2003-10-08
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 988 petitioners relating to the existing controls over animals, as shown in the 1992 Litchfield Area Plan. 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:
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 792 petitioners relating to zones for one hectare and under one hectare rural residential blocks. 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:
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 838 petitioners requesting that the existing zone of RL1, rural living, be retained as the zone for Howard River Park and Whitewood Park, not RR, rural residential. 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:
Dr BURNS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, this morning I provide a report on recent power outages across the Darwin metropolitan area.
I am advised by Power and Water Corporation that the outages experienced on Monday night and yesterday morning are primarily related to a problem with the main power transformers at the Berrimah Power Station. Approximately 6200 customers in the Darwin northern suburbs, Shoal Bay and Berrimah were affected, with supply restored gradually to customers after outage times of between 47 to 72 minutes.
In parliament yesterday, I expressed my concern and regret to those residents and businesses that have been affected by these outages. There were further outages experienced last night after a miscalculation at the Berrimah generation plant about fuel requirements. I am advised that the plant automatically shut down after fuel levels reached a critical level. This is a safety measure designed to prevent possible damage to the generator from fuel impurities at the bottom of the fuel tanks. I consider this an unacceptable error and I communicated that to PowerWater.
Whilst it is disappointing that we continue to experience power outages, it is worth noting that over the years, PowerWater has made some positive progress in reducing outages. We live in a tropical climate and this naturally creates a difficult environment for the operation of power generation infrastructure. Lightening strikes, storms, floods and our thick overhanging tropical vegetation all contribute, from time to time, to the problems that we have seen in our power network.
However, our overall system reliability is on par with the national average, and our response times to restore power are better. While unfortunate, outages will sometimes occur but it is positive to note that our response times to get the power back on is better than the Australian average which, at 29.58 minutes compares to the Australian average of 96.8 minutes. In addition, our number of outages is also about average when compared to the rest of Australia – we sit in the middle of the rating - 145.48 minutes compared to 225.74 minutes which is the Australian average.
This government does understand how frustrating it is to lose power. That is why we have initiated the power undergrounding project. This project will not only provide improved power reliability for residents in Darwin’s older suburbs, but will also provide greater security of supply in the event of a cyclone and improved community safety. Areas of Darwin already supplied by underground power have less than one-quarter of the interruptions experienced in areas serviced by overhead powerlines. The project is expected to bring similar benefits to Darwin’s older suburbs.
As Essential Services Minister, I am seriously disappointed in these outages. I have sought an urgent briefing from the CEO of Power and Water Corporation today, and I will be seeking his assurance that everything that can be done to remedy this situation is, indeed, being done.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Well, well, well. We told you if you cut back on R and M the power is going to go off. The power has gone off. Blow me down! I will tell you what has happened. They have declared a major profit. PowerWater have given a big dividend to the Treasurer, the other shareholding minister. We said: ‘Well, pretty big profit, where did that come from?’ We know where it came from - it came from R and M. It came from …
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Mr DUNHAM: Do not say rubbish! I can tell you that there are some contractors out there who know they are not getting R and M. So, we know that you have problems with your system. Berrimah went down. Berrimah is a calamity power station. When you turn on Berrimah, it runs on Avgas, a very high cost fuel. When you turn Berrimah on, you have a really big problem somewhere else. I will tell you what: you would not go to Katherine with this bloke; they ran out of juice. His excuse yesterday when we asked: ‘What is the excuse?’, he said: ‘Dunno, dunno. But I tell you what, it is very unusual.’ Well, we now have about 10 unusual excuses: it could have been this, it could have been that – ran out of juice.
I can tell you, I have been associated with this parliament for a long time. I have never heard a PowerWater minister stand up and say: ‘The lights went out because the idiot light came on the gas board - blink, blink, little fuel bowser. Oh! We are out of petrol’. Blow me down! I cannot believe the level of incompetence with this excuse.
I tell you why the power is going off: you are not looking after your system. Repairs and maintenance; fix it up before it goes off. And it went off. We told you this back in May. We said if you declare a dividend this big, it means you are sucking it out of operational systems and that is what has happened.
So, minister, call up the head bloke, talk to him and all the rest of it. However, come in here and tell us why you are not maintaining our asset.
Dr BURNS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, I do not put any credence in any figures that the member for Drysdale brings to this parliament. We have seen his inaccuracy. I have seen how he plays with figures, and I do not believe in what he is trying to suggest here; that there has been a cut-back on servicing the system. I do not believe that.
There has been a problem with the generator, and I have laid before parliament the problem that occurred at the Berrimah generator. I am unhappy about it, and I will be communicating my unhappiness and that of consumers to the CEO of PowerWater this afternoon.
In closing, I do not think it helps anyone for the member for Drysdale to be calling PowerWater workers idiots.
Mr Dunham: I did not! I said an idiot light!
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am proud to report to the House of the successful visit to Greece, Cyprus and Turkey by a Territory delegation last month. Our delegation consisted of His Honour, the Administrator, John Anictomatis, his wife Jeanette, Official Secretary, Frank Leverett, myself, partner and children, Ethnic Affairs Minister, Kon Vatskalis, his wife and children. We both paid for our children to accompany us.
Also included in the official party was Protocol Director, Shaun O’Sullivan, my Media Advisor, Craig Rowston, and a delegation consisting of members of the Darwin Greek community including the Honorary Consul for Greece, George Kapetas and his partner, Ross Bracher, who is the Honorary Consul-General for Japan, incidentally, John Nicolakis, John Halkitis, Tony and Rena Miaoudis, who are all prominent Darwin business people, and Savvas Hatzivalsamis, the President of the Greek Orthodox School.
The Minister for Ethnic Affairs arrived before the major delegation to meet with his counterparts in Athens, Professor Stella Priovolos to discuss the issue of a second Greek teacher for Darwin. He also met with the Minister for Culture, Evangelos Venizelos, and Pavlos Geroulanos, the Secretary-General for Greeks Abroad to discuss issues of culture and ethnic significance to the Darwin Greek community.
The minister also met with Mr Milonakis, the Managing Director of ARAMARK Dasko who caters to the Olympic Village, to discuss possible markets and supply of Territory produce to the Olympic Village.
The rest of the delegation arrived in Athens on 1 September and had an initial meeting with the Australian Ambassador to Greece, His Excellency, Stuart Hume.
We then headed off to Kos where we were met by the Mayor, Miltiadis Fakos, the Sub-Prefect, Maria Kypreou, the Australian Consul in the Athens Embassy, Toni Williams, and a host of representatives from the local Greek Australian community.
Travelling to Kos is the only way to get to Kalymnos as it is the closest island. The island is also important to many Territory Greeks. The following day on Kalymnos we met with the Mayor of Kalymnos, George Roussos, Sub-Prefect Hrysooula Sifoniou, council members and representatives from the Greek Australian community. Arriving on Kalymnos is like coming home to Darwin. There are such close ties of people and families, and we discussed many issues of shared culture and community significance. We also visited a number of local businesses, many of which were owned by people who had lived in the Territory and still had family there, including the Klidaras Fish Farm. This provided the opportunity to discuss issues as varied as tourism, security and pensions.
The delegation also received significant interest from Greek media and conducted many interviews about the Northern Territory. Many of those were done in Greek. I did not do the ones in Greek. Importantly, during our stay in Kalymnos, the Mayor gave a promise to host a delegation to visit Darwin. This would certainly be welcomed by the Territory’s Kalymnian community. That will happen next year. We were very delighted.
As we were about to leave Kalymnos, there was some difficulty with the weather. However, thanks to the Greek Air Force, which generously came to our rescue, we were Chinooked off Kalymnos in time for our next appointment. This was carried out in the spirit of friendship and they did not expect reimbursement, highlighting the legendary hospitality of the Greeks. We thank them very much for that.
Our next stop was Istanbul, where we were very privileged to meet with the Head of the Greek Orthodox Church, His All Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and to attend a service at which our Administrator, John Anictomatis, was bestowed an Offikion, one of the highest honours of the church. That really was a most memorable day; to spend all day with the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew, who is a most charming man and speaks seven languages fluently.
On return to Athens, we met with the Secretary-General for the International Economic Relations and Development Corporation, Professor Dimitri Dollis, the President of the Hellenic Republic, Constantinos Stephanopoulos, the Minister for Education and Religious Affairs, Petros Efthumiou, the Speaker of the House, Apostolos Kaklamanis, and representatives of the new Democratic Party. As a result of these discussions, the Greek government has offered to fund an additional language and culture teacher for Darwin. This teacher will work at the Greek Orthodox School, other schools, and will help establish the modern Greek language course at the university.
In Cyprus, we met with the Minister for Education, the Minister for Commerce, Industry and Tourism. Again, we were offered educational resource material and both parties agreed to build links between our schools. The final day of meetings for the delegation was with the Minister for Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment. We also we met with the United Nations peacekeeping force, and the AFP Commander there, Geoff Hazel, among others. Geoff passed on his personal thanks to the Territory for its important role in East Timor and, as one who was evacuated here, was particularly grateful for our medical assistance.
It was a very important trip, Madam Speaker, and I believe very productive. The overall expenditure for the trip was just under $130 000.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I respond to this in my capacity as shadow minister for Asian Relations and Trade. I have listened carefully to the report and, yes, I do acknowledge that Greece is not in Asia Minor. However, listening closely to the report, it is one that I would acknowledge as a good report. The contacts that have been made over there were beneficial in the sense of developing relationships. It is that theme that I wish to draw attention to, because I listened to how important it was to establish the relational contacts for education and different governmental agencies, heads of state and so on - very, very important.
I listen, also carefully, to see that there would be any ensuing trade, and I did not hear of any trade contracts that had been signed.
Ms Martin: It was not a trade trip.
Mr MILLS: I do not actually expect it in this context, but I make the point that the Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, in retorting to my exhaltation to attend the ASEAN Summit and the Business Expo in Bali, responded by saying: ‘Please, tell us what contract would be signed as a result of going?’ It is very important that we have these kinds of exchanges where we do develop relationships, but it is not completely contingent upon the signing of a contract. It is for that very reason we should have gone to Bali to make sure that the relationship is further strengthened so that we can ultimately sign trade contracts.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I think that was support for this trip to Greece. It was qualified support, but let me just make it very clear. There was never any major intention in this trip to Athens, Kalymnos, Istanbul and Cyprus, to say it was a trade trip. This was a community building trip, it is recognising important links. It is recognising the important links, particularly …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: I would appreciate, Madam Speaker, a little quiet from the rabble opposite. … the important links between our community, particularly in Darwin, and Kalymnos, Kos, Cyprus and Athens, and the importance of growing those links. We cannot talk about being a multicultural community unless we are fostering those multicultural elements. We are certainly doing that by having those connections with Greece.
I would like to place on record my thanks to the Greek government for accepting our arguments about a second Greek teacher, and having two Greek teachers in Darwin. This is fantastic; that is great. I welcome the proposed visit by the Mayor of Kalymnos, George Roussos. It was a very successful trip, and I thank all members of our delegation because we have built, again, the important ties between Darwin and Greece ...
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
Dr TOYNE (Communications): Madam Speaker, last week I went to Singapore with a significant NT trade delegation to attend the IX 2003 Information and Communications Technology Expo, and I welcome some of my fellow travellers here today. It is good to see you here. This business delegation was the Territory’s largest to visit Asia in recent times, with 41 delegates representing 18 Territory companies and the NT Branch of the Australian Information Industry Association.
The IX 2003 Expo is a major regional ICT exhibition, and provided a real opportunity for our Territory ICT companies to link with potential partners and customers. Five Territory companies exhibited at the Territory stand which, with its Northern Territory Remote Solutions theme, attracted a major amount of interest and introduced the skills and products of the Territory’s burgeoning ICT industry to Asian markets.
I am pleased to report the visit has delivered significant outcomes to the local ICT sector. Connected Solutions Group reached an agreement to export its innovative freight management software into Singapore, one of the largest shipping capitals in the world. CSM Technology used the expo to launch its ‘smart’ e-mail and messaging product into the Asian market.
Discussions were held between the NT businesses and leading Singaporean ICT companies, Singtel and the National Computer Systems, about partnering agreements and exporting into Asian markets. Mr KC Lee, the CEO of National Computer Systems, will now lead a delegation to the Territory to continue these discussions. Another delegation may travel to Korea later this year, following an offer from the Korean IT industry promotion agency to sponsor people from the Territory to travel to their ICT forum in December. The possibility of exchanges between Territory and Singaporean ICT firms and public sector agencies was also discussed with the Singapore government.
A number of meetings were also held between Darwin and Asian companies to explore trade and partnership opportunities, providing future business leads. These successes demonstrate the business outcomes that can flow from being on the ground in other countries; a principle well understood by my colleagues the Chief Minister, the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development, and the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries and Tourism, who have undertaken a number of trips into Asia, contrary to recent claims by the opposition.
This visit to Singapore has consolidated on a series of industry development opportunities I have been working on with minister Henderson and the ICT industry. The inaugural ICT forum last year was an opportunity for local ICT operators to work with government to develop initiatives and strategies to expand the sector. Since then, I have led a successful trade delegation to CeBIT in Hannover, Germany, and the industry attended CeBIT in Sydney.
Coming out of the IT forum, clustering workshops have developed collaboration and partnerships between local firms to exploit export opportunities. The commitment, drive and energy of our ICT industry is impressive, and I am extremely pleased to be able to work with the industry at every opportunity to help achieve its goals of increased exports and industry growth.
One important observation we made was that, in working to develop exports, it is the small details you forget that can often prove most dangerous.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I will applaud where applause is due, and I applaud this minister who feels comfortable about his portfolio, and who is confident in the issues about the ICT industry in the Northern Territory. He recognises the value of going into Asia. Business in Asia is about doing business with people you know. This minister, at long last, has come to value the trips that he has to do into Asia. I remember when he was sitting on this side of the Chamber, he derided the former member for Leanyer, Fred Finch, for having travelled to the United States doing exactly the same sort of thing. That is the problem; this minister here …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Dr LIM: Let me ask the question, in spite of all these interjections: who is the real Minister for Asian Relations and Trade? Maybe the member for Stuart should be made the Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, not this other one sitting here abrogating all his responsibilities on Asian relations and trade.
ICT industry is growing very well in the Northern Territory and, for the last four or five years, things have continued to expand. The fact that this minister has comfort and knowledge of the portfolio has encouraged this industry to grow. I commend the minister for his initiative and the way that he has worked so well with the industry. I wish him well in his continuing trips into South-East Asia, and I look forward to the visit from the businessmen from Singapore. Hopefully, that the minister might even include me in some of his forums.
Dr TOYNE (Communications): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for the support they have expressed for the work we are doing. I look forward to reporting to the House on future occasions as we continue this very exciting industry development process. I would just like to point out minister Henderson has been to seven Asian countries, to my knowledge, to date and I am sure will be in a lot more in the future.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House of recent progress in the development of land at Lee Point. Darwin residents, particularly residents of the northern suburbs, have long been confronted with large tracts of undeveloped land while driving along Lee Point Road. It has been something of a puzzle that this land should remain undeveloped when there has been a shortage of residential land availability in the city of Darwin. The reason for this is that this land, between the hospital and Lee Point Road, is owned by the Commonwealth government’s Department of Defence and, therefore, alienated for any use or development by the Northern Territory government.
Previous governments, indeed, expended considerable efforts in negotiating the release of this land for development; an effort maintained by this government. When the Commonwealth government finally decided that the Lee Point communications station was surplus to requirements, this presented our government with a unique opportunity. The NT government was given first option to purchase the land. However, following an approach by the Defence Housing Authority, we decided that it was clearly in the best interests of the community, industry and the economy to work jointly with DHA rather than merely act as a middle man. We requested the federal minister to sell the land directly to DHA. After lengthy exchanges, the federal Minister for Finance and Administration last month approved the priority sale of the Lee Point site to the Defence Housing Authority.
Madam Speaker, 76 hectares of prime residential land is now on track for release. These represent the first major greenfields land release in the city of Darwin for many years, and will ultimately form a suburb of approximately 2000 residents. The estimated investment at this stage is at least $120m, which will provide over 1000 job opportunities for Territorians.
The government continues to play a significant role in the creation of this new suburb. We are developing a memorandum of understanding with DHA which will include that the final product, the residential subdivision, is a well-designed, safe, energy-efficient and quality living environment. Lee Point will be a showcase for urban planning and design in the Northern Territory.
The memorandum of understanding will also ensure that significant benefit will flow to the local economy, with DHA undertaking to use local companies throughout the design and development stages, to a large extent. The construction industry has welcomed this development and we had much support from the Territory Construction Association throughout the negotiation process. The TCA recognises the Defence Housing Authority as a key player in the construction industry in the Northern Territory, and will be working closely with DHA to ensure maximum local industry participation in the project. Private developers and companies have been expressing interest in this site for many years, and now will have an opportunity to be involved in its development.
DHA has indicated they require about 250 houses to meet their land needs in the Darwin region. Now that the sale has been approved, serious work has started on the urban design required to achieve a good quality, mixed residential suburb. To progress this design, I have set up a working group with a presentation from my department and the Defence Housing Authority, who will work closely with other agencies, particularly Darwin City Council. Once these plans are more advanced, the development process under the Planning Act will commence. The first of these will be the necessary zoning to allow for development.
Madam Speaker, this is an exciting development. It is exciting news and a significant development for Darwin. Work is expected to begin in the first half of next year. This will change the face of the northern suburbs and it is nothing but good news for residents, the building industry and ratepayers. It is the latest in a series of developments under this government that will have significant impact in the Territory’s growth and economic development.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, for the record, I could not actually hear what the minister was saying; he was mumbling and it was a very poor delivery. From what I understand of the issue, the federal government had been dealing with the previous CLP government, with a view to selling that to the Northern Territory. This government came to power, effectively botched that negotiation, and now we have the situation where an independent statutory Commonwealth authority will get this land. The Northern Territory government, the Northern Territory people, will not have the real control or input which they should have had. Apart from the general overview of the Planning Act and this working group, the Northern Territory government has lost real control of the development of this portion of land and that means ultimately …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Goyder has the floor.
Mr MALEY: That means that the DHA has the cheque book; they have the control. They can dictate which joint venturer and which small contractor they are going to use. These are jobs which have potentially been lost to Territorians because this government did not negotiate, and did not get in and have a go.
Sadly, it is fair to say that this is an example of how not to negotiate. This is an example of this Territory government abusing the trust which Territory people gave them in August 2001.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also think it is an opportunity lost, that we did not purchase that land. I am a bit concerned, and I know the minister has said that it will go to the Development Consent Authority. However, when I raised the question about the air wing at Robertson Barracks, I was told that, as that is Commonwealth land, it does not require planning authority consent.
Therefore, I ask the minister: is this land still Commonwealth, and does it really have to go to the Development Consent Authority? You mentioned the word ‘greenfield’, and that always sends a shiver up my spine because I remember a greenfield suburb on the old Nightcliff drive-in, and people living in there are all squashed together. It might look very attractive. I would want to know that the government was concerned about things like 300 m2 blocks and roads that are too narrow, as you will find in some parts of Palmerston.
I hope that the public can have a lot of good input into this development; that we do not copy the mistakes of some of the suburbs we have already done in Darwin, and we do something where people do not have to have airconditioning. Perhaps when the power does go off, they can actually open their windows and have a breeze. Wouldn’t that be nice to see: a tropically designed subdivision again?
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson had no problem listening to what I had to say. Obviously, the member for Goyder has a few problems with his hearing after the exchange of punches at the recent rugby match.
Let me assure you, member for Nelson, this is not Commonwealth land; this is Territory land. It has been sold by the Commonwealth and all the planning processes, rules and regulations will apply to this land. Added to that, a memorandum of understanding will be signed with the Defence Housing Authority, so we will apply planning principles on that land. The DHA has given an undertaking, as part of the memorandum of understanding, that local people will be employed.
Let me remind the opposition that The Chase did not go through a proper tender process; it was given directly to Delfin and DHA by Cabinet decision. Therefore, to come here today and accuse us of botching the sale of land and the process is absolute rubbish.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I am proud to speak to the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Bill 2003, which provides a framework for the establishment, maintenance and management of a comprehensive system of parks and reserves in the Northern Territory. This framework draws together a range of government objectives including job creation; protection of biological diversity; enhancing recreational, educational and tourist opportunities; and creating a sound and sustainable economic base for regional development.
It puts these objectives together with the Aboriginal obligation to care for country and maintain cultural traditions. The Territory’s parks and reserves will be substantially enriched by recognition of traditional Aboriginal ownership. The government will involve traditional custodians in planning and management of parks, and recognise the outstanding cultural values that are to be found in many of the parks will significantly enhance their attraction to visitors.
The implementation of this bill will ensure that the vigorous indigenous culture of the Northern Territory is strongly reflected in the park system. It will give Aboriginal landowners and traditional custodians throughout the Northern Territory opportunities to actively participate in the overall management of the parks, and an opportunity to guide how their culture is presented to visitors. Joint management arrangements between Aboriginal people and the Parks and Wildlife Service will become the norm in these parks, together with the employment of Aboriginal people in a range of roles within the park system.
This bill results from initiatives which I announced on 25 October last year to resolve uncertainty created by land claims over parks and reserves; in particular, uncertainty that arose from the High Court’s judgment in the Ward case. At that time, I confirmed that the government had decided to act responsibly and decisively in seeking to resolve the uncertainty, whilst also avoiding costly and long-term litigation. As I pointed out at the time, there were two broad options facing the government. The first option was to engage in litigation and disputation at every possible level. This option would have left us in the courts for countless years. It would have delayed economic development opportunities and maintained uncertainty over our parks system. Such an approach would have been an abrogation of government’s responsibility to find a comprehensive solution. The second option was to develop an agreement, whereby litigation would be put to one side, while we sought to negotiate a framework that dealt with the uncertainty arising from the High Court’s decision, and which would resolve outstanding litigation in relation to our parks and reserves.
As a responsible government, we put a high priority on the need to balance the public interest in this matter, and to ensure an outcome that meets the community benefit test. The government, therefore, specified core principles that would be central to any framework agreement, and these were accepted by the land councils. Apart from the re-declaration of 38 parks last November that were previously invalidly declared under section 12 of the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, and agreement to put litigation aside while negotiations proceeded, the other core principles that I announced last October are all reflected in the framework that has been negotiated with the land councils. These include: development of a parks master plan to expand and more effectively manage the parks estate; current mining and exploration leases are unaffected, and existing applications will be fast-tracked; current tourism operator concessions are guaranteed; all Territory parks and reserves will remain accessible to all Territorians and visitors on a no-fee, no-permit basis; business as usual in parks until negotiations are completed; and where title changes occur, they will be conditional on the land being leased back to the Northern Territory subject to joint management under NT legislation.
Let me turn to the objectives and content of the bill. In developing this bill, the government has exercised its primary responsibility to balance wider community interests in conservation, recreation and tourist development and Aboriginal interests in maintaining cultural traditions. It has sought to achieve this by establishing a framework for the future management of the unique natural and cultural systems encompassed within our parks system.
Significantly, the bill recognises, for the first time, that one of the objectives of the Territory’s parks system is to maintain and promote traditional values, alongside protection and promotion of the values of the natural environment. The bill sets down a time frame for Aboriginal traditional owners to agree to the framework offer set out under the legislation. This bill ensures this occurs in a transparent manner and only authorises me, as Chief Minister, to do certain things on the basis that a number of specified pre-conditions are satisfied. If these conditions are not complied with within a defined time frame, then the sunset clause set out in the legislation will apply and the framework offer will lapse. It is an ambitious and visionary framework that is balanced by requirements that will protect the interests of all Territory citizens and key stakeholders.
Now let me take members through the specific provisions of the bill. As you will see, this bill differs slightly from the version that was originally published on our web site, in that some minor technical enhancements have been made. Part 1 of the bill sets out its primary purpose; that is, to provide a framework for the establishment, maintenance and management of a comprehensive system of parks and reserves in the Northern Territory. It defines this comprehensive system as one that:
(a) is developed in partnership between the Territory and traditional owners of the parks and reserves;
(b) benefits those traditional owners by recognising, valuing and incorporating indigenous culture,
knowledge and decision-making processes;
(c) protects biological diversity;
(d) serves the educational and recreational needs of Territorians and visitors to the Northern Territory; and
Consistent with normal legislation, the bill contains a number of definitions, and confirms that the act will bind the Crown consistent with the powers of the NT Legislative Assembly, and that the bill must be read in the manner that it is consistent with other relevant Commonwealth legislation. It also confirms that the Chief Minister will be responsible for the administration of the act.
Part 2, sections 8 to 16, lay out the framework offer. Section 8 authorises the Chief Minister to do certain things and these include: requesting the Commonwealth minister responsible for ALRA to schedule the parks and reserves set out in Schedule 1 of the bill; grant NT freehold title over parks and reserves set out in Schedule 2 of the bill; execute on behalf of the Territory leases to the Territory of each of the parks and reserves, in Schedules 1 and 2; execute on behalf of the Territory a joint management agreement for each of the parks and reserves specified in Schedules 1, 2 and 3; and execute on behalf of the Territory one or more indigenous land use agreements.
Section 9 provides an explanation of the nature of the NT freehold title and the conditions that apply to the future use of the land held under this title. This includes: conditions to whom the grant may be made; establishment of a park land trust to hold title; restrictions on sale or mortgaging; and provisions for surrender and compulsory acquisition. It also sets out the relationship of a title to the necessary provisions of the Crown Lands Act.
Section 10 of the bill makes it clear that the Chief Minister is only authorised to do the things specified in section 8, provided certain conditions are complied with, on, or before, a specified date. These conditions include:
the withdrawal of claims under ALRA for those parks specified in Schedules 2 and 3;
compensation for the effect of the declaration and use of those parks on native title rights and interests,
and facilitate future developments in those parks and reserves;
term is 99 years; options for good faith negotiations for renewal; preference for Aboriginal participation
and commercial activities conducted in the lease; use and enjoyment by traditional owners; and provision of
living areas subject to the joint management agreement;
the terms of the joint management agreement have been agreed consistent with principles at Schedule 5; and
consistent with the principles set out in Schedule 4 and the joint management agreement at Schedule 5.
Section 12 of the bill creates a reservation from occupation under section 178 of the Mining Act, which will protect mining interests, while also suspending further applications over the land in question, until the offer either lapses or is executed by the Chief Minister exercising the relevant authorisations provided for under section 10. This clause is necessary to comply with the core principle that ensures existing mining interests are protected.
Section 13 provides the Chief Minister with the discretion to omit parks and reserves and Aboriginal land from the schedules, on the basis that the relevant land council advises her in writing that the traditional owners will not comply with conditions set out in section 10(1), and the Chief Minister is satisfied that the omission will not defeat the purpose of the act. This power can only be exercised once, and must occur on or before the 31 July 2004.
Section 14 provides for the Chief Minister to amend, by notice in the Gazette, the schedules to either excise or include Aboriginal community living areas on the parks, identified in the Schedules 1, 2 or 3.
Section 15 provides for the planning scheme, under the Planning Act, to include provision that constrain the use of the land granted under NT freehold for park and related park purposes. Land can be used for other purposes, with the consent of the planning minister.
Section 16 sets out a sunset provision for the framework offer, which takes effect on 30 June 2004, but allows the Chief Minister to prescribe a later date only if satisfied there is substantial acceptance of the offer and that the full compliance will occur within a set time frame, but no later than 31 December 2004.
In introducing the bill, I recognise that there may be a need for committee stage amendments to reflect the outcomes of the consultations with the land councils and other stakeholders. We have already commenced this process. Following the public release of the bill in the third week of September, a number of meetings in Darwin and Alice Springs were held with various stakeholders including miners, representatives from the tourism and pastoral industry, conservationists, and fishing interests, both recreational and commercial, regarding the bill and various related instruments. Thirty-three attended the general briefing in Darwin and 52 in total attended industry specific briefings in Darwin and Alice Springs. The reception from stakeholders was generally positive, with particular interest in the master planning exercise and the exciting opportunities it presents to maximise the benefits from and enjoyment of a world class parks system. The Commonwealth participation in master planning process was particularly welcomed as it will allow the development of more consistent regimes across all parks - Kakadu, Uluru and Territory administered parks.
The establishment of a world class parks system is not only vital to the future economic development of the Territory, but is also essential if we are to maintain the opportunity for all our citizens to continue to enjoy the benefits of access to some of the most pristine, culturally enriched and unique areas on the Australia continent.
It is the Territory government’s firm intention that the NT parks system should provide a national and international model of ecological integrity, innovation and flexible management, meaningful involvement of indigenous people and a quality visitor experience. The new cooperative approach to park management and conservation heralded in the bill will generate increased nature-based tourism opportunities throughout the Northern Territory, with Aboriginal people playing a major role.
The government aims to ensure that the park system remains a source of inspiration, instruction and enjoyment for the people of the Northern Territory and visitors from the wider Australian and international communities. This new enhanced parks system will provide high-quality tourism experiences, playing a major role in the image of the Northern Territory as one of the world’s last truly remote nature-based tourism destinations. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
At the Council of Australian Government meeting in April 1995, the heads of government signed three agreements establishing the National Competition Policy. They are commonly referred to as the NCP Agreements. Under the NCP Agreements, all states and territories were required to develop timetables for reviewing all existing legislation, conduct reviews in accordance with the timetable and, where appropriate, amend or repeal legislation that restricts competition.
The Architects Act was identified as requiring NCP review. In response to national debate on this issue, the Commonwealth, on behalf of all states and territories except Victoria, requested the Productivity Commission to conduct a national review of architect legislation across Australia. This was for the dual purpose of assisting jurisdictions meet their obligations under the NCP Agreements, and to achieve greater consistency in any future regulations of the architecture profession in Australia.
The Productivity Commission released its report, Review of Legislation Regulating the Architectural Profession, known as the PC Review Report, on 16 November 2000. The Productivity Commission Review Report recommended a preferred approach and an alternative approach. The preferred approach of the Productivity Commission was that the states’ and territories’ architects acts should be repealed after a two-year notification period to allow the profession to develop a national, non-statutory certification and course accreditation scheme. The alternative approach recommended the adjustment of existing legislation to remove elements deemed to be anti-competitive and not in the public interest. All jurisdictions have decided to reject the primary recommendation of the Productivity Commission Review Report.
In response to the Productivity Commission’s report, the senior officials group of the Council of Australian Governments agreed to establish an intergovernmental working group. The intergovernmental working group concluded that the commission’s secondary recommendation should be supported.
A discussion paper on the Northern Territory Architects Act was circulated to building industry in the Territory and interstate in November 2001. A copy of the working group’s preliminary report was attached to the discussion paper. Submissions received were supportive of the working group’s conclusions, with the exception of the Building Designers Association of the Northern Territory. Finally, a position paper was drafted that addressed the issues raised by the intergovernmental working group as it related to the Architects Act of the Northern Territory.
The Architects Amendment Bill amends the Architects Act in line with the position paper. The Architects Amendment Bill makes the following amendments to the Architects Act of the Northern Territory:
inserts an objects clause to state the objective of the act;
increases the number of members of the Architects Board from three to five, including two non-architects, to
enable consumer and broader industry representation;
amends the restriction on the title ‘architect’ so that derivatives of the title that describe a recognised competency
or qualification are permitted;
amends the rule regarding architectural companies and partnerships to simplify the way control of these companies
is managed and architectural work supervised;
enables consumers to lodge complaints about architects with an appeal to the Local Court;
amends section 14 to better describe education and training requirements; and
changes the fines currently in the act into penalty units.
The amendments to the Architects Act will ensure that it meets National Competition Policy obligations. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The main purposes of this bill is to provide the Director of Fisheries with the ability to refuse or revoke an approval for a person to operate in commercial fisheries if they have been convicted of fisheries offences on more than one occasion. This will provide a significant deterrent to fishers and provide a greater strength to our management controls on our fisheries. Over-potting in the mud crab fisheries, the temptation to set gill nets in closed waters and the like will be significantly reduced and provide a real boost to the sustainability of our fisheries resources.
Over the past five years, key stakeholders of the Territory’s aquatic resources, including the Northern Territory Seafood Council, Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory and the Northern Land Council, have campaigned the government for tougher penalties for offences against the Fisheries Act. A small proportion of commercial fishers continue to re-offend, and all fisheries stakeholders would like to see these people suspended from commercial fishing activities.
The reduction of illegal fishing activity will be further achieved by making provision in the act to increase the maximum penalty for fishing-related offences from $10 000 to $20 000, together with the ability for Fisheries officers to serve fishery infringement notices, much the same as on-the-spot fines.
A wider review of the penalties specified in the Fisheries Act, Fisheries Regulations and associated management plans, will be undertaken within the next 12 months with a view to moving to penalty units. This process will also ensure that all penalties for fisheries offences are appropriate and consistent in nature; that is, the penalty fits the offence. This will be done in consultation with the Department of Justice and key fishery stakeholder groups.
Madam Speaker, this increased power to make all fishers accountable for their actions helps to preserve our fish stocks that are healthy and productive and the envy of Australia. This protection will help maintain our fisheries for our children and grandchildren in the years to come. Therefore, I commend this bill to the Assembly.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 14 August 2003.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, the opposition sought a briefing on this bill. We appreciate the briefing that was given to both myself, as the then shadow minister responsible for this act, and my colleague, the member for Drysdale, regarding its implications on mining and so forth. We did have a concern at the outset that was alleviated by the briefing, and that was to do with riparian rights. We have been given an undertaking and we concur with the assurance that was given; that there is no issue with the admittance now of riparian rights; that people who have access for domestic uses and the normal access to water for cattle and that sort of thing will not be affected by this amendment. The opposition will support this amendment to the act, and we thank the minister for his briefing.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, yes, I also support the bill. However, I thought it might give me an opportunity to talk on some of the issues about the Water Act and mining. One of the things that has concerned me for a long time is that the Mining Act, for some reason, overrides any other act. It is has always been a wonder to me why we still have two departments to look at activities about mining; in other words, on one side the Department of Mining has its own environmental group and, on the other side, the Department of Environment and Heritage also looking at environment. I gather we also have those people in charge of the Water Act who look at one side of the fence when it comes to mining, and the Department of Mines has another group of people looking inside the mine. I am told that was so that miners would have a one-stop shop.
Even though that might be an advantage, perhaps, there can be disadvantages where you have two people dealing with the one water stream, for instance, with one department dealing with what happens on the inside of the fence and another department looking at what happens on the outside of the fence. That really needs looking at. The environment is not going to change, no matter who is doing some development, and the water is not going to change. It is still the same creek that runs into the sea, it is still the same wetlands.
It is time that some of our mining activities came under normal processes, even the Planning Act. As you know, in Litchfield Shire, the Mining Act overrides the Planning Act, and it is able to do things that normally other people would not be able to do. There are no restrictions on clearing land - whether it is in the wetland or whatever - for a mine, but there are certainly restrictions on the average person who owns a block of land in Litchfield Shire, regarding clearing land. With the new restraints that the minister, I hope, will bring in sooner rather than later, you will not be able to clear wetlands in the Litchfield Shire,. Of course, in Litchfield Shire, we have a large amount of wetlands and there is a large base of sand product in those areas that is mined, especially for use in the housing industry.
I will give you an example. This is a recent application, which is on the Howard River. This is an application for 90 hectares of land to be developed in the Koolpinyah district. I put in an objection to it, not based on the notion that I disagree with it, because I know we need sand, but the right-hand boundary is the boundary of the Howard River. If I was to put that in as a development application for a subdivision, I would be told immediately to go away and remove that subdivision from the river. These things really have to be given approval similar to the way that planning applications have to be given approval. We should look what land is allowed to be cleared. Is this too close to the wetlands to interfere with the water course? The Howard River is a major river that also floods and, in this area, it floods hundreds of metres wide. There is a development occurring in the floodplains of the Howard River that does not have to come under the same requirements as normally would happen with any other development in the planning area, because the Mining Act overrides the Planning Act.
Of course, when we are talking about the Water Act, most of this land will be wet. I suppose under the definition of ‘watercourse’ this activity is occurring in a watercourse, which should come under the Water Act. I hope that I am correct here, but I believe that, hopefully, these new changes will help the department manage some of these offside activities outside of the actual mining area, so they can actually have a say in what effect this mine will have on the watercourse and surrounding lagoons, or whatever.
I see the changes the government is bringing forward as useful, but I do not think it has overcome the problem I see; that we have a duplication of departments, or of resources, being put into looking at the same thing but coming from two different departments. I ask the government that, when they are reviewing the Planning Act, they do not just put in to the Planning Act that the Mining Act overrides it. Perhaps it is time that the Mining Act - as I believe a mining site is no different than any other development site - should require planning approval, especially in Litchfield Shire, so that we can look at these things a little more closely.
I know the complaint from mines would be that that would hold up mining applications that need to be put through quickly. However, I am sure a process could be established that would allow the process to be reasonably fast, but allow everybody to have a say - as they do for development in the Litchfield Shire - about these particular matters, because they are important. I do not have the major map with me, but I might use it later in a debate showing the number of mining tenements in the Litchfield Shire. Many of those occur in wet areas.
Minister, I am hoping that this act will help, perhaps, to take up some of the concerns I have been speaking about. We need to do more if we are to really tackle some of these issues.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I will start with a quote and, unlike others, I will attribute it. It comes from the NCP review of the Northern Territory Water Act by Desliens Business Consultants, dated June 2000. This quote occurs at page 7:
While this debate is to talk about some fairly minor amendments to the act - and I can foreshadow at the outset that the opposition has no great problem with those amendments, with one exception - I can say that this debate has to be much more wide-ranging. In this parliament. it is timely; there are national debates on now about water. It is a precious resource, it is able to be contaminated and polluted irrevocably - which happens in some places – and it is absolutely essential to the development of all of our towns, horticulture, and infrastructure.
In a previous life, I was Director of Aboriginal Field Services and had a fair bit to do with essential services in the Centre of Australia. It was common that people would come to us - including federal agencies - and say: ‘Here is where an outstation wants to set up’. They would set up and say: ‘Okay, we can build the houses, they will fence it and we can get a road in, and we will have this power generation - oh, you had better turn the water on’.
If there ain’t water, there ain’t water! There have been debates in this parliament before including from the then Leader of the Opposition, Brian Ede and others about communities such as Anningie, which is on the way to Willowra, where there is no water and many people live. There is great difficulty in transporting water. The member for Stuart talked about Utopia and Soapy Bore. I am familiar with Soapy, Soakage, Kurrajong and all those bores in the Utopia area, and they have quantity and quality problems.
I am foreshadowing that this is an essential debate to be brought forward to this House, not regarding the structure of the legislation but in policy. I agree entirely with the previous speaker that this is a matter that has to be put out in terms of the resource - how the resource is to be harvested, and controlled, opportunities for the use of the resource, and dams – dare I say. The use of the word ‘dam’ often conjures up all sorts of emotive reactions from people, but it is something we should consider. It is something where, if we live in a part of Australia where 2 m of rain falls on the ground and disappears into the salt water, we should look at whether we are duty bound to harvest some of that resource for the benefit of mankind. These are issues for a further debate, but I shadow that that debate has to take place.
The second reading speech is a very difficult speech to understand, I have to tell you. I read it and had a brief on it, and I have re-read it. On a quick reading, this is a bit of a clean-up of quite an uncontentious act, insofar as it relates to a different industry, which is mining - which is my shadow portfolio responsibility - and this is to make things better, clearer and, in any event, do what the original legislators intended. That is pretty much my reading of it as well. Although, as I said, it is very difficult to derive that straight from the second reading speech.
I was interested when the minister said that some of the reforms were linked to National Competition Policy payments, and payments in the order of $7.5m could be in jeopardy. That is a pretty significant thing for the minister to say. So, I asked him for a copy of the review of the Water Act - and I thank him for having it sent to me - but I am curious that, if it is the intention to use this report to amend the act, why that was not so? Particularly insofar as section 36 of the original act is concerned, because the recommendation from the NCP review of the Northern Territory Water Act and I quote from page - sorry, it is unpaginated but it is under Licence and Permits. It says:
Neither of those two things has happened. We do not have an amendment here that makes it clear, neither has it been withdrawn from the act. I ask the minister to revisit that in his rejoinder.
For those who have not had the benefit I have of having this report, essentially it relates to the fact that licences may be issued but are not. I can go to page 19 of the report where it provides an expansion of that:
Section 36 of the act provides powers to control, on application to grant, a permit to explore water for a maximum
period of 12 months. Section 5 of the Water Regulations prescribes in detail the application process. Mr Smith …
Who was the public servant with most knowledge in this area who made a submission to the review:
Essentially, we have a power under an act which has never been used and the reviewers found that we should either make it clear what its intention is or remove it. I note that that is not among the suite of amendments the minister has brought forward.
A couple of other quick points out on this act. It talks with competition, and it mentions the Northern Territory (Land Rights) Act and Native Title Act, both of which are Commonwealth statutes, and both of which, I would suggest, render the Northern Territory to be in a less competitive state, or disadvantaged competitively, compared with interstate jurisdictions. The report is silent on that, as it should be because it is not a review of those acts. However, it is something that the minister should be mindful of when we look at this place being competitive with other jurisdictions, and the negative impact that those acts may have on the Northern Territory situation.
There is a submission from the Central Land Council that is, in part, quoted, from which I will also quote. This is unpaginated, but it is under The Industry Operating Environment, Chapter 3, and it reads:
Essentially, the CLC is holding the position that there are title rights to Aboriginal interests over groundwater. This is not a view shared by this parliament and, in fact, if it was, it would cause some significant ramifications.
These are issues of competitiveness that do not flow from the review but should be discussed by the minister in terms of whether there should be a lobby effort from this government to the federal government to amend those statutes to give better certainty and a more equal opportunity to Territory interests, viz viz those held elsewhere.
I was also disappointed that there was not a submission from the drilling interests. It had been sought, but a submission was not forthcoming. I note that there is a policy issue for government where there is significant industry in this area, held through private hands, and the government has two fully-equipped drilling rigs that require operational staff of eight, and estimated value of the rigs in the order of $2m. This is a policy issue for government. It has been discussed in this report in terms of those rigs going on to sites that are not necessarily attractive as a commercial proposition for other drillers. Also that there is a repository of knowledge among the government drillers that may not necessarily be held by others.
I ask the minister to continually test those propositions because, essentially, what you have is a government instrumentality that is doing work that could be going to the private sector. If those propositions hold true, there is obviously no problem with it. However, if in the case that it turns out that it is more economic to do it elsewhere and we can protect those issues like competence, training and things like that, possibly that is a policy decision further down the line.
I also point out that matters relating to water affect every person in this parliament, every industry in this parliament, and every community that is represented in this parliament. It is essential, therefore, that the minister promote a wide-ranging debate on matters relating to water, and introduce into that debate matters relating to the public national debate occurring at the moment, because it is quite possible there are opportunities for the Northern Territory with its massive water resource - something like 25% of the nation’s resource is here in the Northern Territory. We also know that, for some of our emerging industries like aquaculture, disease-free fresh water is very important. While it is on the Notice Paper that we talk about mangroves at some later date, it is really important to look at the potential for disease and other organisms to enter our water system and thus be conveyed to an enormous number of organisms.
I will finish, Madam Speaker, by drawing attention to the House that this report from Desliens, The National Competition Review of the Northern Territory Water Act, is dated June 2000. Therefore, it has taken quite a time for this to arrive at this parliament. I would have thought that, if the report was completed, and if the minister was able to stand here and tell us that something like $7.5m could be put in jeopardy, that he would have acted a little more swiftly than we have seen with the three years that it has taken for this report to be debated in the form of amendments to the legislation. I would also ask, as a rejoinder, that he would give us some information why he chose not to amend section 36, as recommended by the consultants.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition very much for their support. I note the comments made by the member for Drysdale, because the water debate is a national debate at the moment and, certainly, it is something this government views with great interest. That is the reason why the government is gearing to produce water allocation plans in consultation with the community in any new subdivision where they require extensive water use. It is something that, in some cases, we cannot replenish. As you are all very well aware, Alice Springs is such a case, where Alice Springs is currently using fossil water, but we do not know yet if it is replenished and how it is replenished and how long, in reality, it will last.
The use of water resources in the Northern Territory is separately regulated through the Water Act, the Mining Act, the Mining Management Act and the Petroleum Act. The proposed amendments to the Water Act have been formulated to clarify the relationship between the Water Act and the mining and petroleum legislation. Currently, section 7 of the Water Act prevents the act from applying on mining or petroleum tenure, other than to control waste discharges from these activities.
However, the amendments we have proposed will be further supplemented with a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, my department, and the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development. In order to clarify the relationships between the two agencies for the common purpose of ensuring that water resources are used within environmental, economic and socially sustainable limits.
The Water Amendment Bill 2003 allows for the inclusion of mining and petroleum as a beneficiary user under section 4(3) of the Water Act. This amendment will facilitate a comprehensive water allocation framework, as is required under the provisions of water reform that is linked to the National Competition Policy payments. Also, under section 4(3) of the act, the beneficiary use currently termed ‘riparian’ would be renamed ‘rural stock and domestic use’, to address some of those issues brought up by the member for Barkly, and to also to avoid misunderstanding that has arisen within the scientific meaning of the term ‘riparian’. These relatively simple amendments are commended for adoption, as they will ensure delivery of the comprehensive water resource management framework intended with the original introduction of the Water Act.
I also take note of the comments by the member for Drysdale about the drills. Yes, the government has two fully-equipped drills and the technical expertise to operate these drills. We assessed the need for those drills to be operational. We also took into consideration the comments by the private sector. However, we also took note of the comments made by private citizens, farmers and people who work in the pastoral industry. The reality is that these drills are working following requests by farmers to address the difficult situation where there is no interest by the private sector. However, in all cases, the work done by these drills are on cost recovery; we do not undercut the private industry, we charge very similar rates. It is up to the individual to choose - either the government-owned drills or the private drills. The reason the government operations exist is that we sometimes provide the service in areas where people cannot afford to pay for that service. In some areas, the private operators do not want to provide the service for various reasons.
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his comments. They have been taken into account, as have the comments by the members for Daly and Drysdale. I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning)(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 12 August 2003.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, today I contribute to one of the most important debates probably seen in this House. The government’s implementation of the O’Sullivan Report into police resources form a foundation of what good government is. This report, without doubt, is compelling reading. As an independent report commissioned by this government, it gives the reader an insight into the historical under-resourcing by previous CLP governments. It also clearly outlines a blueprint for the way forward.
As a member of parliament, I often talk about the importance of members showing leadership for the benefit of the community. After listening to the contribution of Paul Henderson, the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, I have witnessed true leadership. The minister has summarised perfectly the key findings of the O’Sullivan Report and, with no ambiguity, stated our government’s plan for building a better police force.
As all members know, it is no small achievement for any minister to ask for and receive $75m for new initiatives. The minister has taken unprecedented steps in the history of the police. Unlike former CLP police ministers, he has not played politics with a founding pillar of our government and our democracy. He stated quite clearly in the report that previous CLP governments have under-resourced the police. In my view, they have betrayed our community, victims of crime, and women and children, by putting our police force in an unsustainable resource position in the last 10 years. This betrayal goes to the heart of the problem with the CLP, past and present. The CLP has always been interested in being re-elected; always interested with looking good; always interested in the poker player card trick that relies on the sleight-of-hand. When we compare this with the action of the Police minister, Paul Henderson, we see them for what they are: cheap.
The minister has made a promise publicly and categorically to the House and, importantly, to our community, to implement the O’Sullivan Report. Our response can be best summarised as follows: the Martin Labor government, for the benefit of Territorians, has been and continues to be accountable and responsible to Territorians by properly managing the Territory finances through budget processes that ensure funds are available for initiatives like the $75m for building our police force.
The CLP have again been shown to be poor managers of the Northern Territory finances and institutions important to our democratic process. The past and present leadership of the CLP needs to be condemned for the past mismanagement practices. I again state that the new members of the CLP need to change forever the CLP opposition for the benefit of the democratic process. We have lost a former Police minister from Katherine, Hon Mike Reed, and we have gained a new member for Katherine. It is her duty to fix up the party leadership issues.
I was shocked to discover the plight of the Northern Territory Police force. However, I was not surprised with the effort of the current women and men of the Northern Territory Police force under trying circumstances.
I would like to contribute to the written statement in two ways. First, I would like to discuss issues raised in the O’Sullivan Report and comment on the government’s response. Second, I would like to discuss the issue of leadership and its importance in shaping the law and order debate.
I commend the O’Sullivan recommendations in the report and look forward to their implementation. The response to the officers of the Northern Territory Police that I know has been overwhelmingly positive. Police are finally happy to have their working lives clearly defined. They also look to this government to act on the past CLP government’s incompetence.
The minister has stated 200 extra police will be delivered by the end of 2006; 120 constable recruits trained a year. The O’Sullivan Report found that Northern Territory Police was run down over a decade with under-funding and staff shortages. If the public or members of this House would like to turn to page 4 of the Executive Summary, third paragraph down, it says:
This is in black and white from an independent report. This is damning. All I can say is that it clearly shows this is a result of CLP government policy at the time and, unfortunately, Territorians now have to pay that price. One of the important crises - and if we talk about leadership in any structure, club or organisation, you have to have great leadership to make everyone work in the one direction. On page 6, in black and white again, under Resource Allocation and Policing Outcomes:
Anyone who knows any of the police officers - and there are many in the Territory who form part of the community, and many of them are long-term residents - they will, if they are comfortable with the people they talk to, confirm this as one of the major issues happening within the police force right now: people acting in positions as sergeant and senior sergeant. The shortage within that organisation has led to people doing jobs that otherwise they would not be asked to do.
I would like to briefly comment on the minister’s description of the current CLP leader’s attack on the current Police Commissioner over the past two years. The minister describes the attacks as unreasonable. I have spoken to the minister and he has made it quite clear that in the past it was an unwritten rule that Police Commissioners were off-limits from political attacks; the reason being they were considered capable of professionally fulfilling their duties. This result finally puts to bed the CLP’s whingeing and whining, its negative approach to the police force and, in particular, the report’s response to historical underfunding. I commend the Police Commissioner and the men and women of the police force for the job that they have done under trying circumstances. I support the minister’s statement wholeheartedly.
In the time remaining, I would like to speak to the issue of political representatives’ responsibility to lead by example when describing the circumstance of law and order issues in Australia. The CLP has always liked to pretend that they are tough on crime, but they only gave the law and order issue lip service. We heard the rhetoric of mandatory sentencing for years from the CLP, and now it is interesting to find out that they are actually trying to sell their Internet site on mandatory sentencing when they know the issues surrounding the police were critical. However, I believe the CLP were mischievous in their game playing of issues in delivering law and order policy. I found a number of observations made in the O’Sullivan Report highlighted what the facts were in regards to property crimes in Australia, and the Northern Territory in terms of its decline.
If members of this House and Territorians would like to turn to page 5 of the O’Sullivan report under Resource Allocation and Policing Outcomes, five paragraphs down:
We do not want to go into this whole debate about drugs and if they are minuscule or not, because we know the CLP have claimed in the past that the issue of drug-related crime was minuscule. We have seen the success of current Territory policing policies on reducing crime through the attack on illicit drugs.
It goes on to say:
So the Australian Institute of Crime shows crime has fallen, but the CLP leadership cry: ‘The sky is falling in’. Just yesterday, we had the member for Drysdale attacking the Attorney-General when he was delivering crime statistics - fabled crime statistics in the sense that it is showing that crime is going down in the Territory, and this has to be better for our lifestyle, for the men, women and children of our community. He yelled out across the floor: ‘No one believes you. No one believes you’, even thought in black and white, he is delivering facts gathered from an independent source and by police. He was yelling out, as a member of parliament across the House: ‘No one believes you’, though the facts show crime is going down across the Territory. This is a very deep concern for me.
This issue was examined in an award-winning documentary called Bowling for Columbine. It is a bit of a pop version of the law and order debate in North America. I must state that certain circumstances in North America are quite different from Australia; however, in the western democracy structure, there are a lot of similarities. It showed that the trends of law and order debates, both by political interest groups, media and academics, rage across the planet. A few consistencies occur across the planet: the role of persons in authority or leadership roles to create the perception - and we saw in Alice Springs the leadership that the member for Braitling provided in a rally. It was, for want of a better term, a politically-organised rally, with one side pushing that: ‘The sky is falling in; it is a terrible place to live, in Alice Springs’. Then there were people, leaders, who said: ‘Actually, Alice Springs is not a terrible place to live; it is a wonderful place’. That, to me, galvanised what this debate is: there is one side attempting to say a certain group of people cannot run the Territory in terms of law and order issues because the sky is falling in and, therefore, do not vote for them; and another group of people showing leadership and saying that Alice Springs is a great place to live, no matter what side of politics you are on. People involved in that should really have a good look at themselves.
The CLP should be damned for attempting to gain votes through force rather than gaining votes for good government policy. The Clare Martin government has shown, in its short term in office, the ability to come up with good law and order public policy implemented by sound legislation.
The documentary Bowling for Columbine also describes the role of the media. The O’Sullivan Report singles out print media in the Northern Territory. I would ask members of this House and listeners in the Territory to turn to page 8 of the Executive Summary. Under Community Opinion, it says:
Yesterday, while the Attorney-General was delivering fantastic statistics for law and order issues in the Territory for us as a community, the member for Drysdale was yelling out across the Chamber: ‘No one believes you. No one believes you’. When you look at this independent O’Sullivan Report, he summarises in that paragraph that perceptions are vital to how people feel about law and order in their community. It goes on to say, when assessing community opinion:
below an acceptable standard;
on the increase and, in some cases, out of control, especially in Darwin …
We know that the statistics say that they are not:
there was a reported discernible and rising level of fear, resentment and strongly expressed anger at loss
of lifestyle and safe public space;
This is what it is about, Madam Speaker. I love this place; I love Darwin. I love the community of Darwin; I love the lifestyle I live. I do not have fear. As the member for Braitling showed in Alice Springs: they do not have fear for the place where they live. Well, I do not. However, we are creating this fear and we are going to be changing the make-up of Darwin and the communities of the Northern Territory through perception rather than what the reality is. If we create this fear and continue to fuel this fear, we will eventually change our lifestyle from easy going and known throughout the Territory as a great place to live. This is a danger; this is of concern to me.
In summary, the members of this House must deal in reality. If crime figures go down - great, fortunate for our lifestyles, fantastic. If they go up, we first must ask: why? And how do we come up with a good law and order policy that complements all aspects of crime reduction. I believe the report, on page 7 of the Executive Summary, adequately states current involvement. The good news was delivered in the Executive Summary, after all the concerns people had, the perceptions in the print media, and that generated by political parties, etcetera. This is what I still find powerful in our community – on top of page 8, the first paragraph:
So we still, in this environment, have a committed police force.
The previous CLP government have let down the police force and the wider community. They have failed for a number of reasons: their inability to manage budgets over the last decade; their inability to implement necessary changes for improving the police force; and their lack of leadership that would lead to the public believing that the police force, as one of the key vehicles to deal with law and order issues, is doing a good job. In contrast, the Martin Labor government has managed the budget in an open and accessible manner; had the foresight and ability to introduce a blueprint for the future of the police force; and good law and order public policy that works.
Finally, Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister has shown the leadership to say: ‘Let us deal with the facts, the reality of what is causing crime’. Let us attack causes of crime. One of the key foundations to our ability to attack crime is the police force and its relationship with the community. I commend this report and I commend the Police minister’s response to this report.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the O’Sullivan Report commissioned by the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. Prior to the granting of self-government in 1978, government administration in the Northern Territory had some of the trappings of colonial rule. Policing was no exception, and outback police were expected to - and did in many cases - conduct themselves with the residents of remote locations and communities as a vanguard representative of the mainstream Australian society and its British head of state.
From 1978 onwards, the Territory has been developing a sense of identity in its own right, and even remote community members have come to view the presence in their areas of permanent police officers has benefits and entitlement flowing from citizenship, rather than encroachment by the agents of the distant and culturally alien sovereign.
Progress towards inclusion of Aboriginal people in remote communities into the policing process generally has been slow and gradual. A big change and break what the colonial vestiges of our past was the replacement of the position at each bush station, designated for the black tracker, with the Aboriginal Community Police Officer positions. ACPOs are now an established part of the policing scene here in the Northern Territory, but there is still further work to be done.
As outlined in the Executive Summary of the O’Sullivan Report:
One area which I have attempted to make known, is the concerns of community leaders from my own electorate; and that is in relation to the organised distribution and sale of cannabis. This trade is an adjunct to, and mostly dependent on, the trade that is undertaken in the urban centres and, to that extent at least, there is a link.
Other speakers will mention issues covered by Mr O’Sullivan that relate more specifically to the urban centres. I want to concentrate on two main areas: the first is the upgrading of conventional police resources in remote communities; for example, the number of fully-trained sworn police officers, appropriately constructed and equipped police station building, and appropriate residential accommodation and remote area staff conditions. The second is the development of the ACPO training program into one which will aggressively and effectively encourage and assist those ACPOs with the skills and motivation to move, in a staged and gradual way, toward employment as fully-fledged conventional police officers.
What does the O’Sullivan Report say in relation to additional resources for bush community station? The Executive Summary of the O’Sullivan Report acknowledged problems both with the standard of police officer housing and with the adequacy of law enforcement equipment. Obviously, in order for police at bush stations to function effectively, they need to have proper housing provided to them, and also to have access to law enforcement equipment that is reasonably up-to-date and in good working order. The comments I have referred to are as follow:
I welcome the focus that the O’Sullivan Report brings to the need of upgrading of police housing and equipment in remote community stations throughout the Territory, as will those officers who work under those extreme conditions and persevere daily without those in remote bush communities.
In the context of its audits of assessed needs of the Northern Territory Police force, the O’Sullivan Report - and I will quote from the Executives Summary - includes in its list of assessed needs the following:
The statement from the minister which we have heard confirms the Martin government’s commitment to funding and carrying out the implementation of the recommendations of the O'Sullivan Report, including the recommendations regarding the recruitment of additional regular police and 28 extra ACPOs. I have every confidence that a fair proportion of the proposed extra regular police will be allocated to bush areas, and hope and expect that police numbers in my own electorate will be enhanced.
Police housing and equipment shortcomings are to be addressed. The most pleasing and innovative policy announcement to my mind is the following, which I am quoting from the minister’s speech:
That was probably the most pleasing thing to hear. I know from going around my own electorate, minister, those ACPOs who have done it hard for many years certainly welcome that. From my own direct experience and from talking to people, I cannot express just how important such entitlements are to Aboriginal people and those ACPOs who have been working in such difficult and trusted positions in their own communities. It is just not a matter of substantive material benefit and wellbeing - although these things are extremely important - it is also a matter of pride and self-esteem.
A further issue to be addressed as I sum up, which probably, from my point of view as an indigenous female member of this government, is that we constantly look at, talk about, and read about the unacceptable levels of violence in our communities. When we look at most of this violence, it is afflicted upon our young women and children. There is an urgent need to address the gender balance in the staffing of remote area police stations. The under-reporting of sexual assaults on indigenous females living in remote communities is not uncommon. Most of this under-reporting is due to the fact that most of these young indigenous women and children are uncomfortable, apart from the many cultural, community and family pressures, and will not go to the police stations and report these incidents, as most remote bush stations are staffed by male officers. Although these men are sympathetic, it is not appropriate. If I was to put it in a context of a female or a child who has been badly raped in an urban centre, these women and children would have access - or most victims of this crime - to sexual assault units which are appropriately staffed by female officers. In most cases, female police officers are called in to take the required statements of the victim.
I urge the O’Sullivan implementation team to look at this vital area which has been neglected for a long time, because this is an issue in a lot of our remote communities, particularly to the women.
I commend the minister for his statement and the commissioning of the O’Sullivan Report. The minister and our government will deliver on our promise to all Territorians, regardless of where you live. The minister has acted with certainty, and in the most comprehensive way possible, to a problem that was continually pushed under the carpet by the previous government. I commend the minister’s statement and report to the House.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I give my support to the minister in his introduction of the O’Sullivan Report. I have had to rearrange my contribution slightly after listening to the member for Arafura’s comments.
I received last night from my mother-in-law in Queensland an article out of the Courier Mail. It is dated 4 October 2003. The column is entitled ‘Saturday View’ by Tony Koch entitled Where Racism is Alive and Well:
That was from Queensland. That was not from the Chief Minister of this Assembly. That was not from the Labor Police minister. That was not written by the member for Sanderson. This was an article in the Courier Mail of less than a week ago. To think that the O’Sullivan Report is not being noted in other jurisdictions and by other Australians is to be sticking your head in the sand. That is how critical this report, and the timeliness of this report, is to the Territory; that we should be lambasted and our reputation as good citizens of this country should be held up and mocked in other states and jurisdictions because of the practices that went before, is a shocking indictment.
Let me say that, to get the O’Sullivan Report going, it does take leadership. It takes a strong minister to get in there and argue hard in Cabinet to get that money, because there are many pressing priorities which this government has to comes to grips with, and the neglect that has been dealt to the community over 26 years of CLP rule.
The Leader of the Opposition had a go at me yesterday about looking backwards. Well, you cannot help but look backwards to know where you are today. You have to look backwards so you do not repeat the failures of the past and keep on repeating them into the future. I take him to task on that comment because he has to own up; he has to take ownership and stop this denial of what went before, because what went before is what we are dealing with now.
I also take great exception to his choice of shadow Police minister. I will tell you why I take exception to that – and I am talking specifically about the member for Macdonnell. Not being one to plagiarise, to have them come in and say: ‘Look, you are plagiarising all over the place’. This is from the Eighth Assembly, First Session, 10 August 1999, Parliamentary Record No 8, Condolence Motion. It is Mr Elferink’s contribution and a part thereof. This is the person who has been anointed by the Opposition Leader as the shadow Police minister. I want you to remember what was in the paper there, in the Courier Mail of last week. I quote from the member for Macdonnell:
I do not think I have to go into Greek mythology to get the meaning of what the sword of Damocles means. We understand fully what the member for Macdonnell was saying here:
In defence? The guy has already suffered the injury, he is out in hospital, and it is in defence:
Not good enough with one incident:
Truly, Sergeant Huitson was a magnificent police officer:
Well, it leaves me breathless. Here is a person who has admitted to wanting to go in and brutalise a whole community of Aboriginal people. This is a man whose electorate, predominantly - the majority, the overwhelming majority - are Aboriginal people. These are his words, they are not mine; I am not reading them out of context. These are incidents which go right to the core of this man’s feelings for that segment of our population. This is the man who would be police minister.
The Opposition Leader has been found by people in Queensland to have racist views, and this can only go to substantiate those views. Frankly, the people of the Territory are fed up with this sort of divisiveness in the community. The Opposition Leader needs to be taken to task for dragging us through the mud in Queensland, and he needs the sack! Actually, he should be reported. The Opposition Leader should have a good look at that and a good talk to him and say: ‘Look, member for Macdonnell, you ought to go to the police talk to them about this, and see whether charges should be laid’, because that is a threat; an implied action that he was going to take. I am absolutely astounded that the Opposition Leader, who was then Chief Minister, never referred that to the DPP for investigation. That is the credibility that the opposition brings to managing our police force.
When we talk about history, I have a little involvement as a person living in the northern suburbs. I came to town in 1985. I had my first break-in in 1988 in Ludmilla. I lost a microwave and a TV. The police turned up and they dusted the louvres, but I never heard anything further from them. Then I moved from Ludmilla to Millner and - you would not credit it! - I got rolled again. This time, they got my …
Mr Bonson interjecting.
Mr KIELY: Yes, this time they got my Vita-Weat biscuits, my Vegemite and my little money jar and everything. The police came around and had a look at the break, but I never heard anything more. I had a bit of a lull then. It was 1996 when my wife parked her car at Malak near the Malak shops, and four kiddies came by and saw her bag on the front seat, put a brick through the window and stole her bag. It had $10 in it. The car window cost us $180 to fix. That was in 1996, I think it was.
The funny story about that one is that I phoned up the police at Casuarina station. I arrived and asked her: ‘Have you phoned the police?’. She said: ‘Yes, but they are not coming out; they said: “Just come down and report it”’. I said: ‘Well, this is not good enough’. So I phoned the police and got the front desk and said: ‘Look, give me the OIC, will you?’; so they gave me the OIC. Those who know me would not think this action is out of kilter with my personality. I said: ‘Look mate, what is going on here? We have the car broken into. We have the brick here and it has probably got fingerprints on it. How about getting out and doing your job?’ You know what the response was? ‘Tell it to your MLA; we do not have the resources’. That was back in 1996.
To that particular officer, let me say that I am now the MLA, and I have passed that information on - and we are doing something about it! Actually on that advice, albeit it has taken seven years to act on it, we are moving on it. Congratulations for that advice from that far-seeing officer. However, that was the state of resources back then.
Then in 1999, I had the house in Wulagi and that was broken into. The police came around, dusted - no, nothing; nothing after that. In 2000, my wife went to work and parked her car under the security lights in the RDH. Well, you would not guess what happened, would you? Someone came along, could not start the car, so they busily lifted the roof and started to strip the motor. My wife is hard-working …
Mr Henderson: You were having a bad run.
Mr KIELY: No, I did not have a hard run; this is what goes on in this place. The security guards at RDH managed to grab one person. The police did not come down; they did not have the resources to get there. ‘Take his name’, they said to the RDH people, ‘We will check our files and see whether or not he has done it before and get back to you’. Well, you can imagine, I was down on their doorstep on Saturday morning, suitably impressed with that level of service.
The point is that the level of service that Territorians were getting from the police at that stage - and I do not put it down to police as their problem because the resources were just that terrible. They were just that shocking that they could not do a thing. For the Opposition Leader to say: ‘What are you doing about it?’ and ‘Do not drag up the history’, well I have some personal history involved in all that. I will drag it up and tell everyone because we, as a Labour government under the good guidance of the Police minister, the member for Wanguri - he has gone in there and fought hard and what is he doing? Well, now we will talk about the future, won’t we? He has $75m so that people like me will not call up and say: ‘Could you send someone down?’ ‘No, sorry, talk to your local MLA’. There will be no more of that business going on.
We have $75m. We are going to get 200 more police by the end of 2006. We are going to recruit and train a maximum number of constables - 120 each year; double the number of constables entering the police force. There will be more Territorians recruited to the NT Police force - that is a wonderful initiative. There will be more police back to core policing duties. This is what they want: more police patrols. People of my area have good relationships with the NT Police. We have a very active community. We get police patrols down there during the Dry on pushbikes. We have them coming through the suburbs. I have not been broken into at home since Labor come into power. How’s that? I do not have a sign up: ‘Do not touch. MLA’s office’, on the front door. However, you would not credit this!: my neighbours and my friends have not been broken into. By gee! Not a bad run, I reckon.
In all seriousness - and I have been told about my quirkiness before today - there are people still having their houses broken into. That leads me on to another point, and that is about community opinion. In an assessment of Resource Requirements Executive Summary, there is one paragraph under Community Opinion which says:
Perhaps 12 months ago or even a little longer, I went and saw a movie called Bowling for Columbine. I believe everyone should go and see that because it covers public perception and the manipulation of the media to change public perception. It particularly showed how African-American crime is reported more than non-African/American crime in the United States, and just how it is all a big beat-up and hype, and how it was manipulated.
We have a problem out there that is being addressed. We do a lot in my community, and I dare say other MLAs do also. We have had community forums on crime prevention within the local school precincts and invited community members; did flyers out there. I have conducted community surveys on perceptions on what is going on in the community, and what are the areas that need addressing - and community public safety did get a big run. But, it is a perception of it. We have a very active Neighbourhood Watch going in our electorate. I get out and doorknock and talk to people on the doors and see what is happening. It is not information I keep to myself - I feed it back into government. I also talk to my local police and say: ‘These are the things I have picked up in the community’. It is not a matter of going to the police and saying: ‘I want you to do this, I want you to do that’ because, clearly, MLAs cannot do that and should not do that. MLAs, in police eyes, are just another citizen. But as one other citizen, I make sure that I communicate to police things that are happening in my area. I extol that virtue, or that way of doing business, to all MLAs in this House. We are there to serve the public. We probably gather more information than the police do on different things, and we can pass that on and help with policing our neighbourhood.
I would like to say to everyone here, and to any media people who are listening: our safety and our community – there are good places to live. We probably have a better community safety record than they have in the streets of Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. It does not do anyone any favours in the Territory to talk up crime. If you are going to be critical of the government, be critical of the government; that is opposition’s role and we welcome it. However, do not sensationalise, or talk it up. The police are doing a good job. They do not need us bagging them in here in parliament in veiled ways. The public does not benefit in any way whatsoever by us running around in our Chicken Little guise and saying: ‘The sky is falling, the sky is falling’. So. let us talk it up. Let us get it accurate. That is it. You do not even have to talk it up; let us get it accurate.
Madam Speaker, the O'Sullivan Report is a timely report. It is a report that is being acted upon. I give my full support to the Police Commissioner. I commend him and the team of the police executive who are getting in there, and also the constables on the ground, many whom live in Wulagi, Anula, and are friends of mine. I do not have to go to a sausage sizzle; I see them around every day. They are doing a fabulous job. They have my full support and they know they can always come to me and have a chat about any issue. With that as my passing remark, the statement is fabulous and the actions that are following on from it are just simply wonderful.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that debate on the statement be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, today I announce to the House this government’s delivery of a major election commitment: to protect the mangroves of Darwin Harbour.
I have just formally approved amendments to the Darwin, Litchfield, East Arm, Palmerston and Darwin Rural town plans, which zone all mangroves for conservation. This means that all these areas shown in green on this zoning map - and I table the map - now enjoy protection under the Planning Act. The effect of this amendment is, first, that development in the mangrove conservation zone is prohibited and second, that any clearing of mangroves will require the consent of the Development Consent Authority. Some minor exceptions exist for low impact activities such as public utilities and research centres being allowed with consent.
The total area of Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay rezoned conservation is now 46 516 hectares. Of this, over 26 000 hectares is mangroves with the rest comprising salt flats, mudflats, and fringing hinterland vegetation that grows below 4 metres Australia Height Datum, the landward limit of the conservation zone, and provides a non-mangrove barrier. This means that 96% of the mangrove communities of the harbour are now protected from development. The remaining 4% have either already been developed or are required for already planned development, such as the East Arm and Middle Arm. However, even on Middle Arm Peninsula over 4500 hectares of mangroves are now protected.
This significant amendment recognises the vital role that mangroves play in ecosystem services. They are the lungs of our harbour.
The mangroves of Darwin Harbour comprise the most floristically diverse contiguous tracts of mangrove forest in the Northern Territory. The great majority of mangrove communities in Darwin Harbour are largely intact and in excellent conditions. Our mangroves and our harbour are in splendid shape, and this planning amendment will ensure they stay the way they are.
This proposed amendment to the Planning Scheme went through a rigorous public process under the Planning Act, and I am quite sure that this will make a lot of people a lot happier with planning and development around the harbour. Some members of the House and of the wider community may have observed that the amendment I have just approved differs a little from what was exhibited. I shall explain the difference and the process that led to that decision.
The amendments as exhibited, while the wording varied slightly across the five town plans being amended, generally proposed two new control clauses to be introduced to the town plans. One of these was that the clearing of mangroves within zone 03 is only permitted with the consent of the authority. The other was that despite anything to the contrary, aquaculture may be developed in zone 03 with the consent of the authority.
At the same time, the zoning table for the conservation zones were amended to prohibit most uses and to allow only a small range of low intensive uses to be developed, with the consent of the DCA. However, it was an option to allow aquaculture in the mangrove zone, albeit with consent, which concerned a significant number of people who made submissions.
This proposal to amend the town plans of the five planning areas that surround Darwin Harbour went on public exhibition from 31 January to 14 March this year. This extended exhibition period recognised the importance that communities place on mangroves, and gave the public plenty of opportunity to make submissions. Fifteen submissions were received in that time, including one from each of the five affected councils.
I then appointed a panel comprising members of the Darwin, Palmerston and Litchfield divisions of the Development Consent Authority, to conduct the required hearing in relation to this amendment to the NT Planning Scheme. The hearing was held on 23 May, and the panel provided me with a report on the hearing for my consideration. While the DCA report is not generally made public, I am happy to state that the authority supported the proposal to amend the town plans.
The element of the proposed amendment which allowed aquaculture to be development with the consent of the DCA caused major concerns for many who made submissions. I had concerns with that aspect. While I would in no way want to discourage or prevent innovative aquaculture ventures from establishing in the NT, I had concerns about the compatibility of such developments in a conservation zone of mangroves. I sought further advice on this matter. For the benefit of the House, and to provide a rationale for my decision to prohibit aquaculture, I will summarise the advice.
The Fisheries Group of the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development are, understandably, keen to retain as many options as possible for future development, though do not support the clearing of mangroves for aquaculture. Many of the preferred aquaculture sites are on tidal flats near mangroves and would require access to the mangroves for a 3 m-wide pipe or a 7 m-wide channel. Low intensity aquaculture activities such as growing mud crabs, do need to be located in mangroves.
A mangrove fact sheet produced recently by the Australian Prawn Farmers Association comments that:
On balance, I consider the need to protect and conserve mangroves to be compelling. Innovative aquaculture developments subject to a rigorous environmental assessment process will still be encouraged in the Territory, but without sacrificing mangroves.
The amendment to the Planning Scheme that I am, therefore, announcing today differs from the version that was publicly exhibited and prohibits aquaculture in the mangrove conservation zone. All existing aquaculture developments are unaffected by this amendment, as are those which already have development permits or which are to be located in areas zoned other than conservation. The Planning Act provides that protection for existing users.
On 25 September, I approved another amendment to the Planning Scheme, one which introduced new zones to accommodate major industrial projects and infrastructure development. That amendment was a critical part of government’s strategic commitment to long-term economic growth by identifying and setting aside suitable sites for future major development. That amendment also limited development on Middle Arm, other than the LNG plant, to non-gas-based development. This latest amendment, conserving the mangrove communities of Darwin Harbour, provides the critical balance to that decision. We are committed to achieving a sensible and workable balance between development and environmental sustainability, and giving formal protection to the mangroves is very tangible evidence of that commitment.
Of course, this is a significant improvement to the actions of previous governments who promoted urban and industrial development, but failed to provide the environmental balance to the appropriate development equation. For example, development of Middle Arm Peninsula for industrial uses has been a public commitment of previous governments since the early 1980s, first appearing in strategic planning documents in the Darwin Region Structure Plan in 1984. There has been no similar commitment to environmental protection. Mangroves, and indeed any and all other vegetation communities, could be cleared without approval, with no public notification and with no controls; an inadequate level of protection which we are now addressing.
Zoning the mangroves of Darwin Harbour for conservation is solid evidence that this government recognises the value of our harbour, its wealth of natural, cultural, recreational and environmental resources, as well as its importance to the Territory’s economic development. Darwin Harbour is a splendid asset. Protecting the mangroves is just one element of our strategic approach to the use and management of Darwin Harbour.
While the harbour and its catchment encompass a range of distinctive and special environments that require protection, the region is subject to pressures and conflicts of use, which present a major challenge to government, industry and the community. An election commitment of this government included a plan of management to protect the values and uses of Darwin Harbour and its catchment.
In August 2002, I appointed the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee, chaired by John Bailey, to oversee the development of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. An extensive process of consultation took place as an integral part of the development of this plan. For the first phase of consultation, the committee organised and ran public presentations, workshops, forums, hearings and submissions. During this first round of consultation, 47 submissions were received and over 170 people attended public presentations and workshops over three days. A number of forums were also held in regions throughout the catchment during February 2003, including Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield Shire and Cox Peninsula. This information culminated in the development of the first draft of the plan, which I released for public comment in August 2003. The final consultation phase for the draft Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management closed on 30 September. The committee is currently assessing submissions received during the latest consultation period, and I expect a report from them in November. This government is committed to making further provisions for public participation in planning decisions, and the process adopted by the advisory committee in formulating the plan has been exemplary.
Given the importance of the Darwin Harbour, the allocation of considerable resources to the process was warranted. An extensive range of valuable reference documents has resulted from the process, and they will inform our management decisions into the future. The Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management will deliver a sound framework for managing and enhancing our valuable harbour and catchment into the future. Though still in draft form, its overriding principle will not change. The Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management is to ‘ensure development is in line with the protection of ecosystems, and the maintenance of the harbour’s value as a recreational, cultural, commercial and scenic resource’. The plan will provide a basis for achieving an integrated decision-making process and planning outcomes consistent with the Marine and Coastal Management Policy and ecologically sustainable development.
Madam Speaker, this government is tackling head on the vexing matter of how to balance economic development and providing jobs and employment for our citizens, leaving behind a natural legacy for our children and future generations to enjoy. It is not an easy task striking a balance between competing interests and many pressures and conflicts, but it is a critical one, and one in which the main stakeholders, the community, need to be heavily involved. For Darwin Harbour, it means adopting, in the words of the committee, a robust yet adaptive management framework. The first element of that framework has just been put in place; the mangroves of Darwin Harbour have been protected, and this will provide a magnificent legacy for future generations of Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I place on the record some of my observations and comments in relation to the protection of mangroves in Darwin Harbour, of the statement which the minister just parroted onto the record. I …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In parliamentary language, I advise the honourable member that it is the opposition that is demanding of government that we actually read ministerial statements word for word. That is the opposition position that we have acceded to. If they do not want us to ‘parrot’ statements, then we are quite happy to come here without documented pre-prepared speeches that are circulated beforehand. I would ask the member to withdraw his comments.
Madam SPEAKER: It was an unfortunate use of words. The purpose of ministerial statements is for them to be actually read as a statement so that people can have them in advance and comment on them. Your choice of words was probably most unfortunate.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, perhaps the point I am making is - I am slightly aggravated by a cold - but I could not actually understand what he was saying. I just hope that what he said is word-for-word similar to …
Madam SPEAKER: Well, you have the statement and that is what people usually follow from this time.
Mr MALEY: Yes. It may not be his fault; it may be the acoustics - who knows? But just on the record that it is very difficult for anyone to understand what this particular minister said in terms of …
Mr Vatskalis: Not for everyone.
Ms Scrymgour: Are you saying anyone with an accent …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, that is why the statement is distributed the night before.
Mr MALEY: I am not having a go at you, I am just saying that as a fact. Some of the journos say the same.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you like to get on with your response? A good idea.
Mr MALEY: Some of the journos say exactly the same.
Madam Speaker, the Darwin Harbour and its surrounding environs certainly is the crowning glory of Darwin. A lot of people say Katherine region is the jewel of the Territory. Well, ultimately, Darwin Harbour really is the crown, which a lot of people - especially first-time visitors to the Territory - really appreciate: the fact that we have a harbour in such pristine condition on our doorstep, and they can go down to Crustaceans on the Wharf and sit there; they can go on a boat and they can see this relatively untouched, unspoiled natural treasure.
The harbour, of course, is not just a significant environmental treasure, it also has a significant historical value for the Northern Territory. It has survived being bombed - it is a place where there are war graves – and it has survived a number of cyclones. It was also a source of food for the early settlers, which included, of course, those at Southport, which was one of the original settlements of Darwin, at the Blackmore River. There are a number of quarter-acre blocks where you can see the amount of infrastructure that was there. From the historical records, the meeting of the Blackmore and the Darwin Rivers was the place where these people fished, and they crabbed all through the harbour.
Closer to our time, of course, the Darwin Harbour is probably the place where the most amateur fishing effort is concentrated. That is obvious for two reasons. First of all, it is close to the populous in Darwin, and it is a good fishing spot. The reason that it is such a good fishing spot is significantly and partly to do with the fact that there are so many mangroves - the lungs of this marine environment; they clean out impurities. It is also the place where lots of bait fish breed and grow and, eventually, attract the larger predatory fish, which then attract, of course, the larger predatory Homo sapiens in their tinnies, and the armies of people who go fishing there on the weekends.
I am a regular fisherman in the Darwin Harbour environs - not as much as my brother; he goes all the time. It is a great spot and, unlike probably most of the members on the other side, the real locals are familiar with it and go fishing there at least a few times a year.
The ministerial statement, in its present form is, I suppose, in a nutshell – well, I am going to make a couple of points: the statement is probably the position which the CLP government would have arrived at, having regard to the process which has been occurring over the past 14 years. There is no doubt about that.
There is a huge volume of material which is available on the public record. There is a fairly comprehensive Managing Darwin Harbour and its Catchment, a summary of Northern Territory government initiatives that came out in the year 2000. There has been a number of press releases, and a number of ministerial statements in this House from learned ministers who have been in the Territory longer than five minutes, unlike the current minister. If you read what the previous ministers have said, the sentiment of what is contained in today’s statement is well and truly contained in those previous statements: the one by the then minister, Tim Baldwin and another one by the then minister, Hon Mike Reed. Mike Reed gave his statement in 1996 and minister Baldwin gave his statement regarding beneficial uses the year prior to the election.
Most of the ministerial statement which we heard today really confirms that the harbour is in very good condition. It is pristine. There have been 300 studies, and careful consideration of the uses associated with the harbour And credit where credit is due; there is no way the harbour would be in such good condition if it was not for the careful management which the CLP looked after for 27 years.
Mr Wood: What about Bayview?
Mr MALEY: I heard about Bayview; yes. It is a working harbour and, as the ministerial statement …
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: As the minister quite properly says, it is about ensuring a balance and that there is a sound framework. just what the minister said today: ‘… for managing and enhancing a valuable harbour and catchment in the future’. The minister quite rightly says that on the second last page of his statement:
That is on the second last page of his ministerial statement from today.
Effectively, what has occurred is that there is a small fringe of mangroves - and there is a map attached to the back of the statement - which now falls within this rezoned area, zoned conservation. There is a map, albeit it is not a precise map. I notice there are some gaps, but I assume in due course …
Mr Wood: They are the bits that are not being saved.
Mr MALEY: Yes, well perhaps that is right. I appreciate the contribution from the member for Nelson. Perhaps the gaps are the bits that are not being saved. I look forward to the minister perhaps making available a more comprehensive map where we can go through it in a bit more detail because, fairly obviously – I know there is a couple of spots up towards Shoal Bay where there are lots of mangroves, and the green does not actually extend there. I know it is an A4 document and it is imprecise in its nature and it is probably only a guide, but it is something that the minister might like to consider later on.
I have contacted the minister’s office with a view to getting a briefing on the area. I understand someone from his office has already contacted my electorate office and we will probably make that arrangement after this sittings. That briefing will probably pertain to some of the information which will be fairly useful, particularly to those people in my electorate who live close to or have a real interest in the mangroves in that particular area.
The only criticism I am going to make is one which really smacks of political opportunism on the part of the Labor government. Prior to the election, the Darwin Harbour, the proposed weir, Weddell and the damming of the Elizabeth River were issues which were projected onto the public consciousness. I am not armed with the precise Labor Party pamphlets. Perhaps my learned friend, the minister, can correct this, but there was certainly a perception that the Labor government was championing the position of protecting these mangroves, of making the Darwin Harbour some sort of reserve - the term ‘reserve’ was used - and stroking that section of the community which was in favour of making it a national park or having some sort of more permanent protection over the harbour - and not just the mangroves, but all of it. That was the image, and certainly a part of the election promises made.
I will say it this way: there was a reasonable expectation created in the general electorate that the Labor government would, if they secured power - and they did - move to make the harbour a reserve, protect the mangroves and go along that line.
What we see today is that, if you drill down into it, it certainly does not go that far. Credit where credit is due: there is a new conservation zone which is that thin skirting of mangroves around the edge, and Shoal Bay and the like. However, I do not think, in fairness, the minister can trapeze into here and say this satisfies the expectation created in the wider community to create a reserve, to protect it because, ultimately - and the minister concedes this in his prepared statement - it is a zone; you can make and application to the Development Consent Authority and, if you can persuade them, they could make an exception and, of course, development will and can continue. I am not saying that is bad; I am just saying it is different from the impression which was created.
It is really an attempt, in my view, to mislead Territory people. There might be the odd young journalist that the Labor Party will massage and say: ‘This is a huge step’, but I suspect that the journalists are waking up to you. You can be assured that they are drilling a bit deeper into these things; they are talking to some of the stakeholders and to the opposition. They are reading the documents for themselves. It is fairly obvious - and not just with this minister - the type of political spin-doctoring that has been occurring in the current Labor government is being closely scrutinised. I do not think this one will go through to the keeper as easily as the minister would like to think.
This ministerial statement contains absolutely nothing new. Well, I withdraw that; that is probably a bit unfair. There are a couple of small steps but it seems there was a process that was being followed, and the process started over a decade ago. When I read the ministerial statement prepared by minister Baldwin regarding the beneficial users, some of the statements that were made by the previous government - I was not part of the previous government - are common sense. A lot of them are mirrored in a general way in today’s statement. Things like, in former minister Baldwin’s statement:
Then the statement goes through the issues. The government of the day acknowledged the fact that Darwin Harbour is a world class attraction, that there had been, at that stage, 230 individual studies on the harbour, its surrounds and the greater catchment area. The statement went on to say that there was going to be a full and open public participation process. I am paraphrasing from the statement, where issues such as aquatic ecosystem protection and recreational and aesthetic protection were addressed. There was a real aim to make sure that these beneficial uses were enshrined in legislation to assist in providing some guidance for future development and use of the Darwin Harbour.
I suppose the rezoning of the mangroves is really taking the last couple of steps in that process in relation to those mangroves.
The statement went on and actually talked about - I read it from here, there is a fair chunk of it - dealing with mangroves. Unlike today’s ministerial statement, which is probably aimed at grabbing a headline and persuading some young journalist that they have satisfied some promise, the previous ministerial statements were peppered with a lot more scientific detail. It seems, from a lay person reading this material for the first time, that the previous ministers were coming from a position of making an informed decision, as opposed to trying to massage the real facts into some sort of misleading press statement to persuade some young journalist that the expectation that was created by the Labor government prior to the last election has been reached.
Well, I said at the beginning that this statement and the zoning of those mangroves is something which the process which was commenced over a decade ago was invariably going to come to. It is certainly not …
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: It is certainly not the reserve, which is fair enough - I know you have to do your job and you have to balance it all. It is certainly not the reserve or the marine park - which were some of the phrases that were bandied about prior to the election, certainly by your candidate in my electorate – or making the harbour into a park. The harbour is a working harbour, and it is acknowledged in this statement; there are lots of competing uses. This is a step in making sure that we can all have the use of the harbour; we can all have access to it. There will be some prawn farming with some impact there; there is pearl farming that goes on.
Madam Speaker, in essence, the statement contains no new vision on our harbour. It is probably aimed at misleading the green movement. Those of the Environment Centre have criticised it for not going far enough. Well, they are onto you; they reckon you have not gone far enough. I am not saying go as far as they are saying, I am saying that what you are doing, I reckon is about reasonable. You cannot take the high ground and say: ‘Look, this is something that the CLP would not have done’. Any reasonable, right-minded, thinking government would come to some of the conclusions that are contained in here. That is all I intend to say.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, perhaps I need to remind the member for Goyder that four dams in Darwin Harbour and two dams on Bynoe Peninsula was the recommendation of a previous Lands and Planning Minister, Mr Manzie, in the document Darwin Regional Land Use Strategy Plan. As much as I hope the opposition has now re-thought its attitudes to the harbour, I am afraid I live with the nightmares of many years fighting to protect the harbour and the Elizabeth River dam with much blood, sweat and tears from community people. I do not think the opposition can entirely pat itself on the back for that either, because it requires the community to get governments to do things - including the opposition – and say: ‘This dam would kill 1000 hectares of mangroves’. It was the beginning of the change, and I congratulate the government, who are at least now in government, for protecting the mangroves of Darwin Harbour.
However, that does not mean that is where it stops. I support the protection of Darwin Harbour and I also support development of the Darwin Harbour. But that development has to be essential, and I do not regard marinas, as in Bayview, as an essential reason to disturb and destroy mangroves. I am on record as saying I agree with the LNG plant at Wickham Point, and that LNG plant has certainly destroyed some mangroves. I made it clear that the reason I gave support to the LNG plant was access to deep water. That is why you have a harbour, so a ship can come in, and some industries are going to require access.
The changes by the minister in protecting the mangroves have at last turned things on their head. Over many years, if there was a development application, the mangroves had to fight, you might say, to prove that they should not be destroyed. In other words, development had the priority. Now, at least, development has to show that it needs to destroy the mangroves. The mangroves, at last, have some protection and priority when it comes to development applications.
As I said before: please, government, do not pat yourself on the back, because you are a little short-sighted if you say that, just by putting a line around the mangroves, you are protecting the mangroves. Mangroves do not live isolated lives; they are affected by other activities. They are susceptible to pressures from development and the government has, unfortunately, decided to put these pressures back on to the mangroves. Middle Arm Peninsula, as you know – I was not going to get up here and let you go without Middle Arm Peninsula - is a classic example of where you are going to put pressures on the harbour. You are allowing two-thirds of the available land in Middle Arm Peninsula to be mined. You are literally ripping the guts out of the harbour. Some of that development has occurred right on the boundaries of the mangroves.
Minister – I know the Minister for DBIRD is here; thank you for your good map – this map shows the mining tenements in the whole of the Litchfield Shire. The main area for extractive mining was actually up here. It is the area I have asked you to come and visit as an alternative site for developing industry in the middle of the harbour. Your departments have allowed 19 mining tenements in the middle of the harbour. If you go over there presently, they are literally ripping tonnes and tonnes of gravel, of all things. We are not talking about titanium or something that is great for the national interest; we are talking about gravel which you can get anywhere. We are ripping the guts of the harbour out and dumping it in the port; as simple as that. So to fill in the port, we are wrecking another part of the harbour. To me, that is crazy.
If you get the aerial photographs, you will see development around the Elizabeth River Bridge. Some of the early mines were right down to the edge of the mangroves, which is a classic example of how to kill mangroves. Erosion will go across the roots of the mangroves and kill them. There are other examples. I have been down there where the wetlands were scraped right next to the mangroves. That is so short-sighted. When you say: ‘We are going to protect it’, let us protect it.
Here is a recent example, similar to the example I showed before. This is a mining application in the paper about a month ago. Here is the Channel Island Bridge; here is the Elizabeth River. This mining application actually goes over the mangroves and into the water. I realise the mining people do not necessarily do that, but what message does that send anyone? This area here is already destroyed. Go and have a look for yourself; it is destroyed right to the mangroves. Those mangroves are now at risk. There is no attempt in this area - because the government wants to put industry here afterwards - to rehabilitate.
Therefore, minister, when you get up and say: ‘We have cut a section off the Darwin Harbour, we have declared an open conservation zone over the mangroves’, in isolation, that is no good. You have to protect what is behind the mangroves, what will, in actual fact, kill the mangroves.
Minister, you stated in your statement today that the government will fill this land up with industry, as long as it is non-gas development. So what? If it is going to be industrial, it is going to be industrial - industrial development that does not need to be there. If it is industrial development – forget whether it has nothing to do with gas – it will pollute. It will simply pollute because it has run-off from it. Go to Winnellie; you will get pollution there, and that pollution will affect the mangroves.
Minister, you say that the idea of putting industry in there relates to the 1984 Darwin Region Structure Plan. I have a copy of this document and, when I read the introduction to this document by Marshall Perron, who then was the Minister for Lands, he said:
It is a 19-year-old document and even the Darwin Land Use Structure Plan says something similar:
Minister, these documents are nothing to hang your head on. If you believe these documents are the way your government should go, then you believe that we should have the Elizabeth River dam. It is in here …
Mr Henderson: Wrong, wrong!
Mr WOOD: It is in here. Those documents state that we should have the dam. This document says …
Mr Henderson: We will not dam the Elizabeth River.
Mr WOOD: I am using an argument that, if it is good enough for 1984 documents to have industry in the middle of the harbour, then I would say by all means support four dams in Darwin Harbour and two in Bynoe; because this document states it and this document definitely supports the Elizabeth River dam.
What I am saying is these are dynamic documents which were used as a means to back up an argument. I would just as easily move to say that these documents are dynamic. These documents have never been discussed in public – that is thoroughly. This document states in its foreword that this was done in a hurry for the Kenbi land claim. The public have never had a chance.
I believe – and I might be wrong and you can tell me I am wrong – the Labor Party was going to look at reviewing this document which is now 13 years old. We are still talking about putting industry in the middle of the harbour without reviewing this document. I would love to see the government put this document up for public discussion. It would be an ideal time before any industry is put in the middle of the harbour. And you might even consider a monitorium on any more mining in the harbour.
I have said that these plans were flawed and so is the concept of industrialisation of Middle Arm. It shows a lack of foresight and will and, in the end, will threaten the mangroves. Have a look how close the government has allowed development next to the mangroves in the East Arm industrial development area. It is an area hidden away from public scrutiny because there is no planning authority from the Development Consent Authority because, minister, you are the only one who makes those decisions. I say again that I believe there should be Development Consent Authority application for the East Arm development area so that the public can have a say on what happens there at a public meeting about.
I am still interested to know whether you will take up my offer to have a look at alternative sites because I can show you that there is land that is available, close to Darwin, that will not affect the mangroves. It is quite adequate for the amount of industry that you want to put in the middle of the harbour. It is sad if we do not go and look at that alternative. I hope you are not locked into thinking, because the bureaucrats have told you that that section of the land that I have spoken about – I do not know for whatever reason – is something that should not be looked at, and that you will at least keep an open viewpoint on alternatives to industry in the middle of the harbour.
I have had a look at the map and it is worth asking some questions about what is actually being preserved. The minister says he is rezoning 46 516 hectares of which 26 000 hectares is mangroves with the rest comprising salt flats, mudflats, infringing hinterland vegetation that grows below the 4 m AHD. However, minister, is this quite true? Where is the 4 m in the Woods Inlet, the West Arm, the Middle Arm and the Elizabeth River? Is it actually there? I am not so sure. I do not know whether the idea of 4 m is a very good idea in the first place.
If you have a fairly steep bank for the mangroves and you go to 4 m in actual width of land to buffer the mangroves, you probably have very little space. Maybe on a mudflat or on the wetland 4 m might mean 50 m. I am not sure that having a 4 m contour as a buffer is really the way you should go. Either have a distance, or ground truth it, so you can have a buffer that is actually related to what is on site. A similar process used to determine the distance development should occur close to wetlands is done by ground truthing. That is an inspection of the site to see what is adequate.
I would be interested to know why the mangroves between Tipperary Waters and the Bayview Estate are not being protected. I remember a previous Chief Minister, Shane Stone, saying that those mangroves would be protected after there was a meeting in Stuart Park of about 72 residents who asked that some of the mangroves be retained. I noticed on the map that there is no indication that those mangroves will be retained.
Also, why are the mangroves between Lee Point and Micket Creek not included? There is a little, but there is a big gap there. I imagine that the salt flats and the mangroves there need protecting. My other maps show that area to be mangroves, so I am not sure why that is missing.
The other interesting one is why is Rapid Creek not protected? I would have thought, of all places, Rapid Creek, because it was nearly the original home of the first marina and many a person fought over retaining the mangroves. That could be symbolic as a place to retain the mangroves. I was quite surprised that Rapid Creek, on this map, is not showing as being protected.
The other area that concerns me, and I have raised it before in parliament, is the headwaters of Hudson Creek. This is the land opposite Fairway Waters. On your industrial estates map and also your mangrove map - and it is fairly hard to see because of the small scale of the map - there is certainly an area where the mangroves are cut off in a very sharp manner as if something like a lock is going to be built there. I have raised it before, and I believe AFANT’s CEO, John Harrison, also raised it with me. When he asked some government people as to why this land here had no mangroves, he was told that, basically, that was being set aside for a marina because the mangroves were too close to Fairway Waters.
I do not know what is going on here, but this sounds awfully suspicious to me. It was meant to be industrial land. I do not know what this lock is for or what the proposed plans are. There are certainly a number of small blocks there. Is it a marina for a housing estate? Is it meant to be something for small ships? If it is for small ships, why aren’t we using this area set aside in East Arm for it in the first place?
They are just a couple of questions that need to be clarified. It is good to see that the minister has taken aquaculture out of the approved developments for mangroves. It was lunacy to have aquaculture in the mangroves. I understand that there has been some argument that we can set aside some areas for crabs, but we need to be looking at alternative ways of raising crabs if that is the case. The idea of having prawn farms in the acid sulphate muds, as a number of prawn farmers have discovered the hard way, is not the way to go. If you go to Middle Arm and have a look at the prawn farms there, some started off in the mangroves, but all the new ones have stayed out.
Minister, you also spoke about the proposed Darwin Harbour Management Plan. It is a great plan, and no doubt John Bailey and his committee have done a lot of great work on it. However, to have a management plan, you have to have something to manage. You need to say: This is what the harbour will look like’. But the government has no plan of its own except this 19-year-old plan. Without thinking, it keeps ripping the guts out of the harbour in the belief that, because it was proposed in 1984, then let us get it all ripped out and have industry. No thought of a national park, no thought of alternatives. ‘If it was okay in 1984, why should we query it now? The planners must have been right’.
So minister, thank you for your statement; it is good. It looks good but it does not tell the whole story. I have highlighted the failings in the hope that this government may change. I also hope you will come and have a look at the alternatives, because you are obviously convinced by the planners that they are right and I am wrong. I sometimes wonder if our ministers, our politicians, our bureaucrats really understand the beauty of the bush, our native vegetation and our wildlife. How many still walk through the bush, especially after a fire or after the rain? How many of our politicians or bureaucrats know where the middle of the harbour is to start with, and what they are destroying when they give permission to mine the Middle Arm Peninsula? How many of you know how much has been given over to mining? I would say very few.
Minister, when the Elizabeth River dam debate was raging, the Darwin Harbour Alliance put forward a plan to protect the harbour mangroves and still allow some development. This was to have a 100 m buffer of native vegetation around the edge of the mangroves, with perhaps another buffer of rural residential blocks backing on to the buffer. I have that map here, and I am fairly sure it went to your department. Sure, this is a reasonably conceptual map; it took a few dollars to get it together. The Darwin Harbour Alliance did not have a lot of money. It showed a longitudinal national park, that is basically what it was doing. It said to protect the mangroves, add 100 m of width behind it, and then perhaps allow some purely rural residential land - not developed land with mangoes and horses and cattle - against that. That was one option.
The funny thing is, that option was rejected, obviously. However, in this Litchfield Land Use Objectives, that is exactly the option you have used to protect the mangroves at the Shoal Bay Conservation Park. You have put a longitudinal section of eight hectare land to buffer the mangroves, and this is your own department. Why could you not do exactly the same for the mangroves in Darwin Harbour? Obviously, your government has not adopted this concept and, to be fair, I would prefer the middle of the harbour stay national park. There are other ways of developing the city. This concept of industry in the middle of the harbour was developed around the theory that Darwin would be developed right around the harbour. We know there is the Cox Peninsula land claim, and some of that development will probably more than likely not occur.
Therefore, is it not time the government re-thought this Darwin Regional Structure Plan, based on the premise - and this is what it was written for - that the Kenbi Land Claim has been successful; therefore, we need to rethink this document. The centre of the harbour may not be the centre of the city, therefore, does it have to be industrial? I do not believe we have asked enough questions …
Ms CARTER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would permit the member for Nelson from concluding his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I will be quick. Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
I believe we have to review this document. I believe we have to look at alternative sites for the development of our Darwin region. I do not believe we need to put it in the middle of the harbour. It is such a crying shame, and I hope to go up in a helicopter soon myself and get some photographs and show you what has happened to the middle of the harbour in the last five years. I believe it is a disgrace, and most people do not see it because they just do not see it from where they live. It is being scraped to a point which is going to make it hard to re-establish it as a national park. It is not impossible. Perhaps some of the money that people make out of ripping the guts out of the harbour should be invested back into rehabilitation.
I thank the minister for his statement on the mangroves. It is a good start, I am not knocking that at all. I believe you have to go further. The mangroves on their own will not survive; they need protection. You talk about a 4 m high protection, so you obviously believe that too. Using a 4 m contour does not mean anything. It should be a significant buffer, and that should follow the coast as best you can.
In summary, you should find out why Rapid Creek, Lee Point to Micket Creek, and Hudson Creek is not protected. I ask you if you could answer in your summing up whether you will come and have a look at the alternative sights in industrial estate. I would not say it if I thought they were silly. They are a practical alternative site to wrecking the middle of the harbour.
Thank you, minister, for your statement but we have a long way to go yet.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome and endorse my colleague’s report on the progress of this government’s initiatives to protect one of our greatest natural assets, Darwin Harbour, and the mangrove resources that support it.
The amendments to the Darwin, Litchfield, East Arm, Palmerston and Darwin rural town plans will zone all mangroves for conservation, with the effect that development, including aquaculture, in the mangroves of Darwin Harbour will be prohibited under the Planning Act, and consent will be required for clearing associated with minor low-impact activities such as public utilities. As a result, 46 516 hectares will be rezoned to conservation, of which over 26 000 hectares is mangroves, and the remainder of salt flats, mudflats and fringing hinterland vegetation. This means that 96% of mangrove communities will be protected, with the remaining 4% either already cleared or required for planned development.
Our harbour provides a habitat for a wide range of marine and other fauna. It is a focal point for many recreational and tourist activities, and its role as a port is vital to our economic development. Proposals reported by my colleague provide an important foundation for informing and influencing future management decisions affecting our harbour. Equally important is the fact that these proposals have been developed in close consultation with the community.
My colleague made mention that the mangroves are the lungs of the harbour. Perhaps we should also be talking about mangroves as the gills of the harbour. However, regardless of the analogies, there is absolutely no doubt that the mangroves of Darwin Harbour provide essential ecosystem services. We know, for instance, that mangroves are an important coastal food web. Leaf litter and natural debris support a diverse range of marine animals such as crabs, prawns, mudskippers, snails and worms, often found in great abundance in the mangroves. Much of this material is exported to the near-shore waters, where it also supports abundant and diverse fish life, crustaceans and other marine fauna. Mangroves provide habitat for juvenile fish to feed and take shelter. Juvenile barramundi, salmon, trevally, mud crabs and queen fish are known to utilise mangroves. When they grow up, these are the very same fish that Territorians love to catch in the harbour. Mangroves also provide essential habitat to bait fish and prawns, on which commercial and recreational species depend.
I heard what the member for Nelson said about the fact that we should be spending more time in the natural beauty and environment of the Territory. I certainly have spent quite a lot of time in mangroves; they are very interesting places. I spend time fishing, crabbing, getting mangrove worm, and spending a lot of time with Aboriginal people who know so much about mangroves and the value of mangroves as a food source. So, I am certainly someone - provided I have a fair bit of Rid on - who quite likes mangroves. I do not mind getting a bit of mangrove mud over me, particularly if you can get a nice fat mud crab at the end of it.
Darwin Harbour is very important to recreational fishers. Close to half of all the recreational fishing activities in the Territory are undertaken in Darwin Harbour, with anglers dedicating more than 800 000 fishing hours in the harbour. I will say that again. It is calculated that they dedicate more than 800 000 fishing hours in the harbour per annum.
Mr Stirling: It is not subtracted from the span of their lives, either.
Dr BURNS: Yes. Media reports highlight the success of recreational fishers in Darwin Harbour, whether it is landing the barramundi of a lifetime or simply a family outing to catch a feed of delicious mud crabs. Many of us have seen the pictures in the fishing section of the paper of young anglers, anglers from interstate on fishing tours or just out with their friends, catching a great abundance of fish; and some fantastic catches there.
A recent national survey highlighted that the Northern Territory anglers spend $27m on fishing-related equipment and activities a year, with an average of about $608 per angler each year. This would suggest that at least $13m was spent by Territory anglers to fish in Darwin Harbour. Most of us who live in Darwin - those of us who doorknock, those of us who go around to friend’s houses for social functions – see the ubiquitous boat in the backyard, and many people go out on Darwin Harbour and absolutely love it.
Mangroves are also important to other species. Some are active on the surface of the mud when the tide is out, and move into their burrows and remain there when the tide is in to avoid getting eaten. I have often wondered why barramundi is the shape that it is, but I am assured by experts that one of their feeding behaviours is close to the bottom with their large mouth digging into mud banks around mangroves, obviously seeking food. They are a fish that are built for the mangroves and a whole range of other environments.
Migratory birds also seek temporary shelter and food among the mangroves. Some of these habitats are of conservation significance because these birds might come from far away countries like Japan and China. Other transient visitors to the mangroves leave their adjacent woodland habitats to feed in the mangroves, seeking fruit and flowers or the many insects found there.
Mangroves also have an important physical function in that they provide protection to the coastal land. The complex networks of aboveground roots that provide refuge for marine animals also trap and hang on to sediment, therefore reducing the potential for erosion. The roots slow the water currents of tides and that also causes the sediments to drop out. In the event of a cyclone, mangroves also protect the shoreline by buffering the impacts of high wind. Almost as importantly, mangroves also act as a sink for nutrients, heavy metals and sediments coming off the land. They filter the run-off and are, therefore, very important in maintaining good water quality in Darwin Harbour.
Too often in the past, these ecosystem services that mangroves provide were not recognised; they were viewed as stinking swamps that bred mosquitoes. I would like, at this point, to paint a broader picture of implications of this attitude. More than 50% of the world’s mangroves have already been destroyed. In our own Asia/Pacific region, deforestation of mangroves is at least 1% annually. Mangroves formally occupied 75% of tropical coast, but today they occupy only 25%. Clearly the world’s mangroves are under threat. However, here today we are drawing a line in the mud, shall we say. Darwin mangroves will not be suffering the same fate. This is a decision for future generations of Territorians. It is fundamentally about maintaining the services that mangroves provide so that we can enjoy a healthy, diverse and prosperous harbour. Mangroves provide these services for free. Experience has shown that when these services are taken away through the removal of mangroves, they are extremely costly to reinstate.
I would also like to comment on the prohibition of new aquaculture developments in the mangroves. As minister responsible for both the environment and fisheries portfolios, I am fully supportive of this move. I want environmentally sustainable aquaculture in the Territory and, quite simply, the experience of aquaculture in Asia demonstrates that this is not possible if mangroves are destroyed in the process. I am aware of a number of proposals for aquaculture developments around the harbour. I know that the proponents of those proposals are very keen to ensure sustainability and they have come up with some quite innovative technologies; new technologies about a closed system of reuse of water with very little discharge into the harbour. These aquaculture projects are minimal impact, leading edge technology, and are attracting international recognition and interest. We can be duly proud of these aquaculture projects and they have a lot to teach elsewhere in the world.
However, in clearing mangroves for ponds, the mangrove muds are exposed to oxygen and the iron sulphides in the muds are oxidised. When they get wet, sulphuric acid is generated in large quantities. The acid itself causes pollution, but it also mobilises heavy metals that are toxic, such as aluminium, and cause diseases in fish and other aquatic life. We do not have to look very far to see the problems that acid sulphate soils can cause. Examples where acid sulphate soils have caused a problem in the past are Bayview Haven residential development and the Adelaide River Bridge on the Arnhem Highway.
At Bayview, in the early days of development, acid formed from disturbed acid sulphate soils during the construction of the canal area. This occurred after early Wet Season rain, but was contained within the canal. As soon as the problem was detected, appropriate control measures were put in place. Lime was used to neutralise the acid water and it was released under controlled conditions.
The Adelaide River Bridge failed, I am informed, mainly because of acid problems caused by sulphate soils. It was a problem not recognised at the construction of the bridge many years ago, but we all know how costly that problem was to fix. So we can take on board that any development affecting mangrove mud has the potential to expose acid sulphate soils and create sulphuric acid, and there is a significant risk of pollution. While, with extreme care, it is possible to manage this risk, it is better to avoid it altogether.
In this regard, my colleague has indicated that low-impact activities such as public utilities and research centres will be allowed in the mangrove with consent, as will developments already planned. These developments must be carefully planned and executed to avoid the problems of acid generation. For this purpose, my Office of Environment and Heritage has prepared environmental guidelines for reclamation in coastal areas. The guidelines cover issues such as planning requirements and environmental management. In particular, the guidelines cover acid sulphate soils and how to deal with them.
The announcement made by my colleague today is very good for the environment, recreational fisheries and the aquaculture industry itself. My colleague has also indicated that the conservation zone will include a buffer. In fact, approximately 20 000 hectares of salt flats, mudflats and hinterland vegetation have been zoned for conservation. I am very pleased with this outcome. Activities immediately adjacent to mangroves can adversely impact on their biodiversity and their capacity to provide ecosystem services. The buffer will ensure that the integrity of the mangroves is maintained.
The conservation zoning of mangroves in combination with the development of the Darwin Harbour Management Plan will provide a solid framework for decision-making on coastal developments. Developers will know the ground rules and, as Minister for the Environment, I will have some clear criteria when assessing new coastal developments.
This framework is absolutely essential and stands in some contrast with the approach of the former government. Yes, they did commission research on mangroves, and I commend them on this, but research does not always substitute for leadership. Leadership means making good planning decisions. Research informs planning and decision-making process, and this is where the members opposite were found wanting. They did commit to protecting 80% of the productivity of the mangroves of the harbour but. in over a decade, they could not give this commitment any tangible effect. They could not put lines on the map. They did not implement the legislation to back it up and, in fact, I am not sure whether they even knew what the commitment meant. They delayed and procrastinated and left the mangroves to be steadily whittled away by the tyranny of small decisions.
Mr Baldwin: To 0.02%!
Dr BURNS: Oh, yes.
Fortunately, due to the leadership of this government, we will not be repeating these mistakes. Mangroves are vitally important to the overall health and function of Darwin Harbour and its resource and, I would suggest, to the wellbeing of Darwin itself seeing that so many people spend 800 000 hours fishing in Darwin Harbour. That is a fantastic figure. I am, therefore, pleased to support the positive approach and high priority being given to their protection by this government. I commend the minister’s statement to the House.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will not go through again all of the work that has been done over many years or the many statements delivered in this House over the years by former ministers, including myself, on Darwin Harbour - not only the harbour itself but the surrounding areas and how the catchment areas also impact on the harbour.
A major statement delivered on the beneficial uses strategy that was put into progress by the previous government, is now becoming the management plan that this government is undertaking - that is the work that is being carried on. I congratulate the government for zoning for mangroves; that is an excellent idea. We can argue day in and day out as to whether there is enough in buffers that have been included in all of this.
However, we do not resile at all from the work that we did. It is all very well for the Minister for the Environment to stand up here and say we did nothing. What we did was a progression of work over a lot of years. There is no doubt that society and the wishes of society change over time. It was in 1984 that the international environment community came out with the statement that 80% protection of mangroves is a sustainable figure to work on for getting the balance right between the productivity remaining in harbours in which mangroves were a majority species whilst development could occur. That was great; that was the feeling at the time. If the feeling and the science has changed, that is good, and we have been a part of that.
We have been a part of over almost 300 studies in the Darwin Harbour, its catchment and its surrounds, and we are very proud of that. We are very proud of the people who have been involved in all of those studies, and they are listed in various documents. I have some here that give an update, only three years ago, of managing Darwin Harbour and its catchment. It contains the whole list of all of the work that has been done, not just by the Northern Territory government, but by other agencies involved: by universities, students and academics who have been involved in researching all of that. The culmination of that will be protection of some form or another.
The thing that comes out in this statement to me - and it is all very well to say: ‘The CLP did nothing, and we are great because we have now zoned it’. However, I know that in the future there will be some pressure on government, whoever they are, to have some development that will impact on the mangrove habitat around the Darwin Harbour coastline and, indeed, the Northern Territory coastline. We should not forget that it is the Northern Territory coastline that makes up one of the most predominantly important areas in the world for mangroves and the 35 species or so that can be found along our coastline. It is very important, in fact, for the whole of the environment in the northern part of Australia.
The progression to zoning is a good thing. We certainly do not have any problems with that at all. However, I do not think anyone should forget all of the work that has been done over the years by very many people. There will be pressures to impact on the mangroves over time, and that is why we put 03 zonings on the areas between Bayview and Tipperary; to protect some very unique species that live in that area. The declaring of Charles Darwin National Park was part of that reason as well. But the very fact that in the minister’s statement, he deals mostly with the importance of mangroves; not only to the health of the harbour and water quality and so forth, but also to a lot of species of fauna, aquatic animals and other species of flora, and how good a condition all of it is in. We should all be proud of that. There is nothing that has happened that has caused great detriment to our harbour system or, indeed, any of our coastline systems that we should resile from, or the CLP should resile from, because it is in good condition, and when you look at the total amount cleared, it is something like …
Mr Dunham: The minister says it is in good condition.
Mr BALDWIN: That is my point. It is about 0.02% that has been cleared to date. Okay, keeping 80% and allowing 20% clearing may not now be a suitable figure, and we should move on and, indeed, you have. There are some areas you will get criticised for not doing, and they have been raised by the member for Nelson. I was not listening that closely to what he was saying but, certainly, there will be detractors from what your government is doing, in that it is not enough. You will cop that the same way as we did.
However, let us not forget that it is in good condition. Let us not forget that the harbour management plan stems from a lot of work by a lot of people in the departments, that was started in the days of the previous government under the strategy plan for beneficial uses of Darwin harbour. There was a group of people working on that, and that has been developed. That will not stop once you have done this zoning and produced the plan of management, because growth and cities are dynamic places; there will be more pressure over time to do more things.
I am sure the next thing to do will be Bynoe Harbour, for instance, because Bynoe Harbour, as you know, is now being increasingly impacted upon by commercial development in terms of accommodation, fishing charter and aquacultural areas including prawn farming and pearl farming, and also residential areas - whether they are squatting there or they have title to their own piece of land. That is the next area that is going to be near and dear to the hearts of at least Darwinites, that will have to have some form of protection enacted upon it, the same way that Darwin Harbour has come under the same scrutiny. So it will not stop with this; it will be dynamic and it will continue.
I am sure there will be calls by various groups and individuals for more action, over a long time to come. The good thing is that it does not matter what government is in place, the hard yards have been done and continue to be done in the scientific research. It is there and it needs to be continued; there is no doubt about that. We have benchmark studies going back, probably like no other jurisdiction anywhere that could be called a developed area - developed in terms of a city being adjacent to a harbour. We really have some data going back a long way that we can benchmark off, so that we know when things are changing. We are in a very fortunate situation because of that. It did not happen by chance; it happened because there was a will to do it - by government and by agencies. As I said, various agencies and individuals.
That work needs to continue as well, more so because of the types of developments and pressures that, particularly the Darwin Harbour, will come under over the next two decades. We all know what they are in terms of gas onshore, but also shipping. There is going to be an increase in shipping, recreational use and, certainly, in the pressure to develop the land mass areas surrounding Darwin Harbour, which will then impact on its catchment and on the harbour itself. Therefore, that work - the studies, the comparison between new work and old work - will need to continue. I for one - and I know my colleagues - support the zoning. We know that it is a step in the right direction.
I would like to put on the record my congratulations to everybody who has been involved in the work to date on the scientific research in the Darwin Harbour and its surrounds. There have been a lot of people - many of them have now moved on to other things - and I am sure that there will be many in the future. The harbour is in good shape and I am sure with this sort of work carried out, ongoing, we can all now – certainly our kids and grandkids can - enjoy a great harbour that will provide, in good condition for many years to come, an environment that we can all enjoy.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, today I contribute regarding the statement on protection of mangroves in the Darwin Harbour. I must admit I have changed the line, after listening to people respond to this statement, about some of the matters that I was going to talk about. I thought it would be remiss of me and to every person that I know who are long-term Territorians who have lived in Darwin for many years, not to express where I come from and what I believe in.
People might not know that I was born and bred in Darwin. I grew up here all my life and one of the major areas that we fished, hunted, camped at and visited often was the Darwin Harbour. Also in other places such as Rapid Creek – and I will touch on Rapid Creek and some of the concerns raised today.
I need to identify that I am not of Larrakia background, but my family has lived here for over 100 years. On my mother’s side, part of the Stolen Generation group of people who originally came to Kahlin Compound. On my father’s side, there is another history of travelling to Darwin. Basically, the Bonson family came here at the turn of the last century, European, Torres Strait Islander, Welsh, Samoan - all those backgrounds people know I have in my genes. The family camped or lived on Nightcliff Peninsula and fished often in Rapid Creek and caught food – mullet, barramundi, salmon, queen fish, whatever. People may or may not know this, but we also had a fish trap in the Darwin Harbour, and that fish trap provided an income for people for many years and also provided food for the people who lived in Darwin. Not only did we work on this fish trap in Darwin Harbour, but we also hunted on Darwin Harbour. I have often gone fishing at night with only a torch and spear, and caught barramundi, night fish, snapper and anything else that might come our way. I have also done prawning on Mud Island which has been changed because of the developments at Wickham Point. I doubt very much we will be able to get prawns anymore at Mud Island and that is, obviously, a loss to a lot of local people.
I heard people comment that Darwin Harbour is a working harbour. It is a working harbour, there is no doubt about that. We cannot change that; that is the reality. But what we have is an asset, not only in Darwin Harbour. Look at the conservation zone map and I have made markings on places that I wish to talk about in Shoal Bay etcetera. It is an asset that is part of our lifestyle. I do not think there is anywhere else in the world that you can jump in your car, take your boat down, put it into the water and, within 20 minutes be fishing for barramundi or whatever else that might be in the harbour or Shoal Bay area.
I give you an example. A person came in and talk to me about the Daly River area. He talked about how he spent 27 years fishing in the Murray River and he said: ‘Guess how many cod I caught in that river’. He said: ‘I caught two in 27 years’. I know there is run-off and other issues to do with pollution and the environment in Darwin Harbour, but people are still catching fish off Darwin wharf, around the beaches and creeks of Darwin Harbour and they are still eating the fish - white, black, green or purple, it does not matter.
One of the largest barramundi I ever caught in my life was at Dinah Beach, which no longer exists, as people know. The first barramundi I ever caught was at Rapid Creek. We grew up there: swimming in the fresh water, gathering periwinkles, just being lads around town, I suppose. Rapid Creek is important to the community of Darwin. It is also a Dreaming site for Larrakia people. It is obviously an important water resource for people.
The background that I am coming from is that I have a deep interest in maintaining our lifestyle. I know things change over 100 years and they will change over another 100, but I pick up on what the Minister for the Environment said. One of the issues he raised was that everyone identifies with the cost of losing and reinstating mangroves. It is very expensive. I often ask people: do we want to end up like Sydney Harbour where there has been so-called development over the last 200 years and now they spend literally millions and millions of dollars trying to return that habitat to some type of environmentally acceptable place to live? We have it here and it has been identified.
I also recognise what the member for Daly said about supporting this statement in principle. Realistically, the politics of this is that, if you went from house to house and talked to people about Darwin Harbour, people would say: ‘We want to protect it’. That is what the community would say.
The member for Nelson talked about a public meeting he attended at Stuart Park - I think he said Everingham was the Chief Minister then?
Mr Wood: No, Stone was.
Mr BONSON: Stone was - and 70 people turned up. So we might have had 70 000 people living in Darwin at the time. Compare that to three million people living in Sydney - four-and-a-half times – that would be 40 times, and that could represent nearly 2800 people turning up to that meeting if we were living in Sydney. We cannot lose sight of that.
I recognise what the minister said, that the total area of Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay rezoned to conservation is 46 516 hectares. Of this, over 26 000 hectares is mangroves, with the rest comprising of salt flats, mudflats and fringing hinterland and vegetation. I also recognise that the minister said:
I pick up on this statement:
As a government or a parliament, with members representing people from all over the Territory, I hope we really believe in that statement; that they are the lungs of the harbour. I really hope that it is not lip service.
I pick up on the member for Nelson’s query about Rapid Creek. I will be raising it with the minister and I hope the minister answers: why aren’t the mangroves at Rapid Creek highlighted in green? This is important to my electorate and to the people of the Nightcliff electorate as well, but it is important to the people of Darwin. Rapid Creek is a resource. I took a group of 70 kids on the E-Cruise. We went there and I showed them how to throw a net, bait up a hook, catch fish, and where to get hermit crabs and periwinkles. I do not want to lose this asset. I want those 70 kids, and my kids and my grandchildren to be able to go down there and use this asset.
I also notice about Buffalo Creek. I was there less than one month ago, walking on the beach out towards Micket Creek getting mud crabs. We caught 12 mud crabs. I do not eat mud crabs; it is the only seafood I do not eat. However, the rest of my family were happy to eat it. I am wondering why this area is not protected.
Look at Shoal Bay - and I thank the minister for all the area around Shoal Bay that is protected, and that is fantastic. Shoal Bay is an estuary that is very important to fish breeding of the Northern Territory. What is not picked up on the map is the Vernon Islands. Vernon Islands, just up the coast off Gunn Point, is a place that my family and other people who I know go hunting and fishing. It is a mangrove island, so I hope to see that protected. I took two people from Cairns, less than three weeks ago, to the back of Leeders Creek - and I know this map might not cover this area. They found it amazing that, less than an hour from Darwin, you could catch barramundi, jewfish, etcetera.
The other thing I wanted to pick up on was the fact that the minister raised in his statement the reality that there were people in August 2002 that he appointed to the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee, chaired by John Bailey, to oversee the development of Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. He should be congratulated for that. That was a fantastic job. I know the member for Nelson gave evidence there, as I gave evidence, not as the member for Millner, but as a resident of Darwin concerned about the way ahead. They were very professional the way they conducted themselves, and they were very interested in what I had to say. Basically, what I had to say is: I would like my grandchildren to catch a fish in Darwin Harbour and feel they could eat it. That is the bottom line. I know that it was an extensive consultative process. I got to speak to John Bailey afterwards. He followed me up and made sure that we touched base and that I clarified my message to him. I am sure that they were happy to have me there.
I do not pretend to have the knowledge that the member for Nelson has on all these environmental and planning issues. There is no doubt, when he comes in here and shows maps and talks from 25 years of activism in this area - my feeling is he is probably the most knowledgeable person in this House on these issues. I hope the minister takes him up on checking out the proposed different sites for mining tenements. I pick up on the fact that he spoke about the gravel. That makes perfectly good sense to me: why mine gravel? Okay, if it was diamonds and titanium, okay, we could understand. But gravel fill, when we could get it from other areas? We need to have a look at that.
I note that, under the consultation process from the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee, in the first round of consultation, 47 submissions were received and over 170 people attended public presentations and workshops over three days. A number of forums were also held in regions throughout the catchment during February 2003, including Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield Shire, and Cox Peninsula. This information culminated in the development of the first draft plan which the minister released for public comment in 2003.
I am speaking so openly about these issues because the people I know who were born and bred, live, hunt and fish in this area, would not necessarily go to such a meeting and express their views. Not that they would not have those views. However, I am an elected member of that group or class of people who live in the Territory. It would be remiss of me not to represent their views in a forum such as this. I know many people think that development is just the nature of the world, and that it is inevitable. People, unfortunately, over many years - both articulate and inarticulate, white, black, green or purple, poor and rich – have, in some instances, felt like development will happen and there is nothing you can do about it. However, the idea is that we have to plan that development. We have to ensure that a resource – people look at the value of building around Darwin Harbour and places like Bayview, for instance. My argument would be: in 50 years time or 100 years time, if we were able to keep this site similar to what it is now, what price would your house in Millner be worth? What price would your house in Larrakeyah, in Wanguri, in Palmerston?. If you could say in 100, 200 years time - with whatever the environment of the world is then - that you could come to Darwin Harbour and live here with the lifestyle that we are living now on that harbour, you cannot put a price on that. The prices of your house would reflect that, if members can understand what I mean.
I pick up on the member for Nelson’s view, where he gives credit to the work that the minister has done in the protection of mangroves in Darwin Harbour, but change the philosophy now. It is a recognition that development has to prove it is required to destroy mangroves, rather than mangroves have to prove that they have to exist. That is a fantastic change in the frame of mind of how people would like their asset - their harbour - to look.
I pick up on the minister’s recognition that:
That has to be our goal. Of course, we are going to need to be vigilant, not only as a government, but as members of this House and the community, to ensure that occurs.
I have picked up on the courage of the minister in the respect that we heard the member for Daly saying that they had done a lot of work on this issue, and they were maybe just as green or greener - or whatever they want to argue. However, the fact was, the minister in this government has acted on it. He picks up on this where he says, on page 4 of his speech:
I look forward to the minister inquiring about Rapid Creek. Not only for myself, as an individual in Darwin, but also as the elected member for Millner and for those many people who have fished for many generations in the Buffalo Creek area. Why have some of the mangroves there not been included?
All I can say is: this is the first step; there is a plan. Today, both sides and the Independents have overwhelmingly given the pat on the back to the minister but, obviously, with the condition - and I suppose all other members have spoken about the need for this work to be carried on. We will need to ensure that any development that happens on Darwin Harbour, the Shoal Bay area, or Gunn Point, has to be necessary. The value that we put on these places, has to be looked at for the next 50 years, 60 years, 100 years down the track. It is a bit like the makers of Central Park in New York. If you read the history of Central Park in New York, no one knew it was going to turn out the way it is. The value of that land and the properties around that park are so valuable that you would have a riot - you would have the people of New York kicking out whoever the elected members were - if Central Park was to change. I hope Darwin Harbour remains the same.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support of the minister’s statement. The Northern Territory does contain some of the most pristine and ecologically important coastal marine areas in the Australian tropics and, in particular, in and around Darwin Harbour, which is part of it.
Darwin Harbour is a tropical estuary covering approximately 450 km with 23 km of mangrove and salt marsh communities. Darwin is lucky to have this sort of asset, this great ecological asset for its people here. Within this great environment, the Darwin Harbour area supports all kind of birds, fish and shell fish, all throughout the mangrove system that is the gills of the environment. It also provides protection against flood damage during extra high tides or cyclones. It is important to note just some of the things that live in and around our harbour and the coastal strips of the Darwin area.
We have bird life such as the red headed honeyeater and mangrove golden whistler, little file snakes, mud lobster, good old mullet – of course, everyone knows the mullet - crabs, mud crabs, fiddler crabs …
Mr Wood: Have you got a mullet?
Mr KIELY: I have a mullet. … mangrove monitor, king prawn and barnacle.
When I came to Darwin I went down to Buff Creek or - what was it? Buffy Creek or something, down near Buffalo Creek? That was the first one that I had ever had the pleasure of fishing in. I will have to tell you that story, because to a new chum coming in and getting stuck into the Darwin mangrove system it is quite a treat.
I was not in town long and a mate of mine had bought himself a tinnie so down we went. Actually, this is where I learned my fishing habits - who could believe? - in the tropical waters of the Northern Territory. We went and launched at high tide down in Buff Creek, went out and headed up towards One Tree Point. We were having a wow of a time. We were coming back and, to tell you the truth, my mate was not much of a fisherman at that stage. We were coming back and we missed the tide. Well, we got stuck out the front of Buff Creek.
I lived in Queensland for years and years, but all the crocodiles had been shot out there so I had no fear of crocodiles or any of those sorts of things. My mate, silly bugger, did not even know about crocodiles. He says: ‘We are stuck here and we have to get home. Will you get out and pull the thing?’ So here I am, up through the small channels, pulling and grunting on this boat. He is sitting in it having a beer I might add, and I am pulling and grunting. We got it through there and it was not until we got right up to the ramp - finally got into a bit of deep water and motored up - that the guy said: ‘You should watch this creek, there are a few crocs in it’. That is the first time I ever found out about crocodiles in Northern Territory waters. I also had to go up the ramp to get the car and bring down the trailer and, as I was doing that, I nearly put the whole lot into the water. That was my introduction to fishing in Buff Creek.
However, what I also noticed along there was mudskippers. I had never seen a mudskipper before and I was amazed by these little creatures and long bums. I had never seen those either. So there were two creatures of the mangroves that I had never before encountered. I was pretty fascinated by it, and it was not until many years later that I learned that these are actually bush tucker. They were bush tucker back before European and Asian settlement of Darwin. Unlike the member for Goyder, true Territorian that he is, who said that when this place was settled they came here and ate the food. Well, member for Goyder, there were people here a bit longer than 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and they were living here and living off the tucker in that mangrove system. It is important to acknowledge that: that the Darwin Harbour and mangrove system has been the food basket for people since time immemorial. Its natural treasures and bounty have been known for a long, long time and it is known to the new waves of settlement that is coming in, and we are pretty happy about it as well.
As far as bush tucker goes, members here might not be aware that there is actually a program at RDH where one of the health workers, when community people come into the hospital, this particular person is …
Dr Burns: Pat Manganuna.
Mr KIELY: Pat Manganuna! She goes out and gets bush tucker for all those people who are in hospital. She brings it to the hospital or she takes them out there and they get it. How is that for use of a resource in a traditional way? You can only eat so many Hungry Jacks, and so many packets of chips. You cannot beat a good feed of muddy or a good mangrove worm or a good long bum. Hey, Gerry? You would know that.
Mr Wood: Yes, but McDonalds sell big long bums now – with the lot!
Mr KIELY: Well, big long bum buns would be a wonderful treat if they could only sell it.
Mr Mills: Have you ever eaten one?
Mr KIELY: A long bum?
Mr Mills: Yes.
Mr KIELY: No, no way. No, and I am not backing up for a mangrove worm although, when my wife was at Wadeye, she got into a good feed of mangrove worm. However, it has never been something that I have been tempted to try.
This is the sort of bounty that is in the mangroves. It is something special to have that sort of thing right here on our doorstep.
The statement today and the announcement that Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay will be rezoned to conservation – over 46 000 hectares – is not about out-greening the CLP. Let us get that quite right. It is not about saying we are greener than them, because they did do a lot. They did a lot for the place. They might have done things a bit differently from how this government will do it, but that is progress, in a manner of speaking. The CLP did do a lot for the harbour and, while you might not agree fully with the initial stages of what happened down at Bayview Haven and the way it went on, it was the catalyst for Charles Darwin Park. That is something that the community can be proud. That is something that I thank the former government for, because not everything they did was crook.
Mr Wood: The catalyst was an election.
Mr KIELY: Well, it was a catalyst for an election. If that is what it takes to get the park, then so be it. The real winners out of that were the people of Darwin and the Territory, and I commend the CLP for it. I am not saying that tongue in cheek; it was a good initiative.
The interesting thing about the Charles Darwin National Park is that it covers 1300 hectares of eucalyptus woodland and mangrove and has quite a number of species of bird life and mangrove there, but it also protects World War II heritage sites.
Darwin Harbour and all around here during those war years had a lot of development on it. It had a lot of development around the foreshore in the area of defence installations like at East Point and there were no environmental impact statements done then because it was considered to be life and death situations. There were no impact statements done then. In the harbour, we lost a lot of ships. There were many structures and areas blown up and destroyed during those war years.
I raise this point because, during the debate, we heard the term ‘pristine’; our pristine harbour. When I think of pristine, it is something untouched, in its thoroughly natural state. That is not the case with Darwin Harbour. Darwin Harbour has had European settlement and associated buildings and dwellings which impacted strongly upon the environment, for 100 years or so but, significantly so, at the time of the bombings when we lost a lot of ships in the harbour. I do not know how much oil would have come out into the harbour then. I would suggest quite an amount.
I would like to talk about the strength and the rejuvenating abilities of our harbour and the mangrove system around it. With the strength of the tide, its ebb and flow, it scourges the bottom of the harbour and clears everything out. It has this great self-cleansing system. I raise that because the member for Nelson mentioned the impacts of development and industrialisation along the foreshore, and he is right. I am not saying he is wrong. However, there have been industrialisation, building and all sorts of calamities that visited the harbour, yet look at what we have today - it is magnificent. The harbour is a very robust system, and it can sustain some development around it, when it is done properly.
We cannot live in a glass house in a protected environment all along. If we want this country, this Territory, this town to go ahead, we have to find a balance. We have to find that balance. The minister and this government have moved to securing 96% of the mangrove stock around the Darwin Harbour - which goes from Glyde Point all the way around to Charles Point, I think it is - being gazetted areas for mangrove protection. I notice, even on the map that is provided with the minister’s statement, that Shoal Bay – I have spoken about Shoal Bay before and the benefits it has to the people of Sanderson. When you get those sea breezes coming in off Shoal Bay, it is tremendous. I do not want to see anything happen in Shoal Bay - I love it – but there is a balance that one has to get. With this plan, we will always have those lovely breezes coming in cooling the people of Sanderson, and for that I, and the people of Sanderson, are quite grateful. That is what it is all about. It is about achieving balance, and this plan does that. It conserves mangroves, while getting the balance between development.
In the future, we will have the Wickham Point refinery, and it will have an impact. It cannot not have an impact. We have the port and the port facilities going in there. You would have to be Blind Freddy not to think there is going to be some sort of impact coming from turning the Darwin Harbour into a real freight and logistic centre for the gateway to Asia.
Mr Wood: Essential development.
Mr KIELY: It is essential development. The previous government recognised it, this government recognises it, because it is for the benefit of all Territorians and, might I say, there is a national interest argument in there as well.
It is getting that balance right, and that is what it is all about. When we talk about this 96%, yes, there will be some areas that will be exposed to the rigours of development. Unfortunately, I do not believe it can be avoided, but what can be avoided is laissez-faire or willy-nilly type of development. This plan that we are unrolling will manage to get a structured plan in place whereby impact will be minimised while maximising the benefits to the population. This is good news. I believe it is good news that all Territorians will support. As I have said, I would love to keep 100% of the mangroves. It will be a wonderful thing, but it is not realistic. It is just not realistic, and that is a shame. However, we are not losing the total asset.
You will still be able to go up Buff Creek, cast your net for mullet, and see the Tour Tub there. As a matter of fact, when we look at the development in our harbour, I was talking to people who had been at Karratha, and they were saying about the pipeline that has gone into there and all the armour rock that has gone around that. He said at night time, you will see people fishing up and down that area, going for snapper, I suppose, as the main fish of the day that they are after down there. In the harbour here, where do you go fishing? You go fishing off the wrecks that are sitting down on the bottom - that is where you go fishing.
There are benefits to what is going to be happening in the harbour. There will be greater use, I foresee, of the coastal strips of the industries that go up. Already, you just have a look at the great recreation that Buffalo Creek provides. Also, while we are talking about creeks, the member for Nelson mentioned Rapid Creek and his concerns that it did not appear on the map as being a protected area. Member for Nelson, I too, hope that the minister answers that one, because Rapid Creek runs through quite a few areas in the northern suburbs. It is a beautiful system. My wish is that we could restore that to its pristine levels. I will be setting that as a task and I will give that some attention. My area – it is not my area of responsibility because I regard Rapid Creek as everyone’s responsibility - but the patch I guess I look at is up by the airport, up by the old Yankee Pools, I think it’s called.
When I get there and see some of the rubbish lying about - and I have talked to council about this and made representations to them. I would certainly like, as a minimum, to see amenities there similar to what has gone in to the water park end. We have a real asset for the community that, if we can somehow present all that area and make all that strip down there some sort of reserve, it would be a fantastic environmental asset for all the people in the northern suburbs.
With the systems going through there, one of my ambitions is to go down that creek in the Wet Season with the kids on a lilo. I have heard …
Mr Dunham: You adventurer!
Mr KIELY: I know. I am a man of small pleasures, member for Drysdale.
Mr Dunham: Yes, we could name the train after you: Len Irwin.
Mr KIELY: That is right. You should see me in a pair of khaki shorts. All right, member for Drysdale, I take your feedback that, perhaps, I should get a little more adventurous than that. However, that will do me for now.
What a fantastic Sunday afternoon, just going down there. Might I add that it finishes up near the old Nightcliff Hotel, so you cannot go too wrong on that trip. But if you go down Rapid Creek where it opens up near the rotunda, it is a valuable community asset. I am not sure whether the council did that or whether it was the previous government - whoever did – has my vote of thanks, because they are the community assets that we need.
Hopefully – and I am very hopeful and very confident - this plan of management will do that for us. When I say ‘us’ I say ‘us’ as the community. I believe it will give us the opportunity to go for development of that nature – and there will be some trade-offs. That is it; if we want to retain our lifestyle then we, as a community, have to contribute to that. We have to generate income and, to do that, we have to look at our environmental assets. Let me say as well, that I am a firm believer in a triple bottom line. The triple bottom line is the sort of accounting principles that we need to apply to any development that goes on around our mangrove system. I believe if we incorporate that, then we will see the benefits - not only ‘we’ the current people here, but ‘we’ as in communities of the future.
With my hopes for the future put out there - Crocodile Kiely - I will rest.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in this afternoon’s debate, I congratulate our Minister for Infrastructure and Planning for his mangrove statement today. We have heard many speakers extol the virtues of Darwin Harbour. There is no doubt that many of us in this Chamber feel extremely strongly about the harbour; about how very much it rests as the core of the soul of people who live in Darwin, and how many of us want to be assured that generations to come will enjoy the beauty and the natural aspects of the harbour that a lot of us have enjoyed for many of our years. Certainly, being Darwin born and raised, as the member for Millner, I have very fond memories of school camps at Talc Head, and going through the mangroves there for biology studies - certainly very strong memories of the joy of discovering just what a diverse little ecosystem mangroves support.
There is no doubt that the harbour is, as the minister for fisheries explained to us, critical to our recreational fishing industry. They absolutely adore the harbour. I was amazed to hear the example of some 800 000 fishing hours per annum that our anglers spend in the harbour. I knew there was a lot of time spent. If I go around my electorate of Karama that takes in the suburb of Malak as well, I have in excess of some 200 boats in backyards in that electorate. Certainly, those 200 boat owners, I know, use the boat ramps around this harbour and get out there. The boats provide many hours of pleasure to our recreational fishing people.
Our harbour needs mangroves to sustain that recreational fishing. We have heard how the mangroves are the basis of our ecosystem in the harbour. Certainly, the move by the Territory government to rezone the mangroves to conservation to protect the Darwin Harbour mangroves, is one that I am sure the community wholeheartedly would acknowledge as being a critically important conservation act in the Territory.
The protection applied under the new conservation zone will ensure that, for 96% of the mangroves in Darwin Harbour development is prohibited, and any clearing of mangroves around the harbour within that 4% that is left for development will need Darwin Consent Authority approval. The minor exceptions will exist and this will be largely due to low impact activities such as research.
It is heartening to hear that the total area rezoned to conservation will be some 46 516 hectares and, of this, 26 000 hectares of mangroves. I acknowledge that pure environmentalists will argue that we should have 100% protection of mangroves. That is neither practical nor possible. Both historically and today, Darwin is a working port. The existence of its port infrastructure, both old and new, has meant that associated development works do indeed impact on our mangroves. We are not alone in this predicament. Every major city positioned with magnificent harbours have working inner ports. However, the Martin Labor government has not shied away from this predicament. We continue to fund the Port Authority’s major development at East Arm Port, which we will soon see become a major transport hub following the recent completion of the Darwin to Adelaide railway and the freight opportunities that we will start to see flowing early next year with the freight trains coming in.
I know, however, how things can become quite unravelled. I lived for some 4 years in a city with a working harbour: Hong Kong. From the historical pictures, I witnessed the way that that completely changed as development went unchecked between Kowloon and Hong Kong Island. Indeed, the massive reclamation of waterways that occurred there is now having quite significant environmental impact. It is an extremely unhealthy environment in which to live. When I become pregnant with my first child, I made the decision to move simply because of the sheer levels of pollutants that I would have been raising my child in.
Increasingly aware of the environment for our children and the need for a healthy environment, the community is more and more turning its mind to the need to protect our ecosystems around us so that we have quality of air and quality of water. The mangroves help provide the quality of air. We have heard speakers today describe the mangroves as the lungs of our harbour or the gills of our harbour - whatever description you want to apply to them. They are critical to the health of our environs. The key difference between where we are headed is - as the member for Daly has acknowledged, there has been a great deal of research done over the years because of the sheer significance of Darwin Harbour to our community. What the statement today sets out is that we are taking that critically important next step: we are creating conservation of 96% of our mangroves under the Town Planning Act.
In addition to that, the minister’s statement lays out the fact that this Martin Labor government has a vision. That vision is articulated in a very broad, community-driven process that has come up with the draft Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. I congratulate the committee members and all the key stakeholders who were on the working party chaired by Alderman John Bailey. They have come up with a very comprehensive document that sets out and articulates clear goals for our Darwin Harbour. I refer to the Executive Summary in the Darwin Harbour Management Plan; the draft I have before me. It says:
It lists a range of strategies and actions that are developed to realise a vision for the harbour and its catchment.
I also want to quote a section from the management plan that describes the significance of the harbour: It says
It really is, as people have said, the centre of the Darwin region, and anything the government can do to protect the broad interests of the community in creating a Darwin Harbour mangrove conservation zone is to be applauded. I have been heartened to hear members on both sides of the House today talk to that. It is great to pause and really appreciate what is a significant asset of the Northern Territory. It is great to see the energy of the people working at all levels of departments. I want to acknowledge the hard work done by staff both in DIPE and in DBIRD for research undertaken. The more we know about the harbour, the better placed we are in to appropriately manage that asset.
The rezoning of these mangroves to make them a conservation zone gives the highest possible level of protection to this ecologically vital area and, fundamentally, it meets a government election commitment. We know mangroves play a crucial role in our ecosystem and, fortunately, most of the mangrove communities in Darwin Harbour are largely intact and in good condition. We are very fortunate because few cities in the world have such a magnificent resource so close, at their doorstep.
Rezoning will occur by way of amendment to the NT Planning Scheme. Therefore, it is locked in. It will be very difficult for governments in the future to diminish what we are doing as a government today, and that is an incredibly significant step to take. To protect our environment for our future generations is very much a part of the responsibility that each of us, as legislators, take on moving into parliament. I know that generations to come will be far more environmentally demanding than the generations before us, because we are starting to witness some of the catastrophic consequences of our environmental mistakes.
With that sense of faith that we will become better environment managers, understanding how to work within a concept of sustainable development, I believe the Territory really has a tremendous opportunity to grow and to mark out its place as a leader in a national and regional context, and of how to manage our environment within the context of sustainable development as well.
I note the comments made by the member for Nelson. I know he is a man who has a passion about the harbour. I note his concern about Middle Arm. It is a concern, to varying degrees, I have shared. I have become acquainted with a great deal of knowledge about the research done on the environmental impact on activities planned for that area. I wish we could turn back the clock; I wish that, in the 1980s and beyond, decisions about Middle Arm had not been made. However, they were made and this government inherited those decisions. The development has occurred and it will continue to occur in that section of our harbour.
In that context, having a management plan around the harbour and to deal with contexts that we have inherited - working ports within the inner harbour, as I have said at the outset - that is historical. We have a working port in this harbour, and it is a key impact on our harbour’s health. Having the development at Middle Arm, again, is a historical fact, environmentally, that we will have to deal with. A management plan ensures the government can move forward with industry, understanding the responsibilities we have to the protection of our harbour. I welcome the management plan. I welcome the understanding that, with sustainable development, protection of key areas, the community concerns of the environment and industry needs can be balanced as well as those two issues can be balanced.
I know a lot of work has been done by the Office of Environment and Heritage in this area, and I congratulate the staff working there for the efforts they have put in to ensure environmental protection measures were enhanced on the projects at Middle Arm after Labor took government. I acknowledge the success they have had in ensuring an improved environmental outcome there.
In closing, I congratulate our minister for his statement in the House today. It is tremendous news to hear that 96% of the mangroves in Darwin Harbour will be conserved and, hopefully, conserved for all time. It will be a very silly government indeed that tries to reduce that down from the Planning Act because, as I believe environmental awareness is growing, generations to come will be far more forthright about environmental protection than our current generations; we are seeing a growing awareness. So we can go out there fishing in the harbour. I look forward to taking my kids through the mangroves as I did many times as a child. I became quite an expert mudskipper catcher in my day; it was one of my favourite pastimes. I was no good at fishing so I stuck to catching the mudskippers. Though I did not enjoy fishing, I certainly enjoyed watching how great my mother was at catching fish.
I look forward to further debate as we grapple with the development issues that many members have identified will continue to impact on our harbour: the debates about shipping, development of land mass around the harbour, whether it be for residential or other uses. This is an evolving debate and today, I believe, is a significant aspect of that debate. We are seeing clear conservation for our mangroves, and an election commitment by Labor well and truly met.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak from two counts: one is directed to the statement and one is as the member for Drysdale.
As the member for Drysdale, Buffalo Creek, Micket Creek, King Creek, Sand Creek, the Howard River are all in my electorate, as is Reichardt on the seaward side. On the harbour side, Reichardt, Sadgroves, and right down to Elizabeth River. There are two major river systems and several creeks within my electorate. There are a number of boat ramps. There is a significant amount of fishing activity that emanates, both in those creeks and from ramps in the area. There is also Bayview Haven, which is on land that has been reclaimed from mangrove, and now houses many people who vote for me. Some of them do not, but there is Bayview. It also includes Charles Darwin Park. That is a very significant reserve, in close proximity to Darwin, which will be there for future generations and will provide a richer resource than the gardens currently provide, and will be a much loved resource for centuries to come, given its close proximity to our CBD.
Members talked longingly about their youth, of fishing and various other things. That is the picture that is conjured up because the harbour, for most of us, is a place of recreation. There are not many people in Darwin who actually work on and around the harbour, but there are a lot of people who use it for recreation. That is why it conjures up such good images for us. I am a freshwater man. It took me a long time to get the confidence to use the harbour to the full extent that it offers for anglers. On the way, there were some traps for young players that I fell into: being in creeks as the water rushed out and as the water rushed in - to my detriment on both occasions. It is something that took a while, and that requires some vigilance - learning about the hazards that are in the harbour for anglers and even throw netters and others.
However, the rosy glow of the past should be tempered with some of the reality. This harbour saw significant damage on 19 February 1942, where numbers of ships were sunk and it had an enormous oil slick through it. It had flotsam, jetson, debris and munitions strewn across the harbour bottom and the beaches, and it recovered. It is a powerful filter in its own right, in that the 7 m tides that come very fortnight or so are able to help the harbour to recover and regain its powerful life.
The member for Millner talked about fishing around the harbour and Dinah Beach. Well, I can remember as a young child, the wreck next to the wharf. It was there until the early 1960s. I can remember the iron ore being taken out over the wharf, and the iron ore pretty much polluted all of that harbour area; there was a red dust across everything, including the bottom. You could not catch a fish around there; it was quite dirty. It was definitely a working port, and it was quite polluted around the foreshore. It was a bit different back towards Dinah Beach. Dinah Beach had Northern Research there, and there was a prawn factory that spewed - as everybody did, I guess, anywhere around the world - the by-product down into the harbour. It was great fishing because all the fishing offal and entrails and whatever that came through that factory, provided great capacity to catch a fish just offshore. There were some good crocs in there too, at the time.
The member also talked about fish traps. There were a number of them. There are still remnants of fish traps. If people go off the quarantine ramp now, they will see fish traps on the point, up towards Reichardt. Those fish traps are no longer available, because it is now prohibited to professionally fish within the harbour. That prohibition of fishing is a good thing, along with the declaration of parks, the research that has gone on. We are now in a position where there can be some accolades for people who have been instrumental in keeping the harbour the way it is. I commend the minister on his statement where he says our mangroves, our harbour are in splendid shape. I agree with him; they are in splendid shape because of the heritage of many people. It is not just CLP governments since self-government. I can recall when I was working in the mining industry, that Burge Brown was quarrying sand on Bynoe Harbour and was bringing it across Cox Peninsula. He wanted to barge it straight into Winnellie and was prohibited by the mining registrar of the day, I think it might have been, from doing so because it would have destroyed some mangroves by him enjoying that activity.
There has been a Darwin ethic and, while we as a CLP government, and the current government, would like to claim that we have played a large part of it, it is the community ethic in this place, that is a very palpable and strong thing. If you look in the Dry Season at the people who congregate around the harbour, it is almost a worshipful thing. If you go down to the Trailer Boat Club, the Ski Club and the yacht club, the Sailing Club, you will see lots and lots of people there. Also at the Mindil Beach Sunset Markets, you see people who pay homage to the setting sun over our harbour. People from all around the world take photos and say what a beautiful place this is.
I guess the point is a balance - and many people have talked about it. It is a reality that we live in a harbourside village that will become a harbourside city - it is a harbourside city. It will spread. I can recall some of the debates about Cullen Bay and whether it should go ahead, and whether the natural environment that was there was more worthy of a design for that particular piece of foreshore than people living there; a habitat for humans.
I did some quick sums. There are probably 800 000 fisherman, apparently, who use it: 800 000 fishing hours. Well, if you count up the people down at Cullen Bay, there is probably some millions of human hours in that particular tiny sector now. One would have to argue that that balance was probably achieved. Those who remember that particular little stony mangrove beach would, on balance, say what is there at Cullen Bay suits the people of Darwin. It is all very well saying 70 people turned up to a meeting and they said nothing should happen. If you turned up to Cullen Bay now and said to all the people there: ‘Do you believe you should live here or not live here’, I am sure you would get a resounding ‘Yes’.
Many of these things do need balance. We should be very wary about things that destroy mangrove habitats. However, we have an enormous resource here, and many speakers have talked about how they have ventured out into the harbour and caught fish. Well, I can tell you, you can see 50 or 60 boats at the boat ramp and get out there and not see a soul all day, and it is because the harbour is so enormous. The mangrove resource out there is enormous and you can spend a whole day out there without seeing another human being. Let us bear that in perspective, the fact that it is growing. Our harbour, necessarily, will generate activity - shipping activity and other activity around the place. It is something that is inevitably going to grow and we just have to make sure we keep a handle on it.
I can also recall a Labor promise a couple of elections ago where they were going to put a bund across Shoal Bay and bank up the entire of the catchment of the Leanyer Swamp. It seemed pretty visionary at the time; seemed like a good idea. However, before you talk and hear about how you have had an ethic of continually protecting mangroves and we have not, then I suggest you go back through the Labor archives and look at some of those promises. Look, for instance, at the promise regarding the south side of Bayview Haven. The maps will still show it coming right down to Dinah Beach and all of that mangrove habitat there being destroyed. So it is not something that we should make great joy out of; the fact the you had plans that once incorporated the destruction of mangroves, and so too did we. We have to sign off on the fact that we both agree that the harbour is really important, and put the most important component, that is, the flora and fauna habitat that is required for nursery for the fish that people come to pursue; and that we do not want to see it blanketed by concrete. But that would probably be a mere impossible proposition in any of our forward thinking.
It is important that all governments provide very powerful stewardship of this great natural asset that we are endowed with, and we should take great glee that we have been so fortunate to be endowed such a thing; to live in a place like that and have it at our doorstep. The potential for development is inevitable. I just caution all governments not to use it as a stick to say: ‘This should go ahead or that should not’, merely because there are mangroves there, but to make sure that the very importance of mangroves is respected and that it be used as part of a design process.
I was a bit disappointed that the minister did not talk about the waste water treatment plant out at the Darwin Aquaculture Centre. I am familiar with the centre, both from an interest point of view and also because I am the former Essential Services minister. It is a great centre; however, it is an aquaculture centre and does discharge into the harbour. I know it is on the capital works program to have a waste water treatment centre there. I hoped that somehow that would have featured in his speech, because I think it is the sort of things you talk about. If we only talk about how there should not be aquaculture in the harbour, that is platitudes unless you can actually talk about the aquaculture facilities that are there now and the steps that the government has put in place - particularly something this government owned like this particular facility - to make sure that there are not various biota and organisms that enter our harbour that can cause destruction.
Apart from that, I commend the minister for a thinking approach to this. He could have easily been swayed towards some reservationist-type jargon that would have all of this area and more, as described on a map by my colleague, the member for Nelson: put it tucked away forever. I do not think that can happen in a town that is going to grow as Darwin will. However, it does require a careful and thinking approach to future development, and the minister has been able to demonstrate that in this statement. I commend him on it, and I look forward to a thinking debate about any proposals to develop areas that are close to the mangrove habitat around the Darwin Harbour.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend my colleague, the minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, for bringing this important statement to the House and the fulfilment of a commitment by the Labor Party in the lead-up to the election. I would just like to pick up on the comments of a couple of members opposite regarding their broad endorsement for this statement - but even within that, the capacity to try to play a bit of politics with it.
The member for Goyder was somehow trying to imply that, as a government, we have not fulfilled the commitment that we made some people of the Northern Territory prior to the election. In his usual way, he was trying to imply that, somehow, we have misled Territorians, the media, amateur fishermen and the Environment Centre, and people were getting sick and tired of the spin that the new Labor government, and this will come back to haunt us. It was not my shadow portfolio area at the time, but I have gone back and done the research on explicitly what were our commitments in regards to mangroves in Darwin Harbour. These were commitments that were made to a response to the Environment Centre, which sent out a detailed questionnaire to all parties and candidates prior to the last election. I will read the questions and answers into Hansard for the benefit of the member for Goyder, who might think he can besmirch this very significant commitment to protect 96% of the mangroves; that somehow it does not stand up to our election promise.
The question from the Environment Centre was:
Our commitment was:
You cannot be any more explicit. Tick! This statement today and this commitment absolutely meets the letter of that promise that we made to the people of the Northern Territory. The second question was:
The answer:
Tick! Absolutely to the letter, and I believe 96% is a pretty good pass mark. We did not quite meet the third one, though:
Certainly, we have slipped a bit there. We said ‘Yes’, but in the research and the processes of government and public consultation that we have been through, with the consultation for the Darwin Harbour Management Plan, that was probably a bit ambitious. However, the Environment Centre would be very pleased that we have met, to the absolute letter, the commitments that we gave to the them prior to the election. Therefore, for the member for Goyder to come in here and play his silly petty politics and try to suggest that we have not, there is our commitment. It was in writing to the Environment Centre and, apart from the time frame, has been met just as we said it would be.
The member for Goyder is interesting regarding his position on the harbour and development. All of us here recognise we need sustainable development. We cannot turn back the clock and completely have a pristine environment. I do not think anybody is arguing that point. However, we do have development around the harbour. We have the Phillips LNG plant being built out at Wickham Point which is going to be the most environmentally best managed LNG plant in the world. I have challenged the member for Goyder on a number of occasions to come into this parliament and put his explicit and total support for this project on public record, and he has yet to do that. He still has a question on the Question Paper in his name. Again, I have challenged him to withdraw this question from the Question Paper, as it is blatant scaremongering. Any nonobjective reading of the 13-part question on the Question Paper by a person who has absolutely no knowledge of the reality of that project and how the environmental management issues will be constrained, would lead to the conclusion that we have an absolute disaster on our hands.
I will read some of the points. Really, he cannot come in here and say that, on the one hand, we have not gone far enough because we have not met some election commitment and, on the other hand, try to pretend he is pro-development and pro-business and pro-economic growth when he has these types of questions in his name on the parliamentary Question Paper. The first part of the question is:
Well, the project is going ahead and work is happening.
Again, in section (3) of the question, this is implying that there is going to be significant damage:
And (6):
And, most alarmingly of all, (13):
To have these types of questions in his name on the parliamentary Question Paper is really hardly a ringing endorsement of the environmental impact statements, the management plans, the professional people - not only within the Phillips consortium, but also within government. And not only this government, may I say, but also the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments have approved this particular project.
This really does not stand him in very good stead, and is recklessly irresponsible in his duties as a member of Parliament to have these types of allegations purporting to be questions on the parliamentary Question Paper.
We certainly are committed to the environment and Darwin Harbour and, today, have filled a significant election commitment in protecting 96% of the mangroves in Darwin Harbour. Also, of the area to be rezoned to conservation, 46 516 hectares is a huge amount of land and, of this, over 26 000 hectares is mangrove. This is a huge commitment by the government and the minister.
I would also like to pick up on points made by the member for Nelson, in terms of the extractives industry at Middle Arm. Again, the picture that the member painted was that we were mining Darwin Harbour, there is significant damage and detriments to the environment, along with the implication that a heap of mangroves are going to die as a result of this reckless mining that has been taking place at Middle Arm. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. The member has received a full and detailed briefing from people in my department. Extractive mineral leases have been approved for the extraction of about 900 000 m3 of select fill for the foundation to the northern end of the Darwin to Alice Springs railway, and providing special non-compacting fill for the port development.
When we came to government, there were issues regarding the way these extractive mineral leases were being mined. My department and DIPE came together to consider conditions that should apply to extractive mining in parts of Middle Arm. As a result of those meetings occurring, 13 of the 19 extractive mineral applications were refused, and restrictions were placed in terms of buffer zones, from the watermark to where extractive operations could be carried out. Titles were restricted to 8 m above sea level and, certainly, significant protections were put in place to ensure there was no detrimental impact to mangrove colonies downstream, for want of a better term, from these extractive mineral leases, which were granted because of their proximity to those developments in an effort to reduce the costs of those developments. Whilst in the past there may have been extraction to the edge of mangroves under a previous administration, all future extraction will be conducted with the conservation of Darwin Harbour in mind. A specific issue that will be addressed in the plan of management for the harbour is a conservation zone being introduced to protect mangroves.
That is what we have done, and we have to try and balance economic activity and environmental concerns and requirements. We have actually reached this balance. My advice is that the member for Nelson objected to a number of applications for extractive mineral leases under the act, and then withdrew those objections after he had the details of exactly what and how it was going to happen.
Mr Wood: Yes, one existed.
Mr HENDERSON: We have given the member for Nelson the briefings, and I have not had any specific correspondence subsequently in regard to the conditions that are being put on these extracted mineral leases. If you position is, fundamentally, that there should be absolutely no extractive operations out there, that is absolutely fine. However, those objections were withdrawn.
It is all about trying to maintain a balance and, certainly, the policy position of this government is to protect the natural ecosystems in Darwin Harbour, to ensure that, environmentally, we leave the harbour as undamaged as we possibly can, but also mindful of the fact that we have to develop economies, get jobs for people and have sustainable economies and jobs for people. That is what we are trying to balance.
There is also a lot of debate in the House about whether Bayview Haven should have gone ahead or should not have gone ahead. The fact is, though, that people want to live on the waterfront. All around the world, people pay premium prices to live in waterfront areas. We do not want to be a Gold Coast or places like that. However, there is going to be pressure from developers. The member for Sanderson talked about the triple bottom line having to apply. I could not agree with him more. We cannot pretend that those pressures are not going to come. However, the intent of government is very clear in, for the first time in the Northern Territory, providing 96% of the mangroves with that conservation zone status.
Whilst I am talking about the value of our harbour to the economy as well as its conservation value, one of the recent debates - and this is off on a bit of a tangent but, given that we are talking about Darwin Harbour and its value to the people of the Northern Territory in recreation space, and also its tourism value as part of the debate about why the LNG plant should not be built in Darwin Harbour - that was part of the debate. In the recent debate in regard to the convention centre for Darwin and where it should be placed, there was a lot of very specific debate about that.
However, in the studies that we conducted into the viability of the convention centre, the types of markets it should be pitched to and that we could attract, all of the experts in this area came back and said: ‘The prime competitive advantage that Darwin has in the business convention market is the harbour. That is the greatest asset that you have. To have a convention centre focussed looking outwards onto the harbour is, fundamentally, the prime competitive advantage that you have in attracting convention delegates to this town; a point of difference in the convention market, and something that is going to be a real boost to the tourism industry for many, many years’. Taking that advice, and also testing the potential impact on the CBD, government made the decision and the commitment that the best outlook for this convention centre - not only in terms of maximising the value of the harbour in the tourism industry - was to build it down in the wharf precinct with massive views over our pristine harbour, and to have, supporting that, developments that are going to leverage off that convention centre. That is the vision, and it really is turning the natural ecosystem and the environmental asset that we have to an economic advantage for the people of Darwin and future generations.
That stands in stark contrast to the formal opposition position on this which - and I am reading from a press release, from the Opposition Leader dated 1 August where the Leader of the Opposition states in his opening statement:
So we would have the convention centre looking in on the city, not looking out over the harbour and again, what competitive advantage would we have in that regard? I would say that there are 1000 convention centres around the world that look in on cities, but very few that look out over such a beautiful area such as Darwin Harbour. He goes on to say that:
Well, I just do not see how growing an economy and growing tourism into Darwin can be to the detriment of business. We are talking about building markets and tourism and being a point of difference, and the harbour offers us an opportunity to be the point of difference. The challenge for the developers - and it is a challenge that is very specific in the EIS - is how to build those linkages between our waterfront and our CBD. That is not beyond the wit and wisdom of developers and engineers to come up with those linkages. Therefore, from the government’s point of view, I would attest not only do we have an absolutely very strong environmental commitment to Darwin Harbour by the protection of these 96% of mangroves, we also have a vision for the harbour in how we can maximise that great asset of our harbour to turn tourism dollars for our community. To have a world class convention centre with a vision and a vista over Darwin harbour is really going to be a significant asset for this community.
You can have a win/win. You can have a triple bottom line, as the member for Sanderson said. I commend my colleague, the minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, for bringing this statement to the House today.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, let us look at the facts. The Darwin Harbour is a splendid harbour - no doubt about it. The Darwin Harbour is a working harbour. It has been a working harbour since the beginning of the 19th century, and it is not going to change. True, it is going to get busier and most likely it is going to get bigger - bigger in transport, in containers coming in and out of Darwin - and, with the advent of the railway here, it is going to be the gateway to Asia. So, things are going to get much, much busier and at the same time, pressure will increase.
Darwin Harbour is going to accommodate larger ships more frequently with the advent of the LNG gas onshore. At the same time, Darwin Harbour is one of the very few harbours in the world that has maintained a mangrove forest nearly intact. The truth of the matter is that the previous CLP government did a lot of work for the harbour. A lot of scientific work has been accumulated, and we have used this scientific work during the consultation period of the Darwin Harbour plan of management and the development of this particular policy. We continue to use it because we have a lot of scientific work accumulated there and paid for by Territorians. It would be a disaster to leave it gathering dust in a library. So, it will be used, and it can be used for a reference also for other people and other cities that face the same problem.
It is true that the CLP had acknowledged in the past that they had to preserve the mangroves in the harbour. However, a previous statement by the then minister Baldwin refers only to preserving 80% of the productivity of the mangrove system. To his credit, he acknowledged at the time that he made the statement, that was the world opinion: maintaining up to 80% of the mangroves would be enough to sustain the mangrove community in the harbour and to maintain its healthy state.
But what is important here - and the member for Nelson stated it very well - what we achieve now in this new policy direction is a change of logic. This is the first time in the Territory and, as a matter of fact in Australia, that development is not above all. Development in the harbour, in particular where it affects the mangroves, comes second. This is the fundamental change from the previous government to this government.
Before the election, we promised we were going to preserve the Darwin Harbour. However, preserve it as what? We could declare it a marine park, as has been requested by the Environment Centre and other people, or maintain it as a working harbour, at the same time providing access to fishermen and people who want to go sailing, boating, or live across the harbour, while limiting any activity that will hurt the mangroves. That is why we declared such a big area as a conservation zone - an area from Charles Point to Gunn Point including the catchment area of the harbour.
From now on, if somebody wants to develop industry in the Darwin Harbour, they have to prove clearly, going through a certain process and undergoing public scrutiny, why he, she or their company has to remove mangroves. Yes, governments can put legislation in place; can declare parks, but governments can always revoke declarations, and it has happened before.
However, if there is a political will, public scrutiny, and a process in place, and if these mangroves have been zoned appropriately, then you put in place too many things that can prevent the uncontrolled development in such a sensitive area - and this is what we have done here. As I said yesterday publicly, it will take somebody very, very brave to be prepared to stand up before the government authorities and the public scrutiny in Darwin, to argue why they should destroy one, two, three, 10 hectares of mangroves. I do not think they will succeed. That is what is important here with the declaration of the conservation zone.
The member for Goyder tried to argue: ‘What you did today is what we were going to do’. However, the reality is the previous government was never brave enough to stand up and declare even the 80% recognised as necessary to make the mangroves as conservation zone. We did it; they did not. They were talking about it, but they never took one step more to declare.
To their credit again, the member for Daly, the then minister, said yes, they were thinking about it. They did not do it, but he recognises now that things have changed and he agrees with the government’s position. He agrees with the government’s action to declare 96% of the mangroves in Darwin Harbour as conservation zone.
The reality, if you look at the numbers, when minister Baldwin, in October 2000, was making a statement about the mangroves, the CLP government was intending to protect about 20 000 hectares of mangroves, with 4% of them available for development. We have added more hectares of protected mangroves by incorporating the catchment areas. We are now protecting 26 000 hectares of mangroves in the conservation zone and, on top of that, another 20 000 hectares of mudflats, salt flats and other areas. Really, we have a holistic approach, not only in the mangroves but the whole topography of the harbour from Gunn Point to Charles Point.
There were questions about why we were not declaring a marine park in the harbour. We said: ‘This is the first step we are taking at this stage to protect the mangroves. Let us go one step at a time’. This declaration, together with the plan of management for the harbour, will provide adequate protection to the harbour. The Labor government has already stated that we will be looking at declaring a marine park at Bynoe Harbour because we know of the increasing pressure in Bynoe Harbour. That has been recognised by the members for Nelson and Daly.
Another matter is that the CLP, despite their arguments about protecting mangroves, were prepared to destroy thousand of hectares of mangroves by putting a dam in the Elizabeth River. Thanks to community action, that never happened. The Labor government has given a commitment that we are not putting dams across rivers or creeks. We are going to stick to this promise.
As to the other questions about Rapid Creek and Buffalo Creek, these were already declared conservation zones. That is why they are not included in the current map. However, once again, I remind you that all mangrove communities from Charles Point to Gunn Point are protected.
A question was asked yesterday: ‘What about Bayview Haven?’ Bayview Haven was a community that was developed years ago. The original lease, I believe, was granted in 1993. As my colleague, the member for Wanguri said, people want to live by the sea, everywhere in Australia and in the world. The problem is how we can accommodate the development, with the pressure on the harbour by land release, and achieve the preservation of the natural environment and the mangroves. Even today in Bayview, what you have done and what we are prepared to do, is to limit the expansion of that development so we do not encroach on the mangroves on Sadgroves Creek. However, once again, there are problems with engineering. The developers themselves have acknowledged that they are not going to encroach on Sadgroves Creek because of the very difficult engineering solutions that would be required - expensive solutions - in order to further the development. That is true. It has now been recognised by industry - aquaculture businesses - that it is not a very wise idea and not a very cheap way to develop in the mangrove area. Therefore, the mangroves are not only protected by government, but also by the extremely expensive costs of actually developing where mangroves are.
We have moved and declared a conservation zone of the mangroves in the harbour. I am very pleased to see that there is unilateral support – or support from all sides of parliament, the other side and the Independents. As politicians here, we should not try to score political points arguing about actions by the government or their position. We are here to safeguard the environment for future communities. Mangroves do not belong to political parties or to governments. The environment does not belong to government or political parties. The environment belongs to all citizens; not only the people living today, but the people who come after us and the people who come after that. The environment does not belong to the minister or a political party; the environment belongs to all citizens in the Territory, all citizens of Australia - because we cannot see the Territory in isolation from the rest of Australia. We have no right to destroy the physical environment in the Top End and deprive the rest of Australia of the natural beauty of the Darwin Harbour or the environment of the Territory. The Territory is part of Australia. We are Australians, and we have the same rights here, like any other Australian has when he or she comes to the Territory.
We have to consider the cultural value of the harbour. Many of the Larrakia people live by and from the harbour and will continue to do so. We have to consider the importance of the harbour to the people living in the Territory for recreational use - for sailing, fishing and, certainly, swimming when the weather and the stingers permit. Once again …
Mr Wood: And bushwalking .
Mr VATSKALIS: And bushwalking among the mangroves, as long as you are loaded with Rid.
Mr Wood: No, among the gravel pits. The bush will be gone.
Mr VATSKALIS: It is an important decision, and to the right direction it is the first step. I notice that one. I know some people would like to do more, but the reality is, let us start with the first step. This is the first step to protect our natural environment around the harbour. Let us start from here and continue slowly, if necessary, to expand and to do more and more things. We have started the right way; it is the right way to go, and future generations will thank us - all of us - for the support we offer to the declaration of the mangroves in Darwin Harbour under the conservation zone.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I adjourn on STD rates amongst Northern Territory zero to 15-year-olds. The member for Port Darwin asked a question in Question Time today about notification rates of sexually transmitted diseases amongst the Territory’s zero to 15-year-olds. She had a graph of notifications which showed increased notifications, especially of gonorrhoea and chlamydia, over the years from 1997 to 2002.
I have now received a graph from the Centre for Disease Control in my department that was prepared by the HIV and STD Unit in the Centre for Disease Control for a meeting of departmental medical officers. Members of the House will recall that the member for Port Darwin indicated that this information was accessed through the Royal Darwin Hospital library. Obviously, the first place that we went to was the Royal Darwin Hospital library, and they were unable to locate it - interesting. The document was found in the CDC area because they prepared it. I will pursue this issue.
The CDC-prepared graph does, indeed, show an increase between 2001 and 2002, an issue of very greatest concern to myself and my government. As the mother of three children including two teenage sons, I must say I am very concerned about this situation. Apparently, the member for Port Darwin has put out a press release this afternoon claiming that I do not care about STDs in young people. Nothing – nothing - could be further from the truth. This is an entirely different question from whether I should have every graph produced and every data set in my file for Question Time. I would just like to say that is a totally ludicrous prospect.
There is more mischief in the member for Port Darwin’s representation of this issue. The increase in STD notifications among young people is a cause for concern, but it is not accurate to represent this as a proxy measure for child sexual abuse. In fact, there are a number of issues operating that drive these figures; all of them separately being causes for our concern and for separate actions. None - not one - are helped by the member’s sensationalism.
Causes of STD rates among zero to 15-year-old Territorians include the fact that more 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds are having sex these days. A recently released report on sex, health and society, from the Australian Research Centre at Latrobe University, identified a drop in the median age of first intercourse, having fallen for both men and women over the last 20 years. This is an issue of grave concern. The fact that young people are having sex does not mean that any of us in this place would condone it. However, unfortunately, it is happening. Even though we might argue and the law says that the ability of a young person to consent to sex is compromised by their age, this does not stop them. While we might argue with the young people that they do not have the ability to consent, they do not see all of this as non-consensual sex. Much of it is 13 year-olds and 14-year-olds having sex with each other - not appropriate by my own or many people’s standards, but not amenable to the same interventions as the assault of even younger children or the assault of 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds. What do we do about this aspect? We need to make sure as a community, we support parents in talking to their children about these issues and educating them. We need to encourage young people to talk to us and to support appropriate sex education in schools.
Also, there have been increases in gonorrhoea and chlamydia in the community over recent years, against an historically high level in the Northern Territory compared to the rest of Australia. This means that, for every episode of sex involving a young person, there is a greater chance that they have come into contact with a sexually transmittable infection. It is not known how important this factor is in these numbers, but it is a factor. It is also possible that there is an extent to which more 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds are being tested. We do not screen 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds - that is a vexed issue for obvious reasons - but I am advised that we suspect more are being tested because practitioners are being educated to expect this risk; precisely through the kind of meeting that this graph was prepared for.
What do we do about this aspect? We have been running STD awareness education, targeting sexually-active young people and older young people, encouraging safe sex and testing for these STDs, which have nasty health consequences including infertility and increased risk of HIV infection. This will remain a priority of this government.
Thirdly, some of these cases are child sexual abuse, and these are our highest priority for the child protection team. I have already talked about the importance we place on that issue: an extra $2.4m funding; a review that I initiated; and progressive reform of procedures, systems and training, as the review proceeds. Therefore, far from not caring about the issues, this government understands their complexities and is actually committed to responding to the several and separate problems we are facing here - a far cry from trivialising the issues in the search of a sensational headline. As I have said, a number of times it is incumbent on the opposition to do better and actually engage us in a reasoned debate of policy on this issue, if they wish to be taken seriously on the sensitive issue involved.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, tonight I discuss the issue of plagiarism in this House arising out of what happened yesterday. I will just remind honourable members of the Northern Territory University’s policy on plagiarism. The policy says that plagiarism is the unacknowledged use of material written by others or a re-work of your own material, and a source of information and ideas used in assignments must be re-referenced. This applies to whether the information is from a book, journal article, previous essay or assignment you wrote, or the assignment of a friend. Plagiarism will result in automatic failure and the result may be subject to disciplinary action by the university.
The university goes on in its policy to define plagiarism and I quote:
Today I heard the member for Sanderson in this House saying - and I quote him:
Well, information for the member for Sanderson is that not only do I accuse him of outright plagiarism, I accuse the member for Sanderson of doing it knowingly and doing it in breach of copyright protected material.
I draw members’ attention to what flagged this issue with me on the 7 March 2002, when the member for Sanderson presented his speech to this House on the debate dealing with the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Amendment Bill (Serial 34). I listened to that and I thought to myself: ‘What a good speech; well researched, well put together’. He did not, at any point that I am aware of in the speech - and I have re-read the speech – say: ‘I quote’, and ‘I go on to quote these bits and pieces’. However, when I checked the Hansard to re-read that speech, because it was a useful speech, large sections of that particular piece of Hansard appear as quotes. I was curious about that. But would you condemn a person for that? No. Perhaps he has taken the material out of the report. He even directs us to the report in that speech:
Then he goes on. But he does not say, ‘I quote and I used this information from it’. It is not a serious breach. He has corrected it, obviously, at some point afterwards. He has read the Hansard proof and said: ‘Oh, I am going to correct it’, so it appears as quotes. Not a problem, but it flags the issue.
However, I now turn my attention to another speech in this House. This speech was delivered by the member for Sanderson on the Thursday, 7 March as well - page 1141 of the Parliamentary Record applies. In that speech he refers to a piece of work by a Dr Curtin called The Digital Divide in Rural and Regional Australia?, a current issues brief. I went and checked that speech and, once again, we do not find that the member for Sanderson has, at any point, used the term, ‘I quote’, from that particular piece of research, in spite of the fact that he has referred to it in his speech.
What has happened - and I will table this for honourable members - is that large sections of that speech - paragraphs in fact - are lifted directly out of The Digital Divide in Rural and Regional Australia?. I have several sections of that particular speech reproduced in the Hansard. In fact, we are not talking about small amounts of information, we are talking about pages of material. It appears word for word in the Hansard of that speech. However, on that occasion, he has actually used the name of the researcher, and he has referred to it. So maybe - just maybe - he can get away by the skin of his teeth.
I draw members’ attention to another speech delivered to this House by the member for Sanderson on 23 May 2002, two months later. That was a speech dealing with the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill. This becomes a much more serious issue, because now the member for Sanderson relies on not one source of material, which he does not reference at all in his speech, but two separate articles. I refer honourable members first to the Family and Community Development Committee report from the Victorian parliament, the Review of Legislation Under Which Persons are Detained at the Governor's Pleasure in Victoria. I point out that there are areas on this document I shall table shortly that are highlighted that appear, reproduced word for word, in the member’s speech. Once again, we are not talking about small sections of text; we are talking about long passages of text.
I also draw members’ attention to an article that appeared in the Law Institute Journal in January 1998, pages 46-47. This is a copyright document, and the copyright warning I have attached for the information of members. The article to which I refer was by a lady called Sophie Delaney: Controlling the Governor’s Pleasure - Some Gain, Some Pain. If members will indulge me, I will quote from the member for Sanderson’s speech:
Now I will quote Ms Delaney from her 1998 article:
Now I turn from a bad stage to the worst stage of this saga. I would like to quote the member for Sanderson, from 20 August 2003, a couple of months ago, where he said at page 13 of the Daily Hansard. I have subsequently checked that the matter has not been fixed up in Hansard, and it has not. I quote the member for Sanderson:
A little ferreting around – and this one was actually a challenge, but I would like to hand over - the member for Araluen, I think, was showing some interest in this - something from Holmes, O’Malley Sexton Solicitors. This took a bit of work because Holmes O’Malley Sexton Solicitors are a law firm in Ireland. Their web site takes you through several web pages. Finally, we go to the What’s New section of the web site. In August 2002, an article appeared called Multi-Disciplinary Practice: One-Stop Shop or Full Stop?
I am going to now demonstrate to members inside this House exactly how coincidental this particular exercise is, because I now have in my hand the speech delivered to this House by the member for Sanderson, and I quote:
It then goes on to say:
It then goes on to say:
It goes on and on and on. I tell you something, we asked some questions about the issue of plagiarism in this House this morning. It was all, oh jocular, jocular, we do not have this problem, it is just a little accident. This Labor opposition …
Members: Labor government.
Mr ELFERINK: … is infected with a problem, and it is a dishonest, misleading, misguided outrage that this is allowed to occur in this parliament. Never has this parliament been so poorly served by a member, and this member comes into this Chamber and makes outrages accusations all the time …
Dr Burns: Never say never. That is one of the first rules you should learn.
Mr ELFERINK: It is interesting to hear that the minister for plagiarism is trying to back him up.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask him to retract that.
Mr Dunham: Oh, that is not fair!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, just withdraw that.
Mr ELFERINK: I will withdraw the remark, Madam Speaker. It is incredible how insensitive the good doctor is. The fact of the matter is that this member has repeatedly, in breach of copyright, in breach of the trust that his electorate has placed on him - he has become a laughing stock as a result of this; a worse laughing stock than he already is.
Questions were asked this morning, and one of the answers from the Deputy Chief Minister, was, and I quote:
I have proven my case. I now quote the Chief Minister:
Mr Stirling: The question was asked in the context of education - get it right.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on that interjection. There is a different standard. You have a different standard for your students than the community leaders who sit in this Chamber. You should be ashamed of yourself, that you would even hug up to such an indefensible situation.
The Chief Minister has said:
It has been happening.
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Mr Kiely: Sit in your seat if you are going to mouth off.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr STIRLING: The member cannot object when he is not in his proper seat.
Madam SPEAKER: There are far too many interjections. Member for Macdonnell, you have the floor. Member for Daly, if you want to speak, go back to your chair.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay. Thank you, Madam Speaker, point taken.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is an outrage as far as people of the Northern Territory are concerned. The very fact that the Deputy Chief Minister would try and cuddle up - after the words that he said in this Chamber during Question Time today - to a person who is clearly – clearly - in breach of the trust that this Chamber places in him and the trust that this place has, as a representative of the people who live in the Northern Territory, is just astonishing. Two standards: one for school students but a much lower standard here in this place for his own members. I am nothing shy of astonished.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table all of these documents I just referred to. They make very interesting reading.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on a statement that the minister for DBIRD made about the two applications for mining on Middle Arm Peninsula that he said I agreed to. I just need to make clarification of those. One reason I withdrew my objection was because it was a reworked lease, and the other one was because the owner of the lease said it was the only place they could get that particular gravel that was being mined from there; it was a special type and suitable for the railway. They were the only reasons that I withdrew my objections.
I have not come to talk about that tonight; I have come to talk about what you might call Asian lost opportunities. There was a letter in today’s paper from Ted Dunstan about reviving NT’s Asian trade. In light of that letter on the Territory’s trade with Asia and the member for Palmerston’s comments this morning about the failure of the government to send an observer to the ASEAN meeting in Bali this week, I offer some further comments on the issue.
The former CLP government’s main focus in developing trade with Asia from the mid-1990s until it lost government in 2001, was on a particular area of the ASEAN grouping. It was one of ASEAN’s formal and recognised fast growth areas known as BIMP-EAGA. The BIMP stands for Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, and EAGA stands for East ASEAN growth area. What ASEAN did was identify subregions that had historic and geographical cross-border links and certain synergies which could be exploited to build trade. BIMP-EAGA is made up of all of Brunei, eastern Indonesia, the southern Philippines and eastern Malaysia. What the CLP government managed to accomplish in relation to building ties with that grouping was a profile for the Northern Territory in that region - a positive profile. The Territory is on the edge of the growth area and, in the year 2000, BIMP-EAGA agreed to give the Northern Territory official observer status at its ministerial and senior officers’ meetings. This was a significant accomplishment. The Territory’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry was also given observer status at the EAGA Business Council meetings.
Perhaps there have never been any substantial financial benefits from this push in actual trade, but the groundwork was being laid. If you look back over statements made by former Territory Asian trade ministers in support of the push, it is clear that it was part of a long-term strategy. It was, in part, a recognition of the fact that the Territory’s export and trade future, especially that of the Top End, lies to the north. Where else would it be? The Territory Labor government cannot say it does not support this view otherwise, why do we have the new railway and the new port? If we are not looking north, what is the point of having them? If the Territory is going to promote the use of the railway, and of Darwin as a port, surely it needs to promote that new infrastructure to the region closest to us: BIMP-EAGA and the other areas of ASEAN.
BIMP-EAGA is not a pie in the sky notion. It has been investigated by the Asian Development Bank, which has provided $0.5bn for the Philippines’ coordinating council of BIMP-EAGA, and it has funded a growth area facilitation centre in Sabah. In the past few years, EAGA has gone ahead and developed extensive regional air sea communications and trade links.
I cannot claim to be an expert in this area, but I have been told that, in the region, contacts between government leaders are extremely important in facilitating business - much more important than in Australia. For this reason, it is a shame that the government appears to have dropped the ball on this. The CLP did the groundwork in getting close cooperation going with BIMP-EAGA and its business council, but what has the Labor government done? From what I can see in its first year of government, very little in relation to consolidating links with the region. In the second year, the minister put out a press release saying that the government would revitalise its relationship with the region, and BIMP-EAGA was mentioned in the release. However, it appears it has never been mentioned again.
On the DBIRD web page for business links at the very bottom, the last item is an item on BIMP-EAGA. However, when you click there for further information, it takes you to a web site from the year 2000 - a DART web page; a web page from the CLP government extolling its accomplishments. DART is the Department of Asian Relations and Trade. I can only presume that you get that web page because the Labor government has done nothing further to promote links with BIMP-EAGA. The minister has not made one major statement to parliament on trade or Asian relations since Labor came to government.
In fact, the key players in the public and private sector in the East ASEAN Growth Area, might have forgotten the Territory government, and I bet that most would have no idea who the minister or the Chief Minister is - and this, when the railway is almost operating. We should be promoting Darwin as the gateway to east Asia as recommended in the 1995 Wran Report. You might be tempted to argue the world has changed since 1995 but, in fact, in this region the world has not changed that much. Our geography is still the same, the Territory economy is still an immature and developing one, and the members of the East ASEAN Growth Area are still in need of services and goods of all kinds.
For those who do not remember, the Commonwealth funded the Wran committee to take a hard look at the notion that Darwin will become Australia’s gateway to Asia. It concluded that, at best, it might be a gateway to east Asia, but that it had the best chance of being the gateway to the East ASEAN region. The economies in that region are comparatively small, which suits the Territory’s capacity. The Wran Report identified BIMP-EAGA as the one area where Darwin could make a real effort in developing trade with the region, and here I quote:
Perhaps the government could book a space to observe the BIMP-EAGA conference on human resource development set down for Sabah next year. Notice that the report stresses Darwin-established networks. What has happened to them? Some have disappeared beyond our control: the Ambon link because of the unrest in that region, and West Timor because there is no longer a regular flight there. Mindanao is less safe than it was because of more active separatists, but other links are floundering because the government appears to be failing to send delegates and delegations to BIMP-EAGA meetings and trade shows.
Fortunately, the Northern Territory’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry has been keeping up its links with EAGA’s Business Council, despite the fact that air links sometimes make it difficult. I believe that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry may have convinced the government to send at least an officer, if not a minister, to a major BIMP-EAGA meeting last month. However, business should not have to do that; the government should make it a priority.
In February, the Asian Relations and Trade Minister, Paul Henderson, released the Northern Territory Asian Engagement Plan. He committed the government to re-energising relations with key regional groupings including BIMP-EAGA. The use of the word ‘re-energising’ indicates the government acknowledges it had taken its eye off the ball and let the relations stagnate. However, I am not sure that the government has done anything since February to re-energise the relationship. If it has, it has not reported to parliament in any ministerial statement. If I am wrong in thinking that opportunities have been lost, then I would like someone from the government to get up in parliament and tell me about it.
I urge the government to move quickly, and with more purpose, to rescue these relationships. The railway and port are almost finished and we risk becoming the gateway to nowhere. At the ASEAN meeting in Bali yesterday, the grouping signed an agreement that will eventually see it operate as a European Union-style trading bloc. The Territory has the chance to be involved on the edges of that development. Madam Speaker, it is an opportunity that should not be missed.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, this morning the Chief Minister gave a report about our visit to Greece. I would like to speak about the same subject, because I have more time now and can provide more information to the House.
It was a very successful trip to form stronger relationships with Kalymnos and Dodecanese because, like it or not, 10% of Darwin’s population comes from that island. We already have strong links with Kalymnos, the sister city for Darwin. I went to Greece a week before the rest of the delegation. The reason for that was that I went to meet with people in Greece and to prepare and lobby for what we wanted to achieve from that trip.
First, I want to thank very much the people who assisted me greatly during my stay in Athens and assisted the people from the Territory - the Chief Minister and the others in the delegation to Greece. First, Mr Stuart Hume, the Australian Ambassador in Athens; Ms Daniela Wells, the Second Secretary of the Embassy; Ms Susan Kavati, a Trade Commissioner; and Ms Toni Williams, the Australian Consul in Athens. Their help was invaluable.
I arrived a week before the rest of the delegation. During my stay in Athens, I had a series of meetings with Greek officials. I met with Mr Dimitri Dollis, the Secretary-General of the International Economic Relations and Development Corporation. Mr Dollis is well known to Australian people because he used to be the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party in Victoria. After he retired, he found another niche in the Greek government working very closely, firstly, with the Minister for Greeks Abroad and now as the Secretary-General for the IERDC. The trip was not a trade mission but, following discussions with Mr Dollis and visits to the different supermarkets in Athens, I realised that there is a niche for Australian products, for the simple reason that you could not find anything produced in Australia in Greece – no wine, fruit, or meat. On the contrary, you could find a lot of frozen New Zealand lamb. That is the only thing that came from Down Under.
Of course, a lot of people say it has to do with the European Union quota on Australian exports but, when you visit the fish market and discover frozen Argentinian prawns for sale for $38 a kilo - half the size of Australian prawns - it would be very wise for people from the NT and Australia to visit some of these countries and start selling their products aggressively.
Following the meeting with Mr Dollis, I met with Mr Pavlos Geroulanos, the General Secretary for Greeks Abroad. Greece has tried to maintain strong links with all the migrants in other countries, and even the second and third generation Greeks. They have formed the Council of Greeks Abroad and, through that council, have forged relationships with other countries. They provide educational links, teachers and scholarships. Mr Geroulanos is a very important person, and we need to maintain our relationship to achieve some of the things we want here in Darwin.
Following Mr Geroulanos, I met Professor Stella Priovolos, is the Personal Assistant to the Minister for Education. I met Professor Priovolos during my previous trip to Greece last year, when I was invited by the Greek parliament to attend an international conference of Greek descent politicians. For this trip, the Greek parliament paid all relevant expenses. Professor Priovolos was very supportive. She listened to me very carefully. I put to her what the Greek community here in Darwin wanted: a second teacher, education material for the Greek kids at the Greek School, and scholarships for Australian teachers of Greek descent. They are qualified teachers who are teaching subjects other than literature. They have the qualification and ability, but probably not the skills to teach Greek language. That meeting was followed later with the Minister for Education with very good results.
I also met with Mr Milonakis, the Managing Director of ARAMARK Dasko, an American company that won the contract to supply catering services to the Olympic village in Athens for the Olympic Games 2004. I note that ARAMARK Dasko has won 13 contracts to provide catering services to Olympic villages in the past few years. They will be bidding for the Beijing Olympics. I visited Mr Milonakis at the request of the local Director of Brunei Corporation in Darwin because they want to provide Halal meat to the Athens Olympics because of the number of Islamic-background athletes who will take part in the Olympics. Those games will see a significant number of people from Arab and other countries in the region, with Middle-East and north African countries.
I had a frank discussion with Mr Milonakis who was not fully aware of all the requirements for Halal meat in Athens. He asked me a question that surprised me: ‘Where is Darwin?’ He did not know where Darwin was on the world map. When I showed him the location of Darwin, he immediately noticed the proximity of Darwin to China, and his eyes lit up like Christmas lights because he realised that Australia may be one of the resources for their food products when they bid, and if they win the contract for China.
Following that, I visited the Minister for Culture, Mr Evangelos Venizelos, and later, at the request of the Charles Darwin University, I visited Mrs Lazos and Mr Gasparinatos, the people in charge of the Greek School of Tourism. The Greek School of Tourism is a very significant school in Greece. It owns and operates three hotels that are actually run by the students while they are undertaking studies at the School of Tourism. The Charles Darwin University, which has its own School of Tourism, would like to develop some close relations with other equivalent schools with a future view of student exchange. I have to admit, it was a very productive meeting. I brought information back which I provided to the university here, and they are going to follow it up.
The first week was very busy and productive. That was followed by the delegation arrival in Athens and, after that, departure for Kos which was the first stop on our way to Kalymnos. I would like to mention the enormous assistance provided to us by Mr Michael Pastrikos, a person who was born and grew up in Darwin, and later went back to Greece. He runs a successful hospitality business, a hotel, and, of course, a caf which he calls The Boomerang Caf. Mr Pastrikos invited a lot of people who live is Kos, and a lot of Greeks who have been to Darwin - they worked all their lives in Darwin and retired there - and they provided enormous assistance to us.
On the same afternoon, we went to Kalymnos by boat, since Kos is only 40 minutes by boat from Kalymnos. In Kalymnos, we had a very joyful reception, with young girls dressed up in the traditional Kalymnian dress, offering flowers to the newly-arrived delegation. A large number of Kalymnians - especially those who have worked in Darwin and are now retired and live in Kalymnos - welcomed the Chief Minister, me and the rest of the delegation.
We stayed in Kalymnos for a few days. We had meetings with Mr George Roussos, the Mayor of Kalymnos, and Ms Hrysooula Sifoniou, the Sub-Prefect of Kalymnos. We met people from Darwin. We enjoyed the hospitality of the Kalymnian people. I was extremely surprised when I left the hotel and walked down to the promenade and the port; it was like walking in downtown Darwin in the mall. There were so many people who knew who we were. They were from Darwin. It was just meeting old friends from Darwin. Most important is to see the name of the different cafes lined up in the promenade. Caf Gove, Caf Darwin, Caf Boomerang, and Kalymnos has a street named after Darwin - a Darwin Street in the centre of Kalymnos. Also, it was very interesting to note the different shops in Kalymnos and the names, because the Greek custom is that you put the name of the shop and underneath the name of the proprietor. Many of the names of the shops reminded me a lot of the people’s names in Darwin, and that indicates the strong links between the Kalymnians and Darwin. As poor people they arrived from Kalymnos to Darwin, and they have made their fortune and a good living, and they have returned to retire in Kalymnos.
We spent three days in Kalymnos. We had the opportunity to visit the community museum and find out about the long tradition of the Kalymnian divers for sponges, and also the Monastery of St Savvas, which is built in a very tall hill above Kalymnos. I recall very well the Mayor of Kalymnos pointing down to the city and telling me that one-third of those house were built with money that was sent from people working in Darwin. There are 16 000 people in Kalymnos, and 3500 of them are Australian citizens because they have been in Australia, worked in Australia, acquired citizenship, and most of them worked in Darwin and Gove. As a matter of fact, Kalymnos is the biggest Kalymnian city in the world, followed by Darwin and third by Tapporn Springs in America in Florida. Sometimes, when things are really bad in Kalymnos, Darwin becomes the first Kalymnian city in the world, with all the Kalymnians coming back to Darwin for work.
What really impressed me this time was the fact that a lot of people who were in Kalymnos told me that they were coming back in the next few months because they hear there is a lot of work in Darwin, and they would like to come back and re-establish themselves - after they had been to Darwin and sold everything and went to live back forever and ever in Kalymnos. Things are changing.
Following our trip to Kalymnos, we went to Istanbul at the invitation of His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. The Administrator of the Northern Territory was going to be bestowed one of the highest awards of the church. I am not saying Greek Orthodox Church, because the Patriarch is the leader of the Orthodox Church that expanded from Poland to Japan, from Finland to South Africa, and incorporates Australia, New Zealand and America. He is the spiritual leader of 250 million Orthodox Christians around the world. The Patriarch speaks seven languages fluently, and he is the same age as the Pope. However, I have to say that he is in much, much better shape than His Holiness the Pope. He invited us to the island of Adigoniwhich is one of the Princes Islands of the Bosporus. We went there by boat. We attended a ceremony for the award to His Honour the Administrator in a church that was built about 1000AD to 1100AD.
Following that, His Holiness took us by boat and we went to the island of Halki which is the religious school for all Orthodox priests. It has been operating there since the 1700s. Unfortunately, it was closed down by the Turkish government in 1973, but there are very good indications that the Turkish government will allow the operation of this school.
We spent the whole day with the Patriarch, who is very approachable. What really impressed me was, when we were departing by boat from the first island of Adigoni, when he got into the boat there was a group of Turkish people who approached him. Being Muslim, they asked him in Turkish for his blessing. As he explained later, one of the women obviously had some problems with her family. She, a Muslim woman, asked the Orthodox Patriarch to pray for her to get her daughter back, and she was kissing his hands. I really was very impressed about the respect that the Turkish people – from different religions – showed to the Orthodox Patriarch. That indicates the respect that this person enjoys among the Turkish people.
In Istanbul, we visited the Great Church of Saint Sophia and some of the other ruins and museums. The next day, we returned to Athens, and the delegation had a meeting with Mr Dollis. We then visited the Greek parliament, where we met with the Speaker of the House, Mr Apostolos Kaklamanis. We were informed that there would be a delegation from the Greek parliament visiting Australia in November and gladly invited them to come here. It will probably coincide with our sittings in November, so I gathered information about Darwin and provide them with material. I have not heard from them yet, but I hope they will come down via Singapore to Darwin.
We also met with Petros Efthumiou, the Minister for Education, who adopted all our propositions. The Greek government, as the Chief Minister mentioned this morning, will provide the funding for a second teacher in Darwin, educational material for our Greek students in Darwin, and also scholarships for Australian Greek descent teachers to be trained in how to teach Greek to the Greek kids. Then we not only met with the President of the Greek Republic, Mr Constantinos Stephanopoulos we also we visited members of the opposition party and had a very constructive meeting with them.
Following our Athens trip, we went to Cyprus and met with the Minister for Education, Mr Pefkios Georgiades who also gave us the same promise for the provision of education material. We also met with Efthymios Efthymiou, the Minister for Agriculture. Mr Efthymiou was very interested in the Territory, when we described the Territory and our arid environment and agriculture. He asked for information about the water and land management which I am very happy to provide.
It was a very successful trip, despite criticism by the Leader of the Opposition that it would be better to go to Asia. Members for the other side, and some people who are obviously leaning to the CLP, should note that the government paid only for the expense of the Chief Minister. The minister and everybody else in the delegation paid their own way and, certainly, nobody travelled first class.
It was a very successful trip, Madam Speaker, that will be a model for future trips from other areas in Asia, or wherever else Territorians come from.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, throughout 1999 and 2000, I spoke in the Chamber on seven or eight occasions about the activities of one accountant by the name of Sonny Deo and the activities in relation to Gapuwiyak community. He then went on to greater fame in other parts of Australia, particularly the north-west, at Balangari, and Turkey Creek around the Kununurra area, in activities which resulted in him having an adverse finding placed on him by the Australian Securities Investment Commission.
At one point throughout that debate when I was raising these issues in the Chamber, the former Opposition Leader and then Chief Minister spoke in the House on behalf of Mr Deo and said he expected to get some representation from this grub at some stage, and that he would be looking forward to getting that. Well, he never received it, or if he did, he kept it to himself. He would have kept it to himself for good reasons, because this bloke has some very, very grubby allegations against him and findings in relation to the Australian Securities Investment Commission.
Yesterday in the NT News I see he has applied for registration in the Northern Territory as a solicitor, so he has graduated from accountancy and gone on to greater things. He now has a law degree and is applying for registration as a solicitor. I will be making sure, as part of the objection process, as the member for Nhulunbuy in the interests of my constituents at least, that I will be forwarding every word I ever said about this person in parliament on the Hansard as part of the objection process and asking them to have a look at what I have said. I will be asking them to have a look at the Australian Securities and Investment Commission’s findings in relation to this particular gentleman, and making clear that it would not be my wish that this man ever operate, or ever act, as a solicitor in the Northern Territory. He has form, and form duly prosecuted under the Australian Securities Investment Commission. I would have thought people like the Law Society would be interested in those sorts of activities themselves before they go and register a person as a solicitor in the Northern Territory.
I now speak of much more pleasant matters. Last month, the Tournament of the Minds was held in Darwin at the Charles Darwin University. Competition was fierce from 25 schools, competing from all major Territory centres. The Tournament of the Minds involves teams of students coming together to develop a solution to an open-ended challenge in social sciences or maths and engineering.
Whether time zones should be the same world-wide and how to make rope out of cotton wool balls were just two of the problems faced by 200 students at the regional final. Two teams from Nhulunbuy High School and two teams from Nhulunbuy Primary competed in the tournament. The maths engineering team from Nhulunbuy High included Samantha Ziegler, Brendan Drzezdzon, Ryan Pitts, Justine Daniels and Alix Betts. They tackled the problem ‘hanging by a thread to lift five kilograms with six cotton balls’, in a very well presented, clever and entertaining play. They succeeded in practices but did not make it on the day.
The social sciences team included Brooke Murdy, Emma Mitchell, Hannah Putland, Taliska Kiebat, Ashley Webb and Lizzy Garland. They had to apply geographic knowledge to solve and perform their complex and wholly entertaining play called All the Time in the World. To their and my delight, they were announced the winners of the secondary social sciences category.
Nhulunbuy Primary School teams included Jessica and Hannah Brodie, Louise and Caitlin Jones, Marley and Alinta Brown, Stephen Jarvis, Gregory Hartogh, Edward O’Brien, Dominic Bulters, Sarah Schultz, Chloe Percic, Alexandra Thomson and Stacey Andrews.
Congratulations to the Territory regional winners in the four categories: social sciences, Nhulunbuy Primary School; secondary social sciences, Nhulunbuy High School; primary maths/engineering, Nightcliff Primary; and secondary maths/engineering, Kormilda College.
The Territory will host a national final of Tournament of Minds on 25 October with more than 430 students from around Australia competing in Darwin for the championship. I am proud of the students from my electorate and I wish them success in the national finals.
The Gove AFL Grand Final was played on Hindle Oval in front of a large crowd. The Saints, coming off an undefeated season, were looking for a big win to erase the memories of a succession of losses. Their opponents, the young Nguykal team, had exceeded expectations by reaching the grand final in only their second season. They went into the game as massive underdogs. The first half set the tone for a great contest, with the Saints showing why they are the best team in the league this year and the Nguykal defence stretched. The third quarter - always the premiership quarter - again proved no different. Nguykal threw everything they had at the Saints and turned a first half deficit to a five-point lead at three-quarter time. In the last quarter, Nguykal had answers to every Saints push forward. They never gave up their lead and grabbed a famous three goal victory. The final score was Nguykal 12-11 (83) to Saints 9-11 (65).
The Billy Buckle Trophy for best on the field was awarded to Nguykal ruckman Lyndon Snelling. It was a great contest, played in great spirit, and I was delighted to award the premiership trophy to a very young Nguykal team, to the coach Graeme Maymuru and their captain, Luke Maymuru.
During the week commencing Monday, 25 August, Shirley Nirrpurrandji and her a team at Gapuwiyak Community Education Centre hosted the Arnhem School Sports, looking after Gapuwiyak, Maningrida, Milingimbi, Ramingining and Shepherdson College from Elcho Island. The opening ceremony commenced with a colourful parade through Gapuwiyak township, and we had speeches from Shirley Nirrpurrandji, chairperson Davis Marrawungu, Jenny Djerrkura on my behalf as local member, and traditional owners Clancy and Jimmy Marrkula. There was an excellent opening dance from traditional owners.
Gapuwiyak captains officially opened the school sports for 2003, which proved to be a week full of sporting activities, and the opportunity to not only display athletic ability, but to take pride in representing their community and school and make new friends. I congratulate the winners, Shepherdson College from Galiwinku.
On 21 September, NBC Consultants gave generous thanks on behalf of the contractors involved in their client, Gapuwiyak Community Incorporated, for resolution of the issue of the load limit on the Bulman track. They felt common sense had prevailed, and the project has now commenced. By lifting the load limits on the track, they were able to get their building materials in from Katherine and make a start on these much-awaited duplexes that are being built. As at today, the slabs are down and they are into construction.
Security fencing at Gove Hospital, along the walkway from the admin block to the hospital, has now been completed. Electronic locks on the hospital doors have been fitted, and can now be activated when necessary. A recent example of increased security is that there was a report of a suspicious person in the grounds. Hospital staff were able to lock the hospital doors immediately, securing all those within the hospital. Director Mark Watson reports that he is happy with the security at the hospital as it stands, but is working on procedures and policy to ensure everyone feels secure in the environment.
A draft business plan for the development and operation of the substance abuse special care centre for Nhulunbuy has been compiled. Partners in Progress are Harmony Djamamirri Mala, the Northern Territory government, Northern Territory Police, Alcan Gove, Nhulunbuy Corporation, ATSIS, the Department of Health and Community Services, Miwatj Health Aboriginal Corporation, Yirrkala Business Enterprise and YNOTs.
The business plan proposes the staged development of a substance abuse special care centre. The centre is designed to assist in the care, treatment and rehabilitation of people suffering substance abuse in the Gove Peninsula area of the Miwatj region. Nhulunbuy, as the regional centre, has the only takeaway alcohol outlets there. As such, it is a magnet for itinerants as well as local people who have developed alcohol problems. The centre is an initiative of the Harmony Djamamirri Mala, the Harmony Working Group, which is a broad-based community organisation established to address a range of social issues confronting the region.
The group is comprised of representatives from Alcan, ATSIS, Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Andilyakwa Land Council, Rirratjingu, Nhulunbuy Corporation, Northern Territory government, Miwatj Aboriginal Health, Northern Land Council, Gumatj Association, community representatives, and Yirrkala Dhanbul Community Association.
The Harmony Djamamirri Mala is also a regional crime prevention council established by Crime Prevention NT to coordinate crime prevention and community safety activities in the region. There is a history of need and demand for a shelter for the Nhulunbuy area going back to the early 1990s and demands by Yolngu, particularly the women, have been sustained and vocal.
A process of public consultation will be undertaken, and all information will be considered before the finalisation of the plan. An important focus of the plan is to create employment for the local people and the implementation of training programs to facilitate employment outcomes.
The new sports multipurpose hall at the high school is beginning to take shape. The main upright structure is almost up. Everyone is excited and looking forward to its completion. All the students have had the opportunity to vote on the final colour scheme. The completion date is scheduled for before Christmas, and is on schedule.
I recently asked the people of Nhulunbuy to assist the Fleming family – Alan, Lex, Tegan and Mitchell – in their time of need while Lex remained, at that time, extremely ill in Bundaberg Hospital. Sadly, she has passed away since. The Fleming family have been magnificent community contributors in so many ways. In true Nhulunbuy spirit, a number of fundraising events were held during September, and the final event, a family dance, will be conducted on 17 October. Lex was – as, indeed, is every member of this family – a truly valued, caring woman. She will be sadly missed. We just hope Alan and family are able to settle back down in Nhulunbuy, otherwise it would be another tragedy if we were to lose the family altogether. Our thoughts and prayers are with Alan and the family at this time, and I look forward to catching up with him when I get back.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I offer my congratulations to the finalists and winners of the 2003 Telstra Northern Territory Business Women’s Awards. It was my great pleasure to attend the awards on Tuesday, yesterday, unfortunately having to leave prior to the announcement of the final award in order to return to the House for Question Time.
Initiated by Telstra in 1995, these awards aim to recognise, encourage and reward successful Australian businesswomen across all levels and types of business. Katherine businesswoman Lyn White was named the 2003 Telstra winner of the Businesswoman of the Year out of a field of the Territory’s top businesswomen. Lyn took out the prestigious award for her role as Director of Jalyn Ford Pty Ltd, one of only two Ford and Holden car dealership franchise owners in Australia.
Since Lyn took on the majority ownership of the Katherine car dealership four years ago, it has grown from a staff of three to 16, and has reached a turnover of $10m. In 2000, Lyn became the first woman to win the Ford Motor Company’s prestigious Dealer of the Year Award. She is also Vice-President of the Territory’s Motor Traders Association, and is involved in policy development with government. Lyn was named the ultimate NT winner after earlier winning the Westpac Group Business Owner Award for owners with a 50% share or more in a business with responsibility for key management decision-making.
I would also like to congratulate the winners of the other categories of the awards program. Suzanne Flynn, who is Operations Manager of Allan King and Sons Construction Pty Ltd in Katherine, was named winner of the Commonwealth Government Private and Corporate Sector Award, which is for employees in the private and corporate sector, or owners with less than a 50% share of a business. Suzanne manages the payroll and superannuation for this company of 25 employees, the business’s financial management and reporting and preparation of tenders. Suzanne also volunteers her time as secretary of the local arm of Landcare. It is really interesting that two of our winners this year come from Katherine, as the overall winner, Lyn White, does.
The winner of the TMP Hudson Community and Government Award, which is for employees of government departments, statutory bodies and not-for-profit organisations, is Carol Mirco. Carol is currently the Principal Nurse Consultant with the Department of Health and Community Services. While working at Royal Darwin Hospital, Carol oversaw the development of all emergency plans for the hospital. These plans were operational and implemented with great success during the period of reaction and support for victims of the Bali bombings last year.
The contributions of young women in business was also acknowledged on Tuesday. Winner of the Telstra Young Business Woman’s Award, which is for women aged 30 and under, was April Goodman, who is owner of the photographic business Moving Pictures in Alice Springs. April’s portfolio includes tourism and commercial photography, fashion events and weddings. April also coordinated photographic events such as the 2002 World Master’s Games in Melbourne, the Finke Desert Race and the Alice Springs Masters Games.
Other leading NT Businesswomen who were recognised for their business achievements by being named finalists in this awards were: Helen Summers, well known optometrist, based in Darwin with clinics in Katherine and Jabiru. Helen provides vision training, lectures and workshops for teachers, parents and professionals throughout the Territory.
Susan van-Cuylenberg is the practice principal of Godfrey Pembroke. In one year, Susan was able to increase the practice’s income by 100%, leading to the employment of further staff and partner for the company. Susan was also elected this year to the national Godfrey Pembroke executive board.
Another finalist was Joanne Walter, who is co-owner of Headlines for Hair and Skin, an Alice Springs business; a successful salon employing three full-time apprentice hairdressers and one part-time apprentice.
There was also Natasha Elder, the Commercial Property Manager of Colliers International. Natasha manages the commercial property management team and overseas the management of the business’ larger properties, including two shopping centres.
Another finalist was Pamela Jape, Operations Manager of her family’s property development and retail company, Jape Nominees. Pamela oversees the business development for the company’s Jape Furnishing and Forty Winks Stores in Darwin.
Joanna Holden was another finalist, who is the program manager for the Jawoyn Association. It is great to see another Katherine finalist. Katherine was so well represented at these awards. Joanna has also worked to help establish a juvenile offenders program, and a case management unit for disadvantaged job seekers.
Kate McTaggart is the next finalist I wish to acknowledge. Kate is currently the Director of Public Transport for the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, and has more than 20 years experience in planning, business improvement, change management and organisational development within the Territory’s public sector.
Elizabeth Mildred - or as we know her, Beth - the Regional Manager of Central Australia for the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry, is also Secretary of the Chamber’s Regional Executive Committee and was another finalist.
Lorraine Schmidt is the Senior Social Worker and Manager of the Hospital Liaison Unit at the Alice Springs Hospital, where she oversees the delivery of culturally appropriate services to patients.
I take this opportunity to once again acknowledge Telstra. Through their various awards and sponsorship programs, they make a valuable contribution to Northern Territory civic and community life. The awards themselves were sponsored also by TMP Hudson, Westpac Banking, AusIndustry, and The Bulletin.
Lyn White and all category winners will represent the Northern Territory at the National Telstra Business Women’s Awards, to be held in Melbourne later this month, on the 25th. This is an opportunity for women from the Territory to show the rest of Australia the depth of our resources; the fact that women in business are innovative, determined, imaginative and able to make a difference.
I would like to talk now about a wonderful event I hosted on Wednesday, 17 September. I was joined at this event by two of my colleagues, minister Vatskalis - a long-time supporter of this Laurel Club which, indeed, meets regularly in Kon’s office - and minister Chris Burns, who used the opportunity to catch up with some old friends. The Laurel Club is a support club, as I am sure we all know, for about 80 or so war widows who come together regularly for meetings, support and companionship. The Laurel Club has an active program, and last year included outings to Litchfield, Mandorah and the orchid farm. Norma Allen, the president, and Nola Smith, the secretary, welcomed me, and I was also joined by Jack Hamilton who is the President of Legacy NT. On my table, I also caught up with Jack’s wife, Val, Margaret Kirkup, the Laurel Club Treasurer, and Ros Willes, who is a long-term Territorian and member of the club who entertained us with stories about teaching and working in libraries in Darwin.
Several friends of mine were there. I saw Doris Ford who was, for many years, the Secretary of the Order of Australia Association; Betty Graham, who is on my seniors advisory council, and Terri Baker, Ronda Malone, Jean McGill, Phyl Treloar, and many others. We enjoyed our lunch together and it was a wonderful oasis in my day to catch up with old friends and old times. I commend the Laurel Club, particularly current office bearers, Norma, Nola and Margaret, for their excellent work. To all members and those who assist their work, happy 19th birthday, with many more to come.
I spoke this morning in the House about the Northern Territory’s official delegation that went to Greece for 14 days from 31 August to 14 September. I would now like to talk briefly about those Darwin business people who accompanied the official delegation, and whose support and assistance made the venture so productive. The official Territory party was accompanied by a delegation consisting of members of the Darwin Greek community, including the Honorary Consul for Greece, George Kapetas; Ros Bracher, his partner, who is the Honorary Consul-General for Japan; John Nicolakis who is the President of the Greek Orthodox Community, John Halkitis, Tony Miaoudis, and Rena Miaoudis - all prominent Darwin business people.
I would like to put on record my thanks to those people for giving up their time, money and effort supporting the Northern Territory government’s relationship-building visit to Greece, Cyprus and Turkey. They showed their commitment to the Territory and to the Greek community of Darwin by attending meetings to discuss and promote the Territory. They assisted to strengthen ties between Northern Territory Greeks and Cypriots with their home countries, to create opportunities for cultural exchange.
My thanks also to the Administrator, John Anictomatis, and to Savvas Hatzivalsamis, the President of the Greek Orthodox School who also came with us. Sav Hatzivalsamis, through his efforts, helped secure an additional Greek government-funded teacher to Darwin, new educational materials, and improved educational channels for our schools. We can look forward to Internet links or communication between schools in Darwin and on Kalymnos, and I believe in Cyprus as well.
Next year, we look forward to a return visit of delegations from Greece to Darwin as they have promised, and particularly the one from Kalymnos led by the Mayor, George Roussos.
The visit in September this year was a success, because of the nature and the abilities of the people who contributed their time and effort. The Territory’s Greek community, while still calling Australia home, cherishes its links and heritage with their mother country. Such ties contribute greatly to the diversity of our community, and we are all the beneficiaries. Again, my thanks to all those involved who supported this visit.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is my sad duty tonight to talk about Shirley Davies who was a constituent of mine - but more than a constituent, a friend. Like many people I was saddened to hear of the passing of Shirley Davies on 22 August this year. I had a lot of contact with Shirley through Stella Maris, St Vincent De Paul and, as I mentioned, as a constituent who lived quite close to my office at Moil.
Shirley had a very interesting life. She was born in Dunedin in New Zealand in 1921. She obtained a degree in Home Economics and Institutional Management before joining the New Zealand Navy. She rose to the rank of lieutenant, serving in 1943-45 as a New Zealand liaison officer (supplies) and with the US Navy which had a significant presence operating in the Pacific and based in New Zealand.
The notes that I am reading from tonight come from a eulogy delivered by Mick Fox at Shirley’s funeral.
Shirley’s next career move was to become a ship’s stewardess, travelling the world extensively and, in fact, Shirley’s first visit to Darwin was while she was doing this travelling. In 1949, she migrated to Australia, continuing her sea travels on and off alternating with various jobs, including the promotion of the use of gas for cooking on both radio and television.
In 1967, Shirley moved to Darwin. She was sent here by Swan Breweries to cook at their Darwin Hotel. Shirley also worked in the kitchen at the old Darwin Hospital in Lambell Terrace, and then became 2IC of the kitchen at Bagot Reserve involved with both cooking for residents and with training for Aboriginal people.
The day after Cyclone Tracy, Shirley began as a volunteer chef at Nightcliff High School, cooking for Darwin residents made homeless. This was just so typical of Shirley Davies. She was just such a wonderful, warm-hearted, generous person and a very hard worker. Many people knew her and loved her. During the period following the evacuation of Darwin, she cooked at the Marrara Hotel which had become the residential quarters for Darwin’s Police force. She then went on the site where Tracy Village is now located, attending the meeting which formed Tracy Village.
Shirley was admitted in 1976 as an Associate Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Catering and maintained two business - one cleaning, the other catering.
In 1979, Shirley’s health started to deteriorate following an unsuccessful major abdominal operation. She then developed arthritis in her hip. Shirley’s voluntary activities included 19 years as a seamstress with the St Vincent de Paul Society and 18 years with the Stella Maris Seafarers Centre. Being in a wheelchair for 16 years, Shirley became a strong advocate for disabled people, and there were a number of times that Shirley lobbied me on a number of issues about access for disabled people, and wheelchair access. She was a very powerful person and she certainly knew how to lay down an argument. Shirley was always a great advocate. She joined the Integrated Disability Action Incorporated as one of its first members and never stopped pushing for better accesses to premises.
I found Shirley to be a strong woman, devoting herself to the good of those around her. I know her carer, Norm. Norm was at the funeral. Norm has looked after Shirley for some 30 years, and Shirley would acknowledge herself that she could not have done many of these things, in terms of going to meetings and her very active life with St Vincent de Paul, Stella Maris, the church and a whole range of other organisations, without Norm to help her with transport, wheeling her wheelchair, and just the general work that Norm did. Norm was just a very devoted person. A very quiet man but a wonderful person and I know that Norm will miss her greatly. I offer him and Shirley’s family my sincere condolences.
It was my pleasure on 30 August to attend the Seniors Month Gala Dinner. It was my pleasure to share this finale organised for Seniors Month 2003 at the MGM Grand with the seniors, especially all those whom I have met through my electorate and the Tuesday Senior Citizens Group. In particular, Doris Ford, Marj Smith, Barbara Carrell, Marie Heavey, Olga Periera, Audrey Ellis, Peter Mitchell, Peggy Alp, Gill Edwards, Bob and Jean Gould, Kerry Harkin, June Daley, Celine and Robert Ladju, and many more great people.
I had to leave the seniors around 9 pm to join the Filipino Association of the NT to celebrate the 7th year of the Barrio Fiesta at the Filipino Community Centre. This was a fundraising event for the improvement of facilities at the Filipino Community Centre in Darwin. It was, as usual, a highly successful night, full of entertainment and fun. I was in time to hear an exceptional performances by Tina Agcaoili, Bernadine Crute, and Judd and Pia McElroy followed by the main act, Miss Ivy Violan. As members will know, I thoroughly enjoy these great acts. There certainly is a lot of talent within the Filipino community.
On 31 August, a Sunday, I attended the Filipino Community Council of the NT AGM. I was pleased to act again as returning Officer for the council at its AGM in August. Congratulations to Elena Ralph who was voted in as President; and Fele Mann, Senior Vice President. The Executive Committee is made up of Domi Antalan, Narc Icad, Mary Ann De Guzman, Cirila Matthews, Ester Davy and Luchi Santer. That group does a great job. They are members of all the peak organisations that comprise FILCCONT and they do a great job for the Filipino community and, indeed, the wider community.
On 5 September, I attended the Jingili Primary School Father’s Day Breakfast. That is a great annual event, and a great effort by the school for making this a fantastic start to the school day, as they always do, celebrating with the students’ fathers. The event raised $455 profit for the school. Helping the kids out with the cooking and organising where Jill and Peter Sommerville - always great supporters who work so hard for the Jingili School - together with Allan, Sam and Kelly Anstey, Marg Woolley and Glenda Sutardy, Robin Livick, Leigh Lockley, Tracy Kenna and Elaine Hellyer.
On 6 September, I attended the Italian Festival Night. This was the 25th Anniversary of the Italian Club in Darwin. Of course, the venue was the Italian Club. I was shown great hospitality by Mr Fred Marrone, who is the President. It was my privilege to speak there on behalf of minister Kon Vatskalis, who was overseas at the time. It was a great pleasure to speak there. I remarked that night that the Italian Club is such a great venue and has seen so many happy events over the years and is such an important part of Darwin’s social life.
On 10 September, I attended a meeting in Borella Park. This is a committee of residents that has been formed to represent those who live in the vicinity of Borella Park. Their main reason to come together is to prevent and address antisocial behaviour issues in Borella Park and its environs. They have received a grant from NT Crime Prevention and, with the council and police, they are working together to address issues in that park. They have done a community safety audit, and the group is moving to address some of the unpleasant issues that have arisen around Borella Park. The committee president is Trevor Edwards, supported by a committee which includes Jane Burford, Sally Edwards, Tracey Ellis, Terry Brown, Bill Denniss and Blair Grace. I am working closely with that committee, and am proud to be associated with them.
On 13 September, I attended Wagaman school’s 30th birthday street party. This party was held, as I said, to celebrate 30 years of the school and was a great success. It was one of the biggest nights out that the school has had and the entertainment was fantastic. All the different grades of the school added to the entertainment and it was very emotional for some, looking back over 30 years. The school had a great collection of photographs that residents and ex-students could look at; the classes and the teaching staff over the years. That was a great time for the Wagaman school.
On 16 September, along with many others, I attended the Chinese Moon Festival festivities and reception at Parliament House. It was great to see Mr Bill Wong, Chris and Irene Lai and Mr Taek Fung Lay there, amongst many other people. There was great entertainment with the lions, and also some dancing and singing by a group of beautiful young girls who were immaculately attired in traditional dress.
On 24 September, I was delighted to hear that the Moil Magic Team Skippers excelled at the Jump Rope for Heart Fabulous Physical Fun Day held at Nightcliff Primary School. The team of Simone Corney, Jessica Dowling, Michelle Watson, Kiarna Fiorenza, Katrina Tribble, Ellen Polychrone, Louise Hall and Tegan Corney, won first prize in Best Presentation. Longest Single Skipping was Jessica Dowling. Second in Best Technique, Best Overall Routine, Most Double Unders, Participation and Having Fun, Jessica Dowling again - what a fantastic skipper Jessica is. Third prize for Best Skills and Thrills and Best Individuals was Michelle Watson.
On 28 September, I attended a function at the Darwin Entertainment Centre. The Australian Girls Choir was in town. They were on their Rock to Reef Tour 2003, and it was the third leg of their tour. It is their 6th national tour. The choir is quite big, made up of 54 choristers from Adelaide, Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney. Their performance included a broad range of music and choreographed song, including Australiana, spirituals and Broadway. The choir donated their time and talent to assist the Darwin Youth and Children’s Choir to raise funds for their forthcoming concert trip to ANCA’s Choralfest in Western Australia.
I need to comment specifically about the Darwin Youth and Children’s Choir members; that is, Kaitlyn Andrews, Jaimie Leverdigen, Teneal Broccardo, Shanece Liddy-Wilde, Simon Colister, Rebecca Minniecon, Tiffany Cornell, Kyra Mulvena, Samantha Cowie, Yuliana Pascoe, Helen Fegan, Eliza Pownall, Nathan Forster, Miriam Scapin, Stephanie Foster, Rachel Tolliday, Casey Harrison, Anna Torrington, Skyler Hemy, Amelia Wardle, Kate Huntingford, Joanne Yallop and Bree Kiernan. They were all a fantastic credit to their Choral Director, Mrs Emma Tantengco, who does such a fantastic job amongst young people. Emma lives in Moil. She has worked for many years with this group, and their professionalism and joy of singing just shows out in every performance that they do. This is a really positive youth story, and the girls and young men really enjoy their time with the choir. The audience really lit up when they performed.
I would specifically like to mention the Katherine High School Vocal Ensemble, under the direction of Jen Scott also. They did very well on the night - well, more than well, they were excellent. Jen put the ensemble together in February 2002, from interested girls ranging from Years 8 to 12 in the high school. The girls were only together for a few months when they won the three sections they entered in the North Australian Eisteddfod in May. The girls and Jen have stayed together since and performed on numerous occasions around Katherine and Darwin. After taking out first prize in all three sections entered in this year’s Eisteddfod, the ensemble was invited to perform at the final Eisteddfod concert in Darwin. This was a fantastic achievement. What really touched me and the rest of the audience that night, was the work that the teacher has done with these girls, but also what a fantastic group they are; how friendships and understandings have built up, and how it has built self-esteem. They really are a great group and a credit to the teacher and Katherine. I was very inspired, along with others that night. I seek leave to enter the names of the girls into the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS: I finish with, once again, that they are a fantastic choir, along with the Darwin Youth and Children’s Choir.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak about a few people tonight, and I will start with Michael Anthony Reed. It was my intention to speak about the former member for Katherine last night, but I missed the jump. It is important to put on the record contributions that have been made by parliamentarians in this place. It is a rare occasion that a parliamentarian gets to pick the exit of his choosing. In the case of Michael Anthony Reed, it was something that he must have pondered long and hard about and eventually decided, sometime between the last sittings and this sittings, to leave.
As I thought about it, I realised I have known Mike Reed now for over 21 years. I went to Katherine relieving in the early 1980s - it was about 1981 - and Mike Reed was relieving in Darwin. Therefore, we resided in his house. I had two small children, as did he, at that time. He was a Regional Director in Katherine. I went back to Katherine in about 1983 as a Regional Director of the Department of Community Development and he was a peer, as the Officer in Charge of the Parks and Wildlife Commission - or Conservation Commission, I believe it was called then. So, in a small town like Katherine we got to know each other pretty well, and his wife and my wife became friends, as his children, Stephen, Megan and David, became friends with my children. In fact, they were similar ages and in similar classes.
It is interesting to see the impact that this man has made on politics in the Northern Territory. It is easy to dismiss him over the last couple of years as a Treasurer who presided over budget X and Y. The reality is, the Territory is in a very robust financial position at the moment, and it is largely the legacy of Mike Reed. Likewise, if you look at other places where he had an influence - the Health Department is one of them, mining and industry, mining and resources is another, and tourism is another - the untiring efforts and the energy of Mike Reed really made a big impact on this place. He was somebody who had his own ideas and brought them forward. He was not shy about listening to other ideas and, despite the image of the tough guy who was a bit of a redneck and did not listen - I worked on the personal staff of Mike Reed for some years when he was a Health minister and I know that, even though he had a bit of a rough exterior, he is a man of great compassion and he took many issues on.
I will give you just one. There was a terrible disease called Haemophilus influenza type B which was effecting children in the Northern Territory, and particularly Aboriginal children of Central Australia. We had a lot of immunologists and disease people, physicians and other communicable diseases people looking at it. They were talking about a phased introduction of a vaccine, when the vaccine became available, and the high cost of the vaccine. I can still remember to this day the impatience of minister Reed about getting those kids vaccinated, notwithstanding the costs. There was no way he was having a staged program; it was brought straight in and that disease was eradicated.
Okay, there are not many silver bullet-type things where, if you have a problem, you can inoculate someone and fix it. But that occurred, and it occurred in his time. I can remember some of the debates about the problems with getting the immunisation kits, the costs and all the rest of it, and he bulldozed right through it. I guess that is how he got his name as a bit of a tough nut, because he did bulldoze over people. However, as an advisor, I found he also listened. He listened for a long time before he made his mind up, and when he did, he did not vacillate; he stuck to his case. However, in that period before making his mind up, I know that he weighed arguments. I know he did, because I was in the room on many occasions when he was minister, and I saw people persuade him to a point of view that he had not previously held. I saw him go to battle on those points of view and stay with it.
That is one of the problems with politics in contemporary society; people vacillate. Often, they are driven by polls, and by who speaks to them last on other issues. Reed was not like that. He took a long time to make his mind up about the rights and wrongs of an issue and, having made it up, he was quite happy to take all the tough calls that came with having that on his own head.
A very enigmatic man, he is a man of contradictions. For instance, he was probably the greenest member of this parliament in the time he was here, and I include the member for Nelson in that. Most people do not realise that he has a natural affinity for the bush, he has a strong connection with Aboriginal people - which surprises people when they find out because most people believe the caricature rather than the man. His observant powers of nature - both flora and fauna - are quite astonishing. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of Territory flora and fauna, and particularly the bird life in this place. He is a published author, which was used with some merriment by people. However, he is quite proud of his authorship.
I know he was instrumental in finding the breeding colonies around Mt Todd. When you talk about cyanide spills and fauna being killed, I was also in his office when he was the Mines minister and there was an accidental destruction of one of the test sites for breeding colonies for Gouldian finches. Mike Reed was livid. He was on the phone to Pegasus Gold, who were the owners of the mine at that time. It was one of those scientific things that cannot be replicated or readily replaced. I know how passionate he was about issues like this. Even though he was the minister responsible for Mining, he was very passionate about the caveats that were put on that mine, and the issues relating to where it was operating in a sensitive environment.
He really came to his fore with the Timor crisis and the Katherine flood. It must go on the Parliamentary Record - I would never forgive myself if this parliament did not recognise that the work that was done by Mike Reed after the Timor crisis and the Katherine flood could not have been done by anyone else. Maybe some people could have given it a shot, but there is no way any other human being could have done as well as that bloke.
He was brutal in some of the ways he did business. He was impatient and intolerant, and it is some of those attributes that people remember him by. However, in time of crisis, you really want that. With the Timor crisis - and it has been spoken of in the Parliamentary Record so it really does not have to be gone back into, other than it was something we had never seen before. We had never seen the capacity to house people, put them through Customs - all the normal clearances including disease and other clearances - bring them to a place that was entirely foreign to them, and feed them - many of them were highly under nourished, and required diet that was at least familiar to them. Many of them did not understand the basics of our toilet systems or matters that we take for granted in this place. In walked Reed, and I can tell you, as the supremo of that operation, we got shelter, the food, all the Commonwealth instrumentalities, and all of the screening arrangements put in place, including health screening.
I was on site when Doug Anthony, the Commonwealth minister with some responsibilities in this area, was walking through. He was with Mike Reed and various Northern Territory public servants, and he said: ‘Where are our people?’. His people were way back, and the reason was they had nothing to do with it. It is probably a bit of an over-exaggeration but, essentially, this was a Territory operation. It was done and it proved a couple of things to people down south. It proved (1), we know we are in Asia, we are imbedded in Asia and we understand Asia, and (2), despite that proximity, we are well endowed with the capacity to respond - very well endowed. Mike Reed walked the international stage in that period. He has put it on the record himself about his relationship with Xanana Gusmao. It is one of those things that, if you really searched our capacity to respond to that time, you would have been hard put to find anybody who could do what he did.
The Katherine flood – I went to Katherine to help, like most people from Darwin. I did not go down to do anything other than contribute with the dirty work of ripping up carpets, chucking stuff away, cleaning out houses - whatever. I went to Reedy’s place and the flood had been gone probably - I don’t know - 3 or 4 days at that stage, and he had not been home. He had not been home; he was working out of his office. His place was demolished - absolutely demolished. We threw tonnes of stuff away that I knew was valuable to him, including ornithological books. It is a great tribute to that man, that he was able to work the way he worked, knowing that his own situation was so critical.
I could talk about other floods too, like those at Kalkarindji and other places such as Beswick. However, those two events - the Timor crisis and the Katherine flood - really marked this man as someone who could be deployed today. He is the sort of fellow who if you had to send someone into Iraq or Bosnia, you would send someone like Mike Reed. His vision and capacities are wide enough, his background knowledge in various instruments you have to bring to bear, and his humanity is beyond reproach in matters like that in his capacity to be caring and compassionate. It is interesting that commentators judge him on a caricature that has been portrayed out there of someone who is uncaring, a redneck and whatever. I have been in the bush with him; to small communities where Aboriginal people have greeted him with great affection – great affection - as someone they have known a long time. It is not something he boasts about or parades or anything like that. In fact, I do not think he evens see it as something he would comment on. However, I have been with him in places where there are people suffering from drug addiction, dying, in parlous circumstances in their habitat, and he is a formidable person.
His contribution to this parliament was excellent as a Treasurer, minister responsible for tourism, health, mines and all the rest of it that went with it. It is a very long list. There are very few jobs that he did not hold in his time here. It is also interesting to note that conventions say that if you are the Deputy Chief Minister, you can pretty much pick your portfolios. He never picked the easy stuff. If you look at the workload he carried when he was the Deputy Chief Minister, of Police, Treasury and some of those really heavy portfolios such as Tourism and Parks and Wildlife, it is a testament to the man. I worked with him; I worked in his office. I can remember a long period when we did not get home after about 8 pm because we used to watch the 7 pm news and put out press after it.
When you come into this Parliament House now on a weekend, you do not see cars. When you come in the day before the sittings and you see people dragging in, you can understand why things were so different then. They were different then through industry. The industry that this bloke put in was enormous, and it was a very fatiguing business to work with Mike Reed.
I have travelled overseas with him. I have been to France with him when we went to have a look at the nuclear industry. I can tell you that we left Friday afternoon and we got back Friday afternoon and we slept in beds four nights. We ran; we had a really full agenda. Travelling overseas with a minister of the type of Mike Reed is not a jaunt and it is not fun. It is interesting for you, and you come back a much more educated person. I can tell you that you have to do more of that. Ministers like Mike Reed we have to develop. We are not in government, but those in government should take a leaf out of this bloke’s book because he worked hard, he understood this place, he loved it passionately, he was a man who was quite happy to serve the people before himself and his family, and I am glad that he has made the decision on the basis that his family must now come first.
I believe this parliament will look back - maybe in some years - and we will be very grateful for the legacy of Mike Reed. The contribution he has made, when people start to tote it up and really do the tally on it, is enormous. I pay tribute to him tonight. I would have preferred to have done it last night, the first opportunity I had to but, nonetheless, those of us who know him should put it on the record because he is a very unassuming man. I know that this will embarrass the hell out of him, but that is part of the point of it.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to pay tribute tonight to an extraordinary woman who passed away recently. I refer to Trudy May Perrurle Berger, nee Perkins, who was known to her friends as Tootularty. Many of you will know the Perkins family of Alice Springs and her relatives. She was an extraordinary woman in the fact that she was so proud of her Aboriginality, but she was able to make that bridge and be accepted in the mainstream families of Alice Springs. The funeral was extraordinary in that it had so many of the well-known Aboriginal families attending to pay respects to her.
She was born in May 1932 at Iwuputhaka or Jay Creek, and she passed away on 21 August this year after a very severe stroke. She was a daughter of Hetty Perkins, and we all have heard of Hetty Perkins. There is a hostel for aged Aboriginal people named after Hetty Perkins. She had a twin brother who, unfortunately, passed away when he was quite young. She was sister to many of the well-known Perkins families in Alice Springs, including those of the late Charlie, Ernie, Margaret, Don, Alec, George and Bill and the late Percy Lake. She was survived by her elder sister, Nita Cahill, who was also a Turner. I am sure, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, those families are very well known to you.
May spent most of her life in the Mbantua area of Alice Springs, where she was educated initially at Iwuputhaka, or Jay Creek School. She also attended the Bungalow at the Old Telegraph Station Aboriginal Reserve, and she attended Hartley Street School. She had a passion for education, and I guess that is what made her so special. As a teacher and a principal, I remember her chasing her boys to school to make sure that they had an education. Her boys, Aaron Berger, Stephen Perkins, Neville Perkins, and Ludi Berger, can be grateful to their mother, Aunty May, because she was the one who made sure they got an education, and she always valued that very much. So much so that, when I attended a graduation ceremony at the Aboriginal Institute in Alice Springs last year, there was Aunty May, as she was known, collecting a certificate. Even in her later years, she still studied; she just loved it so much.
She spent some time at Alcoota and Napperby Stations in Central Australia. She also worked at the Alice Springs Hospital for many years, and at the Hetty Perkins hostel when it was built. Many people will remember her for the way she bounced up to these graduations at IAD in her later years to show - as she would put it - the young people that you can do it. She was really a role model and an inspiration to many young Aboriginal people in town for the fact that she would go along and work through the certificate, amongst many students who were much younger than her; but she always achieved.
In her early years, Tootularty was a talented and celebrated singer, and she loved the ballads and the old country and western songs. She would always go into the talent quests and, at the Old Railway Institute, she would be there on Saturday evening at their concerts. They sang one of her favourite songs at the funeral, and some of us are old enough to remember it: Red Sails in the Sunset. You can just imagine Aunty May sitting down singing that song, she loved it so much.
She was a spiritual and spirited woman, and she was very proud of her Aranda Aboriginal ancestry and heritage. Later in life, she had a close association with the Alice Springs Anglican Church.
In 1967, she married Stefan Berger, who had emigrated from Austria. She was a very proud and protective mother, as I said earlier. She is survived by her husband - and it was very sad to see Stefan there - and her sons, Neville Perkins, Aaron Perkins who spoke on behalf of the family, Stephen Berger, and Ludi Berger. There were many grand daughters there as well.
Aunty May was just so proud of her children and her grandchildren. I know she tried to be to them an example of what you can achieve: to be proud of her Aboriginality, but be proud also to be able to walk in mainstream community, to be part of Alice Springs town. That is what she wanted to be remembered for most of all: as a contributing member of Central Australia.
She was survived by many of the Aranda families and relations around Central Australia. At the funeral there were many people. It was such a good feeling at the funeral because they were the old families of Alice Springs who had turned up to pay respect to this very special lady. I certainly would like to pay my respects to her and extend my sympathy to her family. They had someone very special in Trudy May Perrurle Berger.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to Mike Reed and put my best wishes on the Parliamentary Record. Obviously, with both of us living in Katherine, we have been close over the last 10 years. I thank him for all the assistance that he has given to me, both personally and professionally, in this job.
Today we heard the Labor government mocking that Mike Reed had not achieved anything in Katherine. Well, let me just assure anybody who reads this Hansard that Mike Reed, over 16 years in parliament, achieved a great deal for, not only Katherine residents, but certainly residents of the Territory. You just have to drive around Katherine, if you have any knowledge of the past 16 years, and have a look at what is in Katherine - the facilities in Katherine that are government institutions or semi-government institutions - and most can be attributed to the hard work of Mike Reed. Whether it is the YMCA building, the Visitor Information Centre, or the new court house in Katherine, the cycle paths from Katherine to Tindal, the school facilities including airconditioned gyms and the new Casuarina Primary School - they can all be attributed to the previous member for Katherine. The list goes on and on and on.
That is a great tribute to a man who has represented, very fiercely, his own constituency, because he has a great passion for where he lives and continues to live, and that is the great thing about Mike Reed. Mike Reed is not moving anywhere. There have been rumours going around that he is going to move, but I can assure you that, as far as I know, Mike Reed is very settled where he is and is looking forward to developing his rural block even further and continuing to stay in Katherine. I can assure members that I bet he is very passionate about what happens in Katherine.
Mike Reed has also been given great recognition just recently - in fact, at some farewell drinks to Mike that was conducted in Katherine prior to the by-election down there; a community event where very many people turned up from all cross-sections of the Katherine community and outlying regions. One of the great tributes he was given was a gift from AFANT. They did it off their own bat; nobody knew they were going to do it. On the night, which was a very informal night - there was not meant to be speeches - the president of AFANT decided they would like to present a gift to Mike. In his speech, he commended Mike for the great work he had done over the past two-and-a-half decades for recreational fishing people in the Northern Territory. He talked particularly about the river closures which were, and have been for many years, generated by none other than Mike Reed. If he gets remembered for nothing else - and I am sure he is remembered for very many things – he certainly will be for what he has done for recreational fishing in the closure of rivers that started a lot of years ago, and the impact that that has have on preserving fish stocks for recreational fishing.
AFANT presented him with an enormous gift, a piece of ironwood or something with a depiction of a barramundi on it that was made out of chromed wire; a very nice gift. In the words of the president of AFANT, ‘a small tribute of appreciation for what Mike has done for recreational fishing’. It is great work that needs to be continued as our recreational fishing industry grows. I am sure that pressure is already on this government to continue that work.
Mike is also known for his great work in preserving parts of the Territory as national parks. Probably no other person in the history of politics in the Northern Territory has driven the preservation of our unique habitats, as varied as they are, for the enjoyment of everybody, under the ownership of all Territorians as national parks; and you can rattle them off.
I believe I made a mistake once when I was Parks minister that I got to officially open the Charles Darwin National Park, amongst many others that bear my name. I did not think at the time, being a new minister, but perhaps I should have invited Mike Reed to do that official opening because it was actually his idea. He is the sort of fellow who would not say anything; and he did not say anything at all. It was probably a year later that I twigged that perhaps he should have done that opening because it was really a benchmark, I guess, of all of the parks he had been involved in developing. Developing, in a way, came from grassroots experience. Prior to politics, he was the regional manager of the Conservation Commission at the time based in Katherine, and had worked on plans of management, running parks and developing parks, and then went on, of course, to be involved in setting up new parks. There are a couple of parks that, while I was Parks minister - Bitter Springs being one of the reserves - I asked him to open instead of me doing it, even though it was in my electorate, because it was something that he should have done.
However, Charles Darwin National Park is a benchmark because it is a significant park in the middle of a city. There are not many cities you can go to - Perth is one of them - where they have a major national park sitting in the middle of a city environment. It is a great thing to see, and you can attribute that wholly and directly as an idea of Mike Reed. He will go down, I am sure, in the annals of history as one of the leads in developing our park asset that, like the recreational fishing side of things, needs to be further developed.
My colleague, the member for Drysdale, spoke about the Katherine flood. I had, I guess, the misfortune to be involved very intricately in that as well. However, I had the fortune of watching Mike Reed from another aspect. Like the member for Drysdale, I too would say that if ever you were in difficulty or going into difficult circumstances, you want beside you a person like Mike Reed. It was an incredible experience that probably will not go down anywhere in the history books for the role that Mike played. There are others who played similar roles but, Mike, as the senior minister, the local member and the Treasurer, at the time of that unfortunate incident, took control and was just remarkable.
I remember we were in the thick of it from day one when the water was rising. Amongst everything else that was going on - police reports and getting around checking on people - I said to Mike: ‘Well, let us get your vehicles out’. He said: ‘I only have time to take one; I will take this one’. I said: ‘Hang on, that is the government one. Why don’t we take your personal one?’ He said: ‘No, no, my personal one we will not worry about. Let us get the government one out’. We saved the government vehicle but he lost everything else - and I mean everything: two houses. He had a house that he had lived in for about 13 years which had all of the family belongings in, as well as building a new house out in the rural area, both of which flooded. As the member for Drysdale said, it was probably more like a week before Mike Reed got back to that house. I know Ann, his wife, was back there within a couple of days of the water going down, but there was no priority put on that house or his other house to do anything to ameliorate the damage that had been caused, over and above making sure everyone else was right.
There were things that had to be done during that situation. The military, at the time, said they could hurry things up, like generators bringing generators into town, if only we had a Hercules. However, because of the level of emergency that had been declared, you could not command such a big aircraft without another level of emergency being reached. I remember Mike saying: ‘Well, how does that happen?’. The military personnel said it had to come from much higher up in their own lines of command before they could act, but if they got that command, they could have had a Hercules there within the next 12 hours loaded with all of the things that were needed. I remember Mike getting on the phone - and I will not say who to or how it happened - and within about 15 minutes, the military personnel who were involved at the time received a phone call from their lines of command, and the order was: ‘We have just moved to the next level of emergency’. That meant they could order virtually what they wanted.
That is how things moved with Mike. The member for Drysdale said that he could be ruthless, and sometimes he was. He would not suffer fools, and you cannot suffer fools while you are in a crisis situation. Some would remember him, probably with disdain. Others, I am sure, including the residents of Katherine, would admire him for the work that he did.
One of our big problems during the first few days probably the first two week - of the flood was that it was very difficult to get information to people. The Katherine Times had been flooded. We wrote and produced - here in Darwin - and distributed the Katherine Times just to get information to people about where they could go for assistance, what was going on, what were the next steps in the rebuild, and all those sorts of things. He moved mountains very easily, but worked like a Trojan. The last thing he thought of during that time, apart from his family’s safety, was his own possessions, of which they lost everything.
The member for Drysdale has mentioned the Timor crisis. It goes without saying the great work that was done there. I would like to thank Mike for the assistance he has given me and my family over the last 10 years since I became the member for Daly and moved to Katherine, and also Ann Reed who is a stalwart in her own right and has done so much for the people of Katherine as Mike’s partner and has great respect around the town of Katherine. I am sure we will see a lot more of Ann over the coming years because she is a dedicated community worker in her own right.
Lorna Hart, who has been with Mike as Electorate Officer for 13 years, has been a dedicated assistant to Mike and is certainly a very respected lady in Katherine for the work that she has done to assist people. I am glad to say that Fay Miller, as the new member for Katherine, is keeping Lorna on as her Electorate Officer.
I wish Mike well in his retirement. It was good to see him here yesterday for the swearing in of Fay Miller. It was interesting to watch him when he was recognised by the Speaker as the ‘former member for Katherine’. He stood, and he had a smile from ear to ear. It seems to me he is going to very much enjoy retirement. I hope he does because he certainly deserves to.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk of an event that I attended on Saturday 4 October, the Neighbourhood Watch Conference in Alice Springs. This is the first time that the Neighbourhood Watch Conference has been held outside the Darwin area. It was great to see a follow-on from the initiative of having parliament down there, and now Neighbourhood Watch. I am hopeful that many more community organisations which have a role across the Territory will likewise start to meet down in this fine community, the heart of Australia, as they call themselves. It is truly a fine town. I had the pleasure of opening the conference but, before that occurred, the night before I had even a greater pleasure of having an informal meal with members of the executive, and also some other members of the out-of-town contingent, at the City Pub, I believe it is called, in the Todd Tavern.
This is the first time I had been in the Todd Tavern for many years. What a fine establishment that is, and a credit to the owners and to the community. At 5.30 pm, people were lining up for a meal, and that was quite incredible to see. They did a rip-roaring trade, and the level of service was fantastic, the hospitality was great, the meal was superb, and so was the wine. I have absolutely nothing but praise for that place. As I said, I had not been there - it must have been well over a decade. To say that I was pleasantly surprised would be an understatement. Also, to say that everyone there had a good time would also be understating it. So thanks for the hospitality of the people of that fine establishment.
However, there was work the next morning for everyone, so it was not a late night. We opened it and I gave thanks and spoke briefly about Neighbourhood Watch and what it stood for, and also that at the AGM they would also be carrying on with training for the delegates there in CPTED. CPTED, as the members of the group certainly know, is based around looking at environmental factors and counting those into the built environment to see how they can help in reducing crime. I did not get to stay all day, as one would expect. I was there from 8:30 am until …
Dr Lim: Morning tea.
Mr KIELY: … morning tea, but in that time I had the pleasure of meeting with many members. I must say also that the newly-appointed Deputy Opposition Leader was there to show his support for Neighbourhood Watch, as too was the member for …
Dr Lim: We have been lobbying for it for years to come to Alice Springs.
Mr KIELY: And it was there, and I am glad that it happened. I might say that Neighbourhood Watch is a non-political organisation, it is their choice about where they meet. The member for Macdonnell was also there, I guess in his role as shadow police minister.
The old committee stood down and the elections were held. Sergeant Rod Strong, who is the police representative in the Office of Crime Prevention, was the returning officer, and he looked after the election and handled that side of it. The new committee consists of Ken Mildred, who was the Chair. The Treasurer was Brian McManus; the secretary, Peter Hanson from Alice Springs; the executive officer, of course, is Rod Strong. The committee members are John Lear, who is a good upright citizen from Anula, Paul Wyatt, a good Wulagi citizen, Brian Hilder, Geoff Thomas, who is the public officer, and Sharon Kinraid from Tennant Creek. These are all community-minded people who stood for the executive. However, let me say that there were a lot more people there participating in the training who put in equally as much effort.
There were a number of awards given out to members of Neighbourhood Watch who had participated on the executive. They were recognised for their work, but none was more significant or special than Joyce Williamson. Joyce lives in Anula and I have known her for a number of years now. I see Joyce getting around the suburbs walking her dog. Joyce is very community-minded and she has been involved with Neighbourhood Watch for many years - well over a decade, probably for somewhere around 15 years. That is a great commitment to our community. Joyce started working as a volunteer. She has been a member of Neighbourhood Watch since 1988, she is also the watch coordinator.
In my office, the previous member who resigned - I suppose, if one resigns, stood down - had the practice of putting up around his wall all these different plaques the community groups obtained in regards to Sanderson. When he left, Mr Manzie left all those plaques on the wall. I was proud and pleased as punch to leave those up there. I must say a lot of the Neighbourhood Watch commendations and commemorative plaques are from around the time when Joyce was the Area Coordinator. A lot of her awards are there in the office at Sanderson because they belong to the community; it does not belong to one individual, it belongs to the community. It is there as recognition for the work that she put in.
Joyce also has been a volunteer since 1995 for three days a week. For six years she worked on voluntary basis with Neighbourhood Watch. That is an outstanding effort and one that, as an example to all members of the community, is a hard one to follow - very hard, but certainly something to aspire to. She has helped out the people in general around the area by offering them support, being a good listener, lending them a helping hand with some chores, and sometimes taking them out for the day - which comes as no surprise when you know Joyce. It is just a wonderful thing.
Joyce has had a bit of a bad patch. I know that some members of her family have been ill, but she was crook there for a while. However, even while she was ill, she still managed to offer her voluntary services for a day a week - quite commendable. I remember last year, seeing her at the Northern Territory Expo, at The Tank. She was undergoing her regime of medication, but she was getting about. I remember seeing her with Sergeant Rod Strong and Police Auxiliary Vic Stowe and even Sergeant Tony Pedersen might have been there. Those four are really a close knit group, and it was very, very, commendable.
A comment that Sergeant Rod Strong made about her was that Joyce has put so much in to the community. When she is working in the office as a volunteer with Neighbourhood Watch, she is also involved in the decision-making. I would say that she has a profound influence from her years of commitment - an influence, insight and a respect that Rod and the team have for this particular individual. She was given an commendation from Neighbourhood Watch. It is an annual award now. Let me say that Joyce has set the bar very high. The next person who comes along and gets that award is really someone special, and I look forward to meeting them.
With those few comments, I would like to wish the new Neighbourhood Watch Board of Management all the best for the upcoming year. I am sure that they will do a great job. I, like many of the other MLAs here whose offices individual Neighbourhood Watch programs use, look forward to hosting them over the year. Sanderson office is always a welcome environment for the Sanderson Neighbourhood Watch, and I look forward to working with them over the next year.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I had intended to pay tribute to Mike Reed, certainly in light of the comments of my colleagues, the members for Drysdale and Daly. However, I have elected not to pursue that course, having listened to the member for Sanderson.
We all know that some very serious allegations were made by the member for Macdonnell an hour or so ago. It is astonishing, I believe, that the member for Sanderson did not use the opportunity of an adjournment speech to answer those allegations. It seems to me that, as a relative newcomer to this parliament, if very serious allegations such as those made by the member for Macdonnell were made, the member for Sanderson would perhaps have the courage to tackle them head on; to say, perhaps, that the member for Macdonnell was mistaken, that he was aware - that is, the member for Sanderson - that he had copied other people’s work on a number of occasions. However, he did not and that is curious.
We all make mistakes in this game called politics, but I do not think that there would be very many people in this Chamber who would systematically copy other people’s work, presumably without permission, and attribute comments to themselves. None of us are perfect. We often, in this business, do and say things that we regret, but this is a different issue entirely. The member for Sanderson had to apologise today in the media for saying that Territorians in the northern suburbs should open their windows in the face of significant power blackouts. He is not having a good day, and it is interesting that it is not unlike the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries yesterday who, unfortunately, it would appear, also presented material to this parliament that was copied.
We all know that both sides of politics put spin on all sorts of things. But a copy is a copy is a copy. Mistakes can be made but, when it is done, apparently in the case of the member of Sanderson, on a systematic basis we should all have cause for concern.
The member for Macdonnell, I believe, referred to two or three instances. Sadly, there are more. I refer in particular - and I will be happy to table it upon my conclusion - an article that appeared. I think the member for Macdonnell referred to different parts of this article, but this particular one is entitled Review of Legislation Under Which Persons are Detained at the Governor's Pleasure in Victoria. It is dated October 1995 and is available from pretty much anywhere. My copy was obtained from the Northern Territory Library and Information Service.
I refer to the member for Sanderson’s speech made on 23 May 2002. I know the Hansard will not pick this up, but I will demonstrate and the documentation can match it all up later. I will read from that article of October 1995 those bits which the member for Sanderson read into Hansard. We are not talking about a few words here and there - it could happen to any of us - or a sentence here or there; we are talking about chunks - huge chunks - and it is simply not acceptable. Perhaps he takes his advice and counsel from the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. Who knows? You would not have thought a backbencher in any government would have a staffer. Perhaps there is a staffer around who is - to coin a good, old Victorian phrase - a copy-cat from Ballarat.
However, the member for Sanderson must come to terms with this. As I say, it is not just a sentence here or there; it is chunks. We know the member for Sanderson; we know his language. We have a fair idea - all of us - of his personality. So, when he starts to say things that do not incorporate his usual speech or language - he tends to be fairly monosyllabic - and when he uses words and phrases that are not quite him we are naturally, I guess, perplexed.
In any event, returning to this article of October 1995 from Victoria. Perhaps I will not read all of it. He read into the Hansard of 23 May 2002, not all that long after he was elected as local member. He copied great chunks which are as follows:
The member for Sanderson elected not to include one sentence, but then goes back to this article of October 1995. He talks about mechanisms for dealing with individuals developed whereby the accused was given three warnings. It goes on, it goes on. What is really interesting is that I have learnt from this article that the member for Sanderson does not speak French, because there are some French words - I assume they are French; I do not profess to be an expert on languages. By the time I went to school, Latin was not around; we learnt a bit of Indonesian. However, I certainly did not learn French or any other language. I suspect that these are French words from this article that I will table upon the conclusion of this adjournment speech.
Dr Lim: Yes, it is.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, member for Greatorex, who has a language or two. He has confirmed that they are French.
Out of this chunk, apart from a sentence, the member for Sanderson did not include the French words. I wonder why I am not surprised! Because the member for Sanderson (a) probably did not know what they were; and (b) probably could not pronounce them.
My colleague, the member for Macdonnell, also referred to an article by a Sophie Delaney which was from the Law Institute Journal No 72, January 1998. The member for Macdonnell quoted a paragraph; there are others. This is not an isolated incident. I stress we can all make mistakes in this job - this job perhaps more so than any other. We can all make mistakes and the mistakes tend to be amplified a 100 times over, but there is a fundamental difference. Copying other people’s work without permission is a contempt of this parliament, and failure to attribute other people’s work is something that the member for Sanderson should take away and think about long and hard.
Some time ago - I cannot remember when it was - I described the member for Sanderson as an ill-bred, bad mannered something or other. I believe I picked the member for Sanderson fairly early on. It is a sign of bad manners and ill-breeding - not to make a mistake; we can all make mistakes - but to copy chunks and to somehow try to give the impression that one is informed, has incredible intelligence, is downright – well, one cannot use the term ‘misleading’, but it is something that is very serious.
The reason I am on my feet is that the member for Sanderson, within an hour of so of the member for Macdonnell raising these allegations, has not used this adjournment opportunity to refute them. From that, I take that silence as consent; there is an acquiescence. There is, to some degree, an acknowledgement by the member for Sanderson that he does copy other people’s work at length, and attribute them as his own.
For the opposition and, more importantly, for Territorians, this raises certain issues. The issues are what is to be believed. There are statements every day; and many reports. We have not searched extensively. We had a bit of a hunch because we know how the member for Sanderson communicates, and we had a bit of a look. We have not extensively searched but, frankly, there is a part of me that is a bit worried about so doing, because the member for Sanderson may well be caught out further.
Can I stress, in conclusion that, yes, we all make mistakes, but systematic copying - and this is only the stuff we have discovered so far, there may well be much more. I have been in the Chamber, and listened to the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, a couple of ministers have had a go, and the member for Sanderson has made an adjournment speech, and no one sought to refute the very serious allegations that were put by the member for Macdonnell.
I have a hunch that the people up there on the 5th floor are searching everything - they would be looking at everything. Perhaps their advice to the member for Sanderson, was: ‘Go and do the garden variety adjournment speech, leave it with us overnight, and we will see if we can get you out of this hole that you have dug for yourself’. Well, I do not know how they will go, but the case is a fairly strong one; that is, that the member for Sanderson really has lost all credibility. It is for others more senior and more intelligent than him to talk to him and to take decisive action. Certainly we are - as I am sure other are people around the Northern Territory - terribly concerned. I stress again, it is very disappointing that the member for Sanderson did not take the opportunity to refute the allegations and suggestions made by the member for Macdonnell. I do not think that that leaves us with anywhere to go other than to draw the conclusion that the member for Sanderson simply accepts that he has systematically copied great chunks in his speeches to parliament from other people’s work.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I support the member for Sanderson on his adjournment speech on Neighbourhood Watch. I was there, as he mentioned in his speech, and I applaud Neighbourhood Watch for taking the annual conference to Alice Springs for the very first time in its history. We have spent many years lobbying Rod Strong and the Police Commissioner of the day, seeking their support in taking the conference to Alice Springs. I am glad that it finally did; people in Alice Springs appreciated that.. The program that was run down there, for which I stayed for almost half a day, was really very well run. I appreciated the presence of Commissioner Paul White and Assistant Commissioner Bruce Wernham, who were there. I was very pleased to see Joyce Williamson receiving her award. I thought it was a great thing to offer her and it almost brought her to tears.
However, talking about the member for Sanderson, this morning he had to be forced to withdraw the tone that he throws every so often. I am happy to repeat it here. He calls me ‘Dr Death’ every so often when his bile gets so thick in his throat that he cannot do anything but cough it out. Let me just advise the member for Sanderson that I stand unaccused of anything and, if he had the courage of his convictions, he would say it outside and not hide in this coward’s castle and utter the words in protection.
Dr Burns: A bit like your allegation against me. Are you going to say that outside? I challenge you to do that! Your feet will not hit the floor.
Dr LIM: When the Deputy Chief Minister, in fact …
Dr Burns: Slap a writ on you, mate.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: When the Deputy Chief Minister uttered those words, very early in 1994-95, I confronted him. He had the courage to come to me and apologise and, ever since then, had refrained from uttering those words, because I believe he respected that it was wrong. Anyway, I just give that little advice to the member for Sanderson: if he has the courage to say it; say it out there and see how far he gets. If not, do not hide behind the skirts of the Speaker in this Chamber and try and score a couple of political points.
Dr Burns: You are in the same boat.
Mr Kiely: Two rules, isn’t it, Richard? Two rules.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: He keeps continuing to interject very loudly, the so-called intellectual, the doctor in this house - one of them anyway. He knows what plagiarising is. I assume, he is the academic who writes long papers, dissertations. He makes all those …
Dr Burns: You made an allegation; you say it outside as well. Apply the same rules to yourself.
Mr Baldwin: I did. I said it outside.
Dr LIM: What has he done? He …
Dr Burns: No, what he said was different.
Dr LIM: … cannot even make the right apology and say: ‘Yes, I did something wrong, I apologise for it’, and it would be all over. Instead, he tries to hide behind excuses that someone else wrote the paper for him and he did not bother to check it out.
What I really got up to speak about tonight, was not about the members for Sanderson or Johnston; it was really about the minister for transport. On Saturday last week …
Mr Baldwin: He has not plagiarised as well, has he?
Dr LIM: Well, not quite; I do not think he has. However, in Saturday’s NT News, there was a big article which said ‘Government Reduces Ferry Trips to Mandorah’. There is a picture of the Seacat and a caption underneath the picture of the Mandorah ferry says: ‘Several weekend and holiday services will be axed’. It goes on to say, and I quote from the Northern Territory News of Saturday this last …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Member for Daly, if you could cease with that clicking noise; it is difficult to hear the Deputy Leader.
Dr LIM: If I may continue, because this is wasting my time:
I went into the web site myself and had a look, and the tender was released on 25 September.
Mr Baldwin: For a reduced service or what?
Dr LIM: Yes, for a significantly reduced service. What happened was, obviously, the media got hold of it, people living in Mandorah heard about it, and it created a fair bit of a ruckus. Now we find that the minister is calling for a public consultation on Friday - two weeks after the tender documents came out. He is calling for a public consultation now. This is really doing his job back to front …
Mr Baldwin: Sounds like the cart before the horse.
Dr LIM: The cart before the horse, as the member for Daly says. I am sure what this minister is doing is setting up the meeting on Friday as a process for another backflip. That is what he is going to do.
Mr Baldwin: The Greek Olympics.
Dr LIM: It has to be that; what I call the Backflip Kon setting up for another backflip. If he took part in the Olympics, I am sure he would do the floor exercises very well …
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Dr LIM: Well, 10 out of 10. I just hope whatever he does, he ensures that the decision he comes up with on Friday does not adversely affect the lifestyle of the people living in Mandorah. We all live in the Territory because of the lifestyle that we so much enjoy, and this government continues to knock, knock and knock, so that we are going to be just like every other and any state all across the country. We will all look the same …
Mr Henderson: Weren’t you guys going to dam the Elizabeth River? I seem to remember that one.
Mr Baldwin: No, it was an idea, but we gave it away.
Mr Henderson: Yes, you backflipped, with a huge pike.
Dr LIM: It is a sad indictment on this minister …
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Order! Members, I have called order.
Dr LIM: … that he continues to fail in his proper consultation before he announces the tender. If he had done his job properly, he would have consulted, and then there would be no need for this Friday’s hastily convened community consultation. He would not need to have the meeting to talk about the ferry service. It is very sad but true that the ‘shoot from the hip’ style of minister Vatskalis has forced him to do more backflips than a dolphin.
Let me just describe what has been the litany of backflips of this minister. I am going to go back as far back as 2001 when he was made the minister. In November 2001, what did he do? He compulsorily acquired land owned by residents in Middle Arm Road in Berry Springs. He signed off on the documents and then he later admitted that he did not know what he was signing for.
Then, in June 2002, in the sacking of Dr Bill Freeland, the minister explained that he did not need such a person in that position in the public service any more. Then, within a couple of weeks - maybe it was a month, I cannot remember exact dates - he promptly put somebody else in the position, after Dr Freeland was sacked.
In July 2002, a month later, he planned to charge Territorians a fee for late payment of their power and water bills. He says: ‘No, no we did not do it. We did not do it’. We saw the Cabinet documents, didn’t we, and guess what? Once the heat got onto it: ‘No, no, we are not going to do that. We did not do that; it was all a mistake’.
Mr Baldwin: Tell us about the planning thing in Alice Springs.
Dr LIM: Well, I will get to that in a minute. In July 2002, he had two different stories over the Outback Highway. The initial story was that he was not going to seal the highway - that was too expensive; a road to nowhere. Within a week, he said he would build the highway, no matter whether the Western Australian or the Queensland governments supported the project on their sides of the border. One week he says one thing, and then says another thing - 180 the opposite.
In October 2002, the minister blamed eco-terrorist, and then later, when he could not find the eco-terrorist, decided it was the truck driver who caused that cyanide spill along Tanami highway. Eighteen months later, the DPP says: ‘Sorry, nobody to prosecute, can’t do a thing’.
That is the sort of thing that this minister – if I were to …
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: … even school students would never be able to pass any examinations.
Mr Baldwin: Talk about the planning debacle.
I will get to the planning debacle in Alice Springs in a little while. I have a few more minutes.
January 2003 - this time, the minister decided he was going to close the airspace over Nitmiluk, the Katherine Gorge National Park. ‘That is it; I have closed it all off. Nobody can fly over there anymore’, without even checking if he had the authority to do that. Within days, the acting Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, had to fix it for you and tell you that it was wrong.
Then we see your next decision. That is June 2003, not that long ago. You were so confused about the commercial passenger vehicle industry. How many backflips did you do? I lost count - I honestly lost count on the backflips that you did - the PH, the limousines, the executive taxis, the mobile telephones. The list just goes on and on and on.
In July 2003 you told the president of the Taxi Council that you proposed to bring in a free inner city bus service. You are supporting it and you are the minister, you can do anything you want. At last, following the huge outcry from the CPV industry, he had to back down one more time.
And now, the land in Alice Springs. What day was it? I had better check my calendar. I can distinctly remember this because I was in the middle of a discussion with somebody, and what happened was …
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: Let me find the date. it was Tuesday, 23 September.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, no cross-Chamber banter, please.
Dr LIM: Yes, Tuesday 23 September. That morning, I got up at 7.30 am. My radio was on the ABC news and guess what it said? ‘The minister says that the first allotments will be released at Larapinta stage 4 …’ – or words to that effect – ‘… by the end of October’. I said: ‘Oh God, here we go again!’ By the end of October - this month. This is how inaccurate this man is …
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: I will give you a copy of the media transcript tomorrow. I do not have it here with me. I will give you a copy of that tomorrow.
That is how wrong you can be all the time. So please, minister, put your brain in gear, make sure that the tongue is connected to the brain before you start moving your lips, otherwise you go on over and over again making mistakes that cause you so many troubles.
The land in Larapinta stage 4 is not going to be available within four months - no way in the world. You have hardly anything done down there. A third or a quarter of October is over, so you have November, December, January. You have three months and three weeks to get the first allotment released, otherwise the member for Stuart is going to have to sell his house. You had better do something about that.
If I was were you, I tell you what, after the sittings are over you had better roll up your sleeves, get down to Alice Springs and bring out your shovel and start digging, otherwise he is going to lose his house. He is going to lose it, and you are going to be the one who is going to cause it. You make promises that you cannot keep …
Mr Baldwin: What about the web site, the three different ...
Dr LIM: Well! The web site. I thought I would let the member for Macdonnell get stuck into that. But the thing is, if you look at the stories that he has told the Chief Minister, the media, and the Chamber, they do not match up. When we then sought advice from the man who claims to be your friend, the man who owns the web site, what did he say? ‘I have never met that man before in my life’ or words to that effect. This is what you tell us in this Chamber. If you are misleading us, then you had best get up and correct it before you get yourself hung, strung and quartered …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The member well knows that if he wishes to raise an allegation that my colleague misled the House, he can only do so by way of substantive motion.
Mr BALDWIN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, what my colleague said was ‘if he is misleading the House’. He did not say that he is misleading the House, and the Leader of Government Business heard that. I ask you not to make a ruling on him saying he misled the House; he said ‘if you have misled the House’.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, did you say ‘misleading the House’?
Dr LIM: No. I said ‘if you have misled the House, then you should come and explain yourself before you get yourself hung, strung and quartered’. If you would like to check the rushes tomorrow morning, and if I said anything wrong, I will get up and apologise tomorrow morning. However, I tell you I did not say that.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the inference was …
Dr Lim: Would you like to freeze the clock?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will stand because – sit! Freeze the clock.
Dr LIM: Thank you.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been very patient during this adjournment debate. I know it has been provocative but, when I call a member, I expect other members to respect the Chair’s call. I have called the Leader of Government Business. All other members shall be silent.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, to accuse any member of this House of misleading the parliament or inferring misleading of the parliament, a member should do so by way of substantive motion. If he wants to allege that the member has misled the House - and that was the allegation - then he can only do so by way of substantive motion. If he thinks sticking the word ‘if’ in front of it is somehow detrimental to the allegation of the inference, I really think we need to go back and get a substantive ruling. However, there was a very clear inference that my colleague has misled the House. He can do that, but he can only do that by way of substantive motion.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly, before you rise, I am going to seek advice on this as to the inference.
All right, I will not seek withdrawal. I rule that it is open to interpretation. Member for Greatorex, you have some seconds left.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Really, I just want to wrap up and say that the minister has a very consistent and predictable pattern of behaviour in the way he runs his ministry. I ask the minister to please connect your brain to your tongue before you move your lips and, hopefully, we will be advised by you a lot better than you have done in the last two years, as I have outlined.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITIONS
Controls over Animals in Litchfield Area Plan
Controls over Animals in Litchfield Area Plan
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 988 petitioners relating to the existing controls over animals, as shown in the 1992 Litchfield Area Plan. 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 Northern Territory Assembly, we the undersigned citizens do respectfully
request the existing controls over animals, as shown in the 1992 Litchfield Area Plan – that is, agricultural
passive and agriculture intensive – be retained under the proposed RL1, rural living zone, in the proposed
Litchfield Shire planning scheme, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.
Minimum Lot Size for Rural Residential Zone
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 792 petitioners relating to zones for one hectare and under one hectare rural residential blocks. 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 Northern Territory Assembly, we the undersigned citizens do respectfully
request the minimum lot size for RR zone, rural residential, be one hectare, and a new zone title be given to
blocks under one hectare, and that the new zone only be approved in a distinct centre, and that these new
zones only be applied to new subdivisions, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Retention of Rural Living Zones in Howard River Park and Whitewood Park
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 838 petitioners requesting that the existing zone of RL1, rural living, be retained as the zone for Howard River Park and Whitewood Park, not RR, rural residential. 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 Northern Territory Assembly, we the undersigned citizens do respectfully request
that the existing zone of RL1, rural living, be retained as the zone for Howard River Park and Whitewood Park, not RR,
rural residential, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Electricity Outages In Darwin
Electricity Outages In Darwin
Dr BURNS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, this morning I provide a report on recent power outages across the Darwin metropolitan area.
I am advised by Power and Water Corporation that the outages experienced on Monday night and yesterday morning are primarily related to a problem with the main power transformers at the Berrimah Power Station. Approximately 6200 customers in the Darwin northern suburbs, Shoal Bay and Berrimah were affected, with supply restored gradually to customers after outage times of between 47 to 72 minutes.
In parliament yesterday, I expressed my concern and regret to those residents and businesses that have been affected by these outages. There were further outages experienced last night after a miscalculation at the Berrimah generation plant about fuel requirements. I am advised that the plant automatically shut down after fuel levels reached a critical level. This is a safety measure designed to prevent possible damage to the generator from fuel impurities at the bottom of the fuel tanks. I consider this an unacceptable error and I communicated that to PowerWater.
Whilst it is disappointing that we continue to experience power outages, it is worth noting that over the years, PowerWater has made some positive progress in reducing outages. We live in a tropical climate and this naturally creates a difficult environment for the operation of power generation infrastructure. Lightening strikes, storms, floods and our thick overhanging tropical vegetation all contribute, from time to time, to the problems that we have seen in our power network.
However, our overall system reliability is on par with the national average, and our response times to restore power are better. While unfortunate, outages will sometimes occur but it is positive to note that our response times to get the power back on is better than the Australian average which, at 29.58 minutes compares to the Australian average of 96.8 minutes. In addition, our number of outages is also about average when compared to the rest of Australia – we sit in the middle of the rating - 145.48 minutes compared to 225.74 minutes which is the Australian average.
This government does understand how frustrating it is to lose power. That is why we have initiated the power undergrounding project. This project will not only provide improved power reliability for residents in Darwin’s older suburbs, but will also provide greater security of supply in the event of a cyclone and improved community safety. Areas of Darwin already supplied by underground power have less than one-quarter of the interruptions experienced in areas serviced by overhead powerlines. The project is expected to bring similar benefits to Darwin’s older suburbs.
As Essential Services Minister, I am seriously disappointed in these outages. I have sought an urgent briefing from the CEO of Power and Water Corporation today, and I will be seeking his assurance that everything that can be done to remedy this situation is, indeed, being done.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Well, well, well. We told you if you cut back on R and M the power is going to go off. The power has gone off. Blow me down! I will tell you what has happened. They have declared a major profit. PowerWater have given a big dividend to the Treasurer, the other shareholding minister. We said: ‘Well, pretty big profit, where did that come from?’ We know where it came from - it came from R and M. It came from …
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Mr DUNHAM: Do not say rubbish! I can tell you that there are some contractors out there who know they are not getting R and M. So, we know that you have problems with your system. Berrimah went down. Berrimah is a calamity power station. When you turn on Berrimah, it runs on Avgas, a very high cost fuel. When you turn Berrimah on, you have a really big problem somewhere else. I will tell you what: you would not go to Katherine with this bloke; they ran out of juice. His excuse yesterday when we asked: ‘What is the excuse?’, he said: ‘Dunno, dunno. But I tell you what, it is very unusual.’ Well, we now have about 10 unusual excuses: it could have been this, it could have been that – ran out of juice.
I can tell you, I have been associated with this parliament for a long time. I have never heard a PowerWater minister stand up and say: ‘The lights went out because the idiot light came on the gas board - blink, blink, little fuel bowser. Oh! We are out of petrol’. Blow me down! I cannot believe the level of incompetence with this excuse.
I tell you why the power is going off: you are not looking after your system. Repairs and maintenance; fix it up before it goes off. And it went off. We told you this back in May. We said if you declare a dividend this big, it means you are sucking it out of operational systems and that is what has happened.
So, minister, call up the head bloke, talk to him and all the rest of it. However, come in here and tell us why you are not maintaining our asset.
Dr BURNS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, I do not put any credence in any figures that the member for Drysdale brings to this parliament. We have seen his inaccuracy. I have seen how he plays with figures, and I do not believe in what he is trying to suggest here; that there has been a cut-back on servicing the system. I do not believe that.
There has been a problem with the generator, and I have laid before parliament the problem that occurred at the Berrimah generator. I am unhappy about it, and I will be communicating my unhappiness and that of consumers to the CEO of PowerWater this afternoon.
In closing, I do not think it helps anyone for the member for Drysdale to be calling PowerWater workers idiots.
Mr Dunham: I did not! I said an idiot light!
Northern Territory Delegation to Greece, Cyprus and Turkey
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am proud to report to the House of the successful visit to Greece, Cyprus and Turkey by a Territory delegation last month. Our delegation consisted of His Honour, the Administrator, John Anictomatis, his wife Jeanette, Official Secretary, Frank Leverett, myself, partner and children, Ethnic Affairs Minister, Kon Vatskalis, his wife and children. We both paid for our children to accompany us.
Also included in the official party was Protocol Director, Shaun O’Sullivan, my Media Advisor, Craig Rowston, and a delegation consisting of members of the Darwin Greek community including the Honorary Consul for Greece, George Kapetas and his partner, Ross Bracher, who is the Honorary Consul-General for Japan, incidentally, John Nicolakis, John Halkitis, Tony and Rena Miaoudis, who are all prominent Darwin business people, and Savvas Hatzivalsamis, the President of the Greek Orthodox School.
The Minister for Ethnic Affairs arrived before the major delegation to meet with his counterparts in Athens, Professor Stella Priovolos to discuss the issue of a second Greek teacher for Darwin. He also met with the Minister for Culture, Evangelos Venizelos, and Pavlos Geroulanos, the Secretary-General for Greeks Abroad to discuss issues of culture and ethnic significance to the Darwin Greek community.
The minister also met with Mr Milonakis, the Managing Director of ARAMARK Dasko who caters to the Olympic Village, to discuss possible markets and supply of Territory produce to the Olympic Village.
The rest of the delegation arrived in Athens on 1 September and had an initial meeting with the Australian Ambassador to Greece, His Excellency, Stuart Hume.
We then headed off to Kos where we were met by the Mayor, Miltiadis Fakos, the Sub-Prefect, Maria Kypreou, the Australian Consul in the Athens Embassy, Toni Williams, and a host of representatives from the local Greek Australian community.
Travelling to Kos is the only way to get to Kalymnos as it is the closest island. The island is also important to many Territory Greeks. The following day on Kalymnos we met with the Mayor of Kalymnos, George Roussos, Sub-Prefect Hrysooula Sifoniou, council members and representatives from the Greek Australian community. Arriving on Kalymnos is like coming home to Darwin. There are such close ties of people and families, and we discussed many issues of shared culture and community significance. We also visited a number of local businesses, many of which were owned by people who had lived in the Territory and still had family there, including the Klidaras Fish Farm. This provided the opportunity to discuss issues as varied as tourism, security and pensions.
The delegation also received significant interest from Greek media and conducted many interviews about the Northern Territory. Many of those were done in Greek. I did not do the ones in Greek. Importantly, during our stay in Kalymnos, the Mayor gave a promise to host a delegation to visit Darwin. This would certainly be welcomed by the Territory’s Kalymnian community. That will happen next year. We were very delighted.
As we were about to leave Kalymnos, there was some difficulty with the weather. However, thanks to the Greek Air Force, which generously came to our rescue, we were Chinooked off Kalymnos in time for our next appointment. This was carried out in the spirit of friendship and they did not expect reimbursement, highlighting the legendary hospitality of the Greeks. We thank them very much for that.
Our next stop was Istanbul, where we were very privileged to meet with the Head of the Greek Orthodox Church, His All Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and to attend a service at which our Administrator, John Anictomatis, was bestowed an Offikion, one of the highest honours of the church. That really was a most memorable day; to spend all day with the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew, who is a most charming man and speaks seven languages fluently.
On return to Athens, we met with the Secretary-General for the International Economic Relations and Development Corporation, Professor Dimitri Dollis, the President of the Hellenic Republic, Constantinos Stephanopoulos, the Minister for Education and Religious Affairs, Petros Efthumiou, the Speaker of the House, Apostolos Kaklamanis, and representatives of the new Democratic Party. As a result of these discussions, the Greek government has offered to fund an additional language and culture teacher for Darwin. This teacher will work at the Greek Orthodox School, other schools, and will help establish the modern Greek language course at the university.
In Cyprus, we met with the Minister for Education, the Minister for Commerce, Industry and Tourism. Again, we were offered educational resource material and both parties agreed to build links between our schools. The final day of meetings for the delegation was with the Minister for Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment. We also we met with the United Nations peacekeeping force, and the AFP Commander there, Geoff Hazel, among others. Geoff passed on his personal thanks to the Territory for its important role in East Timor and, as one who was evacuated here, was particularly grateful for our medical assistance.
It was a very important trip, Madam Speaker, and I believe very productive. The overall expenditure for the trip was just under $130 000.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I respond to this in my capacity as shadow minister for Asian Relations and Trade. I have listened carefully to the report and, yes, I do acknowledge that Greece is not in Asia Minor. However, listening closely to the report, it is one that I would acknowledge as a good report. The contacts that have been made over there were beneficial in the sense of developing relationships. It is that theme that I wish to draw attention to, because I listened to how important it was to establish the relational contacts for education and different governmental agencies, heads of state and so on - very, very important.
I listen, also carefully, to see that there would be any ensuing trade, and I did not hear of any trade contracts that had been signed.
Ms Martin: It was not a trade trip.
Mr MILLS: I do not actually expect it in this context, but I make the point that the Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, in retorting to my exhaltation to attend the ASEAN Summit and the Business Expo in Bali, responded by saying: ‘Please, tell us what contract would be signed as a result of going?’ It is very important that we have these kinds of exchanges where we do develop relationships, but it is not completely contingent upon the signing of a contract. It is for that very reason we should have gone to Bali to make sure that the relationship is further strengthened so that we can ultimately sign trade contracts.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I think that was support for this trip to Greece. It was qualified support, but let me just make it very clear. There was never any major intention in this trip to Athens, Kalymnos, Istanbul and Cyprus, to say it was a trade trip. This was a community building trip, it is recognising important links. It is recognising the important links, particularly …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: I would appreciate, Madam Speaker, a little quiet from the rabble opposite. … the important links between our community, particularly in Darwin, and Kalymnos, Kos, Cyprus and Athens, and the importance of growing those links. We cannot talk about being a multicultural community unless we are fostering those multicultural elements. We are certainly doing that by having those connections with Greece.
I would like to place on record my thanks to the Greek government for accepting our arguments about a second Greek teacher, and having two Greek teachers in Darwin. This is fantastic; that is great. I welcome the proposed visit by the Mayor of Kalymnos, George Roussos. It was a very successful trip, and I thank all members of our delegation because we have built, again, the important ties between Darwin and Greece ...
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
IX 2003 Information and Communications Technology Expo
Dr TOYNE (Communications): Madam Speaker, last week I went to Singapore with a significant NT trade delegation to attend the IX 2003 Information and Communications Technology Expo, and I welcome some of my fellow travellers here today. It is good to see you here. This business delegation was the Territory’s largest to visit Asia in recent times, with 41 delegates representing 18 Territory companies and the NT Branch of the Australian Information Industry Association.
The IX 2003 Expo is a major regional ICT exhibition, and provided a real opportunity for our Territory ICT companies to link with potential partners and customers. Five Territory companies exhibited at the Territory stand which, with its Northern Territory Remote Solutions theme, attracted a major amount of interest and introduced the skills and products of the Territory’s burgeoning ICT industry to Asian markets.
I am pleased to report the visit has delivered significant outcomes to the local ICT sector. Connected Solutions Group reached an agreement to export its innovative freight management software into Singapore, one of the largest shipping capitals in the world. CSM Technology used the expo to launch its ‘smart’ e-mail and messaging product into the Asian market.
Discussions were held between the NT businesses and leading Singaporean ICT companies, Singtel and the National Computer Systems, about partnering agreements and exporting into Asian markets. Mr KC Lee, the CEO of National Computer Systems, will now lead a delegation to the Territory to continue these discussions. Another delegation may travel to Korea later this year, following an offer from the Korean IT industry promotion agency to sponsor people from the Territory to travel to their ICT forum in December. The possibility of exchanges between Territory and Singaporean ICT firms and public sector agencies was also discussed with the Singapore government.
A number of meetings were also held between Darwin and Asian companies to explore trade and partnership opportunities, providing future business leads. These successes demonstrate the business outcomes that can flow from being on the ground in other countries; a principle well understood by my colleagues the Chief Minister, the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development, and the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries and Tourism, who have undertaken a number of trips into Asia, contrary to recent claims by the opposition.
This visit to Singapore has consolidated on a series of industry development opportunities I have been working on with minister Henderson and the ICT industry. The inaugural ICT forum last year was an opportunity for local ICT operators to work with government to develop initiatives and strategies to expand the sector. Since then, I have led a successful trade delegation to CeBIT in Hannover, Germany, and the industry attended CeBIT in Sydney.
Coming out of the IT forum, clustering workshops have developed collaboration and partnerships between local firms to exploit export opportunities. The commitment, drive and energy of our ICT industry is impressive, and I am extremely pleased to be able to work with the industry at every opportunity to help achieve its goals of increased exports and industry growth.
One important observation we made was that, in working to develop exports, it is the small details you forget that can often prove most dangerous.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I will applaud where applause is due, and I applaud this minister who feels comfortable about his portfolio, and who is confident in the issues about the ICT industry in the Northern Territory. He recognises the value of going into Asia. Business in Asia is about doing business with people you know. This minister, at long last, has come to value the trips that he has to do into Asia. I remember when he was sitting on this side of the Chamber, he derided the former member for Leanyer, Fred Finch, for having travelled to the United States doing exactly the same sort of thing. That is the problem; this minister here …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Dr LIM: Let me ask the question, in spite of all these interjections: who is the real Minister for Asian Relations and Trade? Maybe the member for Stuart should be made the Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, not this other one sitting here abrogating all his responsibilities on Asian relations and trade.
ICT industry is growing very well in the Northern Territory and, for the last four or five years, things have continued to expand. The fact that this minister has comfort and knowledge of the portfolio has encouraged this industry to grow. I commend the minister for his initiative and the way that he has worked so well with the industry. I wish him well in his continuing trips into South-East Asia, and I look forward to the visit from the businessmen from Singapore. Hopefully, that the minister might even include me in some of his forums.
Dr TOYNE (Communications): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for the support they have expressed for the work we are doing. I look forward to reporting to the House on future occasions as we continue this very exciting industry development process. I would just like to point out minister Henderson has been to seven Asian countries, to my knowledge, to date and I am sure will be in a lot more in the future.
Lee Point Development
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House of recent progress in the development of land at Lee Point. Darwin residents, particularly residents of the northern suburbs, have long been confronted with large tracts of undeveloped land while driving along Lee Point Road. It has been something of a puzzle that this land should remain undeveloped when there has been a shortage of residential land availability in the city of Darwin. The reason for this is that this land, between the hospital and Lee Point Road, is owned by the Commonwealth government’s Department of Defence and, therefore, alienated for any use or development by the Northern Territory government.
Previous governments, indeed, expended considerable efforts in negotiating the release of this land for development; an effort maintained by this government. When the Commonwealth government finally decided that the Lee Point communications station was surplus to requirements, this presented our government with a unique opportunity. The NT government was given first option to purchase the land. However, following an approach by the Defence Housing Authority, we decided that it was clearly in the best interests of the community, industry and the economy to work jointly with DHA rather than merely act as a middle man. We requested the federal minister to sell the land directly to DHA. After lengthy exchanges, the federal Minister for Finance and Administration last month approved the priority sale of the Lee Point site to the Defence Housing Authority.
Madam Speaker, 76 hectares of prime residential land is now on track for release. These represent the first major greenfields land release in the city of Darwin for many years, and will ultimately form a suburb of approximately 2000 residents. The estimated investment at this stage is at least $120m, which will provide over 1000 job opportunities for Territorians.
The government continues to play a significant role in the creation of this new suburb. We are developing a memorandum of understanding with DHA which will include that the final product, the residential subdivision, is a well-designed, safe, energy-efficient and quality living environment. Lee Point will be a showcase for urban planning and design in the Northern Territory.
The memorandum of understanding will also ensure that significant benefit will flow to the local economy, with DHA undertaking to use local companies throughout the design and development stages, to a large extent. The construction industry has welcomed this development and we had much support from the Territory Construction Association throughout the negotiation process. The TCA recognises the Defence Housing Authority as a key player in the construction industry in the Northern Territory, and will be working closely with DHA to ensure maximum local industry participation in the project. Private developers and companies have been expressing interest in this site for many years, and now will have an opportunity to be involved in its development.
DHA has indicated they require about 250 houses to meet their land needs in the Darwin region. Now that the sale has been approved, serious work has started on the urban design required to achieve a good quality, mixed residential suburb. To progress this design, I have set up a working group with a presentation from my department and the Defence Housing Authority, who will work closely with other agencies, particularly Darwin City Council. Once these plans are more advanced, the development process under the Planning Act will commence. The first of these will be the necessary zoning to allow for development.
Madam Speaker, this is an exciting development. It is exciting news and a significant development for Darwin. Work is expected to begin in the first half of next year. This will change the face of the northern suburbs and it is nothing but good news for residents, the building industry and ratepayers. It is the latest in a series of developments under this government that will have significant impact in the Territory’s growth and economic development.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, for the record, I could not actually hear what the minister was saying; he was mumbling and it was a very poor delivery. From what I understand of the issue, the federal government had been dealing with the previous CLP government, with a view to selling that to the Northern Territory. This government came to power, effectively botched that negotiation, and now we have the situation where an independent statutory Commonwealth authority will get this land. The Northern Territory government, the Northern Territory people, will not have the real control or input which they should have had. Apart from the general overview of the Planning Act and this working group, the Northern Territory government has lost real control of the development of this portion of land and that means ultimately …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The member for Goyder has the floor.
Mr MALEY: That means that the DHA has the cheque book; they have the control. They can dictate which joint venturer and which small contractor they are going to use. These are jobs which have potentially been lost to Territorians because this government did not negotiate, and did not get in and have a go.
Sadly, it is fair to say that this is an example of how not to negotiate. This is an example of this Territory government abusing the trust which Territory people gave them in August 2001.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also think it is an opportunity lost, that we did not purchase that land. I am a bit concerned, and I know the minister has said that it will go to the Development Consent Authority. However, when I raised the question about the air wing at Robertson Barracks, I was told that, as that is Commonwealth land, it does not require planning authority consent.
Therefore, I ask the minister: is this land still Commonwealth, and does it really have to go to the Development Consent Authority? You mentioned the word ‘greenfield’, and that always sends a shiver up my spine because I remember a greenfield suburb on the old Nightcliff drive-in, and people living in there are all squashed together. It might look very attractive. I would want to know that the government was concerned about things like 300 m2 blocks and roads that are too narrow, as you will find in some parts of Palmerston.
I hope that the public can have a lot of good input into this development; that we do not copy the mistakes of some of the suburbs we have already done in Darwin, and we do something where people do not have to have airconditioning. Perhaps when the power does go off, they can actually open their windows and have a breeze. Wouldn’t that be nice to see: a tropically designed subdivision again?
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson had no problem listening to what I had to say. Obviously, the member for Goyder has a few problems with his hearing after the exchange of punches at the recent rugby match.
Let me assure you, member for Nelson, this is not Commonwealth land; this is Territory land. It has been sold by the Commonwealth and all the planning processes, rules and regulations will apply to this land. Added to that, a memorandum of understanding will be signed with the Defence Housing Authority, so we will apply planning principles on that land. The DHA has given an undertaking, as part of the memorandum of understanding, that local people will be employed.
Let me remind the opposition that The Chase did not go through a proper tender process; it was given directly to Delfin and DHA by Cabinet decision. Therefore, to come here today and accuse us of botching the sale of land and the process is absolute rubbish.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
PARKS AND RESERVES (FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE) BILL
(Serial 180)
(Serial 180)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I am proud to speak to the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Bill 2003, which provides a framework for the establishment, maintenance and management of a comprehensive system of parks and reserves in the Northern Territory. This framework draws together a range of government objectives including job creation; protection of biological diversity; enhancing recreational, educational and tourist opportunities; and creating a sound and sustainable economic base for regional development.
It puts these objectives together with the Aboriginal obligation to care for country and maintain cultural traditions. The Territory’s parks and reserves will be substantially enriched by recognition of traditional Aboriginal ownership. The government will involve traditional custodians in planning and management of parks, and recognise the outstanding cultural values that are to be found in many of the parks will significantly enhance their attraction to visitors.
The implementation of this bill will ensure that the vigorous indigenous culture of the Northern Territory is strongly reflected in the park system. It will give Aboriginal landowners and traditional custodians throughout the Northern Territory opportunities to actively participate in the overall management of the parks, and an opportunity to guide how their culture is presented to visitors. Joint management arrangements between Aboriginal people and the Parks and Wildlife Service will become the norm in these parks, together with the employment of Aboriginal people in a range of roles within the park system.
This bill results from initiatives which I announced on 25 October last year to resolve uncertainty created by land claims over parks and reserves; in particular, uncertainty that arose from the High Court’s judgment in the Ward case. At that time, I confirmed that the government had decided to act responsibly and decisively in seeking to resolve the uncertainty, whilst also avoiding costly and long-term litigation. As I pointed out at the time, there were two broad options facing the government. The first option was to engage in litigation and disputation at every possible level. This option would have left us in the courts for countless years. It would have delayed economic development opportunities and maintained uncertainty over our parks system. Such an approach would have been an abrogation of government’s responsibility to find a comprehensive solution. The second option was to develop an agreement, whereby litigation would be put to one side, while we sought to negotiate a framework that dealt with the uncertainty arising from the High Court’s decision, and which would resolve outstanding litigation in relation to our parks and reserves.
As a responsible government, we put a high priority on the need to balance the public interest in this matter, and to ensure an outcome that meets the community benefit test. The government, therefore, specified core principles that would be central to any framework agreement, and these were accepted by the land councils. Apart from the re-declaration of 38 parks last November that were previously invalidly declared under section 12 of the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, and agreement to put litigation aside while negotiations proceeded, the other core principles that I announced last October are all reflected in the framework that has been negotiated with the land councils. These include: development of a parks master plan to expand and more effectively manage the parks estate; current mining and exploration leases are unaffected, and existing applications will be fast-tracked; current tourism operator concessions are guaranteed; all Territory parks and reserves will remain accessible to all Territorians and visitors on a no-fee, no-permit basis; business as usual in parks until negotiations are completed; and where title changes occur, they will be conditional on the land being leased back to the Northern Territory subject to joint management under NT legislation.
Let me turn to the objectives and content of the bill. In developing this bill, the government has exercised its primary responsibility to balance wider community interests in conservation, recreation and tourist development and Aboriginal interests in maintaining cultural traditions. It has sought to achieve this by establishing a framework for the future management of the unique natural and cultural systems encompassed within our parks system.
Significantly, the bill recognises, for the first time, that one of the objectives of the Territory’s parks system is to maintain and promote traditional values, alongside protection and promotion of the values of the natural environment. The bill sets down a time frame for Aboriginal traditional owners to agree to the framework offer set out under the legislation. This bill ensures this occurs in a transparent manner and only authorises me, as Chief Minister, to do certain things on the basis that a number of specified pre-conditions are satisfied. If these conditions are not complied with within a defined time frame, then the sunset clause set out in the legislation will apply and the framework offer will lapse. It is an ambitious and visionary framework that is balanced by requirements that will protect the interests of all Territory citizens and key stakeholders.
Now let me take members through the specific provisions of the bill. As you will see, this bill differs slightly from the version that was originally published on our web site, in that some minor technical enhancements have been made. Part 1 of the bill sets out its primary purpose; that is, to provide a framework for the establishment, maintenance and management of a comprehensive system of parks and reserves in the Northern Territory. It defines this comprehensive system as one that:
(a) is developed in partnership between the Territory and traditional owners of the parks and reserves;
(b) benefits those traditional owners by recognising, valuing and incorporating indigenous culture,
knowledge and decision-making processes;
(c) protects biological diversity;
(d) serves the educational and recreational needs of Territorians and visitors to the Northern Territory; and
- (e) enjoys widespread community support.
Consistent with normal legislation, the bill contains a number of definitions, and confirms that the act will bind the Crown consistent with the powers of the NT Legislative Assembly, and that the bill must be read in the manner that it is consistent with other relevant Commonwealth legislation. It also confirms that the Chief Minister will be responsible for the administration of the act.
Part 2, sections 8 to 16, lay out the framework offer. Section 8 authorises the Chief Minister to do certain things and these include: requesting the Commonwealth minister responsible for ALRA to schedule the parks and reserves set out in Schedule 1 of the bill; grant NT freehold title over parks and reserves set out in Schedule 2 of the bill; execute on behalf of the Territory leases to the Territory of each of the parks and reserves, in Schedules 1 and 2; execute on behalf of the Territory a joint management agreement for each of the parks and reserves specified in Schedules 1, 2 and 3; and execute on behalf of the Territory one or more indigenous land use agreements.
Section 9 provides an explanation of the nature of the NT freehold title and the conditions that apply to the future use of the land held under this title. This includes: conditions to whom the grant may be made; establishment of a park land trust to hold title; restrictions on sale or mortgaging; and provisions for surrender and compulsory acquisition. It also sets out the relationship of a title to the necessary provisions of the Crown Lands Act.
Section 10 of the bill makes it clear that the Chief Minister is only authorised to do the things specified in section 8, provided certain conditions are complied with, on, or before, a specified date. These conditions include:
the withdrawal of claims under ALRA for those parks specified in Schedules 2 and 3;
compensation for the effect of the declaration and use of those parks on native title rights and interests,
and facilitate future developments in those parks and reserves;
term is 99 years; options for good faith negotiations for renewal; preference for Aboriginal participation
and commercial activities conducted in the lease; use and enjoyment by traditional owners; and provision of
living areas subject to the joint management agreement;
the terms of the joint management agreement have been agreed consistent with principles at Schedule 5; and
consistent with the principles set out in Schedule 4 and the joint management agreement at Schedule 5.
Section 12 of the bill creates a reservation from occupation under section 178 of the Mining Act, which will protect mining interests, while also suspending further applications over the land in question, until the offer either lapses or is executed by the Chief Minister exercising the relevant authorisations provided for under section 10. This clause is necessary to comply with the core principle that ensures existing mining interests are protected.
Section 13 provides the Chief Minister with the discretion to omit parks and reserves and Aboriginal land from the schedules, on the basis that the relevant land council advises her in writing that the traditional owners will not comply with conditions set out in section 10(1), and the Chief Minister is satisfied that the omission will not defeat the purpose of the act. This power can only be exercised once, and must occur on or before the 31 July 2004.
Section 14 provides for the Chief Minister to amend, by notice in the Gazette, the schedules to either excise or include Aboriginal community living areas on the parks, identified in the Schedules 1, 2 or 3.
Section 15 provides for the planning scheme, under the Planning Act, to include provision that constrain the use of the land granted under NT freehold for park and related park purposes. Land can be used for other purposes, with the consent of the planning minister.
Section 16 sets out a sunset provision for the framework offer, which takes effect on 30 June 2004, but allows the Chief Minister to prescribe a later date only if satisfied there is substantial acceptance of the offer and that the full compliance will occur within a set time frame, but no later than 31 December 2004.
In introducing the bill, I recognise that there may be a need for committee stage amendments to reflect the outcomes of the consultations with the land councils and other stakeholders. We have already commenced this process. Following the public release of the bill in the third week of September, a number of meetings in Darwin and Alice Springs were held with various stakeholders including miners, representatives from the tourism and pastoral industry, conservationists, and fishing interests, both recreational and commercial, regarding the bill and various related instruments. Thirty-three attended the general briefing in Darwin and 52 in total attended industry specific briefings in Darwin and Alice Springs. The reception from stakeholders was generally positive, with particular interest in the master planning exercise and the exciting opportunities it presents to maximise the benefits from and enjoyment of a world class parks system. The Commonwealth participation in master planning process was particularly welcomed as it will allow the development of more consistent regimes across all parks - Kakadu, Uluru and Territory administered parks.
The establishment of a world class parks system is not only vital to the future economic development of the Territory, but is also essential if we are to maintain the opportunity for all our citizens to continue to enjoy the benefits of access to some of the most pristine, culturally enriched and unique areas on the Australia continent.
It is the Territory government’s firm intention that the NT parks system should provide a national and international model of ecological integrity, innovation and flexible management, meaningful involvement of indigenous people and a quality visitor experience. The new cooperative approach to park management and conservation heralded in the bill will generate increased nature-based tourism opportunities throughout the Northern Territory, with Aboriginal people playing a major role.
The government aims to ensure that the park system remains a source of inspiration, instruction and enjoyment for the people of the Northern Territory and visitors from the wider Australian and international communities. This new enhanced parks system will provide high-quality tourism experiences, playing a major role in the image of the Northern Territory as one of the world’s last truly remote nature-based tourism destinations. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
ARCHITECTS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 179)
(Serial 179)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
At the Council of Australian Government meeting in April 1995, the heads of government signed three agreements establishing the National Competition Policy. They are commonly referred to as the NCP Agreements. Under the NCP Agreements, all states and territories were required to develop timetables for reviewing all existing legislation, conduct reviews in accordance with the timetable and, where appropriate, amend or repeal legislation that restricts competition.
The Architects Act was identified as requiring NCP review. In response to national debate on this issue, the Commonwealth, on behalf of all states and territories except Victoria, requested the Productivity Commission to conduct a national review of architect legislation across Australia. This was for the dual purpose of assisting jurisdictions meet their obligations under the NCP Agreements, and to achieve greater consistency in any future regulations of the architecture profession in Australia.
The Productivity Commission released its report, Review of Legislation Regulating the Architectural Profession, known as the PC Review Report, on 16 November 2000. The Productivity Commission Review Report recommended a preferred approach and an alternative approach. The preferred approach of the Productivity Commission was that the states’ and territories’ architects acts should be repealed after a two-year notification period to allow the profession to develop a national, non-statutory certification and course accreditation scheme. The alternative approach recommended the adjustment of existing legislation to remove elements deemed to be anti-competitive and not in the public interest. All jurisdictions have decided to reject the primary recommendation of the Productivity Commission Review Report.
In response to the Productivity Commission’s report, the senior officials group of the Council of Australian Governments agreed to establish an intergovernmental working group. The intergovernmental working group concluded that the commission’s secondary recommendation should be supported.
A discussion paper on the Northern Territory Architects Act was circulated to building industry in the Territory and interstate in November 2001. A copy of the working group’s preliminary report was attached to the discussion paper. Submissions received were supportive of the working group’s conclusions, with the exception of the Building Designers Association of the Northern Territory. Finally, a position paper was drafted that addressed the issues raised by the intergovernmental working group as it related to the Architects Act of the Northern Territory.
The Architects Amendment Bill amends the Architects Act in line with the position paper. The Architects Amendment Bill makes the following amendments to the Architects Act of the Northern Territory:
inserts an objects clause to state the objective of the act;
increases the number of members of the Architects Board from three to five, including two non-architects, to
enable consumer and broader industry representation;
amends the restriction on the title ‘architect’ so that derivatives of the title that describe a recognised competency
or qualification are permitted;
amends the rule regarding architectural companies and partnerships to simplify the way control of these companies
is managed and architectural work supervised;
enables consumers to lodge complaints about architects with an appeal to the Local Court;
amends section 14 to better describe education and training requirements; and
changes the fines currently in the act into penalty units.
The amendments to the Architects Act will ensure that it meets National Competition Policy obligations. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
FISHERIES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 177)
(Serial 177)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The main purposes of this bill is to provide the Director of Fisheries with the ability to refuse or revoke an approval for a person to operate in commercial fisheries if they have been convicted of fisheries offences on more than one occasion. This will provide a significant deterrent to fishers and provide a greater strength to our management controls on our fisheries. Over-potting in the mud crab fisheries, the temptation to set gill nets in closed waters and the like will be significantly reduced and provide a real boost to the sustainability of our fisheries resources.
Over the past five years, key stakeholders of the Territory’s aquatic resources, including the Northern Territory Seafood Council, Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory and the Northern Land Council, have campaigned the government for tougher penalties for offences against the Fisheries Act. A small proportion of commercial fishers continue to re-offend, and all fisheries stakeholders would like to see these people suspended from commercial fishing activities.
The reduction of illegal fishing activity will be further achieved by making provision in the act to increase the maximum penalty for fishing-related offences from $10 000 to $20 000, together with the ability for Fisheries officers to serve fishery infringement notices, much the same as on-the-spot fines.
A wider review of the penalties specified in the Fisheries Act, Fisheries Regulations and associated management plans, will be undertaken within the next 12 months with a view to moving to penalty units. This process will also ensure that all penalties for fisheries offences are appropriate and consistent in nature; that is, the penalty fits the offence. This will be done in consultation with the Department of Justice and key fishery stakeholder groups.
Madam Speaker, this increased power to make all fishers accountable for their actions helps to preserve our fish stocks that are healthy and productive and the envy of Australia. This protection will help maintain our fisheries for our children and grandchildren in the years to come. Therefore, I commend this bill to the Assembly.
Debate adjourned.
WATER AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 167)
(Serial 167)
Continued from 14 August 2003.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, the opposition sought a briefing on this bill. We appreciate the briefing that was given to both myself, as the then shadow minister responsible for this act, and my colleague, the member for Drysdale, regarding its implications on mining and so forth. We did have a concern at the outset that was alleviated by the briefing, and that was to do with riparian rights. We have been given an undertaking and we concur with the assurance that was given; that there is no issue with the admittance now of riparian rights; that people who have access for domestic uses and the normal access to water for cattle and that sort of thing will not be affected by this amendment. The opposition will support this amendment to the act, and we thank the minister for his briefing.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, yes, I also support the bill. However, I thought it might give me an opportunity to talk on some of the issues about the Water Act and mining. One of the things that has concerned me for a long time is that the Mining Act, for some reason, overrides any other act. It is has always been a wonder to me why we still have two departments to look at activities about mining; in other words, on one side the Department of Mining has its own environmental group and, on the other side, the Department of Environment and Heritage also looking at environment. I gather we also have those people in charge of the Water Act who look at one side of the fence when it comes to mining, and the Department of Mines has another group of people looking inside the mine. I am told that was so that miners would have a one-stop shop.
Even though that might be an advantage, perhaps, there can be disadvantages where you have two people dealing with the one water stream, for instance, with one department dealing with what happens on the inside of the fence and another department looking at what happens on the outside of the fence. That really needs looking at. The environment is not going to change, no matter who is doing some development, and the water is not going to change. It is still the same creek that runs into the sea, it is still the same wetlands.
It is time that some of our mining activities came under normal processes, even the Planning Act. As you know, in Litchfield Shire, the Mining Act overrides the Planning Act, and it is able to do things that normally other people would not be able to do. There are no restrictions on clearing land - whether it is in the wetland or whatever - for a mine, but there are certainly restrictions on the average person who owns a block of land in Litchfield Shire, regarding clearing land. With the new restraints that the minister, I hope, will bring in sooner rather than later, you will not be able to clear wetlands in the Litchfield Shire,. Of course, in Litchfield Shire, we have a large amount of wetlands and there is a large base of sand product in those areas that is mined, especially for use in the housing industry.
I will give you an example. This is a recent application, which is on the Howard River. This is an application for 90 hectares of land to be developed in the Koolpinyah district. I put in an objection to it, not based on the notion that I disagree with it, because I know we need sand, but the right-hand boundary is the boundary of the Howard River. If I was to put that in as a development application for a subdivision, I would be told immediately to go away and remove that subdivision from the river. These things really have to be given approval similar to the way that planning applications have to be given approval. We should look what land is allowed to be cleared. Is this too close to the wetlands to interfere with the water course? The Howard River is a major river that also floods and, in this area, it floods hundreds of metres wide. There is a development occurring in the floodplains of the Howard River that does not have to come under the same requirements as normally would happen with any other development in the planning area, because the Mining Act overrides the Planning Act.
Of course, when we are talking about the Water Act, most of this land will be wet. I suppose under the definition of ‘watercourse’ this activity is occurring in a watercourse, which should come under the Water Act. I hope that I am correct here, but I believe that, hopefully, these new changes will help the department manage some of these offside activities outside of the actual mining area, so they can actually have a say in what effect this mine will have on the watercourse and surrounding lagoons, or whatever.
I see the changes the government is bringing forward as useful, but I do not think it has overcome the problem I see; that we have a duplication of departments, or of resources, being put into looking at the same thing but coming from two different departments. I ask the government that, when they are reviewing the Planning Act, they do not just put in to the Planning Act that the Mining Act overrides it. Perhaps it is time that the Mining Act - as I believe a mining site is no different than any other development site - should require planning approval, especially in Litchfield Shire, so that we can look at these things a little more closely.
I know the complaint from mines would be that that would hold up mining applications that need to be put through quickly. However, I am sure a process could be established that would allow the process to be reasonably fast, but allow everybody to have a say - as they do for development in the Litchfield Shire - about these particular matters, because they are important. I do not have the major map with me, but I might use it later in a debate showing the number of mining tenements in the Litchfield Shire. Many of those occur in wet areas.
Minister, I am hoping that this act will help, perhaps, to take up some of the concerns I have been speaking about. We need to do more if we are to really tackle some of these issues.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I will start with a quote and, unlike others, I will attribute it. It comes from the NCP review of the Northern Territory Water Act by Desliens Business Consultants, dated June 2000. This quote occurs at page 7:
- Water is the lifeblood of the Territory. Both human activity and natural ecosystems are dependent on and interact
with water. To date, groundwater has been a key to the development of the Northern Territory outside of Darwin.
All the Territory’s town drinking water supplies have been sourced from groundwater, and all Aboriginal
communities rely on groundwater as their primary source of drinking water. Darwin is the only town that is
currently supplied with water from a dam. Even so, a significant proportion of water used in Darwin and the
rural hinterland derives from groundwater resources. In the future, this will change as development will
necessitate the development of the Territory’s abundant surface water supply resources.
While this debate is to talk about some fairly minor amendments to the act - and I can foreshadow at the outset that the opposition has no great problem with those amendments, with one exception - I can say that this debate has to be much more wide-ranging. In this parliament. it is timely; there are national debates on now about water. It is a precious resource, it is able to be contaminated and polluted irrevocably - which happens in some places – and it is absolutely essential to the development of all of our towns, horticulture, and infrastructure.
In a previous life, I was Director of Aboriginal Field Services and had a fair bit to do with essential services in the Centre of Australia. It was common that people would come to us - including federal agencies - and say: ‘Here is where an outstation wants to set up’. They would set up and say: ‘Okay, we can build the houses, they will fence it and we can get a road in, and we will have this power generation - oh, you had better turn the water on’.
If there ain’t water, there ain’t water! There have been debates in this parliament before including from the then Leader of the Opposition, Brian Ede and others about communities such as Anningie, which is on the way to Willowra, where there is no water and many people live. There is great difficulty in transporting water. The member for Stuart talked about Utopia and Soapy Bore. I am familiar with Soapy, Soakage, Kurrajong and all those bores in the Utopia area, and they have quantity and quality problems.
I am foreshadowing that this is an essential debate to be brought forward to this House, not regarding the structure of the legislation but in policy. I agree entirely with the previous speaker that this is a matter that has to be put out in terms of the resource - how the resource is to be harvested, and controlled, opportunities for the use of the resource, and dams – dare I say. The use of the word ‘dam’ often conjures up all sorts of emotive reactions from people, but it is something we should consider. It is something where, if we live in a part of Australia where 2 m of rain falls on the ground and disappears into the salt water, we should look at whether we are duty bound to harvest some of that resource for the benefit of mankind. These are issues for a further debate, but I shadow that that debate has to take place.
The second reading speech is a very difficult speech to understand, I have to tell you. I read it and had a brief on it, and I have re-read it. On a quick reading, this is a bit of a clean-up of quite an uncontentious act, insofar as it relates to a different industry, which is mining - which is my shadow portfolio responsibility - and this is to make things better, clearer and, in any event, do what the original legislators intended. That is pretty much my reading of it as well. Although, as I said, it is very difficult to derive that straight from the second reading speech.
I was interested when the minister said that some of the reforms were linked to National Competition Policy payments, and payments in the order of $7.5m could be in jeopardy. That is a pretty significant thing for the minister to say. So, I asked him for a copy of the review of the Water Act - and I thank him for having it sent to me - but I am curious that, if it is the intention to use this report to amend the act, why that was not so? Particularly insofar as section 36 of the original act is concerned, because the recommendation from the NCP review of the Northern Territory Water Act and I quote from page - sorry, it is unpaginated but it is under Licence and Permits. It says:
- Our specific recommendations are: section 36 - the purpose of the section should be made clear and enforced or
the section should be withdrawn from the act.
Neither of those two things has happened. We do not have an amendment here that makes it clear, neither has it been withdrawn from the act. I ask the minister to revisit that in his rejoinder.
For those who have not had the benefit I have of having this report, essentially it relates to the fact that licences may be issued but are not. I can go to page 19 of the report where it provides an expansion of that:
Section 36 of the act provides powers to control, on application to grant, a permit to explore water for a maximum
period of 12 months. Section 5 of the Water Regulations prescribes in detail the application process. Mr Smith …
Who was the public servant with most knowledge in this area who made a submission to the review:
- … makes a point that the Water Act does not require a person exploring for water to obtain a permit; it merely
provides the controller may grant a permit to do so. To date, no permits have been applied for and no permits
have been granted.
Essentially, we have a power under an act which has never been used and the reviewers found that we should either make it clear what its intention is or remove it. I note that that is not among the suite of amendments the minister has brought forward.
A couple of other quick points out on this act. It talks with competition, and it mentions the Northern Territory (Land Rights) Act and Native Title Act, both of which are Commonwealth statutes, and both of which, I would suggest, render the Northern Territory to be in a less competitive state, or disadvantaged competitively, compared with interstate jurisdictions. The report is silent on that, as it should be because it is not a review of those acts. However, it is something that the minister should be mindful of when we look at this place being competitive with other jurisdictions, and the negative impact that those acts may have on the Northern Territory situation.
There is a submission from the Central Land Council that is, in part, quoted, from which I will also quote. This is unpaginated, but it is under The Industry Operating Environment, Chapter 3, and it reads:
- Aboriginal people have rights and interests in land, whether or not they hold legal title to it. They have strong
interests in land owned and/or managed by others such as Parks Australia and the Parks and Wildlife Commission
Northern Territory. They have native title rights and interests over large areas of land, which includes rights on
both surface and groundwaters. Water places are inevitably sacred sights, whether they are intermittent or
permanent surface waters or surface expressions in the ground.
Essentially, the CLC is holding the position that there are title rights to Aboriginal interests over groundwater. This is not a view shared by this parliament and, in fact, if it was, it would cause some significant ramifications.
These are issues of competitiveness that do not flow from the review but should be discussed by the minister in terms of whether there should be a lobby effort from this government to the federal government to amend those statutes to give better certainty and a more equal opportunity to Territory interests, viz viz those held elsewhere.
I was also disappointed that there was not a submission from the drilling interests. It had been sought, but a submission was not forthcoming. I note that there is a policy issue for government where there is significant industry in this area, held through private hands, and the government has two fully-equipped drilling rigs that require operational staff of eight, and estimated value of the rigs in the order of $2m. This is a policy issue for government. It has been discussed in this report in terms of those rigs going on to sites that are not necessarily attractive as a commercial proposition for other drillers. Also that there is a repository of knowledge among the government drillers that may not necessarily be held by others.
I ask the minister to continually test those propositions because, essentially, what you have is a government instrumentality that is doing work that could be going to the private sector. If those propositions hold true, there is obviously no problem with it. However, if in the case that it turns out that it is more economic to do it elsewhere and we can protect those issues like competence, training and things like that, possibly that is a policy decision further down the line.
I also point out that matters relating to water affect every person in this parliament, every industry in this parliament, and every community that is represented in this parliament. It is essential, therefore, that the minister promote a wide-ranging debate on matters relating to water, and introduce into that debate matters relating to the public national debate occurring at the moment, because it is quite possible there are opportunities for the Northern Territory with its massive water resource - something like 25% of the nation’s resource is here in the Northern Territory. We also know that, for some of our emerging industries like aquaculture, disease-free fresh water is very important. While it is on the Notice Paper that we talk about mangroves at some later date, it is really important to look at the potential for disease and other organisms to enter our water system and thus be conveyed to an enormous number of organisms.
I will finish, Madam Speaker, by drawing attention to the House that this report from Desliens, The National Competition Review of the Northern Territory Water Act, is dated June 2000. Therefore, it has taken quite a time for this to arrive at this parliament. I would have thought that, if the report was completed, and if the minister was able to stand here and tell us that something like $7.5m could be put in jeopardy, that he would have acted a little more swiftly than we have seen with the three years that it has taken for this report to be debated in the form of amendments to the legislation. I would also ask, as a rejoinder, that he would give us some information why he chose not to amend section 36, as recommended by the consultants.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition very much for their support. I note the comments made by the member for Drysdale, because the water debate is a national debate at the moment and, certainly, it is something this government views with great interest. That is the reason why the government is gearing to produce water allocation plans in consultation with the community in any new subdivision where they require extensive water use. It is something that, in some cases, we cannot replenish. As you are all very well aware, Alice Springs is such a case, where Alice Springs is currently using fossil water, but we do not know yet if it is replenished and how it is replenished and how long, in reality, it will last.
The use of water resources in the Northern Territory is separately regulated through the Water Act, the Mining Act, the Mining Management Act and the Petroleum Act. The proposed amendments to the Water Act have been formulated to clarify the relationship between the Water Act and the mining and petroleum legislation. Currently, section 7 of the Water Act prevents the act from applying on mining or petroleum tenure, other than to control waste discharges from these activities.
However, the amendments we have proposed will be further supplemented with a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, my department, and the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development. In order to clarify the relationships between the two agencies for the common purpose of ensuring that water resources are used within environmental, economic and socially sustainable limits.
The Water Amendment Bill 2003 allows for the inclusion of mining and petroleum as a beneficiary user under section 4(3) of the Water Act. This amendment will facilitate a comprehensive water allocation framework, as is required under the provisions of water reform that is linked to the National Competition Policy payments. Also, under section 4(3) of the act, the beneficiary use currently termed ‘riparian’ would be renamed ‘rural stock and domestic use’, to address some of those issues brought up by the member for Barkly, and to also to avoid misunderstanding that has arisen within the scientific meaning of the term ‘riparian’. These relatively simple amendments are commended for adoption, as they will ensure delivery of the comprehensive water resource management framework intended with the original introduction of the Water Act.
I also take note of the comments by the member for Drysdale about the drills. Yes, the government has two fully-equipped drills and the technical expertise to operate these drills. We assessed the need for those drills to be operational. We also took into consideration the comments by the private sector. However, we also took note of the comments made by private citizens, farmers and people who work in the pastoral industry. The reality is that these drills are working following requests by farmers to address the difficult situation where there is no interest by the private sector. However, in all cases, the work done by these drills are on cost recovery; we do not undercut the private industry, we charge very similar rates. It is up to the individual to choose - either the government-owned drills or the private drills. The reason the government operations exist is that we sometimes provide the service in areas where people cannot afford to pay for that service. In some areas, the private operators do not want to provide the service for various reasons.
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his comments. They have been taken into account, as have the comments by the members for Daly and Drysdale. I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Statement - O’Sullivan Report into Police Resources in the Northern Territory
Note Statement - O’Sullivan Report into Police Resources in the Northern Territory
Continued from 12 August 2003.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, today I contribute to one of the most important debates probably seen in this House. The government’s implementation of the O’Sullivan Report into police resources form a foundation of what good government is. This report, without doubt, is compelling reading. As an independent report commissioned by this government, it gives the reader an insight into the historical under-resourcing by previous CLP governments. It also clearly outlines a blueprint for the way forward.
As a member of parliament, I often talk about the importance of members showing leadership for the benefit of the community. After listening to the contribution of Paul Henderson, the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, I have witnessed true leadership. The minister has summarised perfectly the key findings of the O’Sullivan Report and, with no ambiguity, stated our government’s plan for building a better police force.
As all members know, it is no small achievement for any minister to ask for and receive $75m for new initiatives. The minister has taken unprecedented steps in the history of the police. Unlike former CLP police ministers, he has not played politics with a founding pillar of our government and our democracy. He stated quite clearly in the report that previous CLP governments have under-resourced the police. In my view, they have betrayed our community, victims of crime, and women and children, by putting our police force in an unsustainable resource position in the last 10 years. This betrayal goes to the heart of the problem with the CLP, past and present. The CLP has always been interested in being re-elected; always interested with looking good; always interested in the poker player card trick that relies on the sleight-of-hand. When we compare this with the action of the Police minister, Paul Henderson, we see them for what they are: cheap.
The minister has made a promise publicly and categorically to the House and, importantly, to our community, to implement the O’Sullivan Report. Our response can be best summarised as follows: the Martin Labor government, for the benefit of Territorians, has been and continues to be accountable and responsible to Territorians by properly managing the Territory finances through budget processes that ensure funds are available for initiatives like the $75m for building our police force.
The CLP have again been shown to be poor managers of the Northern Territory finances and institutions important to our democratic process. The past and present leadership of the CLP needs to be condemned for the past mismanagement practices. I again state that the new members of the CLP need to change forever the CLP opposition for the benefit of the democratic process. We have lost a former Police minister from Katherine, Hon Mike Reed, and we have gained a new member for Katherine. It is her duty to fix up the party leadership issues.
I was shocked to discover the plight of the Northern Territory Police force. However, I was not surprised with the effort of the current women and men of the Northern Territory Police force under trying circumstances.
I would like to contribute to the written statement in two ways. First, I would like to discuss issues raised in the O’Sullivan Report and comment on the government’s response. Second, I would like to discuss the issue of leadership and its importance in shaping the law and order debate.
I commend the O’Sullivan recommendations in the report and look forward to their implementation. The response to the officers of the Northern Territory Police that I know has been overwhelmingly positive. Police are finally happy to have their working lives clearly defined. They also look to this government to act on the past CLP government’s incompetence.
The minister has stated 200 extra police will be delivered by the end of 2006; 120 constable recruits trained a year. The O’Sullivan Report found that Northern Territory Police was run down over a decade with under-funding and staff shortages. If the public or members of this House would like to turn to page 4 of the Executive Summary, third paragraph down, it says:
- Between 1991 and 1994, the Northern Territory Police force experienced a recruitment freeze caused by funding
constraints and a decision by the police force to freeze recruit intakes rather than reduce the number of established
police positions. From 1995-96 to the present time, approved establishment grew by 185 police personnel (117 police,
15 ACPOs, and 53 PAUX) but essential additional specialist support and administration resources including
Forensics, information technology, the Police College and the Air Wing, were not formally approved as part of
the establishment, resulting in underfunded, supernumerary appointments of public servants. The assessment
concluded that the current resource situation was historically based.
This is in black and white from an independent report. This is damning. All I can say is that it clearly shows this is a result of CLP government policy at the time and, unfortunately, Territorians now have to pay that price. One of the important crises - and if we talk about leadership in any structure, club or organisation, you have to have great leadership to make everyone work in the one direction. On page 6, in black and white again, under Resource Allocation and Policing Outcomes:
- The assessment also confirmed that there was now a critical shortage of experienced supervisors and managers
at Sergeant and Senior Sergeant level because of the recruitment freeze in 1991-1994.
Anyone who knows any of the police officers - and there are many in the Territory who form part of the community, and many of them are long-term residents - they will, if they are comfortable with the people they talk to, confirm this as one of the major issues happening within the police force right now: people acting in positions as sergeant and senior sergeant. The shortage within that organisation has led to people doing jobs that otherwise they would not be asked to do.
I would like to briefly comment on the minister’s description of the current CLP leader’s attack on the current Police Commissioner over the past two years. The minister describes the attacks as unreasonable. I have spoken to the minister and he has made it quite clear that in the past it was an unwritten rule that Police Commissioners were off-limits from political attacks; the reason being they were considered capable of professionally fulfilling their duties. This result finally puts to bed the CLP’s whingeing and whining, its negative approach to the police force and, in particular, the report’s response to historical underfunding. I commend the Police Commissioner and the men and women of the police force for the job that they have done under trying circumstances. I support the minister’s statement wholeheartedly.
In the time remaining, I would like to speak to the issue of political representatives’ responsibility to lead by example when describing the circumstance of law and order issues in Australia. The CLP has always liked to pretend that they are tough on crime, but they only gave the law and order issue lip service. We heard the rhetoric of mandatory sentencing for years from the CLP, and now it is interesting to find out that they are actually trying to sell their Internet site on mandatory sentencing when they know the issues surrounding the police were critical. However, I believe the CLP were mischievous in their game playing of issues in delivering law and order policy. I found a number of observations made in the O’Sullivan Report highlighted what the facts were in regards to property crimes in Australia, and the Northern Territory in terms of its decline.
If members of this House and Territorians would like to turn to page 5 of the O’Sullivan report under Resource Allocation and Policing Outcomes, five paragraphs down:
- Property crime rates have been falling throughout Australia during the last 18 months, the most plausible
reason according to the Australian Institute of Criminology relates to the reduction in heroin supplies.
We do not want to go into this whole debate about drugs and if they are minuscule or not, because we know the CLP have claimed in the past that the issue of drug-related crime was minuscule. We have seen the success of current Territory policing policies on reducing crime through the attack on illicit drugs.
It goes on to say:
- The assessment concluded that in the Northern Territory, some additional local factors in respect to government
drug offender diversionary programs and police targeting of recidivist property offenders could have influenced
the Northern Territory result as well. The overall conclusion, however, is that property crime clear up rates need
to significantly improve. The remaining categories of crime have remained relatively consistent in recent years
and they present very serious policing challenges.
So the Australian Institute of Crime shows crime has fallen, but the CLP leadership cry: ‘The sky is falling in’. Just yesterday, we had the member for Drysdale attacking the Attorney-General when he was delivering crime statistics - fabled crime statistics in the sense that it is showing that crime is going down in the Territory, and this has to be better for our lifestyle, for the men, women and children of our community. He yelled out across the floor: ‘No one believes you. No one believes you’, even thought in black and white, he is delivering facts gathered from an independent source and by police. He was yelling out, as a member of parliament across the House: ‘No one believes you’, though the facts show crime is going down across the Territory. This is a very deep concern for me.
This issue was examined in an award-winning documentary called Bowling for Columbine. It is a bit of a pop version of the law and order debate in North America. I must state that certain circumstances in North America are quite different from Australia; however, in the western democracy structure, there are a lot of similarities. It showed that the trends of law and order debates, both by political interest groups, media and academics, rage across the planet. A few consistencies occur across the planet: the role of persons in authority or leadership roles to create the perception - and we saw in Alice Springs the leadership that the member for Braitling provided in a rally. It was, for want of a better term, a politically-organised rally, with one side pushing that: ‘The sky is falling in; it is a terrible place to live, in Alice Springs’. Then there were people, leaders, who said: ‘Actually, Alice Springs is not a terrible place to live; it is a wonderful place’. That, to me, galvanised what this debate is: there is one side attempting to say a certain group of people cannot run the Territory in terms of law and order issues because the sky is falling in and, therefore, do not vote for them; and another group of people showing leadership and saying that Alice Springs is a great place to live, no matter what side of politics you are on. People involved in that should really have a good look at themselves.
The CLP should be damned for attempting to gain votes through force rather than gaining votes for good government policy. The Clare Martin government has shown, in its short term in office, the ability to come up with good law and order public policy implemented by sound legislation.
The documentary Bowling for Columbine also describes the role of the media. The O’Sullivan Report singles out print media in the Northern Territory. I would ask members of this House and listeners in the Territory to turn to page 8 of the Executive Summary. Under Community Opinion, it says:
- The assessment concluded that the print media in the Territory was also shaping perceptions about crime on a daily
basis. In this environment, where the headlines highlight crime consistently, the community perception that crime is
out of control and escalating can be understood. Published statistics about crime rates are not likely to sway public
opinion, even if accurate. A change in the observed presence, response and capability of the police force, especially
visual uniformed police, is necessary.
Yesterday, while the Attorney-General was delivering fantastic statistics for law and order issues in the Territory for us as a community, the member for Drysdale was yelling out across the Chamber: ‘No one believes you. No one believes you’. When you look at this independent O’Sullivan Report, he summarises in that paragraph that perceptions are vital to how people feel about law and order in their community. It goes on to say, when assessing community opinion:
below an acceptable standard;
on the increase and, in some cases, out of control, especially in Darwin …
We know that the statistics say that they are not:
there was a reported discernible and rising level of fear, resentment and strongly expressed anger at loss
of lifestyle and safe public space;
This is what it is about, Madam Speaker. I love this place; I love Darwin. I love the community of Darwin; I love the lifestyle I live. I do not have fear. As the member for Braitling showed in Alice Springs: they do not have fear for the place where they live. Well, I do not. However, we are creating this fear and we are going to be changing the make-up of Darwin and the communities of the Northern Territory through perception rather than what the reality is. If we create this fear and continue to fuel this fear, we will eventually change our lifestyle from easy going and known throughout the Territory as a great place to live. This is a danger; this is of concern to me.
In summary, the members of this House must deal in reality. If crime figures go down - great, fortunate for our lifestyles, fantastic. If they go up, we first must ask: why? And how do we come up with a good law and order policy that complements all aspects of crime reduction. I believe the report, on page 7 of the Executive Summary, adequately states current involvement. The good news was delivered in the Executive Summary, after all the concerns people had, the perceptions in the print media, and that generated by political parties, etcetera. This is what I still find powerful in our community – on top of page 8, the first paragraph:
- The assessment balances this picture with an observation that all police personnel encountered during the
assessment are highly committed to their policing role and core values.
So we still, in this environment, have a committed police force.
The previous CLP government have let down the police force and the wider community. They have failed for a number of reasons: their inability to manage budgets over the last decade; their inability to implement necessary changes for improving the police force; and their lack of leadership that would lead to the public believing that the police force, as one of the key vehicles to deal with law and order issues, is doing a good job. In contrast, the Martin Labor government has managed the budget in an open and accessible manner; had the foresight and ability to introduce a blueprint for the future of the police force; and good law and order public policy that works.
Finally, Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister has shown the leadership to say: ‘Let us deal with the facts, the reality of what is causing crime’. Let us attack causes of crime. One of the key foundations to our ability to attack crime is the police force and its relationship with the community. I commend this report and I commend the Police minister’s response to this report.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the O’Sullivan Report commissioned by the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. Prior to the granting of self-government in 1978, government administration in the Northern Territory had some of the trappings of colonial rule. Policing was no exception, and outback police were expected to - and did in many cases - conduct themselves with the residents of remote locations and communities as a vanguard representative of the mainstream Australian society and its British head of state.
From 1978 onwards, the Territory has been developing a sense of identity in its own right, and even remote community members have come to view the presence in their areas of permanent police officers has benefits and entitlement flowing from citizenship, rather than encroachment by the agents of the distant and culturally alien sovereign.
Progress towards inclusion of Aboriginal people in remote communities into the policing process generally has been slow and gradual. A big change and break what the colonial vestiges of our past was the replacement of the position at each bush station, designated for the black tracker, with the Aboriginal Community Police Officer positions. ACPOs are now an established part of the policing scene here in the Northern Territory, but there is still further work to be done.
As outlined in the Executive Summary of the O’Sullivan Report:
- The assessment was commissioned in response to community concerns about law and order issues, continuing
public debate about the capacity of the police force to effectively deal with these issues, and strong representation
for the Northern Territory Police Association concerned that the police force was insufficiently resourced to perform
its role effectively.
One area which I have attempted to make known, is the concerns of community leaders from my own electorate; and that is in relation to the organised distribution and sale of cannabis. This trade is an adjunct to, and mostly dependent on, the trade that is undertaken in the urban centres and, to that extent at least, there is a link.
Other speakers will mention issues covered by Mr O’Sullivan that relate more specifically to the urban centres. I want to concentrate on two main areas: the first is the upgrading of conventional police resources in remote communities; for example, the number of fully-trained sworn police officers, appropriately constructed and equipped police station building, and appropriate residential accommodation and remote area staff conditions. The second is the development of the ACPO training program into one which will aggressively and effectively encourage and assist those ACPOs with the skills and motivation to move, in a staged and gradual way, toward employment as fully-fledged conventional police officers.
What does the O’Sullivan Report say in relation to additional resources for bush community station? The Executive Summary of the O’Sullivan Report acknowledged problems both with the standard of police officer housing and with the adequacy of law enforcement equipment. Obviously, in order for police at bush stations to function effectively, they need to have proper housing provided to them, and also to have access to law enforcement equipment that is reasonably up-to-date and in good working order. The comments I have referred to are as follow:
- One of the highest priorities to be addressed is the unsatisfactory standard of housing provided as part of the
police officers’ entitlement. Current Northern Territory-provided housing is basic, of poor quality, and
inappropriately located. Alternative housing and an adjustment to housing allowances are recommended as
a high priority, to partially address the … unacceptably high attrition rate.
Basic law enforcement equipment is unserviceable, including traffic law enforcement equipment … radio
communications and small vessels for river and near coastal emergency responses.
I welcome the focus that the O’Sullivan Report brings to the need of upgrading of police housing and equipment in remote community stations throughout the Territory, as will those officers who work under those extreme conditions and persevere daily without those in remote bush communities.
In the context of its audits of assessed needs of the Northern Territory Police force, the O’Sullivan Report - and I will quote from the Executives Summary - includes in its list of assessed needs the following:
- An additional 28 Aboriginal Community Police Officers to ensure that ACPOs in existing locations are not
working alone. The ACPO scheme is currently being revised to remove inequities and explore ways to
involve greater numbers of Aboriginal men and women in policing.
- To achieve increased police numbers the recruit intake capacity of the Police College will need to be
enhanced. A challenging target of 120 recruits per year, double previous levels, has been suggested.
Action also needs to be taken to ensure that more than the current 25% of Northern Territory applicants
can achieve the required police force entry standard, including significantly increased numbers of
indigenous personnel.
The statement from the minister which we have heard confirms the Martin government’s commitment to funding and carrying out the implementation of the recommendations of the O'Sullivan Report, including the recommendations regarding the recruitment of additional regular police and 28 extra ACPOs. I have every confidence that a fair proportion of the proposed extra regular police will be allocated to bush areas, and hope and expect that police numbers in my own electorate will be enhanced.
Police housing and equipment shortcomings are to be addressed. The most pleasing and innovative policy announcement to my mind is the following, which I am quoting from the minister’s speech:
- In line with the report’s recommendation, Aboriginal Community Police Officers will be provided with the
same housing and remote area allowance entitlements that apply to other police officers.
That was probably the most pleasing thing to hear. I know from going around my own electorate, minister, those ACPOs who have done it hard for many years certainly welcome that. From my own direct experience and from talking to people, I cannot express just how important such entitlements are to Aboriginal people and those ACPOs who have been working in such difficult and trusted positions in their own communities. It is just not a matter of substantive material benefit and wellbeing - although these things are extremely important - it is also a matter of pride and self-esteem.
A further issue to be addressed as I sum up, which probably, from my point of view as an indigenous female member of this government, is that we constantly look at, talk about, and read about the unacceptable levels of violence in our communities. When we look at most of this violence, it is afflicted upon our young women and children. There is an urgent need to address the gender balance in the staffing of remote area police stations. The under-reporting of sexual assaults on indigenous females living in remote communities is not uncommon. Most of this under-reporting is due to the fact that most of these young indigenous women and children are uncomfortable, apart from the many cultural, community and family pressures, and will not go to the police stations and report these incidents, as most remote bush stations are staffed by male officers. Although these men are sympathetic, it is not appropriate. If I was to put it in a context of a female or a child who has been badly raped in an urban centre, these women and children would have access - or most victims of this crime - to sexual assault units which are appropriately staffed by female officers. In most cases, female police officers are called in to take the required statements of the victim.
I urge the O’Sullivan implementation team to look at this vital area which has been neglected for a long time, because this is an issue in a lot of our remote communities, particularly to the women.
I commend the minister for his statement and the commissioning of the O’Sullivan Report. The minister and our government will deliver on our promise to all Territorians, regardless of where you live. The minister has acted with certainty, and in the most comprehensive way possible, to a problem that was continually pushed under the carpet by the previous government. I commend the minister’s statement and report to the House.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I give my support to the minister in his introduction of the O’Sullivan Report. I have had to rearrange my contribution slightly after listening to the member for Arafura’s comments.
I received last night from my mother-in-law in Queensland an article out of the Courier Mail. It is dated 4 October 2003. The column is entitled ‘Saturday View’ by Tony Koch entitled Where Racism is Alive and Well:
Thinking Australians were horrified four years ago when the Northern Territory government introduced
‘three strikes and you’re out’ legislation - imposing mandatory prison sentences on anybody convicted
three times of a criminal offence, no matter how petty.
The conservative administration of Chief Minister Denis Burke, who introduced those draconian measures,
was subsequently thrown out, and the Labor Government narrowly elected.
It was quickly established that law and order in the Territory was spinning out of control, and policing
methods of administration were so under-resourced that nothing could be done.
So retired Queensland Police Commissioner Jim O’Sullivan was commissioned to review the NT force.
His 340-page report with its 112 recommendations (including spending $75m over four years for recruiting
and updating facilities) does not make pretty reading.
The major problem was created between 1990 and 1994 when the government took the ridiculous decision to
not recruit any more police, irrespective of the high rates of attrition.
And if anybody has any doubts about racial discrimination in Australia, they need go no further than O’Sullivan’s
report to appreciate how it has been alive and well in the Territory.
Aboriginal community police officers (ACPOs) are employed, but are paid at around two-thirds of the salary paid
to their non-indigenous counterparts. They have the power of arrest - and, in fact, are expected to wade into many
brawls and fights to secure those arrests - but are not authorised to carry firearms or to use capsicum spray.
Whereas it is a condition of employment of all other NT police that they are provided with free or subsidised
accommodation, the same privileges or condition of employment are not extended to the ACPOs.
To his credit, and not surprisingly to those who know him, O’Sullivan advised that the situation be rectified
immediately - never mind waiting for the completion and acceptance of any report.
O’Sullivan relates his meeting at Tennant Creek with an experienced ACPO, who told his committee that he
was not being paid enough to carry on in the job.
The Aboriginal man explained that he received $240 a week but that $160 of that went on rent for a house for
him and his family.
He then pointed out that there were seven vacant residential units attached to the police station, so O’Sullivan
asked why he did not choose to stay in one of them as they were provided free of charge.
‘‘They are not available to me because I am black’, the man replied.
In his report, O’Sullivan told of a woman ACPO who was the sole police presence at Snake Bay in the Tiwi Islands.
‘She confronted the most difficult of policing situations daily and turned her own home into a shelter for victims
of domestic violence, was using her own vehicle for policing work and operated from a tiny makeshift office with
no computer, fax or telephone.
‘She was committed to policing and to her community and she was looking forward to a week’s in-service training
with other ACPO colleagues - the first for some years.
‘When asked about her circumstances, she commented that she would appreciate a vehicle, an office, appropriate
cells for protective custody and more flexible entry, so one of the younger men, keen on becoming an ACPO in her
community, could gain acceptance and help her with some of the worst violence problems.
‘She sought nothing for herself’, O’Sullivan reported.
It is obvious that the NT has lagged years behind in its application of law and order principles, and its support
for the police service.
In areas of racial harmony and discrimination, it is 50 years behind.
How could successive National/Country party government really expect to get away with such dreadful treatment
of its own public servants, such as the ACPOs.
The obvious answer is that they are a long way away, out of sight, without a voice - and are therefore easy
targets for discrimination.
It is made more galling when one recalls the sanctimonious Burke before the last election going on radio and
television and attempting to justify this ‘hardline’ law and order policy, which saw at least one black youth
thrown into gaol take his own life in absolute despair.
People like Burke should be made to walk in the shoes of other men - specifically those whom they see as being
inferior in some way and undeserving of equality of any kind. Thankfully, the discrimination is being
addressed - about a century after it should have been.
That was from Queensland. That was not from the Chief Minister of this Assembly. That was not from the Labor Police minister. That was not written by the member for Sanderson. This was an article in the Courier Mail of less than a week ago. To think that the O’Sullivan Report is not being noted in other jurisdictions and by other Australians is to be sticking your head in the sand. That is how critical this report, and the timeliness of this report, is to the Territory; that we should be lambasted and our reputation as good citizens of this country should be held up and mocked in other states and jurisdictions because of the practices that went before, is a shocking indictment.
Let me say that, to get the O’Sullivan Report going, it does take leadership. It takes a strong minister to get in there and argue hard in Cabinet to get that money, because there are many pressing priorities which this government has to comes to grips with, and the neglect that has been dealt to the community over 26 years of CLP rule.
The Leader of the Opposition had a go at me yesterday about looking backwards. Well, you cannot help but look backwards to know where you are today. You have to look backwards so you do not repeat the failures of the past and keep on repeating them into the future. I take him to task on that comment because he has to own up; he has to take ownership and stop this denial of what went before, because what went before is what we are dealing with now.
I also take great exception to his choice of shadow Police minister. I will tell you why I take exception to that – and I am talking specifically about the member for Macdonnell. Not being one to plagiarise, to have them come in and say: ‘Look, you are plagiarising all over the place’. This is from the Eighth Assembly, First Session, 10 August 1999, Parliamentary Record No 8, Condolence Motion. It is Mr Elferink’s contribution and a part thereof. This is the person who has been anointed by the Opposition Leader as the shadow Police minister. I want you to remember what was in the paper there, in the Courier Mail of last week. I quote from the member for Macdonnell:
- I recall on occasion when we attended a camp and he tried to stop an old man stabbing another. For his efforts,
the old man cut Glen on the back of his thigh. I believe it was his right thigh. It was certainly not a serious laceration,
but the fact remained that a police officer had been stabbed with a knife. This, as far as I and several other officers
were concerned, was cause for jihad …
We were filled with a sense of righteous justice …
We were filled with a sense of righteous justice, and the sword of Damocles was hanging over the head of this
camp and all who resided there ...
I do not think I have to go into Greek mythology to get the meaning of what the sword of Damocles means. We understand fully what the member for Macdonnell was saying here:
- … the sword of Damocles was hanging over the head of this camp and all who resided there. We were going to
clean up that camp in defence of our comrade-in-arms ...
In defence? The guy has already suffered the injury, he is out in hospital, and it is in defence:
- We were going to clean up that camp in defence of our comrade-in-arms. There was only one voice of grace
in the accident and emergency room, and that was Glen. He understood what the old man was doing. I can
clearly remember he smiled as he called our young hot heads with the humanity that left a lasting impression.
Not good enough with one incident:
I also recall the occasion when he was badly burnt as a result of a billy of boiling water being poured on him - not
because he was a target, but because he put himself between the target and the offender …
Truly, Sergeant Huitson was a magnificent police officer:
- Again, he smiled at my juvenile demand for retribution. Albeit painfully on this occasion, he cooled the passion
of a young man with a grace that leaves me breathless …
Well, it leaves me breathless. Here is a person who has admitted to wanting to go in and brutalise a whole community of Aboriginal people. This is a man whose electorate, predominantly - the majority, the overwhelming majority - are Aboriginal people. These are his words, they are not mine; I am not reading them out of context. These are incidents which go right to the core of this man’s feelings for that segment of our population. This is the man who would be police minister.
The Opposition Leader has been found by people in Queensland to have racist views, and this can only go to substantiate those views. Frankly, the people of the Territory are fed up with this sort of divisiveness in the community. The Opposition Leader needs to be taken to task for dragging us through the mud in Queensland, and he needs the sack! Actually, he should be reported. The Opposition Leader should have a good look at that and a good talk to him and say: ‘Look, member for Macdonnell, you ought to go to the police talk to them about this, and see whether charges should be laid’, because that is a threat; an implied action that he was going to take. I am absolutely astounded that the Opposition Leader, who was then Chief Minister, never referred that to the DPP for investigation. That is the credibility that the opposition brings to managing our police force.
When we talk about history, I have a little involvement as a person living in the northern suburbs. I came to town in 1985. I had my first break-in in 1988 in Ludmilla. I lost a microwave and a TV. The police turned up and they dusted the louvres, but I never heard anything further from them. Then I moved from Ludmilla to Millner and - you would not credit it! - I got rolled again. This time, they got my …
Mr Bonson interjecting.
Mr KIELY: Yes, this time they got my Vita-Weat biscuits, my Vegemite and my little money jar and everything. The police came around and had a look at the break, but I never heard anything more. I had a bit of a lull then. It was 1996 when my wife parked her car at Malak near the Malak shops, and four kiddies came by and saw her bag on the front seat, put a brick through the window and stole her bag. It had $10 in it. The car window cost us $180 to fix. That was in 1996, I think it was.
The funny story about that one is that I phoned up the police at Casuarina station. I arrived and asked her: ‘Have you phoned the police?’. She said: ‘Yes, but they are not coming out; they said: “Just come down and report it”’. I said: ‘Well, this is not good enough’. So I phoned the police and got the front desk and said: ‘Look, give me the OIC, will you?’; so they gave me the OIC. Those who know me would not think this action is out of kilter with my personality. I said: ‘Look mate, what is going on here? We have the car broken into. We have the brick here and it has probably got fingerprints on it. How about getting out and doing your job?’ You know what the response was? ‘Tell it to your MLA; we do not have the resources’. That was back in 1996.
To that particular officer, let me say that I am now the MLA, and I have passed that information on - and we are doing something about it! Actually on that advice, albeit it has taken seven years to act on it, we are moving on it. Congratulations for that advice from that far-seeing officer. However, that was the state of resources back then.
Then in 1999, I had the house in Wulagi and that was broken into. The police came around, dusted - no, nothing; nothing after that. In 2000, my wife went to work and parked her car under the security lights in the RDH. Well, you would not guess what happened, would you? Someone came along, could not start the car, so they busily lifted the roof and started to strip the motor. My wife is hard-working …
Mr Henderson: You were having a bad run.
Mr KIELY: No, I did not have a hard run; this is what goes on in this place. The security guards at RDH managed to grab one person. The police did not come down; they did not have the resources to get there. ‘Take his name’, they said to the RDH people, ‘We will check our files and see whether or not he has done it before and get back to you’. Well, you can imagine, I was down on their doorstep on Saturday morning, suitably impressed with that level of service.
The point is that the level of service that Territorians were getting from the police at that stage - and I do not put it down to police as their problem because the resources were just that terrible. They were just that shocking that they could not do a thing. For the Opposition Leader to say: ‘What are you doing about it?’ and ‘Do not drag up the history’, well I have some personal history involved in all that. I will drag it up and tell everyone because we, as a Labour government under the good guidance of the Police minister, the member for Wanguri - he has gone in there and fought hard and what is he doing? Well, now we will talk about the future, won’t we? He has $75m so that people like me will not call up and say: ‘Could you send someone down?’ ‘No, sorry, talk to your local MLA’. There will be no more of that business going on.
We have $75m. We are going to get 200 more police by the end of 2006. We are going to recruit and train a maximum number of constables - 120 each year; double the number of constables entering the police force. There will be more Territorians recruited to the NT Police force - that is a wonderful initiative. There will be more police back to core policing duties. This is what they want: more police patrols. People of my area have good relationships with the NT Police. We have a very active community. We get police patrols down there during the Dry on pushbikes. We have them coming through the suburbs. I have not been broken into at home since Labor come into power. How’s that? I do not have a sign up: ‘Do not touch. MLA’s office’, on the front door. However, you would not credit this!: my neighbours and my friends have not been broken into. By gee! Not a bad run, I reckon.
In all seriousness - and I have been told about my quirkiness before today - there are people still having their houses broken into. That leads me on to another point, and that is about community opinion. In an assessment of Resource Requirements Executive Summary, there is one paragraph under Community Opinion which says:
- The assessment concluded that the print media in the Territory was also shaping perceptions about crime on a daily
basis. In this environment where the headlines highlight crime consistently, the community perception that crime is
out of control and escalating can be understood. Published statistics about crime rates are not likely to sway public
opinion even if accurate. A change in the observed presence, response capability of the police force, especially
visibly uniformed police, is necessary.
Perhaps 12 months ago or even a little longer, I went and saw a movie called Bowling for Columbine. I believe everyone should go and see that because it covers public perception and the manipulation of the media to change public perception. It particularly showed how African-American crime is reported more than non-African/American crime in the United States, and just how it is all a big beat-up and hype, and how it was manipulated.
We have a problem out there that is being addressed. We do a lot in my community, and I dare say other MLAs do also. We have had community forums on crime prevention within the local school precincts and invited community members; did flyers out there. I have conducted community surveys on perceptions on what is going on in the community, and what are the areas that need addressing - and community public safety did get a big run. But, it is a perception of it. We have a very active Neighbourhood Watch going in our electorate. I get out and doorknock and talk to people on the doors and see what is happening. It is not information I keep to myself - I feed it back into government. I also talk to my local police and say: ‘These are the things I have picked up in the community’. It is not a matter of going to the police and saying: ‘I want you to do this, I want you to do that’ because, clearly, MLAs cannot do that and should not do that. MLAs, in police eyes, are just another citizen. But as one other citizen, I make sure that I communicate to police things that are happening in my area. I extol that virtue, or that way of doing business, to all MLAs in this House. We are there to serve the public. We probably gather more information than the police do on different things, and we can pass that on and help with policing our neighbourhood.
I would like to say to everyone here, and to any media people who are listening: our safety and our community – there are good places to live. We probably have a better community safety record than they have in the streets of Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. It does not do anyone any favours in the Territory to talk up crime. If you are going to be critical of the government, be critical of the government; that is opposition’s role and we welcome it. However, do not sensationalise, or talk it up. The police are doing a good job. They do not need us bagging them in here in parliament in veiled ways. The public does not benefit in any way whatsoever by us running around in our Chicken Little guise and saying: ‘The sky is falling, the sky is falling’. So. let us talk it up. Let us get it accurate. That is it. You do not even have to talk it up; let us get it accurate.
Madam Speaker, the O'Sullivan Report is a timely report. It is a report that is being acted upon. I give my full support to the Police Commissioner. I commend him and the team of the police executive who are getting in there, and also the constables on the ground, many whom live in Wulagi, Anula, and are friends of mine. I do not have to go to a sausage sizzle; I see them around every day. They are doing a fabulous job. They have my full support and they know they can always come to me and have a chat about any issue. With that as my passing remark, the statement is fabulous and the actions that are following on from it are just simply wonderful.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Note Statement - O’Sullivan Report into Police Resources in the Northern Territory
Note Statement - O’Sullivan Report into Police Resources in the Northern Territory
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that debate on the statement be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Protection of Mangroves in Darwin Harbour
Protection of Mangroves in Darwin Harbour
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, today I announce to the House this government’s delivery of a major election commitment: to protect the mangroves of Darwin Harbour.
I have just formally approved amendments to the Darwin, Litchfield, East Arm, Palmerston and Darwin Rural town plans, which zone all mangroves for conservation. This means that all these areas shown in green on this zoning map - and I table the map - now enjoy protection under the Planning Act. The effect of this amendment is, first, that development in the mangrove conservation zone is prohibited and second, that any clearing of mangroves will require the consent of the Development Consent Authority. Some minor exceptions exist for low impact activities such as public utilities and research centres being allowed with consent.
The total area of Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay rezoned conservation is now 46 516 hectares. Of this, over 26 000 hectares is mangroves with the rest comprising salt flats, mudflats, and fringing hinterland vegetation that grows below 4 metres Australia Height Datum, the landward limit of the conservation zone, and provides a non-mangrove barrier. This means that 96% of the mangrove communities of the harbour are now protected from development. The remaining 4% have either already been developed or are required for already planned development, such as the East Arm and Middle Arm. However, even on Middle Arm Peninsula over 4500 hectares of mangroves are now protected.
This significant amendment recognises the vital role that mangroves play in ecosystem services. They are the lungs of our harbour.
The mangroves of Darwin Harbour comprise the most floristically diverse contiguous tracts of mangrove forest in the Northern Territory. The great majority of mangrove communities in Darwin Harbour are largely intact and in excellent conditions. Our mangroves and our harbour are in splendid shape, and this planning amendment will ensure they stay the way they are.
This proposed amendment to the Planning Scheme went through a rigorous public process under the Planning Act, and I am quite sure that this will make a lot of people a lot happier with planning and development around the harbour. Some members of the House and of the wider community may have observed that the amendment I have just approved differs a little from what was exhibited. I shall explain the difference and the process that led to that decision.
The amendments as exhibited, while the wording varied slightly across the five town plans being amended, generally proposed two new control clauses to be introduced to the town plans. One of these was that the clearing of mangroves within zone 03 is only permitted with the consent of the authority. The other was that despite anything to the contrary, aquaculture may be developed in zone 03 with the consent of the authority.
At the same time, the zoning table for the conservation zones were amended to prohibit most uses and to allow only a small range of low intensive uses to be developed, with the consent of the DCA. However, it was an option to allow aquaculture in the mangrove zone, albeit with consent, which concerned a significant number of people who made submissions.
This proposal to amend the town plans of the five planning areas that surround Darwin Harbour went on public exhibition from 31 January to 14 March this year. This extended exhibition period recognised the importance that communities place on mangroves, and gave the public plenty of opportunity to make submissions. Fifteen submissions were received in that time, including one from each of the five affected councils.
I then appointed a panel comprising members of the Darwin, Palmerston and Litchfield divisions of the Development Consent Authority, to conduct the required hearing in relation to this amendment to the NT Planning Scheme. The hearing was held on 23 May, and the panel provided me with a report on the hearing for my consideration. While the DCA report is not generally made public, I am happy to state that the authority supported the proposal to amend the town plans.
The element of the proposed amendment which allowed aquaculture to be development with the consent of the DCA caused major concerns for many who made submissions. I had concerns with that aspect. While I would in no way want to discourage or prevent innovative aquaculture ventures from establishing in the NT, I had concerns about the compatibility of such developments in a conservation zone of mangroves. I sought further advice on this matter. For the benefit of the House, and to provide a rationale for my decision to prohibit aquaculture, I will summarise the advice.
The Fisheries Group of the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development are, understandably, keen to retain as many options as possible for future development, though do not support the clearing of mangroves for aquaculture. Many of the preferred aquaculture sites are on tidal flats near mangroves and would require access to the mangroves for a 3 m-wide pipe or a 7 m-wide channel. Low intensity aquaculture activities such as growing mud crabs, do need to be located in mangroves.
A mangrove fact sheet produced recently by the Australian Prawn Farmers Association comments that:
- … it is now widely accepted that mangrove lands are not well suited for prawn or fish ponds due to low
elevation, acid soils and high construction costs.
On balance, I consider the need to protect and conserve mangroves to be compelling. Innovative aquaculture developments subject to a rigorous environmental assessment process will still be encouraged in the Territory, but without sacrificing mangroves.
The amendment to the Planning Scheme that I am, therefore, announcing today differs from the version that was publicly exhibited and prohibits aquaculture in the mangrove conservation zone. All existing aquaculture developments are unaffected by this amendment, as are those which already have development permits or which are to be located in areas zoned other than conservation. The Planning Act provides that protection for existing users.
On 25 September, I approved another amendment to the Planning Scheme, one which introduced new zones to accommodate major industrial projects and infrastructure development. That amendment was a critical part of government’s strategic commitment to long-term economic growth by identifying and setting aside suitable sites for future major development. That amendment also limited development on Middle Arm, other than the LNG plant, to non-gas-based development. This latest amendment, conserving the mangrove communities of Darwin Harbour, provides the critical balance to that decision. We are committed to achieving a sensible and workable balance between development and environmental sustainability, and giving formal protection to the mangroves is very tangible evidence of that commitment.
Of course, this is a significant improvement to the actions of previous governments who promoted urban and industrial development, but failed to provide the environmental balance to the appropriate development equation. For example, development of Middle Arm Peninsula for industrial uses has been a public commitment of previous governments since the early 1980s, first appearing in strategic planning documents in the Darwin Region Structure Plan in 1984. There has been no similar commitment to environmental protection. Mangroves, and indeed any and all other vegetation communities, could be cleared without approval, with no public notification and with no controls; an inadequate level of protection which we are now addressing.
Zoning the mangroves of Darwin Harbour for conservation is solid evidence that this government recognises the value of our harbour, its wealth of natural, cultural, recreational and environmental resources, as well as its importance to the Territory’s economic development. Darwin Harbour is a splendid asset. Protecting the mangroves is just one element of our strategic approach to the use and management of Darwin Harbour.
While the harbour and its catchment encompass a range of distinctive and special environments that require protection, the region is subject to pressures and conflicts of use, which present a major challenge to government, industry and the community. An election commitment of this government included a plan of management to protect the values and uses of Darwin Harbour and its catchment.
In August 2002, I appointed the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee, chaired by John Bailey, to oversee the development of the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. An extensive process of consultation took place as an integral part of the development of this plan. For the first phase of consultation, the committee organised and ran public presentations, workshops, forums, hearings and submissions. During this first round of consultation, 47 submissions were received and over 170 people attended public presentations and workshops over three days. A number of forums were also held in regions throughout the catchment during February 2003, including Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield Shire and Cox Peninsula. This information culminated in the development of the first draft of the plan, which I released for public comment in August 2003. The final consultation phase for the draft Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management closed on 30 September. The committee is currently assessing submissions received during the latest consultation period, and I expect a report from them in November. This government is committed to making further provisions for public participation in planning decisions, and the process adopted by the advisory committee in formulating the plan has been exemplary.
Given the importance of the Darwin Harbour, the allocation of considerable resources to the process was warranted. An extensive range of valuable reference documents has resulted from the process, and they will inform our management decisions into the future. The Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management will deliver a sound framework for managing and enhancing our valuable harbour and catchment into the future. Though still in draft form, its overriding principle will not change. The Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management is to ‘ensure development is in line with the protection of ecosystems, and the maintenance of the harbour’s value as a recreational, cultural, commercial and scenic resource’. The plan will provide a basis for achieving an integrated decision-making process and planning outcomes consistent with the Marine and Coastal Management Policy and ecologically sustainable development.
Madam Speaker, this government is tackling head on the vexing matter of how to balance economic development and providing jobs and employment for our citizens, leaving behind a natural legacy for our children and future generations to enjoy. It is not an easy task striking a balance between competing interests and many pressures and conflicts, but it is a critical one, and one in which the main stakeholders, the community, need to be heavily involved. For Darwin Harbour, it means adopting, in the words of the committee, a robust yet adaptive management framework. The first element of that framework has just been put in place; the mangroves of Darwin Harbour have been protected, and this will provide a magnificent legacy for future generations of Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I place on the record some of my observations and comments in relation to the protection of mangroves in Darwin Harbour, of the statement which the minister just parroted onto the record. I …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In parliamentary language, I advise the honourable member that it is the opposition that is demanding of government that we actually read ministerial statements word for word. That is the opposition position that we have acceded to. If they do not want us to ‘parrot’ statements, then we are quite happy to come here without documented pre-prepared speeches that are circulated beforehand. I would ask the member to withdraw his comments.
Madam SPEAKER: It was an unfortunate use of words. The purpose of ministerial statements is for them to be actually read as a statement so that people can have them in advance and comment on them. Your choice of words was probably most unfortunate.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, perhaps the point I am making is - I am slightly aggravated by a cold - but I could not actually understand what he was saying. I just hope that what he said is word-for-word similar to …
Madam SPEAKER: Well, you have the statement and that is what people usually follow from this time.
Mr MALEY: Yes. It may not be his fault; it may be the acoustics - who knows? But just on the record that it is very difficult for anyone to understand what this particular minister said in terms of …
Mr Vatskalis: Not for everyone.
Ms Scrymgour: Are you saying anyone with an accent …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, that is why the statement is distributed the night before.
Mr MALEY: I am not having a go at you, I am just saying that as a fact. Some of the journos say the same.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you like to get on with your response? A good idea.
Mr MALEY: Some of the journos say exactly the same.
Madam Speaker, the Darwin Harbour and its surrounding environs certainly is the crowning glory of Darwin. A lot of people say Katherine region is the jewel of the Territory. Well, ultimately, Darwin Harbour really is the crown, which a lot of people - especially first-time visitors to the Territory - really appreciate: the fact that we have a harbour in such pristine condition on our doorstep, and they can go down to Crustaceans on the Wharf and sit there; they can go on a boat and they can see this relatively untouched, unspoiled natural treasure.
The harbour, of course, is not just a significant environmental treasure, it also has a significant historical value for the Northern Territory. It has survived being bombed - it is a place where there are war graves – and it has survived a number of cyclones. It was also a source of food for the early settlers, which included, of course, those at Southport, which was one of the original settlements of Darwin, at the Blackmore River. There are a number of quarter-acre blocks where you can see the amount of infrastructure that was there. From the historical records, the meeting of the Blackmore and the Darwin Rivers was the place where these people fished, and they crabbed all through the harbour.
Closer to our time, of course, the Darwin Harbour is probably the place where the most amateur fishing effort is concentrated. That is obvious for two reasons. First of all, it is close to the populous in Darwin, and it is a good fishing spot. The reason that it is such a good fishing spot is significantly and partly to do with the fact that there are so many mangroves - the lungs of this marine environment; they clean out impurities. It is also the place where lots of bait fish breed and grow and, eventually, attract the larger predatory fish, which then attract, of course, the larger predatory Homo sapiens in their tinnies, and the armies of people who go fishing there on the weekends.
I am a regular fisherman in the Darwin Harbour environs - not as much as my brother; he goes all the time. It is a great spot and, unlike probably most of the members on the other side, the real locals are familiar with it and go fishing there at least a few times a year.
The ministerial statement, in its present form is, I suppose, in a nutshell – well, I am going to make a couple of points: the statement is probably the position which the CLP government would have arrived at, having regard to the process which has been occurring over the past 14 years. There is no doubt about that.
There is a huge volume of material which is available on the public record. There is a fairly comprehensive Managing Darwin Harbour and its Catchment, a summary of Northern Territory government initiatives that came out in the year 2000. There has been a number of press releases, and a number of ministerial statements in this House from learned ministers who have been in the Territory longer than five minutes, unlike the current minister. If you read what the previous ministers have said, the sentiment of what is contained in today’s statement is well and truly contained in those previous statements: the one by the then minister, Tim Baldwin and another one by the then minister, Hon Mike Reed. Mike Reed gave his statement in 1996 and minister Baldwin gave his statement regarding beneficial uses the year prior to the election.
Most of the ministerial statement which we heard today really confirms that the harbour is in very good condition. It is pristine. There have been 300 studies, and careful consideration of the uses associated with the harbour And credit where credit is due; there is no way the harbour would be in such good condition if it was not for the careful management which the CLP looked after for 27 years.
Mr Wood: What about Bayview?
Mr MALEY: I heard about Bayview; yes. It is a working harbour and, as the ministerial statement …
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: As the minister quite properly says, it is about ensuring a balance and that there is a sound framework. just what the minister said today: ‘… for managing and enhancing a valuable harbour and catchment in the future’. The minister quite rightly says that on the second last page of his statement:
- The Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management is to ensure development is in line with protection of
ecosystems, and the maintenance of the harbour’s value as a recreational, cultural, commercial and scenic
resource.
That is on the second last page of his ministerial statement from today.
Effectively, what has occurred is that there is a small fringe of mangroves - and there is a map attached to the back of the statement - which now falls within this rezoned area, zoned conservation. There is a map, albeit it is not a precise map. I notice there are some gaps, but I assume in due course …
Mr Wood: They are the bits that are not being saved.
Mr MALEY: Yes, well perhaps that is right. I appreciate the contribution from the member for Nelson. Perhaps the gaps are the bits that are not being saved. I look forward to the minister perhaps making available a more comprehensive map where we can go through it in a bit more detail because, fairly obviously – I know there is a couple of spots up towards Shoal Bay where there are lots of mangroves, and the green does not actually extend there. I know it is an A4 document and it is imprecise in its nature and it is probably only a guide, but it is something that the minister might like to consider later on.
I have contacted the minister’s office with a view to getting a briefing on the area. I understand someone from his office has already contacted my electorate office and we will probably make that arrangement after this sittings. That briefing will probably pertain to some of the information which will be fairly useful, particularly to those people in my electorate who live close to or have a real interest in the mangroves in that particular area.
The only criticism I am going to make is one which really smacks of political opportunism on the part of the Labor government. Prior to the election, the Darwin Harbour, the proposed weir, Weddell and the damming of the Elizabeth River were issues which were projected onto the public consciousness. I am not armed with the precise Labor Party pamphlets. Perhaps my learned friend, the minister, can correct this, but there was certainly a perception that the Labor government was championing the position of protecting these mangroves, of making the Darwin Harbour some sort of reserve - the term ‘reserve’ was used - and stroking that section of the community which was in favour of making it a national park or having some sort of more permanent protection over the harbour - and not just the mangroves, but all of it. That was the image, and certainly a part of the election promises made.
I will say it this way: there was a reasonable expectation created in the general electorate that the Labor government would, if they secured power - and they did - move to make the harbour a reserve, protect the mangroves and go along that line.
What we see today is that, if you drill down into it, it certainly does not go that far. Credit where credit is due: there is a new conservation zone which is that thin skirting of mangroves around the edge, and Shoal Bay and the like. However, I do not think, in fairness, the minister can trapeze into here and say this satisfies the expectation created in the wider community to create a reserve, to protect it because, ultimately - and the minister concedes this in his prepared statement - it is a zone; you can make and application to the Development Consent Authority and, if you can persuade them, they could make an exception and, of course, development will and can continue. I am not saying that is bad; I am just saying it is different from the impression which was created.
It is really an attempt, in my view, to mislead Territory people. There might be the odd young journalist that the Labor Party will massage and say: ‘This is a huge step’, but I suspect that the journalists are waking up to you. You can be assured that they are drilling a bit deeper into these things; they are talking to some of the stakeholders and to the opposition. They are reading the documents for themselves. It is fairly obvious - and not just with this minister - the type of political spin-doctoring that has been occurring in the current Labor government is being closely scrutinised. I do not think this one will go through to the keeper as easily as the minister would like to think.
This ministerial statement contains absolutely nothing new. Well, I withdraw that; that is probably a bit unfair. There are a couple of small steps but it seems there was a process that was being followed, and the process started over a decade ago. When I read the ministerial statement prepared by minister Baldwin regarding the beneficial users, some of the statements that were made by the previous government - I was not part of the previous government - are common sense. A lot of them are mirrored in a general way in today’s statement. Things like, in former minister Baldwin’s statement:
- There is no doubt Darwin Harbour is the greatest natural asset fronting the Darwin peninsula. It deserves
protection and that is what government has ensured through a comprehensive range of initiatives.
Then the statement goes through the issues. The government of the day acknowledged the fact that Darwin Harbour is a world class attraction, that there had been, at that stage, 230 individual studies on the harbour, its surrounds and the greater catchment area. The statement went on to say that there was going to be a full and open public participation process. I am paraphrasing from the statement, where issues such as aquatic ecosystem protection and recreational and aesthetic protection were addressed. There was a real aim to make sure that these beneficial uses were enshrined in legislation to assist in providing some guidance for future development and use of the Darwin Harbour.
I suppose the rezoning of the mangroves is really taking the last couple of steps in that process in relation to those mangroves.
The statement went on and actually talked about - I read it from here, there is a fair chunk of it - dealing with mangroves. Unlike today’s ministerial statement, which is probably aimed at grabbing a headline and persuading some young journalist that they have satisfied some promise, the previous ministerial statements were peppered with a lot more scientific detail. It seems, from a lay person reading this material for the first time, that the previous ministers were coming from a position of making an informed decision, as opposed to trying to massage the real facts into some sort of misleading press statement to persuade some young journalist that the expectation that was created by the Labor government prior to the last election has been reached.
Well, I said at the beginning that this statement and the zoning of those mangroves is something which the process which was commenced over a decade ago was invariably going to come to. It is certainly not …
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: It is certainly not the reserve, which is fair enough - I know you have to do your job and you have to balance it all. It is certainly not the reserve or the marine park - which were some of the phrases that were bandied about prior to the election, certainly by your candidate in my electorate – or making the harbour into a park. The harbour is a working harbour, and it is acknowledged in this statement; there are lots of competing uses. This is a step in making sure that we can all have the use of the harbour; we can all have access to it. There will be some prawn farming with some impact there; there is pearl farming that goes on.
Madam Speaker, in essence, the statement contains no new vision on our harbour. It is probably aimed at misleading the green movement. Those of the Environment Centre have criticised it for not going far enough. Well, they are onto you; they reckon you have not gone far enough. I am not saying go as far as they are saying, I am saying that what you are doing, I reckon is about reasonable. You cannot take the high ground and say: ‘Look, this is something that the CLP would not have done’. Any reasonable, right-minded, thinking government would come to some of the conclusions that are contained in here. That is all I intend to say.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, perhaps I need to remind the member for Goyder that four dams in Darwin Harbour and two dams on Bynoe Peninsula was the recommendation of a previous Lands and Planning Minister, Mr Manzie, in the document Darwin Regional Land Use Strategy Plan. As much as I hope the opposition has now re-thought its attitudes to the harbour, I am afraid I live with the nightmares of many years fighting to protect the harbour and the Elizabeth River dam with much blood, sweat and tears from community people. I do not think the opposition can entirely pat itself on the back for that either, because it requires the community to get governments to do things - including the opposition – and say: ‘This dam would kill 1000 hectares of mangroves’. It was the beginning of the change, and I congratulate the government, who are at least now in government, for protecting the mangroves of Darwin Harbour.
However, that does not mean that is where it stops. I support the protection of Darwin Harbour and I also support development of the Darwin Harbour. But that development has to be essential, and I do not regard marinas, as in Bayview, as an essential reason to disturb and destroy mangroves. I am on record as saying I agree with the LNG plant at Wickham Point, and that LNG plant has certainly destroyed some mangroves. I made it clear that the reason I gave support to the LNG plant was access to deep water. That is why you have a harbour, so a ship can come in, and some industries are going to require access.
The changes by the minister in protecting the mangroves have at last turned things on their head. Over many years, if there was a development application, the mangroves had to fight, you might say, to prove that they should not be destroyed. In other words, development had the priority. Now, at least, development has to show that it needs to destroy the mangroves. The mangroves, at last, have some protection and priority when it comes to development applications.
As I said before: please, government, do not pat yourself on the back, because you are a little short-sighted if you say that, just by putting a line around the mangroves, you are protecting the mangroves. Mangroves do not live isolated lives; they are affected by other activities. They are susceptible to pressures from development and the government has, unfortunately, decided to put these pressures back on to the mangroves. Middle Arm Peninsula, as you know – I was not going to get up here and let you go without Middle Arm Peninsula - is a classic example of where you are going to put pressures on the harbour. You are allowing two-thirds of the available land in Middle Arm Peninsula to be mined. You are literally ripping the guts out of the harbour. Some of that development has occurred right on the boundaries of the mangroves.
Minister – I know the Minister for DBIRD is here; thank you for your good map – this map shows the mining tenements in the whole of the Litchfield Shire. The main area for extractive mining was actually up here. It is the area I have asked you to come and visit as an alternative site for developing industry in the middle of the harbour. Your departments have allowed 19 mining tenements in the middle of the harbour. If you go over there presently, they are literally ripping tonnes and tonnes of gravel, of all things. We are not talking about titanium or something that is great for the national interest; we are talking about gravel which you can get anywhere. We are ripping the guts of the harbour out and dumping it in the port; as simple as that. So to fill in the port, we are wrecking another part of the harbour. To me, that is crazy.
If you get the aerial photographs, you will see development around the Elizabeth River Bridge. Some of the early mines were right down to the edge of the mangroves, which is a classic example of how to kill mangroves. Erosion will go across the roots of the mangroves and kill them. There are other examples. I have been down there where the wetlands were scraped right next to the mangroves. That is so short-sighted. When you say: ‘We are going to protect it’, let us protect it.
Here is a recent example, similar to the example I showed before. This is a mining application in the paper about a month ago. Here is the Channel Island Bridge; here is the Elizabeth River. This mining application actually goes over the mangroves and into the water. I realise the mining people do not necessarily do that, but what message does that send anyone? This area here is already destroyed. Go and have a look for yourself; it is destroyed right to the mangroves. Those mangroves are now at risk. There is no attempt in this area - because the government wants to put industry here afterwards - to rehabilitate.
Therefore, minister, when you get up and say: ‘We have cut a section off the Darwin Harbour, we have declared an open conservation zone over the mangroves’, in isolation, that is no good. You have to protect what is behind the mangroves, what will, in actual fact, kill the mangroves.
Minister, you stated in your statement today that the government will fill this land up with industry, as long as it is non-gas development. So what? If it is going to be industrial, it is going to be industrial - industrial development that does not need to be there. If it is industrial development – forget whether it has nothing to do with gas – it will pollute. It will simply pollute because it has run-off from it. Go to Winnellie; you will get pollution there, and that pollution will affect the mangroves.
Minister, you say that the idea of putting industry in there relates to the 1984 Darwin Region Structure Plan. I have a copy of this document and, when I read the introduction to this document by Marshall Perron, who then was the Minister for Lands, he said:
- A structure plan is a statement of intent based on a projection of facts available at the time of preparation.
Such a plan does not propose implementation by any timetable. Its only relationship to time is the adoption
of an assumed rate of growth and, therefore, the appropriate solution to meet the needs created by the
assumed growth rate. It would be a mistake to treat this plan as a static master plan for development
without acknowledging that it must change with the dynamics of life. New information, trends, insights,
and the simple need for updating, will bring refinements to a structure plan from time to time. For this
reason, the plan bears a date to enable the reader to understand it in the context of its preparation.
It is a 19-year-old document and even the Darwin Land Use Structure Plan says something similar:
- The new land use structure plan will similarly, in due course, require modification and refinement.
Minister, these documents are nothing to hang your head on. If you believe these documents are the way your government should go, then you believe that we should have the Elizabeth River dam. It is in here …
Mr Henderson: Wrong, wrong!
Mr WOOD: It is in here. Those documents state that we should have the dam. This document says …
Mr Henderson: We will not dam the Elizabeth River.
Mr WOOD: I am using an argument that, if it is good enough for 1984 documents to have industry in the middle of the harbour, then I would say by all means support four dams in Darwin Harbour and two in Bynoe; because this document states it and this document definitely supports the Elizabeth River dam.
What I am saying is these are dynamic documents which were used as a means to back up an argument. I would just as easily move to say that these documents are dynamic. These documents have never been discussed in public – that is thoroughly. This document states in its foreword that this was done in a hurry for the Kenbi land claim. The public have never had a chance.
I believe – and I might be wrong and you can tell me I am wrong – the Labor Party was going to look at reviewing this document which is now 13 years old. We are still talking about putting industry in the middle of the harbour without reviewing this document. I would love to see the government put this document up for public discussion. It would be an ideal time before any industry is put in the middle of the harbour. And you might even consider a monitorium on any more mining in the harbour.
I have said that these plans were flawed and so is the concept of industrialisation of Middle Arm. It shows a lack of foresight and will and, in the end, will threaten the mangroves. Have a look how close the government has allowed development next to the mangroves in the East Arm industrial development area. It is an area hidden away from public scrutiny because there is no planning authority from the Development Consent Authority because, minister, you are the only one who makes those decisions. I say again that I believe there should be Development Consent Authority application for the East Arm development area so that the public can have a say on what happens there at a public meeting about.
I am still interested to know whether you will take up my offer to have a look at alternative sites because I can show you that there is land that is available, close to Darwin, that will not affect the mangroves. It is quite adequate for the amount of industry that you want to put in the middle of the harbour. It is sad if we do not go and look at that alternative. I hope you are not locked into thinking, because the bureaucrats have told you that that section of the land that I have spoken about – I do not know for whatever reason – is something that should not be looked at, and that you will at least keep an open viewpoint on alternatives to industry in the middle of the harbour.
I have had a look at the map and it is worth asking some questions about what is actually being preserved. The minister says he is rezoning 46 516 hectares of which 26 000 hectares is mangroves with the rest comprising salt flats, mudflats, infringing hinterland vegetation that grows below the 4 m AHD. However, minister, is this quite true? Where is the 4 m in the Woods Inlet, the West Arm, the Middle Arm and the Elizabeth River? Is it actually there? I am not so sure. I do not know whether the idea of 4 m is a very good idea in the first place.
If you have a fairly steep bank for the mangroves and you go to 4 m in actual width of land to buffer the mangroves, you probably have very little space. Maybe on a mudflat or on the wetland 4 m might mean 50 m. I am not sure that having a 4 m contour as a buffer is really the way you should go. Either have a distance, or ground truth it, so you can have a buffer that is actually related to what is on site. A similar process used to determine the distance development should occur close to wetlands is done by ground truthing. That is an inspection of the site to see what is adequate.
I would be interested to know why the mangroves between Tipperary Waters and the Bayview Estate are not being protected. I remember a previous Chief Minister, Shane Stone, saying that those mangroves would be protected after there was a meeting in Stuart Park of about 72 residents who asked that some of the mangroves be retained. I noticed on the map that there is no indication that those mangroves will be retained.
Also, why are the mangroves between Lee Point and Micket Creek not included? There is a little, but there is a big gap there. I imagine that the salt flats and the mangroves there need protecting. My other maps show that area to be mangroves, so I am not sure why that is missing.
The other interesting one is why is Rapid Creek not protected? I would have thought, of all places, Rapid Creek, because it was nearly the original home of the first marina and many a person fought over retaining the mangroves. That could be symbolic as a place to retain the mangroves. I was quite surprised that Rapid Creek, on this map, is not showing as being protected.
The other area that concerns me, and I have raised it before in parliament, is the headwaters of Hudson Creek. This is the land opposite Fairway Waters. On your industrial estates map and also your mangrove map - and it is fairly hard to see because of the small scale of the map - there is certainly an area where the mangroves are cut off in a very sharp manner as if something like a lock is going to be built there. I have raised it before, and I believe AFANT’s CEO, John Harrison, also raised it with me. When he asked some government people as to why this land here had no mangroves, he was told that, basically, that was being set aside for a marina because the mangroves were too close to Fairway Waters.
I do not know what is going on here, but this sounds awfully suspicious to me. It was meant to be industrial land. I do not know what this lock is for or what the proposed plans are. There are certainly a number of small blocks there. Is it a marina for a housing estate? Is it meant to be something for small ships? If it is for small ships, why aren’t we using this area set aside in East Arm for it in the first place?
They are just a couple of questions that need to be clarified. It is good to see that the minister has taken aquaculture out of the approved developments for mangroves. It was lunacy to have aquaculture in the mangroves. I understand that there has been some argument that we can set aside some areas for crabs, but we need to be looking at alternative ways of raising crabs if that is the case. The idea of having prawn farms in the acid sulphate muds, as a number of prawn farmers have discovered the hard way, is not the way to go. If you go to Middle Arm and have a look at the prawn farms there, some started off in the mangroves, but all the new ones have stayed out.
Minister, you also spoke about the proposed Darwin Harbour Management Plan. It is a great plan, and no doubt John Bailey and his committee have done a lot of great work on it. However, to have a management plan, you have to have something to manage. You need to say: This is what the harbour will look like’. But the government has no plan of its own except this 19-year-old plan. Without thinking, it keeps ripping the guts out of the harbour in the belief that, because it was proposed in 1984, then let us get it all ripped out and have industry. No thought of a national park, no thought of alternatives. ‘If it was okay in 1984, why should we query it now? The planners must have been right’.
So minister, thank you for your statement; it is good. It looks good but it does not tell the whole story. I have highlighted the failings in the hope that this government may change. I also hope you will come and have a look at the alternatives, because you are obviously convinced by the planners that they are right and I am wrong. I sometimes wonder if our ministers, our politicians, our bureaucrats really understand the beauty of the bush, our native vegetation and our wildlife. How many still walk through the bush, especially after a fire or after the rain? How many of our politicians or bureaucrats know where the middle of the harbour is to start with, and what they are destroying when they give permission to mine the Middle Arm Peninsula? How many of you know how much has been given over to mining? I would say very few.
Minister, when the Elizabeth River dam debate was raging, the Darwin Harbour Alliance put forward a plan to protect the harbour mangroves and still allow some development. This was to have a 100 m buffer of native vegetation around the edge of the mangroves, with perhaps another buffer of rural residential blocks backing on to the buffer. I have that map here, and I am fairly sure it went to your department. Sure, this is a reasonably conceptual map; it took a few dollars to get it together. The Darwin Harbour Alliance did not have a lot of money. It showed a longitudinal national park, that is basically what it was doing. It said to protect the mangroves, add 100 m of width behind it, and then perhaps allow some purely rural residential land - not developed land with mangoes and horses and cattle - against that. That was one option.
The funny thing is, that option was rejected, obviously. However, in this Litchfield Land Use Objectives, that is exactly the option you have used to protect the mangroves at the Shoal Bay Conservation Park. You have put a longitudinal section of eight hectare land to buffer the mangroves, and this is your own department. Why could you not do exactly the same for the mangroves in Darwin Harbour? Obviously, your government has not adopted this concept and, to be fair, I would prefer the middle of the harbour stay national park. There are other ways of developing the city. This concept of industry in the middle of the harbour was developed around the theory that Darwin would be developed right around the harbour. We know there is the Cox Peninsula land claim, and some of that development will probably more than likely not occur.
Therefore, is it not time the government re-thought this Darwin Regional Structure Plan, based on the premise - and this is what it was written for - that the Kenbi Land Claim has been successful; therefore, we need to rethink this document. The centre of the harbour may not be the centre of the city, therefore, does it have to be industrial? I do not believe we have asked enough questions …
Ms CARTER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would permit the member for Nelson from concluding his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I will be quick. Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
I believe we have to review this document. I believe we have to look at alternative sites for the development of our Darwin region. I do not believe we need to put it in the middle of the harbour. It is such a crying shame, and I hope to go up in a helicopter soon myself and get some photographs and show you what has happened to the middle of the harbour in the last five years. I believe it is a disgrace, and most people do not see it because they just do not see it from where they live. It is being scraped to a point which is going to make it hard to re-establish it as a national park. It is not impossible. Perhaps some of the money that people make out of ripping the guts out of the harbour should be invested back into rehabilitation.
I thank the minister for his statement on the mangroves. It is a good start, I am not knocking that at all. I believe you have to go further. The mangroves on their own will not survive; they need protection. You talk about a 4 m high protection, so you obviously believe that too. Using a 4 m contour does not mean anything. It should be a significant buffer, and that should follow the coast as best you can.
In summary, you should find out why Rapid Creek, Lee Point to Micket Creek, and Hudson Creek is not protected. I ask you if you could answer in your summing up whether you will come and have a look at the alternative sights in industrial estate. I would not say it if I thought they were silly. They are a practical alternative site to wrecking the middle of the harbour.
- Ms Carter: Bayview mangroves.
Thank you, minister, for your statement but we have a long way to go yet.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome and endorse my colleague’s report on the progress of this government’s initiatives to protect one of our greatest natural assets, Darwin Harbour, and the mangrove resources that support it.
The amendments to the Darwin, Litchfield, East Arm, Palmerston and Darwin rural town plans will zone all mangroves for conservation, with the effect that development, including aquaculture, in the mangroves of Darwin Harbour will be prohibited under the Planning Act, and consent will be required for clearing associated with minor low-impact activities such as public utilities. As a result, 46 516 hectares will be rezoned to conservation, of which over 26 000 hectares is mangroves, and the remainder of salt flats, mudflats and fringing hinterland vegetation. This means that 96% of mangrove communities will be protected, with the remaining 4% either already cleared or required for planned development.
Our harbour provides a habitat for a wide range of marine and other fauna. It is a focal point for many recreational and tourist activities, and its role as a port is vital to our economic development. Proposals reported by my colleague provide an important foundation for informing and influencing future management decisions affecting our harbour. Equally important is the fact that these proposals have been developed in close consultation with the community.
My colleague made mention that the mangroves are the lungs of the harbour. Perhaps we should also be talking about mangroves as the gills of the harbour. However, regardless of the analogies, there is absolutely no doubt that the mangroves of Darwin Harbour provide essential ecosystem services. We know, for instance, that mangroves are an important coastal food web. Leaf litter and natural debris support a diverse range of marine animals such as crabs, prawns, mudskippers, snails and worms, often found in great abundance in the mangroves. Much of this material is exported to the near-shore waters, where it also supports abundant and diverse fish life, crustaceans and other marine fauna. Mangroves provide habitat for juvenile fish to feed and take shelter. Juvenile barramundi, salmon, trevally, mud crabs and queen fish are known to utilise mangroves. When they grow up, these are the very same fish that Territorians love to catch in the harbour. Mangroves also provide essential habitat to bait fish and prawns, on which commercial and recreational species depend.
I heard what the member for Nelson said about the fact that we should be spending more time in the natural beauty and environment of the Territory. I certainly have spent quite a lot of time in mangroves; they are very interesting places. I spend time fishing, crabbing, getting mangrove worm, and spending a lot of time with Aboriginal people who know so much about mangroves and the value of mangroves as a food source. So, I am certainly someone - provided I have a fair bit of Rid on - who quite likes mangroves. I do not mind getting a bit of mangrove mud over me, particularly if you can get a nice fat mud crab at the end of it.
Darwin Harbour is very important to recreational fishers. Close to half of all the recreational fishing activities in the Territory are undertaken in Darwin Harbour, with anglers dedicating more than 800 000 fishing hours in the harbour. I will say that again. It is calculated that they dedicate more than 800 000 fishing hours in the harbour per annum.
Mr Stirling: It is not subtracted from the span of their lives, either.
Dr BURNS: Yes. Media reports highlight the success of recreational fishers in Darwin Harbour, whether it is landing the barramundi of a lifetime or simply a family outing to catch a feed of delicious mud crabs. Many of us have seen the pictures in the fishing section of the paper of young anglers, anglers from interstate on fishing tours or just out with their friends, catching a great abundance of fish; and some fantastic catches there.
A recent national survey highlighted that the Northern Territory anglers spend $27m on fishing-related equipment and activities a year, with an average of about $608 per angler each year. This would suggest that at least $13m was spent by Territory anglers to fish in Darwin Harbour. Most of us who live in Darwin - those of us who doorknock, those of us who go around to friend’s houses for social functions – see the ubiquitous boat in the backyard, and many people go out on Darwin Harbour and absolutely love it.
Mangroves are also important to other species. Some are active on the surface of the mud when the tide is out, and move into their burrows and remain there when the tide is in to avoid getting eaten. I have often wondered why barramundi is the shape that it is, but I am assured by experts that one of their feeding behaviours is close to the bottom with their large mouth digging into mud banks around mangroves, obviously seeking food. They are a fish that are built for the mangroves and a whole range of other environments.
Migratory birds also seek temporary shelter and food among the mangroves. Some of these habitats are of conservation significance because these birds might come from far away countries like Japan and China. Other transient visitors to the mangroves leave their adjacent woodland habitats to feed in the mangroves, seeking fruit and flowers or the many insects found there.
Mangroves also have an important physical function in that they provide protection to the coastal land. The complex networks of aboveground roots that provide refuge for marine animals also trap and hang on to sediment, therefore reducing the potential for erosion. The roots slow the water currents of tides and that also causes the sediments to drop out. In the event of a cyclone, mangroves also protect the shoreline by buffering the impacts of high wind. Almost as importantly, mangroves also act as a sink for nutrients, heavy metals and sediments coming off the land. They filter the run-off and are, therefore, very important in maintaining good water quality in Darwin Harbour.
Too often in the past, these ecosystem services that mangroves provide were not recognised; they were viewed as stinking swamps that bred mosquitoes. I would like, at this point, to paint a broader picture of implications of this attitude. More than 50% of the world’s mangroves have already been destroyed. In our own Asia/Pacific region, deforestation of mangroves is at least 1% annually. Mangroves formally occupied 75% of tropical coast, but today they occupy only 25%. Clearly the world’s mangroves are under threat. However, here today we are drawing a line in the mud, shall we say. Darwin mangroves will not be suffering the same fate. This is a decision for future generations of Territorians. It is fundamentally about maintaining the services that mangroves provide so that we can enjoy a healthy, diverse and prosperous harbour. Mangroves provide these services for free. Experience has shown that when these services are taken away through the removal of mangroves, they are extremely costly to reinstate.
I would also like to comment on the prohibition of new aquaculture developments in the mangroves. As minister responsible for both the environment and fisheries portfolios, I am fully supportive of this move. I want environmentally sustainable aquaculture in the Territory and, quite simply, the experience of aquaculture in Asia demonstrates that this is not possible if mangroves are destroyed in the process. I am aware of a number of proposals for aquaculture developments around the harbour. I know that the proponents of those proposals are very keen to ensure sustainability and they have come up with some quite innovative technologies; new technologies about a closed system of reuse of water with very little discharge into the harbour. These aquaculture projects are minimal impact, leading edge technology, and are attracting international recognition and interest. We can be duly proud of these aquaculture projects and they have a lot to teach elsewhere in the world.
However, in clearing mangroves for ponds, the mangrove muds are exposed to oxygen and the iron sulphides in the muds are oxidised. When they get wet, sulphuric acid is generated in large quantities. The acid itself causes pollution, but it also mobilises heavy metals that are toxic, such as aluminium, and cause diseases in fish and other aquatic life. We do not have to look very far to see the problems that acid sulphate soils can cause. Examples where acid sulphate soils have caused a problem in the past are Bayview Haven residential development and the Adelaide River Bridge on the Arnhem Highway.
At Bayview, in the early days of development, acid formed from disturbed acid sulphate soils during the construction of the canal area. This occurred after early Wet Season rain, but was contained within the canal. As soon as the problem was detected, appropriate control measures were put in place. Lime was used to neutralise the acid water and it was released under controlled conditions.
The Adelaide River Bridge failed, I am informed, mainly because of acid problems caused by sulphate soils. It was a problem not recognised at the construction of the bridge many years ago, but we all know how costly that problem was to fix. So we can take on board that any development affecting mangrove mud has the potential to expose acid sulphate soils and create sulphuric acid, and there is a significant risk of pollution. While, with extreme care, it is possible to manage this risk, it is better to avoid it altogether.
In this regard, my colleague has indicated that low-impact activities such as public utilities and research centres will be allowed in the mangrove with consent, as will developments already planned. These developments must be carefully planned and executed to avoid the problems of acid generation. For this purpose, my Office of Environment and Heritage has prepared environmental guidelines for reclamation in coastal areas. The guidelines cover issues such as planning requirements and environmental management. In particular, the guidelines cover acid sulphate soils and how to deal with them.
The announcement made by my colleague today is very good for the environment, recreational fisheries and the aquaculture industry itself. My colleague has also indicated that the conservation zone will include a buffer. In fact, approximately 20 000 hectares of salt flats, mudflats and hinterland vegetation have been zoned for conservation. I am very pleased with this outcome. Activities immediately adjacent to mangroves can adversely impact on their biodiversity and their capacity to provide ecosystem services. The buffer will ensure that the integrity of the mangroves is maintained.
The conservation zoning of mangroves in combination with the development of the Darwin Harbour Management Plan will provide a solid framework for decision-making on coastal developments. Developers will know the ground rules and, as Minister for the Environment, I will have some clear criteria when assessing new coastal developments.
This framework is absolutely essential and stands in some contrast with the approach of the former government. Yes, they did commission research on mangroves, and I commend them on this, but research does not always substitute for leadership. Leadership means making good planning decisions. Research informs planning and decision-making process, and this is where the members opposite were found wanting. They did commit to protecting 80% of the productivity of the mangroves of the harbour but. in over a decade, they could not give this commitment any tangible effect. They could not put lines on the map. They did not implement the legislation to back it up and, in fact, I am not sure whether they even knew what the commitment meant. They delayed and procrastinated and left the mangroves to be steadily whittled away by the tyranny of small decisions.
Mr Baldwin: To 0.02%!
Dr BURNS: Oh, yes.
Fortunately, due to the leadership of this government, we will not be repeating these mistakes. Mangroves are vitally important to the overall health and function of Darwin Harbour and its resource and, I would suggest, to the wellbeing of Darwin itself seeing that so many people spend 800 000 hours fishing in Darwin Harbour. That is a fantastic figure. I am, therefore, pleased to support the positive approach and high priority being given to their protection by this government. I commend the minister’s statement to the House.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will not go through again all of the work that has been done over many years or the many statements delivered in this House over the years by former ministers, including myself, on Darwin Harbour - not only the harbour itself but the surrounding areas and how the catchment areas also impact on the harbour.
A major statement delivered on the beneficial uses strategy that was put into progress by the previous government, is now becoming the management plan that this government is undertaking - that is the work that is being carried on. I congratulate the government for zoning for mangroves; that is an excellent idea. We can argue day in and day out as to whether there is enough in buffers that have been included in all of this.
However, we do not resile at all from the work that we did. It is all very well for the Minister for the Environment to stand up here and say we did nothing. What we did was a progression of work over a lot of years. There is no doubt that society and the wishes of society change over time. It was in 1984 that the international environment community came out with the statement that 80% protection of mangroves is a sustainable figure to work on for getting the balance right between the productivity remaining in harbours in which mangroves were a majority species whilst development could occur. That was great; that was the feeling at the time. If the feeling and the science has changed, that is good, and we have been a part of that.
We have been a part of over almost 300 studies in the Darwin Harbour, its catchment and its surrounds, and we are very proud of that. We are very proud of the people who have been involved in all of those studies, and they are listed in various documents. I have some here that give an update, only three years ago, of managing Darwin Harbour and its catchment. It contains the whole list of all of the work that has been done, not just by the Northern Territory government, but by other agencies involved: by universities, students and academics who have been involved in researching all of that. The culmination of that will be protection of some form or another.
The thing that comes out in this statement to me - and it is all very well to say: ‘The CLP did nothing, and we are great because we have now zoned it’. However, I know that in the future there will be some pressure on government, whoever they are, to have some development that will impact on the mangrove habitat around the Darwin Harbour coastline and, indeed, the Northern Territory coastline. We should not forget that it is the Northern Territory coastline that makes up one of the most predominantly important areas in the world for mangroves and the 35 species or so that can be found along our coastline. It is very important, in fact, for the whole of the environment in the northern part of Australia.
The progression to zoning is a good thing. We certainly do not have any problems with that at all. However, I do not think anyone should forget all of the work that has been done over the years by very many people. There will be pressures to impact on the mangroves over time, and that is why we put 03 zonings on the areas between Bayview and Tipperary; to protect some very unique species that live in that area. The declaring of Charles Darwin National Park was part of that reason as well. But the very fact that in the minister’s statement, he deals mostly with the importance of mangroves; not only to the health of the harbour and water quality and so forth, but also to a lot of species of fauna, aquatic animals and other species of flora, and how good a condition all of it is in. We should all be proud of that. There is nothing that has happened that has caused great detriment to our harbour system or, indeed, any of our coastline systems that we should resile from, or the CLP should resile from, because it is in good condition, and when you look at the total amount cleared, it is something like …
Mr Dunham: The minister says it is in good condition.
Mr BALDWIN: That is my point. It is about 0.02% that has been cleared to date. Okay, keeping 80% and allowing 20% clearing may not now be a suitable figure, and we should move on and, indeed, you have. There are some areas you will get criticised for not doing, and they have been raised by the member for Nelson. I was not listening that closely to what he was saying but, certainly, there will be detractors from what your government is doing, in that it is not enough. You will cop that the same way as we did.
However, let us not forget that it is in good condition. Let us not forget that the harbour management plan stems from a lot of work by a lot of people in the departments, that was started in the days of the previous government under the strategy plan for beneficial uses of Darwin harbour. There was a group of people working on that, and that has been developed. That will not stop once you have done this zoning and produced the plan of management, because growth and cities are dynamic places; there will be more pressure over time to do more things.
I am sure the next thing to do will be Bynoe Harbour, for instance, because Bynoe Harbour, as you know, is now being increasingly impacted upon by commercial development in terms of accommodation, fishing charter and aquacultural areas including prawn farming and pearl farming, and also residential areas - whether they are squatting there or they have title to their own piece of land. That is the next area that is going to be near and dear to the hearts of at least Darwinites, that will have to have some form of protection enacted upon it, the same way that Darwin Harbour has come under the same scrutiny. So it will not stop with this; it will be dynamic and it will continue.
I am sure there will be calls by various groups and individuals for more action, over a long time to come. The good thing is that it does not matter what government is in place, the hard yards have been done and continue to be done in the scientific research. It is there and it needs to be continued; there is no doubt about that. We have benchmark studies going back, probably like no other jurisdiction anywhere that could be called a developed area - developed in terms of a city being adjacent to a harbour. We really have some data going back a long way that we can benchmark off, so that we know when things are changing. We are in a very fortunate situation because of that. It did not happen by chance; it happened because there was a will to do it - by government and by agencies. As I said, various agencies and individuals.
That work needs to continue as well, more so because of the types of developments and pressures that, particularly the Darwin Harbour, will come under over the next two decades. We all know what they are in terms of gas onshore, but also shipping. There is going to be an increase in shipping, recreational use and, certainly, in the pressure to develop the land mass areas surrounding Darwin Harbour, which will then impact on its catchment and on the harbour itself. Therefore, that work - the studies, the comparison between new work and old work - will need to continue. I for one - and I know my colleagues - support the zoning. We know that it is a step in the right direction.
I would like to put on the record my congratulations to everybody who has been involved in the work to date on the scientific research in the Darwin Harbour and its surrounds. There have been a lot of people - many of them have now moved on to other things - and I am sure that there will be many in the future. The harbour is in good shape and I am sure with this sort of work carried out, ongoing, we can all now – certainly our kids and grandkids can - enjoy a great harbour that will provide, in good condition for many years to come, an environment that we can all enjoy.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, today I contribute regarding the statement on protection of mangroves in the Darwin Harbour. I must admit I have changed the line, after listening to people respond to this statement, about some of the matters that I was going to talk about. I thought it would be remiss of me and to every person that I know who are long-term Territorians who have lived in Darwin for many years, not to express where I come from and what I believe in.
People might not know that I was born and bred in Darwin. I grew up here all my life and one of the major areas that we fished, hunted, camped at and visited often was the Darwin Harbour. Also in other places such as Rapid Creek – and I will touch on Rapid Creek and some of the concerns raised today.
I need to identify that I am not of Larrakia background, but my family has lived here for over 100 years. On my mother’s side, part of the Stolen Generation group of people who originally came to Kahlin Compound. On my father’s side, there is another history of travelling to Darwin. Basically, the Bonson family came here at the turn of the last century, European, Torres Strait Islander, Welsh, Samoan - all those backgrounds people know I have in my genes. The family camped or lived on Nightcliff Peninsula and fished often in Rapid Creek and caught food – mullet, barramundi, salmon, queen fish, whatever. People may or may not know this, but we also had a fish trap in the Darwin Harbour, and that fish trap provided an income for people for many years and also provided food for the people who lived in Darwin. Not only did we work on this fish trap in Darwin Harbour, but we also hunted on Darwin Harbour. I have often gone fishing at night with only a torch and spear, and caught barramundi, night fish, snapper and anything else that might come our way. I have also done prawning on Mud Island which has been changed because of the developments at Wickham Point. I doubt very much we will be able to get prawns anymore at Mud Island and that is, obviously, a loss to a lot of local people.
I heard people comment that Darwin Harbour is a working harbour. It is a working harbour, there is no doubt about that. We cannot change that; that is the reality. But what we have is an asset, not only in Darwin Harbour. Look at the conservation zone map and I have made markings on places that I wish to talk about in Shoal Bay etcetera. It is an asset that is part of our lifestyle. I do not think there is anywhere else in the world that you can jump in your car, take your boat down, put it into the water and, within 20 minutes be fishing for barramundi or whatever else that might be in the harbour or Shoal Bay area.
I give you an example. A person came in and talk to me about the Daly River area. He talked about how he spent 27 years fishing in the Murray River and he said: ‘Guess how many cod I caught in that river’. He said: ‘I caught two in 27 years’. I know there is run-off and other issues to do with pollution and the environment in Darwin Harbour, but people are still catching fish off Darwin wharf, around the beaches and creeks of Darwin Harbour and they are still eating the fish - white, black, green or purple, it does not matter.
One of the largest barramundi I ever caught in my life was at Dinah Beach, which no longer exists, as people know. The first barramundi I ever caught was at Rapid Creek. We grew up there: swimming in the fresh water, gathering periwinkles, just being lads around town, I suppose. Rapid Creek is important to the community of Darwin. It is also a Dreaming site for Larrakia people. It is obviously an important water resource for people.
The background that I am coming from is that I have a deep interest in maintaining our lifestyle. I know things change over 100 years and they will change over another 100, but I pick up on what the Minister for the Environment said. One of the issues he raised was that everyone identifies with the cost of losing and reinstating mangroves. It is very expensive. I often ask people: do we want to end up like Sydney Harbour where there has been so-called development over the last 200 years and now they spend literally millions and millions of dollars trying to return that habitat to some type of environmentally acceptable place to live? We have it here and it has been identified.
I also recognise what the member for Daly said about supporting this statement in principle. Realistically, the politics of this is that, if you went from house to house and talked to people about Darwin Harbour, people would say: ‘We want to protect it’. That is what the community would say.
The member for Nelson talked about a public meeting he attended at Stuart Park - I think he said Everingham was the Chief Minister then?
Mr Wood: No, Stone was.
Mr BONSON: Stone was - and 70 people turned up. So we might have had 70 000 people living in Darwin at the time. Compare that to three million people living in Sydney - four-and-a-half times – that would be 40 times, and that could represent nearly 2800 people turning up to that meeting if we were living in Sydney. We cannot lose sight of that.
I recognise what the minister said, that the total area of Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay rezoned to conservation is 46 516 hectares. Of this, over 26 000 hectares is mangroves, with the rest comprising of salt flats, mudflats and fringing hinterland and vegetation. I also recognise that the minister said:
- This means that 96% of the mangrove communities of the harbour are now protected from development.
The remaining 4% have either already been developed or are required for already planned development
such as East Arm and Middle Arm. However, even on Middle Arm Peninsula, over 4500 hectares of
mangroves are now protected.
I pick up on this statement:
- This significant amendment recognises the vital role that mangroves play in the ecosystem’s services and
functioning. They are the lungs of the harbour.
As a government or a parliament, with members representing people from all over the Territory, I hope we really believe in that statement; that they are the lungs of the harbour. I really hope that it is not lip service.
I pick up on the member for Nelson’s query about Rapid Creek. I will be raising it with the minister and I hope the minister answers: why aren’t the mangroves at Rapid Creek highlighted in green? This is important to my electorate and to the people of the Nightcliff electorate as well, but it is important to the people of Darwin. Rapid Creek is a resource. I took a group of 70 kids on the E-Cruise. We went there and I showed them how to throw a net, bait up a hook, catch fish, and where to get hermit crabs and periwinkles. I do not want to lose this asset. I want those 70 kids, and my kids and my grandchildren to be able to go down there and use this asset.
I also notice about Buffalo Creek. I was there less than one month ago, walking on the beach out towards Micket Creek getting mud crabs. We caught 12 mud crabs. I do not eat mud crabs; it is the only seafood I do not eat. However, the rest of my family were happy to eat it. I am wondering why this area is not protected.
Look at Shoal Bay - and I thank the minister for all the area around Shoal Bay that is protected, and that is fantastic. Shoal Bay is an estuary that is very important to fish breeding of the Northern Territory. What is not picked up on the map is the Vernon Islands. Vernon Islands, just up the coast off Gunn Point, is a place that my family and other people who I know go hunting and fishing. It is a mangrove island, so I hope to see that protected. I took two people from Cairns, less than three weeks ago, to the back of Leeders Creek - and I know this map might not cover this area. They found it amazing that, less than an hour from Darwin, you could catch barramundi, jewfish, etcetera.
The other thing I wanted to pick up on was the fact that the minister raised in his statement the reality that there were people in August 2002 that he appointed to the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee, chaired by John Bailey, to oversee the development of Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. He should be congratulated for that. That was a fantastic job. I know the member for Nelson gave evidence there, as I gave evidence, not as the member for Millner, but as a resident of Darwin concerned about the way ahead. They were very professional the way they conducted themselves, and they were very interested in what I had to say. Basically, what I had to say is: I would like my grandchildren to catch a fish in Darwin Harbour and feel they could eat it. That is the bottom line. I know that it was an extensive consultative process. I got to speak to John Bailey afterwards. He followed me up and made sure that we touched base and that I clarified my message to him. I am sure that they were happy to have me there.
I do not pretend to have the knowledge that the member for Nelson has on all these environmental and planning issues. There is no doubt, when he comes in here and shows maps and talks from 25 years of activism in this area - my feeling is he is probably the most knowledgeable person in this House on these issues. I hope the minister takes him up on checking out the proposed different sites for mining tenements. I pick up on the fact that he spoke about the gravel. That makes perfectly good sense to me: why mine gravel? Okay, if it was diamonds and titanium, okay, we could understand. But gravel fill, when we could get it from other areas? We need to have a look at that.
I note that, under the consultation process from the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee, in the first round of consultation, 47 submissions were received and over 170 people attended public presentations and workshops over three days. A number of forums were also held in regions throughout the catchment during February 2003, including Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield Shire, and Cox Peninsula. This information culminated in the development of the first draft plan which the minister released for public comment in 2003.
I am speaking so openly about these issues because the people I know who were born and bred, live, hunt and fish in this area, would not necessarily go to such a meeting and express their views. Not that they would not have those views. However, I am an elected member of that group or class of people who live in the Territory. It would be remiss of me not to represent their views in a forum such as this. I know many people think that development is just the nature of the world, and that it is inevitable. People, unfortunately, over many years - both articulate and inarticulate, white, black, green or purple, poor and rich – have, in some instances, felt like development will happen and there is nothing you can do about it. However, the idea is that we have to plan that development. We have to ensure that a resource – people look at the value of building around Darwin Harbour and places like Bayview, for instance. My argument would be: in 50 years time or 100 years time, if we were able to keep this site similar to what it is now, what price would your house in Millner be worth? What price would your house in Larrakeyah, in Wanguri, in Palmerston?. If you could say in 100, 200 years time - with whatever the environment of the world is then - that you could come to Darwin Harbour and live here with the lifestyle that we are living now on that harbour, you cannot put a price on that. The prices of your house would reflect that, if members can understand what I mean.
I pick up on the member for Nelson’s view, where he gives credit to the work that the minister has done in the protection of mangroves in Darwin Harbour, but change the philosophy now. It is a recognition that development has to prove it is required to destroy mangroves, rather than mangroves have to prove that they have to exist. That is a fantastic change in the frame of mind of how people would like their asset - their harbour - to look.
I pick up on the minister’s recognition that:
- … majority of the mangrove communities in Darwin Harbour are largely intact and in excellent condition.
Our mangroves, our harbour, are in splendid shape, and this planning amendment will ensure that they stay
that way.
That has to be our goal. Of course, we are going to need to be vigilant, not only as a government, but as members of this House and the community, to ensure that occurs.
I have picked up on the courage of the minister in the respect that we heard the member for Daly saying that they had done a lot of work on this issue, and they were maybe just as green or greener - or whatever they want to argue. However, the fact was, the minister in this government has acted on it. He picks up on this where he says, on page 4 of his speech:
- Zoning the mangroves of Darwin Harbour for conservation is solid evidence that this government recognises the
value of our harbour, its wealth of natural, cultural, recreational and environmental resources as well as its
importance to the Territory’s economic development. Darwin Harbour is a splendid asset.
I look forward to the minister inquiring about Rapid Creek. Not only for myself, as an individual in Darwin, but also as the elected member for Millner and for those many people who have fished for many generations in the Buffalo Creek area. Why have some of the mangroves there not been included?
All I can say is: this is the first step; there is a plan. Today, both sides and the Independents have overwhelmingly given the pat on the back to the minister but, obviously, with the condition - and I suppose all other members have spoken about the need for this work to be carried on. We will need to ensure that any development that happens on Darwin Harbour, the Shoal Bay area, or Gunn Point, has to be necessary. The value that we put on these places, has to be looked at for the next 50 years, 60 years, 100 years down the track. It is a bit like the makers of Central Park in New York. If you read the history of Central Park in New York, no one knew it was going to turn out the way it is. The value of that land and the properties around that park are so valuable that you would have a riot - you would have the people of New York kicking out whoever the elected members were - if Central Park was to change. I hope Darwin Harbour remains the same.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support of the minister’s statement. The Northern Territory does contain some of the most pristine and ecologically important coastal marine areas in the Australian tropics and, in particular, in and around Darwin Harbour, which is part of it.
Darwin Harbour is a tropical estuary covering approximately 450 km with 23 km of mangrove and salt marsh communities. Darwin is lucky to have this sort of asset, this great ecological asset for its people here. Within this great environment, the Darwin Harbour area supports all kind of birds, fish and shell fish, all throughout the mangrove system that is the gills of the environment. It also provides protection against flood damage during extra high tides or cyclones. It is important to note just some of the things that live in and around our harbour and the coastal strips of the Darwin area.
We have bird life such as the red headed honeyeater and mangrove golden whistler, little file snakes, mud lobster, good old mullet – of course, everyone knows the mullet - crabs, mud crabs, fiddler crabs …
Mr Wood: Have you got a mullet?
Mr KIELY: I have a mullet. … mangrove monitor, king prawn and barnacle.
When I came to Darwin I went down to Buff Creek or - what was it? Buffy Creek or something, down near Buffalo Creek? That was the first one that I had ever had the pleasure of fishing in. I will have to tell you that story, because to a new chum coming in and getting stuck into the Darwin mangrove system it is quite a treat.
I was not in town long and a mate of mine had bought himself a tinnie so down we went. Actually, this is where I learned my fishing habits - who could believe? - in the tropical waters of the Northern Territory. We went and launched at high tide down in Buff Creek, went out and headed up towards One Tree Point. We were having a wow of a time. We were coming back and, to tell you the truth, my mate was not much of a fisherman at that stage. We were coming back and we missed the tide. Well, we got stuck out the front of Buff Creek.
I lived in Queensland for years and years, but all the crocodiles had been shot out there so I had no fear of crocodiles or any of those sorts of things. My mate, silly bugger, did not even know about crocodiles. He says: ‘We are stuck here and we have to get home. Will you get out and pull the thing?’ So here I am, up through the small channels, pulling and grunting on this boat. He is sitting in it having a beer I might add, and I am pulling and grunting. We got it through there and it was not until we got right up to the ramp - finally got into a bit of deep water and motored up - that the guy said: ‘You should watch this creek, there are a few crocs in it’. That is the first time I ever found out about crocodiles in Northern Territory waters. I also had to go up the ramp to get the car and bring down the trailer and, as I was doing that, I nearly put the whole lot into the water. That was my introduction to fishing in Buff Creek.
However, what I also noticed along there was mudskippers. I had never seen a mudskipper before and I was amazed by these little creatures and long bums. I had never seen those either. So there were two creatures of the mangroves that I had never before encountered. I was pretty fascinated by it, and it was not until many years later that I learned that these are actually bush tucker. They were bush tucker back before European and Asian settlement of Darwin. Unlike the member for Goyder, true Territorian that he is, who said that when this place was settled they came here and ate the food. Well, member for Goyder, there were people here a bit longer than 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and they were living here and living off the tucker in that mangrove system. It is important to acknowledge that: that the Darwin Harbour and mangrove system has been the food basket for people since time immemorial. Its natural treasures and bounty have been known for a long, long time and it is known to the new waves of settlement that is coming in, and we are pretty happy about it as well.
As far as bush tucker goes, members here might not be aware that there is actually a program at RDH where one of the health workers, when community people come into the hospital, this particular person is …
Dr Burns: Pat Manganuna.
Mr KIELY: Pat Manganuna! She goes out and gets bush tucker for all those people who are in hospital. She brings it to the hospital or she takes them out there and they get it. How is that for use of a resource in a traditional way? You can only eat so many Hungry Jacks, and so many packets of chips. You cannot beat a good feed of muddy or a good mangrove worm or a good long bum. Hey, Gerry? You would know that.
Mr Wood: Yes, but McDonalds sell big long bums now – with the lot!
Mr KIELY: Well, big long bum buns would be a wonderful treat if they could only sell it.
Mr Mills: Have you ever eaten one?
Mr KIELY: A long bum?
Mr Mills: Yes.
Mr KIELY: No, no way. No, and I am not backing up for a mangrove worm although, when my wife was at Wadeye, she got into a good feed of mangrove worm. However, it has never been something that I have been tempted to try.
This is the sort of bounty that is in the mangroves. It is something special to have that sort of thing right here on our doorstep.
The statement today and the announcement that Darwin Harbour and Shoal Bay will be rezoned to conservation – over 46 000 hectares – is not about out-greening the CLP. Let us get that quite right. It is not about saying we are greener than them, because they did do a lot. They did a lot for the place. They might have done things a bit differently from how this government will do it, but that is progress, in a manner of speaking. The CLP did do a lot for the harbour and, while you might not agree fully with the initial stages of what happened down at Bayview Haven and the way it went on, it was the catalyst for Charles Darwin Park. That is something that the community can be proud. That is something that I thank the former government for, because not everything they did was crook.
Mr Wood: The catalyst was an election.
Mr KIELY: Well, it was a catalyst for an election. If that is what it takes to get the park, then so be it. The real winners out of that were the people of Darwin and the Territory, and I commend the CLP for it. I am not saying that tongue in cheek; it was a good initiative.
The interesting thing about the Charles Darwin National Park is that it covers 1300 hectares of eucalyptus woodland and mangrove and has quite a number of species of bird life and mangrove there, but it also protects World War II heritage sites.
Darwin Harbour and all around here during those war years had a lot of development on it. It had a lot of development around the foreshore in the area of defence installations like at East Point and there were no environmental impact statements done then because it was considered to be life and death situations. There were no impact statements done then. In the harbour, we lost a lot of ships. There were many structures and areas blown up and destroyed during those war years.
I raise this point because, during the debate, we heard the term ‘pristine’; our pristine harbour. When I think of pristine, it is something untouched, in its thoroughly natural state. That is not the case with Darwin Harbour. Darwin Harbour has had European settlement and associated buildings and dwellings which impacted strongly upon the environment, for 100 years or so but, significantly so, at the time of the bombings when we lost a lot of ships in the harbour. I do not know how much oil would have come out into the harbour then. I would suggest quite an amount.
I would like to talk about the strength and the rejuvenating abilities of our harbour and the mangrove system around it. With the strength of the tide, its ebb and flow, it scourges the bottom of the harbour and clears everything out. It has this great self-cleansing system. I raise that because the member for Nelson mentioned the impacts of development and industrialisation along the foreshore, and he is right. I am not saying he is wrong. However, there have been industrialisation, building and all sorts of calamities that visited the harbour, yet look at what we have today - it is magnificent. The harbour is a very robust system, and it can sustain some development around it, when it is done properly.
We cannot live in a glass house in a protected environment all along. If we want this country, this Territory, this town to go ahead, we have to find a balance. We have to find that balance. The minister and this government have moved to securing 96% of the mangrove stock around the Darwin Harbour - which goes from Glyde Point all the way around to Charles Point, I think it is - being gazetted areas for mangrove protection. I notice, even on the map that is provided with the minister’s statement, that Shoal Bay – I have spoken about Shoal Bay before and the benefits it has to the people of Sanderson. When you get those sea breezes coming in off Shoal Bay, it is tremendous. I do not want to see anything happen in Shoal Bay - I love it – but there is a balance that one has to get. With this plan, we will always have those lovely breezes coming in cooling the people of Sanderson, and for that I, and the people of Sanderson, are quite grateful. That is what it is all about. It is about achieving balance, and this plan does that. It conserves mangroves, while getting the balance between development.
In the future, we will have the Wickham Point refinery, and it will have an impact. It cannot not have an impact. We have the port and the port facilities going in there. You would have to be Blind Freddy not to think there is going to be some sort of impact coming from turning the Darwin Harbour into a real freight and logistic centre for the gateway to Asia.
Mr Wood: Essential development.
Mr KIELY: It is essential development. The previous government recognised it, this government recognises it, because it is for the benefit of all Territorians and, might I say, there is a national interest argument in there as well.
It is getting that balance right, and that is what it is all about. When we talk about this 96%, yes, there will be some areas that will be exposed to the rigours of development. Unfortunately, I do not believe it can be avoided, but what can be avoided is laissez-faire or willy-nilly type of development. This plan that we are unrolling will manage to get a structured plan in place whereby impact will be minimised while maximising the benefits to the population. This is good news. I believe it is good news that all Territorians will support. As I have said, I would love to keep 100% of the mangroves. It will be a wonderful thing, but it is not realistic. It is just not realistic, and that is a shame. However, we are not losing the total asset.
You will still be able to go up Buff Creek, cast your net for mullet, and see the Tour Tub there. As a matter of fact, when we look at the development in our harbour, I was talking to people who had been at Karratha, and they were saying about the pipeline that has gone into there and all the armour rock that has gone around that. He said at night time, you will see people fishing up and down that area, going for snapper, I suppose, as the main fish of the day that they are after down there. In the harbour here, where do you go fishing? You go fishing off the wrecks that are sitting down on the bottom - that is where you go fishing.
There are benefits to what is going to be happening in the harbour. There will be greater use, I foresee, of the coastal strips of the industries that go up. Already, you just have a look at the great recreation that Buffalo Creek provides. Also, while we are talking about creeks, the member for Nelson mentioned Rapid Creek and his concerns that it did not appear on the map as being a protected area. Member for Nelson, I too, hope that the minister answers that one, because Rapid Creek runs through quite a few areas in the northern suburbs. It is a beautiful system. My wish is that we could restore that to its pristine levels. I will be setting that as a task and I will give that some attention. My area – it is not my area of responsibility because I regard Rapid Creek as everyone’s responsibility - but the patch I guess I look at is up by the airport, up by the old Yankee Pools, I think it’s called.
When I get there and see some of the rubbish lying about - and I have talked to council about this and made representations to them. I would certainly like, as a minimum, to see amenities there similar to what has gone in to the water park end. We have a real asset for the community that, if we can somehow present all that area and make all that strip down there some sort of reserve, it would be a fantastic environmental asset for all the people in the northern suburbs.
With the systems going through there, one of my ambitions is to go down that creek in the Wet Season with the kids on a lilo. I have heard …
Mr Dunham: You adventurer!
Mr KIELY: I know. I am a man of small pleasures, member for Drysdale.
Mr Dunham: Yes, we could name the train after you: Len Irwin.
Mr KIELY: That is right. You should see me in a pair of khaki shorts. All right, member for Drysdale, I take your feedback that, perhaps, I should get a little more adventurous than that. However, that will do me for now.
What a fantastic Sunday afternoon, just going down there. Might I add that it finishes up near the old Nightcliff Hotel, so you cannot go too wrong on that trip. But if you go down Rapid Creek where it opens up near the rotunda, it is a valuable community asset. I am not sure whether the council did that or whether it was the previous government - whoever did – has my vote of thanks, because they are the community assets that we need.
Hopefully – and I am very hopeful and very confident - this plan of management will do that for us. When I say ‘us’ I say ‘us’ as the community. I believe it will give us the opportunity to go for development of that nature – and there will be some trade-offs. That is it; if we want to retain our lifestyle then we, as a community, have to contribute to that. We have to generate income and, to do that, we have to look at our environmental assets. Let me say as well, that I am a firm believer in a triple bottom line. The triple bottom line is the sort of accounting principles that we need to apply to any development that goes on around our mangrove system. I believe if we incorporate that, then we will see the benefits - not only ‘we’ the current people here, but ‘we’ as in communities of the future.
With my hopes for the future put out there - Crocodile Kiely - I will rest.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in this afternoon’s debate, I congratulate our Minister for Infrastructure and Planning for his mangrove statement today. We have heard many speakers extol the virtues of Darwin Harbour. There is no doubt that many of us in this Chamber feel extremely strongly about the harbour; about how very much it rests as the core of the soul of people who live in Darwin, and how many of us want to be assured that generations to come will enjoy the beauty and the natural aspects of the harbour that a lot of us have enjoyed for many of our years. Certainly, being Darwin born and raised, as the member for Millner, I have very fond memories of school camps at Talc Head, and going through the mangroves there for biology studies - certainly very strong memories of the joy of discovering just what a diverse little ecosystem mangroves support.
There is no doubt that the harbour is, as the minister for fisheries explained to us, critical to our recreational fishing industry. They absolutely adore the harbour. I was amazed to hear the example of some 800 000 fishing hours per annum that our anglers spend in the harbour. I knew there was a lot of time spent. If I go around my electorate of Karama that takes in the suburb of Malak as well, I have in excess of some 200 boats in backyards in that electorate. Certainly, those 200 boat owners, I know, use the boat ramps around this harbour and get out there. The boats provide many hours of pleasure to our recreational fishing people.
Our harbour needs mangroves to sustain that recreational fishing. We have heard how the mangroves are the basis of our ecosystem in the harbour. Certainly, the move by the Territory government to rezone the mangroves to conservation to protect the Darwin Harbour mangroves, is one that I am sure the community wholeheartedly would acknowledge as being a critically important conservation act in the Territory.
The protection applied under the new conservation zone will ensure that, for 96% of the mangroves in Darwin Harbour development is prohibited, and any clearing of mangroves around the harbour within that 4% that is left for development will need Darwin Consent Authority approval. The minor exceptions will exist and this will be largely due to low impact activities such as research.
It is heartening to hear that the total area rezoned to conservation will be some 46 516 hectares and, of this, 26 000 hectares of mangroves. I acknowledge that pure environmentalists will argue that we should have 100% protection of mangroves. That is neither practical nor possible. Both historically and today, Darwin is a working port. The existence of its port infrastructure, both old and new, has meant that associated development works do indeed impact on our mangroves. We are not alone in this predicament. Every major city positioned with magnificent harbours have working inner ports. However, the Martin Labor government has not shied away from this predicament. We continue to fund the Port Authority’s major development at East Arm Port, which we will soon see become a major transport hub following the recent completion of the Darwin to Adelaide railway and the freight opportunities that we will start to see flowing early next year with the freight trains coming in.
I know, however, how things can become quite unravelled. I lived for some 4 years in a city with a working harbour: Hong Kong. From the historical pictures, I witnessed the way that that completely changed as development went unchecked between Kowloon and Hong Kong Island. Indeed, the massive reclamation of waterways that occurred there is now having quite significant environmental impact. It is an extremely unhealthy environment in which to live. When I become pregnant with my first child, I made the decision to move simply because of the sheer levels of pollutants that I would have been raising my child in.
Increasingly aware of the environment for our children and the need for a healthy environment, the community is more and more turning its mind to the need to protect our ecosystems around us so that we have quality of air and quality of water. The mangroves help provide the quality of air. We have heard speakers today describe the mangroves as the lungs of our harbour or the gills of our harbour - whatever description you want to apply to them. They are critical to the health of our environs. The key difference between where we are headed is - as the member for Daly has acknowledged, there has been a great deal of research done over the years because of the sheer significance of Darwin Harbour to our community. What the statement today sets out is that we are taking that critically important next step: we are creating conservation of 96% of our mangroves under the Town Planning Act.
In addition to that, the minister’s statement lays out the fact that this Martin Labor government has a vision. That vision is articulated in a very broad, community-driven process that has come up with the draft Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. I congratulate the committee members and all the key stakeholders who were on the working party chaired by Alderman John Bailey. They have come up with a very comprehensive document that sets out and articulates clear goals for our Darwin Harbour. I refer to the Executive Summary in the Darwin Harbour Management Plan; the draft I have before me. It says:
- Goal 1: To maintain a healthy environment.
Maintain and improve water quality and ecological health of the marine, freshwater and terrestrial
environments in the region. Improve our understanding of our environment, through research and
monitoring, to inform management.
- Goal 2: To support recreational use and enjoyment of the environment.
Manage and enhance the quality of our leisure time, and promote community pride through the
maintenance of our scenic values and the region’s unique character.
- Goal 3: To encourage ecologically and economically sustain all development.
Sustain and manage the demands and impacts of tourism, transport, aquaculture, horticulture,
urban development and other commercial uses of the harbour and catchment.
- Goal 4: To protect cultural values and heritage.
Maintain and protect cultural uses and sites of cultural and heritage value. Acknowledge indigenous
interests, values and concerns and indigenous peoples’ innate connection with the Darwin Harbour region.
- Goal 5: To foster community ownership and participation in management.
Engage the community in the development and implementation of the plan. Inform the public of current
management and monitoring actions, issues, and the health of the environment.
It lists a range of strategies and actions that are developed to realise a vision for the harbour and its catchment.
I also want to quote a section from the management plan that describes the significance of the harbour: It says
- The Darwin Harbour region:
It really is, as people have said, the centre of the Darwin region, and anything the government can do to protect the broad interests of the community in creating a Darwin Harbour mangrove conservation zone is to be applauded. I have been heartened to hear members on both sides of the House today talk to that. It is great to pause and really appreciate what is a significant asset of the Northern Territory. It is great to see the energy of the people working at all levels of departments. I want to acknowledge the hard work done by staff both in DIPE and in DBIRD for research undertaken. The more we know about the harbour, the better placed we are in to appropriately manage that asset.
The rezoning of these mangroves to make them a conservation zone gives the highest possible level of protection to this ecologically vital area and, fundamentally, it meets a government election commitment. We know mangroves play a crucial role in our ecosystem and, fortunately, most of the mangrove communities in Darwin Harbour are largely intact and in good condition. We are very fortunate because few cities in the world have such a magnificent resource so close, at their doorstep.
Rezoning will occur by way of amendment to the NT Planning Scheme. Therefore, it is locked in. It will be very difficult for governments in the future to diminish what we are doing as a government today, and that is an incredibly significant step to take. To protect our environment for our future generations is very much a part of the responsibility that each of us, as legislators, take on moving into parliament. I know that generations to come will be far more environmentally demanding than the generations before us, because we are starting to witness some of the catastrophic consequences of our environmental mistakes.
With that sense of faith that we will become better environment managers, understanding how to work within a concept of sustainable development, I believe the Territory really has a tremendous opportunity to grow and to mark out its place as a leader in a national and regional context, and of how to manage our environment within the context of sustainable development as well.
I note the comments made by the member for Nelson. I know he is a man who has a passion about the harbour. I note his concern about Middle Arm. It is a concern, to varying degrees, I have shared. I have become acquainted with a great deal of knowledge about the research done on the environmental impact on activities planned for that area. I wish we could turn back the clock; I wish that, in the 1980s and beyond, decisions about Middle Arm had not been made. However, they were made and this government inherited those decisions. The development has occurred and it will continue to occur in that section of our harbour.
In that context, having a management plan around the harbour and to deal with contexts that we have inherited - working ports within the inner harbour, as I have said at the outset - that is historical. We have a working port in this harbour, and it is a key impact on our harbour’s health. Having the development at Middle Arm, again, is a historical fact, environmentally, that we will have to deal with. A management plan ensures the government can move forward with industry, understanding the responsibilities we have to the protection of our harbour. I welcome the management plan. I welcome the understanding that, with sustainable development, protection of key areas, the community concerns of the environment and industry needs can be balanced as well as those two issues can be balanced.
I know a lot of work has been done by the Office of Environment and Heritage in this area, and I congratulate the staff working there for the efforts they have put in to ensure environmental protection measures were enhanced on the projects at Middle Arm after Labor took government. I acknowledge the success they have had in ensuring an improved environmental outcome there.
In closing, I congratulate our minister for his statement in the House today. It is tremendous news to hear that 96% of the mangroves in Darwin Harbour will be conserved and, hopefully, conserved for all time. It will be a very silly government indeed that tries to reduce that down from the Planning Act because, as I believe environmental awareness is growing, generations to come will be far more forthright about environmental protection than our current generations; we are seeing a growing awareness. So we can go out there fishing in the harbour. I look forward to taking my kids through the mangroves as I did many times as a child. I became quite an expert mudskipper catcher in my day; it was one of my favourite pastimes. I was no good at fishing so I stuck to catching the mudskippers. Though I did not enjoy fishing, I certainly enjoyed watching how great my mother was at catching fish.
I look forward to further debate as we grapple with the development issues that many members have identified will continue to impact on our harbour: the debates about shipping, development of land mass around the harbour, whether it be for residential or other uses. This is an evolving debate and today, I believe, is a significant aspect of that debate. We are seeing clear conservation for our mangroves, and an election commitment by Labor well and truly met.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak from two counts: one is directed to the statement and one is as the member for Drysdale.
As the member for Drysdale, Buffalo Creek, Micket Creek, King Creek, Sand Creek, the Howard River are all in my electorate, as is Reichardt on the seaward side. On the harbour side, Reichardt, Sadgroves, and right down to Elizabeth River. There are two major river systems and several creeks within my electorate. There are a number of boat ramps. There is a significant amount of fishing activity that emanates, both in those creeks and from ramps in the area. There is also Bayview Haven, which is on land that has been reclaimed from mangrove, and now houses many people who vote for me. Some of them do not, but there is Bayview. It also includes Charles Darwin Park. That is a very significant reserve, in close proximity to Darwin, which will be there for future generations and will provide a richer resource than the gardens currently provide, and will be a much loved resource for centuries to come, given its close proximity to our CBD.
Members talked longingly about their youth, of fishing and various other things. That is the picture that is conjured up because the harbour, for most of us, is a place of recreation. There are not many people in Darwin who actually work on and around the harbour, but there are a lot of people who use it for recreation. That is why it conjures up such good images for us. I am a freshwater man. It took me a long time to get the confidence to use the harbour to the full extent that it offers for anglers. On the way, there were some traps for young players that I fell into: being in creeks as the water rushed out and as the water rushed in - to my detriment on both occasions. It is something that took a while, and that requires some vigilance - learning about the hazards that are in the harbour for anglers and even throw netters and others.
However, the rosy glow of the past should be tempered with some of the reality. This harbour saw significant damage on 19 February 1942, where numbers of ships were sunk and it had an enormous oil slick through it. It had flotsam, jetson, debris and munitions strewn across the harbour bottom and the beaches, and it recovered. It is a powerful filter in its own right, in that the 7 m tides that come very fortnight or so are able to help the harbour to recover and regain its powerful life.
The member for Millner talked about fishing around the harbour and Dinah Beach. Well, I can remember as a young child, the wreck next to the wharf. It was there until the early 1960s. I can remember the iron ore being taken out over the wharf, and the iron ore pretty much polluted all of that harbour area; there was a red dust across everything, including the bottom. You could not catch a fish around there; it was quite dirty. It was definitely a working port, and it was quite polluted around the foreshore. It was a bit different back towards Dinah Beach. Dinah Beach had Northern Research there, and there was a prawn factory that spewed - as everybody did, I guess, anywhere around the world - the by-product down into the harbour. It was great fishing because all the fishing offal and entrails and whatever that came through that factory, provided great capacity to catch a fish just offshore. There were some good crocs in there too, at the time.
The member also talked about fish traps. There were a number of them. There are still remnants of fish traps. If people go off the quarantine ramp now, they will see fish traps on the point, up towards Reichardt. Those fish traps are no longer available, because it is now prohibited to professionally fish within the harbour. That prohibition of fishing is a good thing, along with the declaration of parks, the research that has gone on. We are now in a position where there can be some accolades for people who have been instrumental in keeping the harbour the way it is. I commend the minister on his statement where he says our mangroves, our harbour are in splendid shape. I agree with him; they are in splendid shape because of the heritage of many people. It is not just CLP governments since self-government. I can recall when I was working in the mining industry, that Burge Brown was quarrying sand on Bynoe Harbour and was bringing it across Cox Peninsula. He wanted to barge it straight into Winnellie and was prohibited by the mining registrar of the day, I think it might have been, from doing so because it would have destroyed some mangroves by him enjoying that activity.
There has been a Darwin ethic and, while we as a CLP government, and the current government, would like to claim that we have played a large part of it, it is the community ethic in this place, that is a very palpable and strong thing. If you look in the Dry Season at the people who congregate around the harbour, it is almost a worshipful thing. If you go down to the Trailer Boat Club, the Ski Club and the yacht club, the Sailing Club, you will see lots and lots of people there. Also at the Mindil Beach Sunset Markets, you see people who pay homage to the setting sun over our harbour. People from all around the world take photos and say what a beautiful place this is.
I guess the point is a balance - and many people have talked about it. It is a reality that we live in a harbourside village that will become a harbourside city - it is a harbourside city. It will spread. I can recall some of the debates about Cullen Bay and whether it should go ahead, and whether the natural environment that was there was more worthy of a design for that particular piece of foreshore than people living there; a habitat for humans.
I did some quick sums. There are probably 800 000 fisherman, apparently, who use it: 800 000 fishing hours. Well, if you count up the people down at Cullen Bay, there is probably some millions of human hours in that particular tiny sector now. One would have to argue that that balance was probably achieved. Those who remember that particular little stony mangrove beach would, on balance, say what is there at Cullen Bay suits the people of Darwin. It is all very well saying 70 people turned up to a meeting and they said nothing should happen. If you turned up to Cullen Bay now and said to all the people there: ‘Do you believe you should live here or not live here’, I am sure you would get a resounding ‘Yes’.
Many of these things do need balance. We should be very wary about things that destroy mangrove habitats. However, we have an enormous resource here, and many speakers have talked about how they have ventured out into the harbour and caught fish. Well, I can tell you, you can see 50 or 60 boats at the boat ramp and get out there and not see a soul all day, and it is because the harbour is so enormous. The mangrove resource out there is enormous and you can spend a whole day out there without seeing another human being. Let us bear that in perspective, the fact that it is growing. Our harbour, necessarily, will generate activity - shipping activity and other activity around the place. It is something that is inevitably going to grow and we just have to make sure we keep a handle on it.
I can also recall a Labor promise a couple of elections ago where they were going to put a bund across Shoal Bay and bank up the entire of the catchment of the Leanyer Swamp. It seemed pretty visionary at the time; seemed like a good idea. However, before you talk and hear about how you have had an ethic of continually protecting mangroves and we have not, then I suggest you go back through the Labor archives and look at some of those promises. Look, for instance, at the promise regarding the south side of Bayview Haven. The maps will still show it coming right down to Dinah Beach and all of that mangrove habitat there being destroyed. So it is not something that we should make great joy out of; the fact the you had plans that once incorporated the destruction of mangroves, and so too did we. We have to sign off on the fact that we both agree that the harbour is really important, and put the most important component, that is, the flora and fauna habitat that is required for nursery for the fish that people come to pursue; and that we do not want to see it blanketed by concrete. But that would probably be a mere impossible proposition in any of our forward thinking.
It is important that all governments provide very powerful stewardship of this great natural asset that we are endowed with, and we should take great glee that we have been so fortunate to be endowed such a thing; to live in a place like that and have it at our doorstep. The potential for development is inevitable. I just caution all governments not to use it as a stick to say: ‘This should go ahead or that should not’, merely because there are mangroves there, but to make sure that the very importance of mangroves is respected and that it be used as part of a design process.
I was a bit disappointed that the minister did not talk about the waste water treatment plant out at the Darwin Aquaculture Centre. I am familiar with the centre, both from an interest point of view and also because I am the former Essential Services minister. It is a great centre; however, it is an aquaculture centre and does discharge into the harbour. I know it is on the capital works program to have a waste water treatment centre there. I hoped that somehow that would have featured in his speech, because I think it is the sort of things you talk about. If we only talk about how there should not be aquaculture in the harbour, that is platitudes unless you can actually talk about the aquaculture facilities that are there now and the steps that the government has put in place - particularly something this government owned like this particular facility - to make sure that there are not various biota and organisms that enter our harbour that can cause destruction.
Apart from that, I commend the minister for a thinking approach to this. He could have easily been swayed towards some reservationist-type jargon that would have all of this area and more, as described on a map by my colleague, the member for Nelson: put it tucked away forever. I do not think that can happen in a town that is going to grow as Darwin will. However, it does require a careful and thinking approach to future development, and the minister has been able to demonstrate that in this statement. I commend him on it, and I look forward to a thinking debate about any proposals to develop areas that are close to the mangrove habitat around the Darwin Harbour.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend my colleague, the minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, for bringing this important statement to the House and the fulfilment of a commitment by the Labor Party in the lead-up to the election. I would just like to pick up on the comments of a couple of members opposite regarding their broad endorsement for this statement - but even within that, the capacity to try to play a bit of politics with it.
The member for Goyder was somehow trying to imply that, as a government, we have not fulfilled the commitment that we made some people of the Northern Territory prior to the election. In his usual way, he was trying to imply that, somehow, we have misled Territorians, the media, amateur fishermen and the Environment Centre, and people were getting sick and tired of the spin that the new Labor government, and this will come back to haunt us. It was not my shadow portfolio area at the time, but I have gone back and done the research on explicitly what were our commitments in regards to mangroves in Darwin Harbour. These were commitments that were made to a response to the Environment Centre, which sent out a detailed questionnaire to all parties and candidates prior to the last election. I will read the questions and answers into Hansard for the benefit of the member for Goyder, who might think he can besmirch this very significant commitment to protect 96% of the mangroves; that somehow it does not stand up to our election promise.
The question from the Environment Centre was:
- In government, would your party protect the mangroves of Darwin in a reserve, backed by legislation
which prevents clearing?
Our commitment was:
- The mangroves of Darwin Harbour will be given conservation zone status under the Planning Act.
Any development will have to justify the need for any clearance of mangroves.
You cannot be any more explicit. Tick! This statement today and this commitment absolutely meets the letter of that promise that we made to the people of the Northern Territory. The second question was:
- In government, what percentage of the area of Darwin Harbour and Bynoe Harbour mangroves,
respectively, would your party protect?
The answer:
- The percentages of mangroves protected has to be based on scientific data which Territory scientists
are still collecting. A plan of management for Darwin Harbour will be put in place.
Tick! Absolutely to the letter, and I believe 96% is a pretty good pass mark. We did not quite meet the third one, though:
- Will your party commit in writing prior to the election to implementing your commitments to protect
Darwin Harbour mangroves within the first three months of government?
Certainly, we have slipped a bit there. We said ‘Yes’, but in the research and the processes of government and public consultation that we have been through, with the consultation for the Darwin Harbour Management Plan, that was probably a bit ambitious. However, the Environment Centre would be very pleased that we have met, to the absolute letter, the commitments that we gave to the them prior to the election. Therefore, for the member for Goyder to come in here and play his silly petty politics and try to suggest that we have not, there is our commitment. It was in writing to the Environment Centre and, apart from the time frame, has been met just as we said it would be.
The member for Goyder is interesting regarding his position on the harbour and development. All of us here recognise we need sustainable development. We cannot turn back the clock and completely have a pristine environment. I do not think anybody is arguing that point. However, we do have development around the harbour. We have the Phillips LNG plant being built out at Wickham Point which is going to be the most environmentally best managed LNG plant in the world. I have challenged the member for Goyder on a number of occasions to come into this parliament and put his explicit and total support for this project on public record, and he has yet to do that. He still has a question on the Question Paper in his name. Again, I have challenged him to withdraw this question from the Question Paper, as it is blatant scaremongering. Any nonobjective reading of the 13-part question on the Question Paper by a person who has absolutely no knowledge of the reality of that project and how the environmental management issues will be constrained, would lead to the conclusion that we have an absolute disaster on our hands.
I will read some of the points. Really, he cannot come in here and say that, on the one hand, we have not gone far enough because we have not met some election commitment and, on the other hand, try to pretend he is pro-development and pro-business and pro-economic growth when he has these types of questions in his name on the parliamentary Question Paper. The first part of the question is:
- Given the huge community backlash that is currently occurring in relation to the long-term adverse affects
of locating a 10 million tonnes per annum liquefied natural gas plant at this location in the middle of
Darwin Harbour, will you guarantee that such a cost benefit analysis is undertaken as a matter of
urgency and before any more work is carried out on the Ware (Middle Arm) Peninsula?
Well, the project is going ahead and work is happening.
Again, in section (3) of the question, this is implying that there is going to be significant damage:
- Precisely how much damage to sponges, reef, fish breeding grounds and the harbour ocean ecosystem will
be caused by the dredging of the route in from Cox Peninsula, and of the turn-around bay for ships at the
Phillips LNG plant on Wickham Point?
And (6):
- When the largest mangrove colony in Darwin Harbour is partly bulldozed on the Ware Peninsula road into
Wickham Point, and at the Phillips LNG site, what will be the effect of the large amounts of acid sulphate
leached into the waters of Darwin Harbour?
And, most alarmingly of all, (13):
- Recently, the British warship, HMS Nottingham, holed itself at sea and nearly sank. Is the minister aware that
human error will almost certainly occur in relation to the production and transportation of LNG in Darwin
Harbour at some stage, and that ignition of evaporating LNG for a holed tanker ship or LNG tank could
cause a severe and fatal giant fireball? What is the probability of that event occurring?
To have these types of questions in his name on the parliamentary Question Paper is really hardly a ringing endorsement of the environmental impact statements, the management plans, the professional people - not only within the Phillips consortium, but also within government. And not only this government, may I say, but also the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments have approved this particular project.
This really does not stand him in very good stead, and is recklessly irresponsible in his duties as a member of Parliament to have these types of allegations purporting to be questions on the parliamentary Question Paper.
We certainly are committed to the environment and Darwin Harbour and, today, have filled a significant election commitment in protecting 96% of the mangroves in Darwin Harbour. Also, of the area to be rezoned to conservation, 46 516 hectares is a huge amount of land and, of this, over 26 000 hectares is mangrove. This is a huge commitment by the government and the minister.
I would also like to pick up on points made by the member for Nelson, in terms of the extractives industry at Middle Arm. Again, the picture that the member painted was that we were mining Darwin Harbour, there is significant damage and detriments to the environment, along with the implication that a heap of mangroves are going to die as a result of this reckless mining that has been taking place at Middle Arm. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. The member has received a full and detailed briefing from people in my department. Extractive mineral leases have been approved for the extraction of about 900 000 m3 of select fill for the foundation to the northern end of the Darwin to Alice Springs railway, and providing special non-compacting fill for the port development.
When we came to government, there were issues regarding the way these extractive mineral leases were being mined. My department and DIPE came together to consider conditions that should apply to extractive mining in parts of Middle Arm. As a result of those meetings occurring, 13 of the 19 extractive mineral applications were refused, and restrictions were placed in terms of buffer zones, from the watermark to where extractive operations could be carried out. Titles were restricted to 8 m above sea level and, certainly, significant protections were put in place to ensure there was no detrimental impact to mangrove colonies downstream, for want of a better term, from these extractive mineral leases, which were granted because of their proximity to those developments in an effort to reduce the costs of those developments. Whilst in the past there may have been extraction to the edge of mangroves under a previous administration, all future extraction will be conducted with the conservation of Darwin Harbour in mind. A specific issue that will be addressed in the plan of management for the harbour is a conservation zone being introduced to protect mangroves.
That is what we have done, and we have to try and balance economic activity and environmental concerns and requirements. We have actually reached this balance. My advice is that the member for Nelson objected to a number of applications for extractive mineral leases under the act, and then withdrew those objections after he had the details of exactly what and how it was going to happen.
Mr Wood: Yes, one existed.
Mr HENDERSON: We have given the member for Nelson the briefings, and I have not had any specific correspondence subsequently in regard to the conditions that are being put on these extracted mineral leases. If you position is, fundamentally, that there should be absolutely no extractive operations out there, that is absolutely fine. However, those objections were withdrawn.
It is all about trying to maintain a balance and, certainly, the policy position of this government is to protect the natural ecosystems in Darwin Harbour, to ensure that, environmentally, we leave the harbour as undamaged as we possibly can, but also mindful of the fact that we have to develop economies, get jobs for people and have sustainable economies and jobs for people. That is what we are trying to balance.
There is also a lot of debate in the House about whether Bayview Haven should have gone ahead or should not have gone ahead. The fact is, though, that people want to live on the waterfront. All around the world, people pay premium prices to live in waterfront areas. We do not want to be a Gold Coast or places like that. However, there is going to be pressure from developers. The member for Sanderson talked about the triple bottom line having to apply. I could not agree with him more. We cannot pretend that those pressures are not going to come. However, the intent of government is very clear in, for the first time in the Northern Territory, providing 96% of the mangroves with that conservation zone status.
Whilst I am talking about the value of our harbour to the economy as well as its conservation value, one of the recent debates - and this is off on a bit of a tangent but, given that we are talking about Darwin Harbour and its value to the people of the Northern Territory in recreation space, and also its tourism value as part of the debate about why the LNG plant should not be built in Darwin Harbour - that was part of the debate. In the recent debate in regard to the convention centre for Darwin and where it should be placed, there was a lot of very specific debate about that.
However, in the studies that we conducted into the viability of the convention centre, the types of markets it should be pitched to and that we could attract, all of the experts in this area came back and said: ‘The prime competitive advantage that Darwin has in the business convention market is the harbour. That is the greatest asset that you have. To have a convention centre focussed looking outwards onto the harbour is, fundamentally, the prime competitive advantage that you have in attracting convention delegates to this town; a point of difference in the convention market, and something that is going to be a real boost to the tourism industry for many, many years’. Taking that advice, and also testing the potential impact on the CBD, government made the decision and the commitment that the best outlook for this convention centre - not only in terms of maximising the value of the harbour in the tourism industry - was to build it down in the wharf precinct with massive views over our pristine harbour, and to have, supporting that, developments that are going to leverage off that convention centre. That is the vision, and it really is turning the natural ecosystem and the environmental asset that we have to an economic advantage for the people of Darwin and future generations.
That stands in stark contrast to the formal opposition position on this which - and I am reading from a press release, from the Opposition Leader dated 1 August where the Leader of the Opposition states in his opening statement:
- A CLP government would build a convention centre in the Darwin CBD, not at the Stokes Hill Wharf precinct
as planned by the Territory Labor government.
So we would have the convention centre looking in on the city, not looking out over the harbour and again, what competitive advantage would we have in that regard? I would say that there are 1000 convention centres around the world that look in on cities, but very few that look out over such a beautiful area such as Darwin Harbour. He goes on to say that:
- It will be to the detriment of your business and many others in the CBD ...
Well, I just do not see how growing an economy and growing tourism into Darwin can be to the detriment of business. We are talking about building markets and tourism and being a point of difference, and the harbour offers us an opportunity to be the point of difference. The challenge for the developers - and it is a challenge that is very specific in the EIS - is how to build those linkages between our waterfront and our CBD. That is not beyond the wit and wisdom of developers and engineers to come up with those linkages. Therefore, from the government’s point of view, I would attest not only do we have an absolutely very strong environmental commitment to Darwin Harbour by the protection of these 96% of mangroves, we also have a vision for the harbour in how we can maximise that great asset of our harbour to turn tourism dollars for our community. To have a world class convention centre with a vision and a vista over Darwin harbour is really going to be a significant asset for this community.
You can have a win/win. You can have a triple bottom line, as the member for Sanderson said. I commend my colleague, the minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, for bringing this statement to the House today.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, let us look at the facts. The Darwin Harbour is a splendid harbour - no doubt about it. The Darwin Harbour is a working harbour. It has been a working harbour since the beginning of the 19th century, and it is not going to change. True, it is going to get busier and most likely it is going to get bigger - bigger in transport, in containers coming in and out of Darwin - and, with the advent of the railway here, it is going to be the gateway to Asia. So, things are going to get much, much busier and at the same time, pressure will increase.
Darwin Harbour is going to accommodate larger ships more frequently with the advent of the LNG gas onshore. At the same time, Darwin Harbour is one of the very few harbours in the world that has maintained a mangrove forest nearly intact. The truth of the matter is that the previous CLP government did a lot of work for the harbour. A lot of scientific work has been accumulated, and we have used this scientific work during the consultation period of the Darwin Harbour plan of management and the development of this particular policy. We continue to use it because we have a lot of scientific work accumulated there and paid for by Territorians. It would be a disaster to leave it gathering dust in a library. So, it will be used, and it can be used for a reference also for other people and other cities that face the same problem.
It is true that the CLP had acknowledged in the past that they had to preserve the mangroves in the harbour. However, a previous statement by the then minister Baldwin refers only to preserving 80% of the productivity of the mangrove system. To his credit, he acknowledged at the time that he made the statement, that was the world opinion: maintaining up to 80% of the mangroves would be enough to sustain the mangrove community in the harbour and to maintain its healthy state.
But what is important here - and the member for Nelson stated it very well - what we achieve now in this new policy direction is a change of logic. This is the first time in the Territory and, as a matter of fact in Australia, that development is not above all. Development in the harbour, in particular where it affects the mangroves, comes second. This is the fundamental change from the previous government to this government.
Before the election, we promised we were going to preserve the Darwin Harbour. However, preserve it as what? We could declare it a marine park, as has been requested by the Environment Centre and other people, or maintain it as a working harbour, at the same time providing access to fishermen and people who want to go sailing, boating, or live across the harbour, while limiting any activity that will hurt the mangroves. That is why we declared such a big area as a conservation zone - an area from Charles Point to Gunn Point including the catchment area of the harbour.
From now on, if somebody wants to develop industry in the Darwin Harbour, they have to prove clearly, going through a certain process and undergoing public scrutiny, why he, she or their company has to remove mangroves. Yes, governments can put legislation in place; can declare parks, but governments can always revoke declarations, and it has happened before.
However, if there is a political will, public scrutiny, and a process in place, and if these mangroves have been zoned appropriately, then you put in place too many things that can prevent the uncontrolled development in such a sensitive area - and this is what we have done here. As I said yesterday publicly, it will take somebody very, very brave to be prepared to stand up before the government authorities and the public scrutiny in Darwin, to argue why they should destroy one, two, three, 10 hectares of mangroves. I do not think they will succeed. That is what is important here with the declaration of the conservation zone.
The member for Goyder tried to argue: ‘What you did today is what we were going to do’. However, the reality is the previous government was never brave enough to stand up and declare even the 80% recognised as necessary to make the mangroves as conservation zone. We did it; they did not. They were talking about it, but they never took one step more to declare.
To their credit again, the member for Daly, the then minister, said yes, they were thinking about it. They did not do it, but he recognises now that things have changed and he agrees with the government’s position. He agrees with the government’s action to declare 96% of the mangroves in Darwin Harbour as conservation zone.
The reality, if you look at the numbers, when minister Baldwin, in October 2000, was making a statement about the mangroves, the CLP government was intending to protect about 20 000 hectares of mangroves, with 4% of them available for development. We have added more hectares of protected mangroves by incorporating the catchment areas. We are now protecting 26 000 hectares of mangroves in the conservation zone and, on top of that, another 20 000 hectares of mudflats, salt flats and other areas. Really, we have a holistic approach, not only in the mangroves but the whole topography of the harbour from Gunn Point to Charles Point.
There were questions about why we were not declaring a marine park in the harbour. We said: ‘This is the first step we are taking at this stage to protect the mangroves. Let us go one step at a time’. This declaration, together with the plan of management for the harbour, will provide adequate protection to the harbour. The Labor government has already stated that we will be looking at declaring a marine park at Bynoe Harbour because we know of the increasing pressure in Bynoe Harbour. That has been recognised by the members for Nelson and Daly.
Another matter is that the CLP, despite their arguments about protecting mangroves, were prepared to destroy thousand of hectares of mangroves by putting a dam in the Elizabeth River. Thanks to community action, that never happened. The Labor government has given a commitment that we are not putting dams across rivers or creeks. We are going to stick to this promise.
As to the other questions about Rapid Creek and Buffalo Creek, these were already declared conservation zones. That is why they are not included in the current map. However, once again, I remind you that all mangrove communities from Charles Point to Gunn Point are protected.
A question was asked yesterday: ‘What about Bayview Haven?’ Bayview Haven was a community that was developed years ago. The original lease, I believe, was granted in 1993. As my colleague, the member for Wanguri said, people want to live by the sea, everywhere in Australia and in the world. The problem is how we can accommodate the development, with the pressure on the harbour by land release, and achieve the preservation of the natural environment and the mangroves. Even today in Bayview, what you have done and what we are prepared to do, is to limit the expansion of that development so we do not encroach on the mangroves on Sadgroves Creek. However, once again, there are problems with engineering. The developers themselves have acknowledged that they are not going to encroach on Sadgroves Creek because of the very difficult engineering solutions that would be required - expensive solutions - in order to further the development. That is true. It has now been recognised by industry - aquaculture businesses - that it is not a very wise idea and not a very cheap way to develop in the mangrove area. Therefore, the mangroves are not only protected by government, but also by the extremely expensive costs of actually developing where mangroves are.
We have moved and declared a conservation zone of the mangroves in the harbour. I am very pleased to see that there is unilateral support – or support from all sides of parliament, the other side and the Independents. As politicians here, we should not try to score political points arguing about actions by the government or their position. We are here to safeguard the environment for future communities. Mangroves do not belong to political parties or to governments. The environment does not belong to government or political parties. The environment belongs to all citizens; not only the people living today, but the people who come after us and the people who come after that. The environment does not belong to the minister or a political party; the environment belongs to all citizens in the Territory, all citizens of Australia - because we cannot see the Territory in isolation from the rest of Australia. We have no right to destroy the physical environment in the Top End and deprive the rest of Australia of the natural beauty of the Darwin Harbour or the environment of the Territory. The Territory is part of Australia. We are Australians, and we have the same rights here, like any other Australian has when he or she comes to the Territory.
We have to consider the cultural value of the harbour. Many of the Larrakia people live by and from the harbour and will continue to do so. We have to consider the importance of the harbour to the people living in the Territory for recreational use - for sailing, fishing and, certainly, swimming when the weather and the stingers permit. Once again …
Mr Wood: And bushwalking .
Mr VATSKALIS: And bushwalking among the mangroves, as long as you are loaded with Rid.
Mr Wood: No, among the gravel pits. The bush will be gone.
Mr VATSKALIS: It is an important decision, and to the right direction it is the first step. I notice that one. I know some people would like to do more, but the reality is, let us start with the first step. This is the first step to protect our natural environment around the harbour. Let us start from here and continue slowly, if necessary, to expand and to do more and more things. We have started the right way; it is the right way to go, and future generations will thank us - all of us - for the support we offer to the declaration of the mangroves in Darwin Harbour under the conservation zone.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I adjourn on STD rates amongst Northern Territory zero to 15-year-olds. The member for Port Darwin asked a question in Question Time today about notification rates of sexually transmitted diseases amongst the Territory’s zero to 15-year-olds. She had a graph of notifications which showed increased notifications, especially of gonorrhoea and chlamydia, over the years from 1997 to 2002.
I have now received a graph from the Centre for Disease Control in my department that was prepared by the HIV and STD Unit in the Centre for Disease Control for a meeting of departmental medical officers. Members of the House will recall that the member for Port Darwin indicated that this information was accessed through the Royal Darwin Hospital library. Obviously, the first place that we went to was the Royal Darwin Hospital library, and they were unable to locate it - interesting. The document was found in the CDC area because they prepared it. I will pursue this issue.
The CDC-prepared graph does, indeed, show an increase between 2001 and 2002, an issue of very greatest concern to myself and my government. As the mother of three children including two teenage sons, I must say I am very concerned about this situation. Apparently, the member for Port Darwin has put out a press release this afternoon claiming that I do not care about STDs in young people. Nothing – nothing - could be further from the truth. This is an entirely different question from whether I should have every graph produced and every data set in my file for Question Time. I would just like to say that is a totally ludicrous prospect.
There is more mischief in the member for Port Darwin’s representation of this issue. The increase in STD notifications among young people is a cause for concern, but it is not accurate to represent this as a proxy measure for child sexual abuse. In fact, there are a number of issues operating that drive these figures; all of them separately being causes for our concern and for separate actions. None - not one - are helped by the member’s sensationalism.
Causes of STD rates among zero to 15-year-old Territorians include the fact that more 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds are having sex these days. A recently released report on sex, health and society, from the Australian Research Centre at Latrobe University, identified a drop in the median age of first intercourse, having fallen for both men and women over the last 20 years. This is an issue of grave concern. The fact that young people are having sex does not mean that any of us in this place would condone it. However, unfortunately, it is happening. Even though we might argue and the law says that the ability of a young person to consent to sex is compromised by their age, this does not stop them. While we might argue with the young people that they do not have the ability to consent, they do not see all of this as non-consensual sex. Much of it is 13 year-olds and 14-year-olds having sex with each other - not appropriate by my own or many people’s standards, but not amenable to the same interventions as the assault of even younger children or the assault of 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds. What do we do about this aspect? We need to make sure as a community, we support parents in talking to their children about these issues and educating them. We need to encourage young people to talk to us and to support appropriate sex education in schools.
Also, there have been increases in gonorrhoea and chlamydia in the community over recent years, against an historically high level in the Northern Territory compared to the rest of Australia. This means that, for every episode of sex involving a young person, there is a greater chance that they have come into contact with a sexually transmittable infection. It is not known how important this factor is in these numbers, but it is a factor. It is also possible that there is an extent to which more 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds are being tested. We do not screen 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds - that is a vexed issue for obvious reasons - but I am advised that we suspect more are being tested because practitioners are being educated to expect this risk; precisely through the kind of meeting that this graph was prepared for.
What do we do about this aspect? We have been running STD awareness education, targeting sexually-active young people and older young people, encouraging safe sex and testing for these STDs, which have nasty health consequences including infertility and increased risk of HIV infection. This will remain a priority of this government.
Thirdly, some of these cases are child sexual abuse, and these are our highest priority for the child protection team. I have already talked about the importance we place on that issue: an extra $2.4m funding; a review that I initiated; and progressive reform of procedures, systems and training, as the review proceeds. Therefore, far from not caring about the issues, this government understands their complexities and is actually committed to responding to the several and separate problems we are facing here - a far cry from trivialising the issues in the search of a sensational headline. As I have said, a number of times it is incumbent on the opposition to do better and actually engage us in a reasoned debate of policy on this issue, if they wish to be taken seriously on the sensitive issue involved.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, tonight I discuss the issue of plagiarism in this House arising out of what happened yesterday. I will just remind honourable members of the Northern Territory University’s policy on plagiarism. The policy says that plagiarism is the unacknowledged use of material written by others or a re-work of your own material, and a source of information and ideas used in assignments must be re-referenced. This applies to whether the information is from a book, journal article, previous essay or assignment you wrote, or the assignment of a friend. Plagiarism will result in automatic failure and the result may be subject to disciplinary action by the university.
The university goes on in its policy to define plagiarism and I quote:
- Plagiarism is the presentation of the work of another without acknowledgement. Students may use information
and ideas expressed by others but this use must be identified by appropriate referencing.
Today I heard the member for Sanderson in this House saying - and I quote him:
- Not being one to plagiarise, to have them come in and say: ‘Look, you are plagiarising all over the place …
Well, information for the member for Sanderson is that not only do I accuse him of outright plagiarism, I accuse the member for Sanderson of doing it knowingly and doing it in breach of copyright protected material.
I draw members’ attention to what flagged this issue with me on the 7 March 2002, when the member for Sanderson presented his speech to this House on the debate dealing with the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Amendment Bill (Serial 34). I listened to that and I thought to myself: ‘What a good speech; well researched, well put together’. He did not, at any point that I am aware of in the speech - and I have re-read the speech – say: ‘I quote’, and ‘I go on to quote these bits and pieces’. However, when I checked the Hansard to re-read that speech, because it was a useful speech, large sections of that particular piece of Hansard appear as quotes. I was curious about that. But would you condemn a person for that? No. Perhaps he has taken the material out of the report. He even directs us to the report in that speech:
- … the Family and Community Development Committee of the Victorian parliament, the Victorian Community
Council Against Violence advised …
Then he goes on. But he does not say, ‘I quote and I used this information from it’. It is not a serious breach. He has corrected it, obviously, at some point afterwards. He has read the Hansard proof and said: ‘Oh, I am going to correct it’, so it appears as quotes. Not a problem, but it flags the issue.
However, I now turn my attention to another speech in this House. This speech was delivered by the member for Sanderson on the Thursday, 7 March as well - page 1141 of the Parliamentary Record applies. In that speech he refers to a piece of work by a Dr Curtin called The Digital Divide in Rural and Regional Australia?, a current issues brief. I went and checked that speech and, once again, we do not find that the member for Sanderson has, at any point, used the term, ‘I quote’, from that particular piece of research, in spite of the fact that he has referred to it in his speech.
What has happened - and I will table this for honourable members - is that large sections of that speech - paragraphs in fact - are lifted directly out of The Digital Divide in Rural and Regional Australia?. I have several sections of that particular speech reproduced in the Hansard. In fact, we are not talking about small amounts of information, we are talking about pages of material. It appears word for word in the Hansard of that speech. However, on that occasion, he has actually used the name of the researcher, and he has referred to it. So maybe - just maybe - he can get away by the skin of his teeth.
I draw members’ attention to another speech delivered to this House by the member for Sanderson on 23 May 2002, two months later. That was a speech dealing with the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill. This becomes a much more serious issue, because now the member for Sanderson relies on not one source of material, which he does not reference at all in his speech, but two separate articles. I refer honourable members first to the Family and Community Development Committee report from the Victorian parliament, the Review of Legislation Under Which Persons are Detained at the Governor's Pleasure in Victoria. I point out that there are areas on this document I shall table shortly that are highlighted that appear, reproduced word for word, in the member’s speech. Once again, we are not talking about small sections of text; we are talking about long passages of text.
I also draw members’ attention to an article that appeared in the Law Institute Journal in January 1998, pages 46-47. This is a copyright document, and the copyright warning I have attached for the information of members. The article to which I refer was by a lady called Sophie Delaney: Controlling the Governor’s Pleasure - Some Gain, Some Pain. If members will indulge me, I will quote from the member for Sanderson’s speech:
- When balancing the rights of people whose disabilities mean they lack usual legal capacity with the
community’s expectations of security and safety, too often the tilt is towards inaccurate prejudices held
by the community about links between mental impairment and dangerousness or the propensity to offend.
Now I will quote Ms Delaney from her 1998 article:
- When balancing the rights of people whose disabilities mean they lack the usual legal culpability or
capacity with the community’s expectations of security and safety, too often the tilt is towards
inaccurate prejudices held by the community about links between mental impairment and dangerousness
or the propensity to offend.
Now I turn from a bad stage to the worst stage of this saga. I would like to quote the member for Sanderson, from 20 August 2003, a couple of months ago, where he said at page 13 of the Daily Hansard. I have subsequently checked that the matter has not been fixed up in Hansard, and it has not. I quote the member for Sanderson:
- I would like to continue with my contribution as, over here, we on the backbench are given the opportunity
to research our own work and write up our own contributions. I would hate to see my labours just cast away.
A little ferreting around – and this one was actually a challenge, but I would like to hand over - the member for Araluen, I think, was showing some interest in this - something from Holmes, O’Malley Sexton Solicitors. This took a bit of work because Holmes O’Malley Sexton Solicitors are a law firm in Ireland. Their web site takes you through several web pages. Finally, we go to the What’s New section of the web site. In August 2002, an article appeared called Multi-Disciplinary Practice: One-Stop Shop or Full Stop?
I am going to now demonstrate to members inside this House exactly how coincidental this particular exercise is, because I now have in my hand the speech delivered to this House by the member for Sanderson, and I quote:
- Multi-disciplinary practice has been defined as ‘An organisation, wholly or partly owned by non-lawyers,
(eg accountants) which offers legal services to the public with lawyers and non-lawyers practising together’.
Multi-disciplinary practice has operated in Germany for decades and lawyers may now formed MDPs with
professionals including auditors, accountants and tax advisers. In France and the UK accounting firms are
permitted to create or acquire ‘captive’ law firms which may solely service their client base …
It then goes on to say:
- The Australian Trade Practices Commission in 1994 recommended repeal of rules as to permit MDP - however
New South Wales …
It then goes on to say:
- It is perhaps in the US that the debate surrounding MDP has had most attention. Currently all US jurisdictions …
prohibit the formation of MDP … Many lawyers do of course work outside traditional law firms in industry and
for accounting firms and credit institutions and they operate outside the band on MDPs. They provide legal advice …
It goes on and on and on. I tell you something, we asked some questions about the issue of plagiarism in this House this morning. It was all, oh jocular, jocular, we do not have this problem, it is just a little accident. This Labor opposition …
Members: Labor government.
Mr ELFERINK: … is infected with a problem, and it is a dishonest, misleading, misguided outrage that this is allowed to occur in this parliament. Never has this parliament been so poorly served by a member, and this member comes into this Chamber and makes outrages accusations all the time …
Dr Burns: Never say never. That is one of the first rules you should learn.
Mr ELFERINK: It is interesting to hear that the minister for plagiarism is trying to back him up.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask him to retract that.
Mr Dunham: Oh, that is not fair!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, just withdraw that.
Mr ELFERINK: I will withdraw the remark, Madam Speaker. It is incredible how insensitive the good doctor is. The fact of the matter is that this member has repeatedly, in breach of copyright, in breach of the trust that his electorate has placed on him - he has become a laughing stock as a result of this; a worse laughing stock than he already is.
Questions were asked this morning, and one of the answers from the Deputy Chief Minister, was, and I quote:
- Whilst I am not able to spell out the exact outcome of a clear case of cheating, if you like, or plagiarism,
in sitting for finals, I am sure that the penalty would fit the crime in that sense if a case were so proven.
I have proven my case. I now quote the Chief Minister:
Mr Stirling: The question was asked in the context of education - get it right.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on that interjection. There is a different standard. You have a different standard for your students than the community leaders who sit in this Chamber. You should be ashamed of yourself, that you would even hug up to such an indefensible situation.
The Chief Minister has said:
- I have confronted it because I do not obfuscate; I deal with issues. I have dealt with it; this government has dealt
with it. It will not happen again.
It has been happening.
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Mr Kiely: Sit in your seat if you are going to mouth off.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr STIRLING: The member cannot object when he is not in his proper seat.
Madam SPEAKER: There are far too many interjections. Member for Macdonnell, you have the floor. Member for Daly, if you want to speak, go back to your chair.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay. Thank you, Madam Speaker, point taken.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is an outrage as far as people of the Northern Territory are concerned. The very fact that the Deputy Chief Minister would try and cuddle up - after the words that he said in this Chamber during Question Time today - to a person who is clearly – clearly - in breach of the trust that this Chamber places in him and the trust that this place has, as a representative of the people who live in the Northern Territory, is just astonishing. Two standards: one for school students but a much lower standard here in this place for his own members. I am nothing shy of astonished.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table all of these documents I just referred to. They make very interesting reading.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on a statement that the minister for DBIRD made about the two applications for mining on Middle Arm Peninsula that he said I agreed to. I just need to make clarification of those. One reason I withdrew my objection was because it was a reworked lease, and the other one was because the owner of the lease said it was the only place they could get that particular gravel that was being mined from there; it was a special type and suitable for the railway. They were the only reasons that I withdrew my objections.
I have not come to talk about that tonight; I have come to talk about what you might call Asian lost opportunities. There was a letter in today’s paper from Ted Dunstan about reviving NT’s Asian trade. In light of that letter on the Territory’s trade with Asia and the member for Palmerston’s comments this morning about the failure of the government to send an observer to the ASEAN meeting in Bali this week, I offer some further comments on the issue.
The former CLP government’s main focus in developing trade with Asia from the mid-1990s until it lost government in 2001, was on a particular area of the ASEAN grouping. It was one of ASEAN’s formal and recognised fast growth areas known as BIMP-EAGA. The BIMP stands for Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, and EAGA stands for East ASEAN growth area. What ASEAN did was identify subregions that had historic and geographical cross-border links and certain synergies which could be exploited to build trade. BIMP-EAGA is made up of all of Brunei, eastern Indonesia, the southern Philippines and eastern Malaysia. What the CLP government managed to accomplish in relation to building ties with that grouping was a profile for the Northern Territory in that region - a positive profile. The Territory is on the edge of the growth area and, in the year 2000, BIMP-EAGA agreed to give the Northern Territory official observer status at its ministerial and senior officers’ meetings. This was a significant accomplishment. The Territory’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry was also given observer status at the EAGA Business Council meetings.
Perhaps there have never been any substantial financial benefits from this push in actual trade, but the groundwork was being laid. If you look back over statements made by former Territory Asian trade ministers in support of the push, it is clear that it was part of a long-term strategy. It was, in part, a recognition of the fact that the Territory’s export and trade future, especially that of the Top End, lies to the north. Where else would it be? The Territory Labor government cannot say it does not support this view otherwise, why do we have the new railway and the new port? If we are not looking north, what is the point of having them? If the Territory is going to promote the use of the railway, and of Darwin as a port, surely it needs to promote that new infrastructure to the region closest to us: BIMP-EAGA and the other areas of ASEAN.
BIMP-EAGA is not a pie in the sky notion. It has been investigated by the Asian Development Bank, which has provided $0.5bn for the Philippines’ coordinating council of BIMP-EAGA, and it has funded a growth area facilitation centre in Sabah. In the past few years, EAGA has gone ahead and developed extensive regional air sea communications and trade links.
I cannot claim to be an expert in this area, but I have been told that, in the region, contacts between government leaders are extremely important in facilitating business - much more important than in Australia. For this reason, it is a shame that the government appears to have dropped the ball on this. The CLP did the groundwork in getting close cooperation going with BIMP-EAGA and its business council, but what has the Labor government done? From what I can see in its first year of government, very little in relation to consolidating links with the region. In the second year, the minister put out a press release saying that the government would revitalise its relationship with the region, and BIMP-EAGA was mentioned in the release. However, it appears it has never been mentioned again.
On the DBIRD web page for business links at the very bottom, the last item is an item on BIMP-EAGA. However, when you click there for further information, it takes you to a web site from the year 2000 - a DART web page; a web page from the CLP government extolling its accomplishments. DART is the Department of Asian Relations and Trade. I can only presume that you get that web page because the Labor government has done nothing further to promote links with BIMP-EAGA. The minister has not made one major statement to parliament on trade or Asian relations since Labor came to government.
In fact, the key players in the public and private sector in the East ASEAN Growth Area, might have forgotten the Territory government, and I bet that most would have no idea who the minister or the Chief Minister is - and this, when the railway is almost operating. We should be promoting Darwin as the gateway to east Asia as recommended in the 1995 Wran Report. You might be tempted to argue the world has changed since 1995 but, in fact, in this region the world has not changed that much. Our geography is still the same, the Territory economy is still an immature and developing one, and the members of the East ASEAN Growth Area are still in need of services and goods of all kinds.
For those who do not remember, the Commonwealth funded the Wran committee to take a hard look at the notion that Darwin will become Australia’s gateway to Asia. It concluded that, at best, it might be a gateway to east Asia, but that it had the best chance of being the gateway to the East ASEAN region. The economies in that region are comparatively small, which suits the Territory’s capacity. The Wran Report identified BIMP-EAGA as the one area where Darwin could make a real effort in developing trade with the region, and here I quote:
- The Wran committee considers that Darwin has strong potential to make an important contribution to the
provision of soft infrastructure in the East ASEAN subregion, particularly in education, research and health.
The high level of skills and the more advanced infrastructure in Darwin, combined with the city’s established
networks, mean it is in a very good position to develop exports to service the large scale investment in human
resources in the subregion.
Perhaps the government could book a space to observe the BIMP-EAGA conference on human resource development set down for Sabah next year. Notice that the report stresses Darwin-established networks. What has happened to them? Some have disappeared beyond our control: the Ambon link because of the unrest in that region, and West Timor because there is no longer a regular flight there. Mindanao is less safe than it was because of more active separatists, but other links are floundering because the government appears to be failing to send delegates and delegations to BIMP-EAGA meetings and trade shows.
Fortunately, the Northern Territory’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry has been keeping up its links with EAGA’s Business Council, despite the fact that air links sometimes make it difficult. I believe that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry may have convinced the government to send at least an officer, if not a minister, to a major BIMP-EAGA meeting last month. However, business should not have to do that; the government should make it a priority.
In February, the Asian Relations and Trade Minister, Paul Henderson, released the Northern Territory Asian Engagement Plan. He committed the government to re-energising relations with key regional groupings including BIMP-EAGA. The use of the word ‘re-energising’ indicates the government acknowledges it had taken its eye off the ball and let the relations stagnate. However, I am not sure that the government has done anything since February to re-energise the relationship. If it has, it has not reported to parliament in any ministerial statement. If I am wrong in thinking that opportunities have been lost, then I would like someone from the government to get up in parliament and tell me about it.
I urge the government to move quickly, and with more purpose, to rescue these relationships. The railway and port are almost finished and we risk becoming the gateway to nowhere. At the ASEAN meeting in Bali yesterday, the grouping signed an agreement that will eventually see it operate as a European Union-style trading bloc. The Territory has the chance to be involved on the edges of that development. Madam Speaker, it is an opportunity that should not be missed.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, this morning the Chief Minister gave a report about our visit to Greece. I would like to speak about the same subject, because I have more time now and can provide more information to the House.
It was a very successful trip to form stronger relationships with Kalymnos and Dodecanese because, like it or not, 10% of Darwin’s population comes from that island. We already have strong links with Kalymnos, the sister city for Darwin. I went to Greece a week before the rest of the delegation. The reason for that was that I went to meet with people in Greece and to prepare and lobby for what we wanted to achieve from that trip.
First, I want to thank very much the people who assisted me greatly during my stay in Athens and assisted the people from the Territory - the Chief Minister and the others in the delegation to Greece. First, Mr Stuart Hume, the Australian Ambassador in Athens; Ms Daniela Wells, the Second Secretary of the Embassy; Ms Susan Kavati, a Trade Commissioner; and Ms Toni Williams, the Australian Consul in Athens. Their help was invaluable.
I arrived a week before the rest of the delegation. During my stay in Athens, I had a series of meetings with Greek officials. I met with Mr Dimitri Dollis, the Secretary-General of the International Economic Relations and Development Corporation. Mr Dollis is well known to Australian people because he used to be the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party in Victoria. After he retired, he found another niche in the Greek government working very closely, firstly, with the Minister for Greeks Abroad and now as the Secretary-General for the IERDC. The trip was not a trade mission but, following discussions with Mr Dollis and visits to the different supermarkets in Athens, I realised that there is a niche for Australian products, for the simple reason that you could not find anything produced in Australia in Greece – no wine, fruit, or meat. On the contrary, you could find a lot of frozen New Zealand lamb. That is the only thing that came from Down Under.
Of course, a lot of people say it has to do with the European Union quota on Australian exports but, when you visit the fish market and discover frozen Argentinian prawns for sale for $38 a kilo - half the size of Australian prawns - it would be very wise for people from the NT and Australia to visit some of these countries and start selling their products aggressively.
Following the meeting with Mr Dollis, I met with Mr Pavlos Geroulanos, the General Secretary for Greeks Abroad. Greece has tried to maintain strong links with all the migrants in other countries, and even the second and third generation Greeks. They have formed the Council of Greeks Abroad and, through that council, have forged relationships with other countries. They provide educational links, teachers and scholarships. Mr Geroulanos is a very important person, and we need to maintain our relationship to achieve some of the things we want here in Darwin.
Following Mr Geroulanos, I met Professor Stella Priovolos, is the Personal Assistant to the Minister for Education. I met Professor Priovolos during my previous trip to Greece last year, when I was invited by the Greek parliament to attend an international conference of Greek descent politicians. For this trip, the Greek parliament paid all relevant expenses. Professor Priovolos was very supportive. She listened to me very carefully. I put to her what the Greek community here in Darwin wanted: a second teacher, education material for the Greek kids at the Greek School, and scholarships for Australian teachers of Greek descent. They are qualified teachers who are teaching subjects other than literature. They have the qualification and ability, but probably not the skills to teach Greek language. That meeting was followed later with the Minister for Education with very good results.
I also met with Mr Milonakis, the Managing Director of ARAMARK Dasko, an American company that won the contract to supply catering services to the Olympic village in Athens for the Olympic Games 2004. I note that ARAMARK Dasko has won 13 contracts to provide catering services to Olympic villages in the past few years. They will be bidding for the Beijing Olympics. I visited Mr Milonakis at the request of the local Director of Brunei Corporation in Darwin because they want to provide Halal meat to the Athens Olympics because of the number of Islamic-background athletes who will take part in the Olympics. Those games will see a significant number of people from Arab and other countries in the region, with Middle-East and north African countries.
I had a frank discussion with Mr Milonakis who was not fully aware of all the requirements for Halal meat in Athens. He asked me a question that surprised me: ‘Where is Darwin?’ He did not know where Darwin was on the world map. When I showed him the location of Darwin, he immediately noticed the proximity of Darwin to China, and his eyes lit up like Christmas lights because he realised that Australia may be one of the resources for their food products when they bid, and if they win the contract for China.
Following that, I visited the Minister for Culture, Mr Evangelos Venizelos, and later, at the request of the Charles Darwin University, I visited Mrs Lazos and Mr Gasparinatos, the people in charge of the Greek School of Tourism. The Greek School of Tourism is a very significant school in Greece. It owns and operates three hotels that are actually run by the students while they are undertaking studies at the School of Tourism. The Charles Darwin University, which has its own School of Tourism, would like to develop some close relations with other equivalent schools with a future view of student exchange. I have to admit, it was a very productive meeting. I brought information back which I provided to the university here, and they are going to follow it up.
The first week was very busy and productive. That was followed by the delegation arrival in Athens and, after that, departure for Kos which was the first stop on our way to Kalymnos. I would like to mention the enormous assistance provided to us by Mr Michael Pastrikos, a person who was born and grew up in Darwin, and later went back to Greece. He runs a successful hospitality business, a hotel, and, of course, a caf which he calls The Boomerang Caf. Mr Pastrikos invited a lot of people who live is Kos, and a lot of Greeks who have been to Darwin - they worked all their lives in Darwin and retired there - and they provided enormous assistance to us.
On the same afternoon, we went to Kalymnos by boat, since Kos is only 40 minutes by boat from Kalymnos. In Kalymnos, we had a very joyful reception, with young girls dressed up in the traditional Kalymnian dress, offering flowers to the newly-arrived delegation. A large number of Kalymnians - especially those who have worked in Darwin and are now retired and live in Kalymnos - welcomed the Chief Minister, me and the rest of the delegation.
We stayed in Kalymnos for a few days. We had meetings with Mr George Roussos, the Mayor of Kalymnos, and Ms Hrysooula Sifoniou, the Sub-Prefect of Kalymnos. We met people from Darwin. We enjoyed the hospitality of the Kalymnian people. I was extremely surprised when I left the hotel and walked down to the promenade and the port; it was like walking in downtown Darwin in the mall. There were so many people who knew who we were. They were from Darwin. It was just meeting old friends from Darwin. Most important is to see the name of the different cafes lined up in the promenade. Caf Gove, Caf Darwin, Caf Boomerang, and Kalymnos has a street named after Darwin - a Darwin Street in the centre of Kalymnos. Also, it was very interesting to note the different shops in Kalymnos and the names, because the Greek custom is that you put the name of the shop and underneath the name of the proprietor. Many of the names of the shops reminded me a lot of the people’s names in Darwin, and that indicates the strong links between the Kalymnians and Darwin. As poor people they arrived from Kalymnos to Darwin, and they have made their fortune and a good living, and they have returned to retire in Kalymnos.
We spent three days in Kalymnos. We had the opportunity to visit the community museum and find out about the long tradition of the Kalymnian divers for sponges, and also the Monastery of St Savvas, which is built in a very tall hill above Kalymnos. I recall very well the Mayor of Kalymnos pointing down to the city and telling me that one-third of those house were built with money that was sent from people working in Darwin. There are 16 000 people in Kalymnos, and 3500 of them are Australian citizens because they have been in Australia, worked in Australia, acquired citizenship, and most of them worked in Darwin and Gove. As a matter of fact, Kalymnos is the biggest Kalymnian city in the world, followed by Darwin and third by Tapporn Springs in America in Florida. Sometimes, when things are really bad in Kalymnos, Darwin becomes the first Kalymnian city in the world, with all the Kalymnians coming back to Darwin for work.
What really impressed me this time was the fact that a lot of people who were in Kalymnos told me that they were coming back in the next few months because they hear there is a lot of work in Darwin, and they would like to come back and re-establish themselves - after they had been to Darwin and sold everything and went to live back forever and ever in Kalymnos. Things are changing.
Following our trip to Kalymnos, we went to Istanbul at the invitation of His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. The Administrator of the Northern Territory was going to be bestowed one of the highest awards of the church. I am not saying Greek Orthodox Church, because the Patriarch is the leader of the Orthodox Church that expanded from Poland to Japan, from Finland to South Africa, and incorporates Australia, New Zealand and America. He is the spiritual leader of 250 million Orthodox Christians around the world. The Patriarch speaks seven languages fluently, and he is the same age as the Pope. However, I have to say that he is in much, much better shape than His Holiness the Pope. He invited us to the island of Adigoniwhich is one of the Princes Islands of the Bosporus. We went there by boat. We attended a ceremony for the award to His Honour the Administrator in a church that was built about 1000AD to 1100AD.
Following that, His Holiness took us by boat and we went to the island of Halki which is the religious school for all Orthodox priests. It has been operating there since the 1700s. Unfortunately, it was closed down by the Turkish government in 1973, but there are very good indications that the Turkish government will allow the operation of this school.
We spent the whole day with the Patriarch, who is very approachable. What really impressed me was, when we were departing by boat from the first island of Adigoni, when he got into the boat there was a group of Turkish people who approached him. Being Muslim, they asked him in Turkish for his blessing. As he explained later, one of the women obviously had some problems with her family. She, a Muslim woman, asked the Orthodox Patriarch to pray for her to get her daughter back, and she was kissing his hands. I really was very impressed about the respect that the Turkish people – from different religions – showed to the Orthodox Patriarch. That indicates the respect that this person enjoys among the Turkish people.
In Istanbul, we visited the Great Church of Saint Sophia and some of the other ruins and museums. The next day, we returned to Athens, and the delegation had a meeting with Mr Dollis. We then visited the Greek parliament, where we met with the Speaker of the House, Mr Apostolos Kaklamanis. We were informed that there would be a delegation from the Greek parliament visiting Australia in November and gladly invited them to come here. It will probably coincide with our sittings in November, so I gathered information about Darwin and provide them with material. I have not heard from them yet, but I hope they will come down via Singapore to Darwin.
We also met with Petros Efthumiou, the Minister for Education, who adopted all our propositions. The Greek government, as the Chief Minister mentioned this morning, will provide the funding for a second teacher in Darwin, educational material for our Greek students in Darwin, and also scholarships for Australian Greek descent teachers to be trained in how to teach Greek to the Greek kids. Then we not only met with the President of the Greek Republic, Mr Constantinos Stephanopoulos we also we visited members of the opposition party and had a very constructive meeting with them.
Following our Athens trip, we went to Cyprus and met with the Minister for Education, Mr Pefkios Georgiades who also gave us the same promise for the provision of education material. We also met with Efthymios Efthymiou, the Minister for Agriculture. Mr Efthymiou was very interested in the Territory, when we described the Territory and our arid environment and agriculture. He asked for information about the water and land management which I am very happy to provide.
It was a very successful trip, despite criticism by the Leader of the Opposition that it would be better to go to Asia. Members for the other side, and some people who are obviously leaning to the CLP, should note that the government paid only for the expense of the Chief Minister. The minister and everybody else in the delegation paid their own way and, certainly, nobody travelled first class.
It was a very successful trip, Madam Speaker, that will be a model for future trips from other areas in Asia, or wherever else Territorians come from.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, throughout 1999 and 2000, I spoke in the Chamber on seven or eight occasions about the activities of one accountant by the name of Sonny Deo and the activities in relation to Gapuwiyak community. He then went on to greater fame in other parts of Australia, particularly the north-west, at Balangari, and Turkey Creek around the Kununurra area, in activities which resulted in him having an adverse finding placed on him by the Australian Securities Investment Commission.
At one point throughout that debate when I was raising these issues in the Chamber, the former Opposition Leader and then Chief Minister spoke in the House on behalf of Mr Deo and said he expected to get some representation from this grub at some stage, and that he would be looking forward to getting that. Well, he never received it, or if he did, he kept it to himself. He would have kept it to himself for good reasons, because this bloke has some very, very grubby allegations against him and findings in relation to the Australian Securities Investment Commission.
Yesterday in the NT News I see he has applied for registration in the Northern Territory as a solicitor, so he has graduated from accountancy and gone on to greater things. He now has a law degree and is applying for registration as a solicitor. I will be making sure, as part of the objection process, as the member for Nhulunbuy in the interests of my constituents at least, that I will be forwarding every word I ever said about this person in parliament on the Hansard as part of the objection process and asking them to have a look at what I have said. I will be asking them to have a look at the Australian Securities and Investment Commission’s findings in relation to this particular gentleman, and making clear that it would not be my wish that this man ever operate, or ever act, as a solicitor in the Northern Territory. He has form, and form duly prosecuted under the Australian Securities Investment Commission. I would have thought people like the Law Society would be interested in those sorts of activities themselves before they go and register a person as a solicitor in the Northern Territory.
I now speak of much more pleasant matters. Last month, the Tournament of the Minds was held in Darwin at the Charles Darwin University. Competition was fierce from 25 schools, competing from all major Territory centres. The Tournament of the Minds involves teams of students coming together to develop a solution to an open-ended challenge in social sciences or maths and engineering.
Whether time zones should be the same world-wide and how to make rope out of cotton wool balls were just two of the problems faced by 200 students at the regional final. Two teams from Nhulunbuy High School and two teams from Nhulunbuy Primary competed in the tournament. The maths engineering team from Nhulunbuy High included Samantha Ziegler, Brendan Drzezdzon, Ryan Pitts, Justine Daniels and Alix Betts. They tackled the problem ‘hanging by a thread to lift five kilograms with six cotton balls’, in a very well presented, clever and entertaining play. They succeeded in practices but did not make it on the day.
The social sciences team included Brooke Murdy, Emma Mitchell, Hannah Putland, Taliska Kiebat, Ashley Webb and Lizzy Garland. They had to apply geographic knowledge to solve and perform their complex and wholly entertaining play called All the Time in the World. To their and my delight, they were announced the winners of the secondary social sciences category.
Nhulunbuy Primary School teams included Jessica and Hannah Brodie, Louise and Caitlin Jones, Marley and Alinta Brown, Stephen Jarvis, Gregory Hartogh, Edward O’Brien, Dominic Bulters, Sarah Schultz, Chloe Percic, Alexandra Thomson and Stacey Andrews.
Congratulations to the Territory regional winners in the four categories: social sciences, Nhulunbuy Primary School; secondary social sciences, Nhulunbuy High School; primary maths/engineering, Nightcliff Primary; and secondary maths/engineering, Kormilda College.
The Territory will host a national final of Tournament of Minds on 25 October with more than 430 students from around Australia competing in Darwin for the championship. I am proud of the students from my electorate and I wish them success in the national finals.
The Gove AFL Grand Final was played on Hindle Oval in front of a large crowd. The Saints, coming off an undefeated season, were looking for a big win to erase the memories of a succession of losses. Their opponents, the young Nguykal team, had exceeded expectations by reaching the grand final in only their second season. They went into the game as massive underdogs. The first half set the tone for a great contest, with the Saints showing why they are the best team in the league this year and the Nguykal defence stretched. The third quarter - always the premiership quarter - again proved no different. Nguykal threw everything they had at the Saints and turned a first half deficit to a five-point lead at three-quarter time. In the last quarter, Nguykal had answers to every Saints push forward. They never gave up their lead and grabbed a famous three goal victory. The final score was Nguykal 12-11 (83) to Saints 9-11 (65).
The Billy Buckle Trophy for best on the field was awarded to Nguykal ruckman Lyndon Snelling. It was a great contest, played in great spirit, and I was delighted to award the premiership trophy to a very young Nguykal team, to the coach Graeme Maymuru and their captain, Luke Maymuru.
During the week commencing Monday, 25 August, Shirley Nirrpurrandji and her a team at Gapuwiyak Community Education Centre hosted the Arnhem School Sports, looking after Gapuwiyak, Maningrida, Milingimbi, Ramingining and Shepherdson College from Elcho Island. The opening ceremony commenced with a colourful parade through Gapuwiyak township, and we had speeches from Shirley Nirrpurrandji, chairperson Davis Marrawungu, Jenny Djerrkura on my behalf as local member, and traditional owners Clancy and Jimmy Marrkula. There was an excellent opening dance from traditional owners.
Gapuwiyak captains officially opened the school sports for 2003, which proved to be a week full of sporting activities, and the opportunity to not only display athletic ability, but to take pride in representing their community and school and make new friends. I congratulate the winners, Shepherdson College from Galiwinku.
On 21 September, NBC Consultants gave generous thanks on behalf of the contractors involved in their client, Gapuwiyak Community Incorporated, for resolution of the issue of the load limit on the Bulman track. They felt common sense had prevailed, and the project has now commenced. By lifting the load limits on the track, they were able to get their building materials in from Katherine and make a start on these much-awaited duplexes that are being built. As at today, the slabs are down and they are into construction.
Security fencing at Gove Hospital, along the walkway from the admin block to the hospital, has now been completed. Electronic locks on the hospital doors have been fitted, and can now be activated when necessary. A recent example of increased security is that there was a report of a suspicious person in the grounds. Hospital staff were able to lock the hospital doors immediately, securing all those within the hospital. Director Mark Watson reports that he is happy with the security at the hospital as it stands, but is working on procedures and policy to ensure everyone feels secure in the environment.
A draft business plan for the development and operation of the substance abuse special care centre for Nhulunbuy has been compiled. Partners in Progress are Harmony Djamamirri Mala, the Northern Territory government, Northern Territory Police, Alcan Gove, Nhulunbuy Corporation, ATSIS, the Department of Health and Community Services, Miwatj Health Aboriginal Corporation, Yirrkala Business Enterprise and YNOTs.
The business plan proposes the staged development of a substance abuse special care centre. The centre is designed to assist in the care, treatment and rehabilitation of people suffering substance abuse in the Gove Peninsula area of the Miwatj region. Nhulunbuy, as the regional centre, has the only takeaway alcohol outlets there. As such, it is a magnet for itinerants as well as local people who have developed alcohol problems. The centre is an initiative of the Harmony Djamamirri Mala, the Harmony Working Group, which is a broad-based community organisation established to address a range of social issues confronting the region.
The group is comprised of representatives from Alcan, ATSIS, Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Andilyakwa Land Council, Rirratjingu, Nhulunbuy Corporation, Northern Territory government, Miwatj Aboriginal Health, Northern Land Council, Gumatj Association, community representatives, and Yirrkala Dhanbul Community Association.
The Harmony Djamamirri Mala is also a regional crime prevention council established by Crime Prevention NT to coordinate crime prevention and community safety activities in the region. There is a history of need and demand for a shelter for the Nhulunbuy area going back to the early 1990s and demands by Yolngu, particularly the women, have been sustained and vocal.
A process of public consultation will be undertaken, and all information will be considered before the finalisation of the plan. An important focus of the plan is to create employment for the local people and the implementation of training programs to facilitate employment outcomes.
The new sports multipurpose hall at the high school is beginning to take shape. The main upright structure is almost up. Everyone is excited and looking forward to its completion. All the students have had the opportunity to vote on the final colour scheme. The completion date is scheduled for before Christmas, and is on schedule.
I recently asked the people of Nhulunbuy to assist the Fleming family – Alan, Lex, Tegan and Mitchell – in their time of need while Lex remained, at that time, extremely ill in Bundaberg Hospital. Sadly, she has passed away since. The Fleming family have been magnificent community contributors in so many ways. In true Nhulunbuy spirit, a number of fundraising events were held during September, and the final event, a family dance, will be conducted on 17 October. Lex was – as, indeed, is every member of this family – a truly valued, caring woman. She will be sadly missed. We just hope Alan and family are able to settle back down in Nhulunbuy, otherwise it would be another tragedy if we were to lose the family altogether. Our thoughts and prayers are with Alan and the family at this time, and I look forward to catching up with him when I get back.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I offer my congratulations to the finalists and winners of the 2003 Telstra Northern Territory Business Women’s Awards. It was my great pleasure to attend the awards on Tuesday, yesterday, unfortunately having to leave prior to the announcement of the final award in order to return to the House for Question Time.
Initiated by Telstra in 1995, these awards aim to recognise, encourage and reward successful Australian businesswomen across all levels and types of business. Katherine businesswoman Lyn White was named the 2003 Telstra winner of the Businesswoman of the Year out of a field of the Territory’s top businesswomen. Lyn took out the prestigious award for her role as Director of Jalyn Ford Pty Ltd, one of only two Ford and Holden car dealership franchise owners in Australia.
Since Lyn took on the majority ownership of the Katherine car dealership four years ago, it has grown from a staff of three to 16, and has reached a turnover of $10m. In 2000, Lyn became the first woman to win the Ford Motor Company’s prestigious Dealer of the Year Award. She is also Vice-President of the Territory’s Motor Traders Association, and is involved in policy development with government. Lyn was named the ultimate NT winner after earlier winning the Westpac Group Business Owner Award for owners with a 50% share or more in a business with responsibility for key management decision-making.
I would also like to congratulate the winners of the other categories of the awards program. Suzanne Flynn, who is Operations Manager of Allan King and Sons Construction Pty Ltd in Katherine, was named winner of the Commonwealth Government Private and Corporate Sector Award, which is for employees in the private and corporate sector, or owners with less than a 50% share of a business. Suzanne manages the payroll and superannuation for this company of 25 employees, the business’s financial management and reporting and preparation of tenders. Suzanne also volunteers her time as secretary of the local arm of Landcare. It is really interesting that two of our winners this year come from Katherine, as the overall winner, Lyn White, does.
The winner of the TMP Hudson Community and Government Award, which is for employees of government departments, statutory bodies and not-for-profit organisations, is Carol Mirco. Carol is currently the Principal Nurse Consultant with the Department of Health and Community Services. While working at Royal Darwin Hospital, Carol oversaw the development of all emergency plans for the hospital. These plans were operational and implemented with great success during the period of reaction and support for victims of the Bali bombings last year.
The contributions of young women in business was also acknowledged on Tuesday. Winner of the Telstra Young Business Woman’s Award, which is for women aged 30 and under, was April Goodman, who is owner of the photographic business Moving Pictures in Alice Springs. April’s portfolio includes tourism and commercial photography, fashion events and weddings. April also coordinated photographic events such as the 2002 World Master’s Games in Melbourne, the Finke Desert Race and the Alice Springs Masters Games.
Other leading NT Businesswomen who were recognised for their business achievements by being named finalists in this awards were: Helen Summers, well known optometrist, based in Darwin with clinics in Katherine and Jabiru. Helen provides vision training, lectures and workshops for teachers, parents and professionals throughout the Territory.
Susan van-Cuylenberg is the practice principal of Godfrey Pembroke. In one year, Susan was able to increase the practice’s income by 100%, leading to the employment of further staff and partner for the company. Susan was also elected this year to the national Godfrey Pembroke executive board.
Another finalist was Joanne Walter, who is co-owner of Headlines for Hair and Skin, an Alice Springs business; a successful salon employing three full-time apprentice hairdressers and one part-time apprentice.
There was also Natasha Elder, the Commercial Property Manager of Colliers International. Natasha manages the commercial property management team and overseas the management of the business’ larger properties, including two shopping centres.
Another finalist was Pamela Jape, Operations Manager of her family’s property development and retail company, Jape Nominees. Pamela oversees the business development for the company’s Jape Furnishing and Forty Winks Stores in Darwin.
Joanna Holden was another finalist, who is the program manager for the Jawoyn Association. It is great to see another Katherine finalist. Katherine was so well represented at these awards. Joanna has also worked to help establish a juvenile offenders program, and a case management unit for disadvantaged job seekers.
Kate McTaggart is the next finalist I wish to acknowledge. Kate is currently the Director of Public Transport for the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, and has more than 20 years experience in planning, business improvement, change management and organisational development within the Territory’s public sector.
Elizabeth Mildred - or as we know her, Beth - the Regional Manager of Central Australia for the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry, is also Secretary of the Chamber’s Regional Executive Committee and was another finalist.
Lorraine Schmidt is the Senior Social Worker and Manager of the Hospital Liaison Unit at the Alice Springs Hospital, where she oversees the delivery of culturally appropriate services to patients.
I take this opportunity to once again acknowledge Telstra. Through their various awards and sponsorship programs, they make a valuable contribution to Northern Territory civic and community life. The awards themselves were sponsored also by TMP Hudson, Westpac Banking, AusIndustry, and The Bulletin.
Lyn White and all category winners will represent the Northern Territory at the National Telstra Business Women’s Awards, to be held in Melbourne later this month, on the 25th. This is an opportunity for women from the Territory to show the rest of Australia the depth of our resources; the fact that women in business are innovative, determined, imaginative and able to make a difference.
I would like to talk now about a wonderful event I hosted on Wednesday, 17 September. I was joined at this event by two of my colleagues, minister Vatskalis - a long-time supporter of this Laurel Club which, indeed, meets regularly in Kon’s office - and minister Chris Burns, who used the opportunity to catch up with some old friends. The Laurel Club is a support club, as I am sure we all know, for about 80 or so war widows who come together regularly for meetings, support and companionship. The Laurel Club has an active program, and last year included outings to Litchfield, Mandorah and the orchid farm. Norma Allen, the president, and Nola Smith, the secretary, welcomed me, and I was also joined by Jack Hamilton who is the President of Legacy NT. On my table, I also caught up with Jack’s wife, Val, Margaret Kirkup, the Laurel Club Treasurer, and Ros Willes, who is a long-term Territorian and member of the club who entertained us with stories about teaching and working in libraries in Darwin.
Several friends of mine were there. I saw Doris Ford who was, for many years, the Secretary of the Order of Australia Association; Betty Graham, who is on my seniors advisory council, and Terri Baker, Ronda Malone, Jean McGill, Phyl Treloar, and many others. We enjoyed our lunch together and it was a wonderful oasis in my day to catch up with old friends and old times. I commend the Laurel Club, particularly current office bearers, Norma, Nola and Margaret, for their excellent work. To all members and those who assist their work, happy 19th birthday, with many more to come.
I spoke this morning in the House about the Northern Territory’s official delegation that went to Greece for 14 days from 31 August to 14 September. I would now like to talk briefly about those Darwin business people who accompanied the official delegation, and whose support and assistance made the venture so productive. The official Territory party was accompanied by a delegation consisting of members of the Darwin Greek community, including the Honorary Consul for Greece, George Kapetas; Ros Bracher, his partner, who is the Honorary Consul-General for Japan; John Nicolakis who is the President of the Greek Orthodox Community, John Halkitis, Tony Miaoudis, and Rena Miaoudis - all prominent Darwin business people.
I would like to put on record my thanks to those people for giving up their time, money and effort supporting the Northern Territory government’s relationship-building visit to Greece, Cyprus and Turkey. They showed their commitment to the Territory and to the Greek community of Darwin by attending meetings to discuss and promote the Territory. They assisted to strengthen ties between Northern Territory Greeks and Cypriots with their home countries, to create opportunities for cultural exchange.
My thanks also to the Administrator, John Anictomatis, and to Savvas Hatzivalsamis, the President of the Greek Orthodox School who also came with us. Sav Hatzivalsamis, through his efforts, helped secure an additional Greek government-funded teacher to Darwin, new educational materials, and improved educational channels for our schools. We can look forward to Internet links or communication between schools in Darwin and on Kalymnos, and I believe in Cyprus as well.
Next year, we look forward to a return visit of delegations from Greece to Darwin as they have promised, and particularly the one from Kalymnos led by the Mayor, George Roussos.
The visit in September this year was a success, because of the nature and the abilities of the people who contributed their time and effort. The Territory’s Greek community, while still calling Australia home, cherishes its links and heritage with their mother country. Such ties contribute greatly to the diversity of our community, and we are all the beneficiaries. Again, my thanks to all those involved who supported this visit.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is my sad duty tonight to talk about Shirley Davies who was a constituent of mine - but more than a constituent, a friend. Like many people I was saddened to hear of the passing of Shirley Davies on 22 August this year. I had a lot of contact with Shirley through Stella Maris, St Vincent De Paul and, as I mentioned, as a constituent who lived quite close to my office at Moil.
Shirley had a very interesting life. She was born in Dunedin in New Zealand in 1921. She obtained a degree in Home Economics and Institutional Management before joining the New Zealand Navy. She rose to the rank of lieutenant, serving in 1943-45 as a New Zealand liaison officer (supplies) and with the US Navy which had a significant presence operating in the Pacific and based in New Zealand.
The notes that I am reading from tonight come from a eulogy delivered by Mick Fox at Shirley’s funeral.
Shirley’s next career move was to become a ship’s stewardess, travelling the world extensively and, in fact, Shirley’s first visit to Darwin was while she was doing this travelling. In 1949, she migrated to Australia, continuing her sea travels on and off alternating with various jobs, including the promotion of the use of gas for cooking on both radio and television.
In 1967, Shirley moved to Darwin. She was sent here by Swan Breweries to cook at their Darwin Hotel. Shirley also worked in the kitchen at the old Darwin Hospital in Lambell Terrace, and then became 2IC of the kitchen at Bagot Reserve involved with both cooking for residents and with training for Aboriginal people.
The day after Cyclone Tracy, Shirley began as a volunteer chef at Nightcliff High School, cooking for Darwin residents made homeless. This was just so typical of Shirley Davies. She was just such a wonderful, warm-hearted, generous person and a very hard worker. Many people knew her and loved her. During the period following the evacuation of Darwin, she cooked at the Marrara Hotel which had become the residential quarters for Darwin’s Police force. She then went on the site where Tracy Village is now located, attending the meeting which formed Tracy Village.
Shirley was admitted in 1976 as an Associate Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Catering and maintained two business - one cleaning, the other catering.
In 1979, Shirley’s health started to deteriorate following an unsuccessful major abdominal operation. She then developed arthritis in her hip. Shirley’s voluntary activities included 19 years as a seamstress with the St Vincent de Paul Society and 18 years with the Stella Maris Seafarers Centre. Being in a wheelchair for 16 years, Shirley became a strong advocate for disabled people, and there were a number of times that Shirley lobbied me on a number of issues about access for disabled people, and wheelchair access. She was a very powerful person and she certainly knew how to lay down an argument. Shirley was always a great advocate. She joined the Integrated Disability Action Incorporated as one of its first members and never stopped pushing for better accesses to premises.
I found Shirley to be a strong woman, devoting herself to the good of those around her. I know her carer, Norm. Norm was at the funeral. Norm has looked after Shirley for some 30 years, and Shirley would acknowledge herself that she could not have done many of these things, in terms of going to meetings and her very active life with St Vincent de Paul, Stella Maris, the church and a whole range of other organisations, without Norm to help her with transport, wheeling her wheelchair, and just the general work that Norm did. Norm was just a very devoted person. A very quiet man but a wonderful person and I know that Norm will miss her greatly. I offer him and Shirley’s family my sincere condolences.
It was my pleasure on 30 August to attend the Seniors Month Gala Dinner. It was my pleasure to share this finale organised for Seniors Month 2003 at the MGM Grand with the seniors, especially all those whom I have met through my electorate and the Tuesday Senior Citizens Group. In particular, Doris Ford, Marj Smith, Barbara Carrell, Marie Heavey, Olga Periera, Audrey Ellis, Peter Mitchell, Peggy Alp, Gill Edwards, Bob and Jean Gould, Kerry Harkin, June Daley, Celine and Robert Ladju, and many more great people.
I had to leave the seniors around 9 pm to join the Filipino Association of the NT to celebrate the 7th year of the Barrio Fiesta at the Filipino Community Centre. This was a fundraising event for the improvement of facilities at the Filipino Community Centre in Darwin. It was, as usual, a highly successful night, full of entertainment and fun. I was in time to hear an exceptional performances by Tina Agcaoili, Bernadine Crute, and Judd and Pia McElroy followed by the main act, Miss Ivy Violan. As members will know, I thoroughly enjoy these great acts. There certainly is a lot of talent within the Filipino community.
On 31 August, a Sunday, I attended the Filipino Community Council of the NT AGM. I was pleased to act again as returning Officer for the council at its AGM in August. Congratulations to Elena Ralph who was voted in as President; and Fele Mann, Senior Vice President. The Executive Committee is made up of Domi Antalan, Narc Icad, Mary Ann De Guzman, Cirila Matthews, Ester Davy and Luchi Santer. That group does a great job. They are members of all the peak organisations that comprise FILCCONT and they do a great job for the Filipino community and, indeed, the wider community.
On 5 September, I attended the Jingili Primary School Father’s Day Breakfast. That is a great annual event, and a great effort by the school for making this a fantastic start to the school day, as they always do, celebrating with the students’ fathers. The event raised $455 profit for the school. Helping the kids out with the cooking and organising where Jill and Peter Sommerville - always great supporters who work so hard for the Jingili School - together with Allan, Sam and Kelly Anstey, Marg Woolley and Glenda Sutardy, Robin Livick, Leigh Lockley, Tracy Kenna and Elaine Hellyer.
On 6 September, I attended the Italian Festival Night. This was the 25th Anniversary of the Italian Club in Darwin. Of course, the venue was the Italian Club. I was shown great hospitality by Mr Fred Marrone, who is the President. It was my privilege to speak there on behalf of minister Kon Vatskalis, who was overseas at the time. It was a great pleasure to speak there. I remarked that night that the Italian Club is such a great venue and has seen so many happy events over the years and is such an important part of Darwin’s social life.
On 10 September, I attended a meeting in Borella Park. This is a committee of residents that has been formed to represent those who live in the vicinity of Borella Park. Their main reason to come together is to prevent and address antisocial behaviour issues in Borella Park and its environs. They have received a grant from NT Crime Prevention and, with the council and police, they are working together to address issues in that park. They have done a community safety audit, and the group is moving to address some of the unpleasant issues that have arisen around Borella Park. The committee president is Trevor Edwards, supported by a committee which includes Jane Burford, Sally Edwards, Tracey Ellis, Terry Brown, Bill Denniss and Blair Grace. I am working closely with that committee, and am proud to be associated with them.
On 13 September, I attended Wagaman school’s 30th birthday street party. This party was held, as I said, to celebrate 30 years of the school and was a great success. It was one of the biggest nights out that the school has had and the entertainment was fantastic. All the different grades of the school added to the entertainment and it was very emotional for some, looking back over 30 years. The school had a great collection of photographs that residents and ex-students could look at; the classes and the teaching staff over the years. That was a great time for the Wagaman school.
On 16 September, along with many others, I attended the Chinese Moon Festival festivities and reception at Parliament House. It was great to see Mr Bill Wong, Chris and Irene Lai and Mr Taek Fung Lay there, amongst many other people. There was great entertainment with the lions, and also some dancing and singing by a group of beautiful young girls who were immaculately attired in traditional dress.
On 24 September, I was delighted to hear that the Moil Magic Team Skippers excelled at the Jump Rope for Heart Fabulous Physical Fun Day held at Nightcliff Primary School. The team of Simone Corney, Jessica Dowling, Michelle Watson, Kiarna Fiorenza, Katrina Tribble, Ellen Polychrone, Louise Hall and Tegan Corney, won first prize in Best Presentation. Longest Single Skipping was Jessica Dowling. Second in Best Technique, Best Overall Routine, Most Double Unders, Participation and Having Fun, Jessica Dowling again - what a fantastic skipper Jessica is. Third prize for Best Skills and Thrills and Best Individuals was Michelle Watson.
On 28 September, I attended a function at the Darwin Entertainment Centre. The Australian Girls Choir was in town. They were on their Rock to Reef Tour 2003, and it was the third leg of their tour. It is their 6th national tour. The choir is quite big, made up of 54 choristers from Adelaide, Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney. Their performance included a broad range of music and choreographed song, including Australiana, spirituals and Broadway. The choir donated their time and talent to assist the Darwin Youth and Children’s Choir to raise funds for their forthcoming concert trip to ANCA’s Choralfest in Western Australia.
I need to comment specifically about the Darwin Youth and Children’s Choir members; that is, Kaitlyn Andrews, Jaimie Leverdigen, Teneal Broccardo, Shanece Liddy-Wilde, Simon Colister, Rebecca Minniecon, Tiffany Cornell, Kyra Mulvena, Samantha Cowie, Yuliana Pascoe, Helen Fegan, Eliza Pownall, Nathan Forster, Miriam Scapin, Stephanie Foster, Rachel Tolliday, Casey Harrison, Anna Torrington, Skyler Hemy, Amelia Wardle, Kate Huntingford, Joanne Yallop and Bree Kiernan. They were all a fantastic credit to their Choral Director, Mrs Emma Tantengco, who does such a fantastic job amongst young people. Emma lives in Moil. She has worked for many years with this group, and their professionalism and joy of singing just shows out in every performance that they do. This is a really positive youth story, and the girls and young men really enjoy their time with the choir. The audience really lit up when they performed.
I would specifically like to mention the Katherine High School Vocal Ensemble, under the direction of Jen Scott also. They did very well on the night - well, more than well, they were excellent. Jen put the ensemble together in February 2002, from interested girls ranging from Years 8 to 12 in the high school. The girls were only together for a few months when they won the three sections they entered in the North Australian Eisteddfod in May. The girls and Jen have stayed together since and performed on numerous occasions around Katherine and Darwin. After taking out first prize in all three sections entered in this year’s Eisteddfod, the ensemble was invited to perform at the final Eisteddfod concert in Darwin. This was a fantastic achievement. What really touched me and the rest of the audience that night, was the work that the teacher has done with these girls, but also what a fantastic group they are; how friendships and understandings have built up, and how it has built self-esteem. They really are a great group and a credit to the teacher and Katherine. I was very inspired, along with others that night. I seek leave to enter the names of the girls into the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
Laurin Glasby, Miriam Glasby, Rebecca Fergerson, Chloe Hopkins, Rebecca Collier, Keira Wardley,
Jessica Skinner, Amie Fryer, Tamara King, Heather Van Hattem, Samantha Smit, Elizabeth Collier,
Rhian Wardley, Chrystal Schlenka, Madalina Ingrams, Kate de Koning, Rachel Pech, Kristie Bursse,
Rochel McKerlie, Stephanie Le Poidevin, Emma Thomas, Sam Taylor, Amanda Canning.
Dr BURNS: I finish with, once again, that they are a fantastic choir, along with the Darwin Youth and Children’s Choir.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak about a few people tonight, and I will start with Michael Anthony Reed. It was my intention to speak about the former member for Katherine last night, but I missed the jump. It is important to put on the record contributions that have been made by parliamentarians in this place. It is a rare occasion that a parliamentarian gets to pick the exit of his choosing. In the case of Michael Anthony Reed, it was something that he must have pondered long and hard about and eventually decided, sometime between the last sittings and this sittings, to leave.
As I thought about it, I realised I have known Mike Reed now for over 21 years. I went to Katherine relieving in the early 1980s - it was about 1981 - and Mike Reed was relieving in Darwin. Therefore, we resided in his house. I had two small children, as did he, at that time. He was a Regional Director in Katherine. I went back to Katherine in about 1983 as a Regional Director of the Department of Community Development and he was a peer, as the Officer in Charge of the Parks and Wildlife Commission - or Conservation Commission, I believe it was called then. So, in a small town like Katherine we got to know each other pretty well, and his wife and my wife became friends, as his children, Stephen, Megan and David, became friends with my children. In fact, they were similar ages and in similar classes.
It is interesting to see the impact that this man has made on politics in the Northern Territory. It is easy to dismiss him over the last couple of years as a Treasurer who presided over budget X and Y. The reality is, the Territory is in a very robust financial position at the moment, and it is largely the legacy of Mike Reed. Likewise, if you look at other places where he had an influence - the Health Department is one of them, mining and industry, mining and resources is another, and tourism is another - the untiring efforts and the energy of Mike Reed really made a big impact on this place. He was somebody who had his own ideas and brought them forward. He was not shy about listening to other ideas and, despite the image of the tough guy who was a bit of a redneck and did not listen - I worked on the personal staff of Mike Reed for some years when he was a Health minister and I know that, even though he had a bit of a rough exterior, he is a man of great compassion and he took many issues on.
I will give you just one. There was a terrible disease called Haemophilus influenza type B which was effecting children in the Northern Territory, and particularly Aboriginal children of Central Australia. We had a lot of immunologists and disease people, physicians and other communicable diseases people looking at it. They were talking about a phased introduction of a vaccine, when the vaccine became available, and the high cost of the vaccine. I can still remember to this day the impatience of minister Reed about getting those kids vaccinated, notwithstanding the costs. There was no way he was having a staged program; it was brought straight in and that disease was eradicated.
Okay, there are not many silver bullet-type things where, if you have a problem, you can inoculate someone and fix it. But that occurred, and it occurred in his time. I can remember some of the debates about the problems with getting the immunisation kits, the costs and all the rest of it, and he bulldozed right through it. I guess that is how he got his name as a bit of a tough nut, because he did bulldoze over people. However, as an advisor, I found he also listened. He listened for a long time before he made his mind up, and when he did, he did not vacillate; he stuck to his case. However, in that period before making his mind up, I know that he weighed arguments. I know he did, because I was in the room on many occasions when he was minister, and I saw people persuade him to a point of view that he had not previously held. I saw him go to battle on those points of view and stay with it.
That is one of the problems with politics in contemporary society; people vacillate. Often, they are driven by polls, and by who speaks to them last on other issues. Reed was not like that. He took a long time to make his mind up about the rights and wrongs of an issue and, having made it up, he was quite happy to take all the tough calls that came with having that on his own head.
A very enigmatic man, he is a man of contradictions. For instance, he was probably the greenest member of this parliament in the time he was here, and I include the member for Nelson in that. Most people do not realise that he has a natural affinity for the bush, he has a strong connection with Aboriginal people - which surprises people when they find out because most people believe the caricature rather than the man. His observant powers of nature - both flora and fauna - are quite astonishing. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of Territory flora and fauna, and particularly the bird life in this place. He is a published author, which was used with some merriment by people. However, he is quite proud of his authorship.
I know he was instrumental in finding the breeding colonies around Mt Todd. When you talk about cyanide spills and fauna being killed, I was also in his office when he was the Mines minister and there was an accidental destruction of one of the test sites for breeding colonies for Gouldian finches. Mike Reed was livid. He was on the phone to Pegasus Gold, who were the owners of the mine at that time. It was one of those scientific things that cannot be replicated or readily replaced. I know how passionate he was about issues like this. Even though he was the minister responsible for Mining, he was very passionate about the caveats that were put on that mine, and the issues relating to where it was operating in a sensitive environment.
He really came to his fore with the Timor crisis and the Katherine flood. It must go on the Parliamentary Record - I would never forgive myself if this parliament did not recognise that the work that was done by Mike Reed after the Timor crisis and the Katherine flood could not have been done by anyone else. Maybe some people could have given it a shot, but there is no way any other human being could have done as well as that bloke.
He was brutal in some of the ways he did business. He was impatient and intolerant, and it is some of those attributes that people remember him by. However, in time of crisis, you really want that. With the Timor crisis - and it has been spoken of in the Parliamentary Record so it really does not have to be gone back into, other than it was something we had never seen before. We had never seen the capacity to house people, put them through Customs - all the normal clearances including disease and other clearances - bring them to a place that was entirely foreign to them, and feed them - many of them were highly under nourished, and required diet that was at least familiar to them. Many of them did not understand the basics of our toilet systems or matters that we take for granted in this place. In walked Reed, and I can tell you, as the supremo of that operation, we got shelter, the food, all the Commonwealth instrumentalities, and all of the screening arrangements put in place, including health screening.
I was on site when Doug Anthony, the Commonwealth minister with some responsibilities in this area, was walking through. He was with Mike Reed and various Northern Territory public servants, and he said: ‘Where are our people?’. His people were way back, and the reason was they had nothing to do with it. It is probably a bit of an over-exaggeration but, essentially, this was a Territory operation. It was done and it proved a couple of things to people down south. It proved (1), we know we are in Asia, we are imbedded in Asia and we understand Asia, and (2), despite that proximity, we are well endowed with the capacity to respond - very well endowed. Mike Reed walked the international stage in that period. He has put it on the record himself about his relationship with Xanana Gusmao. It is one of those things that, if you really searched our capacity to respond to that time, you would have been hard put to find anybody who could do what he did.
The Katherine flood – I went to Katherine to help, like most people from Darwin. I did not go down to do anything other than contribute with the dirty work of ripping up carpets, chucking stuff away, cleaning out houses - whatever. I went to Reedy’s place and the flood had been gone probably - I don’t know - 3 or 4 days at that stage, and he had not been home. He had not been home; he was working out of his office. His place was demolished - absolutely demolished. We threw tonnes of stuff away that I knew was valuable to him, including ornithological books. It is a great tribute to that man, that he was able to work the way he worked, knowing that his own situation was so critical.
I could talk about other floods too, like those at Kalkarindji and other places such as Beswick. However, those two events - the Timor crisis and the Katherine flood - really marked this man as someone who could be deployed today. He is the sort of fellow who if you had to send someone into Iraq or Bosnia, you would send someone like Mike Reed. His vision and capacities are wide enough, his background knowledge in various instruments you have to bring to bear, and his humanity is beyond reproach in matters like that in his capacity to be caring and compassionate. It is interesting that commentators judge him on a caricature that has been portrayed out there of someone who is uncaring, a redneck and whatever. I have been in the bush with him; to small communities where Aboriginal people have greeted him with great affection – great affection - as someone they have known a long time. It is not something he boasts about or parades or anything like that. In fact, I do not think he evens see it as something he would comment on. However, I have been with him in places where there are people suffering from drug addiction, dying, in parlous circumstances in their habitat, and he is a formidable person.
His contribution to this parliament was excellent as a Treasurer, minister responsible for tourism, health, mines and all the rest of it that went with it. It is a very long list. There are very few jobs that he did not hold in his time here. It is also interesting to note that conventions say that if you are the Deputy Chief Minister, you can pretty much pick your portfolios. He never picked the easy stuff. If you look at the workload he carried when he was the Deputy Chief Minister, of Police, Treasury and some of those really heavy portfolios such as Tourism and Parks and Wildlife, it is a testament to the man. I worked with him; I worked in his office. I can remember a long period when we did not get home after about 8 pm because we used to watch the 7 pm news and put out press after it.
When you come into this Parliament House now on a weekend, you do not see cars. When you come in the day before the sittings and you see people dragging in, you can understand why things were so different then. They were different then through industry. The industry that this bloke put in was enormous, and it was a very fatiguing business to work with Mike Reed.
I have travelled overseas with him. I have been to France with him when we went to have a look at the nuclear industry. I can tell you that we left Friday afternoon and we got back Friday afternoon and we slept in beds four nights. We ran; we had a really full agenda. Travelling overseas with a minister of the type of Mike Reed is not a jaunt and it is not fun. It is interesting for you, and you come back a much more educated person. I can tell you that you have to do more of that. Ministers like Mike Reed we have to develop. We are not in government, but those in government should take a leaf out of this bloke’s book because he worked hard, he understood this place, he loved it passionately, he was a man who was quite happy to serve the people before himself and his family, and I am glad that he has made the decision on the basis that his family must now come first.
I believe this parliament will look back - maybe in some years - and we will be very grateful for the legacy of Mike Reed. The contribution he has made, when people start to tote it up and really do the tally on it, is enormous. I pay tribute to him tonight. I would have preferred to have done it last night, the first opportunity I had to but, nonetheless, those of us who know him should put it on the record because he is a very unassuming man. I know that this will embarrass the hell out of him, but that is part of the point of it.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to pay tribute tonight to an extraordinary woman who passed away recently. I refer to Trudy May Perrurle Berger, nee Perkins, who was known to her friends as Tootularty. Many of you will know the Perkins family of Alice Springs and her relatives. She was an extraordinary woman in the fact that she was so proud of her Aboriginality, but she was able to make that bridge and be accepted in the mainstream families of Alice Springs. The funeral was extraordinary in that it had so many of the well-known Aboriginal families attending to pay respects to her.
She was born in May 1932 at Iwuputhaka or Jay Creek, and she passed away on 21 August this year after a very severe stroke. She was a daughter of Hetty Perkins, and we all have heard of Hetty Perkins. There is a hostel for aged Aboriginal people named after Hetty Perkins. She had a twin brother who, unfortunately, passed away when he was quite young. She was sister to many of the well-known Perkins families in Alice Springs, including those of the late Charlie, Ernie, Margaret, Don, Alec, George and Bill and the late Percy Lake. She was survived by her elder sister, Nita Cahill, who was also a Turner. I am sure, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, those families are very well known to you.
May spent most of her life in the Mbantua area of Alice Springs, where she was educated initially at Iwuputhaka, or Jay Creek School. She also attended the Bungalow at the Old Telegraph Station Aboriginal Reserve, and she attended Hartley Street School. She had a passion for education, and I guess that is what made her so special. As a teacher and a principal, I remember her chasing her boys to school to make sure that they had an education. Her boys, Aaron Berger, Stephen Perkins, Neville Perkins, and Ludi Berger, can be grateful to their mother, Aunty May, because she was the one who made sure they got an education, and she always valued that very much. So much so that, when I attended a graduation ceremony at the Aboriginal Institute in Alice Springs last year, there was Aunty May, as she was known, collecting a certificate. Even in her later years, she still studied; she just loved it so much.
She spent some time at Alcoota and Napperby Stations in Central Australia. She also worked at the Alice Springs Hospital for many years, and at the Hetty Perkins hostel when it was built. Many people will remember her for the way she bounced up to these graduations at IAD in her later years to show - as she would put it - the young people that you can do it. She was really a role model and an inspiration to many young Aboriginal people in town for the fact that she would go along and work through the certificate, amongst many students who were much younger than her; but she always achieved.
In her early years, Tootularty was a talented and celebrated singer, and she loved the ballads and the old country and western songs. She would always go into the talent quests and, at the Old Railway Institute, she would be there on Saturday evening at their concerts. They sang one of her favourite songs at the funeral, and some of us are old enough to remember it: Red Sails in the Sunset. You can just imagine Aunty May sitting down singing that song, she loved it so much.
She was a spiritual and spirited woman, and she was very proud of her Aranda Aboriginal ancestry and heritage. Later in life, she had a close association with the Alice Springs Anglican Church.
In 1967, she married Stefan Berger, who had emigrated from Austria. She was a very proud and protective mother, as I said earlier. She is survived by her husband - and it was very sad to see Stefan there - and her sons, Neville Perkins, Aaron Perkins who spoke on behalf of the family, Stephen Berger, and Ludi Berger. There were many grand daughters there as well.
Aunty May was just so proud of her children and her grandchildren. I know she tried to be to them an example of what you can achieve: to be proud of her Aboriginality, but be proud also to be able to walk in mainstream community, to be part of Alice Springs town. That is what she wanted to be remembered for most of all: as a contributing member of Central Australia.
She was survived by many of the Aranda families and relations around Central Australia. At the funeral there were many people. It was such a good feeling at the funeral because they were the old families of Alice Springs who had turned up to pay respect to this very special lady. I certainly would like to pay my respects to her and extend my sympathy to her family. They had someone very special in Trudy May Perrurle Berger.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to Mike Reed and put my best wishes on the Parliamentary Record. Obviously, with both of us living in Katherine, we have been close over the last 10 years. I thank him for all the assistance that he has given to me, both personally and professionally, in this job.
Today we heard the Labor government mocking that Mike Reed had not achieved anything in Katherine. Well, let me just assure anybody who reads this Hansard that Mike Reed, over 16 years in parliament, achieved a great deal for, not only Katherine residents, but certainly residents of the Territory. You just have to drive around Katherine, if you have any knowledge of the past 16 years, and have a look at what is in Katherine - the facilities in Katherine that are government institutions or semi-government institutions - and most can be attributed to the hard work of Mike Reed. Whether it is the YMCA building, the Visitor Information Centre, or the new court house in Katherine, the cycle paths from Katherine to Tindal, the school facilities including airconditioned gyms and the new Casuarina Primary School - they can all be attributed to the previous member for Katherine. The list goes on and on and on.
That is a great tribute to a man who has represented, very fiercely, his own constituency, because he has a great passion for where he lives and continues to live, and that is the great thing about Mike Reed. Mike Reed is not moving anywhere. There have been rumours going around that he is going to move, but I can assure you that, as far as I know, Mike Reed is very settled where he is and is looking forward to developing his rural block even further and continuing to stay in Katherine. I can assure members that I bet he is very passionate about what happens in Katherine.
Mike Reed has also been given great recognition just recently - in fact, at some farewell drinks to Mike that was conducted in Katherine prior to the by-election down there; a community event where very many people turned up from all cross-sections of the Katherine community and outlying regions. One of the great tributes he was given was a gift from AFANT. They did it off their own bat; nobody knew they were going to do it. On the night, which was a very informal night - there was not meant to be speeches - the president of AFANT decided they would like to present a gift to Mike. In his speech, he commended Mike for the great work he had done over the past two-and-a-half decades for recreational fishing people in the Northern Territory. He talked particularly about the river closures which were, and have been for many years, generated by none other than Mike Reed. If he gets remembered for nothing else - and I am sure he is remembered for very many things – he certainly will be for what he has done for recreational fishing in the closure of rivers that started a lot of years ago, and the impact that that has have on preserving fish stocks for recreational fishing.
AFANT presented him with an enormous gift, a piece of ironwood or something with a depiction of a barramundi on it that was made out of chromed wire; a very nice gift. In the words of the president of AFANT, ‘a small tribute of appreciation for what Mike has done for recreational fishing’. It is great work that needs to be continued as our recreational fishing industry grows. I am sure that pressure is already on this government to continue that work.
Mike is also known for his great work in preserving parts of the Territory as national parks. Probably no other person in the history of politics in the Northern Territory has driven the preservation of our unique habitats, as varied as they are, for the enjoyment of everybody, under the ownership of all Territorians as national parks; and you can rattle them off.
I believe I made a mistake once when I was Parks minister that I got to officially open the Charles Darwin National Park, amongst many others that bear my name. I did not think at the time, being a new minister, but perhaps I should have invited Mike Reed to do that official opening because it was actually his idea. He is the sort of fellow who would not say anything; and he did not say anything at all. It was probably a year later that I twigged that perhaps he should have done that opening because it was really a benchmark, I guess, of all of the parks he had been involved in developing. Developing, in a way, came from grassroots experience. Prior to politics, he was the regional manager of the Conservation Commission at the time based in Katherine, and had worked on plans of management, running parks and developing parks, and then went on, of course, to be involved in setting up new parks. There are a couple of parks that, while I was Parks minister - Bitter Springs being one of the reserves - I asked him to open instead of me doing it, even though it was in my electorate, because it was something that he should have done.
However, Charles Darwin National Park is a benchmark because it is a significant park in the middle of a city. There are not many cities you can go to - Perth is one of them - where they have a major national park sitting in the middle of a city environment. It is a great thing to see, and you can attribute that wholly and directly as an idea of Mike Reed. He will go down, I am sure, in the annals of history as one of the leads in developing our park asset that, like the recreational fishing side of things, needs to be further developed.
My colleague, the member for Drysdale, spoke about the Katherine flood. I had, I guess, the misfortune to be involved very intricately in that as well. However, I had the fortune of watching Mike Reed from another aspect. Like the member for Drysdale, I too would say that if ever you were in difficulty or going into difficult circumstances, you want beside you a person like Mike Reed. It was an incredible experience that probably will not go down anywhere in the history books for the role that Mike played. There are others who played similar roles but, Mike, as the senior minister, the local member and the Treasurer, at the time of that unfortunate incident, took control and was just remarkable.
I remember we were in the thick of it from day one when the water was rising. Amongst everything else that was going on - police reports and getting around checking on people - I said to Mike: ‘Well, let us get your vehicles out’. He said: ‘I only have time to take one; I will take this one’. I said: ‘Hang on, that is the government one. Why don’t we take your personal one?’ He said: ‘No, no, my personal one we will not worry about. Let us get the government one out’. We saved the government vehicle but he lost everything else - and I mean everything: two houses. He had a house that he had lived in for about 13 years which had all of the family belongings in, as well as building a new house out in the rural area, both of which flooded. As the member for Drysdale said, it was probably more like a week before Mike Reed got back to that house. I know Ann, his wife, was back there within a couple of days of the water going down, but there was no priority put on that house or his other house to do anything to ameliorate the damage that had been caused, over and above making sure everyone else was right.
There were things that had to be done during that situation. The military, at the time, said they could hurry things up, like generators bringing generators into town, if only we had a Hercules. However, because of the level of emergency that had been declared, you could not command such a big aircraft without another level of emergency being reached. I remember Mike saying: ‘Well, how does that happen?’. The military personnel said it had to come from much higher up in their own lines of command before they could act, but if they got that command, they could have had a Hercules there within the next 12 hours loaded with all of the things that were needed. I remember Mike getting on the phone - and I will not say who to or how it happened - and within about 15 minutes, the military personnel who were involved at the time received a phone call from their lines of command, and the order was: ‘We have just moved to the next level of emergency’. That meant they could order virtually what they wanted.
That is how things moved with Mike. The member for Drysdale said that he could be ruthless, and sometimes he was. He would not suffer fools, and you cannot suffer fools while you are in a crisis situation. Some would remember him, probably with disdain. Others, I am sure, including the residents of Katherine, would admire him for the work that he did.
One of our big problems during the first few days probably the first two week - of the flood was that it was very difficult to get information to people. The Katherine Times had been flooded. We wrote and produced - here in Darwin - and distributed the Katherine Times just to get information to people about where they could go for assistance, what was going on, what were the next steps in the rebuild, and all those sorts of things. He moved mountains very easily, but worked like a Trojan. The last thing he thought of during that time, apart from his family’s safety, was his own possessions, of which they lost everything.
The member for Drysdale has mentioned the Timor crisis. It goes without saying the great work that was done there. I would like to thank Mike for the assistance he has given me and my family over the last 10 years since I became the member for Daly and moved to Katherine, and also Ann Reed who is a stalwart in her own right and has done so much for the people of Katherine as Mike’s partner and has great respect around the town of Katherine. I am sure we will see a lot more of Ann over the coming years because she is a dedicated community worker in her own right.
Lorna Hart, who has been with Mike as Electorate Officer for 13 years, has been a dedicated assistant to Mike and is certainly a very respected lady in Katherine for the work that she has done to assist people. I am glad to say that Fay Miller, as the new member for Katherine, is keeping Lorna on as her Electorate Officer.
I wish Mike well in his retirement. It was good to see him here yesterday for the swearing in of Fay Miller. It was interesting to watch him when he was recognised by the Speaker as the ‘former member for Katherine’. He stood, and he had a smile from ear to ear. It seems to me he is going to very much enjoy retirement. I hope he does because he certainly deserves to.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk of an event that I attended on Saturday 4 October, the Neighbourhood Watch Conference in Alice Springs. This is the first time that the Neighbourhood Watch Conference has been held outside the Darwin area. It was great to see a follow-on from the initiative of having parliament down there, and now Neighbourhood Watch. I am hopeful that many more community organisations which have a role across the Territory will likewise start to meet down in this fine community, the heart of Australia, as they call themselves. It is truly a fine town. I had the pleasure of opening the conference but, before that occurred, the night before I had even a greater pleasure of having an informal meal with members of the executive, and also some other members of the out-of-town contingent, at the City Pub, I believe it is called, in the Todd Tavern.
This is the first time I had been in the Todd Tavern for many years. What a fine establishment that is, and a credit to the owners and to the community. At 5.30 pm, people were lining up for a meal, and that was quite incredible to see. They did a rip-roaring trade, and the level of service was fantastic, the hospitality was great, the meal was superb, and so was the wine. I have absolutely nothing but praise for that place. As I said, I had not been there - it must have been well over a decade. To say that I was pleasantly surprised would be an understatement. Also, to say that everyone there had a good time would also be understating it. So thanks for the hospitality of the people of that fine establishment.
However, there was work the next morning for everyone, so it was not a late night. We opened it and I gave thanks and spoke briefly about Neighbourhood Watch and what it stood for, and also that at the AGM they would also be carrying on with training for the delegates there in CPTED. CPTED, as the members of the group certainly know, is based around looking at environmental factors and counting those into the built environment to see how they can help in reducing crime. I did not get to stay all day, as one would expect. I was there from 8:30 am until …
Dr Lim: Morning tea.
Mr KIELY: … morning tea, but in that time I had the pleasure of meeting with many members. I must say also that the newly-appointed Deputy Opposition Leader was there to show his support for Neighbourhood Watch, as too was the member for …
Dr Lim: We have been lobbying for it for years to come to Alice Springs.
Mr KIELY: And it was there, and I am glad that it happened. I might say that Neighbourhood Watch is a non-political organisation, it is their choice about where they meet. The member for Macdonnell was also there, I guess in his role as shadow police minister.
The old committee stood down and the elections were held. Sergeant Rod Strong, who is the police representative in the Office of Crime Prevention, was the returning officer, and he looked after the election and handled that side of it. The new committee consists of Ken Mildred, who was the Chair. The Treasurer was Brian McManus; the secretary, Peter Hanson from Alice Springs; the executive officer, of course, is Rod Strong. The committee members are John Lear, who is a good upright citizen from Anula, Paul Wyatt, a good Wulagi citizen, Brian Hilder, Geoff Thomas, who is the public officer, and Sharon Kinraid from Tennant Creek. These are all community-minded people who stood for the executive. However, let me say that there were a lot more people there participating in the training who put in equally as much effort.
There were a number of awards given out to members of Neighbourhood Watch who had participated on the executive. They were recognised for their work, but none was more significant or special than Joyce Williamson. Joyce lives in Anula and I have known her for a number of years now. I see Joyce getting around the suburbs walking her dog. Joyce is very community-minded and she has been involved with Neighbourhood Watch for many years - well over a decade, probably for somewhere around 15 years. That is a great commitment to our community. Joyce started working as a volunteer. She has been a member of Neighbourhood Watch since 1988, she is also the watch coordinator.
In my office, the previous member who resigned - I suppose, if one resigns, stood down - had the practice of putting up around his wall all these different plaques the community groups obtained in regards to Sanderson. When he left, Mr Manzie left all those plaques on the wall. I was proud and pleased as punch to leave those up there. I must say a lot of the Neighbourhood Watch commendations and commemorative plaques are from around the time when Joyce was the Area Coordinator. A lot of her awards are there in the office at Sanderson because they belong to the community; it does not belong to one individual, it belongs to the community. It is there as recognition for the work that she put in.
Joyce also has been a volunteer since 1995 for three days a week. For six years she worked on voluntary basis with Neighbourhood Watch. That is an outstanding effort and one that, as an example to all members of the community, is a hard one to follow - very hard, but certainly something to aspire to. She has helped out the people in general around the area by offering them support, being a good listener, lending them a helping hand with some chores, and sometimes taking them out for the day - which comes as no surprise when you know Joyce. It is just a wonderful thing.
Joyce has had a bit of a bad patch. I know that some members of her family have been ill, but she was crook there for a while. However, even while she was ill, she still managed to offer her voluntary services for a day a week - quite commendable. I remember last year, seeing her at the Northern Territory Expo, at The Tank. She was undergoing her regime of medication, but she was getting about. I remember seeing her with Sergeant Rod Strong and Police Auxiliary Vic Stowe and even Sergeant Tony Pedersen might have been there. Those four are really a close knit group, and it was very, very, commendable.
A comment that Sergeant Rod Strong made about her was that Joyce has put so much in to the community. When she is working in the office as a volunteer with Neighbourhood Watch, she is also involved in the decision-making. I would say that she has a profound influence from her years of commitment - an influence, insight and a respect that Rod and the team have for this particular individual. She was given an commendation from Neighbourhood Watch. It is an annual award now. Let me say that Joyce has set the bar very high. The next person who comes along and gets that award is really someone special, and I look forward to meeting them.
With those few comments, I would like to wish the new Neighbourhood Watch Board of Management all the best for the upcoming year. I am sure that they will do a great job. I, like many of the other MLAs here whose offices individual Neighbourhood Watch programs use, look forward to hosting them over the year. Sanderson office is always a welcome environment for the Sanderson Neighbourhood Watch, and I look forward to working with them over the next year.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I had intended to pay tribute to Mike Reed, certainly in light of the comments of my colleagues, the members for Drysdale and Daly. However, I have elected not to pursue that course, having listened to the member for Sanderson.
We all know that some very serious allegations were made by the member for Macdonnell an hour or so ago. It is astonishing, I believe, that the member for Sanderson did not use the opportunity of an adjournment speech to answer those allegations. It seems to me that, as a relative newcomer to this parliament, if very serious allegations such as those made by the member for Macdonnell were made, the member for Sanderson would perhaps have the courage to tackle them head on; to say, perhaps, that the member for Macdonnell was mistaken, that he was aware - that is, the member for Sanderson - that he had copied other people’s work on a number of occasions. However, he did not and that is curious.
We all make mistakes in this game called politics, but I do not think that there would be very many people in this Chamber who would systematically copy other people’s work, presumably without permission, and attribute comments to themselves. None of us are perfect. We often, in this business, do and say things that we regret, but this is a different issue entirely. The member for Sanderson had to apologise today in the media for saying that Territorians in the northern suburbs should open their windows in the face of significant power blackouts. He is not having a good day, and it is interesting that it is not unlike the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries yesterday who, unfortunately, it would appear, also presented material to this parliament that was copied.
We all know that both sides of politics put spin on all sorts of things. But a copy is a copy is a copy. Mistakes can be made but, when it is done, apparently in the case of the member of Sanderson, on a systematic basis we should all have cause for concern.
The member for Macdonnell, I believe, referred to two or three instances. Sadly, there are more. I refer in particular - and I will be happy to table it upon my conclusion - an article that appeared. I think the member for Macdonnell referred to different parts of this article, but this particular one is entitled Review of Legislation Under Which Persons are Detained at the Governor's Pleasure in Victoria. It is dated October 1995 and is available from pretty much anywhere. My copy was obtained from the Northern Territory Library and Information Service.
I refer to the member for Sanderson’s speech made on 23 May 2002. I know the Hansard will not pick this up, but I will demonstrate and the documentation can match it all up later. I will read from that article of October 1995 those bits which the member for Sanderson read into Hansard. We are not talking about a few words here and there - it could happen to any of us - or a sentence here or there; we are talking about chunks - huge chunks - and it is simply not acceptable. Perhaps he takes his advice and counsel from the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. Who knows? You would not have thought a backbencher in any government would have a staffer. Perhaps there is a staffer around who is - to coin a good, old Victorian phrase - a copy-cat from Ballarat.
However, the member for Sanderson must come to terms with this. As I say, it is not just a sentence here or there; it is chunks. We know the member for Sanderson; we know his language. We have a fair idea - all of us - of his personality. So, when he starts to say things that do not incorporate his usual speech or language - he tends to be fairly monosyllabic - and when he uses words and phrases that are not quite him we are naturally, I guess, perplexed.
In any event, returning to this article of October 1995 from Victoria. Perhaps I will not read all of it. He read into the Hansard of 23 May 2002, not all that long after he was elected as local member. He copied great chunks which are as follows:
- … judges were unable to proceed with the trial for treason or felony unless the accused entered a plea.
If the accused either refused to do so, or was unable to do so, the offender could not be tried and convicted.
The member for Sanderson elected not to include one sentence, but then goes back to this article of October 1995. He talks about mechanisms for dealing with individuals developed whereby the accused was given three warnings. It goes on, it goes on. What is really interesting is that I have learnt from this article that the member for Sanderson does not speak French, because there are some French words - I assume they are French; I do not profess to be an expert on languages. By the time I went to school, Latin was not around; we learnt a bit of Indonesian. However, I certainly did not learn French or any other language. I suspect that these are French words from this article that I will table upon the conclusion of this adjournment speech.
Dr Lim: Yes, it is.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, member for Greatorex, who has a language or two. He has confirmed that they are French.
Out of this chunk, apart from a sentence, the member for Sanderson did not include the French words. I wonder why I am not surprised! Because the member for Sanderson (a) probably did not know what they were; and (b) probably could not pronounce them.
My colleague, the member for Macdonnell, also referred to an article by a Sophie Delaney which was from the Law Institute Journal No 72, January 1998. The member for Macdonnell quoted a paragraph; there are others. This is not an isolated incident. I stress we can all make mistakes in this job - this job perhaps more so than any other. We can all make mistakes and the mistakes tend to be amplified a 100 times over, but there is a fundamental difference. Copying other people’s work without permission is a contempt of this parliament, and failure to attribute other people’s work is something that the member for Sanderson should take away and think about long and hard.
Some time ago - I cannot remember when it was - I described the member for Sanderson as an ill-bred, bad mannered something or other. I believe I picked the member for Sanderson fairly early on. It is a sign of bad manners and ill-breeding - not to make a mistake; we can all make mistakes - but to copy chunks and to somehow try to give the impression that one is informed, has incredible intelligence, is downright – well, one cannot use the term ‘misleading’, but it is something that is very serious.
The reason I am on my feet is that the member for Sanderson, within an hour of so of the member for Macdonnell raising these allegations, has not used this adjournment opportunity to refute them. From that, I take that silence as consent; there is an acquiescence. There is, to some degree, an acknowledgement by the member for Sanderson that he does copy other people’s work at length, and attribute them as his own.
For the opposition and, more importantly, for Territorians, this raises certain issues. The issues are what is to be believed. There are statements every day; and many reports. We have not searched extensively. We had a bit of a hunch because we know how the member for Sanderson communicates, and we had a bit of a look. We have not extensively searched but, frankly, there is a part of me that is a bit worried about so doing, because the member for Sanderson may well be caught out further.
Can I stress, in conclusion that, yes, we all make mistakes, but systematic copying - and this is only the stuff we have discovered so far, there may well be much more. I have been in the Chamber, and listened to the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, a couple of ministers have had a go, and the member for Sanderson has made an adjournment speech, and no one sought to refute the very serious allegations that were put by the member for Macdonnell.
I have a hunch that the people up there on the 5th floor are searching everything - they would be looking at everything. Perhaps their advice to the member for Sanderson, was: ‘Go and do the garden variety adjournment speech, leave it with us overnight, and we will see if we can get you out of this hole that you have dug for yourself’. Well, I do not know how they will go, but the case is a fairly strong one; that is, that the member for Sanderson really has lost all credibility. It is for others more senior and more intelligent than him to talk to him and to take decisive action. Certainly we are - as I am sure other are people around the Northern Territory - terribly concerned. I stress again, it is very disappointing that the member for Sanderson did not take the opportunity to refute the allegations and suggestions made by the member for Macdonnell. I do not think that that leaves us with anywhere to go other than to draw the conclusion that the member for Sanderson simply accepts that he has systematically copied great chunks in his speeches to parliament from other people’s work.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I support the member for Sanderson on his adjournment speech on Neighbourhood Watch. I was there, as he mentioned in his speech, and I applaud Neighbourhood Watch for taking the annual conference to Alice Springs for the very first time in its history. We have spent many years lobbying Rod Strong and the Police Commissioner of the day, seeking their support in taking the conference to Alice Springs. I am glad that it finally did; people in Alice Springs appreciated that.. The program that was run down there, for which I stayed for almost half a day, was really very well run. I appreciated the presence of Commissioner Paul White and Assistant Commissioner Bruce Wernham, who were there. I was very pleased to see Joyce Williamson receiving her award. I thought it was a great thing to offer her and it almost brought her to tears.
However, talking about the member for Sanderson, this morning he had to be forced to withdraw the tone that he throws every so often. I am happy to repeat it here. He calls me ‘Dr Death’ every so often when his bile gets so thick in his throat that he cannot do anything but cough it out. Let me just advise the member for Sanderson that I stand unaccused of anything and, if he had the courage of his convictions, he would say it outside and not hide in this coward’s castle and utter the words in protection.
Dr Burns: A bit like your allegation against me. Are you going to say that outside? I challenge you to do that! Your feet will not hit the floor.
Dr LIM: When the Deputy Chief Minister, in fact …
Dr Burns: Slap a writ on you, mate.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: When the Deputy Chief Minister uttered those words, very early in 1994-95, I confronted him. He had the courage to come to me and apologise and, ever since then, had refrained from uttering those words, because I believe he respected that it was wrong. Anyway, I just give that little advice to the member for Sanderson: if he has the courage to say it; say it out there and see how far he gets. If not, do not hide behind the skirts of the Speaker in this Chamber and try and score a couple of political points.
Dr Burns: You are in the same boat.
Mr Kiely: Two rules, isn’t it, Richard? Two rules.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: He keeps continuing to interject very loudly, the so-called intellectual, the doctor in this house - one of them anyway. He knows what plagiarising is. I assume, he is the academic who writes long papers, dissertations. He makes all those …
Dr Burns: You made an allegation; you say it outside as well. Apply the same rules to yourself.
Mr Baldwin: I did. I said it outside.
Dr LIM: What has he done? He …
Dr Burns: No, what he said was different.
Dr LIM: … cannot even make the right apology and say: ‘Yes, I did something wrong, I apologise for it’, and it would be all over. Instead, he tries to hide behind excuses that someone else wrote the paper for him and he did not bother to check it out.
What I really got up to speak about tonight, was not about the members for Sanderson or Johnston; it was really about the minister for transport. On Saturday last week …
Mr Baldwin: He has not plagiarised as well, has he?
Dr LIM: Well, not quite; I do not think he has. However, in Saturday’s NT News, there was a big article which said ‘Government Reduces Ferry Trips to Mandorah’. There is a picture of the Seacat and a caption underneath the picture of the Mandorah ferry says: ‘Several weekend and holiday services will be axed’. It goes on to say, and I quote from the Northern Territory News of Saturday this last …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Member for Daly, if you could cease with that clicking noise; it is difficult to hear the Deputy Leader.
Dr LIM: If I may continue, because this is wasting my time:
- Under the proposed route changes, the government will:
- scrap the Friday midnight service, the 12.45 pm Sunday service and the 6.30 am Saturday, Sunday and
public holiday services;
change the 4 pm Saturday, Sunday and public holiday services to 3 pm.
The changes to service’s core routes were found in tender documents on the NT government web site.
I went into the web site myself and had a look, and the tender was released on 25 September.
Mr Baldwin: For a reduced service or what?
Dr LIM: Yes, for a significantly reduced service. What happened was, obviously, the media got hold of it, people living in Mandorah heard about it, and it created a fair bit of a ruckus. Now we find that the minister is calling for a public consultation on Friday - two weeks after the tender documents came out. He is calling for a public consultation now. This is really doing his job back to front …
Mr Baldwin: Sounds like the cart before the horse.
Dr LIM: The cart before the horse, as the member for Daly says. I am sure what this minister is doing is setting up the meeting on Friday as a process for another backflip. That is what he is going to do.
Mr Baldwin: The Greek Olympics.
Dr LIM: It has to be that; what I call the Backflip Kon setting up for another backflip. If he took part in the Olympics, I am sure he would do the floor exercises very well …
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Dr LIM: Well, 10 out of 10. I just hope whatever he does, he ensures that the decision he comes up with on Friday does not adversely affect the lifestyle of the people living in Mandorah. We all live in the Territory because of the lifestyle that we so much enjoy, and this government continues to knock, knock and knock, so that we are going to be just like every other and any state all across the country. We will all look the same …
Mr Henderson: Weren’t you guys going to dam the Elizabeth River? I seem to remember that one.
Mr Baldwin: No, it was an idea, but we gave it away.
Mr Henderson: Yes, you backflipped, with a huge pike.
Dr LIM: It is a sad indictment on this minister …
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Order! Members, I have called order.
Dr LIM: … that he continues to fail in his proper consultation before he announces the tender. If he had done his job properly, he would have consulted, and then there would be no need for this Friday’s hastily convened community consultation. He would not need to have the meeting to talk about the ferry service. It is very sad but true that the ‘shoot from the hip’ style of minister Vatskalis has forced him to do more backflips than a dolphin.
Let me just describe what has been the litany of backflips of this minister. I am going to go back as far back as 2001 when he was made the minister. In November 2001, what did he do? He compulsorily acquired land owned by residents in Middle Arm Road in Berry Springs. He signed off on the documents and then he later admitted that he did not know what he was signing for.
Then, in June 2002, in the sacking of Dr Bill Freeland, the minister explained that he did not need such a person in that position in the public service any more. Then, within a couple of weeks - maybe it was a month, I cannot remember exact dates - he promptly put somebody else in the position, after Dr Freeland was sacked.
In July 2002, a month later, he planned to charge Territorians a fee for late payment of their power and water bills. He says: ‘No, no we did not do it. We did not do it’. We saw the Cabinet documents, didn’t we, and guess what? Once the heat got onto it: ‘No, no, we are not going to do that. We did not do that; it was all a mistake’.
Mr Baldwin: Tell us about the planning thing in Alice Springs.
Dr LIM: Well, I will get to that in a minute. In July 2002, he had two different stories over the Outback Highway. The initial story was that he was not going to seal the highway - that was too expensive; a road to nowhere. Within a week, he said he would build the highway, no matter whether the Western Australian or the Queensland governments supported the project on their sides of the border. One week he says one thing, and then says another thing - 180 the opposite.
In October 2002, the minister blamed eco-terrorist, and then later, when he could not find the eco-terrorist, decided it was the truck driver who caused that cyanide spill along Tanami highway. Eighteen months later, the DPP says: ‘Sorry, nobody to prosecute, can’t do a thing’.
That is the sort of thing that this minister – if I were to …
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: … even school students would never be able to pass any examinations.
Mr Baldwin: Talk about the planning debacle.
I will get to the planning debacle in Alice Springs in a little while. I have a few more minutes.
January 2003 - this time, the minister decided he was going to close the airspace over Nitmiluk, the Katherine Gorge National Park. ‘That is it; I have closed it all off. Nobody can fly over there anymore’, without even checking if he had the authority to do that. Within days, the acting Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, had to fix it for you and tell you that it was wrong.
Then we see your next decision. That is June 2003, not that long ago. You were so confused about the commercial passenger vehicle industry. How many backflips did you do? I lost count - I honestly lost count on the backflips that you did - the PH, the limousines, the executive taxis, the mobile telephones. The list just goes on and on and on.
In July 2003 you told the president of the Taxi Council that you proposed to bring in a free inner city bus service. You are supporting it and you are the minister, you can do anything you want. At last, following the huge outcry from the CPV industry, he had to back down one more time.
And now, the land in Alice Springs. What day was it? I had better check my calendar. I can distinctly remember this because I was in the middle of a discussion with somebody, and what happened was …
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: Let me find the date. it was Tuesday, 23 September.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, no cross-Chamber banter, please.
Dr LIM: Yes, Tuesday 23 September. That morning, I got up at 7.30 am. My radio was on the ABC news and guess what it said? ‘The minister says that the first allotments will be released at Larapinta stage 4 …’ – or words to that effect – ‘… by the end of October’. I said: ‘Oh God, here we go again!’ By the end of October - this month. This is how inaccurate this man is …
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: I will give you a copy of the media transcript tomorrow. I do not have it here with me. I will give you a copy of that tomorrow.
That is how wrong you can be all the time. So please, minister, put your brain in gear, make sure that the tongue is connected to the brain before you start moving your lips, otherwise you go on over and over again making mistakes that cause you so many troubles.
The land in Larapinta stage 4 is not going to be available within four months - no way in the world. You have hardly anything done down there. A third or a quarter of October is over, so you have November, December, January. You have three months and three weeks to get the first allotment released, otherwise the member for Stuart is going to have to sell his house. You had better do something about that.
If I was were you, I tell you what, after the sittings are over you had better roll up your sleeves, get down to Alice Springs and bring out your shovel and start digging, otherwise he is going to lose his house. He is going to lose it, and you are going to be the one who is going to cause it. You make promises that you cannot keep …
Mr Baldwin: What about the web site, the three different ...
Dr LIM: Well! The web site. I thought I would let the member for Macdonnell get stuck into that. But the thing is, if you look at the stories that he has told the Chief Minister, the media, and the Chamber, they do not match up. When we then sought advice from the man who claims to be your friend, the man who owns the web site, what did he say? ‘I have never met that man before in my life’ or words to that effect. This is what you tell us in this Chamber. If you are misleading us, then you had best get up and correct it before you get yourself hung, strung and quartered …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The member well knows that if he wishes to raise an allegation that my colleague misled the House, he can only do so by way of substantive motion.
Mr BALDWIN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, what my colleague said was ‘if he is misleading the House’. He did not say that he is misleading the House, and the Leader of Government Business heard that. I ask you not to make a ruling on him saying he misled the House; he said ‘if you have misled the House’.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, did you say ‘misleading the House’?
Dr LIM: No. I said ‘if you have misled the House, then you should come and explain yourself before you get yourself hung, strung and quartered’. If you would like to check the rushes tomorrow morning, and if I said anything wrong, I will get up and apologise tomorrow morning. However, I tell you I did not say that.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the inference was …
Dr Lim: Would you like to freeze the clock?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will stand because – sit! Freeze the clock.
Dr LIM: Thank you.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been very patient during this adjournment debate. I know it has been provocative but, when I call a member, I expect other members to respect the Chair’s call. I have called the Leader of Government Business. All other members shall be silent.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, to accuse any member of this House of misleading the parliament or inferring misleading of the parliament, a member should do so by way of substantive motion. If he wants to allege that the member has misled the House - and that was the allegation - then he can only do so by way of substantive motion. If he thinks sticking the word ‘if’ in front of it is somehow detrimental to the allegation of the inference, I really think we need to go back and get a substantive ruling. However, there was a very clear inference that my colleague has misled the House. He can do that, but he can only do that by way of substantive motion.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly, before you rise, I am going to seek advice on this as to the inference.
All right, I will not seek withdrawal. I rule that it is open to interpretation. Member for Greatorex, you have some seconds left.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Really, I just want to wrap up and say that the minister has a very consistent and predictable pattern of behaviour in the way he runs his ministry. I ask the minister to please connect your brain to your tongue before you move your lips and, hopefully, we will be advised by you a lot better than you have done in the last two years, as I have outlined.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016