic example, minister, which I raised today, would be Glyde Point. Glyde Point is right on the edge of the Darwin Harbour. I am not sure if it is included in there, but I think 480 hectares of mangroves are going to be destroyed. Why aren’t the mangroves on the Adelaide River …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I am not sure if they are. Yes, they are outside the catchment. What is the difference between being in the catchment and out of the catchment? Surely, the mangroves, if they are worth protecting, should not be divided by a line that means some are protected, and some not. It would be far better to have all the mangroves on the Northern Territory coastline protected - I do not see anything wrong with that - and any development that wants to occur has to prove its case that it needs to destroy those mangroves. That is a fair system.
The other issue, minister, that may have been left out of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management - and I have spoken on the radio today about it - was the issue of Defence and its role in the management of Darwin Harbour. I wrote a submission on that because the previous Minister for Lands and Planning, when he was tabling the management plan on 26 November 2003, said that the plan would be released for community consideration whilst the government also looked at all recommendations in the ensuing months before formally advising of the adoption of the plan in 2004. That seemed to give one the hint that there should be another lot of submissions presented and that they would be looked at. I actually put a submission in and I said this:
I went on to say:
As I say, the committee did not take this on board, that apparently the matter of consulting Defence has been raised by other people in Darwin. However, there is no extra reference to Defence in the plan released in November. Why?
Since then, the government has had a very public reminder of the importance of informing Defence of its plans relating to the harbour and the city. During adjournment in the Senate on 2 March 2004, the Defence minister, Robert Hill, talked about the Darwin wharf redevelopment plan. He started his speech this way:
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time to allow him to finish his comments.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I notice that the membership of the new advisory committee has been announced in this statement and there is no representative from the Defence Force or the Commonwealth.
In answer to a question during the last sittings, the Chief Minister told parliament that one option for meeting the refuelling requirements of the Navy in the future could be the use of fuel barges. I am not sure how safe fuel barges are, but I certainly would like to see a fairly detailed analysis of that particular option. I am told there are other ways of delivering fuel but, before we go down that path, I would like to see some comments from the government on the safety - not only from the public’s point of view, but the environmental safety - of using fuel barges. They might be perfectly safe but I am one who would not know much about them and we should look at that option and see whether it is okay.
I would like to detail Defence interests in the Darwin Harbour region to remind members of the extent of them. There is the patrol base and the Army base at Larrakeyah; Shoal Bay; the RAAF Base; Coonawarra; Kowandi North; Kowandi South; storage areas; several Defence signal and communication bases; and the Robertson Army Barracks. These operations and installations are large fuel users and these large areas of land cover drainage flows into the harbour. If the harbour is to be managed properly, we have to have the region’s largest landowner and one of its main users of the harbour onside, and contributing to the wider community as it should.
Finally, I would just like to read a couple of comments from Matt Coffey, a member of PLAN, who, I thought, raised some issues that should be considered. He said that the Commonwealth should be involved in the consultation process both through Defence, and also because the National Heritage Trust funds many of the environmental care groups that would be useful in implementing the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management - groups such as Bushcare, Coastcare, Waterwatch and Riverwatch. Matt also suggested that there are relevant pieces of legislation that have been left out of the equation and may need amending if the plan is to have real impact. They include the Darwin Rates Act relating to waste management, pollution and drainage; the Radioactive Ores and Concentrates (Packaging and Transport) Act, the Soil Conservation and Land Utilisation Act, and the Land Development Corporation Act. I am grateful to Matt giving many of those comments.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to sum up. I thank the people who have done all the work on the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management, especially the main person behind it, Mr John Bailey. I know he also has a passion for the harbour. I believe it is a good document and I will continue to say that it contains very worthwhile ideas. However, this document has no great future unless we really know what the future of our harbour is.
I hope that government will be brave enough to stop approving extractive mining in the middle of the harbour. I hope that government will be brave enough to put the money into repairing the centre of the harbour and leaving it as a national park. I hope the government will look at more options than just what you find in this industrial estates book. It is a pity this sort of document really does not come out into the public arena. I did not even know it existed until I read the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment’s annual report. A document like that which has a major effect on the Darwin Harbour should have been put out for public comment. Maybe that can still happen. However, minister, I hope that you take some of what I have said into your thoughts when you respond to the statement. If this government does not do anything, then, basically, we will not be able to change much, because development will have gone too far forward.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments with regards to this ministerial statement but, in particular, to place on the record my thanks to Mr John Bailey for the work that he has done with the committee that looked at all the issues surrounding the further protection of Darwin Harbour for generations to come; and endorse the fact that, in the time that I have been in the Assembly, one thing I do know about John Bailey is his passion for a whole range of issues, but environmental issues in particular. He always brought forward questions and commentary in this Chamber with a great sense of integrity and, in many respects, was ridiculed and sometimes stopped from having his say. Now, as I sit on this side of the Chamber, that seems to be the way governments operate, if that is any comfort to the former member for Wanguri. It seems that, if the current Labor government has learnt anything from some the actions in the past, they have certainly learnt how to continue the comments, abuse, criticism and ridicule that the member for Wanguri was often subjected to.
He is fortunate that he has not left parliament in the last few months because he would probably be hoisted into this new code of conduct that the government has introduced. We have this brand new code of conduct that is coming through under this wonderful new Labor government, which would prevent someone like the former member for Wanguri from being the chairman of this ongoing advisory committee of the government because that would create a conflict of interest, wouldn’t it? There would be all sorts of allegations that, somehow, he had carried with him information that he would use in an inappropriate way. There would be allegations about the amount of money that he was receiving in his chairmanship. In the government’s haste to run a populist line with the public that this code of conduct is the way to go, the opportunities in the future for people of his competence to be involved in that sort of committee would be prevented.
Let us hope that the Darwin City Council does not take the government’s lead. They might come up with a code of conduct for the council. What sort of situation would the former member for Wanguri be in then as and alderman on the city council and also chairman of this advisory group? I do not imagine he would be able to talk on very much at all in the Darwin City Council without revealing a potential conflict of interest. We are fortunate that the former member for Wanguri is not caught in these new protocols that are coming through from government.
The interesting thing from the ministerial statement was, notwithstanding all the emotional comment that was made by the then opposition about the lack of protection for Darwin Harbour and how it was threatened, the reality is that after the investigation that has been done, the one thing this statement bears out absolutely is the fact that this harbour of ours is in very good condition.
There has been ongoing monitoring of this harbour for many years. It is detailed in the ministers statement: monitoring of river quality, sediment, plant nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorous, pesticide etcetera. He said that most of the water flowing in Darwin Harbour is clean and not polluted and that:
There is the challenge for you, minister. The reality is, by the investigations under Mr Bailey’s chairmanship, the facts are there for everyone to see. They are that the CLP government had in place extremely good monitoring systems - monitoring systems that worked well for many years, continue to work well and have been reinforced in terms of their importance by the minister. The minister gave an undertaking that not only will those monitoring systems be maintained, but, quite rightly, they will be enhanced where appropriate. That is a good thing.
I would have thought that some of the issues the minister revealed in his statement would have been self-evident when you consider that Darwin is about the size of Goulburn and we are looking at a harbour with a water catchment area greater than Sydney Harbour. To come up with observations that the greatest impact of the water quality of the harbour is the tides, I would have thought was self-evident, given the fact that we have the largest tide movement in Australia in many respects. The sediment that comes from those large tide movements would be a major influence on water quality.
Likewise with the seasons. We live in probably the most cyclonic area with some of the heaviest Wet Seasons in the world. Because of the Wet Season, increased volumes of fresh water enter the harbour so salinity is reduced.
The amount of metals in the harbour water is extremely low. Well, the industrial base of Darwin is extremely low in itself. Darwin is small business oriented, so the chances, I would have thought, are low. Most of those observations were self-evident and, in fact, were known and articulated in this House by previous ministers of the CLP government over many years: that the harbour was in good shape, was being monitored, and was being protected adequately. Comments otherwise were simply alarmist, populist, mischievous and misleading to the public, and that is what this report bears out.
I applaud the minister for saying that, as I said, the committee is going to become a permanent advisory committee. The structure of the committee is good. I take on board the comments of the member for Nelson that Defence, rightly, needs some representation. However, I would also say, practically, it would be understandable that that representation would not be adequate or necessary from local Defence people, because they would not have the authority to speak on those particular issues. You would need to get someone, probably from Canberra, who would be involved in an area of Defence that has a particular responsibility in these areas - the same sort of people who look after large training areas from an environmental perspective. The people from those areas would need to be involved, but I would not think, practically, they could sit regularly on that committee. I take the member for Nelson’s point that it is important that Defence is regularly consulted, because the comments from Senator Hill, I believe, were misrepresented in the Northern Territory News by saying that he was playing politics. He was not, I do not believe. He was raising very serious concerns about the problems that Defence has, and they are concerns that the government themselves will need to be very cognisant of.
For example, if Defence decide that the Port of Darwin, Stokes Hill Wharf, is not a good amenity for R and R for sailors, they will not come here any more. One of the reasons they will decide that is if they have to go and bunker their ships at East Arm because, once they start bunkering at East Arm, that will be the end of them. You will not see them here visiting, because there are many more places they can go as an attraction. Equally, it is flippant to say: ‘Oh, you can barge the fuel around to them’. Once it becomes impractical, and they are on tight time lines to come into Darwin, and they have to muck around with fuel barges coming in from East Arm, they will not come here any more. That will be a great difficulty and problem for the small business community which looks forward to their visits with great anticipation.
Also, as I have said publicly, given the plans that Defence has for the future, in terms of the possible use of Bradshaw as a joint training area with the United States, and the establishment of a logistics facility here for the United States, the potential of more and more Australian and Defence warships staying here for longer and longer periods is there. Any planning for Darwin Harbour, and particularly the Stokes Hill Wharf and East Arm Port area, needs to be very cognisant of the downstream effects that it might have on Defence. Equally, I am sure the government would by now be aware of stringent requirements by the United States. They are far more stringent than they have in place at the moment, in what they have been accepting for their own personal security and of their warships. Unless they are guaranteed the type of security arrangements that they demand in the future, they simply will not come any more. Therefore, any planning in that regard has to be cognisant of those particular requirements and Defence does need to be involved.
The other issue - and I do not say this as a criticism - was raised by the shadow minister. The money that has been allocated is good. I assume that it is adequate, and I am sure you will take advice from Mr Bailey on the adequacy of those resources. That, of course, is a problem for him because, notwithstanding the endorsement you have given of this advisory committee, at the end of the day, advisory committees are just that. If the government does not want to take notice of them, they will not. Therefore, I certainly hope that this advisory committee is not only funded adequately, but is taken notice of in the recommendations it makes, including the resources that are necessary to be allocated through that committee, I would hope, to the organisations that need to use that money for the protection of the plan of management for the future. Organisations that are involved, as I said, are good. The only criticism I had - and do not take this as anything more than a question at this stage - is that, for the indigenous working group, $120 000 is a lot of money.
Dr Burns: It is not.
Mr BURKE: Well, if you would explain that when you respond, minister because, on the face of it in your statement, $120 000 for the indigenous working group needs to be explained as to what exactly that money will be allocated for; and what will be the outcomes expected from that indigenous working group. To say it will be used to provide and identify a point of contact for information on the plan of management, provide information to the community of opportunities for that participation in the plan of management, and establish a database of stakeholders, seems to me to be nothing really. It needs to be far more articulated by the minister, as to how that $120 000 will be used. It is easily open to criticism that it is a way of filtering money through to particular groups that might be friendly to the government, and that is not what you want, I am sure. It also has the potential for other stakeholders to feel that they have a rightful place to receive funding because of their interest in things environmental, particularly the harbour, and wonder why they have not received any funding or are part of this. Also, of course, it has to be seen in the context of all these other small groups in our community which are competing for small amounts of money to maintain or promote their activities, that $120 000 would go a long way to assisting a whole range of those particular groups. I ask the minister to explain further in his reply what that money is going to be used for.
With those few comments, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for the statement. I particularly wanted to endorse the efforts of John Bailey, not only in the past through his efforts on this committee, but I am quite sure that, in the future ahead, he will play a very important role in the good management of our harbour.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome and endorse my colleague’s report on the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. This really is a red letter day for what is one of the Territory’s most valuable environmental assets and a cornerstone of the Territory lifestyle.
The minister focussed on the water quality of Darwin Harbour and this is absolutely a key issue and one of significance to my portfolio responsibilities. I note that the minister has indicated that the water quality of Darwin Harbour is currently very good and, indeed, it is. However, there is no doubt that the industrial landscape of the Top End is changing, and with this will come increasing pressures on the environment. Darwin Harbour will continue to be a working harbour and the population living around the harbour will grow.
As the Minister for Environment and Heritage, I have responsibility for ensuring that environmentally significant development proposals undergo environmental assessments and that appropriate safeguards are developed if the project proceeds. It is a responsibility that I take very seriously. It is a responsibility to protect our unique Territory environment and lifestyle.
For years under the CLP, we saw the environmental assessment process viewed as a hindrance. They viewed EIS as an annoyance and a barrier to the uncontrolled all-holds-barred inappropriate development that they loved. The Martin Labor government sees the process as an integral part of development. Not only does it protect our environment and lifestyle, but it can actually assist with appropriate and sustainable development. The clearest illustration of the CLP’s cavalier approach to the EIS processes, is that they were never accredited by the Commonwealth. This changed when the Martin Labor government came to power. The Northern Territory was accredited by the Commonwealth, with our environment assessment procedures meeting national best standards practice in 2002. It is clear that in Canberra they know it is the Martin Labor government which is protecting the Territory’s environment and lifestyle.
Under our processes, environmental assessment approvals and licences are used to regulate the development and ensure that safeguards are implemented. There is little point in doing all of this unless we know what is happening out there in the environment. That is why the water quality monitoring programs outlined in the minister’s statement are so important, and I strongly support this work. With this monitoring in place, the effectiveness of efforts by my Office of the Environment and Heritage, other government agencies and industry itself can be measured and assessed. If there are shortcomings, then adjustments can be made. The monitoring of water quality in Darwin Harbour really is a key measure for ensuring we have a robust and flexible environment protection regime that will stand us in good stead for the future.
It is also too easy to focus on the large industrial facilities and forget about the collective impact we have on the environment. That is why I am pleased that the minister has announced that a stormwater plan will be developed. Stormwater is the conduit by which many pollutants enter the harbour. Many people do not understand that what they wash down into gutters ends up in the harbour, but it does, and we need better programs to reduce this pollution.
The minister made mention of mangroves and it is very timely to remind members that it took the Martin Labor government to protect this very important part of the Darwin harbour ecosystem. Mangroves provide essential ecosystem services and support important food webs. More than 50% of the world’s mangroves have been destroyed, a startling figure. I am very proud that this government has had the foresight to protect Darwin Harbour mangroves after the neglect shown by the former government. Yes, they commissioned research on mangroves, but what did they do with the research? Nothing. It was a delaying tactic. Research was their excuse to sit on their hands and do nothing. We have done the research, we will continue to research, and we are protecting the harbour. Research has to inform the planning and decision-making processes, and this is where the members opposite were found wanting. The CLP talked about protecting the mangroves in the harbour but, in over a decade, they never put this talk into action. They never put the lines on the map and they never implemented the legislation to back it up. Without these lines on the map, they put forward projects like damming the Elizabeth River. It was only community outrage that stopped it. Fortunately, due to the leadership of this government, we will not be repeating these mistakes.
I am also very pleased to see that the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee will continue its good work and will guide the implementation of the Darwin Harbour Plan of Management. The committee has good representation from a cross-section of the community, and I note the establishment of an indigenous working group, which is also very welcome. We must not forget the significant indigenous knowledge of Darwin Harbour or the special place it has for local indigenous people. I commend the establishment of that working group, unlike the member for Goyder and other members opposite who think that the $120 000 is not worth spending and is too much money to be given to indigenous expertise or groups. Environmental problems are complex and, at the end of the day, they are resolvable only by cooperative action on the part of all the sectors of the community - from the family who likes to go fishing on the weekend to a multinational company.
Community participation and engagement, therefore, is a key to the success of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. Like our approach to the Daly, it is central to the way this government believes environmental issues and natural resource planning should be pursued. I do not pretend that members of these advisory groups will all get along; it will not always be happy families. There will be disputes and differences in opinion. It is hard work to listen, learn and negotiate and, sometimes, the lure of simply retreating to an entrenched position and fighting it out is surely tempting. However, there is too much at stake and the important thing is that there is a forum for these differences to be resolved through dialogue. Parties can bring together their legitimate interests to the table in an atmosphere of mutual respect and with the genuine desire to ensure a sustainable future. This is a defining feature of the Martin Labor government’s approach to environmental issues. It is inclusive, not divisive, and it is a an approach we believe will achieve the best environmental results.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the minister and recognise Mr John Bailey and the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee for their hard work and a very good result for our environment and lifestyle.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would just like to put a few comments on the record with regards to the minister’s statement. I welcome it and the tabling last November of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management.
John Bailey and the committee have done an excellent job. There are some issues in the plan that I am sure people will find, as has been picked up already in some of the debate here tonight. I would like to put on the record my thanks to all the department people who took part in this activity and all the activity that led up to this. There have been a number of studies, and the minister mentioned some of them and some of the work that has been going on for many years.
There have been some 230-odd studies. There has been all the research has been done by university graduates and undergraduates over the years and all the very extensive monitoring that has been going on, not only in the harbour itself but on the land surrounding the harbour. What we have in Darwin, and are very fortunate to have, is a huge mass of information that can be used to detect change and plan for the future. That has come about because we have all, in one way or another, been cognisant of the importance of the harbour to Darwin and, obviously, to the surrounding environment.
This work is similar to the work we would have reached had a certain election not got in the way. I started a similar process. You would have seen the Darwin Harbour Strategy Plan, a similar sort of name. When you look through it, it had similar ...
Dr Burns: Oh, it was a promissory note; it is counterfeit.
Mr BALDWIN: I am sorry, it was before yours. Yours might be the counterfeit if that is the logic you want to follow.
It was put together by the Northern Territory CLP government at the time, in conjunction with the federal government, with funding from the Natural Heritage Trust and put out to consultancy. That process was started and due to be reported back in a finalised form in 2001. As I said, unfortunately, an election got in the way and it was never quite completed.
I am sure Mr Bailey and his committee referred to this document from time to time. The references in this document refer to all the work that went before. The language throughout is similar in the issues, the actions and the work that needs to be done to ensure that the harbour stays in good condition whilst allowing enjoyment of its recreational, heritage, cultural and environmental values.
The only thing that is not mentioned in here anywhere is beneficial uses. It would have been worth mentioning beneficial uses because they were formally declared under the Water Act in 1996 for Darwin Harbour. They are significant because they are nationally recognised and have some power under the Northern Territory Water Act. They do not get a mention, that I can see, in the document, although it does refer to all types of legislation that applies to the management of Darwin Harbour.
It is a good idea to introduce a statutory authority. I would be interested to hear from the minister what he sees as the powers that authority would have, if any, or whether they just remain as an advisory committee. Whilst they are listed in the actions under all of the different sections in the document, the work that they will undertake has been identified as needing to be done, and that is great. I assume the committee will coordinate all of that work. That is good; it is work that needs to be done and has been identified, both in that and the work leading up to that, through this Darwin Harbour strategy that we put in place and began work on. They are clearly easily identified as issues, and need action against them.
Whilst the minister for the environment might think we took no action in our time in government with regards to mangroves, I remind her that, after all of the years we were in government, less than just under 2% of the mangroves of the Northern Territory Darwin Harbour had any impact and been cleared. That is a fact that is borne out whichever way you want to spin it. Whilst we did not have a formal protection on those mangroves, it is testimony to that regime that only 2% - less, just under 2% if you want to get technical - has been cleared for the development of Darwin so far. If she thinks that, by placing a zoning over the mangroves gives them ultimate protection, she is quite wrong, as the minister for lands now knows with his powers to change zonings at the stroke of a pen without any other process needing to be gone through. The mere fact that mangroves are zoned does not mean that they are fully protected. If you wanted to go to full protection, then you would have to go down the line of something that the member for Nelson was talking about, and go stronger than just zoning.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, my congratulations to the committee. I look forward to seeing the work that they do in the future. I put on the record my and the CLP’s thanks to all the people in all the departments and agencies - both Commonwealth and Northern Territory - and non-government organisations that have taken part in what was always going to be an ongoing job; and that is the protection of Darwin Harbour through studies, research, future monitoring and future planning.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased tonight to speak on this statement from the minister, and I welcome it.
Obviously, as the member for Port of Darwin, the harbour is of significance to me and my constituents. It is a beautiful harbour. It is a source of great fun for many people, particularly when they undertake recreational activities. I remember, about 20 years ago, learning to scuba dive in Darwin Harbour - and what a barren place it is under the waves as those famous tides wash everything in and out. Every day it gets scoured several times by tonnes of sand, and I can assure you, there would not be a cleaner looking Harbour down there on the sand beds.
Of course, it is a wonderful harbour for tourism, and it is a joy to see the sailing boats, ferries and things like that going across the harbour at sunset, with the tourists enjoying their time. It is also a great source and facility for our trade. I used to live in a unit overlooking the harbour, and would see these huge ships coming in, bringing cars into the Northern Territory, and other large ships taking out, our live cattle exports.
The harbour is a hive of industry and we can now sit on this side of the harbour and watch with interest as the gas plant is erected. Last year, I had the privilege of going to Western Australia to visit Karratha, to tour their gas plant and talk to the local people about the impact of the gas plant on their life. One of the things I noticed about Karratha was the huge number of people who had large fishing boats in their yards. Fishing is a great activity that occurs in Karratha, and the reason for it is the gas plant, because the plant built a large pipe lying across the bed of the harbour, and that pipe over the years has now become encrusted with corals. When I visited the gas plant, they showed me a promotional film about the gas plant, and there was footage of that gas pipeline lying across the harbour, and it is quite magnificent. From somebody who learnt years ago to scuba dive in a barren harbour, it is going to be a delight for our scuba diving fraternity as well. I hope one day - I will probably be about 90 by the time it becomes encrusted with coral - to go down and have a look to see the fish as they swim around the coral. Hopefully, some areas will be protected around the pipe for scuba diving and, of course, the recreational fishing people will enjoy the fish that are attracted to that once that pipe has been covered. This, of course, brings me to the fact that the harbour is also a source of food and many people enjoy fishing and other activities to gather food from the harbour. That, of course, is something that has occurred, no doubt, for thousands of years.
I believe the harbour has endless potential. I met recently one of my constituents as I was doorknocking, and he was telling me a story about how, roughly about 20 or 25 years ago, there was a thought - and I am only just touching on it here - to build a structure across the harbour that allowed the water to still go in and out, but also harness the energy of our tides. This has occurred in a number of countries - France and Canada, for example - where harbours have had turbines placed in them. From those turbines power is generated to power their communities. Perhaps in this era where we are concerned about greenhouse gases and the like, gathering the strength and power from our tides might be something that is done in generations to come. Darwin Harbour may have the potential to do that, provided it is done in a way that does not affect the environment adversely.
The harbour, as we have heard, is a huge harbour in size, and I do not think many of us really appreciate the magnitude of it. Therefore, it is vital to protect this resource by balancing the competing pressures of the environment and the need to protect that, with the needs of the people living and working in the area. My electorate, as members will know, is kissed all around its edges by this harbour. We start with Cullen Bay, and I know there is a thought to have a town beach. May I put in a plug for Cullen Bay to be considered as the site of a town beach? Cullen Bay has, arguably, one of the best beaches in Darwin when it is uncovered from the creeper that sits on top of it. When it is there with its pristine sand showing, I can assure you that large numbers of people gather on it to enjoy it as a beach. It has potential to have a net placed on it so that people can swim in the waters there.
As you go around the harbour in my electorate, the next port of call is Larrakeyah. I know the people living on the Larrakeyah Army Barracks thoroughly enjoy the view that they have, those lucky few, as they have their houses perched on the edge of the harbour - and good luck to them being able to enjoy that. In the last few years, the Defence Forces have built quite a substantial water structure there for the patrol boats, and we will be getting more patrol boats as the next few years go by. I believe the Naval facility is there to stay for many years, and is certainly welcome as far as I am concerned.
Travelling further around we get to the Esplanade which was the site of the town beach many years ago. It is somewhere between the Esplanade old town beach site, Lameroo Beach, and the wharves where we are going to have our new wharf development, that there is another potential town beach. I will put in a plug for that spot also. It would be marvellous to have a netted beach - a net that can keep out not only sea wasps, but Irukandji as well. If we can get that in, just as Cairns and other north Queensland beaches have done with success, it will provide a wonderful resource for locals and visitors alike. As we go along the Esplanade, I know many of you will have walked that path and admired the harbour from that view, and it is a great resource for recreation for locals and visitors alike.
Then we get to the wharf area and there we had the iron ore wharf, the Fort Hill Wharf and Stokes Hill. The iron ore wharf does not get much usage at the moment and I suspect that, at some point in the not-too-distant future, it will be dismantled as the new East Arm facilities have taken over that role. The Fort Hill Wharf though, has increased in the broadening of the usage that it gets. The big crane has been moved over to the East Arm Wharf, but Fort Hill is very much the site for the berthing of Defence Navy vessels and also for cruise liners. This has become a bit of a shame because it was great when they berthed at Stokes Hill Wharf when mere mortals such as you and I were able to walk alongside them and dream about the day that we might go on a cruise. However, Fort Hill is the place for them now because it is a stronger and very secure wharf. It is sad in this new era that we live in that we have to concern ourselves so much with security, but thank heavens Fort Hill is there. I know that you will all be appreciative of the ever-increasing numbers of cruise vessels that are coming to the Northern Territory and providing for us the wonderful economic benefit that their passengers give us.
A little further around is Stokes Hill Wharf, the wharf I am sure all of us are very familiar with. It is a lovely place to enjoy an evening under the stars. I am sure it is one of the fondest memories you all have of living in Darwin. For me, I know the gas plant is going up across the harbour, and I quite like industrial sites seen across the water. I am going to enjoy, over the years to come, seeing the orange lights of the gas plant across our harbour. It will add to our enjoyment of Stokes Hill in the night time.
A little further around is the old power station site, and this is a site that is going to be redeveloped in the years to come, more than likely with residential buildings. The occupants will enjoy a beautiful view of the harbour. All through this area, of course, will be our new wharf development sitting on the harbour. I know that the consortia are now vying to see who will be the successful one for the development of the convention centre. I am quite sure that, when that convention centre is built, it will make the most of the beautiful land that it will sit on. People who are attending conventions will see great vistas from the windows of that convention centre. I am sure it will be exciting over the years to see that area develop. One of the best things that I have been to is one of the public consultations on that wharf development. I know what came out of the public consultations has been a significant emphasis for the people who are used to develop the area to build a significant walkway around the harbour in that area. I assume it will link up with Damorae Park on the end of the Esplanade park and create a walkway for many kilometres around our harbour in the CBD.
After leaving the old power station site, you come into an industrial area which includes Fisherman’s Wharf, and contains entities to deal with fishing and the marine industry in particular and, of course, a great little feed spot. Perkins fishing and those sort of places are there. This will be an interesting area to watch over the next 20 years. I expect we will see that the industries will leave there and locate more around to East Arm and free up land there for development in other uses. I expect we will see very high class residential accommodation areas there and, hopefully, a couple of other marinas. Some people, like the member for Nelson, will choke over the concept of marinas, but these are already places that are being used for industrial use, and marinas are a place which people enjoy and they create jobs. They create wealth for the community and they create a wonderful lifestyle for the people who can live there. I do not think we should pooh-pooh them totally. Of course, these sites currently do not have any mangroves growing on them and so I certainly will not have a problem. I am quite sure we will see them over the years, as those industrial businesses move over to the new port area, converted into attractive harbour living with some marinas in there as well.
Speaking of marinas, the next port of call and the last for my electorate is Tipperary Waters, which is a lovely spot for the people who live there. There are people living not just in houses and units at Tipperary Waters, but on boats, unlike Cullen Bay.
These are the uses that my electorate, quite directly, has from Darwin Harbour. Therefore, the harbour is of great interest to all of us. We welcome the statement that the minister has made as we all work to ensure the best balance for our wonderful waterway.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, Darwin Harbour and the Darwin Harbour management plan means a lot to the people of Sanderson. As a matter of a fact, I have had quite a number of representations about the harbour over the years that I have been representing my constituency and, even in recent times, I have had cause to duck into the environment minister’s office and discuss aspects of the Darwin Harbour management plan with her staff. Therefore, I am very pleased to contribute to this statement.
As the minister said, the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management aims to provide a coordinated approach to ensure a balance and sustainable outcomes to protect and enhance the diverse values and uses of the region. That is a pretty bold ambition, but I am confident that with the plan that was put together by Mr John Bailey and his team will be achievable, particularly with the support - and by the sounds of it, the bipartisan support - of this parliament. I look forward to the years to come and the implementation of this plan.
As the minister said, the plan states the need for formal recognition of the plan, progressive implementation of identified actions, formal recognition of the advisory committee, and periodic review and evaluation of the plan. It does it in many ways, and to do this, it is going to be phased in over many years. This year in particular, with the start of the funding, there is going to be the sum of $365 000 to support all of the priority actions identified. Over the years to come, of course there will be a lot more funding required to bring in the full implementation, but we are starting with $365 000. It is a well thought-out figure. It will achieve the resourcing and those outcomes that have been nominated to occur in the first part of the plan.
There is $100 000 that has been allocated to develop and implement a stormwater management strategy. I welcome this announcement. Pollutants can enter stormwater through a variety of ways and most of us are guilty of it in one way or another. How many times have we washed the car in the driveway and watched those soapy suds disappear down the gutter? Who has not pulled up at a service station and seen spilt diesel around the bowser and watched while someone diligently used degreaser and hosed the residues off? Stormwater pollution does not usually attract the type of environmental protest and outrage associated with deep smoke stacks or a major spill. It is not a sexy environmental issue but, collectively, stormwater can contribute significant pollutant loads into our environment and it needs to be addressed.
Stormwater can pick up everything from litter, such as cigarette butts and plastic bags, to chemicals such as oil and grease wastes, pesticides, phosphates and nitrates. More importantly, once it enters the stormwater, the pollutants flow into our harbour. This is an important point. I see that this message has been stencilled on a number of stormwater inlets by Landcare groups. The message needs to be made: if you dump material into the stormwater drain, it is the same as dumping it into the ocean. Many people would not dream of doing this, but are quite happy putting stuff down a stormwater drain. They think the drain goes to a sewer and is treated, but it is not.
I had a quick look at the Internet and I came across quite a number of sites. As a matter of a fact, when I searched ‘stormwater’, the search engines came up with over a million sites.
Dr Burns: Not storm chasers?
Mr KIELY: No, not storm chasers, which is another group that would certainly attract a lot of people with different views and some very out-there views.
Stormwater is a very important issue. As I looked at the sites, I saw the ways that people tackle stormwater. I came across some great pictures. I will describe them; I will not bother tabling them. There are all sorts of apparatus that can be fitted to stormwater drains to trap all the litter and excess that are in our streets and our waterways before they enter into the harbour system. I got these pictures from the California Transit Authority - I believe they came from - and also a place called Tallahassee in the USA. It is quite interesting. There is one photo here with a great trap in a river system, and behind the trap - and it is vertical steel bars anchored to a couple of pillars over a sort of weir thing – are old tyres, hundreds upon hundreds of plastic bottles and containers, and all manner of rubbish. This trap is stopping this from going into the ocean. This is stuff that has been washed through the stormwater.
There are other implements, such as the baffle boxes on roadside curb inlets and baffle boxes with all the samples of sand filters you can get. There are also available different basket inlets. There are some great trade apparatuses, which is a huge baffle box with trash. These are the sorts of things that I am sure the committees will be looking at with its $100 000, because it is an issue. There is an issue of who owns what stormwater drains around the place; that has to be identified. This is really one of the places where I hope the committee turns its attention to concerning stormwater.
We have to look to trap pollutants before they get into our system. These curb inlet boxes, of course, have industrial applications. You might find them at the garage, the motor mechanic’s shed, even at home for the home mechanics who do a bit of work. Where you get these spillages, if you are doing a service at home on your car, sure you will trap all the oil coming out, but that oil runs and hits onto the cement apron. You might think you are doing the right thing by hitting it with detergent and then washing it away but, in effect, you are dumping it into the ocean. This happens at home, at sites where you are over at your mate’s place doing a bit of work on the car, and in light industrial areas. These are the sorts of things which I hope the group looking at the stormwater management strategy will address. I am sure that working in partnership with businesses, community groups and councils, that they will come to it. As I said, stormwater is a large issue. We talk about working in partnership. I look now at the Californian Transit Authority. They are responsible for the roads and, of course, the stormwater drains on them, something like our departments here. Similarly, for the roads and streets that the council are involved with, so these partnerships can be done.
It says here that you can set an example for others, especially children, by picking up after yourself and not littering. Perhaps the council, as part of the Darwin Harbour management plan, should actually start enacting their anti-litter laws. Maybe that is something that the management group can work on, because it really does have a large effect on what goes into the harbour. Always carry a litter bag in your car, to make sure that you do not litter. If you smoke, do not just chuck your butt out the window, put it in a receptacle and get rid of it properly. Do not keep loose materials in truck beds. This applies to people heading off to the tip. If we can get an education campaign going to tie down your load, because all that blows off the road and it can end up in the stormwater, down the drain, untreated, into the river or creek and, eventually, out to the harbour. Make sure the rubbish is secured. Start clean up organisations in your area. Well, we have the Clean Up Australia Day. We had the great community example of the members for Millner and Johnston getting down with their local communities at Rapid Creek, and helping clean up.
Mr Wood: Not the terrible twosome!
Mr KIELY: Well, the great community-minded members that they are, they are in there working with their communities. You see, they are already practising this good harbour management. They are a shining light that we should all aspire to become, because this is the attitude that will help protect our harbours and maintain the lifestyle that we are so much yearning for. When we talk about funding, if all of us get in here and do our bit with small things like that, we will easily manage this problem and have a good harbour for the future years to come.
Mr Wood: And you will get in at the next election.
Mr KIELY: Thank you. Pardon me, Madam Speaker. Reducing the amounts of pollution going into our harbour from stormwater run-off will require action on a couple of fronts. We need to change behaviour, and this will firstly require education - people need to be better informed that the run-off from our roads and pavements eventually makes its way into our harbour. We then need to give people better options that will reduce contamination; for example, wash your car on the lawn instead of the driveway - very simple, very practical, but if everyone is doing that collectively, it will have a great impact.
Education will only go so far, and I hope the stormwater management strategy will also look at requiring improvements to the design of drainage of commercial establishments. Water drainage from areas that have the potential to receive contaminates need to be separated from clean areas, and the dirty water will then often need some sort of treatment. The requirements need to be practical and achievable. We already have strong pollution laws, but there is some room for specific requirements on stormwater that could be considered through the stormwater management strategy. Some basic requirements for commercial premises could be established; for example through designs standards, codes of practice, and guidance on materials used. That $100 000 is well spent for stormwater. Stormwater management is important; it is critical to the harbour and to managing it for future generations.
Contrary to what the opposition might have the public believe, I believe that we are in a phase of great development; we are on the cusp of quite a number developments. We will have the Lee Point subdivisions going in; more subdivisions developed in Palmerston; the developments around the suburban areas, not on the foreshore but inland; the developments at the airport area which will go onto Rapid Creek or around that vicinity and onto Ludmilla Creek. Therefore, the stormwater management is going to be critical. It is time now to start consulting with local government and looking at what we can do to put in better stormwater management, by putting in those traps ...
Mr Wood: That is not local government’s responsibility, that is NT government responsibility.
Mr KIELY: A working partnership - there will be areas where ...
Mr Wood: Well, maybe yes.
Mr KIELY: The member for Nelson says it is a Territory government responsibility and I accept that. However, I also say that it is everyone’s responsibility.
Mr Wood: I would agree.
Mr KIELY: I say that it is everyone’s responsibility, with government working in partnership with all other levels and with the people who will be living in these communities. We need to be acting on it now. We need to be making it as part of the overall strategic plan for Darwin, for preserving and, wherever possible ...
Mr Wood: Keeping industry out, thank you very much.
Mr KIELY: No, I do not quite agree with the member for Nelson ...
Mr Wood: You want it in the middle of the harbour, do you?
Mr KIELY: … on keeping industry out, we have to find a balance. We cannot just have a great lifestyle without earning the income from somewhere. But it has to be balanced development.
The minister’s statement also indicated that $55 000 has been allocated to undertake a systematic survey of the harbour region. This is great because, without data and information, you cannot make informed decisions about which are the future ways to go. Therefore, this in the first year is great funding. There is $30 000 of additional funding has been allocated to integrated environmental monitoring programs. Once more, we need this data. There has been a lot of data collected before; lots of work has gone on before.
The opposition seems to be fixated on: ‘You never give us credit for anything’. Well, none of us believe there was a big bang but, yes, the Labor Party came into government in 2001. That is fine, the CLP had it before. However, since self-government it has been the NT government. Political parties do not own governments. We might have the range to give it guidance for a certain period of time, but we do not own government, the people own government. I get a bit vexed when I hear them say: ‘It was our town; it was our Territory’. Well, it was not, it was the people’s Territory - has been, will be, will never change. Before self-government, the place was run by the Commonwealth and much of the infrastructure that we use now, comes from their day. Let us not try and claim this or that.
There was a lot of development under the CLP - a lot of good development. I will give credit to them for good development. There were a few crook decisions and they should accept that too. The same as we probably will not get everything right. But it is not a matter of tit for tat: ‘Oh, look what we did’. Fine, they can have it all. Anything before 2001, they were the political party in power and they made the decisions. I would have thought that was a given. I do not know why they want us to pat them on the back every time for anything before 2001. It is beyond me. It gets back to that ‘born to rule’ syndrome that they seem to be inflicted with at the moment.
Mr Wood: Back to the management plan.
Mr KIELY: Yes, back to the management plan. An additional $15 000 has been allocated to identify the significance of current gaps in scientific knowledge of the ecosystems, as well as another $15 000 development for harbour region communications and an education campaign. This is great funding.
There is an additional $120 000 allocated to support the roles of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Group, the ecosystem management group and the ecosystem research group and related functions. The minister has highlighted what these are. He also went on to say that they are from, and within, this additional $120 000 that will also enable us to get the establishment of an indigenous working group. Full credit to the member for Port Darwin for bringing this up in the House, to show that she is not as - I do not know what the words are - bitter and twisted - like the member for Goyder who is always trying to carry on some line that any money that goes for indigenous funding is somehow stealing the money out of the mouths of babes and should always be better spent elsewhere. He has real problems with any money that should ever find its way into an indigenous program.
However, this $120 000 is actually funding something like three or four groups. The indigenous working party fits within this group and helps inform the master body, so it is only one component of four or five different activities – let us get that right. As I said, the member for Port Darwin deserves credit where credit is due because she said that the harbour has been harvested by people since time immemorial. It is the local people who know about the longbums, the mud crabs, who can find their way through the mud, through the mangroves, who have an intimate knowledge, and who have been harvesting and utilising this resource for quite a long time. Well, wouldn’t we be mugs if we did not get them onside? If we did not get them in there? I reckon it is cheap – it is as cheap as chips!
Dr Burns: Did they go around in quad bikes?
Mr KIELY: Well, maybe that is the new indigenous lot. The member for Port Darwin seems to be about the only -well, she lives in the area, so she would know.
Ms Carter: Thank you.
Mr KIELY: I feel like I live there after that little trip that she took us on. However, let me say, the member for Goyder just cannot add anything positive at any time to any government initiatives. He would be better off out of any debate because he does not contribute. I do not know who he thinks he panders to with that sort of talk, because they are an informed bunch out there in Goyder land. They are informed. It is really beyond me what perverse satisfaction he gets out of running around saying: ‘$120 000 will enable indigenous groups to get bussed around on seafood picnic days’. It is utter rubbish.
A member: Dog whistling.
Mr KIELY: That is it. As Don Watson said ‘dog whistling’. Everyone is a wake-up to him. He ought to wake up to himself. The Leader of the Opposition ought to take him aside and have a couple of words with him. That would be a pretty handy way to do this. However, that is for them to resolve.
Mr Wood: Now back to the management plan.
Mr KIELY: I have never been off the management plan - never been off it because it is an important path. I only have a moment or two.
Once again, I would thank the minister and his department and the hard-working departmental people who got all this together. They have a good road ahead of them. It is a wonderful trip. We have heard the member for Port Darwin talk about how great the harbour is. She knows, she lives on it. I hope at 90 years she is down there with the old crusty things and having a swim around.
Ms Carter: I hope so too!
Mr KIELY: I am looking forward to it. I will probably be one of the relics down the bottom.
Once again, thanks to Mr Bailey and the work that he has put in. I look forward to seeing the work that he will do in the future. This whole plan has a long way to go. In years to come, whoever is in the government will say: ‘Yes, the NT government of the day served the people of the Territory well’. It does not matter whether it was CLP or ALP, as long as we get that harbour management plan right and save the harbour for generations to come.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, first, I commend all members for their contributions here tonight. I will have a bit to say about the member for Goyder but, generally speaking, the contributions have been very constructive.
We have heard about people’s love of the harbour – that is the only way you can say it – their attachment to the harbour and desire to protect it. That is very commendable. We have also heard, through the report, my statement and what some members opposite have said, that, to a large degree, the harbour is in very good shape in water quality and its ecosystem. That is very important.
The member for Nelson mentioned we went for a helicopter ride on Saturday. He raised a few issues with me and my predecessor about the harbour and development around it. There was another issue that we looked at while we were up there. It was good for me to get up there and have a look, and get a perspective of what is going on around the harbour. We all do that when we take off in planes from the airport, but we took a lower level view and panned, in a particular way, to look at developments around the harbour.
Whether you are in a helicopter or looking down from a plane going to X or Y, often I have thought there have been chunks taken out from the harbour. From the Japanese map from Tokyo that the member for Nelson showed, from those days to these days, there is no doubt there is a whole range of developments going on around the harbour from prawn farms to some of the light industrial he spoke about and some of the extractive industries that he pointed out to me. Of course, there are larger and significant developments like the LNG plant over at Wickham Point plus what has gone on around the harbour with the new port. You could go on and on.
I thought the member for Port Darwin’s approach was very good because she spoke about her electorate and recreational use of the harbour. She also spoke about people living around the harbour and enjoying the sights and sounds. I thought that was a very interesting way to go about it.
The point I am coming to is that I do not think, in truth, we can say that the harbour is pristine. It may have been pristine in the 1930s when that map was taken by the Japanese. We can honestly say it is a working harbour. There have been developments around that harbour for better or for worse. The member for Nelson spoke to me with some passion as we flew over the harbour about some of the extractive industries that have gone on at the other side of the bridge near Weddell, between Weddell and Wickham Point. It is a pock mark; it is a terrible area. I agree with the member for Nelson. It has been a travesty in the way development has been allowed to go on in that area. However, we have to accept the fact that the development has happened. Let us see how we can remediate that area. Let us make the best use of that area for the Northern Territory. As the member for Nelson knows, I have asked my department to go away and have a look at the cost of remediation and what sort of remediation might go on there.
The member for Nelson also pointed out to me some alternative plans for the development of light industrial areas in that corridor towards Glyde Point. I have taken on board the messages that the member for Nelson has given, and I have given him an undertaking that I will give them very serious consideration. It may take some time, member for Nelson, but I have taken your messages on board.
I am trying to give a balanced view of where our harbour is. What is incumbent on us now, as parliamentarians, as policy makers in the Northern Territory, is to ensure that what we have is safeguarded, and safeguarded well. That is where I commend the efforts of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee. They are a group that has burrowed in, canvassed the public opinions about the harbour, and have produced a very comprehensive report, which government has recognised.
I would like to emphasise that the funding that government has put forward to the Darwin Harbour Plan of Management has been on the basis of what was recommended and asked for, if you like, by the advisory group. We have shown a lot of respect and confidence in the advisory group. Some environmental groups have come out – and they got the figure wrong, it is $365 000 - and said: ‘Oh, it is not enough’. Well, I suppose you could invest millions upon millions of dollars, but I believe $365 000, in anyone’s language, is a substantial amount of money, and is a show of confidence in the group. In answer to that environmental group, I am not putting a value of $365 000 on the harbour. The harbour is worth a lot more than $365 000; you cannot quantify it. That is what I liked about the member for Millner’s contribution tonight. There was a family connection, a deep affection for the harbour, and experience that I respect.
I got the feeling that the member for Goyder had not really read the report. He was very eager to misread the $120 000 that is flagged in my report to go to the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee to support them in their work. The indigenous advisory group that he was referring to is a part - and a very important part, and I am not going to diminish it - of the overall work of that committee. However, for the member for Goyder to come in here and suggest that, somehow, government was giving $120 000 just to one group, is wrong. If he had read the report, he would have seen on the implementation plan, 4.9 through to 4.11 where, basically, it sets out the amounts of money. At the bottom of it, under the heading ‘Annual Funding Commitment’ it says:
In the next column it says, ‘$120 000 to $300 000’. If he goes up the page from there to see all the different components of that $120 000, it talks about establishing an indigenous working group, and about it being part of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee core business.
The member for Goyder has misrepresented and, once again, he is playing wedge politics. He seems to love doing this. Don Watson has been mentioned tonight, and I would like to quote something from his book, Recollections of a Bleeding Heart: A Portrait of Paul Keating PM, where he talked about Keating who, of course, really respected Jack Lang. Jack used to talk about people being a political, typical skyrocket, ‘the type who went off in a shower of sparks but fell like a dead stick to the ground’. The member for Goyder needs to think about that. He was touted as the next Chief Minister; he certainly came on the scene with a bright array of sparks - a talented young man who has a very successful law company and who is well known through his family, a well respected family in the Territory.
I say to the member for Goyder: wake up. Stop playing wedge politics because, otherwise, it takes a bit more than just having a whole lot of sparks to be successful in this game. It takes a bit of hard work, and a bit of statesman-like behaviour. I do not think the member for Goyder is acting particularly like a statesman. He is trying to fan all sorts of flames from embers of racism. It has been described as dog whistling. I will quote again from Don Watson’s book. It said:
We saw; we knew what was going on. We have seen what went on in that particular campaign with Pauline Hanson and what John Howard did. We know what dog whistling is and that the member for Goyder is engaging in it. Don Watson goes on to define part of dog whistling. He said:
So, just be careful member for Goyder. We know what you are on about. Get you facts right before you jump in. Try and be a bit more of a statesman and start working hard if you want to be successful in this place. It is not enough to be touted as the next Chief Minister, you have to work hard, get to know your shadow portfolios, and then you will get some respect in this place.
Mr Wood: Now, back to the management plan.
Dr BURNS: Well, what I had to say there was important, because there was a bit of politics being played with it. The member for Goyder really needs to be pulled up over this. The Opposition Leader, as the member for Sanderson said, needs to take him to one side and have a bit of a chat to him about it.
The member for Goyder talked about it being an election commitment – I am talking about the Darwin Harbour Plan of Management. Yes, it was; we drew together an election commitment. He and a number of speakers from the other side talked about the fact that the CLP, over a number of years, did have regard to the harbour and the health of the harbour. I am not going to dispute that. I am not going to say that anyone on the other side ever went out – I hope not – wilfully to destroy the harbour. However, it was the Labor Party in opposition that drew together a policy, that worked hard, and put it to the people. I know it had resonance with the electorate because, as I doorknocked, people would talk to me about their concerns about mangroves in Darwin Harbour. We went out there with a policy and people accepted it. We have followed through on our policy and had this exercise with the plan, and now we have funded it. Therefore, we are being true to our election commitment. That is very important to realise. Members opposite should really take that on board.
Once again, I am not going to get combative or rubbish what the opposition have done previously. The member for Daly mentioned that there was a report previously that was under NHT funding. I understand that was all about water quality, and that is a very important aspect of the harbour; I am not diminishing or decrying that. However, this particular report goes further. It looks at land uses, at other uses of the harbour, and at cultural and historic aspects as well. It is trying to look at the harbour, as the next step of engaging the community. That is a very important aspect that the opposition should be acknowledging. I certainly acknowledge that it is very important.
The member for Nelson talked about threats to the harbour - and threats to the harbour remain. He talked about some of the extractive industries and the need to be vigilant in the harbour, and I agree. There is going to be more and more pressure on land around the harbour and the uses of the harbour. I probably disagree with him that it is being totally industrialised. However, we need to be very careful in the future industrialisation of the harbour and the future uses of the harbour.
Member for Nelson, you talked about the mangroves and asked some questions about the figures that have been put forward. It was said in the statement that government has zoned over 90% of mangroves in the harbour as conservation. I am informed by my department and officers that the actual area is closer to 96% of the mangroves. The areas not zoned - and the member for Casuarina talked about this at some length when he was minister – are those areas that have already been committed to some development and are already cleared; for example, East Arm Port, Bayview Haven, and a small area at Middle Arm to bring gas onshore for the LNG. In relation to the figures that you asked, member for Nelson, of the 26 200 hectares of mangroves, 20 400 hectares are in Darwin Harbour and the additional 5800 hectares exist around Shoal Bay and Gunn Point. There are just over 1000 hectares not zoned as conservation and, as I have said, that area has already been developed or has been earmarked for development previous to the government bringing in its audit. I hope that answers your question, member for Nelson.
You raised the issue of Defence being represented on the advisory group. The answer to that is that all port users are represented through the Darwin Port Corporation on the committee and, as I said to the media today, I am sure the committee wants to work very closely with Defence and they will meet with Defence on a fairly regular basis. That is very important and, as minister, is something that I would want to see the committee doing. We are not trying to shut Defence out. We know that they are a very important component of our harbour. However, basically, I believe the representative group in the committee now is adequate and that Defence and the committee will work together.
The member for Brennan emphasised the legacy that had been left by the CLP of a good harbour, and I have already covered that. I just emphasise again that this government wanted to take it a step further, and we will be doing similarly with Bynoe Harbour in the near future, and that is very important. He asked a question about the indigenous working group and I have answered that. Just to point out to the member for Brennan, on page 4.8 it talks about the workings of that indigenous working group, and how it will provide advice to the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee. Those other groups that he mentioned are actually other subsets of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee. That is very important.
The minister for environment spoke with great passion about the need to be inclusive, not divisive. I have covered that already, and I thank her for her offering. I have covered the member for Daly’s offering where he talked about the previous report, and, if the election had not intervened, basically, they would have done the same thing. However, I am advised that the report he is talking about is fairly limited to water quality - an important aspect, but not the whole story. I have mentioned the member for Port Darwin. I thought she gave a very thoughtful and good offering here tonight. She obviously has a different perspective than the member for Nelson about marinas and possibly beaches, but that is a debate that we have to have as a community. The member for Sanderson, as ever thinking about the people of Sanderson, has a real concern about stormwater drains and the effect of stormwater on the harbour. His effort also was very thoughtful and he raised a very important issue.
In summary, I thank all members for their contribution. There was one thing that I forgot, that was missing from my statement, and that is the role of Charles Darwin University. I did mention the Australian Institute of Marine Science, but the Charles Darwin University, particularly Dr David Parry’s group, are already offering a lot in ecosystem analysis and monitoring. It is true that I have a licence to drive a truck, but I have also driven an atomic absorption spectrophotometer - a graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometer which measures the very heavy metals that we talked about here tonight ...
Mr Vatskalis: How fast did you drive that?
Dr BURNS: David Parry was kind enough to lend me his instrument, plus a few others to do this. I was not doing that sort of analysis.
However, I know he is a very talented scientist, and the people who work with him are very good scientists. I want to see Charles Darwin University integrally involved in monitoring the harbour because they have a lot to offer.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, once again, I thank the ongoing chairman for his effort. Everyone commended him, and it is good to see to bipartisan approach. The Darwin Harbour is very important to our Territory lifestyle. This is a government that is intent on protecting and enlarging our lifestyle and the Darwin Harbour is a jewel in that crown.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Tonight I want to talk about a visit I made to Alice Springs last week, and I acknowledge the assistance provided to me by the Office of Central Australia and my departmental officers. I was in Alice Springs for the week to take part in a number of seminars related specifically to my Mines and Energy portfolio, as well as meeting face-to-face with members of Central Australia’s pastoral industry. I also hosted a function for members of local ethnic communities and attended a wonderful Harmony Day celebration hosted by one of the local primary schools.
The Northern Territory’s Mineral Petroleum Exploration potential is huge and is gaining more and more national and international recognition. Intensive and sustained geological exploration is fundamental to new mining investments in the Northern Territory, and essential for sustained growth of the mining sector. Considering this, it is vital we attract as many companies as possible for the Territory and that is where AGES fits in. The Annual Geoscience Exploration Seminar was held in Alice Springs last week and I was pleased to address around 150 delegates at the formal dinner on Tuesday night. A big thank to the delegate who stood up and called out: ‘Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Greek, Greek, Greek!’. I really appreciated that.
This was fifth year the Northern Territory government has hosted this two-day seminar, and I am very pleased to say that every year it attracts more representatives from the exploration industry and related suppliers. Our Annual Geoscience Exploration Seminar is now firmly entrenched in the industry’s lexicon as AGES, is the centrepiece of the government’s strategy to communicate significant results arising out of our geoscience programs.
It provides explorers with the unique opportunity to network with colleagues including industry consultants, researchers, service suppliers and government officials who each share a keen interest in the discovery and development of the Territory’s mineral and petroleum resources.
I was very impressed by the comments I received from delegates attending the conference. Most delegates said that the Northern Territory was the only jurisdiction in Australia to provide information for free to explorers and miners. In one particular case, a delegate told me that he met representatives of the Mines Department of Western Australia at another conference in Queensland and told him that the Northern Territory was offering to him for free maps, information, data and everything. This delegate asked the WA official what he could offer, and the Director of the Department of Mines in Western Australia offered him a pen, and that was the only thing he got.
The response from all of delegates attending the conference was very positive. There were delegates from Western Australia, from the southern states, some representing Canadian and American companies seeking partners to explore mineral ores such as nickel and other ores in Central Australia.
At the end of the AGES, another important workshop was held for the many delegates gathered in Alice Springs. In a Territory first, the New Perspectives workshop, facilitated by Mr Bill Gray, examined and discussed the rights and obligations of the various parties engaged in consultation and negotiation in respect to exploration and mining on Aboriginal land, providing an opportunity for frank and open communication. The workshop was consistent with the Northern Territory government’s commitment to enhance relationships with indigenous Territorians and bring greater employment and social opportunities to the region.
I was also very pleased to officially open the inaugural Alice Springs business safety seminar hosted by the Northern Territory Minerals Council and the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce.
During my stay in Central Australia, I also met with the representative for the pastoral industry, hosting a meet and greet function at Madigans at the Alice Springs Desert Park.
While I do my very best to get around to as many properties as possible, unfortunately, the tyranny of distance and ministerial diary can make it very difficult. It was great to meet so many people in one visit to Alice Springs recently.
I also spent a day travelling to Ti Tree to have a look at the impressive horticultural operations there. I was taken for a tour of Territory Grapes and was very interested to learn more about that operation. I also had a look at the Ti Tree Research Farm to learn more about what they can grow out there. Let me tell you, I was really impressed. They can grow mangoes, grapes, citrus and herbs, but I was most impressed with the asparagus they were growing there. I have to admit, snapping asparagus fresh off the ground and munching them - they were very tasty and tender - I was very impressed.
Turning to my Ethnic Affairs portfolio, I was pleased to host a reception for around 70 members of local multicultural groups at Alice Springs Resort. For the first time, I met people who came from Peru, Spain, other Latin American countries and Puerto Rico. The ethnic community in Alice Springs is getting bigger and more diverse as time goes by. Of course, this was happening during Harmony Month, which has been celebrated around the country.
Another of my visits was to Ross Park Primary School. I was invited to take in a very special performance as part of Harmony Day celebrations. I was very pleased to see the students, teachers and about 50 to 60 parents participating in the Harmony Day celebrations. The local member was there and other members of parliament, because it was a very good opportunity to see these children presenting the Harmony Day concert without caring about the colour, accent or religion of the kid sitting next to them.
The school was given a Harmony Day grant to hire a tutor to teach a group of young boys a multicultural dance routine, which they proudly performed in front of their fellow students at the special assembly on Friday. I can say that it was a fantastic event and I was very proud to be there. A big congratulations to the teaching staff, to the young boys who danced, to the children, the parents and the principal of the school.
Other visits during my stay included the Core Store, the Arid Zone Research Institute, and the Territory Lettuce Farm, which is good to see in the Territory. It was impressive to see a hydroponic lettuce farm. They employ five or six people there in Alice Springs. Every four weeks, they produce about 75 000 head of lettuce, which is really impressive.
I take the opportunity to thank the Office of Central Australia and the officers of my various departments and those who kindly showed me their properties. Thank you very much for the hospitality. I look forward to going back to Central Australia in the next few months. I am already planning my annual road trip with my family mid-year. I have been invited to a number of pastoral properties to stay overnight. I will certainly do so. I am going to the Alice Springs Show and the Tennant Creek Show, and I am looking forward to the cattlemen’s dinner and dance in those two towns. It was a great week. They were long days, but I really enjoyed meeting and greeting people in Central Australia: pastoralists, horticulturalists, and people from the mining industry.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight in my adjournment speech I am going to return to where I was two nights ago when I ran out of time. I knew I would run out of time so I have split it over two nights. I talk about the issue of freedom of information and the health services.
As members will recall, about six months or so ago, the CLP opposition paid just over $2000 in order to access the documents that were prepared for the 1993 estimates hearings. They are documents which provide a significant amount of information with regard to how a department is faring - in this instance, the Department of Health and Community Services - and they are prepared by the public service to provide information to the minister as she answers questions put to her by the opposition. In the new system under the Martin Labor government, we are limited in time in each area in each department that we can quiz and, disappointingly, can often not get to all the areas in complex departments like the Department of Health and Community Services. It is my belief that, if I had had enough time, I would have covered many of the areas that these three folders refer to, and obtained the information.
It was quite obvious during the estimates process that the minister was referring to the written information, and was using that information in her answers. The information had been provided in a way that she could read the information. I do not have a problem with that, because the Department of Health and Community Services is a very complex department, and I do not believe anybody could be expected to know the detail that some of those questions were seeking.
However, it was very disappointing when the freedom of information legislation was used that, despite the payment of over $2000, we received 500 pages of documentation, but 200 pages of those were completely blank because it was deemed by the then minister and her staff that, for one reason or another, the taxpayers of the Northern Territory and the opposition who are their representatives, were not entitled to view that information about their health services. Of the 300 pages that were provided, a significant proportion of them had large areas blacked out; that is, censored. I am now going to take up where I left off two nights ago, and complete my comments on this disappointing situation.
I am referring now to page 50 of folder two. This section is headed, ‘Emergency Departments Waiting Times’. The excuses provided to not provide this information come from the Information Act, sections 52(1)(a), and 52(5)(a), (c) and (f). These sections of Labor’s freedom of information legislation allow the minister to withhold information for a number of excuses. I have already described - and the Hansard has it as a record - my views on section 52 (1)(a), so I am now going to section 52(5)(a). If the person who wrote the information is senior, and if that information is sensitive, that is a reason why, under the Information Act, we cannot get the information. Well, stump me! That excuse should prevent us from getting anything. Of course, for ‘sensitive’ read ‘bad news’. But, hey! This is our open and accountable Martin Labor government.
Section 52(5)(c), the reason is if the disclosure of the information will inhibit frankness in the future. Given that these documents were prepared to give the minister her script for the estimates meeting, once again, if I had had time to question in this area, there is a good chance this is what would have been read out - all of it. So why was the department and the then minister so coy?
Ah well, perhaps the answer lies in section 52(5)(f), the final excuse as to why we cannot have full access to information about waiting times in our emergency departments. Apparently, the minister does not have to provide the information under FOI if it will: ‘… lead to confusion and unnecessary debate …’. Good grief! The last thing we would want is the opposition getting information which will lead to ‘unnecessary debate’ about emergency waiting times.
These are just a few examples of how the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General’s freedom of information legislation he so glowingly introduced last year, is designed to stop Territorians from knowing how their money is being spent and their health services provided. The minister for Justice was happy to come out supporting these cuts to information by the previous Health minister. Indeed, the Northern Territory News reported, at the time when I went public in December about this, his comments with the headline: ‘FOI cuts backed’. I will table that article at the conclusion of my comments when I table a number of documents.
‘FOI cuts backed’ was the heading to the article, which went on to say:
And later:
Quoting him in the article:
Another quote from the minister:
The CLP has no problem with staff phone numbers and addresses being removed, but just a cursory examination of the files demonstrates that hundreds of pages of relevant information was denied. The minister was happy to spin on a technicality the phone numbers which admirably got the press off the scent, but he knows and I know that a huge amount of information was cut out. I bet in his heart of hearts he is squirming over this, because when he was in the Labor opposition team standing on the high moral ground, he dreamed of a Territory where there was this mythical beast he called freedom of information, but then when he went tripping over to the government side it all fell apart.
He will be now forced to defend the decisions of the paranoid, mortally wounded, previous Health minister. The more he becomes aware of the mess his new portfolio of Health is in, the more he will concur with her attempts to hide the truth from Territorians. Instead, the new Health minister should review the information Territorians, via their elected representatives currently in opposition, were denied by the previous minister. He should make a commitment today to review the situation and promise Territorians that he has the you-know-whats, unlike the previous minister, to make public the true story on what is going on in the department of Health.
He said when he was appointed Health Minister in December and I quote:
This offhand comment demonstrates that he knew that health was in trouble. It is a ‘problem’ to him and, yet, he supported the previous minister’s decision to hide from the opposition what is going on with the budget and the provision of services. We all know that Health is in trouble. That is why the previous minister was sacked. That is why the intent of the FOI legislation has been bastardised with all these exemptions - blank pages and blacking out. That is why extra money continues to be pumped into the Health budget. I note from the Treasurer’s mid-year report that the department has scored an extra $12m so far for 2003-04. Health and Community Services is in trouble. The new Minister for Health was appointed by the Chief Minister in the hope that he will be able to communicate ‘good news stories’ – that is Labor talk for ‘spin and keep Territorians ignorant for as long as possible’.
The new Minister for Health issued press release after press release accusing me of various crimes; for example, this week whingeing and whining about nursing numbers. I wonder if the Health Minister has spoken to the nurses on Ward 7B at Royal Darwin Hospital at the moment. I say if everything is so rosy, why hide it here in these blanked out and blacked out budget file pages? Minister, if you think all is going well, you need to get new advisors; if not, you will go the same way as your predecessor, and your FOI is a joke.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, Alcan Gove has launched a Yolngu Matha summary of the environmental impact statement in the local indigenous language of East Arnhem Land about the proposed refinery expansion. The 16-page report summarises the proposed expansion and potential impacts in both English and Yolngu Matha. The summary was translated in Yolngu Matha by Raymattja Marika, a well-respected educator and linguist from Yirrkala. Raymattja’s assistance with the project has been invaluable, not only because of her linguistic abilities, but her knowledge and sharing of cultural sensitivities and insights. It was a difficult time for Raymattja, as her late husband had guided and encouraged her through the process - and we pay tribute to the ‘Dhimurru man’, Mr Mununggurritj for his valuable contribution.
Raymattja continually liaised with the older women in the community so they had a clear understanding of the concept. The Yolngu people are already actively involved in the consultation process associated with the Alcan expansion proposals through the community reference group and various organisations. This document will provide even more participation in a consultative process and provide a better understanding for the indigenous community.
Alcan welcomed the federal government’s decision to grant major project facilitation status to three NT resource projects including the proposed expansion of the Gove facility, the trans-Territory pipeline and the Blacktip gas project. Being granted MPF status marks another important milestone in the proposed Gove expansion project, and reinforces Alcan’s long-term position in Australia.
Alcan Gove signed Heads of Agreement for natural gas supply with the Blacktip gas project participants in June 2003. The agreement provides key commercial terms for a natural gas supply project that includes development of the natural gas resource in the remote Joseph Bonaparte Gulf. Pursuing these developments will provide significant environment and community benefits.
My congratulations go to Nhulunbuy Aboriginal Community Police Officer, Trish Groth, who was awarded the Administrator’s Medal Aboriginal Community Police Officers Administrators Award for Service and Dedication to the Communities of East Arnhem Land. Trish has been particularly involved in Blue Light Discos in Arnhem Land communities. An active sportsperson in Nhulunbuy as well, her enthusiasm and energy has been well rewarded.
Federal Leader of the Opposition, Mark Latham, dropped into Nhulunbuy a few weeks ago to familiarise himself with the region. He met with a cross-section of the community, responded to a number of questions in relation to refugees, taxation, petrol sniffing and superannuation that were well received and appreciated. Mr Latham gave credence to the healthy industrial relations environment existing within Alcan and the region. The Yirrkala community welcome the federal Opposition Leader in their traditional way.
He visited the Yirrkala Community Education Centre, the Buku’Larrngay Arts Centre and was given a special ceremonial presentation about the historic church paintings and their traditional significance. Mr Latham said the visit confirmed the importance of developing strong indigenous policies and I thank all those involved in the organisation of his visit.
The Harmony Djamamirri Mala has appointed Mr John Cook to the coordinator’s position. I welcome his appointment as we move closer to the substance abuse care centre being constructed. Alcan has offered to go ahead with the infrastructure, and the Yirrkala Dhanbul Community Council has offered their assistance in the construction phase. Three working party groups have been formed: construction group; core committee group; and operational group to consolidate the process.
Over the past nine weeks since the start of the 2004 school year, I have visited 13 schools and, in addition, had the pleasure of again meeting with the three Kalkarindji students - Leanne Brown, Meshach Paddy and Rhonda Rankin - in launching From little things, big things grow, a documentary of their successful completion of their Year 12 studies at Kalkarindji. I thank my colleague the Attorney-General, who represented me at the original presentation of their certificates.
The first of my visits was to the education facility at Don Dale Juvenile Detention Centre, a small facility in numbers, but one that fulfills an important function. Given the students’ attendance rates are high, it is a good opportunity for young people to pick up additional skills that may benefit them once they leave the centre. There may be some duplication of effort between DEET and Corrections, and I have asked both departments to liaise with one another to see if there is a more streamlined approach to providing that educational service at Don Dale.
Early in February, I visited Malak Primary School and launched the provision of $1m for supply of furniture and equipment across all schools in the Northern Territory. During school visits over the past two-and-a-half years, I have been made well aware of the need to update school furniture and the difficulties schools have in raising funds to update or replace broken equipment such as photocopiers. I hope to be able to make such funding recurrent, as the need to keep schools well equipped with modern facilities and decent furniture is a fundamental component of a quality education service.
I visited Manunda Terrace and was most impressed with the Strong Men, Strong Models program. The school has gone to extraordinary lengths to involve the community in this program, based on young men taking classes that are geared to building self-confidence and self-esteem amongst students. All the men who work in the school have strong associations with local families and sporting organisations in Darwin, and they are excellent role models for the youngsters in the school. It was particularly pleasing to see men involved in the business of the school, given the level of debate this issue has generated recently. This program is having a very positive effect on attendance rates and literacy and numeracy outcomes at Manunda Terrace.
Late in February, I had the pleasure of attending a special ceremony at Kormilda College. A number of World War II diggers, part of 2 Heavy Anti-Aircraft Battery based at what is now Kormilda, travelled on The Ghan to Darwin to be part of the remembrance of the Bombing of Darwin. The ceremony was about the hand over of their treasured banner to the safekeeping of Kormilda College. In their speeches, the veterans recounted interesting, shocking and humorous anecdotes of their efforts in fighting off the invading enemy.
In early March, I visited Ludmilla Primary School, a small but very busy school, and was able to witness the accelerated literacy program in action. The program is producing excellent results. Also having success if the Ludmilla Alternative Pathways program, which links 15 students with Nightcliff High School and focusses on re-entry to mainstream high school and the development of interpersonal skills that will increase opportunities for employment. I want to thank the Principal, Marg Fenbury, chair of the school council, Bernie Davies, students Thomas Madrill and Jessica Heffer, ASSPA member Sabina Holmes, indigenous education workers May Thorne, Ingrid Clarke, Damien Zammit and Chris Lewis, teachers and students for making that both an enjoyable and informative visit.
I also visited St Paul’s school in Nightcliff, a small family-centred school with a long history in Catholic education. St Paul’s opened in February 1967, was extensively damaged by Cyclone Tracy, and rebuilt and reopened in 1976. Today it is an attractive and well-equipped school with airconditioned classrooms, library and computer laboratory.
During Community Cabinet in Palmerston, I was able to visit three schools - Palmerston High, Sacred Heart and Bakewell. At Bakewell, the addition of a final demountable building is nearing completion. I am pleased with the quality of these facilities and much effort has gone into ensuring that they do blend with the rest of the school infrastructure. The process of keeping pace with population growth in areas like Bakewell can be demanding on schools. In all, I am satisfied that, in responding to the increase in student numbers at Bakewell, DEET has been able to provide the necessary facilities.
Palmerston High School is also operating at near capacity. It was a good opportunity to discuss, first-hand, the implications of a new senior secondary facility at Palmerston. Given that over 500 students travel daily to Darwin, I am confident that a new senior secondary facility will service well the needs of the Palmerston community.
The 2004 school year did get off to a great start, with the lowest number of teacher vacancies at the beginning of the year for as long as anyone can remember. I want to compliment all school personnel I met during my visits for the enthusiasm they bring to their work and their continuing commitment to students. I thank them for their hospitality. I look forward to continuing my visits to Northern Territory schools over the course of 2004.
I want to pay a tribute and a thanks, on behalf of both this government and the previous government, for the efforts of one Mick Stumbles, a long-serving employee of our Territory Insurance Office, who has announced he is retiring. Unbelievable! There are some things you think will never happen. Of course, he is a well-known and noted Fannie Bay race caller, but I imagine that side of his activities would continue. However, our thanks, and I include the previous government. I know they appreciated his efforts as a long-serving employee with our Territory Insurance Office.
I was pleased to report that, at dinner in the Speaker’s Office, at three-quarter time the Territory Under-16 Thunder - AFL team of course - was holding Scotch College, the private school boys from Melbourne, well at bay at six goals straight, 36, to four goals four, 28. They had led all night, so I was quite confident that they would see it through. But, the final score was Scotch College five, eight, 38 over Territory Thunder six, one, 37. So, it was just that one point. They kicked one, four in the last quarter, obviously, to just one point. Well done to the boys. They do not come better than Scotch College. They are a great feeder for young footballers into the national AFL ranks. For the young Territory fellows to hold them to just a point is an outstanding effort, albeit that it was at home at Marrara. Next time, I am sure they will get them.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I should have been umpiring them.
Mr STIRLING: We would have got them up!
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I discuss an issue which is of some concern. The Mtis review into the fire service truly is one of the most extraordinary reviews I have ever read of any government department. Any review which starts in the first few pages with the line, ‘This is a very sick organisation’, clearly is a review which is not going to pull any punches. Indeed, it has not and, to the minister’s credit, he has come into this Chamber and said: ‘This is an honest open review, and we take it on the chin, and accept everything that is said in it as being correct’. It is all very good the way the minister has dealt with this, in spite of the fact of the furphies that they put out in relation to the departure of Darryl Pepper. I raised that issue in the parliament the other night, and I am not going to go any further about it, other than the fact that the minister has no credibility in relation to the arguments that he puts.
However, there is one aspect that I am a little concerned about, that the good minister – God bless his cotton socks - has dedicated an extra $2.6m to the fire service to fix this problem. Curiously, the figure that I come up with - if you look at Table 8 on page 105 of that review - is that Table 8 is entitled ‘Estimated Financial Impact of Implementing Recommendations’. If you add them up, it gets you quite close to the figure of $2.6m – it is a smidgeon more. I presume that is where the minister is getting his $2.6m from. Note one is that that is $2.6m over a period of four years, so it is not what you would call a major spend.
The Mtis review, in its various criticisms, is nothing shy of astonishing in its criticisms in relation to training. It is worth quoting from the report. It is a fairly lengthy quote, but is worth quoting from page 52 of the report:
That is the training division:
Indeed, I would concur it is seriously unsatisfactory that an operational fire vehicle has to be taken off-line so it can be used to train fire service officers. I will go on to quote from the report, the third paragraph on page 52:
It is interesting to note that the average time spent in training last year for a fire service officer was less than one day - 7.3 hours. I said 7.2 the other night. That was incorrect; it is 7.3 hours, which means that these people in whose hands we place our lives and our trust, have received 7.3 hours training in the last 12 months per person - not entirely adequate. However, I ask members to remember the issue about taking a fire truck off-line for the purposes of training.
I have gone through Table 8, where the $2.6m commitment has come from. The areas in relation to the measures of expenditure deal with leadership and management, openness and accountability, merit from the top down, and building strength. Then there are subcategories which apply. Those subcategories in relation to leadership and management do nothing about the purchase of minor capital items; openness and accountability, community advisory councils, and portfolio arrangements - nothing to do with the purchase of minor capital items; introduction of performance management systems - nothing to do with minor capital items; entrenched merit principal and multilevel entry - once again, no minor capital items; specialist expertise in training strategy - no mention of minor capital items there; specialist expertise in OHS and IR; and industrial relations, it goes on to point out, with subcategories of culture and training.
The issue here is, if this is where the $2.6m has come from and there is no evidence of any further minor capital items expenditure recommended by this review, and there is no other identifiable source of funds available for the purpose of minor capital items, I ask the minister this simple question: where is he going to get the money from for the new fire truck? That is the fire truck in which our fire officers are going to learn how to drive in an urgent manner; the fire truck which is required by this review for the purposes of training our fire officers. There is no money for it. The government has certainly committed no new money for it. I have no evidence of it being funded in any way and, yet, the report quite rightly points it out to be a totally unsatisfactory condition. I urge the minister in the strongest possible terms to come in here, make a commitment that they are going to purchase the fire truck for the purposes of training, so that on-line vehicles can stay on-line and continue to protect the community in a way that is entirely proper.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a situation that has occurred in Katherine over the last two months, mainly since the 22 December. As members of this House would be well aware, in 1998 Katherine was inundated with water to the point that the whole main area of the town was under water which caused a lot of damage. Most of the time, we have been gauging the water level of the river to ascertain whether we need to start panicking or not.
On 22 December last year, the river was at 16 m, so nobody was terribly perturbed about the threat of a flood. However, I had a phone call from a business called Hobbit Auto Electrics on the corner of Bicentennial Road and Victoria Highway in Katherine, sounding very distressed and asking me to come and have a look because he had water through his shed. I travelled down and was quite shocked to see the amount of water through his shed, and tried to work out where the heck it had come from, considering we had no water coming out of the river. As a result of a lot of heavy flooding at the Tindal RAAF Base, and also coming off the Tindal airport, and also extensive rains falling over Katherine town itself - nothing to do with the escarpments above Katherine or in Katherine Gorge – we have had this absolutely unprecedented amount of water trying to get out from one outlet in Katherine into the river. It has come from two areas into this one outlet.
We thought that this was just a freak incident on 22 December. Since that time, that particular business has been under water six times to this date, and at no time was the Katherine River anywhere near to the top where it presented a danger. The highest it reached was 16 m. In Katherine we are now presented with another challenge: where is this water coming from; how can we get rid of it; and what are we going to do in the future? I was going down to talk to Dave Bretherton at Hobbit Auto Electrics and he was ringing me quite regularly.
Apart from that, we also started to get an accumulation of water on the Victoria Highway in the area between Victoria Highway and the showgrounds where we have a very deep drain running through the town. It comes from a place near Knotts Crossing - not the resort, but Knotts Crossing itself - and it goes around the back of the town and passes the showgrounds, goes under Bicentennial Road and joins Tindal Creek. All of this water could not get away because it was actually joining into the water that was coming in from Tindal Creek, forming quite a lake and backing up.
By the time Hobbit Auto Electrics had been under water three times, we started to have quite an ocean opposite the tourist park that my husband owns – and in which I still have a share. It was quite interesting going to work in the morning and discovering an ocean on the other side of the road. At no time did I feel, at that stage, at all threatened.
On 3 March, Hobbit Auto Electrics was under water again. I went down to have a look at what was happening with his business and, by this stage, he was becoming quite distressed, as you can imagine. As well as the auto electric business, he has Top End Hire Service operating from the same area and he also offloads vehicles from road transports. He lives there. He has a nice brick office block that has not been there very long, and he and his family live upstairs. Not only did he have water through his premises, but through his office. The only way he could get out was to walk knee-deep to a canoe. We had these major issues with floodwater.
On 3 March, I went to visit some seniors at a meeting. I came out of that meeting from Riverview Barra Caf and was standing talking to the Elders stock agents who were getting a bit concerned about the amount of water lying around. While I was talking to them, three areas on Victoria Highway had water coming across them. I said a few expletives and got in my car and started to head back down Victoria Highway to discover that I could not get back into Harrod Street or Bernard Street at all in a standard vehicle, in the space of a half an hour. The water was gurgling out of the drains, coming across the road and presenting quite a problem. Just to add to that - and not to go into that too much - the premises of Red Gum Tourist Park and the units on the west side were inundated with water. It was not terribly long before we vacated the park and that meant me going to help as well because it was starting to become a bit threatening.
By the time night fell, the cabins were under water, some of them by two feet, and the rest of them graduating down to about a foot. During the night, there was water through the shop. It was also underneath the units next to us, in the grounds of the two churches further up the road, through the premises of Jalyn Ford and through some work premises behind there where gear is stored. What it presented us with was an entirely different situation from the 1998 floods. We now had water coming from nowhere near where we would have expected it to have been a problem.
I spoke to Pancho from the Katherine Town Council. We did several tours, looking at the areas where this water was coming from. He had been addressing the problem of the drains with Katherine Town Council and Transport and Works as it then was, from 1995. Katherine Town Council owns the drain that comes through the town and the NT government owns the drain that comes Tindal, which has not been a problem until this year. At the time of the first inundation of water on 22 December, all of a sudden, there was water going through all the offices of the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries Research Station, so they were not very happy chappies either.
There was such a volume of water coming in from Tindal that no drain that is there could possibly cope with it. The culverts that are under the Stuart Highway were unable to cope with it at all. What we have had is an erosion on the side of the highway going south of Katherine and, as the water came underneath that culvert, inundation of five houses on Collins Road. As it continued through, it picked up some mahogany trunks that were stored on another property and carted those away as well. We ended up with a big mess.
Well, we have had a clean-up, and Hobbit have cleaned up six times. I have had a really good look at what is happening around Katherine. I need to make it very clear that there is not anybody to blame; I am not blaming anybody. However, we have a situation that could reoccur over the next few years. We only need to have the same rainfalls that we have had this year, and we are going to have the same problem.
I would like very much to thank the minister for planning, who came to Katherine on 4 March to have a look at the areas that have been inundated. He visited all the areas and listened intently to what we had to say. He did make a commitment to Hobbit Auto Electrics that he would look into their situation especially, as they are in dire straits. I believe some gentlemen from his department have also visited Hobbit Auto Electrics in the last two weeks, to discuss what could happen to his business.
However, what I needed to explain to his House is that the situation that has happened in Katherine is entirely different to what happened at the time of the flood. We have drains in Katherine, and coming from Tindal, that are totally incapable of coping with the amount of water that we have had this year. The houses that are on Collins Road have also been unable to use any of their drainage systems at all - no toilets or showers, as the minister for planning knows. Those people have been terribly inconvenienced, and have been extremely patient. I believe that it is an issue that together, the Katherine Town Council, the Northern Territory government and the federal government, need to work towards addressing in this Dry Season, because there is a lot of unrest and people are very concerned about it. We would be very happy to work cooperatively with the three areas of government.
I also mention that one of the people who has been inundated with water this year, had absolutely nothing to do with the water coming from Tindal - absolutely nothing at all. This the Mayor, Jim Forscutt and his wife, Jan, who live on Uralla Road. They had a puddle of water in the middle of a paddock in December that developed into a lake that, at one stage, was over a metre deep through their house. Their house and sheds were sitting in a metre of water for well over five weeks, and it had nothing to do with the drainage coming from Tindal.
We have some major problems around Katherine, with sink holes being absolutely chockers, and spurting water back out of the ground, as the aquifer is full. I bring to this Assembly’s attention the issues that we have around Katherine, and I ask that they be addressed in this Dry Season so that businesses can be reassured that, next year, we can look forward to the Wet coming - because we all enjoy the rain - without being very apprehensive about the end result.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I recently hosted talks with the Northern Territory soccer community in relation to the implementation of the independent review of their operations, and also to see how they were faring with the implementation of the Crawford inquiry recommendations.
Soccer is, without doubt, one of Australia’s most popular sports. I was particularly pleased to read in the NT News, on 25 March, statements by Mr Frank Lowy of the Australian Soccer Association, who was enthused with what is happening with soccer in the Northern Territory. There is a thought that a Territory side will be able to participate in the new Australian Premier League within two or three years. This not only provides added incentive to local soccer, but would foster strong links into Asia. I look forward to discussing these ideals with the Australian Soccer Association further when they visit the Top End in the next couple of months.
Members may recall my announcement of the three-point plan to progress soccer in the Northern Territory late in 2003. Point one of the plan, an independent review, was conducted. I would like to thank the members of the independent review board: the chair Mr Iain Sommers, former NT Auditor-General; Ms Kate Costello, lawyer and member of the Crawford Review into Australian Soccer; and Mr Roger Bottrall, Deputy CEO of the Alice Springs Town Council. The board did an outstanding job of the review. It is a thorough document that outlines the pathway forward to soccer in the Northern Territory. It applies strict time lines to achieve a successful and unified future for the sport.
In particular, the review notes a decline at the senior level, despite popularity at the junior level and in every region. Soccer clearly has to embrace a completely new approach in many areas of its operations, including governance, and work hard to provide pathways for juniors, women, indigenous participants, and include regional players in its representation and planning. The review goes as far as to set targets with 630 senior players required by the 30 June 2006. That equates to double the current level and would mean a 35% ratio of seniors to juniors, which is about where other comparable sports sit.
As I said in the media recently, there will be no free ride for soccer. Support from this government is conditional on the implementation of the recommendations of the review. Soccer has a lot of hard work between now and the end of the year. On 11 March, I met with Northern Territory Soccer representatives and presented them with the copy of the independent review. At that meeting, I requested the Northern Territory Soccer Federation, as the peak body, report back to me on 29 March with the formal response to the review. At this meeting, the soccer community demonstrated willingness to apply themselves to the difficult and ongoing work that is crucial to the future development of soccer in the Northern Territory. They presented a formal document that responded to each recommendation and noted their progress to date. Among other things, they indicated current work on a third division for the men’s competition this year and plans for a fourth division next year, in addition to a second division for the women’s competition.
It is crucial that we see local associations coming together to work under the one umbrella, and this appears to be happening. This outcome is the result of loads of planning, negotiation, and hard work by all parties. This level of cooperation and hard work needs to continue. This is a positive start to the reformation process, and I urge soccer to continue to adopt the recommendations and meet the time lines.
This government clearly demonstrated, through the second point of my plan for soccer, a commitment by announcing the expenditure of $500 000 to improve junior soccer venues. This process is well advanced and we should be seeing some exciting announcements in this area soon.
The third point of my plan, the international standard, government-owned stadium continues to be conditional on the implementation of the review findings. Soccer is required under the time lines in the review document to seek formal approval for the commencement of the two pitch soccer stadium at the Marrara sporting precinct in June 2004. At that time, the Northern Territory Soccer Federation will need to formally report against the recommendation and time lines in the review. The Northern Territory Soccer Federation is aware these time lines and are working hard to meet them, and they are confident they will meet them. That, in itself, is great views. Going forward together and working hard to implement the recommendations is a credit to Northern Territory soccer. We have seen the problems with the sport nationally, and we all continue to work together to get better outcomes for the sport of soccer in the Northern Territory.
On Thursday, 19 February 2004, the NT government held a reception for the Essendon and Fremantle AFL Clubs which were visiting the Northern Territory as part of the Wizard Cup. What a match that was, with Justin Murphy getting Essendon home in front of over 13 000 people at Marrara Oval.
On that same night, the NT government also acknowledged a very important milestone of the Long brothers – and may I include their father, Jack Long – and their family’s contribution to football in the Northern Territory, through their beloved St Mary’s Football Club. A total of 400 people attended the function. I would like, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, to read out the speech made by Michael Long at the reception, and I quote:
Whom Michael referred to as a very great Australian – Big Kev who he also said in warm platitudes is always welcome around the Long campfire. He went on:
I would argue, Mr Deputy Speaker, that records have been lost, but Jack Long would have played in what I would have seen, at least 150 to 200 games because he played Aussie Rules up until he was 40 years of age. A very outstanding competitor.
Michael went on and said:
While I have a couple of minutes left, I would like to talk about and pay tribute to a remarkable man, Joachim Hill, Kim Hill Senior, also known as Kim Boy, Putuck or Punkulupu. We lost him on 10 February this year. If you had a chance to meet this fine, generous, lovable gentleman, he made an impression on you that will stay in your heart and mind forever.
I would like to acknowledge Kim Senior’s family members: his beloved mother, Nora Gangal, deceased, from the Yarralin community who was apparently a sister to the great fighter for lands right, Vincent Lingiari; his father, George Man Fong, who is also deceased; his wife, Jane, who passed away in 1985; Kim’s children Kim Junior who is now the Top End ATSIC Commissioner, Robert, Kenny, Joseph, Dennis, who is deceased, and Shaun; his beloved sisters Sandra, Anne, Carol, Fiona and Barbie; his grandchildren, whom he adored, Tameka, Dennis, Jaylene, Rachel, Jane, Anthony, Yasmine, Jordan, Talihana, Wayne and Michael. Kim was also beloved father-in-law of Tania, Kim, Sandrine and Kristy; brother-in-law of Wayne, Russell and Desmond. I would also like to acknowledge Kim’s nephews and nieces: Shannon, Christopher, Tyrrell, Braydon, Dwayne, Kevin, Teegan, Cindy, Keely, Tynisha and Courtney.
Acknowledgements must also go to Father Steve Fletcher, who was the celebrant at the funeral at St Mary’s Star of the Sea Cathedral, along with Deacon Peter Brogan and our very own famous Bishop Collins. The funeral was held on 20 February 2004. The Garden Point Association, ably led by Cherry McLennan and all those helpers who grew up with Kim on Melville Island should be congratulated for doing a wonderful job in assisting the Hill families and their friends and relatives to ensure that he was given a wonderful send off.
Kim Hill Senior was baptised at Garden Point Mission on 17 December 1949 at six years of age. His godfather, Henry Hunter, was a Tiwi/Iwaidja man who took on the responsibility of care and assisted Kim throughout his young life. Kim was adopted into the Hunter family and this relationship was to have a big influence throughout his life. He also, might I add, spoke highly of and was looked after by the Brogan family, the Long family, as I mentioned earlier, and the Dunn family because he looked up to them as elders, older brothers or uncles, teachers of Aboriginal culture and especially the skills that he needed to know and understand to be able to hunt and forage like a true bushman.
He became a passionate hunter and fisherman and his skills never left him or his family hungry. He was taught to spear fish, to hunt magpie geese, to spear turtle, and to spear dugong.
I will go to the Order of Service from the funeral ceremony at St Mary’s Cathedral, and some of the beautiful things that people said about him, I would like to quote. This came from the Hunter family:
They went on and said in one of the paragraphs:
Over the next page, Mum Lee, the wife of Mitch Lee and their family said:
It goes on to Mitchell Lee who, as part of the Lee family, was very close to Kim. His daughter, Melanie said of her feelings of her beloved uncle Kim:
Mitchell also said:
I could go on and on. I wanted to finish by reading a contribution made by my family:
Kim Hill, nyirmbangi, rest in peace, Bundjie.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, before I make my contribution, I would like to say that not often do you listen intently and appreciate the words that are said in adjournment speeches. However, I am on the record saying on a number of occasions in the past that I have always enjoyed the member for Arnhem when he speaks in this Assembly because I always think that - not consistently, because he is sometimes abusive and belittles himself - on most occasions it is always instructive to hear him speak, and tonight was one of those occasions. I appreciate it. I certainly was not given the opportunity – I do not say that in an disparaging way – to be there to hear the speech by Michael Long, so I appreciate the fact that the minister gave us his words tonight because they were wonderful words to hear. It must have been a wonderful function to attend and hear that history and see how those individuals have developed, and the gratitude they have for those who have supported and surrounded them over many years.
Also, I will take the opportunity tonight to say that, when it comes to soccer in the Northern Territory, I applaud the minister. He has done a very good job - excellent job in fact - in bringing together the disparate organisations in soccer. It is not an easy task in anyone’s estimation. His strategy was good and his outcome was even better. Even above politics, as he alluded to tonight, the way that soccer is moving in Australia, particularly with the wise decision by Lowy to employ O’Neil from ARU, I reckon this is a real monolith to be reckoned with. The natural subliminal support for soccer, with the right organisation, is going to really come to the fore in Australia. Certainly through the minister’s efforts, I believe the Territory is going to be very well positioned for that. The commitment to build a soccer facility is an ongoing commitment. We will, given the opportunity, support and enhance that. In a general sense, the minister is doing a very good job, particularly in sport and recreation. Everyone applauds that. We can all talk about our differences in politics, but I talk to people on the ground, and you are well respected, minister.
Mr Ah Kit: Thank you.
Mr BURKE: You are well respected for your efforts and that is an accolade to anyone. So, thank you for your comments tonight.
I raised a question in Question Time today. I am sorry I did not get an answer because it was an important question about the cash in the capital works program. There is a log jam in cash that is getting out to the business community, those that particularly have period contracts with government or, in fact, are competing for contracts with government. I know the Minister for Business and Industry is concerned on this issue. It may be a perception; it may be wrong. However, I was not comforted by the fact that the minister said that he reckoned we will be within $1m of the program. If that is true, I would encourage him to get that information out there because we are in the last quarter of the budget period, and he should know how much of the cash program has been spent in the areas that I detailed. I would encourage him to get that out there.
I do not want to play politics with it because, if it is a good story, let us tell the true story. If it is not a story that the minister wants to tell us I, of course, will be making sure that people know that the government is hiding from them the fact that they will not reveal how much of that cash program has actually been spent in the community. That perception, if it is right, needs to be addressed; if it is wrong, it needs to be put to bed and put to bed quickly. That was the purpose of my question.
The other reason I wanted to speak tonight is that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure and planning has been congratulating himself on the efforts that he made in dealing with the planning scheme in stopping R3 zoned development areas to go to four storey without his particular consent. When it comes to R3 that adjoins R1, he has put an interim order in to ensure that there were no four-storey developments in that area, which is good and fine; that is his decision. We can quibble about whether or not that really accords with the planning scheme, but that is a decision the government has made, and that is something that they will have to convince the electorate of in terms of their bona fides.
I have a particular interest in Palmerston, and I alert the minister to it. I do not ask the minister to intervene, I simply alert him to the fact that, in Palmerston, there is a development proposal before the Development Consent Authority with regards to Lots 4506 and 4509 in Wright Crescent in Gray. It will be an issue that will gain momentum. It involves the proposed development of 100 two-bedroom units including car parking. The 100 two-bedroom units will be in a 40 by two-storey development on R2 land in Palmerston, at Wright Crescent, Gray. Wright Crescent in Gray is in an area of Palmerston behind the Gray shopping centre in my electorate and adjoining the Gray Primary School which is an area that has had a lot of antisocial problems over many years - antisocial problems, I would suggest to you, compounded by Housing Commission houses with irresponsible tenants and also Housing Commission units with antisocial tenants; a very big problem in that particular area.
The issue with this particular R2 development is this, in my mind. Firstly, the area was owned by the Housing Commission and zoned R2 for Housing Commission development. There are two developments there which are Lots 4508 and 4509 as I recall. Those were developed by the CLP government. In fact, Madam Speaker, you may have been the minister at the time, I cannot recall precisely. However, those two particular developments were developed for residential accommodation for elderly people in Palmerston. The remainder of the R2 land owned by the Housing Commission was not developed. The government changed and the R2 land was sold off to the private sector. The private sector now has R2 land from the government and proposes to put in this 100 two-bedroom unit development. The question I would ask philosophically is this: why did the Housing Commission sell off that land? Prior to the land being sold off, the land was in the control of the government. It might have been zoned R2 in the planning scheme, but it was in the control of the government regarding what sort of development would occur there. Certainly, the bona fides of the government up until the land was sold were clear in that the development that was in that area was single storey residential for elderly Territorians. There are two developments there that are very good developments and the people who live there are very happy.
Now we find that the Housing Commission has sold off this land, without rezoning it, and a private developer has come in and proposes to develop this land with a double storey, 100-unit development because it is R2 land. Of course, he is entitled to do that under the planning scheme. I believe there is a problem there. On the one hand, I support the planning scheme, and on the other hand, you have to say to yourself: why did the government sell this land off without recognising that the zoning of that land allowed for two-storey development?
If it was anywhere else, you would probably say: ‘Okay, let us look at whether or not there is a real impact on the community’. However, this development is just wrong in every respect. The total area of the site is 22 750 m2 or 2.28 hectares and, in a D2 zone, the area of the site required for 100 units is 26 000 m2 or 2.6 hectares; so the development proposed exceeds the minimum density by 15% or 3250 m2. Therefore, the developer, of course, is seeking a waiver to allow increased density. The set back requirements are 5 m from the rear boundary and, of course, they are seeking a waiver to 4 m. There is one 6 m road that goes right through the development to accommodate all of these 100 units, and 150 car spaces that the developer believes is fair and reasonable. Whilst it states that there will be three swimming pools and sufficient amenity in the two-storey development, the area that is put aside for amenity is insufficient in terms of the planning scheme. Frankly, I have little confidence in that, as this is a development proposed in stages, and very quickly these swimming pools tend to disappear after you get past Stage 1.
If the government truly understood the issues in Palmerston regarding Wright Crescent, Essington Avenue, the Gray shopping centre, the Gray Primary School and the adjoining streets, where there are really difficult problems with antisocial behaviour and density of living in Housing Commission accommodation, in particular, then to allow this sort of development to go ahead is madness.
I certainly will do everything I can to ensure that the development is sympathetic with developments that are already in place; that is, the government owns and develops the land as R2 and, in developing the land as R2, develop it as single storey for elderly residents. Any further development certainly needs to be sympathetic with the previous developments and definitely not two storey.
I alert the minister to that. I do not ask him to intervene directly, but I ask him to recognise that the time for objection is quickly running out. The people who can object cannot get themselves organised quickly. There is a petition circulating and I will do whatever I can to assist them. However, I imagine that the Development Consent Authority will not allow this development to proceed in the short term. Knowing that, I imagine that to accord with the planning scheme, they will quickly get the density levels down to abide with the maximum of R2. That certainly will not solve the problem, but will probably satisfy the DCA.
I ask the minister to take a direct interest in the issue and to assist me in trying to ensure that, unless there is a single-storey development there, we do not want it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak about some outstanding achievers in my electorate. Corrine Warhurst, Jabiru Town Council Sport and Recreation Officer, is a finalist in the prestigious 2004 Northern Territory Sports Awards. Mrs Warhurst is recognised as an outstanding sports administrator but, typically, does not take the credit for herself. She says sport in Jabiru is alive and well, not just because of her efforts, but because of the efforts of the whole community. Mrs Warhurst does not just want to see sport played at Jabiru; she wants to see the town flourish on sport.
I cannot agree more with Corrine’s nominators, Julie Furlan and Meredith ‘Mouse’ McCabe who, in submitting Corrine’s nomination, said:
With achievers like Corrine administering sport in Jabiru, the future success of sport there is in no doubt. Best of luck in the big one this Friday night, Corrine.
It is with regret that I inform the House that the Jabiru Bombers Australian football team just failed to win the TEAFA grand final recently at Gardens Oval. Despite leading virtually all day, the unlucky Bombers went down to a very determined Combined Services outfit, 11 goals, 10 behinds, 76 points to 11 goals 7 behinds, 73 points. The Bombers’ 42-point lead at half-time proved not enough to return the cup to Bomberland at the Jabiru Sports and Social Club.
However, the fine efforts of the Jabiru team were rewarded with Dwayne Whitehurst being judged Best on Ground and a worthy winner of the Bill Gear Medal. Dwayne was well supported by Tim Boston, Micktja Onus, Scott Russell, and Marty ‘Rhino’ Rawlinson. Special mention should be made of the many behind-the-scene workers and supporters who loyally follow the Bombers to Darwin every fortnight of the season and who, of course, turn out in their droves to support the boys when they play at home at Jabiru. Bad luck, Bombers, you were magnificent. Next year, you are certainties!
There has recently been a flurry of criticism from some sectors of the community about Kakadu National Park, particularly its Board of Management. Let me put on the record my high regard for the membership of the board and the dedicated way they approach the very difficult task of managing one of Australia’s iconic national parks.
The board is chaired by Jonathon Nadji. Jonathon, the son of the legendary Bunitj elder who passed away in 2002, is a long-term employee of the park, both as a ranger and cultural advisor. Other members include Jacob Nayinggul, a Maniligarr senior traditional owner, a man of great traditional knowledge who is always looking for ways to work with non-indigenous people for the benefit of all Territorians - indeed, all Australians. The half-sister of that senior Bunitj elder who passed away in 2002 is Jane Christophersen. She brings vast knowledge of indigenous culture but, like Jacob, is concerned and sets about working with non-indigenous people for the common benefit.
The senior Mirrar traditional owner on the board is Yvonne Margarula. Yvonne is an outstanding Australian. Whatever one’s view on uranium mining at Jabiluka is, no can question Yvonne’s commitment to her people and to maintaining her indigenous cultural values which, in large part, is what Kakadu is famous for. Sandra McGregor, a board member who is affiliated with the Murumburr clan of the Yellow Waters area, has been working on a very innovative fire management project in the park. Another senior Murumburr traditional owner is Jessie Alderson. Jessie is a ranger working in the Jim Jim district who has strong interests in land management and the viable economic future of the park and its residents.
The Chair of the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study Aboriginal Project Committee is a board member as well. Victor Cooper is a Limilngan representative who has a strong interest in economic development and fostering employment opportunities in the park for locals. There are several Jawoyn representatives on the board, and the first one is Russell Cubillo, who is currently employed as a seasonal interpretive ranger working with park visitors. The other two Jawoyn representatives are Bessie Coleman and Steve Willika. Both are strong advocates for cultural heritage protection, fire management, the development of a strong economic future for their people, as well as the protection of significant sacred sites.
The representative of the tourism industry is the award winning operator of Odyssey Tours, Rick Murray. Rick is an outstanding Territorian who appreciates and understands the value of Kakadu, both as a tourism mecca, but also as a cultural conservation stronghold.
Madam Speaker, there are many people who have a vested interest, and there has been a lot of criticism of Kakadu and the board. Every time there is, I just wish people would think about the people who make up the Kakadu Board of Management. They are Territorians all, with a passionate love of what is best about the Territory: our marvellous lifestyle, our endeavour, our environmental commitment, our ability to work together no matter our racial or religious background, our extraordinary indigenous heritage, and our incomparable landscape. With the Kakadu board in the hands of Territorians achievers like this, I am very comfortable about the future of that amazing place.
Finally - and I will try and hurry this along - on Sunday, 28 March, as usual is quite a big event in my diary. I travel back all the time to my Tiwi Islands, but on Sunday the 28th I enjoyed venturing home again to join my people, the Tiwis, for the annual Tiwi Islands grand final day showdown between the Imalu Tigers and the Tapalinga Superstars. It was certainly pleasing to see the increased numbers of visitors this year because, in previous years, the number had been down. It was really good to have a look at the airstrip and see all of the planes that were cluttering and taking over the airstrip. You could not see the airstrip for all the planes. It was certainly good to see those increased numbers.
As the local member, I was asked to open the Tiwi Artists Network, which was good and certainly something that they have worked towards with the artists. Munupi Arts at Garden Point, Jilamara Arts on Milikapiti, and Tiwi Designs on Bathurst Island, have now come together as a network to look strategically, both nationally and internationally, at selling their arts. This has paid quite huge dividends where their sales have increased. All of these centres did very well in trading on this day, as did the special art centre that I continually support and promote, because I believe, whilst we have the three art centres which are part of the strategic network, people tend to forget that there is the keeping place, which is on one part of the island. That centre is run by John and Joy Naydan and is specifically for disabled artists, and one that I happily support. The art is fantastic. Their art is comparable to the work of able-bodied artists, and a lot of the visitors to the island were commenting on how great the art was from the disabled workshop. There certainly is some fantastic art that is being produced.
It was also great to be involved with the big banner that went out on the oval prior to the grand final starting, joining the women and children. The children finally made a stance and put together that banner in relation to alcohol and drug abuse, and how the alcohol abuse is starting to affect them. That was a first and it was fantastic to be part of that.
Anyway, back to the footy. The Minister for Sport and Recreation, the member for Arnhem, and I happily backed the winner. I am happy to report that I just did not do this on the day. This is a team that I have been following for some time.
Mr Bonson: Yes, sure.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes, I am. Tapalinga is part of the Miyartuwi - a lot of my skin group are part of this team - so it was certainly one that is followed by my skin group. I tipped that winner at half-time when I was being interviewed by ABC radio, despite the ABC commentators and others telling me that Imalu Tigers was absolutely going to run all over the top of the Tapalinga Superstars. I said it is not all over until the final siren sounds, and that the third quarter was going to be the premiership quarter, for anyone who follows football, and that Tapalinga Superstars would certainly come back – and it turned out like that.
As usual, it was a fantastic game. Again, getting around and talking to a lot of the visitors, particularly those who had come for the first time to the island, people were commenting on how fast paced the game is. It is a fantastic game to be part of, and to observe the pace and the skill of the players. In this game, the finish and the result did not happen until the dying minutes of the game, when Ephram Tipungwuti, who was playing with the Darwin Buffalos, kicked the winning goal …
A member: No time on.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I must mention a few individuals. I knew that that would get the member for Millner’s attention when I said that, because Ephram was part of the Darwin Buffalos Football Club, who played a role in the organisation of the great game. Kingsley Barker, is the CEO of the Tiwi Island Football League and Barry Puruntatameri is the president. I must acknowledge Jamie Kantilla. Jamie sang a fantastic rendition of the Australian Anthem at the start of the game. I must mention Sibby Rioli, the coach of the Imalu Tigers, who did a fantastic job with Imalu. It has been some years since Imalu Tigers have been that far into the final season. Sibby’s done a fantastic job with Imalu and bad luck – there is always next year - but a job well done.
Adam Kerinaiua is the coach/captain of Tapalinga Superstars. Adam was a bit disappointed last year. He applied to do the ACPO training. Unfortunately, it was just prior to doing the ACPO training that he had a turn with his heart and he was deemed not to have been fit to go through with and continue the training. He has taken his medication and got himself back on track. He has certainly slimmed down and is looking at applying again to do the ACPO training in the next intake. He is certainly a great role model and will end up being a great mentor, particularly for a lot of the young Tiwi men, where alcohol and drug abuse seems to be the only thing for a lot of them. I suppose that was the fear expressed by a lot of the women when I was walking around talking to them: now that the footy season is coming to an end, what is going to happen to a lot of these young fellows?
It was Sunday night after all the visitors had left. There was a bit of an uprising on the island. During the day it was well attended by eight police who were flown in from Darwin and I think some of those police stayed over there. The club has now been closed for a week, as I understand, because of the fights and the violence that happened after that. It is something that my people need to address and confront, because the alcohol and drug abuse is starting to have its impact on the younger generation. Many of the elders, the old people, are starting to shake their heads and wonder whatever happened to the good old days. Many of them spend a lot of time thinking back and wishing that they could go back to the good old days of the Catholic missions, and not have the alcohol abuse that is there today.
Nevertheless, it is always a fantastic day on the Tiwi Islands for the grand final, with many more to come.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, next Thursday, 8 April, marks a historic occasion for Chief Executive Officer, Mr Peter Blake, of the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development. After 32 years of true and meritorious service to the people of the Northern Territory - 26 years of those with the Northern Territory Public Service - Peter will retire. Peter started his life as a public servant with the Western Australian government working with the Departments of Treasury, Industrial Development, and Child Welfare. Arriving in the Territory in April 1972, Peter joined the then Commonwealth NT Administration in Darwin as a Clerk Class 7 with Aboriginal Affairs and was soon promoted to Clerk Class 8 in 1974. In June 1975, Peter worked in the Department of the Northern Territory’s Commercial and Industry Affairs Branch as a Clerk Class 10.
On NT self-government in July 1978, Peter transferred to the Northern Territory Public Service. From July 1978, Peter moved into leadership roles, firstly as General Manager of the Northern Territory Development Corporation, and was promoted to the rank of chief executive in December 1984 to the then NT Department of Ports and Fisheries. The Department of Ports and Fisheries was absorbed into the then Department of Industries and Business in 1987 and, in 1988, Peter was appointed as chief executive of the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. In 1996, Peter was then appointed as chief executive of the Department of Mines and Energy and, in 2000, he led both the former Departments of Mines and Energy and Asian Relations and Trade.
Peter was given a huge task by the Martin government in 2001 in overseeing the amalgamation of four departments - Departments of Industries and Business, Primary Industry and Fisheries, Mines and Energy, and Asian Relations and Trade - into one department focussed on developing the economic capacity and capability of the Northern Territory. Peter successfully completed this task with extraordinarily little friction, given the distinct organisational cultures which had developed within the four discrete agencies.
Peter epitomises the values of commitment to ‘serve the public’ as a public servant. In our Westminster system, public servants serve the public by implementing government policy for which the government has a mandate from the people, and also to provide contestable advice and to bring forward policy initiatives. I personally have valued and trusted Peter’s advice and counsel. I have enjoyed working with Peter, who shares my passion for encouraging the economic development of the Northern Territory. Economic development which benefits all Territorians can only come as a result of true partnerships between the private sector investment, government policy and support from the people of the Territory. Peter has been able to demonstrate true leadership in facilitating those partnerships during difficult economic times for the Territory. Those partnerships are now starting to deliver in areas such as mineral exploration, investment in horticulture and aquaculture, a focus on trade and investment outcomes, and general return of business confidence.
I am sure I speak for every member of this House when I honestly say that I have not heard anyone having a bad word to say about Peter from either within or outside the public service. Given Peter’s long career within the public sector, that is a great testament to somebody who is truly admired and respected by all those who have worked with him. I can honestly say that Peter has left his mark on the Northern Territory in a very positive and productive way. Certainly, he is very much admired and respected by all those within the public sector, and also outside in the private sector, who have known him.
Just this afternoon, I was having lunch of a sandwich with Stuart Kenny from the Cattlemen’s Association in my office upstairs. Stuart’s concern for the pastoral industry is about people of Peter’s experience leaving senior positions in the public service. There are others soon to follow to retirement within Primary Industries, and Peter is part of the generation that has really seen the cattle industry take off in the Northern Territory with the development of the live cattle trade, and he has enormous respect from both outside and within the public service.
Peter rebuilt his family home in Haritos Street, Wanguri, following the devastation of Cyclone Tracy and, together with his wife Robyn, has four sons, three of whom live in Darwin and one in Katherine, one daughter currently living in Scotland. and nine grandchildren. One of those great coincidences in the Northern Territory with such a small community, is that I, as Peter’s local member, bought a house in Haritos Street directly opposite him. Who was to know that I would one day become a minister and he would be the CEO of my department, and we live opposite each other Haritos Street in Wanguri? That is one of those great things about living in the Northern Territory.
Peter is also well known for his prowess and sportsmanship, both in the pool playing water polo in Western Australia and Darwin and, of course, football. As a player for Wanderers between 1972 and 1976, Peter was a minor legend for the Wanderers Football Club. The knee reconstruction operation that he had this year, was testament to his time playing for Wanderers.
Peter, genuinely, you have made a great contribution to the Northern Territory - and I really mean that - and to our public service. You have served the public of the Northern Territory well. I thank you on behalf of the Northern Territory government - both current and I am absolutely sure the previous government - and for all Territorians for your service. Personally, I wish you and Robyn all the very best for a very well deserved retirement. Enjoy your soon to be coming holiday in Scotland. I thank you for your advice, leadership and counsel over the last two-and-a-half years that I have had the pleasure of working with you.
I would also like tonight to talk about the Defence presence in the Northern Territory, which is highly valued by Territorians for its contributions to the economy and for the contribution of individuals and families to the community. The 12 500 Defence personnel and their families that are based in the Territory make up 10% of our population. Northern Territory-based Defence personnel have been involved in Defence activities overseas, including Iraq, and some have received high recognition for their services during these activities.
The most recent ADF member to be recognised is Captain Alasdair Stehouwer. Captain Stehouwer was awarded a Conspicuous Service Cross for his work in Bali following the bombing. While Captain Stehouwer is not based in the Northern Territory, he has a strong Northern Territory connection, having gone to school in Darwin, and with his mother still living here.
Captain Stehouwer was awarded the Conspicuous Service Cross in recognition of his ‘tireless service to the families of the victims, through understanding and support at the time of the victim identification’ during the immediate post-bombing period in Bali. Being fluent in Indonesian, he was able to assist families to identify their loved ones, as well as to communicate with the Indonesian authorities. I note that Captain Stehouwer first studied the Indonesian language as a student at Darwin Sanderson High School, where he participated in an exchange program with Indonesia. During the exchange, he travelled to several parts of the country learning the language and the culture.
This most recent award follows previous awards made to three RAAF airmen now based at Tindal, for their part in the Iraq conflict. Squadron Leader Terry Van Haren has been commended for distinguished service; Wing Commander Hupfield, 75 Squadron’s Commanding Officer, has been awarded a Distinguished Service Medal for command and leadership in action; and Flight Lieutenant Ray Simpson has received a Distinguished Service Cross for meritorious performance. In addition, 75 Squadron has been recognised for sustained outstanding service in war-like operations during the Iraq campaign.
Further demonstrating the high level of skill and achievement of Northern Territory Defence personnel, another member of 75 Squadron received the highest honour an RAAF pilot can achieve. Squadron Leader Daryl Pudney, an FA-18 pilot, has been named an ‘A Category’ fighter pilot. Squadron Leader Pudney, who spent three months in Iraq providing air support, has been recognised as not only a very good fighter pilot, but also as a person with the skills to lead a squadron-sized deployment to war.
Having commended these four ADF members for their conspicuous service, I take this opportunity to recognise the valuable contribution made by all of our Defence personnel in overseas posting. They may be not be here with us at present, but they continue to be very much part of our community.
I would like to finish this evening on a request from somebody who every member of this House would know: a great Territorian, Mr Vic Ludwig, the president of St Mary’s Football Club and, I would have to say, probably the longest serving football club president in Australia - 42 years this year. It was the year I was born, 1962, that Vic Ludwig became president of St Mary’s. He asked me, at the club presentation night a couple of weeks ago, to pass personal thanks from the club and himself to our minister for Sport, minister Ah Kit, for the fantastic reception that was given - that minister Ah Kit spoke about this evening - to the Long brothers in Parliament House a few weeks ago when Essendon were in town.
The club was absolutely overwhelmed with the presentation, celebrating the Long brothers and the Long family’s 1000th game milestone for St Mary’s. The portraits the minister commissioned for the family, with their mother, Agnes, now has pride of place in the clubrooms at St Mary’s. Vic wanted placed on the public record his and the club’s thanks to the minister for the celebration of 1000 games by the Long family for St Mary’s. Vic, I am very pleased to do that for you and the club this evening. Congratulations on a great premiership win, back to back, for Damien Hale and the Green Machine. It was a fantastic day last weekend and better luck next year for the Tigers, but I am sure the Saints can make it three in a row.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, tonight I recognise a fantastic and well-known Territorian from a well-known and well-liked Territory family. In my family’s language, a real local Territory Darwin family. Mrs Maree De La Cruz has recently retired from the NT Public Service on Wednesday, 18 February 2004, after 25 years and six months service. Mrs Maree De La Cruz was an AO4 with the Health and Safety and Risk Management Services Branch at DCIS.
Mrs De La Cruz joined the Northern Territory Public Service as a typist Grade 1 on 24 July 1978, within the Department of the Chief Minister, and was permanently appointed on 9 October 1978. In July 1979, she was promoted to Administrative A3; in November 1982 to Administrative A4; and in January 1982 to Administrative A5. In 1991, Mrs De La Cruz was promoted to Administrative Officer 4 as a result of the introduction of the new classification structure. During Mrs De La Cruz’s employment with the NT Public Service, she mainly worked in the ministerial liaison areas of the Department of the Chief Minister, the Department of Community Development, and the Department of Health and Community Services, until her transfer to DCIS in December 1998, where she worked in the Workers Compensation Unit as the office manager.
I would also like to read into the record a letter sent by the Minister for Corporate and Information Services, Paul Henderson, to Mrs De La Cruz:
Again, I would like to thank Mrs Maree De La Cruz. She is a family friend of my mother’s, and her two boys grew up in the same neighbourhood I did. We knocked around for a long period of time, and I have known her family for as long as I can remember. I definitely hope she enjoys her retirement and I thank her for all the work that she contributed to the Northern Territory Public Service.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, tonight I talk about what I believe is a sad occasion for the rural area. Most members would have seen in the local paper the news that the rural area’s only chicken meat farm has closed. People knew that the Ingham company has closed but, as well, Lowan Farm has closed. We now have no poultry industry of any substance left, at least in the Top End as far as I know. It is very sad. We have lost probably about 50 jobs altogether. A lot of that can be put down to not only that the cost of feed was so high, but our big supermarket chains, basically, can put the price of eggs or poultry at such a low figure that nobody can compete with them in this part of the world. Sadly, we have no poultry industry left now in the Northern Territory.
In this context, I want to applaud the recommendation in the Senate report released last month, aimed at stopping big business using its market power to hammer small operators. I urge all members to lobby federal parliamentarians for the full implementation of the recommendations at any chance they get. The Senate Economics Committee presented its unanimous report on Australia’s competition law, the Trade Practices Act, after a five month inquiry. Its most important recommendations, from my perspective, relates to the misuse of market power, the use of anti-competitive powers and predatory pricing, especially after two recent High Court decisions which narrowed the protection for small business even further.
Senator Ron Boswell made a speech as a matter of public interest in the Senate last week on the committee’s report. It is a pity none of our Territory politicians in the federal parliament thought it was important enough to comment on. It is also a pity that the Territory government did not make a submission to the inquiry - several state governments did - especially when most of the Territory business is small business and the inquiry was looking at the ability of the Trade Practices Act to protect small businesses. Senator Boswell acknowledged the significance of small business to rural and regional areas and towns where, as he said, they are often the mainstay of local communities as an employer and as a contributor to local life.
The committee and the ACCC have agreed that section 46 of the Trade Practices Act needs reform so that it is an effective mechanism to combat the misuse of market power and predatory pricing. Under the proposed reforms, the court will be able to take into account a corporation’s capacity to sell products at prices below the cost of production. I welcome these changes.
It was from Senator Boswell’s speech that I found out there is a Retail Grocery Industry Ombudsman who has been operating in Australia for three years. He certainly has a low profile. At least we occasionally hear from the Banking Industry Ombudsman and the Telecommunications Ombudsman. I am not sure if the grocery industry Ombudsman would have been able to help the small business in my area, but it is too late to find out now.
In concluding on that, I spoke today - passionately you might say - about why the pharmacy industry will not allow competition in their industry. You might ask: ‘Then why are you talking about the protection of small industry?’ Well, I believe there is a difference between asking for and opening up competition in the pharmacy industry, and being a supporter of big supermarkets taking over pharmacies. I believe that the government can have competition, but needs to set into place regulations which will not allow the big supermarkets to take over pharmacies, but still will allow an ordinary business person who may not be a pharmacist the right to open up a pharmacy in a suburb or a little town if he wants to, and employ a pharmacist. I thought I would put that on record in case people thought I was supporting the introduction of pharmacies into our big supermarkets. It certainly was not the case.
Just two things before I go. For those who like a little good music and realise that we are coming to the Easter season …
Madam SPEAKER: Just you and I.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I would just like to tell people – I will face the camera over there –if you are listening, the Darwin Chorale is performing the St John’s Passion at the Supreme Court on Good Friday at 7.30 pm. You can get tickets from DEC or I think you can get tickets at the door. There will be many people there. It is the chorale’s 20th, or 21st - I had better be careful there - birthday because St John’s Passion was the first production that the chorale performed. It was actually done before it became the Darwin Chorale and that is what got the Darwin Chorale going. We have Dean Patterson coming back from the United States to conduct the choir, and if you like some beautiful music, the Arafura Ensemble is accompanying the chorale. I would say be there. It is not quite AC/DC, but it is not bad anyway.
Finally, I did mention the other night that we are having the Anzac Day cricket match - naturally on Anzac Day at 12.30 at the Anzac Day cricket ground. If you are wanting one of these fantastic T-shirts with the picture of Captain Al Strauss, whom we are remembering on a day, make sure you come down. They will be available for sale and there are 100 of these caps which will also be given out free. Therefore, if you are there first, you will be able to get that. If you know any businesses that would like to advertise around the Strauss cricket ground, they can come and see me, or ring me. It is $50 and it all goes to Legacy. If you know any of businesses around the place that would like to put their name up around the Strauss cricket ground and at the same time raise money for Legacy, I would love to hear from anybody either in parliament or in business.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for taking the Chair to enable me to say a few words.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITIONS
Keith Lawrie Units Redevelopment
Keith Lawrie Units Redevelopment
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 211 petitioners praying that the decision to allow the existing tenants to live at the redeveloped Keith Lawrie units in Alice Springs be rescinded. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
To the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly in parliament assembled, the humble petition of the
undersigned citizens of the Northern Territory showeth:
In March 2004, the Minister for Housing announced a redevelopment of the Keith Lawrie units in Alice Springs.
Existing tenants will be the beneficiaries of the redevelopment, many of whom have been responsible, either
directly or indirectly, for the breakdown in law and order at the unit complex and nearby areas. Existing tenants
should not be allowed to live at redeveloped units. For the government to allow this to happen shows that it
supports and rewards tenants who destroy the public housing in which they live. Your petitioners therefore
pray that the Legislative Assembly rescind the minister’s decision to allow existing tenants to live at the
redeveloped Keith Lawrie units in Alice Springs, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Mandorah Boat Ramp
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 128 petitioners, praying that remedial action be taken on the Mandorah boat ramp. 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 Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we submit this
petition to draw the honourable members’ attention to the dangerous situation which has been created by the
construction of a poorly positioned and equipped boat ramp at Mandorah on Cox Peninsula. The boat ramp
constantly fills full of sand and is positioned in such a way that the prevailing swell has an effect of bashing
large boats and tinnies up against rocks which will lead to serious injury and even death if the situation
is not remedied immediately.
Your petitioners will therefore humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly undertake the following remedial action:
realign and raise the boat ramp so that it is higher than the rocks, which will prevent the sand build-up, and have the
effect of preventing people from being squashed between a shear rock embankment and a boat which they are in the
process of loading/unloading.
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to Petition Nos 42 and 43 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of responses will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
Petition No 42
Milikapiti Housing Association
Date presented: 9 October 2003
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Housing
Date response due: 26 February 2004
Date response received: 31 March 2004
Date response presented: 1 April 2004
Response:
- The petition appears to call for the Chief Minister to intervene in a dispute between the Tiwi Island Local Government
and the Milikapiti Housing Association (MHA) regarding the delivery of housing services in the Milikapiti community.
The Indigenous Housing Authority of the Northern Territory (IHANT) is a tripartite partnership involving the
Northern Territory government, Commonwealth government and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Commission. IHANT provides funding for indigenous housing to indigenous organisations for capital,
maintenance and housing management support.
The IHANT Board recently endorsed a new initiative, the Community Housing Management Program (CHMP),
which provides funds for housing management support to all major organisations providing housing management
services. This program requires all organisations to develop and implement effective housing management
policies and practices.
In May 2003, IHANT provided a management grant to the Tiwi Island Local Government Council (TILG). These funds
were provided for the development and implementation of a housing strategy for the entire Tiwi Islands, in accordance
with the express wishes of the members of TILG.
Previously, IHANT funding was provided directly to the Bathurst Island Housing Association (BIHA) on an annual
basis. However, the introduction of the CHMP implemented throughout the Territory replaced this direct funding
program.
The offer to TILG is in accordance with the IHANT’s implementation strategy. This strategy requires that where there
are overlapping housing management responsibilities in the one area, its grants are to go to the principle
housing organisation or local governing body.
In December 2002, BIHA and members of MHA were advised of the new initiative and its views were sought.
BIHA has not indicated any objections to this initiative to date.
The TILG has established a committee to develop an implementation strategy for the CHMP. This committee comprises
the chair of each community management board and includes Chair of the BIHA and MHA. The Department of
Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs is continuing to support the TILG and the implementation committee.
The TILG is confident that a Tiwi-wide housing strategy will realise economies of scale, particularly in
administrative overheads, that can be achieved with the management of housing under the auspices of
a regional authority, rather than through small fragmented associations.
Petition No 43
Bathurst Island Housing Association (BIHA)
Date presented: 9 October 2003
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Housing
Date response due: 26 February 2004
Date response received: 31 March 2004
Date response presented: 1 April 2004
Response:
- The petition appears to call for the Chief Minister to intervene in a dispute between the Tiwi Island Local Government
and the Milikapiti Housing Association (MHA) regarding the delivery of housing services in the Milikapiti community.
The Indigenous Housing Authority of the Northern Territory (IHANT) is a tripartite partnership involving the
Northern Territory government, Commonwealth government and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Commission. IHANT provides funding for indigenous housing to indigenous organisations for capital,
maintenance and housing management support.
The IHANT Board recently endorsed a new initiative, the Community Housing Management Program (CHMP), which
provides funds for housing management support to all major organisations providing housing management services.
This program requires all organisations to develop and implement effective housing management policies and practices.
In May 2003, IHANT provided a management grant to the Tiwi Island Local Government Council (TILG). These funds
were provided for the development and implementation of a housing strategy for the entire Tiwi Islands, in accordance
with the express wishes of the members of TILG.
Previously IHANT funding was provided directly to the Bathurst Island Housing Association (BIHA) on an annual
basis. However, the introduction of the CHMP implemented throughout the Territory replaced this direct funding
program.
The offer to TILG is in accordance with the IHANT’s implementation strategy. This strategy requires that where there
are overlapping housing management responsibilities in the one area, its grants are to go to the principle
housing organisation or local governing body.
In December 2002, BIHA and members of MHA were advised of the new initiative and its views were sought. BIHA has
not indicated any objections to this initiative to date.
The TILG has established a committee to develop an implementation strategy for the CHMP. This committee comprises
the chair of each community management board and includes Chair of the BIHA and MHA. The Department of
Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs is continuing to support the TILG and the Implementation Committee.
The TILG is confident that a Tiwi-wide housing strategy will realise economies of scale, particularly in
administrative overheads, that can be achieved with the management of housing under the auspices of
a regional authority, rather than through small fragmented associations.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Northern Territory Council of
Social Services - Conference
Northern Territory Council of
Social Services - Conference
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Northern Territory Council of Social Services, better known as NTCOSS, for successfully delivering its first Territory-wide conference. The views and experiences of non-government and community sectors are diverse, and reflect the different interest of families, groups, individuals and communities across our regions and localities. This conference provided the non-government sector with an opportunity to exchange information, network, and to highlight issues of concern. The conference was called Overcoming the Divide: Building Stronger Communities and a Strong Community Sector. Themes were structured around strengthening public policy, and building partnerships across government and non-government sectors; improving the capacity and opportunities for the non-government sector to contribute to decision-making; and creating change around important social justice issues.
NTCOSS is an independent, non-government organisation which, along with its members, works to improve the lives of people across the Territory who are affected by poverty and disadvantage. I am pleased to advise that my government was a major sponsor of the conference. By donating $35 000, government enabled 65 Territorians from remote and regional locations to attend. My government welcomes the contribution that the conference and the non-government sector is making to the public polity debate. The messages from the conference are clear - they are about strengthening families, focussing on prevention, but also about intervening and strengthening families and individuals so they are more resilient, and do not get to crisis point. Conference participants also identified the importance of improving the coordination of service delivery in communities and regions.
We need to strengthen our relationships and improve interaction between government and non-government agencies if we are to make a real change in the lives of Territorians. My government is working towards this end. We are creating overarching frameworks to improve the way government, community and special interest groups interact. We are developing social policies that reflect priority issues. NTCOSS and other community-based organisations are major contributors to this process.
My government has already introduced significant change in the public policy area. As a speaker during the opening session, I was able to identify a range of significant initiatives introduced by this government, and to outline the directions that we will plan taking over the coming years. Significant among these are:
- improving health and community services. For example, $53.8m has been allocated for family and children’s
services, and an additional $12.7m to mental health care, over the coming three to five years;
- following from the Bansemer Review, injecting an additional $100m into the Health Department, a system that
has been affected by years of underfunding;
- releasing Building Healthier Communities, our overarching framework to improve and strengthen both health
outcomes and systems right across the Territory;
- introducing new prevention and intervention strategies that enhance life chances and options for children and
young people;
- refocussing the education and training sector to better meet the needs of children and youth as they move through
the school system, the vocation and tertiary education sector;
- improving the social housing system;
- extending the responses under the domestic and Aboriginal family violence strategies, and testing new family
strengthening policy and program initiatives, in partnership with Aboriginal families;
- setting new direction for regional planning; and
- introducing and funding new community harmony structures and partnership.
A review of Northern Territory community service sector peak councils and networks has commenced, with the aim of creating new and more vigorous partnerships. This review is taking place in partnership with and the active involvement of NTCOSS, and other members of the non-government sector. As a result, the Northern Territory with develop a framework and principles to guide the roles, responsibilities and relationships between government and the non-government sector, particularly those of peak community service sector councils.
I am pleased to advise that the project has started well and is providing a real opportunity to recognise important advocacy groups, and regularise relationships. Participants at the conference were able to meet with Lyla Rogan, the expert engaged to undertake the review, and to begin to tease out issues of importance. Lyla Rogan has the benefit of extensive experience working on public policy issues in partnership with government and the community sector. Regional and community consultations aided by Aboriginal Liaison Officers will begin in May of this year.
Madam Speaker, there are many challenges facing government and the new approaches that we are adopting. These include our geography, a small and widely dispersed population, and finding new ways of working in partnership with communities. Nevertheless, this is the direction that my government is firmly committed to and I look forward to announcing the result of the review to parliament later this year.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I welcome the Chief Minister’s report on the Northern Territory Council of Social Services. As members would know, this is a peak body of NGOs in our community who work in collaboration with government to improve services to people in our community.
I agree, as I am sure all of us do, with the need to build and strengthen the relationships between the Northern Territory government and the NGOs. Through my work with the substance abuse committee, which has been on people’s minds over the last couple of days, we have interacted frequently over the last couple of years with NGOs throughout the Northern Territory who have expressed to us their frustration with the lack of funding that they perceive they get and the lack of coordination in the area of alcohol services provision. I hope the conference was able to provide some direction to government in this important area.
With regards to non-government organisations that NTCOSS often represents, I know that each year they put up a budget submission to the government seeking increased funding for various activities in their area. They have suffered, over the last few years, incredible frustration because their insurance premiums have absolutely skyrocketed and wages continue to increase. That is quite normal because it is very difficult for non-government organisations to attract and retain quality staff when they are paying at fairly basic levels. However, the insurance premium situation has caused major problems for many of them. In the last couple of Martin Labor government budgets, their only increase in funding has been a CPI increase, which has not been enough for them to deal with their insurance premiums.
The next parliamentary sitting day is the budget and we certainly hope that the Chief Minister will be putting her money where her mouth is.
Northern Territory Jobs Plan –
Impact on Central Australia
Impact on Central Australia
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to update the House on some impacts in Central Australia and the first ever Territory Jobs Plan launched by the Martin government in November last year.
Mr Dunham: Oh, that is working well. Jobs plan!
Mr STIRLING: I am told you made very supportive comments in some quarters about our Jobs Plan and voiced some regret that you blokes had not thought of it and done it when you were in government, so do not come in here with churlish comments. You have form!
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: You have already complimented it in some quarters, and we are appreciative of that support. However, do not come in here and demean it now when you have been reported to me as being highly complimentary - highly complimentary!
Madam Speaker, the government’s Jobs Plan is a plan for jobs across the Territory. The fruits of allocating more than $160m worth of training, and effectively focussing that effort, is improving the skills of our work force right across the Territory. It has improved, and will continue to improve, access to training and job opportunities for the people of Central Australia, the Alice Springs region and the Barkly.
We have specifically backed programs in the Barkly and Alice Springs regions that ensure employment opportunities in those regions will be maximised. We are working with business, industry, local government and communities in the regions to improve the skills of Territorians living in these areas.
Employment incentives of $2200 per trainee apprentice became available on 1 February this year. Eleven out of the 40 small business incentives have been taken up in Alice Springs; seven out of the 47 skill shortages assistance package of $7700 incentives per traditional trades apprentices areas have been taken up in Central Australia; and three of the four local government incentives - and I am pleased to see that. Eighteen government apprenticeship traineeships have been taken up; 13 in Alice Springs and five in Tennant Creek.
We have put money into a number of skilling programs to give people the skills they will need for a job. For example: Ali Curung, spending almost $50 000 on nine trainees for civil operations training; $30 000 going into a joint effort with Julalikari CDEP on earthmoving plant training for 18 people; 11 people being trained under this program in heavy rigid trucks at a cost of around $5000; Julalikari Women’s Art and Craft Centre, an arts training package to assist 20 women to provide product to major national outlets; and in the Alice Springs region, 144 people are being trained in driver’s licences, repairs and maintenance skills, and first aid certificates for skills development. Government also funds Charles Darwin University extensively to deliver training into the region in excess of $5m. It is being spent on recurrent programs and user choice. Over 70 programs are running in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Yulara.
One critical issue for employment and training in Central Australia and the Barkly is identifying the work force needs, and finding out what skills are required to get people into jobs in these areas. It has never been done, particularly in the remote parts of the Territory. That is why it is critical that the labour market analysis and the work force report underpinning the training strategy is set in train as quickly as possible. It is happening; the impact will be most significant in the Barkly and the Alice.
Part of the success of the training component of the Jobs Plan must be attributed to the success of the Get VET campaign launched last year. The campaign is having a continuing impact as business, community and industry, as well as individuals, see VET as the way to build a skilled, job-ready work force. The campaign was run in media outlets across the Territory, in particular in Central Australian media. Recognition of VET and its role has been a significant factor in improving take-up of training in the region. A recent post-evaluation of that program showed that, if you asked 71% of Territorians what VET was, they referred to jobs, employment and training - which is a pretty high take-up on the back of the one campaign - and only 1% thought that the question was referring to animal doctors. I thought that was a pretty good commendation of that marketing campaign, which we will revamp and run again later this year.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, the minister lauds his Jobs Plan, a jobs plan that was promised by this government prior to the last election. They were going to come into government with a jobs plan, and it took them two-and-a-half years to deliver the Jobs Plan, which then has hardly achieved anything. In their term of government, they have lost 3200 people from the Territory. Why? Because people are moving interstate to get jobs. Look at the Jobs Plan: get rid of Territorians down south where they can get their jobs - that is your jobs plan. You have lost 5700 jobs in the term of your government so far, so how many more are you going to lose over in two-and-a-half years.
Mr Ah Kit: Is this to substantiate your Deputy Leader’s position?
Dr LIM: Can we stop the clock while we call for order please?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is the problem with this government. The minister spoke about Charles Darwin University, and what it is doing in offering apprenticeships in Central Australia, yet they have cancelled Training Solutions, initially. They told Training Solutions they cannot do any more; and closed the shop down. Then, within the last few weeks: ‘Sorry, we made the wrong decision, we will open up Training Solutions again’. However, now you cannot make any offerings that will compete against Charles Darwin University. That is your Jobs Plan: protecting certain sections of education. If you are truly serious about a jobs plan, you will open up the market and allow fair competition. That is what the Jobs Plan is about, and then you can allow apprentices to do their work.
What about the trainer for the panel beating apprenticeship? We know that the student has now left the Territory, or intends to leave the Territory so that he can finish his apprenticeship. Where is your trainer? You promised a trainer, and he is not there, and that is your problem. Your Jobs Plan is nothing but a myth.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, the one area of concern that the member raised was that area of the paint and panel lecturer/instructor at Charles Darwin University. I am advised that the university does have someone, and they will be in place and that training will take place throughout April.
Dr Lim: But you have lost the apprentices, they are leaving.
Mr STIRLING: I said in the previous parliamentary session that government would see these apprentices trained, either by sending them interstate in the event that Charles Darwin University did not have someone on deck, or they would go to Charles Darwin University. The university has advised that that person is in place and the training will take place.
Palmerston Building Activity
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House of the accelerating pace of building and development activity in Palmerston. I recently had the opportunity to meet with industry peak bodies, developers, builders and the real estate industry in the course of the recent Palmerston Community Cabinet.
After several years of subdued activity stretching back to 1999, the builders told me that they are flat-out satisfying demand for housing and keeping up with the machinery turning off lots. The building industry in Palmerston is in a very dynamic state. In Farrar, the first two stages have been completed and Henry Walker Eltin expect to start Stage 3 after Easter. This will produce 10 to 30 lots. Only two lots in Stage 2 remain available.
Members may be aware that Henry Walker Eltin have announced their intention to withdraw from the land development industry, though they will complete their current obligations within the Territory. During the community Cabinet, Mr Ben Ganley, the Delfin Project Director, briefed me on the rapid expansion of building activity while he showed me the developments in and around The Chase - and that suburb is growing rapidly. I am told that Delfin had their best year in 1999 when approximately 300 lots were turned off and sold. However, they then suffered a number of flat or declining years coinciding with the last couple of years of the CLP administration.
Mr Dunham: Is that what Delfin said?
Mr Dunham: Oh, right! So take the quote marks out before that? Righto, okay.
Dr BURNS: There were no quote marks. It is very pleasing to hear that things are now looking up ...
Mr Dunham: You are making it up now, are you? You are making it up!
Dr BURNS: Do not misrepresent what I am saying. Can I hear a toad croaking?
Delfin are anticipating about 160 sales this financial year …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: … and are projecting a further 25% expansion to achieve 200 sales in the coming year.
I will repeat that for the benefit of members opposite. Delfin are anticipating about 160 sales this financial year and are projecting a further 25% expansion to achieve 200 sales in the coming financial year. The evidence of increased building activity was there before my eyes with builders and contractors everywhere in a hive of construction activity. I saw roofers climbing over rooves, tilers laying tiles, blocklayers just swarming over multitudes of houses. It was a veritable hive of activity and it is fantastic to see …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: It was the same story at Darla, the residential subdivision in the suburb of Rosebery. The Larrakia Development Corporation is currently developing the 390-lot subdivision in a six-stage development. I was briefed by Mr Kelvin Costello, the coordinator of the Larrakia Nation and Mr Greg Constantine of the Larrakia Development Corporation. The Larrakia Development Corporation is the commercial arm of the Larrakia people and its main role is to promote and encourage business opportunities for the Larrakia.
This is very much a success story. In Stage 1 of Darla 57, house lots are completed and there are only five blocks left for purchase. The quality of the housing being constructed is of a very high standard, with the cost of houses in this stage averaging over $250 000, with no shortage of buyers. As an aside, I was interested to see the famous Esky house that has attracted a lot of media attention. A very pleasing aspect of Darla to me is that the Larrakia insisted on the retention of as much of the native vegetation as possible. I believe it makes a real difference to the appearance of the new development, and it has greatly assisted the retention of top soil over the past two Wet Seasons.
In Stage 2 of Darla another 59 lots are due for completion by the end of April, and already 48 lots have been sold off the plan. This is a very clear and direct indication of the buoyancy of the market and the level of consumer confidence in the Northern Territory. On that side also, I saw frenetic activity despite heavy overcast and rainy weather. The Darla project has created more than 20 jobs for Larrakia people in a range of roles. I was told consistently at both Darla and The Chase that there can be a wait of several months to engage a builder or other contractor. That is a strong indication, in my view, of the increasing demand and the level of building activity.
It was very pleasing for me also to see the Larrakia Nation developing turf and a turf farm there. However, all in all, it was fantastic to be there to see the building activity and the confidence in the future of the Northern Territory.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister. I have never seen a Labor minister so excited about CLP projects in the time that I have been in the parliament.
Dr Burns: Is Delfin owned by the CLP?
Mr BURKE: It really is encouraging that, through the minister’s comments he has given credit where credit really is due. In fact, if you want to go a little further, minister, you might want to send a transcript of that over to Perth this weekend where Palmerston is competing for the national Tidy Towns Competition. Everyone, I am sure, would wish them all the very best and hope that Palmerston is awarded the national award for the Territory’s tidiest town - helped over many years by strong support from the CLP government, strong representation from CLP local members and, may I say, a vibrant and exciting mayor.
Dr Burns: In which way?
Mr BURKE: In every respect.
If we look at, say, the suburb of Farrar that the minister speaks so strongly about, there is one thing the Northern Territory government could do - it is not a lot: get them a bus service. It is a developing suburb, it has more and more residential development there. They were supposed to get a bus service when the ring road was completed into The Chase; it has not occurred yet. When you speak strongly about the excitement in the suburb of Farrar - get them a bus service so that the kids can get to school and the people can get themselves up to the bus exchange. That is something the Northern Territory government could do.
This Northern Territory government, which reckons they are going to build a $600m development at the Stokes Hill wharf, cannot even get a roundabout in at Palmerston. If you want to talk about Darla, Rosebery, and Bellamack, the roundabout at the Lambrick Avenue intersection has been under construction for about six months now. It is an absolute disgrace. Notwithstanding what spin you put to the paper, we know the true story. Part of the story is this: the contractors walked off the job. They walked off the job because they were not being paid by the department. That was the way they demonstrated their confidence in the Northern Territory government. Therefore, when you go out there and say: ‘Aren’t things great in Palmerston?’ Yes, they are. But do a few things yourself like get a bus service in, and for God’s sake finish the roundabout.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the minister said but I there are some issues that have been covered over with the gloss of excitement here. One of the issues that will reverberate on some parts of Palmerston is that some suburbs were developed far too densely, where people live one-and-a-half metres apart is a crying shame in a tropical city. I hope that new developments do not follow that example. I have to say straight out that Delfin subdivisions do look very nice. However, in some cases, Delfin have over-developed land. I congratulate the Larrakia people for now developing reasonably sized blocks and allowing some of the bushlands to exist.
On another point, the preservation of Mitchell Creek is important. I do not believe there has been enough work done on it. There was originally a scheme which would allow Mitchell Creek to be removed from the subdivision. If you go past the Farrar subdivision you will see that one of the branches of Mitchell Creek was pleasantly engineer-designed; that is, it was turned into a drain, and there it sits today. There has to be some more work done on preserving Mitchell Creek which is an important natural area of Palmerston.
Regarding the bus service I agree with the member for Brennan. However, I would also like to highlight the fact that Howard Springs/Coolalinga are very close to Palmerston via Lambrick Avenue. I have asked many times for a bus service to go through that area. We have two buses in the morning and two buses at night. It is not acceptable for an area which has 11 000 people right next to its main, central regional district in Palmerston, to have such a lousy bus service. I hope that the government will start to put some real effort into providing services for the rural people next to Palmerston.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I take the points the member for Nelson has made, which were very good points; similarly, the member for Brennan. I acknowledge that the Lambrick Avenue roundabout has taken too long and I certainly have the whip about that.
On the issue of bus services, the member is probably aware that there is a review of bus services throughout Darwin and Palmerston currently ongoing. It was an issue that was raised with me when I was doorknocking in Palmerston. I spoke to some bus drivers and other residents out there.
However, the underlying thrust of my report here today is about economic activity, and revival from the doldrums since 1999. I am very glad it has happened and that the member for Brennan has welcomed it.
Environmental Impact and Monitoring
of Development Projects
of Development Projects
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, this government is moving the Territory ahead with a number of exciting, major developments planned for the near future. These projects are all at various stages of development. They include the expansion of Alcan alumina refinery at Gove; the trans-Territory pipeline; the Blacktip gas pipeline and processing plant; the Bayu/Darwin pipeline; the ConocoPhillips LNG plant; the redevelopment of the Darwin city waterfront site at Stokes Hill, and the Glyde Point industrial estate. All these projects will bring jobs and significant economic growth to the Territory, which fantastic.
However, this government is just as committed to protecting the Territory as we are to growing it. This government has a baseline position: we are absolutely committed to ensuring that our Territory environment and lifestyle is protected. This means that all large developments are required to undergo rigorous environmental assessments before receiving approval. Accordingly, this government has required environmental assessments at the highest level for these major developments. Five of the projects are currently undergoing major EIS processes.
The number of environmental impact assessments has always been a good indicator of economic activity and industry confidence, and this number of EIS assessments on the go at once really is quite unprecedented. The environmental assessment process is a statutory process which is facilitated by my Office of Environment and Heritage. Through a rigorous examination of potential environmental impacts, appropriate safeguards are developed to avoid problems down the track. However, it does not stop once a project has been approved. In recognition that significant environmental impacts can occur if a development is not managed properly on the ground, my Office of Environment and Heritage has a team dedicated to monitoring the ongoing compliance of development once approval has been granted. For example, my office is currently monitoring the construction activity of the Darwin LNG plant at Wickham Point and provides me with weekly inspection reports. This compliance action is only possible because of the additional resources this government has provided to the independent Office of the Environment and Heritage.
To cope with this unprecedented activity, we have two positions dedicated to monitoring compliance as development progresses. Not only is the number of EIS assessments unprecedented at this level, so is the level of community consultation that we are undertaking with each process. This consultation is a critical part of environmental assessment; a part that we on this side take very seriously. The Alcan Expansion Draft EIS, for example, will be available for public comment for approximately twice the statutory period. Alcan themselves have taken the consultation seriously and have had the executive summary of the EIS translated in to Yolngu Marta, one of the local indigenous languages.
Madam Speaker, this government is moving the Territory forward with jobs and economic growth. It is my job to ensure that we achieve environmentally sustainable development for all Territorians. We are protecting our unique environment and lifestyle.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Thank you, minister, for that report. It is a great report of what is going on: major projects of which we are all aware, some that were initiated in our time as members of government. What you have outlined is a fantastic environmental impact process that was also in place during our time. The only significant difference that you might have made in that ministerial report is that your government has put extra resources in to the Office of Environment and Heritage for monitoring - as you should. That is all I can say.
You are the government, there are major projects on the go. You have to make sure you comply with environmental processes, so you put more resources in to the Office of Environment and Heritage. It is absolutely logical that you would do that. There is nothing unusual about that and, from time to time when projects come along, you have to make sure the resources are there to not only do the environmental assessment, but also to monitor them …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Sorry?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Dunham: It is precedented.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, that is right.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister for getting some extra resources for her department, but it is something, as I said, that should happen as a major course when major projects are under way.
From the knowledge that I have of the way that the building of ConocoPhillips LNG is going, the teams that are working on that, including all of the local contractors, are doing a fantastic job. I understand they are on schedule and things are looking very good.
As for Blacktip, perhaps one of the ministers responsible for industry might like to give an update on that as far as they know where that project is.
Ms Martin: Would you like a briefing? Ask for a briefing.
Mr BALDWIN: No, I have had one from Woodside. I want to know what you know.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the minister’s report. I note, however, that the minister referred to Glyde Point. There have been some advertisements in the paper indicating that there would be an EIS on Glyde Point fairly soon. My concern is that we do not seem to look at options. Glyde Point has been designed like that under the Brown and Root industrial concept plan they have produced. I and you would know from the Litchfield plan that there are a number of areas there that are sensitive, like rainforests. This plan also removes around 480 hectares of mangroves.
I am not saying that that may not be necessary for this to develop, but it is a pity that, when plans are brought forward, there are not a series of options which look at minimal disruption to those sensitive areas, as well as designs which may end up being like this, and may be the only plan. There are times when our planners need to design things around the environment rather than through the environment, and at least allow people to look at various options so, when an environmental impact statement comes up, some of the issues, like the rainforests and mangroves here, would be looked at initially.
I am saying to the minister, yes, we need these big projects for sure, but sometimes the square line philosophy, or the square line design people get a little too carried away when sometimes a few circles and a few areas left out could do the job just as well.
Madam SPEAKER: I am afraid, minister, time has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY CHEMICALS (CONTROL OF USE) BILL
(Serial 219)
(Serial 219)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
As we are all aware, Australian agriculture has experienced remarkable growth over the last 50 years. During this period, the use of agricultural and veterinary chemical products has increased significantly. The benefits gained from the use of these products include major increases in agricultural production and produce quality. Chemical products also pay an important role in public health and environmental protection. Misuse of these products carries a potential risk to people’s health, the environment, animal welfare and trade. There is increasing consumer awareness, both in Australia and amongst our export partners, of the potential risks posed by agricultural and veterinary chemicals, both from an environmental point of view and from the perspective of unacceptable chemical residues in agricultural produce. Market access will increasingly rely on the certainty that the Territory’s produce is clean and green.
The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority administers the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Agvet Code) on behalf of the states and territories, and is responsible for the registration of agriculture and veterinary chemical products to the point of sale in Australia. It is a state and territory responsibility to control their use.
The purpose of this bill is to provide controls over possession, sale and use of agricultural and veterinary chemical products; the manufacture, sale and use of fertiliser and stockfeed to manage the risk to people, the environment and animals, to protect export markets, and to ensure sustainable agriculture. While this legislation will serve to protect and assist our primary industries, its stakeholders are all Territorians.
Currently, Territory legislation provides for limited control over the use of pesticides, minimum control over the use of veterinary medicines, and no control over fertilisers and stockfeed. This bill will replace a small part of the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act, administered by the Department of Health and Community Services, that currently serves to control the use of pesticides. This bill will provide a one-stop shop for the regulation of agriculture and veterinary chemical products, fertilisers and stockfeed within the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development.
It is important to remember that we are one nation and that, wherever possible, legislation should be harmonised between states, not only for the convenience of our citizens, but also because our trading partners see us as one nation. Consequently, the proposed bill seeks to promote harmonisation of legislation within Australia and adopts, with some minor variations, nationally agreed principles for control of use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals and agreed maximum levels of heavy metal impurities in fertilisers.
It is important that the governance of agricultural and veterinary chemicals is as seamless as practicable and, hence, this bill uses definitions that are consistent with those in the Agvet Code. Similarly, the regulation of the use of agricultural and veterinary chemical products should be consistent with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority risk management process. The bill, therefore, proposes a use regime that is based on the direction of the registered product label, which encapsulate the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority risk management outcomes. As well, the bill is in accord with agreed national principles for control of use. Wherever possible, the provisions of the bill complement those of the Agvet Code in order to facilitate implementation of Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority decisions.
The bill provides general provisions that include a general duty of care (Part 2), and provisions in relation to agricultural and veterinary chemical products including control of container type, reading the label, making records of use, reuse of containers, disposal of empty containers, and use of the product (Part 3). The definition of an agricultural chemical product takes in a wide range of products including insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, growth regulators, and swimming pool disinfectants, including both commercial and domestic products. Naturally, the bill would be administered on a risk basis and, unless extraordinary circumstances arise, would concentrate on the commercial use of these products.
The cornerstone of the safe use of an agricultural chemical product is the product label. An agricultural chemical product must be used according to the label instruction or in accord with a permit issued by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Currently, low risk uses are not offences under the bill; for example, it is not an offence to use the product to control another pest that is not on the product label provided that other label conditions are adhered to. The national registration scheme is a complex world class scheme but it is not without some problems and, in some instances, the legal off-label use provisions of the bill will provide growers with some flexibility without unacceptable risk.
The definition of veterinary chemical products takes in a wide range of products, including ectoparasiticides, anthelmintics, antibiotics, hormonal growth promotants, vitamins, and mineral substance or additives that make a claim to alleviate or cure a condition. The definition includes products designed for animals of a food-producing species, as well as non-food-producing species including companion animals (Part 3, Division 4). The proposed bill regulates the use of veterinary chemical products consistent with nationally agreed principles. Again, legal use of a registered veterinary chemical product is based on product label instructions. A non-veterinarian must use a registered veterinary chemical product in accord with the registered label instructions, the written instructions of a veterinarian, or the instruction of a relevant Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority permit.
Because of their training, a vet has a right to prescribe; that is, to use a veterinary chemical product contrary to label instructions. The bill regulates a vet’s right to prescribe by restricting use of high risk areas, particularly in relation to use on animals of a food-producing species. Hence, unless authorised by an Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority permit, a vet cannot use, prescribe or recommend use of:
- registered veterinary chemical products on an animal of a food-producing species contrary to a label restraint.
Restraints are situations where use of product has absolute limitations because of chemical residues, antibiotics
resistance or environmental issues.
- registered veterinary chemical products on an animal of a major food-producing species contrary to the label
instruction, unless the product is already registered on an animal of a major food-producing species.
- registered human pharmaceuticals, unregistered veterinary chemical products, or agricultural chemical products
on an animal of a food-producing species.
As well, the legislation places some restrictions on a vet’s right to prescribe, supply, use or recommend the use of an unregistered veterinary chemical product, including one formulation by the vet, or a registered human pharmaceutical on an animal that is not a food-producing species.
Communication is of paramount importance in the transmission of instructions and information. The bill defines the information and the manner of its provision in certain high-risk situations, including when:
- a vet supplies, prescribes or recommends either the use of a registered veterinary chemical product contrary to
label instruction or a product that is not registered;
a vet administers a veterinary chemical product to a food-producing animal;
a person sells medicated stock feed; or
a person offers an animal of a food-producing species for sale that has been treated with a veterinary chemical
product and the withholding period has not expired.
There also requirements for identification of animals of a food-producing species that have been treated with a veterinary chemical product. For example, anyone treating an animal of a food-producing species belonging to another person must ensure that the animal is sufficiently identified.
To continue with veterinary chemical products we are all aware of the increasing problem caused to society by the illegal use of anabolic steroids. This bill will ensure that the use of injectable anabolic steroids is strongly controlled (Part 3, Division 5). The proposed legislation requires that an injectable anabolic steroid can only be administered by a vet or by a person in the presence of a vet. Additional securities provided with the requirements that vets make and keep records of use, secure storage requirements, controls over disposal, and obligation to report losses about a set volume in a period time.
Access to unregistered products - products designated as a strictly chemical product by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, and S7 dangerous poisons - are restricted (Part 3, Division 6). Possession of an unregistered chemical product is illegal other than defined circumstances including an authorisation under the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority permit. The strict control of access to S7 dangerous poisons will be maintained. S7 chemical products require an authorisation issued by the Chemicals Coordinator. Authorisation will be competency and needs based. Access to restricted chemical products will be confined to those persons authorised under the regulation to the bill, consistent with a registered label.
There are a range of significant protective measures conferred on the minister (Part 4). The minister may, after consultation with the minister primarily responsible for health or environment, as the case may be, prohibit the manufacture, possession, sale or use of a chemical product, fertiliser or stockfeed if it is necessary to protect the health of the general public, the environment or trade. The minister may direct a product to be recalled in these circumstances. As well, the minister can, after receiving advice, direct a person to deal with a chemical product, fertiliser, stockfeed or agricultural produce that contains or is likely to contain a substance at a concentration above that set by regulation or that poses a risk to health or trade. Reasonable costs of sampling and analysis may be recovered from the manufacturer of the fertiliser, the seller of the stockfeed or the grower of the agricultural produce, as the case may be. However, costs cannot be recovered if use of the substance was authorised under Territory legislation or the contamination was the result of an action that the person could not reasonably have known about. A person affected by such a decision under clause 56 may apply to the Chemicals Coordinator for compensation (clause 123).
There is no intention to duplicate legislation administered by other government agencies. Currently, there are powers to manage spray drift that adversely affects persons or the environment under legislation administered by WorkSafe and the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. This bill creates an offence to either cause direct damage to horticultural produce or contaminate agricultural produce such that the produce exceeds the standard established under the Regulations (Part 5). Under this legislation, the licensing of horticultural ground spray applicators and spray pilots (Part 5), will transfer from the Department of Health and Community Services to the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development. Consistent with national undertakings, businesses involved in professional spraying for fee or reward will be licensed. A single licence covers the owner/operator. A professional ground sprayer applicator includes a person in employed of the ground spraying business licensee; a person who carries out spraying on behalf of public authorities; and a person who uses an agricultural chemical product to treat turf on a sporting ground or recreational area.
The minister has some further powers under this legislation. He may, if he is satisfied that it is necessary to protect human health, the environment, or specified plants or animals, or to facilitate trade, declare a chemical control area in which the use of chemical products is restricted (Part 6, Chemical Controls). A detailed procedure of public consultation is laid down.
The minister is also empowered to give a direction to alleviate the risk of contamination of horticultural produce that is grown on contaminated land (Part 7). If necessary, the minister can order the preparation of a remedial plan in cooperation with the grower. Such an action is subject to cost recovery conditions previously described. Any person affected by such a decision can apply to the Chemicals Coordinator for compensation.
The minister may declare an agricultural emergency if extraordinary measures were necessary to protect industry and authorised counter-measures that otherwise would be an offence against the act (Part 8). The minister must appoint a Chemicals Coordinator to administer the act. The Chemicals Coordinator can appoint chemical advisors for the act. Their role will be to educate and collaborate with the community to achieve the aims of the legislation.
One of the best measures for compliance with control of use legislation is the status of chemical residues in agricultural produce. The current Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development program relies on growers’ goodwill, and does not have a legislative basis. Under this legislation, chemical advisors will conduct an enhanced chemical residue monitoring program that can be enforced if necessary. They have all the necessary powers for enforcement.
Importantly also, the minister has the ability to draw advice from the community. He may establish an advisory committee to inquire into any matters related to the use of chemical products, the manufacture, sale and use of fertilisers or stockfeed, the management of contaminated land or contaminated agricultural produce, or the administration of the act generally (Part 9). Membership will consist of the Chief Executive Officers of agencies primarily responsible for health, environment and business and trade or their delegates, depending on the issue and any other expert that the minister sees as appropriate. The minister may publish the terms of reference in the newspaper and invite submissions. The advisory committee’s report must be tabled before the Legislative Assembly within six sitting days after receipt.
A schedule of reviewable decisions, appealable to the Local Court, is provided in Part 11. The decision-maker of a reviewable decision must provide the affected person with certain information, including the reason for the decision and that the decision is appealable. As well, persons administering the legislation are governed by a confidentiality provision.
The minister may declare a code of practice under Part 12. The contravention of a code does not in itself constitute an offence. Before approving a code of practice, the minister must give notice of the code and invite comments within the time and in a manner that the minister determines as appropriate.
The minister may make regulations to the bill that are necessary or convenient to give effect to the bill including: standards for chemical products, fertilisers or stockfeed; competency standards for handling chemical products; standards for the concentration of substances in agricultural produce, fertilisers or stockfeed; standards for sampling and analysis and laboratory accreditation; and records of use or sale of chemical products, fertilisers or stock foods.
The bill contains the necessary transitional provisions for those persons who currently hold S7 authorisation under the provisions of the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act or possess a horticultural licence to apply chemical products including pilots under Part 13. The bill contains consequential amendments to the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act under Part 14.
There are currently concerns, originating on the eastern seaboard, about the use of industrial wastes as fertilisers. This bill introduces a nationally agreed definition of fertilisers and agreed standards for maximum levels of cadmium, lead and mercury contaminants. Standards that relate to other contaminants and label requirements to manage risks of use will be incorporated into the regulations to the bill when a national working party finishes deliberations. The bill incorporates a requirement for persons who manufacture or import fertilisers to take all measures that are reasonable and practical to ensure that the fertiliser does not contain an impurity at a concentration greater than that set by the regulations. The legislation also provides a framework to manage risks that could be caused by contaminated stockfeed.
The bill contains penalties similar to those in the states. The highest penalty is 500 penalty units for importation or manufacture of contaminated fertiliser. The bill contains infringement notices for ease of administration. The bill also contains a framework on which standards for, and controls over, stockfeed can be implemented should the occasion arise.
In summary, Madam Speaker, this proposal regulates the use of chemical products, fertilisers and stockfeed, and seeks to provide an essential contribution to sustainable agriculture in the Northern Territory. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
FISHERIES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 216)
(Serial 216)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Fisheries Act, in response to the recommendations made in the consultant’s report arising from the review conducted of the Fisheries Act in accordance with the National Competition Principles Agreement.
The amendments in the bill provide for the following:
- ∙ inclusion of an objects clause in the act. The objects emphasise the importance of a flexible approach to the
management of fishery and aquatic resources of the Northern Territory; that management of the resource be
undertaken in accordance with the principles of ecological sustainable development. Secondly, that there be
fairness, equity and access to aquatic resources by all user or stakeholder groups in our community.
∙ the removal of certain restrictions that allows for a more flexible approach to licensing arrangements. In future,
the grant of a new fishery licence will have as its primary regard the sustainable development of the fishery.
The Director of Fisheries will, by means of an open public process, allocate new licences. The restrictions on
foreign ownership of licences will be abolished.
∙ additional terms used in the act to be defined, such as ‘ecologically sustainable development’.
As a consequence of these amendments to the act, it is also necessary for the Fisheries Regulations to be amended to modify certain aspects of the eligibility criteria currently used to assess an application for a licence. These changes will further reduce the restrictions on licensing.
Two other recommendations flowing from the competition review also require changes to be made to the Fisheries Regulations. These are:
- ∙ prescribe in the regulations for the appointment of at least one person to the Disease and Pest Control
Committee with appropriate experience, expertise and background in fishing or the fishing industry; and
∙ deleting the requirement of a prescribed minimal freezer capacity size for resellers for fish.
The bill and the amended regulations represent a positive response to the recommendations made in the competition review of the act, and provide for the removal of identified anti-competitive restriction. These are statutory measures that are no longer considered appropriate in the administration of modern fisheries and aquatic resources legislation.
It is acknowledged that the current Fisheries Act remains principally a framework for licensing, and has been amended many times to keep pace with changes since its commencement 16 years ago. It is also recognised that the Northern Territory’s statutory approach to regulating these resources needs to focus more on the management and sustainability of the fisheries to meet future challenges.
Madam Speaker, you will recall that, during the last sittings I took the opportunity to inform the House that a thorough review of the fisheries legislation is to be conducted over the next 18 months. Once the review is completed, recommendations for change to the legislation will be proposed and will be brought forward to government for consideration. During the period of the legislative review, consultation will be conducted with all fishery and aquatic resource user groups and other stakeholders to emphasis the Territory-wide nature of the review.
However, these amendments that have been introduced into the House today arise from the competition review of the act. It is necessary for them to be immediately implemented and not wait for the outcomes in 18 months of the proposed wide-ranging legislative review. The immediate priority for the Northern Territory is to meet its obligation under the terms of the National Competition Principles Agreement by implementing those legislative changes recommended in the competition review.
The amendments in this bill will provide administrative efficiencies and greater transparency in the administration of the act that will be to the mutual benefit of fishery and aquatic users and the general community.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 202)
(Serial 202)
Continued from 19 February 2004.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, it is not the opposition’s intent to oppose any aspects of the bill; suffice that I signal that I will make a few comments in relation to the bill and its operation in the Northern Territory.
It is clear what the large slice of this bill is trying to do in what the minister has bought before us, and that is to tighten up procedures that currently exist in the Northern Territory in the operation of the Fire and Emergency Act, and the services which are delivered to the Northern Territory by the fire services. It is certainly not the opposition’s intention to prevent the delivery of the important services provided by the fire services being hampered in any way. Much of what this bill has in its flavour, is establishing the ability of the fire services to deliver those services.
A point in case is clauses 16 and 17 of the bill, which enables the Director of the Fire Services and his representatives to make orders, which give a legal standing to those orders. Any organisations that functions in a paramilitary way needs to be able to establish that it has to run in a way that, when orders are made they are followed. That stands for very good reasons, because you cannot fight fires by committee; you fight fires by command. I also notice that the clauses allow for the creation of general orders or standing orders – it has subordinate legislation effectively. Once again, the opposition is very supportive of that construct. Indeed, in light of the Mtis review into the fire service, such structures would probably not go awry inside the fire service at the moment.
There is also the tightening-up of general powers in relation to fire investigation, public awareness campaigns and entering into contracts. I wish to comment briefly on entering into contracts. At this stage, I wish to - although it is a remote possibility - declare an interest and place on the record that my wife will soon be starting a business in relation to the delivery of workplace inspection and training in relation to occupational health and safety issues. It is not likely that she is going to pick up any fire contracts that I am aware of at any point in the near future, but that does not preclude it from happening. It is for a matter of completeness that I place it on the record that she is in that field, and I am making comments in relation to training issues here in the Northern Territory.
I draw members’ attention to clause 7 of the bill. In the Powers and functions of Director, proposed new section 8(2)(h) says:
- enter into contractual arrangements for the provision (with or without charge) of training programs and public
awareness programs.
I read that in light of the proposed new section 27A in clause 10 of the bill, where there is a requirement - and I quote the appropriate last line in proposed new section 27A(1) in relation to fire safety:
- … are met and continue to be met and that persons who work in such a building are trained in essential fire safety.
The only reason that I raise this particular issue is that I seek a reassurance from the minister that, trained in essential fire safety and the fact that the fire services are able to provide, for a fee, training services, the core responsibilities and functions of the fire services will not be compromised by a new and commercial arm of the fire services which is more interested in delivering training outside of its organisation rather than training inside its organisation, and then again, its core function of fighting fires and responding to emergency situations as contemplated by this bill. That is the first point.
The second point is that I want to be sure - and there is certainly nothing in the way that I read the bill - that any other organisation is precluded from entering into fire training so long as it is properly authorised to do so. I am wondering if there is any regulatory scheme that the minister has in mind, or whether any organisation which is just a training provider and has the appropriate expertise in delivering fire service training, is able to deliver that without having to worry - or if there is a scheme that is there to prevent such organisations entering into the training sphere, or if there is any hurdle in place which would prevent such an organisation entering into the training scheme? I certainly hope that the minister will clarify that in his closing comments.
I notice also that there are changes which are designed to remove the effect of the Associations Incorporation Act. This House had before it not that long ago a change to the Associations Incorporation Act which made it a lot more difficult, I suppose, to maintain the reporting requirements under that act. The minister says that there were other reasons for these changes. I do not doubt the minister in relation to FERGs having liability cover for public liability issues, saying that the Work Health Act and the Personal Injuries, Liabilities and Damages Act covers FERGs. It is obvious that the reporting times of the Associations Incorporation Act would also have an affect here. Taking the pain of keeping those FERGs up to their reporting requirements under the Associations Incorporation Act is being removed by this bill. I have no major problem with that. It is more of a reflection on the Associations Incorporation Act than the Fire and Emergency Act.
Other than that, Madam Speaker, I see no problems with this bill. I hope that the fire service continues to deliver a service which is effective and, as the lead agency responding to emergencies in areas of fires, chemical spills, biological and radiological hazards on trains and trucks and the like, they should be empowered to do their job and do it effectively. The opposition supports the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the bill. However, I would just like to make a few comments on one particular section; the new section that has been added in relation to fire hazard reduction programs and back-burning. That is an important function of the NT Fire Service. Perhaps it is starting to reflect what needs to happen more with the NT Fire Service - it has a changing role.
Originally, it was a fire service that worried about buildings and cars that burnt down. Now it has to look after vast expanses of Crown land and private land in the rural area of Darwin, as well as places like Alice Springs, around Tennant Creek and Katherine. It now has taken on a role far bigger than what it originally started off with. Once we get into issues like fire hazard reduction, we also get into environmental issues. The area that the fire service needs to seriously look at is the employment of people who have some of those skills. That is not to say that people already in the fire service do not have some skills, but there now is a need for, perhaps, a specific person to deal with some of these issues. Fire hazard reduction is important, especially where large blocks of land - whether private or Crown - back onto residential land. You will find quite a bit of that in the rural area of Darwin. It has the potential to destroy houses and properties.
We do need fire reduction programs. The issue really is: when should we have those fire reduction programs? There certainly has been a lot of work done by CSIRO in regards to Kapalga experimental work on burning on reduction in fuel loads. One of those areas is using what they call Wet Season fire reduction. You may see at the moment around rural areas some areas that have been burnt off. The idea in burning that land off at the present time is that you have more or less a cold fire that has little chance of spreading very far but reduces the fuel load.
One of the problems that you can have with that is that you also are changing the environment, because a lot of plants are not at the stage that they are ready for a fire. In other words, they are producing their flowers and seeds at that particular time, and there may even be seedlings that are coming up, basically, getting ready to approach the Dry Season. Along comes a fire very early in the life cycle of this plant it eliminates that particular species. What could happen is that many of the species that are currently growing could be eliminated if this fire regime is continued. That is not to say that it should not be still an option, because it may be that one has to put the safety and the protection of property over the protection of the environment. That is a fair outcome of burning off. However, we have to look at why some areas are presently protected, and how we can balance the protection of the environment and property at the same time.
In Litchfield Shire, there are quite a number of areas that are wetlands, which certainly do not want fires too early in the year; otherwise that can cause major damage. However, they do need some fire control, which needs to be managed. It could be managed using mosaic burning; that is, you divide up the land into sections and you burn once every three years on a rotational system.
You also have issues of weeds which, as you would have seen in the paper the other day where someone was talking about the health hazards of gamba grass, will be a major issue for the fire brigade. When it comes to hazard or fuel load reduction, how you deal with these weeds is going to be a real problem. Gamba grass, as we know, has safety issues from a fire fighter’s point of view: we know that it explodes, especially when it is burnt late in the year. We know that it has environmental problems because, when it does burn, you have a 12-foot high stalk of grass burning amongst the bush, which can cause damage to native vegetation that has never been caused before under the natural regime. We have large areas of mission grass, which also burns later in the season than the native grasses.
There is a role, minister, for someone, full-time, to be working alongside, for instance, our Fire Hazard Control Officer, Patrick Skewes, who does a very good job. The two need to work in conjunction with one another. In the case of Litchfield Shire - and maybe with other councils - those councils could support that role because quite a bit of that land belongs to them. It would be appropriate for the government to approach those councils and maybe share the cost of a person who would look after managing these areas. There have been many arguments that the council should not remove some of this land from subdivisions because of the cost. There certainly is a cost, but the bigger cost would be that if we do not protect this land now, it will cost a lot more money in the future. There is a role with hazard reduction in combining not only the NT Fire Service, but also local government. That may require some discussion, but would be beneficial to both sides.
It is a complex issue, there is no doubt about it. It is a controversial issue. I am of the opinion that, in certain circumstances, people on small blocks, if well protected, should be able to do some minimal burning. The reason I say that is because the policy, generally, in the NT Fire Service on fuel reduction is to put in the slasher and mow around the trees. One problem is that people might like to want to retain a larger range of species. Once you put a slasher through, you reduce the chances of a lot of the smaller plants surviving, but you also reduce the chance of the bush regenerating naturally. The other major factor is that, once you disturb the land on a bush block, you introduce weed species.
If you look around the rural area to see where gamba grass and mission grass grows, it grows where there has been a disturbance. One vehicle driving down through the bush will introduce weeds. If you see where a grader has gone down a firebreak, the weeds grow on the fenceline or on the windrow that it has caused. If you are looking at a means of managing both hazard reduction and reducing the risk of spreading weeds, then fire has an important role. I am not saying we should have a carte blanche system of everyone being able to burn their five acre block. That would be the worst thing you could have. However, where people can put a case that they have their firebreaks in place, have adequate water control, have notified the neighbours and, if there it is a certain time of the year when, say, the fire danger is low or minimal, then perhaps they should be allowed to do some minimal burning on their block to control the level of fuel.
I referred earlier to large blocks of land backing onto smaller blocks of land. One of the problems, especially if you have a small block of land that has not been burnt or touched for a long time, and it backs onto a large block, I can guarantee if that fire goes across into that small block, it will go up in a big bang, literally. That has been seen before on Kowandi South many years ago, which was not burnt, and we actually nearly had a ground fire on Kowandi South. In certain circumstances - and I say that specifically - block owners should, with the permission of the NT Fire Service, at least be able to do some fuel reduction. Of course, if you had a person in the fire service who was employed as a fuel reduction officer, with some environment qualifications behind him, then perhaps that could only be done with approval from that particular person. I am not saying that we go ahead and burn the countryside down. I am saying, horses for courses, there is room for this type of fuel reduction to occur with the right approval, and with the right approach. It is possible.
I believe I have covered all the issues I would like to. It was an opportunity which I believe was too hard to miss, because this is an area the NT Fire Service has to start looking at. Environment is important. They will take on more and more residential land. I presume places like Litchfield Shire - if the new Litchfield Land Use Objectives are approved - will have an increasing number of two hectare and five acre blocks, especially south of Humpty Doo, to the north of Herbert where there is another series of blocks, and in the forestry land around Howard Springs. Their role is going to increase. They will probably have to expand the area which comes under their influence. It is now an opportune time for the Northern Territory Fire Service to look at a full-time environmental officer, which would be beneficial, not only for the fire service, but for the people in the rural area of the Northern Territory.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thank both members who contributed to the debate for this bill, and members, the opposition and the Independents for their support. This legislation is coming in seven years after the Fire and Emergency Act and regulations were introduced. It is a time to reinforce certain provisions, and also, with experience of the act and the regulations in place, to update certain sections of the act.
Without going through the entirety of the legislation, I pick up on the comments of members who have spoken in the debate. To the opposition spokesperson, certainly, we are not looking to have a new commercial arm of the fire service out there generating huge revenue streams. The issue regarding clause 7 giving legal capacity for the fire service to enter into contracts to provide training for organisations is really just in response to certain parts of the Territory where there are no commercial providers to provide that certainty and fee-for-service arrangement, where the NT Fire Service can train people within an organisation in fire management. The practice is, in all cases, where there is the capacity for a commercial service or training provider who can provide accredited training modules to work with a company to put fire management training in place. As a fire service, we refer those inquiries to the commercial arena. There are a number of companies who provide that training with very good accredited training modules. However, there are parts of the Territory where those companies do not reach, and it just provides a legal certainty to provide a fee for service. Therefore, no, we are not going out there to compete in the commercial world. Our fire services have plenty of work to do without establishing a new commercial arm.
It certainly will not be compromising core fire services. Our commitment as a government to increasing our capability in this area was the recruitment of an additional 16 firefighters in the Northern Territory during this term of government, and we are well on the way to doing that. The increased financial commitment of $2.5m to the training efforts of our firefighters as a result of the Mtis review shows this government is committed to increasing the number of firefighters in the Northern Territory and also improving their training.
The reality is that the fire service and the work that they do is changing from purely a firefighting force - and they do a great job there across the Northern Territory - to a much more community-based organisation working with the community in fire prevention, hazard management, risk management and much more. We are seeing our fire service work with and in the community.
I pick up on a very contribution from the member for Nelson. It really goes to show that this House can be, as apart from political point scoring, an opportunity for issues to be raised and taken up by government. The member for Nelson’s comments about working more closely with people in the rural area, such as the Litchfield Shire Council, regarding the increasing complexities in hazard reduction, back burning, and fuel load reduction as the rural area develops, is something that is a real opportunity with the establishment of the new fire service in Humpty Doo later this year, and the appointment of a station commander to that particular station, working with the Hazard Abatement Officer, Patrick Skewes.
What I am proposing is that, once that unit is up and running and people are appointed to those positions, we convene a forum with the five volunteer brigades there and Litchfield Shire Council and actually look at those issues that you are talking about. The fire management plans in the region, I am advised, are updated on an annual basis. However, there is going to be a new permanent facility at Humpty Doo and it is an opportunity to pull all of those issues together in a forum. Certainly, you would be invited to that and I will make sure that forum is convened to start looking at those issues. From the fire service’s point of view, as to it being an organisation, as the member for MacDonnell says, which has paramilitary functions, we do not operate that way. It is very much a community-based organisation and community controls and solutions to hazard reduction is much better than a strict application and enforcement of legislation and regulation.
It was a good contribution from the member for Nelson and, once we get that facility up and running, and appoint the station commander to that facility, it would be a good time to gather everybody in the Litchfield Shire area who are involved in firefighting, and the Litchfield Shire Council, and look at the way we do business there and if we can do business even better. Maybe that forum can be convened on a regular basis, particularly as we had some bad fires down in the Humpty Doo area last year and lessons were learned from those fires.
I thank all honourable members for their contribution and their support for this legislation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
HEALTH PRACTITIONERS BILL
(Serial 201)
(Serial 201)
Continued from 27 November 2003.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, this bill incorporates into a single piece of legislation the Dental Act, the Health Practitioners and Allied Professionals Registration Act, the Medical Act, the Nursing Act, the Optometrists Act and the Pharmacy Act as recommended by the National Competition Council review of the Northern Territory legislation carried out in 2000. This legislative action is occurring in each Australian jurisdiction so as to improve the standard of service provided by health professionals, increase consumer involvement in the monitoring of the professionals, and increase the similarity of practice conditions and expectations across the professions.
Recently, the Nurses Registration Board in the Northern Territory made a number of major changes, many of which are now enshrined in all NT boards in this bill. The experience of the Nurses Registration Board has been used to guide the development of this legislation and, certainly, as a registered nurse, I have not found the changes onerous or intrusive.
A number of exciting changes are expected as a result of this legislation. These include: the addition of consumer representatives to boards to ensure their perspective is considered; increased flexibility in registration requirements so as to broaden the range of people who can become registered without necessarily reducing the standards - a vital move in this time of difficulty in sourcing health professionals to work in the Northern Territory; regular and ongoing assessment of practitioners’ competence; the facilitation for people to work in areas of ‘restricted practice’ such as suitably trained nurses doing certain dentistry activities, optometrists with suitable training using therapeutic drugs, and dental therapists working in the private sector and with adult clients; the expansion of nursing registration to include a category for direct entry midwives who can practice only as a midwife - very welcome to allow for such people to come here and work in this understaffed area; and a less punitive and more constructive disciplinary process. Health practitioners are very valuable people in this community and, where possible, every effort should be made to help those who have a problem, so we can retain their service.
The bill also highlights professional indemnity insurance and the then minister’s second reading speech also touched on this. Although I did have a briefing on the bill - in fact I have now had two - we will discuss this matter during the committee stage of this legislative process and I will seek greater clarification on the matter of professional indemnity insurance from the minister.
When the then minister, the member for Nightcliff, introduced this bill last year, she said that after its introduction, further community consultation would occur. I do know of individuals and groups who have made representations to government, expressing concerns with the content of the bill since it was introduced. I look forward to see if the new minister responds to any of these requests, some of which I will raise during this debate. Since I was briefed on this matter some months ago, I have now been approached by a number of individuals and groups who have put their concerns to me. Some of these I will pursue today in this debate.
I received a detailed submission from the Australian Dental Association NT Branch on the bill. I have studied their submission which raises a number of issues, some of which I will explore during the committee stage. In addition, the minister, whom I am sure has received a copy of the submission - and I seek leave to table a copy …
Leave granted.
Ms CARTER: … may like in his closing remarks to address this specific concern from the Australian Dental Association:
The board, far from being independent ...
They are referring to the new set-up of the Dental Board,
- … will be subject to government edict and become merely an instrument, ostensibly of the government but,
in reality, of a party in the implementation of its policy, conceivably aimed at sectional interests.
If possible, it would be good if the minister would like to address that concern of the Dental Board. As all of the members of the board will be appointed by the minister, the Australian Dental Association has a concern that it will pursue government policy and sectional interests. This is a real concern about the independence of the new board and I hope the minister will comment on this.
Also, the submission from the Australian Dental Association implied that, at some point, they were under the impression that there would be two parts to this legislation: what has been presented to date and a subsequent part, which they describe as professional specific part of the act which is yet to be written. Minister, this is not an aspect of this legislation which I am aware of, so perhaps you could update us as to whether there will be some subsequent related legislation or whether this has been a past idea that has been dropped.
Dental therapists are a group that will notice significant changes to their professional roles and the scope in which they can practice as a result of this bill. I am supportive of many of these changes. As members may know, dental therapists currently provide up to 95% of dental services to urban primary schoolchildren. They provide a significant service out bush in remote areas where dentists rarely visit.
Dental therapists are educated to perform a wide range of dental work which is currently limited in the Northern Territory to children aged 0 to 13 years, whereas, for example in Tasmania and Western Australia, they can also treat adult clients. Their work in the Territory includes examining teeth and gums, taking X-rays, cleaning and scaling teeth, filling caries, extracting teeth, referring clients to other service providers, and providing oral health education.
Members will recall that in the last sittings, the ministers released their Building Healthier Communities – A framework for health and community services 2004-09. One of the sections is called ‘Filling service gaps”. One of the gaps identified is oral health. Three dot points are provided in this area. Two of them are to improve access to oral health services, particularly in rural and remote areas; and develop a sustainable approach to the provision of children’s dental services. In order to do those things, it is my belief that this bill will go some way in assisting the expansion and scope of what role dental therapists undertake.
When the dental therapists contacted me, they raised an issue of concern about what the original bill had in it with regards to the definition of ‘supervision’. As a consequence, I prepared an amendment for that. In lieu of that, the government advised me yesterday afternoon of their new change to the definition of supervision to include direct and indirect. I am satisfied with that change and so I will, during the process of committee, withdraw my amendment to it. I am happy to see the change.
Another issue the Northern Territory Dental Therapists Association raised during the consultation period is the absence of a seat on the Dental Board of the Northern Territory for a dental therapist. In the bill, the board is to consist of seven members including four dentists - this is with an amendment that the minister will propose today - two user representatives and someone who is either a dental therapist, a dental hygienist or a dental prosthetist .
Yesterday afternoon, I was advised of a change to the bill through an amendment to be put today by the government. The original bill provided that the minister would appoint the chair of each of the boards. That has now been rescinded and, instead, the boards will choose their own chair. For example, the Dental Board was to have been a chair plus six members. It is now to be seven members and the board chooses the chair. To my mind, that frees up one position and it is my view that dental therapists should get a set position on the Dental Board. They provide a significant service that I believe shortly will begin to expand. They are a group, given their educational qualifications and the known quality of their work, that should be able to have a seat on the board. It is my view - and I will pursue in the committee stage - that we have three dentists, two members of the public as consumer representatives, a dental therapist and a person who has been chosen from either dental hygienists or dental prosthetists. We will debate that later and I have prepared an amendment to meet that need.
I note also this bill stipulates who can own a pharmacy. It decrees that a pharmacy must be owned by a pharmacist except where the minister can grant an exemption when the owner is to be an Aboriginal health service or, as we learnt from amendments that we received yesterday, a friendly society.
The bill does not stipulate who can own a doctor’s surgery. I am quite sure some are owned by people who are not doctors, but who employ doctors to provide a service. The bill does not stipulate who can own a radiography service and, likewise, I am sure some are not owned by radiologists. I would be interested to learn why this section in Schedule 8 is in the act. I am quite sure that if prescriptions are to be filled, the role of a pharmacy, then a pharmacist, will be needed to supply a prescription. Madam Speaker, I will pursue these matters as we go into committee stage.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have a few things to say on the Health Practitioners Bill. I have had a number of people contact me and some of the issues they raised were important. One issue was relating to the supervision of dental therapists. I believe the amendments that are presented today will cover that. It has gone from ‘supervision’ to ‘indirect supervision’, which would satisfy the dental therapist people. As it was, there was some doubt as to whether you could act as a dental therapist without having a dentist looking over your shoulder. Therefore, that amendment will be welcomed.
The main area I would like to talk on is one that the member for Port Darwin just raised: the issue of who can own a pharmacy. It seems to me that this legislation has now introduced restrictions that do not seem to exist in the existing legislation, and they are now going to restrict, by legislation, who can own a pharmacy. You have to look at pharmacies and ask: what are pharmacies today? They are not just places that sell medicines, make-up and prescriptions, they sell everything from toys to films, cameras, perfume, toilet paper, liquid soap, and soap powder. They are, in many ways, a grocery shop of some sort, with a pharmacy attached to it, because a pharmacy itself does not have to take up much room. It just needs a store room where the pharmacist can work, and from where they can sell their medicines and prescriptions. Over the year, pharmacies have expanded. Just as you have groups of people who sell groceries, like Woolworths, Coles, and Foodland, you now have people who own chains of pharmacies. I suppose, to some extent, those chains have looked at expanding their profitability by getting to areas of pharmacy that one would not normally associate with a pharmacy. Those areas are the ones I have just mentioned, selling a range of products, many of which you would find within a supermarket.
You wonder why governments would be concerned about who could own a pharmacy. In many ways, one could say a pharmacy now is a grocery store, or a departmental-type store, with a pharmacy attached. Yet, you cannot own one of those unless you are a pharmacist. The member for Port Darwin raised the issue that a business person can own a doctor’s surgery or a radiology surgery, but that person does not have to have any qualifications. Why are we making an exemption for pharmacies? What is wrong with competition in the pharmaceutical delivery industry? Is it because of a powerful group which represents, as I said, a group of pharmacies that have banded together, I suppose to help their buying power just like Foodland, Woolworths and Coles have, and that they do not want anyone to compete with that? Well, if we do not agree with that, then we certainly should be looking at a lot of other industries.
If you look at planning, for instance, in the Northern Territory, as long as the land is zoned in such-and-such a way, you can have 10 service stations side by side, and the government will say: ‘That is fine, that is competition’. However, when it comes to pharmacies, for some reason we have now introduced controlling legislation. What is strange about it is that it now allows an exclusion from that prohibition. We have allowed, under Schedule 8, clause 2(2):
- The minister may grant an Aboriginal health service an exemption …
Why should an Aboriginal health service be exempted. They do not have …
Ms Lawrie: Are you saying they should not be?
Mr WOOD: No. No, I am not …
Ms Lawire: Are you?
Mr WOOD: I am arguing that you are making an exception for someone to own a pharmacy here who is not a pharmacist, based on that …
Ms Lawrie: You know very well they dispense in remotes.
Mr WOOD: … based on that being in a remote community. What I am saying is, if you can make that exemption, why not make it for everybody? Why do you have that exemption there?
Mr Henderson: There are no commercial operators out there.
Mr WOOD: Well, leave it for the commercial operators to be ...
Mr Henderson: They will not go there.
Dr Toyne: It is not profitable.
Mr Henderson: It is not profitable.
Mr WOOD: That might be perfectly all right. I am not arguing a case that you should not do it. What I am saying is you are making an exemption …
Mr Henderson: It is the only way to do it.
Mr WOOD: That is right. But why should you make any exemptions? Why should you not allow pharmacists …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Why should you not allow a person to set up a pharmacy in Humpty Doo that is not a pharmacist? You are saying it is all right for an Aboriginal community based on these reasons - and I accept those reasons; they are good reasons. But why will you not allow someone who wants to set up a pharmacy in Adelaide River, who says: ‘I own the Post Office. I would like to have a pharmacy in my Post Office because that way we could probably make the thing work. I want to employ a pharmacist to run the pharmacy but I want to own it’. It will be part of the post office or might be part of a saddlery supplies or something. Why not? I cannot see any reason why not. It just seems to me that, for some reason, pharmacies have all of sudden become excluded from competition. I am no great fan of all things being subject to competition …
Dr Toyne: Swallowed up by Coles and Woolies.
Mr WOOD: Well, we do not have that problem at the moment; the act at the present time is silent. It does not say that you have to be a pharmacist to own a pharmacy. However, now in this bill it is specifically put in. Why? I believe that it is actually a retrograde step.
I should read a report that I have here which mentions the attitude of the National Competition Council regarding this, which is quoted here many times in parliament. It talks about the Northern Territory and it says:
- The Northern Territory intends to introduce a consolidating Health Practitioner Registration Bill to parliament in 2003.
The Department of Health and Community Services advised the council that the Minister for Health intends to use the bill
to introduce ownership restrictions on pharmacies, but provides some discretion for the minister to grant exemption to
this restriction.
Those restrictions, as I said, are on Aboriginal communities and, as also has been mentioned, the friendly societies:
- As discussed earlier, the council questions the strength of the evidence supporting the national review’s conclusion
that ownership restrictions are in the public interest.
That is what we have to look at:
- In assessing compliance with the CPA clause 5 guiding principle, therefore, the council looked for the Northern Territory
to provide additional evidence of the benefits of restricting ownership (subject to some discretion to provide
exemptions) outweigh the costs, such as evidence of restricting pharmacy ownership is likely to improve pharmacy
services in the Northern Territory.
I have not heard anything to that extent. We have a law that does not have a problem with that, and now we are introducing it. I would like to hear what the benefits are for people in the Northern Territory.
- The Wilkinson Review found that the Northern Territory pharmacy legislation did not rule out the ownership of
pharmacies by persons other than pharmacists (although, as in other jurisdictions, the act requires
restricted pharmaceuticals to be dispensed by registered pharmacists). The review considered, however, that the
Northern Territory’s pharmacy ownership provisions fell within the boundary of acceptable regulation and that
the Northern Territory did not need to amend its act.
The government will, nevertheless, need to provide a rigorous public interest case that restricting ownership provides
a nett public benefit and is the least restrictive option available. The Northern Territory has not met its CPA obligations
in relation to pharmacy legislation because it has not completed its review and reform activity.
Does that mean that, unless you have a very good case as to why we should restrict pharmacies, the National Competition Council can say that the Northern Territory should have funds withheld because it is not fitting within the guidelines of competition policy? That is an argument used here many times over many pieces of legislation that come in here. We have seen lots of legislation that say: ‘If this legislation does not become consistent with National Competition Policy then there will be a withholding of funds’. Now, what is the reason for us restricting competition in pharmacies? There should be a pretty good reason because otherwise the Commonwealth is likely to restrict funds.
Is toilet paper in pharmacies going to be cheaper because there is a restriction on pharmacies? As I said, pharmacies are not just selling medicine, they are selling lots of things. If we want to restrict pharmacies to certain people, only to pharmacists, then let them only sell pharmaceuticals. Let us not have toilet paper, perfume and cameras. We do not restrict people from selling cameras. We do not have a restriction on camera outlets. Why have we done it just to pharmacists? It is an important question. It seems to me that there has been pressure put on to have this particular industry restricted. If I can see a good reason for it to be restricted, I would support it. I do not see a good reason for it being restricted.
It is not restricted under the existing act, but it has been deliberately restricted under the new act and it is a retrograde step. I hope the CLP would support what I am saying because, from a point of view of private enterprise - and I do not support monopolies - healthy competition is important for the consumer. By allowing other people to own pharmacies, that would be good for the Territory and for the consumers. I would be interested to see what the government has to say.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the Health Practitioners Bill before the House. This bill is as a result of the National Competition Council review of our legislation conducted in 2000 and the 1998 Professional Board’s review. It really is a consolidation of a number of pieces of legislation under one bill, and upgrading that legislation to further protect Territorians’ health and safety. The bill repeals the Dental Act, the Health Practitioners and Allied Professionals Act, the Medical Act, the Nursing Act, the Optometrists Act and the Pharmacy Act.
Certainly, the NCC review was done in 2000 and there has been a lengthy and ongoing consultation with all of the stakeholders who are affected and the professional groups and associations. There has been further extensive consultation since this bill was introduced in November last year. I would like to put on the record my commendation to the former Health minister, the member for Nightcliff, who introduced this legislation and conducted extensive discussions around the introduction of this bill with those professional bodies. The current Health Minister has been very active in concluding negotiations with people affected. In a very large part most or virtually all of the stakeholders have all been listened to and most of their concerns have been addressed in a series of amendments that the Health Minister will be progressing during the committee stages of the bill.
The bill streamlines and modernises regulatory frameworks of several vital professional areas, while still appropriately tailoring the regulatory framework to suit the areas in question. It is important to recognise that under this bill individual professional boards will continue to regulate specific professions as they did in the past.
I had not personally received representations from the ADA about their concerns about political interference and management, which I find quite strange. There are a vast number of boards in the Northern Territory that are appointed by various ministers. It is normally an open process. Either members of the public or, in regards to the professions their professional associations, are contacted by ministers and asked for nominations. Somebody has to make a decision as to who goes on the boards. However, to somehow allege that they would be subject to political interference and direction makes me query why they would say that and under what evidence. I am not aware of any allegations under the past or current governments - well, there was one - of political interference. I say with absolutely certainty that there would be no political direction or interference in their powers and responsibilities under this legislation. I am sure that, as the board is put in place under its new structure, they will get on with doing their business in a very professional way, totally without direction or interference from the minister.
The bill complies with the National Competition Council requirements. I will leave it to my colleague the Minister for Health to respond to the member for Nelson’s concerns with regards to the ownership of pharmacies and the public interest case. All I will say now is that there have been a number of developments over the last few weeks and I will leave it to my colleague to respond to those issues. As honourable members know, complying with these requirements is critical in ensuring that the Territory maximises revenue streams from the Commonwealth. We certainly would not be putting those revenue streams at risk unnecessarily unless it was specifically in the Territory interest.
The Health Practitioners Bill delves into some fairly intricate areas, and I will not endeavour to go through these in great detail, but rather will touch on a few points.
As I have said before, the core of this bill is the protection of the health and safety of Territorians. The key element of the bill is that the public will have an important role to play on health boards, with boards to be comprised of a broad range of practitioners and two public interest members. Importantly, the bill also moves to strengthen public confidence in the regulatory regimes for the areas covered.
Most of us would agree that we have seen a generational shift in doctor/patient relationships. We are becoming increasingly aware of medical and health issues and, as patients, we welcome doctors explaining conditions and diagnoses, and we take a more hands-on approach to our own health. The advent of the Internet has certainly opened up a world of information on health, medical, and pharmaceutical information that previously was not accessible to members of the general public. I am astounded – just from talking to people at a barbecue the other night - at the number of people who purchase pharmaceutical products over the Internet in bulk from wholesalers. These are not prescription medicines but, particularly for people with children and young families, there is a real shift to people wanting to understand more about their own health and medical conditions. They are using the Internet as a source and I was quite surprised by the amount of purchasing of medication that now occurs as a result of the Internet.
With this increasing awareness of medical issues comes an increase in media coverage of adverse medical incidents and the times when the health system lets the patient down. Territorians want reassurance that standards are being maintained in our health system. The bill provides mechanisms aimed at ensuring that practitioners maintain their competence to practice, and provisions to allow the board to take actions when concerns about an individual practitioner’s competence are raised.
Under the bill, practitioners cannot be automatically re-registered if they have been absent from the profession for a period of time. This is known as a ‘recency of practice requirement’ and the threshold, depending on the profession, is between two and five years. The bill provides for practitioners to renew their registration on an annual basis by renewing their annual practising certificates. This element is not new because, with the exception of pharmacists and optometrists, all registered practitioners are required to renew their practicing certificates annually.
I would like to speak briefly on the issue of dental therapists. I commend Debbie Beldham, the President of the Northern Territory Dental Therapists Association. She has worked very hard on behalf of her association in lobbying members of parliament - the opposition, Independents and government members - on her association’s concerns. I met with Debbie in my electorate office last week and I am pleased to see that the minister is accommodating the issues raised by the Dental Therapists Association. More importantly for the association, this bill is great news because it now allows for those dental therapists, who are very professional in the work that they do in oral health, to expand into the private sector. It is a great move. We have big problems attracting dentists to the Northern Territory, particularly in the public health system. The ability now for a dental therapists to provide routine oral care to members of the public in a private capacity is going to improve the oral health of Territorians. This is a fantastic move and I certainly wish the members of the Dental Therapists Association all the best in accessing a market that was previously restricted. I believe this is a good move for oral health in the Northern Territory.
The provisions of the bill will, in many cases, introduce a more robust annual renewal process. It will see annual practising certificates move from being, in effect, a membership subscription service to an assurance to the public that the health practitioner is competent to practice. Again, this is all about public confidence, and also ensuring that our health practitioners, in all areas that this bill covers, continually upgrade their skills to the latest levels of medical care that are being determined as science and care evolves. This is a significant move in ensuring that our medical practitioners are right up there with the latest medical advances. This goes to the core of the bill and the mandate of the board to protect the public. The strong and modern regulatory regime will also give our medical professionals certainty of the regime that they need to comply with, and allow them to get on with business.
The development of the Health Practitioners Bill has been a lengthy process, involving considerable work and consultation with a wide range of interested people. I commend all the professional associations in the Northern Territory that have worked with the department in getting this bill together. I believe this is a good move for public health in the Northern Territory and I support the bill.
Debate suspended.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday 18 May 2004 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to Sessional Order.
Motion agreed to.
HEALTH PRACTITIONERS BILL
(Serial 201)
(Serial 201)
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr TOYNE (Health) : Madam Speaker, at the outset, I thank all members for their contribution to this debate. This is a very far-reaching bill. It is going to set the framework for health professions and their practices into the future. As reported by the member for Port Darwin, it will supplant quite a range of existing legislation with a single uniform framework for these professions, supported with the detail of the codes of practice that each of the boards will generate in behind the legislation. As we said yesterday, with the Radiation Protection Bill debate, some of the detail of the operation of this legislation will obviously fall to the contents of the codes of practice as they are put in place by the boards. I offer the member access to that process as it unfolds so that you can see the sort of details that each of the boards want to apply.
I will now deal with some of the issues that were put forward during the second reading debate. The member for Port Darwin mentioned the question of professional indemnity. In my other portfolio role, it has been a subject of great attention for a couple of years. The National Competition Council has raised this issue in the reviews of the Dental Act, the Health Practitioners and Allied Professionals Act, the Medical Act, the Nursing Act, the Optometrists Act and the Pharmacy Act in the context of the use of a restricted title. The NCC specifically stated that the right of title provides a number of public benefits, including a reduction in the risk of professional liability, and in the cost of professional indemnity cover for practitioners. There is a strong public interest argument for the professional indemnity insurance as one of the requirements for registration. There should be an ability for the public to have access to financial assistance or compensation if harm is caused by a registered practitioner.
The NCC went on to state that most jurisdictions are now moving in the direction of empowering their registration boards to require, at their discretion, appropriate professional indemnity insurance cover as a condition of registration and/or of issuing a practising certificate. The following boards all require professional indemnity insurance as a requirement for registration: Victorian Dental Practice Board; Victorian Physiotherapists Registration Board; South Australian Dental Board; New South Wales Medical Board and the amendments to the Victorian Medical Practice Act. The Victorian Dental Practice Board allows for the professional indemnity insurance to be provided by an employer or company, but not necessarily the practising professional.
The respective NT boards will consult widely with national counterparts and relevant NT stakeholders when developing the policy framework to support the legislative provision that adequate professional indemnity arrangements are in place. That may give you some sort of feel for what is going on around the country as regards indemnity. It is very much work in progress, so there are working groups looking at indemnity issues, both in the Territory and elsewhere. National forums, both of the insurance ministers, Treasurers, and Attorneys-General, are all also working through these issues with the aim of minimising any further rises in indemnity insurance premiums, trying to restore coverage over areas of professional practice where the insurance industry has virtually withdrawn from being prepared to cover, and to generally curtail the levels of claims against professionals where that was seen to be excessive. There is a whole raft of reforms that will impact on that issue. Like you, we are going to have to keep watching the developments as they go through and contribute through our legislature.
You queried how we had responded to the various - I am sorry, it should be, to be correct - the member for Port Darwin has queried some of the issues that were brought to us by way of submission and how we have responded to them.
The Nursing Board was concerned about whether it should, under definitions, also include midwives. We have amended that definition throughout the bill, so it is now the Nursing and Midwifery Board.
Regarding the registrars, we have amended a clause to allow the minister to appoint an acting or interim registrar if the nominated registrar is unable to perform their duties for one reason or another.
Regarding the question as to whether an individual can be registered or enrolled at the same time, an enrolled nurse who would then choose to work as an Aboriginal health worker is one example where this could occur. We have taken out the prescription of being enrolled and registered at the same time. That is represented in the committee stage amendments which we will be debating later. This issue was brought forward by the Aboriginal Health Workers’ Board.
The Australian Dental Association has brought forward a concern about the current arrangements in the bill regarding registers. Clause 43(1) reads:
- A board must keep a register called the Register of Health Practitioners.
It is now going to be amended to:
A board must keep a register.
That is responding to the Dental Association.
Regarding the inspection of registers and rolls, we have removed the fees to be paid for either an inspection or a copy.
Clause 57(4) concerns the notification of the Commissioner for Health and Community Services Complaints that the complaint has been received. We are amending that to read:
- The board must notify and consult regarding management of the complaint with the Commissioner.
There are a number of other smaller amendments to do with complaints that I will probably, for the sake of saving time, not go right through.
Under Schedule 4, clause 8(1), Representation, we are amending the clause to read that the applicant before a committee is entitled to attend an evaluation and to be represented by a legal practitioner or any other person. We have amended clause 8(2) to read:
- The costs of representation must be met by the applicant or defendant.
Again, I guess the general issues around the hearing of complaints popped up in quite a few submissions that came through, and also representations I have had directly in meetings with people such as the Nurses Federation. We do not want to disadvantage people going before a complaints hearing to the point where they are not properly advocated.
We will deal with the definition of supervision in committee. However, the member for Port Darwin has already indicated that the proposed solution will take care of the dental therapists’ concerns. Regarding the board membership of dental therapists, I just want to clarify that the election of a chair by the nominated membership of a board does not actually gain us a board position. We will just simply nominate the same number of people onto the board, and the board members will then confirm who they want as the chair. I saw that as being a very important commitment to the independence of the board and the advice that they would be able to provide. We do not want to be reaching into a profession and, basically, choosing what sort of advice they are going to give us. We want to try and pick a representative group that does truly or as widely represent the professional group as possible, and then allow them to arrange their affairs around their leadership.
To give you some figures here of the dental auxiliary professions and the representation on the dental board in particular, there are 78 practising dentists on the register in the Northern Territory; 16 dental therapists; 10 dental hygienists; and 18 dental specialists. You can see that the three auxiliary professions are roughly equal in size in the Northern Territory. That is what makes the guaranteeing of a position for the dental therapists in particular on the board problematic, because the other two auxiliary professions could quite rightly say that is, basically, leaving them out of the equation.
Equally, if we put three auxiliary positions on a board of that size - one for each of the branches of auxiliary dental work - it would overload the board with auxiliary representatives compared to the dentists. We would either have to have a bigger board with three auxiliaries represented on it, or have a proper process where all three auxiliary groups could nominate, and we will pick who we believe is the best overall representative of the auxiliary professions. We do not want to, in any way, exclude any of the auxiliary groups from a proper input to the advice that the board might want to give to us. Therefore, what I am signalling to you is that we are not inclined to earmark a seat on the board for the dental therapist. We will, on the other hand, be very much encouraging all three auxiliary groups to work with us to identify a suitable representative.
It is important to distinguish between the general career status and development of dental therapists, and the issues that are involved in this particular legislation - which is to get an overall balance in the representation on each of the professional boards. It in no way is reflecting on the incredibly valuable work that dental therapists or any of the auxiliaries do within our community. They are vital parts of our professional life here. I just ask them to distinguish between the status and the symbolism of their profession - which can be expressed through all sorts of association within both the national level and at the local level - and this particular function of arranging for the regulation and the quality assurance, I guess, you need to allow professions operating in the Territory and, of course, enforcing that through the provisions for hearings and prescriptions.
I have dealt with our intentions as regards to independence of the board which the Australian Dental Association included in their submission. We made a pretty strong signal there that, by having the boards elect their chairs, we are not about trying to manipulate the relationship between the professions and us as a government. The question of the codes I have already mentioned.
This, like the Radiation Protection Bill yesterday, is a framework piece of legislation. It depends on the input from all these professions themselves to flesh out the actual operation of the legislation. Therefore, what we have here is the skeleton of the processes that are going to be involved in regulation: hearing of any malpractice, registration, and the accounting of the presence and activities of each of these professions within the Northern Territory.
Regarding the general points such as the contacts with the Australian Dental Association that you raised in the second reading debate, we have had quite a number of detailed discussions with the ADA. My staff met with ADA representatives on 13 February, which was the latest of the meetings, and all the matters that we have gone through in brief in this response were canvassed at that meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the ADA indicated general acceptance of the intent of the legislation. I am also advised that the ADA met with the Dental Board on 5 March to discuss the issues and, at the conclusion of that meeting, the ADA also indicated general acceptance. Therefore, I believe we are probably pretty right in trying to meet their concerns.
Pharmacy ownership is a key issue. The member for Nelson also raised the issue of why we have exemptions and why we have ministerial discretion to allow other groups alongside the pharmacists to operate pharmacies within the Northern Territory. I will go through some background on this. It is important to put our decision in the context of matters that are much bigger than the Territory in these sorts of decisions.
The community expects pharmacies to be owned and operated by health professionals and not by corporations, and that is our belief. We believe that the last thing Territorians want would be pharmacy retailing completely controlled by the big chains, and to lose the 70-plus small businesses that are based on pharmacist-owned pharmacies in the Northern Territory. There are 78, to be exact.
There are two things really: do you want this industry sector to be basically running through small business operations that are very localised and very much part of the community in which they operate, or do you want them to be increasingly sucked into the big supermarket chains and their operations? While there is no danger in dispensing pharmaceuticals because they would still have to be operated by a pharmacist in that section of the supermarket, there is no doubt that we would have fewer pharmacy outlets in bigger retail operations and less personal attention than we have in the current system.
That may or may not be an opinion with which you agree, but it is not my opinion alone. The findings were supported by the Prime Minister in a media release dated 2 August 2002 in which he said:
- Pharmacy services are an important element of the overall Australian health care system. I am a strong
supporter of maintaining the tradition of pharmacies owned and operated by pharmacists.
The Territory, as I said, has supported that approach. We, however, do not see an exclusive ownership by pharmacists of pharmacies as being to the maximum benefit of the Northern Territory. The member for Nelson said if you are going to let Aboriginal services of one sort or another potentially operate a pharmacy through an exemption issued by the minister, what about Humpty Doo or Adelaide River? That is what led us to also talk to the friendly societies that specialise in operating pharmacies in areas that may not be fully commercial in their context. The friendlies are not in the Territory at the moment. They certainly expressed interest to at least have the ability to access the Territory to extend their operations, specialising in more remote areas.
There may be some major possibility of having Aboriginal Medical Services or other Aboriginal organisations or, in fact, non-Aboriginal remote communities, sit down with the friendlies and see if they can work out a way of extending pharmacy services into the more remote and smaller places in the Territory. The Wilkinson review and the COAG working group’s recommendations supported retention of friendly society-owned pharmacies in those jurisdictions where they exist. The Northern Territory will also take up this recommendation.
The introduction of the proposed legislative regime was found to be in the public interest, as the cost of establishing offences to ensure that non-pharmacist-owned pharmacies maintain professional standard was considered to outweigh any gains from the increased competition. The imposition of pharmacy ownership restrictions, coupled with discretionary power to grant exemptions in the public interest, will ensure the proper balance for the NT and help develop a community capacity through the entities I have already been talking about – the Aboriginal health boards and friendlies.
Public interest arguments in favour of pharmacy ownership restrictions are supported by the findings of the Wilkinson report and the views of the Prime Minister I have already reported. To back up my assertions about the Prime Minister’s attitude, I will table both a letter from the Prime Minister to the Pharmacy Guild, and a letter from the Pharmacy Guild to myself, in which the guild reports back on a meeting they had with John Howard, where he affirmed absolutely that he was wanting to see pharmacist-owned pharmacy arrangements defended.
There has been some indication from the National Competition Council. They took a position earlier on where they were pushing us towards not going in that direction. We are still waiting to hear the results of a federal Cabinet meeting that was held last Tuesday, we suspect. You are never really told exactly what is on at a Cabinet meeting. However, the guild is pretty certain that the federal Cabinet was going to make a decision about these issues at that meeting.
We would want to see an absolute undertaking from the NCC to the Northern Territory government that we will not be penalised for what they might judge to be an anti-competitive arrangement prior to commencing that part of this legislation. To that end, we have brought forward a committee stage amendment which will allow us to commence the section of the bill - or act, as it will be - dealing with the pharmacist-owned pharmacy, at a different time to the act as a whole. That gives us a bit of flexibility. We can wait and see until we do get an absolute written undertaking from the NCC that we are not going to get dinged about $1m-plus if they take a dislike to it. However, we are very confident, on the basis that the Prime Minister has expressed such a clear direction and taken this matter to his Cabinet, that we should not have any problems with it.
Madam Speaker, that sums up the issues as I see them from the second-reading debate contributions. I suggest we move forward to committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: The committee has before it the Health Practitioners Bill 2003 (Serial 201) together with schedule of amendments No 79 circulated by the member for Port Darwin, Ms Carter, and schedule of amendments Nos 80 and 81 circulated by the Minister for Health, Dr Toyne.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.1. In order to comply with the National Competition Council requirements, in particular in relation to pharmacy ownership issues, Part 1, clause 2 is to be amended to provide for flexible dates, as I have just mentioned in the second reading reply speech. This will allow the bill to be passed and commenced.
Clause 129 of Part 9, Division 2, and Schedule 8 which deal exclusively with pharmacy ownership, will be commenced at a date yet to be determined by the federal response.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.2. The Nursing Board of the Northern Territory’s title is to be changed to The Nursing and Midwifery Board. The definition of Nursing Board in Part 1, clause 4 is to be changed to Nursing and Midwifery Board. All other reference to the Nursing Board will be altered accordingly. Having the whole title of the board throughout the bill reinforces the recognition of midwifery as an independent profession.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 8, by leave, taken together:
Ms CARTER: I will just seek some clarification as to the process, being somewhat of a novice in this procedure. The Dental Association have raised a number of issues. I am not going to touch on all of them, but a few of them as we go through just to get clarification on the record for some of them. At what point, Mr Chairman, do you want me to raise those issues as we go through, when you are pushing five or six clauses together and many of them fall in that moment?
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Port Darwin, when I get to the amendments that you are putting forward, I will mention your name.
Ms CARTER: But some of these things are not amendments. They have actually been raised with regards to clauses by the Dental Association. For example, the one I want to talk about now is section 7. In the script that we have for this, it is clauses 5 to 8. Clause 7 does not get mentioned as a single item. I have a number of these …
Mr CHAIRMAN: You can raise it at that period. When I ask is it the wish of the committee that clauses 5 to 8 be taken together, then you stand and I will recognise you.
Ms CARTER: All right.
Dr TOYNE: Do you want to raise something there before we sign off on it?
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, I would like to raise an issue with regard to proposed clause 7, Establishment of Boards. The Dental Association has written asking for clarification in regard to the area of clause 7(4)(a) which is the naming of the boards and the categories with regard to health care workers.
Their issue is that, when an Aboriginal health care worker is performing acts in dentistry - and it will be the same for nurses as well, more than likely - which board oversights their practice? If it is an Aboriginal health worker performing dentistry, which board?
Dr TOYNE: The answer to that is the Dental Board.
Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.3. All board members are appointed by the minister to facilitate administrative efficiencies. I have agreed to the board members being empowered to elect the chair from the membership, rather than being appointed separately by the minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.4. As I no longer appoint the chair as a position in its own right, this clause now need only refer to the board members.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 13, by leave, be taken together and agreed to.
Clause 14:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.5. A new clause is to be inserted which states:
- The minister may appoint a person to act as the registrar of a board during any period, or during all periods,
when the registrar is absent from duty or from the Territory and during a vacancy in the office.
This is what I referred to in the second reading debate and is simply to make sure there is continuity of the function of a registrar.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 28, by leave, taken together:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, with regard to clause 17, the Australian Dental Association has raised the issue that, in this clause as it currently stands, the board provides a report by 31 December each year - which is a six month period in which they are to provide a report. The Dental Association feels that that is too long. I guess the concern is that if it is six months, and, if it is a couple of months extra because they are running late, suddenly it is February/March the following year. Their view is that three months would be adequate, just as it is, for example, in the Northern Territory Public Service.
Dr TOYNE: I am advised that the time period was to allow for a period in the financial year which is extremely busy. There is re-registration of the registered membership of the professions. There is a time period where there will be a decreased ability to carry through work as you approach the end of the year and the festive season. Therefore, for that reason, there was a wider time frame put around it.
Ms CARTER: Clause 20 as it currently stands refers to the qualifications that a person needs to have, or which a board may consider relevant, for a person to be registered in the range of health professions that we are talking about in this bill. The Australian Dental Association raises an issue, and I am actually going to read from their letter when they are talking about section 20(3).
- The Australian Dental Association believes that in dentistry, as machinery exists to accredit courses and to assess
the competency of persons wishing to practice in Australia, only those who have successfully completed a course
accredited by the Australian Dental Council should be eligible to apply for registration.
Dr TOYNE: This is about dentists or …
Ms CARTER: Yes, dentists. Specific.
Dr TOYNE: The bill provides that a board has the power to accredit courses, but does not prescribe the process for this to occur. The new Dental Board will adopt the current policy, which states that any course accredited by ADC will be taken to have been accredited by the Dental Board. The ADA met with members of my staff on 13 February, and these matters were covered. While they gave general support, it included for that arrangement.
Ms CARTER: At this point, I move on to clause 22(1)(e), which is actually one of the criteria that people have to meet in order to become registered. It is that the person:
- … has adequate professional indemnity arrangements in place …
Dr TOYNE: I am advised that, first, it would be an unusual circumstance, given the level of professional indemnity coverage that normally occurs around the country which is in the millions of dollars range. However, the boards and, in particular that board, have indicated that they will make those assessments with advice from the insurance industry as to what might be adequate.
Ms CARTER: This is definitely a member for Port Darwin question: with regards to indemnity insurance, if a person cannot get cover or the board deems it inadequate, what happens? Does that mean they cannot be registered? An example would be independent midwives wanting to do homebirths?
Dr TOYNE: I will take you to the exact wording, which is ‘arrangements for professional indemnity insurance’. It will get down to a judgment for the board to make, which is not based on the particulars of the coverage, but on the safety of the public. Basically, that provision is there to say that, if a patient who has been mistreated by a professional of any description in the health area and who subsequently suffers a major disadvantage, will have access to adequate coverage. At the heart of it all there is a judgment to be made by one of the boards as to whether coverage is needed or the level of coverage.
In respect of midwives, I have been given some notes, which might be of help. The bill requires that all registrants have professional indemnity arrangements in place as a requirement of the registration. There is a strong public interest argument for professional indemnity arrangements to be one of the requirements for registration. There should be an ability for the public to have access to financial assistance or compensation if harm is caused by a registered practitioner. Of the 32 submissions received during the consultation phase, no objections were raised regarding this requirement. In relation to nursing and midwifery, submissions were received from the ANF NT Branch, the Royal College of Nursing Australia National Office and the Australian College of Midwives Incorporated, National Office and NT Branch. The national branch of the ACMI sought clarification on what a professional indemnity arrangement means, but raised no specific objection to the provision.
In Australia, midwives are employed in either the private or public sector. In the private sector, there are a number of midwives who practice as independent midwives, or homebirth midwives. Midwives who practice independently, or in homebirth settings, have found it increasingly difficult to access professional indemnity insurance. This has been due to the number of high profile professional conduct and negligent cases in recent years, where professional indemnity insurers are reluctant to insure midwives who work in these practice settings. Midwives who practice independently or in homebirth settings will need to satisfy the Nursing and Midwifery Board that they have a professional indemnity arrangement in place to be entitled to registration. We have one such individual in Alice Springs I am aware of, and there may be others in the Territory.
Ms CARTER: To confirm, minister, what you are saying there is that, if a midwife cannot get indemnity insurance, there is a reasonable chance that he or she will not be able to be registered.
Dr TOYNE: Yes, but I am also saying that the most extreme situation, if you like, is someone practising in the private sector in the community, independent of an organisation. Obviously, midwives working in the public system would be indemnified by being part of government as well.
Clauses 15 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.6. This clause, titled ‘Person cannot be registered or enrolled at the same time’, pertains to nurses only. Clause 29(1) provides for a generic prohibition of registered and enrolled practitioners. At present, enrolled nurses sometimes become Aboriginal health workers, as I have earlier stated. This works well as the two professions are quite distinct. Therefore, clause 29(1) is to be omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.7. Only the Nurses Board can grant registration to registered nurses or enrolment to enrolled nurses, therefore the inclusion of the words ‘by the Nursing Board’ are superfluous and are being omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.8. Only the Registrar of the Nursing Board can grant registration to registered nurses or enrolment to enrolled nurses. Therefore, the inclusion of the words ‘by the Registrar of the Nursing Board’ are superfluous and should be omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 37, by leave, taken together:
Ms CARTER: I refer now to clause 31(1). This was an issue raised by the Australian Dental Association in their submission to me. It refers to the fact that a board may declare an area of health care practice to be a ‘restricted practice area’. The Australian Dental Association seeks greater clarification as to what a restricted practice area is because, in the definition, we are asked to refer back to this clause for the information. It is hard to quite pick what it is.
Dr TOYNE: I will read these notes into Hansard to answer that issue. This refers to a provision at clause 31, as you have said, which states:
(1) The board may, in respect of the category of health care practice for which it is established, declare an area
of health care practice to be a restricted practice area.
The bill empowers the respective boards to declare areas of treatment which have a high probability of causing serious damage if practised by an inappropriately qualified person. The high-risk treatments are restricted and the board will require persons who wish to practice in such areas, irrespective of their professional classification, to demonstrate to the board’s satisfaction that they have sufficient training, experience and competence to practice in that particular area. The bill allows for a board to grant an authorisation to persons to practice in a restricted practice area. This may include, for example, Aboriginal health workers and remote areas nurses being authorised to provide certain dental services for which they are trained and competent to undertake. This will be of particular benefit to communities where oral health practitioners are not readily available.
The bill allows for disciplinary proceedings to commence where registrants undertake activities beyond their core competencies, and where unregistered persons carry out treatments for which they are not authorised. This approach will maximise the benefit to the community of an individual’s skills and training while maintaining consumer protection.
Clauses 30 to 37 agreed to.
Clause 38:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.9. The Nursing Board’s title is changed to the Nursing and Midwifery Board. The definition of Nursing Board in Part 1, clause 4, was changed to Nursing and Midwifery Board. This reference to the Nursing Board should be omitted and substituted with Nursing and Midwifery Board. It is fairly straightforward.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, as you know, I put in an amendment to this clause known as amendment 79.1. I would not like to withdraw it. I am happy with the amendment the government has submitted.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.10. Clause 40(2)(c)(i) provides that a dental therapist or a dental hygienist practise under the supervision of a dentist or a dental specialist. Supervision is defined under clause 4 as including oversight direction, guidance and support. The intent of the legislation is to allow for direct or indirect supervision to occur. In order to ease the concerns of practitioners in this area and ensure the intent of their legislation is clear, clause 40(2)(c)(i), which pertains to the supervision of dental therapists and dental hygienists, is to be amended to state ‘under the direct or indirect supervision’. This reflects the current supervision arrangements.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.11. The Nursing Board’s title was changed to the Nursing and Midwifery Board. The definition of Nursing Board in Part 1, clause 4, was changed to Nursing and Midwifery Board. This reference to the Nursing Board should be omitted and substituted with Nursing and Midwifery Board.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.12. Clause 40(3)(a) provides that the enrolled nurse practice under the supervision of a registered nurse. Supervision is defined under clause 4 as including oversight, direction, guidance and support. The intention of the legislation is to allow for direct or indirect supervision to occur. In order to ease the concerns and so on we are substituting ‘under the direct or indirect supervision’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 and 42, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 43:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.13. Each board should be responsible for its own register and the register should be called after the category of health practitioner that that board is convened to govern. For example, the Dental Register, Medical Register, Nursing Register.
Clause 43(1) of the bill, titled Registers, currently states that a board must keep a register called the Register for Health Practitioners. Therefore, the following words will be omitted: ‘called the Register of Health Practitioners’ and the clause 43 will now read ‘A board must keep a register’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.14. The Nurses Board title was changed to the Nursing and Midwifery Board and we are going to do it again.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.15. Only the Nursing Board is empowered to keep a role of enrolled nurses. The inclusion of the word ‘nursing’ is superfluous and, therefore, will be omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 and 46, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 47:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.16. Clause 47(1) requires that a fee must be paid to inspect the register or a roll. This clause is seen to be restrictive and anti-competitive to consumers. In other jurisdictions, most registers are now available for viewing on the Internet free of charge, and this will be the case in the Northern Territory in the near future. Collection of a fee to inspect the register is not a significant revenue-raising activity for government. The current inspection fee is $10. Annually, there are only a handful of requests to inspect the register and it is much more common for people to obtain details via a telephone call. Therefore, we will remove references to require payment.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.17. Similarly, the fees and charges for obtaining a copy or extract of the register or roll have been removed.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 58, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 58A:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.18. A new clause is to be inserted which allows for the boards to enter into mediation with the practitioners and a complainant if appropriate. Complaints should be resolved at the lowest level possible, and mediation is an important part of complaint resolution and should be an option made available to the boards.
Amendment agreed to.
Proposed clause 58A agreed to.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.19. This is a new clause that requires that a board must notify the complainant, as appropriate, of any action taken under the complaints section. Whilst it is already board practice to notify complainants of its decision, inclusion of this provision will allow for natural justice for the complainant to be enshrined in the legislation and not left as board policy decision.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 80.20. Clause 62 of the bill, entitled Establishment and constitution of Tribunal, pertains to the special members of the Health Professional Review Tribunal. Owing to the small numbers of registrants in the Northern Territory, interstate practitioners may be called upon to sit on a tribunal. Requiring current registration or enrolment in any jurisdiction in Australia ensures that the practitioners will have the currency of competence and recency of practice to enable them to perform duties as required for the tribunal.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 63 to 132, by leave, taken together:
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, I refer now to clause 102, False claims. The Australian Dental Association in their submission have raised this issue, and it is an interesting one in that, pursuant to clause 102(3), a person must not hold himself or herself out to be a health professional when they are not. In other words, they must not impersonate a health practitioner. The penalty is 500 units. This a regulatory offence.
When you compare that to clause 105, Offences of dishonesty, which states a person must not forge or change a degree or diploma etcetera with regards to being a health practitioner, the penalty is 100 penalty units or imprisonment for six months.
According to this, if you hold yourself out to be a health practitioner such as a doctor, for example, you do not have to go to gaol. However, if you forge a degree or diploma, you run the risk of going to gaol. The Australian Dental Association and I wondered why is forgery seen as a less serious offence than fraud.
Dr TOYNE: I am advised - and I have personal experience of this - that the Department of Justice has a scale of penalties that calibrate all offences that government may be applying to different types of misbehaviour. It was the Department of Justice that decided on the relativity between those two offence categories.
I do not have the scale that they base that on or their rationale on this offence. I can get that for you for you if you like and we can get back to you on it. At this stage, what I ask you to accept is that it has been a formal judgment of the two offences, and that it would be in line with the overall scale of penalties applied across government.
Ms CARTER: Thank you. I and others would be interested to understand why it is that it is less of a serious nature to hold yourself out, for example, as a doctor, than it would be to actually forge a doctor’s certificate and stick it up on your bedroom wall. Which brings me also to the question: if a board was aware that somebody had fraudulently held themselves out to be a health practitioner, should they not be compelled to report that to the police and have it pursued as a criminal matter?
Dr TOYNE: I am advised that not only should a board report either a regulatory or criminal offence to the police if they become aware of it, but they actually have done so in the past on occasions.
Ms CARTER: I am pleased to hear that, but just for a point, it is not reflected in the legislation and it might be something to take into consideration when I am sure this legislation is reviewed at a later date.
Dr TOYNE: I guess, as a general principle, that anyone operating in our community, if they are aware of a law being broken, has a responsibility to report it to the police. That should overarch any particular function of a board under any particular part of our legislation.
Clauses 63 to 132 agreed to.
Schedule 1:
Dr TOYNE (by leave): Mr Chairman, I move amendments 80.21 to 80.50.
Ms CARTER: Mr Chairman, I will be voting against this amendment. The reason being - and I refer specifically to the Dental Board of the Northern Territory - under the changes brought about in the last short period of time with the government’s latest amendments, the decision has been made - and I agree - that the minister no longer appoints the chair to the boards. As a consequence now, it means that we have to go through a number of amendments to reflect that. One of those specifically refers to the Dental Board in Schedule 1 clause 3, in that they now have seven members who then elect their own chair. The original legislation had it that three of those seven members were to be dentists. Now it is going to be changed to four under this amendment. I urge the minister to adopt my amendment, which is that we retain three dentists, two members of the public, one person – and this is where my change comes in – who is either a dental hygienist or dental prosthetist and, additionally, we have a position for a dental therapist. That would create seven positions. I would like the minister to consider carefully this amendment of mine to allow for a dental therapist to hold a position on the board.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I have made our position fairly clear during the second reading response. We are not of a mind to select out of the three dental auxiliary professions the dental therapists and say: ‘We are going to guarantee you a position on the board’ with 16 therapists operating in the Territory, while not guaranteeing 10 dental hygienists or 18 dental specialists a similar representation. The board membership in the amendment is four dentists, one dental auxiliary and, as you said, two members of the public. We believe that we are better to go out to all three of the dental auxiliary groups, ask them to nominate who they believe would be the best representative, and then have one person representing those three auxiliary professions.
I guess if you have six people, you are trying to represent an area of health professional practice, and it is a matter of what judgment you want to place on that. However, that is certainly what we feel is the most appropriate balance between the different parts of that profession.
Ms CARTER: Minister, could you advise how many dentists are registered in the Northern Territory?
Dr TOYNE: Dentists? 78.
Ms CARTER: The make-up of the board as it sits under your amendment will be that there will be four dentists on the board representing nearly 80 dentists, and there will be one dental auxiliary representing 34 registered people who are in the categories of dental auxiliary: dental therapists, dental hygienists, and dental prosthetists. I just think it is not fair, if you look at the numbers, if you understand that what you are doing with this legislation - which I agree with - is expending the role of dental therapists. We have the five-year plan for health in the Northern Territory that identifies the gap in dental services in the Territory. I believe that dental therapists have a very valid, useful, worthwhile, affordable role to play in the provision of dental services in the Northern Territory. I believe we are going to see an increasing number of dental therapists in the Northern Territory.
What has happened now is a chance thing, with the government deciding to stop the minister designating exactly who is going to be the chair. It has freed up a position, and we could take this opportunity now to better represent the non-dentists on the Dental Board, who are health professionals providing a useful, valid health service here in the Northern Territory. It would still mean that we would have three dentists representing 78 registered dentists in the Northern Territory which, certainly compared to nursing, is a very healthy ratio. It would be great to be able to provide two, instead of having just one of those auxiliary positions on the board, and give one to dental therapists who are almost double the number of the two other dental auxiliary groups combined. It is a fair thing to do for what I perceive will be a growth industry.
Dr TOYNE: No, I am sorry. The figures are 16 dental therapists, 10 dental hygienists and 18 dental specialists, so the dental therapists are not even the largest group out of the three auxiliaries. However, let us get one thing straight. This is not a party-political system we are trying to establish on the board. The members of that board are representing the interests of the Northern Territory and the general public, as well as the profession that they come from. The people we will be looking for when we are deciding which six people should sit on that body, are people who can genuinely look widely across the interests of our Territory, as well as the total interests of the profession.
I would hate to think that in the room there are people who simply have a very narrow self-interest to their particular profession. They will often be asked to make decisions where they balance the interests of consumers against those of a particular professional who is practising. Therefore, that concept of what these boards are doing would mediate against a balancing-up on the scales: we have 17 of them therefore they deserve one, or that sort of approach to it. We are looking for people and there are some fine people operating around the Territory. We will find six very good people who can work well together and genuinely look across their whole profession and balance the interests that are going to be involved there.
I am not asking you to accept that I have a superior opinion about it. We are all going to have to see what comes out of the operation of these arrangements. However, what I can say is that, if you look around the rest of the country - I will just give you a quick overview. Victoria has a dedicated position for dental auxiliaries. I am not sure of the size of these boards, but we probably could find out. Queensland has a position for a dental therapist as they have only recently become a registered profession. Tasmania and South Australia have positions for therapists. New South Wales currently do not have position on the dental board because they are not a registered profession in New South Wales. The ACT do not have a position as they are not a registered profession there either, although the new Omnibus Bill similar to what we are doing is scheduled to be debated in May 2004, and it is proposed that there will be a dental therapist and a dental hygienist on their board. That is yet to be finalised. Western Australia has seven members on its board, five of whom must be dentists and the remaining two are appointed at the discretion of the minister and could be either a member of the public or dental auxiliary. There is a bit of a range around the country.
These things need to be tested and, if there is a problem with the way the board operates under its proposed membership, we will always come and revisit it. Having said that, I just want to repeat my comments about the type of outlook we want to see people take to those boards - not just the dental one but all 10 of them – so that they are thinking along with us for the best interests all around in the areas that they have to make decisions.
Ms CARTER: My apologies with regards to the arithmetic that I did. I actually thought you had said when you described 18 that they were dental prosthetists. I obviously must have had a bit of that wax, and I did not realise you were referring to dental specialists. I still hold to my argument though that dental therapists are going to be, I believe, a growing group in the Northern Territory. Based on the five-year health plan strategy that was launched a few weeks ago, there is going to be an increase in demand for their services here in the Northern Territory.
The set-up of the Dental Board will now result in four dentists and three people who are not dentists. I have a little disquiet with regards to vested interests within that area, because I am concerned that dentists will use their power and strength on that board to veto or stymie efforts by non-dentists to expand their practice and provide a broader service in the Northern Territory. I hope I am wrong and that that is not accurate. I also hope that, if there are concerns by any members of the board, they pass those concerns on, perhaps to the minister if that is appropriate, so that it can be an area that is monitored. I support the area of the five-year health plan that talks about oral health and I hope that these changes do go some way in improving the services for oral health in the Northern Territory.
Dr TOYNE: I can propose a pact that we will do everything we can to not only support dental therapists, but build them an increasing place in the dental services that we want to extend around the Territory. The five-year plan describes it as a challenge and that is what it is going to be. We do not want disincentives, and certainly not of the type where dentists in some way try to curtail their activities.
I have been very clear, both in the second reading debate and again now, that far from wanting to curtail the currency of dental therapists around the Territory, we actually want to see it extend. This bill will have the effect of allowing them further scope for extension. The fact that we have accepted the amendment regarding the supervision and indirect supervision is a very clear signal that that is what we are trying to do. Let us keep looking at it together. We will see how it rolls out over the next year or so and, if there is a blockage somewhere, we will clear it.
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule l, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2:
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 80.51. The chair is no longer appointed in its own right. This clause provides for administrative processes that allow the board to elect one of its members to be chairperson, and for the chair to resign in writing to the board. This clause also allows the chair to resign, but to remain a member, which will facilitate the continuity of corporate knowledge and allow for mentoring and support of a new chair.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3:
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 80.52. The Nursing Board’s name was changed to ‘Nursing and Midwifery Board’ and here we go again.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 4 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 8:
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 81.1. The bill as it stands prevents Australian Friendly Societies Pharmacies Association Inc, or the friendly societies, from owning a pharmacy. It was found that the friendly society pharmacies and surviving corporate pharmacies in Australia appear to work well and are competently managed and professionally sensitive pharmacy businesses. Further, the COAG working group reviewed and rejected Wilkinson’s recommendation that friendly society pharmacies should not be allowed to operate in the future in the Northern Territory when, at the time of the review, there were no friendly society pharmacies.
Amendment 80.53 originally provided in Schedule 8, clause 2(2) an amendment to empower the minister to grant an exemption to allow the Australian Friendly Societies Pharmacies Association Inc to own a pharmacy. We are actually referring to it as ‘or friendly society’ in amendment 81.1. We are moving it in this current form of amendment 81.1, in lieu of amendment 80.53.
The reason for the change is that, originally, it was referring to the Australian Friendly Societies Pharmacy Association Inc, and that entity is not the friendly society that we would be introducing into the Territory. Therefore, we needed to change the terminology.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 80.54. In order to ensure compliance with National Competition Council requirements, in particular in relation to pharmacy ownership issues, Schedule 8 will not commence until a date yet to be determined. Clause 129 allows for Schedule 8 to commence, and is, therefore, affected by the staggered commencement dates.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Schedule 10:
Dr TOYNE: Madam Deputy Chair, I move amendment 80.55. In order to ensure compliance with National Competition Council requirements, in particular in relation to pharmacy ownership issues, Schedule 8 will not commence until a date yet to be determined. Schedule 10 is to be amended to reflect that the remainder of the act will commence, and the savings and transitional provisions will take effect.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Bill reported, report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee
Report on Termination Payments for
CEOs and ECOs, Report No 42
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee
Report on Termination Payments for
CEOs and ECOs, Report No 42
Continued from 26 February 2004.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I continue my remarks on the Public Accounts Committee Report on Termination Payments for Chief Executive Officers and Executive Officers.
There appeared to be a perception within the public sector and the community at large that, prior to the Martin government taking office, as well as during the 18 months settling-in period post the August 2001 election, senior public servants may have been generously rewarded when termination payments were under consideration. Rightly or wrongly, it would be foolish not to acknowledge the public perception. With the report tabled by the Public Accounts Committee, we are now able to put to rest once and for all the innuendos and the assumptions that existed.
As early as August 2000, the then Auditor-General, Mr Iain Summers, noted in his August report to this Assembly that:
- Variations to the standard contract terms for CEOs and ECOs terminating early were observed in each case examined.
He went on to clarify that, although the variations appeared to be as a result of negotiations between the Commissioner for Public Employment and the agency where the officer was employed, they were appropriately approved. Unfortunately, what the Auditor-General found was that the support documentation relating to formal exit interviews and requisite particular discussions were not retained on any files within the commissioner’s office.
With this as background, the Auditor-General again revised the issue in January 2002 and, in doing so, took the decision to review the 18-month period, February 2000 to 31 December 2001. In selecting this period, the Auditor-General included the period either side of the Northern Territory election held in August 2001. The results of this audit were contained in his report tabled in February 2002 and, unfortunately, encountered the same problems with contractual variations and termination payments, with insufficient records supporting or clarifying the decisions.
It was against this backdrop that the Public Accounts Committee established its terms of reference to thoroughly investigate the whole issue of termination payments for chief executive officers and executive officers. In setting its terms of reference, the committee also took the decision to review a 12-month period prior to the August 2001 election, and a further period of 12 months immediately after.
For the information of those who were not present when the terms of reference were read at the commence of the public hearing, or have not had access to the committee’s tabled report, I take the opportunity to read them. The scope of the inquiry was separated into the following three specific areas:
(1) The framework, covering the process and entitlements for departures from NTPS agencies and how the
process was administered - with particular reference to the process relating to departures initiated by
the employer.
(2) The total cost brought about by reason of the employer initiating the departure and savings derived from employer-initiated departures for each period.
(3) Any improvements which are being implemented to the process administered by the Commissioner for
Public Employment to address the issues raised by the Auditor-General.
In framing these terms of reference, the committee was acutely aware of the need for sensitivity when acknowledging an individual’s right to privacy. It addressed this issue by establishing a process which clearly set out the parameters within which the public hearing would be conducted. The procedures to be adhered to throughout the public hearing ensured that, within the context of the scope of the inquiry, details associated with individual officers or departments would not be provided. To support this, the following preamble was included within the terms of reference:
This understanding is based on the committee’s commitment to respect and adhere to the important and long-standing right of people to privacy and the need to keep the personal records of government employees private and confidential; respect and adhere to employment instructions, employee records and NT Public Service principles, code of conduct, which bind all other branches of government, and are designed to protect people’s privacy and provide for an efficient and public service.
Mr John Kirwan, the Commissioner for Public Employment, and senior officers of the agency were invited to appear before the committee at a public hearing on Friday, 13 February 2003. The committee presented the commissioner with the specific terms of reference for his inquiry, and he was able to provide committee members with an information folder which addressed in detail the three criteria for the scope of the inquiry. The questioning of Mr Kirwan in regard to responsibility for employment at the various levels of employees was interesting.
I can honestly say that there existed a degree of confusion as to who had the overall responsibility to hire and fire. I would imagine similar uncertainty over this vexed issue may have existed across the public and private sector. Mr Kirwan was able to place on record the fact that, since 1 July 2002, his office had resumed the role of managing all the executive contracts, while employment of CEOs is the responsibility of the government of the day and the individual minister. There is, however, a form of safety mechanism which has recently been put in place: an executive remuneration review panel has been established which provides a level of scrutiny and advice on remuneration arrangements for chief executive officers.
To make sure the matter is clearly understood, I quote Mr Kirwan from transcript on Friday, 13 February 2003:
- CEOs are not my employees under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. They are employees
of the government, and I am delegated on behalf of the minister to sign those contracts. ECOs are employees
of the NTPS under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act.
That statement was clear and concise and leaves no doubt as to who holds the ultimate responsibility.
The other area of questioning was the employment of press officers and ministerial staff within the ministers’ offices. Mr Kirwan was able to point out that the OCPE has no responsibility whatsoever for contractual arrangements for the minister’s personal staff. They are not considered employees under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. The committee’s terms of reference directed members to investigate the process and entitlements for departure from the Northern Territory Public Service. With Mr Kirwan’s acknowledgment that press officers and ministerial staff are not public sector employees, the issue was not pursued.
The committee’s second point within the scope of the inquiry was to consider the costs associated with any terminations/resignations, with the grand total of 30 officer-initiated redundancies occurring over the two-year period under review. Mr Kirwan alerted the committee to the pitfalls of attempting to apply any simple averaging exercise, as there are a number of long-term public sector employees included within a group of figures. In looking solely at the dollar value resulting from terminations/resignations, the information provided by OCPE indicated significant savings in both areas. Mr Kirwan made the point that, in the first instance, the committee should be aware that the actual payments associated with executive contract terminations were at the lower end of the national standards. He then drew the comparison between his previous interstate employment, where he would have had a statutory entitlement to 12 months payment in any redundancy action, as opposed to the maximum of six months within the Northern Territory.
Members of the committee also sought advice on the quantification of any indirect costs; for example, redistribution of responsibility, additional workload etcetera that could be associated with the termination process. In discussing the aspect of indirect costs, Mr Kirwan pointed out to the committee that there were no processes in place which quarantine information of this nature. He also explained that this was not unique to the Northern Territory, as a search of other jurisdictions’ methodologies proved unsuccessful in locating any recording process that featured these indirect costs. In making this point, Mr Kirwan suggested to the committee that any consideration of the process surrounding terminations should be cognisant of the individual rights which must be afforded to all employees. Basic staff motivation and the disruptive impact on the work force in general, where employees were dissatisfied or unhappy due to the continual uncertainty in the CEO and ECO positions, must have a major bearing in consideration of any indirect costs.
This point raised by Mr Kirwan cannot be overstated. It goes to the very core of productivity within our public sector. Unpalatable as it is, there are times when a termination or severance is the only option and, as long as the negotiations between all parties - and I emphasise all parties - are of a voluntary nature, a speedy outcome must be sought. Although the committee set out clearly its terms of reference, it was indeed sobering to be reminded of the broader human aspect associated with the terminations.
The final issue on which the committee sought clarification was any improvements for the process which were being implemented by OCPE. The detail contained within the information folder presented to all members by the OCPE at the beginning of the public hearing, certainly confirmed, beyond a doubt, that a significant change in attitude has taken place since appointment of Mr Kirwan as Commissioner in July 2002.
The concerns raised by Mr Summers, the previous Auditor-General, were accurate in that he could not find a documented audit trail to support payments over and above the contractual agreements. Mr Kirwan also acknowledged this shortfall in the agencies’ previous record-keeping process and, in conjunction with the senior officers, has put in place measures that members are advised are acceptable to Mr Mike Blake, the current Auditor-General.
Despite the fact that it is acknowledged that the paper trail to support variations to contractual payouts is important, it is also necessary to place on the public record the fact that both the previous Auditor-General and Mr Kirwan have stated that the payments were appropriately authorised. In Mr Kirwan’s case, he had personally reviewed all the files within the period under review and was satisfied that they were all genuinely justified as a redundancy process. It is important to highlight this issue because, as stated when I first rose to speak on the report, we need to make sure the issue of public perception is adequately addressed.
The committee included five key recommendations in its report. Information provided to the committee confirmed that the Office of the Commissioner of Public Employment plays an intrinsic role in the process of recruitment, through to the wind-up of executive contracts. The committee is of the view that procedures are in place and monitored to such an extent that the integrity of the processes can stand scrutiny. The committee also reached the conclusion that the quantification of indirect cost is not an issue which should be pursued, as the provision of direct costs associated with terminations provide sufficient data to determine a realistic valuation of the processes in place.
The information contained in the Auditor-General’s latest report of the establishment of an executive remuneration review panel, and the role he now plays in providing advice on CEO remuneration packages, led to the final two recommendations within the report. The recommendation that an executive remuneration review panel became involved and, through that process the Commissioner for Public Employment, at a consultative level in the recruitment process for CEOs aims at introducing a further level of accountability at the stage where individual ministers have entered into final negotiations with prospective applicants.
The final recommendation was an area that prompted lengthy, lively debate within the Public Accounts Committee. The issue of the disclosure of individual salary packages consumed many pages of transcript over the period of the public hearing, and there is really no need for me to attempt to reintroduce the arguments for and against in today’s debate. It is sufficient to say that the Auditor-General’s advice which was contained in a report, that such disclosure is a requirement of accounting standards issued by the International Federation of Accountants, and Mr Kirwan’s advice to the committee that at officer-to-officer level the issue of disclosure of senior officers’ remuneration in the notes attached to the financial statements of agencies is being investigated by Treasury, is a positive sign that the issue will be seriously considered by government.
I take this opportunity to thank Mr Mike Blake, the Auditor-General, who was able to accommodate the committee’s formal request to revisit the issue by examining the process currently in place within the OCPE. This request for an additional audit outside the set program for his office this financial year was conducted within an extremely tight time frame. The end result of his findings is that there now exists a level of accountability within the record-keeping process that satisfies his requirements for an adequate audit trail. On behalf of the committee, I would like to give a special mention to the Commissioner of Public Employment, Mr John Kirwan, and the staff of his agency for the preparation of the information folder made available to all committee members. The provision of such clear and concise documentation made the task of unravelling the issues surrounding the termination process far more straightforward.
Last but not least, I thank all members of the Public Accounts Committee for the effort they put in to working through the terms of reference. Although at times there was lengthy debate on particular aspects, it is a healthy sign that all members are actively contributing and the process is allowing individual views to be aired. This has been a truly bipartisan approach to what was seen as an inquiry into a sensitive issue.
Madam Speaker, the findings of the report are conclusive: there did appear to exist a culture within the OCPE that accepted the fact that, although correct procedures and approvals were always following and obtained, there was no follow-up to support by way of record keeping. This has been turned around by OCPE and should now only be a matter of course for the correct procedures to apply if and when senior workers work through the separation process. In addressing the terms of reference, the committee has been thorough in its research. I commend the report to honourable members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not go into as much detail as the member for Sanderson, but I support most of what he said. The inquiry was well worthwhile. When you recall that the inquiry was based on comments by the then Auditor-General, Mr Iain Summers, in February 2002, who said:
- The 13 November 2001 agency restructuring removed a number of CEOs from their positions, while the former
CEOs were offered continuation of employment at their current contractual remuneration terms, those who did
wish to cease their employment received termination payments as if their contracts had been terminated by the
government. There was insufficient documentation prepared to support the decisions to provide those
termination payments.
He went on to say:
- Other payments additional to contract requirements are continuing to occur when employees terminate,
also without sufficiently documented reasons.
The one good thing to emerge is that at least there was an open inquiry into what had occurred. When you then follow on from that statement to the review by the Auditor-General on 7 October 2003, you will see that most of the issues raised in the first Auditor-General’s report are pretty well covered. These were the key findings of the Auditor-General on 7 October 2003:
- For the majority of separations reviewed, payments to Chief Executive Officers and to Executive Contract
Officers, following early termination of their employment, were in accordance with their Contracts of Employment.
While the standard of documentation had improved, instances were still noted of a lack of documentation to
explain particular courses of action.
While this audit was focussed on ‘termination’ payments, evidence reviewed suggests that there was a policy
and disclosure gap as it relates to setting remuneration rates for inclusion in employment contracts negotiated
with the CEOs
Treasurer’s Direction should be amended to include disclosure of remuneration of Senior Officers in the notes
to financial statements consistent with the International Federation of Accountants public sector accounting
standards.
When you follow the report through, you will see that Mr John Kirwan did accept that there was a document trail which was less than perfect. He says that on page 21 of the report, where it states:
- Mr John Kirwan, the current Commissioner, when commenting on the Auditor-General’s October 2003 report, advised:
- While accepting the document trail was less than perfect in the instances identified, the faults were of
detail rather than substance.
What has come out of all this is probably a better and more open process. I have one difference of opinion about the process that the member for Sanderson has. We argued - or discuss, sorry, I should say - long and hard the issue of whether one should be entitled to know what our CEO’s and ECO’s salaries are. There was certainly quite a bit of debate over that issue. Whilst one might be able to debate whether that should be public knowledge, I still believe that the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee should have the right to know what the government is paying its CEOs and ECOs, for them to have an independent assessment of whether they think the termination payments were correct. If the PAC does not have the power to look at what salaries are being paid to particular high-ranking officials within government, then you have to ask yourself: what is the use of the PAC?
The PAC is there to check on how the government spends taxpayers’ money. One could argue - and I do not necessarily agree with this argument - that the salaries of our ECOs and CEOs should not be made public. However, surely, for a PAC to be effective and be a body which is keeping an eye on things - and surely keeping an eye on things includes the Public Service Commission - we should be entitled to have a look at those salaries and whatever other payments go with those salaries. Whilst I agree with the recommendations in this report, I put on record that I believe the PAC should be entitled to see what payments are being paid to high-ranking public servants so that the public knows that there is a parliamentary body out there that does keep an eye on these things, above, you might say, the political rhetoric that sometimes occurs when these issues come to the front.
Finally, I accept the report on the termination payments, and I thank all those members on the PAC, plus the staff, for all the work they have done. These documents are not lightweight documents. Also, thanks to all those public service people who were interviewed and spent their time putting their input into our report.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Yes, there is no dissent to this report, Madam Speaker. It is genuinely a report of the bipartisan Public Accounts Committee. It does not mean, as the previous speaker, the member for Nelson said, that there are not some concerns. One of the issues, really, is a balance between privacy for public servants, which should be there, and the ‘A’ letter in PAC - and that is accountability in accounts.
I know when I visited the Public Accounts Committee in Queensland, for instance, they were very keen to look at issues relating to performance contracts. They were keen to look at matters relating to the contract for the senior executive, what his or her outputs were supposed to be, and whether they had adhered to that performance.
I tend to think that we should err on the side, possibly, of privacy. I am not sure how much of these contracts should be divulged in the public realm. However, there are remedies for that. We can meet in camera, and there are some confidentiality capabilities within the Public Accounts Committee that are available to government as a whole. That is an issue that talks to the general role of the PAC; that is, where we can go, how far we can go, and whether, by bringing the public spotlight to some of these issues, we are actually intruding on the privacy of senior public servants.
It is interesting to note that the previous and the current Commissioner for Public Employment admitted their record keeping was deficient, and have taken steps to remedy this. To some extent, that vindicates the system: the fact that the Auditor-General came upon a problem, the problem was brought to the attention of people, and it has been fixed. I guess, if anything, it shows the system can and does work.
It is also interesting that the Chief Minister came to power with a handwritten, signed piece of paper that gave various assurances as to consultancies and not sacking public servants. We know that now to be not the case. There is absolutely no doubt public servants have been sacked, and that is in direct contravention with a signed personal pact that was taken to the election.
With those few comments, I am not sure it is important to dwell on some of the issues. It is there for the reading, including transcripts. Members will note that there was some issues where the opposition was dissatisfied. They will find those in the transcripts of evidence, where there are some questions about where various responsibilities lie. That is probably a matter for another time. The report can sit as a successful report that changed a deficient style of record keeping, and that has now been remedied thanks to Auditor-General Summers. Commissioner Kirwan should also be mentioned and Commissioner Hawkes, all of whom were players during this period.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the members of the Public Accounts Committee for their contributions to the debate. I agree with the member for Drysdale that there is an issue of balance here between the privacy of the individual and accountability owed to the Public Accounts Committee. I believe we struck that balance. I can understand, and am well aware of, the views that the member for Nelson holds on this issue. However, I believe that the PAC has adequately tackled the problem, and the system’s integrity is guaranteed through the body such as the Executive Remuneration Review Panel and OCPE.
It was pleasing to hear the member for Drysdale say that an issue had been detected and investigated by the Auditor-General, the PAC investigated it, and it was a good bipartisan outcome that showed that the system worked. I am in full accord with that; it did show that the system works. This is a forward--looking report. The problem was identified, systems were investigated, new systems were put into place, and the situation remedied.
Once again, I would like to thank the secretariat. I would also like to note that I disagree with the member for Drysdale where he said words to the effect that this does prove that there were public servant sackings. This is quite on the contrary and nowhere, actually, in the transcripts. If people care to look there some time, they will find that is a complete falsehood. Once again, the member for Drysdale comes out with things, throws them out to the great void, and expects people to bite on them like a barramundi. Well, it does not work anymore; people are a wake-up to it. You just cannot come in here and roll out these petty accusations and walk out like you think you have done your job.
Anyway, it was a bipartisan report. That is a great thing for the PAC. I look forward to working with all members in the future, particularly with the upcoming Estimates Committee.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
The Darwin Harbour Regional
Plan of Management
The Darwin Harbour Regional
Plan of Management
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, in November last year, the Minister for Lands and Planning tabled the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management in this House. I am just getting my copy of it to put it before me here. The development of the plan is a significant element of the government’s election platform, and I am delighted today to be able to endorse the recommendations of the plan and reinforce the government’s commitment.
The Darwin Harbour region is greatly valued by all Territorians; it plays a significant role in our economy, lifestyle and the character of the Top End of the Northern Territory. Maintaining and enhancing the many uses of the region whilst preserving the values that we so prize is a challenge for all of us.
The Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management aims to provide a coordinated approach to these many challenges in order to assure balanced and sustainable outcomes that protect and enhance the diverse values and uses of the region. One of the most consistent values expressed by the community has been the importance of protecting significant ecosystems and ensuring the region remains biologically productive. In particular, the conservation of mangrove communities is held as a high priority by the community. The harbour’s distinctive mangrove communities play a fundamental role in the aquatic ecosystems of Darwin Harbour. The government has implemented protective measures for these significant ecosystems through the rezoning of mangroves in the Darwin Harbour region.
Approximately 26 200 hectares of mangroves are now protected under the rezoning amendment to the Northern Territory planning scheme. This constitutes over 90% of mangroves within the catchment boundary. This initiative, together with the development of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management, provides a sustainable framework for the ongoing protection and management of the harbour’s natural assets.
The advisory committee, which was appointed in August 2002, has delivered a comprehensive plan for the future of Darwin Harbour. The plan presents a sound framework for managing the natural resources of the region and development of an integrated approach to monitoring and research to preserve the harbour’s qualities. There is a broad range of issues identified in the plan and there are implications for a range of government agencies in delivering the actions that are outlined. The government has considered these and will be providing the necessary support to facilitate the priority actions and recommendations identified in the plan. I am going to state the four major areas here: the plan states the need for formal recognition of the plan; progressive implementation of the identified actions; formal recognition of an advisory committee; and the periodic review and evaluation of the plan.
It also proposes the development of a framework for integrating research and monitoring in the region. It is recommended that this be facilitated through the establishment of an ecosystem research group and an ecosystem monitoring group. A number of government agencies will have significant involvement in these groups. Government’s participation in this initiative will enhance the Territory’s capabilities and build partnerships with key research institutions and agencies. The role of the ecosystem research group will be to direct research in to strategic areas that will address knowledge gaps and information needs. The ecosystem monitoring group will coordinate monitoring activities to ensure that consistent protocols are developed, so that the collected data is comparable. This group will also be charged with ensuring that monitoring programs are complementary and accessible to all parties. A reporting system will also be established to communicate the results of monitoring and research to the community, scientists and the natural resource managers.
The more we know about our harbour, the better placed we are to manage it. In 2001, we stated in our commitments that the protection of mangroves and significant ecosystems of the Darwin Harbour region should be based on sound scientific data. Although significant research has been undertaken on many aspects of the harbour and its catchment, there are still many gaps and much work to be done; in particular, improved understanding of the harbour ecosystem processes is essential to appropriately managing this natural resource.
The extensive water quality monitoring regime undertaken by my department in Darwin Harbour demonstrates the government’s commitment to protecting the values of Darwin Harbour, and the need to base our decisions on sound scientific knowledge. There is an ongoing need to measure the health of the harbour in order to guide management, especially as the region is at the threshold of major development.
Long-term strategic water quality monitoring sites have been established and assessed over several years, with a focus on the impact of land use on water quality. Activities undertaken in the catchment can have a considerable bearing on the state of our waterways and a direct impact on the water quality of Darwin Harbour. The water quality of rivers flowing into the Darwin Harbour has been monitored at 10 strategically identified sites over several years. The monitoring has focussed on studying the effects that land development can have on the water quality that flows into the harbour. The water quality of regional rivers is, obviously, one of the most significant agents that can affect the water quality of our harbour.
Monitoring water quality is focussed on potential pollutants. I will list these now to emphasise the extent and thorough nature of the monitoring program. The rivers are monitored for sediment, which may affect the clarity of Darwin Harbour, smother living organisms and change the make-up of the harbour bed. The rivers are monitored for plant nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorous. These are applied as fertilisers in the catchment. If too much nutrient enters the harbour, this results in algal blooms. The rivers are monitored for pesticides. Pesticides can affect the welfare of plants and animals if they enter the harbour. The rivers are also monitored for metals such as lead, zinc and cadmium. These metals can also affect the welfare of plants and animals.
Monitoring of the rivers shows that it is mainly our urban use of the catchment that affects water quality. This, however, represents only 2% of the catchment area. Most of the water flowing into the Darwin Harbour is clean and not polluted. The water quality in the harbour has been monitored since early 1990, but most intensively over the past few years. There are about a dozen sites in Port Darwin. Recently, the program has been extended to include Shoal Bay. This is in recognition of the vision of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management.
Monitoring has revealed that the greatest impact on water quality in the harbour is, in fact, the tides. Big tides carry with them a lot of sediment from the mangroves. The water quality of small tides is clean and clear. The seasons also affect water quality in the harbour. In the Wet Season, increased volumes of fresh water enter the harbour so salinity is reduced.
The amount of metals in the harbour water is extremely low. In fact, the presence of some metals is so low that they cannot be measured. The amount of pesticides entering the harbour is also extremely small. The presence of what is detected is mainly residual pesticides that are no longer used today. Urban activities in cities the size of Darwin and Palmerston, and rural activities, do have an impact on the water quality of the harbour. Treated waste water is released into the harbour. Also, nutrients and sediment from urban areas have some effect on water quality. Whatever localised impacts there are, they do not significantly affect the current recreational use and ecological integrity of the harbour. Residents of other capital cities in Australia would envy the water quality of Darwin Harbour.
Management strategies to minimise these impacts have been developed in the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. The government’s support of the plan will ensure that the maintenance of good water quality in the harbour remains a focus in the plan’s implementation. The water quality of the harbour is very good and has not changed since monitoring commenced over 10 years ago. The water quality of the main body of Darwin Harbour meets national guidelines for marine water quality.
In total, over 30 types of water quality tests have been conducted on many hundreds of samples since monitoring commenced. Water quality monitoring provides information for managers and users of the harbour’s resources, as well as providing information to the public. It is part of my department’s ongoing commitment to informing the community of the harbour’s health.
Later in the year, a comprehensive report on all aspects of the water quality monitoring program will be produced. This will be a public document and available on the web for all Territorians. Darwin Harbour is an asset we all share, and its health is something in which we all have a vested interest. My department’s endeavours in water quality monitoring will continue to provide a sound basis for reporting on the harbour’s health into the future.
Furthermore, mangrove monitoring by my department has continued in the region since the establishment of the Mangrove Monitoring Program in 1997. Parallel to the government’s monitoring program, a number of scientific studies have been undertaken that have enhanced overall of mangrove ecosystems. We now have a considerable volume of historical data which will prove invaluable in managing the long-term health of mangrove ecosystems in Darwin Harbour.
The Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) is now undertaking research in Darwin Harbour and the northern waters of Australia. Work to be conducted in Darwin Harbour will assist us in accumulating the knowledge that is necessary for effective management of the watershed. A number of pre-eminent scientists from AIMS are already working with staff and scientists of my department on projects that relate to the water quality and hydrodynamics of the harbour. Collaborative efforts such as these will accelerate the accumulation of knowledge to inform our management decisions into the future.
The extensive consultation program undertaken by the advisory committee in preparing the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management was well received by the community. The committee established a broad range of mechanisms to facilitate public interaction in developing the plan. These included public forums, workshops, presentations, hearings, and stakeholder meetings. There will be an ongoing need to engage the community in the implementation and review of this plan. The advisory committee will continue to play a vital role in guiding future community engagement processes.
The plan recommends a broad range of actions. In all, some 192 actions have been identified. The committee did not recommend all the actions be undertaken in the first year of the plan. Actions will be prioritised on an annual basis as part of the plan’s ongoing investment strategy, and brought before government. Funding of priority actions and recommendations will be essential to the implementation process. Eighteen priority actions have been identified in the document for implementation in the first years of the plan. These include the support of an ongoing advisory committee and the establishment of groups to direct research and monitoring to promote community participation in the natural resource management.
I am pleased to confirm that the government has committed $365 000. I know I am supposed to keep to the text here, but I would like to repeat that particular statement. I am pleased to confirm that the government has committed $365 000 to support all of the priority actions identified in the plan for the 2004-05 year, and the ongoing role of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee. I will detail how that $365 000 will be spent:
- $100 000 has been allocated to develop and implement a stormwater management strategy. Stormwater run-off is
one of the most significant areas of pollution of harbour waters and a key area identified for priority action.
$55 000 has been allocated to undertake a systematic survey of the harbour region to identify sites of significant
cultural, spiritual and heritage values. This is a vital issue in preserving the current quality of the harbour, and will
benefit future recreational, tourism and cultural use of the harbour.
$30 000 of additional funding has been allocated to develop an integrated environmental monitoring program for the
harbour region.
$30 000 has been allocated to develop an inventory of the existing data management systems and data sources for water
quality, flora, fauna and other related data, and to evaluate the quality of existing data.
an additional $15 000 has been allocated to identify and evaluate the significance of current gaps in scientific knowledge
at an ecosystem level.
$15 000 has been allocated to the development of a harbour region communication and education campaign to improve
public awareness of the region, its values and management issues.
- an additional $120 000 has been allocated to support the roles of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee, the
ecosystem monitoring group and the ecosystem research group and related functions.
the Darwin Harbour Region Ecosystem Research Group (ERG), will direct and oversee strategic research.
the Darwin Harbour Region Ecosystem Monitoring Group, (EMG), will oversee the development and implementation
of an integrated environmental monitoring program.
the additional $120 000 that I mentioned before will also enable the establishment of an indigenous working group to
provide an identified point of contact for information to the plan of management, provide information to the community
of opportunities for their participation in the management, and establish a database of stakeholders in the Darwin Harbour Region.
These are all recommendations of the advisory committee. The government will provide support for these priority actions outlined in the plan, and support the ongoing processes for implementation as recommended by the advisory committee.
I congratulate the committee and its chairman, Mr John Bailey, who is present in the House today, on their concerted efforts to incorporate community values into the plan. This group has been paramount in assisting and advising government, providing a community-based sounding board on a range of matters affecting the health of the harbour and catchment. The advisory committee has performed an exemplary job in the development of the plan and, to demonstrate our commitment to their important role, the government proposes that the group continue to oversee its implementation. I believe all members will join me in congratulating the chair of the advisory committee, Mr John Bailey, for the outstanding work he has done in coordinating this group and facilitating the development of the plan of management. Mr Bailey’s enthusiasm for the harbour and his leadership of this group has provided us with a sound blueprint for the management of the Darwin Harbour region.
I also wish to extend my sincere thanks to all other members of the advisory committee. I believe the document that they have produced, which is this document here, is one of outstanding quality.
I am pleased to be able to confirm today that Mr Bailey has accepted my invitation to continue to chair a reconstituted advisory committee. The Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee will be established as a statutory advisory committee under proposed amendments to the Planning Act, with the plan of management constituting the working document of the statutory committee. Until the Planning Act is amended to establish the new statutory body, this committee can be formally constituted as an advisory committee under the Planning Act. I have endorsed the revised terms of reference for the advisory committee in its new role in overseeing the plan’s implementation. These amended provisions support the revised membership of the group to ensure that it is representative of stakeholders in the region and remains an effective and workable group.
The reconstitution of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee will provide for greater community representation, and heralds an important step in advancing the plan of management. Membership will be sought from groups representing a range of interests including Charles Darwin University, Darwin Regional Development Board, Larrakia Nation, Environment Centre NT, Darwin Port Corporation, Top End Regional Organisational of Council (TOPROC), Local Government Association of the NT (LGANT), the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce, the shipping industry, Horticultural Association of the NT, Landcare and, of course, the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT. As we stated earlier, an independent member will chair the committee - which is Mr Bailey - and I will soon be approaching representative groups seeking nominations to the committee.
The committee may be called upon to report on matters referred to it from time to time. However, its central role will be to oversee the review and implementation of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management and to facilitate community input. It will not operate as a duplicate, alternative consent authority under the Planning Act, but will be of enormous benefit in advising on and informing that consent process.
My predecessor, as Minister for Lands and Planning, stated in November 2003 that encompassing stakeholder and community values and aspirations was essential to the process. These values are vital underpinning principles that have been the foundation of the plan, and the government is committed to continuing with this participatory approach in implementing this valuable document.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
____________________________
Distinguished Visitor
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I formally acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the former member for Wanguri, Mr John Bailey. On behalf of all members I wish you a warm welcome. And no, you cannot stand up and speak!
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________________
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I would to place on the record some of my observations about the ministerial statement regarding the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management.
Before I go to the minutiae contained in the statement, I want to put it in context. Prior to the election in August 2001, the then Martin Labor opposition, as all oppositions should do, went to the people of the Northern Territory and said they were an alternative and, on a number of issues, stated where they stood.
One of the issues was, of course, Darwin Harbour. The then Martin Labor opposition really was at pains to demonstrate a point of difference in relation to the attitude towards the harbour. The opposition, at that time, created a perception in the community that the environmental integrity of the harbour was being significantly eroded by constant development, and the CLP clearly did not care about the harbour. The Labor Party went as far as to create the expectation in the Territory people that there would be a form of protection, implying that marine parks were options - all these types of comments - there were mechanisms which would put the Darwin Harbour in this special category and it was something that the CLP were not doing. The harbour was under a real threat and, without Labor’s intervention, there were going to be some real problems. Certainly, a part of the protection of the harbour involved the development of a plan, but the Labor opposition created the impression that there was going to be a marine park and they were really going to get tough on this and protect the harbour.
The CLP, prior to the election, maintained the sensible position that this is a working harbour and there has to be a balance between, for example, recreational fishing and having a wharf smack bang in the middle of our harbour and we are going to have a gas plant there. It is resource which has to be shared. We have to monitor it and make sure that we look after it for future generations and it is going to be something which we can enjoy and use to our benefit. Those reasonable comments were criticised by the Labor members. Those reasonable comments were: ‘Look, that it is not enough. The harbour is under threat; it is being damaged and eroded. Unless we move to do something straightaway, then that is going to be the end of the harbour for future generations’.
The current Labor government forgot to mention in this ministerial statement that the CLP, in fact, instigated the comprehensive monitoring systems that are in place. The CLP was instrumental in a number of the scientific research-type projects which occurred. I do not have the exact number, but there are dozens and dozens of scientific-type projects which have occurred over the years, and the CLP had an important part in any event. The CLP also banned commercial crabbing and fishing in the harbour. Therefore, the CLP is in a position to say, quite properly, that an enormous amount of credit should be given to the previous governments for taking steps to protect the harbour, to make sure that it is going to be something that many people can enjoy, both now and into the future.
The CLP always maintained the position that it was a working harbour. The CLP still maintains the position that this is a working harbour. It is in a good state of health and there has to be a balance between the need for protecting the harbour for future generations, developing important infrastructure like the wharf, Cullen Bay, Bayview Haven, Tipperary Waters. There has to be a balance …
Mr Wood: I feel crook.
Mr Kiely: Yeah, good balance.
Mr MALEY: A good balance. I pick up on the interjection. The member for – what is his electorate?
Ms Carter: Sanderson.
Mr Kiely: Credit where credit is due.
Mr MALEY: The member for Sanderson is opposed to Cullen Bay, Tipperary Waters and Bayview? Can I put it on the record?
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, a point of order! If he wishes to put it on the record, I just said ‘credit where credit is due’. It was a CLP initiative, and I am giving you all the credit you need for it.
Mr Burke: You are a gutless wonder, you are.
Mr Kiely: I will not let him try to fit me up.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, you can have your say later.
Mr MALEY: There was a bit of a backflip there, Madam Speaker. A bit of a backflip.
In any event, the ministerial statement is an opportunity for this government to deliver to Territorians on the promise it gave or expectation it created prior to August 2001.
Let us have a look at what this statement really says and does. If you go through it, it has a number of feel-good motherhood statements about how important the harbour is. Quite frankly, any reasonable person would agree with many of the very general statements about the importance of the harbour: the fact that it has to be preserved and there has to be a balance between competing interests.
We know - and it is not the first time that it has been stated publicly - that there are 26 200 hectares of mangroves. We know that there are lots and lots of studies. An interesting aspect to this ministerial statement is that there really is a significant concession that the harbour really is in pristine condition. The minister said that they have tested for some heavy metals and the amounts are so small they did not register on the test.
Dr Burns: But where is the word ‘pristine’? Come on! I did not use the word ‘pristine’, so stick to the script.
Mr MALEY: Well, that implies that the harbour is in fairly good nick and the average person reading this statement for the first time could quite easily come to the conclusion that the harbour is in pristine condition.
Here we have the Labor government with some sort of scaremongering campaign prior to the last election, saying it was in complete disarray. The CLP policies have had a huge impact on the harbour, yet we see into the third year of their government, there is a significant concession that things look pretty good. The monitoring over the past decade, overwhelmingly instigated by the CLP, confirms that things are looking good and we are moving in the right direction. Whatever we have been doing, we should continue to do.
There will be some minor changes. It seems that there is going to be a revamped treated waste water system. I understand, and I only found out today, that the mechanics of the underground pipe system which comes from Larrakeyah is going to be redirected through a more formal plant at Fannie Bay. This is confirmation of exactly what the CLP have been saying for many years. The CLP said prior to the last election that this is a working harbour, and that they were going to make sure it was preserved for Territorians today and tomorrow, and that the balance was kept just right.
The statement delivered today does not deliver on Labor promises; it does not satisfy the legitimate expectations it created. To look at some of the comments of some commentators who have had a chance to look at the ministerial statement, I received an e-mail from the Northern Marine Campaign, Australian Marine Conservation Society. It is a media release dated today. At paragraph two of that media release, it says:
- The rhetoric of the management plan is sound, however in order to properly implement the plan, there needs to
be defined on-grounds outcomes supported by sufficient resources - it appears that this may be lacking.
It goes on to say:
- The plan does provide significant opportunities but does not guarantee that the natural integrity of the harbour
will remain intact. The plan’s success depends upon government’s willingness to put resources behind its
implementation.
That is one particular group which had an expectation which certainly has not been met in the form of this ministerial statement.
If you look for new initiatives, we know there was $19m, the value of the road that was built to Wickham Point. We know that there are hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on the Wharf Precinct development and convention centre. If you look at what sort of commitment this government is giving to the implementation of this plan, there is a reference to $365 000. Well, I am not sure how much that is going to achieve. On the face of it, it seems it is going to achieve the ongoing monitoring, but there do not appear to be any significant steps in the direction of satisfying the promise which this government gave to people prior to the last election.
If you look closely at where that $365 000 is going to be spent that, in itself, also raises some pretty significant concerns. There are a number of things which make sense from a monitoring perspective, which I do not think anyone would cavil with – certainly, the CLP do not cavil with this ongoing monitoring. The $100 000 allocated to develop and implement a stormwater management strategy – well, that makes some sense to me. $55 000 to undertake a systematic survey - these are sensible allocations. You could go on and on. There is one which raises some concern, and perhaps the minister in reply can clarify the ambiguity. The drafting of the statement is confusing, but it talked about the ‘additional $120 000’, and what that is going to achieve.
Remember, we do have this ongoing advisory committee which is going to be formally recognised under the Planning Act. The advisory committee includes a whole heap of quite worthy stakeholders: amateur fishermen, Charles Darwin University, the Environment Centre, etcetera. It also talks about the Larrakia Nation being part of that advisory group, which is a good thing. They certainly should have a say, just like every other stakeholder in the harbour. Okay, we have that advisory group.
The difficulty is, the statement talks about this $120 000 for establishing an indigenous working group to provide and identify point of contact information to the plan of management. There are also some other points after the semi-colons. Minister, perhaps you can explain in your response how much of this money is going to be used to establish another working group, and where is that money going to be spent? Is a similar amount of money going to be given to other stakeholders, such as the Amateur Fishermen’s Association, the Chamber of Commerce, or the Darwin Port Corporation? Or is it a situation where the government is really playing favourites and giving money to establish another working group, which is somehow going to work in parallel with the advisory group that is being legally constituted, and will be annexed as an advisory group under the Planning Act?
There are many sporting groups in the northern suburbs who have put applications in for funding. Many of those have been knocked back. $120 000 is a lot of money to spend to establish an indigenous working group, when I suspect that money would be better spent in the northern suburbs, and on sporting groups at Freds Pass. It could be used to help some 2000 kids from 60 schools attend the Croc Festival in Katherine.
There is a reference, of course, to the hard work that the committee has undertaken. I also congratulate the committee and its chairman, Mr John Bailey. There is little doubt that, in the job that he was directed to do by the government under these terms of reference, he has done a good job. He should be acknowledged and, indeed, the opposition recognises his enthusiasm and energy that he brought to this management plan. It is good to see that he will continue in that position as the chairman of the advisory committee.
The political aspect of it is not a criticism of the hard work that John Bailey and other members of the advisory committee have put in. The political aspect of this is that this government created an expectation that they were going to do something significantly different to what was occurring. The truth is the CLP, the previous Northern Territory government, had implemented these monitoring systems, had already taken active steps to remove commercial fishing, and had done lots of things to protect the mangroves. There were a number of policies that were bandied about establishing certain benchmarks by which mangroves would be protected. There was a scientific study that said: ‘This is the percentage of mangroves that you have to maintain to keep the harbour in good condition’. The CLP knew that; they took that on board and publicly stated: ‘We are going to make sure that the harbour is protected. We are going to listen to the science, and this is the path we are going to go down’.
The Labor government today really has not delivered on the expectation it created. This ministerial statement contains lots of motherhood statements and rhetoric. Quite frankly, I believe it falls short of satisfying the legitimate expectation - the promise which it made to the community before the election in 2001. The government is attempting to diffuse the situation by the establishment of a credible advisory committee, which has consulted properly. However, at the end of the day, it is not just about consulting the stakeholders and trying to placate them by saying: ‘You have had your input, we are doing the right thing in making motherhood statements’. It is about this government being held to account to fulfil the promise and the expectation it created prior to the last election. This statement does not do that. The terms of reference for the establishment of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management does not satisfy that promise and does not discharge that legitimate expectation that which was created by people in the Northern Territory.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I support the ministerial statement delivered by the Minister for Lands and Planning, Dr Chris Burns. The Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management is really a fantastic development for all Territorians and, in particular, for Darwin where it is obviously having a huge effect. I recently travelled with the environment committee to Western Australia in Perth. We met with representatives from the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, there. One of their great resources is the Swan River. We were in these magnificent offices and, as we looked out the door of the chairperson’s office, there was this beautiful sight of this beautiful resource that they called The Narrows, but also widening out into Kings Park right down to the South Bank and around to the University of Western Australia.
We have a different climate and resource in the Darwin Harbour that is, in my mind, more significant than even the Swan River. Why do I say that? Well, we heard the minister talked about how it is valued by Territorians and Darwinites, and how it is economically valuable to everyone who lives here. But he also talked about the lifestyle and character of the Top End.
Let me briefly explain my experiences of the Darwin Harbour. I suppose the first time I started recognising Darwin Harbour, I would have been 5 or 6 years old, fishing off different wharf areas with my parents and catching bream, snapper and whatever else, and then going out on a boat onto the Darwin Harbour. During that period of time, an uncle and aunt of mine actually had the only fish trap operating in the Darwin Harbour. They made a business out of that fish trap which supplied food for 20 to 30 years to people in Stuart Park, Millner, Ludmilla - wherever they were in the northern suburbs – who were black, white, Greek families - it did not matter what colour or background they were. They came to my uncle and aunt’s house in Stuart Park in Henry Street and bought fish. That fish trap would be cleaned every change of the tide. It was of benefit to that family who were able to access economic benefit out of it. It is also did something else: it brought the whole community together as people were able to access fresh fish.
Those experiences of going out there and coming back to the house and being involved in all that is something that is ingrained in my life experience regarding Darwin Harbour. Of course, as you get older you realised there were other families who were fishing in those estuaries and this resource, such as the Long family, and the Hills who loved to go out at night spear fishing with a torch, catching barramundi and getting large amounts of barramundi out of the Darwin Harbour - and still doing it to this day, and also teaching their kids. Going out to Mud Island and dragging the net for prawns and getting fresh prawns there was always a fantastic experience, along with going to Talc Head, West Arm and Middle Arm, putting crab pots in and getting crabs, and fishing those areas as well.
I remember going out with a cousin of mine, Dookie Bonson. We drove up into this gutter, as we refer to it, into West Arm and the waves actually pushed up onto the bank and when the waves washed back down, there were barramundi and salmon stuck on the bank, flapping around. We drove the boat up to the side and I reached over the front and picked up the barramundi and salmon off the bank.
This is the resource that we have in Darwin Harbour and this is the reason why I commend the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. Unfortunately, this group of people do not have access to parliament. They do not have access to mechanisms to protect this resource which they use every day and often they are not considered when development of all things happen to the Darwin Harbour. They often comment about the changes. We all know changes are going to happen and we have to deal with those changes, but the idea is to make sure that they are measured, balanced and sustainable in the way we deliver them, because everyone has different values of what Darwin Harbour means to them. That can never be underestimated.
I understand the consistent evidence given to the advisory committee, and I am happy to say I felt strongly enough to give evidence. It was along the lines I am just given now. I understand there was consistent expression to the committee that people did value this resource in the community and they were interested in protecting its significant ecosystems and ensuring that the region remains biologically productive. In particular, people mentioned, I suppose, one of those campaigns that is being run about the conservation of mangrove communities. This is a high priority. As we all know, and will become more environmentally aware as we grow older, what we have in that resource of mangroves needs to be protected. I understand there is a balance there between development and nature.
However, we have to understand that one of the reasons why we love living in Darwin is the fact that if you are from Millner, which is a land-based suburb, you can literally drive less than five minutes and put your boat in at the Nightcliff boat ramp. In another 15 minutes you can go to Buffalo Creek and put your boat in, and another 15 minutes and you are in town at a number of different sites putting your boat in. In 25 minutes you can be back behind Palmerston at East Arm, putting your boat in there, going fishing around Channel Island. We have access to all these places. What does that add to your house? I tell you it has to add some value to your house. That has to be worth $50 000 or $60 000 more because, if you live in the middle of the desert or in a place where you did not have access to this beautiful water resource, then your house would not be the value it is now. I do not think people should underestimate that.
We know that there is a distinctive mangrove community in Darwin Harbour and its fundamental role is sustaining the aquatic ecosystems. I commend the minister and previous ministers for the work that they have done to implement protective measures for these significant ecosystems through the rezoning of mangroves in the Darwin Harbour region. I will quote from the minister’s statement tonight:
- Approximately 26 200 hectares of mangroves are now protected under the rezoning amendment to the
Northern Territory Planning Scheme.
The minister continued:
- This constitutes over 90% of the mangroves within the catchment boundary.
This is a fantastic initiative by the Northern Territory government, of course. With the development of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management, we will have a framework that recognises that we have to sustain all our assets. We have to protect the resources that we have and manage the future of Darwin Harbour. We cannot underestimate the value of the harbour’s natural assets.
The advisory committee, as the minister said, was appointed in August 2002. It has done some fantastic work and credit must go to the former member for Wanguri, Mr John Bailey. The committee’s development of the plan is very comprehensive and, hopefully, will help protect Darwin Harbour into the future.
It is a sound framework. It is an ongoing framework on which we can really build a significant safety net for Darwin Harbour. Of course, I am interested in the Shoal Bay area as well. I could go on about Shoal Bay and the Vernon Islands and all the fishing and hunting that I have done around there. However, other families have done that and other people are doing that. I am just touching that issue about other people using it.
The RAAF Base is in my electorate and the most common theme when I hold or attend events there, as I am going to this Friday, is lifestyle. Lifestyle is very important to the Defence Force families when they came to the Territory. They love the fact that they are accepted and that they can go fishing and camping. These are people who might only be staying for a short period of time, but they value this resource. I am sure that they will value the resource in 20 or 30 years time. We need to multiply that feeling by a factor of 10 when we consider locals who, in some ways, have taken the Darwin Harbour for granted.
The committee states that there is a need for formal recognition of the plan, a progressive implementation of the identified actions, formal recognition of an advisory committee, and a periodic review and evaluation of the plan. That is a fantastic requirement because, as we know, the pressures in Darwin Harbour will change in the next 10 years and we need the ability to review and to evaluate that the plan is effective and what changes need to happen to ensure that we protect the most important natural asset we have.
I commend the minister for the research and monitoring that the development of this framework will undertake. I understand this will be facilitated through the establishment of an ecosystem research group and an ecosystem monitoring group. I will quote from the minister’s statement tonight so that people reading Hansard will understand the effect and role of this ecosystem research group. The minister said:
- The role of the ecosystem research group will be to direct research in to strategic areas that will address knowledge
gaps and information needs. The ecosystem monitoring group will coordinate monitoring activities to ensure that
consistent protocols are developed, so that the collected data is comparable. This group will also be charged with
ensuring that monitoring programs are complementary and accessible to all parties.
The fact that we have identified the need for a reporting system, which will be established, is fantastic. I also believe the minister identified in the statement the reason we want to develop a reporting system is to communicate the results of the monitoring and research to the community, scientists and natural resource managers. Obviously, we could develop that into a wider list of people. When we talk about a need to communicate what is actually happening in Darwin Harbour, people are very protective of it, and we need to communicate that. I look forward to a mechanism for doing that.
I also recognise in the minister’s statement the extensive water quality work being done in Darwin Harbour, and how that has been an ongoing commitment by this and previous governments. The idea is to create a measuring stick of where Darwin Harbour is, and the need to base our decisions on sound scientific knowledge, on which any decisions we make have to be based. We know the Northern Territory government recognises there is an ongoing need to measure the health of the harbour. The plan will ensure that we can adequately articulate what the health of Darwin Harbour is, especially when we consider the fact that we know major development is happening in the harbour, and we need to ensure that we can articulate the health of Darwin Harbour to reassure the community, scientists and natural resource managers.
I found it very interesting, reading in the statement about the water quality of rivers off the Darwin Harbour, and about the 10 strategic identified sites. I have fished in the Elizabeth and Blackmore Rivers etcetera, and taken them for granted, I suppose. They are a natural resource that needs protection and to be monitored. I thank the minister for explaining what is actually being monitored in the rivers. For instance, the sediment which, obviously, may affect the clarity of Darwin Harbour, living organisms within the harbour, and now with seasonal rainfall, the harbour bed itself. It is a reassurance to all of those in the community reading Hansard that we do test for plant nutrients, nitrate and phosphorous, and the fact that these are within fertilisers that may leach into the catchment. The need to do that is not only for the health and safety of human beings, but also because of the algal blooms that come about by this being too high. The community would be reassured that we are monitoring for pesticides because of the effect they could have on the animals in the area, human beings, and the health of all plants. I implore the minister to continue this work, and I know he will.
The fact that the rivers are monitored for heavy metals, such as lead, zinc and cadmium, and what the effects are, again, on the humans, animals and plants of that area, I find reassuring. To quote from the statement from the minister, he said:
- Monitoring of the river shows that it is mainly our urban use of the catchment that affects water quality.
This, however, represents only 2% of the catchment area. Most of the water flowing to Darwin Harbour
is clean and not polluted.
That is a reassurance, minister.
The minister spoke about how residents of other capital cities in Australia would envy the water quality of Darwin Harbour, and I implore the minister and this government, and members of this House, to be vigilant. The reality is that is the case that we have now. We do not want to end up like Sydney Harbour, where they have spent, over the last 10 years, millions and millions of dollars to try and - what can I say? - reinvigorate Sydney Harbour. At the moment, we have it in the state that we know is not pristine but, compared to other resources in Australia, it is in fantastic condition - again for all the reason I have already spoken about, including the resource it is to the community as a whole.
I would also like to applaud the fact that, later this year, a comprehensive report on all aspects of water quality monitoring program will be produced. I thank the minister for making this a public document and for also putting it onto the web for access, obviously, by all Territorians. I see many people in this House using their laptops now and probably accessing information. Not only schoolchildren, but parents and seniors would be more than welcome to access this and make use of it.
I also thank the advisory committee in preparing the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. They used mechanisms to facilitate public interaction and, as the minister has already stated, they included public forums, workshops, presentations, hearings and stakeholder meetings. I have already stated I presented evidence at one of those hearings held in Parliament House, and I know the member for Nelson was there. What I tried to implore was more of a local view on what that resource means to me, my family and other members of the community. I thank the advisory committee for making the commitment to have an ongoing role in guiding future community engagement processes, because that communication of what we are actually doing in Darwin Harbour is vital.
I would like to finish with the initiatives that the government is presenting. There are many people who interested in my electorate, who asked: ‘Well, what is actually happening? What is your commitment as a government?’. I would like to read from the minister’s statement just to assure those living in the Millner electorate:
- … the government has committed $365 000 to support all of the priority actions identified in the plan for 2004-05
and the ongoing role of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee.
$100 000 has been allocated to develop and implement a stormwater management strategy. Stormwater run-off is
one of the most significant areas of pollution of harbour waters, and a key area identified for priority action.
The minister and I can support that with the work that we did on the Australia Day Clean Up:
- $55 000 has been allocated to undertake the systematic survey of the harbour region to identify sites of significant
cultural, spiritual and heritage value.
This is important to all Territorians:
An additional $120 000 has been allocated to support the roles of Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee and
ecosystem monitoring group and ecosystem research group and related functions.
- This additional $120 000 funding will also enable the establishment of an indigenous working group; provide
an identified point of contact for information on the plan of management; provide information to the community
of opportunities for their participation in the plan and management; and establish a database for stakeholders
in the Darwin Harbour.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to all those in the House, and look forward to the work that the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management can fulfil.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement today. I would like to quote from the front cover of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management, November 2003. It says:
- Our vision for the Darwin Harbour region
A biologically rich and diverse marine and terrestrial environment for our use and enjoyment today, and
for our children tomorrow …
I hope that is what we can do with our harbour. I believe our harbour is still under threat from development that has no vision. The Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management is a good document; there is no doubt about it. It sets up the framework for monitoring, looking at programs; and developing strategies. All that is fine, and we certainly need those things to occur. However, if you do not have a vision for the harbour, then what are you trying to do? Are you just setting up lots of strategies, plans, committees and ideas without knowing where we are going?
I feel the government really does not have a vision set in its mind. We are waiting for the Litchfield Land Use Objectives to come out and perhaps that will tell me what the vision is. I do feel that the government has shifted ground. The CLP had a vision for Darwin Harbour, and that was to put industrial development in the middle of the harbour. However, they did make the proviso under the then Chief Minister that they would only put essential development which was, at that time, the LNG plant and some methanol plants that were planned for the centre of the harbour. I objected to the methanol plants, and I probably still would, simply because I do not believe they need access to the water that close. I used to argue that if you went to New Plymouth in New Zealand, you would find the methanol plant was set well away from the coast and they actually piped the gas to the port.
The CLP said that was all they were going to put in the middle of the harbour and the rest of the land would be left as it is. The problem I have is that one gets the impression that the ALP which fought that as well, has now given us a worse vision. It has said that it believes – and maybe I will not believe it when I see the Litchfield Land Use Objectives – that all this purple area except for one spot - that is a small island just to the south of the LNG plant and the other half of Wickham Point - will remain park land. All the rest of the land will become industrial. If I had to make the choice, I would have made the choice of the CLP’s vision. At least there was limited industrial development. Development in the case of methanol is practically non-polluting. Now we have gone to the case of having a totally industrialised harbour, and that is very sad. That does not fit in with what the member for Millner was just talking about. That does not fit in with a biologically rich and diverse marine and terrestrial environment.
I know I have harped on this for a long time. I suppose I have a vision - and people do not have to accept my vision – that we are at the stage in our development where, whatever we do now, will be a permanent change to the harbour. I see no reason why the centre of the harbour still cannot be retained as a national park to serve the needs of the 65 000-plus people who will live in Weddell, the 44 000 to 50 000 people whom I presume will live in Palmerston when it is completed, and the 70 000 to 90 000 people who live in Darwin. Of course, add on another 20 000-odd people who live in the rural area and surrounds. You would have a part of the harbour which was a beautiful part of the harbour where you could go for walks in the bush. I have been there over the last few years. I have commented about a gentleman called John O’Sullivan who, many years ago, used to take Aboriginal people to this very section of the harbour, the Middle Arm. He used to take people whom we would refer to as itinerants, there on the weekend to hunt. It is, or was, a very beautiful part of the harbour. However, unfortunately, it has changed.
I know I bring maps in here occasionally. I was over at the mapping area today. I have this map on my desk, and it is a 1939 map of Darwin. This case is slightly different than the normal map. It has Japanese writing written down one side because it was actually discovered in Tokyo after the war. Obviously, the Japanese had bought this map and put all the details about where to bomb Darwin on it, with all the coordinates - and that is the map. The good thing about this map is that it actually shows you a pristine Darwin Harbour – a really pristine Darwin Harbour. There was hardly any development except for the port. It shows the Middle Arm and that there was no clearing at that stage. Then, 60 years on, we now have this. This is a 2002 photograph of what was pristine. From Channel Island bridge, the land has been cleared in the form of gravel pits all the way around. In fact, this is not the latest map. I received another photograph today showing more development closer to the LNG plant.
I thank the minister who allowed me to go up in his helicopter on Saturday to have a look at the harbour…
Dr Burns: We were not delivering tyres to anyone.
Mr WOOD: That is right. As you would know, I did ask the previous minister if he would come up and have a look at the harbour because I wanted to show him that there are alternative sites for industry. I was simply appalled by what I saw of the harbour. What was really beautiful bushland has been destroyed in many parts - not only destroyed; it has not been rehabilitated in many parts as well. It is a crying shame.
If people knew how beautiful that bush was and how close to Darwin we had it, they would ask: why have we developed this? My theory is that we have a department that deals with planning. It believes that we should have a hub and that should be an industrial hub, and that hub should be - I will get the right map for you - East Arm port and Middle Arm port connected as one big industrial estate. That will only work if you put a bridge from Blaydin Point - on this photograph here - to East Arm. If we do not have a bridge, goods from East Arm have to go all the way around via Palmerston, which is a fairly long way. It is about 35 km from one end to the other. You will have to build an enormous bridge, according to this industrial states book, to make this hub work. My argument is: why the heck would we want to do that when we have land to the north of Howard Springs, which is just as close or even closer than the Channel Island Bridge, five minutes from Palmerston, which will be on the corridor to Glyde Point? It will have mainly high ground, and we flew over that high ground. There are some wet parts of land in there, minister, but in general, most of it is high ground. I brought the map so I could show you that most of the land is high ground. Why the heck would we want to destroy the beautiful centre of our harbour?
We can talk about the environment and about it being a working harbour - and it is a working harbour. However, it is a working harbour for ships, rail, the port, and that type of development, which does not mean the entire harbour has to be developed. It means that we know that there will be a requirement for water-based activities. We need to have a harbour that we can enjoy and that is something that is missed. Maybe there is a mention of it in here. However, at times we miss the importance of having those areas as part of our city. I keep referring to Sydney where there are Royal National Park, Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, and Botany Bay National Park of all places, right next to the oil refineries. Some visionary made a decision when Sydney was being planned - I would not say that parts of it were ever planned; they just happened – and said they should preserve those areas of land for the future. Therefore, we have Royal National Park, which I think is the oldest national park in Australia, because someone made a decision then.
We do not have anyone wanting to make a decision. I get up and talk about a park and people say: ‘Oh, no, you can not have a park, we have to use it for this and that and other things’. I despair, at times, that we cannot look past our noses at the bigger picture and ask: can we do this another way? I am all for industrial development because we require jobs and employment, but that does not mean it has to be at this particular spot because the planners thought it would be. That is what has happened. The planners have brought out this book based on the Brown and Root previous book, Darwin Regional Industrial Estates Planning and Development Overview March 2002. They have said all this should happen. In fact, they make a statement in this document, which would be interesting to include in Hansard. Perhaps this signifies what is being said:
- Middle Arm Peninsula is identified in the report as the strategic location to provide large areas of less expensive
land to support transport-related enterprise focussed on the port and railway, so planning is continuing on the
assumption that the report’s recommendations will be formally endorsed in due course.
These have never been formally endorsed by anyone. The community has never had a say, the government has never put its imprimatur on it, and we have ripped the living daylights out of the centre of our harbour based on the fact that someone said the middle of the harbour will be industrial, therefore miners declare extractive mining leases on the harbour. We have 20 extractive mining leases on the harbour that the government has allowed to occur, without any vision. That is what annoys me. If I lose the case that this should not be a park, it should be industrial, all right. Maybe I would say: ‘Fair enough, there is no need to keep the bush’. But no one has made a statement that this should be industrial - no government has said that. There have only been concept plans. Yet, here we are, talking about this Darwin Regional Plan of Management and, yet, we have not got to the very core of what we need to get to, which is: what is our harbour going to be like?
We are at the stage where we have to make some decisions. I firmly believe that that should be a national park. It has had development. The minister saw how widespread the gravel extraction development has occurred. He simply asked me how we would rehabilitate it. Well, to start with, these companies are required to rehabilitate. When I flew other that and had a look at the land near the Channel Island bridge, I would say there has been no rehabilitation. I have seen that land from the ground. It is covered in weeds, there are old mounds left there, there is ponding and there does not seem to be any great enforcement of rehabilitation. To rehabilitate that back to its natural state would require a lot of money and work. There is a requirement on the government – you might have to work in partnership with the companies that have removed this gravel – to bring it back to its original state.
We have not made up our mind that this will be industrial. I do not think the community really wants it industrial. It is just one of these things that has been snuck through what I call the planning department, without really letting people know exactly what they are pushing for. We have just as good or even better options, minister, for putting industry that is connected with the port. As you know, the corridor into Glyde Point will have a rail corridor on it. That is exactly what they said they want the land for - to be connected with the port and the railway. Therefore, you have this offshoot of the railway going right past this land north of Howard Springs. What an ideal place to put your industry. - land that has already been dug up for extraction. It is already zoned extractive under existing land use objectives for the Litchfield Shire. Why not use the existing land away from the harbour and retain the aesthetic beauty of our harbour? This is right in the guts of the harbour. Why would you want to look at a whole pile of sheds? To me, it would not be the greatest piece of viewing you can see as you come in on the plane. I am imploring the government, before it goes down the path of just accepting what the planners give you: sometimes I believe the government has to make its own decisions and put some vision into what it is doing.
I am not going to harp on that for too much longer. I might raise a couple of issues. One is the issue of mangroves. There was talk years ago that the CLP government wanted to destroy about 2% of the mangroves. I always argued that that was based on a fairly unknown piece of scientific evidence from some group in the United Nations somewhere. I have never seen that document to this day, to prove that. Then I pick up this document, minister, where you say we have 26 200 hectares of mangroves, and this constitutes over 90% of mangroves within the catchment boundary. In other words, 26 200 hectares of mangroves are actually rezoned. That leaves 10%. That is 8% more than what the CLP said they would protect, so I am asking: where is that 10%? I do not know why you would have to have 10% of the mangroves not protected. You should protect all the mangroves, and then, if someone wants to develop in those mangroves, they have to put a good argument as to why they should. I say they …
Dr Burns: Take me through the maths again, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: You should zone all the mangroves as open conservation. That does not preclude someone from developing within it. It just makes them argue their case better than presently would exist. We used to argue the case for the mangroves. I say the mangroves should be the base for the argument, and the industry should have to show reason why it should destroy the mangroves. A classic example, minister, which I raised today, would be Glyde Point. Glyde Point is right on the edge of the Darwin Harbour. I am not sure if it is included in there, but I think 480 hectares of mangroves are going to be destroyed. Why aren’t the mangroves on the Adelaide River …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I am not sure if they are. Yes, they are outside the catchment. What is the difference between being in the catchment and out of the catchment? Surely, the mangroves, if they are worth protecting, should not be divided by a line that means some are protected, and some not. It would be far better to have all the mangroves on the Northern Territory coastline protected - I do not see anything wrong with that - and any development that wants to occur has to prove its case that it needs to destroy those mangroves. That is a fair system.
The other issue, minister, that may have been left out of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management - and I have spoken on the radio today about it - was the issue of Defence and its role in the management of Darwin Harbour. I wrote a submission on that because the previous Minister for Lands and Planning, when he was tabling the management plan on 26 November 2003, said that the plan would be released for community consideration whilst the government also looked at all recommendations in the ensuing months before formally advising of the adoption of the plan in 2004. That seemed to give one the hint that there should be another lot of submissions presented and that they would be looked at. I actually put a submission in and I said this:
- Reference in the draft plan of management to the Defence Force is only included in section 2 under the heading
Context and Background. Here it is acknowledged that the Defence Force is making a large contribution to our
population and economy. It is acknowledged that the Defence Force uses almost 6% of the land in the Darwin
Harbour region, making it by far the largest single land user, and yet the Defence Force has not been represented
on the committee which drafted this plan. This plan only proposes that a Defence Force representative might be on
the future Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee.
I went on to say:
- Given that the Defence Force is a major user of land and water in the Darwin Harbour region, and provides
Darwin with a large number of its residents and its economic and recreational activity, its requirements
need to be considered. Defence should be encouraged to actively take part in managing the region.
As I say, the committee did not take this on board, that apparently the matter of consulting Defence has been raised by other people in Darwin. However, there is no extra reference to Defence in the plan released in November. Why?
Since then, the government has had a very public reminder of the importance of informing Defence of its plans relating to the harbour and the city. During adjournment in the Senate on 2 March 2004, the Defence minister, Robert Hill, talked about the Darwin wharf redevelopment plan. He started his speech this way:
- I want to say a few words tonight about a matter of national security significance, and that is the continuing
access to the Navy of the wharf facilities in the Port of Darwin.
- The proposal includes intense urban development close to the wharf at which war ships berth. It means a
significant reduction in the fuel capabilities of Stokes Hill, in that fuel will no longer be able to be landed
from the sea, and the option of trucking fuel to Stokes Hill can at best be regarded as short term. It also
means major urban and cultural developments next to fuel lines.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr BALDWIN: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the member be given an extension of time to allow him to finish his comments.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I notice that the membership of the new advisory committee has been announced in this statement and there is no representative from the Defence Force or the Commonwealth.
In answer to a question during the last sittings, the Chief Minister told parliament that one option for meeting the refuelling requirements of the Navy in the future could be the use of fuel barges. I am not sure how safe fuel barges are, but I certainly would like to see a fairly detailed analysis of that particular option. I am told there are other ways of delivering fuel but, before we go down that path, I would like to see some comments from the government on the safety - not only from the public’s point of view, but the environmental safety - of using fuel barges. They might be perfectly safe but I am one who would not know much about them and we should look at that option and see whether it is okay.
I would like to detail Defence interests in the Darwin Harbour region to remind members of the extent of them. There is the patrol base and the Army base at Larrakeyah; Shoal Bay; the RAAF Base; Coonawarra; Kowandi North; Kowandi South; storage areas; several Defence signal and communication bases; and the Robertson Army Barracks. These operations and installations are large fuel users and these large areas of land cover drainage flows into the harbour. If the harbour is to be managed properly, we have to have the region’s largest landowner and one of its main users of the harbour onside, and contributing to the wider community as it should.
Finally, I would just like to read a couple of comments from Matt Coffey, a member of PLAN, who, I thought, raised some issues that should be considered. He said that the Commonwealth should be involved in the consultation process both through Defence, and also because the National Heritage Trust funds many of the environmental care groups that would be useful in implementing the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management - groups such as Bushcare, Coastcare, Waterwatch and Riverwatch. Matt also suggested that there are relevant pieces of legislation that have been left out of the equation and may need amending if the plan is to have real impact. They include the Darwin Rates Act relating to waste management, pollution and drainage; the Radioactive Ores and Concentrates (Packaging and Transport) Act, the Soil Conservation and Land Utilisation Act, and the Land Development Corporation Act. I am grateful to Matt giving many of those comments.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to sum up. I thank the people who have done all the work on the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management, especially the main person behind it, Mr John Bailey. I know he also has a passion for the harbour. I believe it is a good document and I will continue to say that it contains very worthwhile ideas. However, this document has no great future unless we really know what the future of our harbour is.
I hope that government will be brave enough to stop approving extractive mining in the middle of the harbour. I hope that government will be brave enough to put the money into repairing the centre of the harbour and leaving it as a national park. I hope the government will look at more options than just what you find in this industrial estates book. It is a pity this sort of document really does not come out into the public arena. I did not even know it existed until I read the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment’s annual report. A document like that which has a major effect on the Darwin Harbour should have been put out for public comment. Maybe that can still happen. However, minister, I hope that you take some of what I have said into your thoughts when you respond to the statement. If this government does not do anything, then, basically, we will not be able to change much, because development will have gone too far forward.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments with regards to this ministerial statement but, in particular, to place on the record my thanks to Mr John Bailey for the work that he has done with the committee that looked at all the issues surrounding the further protection of Darwin Harbour for generations to come; and endorse the fact that, in the time that I have been in the Assembly, one thing I do know about John Bailey is his passion for a whole range of issues, but environmental issues in particular. He always brought forward questions and commentary in this Chamber with a great sense of integrity and, in many respects, was ridiculed and sometimes stopped from having his say. Now, as I sit on this side of the Chamber, that seems to be the way governments operate, if that is any comfort to the former member for Wanguri. It seems that, if the current Labor government has learnt anything from some the actions in the past, they have certainly learnt how to continue the comments, abuse, criticism and ridicule that the member for Wanguri was often subjected to.
He is fortunate that he has not left parliament in the last few months because he would probably be hoisted into this new code of conduct that the government has introduced. We have this brand new code of conduct that is coming through under this wonderful new Labor government, which would prevent someone like the former member for Wanguri from being the chairman of this ongoing advisory committee of the government because that would create a conflict of interest, wouldn’t it? There would be all sorts of allegations that, somehow, he had carried with him information that he would use in an inappropriate way. There would be allegations about the amount of money that he was receiving in his chairmanship. In the government’s haste to run a populist line with the public that this code of conduct is the way to go, the opportunities in the future for people of his competence to be involved in that sort of committee would be prevented.
Let us hope that the Darwin City Council does not take the government’s lead. They might come up with a code of conduct for the council. What sort of situation would the former member for Wanguri be in then as and alderman on the city council and also chairman of this advisory group? I do not imagine he would be able to talk on very much at all in the Darwin City Council without revealing a potential conflict of interest. We are fortunate that the former member for Wanguri is not caught in these new protocols that are coming through from government.
The interesting thing from the ministerial statement was, notwithstanding all the emotional comment that was made by the then opposition about the lack of protection for Darwin Harbour and how it was threatened, the reality is that after the investigation that has been done, the one thing this statement bears out absolutely is the fact that this harbour of ours is in very good condition.
There has been ongoing monitoring of this harbour for many years. It is detailed in the ministers statement: monitoring of river quality, sediment, plant nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorous, pesticide etcetera. He said that most of the water flowing in Darwin Harbour is clean and not polluted and that:
- Residents of other capital cities in Australia would envy the water quality of Darwin Harbour.
The water quality of the harbour is very good and has not changed since monitoring commenced over 10 years ago.
There is the challenge for you, minister. The reality is, by the investigations under Mr Bailey’s chairmanship, the facts are there for everyone to see. They are that the CLP government had in place extremely good monitoring systems - monitoring systems that worked well for many years, continue to work well and have been reinforced in terms of their importance by the minister. The minister gave an undertaking that not only will those monitoring systems be maintained, but, quite rightly, they will be enhanced where appropriate. That is a good thing.
I would have thought that some of the issues the minister revealed in his statement would have been self-evident when you consider that Darwin is about the size of Goulburn and we are looking at a harbour with a water catchment area greater than Sydney Harbour. To come up with observations that the greatest impact of the water quality of the harbour is the tides, I would have thought was self-evident, given the fact that we have the largest tide movement in Australia in many respects. The sediment that comes from those large tide movements would be a major influence on water quality.
Likewise with the seasons. We live in probably the most cyclonic area with some of the heaviest Wet Seasons in the world. Because of the Wet Season, increased volumes of fresh water enter the harbour so salinity is reduced.
The amount of metals in the harbour water is extremely low. Well, the industrial base of Darwin is extremely low in itself. Darwin is small business oriented, so the chances, I would have thought, are low. Most of those observations were self-evident and, in fact, were known and articulated in this House by previous ministers of the CLP government over many years: that the harbour was in good shape, was being monitored, and was being protected adequately. Comments otherwise were simply alarmist, populist, mischievous and misleading to the public, and that is what this report bears out.
I applaud the minister for saying that, as I said, the committee is going to become a permanent advisory committee. The structure of the committee is good. I take on board the comments of the member for Nelson that Defence, rightly, needs some representation. However, I would also say, practically, it would be understandable that that representation would not be adequate or necessary from local Defence people, because they would not have the authority to speak on those particular issues. You would need to get someone, probably from Canberra, who would be involved in an area of Defence that has a particular responsibility in these areas - the same sort of people who look after large training areas from an environmental perspective. The people from those areas would need to be involved, but I would not think, practically, they could sit regularly on that committee. I take the member for Nelson’s point that it is important that Defence is regularly consulted, because the comments from Senator Hill, I believe, were misrepresented in the Northern Territory News by saying that he was playing politics. He was not, I do not believe. He was raising very serious concerns about the problems that Defence has, and they are concerns that the government themselves will need to be very cognisant of.
For example, if Defence decide that the Port of Darwin, Stokes Hill Wharf, is not a good amenity for R and R for sailors, they will not come here any more. One of the reasons they will decide that is if they have to go and bunker their ships at East Arm because, once they start bunkering at East Arm, that will be the end of them. You will not see them here visiting, because there are many more places they can go as an attraction. Equally, it is flippant to say: ‘Oh, you can barge the fuel around to them’. Once it becomes impractical, and they are on tight time lines to come into Darwin, and they have to muck around with fuel barges coming in from East Arm, they will not come here any more. That will be a great difficulty and problem for the small business community which looks forward to their visits with great anticipation.
Also, as I have said publicly, given the plans that Defence has for the future, in terms of the possible use of Bradshaw as a joint training area with the United States, and the establishment of a logistics facility here for the United States, the potential of more and more Australian and Defence warships staying here for longer and longer periods is there. Any planning for Darwin Harbour, and particularly the Stokes Hill Wharf and East Arm Port area, needs to be very cognisant of the downstream effects that it might have on Defence. Equally, I am sure the government would by now be aware of stringent requirements by the United States. They are far more stringent than they have in place at the moment, in what they have been accepting for their own personal security and of their warships. Unless they are guaranteed the type of security arrangements that they demand in the future, they simply will not come any more. Therefore, any planning in that regard has to be cognisant of those particular requirements and Defence does need to be involved.
The other issue - and I do not say this as a criticism - was raised by the shadow minister. The money that has been allocated is good. I assume that it is adequate, and I am sure you will take advice from Mr Bailey on the adequacy of those resources. That, of course, is a problem for him because, notwithstanding the endorsement you have given of this advisory committee, at the end of the day, advisory committees are just that. If the government does not want to take notice of them, they will not. Therefore, I certainly hope that this advisory committee is not only funded adequately, but is taken notice of in the recommendations it makes, including the resources that are necessary to be allocated through that committee, I would hope, to the organisations that need to use that money for the protection of the plan of management for the future. Organisations that are involved, as I said, are good. The only criticism I had - and do not take this as anything more than a question at this stage - is that, for the indigenous working group, $120 000 is a lot of money.
Dr Burns: It is not.
Mr BURKE: Well, if you would explain that when you respond, minister because, on the face of it in your statement, $120 000 for the indigenous working group needs to be explained as to what exactly that money will be allocated for; and what will be the outcomes expected from that indigenous working group. To say it will be used to provide and identify a point of contact for information on the plan of management, provide information to the community of opportunities for that participation in the plan of management, and establish a database of stakeholders, seems to me to be nothing really. It needs to be far more articulated by the minister, as to how that $120 000 will be used. It is easily open to criticism that it is a way of filtering money through to particular groups that might be friendly to the government, and that is not what you want, I am sure. It also has the potential for other stakeholders to feel that they have a rightful place to receive funding because of their interest in things environmental, particularly the harbour, and wonder why they have not received any funding or are part of this. Also, of course, it has to be seen in the context of all these other small groups in our community which are competing for small amounts of money to maintain or promote their activities, that $120 000 would go a long way to assisting a whole range of those particular groups. I ask the minister to explain further in his reply what that money is going to be used for.
With those few comments, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for the statement. I particularly wanted to endorse the efforts of John Bailey, not only in the past through his efforts on this committee, but I am quite sure that, in the future ahead, he will play a very important role in the good management of our harbour.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Environment and Heritage): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome and endorse my colleague’s report on the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. This really is a red letter day for what is one of the Territory’s most valuable environmental assets and a cornerstone of the Territory lifestyle.
The minister focussed on the water quality of Darwin Harbour and this is absolutely a key issue and one of significance to my portfolio responsibilities. I note that the minister has indicated that the water quality of Darwin Harbour is currently very good and, indeed, it is. However, there is no doubt that the industrial landscape of the Top End is changing, and with this will come increasing pressures on the environment. Darwin Harbour will continue to be a working harbour and the population living around the harbour will grow.
As the Minister for Environment and Heritage, I have responsibility for ensuring that environmentally significant development proposals undergo environmental assessments and that appropriate safeguards are developed if the project proceeds. It is a responsibility that I take very seriously. It is a responsibility to protect our unique Territory environment and lifestyle.
For years under the CLP, we saw the environmental assessment process viewed as a hindrance. They viewed EIS as an annoyance and a barrier to the uncontrolled all-holds-barred inappropriate development that they loved. The Martin Labor government sees the process as an integral part of development. Not only does it protect our environment and lifestyle, but it can actually assist with appropriate and sustainable development. The clearest illustration of the CLP’s cavalier approach to the EIS processes, is that they were never accredited by the Commonwealth. This changed when the Martin Labor government came to power. The Northern Territory was accredited by the Commonwealth, with our environment assessment procedures meeting national best standards practice in 2002. It is clear that in Canberra they know it is the Martin Labor government which is protecting the Territory’s environment and lifestyle.
Under our processes, environmental assessment approvals and licences are used to regulate the development and ensure that safeguards are implemented. There is little point in doing all of this unless we know what is happening out there in the environment. That is why the water quality monitoring programs outlined in the minister’s statement are so important, and I strongly support this work. With this monitoring in place, the effectiveness of efforts by my Office of the Environment and Heritage, other government agencies and industry itself can be measured and assessed. If there are shortcomings, then adjustments can be made. The monitoring of water quality in Darwin Harbour really is a key measure for ensuring we have a robust and flexible environment protection regime that will stand us in good stead for the future.
It is also too easy to focus on the large industrial facilities and forget about the collective impact we have on the environment. That is why I am pleased that the minister has announced that a stormwater plan will be developed. Stormwater is the conduit by which many pollutants enter the harbour. Many people do not understand that what they wash down into gutters ends up in the harbour, but it does, and we need better programs to reduce this pollution.
The minister made mention of mangroves and it is very timely to remind members that it took the Martin Labor government to protect this very important part of the Darwin harbour ecosystem. Mangroves provide essential ecosystem services and support important food webs. More than 50% of the world’s mangroves have been destroyed, a startling figure. I am very proud that this government has had the foresight to protect Darwin Harbour mangroves after the neglect shown by the former government. Yes, they commissioned research on mangroves, but what did they do with the research? Nothing. It was a delaying tactic. Research was their excuse to sit on their hands and do nothing. We have done the research, we will continue to research, and we are protecting the harbour. Research has to inform the planning and decision-making processes, and this is where the members opposite were found wanting. The CLP talked about protecting the mangroves in the harbour but, in over a decade, they never put this talk into action. They never put the lines on the map and they never implemented the legislation to back it up. Without these lines on the map, they put forward projects like damming the Elizabeth River. It was only community outrage that stopped it. Fortunately, due to the leadership of this government, we will not be repeating these mistakes.
I am also very pleased to see that the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee will continue its good work and will guide the implementation of the Darwin Harbour Plan of Management. The committee has good representation from a cross-section of the community, and I note the establishment of an indigenous working group, which is also very welcome. We must not forget the significant indigenous knowledge of Darwin Harbour or the special place it has for local indigenous people. I commend the establishment of that working group, unlike the member for Goyder and other members opposite who think that the $120 000 is not worth spending and is too much money to be given to indigenous expertise or groups. Environmental problems are complex and, at the end of the day, they are resolvable only by cooperative action on the part of all the sectors of the community - from the family who likes to go fishing on the weekend to a multinational company.
Community participation and engagement, therefore, is a key to the success of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. Like our approach to the Daly, it is central to the way this government believes environmental issues and natural resource planning should be pursued. I do not pretend that members of these advisory groups will all get along; it will not always be happy families. There will be disputes and differences in opinion. It is hard work to listen, learn and negotiate and, sometimes, the lure of simply retreating to an entrenched position and fighting it out is surely tempting. However, there is too much at stake and the important thing is that there is a forum for these differences to be resolved through dialogue. Parties can bring together their legitimate interests to the table in an atmosphere of mutual respect and with the genuine desire to ensure a sustainable future. This is a defining feature of the Martin Labor government’s approach to environmental issues. It is inclusive, not divisive, and it is a an approach we believe will achieve the best environmental results.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the minister and recognise Mr John Bailey and the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee for their hard work and a very good result for our environment and lifestyle.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would just like to put a few comments on the record with regards to the minister’s statement. I welcome it and the tabling last November of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management.
John Bailey and the committee have done an excellent job. There are some issues in the plan that I am sure people will find, as has been picked up already in some of the debate here tonight. I would like to put on the record my thanks to all the department people who took part in this activity and all the activity that led up to this. There have been a number of studies, and the minister mentioned some of them and some of the work that has been going on for many years.
There have been some 230-odd studies. There has been all the research has been done by university graduates and undergraduates over the years and all the very extensive monitoring that has been going on, not only in the harbour itself but on the land surrounding the harbour. What we have in Darwin, and are very fortunate to have, is a huge mass of information that can be used to detect change and plan for the future. That has come about because we have all, in one way or another, been cognisant of the importance of the harbour to Darwin and, obviously, to the surrounding environment.
This work is similar to the work we would have reached had a certain election not got in the way. I started a similar process. You would have seen the Darwin Harbour Strategy Plan, a similar sort of name. When you look through it, it had similar ...
Dr Burns: Oh, it was a promissory note; it is counterfeit.
Mr BALDWIN: I am sorry, it was before yours. Yours might be the counterfeit if that is the logic you want to follow.
It was put together by the Northern Territory CLP government at the time, in conjunction with the federal government, with funding from the Natural Heritage Trust and put out to consultancy. That process was started and due to be reported back in a finalised form in 2001. As I said, unfortunately, an election got in the way and it was never quite completed.
I am sure Mr Bailey and his committee referred to this document from time to time. The references in this document refer to all the work that went before. The language throughout is similar in the issues, the actions and the work that needs to be done to ensure that the harbour stays in good condition whilst allowing enjoyment of its recreational, heritage, cultural and environmental values.
The only thing that is not mentioned in here anywhere is beneficial uses. It would have been worth mentioning beneficial uses because they were formally declared under the Water Act in 1996 for Darwin Harbour. They are significant because they are nationally recognised and have some power under the Northern Territory Water Act. They do not get a mention, that I can see, in the document, although it does refer to all types of legislation that applies to the management of Darwin Harbour.
It is a good idea to introduce a statutory authority. I would be interested to hear from the minister what he sees as the powers that authority would have, if any, or whether they just remain as an advisory committee. Whilst they are listed in the actions under all of the different sections in the document, the work that they will undertake has been identified as needing to be done, and that is great. I assume the committee will coordinate all of that work. That is good; it is work that needs to be done and has been identified, both in that and the work leading up to that, through this Darwin Harbour strategy that we put in place and began work on. They are clearly easily identified as issues, and need action against them.
Whilst the minister for the environment might think we took no action in our time in government with regards to mangroves, I remind her that, after all of the years we were in government, less than just under 2% of the mangroves of the Northern Territory Darwin Harbour had any impact and been cleared. That is a fact that is borne out whichever way you want to spin it. Whilst we did not have a formal protection on those mangroves, it is testimony to that regime that only 2% - less, just under 2% if you want to get technical - has been cleared for the development of Darwin so far. If she thinks that, by placing a zoning over the mangroves gives them ultimate protection, she is quite wrong, as the minister for lands now knows with his powers to change zonings at the stroke of a pen without any other process needing to be gone through. The mere fact that mangroves are zoned does not mean that they are fully protected. If you wanted to go to full protection, then you would have to go down the line of something that the member for Nelson was talking about, and go stronger than just zoning.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, my congratulations to the committee. I look forward to seeing the work that they do in the future. I put on the record my and the CLP’s thanks to all the people in all the departments and agencies - both Commonwealth and Northern Territory - and non-government organisations that have taken part in what was always going to be an ongoing job; and that is the protection of Darwin Harbour through studies, research, future monitoring and future planning.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased tonight to speak on this statement from the minister, and I welcome it.
Obviously, as the member for Port of Darwin, the harbour is of significance to me and my constituents. It is a beautiful harbour. It is a source of great fun for many people, particularly when they undertake recreational activities. I remember, about 20 years ago, learning to scuba dive in Darwin Harbour - and what a barren place it is under the waves as those famous tides wash everything in and out. Every day it gets scoured several times by tonnes of sand, and I can assure you, there would not be a cleaner looking Harbour down there on the sand beds.
Of course, it is a wonderful harbour for tourism, and it is a joy to see the sailing boats, ferries and things like that going across the harbour at sunset, with the tourists enjoying their time. It is also a great source and facility for our trade. I used to live in a unit overlooking the harbour, and would see these huge ships coming in, bringing cars into the Northern Territory, and other large ships taking out, our live cattle exports.
The harbour is a hive of industry and we can now sit on this side of the harbour and watch with interest as the gas plant is erected. Last year, I had the privilege of going to Western Australia to visit Karratha, to tour their gas plant and talk to the local people about the impact of the gas plant on their life. One of the things I noticed about Karratha was the huge number of people who had large fishing boats in their yards. Fishing is a great activity that occurs in Karratha, and the reason for it is the gas plant, because the plant built a large pipe lying across the bed of the harbour, and that pipe over the years has now become encrusted with corals. When I visited the gas plant, they showed me a promotional film about the gas plant, and there was footage of that gas pipeline lying across the harbour, and it is quite magnificent. From somebody who learnt years ago to scuba dive in a barren harbour, it is going to be a delight for our scuba diving fraternity as well. I hope one day - I will probably be about 90 by the time it becomes encrusted with coral - to go down and have a look to see the fish as they swim around the coral. Hopefully, some areas will be protected around the pipe for scuba diving and, of course, the recreational fishing people will enjoy the fish that are attracted to that once that pipe has been covered. This, of course, brings me to the fact that the harbour is also a source of food and many people enjoy fishing and other activities to gather food from the harbour. That, of course, is something that has occurred, no doubt, for thousands of years.
I believe the harbour has endless potential. I met recently one of my constituents as I was doorknocking, and he was telling me a story about how, roughly about 20 or 25 years ago, there was a thought - and I am only just touching on it here - to build a structure across the harbour that allowed the water to still go in and out, but also harness the energy of our tides. This has occurred in a number of countries - France and Canada, for example - where harbours have had turbines placed in them. From those turbines power is generated to power their communities. Perhaps in this era where we are concerned about greenhouse gases and the like, gathering the strength and power from our tides might be something that is done in generations to come. Darwin Harbour may have the potential to do that, provided it is done in a way that does not affect the environment adversely.
The harbour, as we have heard, is a huge harbour in size, and I do not think many of us really appreciate the magnitude of it. Therefore, it is vital to protect this resource by balancing the competing pressures of the environment and the need to protect that, with the needs of the people living and working in the area. My electorate, as members will know, is kissed all around its edges by this harbour. We start with Cullen Bay, and I know there is a thought to have a town beach. May I put in a plug for Cullen Bay to be considered as the site of a town beach? Cullen Bay has, arguably, one of the best beaches in Darwin when it is uncovered from the creeper that sits on top of it. When it is there with its pristine sand showing, I can assure you that large numbers of people gather on it to enjoy it as a beach. It has potential to have a net placed on it so that people can swim in the waters there.
As you go around the harbour in my electorate, the next port of call is Larrakeyah. I know the people living on the Larrakeyah Army Barracks thoroughly enjoy the view that they have, those lucky few, as they have their houses perched on the edge of the harbour - and good luck to them being able to enjoy that. In the last few years, the Defence Forces have built quite a substantial water structure there for the patrol boats, and we will be getting more patrol boats as the next few years go by. I believe the Naval facility is there to stay for many years, and is certainly welcome as far as I am concerned.
Travelling further around we get to the Esplanade which was the site of the town beach many years ago. It is somewhere between the Esplanade old town beach site, Lameroo Beach, and the wharves where we are going to have our new wharf development, that there is another potential town beach. I will put in a plug for that spot also. It would be marvellous to have a netted beach - a net that can keep out not only sea wasps, but Irukandji as well. If we can get that in, just as Cairns and other north Queensland beaches have done with success, it will provide a wonderful resource for locals and visitors alike. As we go along the Esplanade, I know many of you will have walked that path and admired the harbour from that view, and it is a great resource for recreation for locals and visitors alike.
Then we get to the wharf area and there we had the iron ore wharf, the Fort Hill Wharf and Stokes Hill. The iron ore wharf does not get much usage at the moment and I suspect that, at some point in the not-too-distant future, it will be dismantled as the new East Arm facilities have taken over that role. The Fort Hill Wharf though, has increased in the broadening of the usage that it gets. The big crane has been moved over to the East Arm Wharf, but Fort Hill is very much the site for the berthing of Defence Navy vessels and also for cruise liners. This has become a bit of a shame because it was great when they berthed at Stokes Hill Wharf when mere mortals such as you and I were able to walk alongside them and dream about the day that we might go on a cruise. However, Fort Hill is the place for them now because it is a stronger and very secure wharf. It is sad in this new era that we live in that we have to concern ourselves so much with security, but thank heavens Fort Hill is there. I know that you will all be appreciative of the ever-increasing numbers of cruise vessels that are coming to the Northern Territory and providing for us the wonderful economic benefit that their passengers give us.
A little further around is Stokes Hill Wharf, the wharf I am sure all of us are very familiar with. It is a lovely place to enjoy an evening under the stars. I am sure it is one of the fondest memories you all have of living in Darwin. For me, I know the gas plant is going up across the harbour, and I quite like industrial sites seen across the water. I am going to enjoy, over the years to come, seeing the orange lights of the gas plant across our harbour. It will add to our enjoyment of Stokes Hill in the night time.
A little further around is the old power station site, and this is a site that is going to be redeveloped in the years to come, more than likely with residential buildings. The occupants will enjoy a beautiful view of the harbour. All through this area, of course, will be our new wharf development sitting on the harbour. I know that the consortia are now vying to see who will be the successful one for the development of the convention centre. I am quite sure that, when that convention centre is built, it will make the most of the beautiful land that it will sit on. People who are attending conventions will see great vistas from the windows of that convention centre. I am sure it will be exciting over the years to see that area develop. One of the best things that I have been to is one of the public consultations on that wharf development. I know what came out of the public consultations has been a significant emphasis for the people who are used to develop the area to build a significant walkway around the harbour in that area. I assume it will link up with Damorae Park on the end of the Esplanade park and create a walkway for many kilometres around our harbour in the CBD.
After leaving the old power station site, you come into an industrial area which includes Fisherman’s Wharf, and contains entities to deal with fishing and the marine industry in particular and, of course, a great little feed spot. Perkins fishing and those sort of places are there. This will be an interesting area to watch over the next 20 years. I expect we will see that the industries will leave there and locate more around to East Arm and free up land there for development in other uses. I expect we will see very high class residential accommodation areas there and, hopefully, a couple of other marinas. Some people, like the member for Nelson, will choke over the concept of marinas, but these are already places that are being used for industrial use, and marinas are a place which people enjoy and they create jobs. They create wealth for the community and they create a wonderful lifestyle for the people who can live there. I do not think we should pooh-pooh them totally. Of course, these sites currently do not have any mangroves growing on them and so I certainly will not have a problem. I am quite sure we will see them over the years, as those industrial businesses move over to the new port area, converted into attractive harbour living with some marinas in there as well.
Speaking of marinas, the next port of call and the last for my electorate is Tipperary Waters, which is a lovely spot for the people who live there. There are people living not just in houses and units at Tipperary Waters, but on boats, unlike Cullen Bay.
These are the uses that my electorate, quite directly, has from Darwin Harbour. Therefore, the harbour is of great interest to all of us. We welcome the statement that the minister has made as we all work to ensure the best balance for our wonderful waterway.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, Darwin Harbour and the Darwin Harbour management plan means a lot to the people of Sanderson. As a matter of a fact, I have had quite a number of representations about the harbour over the years that I have been representing my constituency and, even in recent times, I have had cause to duck into the environment minister’s office and discuss aspects of the Darwin Harbour management plan with her staff. Therefore, I am very pleased to contribute to this statement.
As the minister said, the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management aims to provide a coordinated approach to ensure a balance and sustainable outcomes to protect and enhance the diverse values and uses of the region. That is a pretty bold ambition, but I am confident that with the plan that was put together by Mr John Bailey and his team will be achievable, particularly with the support - and by the sounds of it, the bipartisan support - of this parliament. I look forward to the years to come and the implementation of this plan.
As the minister said, the plan states the need for formal recognition of the plan, progressive implementation of identified actions, formal recognition of the advisory committee, and periodic review and evaluation of the plan. It does it in many ways, and to do this, it is going to be phased in over many years. This year in particular, with the start of the funding, there is going to be the sum of $365 000 to support all of the priority actions identified. Over the years to come, of course there will be a lot more funding required to bring in the full implementation, but we are starting with $365 000. It is a well thought-out figure. It will achieve the resourcing and those outcomes that have been nominated to occur in the first part of the plan.
There is $100 000 that has been allocated to develop and implement a stormwater management strategy. I welcome this announcement. Pollutants can enter stormwater through a variety of ways and most of us are guilty of it in one way or another. How many times have we washed the car in the driveway and watched those soapy suds disappear down the gutter? Who has not pulled up at a service station and seen spilt diesel around the bowser and watched while someone diligently used degreaser and hosed the residues off? Stormwater pollution does not usually attract the type of environmental protest and outrage associated with deep smoke stacks or a major spill. It is not a sexy environmental issue but, collectively, stormwater can contribute significant pollutant loads into our environment and it needs to be addressed.
Stormwater can pick up everything from litter, such as cigarette butts and plastic bags, to chemicals such as oil and grease wastes, pesticides, phosphates and nitrates. More importantly, once it enters the stormwater, the pollutants flow into our harbour. This is an important point. I see that this message has been stencilled on a number of stormwater inlets by Landcare groups. The message needs to be made: if you dump material into the stormwater drain, it is the same as dumping it into the ocean. Many people would not dream of doing this, but are quite happy putting stuff down a stormwater drain. They think the drain goes to a sewer and is treated, but it is not.
I had a quick look at the Internet and I came across quite a number of sites. As a matter of a fact, when I searched ‘stormwater’, the search engines came up with over a million sites.
Dr Burns: Not storm chasers?
Mr KIELY: No, not storm chasers, which is another group that would certainly attract a lot of people with different views and some very out-there views.
Stormwater is a very important issue. As I looked at the sites, I saw the ways that people tackle stormwater. I came across some great pictures. I will describe them; I will not bother tabling them. There are all sorts of apparatus that can be fitted to stormwater drains to trap all the litter and excess that are in our streets and our waterways before they enter into the harbour system. I got these pictures from the California Transit Authority - I believe they came from - and also a place called Tallahassee in the USA. It is quite interesting. There is one photo here with a great trap in a river system, and behind the trap - and it is vertical steel bars anchored to a couple of pillars over a sort of weir thing – are old tyres, hundreds upon hundreds of plastic bottles and containers, and all manner of rubbish. This trap is stopping this from going into the ocean. This is stuff that has been washed through the stormwater.
There are other implements, such as the baffle boxes on roadside curb inlets and baffle boxes with all the samples of sand filters you can get. There are also available different basket inlets. There are some great trade apparatuses, which is a huge baffle box with trash. These are the sorts of things that I am sure the committees will be looking at with its $100 000, because it is an issue. There is an issue of who owns what stormwater drains around the place; that has to be identified. This is really one of the places where I hope the committee turns its attention to concerning stormwater.
We have to look to trap pollutants before they get into our system. These curb inlet boxes, of course, have industrial applications. You might find them at the garage, the motor mechanic’s shed, even at home for the home mechanics who do a bit of work. Where you get these spillages, if you are doing a service at home on your car, sure you will trap all the oil coming out, but that oil runs and hits onto the cement apron. You might think you are doing the right thing by hitting it with detergent and then washing it away but, in effect, you are dumping it into the ocean. This happens at home, at sites where you are over at your mate’s place doing a bit of work on the car, and in light industrial areas. These are the sorts of things which I hope the group looking at the stormwater management strategy will address. I am sure that working in partnership with businesses, community groups and councils, that they will come to it. As I said, stormwater is a large issue. We talk about working in partnership. I look now at the Californian Transit Authority. They are responsible for the roads and, of course, the stormwater drains on them, something like our departments here. Similarly, for the roads and streets that the council are involved with, so these partnerships can be done.
It says here that you can set an example for others, especially children, by picking up after yourself and not littering. Perhaps the council, as part of the Darwin Harbour management plan, should actually start enacting their anti-litter laws. Maybe that is something that the management group can work on, because it really does have a large effect on what goes into the harbour. Always carry a litter bag in your car, to make sure that you do not litter. If you smoke, do not just chuck your butt out the window, put it in a receptacle and get rid of it properly. Do not keep loose materials in truck beds. This applies to people heading off to the tip. If we can get an education campaign going to tie down your load, because all that blows off the road and it can end up in the stormwater, down the drain, untreated, into the river or creek and, eventually, out to the harbour. Make sure the rubbish is secured. Start clean up organisations in your area. Well, we have the Clean Up Australia Day. We had the great community example of the members for Millner and Johnston getting down with their local communities at Rapid Creek, and helping clean up.
Mr Wood: Not the terrible twosome!
Mr KIELY: Well, the great community-minded members that they are, they are in there working with their communities. You see, they are already practising this good harbour management. They are a shining light that we should all aspire to become, because this is the attitude that will help protect our harbours and maintain the lifestyle that we are so much yearning for. When we talk about funding, if all of us get in here and do our bit with small things like that, we will easily manage this problem and have a good harbour for the future years to come.
Mr Wood: And you will get in at the next election.
Mr KIELY: Thank you. Pardon me, Madam Speaker. Reducing the amounts of pollution going into our harbour from stormwater run-off will require action on a couple of fronts. We need to change behaviour, and this will firstly require education - people need to be better informed that the run-off from our roads and pavements eventually makes its way into our harbour. We then need to give people better options that will reduce contamination; for example, wash your car on the lawn instead of the driveway - very simple, very practical, but if everyone is doing that collectively, it will have a great impact.
Education will only go so far, and I hope the stormwater management strategy will also look at requiring improvements to the design of drainage of commercial establishments. Water drainage from areas that have the potential to receive contaminates need to be separated from clean areas, and the dirty water will then often need some sort of treatment. The requirements need to be practical and achievable. We already have strong pollution laws, but there is some room for specific requirements on stormwater that could be considered through the stormwater management strategy. Some basic requirements for commercial premises could be established; for example through designs standards, codes of practice, and guidance on materials used. That $100 000 is well spent for stormwater. Stormwater management is important; it is critical to the harbour and to managing it for future generations.
Contrary to what the opposition might have the public believe, I believe that we are in a phase of great development; we are on the cusp of quite a number developments. We will have the Lee Point subdivisions going in; more subdivisions developed in Palmerston; the developments around the suburban areas, not on the foreshore but inland; the developments at the airport area which will go onto Rapid Creek or around that vicinity and onto Ludmilla Creek. Therefore, the stormwater management is going to be critical. It is time now to start consulting with local government and looking at what we can do to put in better stormwater management, by putting in those traps ...
Mr Wood: That is not local government’s responsibility, that is NT government responsibility.
Mr KIELY: A working partnership - there will be areas where ...
Mr Wood: Well, maybe yes.
Mr KIELY: The member for Nelson says it is a Territory government responsibility and I accept that. However, I also say that it is everyone’s responsibility.
Mr Wood: I would agree.
Mr KIELY: I say that it is everyone’s responsibility, with government working in partnership with all other levels and with the people who will be living in these communities. We need to be acting on it now. We need to be making it as part of the overall strategic plan for Darwin, for preserving and, wherever possible ...
Mr Wood: Keeping industry out, thank you very much.
Mr KIELY: No, I do not quite agree with the member for Nelson ...
Mr Wood: You want it in the middle of the harbour, do you?
Mr KIELY: … on keeping industry out, we have to find a balance. We cannot just have a great lifestyle without earning the income from somewhere. But it has to be balanced development.
The minister’s statement also indicated that $55 000 has been allocated to undertake a systematic survey of the harbour region. This is great because, without data and information, you cannot make informed decisions about which are the future ways to go. Therefore, this in the first year is great funding. There is $30 000 of additional funding has been allocated to integrated environmental monitoring programs. Once more, we need this data. There has been a lot of data collected before; lots of work has gone on before.
The opposition seems to be fixated on: ‘You never give us credit for anything’. Well, none of us believe there was a big bang but, yes, the Labor Party came into government in 2001. That is fine, the CLP had it before. However, since self-government it has been the NT government. Political parties do not own governments. We might have the range to give it guidance for a certain period of time, but we do not own government, the people own government. I get a bit vexed when I hear them say: ‘It was our town; it was our Territory’. Well, it was not, it was the people’s Territory - has been, will be, will never change. Before self-government, the place was run by the Commonwealth and much of the infrastructure that we use now, comes from their day. Let us not try and claim this or that.
There was a lot of development under the CLP - a lot of good development. I will give credit to them for good development. There were a few crook decisions and they should accept that too. The same as we probably will not get everything right. But it is not a matter of tit for tat: ‘Oh, look what we did’. Fine, they can have it all. Anything before 2001, they were the political party in power and they made the decisions. I would have thought that was a given. I do not know why they want us to pat them on the back every time for anything before 2001. It is beyond me. It gets back to that ‘born to rule’ syndrome that they seem to be inflicted with at the moment.
Mr Wood: Back to the management plan.
Mr KIELY: Yes, back to the management plan. An additional $15 000 has been allocated to identify the significance of current gaps in scientific knowledge of the ecosystems, as well as another $15 000 development for harbour region communications and an education campaign. This is great funding.
There is an additional $120 000 allocated to support the roles of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Group, the ecosystem management group and the ecosystem research group and related functions. The minister has highlighted what these are. He also went on to say that they are from, and within, this additional $120 000 that will also enable us to get the establishment of an indigenous working group. Full credit to the member for Port Darwin for bringing this up in the House, to show that she is not as - I do not know what the words are - bitter and twisted - like the member for Goyder who is always trying to carry on some line that any money that goes for indigenous funding is somehow stealing the money out of the mouths of babes and should always be better spent elsewhere. He has real problems with any money that should ever find its way into an indigenous program.
However, this $120 000 is actually funding something like three or four groups. The indigenous working party fits within this group and helps inform the master body, so it is only one component of four or five different activities – let us get that right. As I said, the member for Port Darwin deserves credit where credit is due because she said that the harbour has been harvested by people since time immemorial. It is the local people who know about the longbums, the mud crabs, who can find their way through the mud, through the mangroves, who have an intimate knowledge, and who have been harvesting and utilising this resource for quite a long time. Well, wouldn’t we be mugs if we did not get them onside? If we did not get them in there? I reckon it is cheap – it is as cheap as chips!
Dr Burns: Did they go around in quad bikes?
Mr KIELY: Well, maybe that is the new indigenous lot. The member for Port Darwin seems to be about the only -well, she lives in the area, so she would know.
Ms Carter: Thank you.
Mr KIELY: I feel like I live there after that little trip that she took us on. However, let me say, the member for Goyder just cannot add anything positive at any time to any government initiatives. He would be better off out of any debate because he does not contribute. I do not know who he thinks he panders to with that sort of talk, because they are an informed bunch out there in Goyder land. They are informed. It is really beyond me what perverse satisfaction he gets out of running around saying: ‘$120 000 will enable indigenous groups to get bussed around on seafood picnic days’. It is utter rubbish.
A member: Dog whistling.
Mr KIELY: That is it. As Don Watson said ‘dog whistling’. Everyone is a wake-up to him. He ought to wake up to himself. The Leader of the Opposition ought to take him aside and have a couple of words with him. That would be a pretty handy way to do this. However, that is for them to resolve.
Mr Wood: Now back to the management plan.
Mr KIELY: I have never been off the management plan - never been off it because it is an important path. I only have a moment or two.
Once again, I would thank the minister and his department and the hard-working departmental people who got all this together. They have a good road ahead of them. It is a wonderful trip. We have heard the member for Port Darwin talk about how great the harbour is. She knows, she lives on it. I hope at 90 years she is down there with the old crusty things and having a swim around.
Ms Carter: I hope so too!
Mr KIELY: I am looking forward to it. I will probably be one of the relics down the bottom.
Once again, thanks to Mr Bailey and the work that he has put in. I look forward to seeing the work that he will do in the future. This whole plan has a long way to go. In years to come, whoever is in the government will say: ‘Yes, the NT government of the day served the people of the Territory well’. It does not matter whether it was CLP or ALP, as long as we get that harbour management plan right and save the harbour for generations to come.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, first, I commend all members for their contributions here tonight. I will have a bit to say about the member for Goyder but, generally speaking, the contributions have been very constructive.
We have heard about people’s love of the harbour – that is the only way you can say it – their attachment to the harbour and desire to protect it. That is very commendable. We have also heard, through the report, my statement and what some members opposite have said, that, to a large degree, the harbour is in very good shape in water quality and its ecosystem. That is very important.
The member for Nelson mentioned we went for a helicopter ride on Saturday. He raised a few issues with me and my predecessor about the harbour and development around it. There was another issue that we looked at while we were up there. It was good for me to get up there and have a look, and get a perspective of what is going on around the harbour. We all do that when we take off in planes from the airport, but we took a lower level view and panned, in a particular way, to look at developments around the harbour.
Whether you are in a helicopter or looking down from a plane going to X or Y, often I have thought there have been chunks taken out from the harbour. From the Japanese map from Tokyo that the member for Nelson showed, from those days to these days, there is no doubt there is a whole range of developments going on around the harbour from prawn farms to some of the light industrial he spoke about and some of the extractive industries that he pointed out to me. Of course, there are larger and significant developments like the LNG plant over at Wickham Point plus what has gone on around the harbour with the new port. You could go on and on.
I thought the member for Port Darwin’s approach was very good because she spoke about her electorate and recreational use of the harbour. She also spoke about people living around the harbour and enjoying the sights and sounds. I thought that was a very interesting way to go about it.
The point I am coming to is that I do not think, in truth, we can say that the harbour is pristine. It may have been pristine in the 1930s when that map was taken by the Japanese. We can honestly say it is a working harbour. There have been developments around that harbour for better or for worse. The member for Nelson spoke to me with some passion as we flew over the harbour about some of the extractive industries that have gone on at the other side of the bridge near Weddell, between Weddell and Wickham Point. It is a pock mark; it is a terrible area. I agree with the member for Nelson. It has been a travesty in the way development has been allowed to go on in that area. However, we have to accept the fact that the development has happened. Let us see how we can remediate that area. Let us make the best use of that area for the Northern Territory. As the member for Nelson knows, I have asked my department to go away and have a look at the cost of remediation and what sort of remediation might go on there.
The member for Nelson also pointed out to me some alternative plans for the development of light industrial areas in that corridor towards Glyde Point. I have taken on board the messages that the member for Nelson has given, and I have given him an undertaking that I will give them very serious consideration. It may take some time, member for Nelson, but I have taken your messages on board.
I am trying to give a balanced view of where our harbour is. What is incumbent on us now, as parliamentarians, as policy makers in the Northern Territory, is to ensure that what we have is safeguarded, and safeguarded well. That is where I commend the efforts of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee. They are a group that has burrowed in, canvassed the public opinions about the harbour, and have produced a very comprehensive report, which government has recognised.
I would like to emphasise that the funding that government has put forward to the Darwin Harbour Plan of Management has been on the basis of what was recommended and asked for, if you like, by the advisory group. We have shown a lot of respect and confidence in the advisory group. Some environmental groups have come out – and they got the figure wrong, it is $365 000 - and said: ‘Oh, it is not enough’. Well, I suppose you could invest millions upon millions of dollars, but I believe $365 000, in anyone’s language, is a substantial amount of money, and is a show of confidence in the group. In answer to that environmental group, I am not putting a value of $365 000 on the harbour. The harbour is worth a lot more than $365 000; you cannot quantify it. That is what I liked about the member for Millner’s contribution tonight. There was a family connection, a deep affection for the harbour, and experience that I respect.
I got the feeling that the member for Goyder had not really read the report. He was very eager to misread the $120 000 that is flagged in my report to go to the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee to support them in their work. The indigenous advisory group that he was referring to is a part - and a very important part, and I am not going to diminish it - of the overall work of that committee. However, for the member for Goyder to come in here and suggest that, somehow, government was giving $120 000 just to one group, is wrong. If he had read the report, he would have seen on the implementation plan, 4.9 through to 4.11 where, basically, it sets out the amounts of money. At the bottom of it, under the heading ‘Annual Funding Commitment’ it says:
- Support of the ongoing role of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee, the Ecosystem Monitoring Group,
the Ecosystem Research Group, including sitting fees where required, meeting cost and an executive officer.
This would also allow for an annual implementation report to be produced and for the Darwin Harbour
Regional Plan of Management to be updated annually, with the necessary public consultation.
In the next column it says, ‘$120 000 to $300 000’. If he goes up the page from there to see all the different components of that $120 000, it talks about establishing an indigenous working group, and about it being part of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee core business.
The member for Goyder has misrepresented and, once again, he is playing wedge politics. He seems to love doing this. Don Watson has been mentioned tonight, and I would like to quote something from his book, Recollections of a Bleeding Heart: A Portrait of Paul Keating PM, where he talked about Keating who, of course, really respected Jack Lang. Jack used to talk about people being a political, typical skyrocket, ‘the type who went off in a shower of sparks but fell like a dead stick to the ground’. The member for Goyder needs to think about that. He was touted as the next Chief Minister; he certainly came on the scene with a bright array of sparks - a talented young man who has a very successful law company and who is well known through his family, a well respected family in the Territory.
I say to the member for Goyder: wake up. Stop playing wedge politics because, otherwise, it takes a bit more than just having a whole lot of sparks to be successful in this game. It takes a bit of hard work, and a bit of statesman-like behaviour. I do not think the member for Goyder is acting particularly like a statesman. He is trying to fan all sorts of flames from embers of racism. It has been described as dog whistling. I will quote again from Don Watson’s book. It said:
- We spent the campaign circling the issue of race, knowing that our opposition had engaged in a campaign of
dog whistling, although we did not know the term at that stage and, without it we could not describe with
much assurance, what was going on.
We saw; we knew what was going on. We have seen what went on in that particular campaign with Pauline Hanson and what John Howard did. We know what dog whistling is and that the member for Goyder is engaging in it. Don Watson goes on to define part of dog whistling. He said:
- It was the disaffected responding to the ancient call of race and xenophobia.
So, just be careful member for Goyder. We know what you are on about. Get you facts right before you jump in. Try and be a bit more of a statesman and start working hard if you want to be successful in this place. It is not enough to be touted as the next Chief Minister, you have to work hard, get to know your shadow portfolios, and then you will get some respect in this place.
Mr Wood: Now, back to the management plan.
Dr BURNS: Well, what I had to say there was important, because there was a bit of politics being played with it. The member for Goyder really needs to be pulled up over this. The Opposition Leader, as the member for Sanderson said, needs to take him to one side and have a bit of a chat to him about it.
The member for Goyder talked about it being an election commitment – I am talking about the Darwin Harbour Plan of Management. Yes, it was; we drew together an election commitment. He and a number of speakers from the other side talked about the fact that the CLP, over a number of years, did have regard to the harbour and the health of the harbour. I am not going to dispute that. I am not going to say that anyone on the other side ever went out – I hope not – wilfully to destroy the harbour. However, it was the Labor Party in opposition that drew together a policy, that worked hard, and put it to the people. I know it had resonance with the electorate because, as I doorknocked, people would talk to me about their concerns about mangroves in Darwin Harbour. We went out there with a policy and people accepted it. We have followed through on our policy and had this exercise with the plan, and now we have funded it. Therefore, we are being true to our election commitment. That is very important to realise. Members opposite should really take that on board.
Once again, I am not going to get combative or rubbish what the opposition have done previously. The member for Daly mentioned that there was a report previously that was under NHT funding. I understand that was all about water quality, and that is a very important aspect of the harbour; I am not diminishing or decrying that. However, this particular report goes further. It looks at land uses, at other uses of the harbour, and at cultural and historic aspects as well. It is trying to look at the harbour, as the next step of engaging the community. That is a very important aspect that the opposition should be acknowledging. I certainly acknowledge that it is very important.
The member for Nelson talked about threats to the harbour - and threats to the harbour remain. He talked about some of the extractive industries and the need to be vigilant in the harbour, and I agree. There is going to be more and more pressure on land around the harbour and the uses of the harbour. I probably disagree with him that it is being totally industrialised. However, we need to be very careful in the future industrialisation of the harbour and the future uses of the harbour.
Member for Nelson, you talked about the mangroves and asked some questions about the figures that have been put forward. It was said in the statement that government has zoned over 90% of mangroves in the harbour as conservation. I am informed by my department and officers that the actual area is closer to 96% of the mangroves. The areas not zoned - and the member for Casuarina talked about this at some length when he was minister – are those areas that have already been committed to some development and are already cleared; for example, East Arm Port, Bayview Haven, and a small area at Middle Arm to bring gas onshore for the LNG. In relation to the figures that you asked, member for Nelson, of the 26 200 hectares of mangroves, 20 400 hectares are in Darwin Harbour and the additional 5800 hectares exist around Shoal Bay and Gunn Point. There are just over 1000 hectares not zoned as conservation and, as I have said, that area has already been developed or has been earmarked for development previous to the government bringing in its audit. I hope that answers your question, member for Nelson.
You raised the issue of Defence being represented on the advisory group. The answer to that is that all port users are represented through the Darwin Port Corporation on the committee and, as I said to the media today, I am sure the committee wants to work very closely with Defence and they will meet with Defence on a fairly regular basis. That is very important and, as minister, is something that I would want to see the committee doing. We are not trying to shut Defence out. We know that they are a very important component of our harbour. However, basically, I believe the representative group in the committee now is adequate and that Defence and the committee will work together.
The member for Brennan emphasised the legacy that had been left by the CLP of a good harbour, and I have already covered that. I just emphasise again that this government wanted to take it a step further, and we will be doing similarly with Bynoe Harbour in the near future, and that is very important. He asked a question about the indigenous working group and I have answered that. Just to point out to the member for Brennan, on page 4.8 it talks about the workings of that indigenous working group, and how it will provide advice to the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee. Those other groups that he mentioned are actually other subsets of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee. That is very important.
The minister for environment spoke with great passion about the need to be inclusive, not divisive. I have covered that already, and I thank her for her offering. I have covered the member for Daly’s offering where he talked about the previous report, and, if the election had not intervened, basically, they would have done the same thing. However, I am advised that the report he is talking about is fairly limited to water quality - an important aspect, but not the whole story. I have mentioned the member for Port Darwin. I thought she gave a very thoughtful and good offering here tonight. She obviously has a different perspective than the member for Nelson about marinas and possibly beaches, but that is a debate that we have to have as a community. The member for Sanderson, as ever thinking about the people of Sanderson, has a real concern about stormwater drains and the effect of stormwater on the harbour. His effort also was very thoughtful and he raised a very important issue.
In summary, I thank all members for their contribution. There was one thing that I forgot, that was missing from my statement, and that is the role of Charles Darwin University. I did mention the Australian Institute of Marine Science, but the Charles Darwin University, particularly Dr David Parry’s group, are already offering a lot in ecosystem analysis and monitoring. It is true that I have a licence to drive a truck, but I have also driven an atomic absorption spectrophotometer - a graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometer which measures the very heavy metals that we talked about here tonight ...
Mr Vatskalis: How fast did you drive that?
Dr BURNS: David Parry was kind enough to lend me his instrument, plus a few others to do this. I was not doing that sort of analysis.
However, I know he is a very talented scientist, and the people who work with him are very good scientists. I want to see Charles Darwin University integrally involved in monitoring the harbour because they have a lot to offer.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, once again, I thank the ongoing chairman for his effort. Everyone commended him, and it is good to see to bipartisan approach. The Darwin Harbour is very important to our Territory lifestyle. This is a government that is intent on protecting and enlarging our lifestyle and the Darwin Harbour is a jewel in that crown.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Tonight I want to talk about a visit I made to Alice Springs last week, and I acknowledge the assistance provided to me by the Office of Central Australia and my departmental officers. I was in Alice Springs for the week to take part in a number of seminars related specifically to my Mines and Energy portfolio, as well as meeting face-to-face with members of Central Australia’s pastoral industry. I also hosted a function for members of local ethnic communities and attended a wonderful Harmony Day celebration hosted by one of the local primary schools.
The Northern Territory’s Mineral Petroleum Exploration potential is huge and is gaining more and more national and international recognition. Intensive and sustained geological exploration is fundamental to new mining investments in the Northern Territory, and essential for sustained growth of the mining sector. Considering this, it is vital we attract as many companies as possible for the Territory and that is where AGES fits in. The Annual Geoscience Exploration Seminar was held in Alice Springs last week and I was pleased to address around 150 delegates at the formal dinner on Tuesday night. A big thank to the delegate who stood up and called out: ‘Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Greek, Greek, Greek!’. I really appreciated that.
This was fifth year the Northern Territory government has hosted this two-day seminar, and I am very pleased to say that every year it attracts more representatives from the exploration industry and related suppliers. Our Annual Geoscience Exploration Seminar is now firmly entrenched in the industry’s lexicon as AGES, is the centrepiece of the government’s strategy to communicate significant results arising out of our geoscience programs.
It provides explorers with the unique opportunity to network with colleagues including industry consultants, researchers, service suppliers and government officials who each share a keen interest in the discovery and development of the Territory’s mineral and petroleum resources.
I was very impressed by the comments I received from delegates attending the conference. Most delegates said that the Northern Territory was the only jurisdiction in Australia to provide information for free to explorers and miners. In one particular case, a delegate told me that he met representatives of the Mines Department of Western Australia at another conference in Queensland and told him that the Northern Territory was offering to him for free maps, information, data and everything. This delegate asked the WA official what he could offer, and the Director of the Department of Mines in Western Australia offered him a pen, and that was the only thing he got.
The response from all of delegates attending the conference was very positive. There were delegates from Western Australia, from the southern states, some representing Canadian and American companies seeking partners to explore mineral ores such as nickel and other ores in Central Australia.
At the end of the AGES, another important workshop was held for the many delegates gathered in Alice Springs. In a Territory first, the New Perspectives workshop, facilitated by Mr Bill Gray, examined and discussed the rights and obligations of the various parties engaged in consultation and negotiation in respect to exploration and mining on Aboriginal land, providing an opportunity for frank and open communication. The workshop was consistent with the Northern Territory government’s commitment to enhance relationships with indigenous Territorians and bring greater employment and social opportunities to the region.
I was also very pleased to officially open the inaugural Alice Springs business safety seminar hosted by the Northern Territory Minerals Council and the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce.
During my stay in Central Australia, I also met with the representative for the pastoral industry, hosting a meet and greet function at Madigans at the Alice Springs Desert Park.
While I do my very best to get around to as many properties as possible, unfortunately, the tyranny of distance and ministerial diary can make it very difficult. It was great to meet so many people in one visit to Alice Springs recently.
I also spent a day travelling to Ti Tree to have a look at the impressive horticultural operations there. I was taken for a tour of Territory Grapes and was very interested to learn more about that operation. I also had a look at the Ti Tree Research Farm to learn more about what they can grow out there. Let me tell you, I was really impressed. They can grow mangoes, grapes, citrus and herbs, but I was most impressed with the asparagus they were growing there. I have to admit, snapping asparagus fresh off the ground and munching them - they were very tasty and tender - I was very impressed.
Turning to my Ethnic Affairs portfolio, I was pleased to host a reception for around 70 members of local multicultural groups at Alice Springs Resort. For the first time, I met people who came from Peru, Spain, other Latin American countries and Puerto Rico. The ethnic community in Alice Springs is getting bigger and more diverse as time goes by. Of course, this was happening during Harmony Month, which has been celebrated around the country.
Another of my visits was to Ross Park Primary School. I was invited to take in a very special performance as part of Harmony Day celebrations. I was very pleased to see the students, teachers and about 50 to 60 parents participating in the Harmony Day celebrations. The local member was there and other members of parliament, because it was a very good opportunity to see these children presenting the Harmony Day concert without caring about the colour, accent or religion of the kid sitting next to them.
The school was given a Harmony Day grant to hire a tutor to teach a group of young boys a multicultural dance routine, which they proudly performed in front of their fellow students at the special assembly on Friday. I can say that it was a fantastic event and I was very proud to be there. A big congratulations to the teaching staff, to the young boys who danced, to the children, the parents and the principal of the school.
Other visits during my stay included the Core Store, the Arid Zone Research Institute, and the Territory Lettuce Farm, which is good to see in the Territory. It was impressive to see a hydroponic lettuce farm. They employ five or six people there in Alice Springs. Every four weeks, they produce about 75 000 head of lettuce, which is really impressive.
I take the opportunity to thank the Office of Central Australia and the officers of my various departments and those who kindly showed me their properties. Thank you very much for the hospitality. I look forward to going back to Central Australia in the next few months. I am already planning my annual road trip with my family mid-year. I have been invited to a number of pastoral properties to stay overnight. I will certainly do so. I am going to the Alice Springs Show and the Tennant Creek Show, and I am looking forward to the cattlemen’s dinner and dance in those two towns. It was a great week. They were long days, but I really enjoyed meeting and greeting people in Central Australia: pastoralists, horticulturalists, and people from the mining industry.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight in my adjournment speech I am going to return to where I was two nights ago when I ran out of time. I knew I would run out of time so I have split it over two nights. I talk about the issue of freedom of information and the health services.
As members will recall, about six months or so ago, the CLP opposition paid just over $2000 in order to access the documents that were prepared for the 1993 estimates hearings. They are documents which provide a significant amount of information with regard to how a department is faring - in this instance, the Department of Health and Community Services - and they are prepared by the public service to provide information to the minister as she answers questions put to her by the opposition. In the new system under the Martin Labor government, we are limited in time in each area in each department that we can quiz and, disappointingly, can often not get to all the areas in complex departments like the Department of Health and Community Services. It is my belief that, if I had had enough time, I would have covered many of the areas that these three folders refer to, and obtained the information.
It was quite obvious during the estimates process that the minister was referring to the written information, and was using that information in her answers. The information had been provided in a way that she could read the information. I do not have a problem with that, because the Department of Health and Community Services is a very complex department, and I do not believe anybody could be expected to know the detail that some of those questions were seeking.
However, it was very disappointing when the freedom of information legislation was used that, despite the payment of over $2000, we received 500 pages of documentation, but 200 pages of those were completely blank because it was deemed by the then minister and her staff that, for one reason or another, the taxpayers of the Northern Territory and the opposition who are their representatives, were not entitled to view that information about their health services. Of the 300 pages that were provided, a significant proportion of them had large areas blacked out; that is, censored. I am now going to take up where I left off two nights ago, and complete my comments on this disappointing situation.
I am referring now to page 50 of folder two. This section is headed, ‘Emergency Departments Waiting Times’. The excuses provided to not provide this information come from the Information Act, sections 52(1)(a), and 52(5)(a), (c) and (f). These sections of Labor’s freedom of information legislation allow the minister to withhold information for a number of excuses. I have already described - and the Hansard has it as a record - my views on section 52 (1)(a), so I am now going to section 52(5)(a). If the person who wrote the information is senior, and if that information is sensitive, that is a reason why, under the Information Act, we cannot get the information. Well, stump me! That excuse should prevent us from getting anything. Of course, for ‘sensitive’ read ‘bad news’. But, hey! This is our open and accountable Martin Labor government.
Section 52(5)(c), the reason is if the disclosure of the information will inhibit frankness in the future. Given that these documents were prepared to give the minister her script for the estimates meeting, once again, if I had had time to question in this area, there is a good chance this is what would have been read out - all of it. So why was the department and the then minister so coy?
Ah well, perhaps the answer lies in section 52(5)(f), the final excuse as to why we cannot have full access to information about waiting times in our emergency departments. Apparently, the minister does not have to provide the information under FOI if it will: ‘… lead to confusion and unnecessary debate …’. Good grief! The last thing we would want is the opposition getting information which will lead to ‘unnecessary debate’ about emergency waiting times.
These are just a few examples of how the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General’s freedom of information legislation he so glowingly introduced last year, is designed to stop Territorians from knowing how their money is being spent and their health services provided. The minister for Justice was happy to come out supporting these cuts to information by the previous Health minister. Indeed, the Northern Territory News reported, at the time when I went public in December about this, his comments with the headline: ‘FOI cuts backed’. I will table that article at the conclusion of my comments when I table a number of documents.
‘FOI cuts backed’ was the heading to the article, which went on to say:
- Attorney-General Peter Toyne has denied the government’s FOI laws are failing.
And later:
Dr Toyne said the documents were rejected on independent legal advice.
Quoting him in the article:
- ‘The one thing the CLP was right about was that some of the documents were edited’, he said.
Another quote from the minister:
- ‘What wasn’t mentioned was that most of the information taken out was personal such as telephone numbers and addresses’.
The CLP has no problem with staff phone numbers and addresses being removed, but just a cursory examination of the files demonstrates that hundreds of pages of relevant information was denied. The minister was happy to spin on a technicality the phone numbers which admirably got the press off the scent, but he knows and I know that a huge amount of information was cut out. I bet in his heart of hearts he is squirming over this, because when he was in the Labor opposition team standing on the high moral ground, he dreamed of a Territory where there was this mythical beast he called freedom of information, but then when he went tripping over to the government side it all fell apart.
He will be now forced to defend the decisions of the paranoid, mortally wounded, previous Health minister. The more he becomes aware of the mess his new portfolio of Health is in, the more he will concur with her attempts to hide the truth from Territorians. Instead, the new Health minister should review the information Territorians, via their elected representatives currently in opposition, were denied by the previous minister. He should make a commitment today to review the situation and promise Territorians that he has the you-know-whats, unlike the previous minister, to make public the true story on what is going on in the department of Health.
He said when he was appointed Health Minister in December and I quote:
- I suppose it is the first time in my life I have ever had a health problem.
This offhand comment demonstrates that he knew that health was in trouble. It is a ‘problem’ to him and, yet, he supported the previous minister’s decision to hide from the opposition what is going on with the budget and the provision of services. We all know that Health is in trouble. That is why the previous minister was sacked. That is why the intent of the FOI legislation has been bastardised with all these exemptions - blank pages and blacking out. That is why extra money continues to be pumped into the Health budget. I note from the Treasurer’s mid-year report that the department has scored an extra $12m so far for 2003-04. Health and Community Services is in trouble. The new Minister for Health was appointed by the Chief Minister in the hope that he will be able to communicate ‘good news stories’ – that is Labor talk for ‘spin and keep Territorians ignorant for as long as possible’.
The new Minister for Health issued press release after press release accusing me of various crimes; for example, this week whingeing and whining about nursing numbers. I wonder if the Health Minister has spoken to the nurses on Ward 7B at Royal Darwin Hospital at the moment. I say if everything is so rosy, why hide it here in these blanked out and blacked out budget file pages? Minister, if you think all is going well, you need to get new advisors; if not, you will go the same way as your predecessor, and your FOI is a joke.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, Alcan Gove has launched a Yolngu Matha summary of the environmental impact statement in the local indigenous language of East Arnhem Land about the proposed refinery expansion. The 16-page report summarises the proposed expansion and potential impacts in both English and Yolngu Matha. The summary was translated in Yolngu Matha by Raymattja Marika, a well-respected educator and linguist from Yirrkala. Raymattja’s assistance with the project has been invaluable, not only because of her linguistic abilities, but her knowledge and sharing of cultural sensitivities and insights. It was a difficult time for Raymattja, as her late husband had guided and encouraged her through the process - and we pay tribute to the ‘Dhimurru man’, Mr Mununggurritj for his valuable contribution.
Raymattja continually liaised with the older women in the community so they had a clear understanding of the concept. The Yolngu people are already actively involved in the consultation process associated with the Alcan expansion proposals through the community reference group and various organisations. This document will provide even more participation in a consultative process and provide a better understanding for the indigenous community.
Alcan welcomed the federal government’s decision to grant major project facilitation status to three NT resource projects including the proposed expansion of the Gove facility, the trans-Territory pipeline and the Blacktip gas project. Being granted MPF status marks another important milestone in the proposed Gove expansion project, and reinforces Alcan’s long-term position in Australia.
Alcan Gove signed Heads of Agreement for natural gas supply with the Blacktip gas project participants in June 2003. The agreement provides key commercial terms for a natural gas supply project that includes development of the natural gas resource in the remote Joseph Bonaparte Gulf. Pursuing these developments will provide significant environment and community benefits.
My congratulations go to Nhulunbuy Aboriginal Community Police Officer, Trish Groth, who was awarded the Administrator’s Medal Aboriginal Community Police Officers Administrators Award for Service and Dedication to the Communities of East Arnhem Land. Trish has been particularly involved in Blue Light Discos in Arnhem Land communities. An active sportsperson in Nhulunbuy as well, her enthusiasm and energy has been well rewarded.
Federal Leader of the Opposition, Mark Latham, dropped into Nhulunbuy a few weeks ago to familiarise himself with the region. He met with a cross-section of the community, responded to a number of questions in relation to refugees, taxation, petrol sniffing and superannuation that were well received and appreciated. Mr Latham gave credence to the healthy industrial relations environment existing within Alcan and the region. The Yirrkala community welcome the federal Opposition Leader in their traditional way.
He visited the Yirrkala Community Education Centre, the Buku’Larrngay Arts Centre and was given a special ceremonial presentation about the historic church paintings and their traditional significance. Mr Latham said the visit confirmed the importance of developing strong indigenous policies and I thank all those involved in the organisation of his visit.
The Harmony Djamamirri Mala has appointed Mr John Cook to the coordinator’s position. I welcome his appointment as we move closer to the substance abuse care centre being constructed. Alcan has offered to go ahead with the infrastructure, and the Yirrkala Dhanbul Community Council has offered their assistance in the construction phase. Three working party groups have been formed: construction group; core committee group; and operational group to consolidate the process.
Over the past nine weeks since the start of the 2004 school year, I have visited 13 schools and, in addition, had the pleasure of again meeting with the three Kalkarindji students - Leanne Brown, Meshach Paddy and Rhonda Rankin - in launching From little things, big things grow, a documentary of their successful completion of their Year 12 studies at Kalkarindji. I thank my colleague the Attorney-General, who represented me at the original presentation of their certificates.
The first of my visits was to the education facility at Don Dale Juvenile Detention Centre, a small facility in numbers, but one that fulfills an important function. Given the students’ attendance rates are high, it is a good opportunity for young people to pick up additional skills that may benefit them once they leave the centre. There may be some duplication of effort between DEET and Corrections, and I have asked both departments to liaise with one another to see if there is a more streamlined approach to providing that educational service at Don Dale.
Early in February, I visited Malak Primary School and launched the provision of $1m for supply of furniture and equipment across all schools in the Northern Territory. During school visits over the past two-and-a-half years, I have been made well aware of the need to update school furniture and the difficulties schools have in raising funds to update or replace broken equipment such as photocopiers. I hope to be able to make such funding recurrent, as the need to keep schools well equipped with modern facilities and decent furniture is a fundamental component of a quality education service.
I visited Manunda Terrace and was most impressed with the Strong Men, Strong Models program. The school has gone to extraordinary lengths to involve the community in this program, based on young men taking classes that are geared to building self-confidence and self-esteem amongst students. All the men who work in the school have strong associations with local families and sporting organisations in Darwin, and they are excellent role models for the youngsters in the school. It was particularly pleasing to see men involved in the business of the school, given the level of debate this issue has generated recently. This program is having a very positive effect on attendance rates and literacy and numeracy outcomes at Manunda Terrace.
Late in February, I had the pleasure of attending a special ceremony at Kormilda College. A number of World War II diggers, part of 2 Heavy Anti-Aircraft Battery based at what is now Kormilda, travelled on The Ghan to Darwin to be part of the remembrance of the Bombing of Darwin. The ceremony was about the hand over of their treasured banner to the safekeeping of Kormilda College. In their speeches, the veterans recounted interesting, shocking and humorous anecdotes of their efforts in fighting off the invading enemy.
In early March, I visited Ludmilla Primary School, a small but very busy school, and was able to witness the accelerated literacy program in action. The program is producing excellent results. Also having success if the Ludmilla Alternative Pathways program, which links 15 students with Nightcliff High School and focusses on re-entry to mainstream high school and the development of interpersonal skills that will increase opportunities for employment. I want to thank the Principal, Marg Fenbury, chair of the school council, Bernie Davies, students Thomas Madrill and Jessica Heffer, ASSPA member Sabina Holmes, indigenous education workers May Thorne, Ingrid Clarke, Damien Zammit and Chris Lewis, teachers and students for making that both an enjoyable and informative visit.
I also visited St Paul’s school in Nightcliff, a small family-centred school with a long history in Catholic education. St Paul’s opened in February 1967, was extensively damaged by Cyclone Tracy, and rebuilt and reopened in 1976. Today it is an attractive and well-equipped school with airconditioned classrooms, library and computer laboratory.
During Community Cabinet in Palmerston, I was able to visit three schools - Palmerston High, Sacred Heart and Bakewell. At Bakewell, the addition of a final demountable building is nearing completion. I am pleased with the quality of these facilities and much effort has gone into ensuring that they do blend with the rest of the school infrastructure. The process of keeping pace with population growth in areas like Bakewell can be demanding on schools. In all, I am satisfied that, in responding to the increase in student numbers at Bakewell, DEET has been able to provide the necessary facilities.
Palmerston High School is also operating at near capacity. It was a good opportunity to discuss, first-hand, the implications of a new senior secondary facility at Palmerston. Given that over 500 students travel daily to Darwin, I am confident that a new senior secondary facility will service well the needs of the Palmerston community.
The 2004 school year did get off to a great start, with the lowest number of teacher vacancies at the beginning of the year for as long as anyone can remember. I want to compliment all school personnel I met during my visits for the enthusiasm they bring to their work and their continuing commitment to students. I thank them for their hospitality. I look forward to continuing my visits to Northern Territory schools over the course of 2004.
I want to pay a tribute and a thanks, on behalf of both this government and the previous government, for the efforts of one Mick Stumbles, a long-serving employee of our Territory Insurance Office, who has announced he is retiring. Unbelievable! There are some things you think will never happen. Of course, he is a well-known and noted Fannie Bay race caller, but I imagine that side of his activities would continue. However, our thanks, and I include the previous government. I know they appreciated his efforts as a long-serving employee with our Territory Insurance Office.
I was pleased to report that, at dinner in the Speaker’s Office, at three-quarter time the Territory Under-16 Thunder - AFL team of course - was holding Scotch College, the private school boys from Melbourne, well at bay at six goals straight, 36, to four goals four, 28. They had led all night, so I was quite confident that they would see it through. But, the final score was Scotch College five, eight, 38 over Territory Thunder six, one, 37. So, it was just that one point. They kicked one, four in the last quarter, obviously, to just one point. Well done to the boys. They do not come better than Scotch College. They are a great feeder for young footballers into the national AFL ranks. For the young Territory fellows to hold them to just a point is an outstanding effort, albeit that it was at home at Marrara. Next time, I am sure they will get them.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I should have been umpiring them.
Mr STIRLING: We would have got them up!
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I discuss an issue which is of some concern. The Mtis review into the fire service truly is one of the most extraordinary reviews I have ever read of any government department. Any review which starts in the first few pages with the line, ‘This is a very sick organisation’, clearly is a review which is not going to pull any punches. Indeed, it has not and, to the minister’s credit, he has come into this Chamber and said: ‘This is an honest open review, and we take it on the chin, and accept everything that is said in it as being correct’. It is all very good the way the minister has dealt with this, in spite of the fact of the furphies that they put out in relation to the departure of Darryl Pepper. I raised that issue in the parliament the other night, and I am not going to go any further about it, other than the fact that the minister has no credibility in relation to the arguments that he puts.
However, there is one aspect that I am a little concerned about, that the good minister – God bless his cotton socks - has dedicated an extra $2.6m to the fire service to fix this problem. Curiously, the figure that I come up with - if you look at Table 8 on page 105 of that review - is that Table 8 is entitled ‘Estimated Financial Impact of Implementing Recommendations’. If you add them up, it gets you quite close to the figure of $2.6m – it is a smidgeon more. I presume that is where the minister is getting his $2.6m from. Note one is that that is $2.6m over a period of four years, so it is not what you would call a major spend.
The Mtis review, in its various criticisms, is nothing shy of astonishing in its criticisms in relation to training. It is worth quoting from the report. It is a fairly lengthy quote, but is worth quoting from page 52 of the report:
- The division already struggles to meet its physical resource needs …
That is the training division:
- The office space provided by the college to the NTFRS training staff is cramped, inadequate and substandard
when compared to the accommodation of staff who are engaged in the police services training. The service’s
access to training rooms at the college looks likely to be even worse in 2004 than it has been to date because
the college has given the police service priority for the training of new recruits funded by the recent
O’Sullivan Report. There are no fire trucks available for recruit training or for other courses such as urgent
duty driving, unless they are taken off shift and, are therefore out of action, which is entirely unsatisfactory.
Indeed, I would concur it is seriously unsatisfactory that an operational fire vehicle has to be taken off-line so it can be used to train fire service officers. I will go on to quote from the report, the third paragraph on page 52:
- These serious pressures were clearly evident at the time that budgets for 2003-04 were formed, thus making it
very difficult to understand why the tri-service has delivered a significant reduction in the financial resources
available to the NTFRS for training for this coming year. It is also unclear why the resources of the tri-service
college are not more readily available to assist in addressing the serious unmet training needs of the NTFRS,
even in terms of high level planning, strategic and adult education expertise, let alone the more basic
resources of the classrooms and equipment.
It is interesting to note that the average time spent in training last year for a fire service officer was less than one day - 7.3 hours. I said 7.2 the other night. That was incorrect; it is 7.3 hours, which means that these people in whose hands we place our lives and our trust, have received 7.3 hours training in the last 12 months per person - not entirely adequate. However, I ask members to remember the issue about taking a fire truck off-line for the purposes of training.
I have gone through Table 8, where the $2.6m commitment has come from. The areas in relation to the measures of expenditure deal with leadership and management, openness and accountability, merit from the top down, and building strength. Then there are subcategories which apply. Those subcategories in relation to leadership and management do nothing about the purchase of minor capital items; openness and accountability, community advisory councils, and portfolio arrangements - nothing to do with the purchase of minor capital items; introduction of performance management systems - nothing to do with minor capital items; entrenched merit principal and multilevel entry - once again, no minor capital items; specialist expertise in training strategy - no mention of minor capital items there; specialist expertise in OHS and IR; and industrial relations, it goes on to point out, with subcategories of culture and training.
The issue here is, if this is where the $2.6m has come from and there is no evidence of any further minor capital items expenditure recommended by this review, and there is no other identifiable source of funds available for the purpose of minor capital items, I ask the minister this simple question: where is he going to get the money from for the new fire truck? That is the fire truck in which our fire officers are going to learn how to drive in an urgent manner; the fire truck which is required by this review for the purposes of training our fire officers. There is no money for it. The government has certainly committed no new money for it. I have no evidence of it being funded in any way and, yet, the report quite rightly points it out to be a totally unsatisfactory condition. I urge the minister in the strongest possible terms to come in here, make a commitment that they are going to purchase the fire truck for the purposes of training, so that on-line vehicles can stay on-line and continue to protect the community in a way that is entirely proper.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a situation that has occurred in Katherine over the last two months, mainly since the 22 December. As members of this House would be well aware, in 1998 Katherine was inundated with water to the point that the whole main area of the town was under water which caused a lot of damage. Most of the time, we have been gauging the water level of the river to ascertain whether we need to start panicking or not.
On 22 December last year, the river was at 16 m, so nobody was terribly perturbed about the threat of a flood. However, I had a phone call from a business called Hobbit Auto Electrics on the corner of Bicentennial Road and Victoria Highway in Katherine, sounding very distressed and asking me to come and have a look because he had water through his shed. I travelled down and was quite shocked to see the amount of water through his shed, and tried to work out where the heck it had come from, considering we had no water coming out of the river. As a result of a lot of heavy flooding at the Tindal RAAF Base, and also coming off the Tindal airport, and also extensive rains falling over Katherine town itself - nothing to do with the escarpments above Katherine or in Katherine Gorge – we have had this absolutely unprecedented amount of water trying to get out from one outlet in Katherine into the river. It has come from two areas into this one outlet.
We thought that this was just a freak incident on 22 December. Since that time, that particular business has been under water six times to this date, and at no time was the Katherine River anywhere near to the top where it presented a danger. The highest it reached was 16 m. In Katherine we are now presented with another challenge: where is this water coming from; how can we get rid of it; and what are we going to do in the future? I was going down to talk to Dave Bretherton at Hobbit Auto Electrics and he was ringing me quite regularly.
Apart from that, we also started to get an accumulation of water on the Victoria Highway in the area between Victoria Highway and the showgrounds where we have a very deep drain running through the town. It comes from a place near Knotts Crossing - not the resort, but Knotts Crossing itself - and it goes around the back of the town and passes the showgrounds, goes under Bicentennial Road and joins Tindal Creek. All of this water could not get away because it was actually joining into the water that was coming in from Tindal Creek, forming quite a lake and backing up.
By the time Hobbit Auto Electrics had been under water three times, we started to have quite an ocean opposite the tourist park that my husband owns – and in which I still have a share. It was quite interesting going to work in the morning and discovering an ocean on the other side of the road. At no time did I feel, at that stage, at all threatened.
On 3 March, Hobbit Auto Electrics was under water again. I went down to have a look at what was happening with his business and, by this stage, he was becoming quite distressed, as you can imagine. As well as the auto electric business, he has Top End Hire Service operating from the same area and he also offloads vehicles from road transports. He lives there. He has a nice brick office block that has not been there very long, and he and his family live upstairs. Not only did he have water through his premises, but through his office. The only way he could get out was to walk knee-deep to a canoe. We had these major issues with floodwater.
On 3 March, I went to visit some seniors at a meeting. I came out of that meeting from Riverview Barra Caf and was standing talking to the Elders stock agents who were getting a bit concerned about the amount of water lying around. While I was talking to them, three areas on Victoria Highway had water coming across them. I said a few expletives and got in my car and started to head back down Victoria Highway to discover that I could not get back into Harrod Street or Bernard Street at all in a standard vehicle, in the space of a half an hour. The water was gurgling out of the drains, coming across the road and presenting quite a problem. Just to add to that - and not to go into that too much - the premises of Red Gum Tourist Park and the units on the west side were inundated with water. It was not terribly long before we vacated the park and that meant me going to help as well because it was starting to become a bit threatening.
By the time night fell, the cabins were under water, some of them by two feet, and the rest of them graduating down to about a foot. During the night, there was water through the shop. It was also underneath the units next to us, in the grounds of the two churches further up the road, through the premises of Jalyn Ford and through some work premises behind there where gear is stored. What it presented us with was an entirely different situation from the 1998 floods. We now had water coming from nowhere near where we would have expected it to have been a problem.
I spoke to Pancho from the Katherine Town Council. We did several tours, looking at the areas where this water was coming from. He had been addressing the problem of the drains with Katherine Town Council and Transport and Works as it then was, from 1995. Katherine Town Council owns the drain that comes through the town and the NT government owns the drain that comes Tindal, which has not been a problem until this year. At the time of the first inundation of water on 22 December, all of a sudden, there was water going through all the offices of the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries Research Station, so they were not very happy chappies either.
There was such a volume of water coming in from Tindal that no drain that is there could possibly cope with it. The culverts that are under the Stuart Highway were unable to cope with it at all. What we have had is an erosion on the side of the highway going south of Katherine and, as the water came underneath that culvert, inundation of five houses on Collins Road. As it continued through, it picked up some mahogany trunks that were stored on another property and carted those away as well. We ended up with a big mess.
Well, we have had a clean-up, and Hobbit have cleaned up six times. I have had a really good look at what is happening around Katherine. I need to make it very clear that there is not anybody to blame; I am not blaming anybody. However, we have a situation that could reoccur over the next few years. We only need to have the same rainfalls that we have had this year, and we are going to have the same problem.
I would like very much to thank the minister for planning, who came to Katherine on 4 March to have a look at the areas that have been inundated. He visited all the areas and listened intently to what we had to say. He did make a commitment to Hobbit Auto Electrics that he would look into their situation especially, as they are in dire straits. I believe some gentlemen from his department have also visited Hobbit Auto Electrics in the last two weeks, to discuss what could happen to his business.
However, what I needed to explain to his House is that the situation that has happened in Katherine is entirely different to what happened at the time of the flood. We have drains in Katherine, and coming from Tindal, that are totally incapable of coping with the amount of water that we have had this year. The houses that are on Collins Road have also been unable to use any of their drainage systems at all - no toilets or showers, as the minister for planning knows. Those people have been terribly inconvenienced, and have been extremely patient. I believe that it is an issue that together, the Katherine Town Council, the Northern Territory government and the federal government, need to work towards addressing in this Dry Season, because there is a lot of unrest and people are very concerned about it. We would be very happy to work cooperatively with the three areas of government.
I also mention that one of the people who has been inundated with water this year, had absolutely nothing to do with the water coming from Tindal - absolutely nothing at all. This the Mayor, Jim Forscutt and his wife, Jan, who live on Uralla Road. They had a puddle of water in the middle of a paddock in December that developed into a lake that, at one stage, was over a metre deep through their house. Their house and sheds were sitting in a metre of water for well over five weeks, and it had nothing to do with the drainage coming from Tindal.
We have some major problems around Katherine, with sink holes being absolutely chockers, and spurting water back out of the ground, as the aquifer is full. I bring to this Assembly’s attention the issues that we have around Katherine, and I ask that they be addressed in this Dry Season so that businesses can be reassured that, next year, we can look forward to the Wet coming - because we all enjoy the rain - without being very apprehensive about the end result.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I recently hosted talks with the Northern Territory soccer community in relation to the implementation of the independent review of their operations, and also to see how they were faring with the implementation of the Crawford inquiry recommendations.
Soccer is, without doubt, one of Australia’s most popular sports. I was particularly pleased to read in the NT News, on 25 March, statements by Mr Frank Lowy of the Australian Soccer Association, who was enthused with what is happening with soccer in the Northern Territory. There is a thought that a Territory side will be able to participate in the new Australian Premier League within two or three years. This not only provides added incentive to local soccer, but would foster strong links into Asia. I look forward to discussing these ideals with the Australian Soccer Association further when they visit the Top End in the next couple of months.
Members may recall my announcement of the three-point plan to progress soccer in the Northern Territory late in 2003. Point one of the plan, an independent review, was conducted. I would like to thank the members of the independent review board: the chair Mr Iain Sommers, former NT Auditor-General; Ms Kate Costello, lawyer and member of the Crawford Review into Australian Soccer; and Mr Roger Bottrall, Deputy CEO of the Alice Springs Town Council. The board did an outstanding job of the review. It is a thorough document that outlines the pathway forward to soccer in the Northern Territory. It applies strict time lines to achieve a successful and unified future for the sport.
In particular, the review notes a decline at the senior level, despite popularity at the junior level and in every region. Soccer clearly has to embrace a completely new approach in many areas of its operations, including governance, and work hard to provide pathways for juniors, women, indigenous participants, and include regional players in its representation and planning. The review goes as far as to set targets with 630 senior players required by the 30 June 2006. That equates to double the current level and would mean a 35% ratio of seniors to juniors, which is about where other comparable sports sit.
As I said in the media recently, there will be no free ride for soccer. Support from this government is conditional on the implementation of the recommendations of the review. Soccer has a lot of hard work between now and the end of the year. On 11 March, I met with Northern Territory Soccer representatives and presented them with the copy of the independent review. At that meeting, I requested the Northern Territory Soccer Federation, as the peak body, report back to me on 29 March with the formal response to the review. At this meeting, the soccer community demonstrated willingness to apply themselves to the difficult and ongoing work that is crucial to the future development of soccer in the Northern Territory. They presented a formal document that responded to each recommendation and noted their progress to date. Among other things, they indicated current work on a third division for the men’s competition this year and plans for a fourth division next year, in addition to a second division for the women’s competition.
It is crucial that we see local associations coming together to work under the one umbrella, and this appears to be happening. This outcome is the result of loads of planning, negotiation, and hard work by all parties. This level of cooperation and hard work needs to continue. This is a positive start to the reformation process, and I urge soccer to continue to adopt the recommendations and meet the time lines.
This government clearly demonstrated, through the second point of my plan for soccer, a commitment by announcing the expenditure of $500 000 to improve junior soccer venues. This process is well advanced and we should be seeing some exciting announcements in this area soon.
The third point of my plan, the international standard, government-owned stadium continues to be conditional on the implementation of the review findings. Soccer is required under the time lines in the review document to seek formal approval for the commencement of the two pitch soccer stadium at the Marrara sporting precinct in June 2004. At that time, the Northern Territory Soccer Federation will need to formally report against the recommendation and time lines in the review. The Northern Territory Soccer Federation is aware these time lines and are working hard to meet them, and they are confident they will meet them. That, in itself, is great views. Going forward together and working hard to implement the recommendations is a credit to Northern Territory soccer. We have seen the problems with the sport nationally, and we all continue to work together to get better outcomes for the sport of soccer in the Northern Territory.
On Thursday, 19 February 2004, the NT government held a reception for the Essendon and Fremantle AFL Clubs which were visiting the Northern Territory as part of the Wizard Cup. What a match that was, with Justin Murphy getting Essendon home in front of over 13 000 people at Marrara Oval.
On that same night, the NT government also acknowledged a very important milestone of the Long brothers – and may I include their father, Jack Long – and their family’s contribution to football in the Northern Territory, through their beloved St Mary’s Football Club. A total of 400 people attended the function. I would like, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, to read out the speech made by Michael Long at the reception, and I quote:
- I would like to acknowledge the Northern Territory government, His Honour, The Administrator and his partner,
Nerys, the Deputy Chief Minister, Hon Syd Stirling, current ministers here today, Uncle John for making this
possible, Commissioner Hill, ATSIC …
- … the Fremantle Football Club, the Essendon Football Club and their coach, Chris Connelly, Kevin Sheedy,
the Essendon coach …
Whom Michael referred to as a very great Australian – Big Kev who he also said in warm platitudes is always welcome around the Long campfire. He went on:
- Family and friends, kids, aunties, uncles, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.
- I am here to speak on behalf of the Long family, our elders and leaders of the family, Jack Long and Ralph Braithwaite.
We are humbled by this acknowledgement from the NT government of the Long family’s achievements. When I look back
to the history of the Long family, my mother Agnes, father Jack, were part of the Stolen Generation and, as babies, were
sent to the Catholic Mission on Melville Island, and adopted by Tiwi people.
The Tiwi people are an important part of our extended family and we owe so much to them, especially the Kerinaiua
and Tipungwuti families, and I am happy that some Tiwi people and family are here tonight.
- The St Mary’s Football Club was formed around Tiwi people through the work of the great Ted Egan. My father was a
part of that. Flying in on the weekends to play footy for Saints, he eventually moved to Darwin where he coached and
played for the team we love, the St Mary’s Football Club.
The St Mary’s Football Club is built around families. My family was just one of them. My mother, Agnes, played
an important role in our footy development, taking us to training, watching our older brothers playing along with
my sisters, Katherine and Susan, who had to put up with the seven boys. When you talk about women and football
and the love and passion of the game, out mother, Agnes, was one of them. Just before her passing, her wishes were
that her sons would play football.
- I had the honour of being asked to come back and play in the 1000th match for the family and the club where I started,
and where I finished. Last year, a couple of my brothers, Brian and John, came out of retirement to play in the 1000th
game family milestone. It was a game filled with emotion and the importance of family. It will always be a highlight
of my career, once again playing alongside my younger brother, Patrick, and my nephews, Stephen and Randell Rioli,
and brother-in-law, Cyril Rioli.
The game, in memory of my mother, also made it a special occasion for our family. It’s been 20 years since her
passing. Money was raised, thanks to the AFLNT and St Mary’s Football Club and this was donated to the
NT Cancer Foundation. Our achievements as a family is not one we set out to achieve, but every Long family
member stands out with a total of 46 premierships collectively - 1000 games collectively.
I would argue, Mr Deputy Speaker, that records have been lost, but Jack Long would have played in what I would have seen, at least 150 to 200 games because he played Aussie Rules up until he was 40 years of age. A very outstanding competitor.
Michael went on and said:
- On behalf of the family, we would like to say thank you once again to the Northern Territory government, John Ah Kit,
AFLNT, Bob Elix, Chris Natt, Kevin Sheedy, St Mary’s Football Club, Damien Hale, coaches, Peter Atkinson and, over
many years, the friends of the family including their successful coach, John Taylor.
Family and friends celebrate with us today. There are too many to thank individually. Thank you from all of us here
from the Long family. Mumuk.
While I have a couple of minutes left, I would like to talk about and pay tribute to a remarkable man, Joachim Hill, Kim Hill Senior, also known as Kim Boy, Putuck or Punkulupu. We lost him on 10 February this year. If you had a chance to meet this fine, generous, lovable gentleman, he made an impression on you that will stay in your heart and mind forever.
I would like to acknowledge Kim Senior’s family members: his beloved mother, Nora Gangal, deceased, from the Yarralin community who was apparently a sister to the great fighter for lands right, Vincent Lingiari; his father, George Man Fong, who is also deceased; his wife, Jane, who passed away in 1985; Kim’s children Kim Junior who is now the Top End ATSIC Commissioner, Robert, Kenny, Joseph, Dennis, who is deceased, and Shaun; his beloved sisters Sandra, Anne, Carol, Fiona and Barbie; his grandchildren, whom he adored, Tameka, Dennis, Jaylene, Rachel, Jane, Anthony, Yasmine, Jordan, Talihana, Wayne and Michael. Kim was also beloved father-in-law of Tania, Kim, Sandrine and Kristy; brother-in-law of Wayne, Russell and Desmond. I would also like to acknowledge Kim’s nephews and nieces: Shannon, Christopher, Tyrrell, Braydon, Dwayne, Kevin, Teegan, Cindy, Keely, Tynisha and Courtney.
Acknowledgements must also go to Father Steve Fletcher, who was the celebrant at the funeral at St Mary’s Star of the Sea Cathedral, along with Deacon Peter Brogan and our very own famous Bishop Collins. The funeral was held on 20 February 2004. The Garden Point Association, ably led by Cherry McLennan and all those helpers who grew up with Kim on Melville Island should be congratulated for doing a wonderful job in assisting the Hill families and their friends and relatives to ensure that he was given a wonderful send off.
Kim Hill Senior was baptised at Garden Point Mission on 17 December 1949 at six years of age. His godfather, Henry Hunter, was a Tiwi/Iwaidja man who took on the responsibility of care and assisted Kim throughout his young life. Kim was adopted into the Hunter family and this relationship was to have a big influence throughout his life. He also, might I add, spoke highly of and was looked after by the Brogan family, the Long family, as I mentioned earlier, and the Dunn family because he looked up to them as elders, older brothers or uncles, teachers of Aboriginal culture and especially the skills that he needed to know and understand to be able to hunt and forage like a true bushman.
He became a passionate hunter and fisherman and his skills never left him or his family hungry. He was taught to spear fish, to hunt magpie geese, to spear turtle, and to spear dugong.
I will go to the Order of Service from the funeral ceremony at St Mary’s Cathedral, and some of the beautiful things that people said about him, I would like to quote. This came from the Hunter family:
- Kim will be sadly missed by his mother Maureen and the Hunters, Gundersens and Baird families that called him
brother and uncle.
They went on and said in one of the paragraphs:
- In respect to his family who have travelled a long way to be with us, out of Kim’s traumatic removal from his birth
family to the Garden Point Mission, Kim treasured the relationships that he and his family have made. Though he
has now passed on, the skills and stories are still being passed on down through to the next generation.
Over the next page, Mum Lee, the wife of Mitch Lee and their family said:
- You were a special man and all of us agree that your gentle, quiet manner is what we would see and remember so fondly
with respect, and love as you now watch over us from above. You have been close to our family for many, many years and
we enjoyed the fishing, spearing trips and the campfire talks over a few beers. You were deadly with a spear and
could target the right fish. From a gitang to a barra, you’d select the right dish. Your love of old style music and
western songs is what you’d bring along, a trademark of your ringer days when you were fit and young.
It goes on to Mitchell Lee who, as part of the Lee family, was very close to Kim. His daughter, Melanie said of her feelings of her beloved uncle Kim:
- I feel sad as I can’t stop thinking about him and picturing him; that smile and the way he’d always praise me and make
me feel so very special to him. My fondest memories are picturing him in his element, fishing, shooting and sitting
around the campfire. Thinking about doing all those things without him, that doesn’t seem right.
Mitchell also said:
- To us, the word ‘legend’ was introduced to describe Kim Hill. He was our mentor and hero. I know that Kimmie will
always be with us when we go fishing, camping and shooting, but we’ll miss the boss dictating the orders.
I could go on and on. I wanted to finish by reading a contribution made by my family:
- We all know his journey that he travelled as a young child from the VRD area to Garden Point to cattle stations in
the Katherine region, and then to Darwin where he married our sister Jane, who gave birth to six wonderful children.
My mother and father, along with our extended family, welcomed him with open arms and we are proud of him for
his achievements throughout his life.
His Aussie Rules skills were on display game after game as a St Mary’s back man who once won their best and fairest
award. He also had the honour of representing the Northern Territory at a footy carnival in Mt Isa.
His hunting and bushman skills were second to none, as all of us here have witnessed. It would be true to say that the
magpie geese will breathe a little sigh of relief, along with fish, turtles and dugong. As Jack Long said the other day,
a few of us taught him that well that he even became better than us; and if that is not a compliment, I don’t know what is.
His family was never short of a feed. He worked hard to clothe, educate and teach his kids well and, for that matter,
anyone who went hunting with him and was willing to learn.
We love and respect you dearly. May you rest in peace. From the Ah Kit, Weetra, Morgan, Taylor, McNeven and
Burgoyne families.
Kim Hill, nyirmbangi, rest in peace, Bundjie.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, before I make my contribution, I would like to say that not often do you listen intently and appreciate the words that are said in adjournment speeches. However, I am on the record saying on a number of occasions in the past that I have always enjoyed the member for Arnhem when he speaks in this Assembly because I always think that - not consistently, because he is sometimes abusive and belittles himself - on most occasions it is always instructive to hear him speak, and tonight was one of those occasions. I appreciate it. I certainly was not given the opportunity – I do not say that in an disparaging way – to be there to hear the speech by Michael Long, so I appreciate the fact that the minister gave us his words tonight because they were wonderful words to hear. It must have been a wonderful function to attend and hear that history and see how those individuals have developed, and the gratitude they have for those who have supported and surrounded them over many years.
Also, I will take the opportunity tonight to say that, when it comes to soccer in the Northern Territory, I applaud the minister. He has done a very good job - excellent job in fact - in bringing together the disparate organisations in soccer. It is not an easy task in anyone’s estimation. His strategy was good and his outcome was even better. Even above politics, as he alluded to tonight, the way that soccer is moving in Australia, particularly with the wise decision by Lowy to employ O’Neil from ARU, I reckon this is a real monolith to be reckoned with. The natural subliminal support for soccer, with the right organisation, is going to really come to the fore in Australia. Certainly through the minister’s efforts, I believe the Territory is going to be very well positioned for that. The commitment to build a soccer facility is an ongoing commitment. We will, given the opportunity, support and enhance that. In a general sense, the minister is doing a very good job, particularly in sport and recreation. Everyone applauds that. We can all talk about our differences in politics, but I talk to people on the ground, and you are well respected, minister.
Mr Ah Kit: Thank you.
Mr BURKE: You are well respected for your efforts and that is an accolade to anyone. So, thank you for your comments tonight.
I raised a question in Question Time today. I am sorry I did not get an answer because it was an important question about the cash in the capital works program. There is a log jam in cash that is getting out to the business community, those that particularly have period contracts with government or, in fact, are competing for contracts with government. I know the Minister for Business and Industry is concerned on this issue. It may be a perception; it may be wrong. However, I was not comforted by the fact that the minister said that he reckoned we will be within $1m of the program. If that is true, I would encourage him to get that information out there because we are in the last quarter of the budget period, and he should know how much of the cash program has been spent in the areas that I detailed. I would encourage him to get that out there.
I do not want to play politics with it because, if it is a good story, let us tell the true story. If it is not a story that the minister wants to tell us I, of course, will be making sure that people know that the government is hiding from them the fact that they will not reveal how much of that cash program has actually been spent in the community. That perception, if it is right, needs to be addressed; if it is wrong, it needs to be put to bed and put to bed quickly. That was the purpose of my question.
The other reason I wanted to speak tonight is that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure and planning has been congratulating himself on the efforts that he made in dealing with the planning scheme in stopping R3 zoned development areas to go to four storey without his particular consent. When it comes to R3 that adjoins R1, he has put an interim order in to ensure that there were no four-storey developments in that area, which is good and fine; that is his decision. We can quibble about whether or not that really accords with the planning scheme, but that is a decision the government has made, and that is something that they will have to convince the electorate of in terms of their bona fides.
I have a particular interest in Palmerston, and I alert the minister to it. I do not ask the minister to intervene, I simply alert him to the fact that, in Palmerston, there is a development proposal before the Development Consent Authority with regards to Lots 4506 and 4509 in Wright Crescent in Gray. It will be an issue that will gain momentum. It involves the proposed development of 100 two-bedroom units including car parking. The 100 two-bedroom units will be in a 40 by two-storey development on R2 land in Palmerston, at Wright Crescent, Gray. Wright Crescent in Gray is in an area of Palmerston behind the Gray shopping centre in my electorate and adjoining the Gray Primary School which is an area that has had a lot of antisocial problems over many years - antisocial problems, I would suggest to you, compounded by Housing Commission houses with irresponsible tenants and also Housing Commission units with antisocial tenants; a very big problem in that particular area.
The issue with this particular R2 development is this, in my mind. Firstly, the area was owned by the Housing Commission and zoned R2 for Housing Commission development. There are two developments there which are Lots 4508 and 4509 as I recall. Those were developed by the CLP government. In fact, Madam Speaker, you may have been the minister at the time, I cannot recall precisely. However, those two particular developments were developed for residential accommodation for elderly people in Palmerston. The remainder of the R2 land owned by the Housing Commission was not developed. The government changed and the R2 land was sold off to the private sector. The private sector now has R2 land from the government and proposes to put in this 100 two-bedroom unit development. The question I would ask philosophically is this: why did the Housing Commission sell off that land? Prior to the land being sold off, the land was in the control of the government. It might have been zoned R2 in the planning scheme, but it was in the control of the government regarding what sort of development would occur there. Certainly, the bona fides of the government up until the land was sold were clear in that the development that was in that area was single storey residential for elderly Territorians. There are two developments there that are very good developments and the people who live there are very happy.
Now we find that the Housing Commission has sold off this land, without rezoning it, and a private developer has come in and proposes to develop this land with a double storey, 100-unit development because it is R2 land. Of course, he is entitled to do that under the planning scheme. I believe there is a problem there. On the one hand, I support the planning scheme, and on the other hand, you have to say to yourself: why did the government sell this land off without recognising that the zoning of that land allowed for two-storey development?
If it was anywhere else, you would probably say: ‘Okay, let us look at whether or not there is a real impact on the community’. However, this development is just wrong in every respect. The total area of the site is 22 750 m2 or 2.28 hectares and, in a D2 zone, the area of the site required for 100 units is 26 000 m2 or 2.6 hectares; so the development proposed exceeds the minimum density by 15% or 3250 m2. Therefore, the developer, of course, is seeking a waiver to allow increased density. The set back requirements are 5 m from the rear boundary and, of course, they are seeking a waiver to 4 m. There is one 6 m road that goes right through the development to accommodate all of these 100 units, and 150 car spaces that the developer believes is fair and reasonable. Whilst it states that there will be three swimming pools and sufficient amenity in the two-storey development, the area that is put aside for amenity is insufficient in terms of the planning scheme. Frankly, I have little confidence in that, as this is a development proposed in stages, and very quickly these swimming pools tend to disappear after you get past Stage 1.
If the government truly understood the issues in Palmerston regarding Wright Crescent, Essington Avenue, the Gray shopping centre, the Gray Primary School and the adjoining streets, where there are really difficult problems with antisocial behaviour and density of living in Housing Commission accommodation, in particular, then to allow this sort of development to go ahead is madness.
I certainly will do everything I can to ensure that the development is sympathetic with developments that are already in place; that is, the government owns and develops the land as R2 and, in developing the land as R2, develop it as single storey for elderly residents. Any further development certainly needs to be sympathetic with the previous developments and definitely not two storey.
I alert the minister to that. I do not ask him to intervene directly, but I ask him to recognise that the time for objection is quickly running out. The people who can object cannot get themselves organised quickly. There is a petition circulating and I will do whatever I can to assist them. However, I imagine that the Development Consent Authority will not allow this development to proceed in the short term. Knowing that, I imagine that to accord with the planning scheme, they will quickly get the density levels down to abide with the maximum of R2. That certainly will not solve the problem, but will probably satisfy the DCA.
I ask the minister to take a direct interest in the issue and to assist me in trying to ensure that, unless there is a single-storey development there, we do not want it.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak about some outstanding achievers in my electorate. Corrine Warhurst, Jabiru Town Council Sport and Recreation Officer, is a finalist in the prestigious 2004 Northern Territory Sports Awards. Mrs Warhurst is recognised as an outstanding sports administrator but, typically, does not take the credit for herself. She says sport in Jabiru is alive and well, not just because of her efforts, but because of the efforts of the whole community. Mrs Warhurst does not just want to see sport played at Jabiru; she wants to see the town flourish on sport.
I cannot agree more with Corrine’s nominators, Julie Furlan and Meredith ‘Mouse’ McCabe who, in submitting Corrine’s nomination, said:
- It is often larger sporting organisations and higher profile people who receive awards, however recognition needs
to be given to people who are involved in the smaller, less public areas because these are the breeding grounds
for future success.
With achievers like Corrine administering sport in Jabiru, the future success of sport there is in no doubt. Best of luck in the big one this Friday night, Corrine.
It is with regret that I inform the House that the Jabiru Bombers Australian football team just failed to win the TEAFA grand final recently at Gardens Oval. Despite leading virtually all day, the unlucky Bombers went down to a very determined Combined Services outfit, 11 goals, 10 behinds, 76 points to 11 goals 7 behinds, 73 points. The Bombers’ 42-point lead at half-time proved not enough to return the cup to Bomberland at the Jabiru Sports and Social Club.
However, the fine efforts of the Jabiru team were rewarded with Dwayne Whitehurst being judged Best on Ground and a worthy winner of the Bill Gear Medal. Dwayne was well supported by Tim Boston, Micktja Onus, Scott Russell, and Marty ‘Rhino’ Rawlinson. Special mention should be made of the many behind-the-scene workers and supporters who loyally follow the Bombers to Darwin every fortnight of the season and who, of course, turn out in their droves to support the boys when they play at home at Jabiru. Bad luck, Bombers, you were magnificent. Next year, you are certainties!
There has recently been a flurry of criticism from some sectors of the community about Kakadu National Park, particularly its Board of Management. Let me put on the record my high regard for the membership of the board and the dedicated way they approach the very difficult task of managing one of Australia’s iconic national parks.
The board is chaired by Jonathon Nadji. Jonathon, the son of the legendary Bunitj elder who passed away in 2002, is a long-term employee of the park, both as a ranger and cultural advisor. Other members include Jacob Nayinggul, a Maniligarr senior traditional owner, a man of great traditional knowledge who is always looking for ways to work with non-indigenous people for the benefit of all Territorians - indeed, all Australians. The half-sister of that senior Bunitj elder who passed away in 2002 is Jane Christophersen. She brings vast knowledge of indigenous culture but, like Jacob, is concerned and sets about working with non-indigenous people for the common benefit.
The senior Mirrar traditional owner on the board is Yvonne Margarula. Yvonne is an outstanding Australian. Whatever one’s view on uranium mining at Jabiluka is, no can question Yvonne’s commitment to her people and to maintaining her indigenous cultural values which, in large part, is what Kakadu is famous for. Sandra McGregor, a board member who is affiliated with the Murumburr clan of the Yellow Waters area, has been working on a very innovative fire management project in the park. Another senior Murumburr traditional owner is Jessie Alderson. Jessie is a ranger working in the Jim Jim district who has strong interests in land management and the viable economic future of the park and its residents.
The Chair of the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study Aboriginal Project Committee is a board member as well. Victor Cooper is a Limilngan representative who has a strong interest in economic development and fostering employment opportunities in the park for locals. There are several Jawoyn representatives on the board, and the first one is Russell Cubillo, who is currently employed as a seasonal interpretive ranger working with park visitors. The other two Jawoyn representatives are Bessie Coleman and Steve Willika. Both are strong advocates for cultural heritage protection, fire management, the development of a strong economic future for their people, as well as the protection of significant sacred sites.
The representative of the tourism industry is the award winning operator of Odyssey Tours, Rick Murray. Rick is an outstanding Territorian who appreciates and understands the value of Kakadu, both as a tourism mecca, but also as a cultural conservation stronghold.
Madam Speaker, there are many people who have a vested interest, and there has been a lot of criticism of Kakadu and the board. Every time there is, I just wish people would think about the people who make up the Kakadu Board of Management. They are Territorians all, with a passionate love of what is best about the Territory: our marvellous lifestyle, our endeavour, our environmental commitment, our ability to work together no matter our racial or religious background, our extraordinary indigenous heritage, and our incomparable landscape. With the Kakadu board in the hands of Territorians achievers like this, I am very comfortable about the future of that amazing place.
Finally - and I will try and hurry this along - on Sunday, 28 March, as usual is quite a big event in my diary. I travel back all the time to my Tiwi Islands, but on Sunday the 28th I enjoyed venturing home again to join my people, the Tiwis, for the annual Tiwi Islands grand final day showdown between the Imalu Tigers and the Tapalinga Superstars. It was certainly pleasing to see the increased numbers of visitors this year because, in previous years, the number had been down. It was really good to have a look at the airstrip and see all of the planes that were cluttering and taking over the airstrip. You could not see the airstrip for all the planes. It was certainly good to see those increased numbers.
As the local member, I was asked to open the Tiwi Artists Network, which was good and certainly something that they have worked towards with the artists. Munupi Arts at Garden Point, Jilamara Arts on Milikapiti, and Tiwi Designs on Bathurst Island, have now come together as a network to look strategically, both nationally and internationally, at selling their arts. This has paid quite huge dividends where their sales have increased. All of these centres did very well in trading on this day, as did the special art centre that I continually support and promote, because I believe, whilst we have the three art centres which are part of the strategic network, people tend to forget that there is the keeping place, which is on one part of the island. That centre is run by John and Joy Naydan and is specifically for disabled artists, and one that I happily support. The art is fantastic. Their art is comparable to the work of able-bodied artists, and a lot of the visitors to the island were commenting on how great the art was from the disabled workshop. There certainly is some fantastic art that is being produced.
It was also great to be involved with the big banner that went out on the oval prior to the grand final starting, joining the women and children. The children finally made a stance and put together that banner in relation to alcohol and drug abuse, and how the alcohol abuse is starting to affect them. That was a first and it was fantastic to be part of that.
Anyway, back to the footy. The Minister for Sport and Recreation, the member for Arnhem, and I happily backed the winner. I am happy to report that I just did not do this on the day. This is a team that I have been following for some time.
Mr Bonson: Yes, sure.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Yes, I am. Tapalinga is part of the Miyartuwi - a lot of my skin group are part of this team - so it was certainly one that is followed by my skin group. I tipped that winner at half-time when I was being interviewed by ABC radio, despite the ABC commentators and others telling me that Imalu Tigers was absolutely going to run all over the top of the Tapalinga Superstars. I said it is not all over until the final siren sounds, and that the third quarter was going to be the premiership quarter, for anyone who follows football, and that Tapalinga Superstars would certainly come back – and it turned out like that.
As usual, it was a fantastic game. Again, getting around and talking to a lot of the visitors, particularly those who had come for the first time to the island, people were commenting on how fast paced the game is. It is a fantastic game to be part of, and to observe the pace and the skill of the players. In this game, the finish and the result did not happen until the dying minutes of the game, when Ephram Tipungwuti, who was playing with the Darwin Buffalos, kicked the winning goal …
A member: No time on.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I must mention a few individuals. I knew that that would get the member for Millner’s attention when I said that, because Ephram was part of the Darwin Buffalos Football Club, who played a role in the organisation of the great game. Kingsley Barker, is the CEO of the Tiwi Island Football League and Barry Puruntatameri is the president. I must acknowledge Jamie Kantilla. Jamie sang a fantastic rendition of the Australian Anthem at the start of the game. I must mention Sibby Rioli, the coach of the Imalu Tigers, who did a fantastic job with Imalu. It has been some years since Imalu Tigers have been that far into the final season. Sibby’s done a fantastic job with Imalu and bad luck – there is always next year - but a job well done.
Adam Kerinaiua is the coach/captain of Tapalinga Superstars. Adam was a bit disappointed last year. He applied to do the ACPO training. Unfortunately, it was just prior to doing the ACPO training that he had a turn with his heart and he was deemed not to have been fit to go through with and continue the training. He has taken his medication and got himself back on track. He has certainly slimmed down and is looking at applying again to do the ACPO training in the next intake. He is certainly a great role model and will end up being a great mentor, particularly for a lot of the young Tiwi men, where alcohol and drug abuse seems to be the only thing for a lot of them. I suppose that was the fear expressed by a lot of the women when I was walking around talking to them: now that the footy season is coming to an end, what is going to happen to a lot of these young fellows?
It was Sunday night after all the visitors had left. There was a bit of an uprising on the island. During the day it was well attended by eight police who were flown in from Darwin and I think some of those police stayed over there. The club has now been closed for a week, as I understand, because of the fights and the violence that happened after that. It is something that my people need to address and confront, because the alcohol and drug abuse is starting to have its impact on the younger generation. Many of the elders, the old people, are starting to shake their heads and wonder whatever happened to the good old days. Many of them spend a lot of time thinking back and wishing that they could go back to the good old days of the Catholic missions, and not have the alcohol abuse that is there today.
Nevertheless, it is always a fantastic day on the Tiwi Islands for the grand final, with many more to come.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, next Thursday, 8 April, marks a historic occasion for Chief Executive Officer, Mr Peter Blake, of the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development. After 32 years of true and meritorious service to the people of the Northern Territory - 26 years of those with the Northern Territory Public Service - Peter will retire. Peter started his life as a public servant with the Western Australian government working with the Departments of Treasury, Industrial Development, and Child Welfare. Arriving in the Territory in April 1972, Peter joined the then Commonwealth NT Administration in Darwin as a Clerk Class 7 with Aboriginal Affairs and was soon promoted to Clerk Class 8 in 1974. In June 1975, Peter worked in the Department of the Northern Territory’s Commercial and Industry Affairs Branch as a Clerk Class 10.
On NT self-government in July 1978, Peter transferred to the Northern Territory Public Service. From July 1978, Peter moved into leadership roles, firstly as General Manager of the Northern Territory Development Corporation, and was promoted to the rank of chief executive in December 1984 to the then NT Department of Ports and Fisheries. The Department of Ports and Fisheries was absorbed into the then Department of Industries and Business in 1987 and, in 1988, Peter was appointed as chief executive of the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. In 1996, Peter was then appointed as chief executive of the Department of Mines and Energy and, in 2000, he led both the former Departments of Mines and Energy and Asian Relations and Trade.
Peter was given a huge task by the Martin government in 2001 in overseeing the amalgamation of four departments - Departments of Industries and Business, Primary Industry and Fisheries, Mines and Energy, and Asian Relations and Trade - into one department focussed on developing the economic capacity and capability of the Northern Territory. Peter successfully completed this task with extraordinarily little friction, given the distinct organisational cultures which had developed within the four discrete agencies.
Peter epitomises the values of commitment to ‘serve the public’ as a public servant. In our Westminster system, public servants serve the public by implementing government policy for which the government has a mandate from the people, and also to provide contestable advice and to bring forward policy initiatives. I personally have valued and trusted Peter’s advice and counsel. I have enjoyed working with Peter, who shares my passion for encouraging the economic development of the Northern Territory. Economic development which benefits all Territorians can only come as a result of true partnerships between the private sector investment, government policy and support from the people of the Territory. Peter has been able to demonstrate true leadership in facilitating those partnerships during difficult economic times for the Territory. Those partnerships are now starting to deliver in areas such as mineral exploration, investment in horticulture and aquaculture, a focus on trade and investment outcomes, and general return of business confidence.
I am sure I speak for every member of this House when I honestly say that I have not heard anyone having a bad word to say about Peter from either within or outside the public service. Given Peter’s long career within the public sector, that is a great testament to somebody who is truly admired and respected by all those who have worked with him. I can honestly say that Peter has left his mark on the Northern Territory in a very positive and productive way. Certainly, he is very much admired and respected by all those within the public sector, and also outside in the private sector, who have known him.
Just this afternoon, I was having lunch of a sandwich with Stuart Kenny from the Cattlemen’s Association in my office upstairs. Stuart’s concern for the pastoral industry is about people of Peter’s experience leaving senior positions in the public service. There are others soon to follow to retirement within Primary Industries, and Peter is part of the generation that has really seen the cattle industry take off in the Northern Territory with the development of the live cattle trade, and he has enormous respect from both outside and within the public service.
Peter rebuilt his family home in Haritos Street, Wanguri, following the devastation of Cyclone Tracy and, together with his wife Robyn, has four sons, three of whom live in Darwin and one in Katherine, one daughter currently living in Scotland. and nine grandchildren. One of those great coincidences in the Northern Territory with such a small community, is that I, as Peter’s local member, bought a house in Haritos Street directly opposite him. Who was to know that I would one day become a minister and he would be the CEO of my department, and we live opposite each other Haritos Street in Wanguri? That is one of those great things about living in the Northern Territory.
Peter is also well known for his prowess and sportsmanship, both in the pool playing water polo in Western Australia and Darwin and, of course, football. As a player for Wanderers between 1972 and 1976, Peter was a minor legend for the Wanderers Football Club. The knee reconstruction operation that he had this year, was testament to his time playing for Wanderers.
Peter, genuinely, you have made a great contribution to the Northern Territory - and I really mean that - and to our public service. You have served the public of the Northern Territory well. I thank you on behalf of the Northern Territory government - both current and I am absolutely sure the previous government - and for all Territorians for your service. Personally, I wish you and Robyn all the very best for a very well deserved retirement. Enjoy your soon to be coming holiday in Scotland. I thank you for your advice, leadership and counsel over the last two-and-a-half years that I have had the pleasure of working with you.
I would also like tonight to talk about the Defence presence in the Northern Territory, which is highly valued by Territorians for its contributions to the economy and for the contribution of individuals and families to the community. The 12 500 Defence personnel and their families that are based in the Territory make up 10% of our population. Northern Territory-based Defence personnel have been involved in Defence activities overseas, including Iraq, and some have received high recognition for their services during these activities.
The most recent ADF member to be recognised is Captain Alasdair Stehouwer. Captain Stehouwer was awarded a Conspicuous Service Cross for his work in Bali following the bombing. While Captain Stehouwer is not based in the Northern Territory, he has a strong Northern Territory connection, having gone to school in Darwin, and with his mother still living here.
Captain Stehouwer was awarded the Conspicuous Service Cross in recognition of his ‘tireless service to the families of the victims, through understanding and support at the time of the victim identification’ during the immediate post-bombing period in Bali. Being fluent in Indonesian, he was able to assist families to identify their loved ones, as well as to communicate with the Indonesian authorities. I note that Captain Stehouwer first studied the Indonesian language as a student at Darwin Sanderson High School, where he participated in an exchange program with Indonesia. During the exchange, he travelled to several parts of the country learning the language and the culture.
This most recent award follows previous awards made to three RAAF airmen now based at Tindal, for their part in the Iraq conflict. Squadron Leader Terry Van Haren has been commended for distinguished service; Wing Commander Hupfield, 75 Squadron’s Commanding Officer, has been awarded a Distinguished Service Medal for command and leadership in action; and Flight Lieutenant Ray Simpson has received a Distinguished Service Cross for meritorious performance. In addition, 75 Squadron has been recognised for sustained outstanding service in war-like operations during the Iraq campaign.
Further demonstrating the high level of skill and achievement of Northern Territory Defence personnel, another member of 75 Squadron received the highest honour an RAAF pilot can achieve. Squadron Leader Daryl Pudney, an FA-18 pilot, has been named an ‘A Category’ fighter pilot. Squadron Leader Pudney, who spent three months in Iraq providing air support, has been recognised as not only a very good fighter pilot, but also as a person with the skills to lead a squadron-sized deployment to war.
Having commended these four ADF members for their conspicuous service, I take this opportunity to recognise the valuable contribution made by all of our Defence personnel in overseas posting. They may be not be here with us at present, but they continue to be very much part of our community.
I would like to finish this evening on a request from somebody who every member of this House would know: a great Territorian, Mr Vic Ludwig, the president of St Mary’s Football Club and, I would have to say, probably the longest serving football club president in Australia - 42 years this year. It was the year I was born, 1962, that Vic Ludwig became president of St Mary’s. He asked me, at the club presentation night a couple of weeks ago, to pass personal thanks from the club and himself to our minister for Sport, minister Ah Kit, for the fantastic reception that was given - that minister Ah Kit spoke about this evening - to the Long brothers in Parliament House a few weeks ago when Essendon were in town.
The club was absolutely overwhelmed with the presentation, celebrating the Long brothers and the Long family’s 1000th game milestone for St Mary’s. The portraits the minister commissioned for the family, with their mother, Agnes, now has pride of place in the clubrooms at St Mary’s. Vic wanted placed on the public record his and the club’s thanks to the minister for the celebration of 1000 games by the Long family for St Mary’s. Vic, I am very pleased to do that for you and the club this evening. Congratulations on a great premiership win, back to back, for Damien Hale and the Green Machine. It was a fantastic day last weekend and better luck next year for the Tigers, but I am sure the Saints can make it three in a row.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, tonight I recognise a fantastic and well-known Territorian from a well-known and well-liked Territory family. In my family’s language, a real local Territory Darwin family. Mrs Maree De La Cruz has recently retired from the NT Public Service on Wednesday, 18 February 2004, after 25 years and six months service. Mrs Maree De La Cruz was an AO4 with the Health and Safety and Risk Management Services Branch at DCIS.
Mrs De La Cruz joined the Northern Territory Public Service as a typist Grade 1 on 24 July 1978, within the Department of the Chief Minister, and was permanently appointed on 9 October 1978. In July 1979, she was promoted to Administrative A3; in November 1982 to Administrative A4; and in January 1982 to Administrative A5. In 1991, Mrs De La Cruz was promoted to Administrative Officer 4 as a result of the introduction of the new classification structure. During Mrs De La Cruz’s employment with the NT Public Service, she mainly worked in the ministerial liaison areas of the Department of the Chief Minister, the Department of Community Development, and the Department of Health and Community Services, until her transfer to DCIS in December 1998, where she worked in the Workers Compensation Unit as the office manager.
I would also like to read into the record a letter sent by the Minister for Corporate and Information Services, Paul Henderson, to Mrs De La Cruz:
- Dear Mrs De La Cruz,
I would like to thank you for your contribution to the Northern Territory public sector in your various capacities over
the past 25 years. Your work and contribution to the departments in which you worked is appreciated. I understand
you worked in the Departments of the Chief Minister, Community Development, Health and Community Services,
and Corporate and Information Services, primarily working in the important areas of ministerial liaison. On behalf
of the Northern Territory government, and your friends and colleagues throughout the Northern Territory Public
Service, I extend to you our very best wishes for a long and enjoyable retirement.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Henderson.
Again, I would like to thank Mrs Maree De La Cruz. She is a family friend of my mother’s, and her two boys grew up in the same neighbourhood I did. We knocked around for a long period of time, and I have known her family for as long as I can remember. I definitely hope she enjoys her retirement and I thank her for all the work that she contributed to the Northern Territory Public Service.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, tonight I talk about what I believe is a sad occasion for the rural area. Most members would have seen in the local paper the news that the rural area’s only chicken meat farm has closed. People knew that the Ingham company has closed but, as well, Lowan Farm has closed. We now have no poultry industry of any substance left, at least in the Top End as far as I know. It is very sad. We have lost probably about 50 jobs altogether. A lot of that can be put down to not only that the cost of feed was so high, but our big supermarket chains, basically, can put the price of eggs or poultry at such a low figure that nobody can compete with them in this part of the world. Sadly, we have no poultry industry left now in the Northern Territory.
In this context, I want to applaud the recommendation in the Senate report released last month, aimed at stopping big business using its market power to hammer small operators. I urge all members to lobby federal parliamentarians for the full implementation of the recommendations at any chance they get. The Senate Economics Committee presented its unanimous report on Australia’s competition law, the Trade Practices Act, after a five month inquiry. Its most important recommendations, from my perspective, relates to the misuse of market power, the use of anti-competitive powers and predatory pricing, especially after two recent High Court decisions which narrowed the protection for small business even further.
Senator Ron Boswell made a speech as a matter of public interest in the Senate last week on the committee’s report. It is a pity none of our Territory politicians in the federal parliament thought it was important enough to comment on. It is also a pity that the Territory government did not make a submission to the inquiry - several state governments did - especially when most of the Territory business is small business and the inquiry was looking at the ability of the Trade Practices Act to protect small businesses. Senator Boswell acknowledged the significance of small business to rural and regional areas and towns where, as he said, they are often the mainstay of local communities as an employer and as a contributor to local life.
The committee and the ACCC have agreed that section 46 of the Trade Practices Act needs reform so that it is an effective mechanism to combat the misuse of market power and predatory pricing. Under the proposed reforms, the court will be able to take into account a corporation’s capacity to sell products at prices below the cost of production. I welcome these changes.
It was from Senator Boswell’s speech that I found out there is a Retail Grocery Industry Ombudsman who has been operating in Australia for three years. He certainly has a low profile. At least we occasionally hear from the Banking Industry Ombudsman and the Telecommunications Ombudsman. I am not sure if the grocery industry Ombudsman would have been able to help the small business in my area, but it is too late to find out now.
In concluding on that, I spoke today - passionately you might say - about why the pharmacy industry will not allow competition in their industry. You might ask: ‘Then why are you talking about the protection of small industry?’ Well, I believe there is a difference between asking for and opening up competition in the pharmacy industry, and being a supporter of big supermarkets taking over pharmacies. I believe that the government can have competition, but needs to set into place regulations which will not allow the big supermarkets to take over pharmacies, but still will allow an ordinary business person who may not be a pharmacist the right to open up a pharmacy in a suburb or a little town if he wants to, and employ a pharmacist. I thought I would put that on record in case people thought I was supporting the introduction of pharmacies into our big supermarkets. It certainly was not the case.
Just two things before I go. For those who like a little good music and realise that we are coming to the Easter season …
Madam SPEAKER: Just you and I.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I would just like to tell people – I will face the camera over there –if you are listening, the Darwin Chorale is performing the St John’s Passion at the Supreme Court on Good Friday at 7.30 pm. You can get tickets from DEC or I think you can get tickets at the door. There will be many people there. It is the chorale’s 20th, or 21st - I had better be careful there - birthday because St John’s Passion was the first production that the chorale performed. It was actually done before it became the Darwin Chorale and that is what got the Darwin Chorale going. We have Dean Patterson coming back from the United States to conduct the choir, and if you like some beautiful music, the Arafura Ensemble is accompanying the chorale. I would say be there. It is not quite AC/DC, but it is not bad anyway.
Finally, I did mention the other night that we are having the Anzac Day cricket match - naturally on Anzac Day at 12.30 at the Anzac Day cricket ground. If you are wanting one of these fantastic T-shirts with the picture of Captain Al Strauss, whom we are remembering on a day, make sure you come down. They will be available for sale and there are 100 of these caps which will also be given out free. Therefore, if you are there first, you will be able to get that. If you know any businesses that would like to advertise around the Strauss cricket ground, they can come and see me, or ring me. It is $50 and it all goes to Legacy. If you know any of businesses around the place that would like to put their name up around the Strauss cricket ground and at the same time raise money for Legacy, I would love to hear from anybody either in parliament or in business.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for taking the Chair to enable me to say a few words.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016