2002-11-27
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from the Administrator, Message No 10 notifying of assent to bills passed in the October 2002 sittings.
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petitions No 17 and No 19 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the responses will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to announce that a major milestone in the Alice Springs to Darwin railway project is fast approaching: the joining of the tracks between Tennant Creek and Katherine.
On Friday 13 December, I will be joined by the Acting Premier of South Australia, and a Commonwealth government representative, at the ADrail Buchanan camp site near Dunmarra to ignite the final thermal weld that joins the two tracks. The joining of the tracks will be covered live on national television, providing an opportunity for all Australians to witness the symbolic milestone in the history of the AustralAsia Railway project.
Since track laying began in April this year, over 580 km of track have been completed. Two crews have been laying track at an average of 2 km per day, sometimes achieving even more than that at 2.2 km, which is interesting, because initially it was only considered about 1.5 km or 1.6 km could be achieved. The track laying machines have actually achieved significantly more than they thought they would at this stage.
Some track work has been completed to approximately 50 km south of Tennant Creek, and to the ballast quarry 20 km north of Katherine. With the construction of the railway, now involving the passage of construction trains across our roads through the Territory, I would certainly like to alert the travelling public to be increasingly aware of the fact that trains are operating at level crossings, and they need to obey signs and traffic control devices. Over 1200 km of the corridor clearing is now complete, 960 000 sleepers have been manufactured, 1 725 000 tonnes of ballast has been produced and 82 000 tonnes of rail has been delivered to Roe Creek near Alice Springs from Whyalla in South Australia. Closer to Darwin, at the 510 m long Elizabeth River Bridge, concrete beams continue to be placed by a gantry system on a weekly basis. I certainly encourage anyone to have a look at the development of the rail crossing across the Elizabeth River Bridge; it really is very impressive.
Employment has reached a peak of 1451 direct employees. Of those, nearly 1000 – 916 - were from the Northern Territory. Training, in particular Aboriginal participation, is an important aspect of the work being carried out by ADrail, the Territory Construction Agency, and the Northern and the Central Land Councils. Of the 660 nationally accredited training courses run since the railway project began, over 100 Aboriginal participants have completed the courses and now have skills that are transferable to other fields, such as mining and construction, when their work on the railway has been complete. As at the end of September, the value of contracts awarded was $825m; of that amount $480m has been awarded to Territory-based businesses and industries. So, a significant injection of dollars into the Territory economy and a substantial support for Territory businesses has been achieved.
One of the issues to do with the railway that is causing a reasonable amount of controversy and discussion is the issue of the passenger terminals and their location. It is the subject of a submission currently being prepared for Cabinet’s consideration. Consideration of the issues confronting government requires a reasoned approach, taking into account the immediate and the longer term issues, and that will be done. I expect an announcement on the decision by the end of the year.
Finally, I wish to point out once again that, although construction is going ahead at a rapid rate, it is prudent to remember that there are two Wet Seasons from now until the official completion date of the rail in April 2004. Therefore, even though we are ahead of schedule at this stage, it would be unwise to predict an earlier completion date just yet.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister is indeed fortunate to be able to be part of a national media effort to see this historic and symbolic occasion with the joining of the rail lines from north to south. I hope the Chief Minister, when she is part of that ceremony, considers where that railway would be if Labor had had their way just prior to the signing. It is worth reminding the Chief Minister that we would have been part of a Royal Commission, just on the eve of the signing of the railway contract. It was the present Chief Minister who called for a Royal Commission into why the funding for the railway had been taken away by one of the large American organisations. It was the Labor Party, federally and in the Northern Territory which fought, every inch of the way, the actual completion of that signing. It is now this same Labor Party that takes every opportunity to herald their involvement in this great project. Well, Chief Minister, you and I and Territorians know the truth.
In terms of this particular comment, I ask the Chief Minister: if you are going to stand up and talk about the railway, would you tell us what your plan is when the railway is completed next November? Can you address the fact that there are already work gangs being laid off on that project? Can you address the question of what this government has in place to replace those 916 workers in other projects in the Northern Territory? Can you tell us what you are going to do with gas onshore in the Northern Territory? That is your other plan B, supposedly, that is going to achieve great economic fortunes for the Northern Territory. Chief Minister - and do not lie to us about the fact that the government has not considered …
Mr HENDERSON: Point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition well knows that he cannot accuse members of lying.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I do not think you should.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw.
Do not mislead Territorians about the fact that you have not decided where the railway station will be, when I have already spoken with Mr Branford, the CEO of Southern Pacific, who told me he is very pleased with the location. So you know the location; he is happy with it and you are still telling Territorians that it is still to go before Cabinet. Be honest, if you want to talk about the railway, be honest …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr BURKE: Tell us where the workers will be and tell us what you are going to do to get this economy going.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, my comments in no way are going to devalue what is a great project, the railway. In my one minute I would like to make a quick comment. One is, that although the railway is progressing well, sometimes some of the concerns that people have, especially about heritage, have been overlooked. The case of the over 100 year old tramway abutments at Grove Hill that were destroyed was a very sad thing to happen, especially as originally ADrail said they would not have to be destroyed. It was a piece of heritage that was marked as part of that gold fields loop for the tourists, and sadly it has been bulldozed and that is just one of the sad things has occurred.
I am not trying to diminish the rail. It is a great project, but just because it is a big project does not mean it should not look at some of the smaller issues that occur. Just quickly, the other thing, and I may have mentioned this before, but in 1988 there was a study of the Tiger Brennan Drive and in that Tiger Brennan Drive book brought out by the government at the time, it had Darwin-Alice Springs railway, it had a section on a Berrimah terminus and marshalling facilities. I would be interested to know whether the government of the day has seen that. It was planned for the 11 Mile. The marshalling yards and terminus were discussed and the intention was that is where the terminal would be. I do not know whether there is any reason why that still could not occur, and I would be interested to hear.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I briefly refer to the member for Nelson’s point about the abutments at Yam Creek. It was very disappointing; the assessment was that they would be able to survive the work being done by ADrail. They did not. I have had an extensive briefing on what happened and am confident that they will be adequately rebuilt. They are an important part of our heritage and, hopefully, it will reach heritage listing - which it should at this stage, I believe - and those abutments will exist and be part of our heritage trail. It is very disappointing that it happened.
Also, part of the work done by ADrail has been to identify many of our heritage sites that were not previously identified and give us a much better opportunity to protect them. So, while there have been negatives, there are certainly positives from what ADrail has done.
What we heard from the Opposition Leader was the most churlish and bad tempered response to anything that we have heard in here for a considerable time. Simply the inaccuracy of Royal Commissions and all kinds of rubbish, accusing the government of having owned this project. Where did I say Labor Party in one comment I made? It is bipartisan and I expect your support.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Burke: You and your Labor mates wanted a Royal Commission before we signed the contract.
Ms MARTIN: I did not.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, order! Recently, when I drove to Darwin, I was more than impressed by the amount of work that has been done on the railway, and the speed with which it has been done. It is a very impressive project and we should all get behind it and congratulate ADrail which is doing a fantastic job. If you have not driven up, perhaps is something you should do over the Christmas period.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, it is just wonderful to be here and share in the Christmas good spirit and good will that emanates through the Chamber at this time of year.
Mobile preschool programs, Madam Speaker, have been established by DEET under the early childhood component of the National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy. Mobile preschools aim to increase the enrolment, attendance and participation of indigenous children in early childhood experiences and prepare for their commencement of formal schooling through exposure to pre-literacy and numeracy activities.
In 2001, 40% of schools in the Territory did not offer approved preschool programs, and of these 40%, all the schools are in remote areas. The Learning Lessons review made several recommendations about early childhood experiences and programs in recognition of the vital importance of an early acquisition of literacy. The review pointed out that the children who fall behind are unlikely to catch up and in fact are more likely to find the gap widening in secondary school. The mobile preschools are part of addressing the problem.
Mobile preschools provide access to early childhood programs for three to five year old children, and their families, who live in isolated, remote areas where there is no approved preschool program currently operating. The pilot programs commenced during 2002 in the following sites, and have the following enrolment numbers: Anindilyakwa, Groote Eylandt – that includes Umbakumba, Milyakburra - 31 children; the Katherine cluster: Timber Creek, Mataranka, Bulman, Urapunga, Bulla Camp – 39 children; the Yelgun/Arnhem cluster, Gunyangara, Yirrkala, Dhalinybuy, Biranybirany, Ramingirr - 54 children; and Elliott/Newcastle Waters - 12 children. That is 136 children provided with a preschool experience in communities where there has previously not been a preschool opportunity.
For many indigenous students the school is the predominant - in many cases the only - site of literacy and numeracy practice and it is critical every effort is made to introduce the precursors of literacy and numeracy available at all possible environments. Literacy and numeracy precursors include, importantly, access to paper and writing equipment for scribble and formative letter making, and structured play to introduce both literacy and numeracy concepts, for example, measurement, shape, location, handling and interpretation of quantitative data.
In mobile preschools children are provided with age appropriate play-based activities consistent with best practice noted above which is available to urban children in all preschool programs. The mobile preschool programs are developed by qualified early childhood teachers and delivered locally by locally recruited staff. Professional development is provided to these staff regularly by DEET Indigenous Early Childhood Officers. Each mobile preschool site is equipped with a specialised play pack comprising a variety of early childhood resources and activities, for example, puzzles, books, playdough, paints, music, block construction, cars, trucks, bikes, basketball sets, climbing and sand play equipment, home corner material, puppets and many more. Play packs are rotated between sites and are transported by teachers either by off-road vehicles or light aircraft on a weekly and/or fortnightly basis.
Many mothers and grandmothers and younger siblings are attending mobile preschool sites. The obvious benefit of this wider community involvement in the delivery of pre-schooling experiences can not be overstated. Although two year olds and younger are not enrolled in the program, they are attending and enjoying being read to, and playing with the assortment of play learning equipment on offer. It is the government’s hope that at each mobile preschool pilot cluster site, sufficient numbers of children will enrol and attend so that the DEET staffing formula will automatically provide for the staff currently being paid for through the pilot initiative.
As the staffing formula kicks in, the pilot locations will move to other remote areas of the Northern Territory. Early indications are that attendance is sufficient and plans are being made for new mobile preschool sites to be established in Central Australia. Mobile preschools are one of the most innovative and practical solutions to a major deficit in infrastructure in the rural areas and the challenge of distance in remote Northern Territory. It is a great initiative and another example of the fact that our government views education as its first priority.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, this is a good initiative and I wish the pilot program well. I am interested to hear a little bit more about it. The word ‘infrastructure’ was used. An aspect of this that I did not hear, which I would like to hear, is that in order for a preschool child to take the full benefit of this initiative, there needs to be a very strong aspect of working with the parents so that as the mobile unit moves off, there is something residing within that community to support that which has occurred in the community and sustain it so that next time the mobile unit returns, the activity will be added to. I would like to see that aspect explored. Perhaps it is already included in the initiative. It was not referred to in the statement.
The professional development, of course, is going to be the critical aspect of this. As a pilot program, it will receive the support and recognition of educationalists because preschool really is the key. The comprehensive nature of the professional development and the sustaining of that will make it successful rather than just an innovative program that we are able to tell everyone about and get excited about. We do need to see some results in this. I am sure the intent of the initiative is to achieve those results, but professional development and parental support is critical.
I am curious to know, though, about the provision of essential services, such as will it carry water and provide adequate support, as have in a couple of cases been alerted to me by my colleague, the member for Macdonnell. Two schools in remote areas, Areyonga and Red Sand Hill, do not currently have an adequate supply of water. I am sure this will be addressed as the pilot scheme travels around the country side to make sure that the young students have adequate supplies of water, as they are not enjoying at Areyonga and Red Sand Hill.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): I thank the member for Blain for his support, Madam Speaker. In relation to the program itself, it is mobile, it visits the community; we simply do not have the financial resources available to build preschools in all of these communities. That is why we are trying to address this issue by using these mobile visits. Professional development is provided to the locally recruited staff by DEET early childhood officers, so there is skill development there with the local people that, albeit the mobile preschools move on and will be back the next week or fortnightly visits, whichever the case is. So there would be some scope for some ongoing program.
In relation to the situation at Areyonga, Red Sand Hill, and Urapunga; these questions about water have been drifting in the media and that somehow DEET is the agency responsible for all infrastructure in remote communities. That is simply not the case. DEET, as an agency responsible for education service delivery, is extremely concerned when it cannot deliver that service because of infrastructure problems. However, let us get away from the fact that DEET somehow has to wear responsibility for all these infrastructures.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired.
Mr Elferink: What are you going to do about it? What are you going to do to deliver education in these schools? This was your primary thing. This is how you were going to save the world.
Mr STIRLING: When did you ever raise it? It is your negligence! The local member and you never raised it once! Never raised it once with the CLP!
Mr Elferink: Rubbish! You should get off your bum and go and fix it, man. Rubbish, Syd. Build it in the spirit of Christmas.
Mr Burke: Merry Christmas, Syd!
Mr STIRLING: Never raised it; you are not doing your job.
Mr Elferink: Scrooge! ‘Bah humbug’, he says.
Madam SPEAKER: You are on a warning, member for Macdonnell. You have had your warning, minister.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I too would like to wish all members a very Merry Christmas.
I report on progress with the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Bill which was introduced in the October sittings. Public liability is a national problem and requires a national solution. With less than 1% of the public liability insurance market, we cannot influence premiums the way larger jurisdictions can. That makes it crucial to support national measures.
The government has decided to delay the debate of this important bill until February 2003 for several reasons. We foreshadowed that we would consider our legislative reforms in the light of the Ipp and Neave Reports. These reports have raised new issues that we need to consider and consult with stakeholders. The national debate about legislative reform has developed during the past few weeks to a new level, and we have seen several jurisdictions modify their reform programs.
The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General met in Perth last month and endorsed the recommendations of the Ipp and Neave Reports, as well as the principles of national uniformity and national consistency for these areas of law. SCAG formed an officers working party which will work with the insurance minister’s forum to achieve this end. Locally, we have sought feedback and input from a number of stakeholder groups and we have received some valuable input. We have also sought advice directly from Justice David Ipp, the architect of the Ipp Report.
Several new issues have arisen during this consultation process which we need to investigate further. We also need to monitor developments in other jurisdictions to ensure uniformity and consistency principles are observed as fully as possible. The Chief Minister has promised a timely response to the insurance problem, and we will deliver on that promise. We will also deliver legislation that is well considered and thorough.
In February 2003, we will progress a package of reforms. Firstly, the Personal Injuries (Liability and Damages) Bill will be debated; the legislation to regulate legal practitioners with regard to advertising and costs, will be introduced; legislation aimed at improving the court processes associated with personal injury claims will be introduced; and the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Amendment Bill will be debated, pending changes to the Trade Practices Act by the federal government.
We will also begin to consider the recommendations of the Ipp Report regarding codification of common law of negligence, looking particularly at issues such as causation, standard of care, and contributory negligence. This next step in the reform process will take some time and careful deliberation. We aim to provide Territorians with a good, workable structure to the law of negligence, a structure which complements legislation in other jurisdictions, and which takes pressure off insurance costs.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I welcome the postponement of the introduction of the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Bill in its current form. There is absolutely no doubt that the blind introduction of what the Labor government’s southern counterparts do may not be adequate for the Territory.
There is feedback coming from various interest groups and stakeholders and I appreciate the government, at least, taking on board those suggestions. There are real issues; there are new issues which need to be investigated. I get the feeling that perhaps rather than talking to the people who are on the ground who know about this particular area first, the government has gone down south, had been told what their counterparts are doing then brought it back. It is like putting the cart before the horse. There are some real issues that need to be addressed.
I welcome the delay and the proper consideration of some issues which have arisen, certainly from the Law Society’s perspective in that the committee is now liaising with the Attorney-General and has put forward a number of recommendations to alleviate the problem. I look forward to seeing the revised bills, the amendments if any, and dealing with these four pieces of important legislation in February next year.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support of our course of action. I invite you to have a positive input to the deliberations we are going through. Any opinions that you want to bring into our process from interest groups within the Territory community would be welcome. Let’s keep working on this to make good law.
I take this opportunity, though, to quickly reiterate that the Chief Minister went to the national forum because we had a national insurance crisis. There was a crisis in the removal of coverage of liability on some of the most important organisations in our community. There was a crisis in the increase in the premium levels. There is a real problem here; there continues to be a real problem. We do need to continue the urgency by which we are addressing this problem. It will not be a case of hastening slowly for any other reason than to deal with the very complex issues that exist within this area of law.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I report on the Brolga Awards for Tourism Excellence which were held in Alice Springs last week at the magnificent venue of the Convention Centre, and yes, I guess it was an initiative of the previous government, but it is a fantastic venue. There were about 400 people there in very convivial surroundings who were really enjoying themselves. The shadow tourism minister and my colleague, the member for Wanguri, were there and that was fantastic.
The Brolga Awards look to recognise tourism business excellence in the Northern Territory. They are an important marketing point-of-difference for operators and assist to promote the highest standards amongst NT tourism businesses and individuals. The winners of these awards, Madam Speaker, as you are probably aware, are automatically entered in the Australian Tourism Awards, which this year will be held in Adelaide in 2003. The Territory has a proud history of doing very well in those national awards.
I presented the Minister for Tourism’s Award for Tourism Excellence Perpetual Trophy to Mrs Jackie Hargreaves. Mrs Hargreaves has demonstrated a lifetime involvement and commitment to the Territory and the tourism industry, particularly in Litchfield Park. She said herself for many years she ran ‘the flashiest pub in the scrub’. Unfortunately, Mrs Hargreaves was not able to attend the presentations in Alice Springs, but I have undertaken to personally visit her to let her know how valued her contribution is to tourism.
The Minister for Tourism’s Special Recognition Certificates - there were two of them - were awarded to Mr George Thompson, and Mindil Beach Sunset Markets. Mr Thompson, as many would be aware, has been a stalwart of the tourism industry in the Katherine region for some thirty years. He started the Katherine Pony Club many years ago and then opened his trail riding business, Brumby Tracks. Unfortunately, Mr Thompson was not able to attend the awards but I have undertaken that the next time I am in Katherine, I will be endeavouring to meet Mr Thompson, and let him know just how much his long-term efforts are appreciated.
The Mindil Beach Sunset Markets are known to everyone. They provide a lot of colour and vitality. All sorts of visitors to Darwin flock to the markets and have a great time. They are a wonderful tourism attraction and all praise to the committee that manages the sunset markets, especially to all the stall holders. The markets draw thousands of tourists to Mindil Beach every week. They are getting bigger and bigger and I wish to acknowledge the role, as I said, of the stall holders. There are about 100 of them, and I commend them.
Generally, I commend all the winners of the 2002 Brolga Awards. I have a list here which is quite extensive. I cannot go through everyone. Voyages Hotels and Resorts are major shareholders and significant stakeholders in the tourism industry in the Northern Territory. They won an award for ecotourism, meetings and business tourism, and tourism retailing. It has been my pleasure to meet Mr Grant Hunt the Managing Director of Voyages on several occasions. They do a fantastic job.
Anangu Tours received special recognition for their heritage and cultural tourism, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tourism. Laurie Berryman has been a main stay there for quite some time, and he is a very innovative person. I also met Marg Smith and Wally Jacobs.
The Centre fared very well in the awards, but the Top End also featured with Cape Don taking out awards for adventure tourism, and hosted accommodation. Also Lake Bennett. One award that I liked was the tourism restaurants and catering services award: Bojangles Saloon and Restaurant. That was a really fun place. When I see those swinging doors, I just want to go through them and put the six guns back in the holsters. It is a fantastic place. I met and had a good talk with Chris and Avril Vaughan who do a fantastic job.
Madam Speaker, the Brolga Awards are a great award night. Yes, the tourism industry has been doing it tough but, as I said yesterday, I am endeavouring to do all I can, particularly in the area of airline capacity in the Northern Territory both international into Darwin and domestic into Alice Springs, and I will keep up that hard work.
Members: Hear, hear.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement and join with him to congratulate the winners. And, of course, not only the winners, but all those people who nominated. All of them could have won and, as the judges said on the night, most of the decisions were very close indeed. It was very pleasing to see so many people from the industry there. As a person from Alice Springs, I was delighted to see that the Centre took out about 15 of the 22 awards. So hear, hear for Alice Springs.
I was also pleased to see the minister and the former minister, the member for Wanguri, in attendance. A brave move, I would have thought for the member for Wanguri, but he was there anyway. I note with some interest that the Brolga Awards this year were cut by this government by the sum of $16 000. The former minister called the Alice Springs Town Council’s contribution ‘miserly’ which did not impress any of the alderman, I can assure you, and which probably explains why there was only one representative from the Alice Springs Town Council at the Brolga Awards on that occasion.
In any event, apart from that incredibly disappointing aspect, I thank the minister for his report and join with him in congratulating everyone involved.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, on the night I acknowledged the fact - and I was proud to acknowledge the fact - that the Northern Territory government is the major cash sponsor of the Brolga Awards. My information was that the Territory government kicked in about $85 000 for the awards. I know that there was some argy-bargy about that. My information is that the government is keen for the Brolga Awards to get some cash support outside of government.
The night was a success. Let’s not knock it. It was an important night.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: No, let’s not knock it. There was a magician with a great act. He pulled all sorts of things out of a hat. I hope to do the same as the tourism minister with a bit of hard work.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, minister.
Ministerial Reports noted pursuant to sessional order.
Dr BURNS (Environment): Madam Speaker, I believe we are taking these motions separately which is the establishment of the committee and then the terms of reference. I am pleased to be moving the re-establishment of the sessional committee for environmental issues but I would like to …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, would you like to move your motion first?
Dr BURNS: Do I have to read the whole thing?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you do, to put it on the Parliamentary Record.
Dr BURNS: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I went through it yesterday but I am pleased to go through it again.
Madam Speaker, I move –
That, during the present session of the Assembly -
1. a sessional committee to be known as the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee
be appointed;
by the Chief Minister, two members to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and one Independent
member and that the committee shall elect a government member as chair;
upon and make recommendations on matters referred to it by the relevant minister or resolution of the
Legislative Assembly on any matter concerned with:
(a) the environment or how the quality of the environment might be protected or improved; and
(b) the sustainable development of the Northern Territory.
4. the committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records; to sit in public or in private session, notwithstanding any adjournment of the Assembly, to adjourn from place to place and have leave to report
from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken, and make such interim recommendations as it may
deem fit; and to publish information pertaining to its activities from time to time;
5. the committee be empowered to consider, disclose and publish the minutes of proceedings, evidence taken
and records of similar committees appointed in previous Assemblies;
in public;
any such subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine and that the quorum of a subcommittee shall be two; and
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to move this motion, but this is much more than an environment committee. Its name says it all: it is also about sustainable development. I know this government, certainly when we came to power, our platform emphasised the whole issue of sustainable development. Under our environment and planning platform it says:
So it is up there in lights. It is not just an environment committee. It is not just a carry on of what the previous government did. We have spent the last year - and I commend the member for Karama - thinking very closely about how to move forward effectively on environmental issues, how to safeguard our environment but, at the same time, ensure that economic development is not compromised.
We know in our Territory, that the minerals industry provides just under 20% or thereabouts of our GSP. They are a very important industry. But I am also aware that the modern mining industry is very, very cognisant and careful of their environmental performance. I know from travelling around the Territory to various mining operations, what a fantastic job they do in rehabilitation and preserving and protecting the environment. So, environmental values are very high up on their list. I am sure that they will want to have a great deal of input into this committee, as they should because they are a major industry.
However, balanced against economic development is the very important issue of maintaining our wonderful environmental integrity. I believe that my portfolios of tourism and the environment fit together very closely because it is our wonderful environment, our natural assets, our environmental integrity that many tourists come to see in the Northern Territory. They are interested in our wildlife and our bird life. They are interested in our natural attractions. Some of those things are under threat and we will discuss part of that when we come to the terms of reference. I do not want to foreshadow that debate. But it is important that we address serious environmental issues and sustainable development.
We also recognise that environmental conservation is an essential element of promoting a high quality of life and lifestyle. We recognise that ecological sustainability is compatible with economic development through the adoption of environmentally sound and sustainable development practices. We can actually bolster economic development and employment opportunities. I hope that this view is shared by all members of this Assembly. I look forward to the committee providing informative reports to the parliament and the government as we strive to balance the needs of economic growth with the imperative of protecting our Territory for the enjoyment of future generations.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will be brief because this is an important committee to have reconstituted in the Northern Territory. It is a committee that I have just been advised was first initiated in 1977; a long time for a sessional committee to be continually a part of this parliament, and only stopped on the election of the Labor government. It surprised members on this side of the House that a party and a government that would put such a store in environmental issues as soon as they were elected disbanded that particular environmental committee. One thing that could be said about that committee, and I certainly hope that this new committee conducts itself in a similar way, is that it took a very bipartisan approach to environmental matters. They worked constructively together and, in my time as Chief Minister, I was particularly pleased with the way they conducted themselves.
It is a moot point, but if you want to talk about how effective these committees will be, one of the first things you could do is be consistent with your own motion. The motion says that the committee shall elect a government member as chair. The member for Karama has already been paraded out as the chairperson of the committee. There is a bit of simple convention here. I have no doubt that the member for Karama may be an excellent chair and that is fine; that is not the point. The point is, though, that it is a motion to the parliament, it is the parliament’s committee and it is the parliament’s prerogative to give the committee the right to elect the chair. To abuse that right at the outset simply does not auger well for the independence of that particular committee. I notice that the independent member for Nelson is a member of the committee. Again, it is not going to be the case, but there would be strong arguments for such a committee to have an independent chair, and that opportunity has not even been provided at all by the government.
If the government is going to construct this committee it would be good at the outset if they did construct it in a neutral fashion so it can go about its business positively. I know that the member for Greatorex has been the chairman of the previous committee for seven years straight and I applaud him for his efforts as chairman. He has been on the record consistently since the election pointing to the fact that there have been a number of issues that need to be addressed that are not being addressed.
The cyanide spill on the Tanami Highway was a classic. Without going into that in any real detail we had allegations from the Minister for the Environment that it was ecoterrorism. A report was eventually produced after 12 months and said nothing. It is an issue that I believe could have been quickly referenced to a committee such as the environmental committee if that committee had been in place. There has been the damage to endangered bird sanctuaries and draining of water along the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line. In some respects, I think, fairly irresponsible statements about the attitude of ADrail, irresponsible and incorrect, and again, something where a reference could have been made to that committee to look at that particular issue.
There was contaminated water at Perkins Shipping, and the lack of monitoring of the uranium mining province in East Arnhem. The terms of reference of this committee are interesting. It is restricted in two ways: one is that it can only investigate issues that are referenced to it from the minister or by a resolution of this parliament. The reference to particularly looking at uranium issues is gone. I guess the minister is going to assure us and say: ‘Oh, they will be able to do that in any case’, but if you look at the previous references to that committee, they had a particular reference to monitor uranium issues in the Northern Territory. That was a standing reference for them to investigate those issues. That is now gone. I would have thought you would have taken the opportunity as a government to give them a bit more flexibility and that is give them an own reference capability.
If the minister is so applauding of the Labor government’s love of the environment, I would have thought that one of the things you could do is give this committee an own reference capability. The reality is that this committee cannot investigate anything if it is not referenced to it directly by the minister so it is harnessed in that regard, or by motion of this Assembly, and the only way you can get a motion from this Assembly is if the government agrees with it. In that respect I am disappointed.
I wish the committee well in its efforts. I take the opportunity to nominate the two opposition members of the committee will be Mr Stephen Dunham, the member for Drysdale, and Mr Tim Baldwin, the member for Daly. They will bring a depth of experience and strong interest on these issues to the committee. I can give an undertaking that the opposition will approach the committee in the same way it has approached previous committees since 1977.
I also take the opportunity to forecast that the opposition has an amendment to make to the motion and that will be proposed by the member for Daly.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the establishment of the committee. It is a very important committee. Nobody can doubt the Labor Party’s strong commitment to the environment. We have stated many times our support of the environment. I have personally stood up and defended myself and my colleagues against allegations by certain people that we do not care about the environment, that we are here to destroy the environment and the most recent example actually is the LNG plant.
The committee is a unique opportunity for the government and also for the opposition to take a bipartisan approach to work together on the committee in order to examine issues that are either brought by the relevant minister or ministers and by the parliament …
Mr Elferink: They could have certainly looked into the effect on mangroves.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, certainly in protecting the mangroves. I will pick up the interjection. It is surprising that members on the other side complain about that, but in the past 26 years I have not heard any sounds from any member on the other side about the mangroves, even from Dr Lim who was a member of the committee for seven years and all of a sudden was dumped by his leader who appointed the member for Drysdale, and quite rightly so, and the member for Daly. At least those two people have genuine experience and interest in the environment …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: … and will be competent and be able to participate actively and constructively in the committee …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order, the minister has the floor.
Mr Elferink: And he is talking about mangroves.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I thought I gave you a warning.
Mr Elferink: You did, Madam Speaker.
Mr VATSKALIS: Send him to the mangroves, Madam Speaker. As for the mangroves, there is a very rare species in Macdonnell that is unique to the rest of the Territory. The government has taken active steps to protect them by incorporating them into the planning process. Next time somebody wants to do something that will effect mangroves, he has to actually seek permission or produce evidence why even one piece of mangrove has to be removed.
The same thing is happening about the Darwin Harbour and all the other coastal areas in the Territory. At least we are genuine in our approach. We have established a committee to look after the coastal areas in the Territory, a committee not comprising one particular sector of the community, but also comprising environmentalists, the so-called greenies, people who use the harbour, developers, people with boating interests - a very broad spectrum of our community.
I am very pleased that the Minister for Environment and Heritage has brought this to the House. It is a very good start and, in the future, we will see that committee dealing with issues in the Territory that will affect the Territory’s environment. At the moment, we are on the crest of industrial development which we have been pursuing for some time - and the other side of this House, the then government now opposition, really worked hard to bring gas onshore. It continues to do so, it will do exactly the same.
The Territory will change significantly should gas come onshore. Certainly, when the railway finishes at East Arm, people will not be able to recognise Darwin Harbour, or the Territory if – let us say ‘if’ - Pechiney establishes their aluminium smelter at Gunn Point and when the Wickham Point LNG plant is up and running.
I congratulate my colleague, the Minister for Environment and Heritage. Certainly, I would like to see active bipartisan support. You have to remember that it is up to us to be independent, and to contribute positively and constructively to this committee in order to protect the environment of the Territory.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition said, I will be flagging an amendment to this motion that I encourage all members to support.
It is at long last that this government has acted in doing something to show its credentials as far as the environment. At long last, after 20-odd years of a sessional committee on the environment in this parliament, we had to wait 18 months. I thank my colleague, the member for Greatorex, for reminding and keeping in front of this government the fact that they had not established anything in the way of a committee, independent or otherwise, to monitor the concerns of the environment. All of the issues that have come up over the last 18 months - whatever it is since this government has been in power - that could have been examined quite expeditiously by a committee, have gone begging. It is about time you introduced this. We had to get a new minister. The former minister who had coverage for environment has been almost deathly silent on matters concerning the environment. It took a new minister to unload the old minister, to finally discover that they should do something. That minister was reminded of that by my colleague as recently as 20 November 2002 in a press release calling for the establishment of a sessional committee once again.
I certainly welcome it. This side of the House welcomes it, and we will work diligently to ensure that matters of concern that are referred by this parliament, and also by the minister, are worked through very diligently. You will get full cooperation from members from this side of the House who are going to sit on that committee.
Having said all of that, I move the amendment. I will distribute it; it is in writing. The government Whip has a copy of the amendment. It is a very simple amendment. It says we should insert two words. I move that the following words be inserted in paragraph (3) of the motion standing in the name of Dr Burns:
Those are the two new words to be inserted.
Speaking to that amendment what it does is allow the committee some flexibility - not excluding those matters that are referred by this House and the minister - but some flexibility to look into matters that it thinks should be looked into. We will get to the motion regarding references to this committee at a later point. We have two references: one is to look at an Environmental Protection Authority and the other is to look at cane toads, very good things to look at, I am sure.
But there are other major issues that have not at this time been referred that are now of great importance to Territorians, and have been for some time, and some issues that will become of major importance in the future. I talk particularly of the onset of gas onshore in whatever form it might take including LNG onshore, even if it is floating platforms, what sort of environmental impact will that have on our harbour, and that is the major issue that is facing Territorians, particularly people living in Darwin in the future. That is not all. We could go on all day about what are important issues. The government is moving to sustainable development and so they should; all governments are around Australia. We are talking about land clearing reforms and biodiversity protection in our rural estates. They are matters of great concern that this committee should have the power to overlook; not necessarily get involved in but to have a watching brief on.
One major issue that is threatening the environment currently, and has for some time, and the previous government put a lot of effort into it, is salt water intrusion of one of our most important wetlands in the Top End, the Mary River system. There have been enormous …
Ms Martin: Significant commitments through COAG go into that.
Mr BALDWIN: … amounts of money put into that. I note that the government, in its last budget, reduced the amount of money that will go into that during this financial year. They talk about money from COAG and probably from the salinity action plan. All those things are in train, but it is imperative that somebody has carriage of having a watching brief on those sorts of issues. You could go on, as I said, on all sorts of issues pertaining to the environment and sustainable development.
All I am asking for here in this amendment to the motion is a very simple one to say ‘including those matters’. Like the PAC, this is no different from the PAC. Where the PAC has had …
Dr Burns: The PAC is not self-referring. You know that as well as I do.
Mr BALDWIN: The PAC has had the ability, Madam Speaker – I am not asking for this to be self-referring. I am asking for this to be the same as the PAC. Where the PAC can take on Auditor-General reports, all sorts of things, scrutinise all sorts of activities, and if they were serious about the environment, they would let this reference go through. They would let this amendment go through if they were really serious.
They have shown they are not serious by the fact that they took 18 months to reintroduce a sessional committee of this parliament that is one of the most important after the PAC. That is how serious they are. If they were really serious about giving this committee the ability to do its job on behalf of Territorians, they would let this go through. They are not serious. This is all window washing for them. They like to go out there and say, ‘We stand up for the environment. It only took us 18 months to do something about it’.
A minister who could not be bothered. It had to take a new minister to bring it forward after my colleague kept reminding them month after month after month, and then I bring forward a reference like this that allows a bit of flexibility. Already I can see the reaction, ‘No, don’t let them go off looking at all sorts of things because that is self-referral’. That is the same as the PAC, and what is wrong with that? What is wrong with that? I am sure Territorians would agree with me that – I am sure the Environment Committee, whom you like to get into bed with would agree that this committee should have some latitude. That is all that is being asked for here, some latitude.
If they do not do this, they are recalcitrant in their job because they have already shown that they do not want to go near the environment The terms of reference that we will get into later on will deal with the establishment of an Environment Protection Authority, which is not a bad thing.
Ms Lawrie: Agency.
Mr BALDWIN: Agency, authority – you call it what you like. It is probably not a bad thing. But it also deals with the staged introduction of an EPA. What does that tell you? Election – yes, we will promise it in the election.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe the member is pre-empting debate.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr BALDWIN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, this is what I mean.
Madam SPEAKER: I have already ruled.
Mr BALDWIN: They are frightened to tackle this issue!
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay, okay. Let us talk about an EPA and the staged introduction. I have no problem with a staged introduction of an EPA if the committee so recommends, if the parliament decides, but all that tells you is there is nobody who has a watching brief in the meantime on all things environment and sustainable development. All I am saying is give this committee some latitude to have the watching brief until such time as this mob want to introduce their EPA. That is all I am asking, and if you were serious, sitting on the other side, you particularly and the former minister and the new minister, they would agree to this. It is no different from the PAC, no different whatsoever.
Dr Burns: I will have my say.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, you will have your say. So I think we are off to a good start. We will look at the cane toads because I know this is not going to get up. I hope the member for Nelson supports me in this small amendment. It probably won’t get up on the government numbers.
Mr Stirling: Was that the way your Environment Committee worked, was it, Tim? It had self-referencing?
Mr BALDWIN: This is the way the PAC works! What’s wrong with it? Picking up on the interjection from the member for Nhulunbuy, who is the biggest boxhead in this place, if he was serious, if he wanted to go out there and talk to the environmental groups and say, ‘We have done the best possible thing we can do to make sure there is a watching brief on the environment, on heritage issues, on sustainable development issues, we have given …
Mr Henderson: Like you did?
Mr BALDWIN: You are in government now! You make the decisions. You get out there an justify yourself. You cannot. You like to go out there with your hand on your heart and say, ‘We’re green. Love us’. But you cannot bring yourself to do the gutsy stuff. That is your problem.
We will go along with it, but, boy, it is going to be a great ride. You should support this and if you were at least sincere in what you are proposing, you would certainly support this as well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to support the establishment of an Environment and Sustainable Development Sessional Committee. I think it is an important Committee, but I should make it clear that just because I think it is a great idea does not mean I agree with everything the government has just said.
Ms Lawrie: We don’t expect you to.
Mr WOOD: No.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Karama, order! I have spoken to you before.
Mr WOOD: I have it on record that I do have some strong concerns about the development of the Northern Territory, especially from an environmental and sustainable development point of view. The member for Daly knows about some of the issues I have raised because he was the minister for planning, and those issues that I have raised strongly with him I would also raise strongly with the government.
I notice the Minister for the Environment mentioned that the economy should not be compromised. I think the word ‘economy’ has to be balanced. One has to look at the economy not just from one particular point of view. For sure, mining is a major part of the economy in the Northern Territory, and so is tourism, which is also the minister’s portfolio. But if one is likely to destroy the other, then you should carefully look at the effects from both sides; you should not just say that, for instance, mining should go ahead and not take into account the possible effects that will have on tourism.
Mining is not all good in the Northern Territory. I am not referring to the mineral side of mining. I am talking about more the extractive side of mining. While extractive industries have certainly cleaned up there act - and I talk about extractive industries because the area I come from is one of the main areas for extractive industries in the Northern Territory; it is the area that builds Darwin and Palmerston. There have been times, and there still are times, where the environmental track record for the extractive mineral industry is not up to scratch. Sometimes now, because of the downturn in the building industry and the competition to supply materials at the cheap rate, corners can be cut. There needs to be a lot more work done on the rehabilitation of extractive mining areas, especially in the Litchfield Shire, because a lot of these extractive mineral areas come from the wetlands. The sand that you get is mainly extracted from the Howard River floodplains, and those areas are scarred once they have done that. They can be re-established, but it takes some work.
That is an area that the committee could look at and could see what has happened in the past, and what is happening now and, in fact, perhaps make some recommendations. It is certainly important for people who live in that part of the world, and it is important if you notice how many mosquitoes were around recently in the rural area, that we do not make breeding areas for mosquitoes unnecessarily. We have plenty of them just in the natural areas.
The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure said a few things about the track record of the government and, for sure, on some issues in the Litchfield Land Use Objectives, I support them wholeheartedly. The removal of some of the wetlands in the form of creeks and lagoons is a great move. However, on the other hand, to say that they are concerned about the environment begs the question as to why two major wetlands have now been declared something that they were not under the previous government? I refer especially to Lambells Lagoon, where a public meeting was held about 10 years ago, and a section of land which is substantially wet with large magnetic ant hills, was removed from a government horticultural subdivision. Now, under the new Litchfield Land Use Objectives, it is about 80% zoned Horticulture. I do not know why. It was raised in briefings with the minister before the land use objectives were declared and, for some reason, it is now horticulture. People out there will be quite disgusted to see that.
The other issue is the land next to BP Palms. It has been highlighted time and time again that that land is zoned - or was zoned - Open Conservation. The reason it was zoned Open Conservation was because the majority of that land is a wetland. I would love people and the minister to have a look at it. However, there has been an application by the neighbours to buy the land for the expansion of the caravan park. ‘I am sorry, but the land is zoned Open Conservation because it is a wetland. Sorry you cannot expand’. But, in the new Litchfield Land Use Objectives, it is now purple, Industrial. Therefore, on one hand the minister is saying, ‘What a great job’, and on the other hand the facts are that, in some cases, that is not happening.
As the minister said, we need the economy. But it has to be balanced with other factors. Sustainable development is about making sure that development does not cost a lot of money to future generations. What you do in the short term might look terrific, but if, in 20 years or 10 years time, you now begin spending money as they do in a lot of Landcare projects throughout Australia, repairing damage done by poorly thought out decisions today, well, you are just being silly. As I say to a lot of people: look at the Torrens River in Adelaide - there are plenty of other examples - and see the millions being poured into re-fencing the Torrens and trying to take out all the ash trees that were planted there. Millions and millions of dollars spent trying to restore a river system that, if it had been left as it was, would not cost the money that is being spent there today.
We have the opportunity to make decisions that will not leave a legacy for our children and their grandchildren to pick up the cost. When you see a decision that says the site next to the BP Palms is now Industrial, you have to wonder whether we have learnt anything. The Ware Peninsula is the other classic. Here is an example of the government saying on one hand, ‘We are looking at sustainable development’ but, on the other hand, they will not look at options, and the motion that was defeated in parliament previously where we were trying to look at options to save the Ware Peninsula from being Industrial. I would hope that the sessional committee can broaden and I would probably speak on it a little bit later, some of the things it is looking at and one would be the future of the Ware Peninsula.
Other issues that could be touched on are things like genetic engineering, for instance cotton, what effect that would have. That is an important issue and that is something perhaps the sustainable development committee could look at. It is an issue that I have not commented on much because I have a lot of learning to do on that particular issue, but once again, that is another issue.
I am also going to move a small amendment. I have just notified the Whip that I have an amendment which I think is an important amendment. If I could flag that motion now, Madam Speaker, and that amendment refers to, I will say it as it is: I move that the motion be amended by inserting in paragraph …
Dr Lim: You can’t move an amendment.
Mr WOOD: Oh sorry, I was just doing what the member for Daly did.
Dr Lim: He has moved an amendment. You cannot move it. You can foreshadow.
Mr WOOD: Can I foreshadow the amendment? I will foreshadow the amendment which is basically to insert in paragraph (3)(a) after where it says, ‘ …any matter concerned with the environment or how the quality of that environment might be protected or removed’, I was going to insert after the word ‘environment’, ‘heritage’, which may require the word ‘heritage’ twice. The word ‘heritage’ is very important.
The Commonwealth government has always referred to the National Heritage Trust because it encompassed both the built and natural environment. It is important that this Environment and Sustainable Development Committee make that its focus as well. The minister is minister for the Office of Environment and Heritage, if I am correct. That would make it far more consistent and it would take up issues that I believe are a mixture. I will refer here to one of my favourite subjects, the World War II airstrips. They are both historical and they also have a natural heritage emphasis as well. There are probably other sites that I mentioned before when we were discussing the railway at Grove Hill; those particular issues of the tramway.
They are issues that a committee like this could take into account. Preservation of that is part of sustainable development. Yes, we have a railway but at the same time we want to preserve our heritage. We do not want to ruin that heritage because it is not only valuable from a historical point of view but it is valuable from an economic point of view. History and tourism go hand in hand in the Territory. So, I will foreshadow that that will be my amendment and we will talk to that later.
Once again, I congratulate the government on the establishment of the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. It is a very important committee, especially as the Territory grows, especially as more and more industries develop; agriculture, tourism and gas, as the member for Daly said. These are things that are all going to affect the environment. I support the establishment of this committee.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Speaking to the amendment, Madam Speaker. I rise to make some very brief points and something that all members in this Chamber, especially those members of the Labor Party, would like to consider in relation to the committee and what is being talked about here in the amendment proposed by the member for Daly. I remind honourable members, those members of the Labor Party, of the Labor in Government document in relation to the committee system. I quote a couple of things from page 6:
I then go further on:
I also go on to quote:
Madam Speaker, it is time that the Labor government comes into this House and stands by the promise and contract that they made to Territorians in an effort to ensure their votes.
It is a fairly straight forward amendment that the member for Daly has proposed. It is entirely consistent with the principles and promises that the Labor Party made to the Northern Territory, entirely consistent, and now all I do is ask the Labor members opposite to live up to their promises.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, and again it’s …
Mr Baldwin: Here he is the Pine Creek boy, the Pine Creek environmental officer.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly!
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to establish a Sessional Committee on the Environment, and just to flag that the government will not be …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think there is some confusion on the part of the minister. We are discussing the amendment that the member for Daly has moved and we just …
Ms Lawrie: No, your amendments are foreshadowed.
Mr Ah Kit: It was foreshadowed.
Mr Baldwin: No, I moved it.
Mr ELFERINK: I would like some guidance as to if the minister is actually supporting the amendment or supporting the motion. If he is not, he should be speaking to the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: Just be mindful of the fact that you would be speaking as you just have done to the motion and the amendment. You cannot speak again.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I made it quite clear at the outset when I made my comments that I was speaking to the amendment and I believe the amendment is currently the item being debated, not the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, you may speak to the motion and the amendment at this stage but you cannot speak again.
Dr LIM: Well, may I ask the question, Madam Speaker ...
Mr Stirling: They are dissenting, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I would seek some advice.
Madam SPEAKER: As I said, after the amendment has been moved, you are speaking to the motion and the amendment. You can only speak again by leave after the amendment was moved. At the moment, you have spoken, and you cannot speak again, except by leave. The minister on his feet now can speak to the motion and the amendment. The minister has the floor.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. Don’t bother. That is the attitude and that is the problem.
Madam SPEAKER: You have already spoken.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, if the member for Macdonnell would let me get past my first sentence, I would have clarified the matters to which I will be referring, and they are the motion and the amendment, and to signal to the opposition that we will not be supporting the amendment moved. I will now address my comments to the reasoning for that.
The member for Daly – it must have been his leadership speech in the run up. It must be a contest between the member for Blain and the member for Daly. This is the first time that we have seen a bit of animation and a bit of passion from the member for Daly. It is good to see, member for Daly, it is good to see a bit of passion. Obviously it is the environmental issues that really arouse your passions. It is good to see.
Not only did he speak with passion, he spoke with a great deal of hypocrisy given that he was a minister in the previous government in this place and, as a minister supported the terms of reference for previous environment committees that were part of this parliamentary process. He is there with his heart on his sleeve, proposing the amendment which is for the greater good of the people of the Northern Territory. It is amazing, this new level of democracy that they purport to support, when they had 27 years to establish it themselves. Let us just remind honourable members, because we have quite a few on our side of the House, in what were the terms of reference of the previous environmental committee that was established on 27 June 1994, and then re-established on 26 November 1997, with exactly the same terms of reference.
Let us look at these wide and extensive terms of reference that the previous parliamentary committee had to work to, and I quote:
(1) the committee shall be empowered unless otherwise ordered, to inquire into, and from time to
time report upon and make recommendations on:
(i) the relevant minister; or
(ii) resolution of the Legislative Assembly.
Not recommendations on ‘matters including those’. They are exactly the same.
Now let’s look at our terms of reference here, and it is almost exactly the same:
(3) The committee shall be empowered, unless otherwise ordered, to inquire into and from time to time
report upon and make recommendations on matters referred to it by the relevant minister or resolution
of the Legislative Assembly.
Let us look at the work of the previous environment committee that they had carriage of over the years. Apart from uranium mining - and they did a great job of that and a huge amount of work went into that - in the 26 years, since 1977, how many other terms of reference were referred to it by the parliament or the minister? In 27 years, how many? The answer is two. Apart from uranium mining, there were two issues: salt water intrusion and Mimosa pigra. They were the only two in 27 years. The member for Daly is saying we should have a flying squad, it can roam into all the issues that are in the media at the moment and, in 27 years, the previous environment committee of this House looked into three issues: uranium mining, Mimosa pigra and Mary River wetlands.
So, if they are trying to reinvent themselves over there on the other side of the House as being the new Greenies that are out there championing the environment, actions speak louder than words. The historical record speaks louder than that. Really, this is nothing more than just a cheap stunt from those opposite because they have no commitment to the environment. There was absolutely no commitment to it and, certainly, the previous sessional committees that were established under their term of government had such enormous wide-ranging powers, such enormous capacity to look into issues - all the issues that occurred over those 26, 27 years - and they looked into three issues in 27 years. Our environment committee is certainly going to be a lot more active than that. We will certainly be looking into and have terms of reference from government and from the parliament.
I say to members opposite that they have every capacity to bring motions to this House regarding terms of reference for issues of the environment committee, and to convince government and parliament that these issues should be something that the environment committee can look into. The parliament can instruct, as it could under previous governments, by resolution of the Legislative Assembly. We will take that process on openly; we in this House have a commitment to protect the environment.
However, given the absolute hypocrisy of the member for Daly, in trying to put a self-referencing term into the terms of reference when they in 27 years looked into three issues, we have picked up exactly the same terms of reference that they had. That is absolute hypocrisy. The parliament can refer issues to it. I am sure over the term of our government we will look at a number of significant issues. If we look at the issue of the environmental protection agency, again, 26, 27 years they had the opportunity to look into that and dared not even breathe its name. We will have a look at how that could or should be structured. I am sure the committee will report back to this House very fulsomely. Actions speak louder than words.
I bet London to a brick, by the end of this term of parliament, our environment committee would have looked at more than three issues. Three issues in 27 years under the CLP. A great start for us and we will not be supporting the amendment.
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I have consulted with the Clerk and I believe that I have the right to speak to the amendment, and reserve the right to speak to the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: That is right.
Dr BURNS: I would just like to speak very briefly to this amendment. I think the member for Wanguri said …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Given that I would like to speak in this debate, do I have the same right?
Madam SPEAKER: No, the mover of the motion has the right to speak to amendments and to any amendment, and to sum up at the end. That is his right. But you can talk in this debate.
Mr DUNHAM: But not to the amendment and then to the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: You can talk as the minister has just done, to the motion and the amendment, and then when we pass that or fail it, we wait and see what happens next. Whether we have another motion.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, just to reiterate: I cannot really add to what the member for Wanguri has said. He set out the case very clearly. There is just one issue about the amendment, one important issue. He talked about the terms of reference that you had. You mentioned the Public Accounts Committee and how the Public Accounts Committee is self-referencing. It is not self-referencing. It is in relation to the amendment here, Madam Speaker, that the Public Accounts Committee is allowed to reference things that are specifically in the Auditor-General’s report. And that is a very important issue. I wanted to clarify it. I wanted to put it on the record, because I know the mischief that the member for Daly will try to engage in. I wanted to put that on the record.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, we just heard an interjection from the chairman of seven years, and we heard from the Leader of Government Business the three things they have achieved. And, what a record! Twenty six or 27 years to try to do things around the Alligator Rivers region, and also with the salt water intrusion, and mimosa. We had debates over the last seven years that I have been in this Chamber where they would not entertain the thought of an environmental protection agency. They would not entertain, they would never entertain, the thought of going beyond the scope that they gave that committee. They would never go beyond that. Firstly, I suppose, they were a bit worried there was too much work for the chairman; beyond his comprehension and intelligence. Secondly, they wanted to keep control of it.
The change of heart that has come across the former government members, now in opposition, is really interesting. I have nothing against environmentalists. Good people! A good cause. We have to balance it up. We have to balance it up with business. The shadow spokesperson for business is now keen to ensure that the big business and small business community does well out of what we are doing in moving the Territory forward, and ensuring that we become a very prosperous Northern Territory. We have a situation where I have seen the former Deputy Chief Minister stand up in this House and claim credit for the bulldozing of the Hotel Darwin across the road. Where was this new so-called greenie when that was happening? Out bush! He got sent bush because he was the Lands minister at the time and he did not want to take all the blame when the Hotel Darwin was bulldozed overnight, and he has the audacity to come in here and put up an amendment that is all about muck raking.
Whilst we are on the former Deputy Chief Minister, he stood up in this House bragging about ‘cane toads will be here probably in the year 2007’. Well, goodness me! I hope he is getting an update on the cane toad reports now because they are almost here, and it is 2002. So, something has gone wrong there. We would love to see him put on a greenie guernsey.
We have a situation where we as the government have a responsibility to ensure that we weigh up the balance and get it right, and we do. We want to move forward in respect of the business opportunities; but we also need to seriously take into account the environmental concerns and heritage concerns that were pointed out by the member for Nelson. Striking the balance is the way to go.
We have a situation now where these members opposite have done this big somersault and now they are all bleeding hearts. They are all there, all over us. It is a wonder they are not all wearing green guernsies today. They say things like ‘get it right’ to us. They were in power for 27 years and they would not go anywhere near …
Mr Baldwin: Haven’t you read your own promises?
Mr AH KIT: Oh, look, we have no problems with the policies; they encompass what we are doing. It is what you read into it; you and the spinifex lawyer from Central Australia. That is your interpretation, you mugs! Stop believing in each other because you are not as good as you think you are.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, would you confine your remarks to the motion, thank you.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, yes, I digress. I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I will address my comments to you because someone needs to show respect around this Chamber, unlike the members opposite.
Madam Speaker, we saw the former environment committee do very little, and we know why that happened: because of the scope that it had. It was limited by this parliament, neither did it have a brains trust leading it. We have proposed a way of establishing the work that needs to be done to ensure that Territorians will have something established that will look after the interests and weigh up those balances that are so urgently needed throughout the Northern Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I will speak to the motion and the amendment. First, I want to express my disappointment at members opposite for the cheap political stunts and grandstanding of this morning. I had hoped that this Chamber would deal with this motion in a constructive and positive manner because the establishment of an environment and resource development committee is indeed new. There has not been a committee like that …
Mr Baldwin interjecting
Ms LAWRIE: … and it is new because - and give someone the decency of speaking without incessant interruptions, member for Daly.
Mr Dunham: Oh, yes! That’s not bad from you, you little hypocrite. You do it all the time.
Ms LAWRIE: It is new because of the past from 19 …
Ms Scrymgour: Listen, listen!
Ms LAWRIE: It is new because in the past, since 1977, which was the Second Assembly of this parliament, only an environment committee was established. There has never been an Environment and Sustainable Development Committee in this parliament. I believe it is also ground breaking because for the first time, it is not looking at discrete, tiny, segmented environmental issues. Really, it is taking an holistic approach of asking, ‘is the Territory ready to mature like other jurisdictions and follow the path of an Environment Protection Agency that can oversee all of the issues that have been raised in this Chamber in debate this morning?’
It was interesting to listen to the shadow spokesperson for the environment, the member for Daly, because I have not heard him speak on the environment at all, ever, any time while he has been the shadow spokesperson. All of a sudden he has found his portfolio responsibilities. He is talking about flexibility, about looking at major issues such as gas onshore, the biodiversity protection in rural estates, saltwater intrusion in the Mary River, and he says that it is imperative someone has carriage of these issues.
I can inform the member for Daly that the person who has carriage of those issues is the Minister for the Environment and Heritage; and there is a department called the Office of Environment and Heritage. So, if you have all of a sudden found a burning desire to represent constituents of the Territory on these issues, I very strongly recommend that you engage in dialogue both with the minister and his office. That is a proactive, reasonable and constructive fashion of going about your business.
Unfortunately, the debate in this Chamber today has shown that people want to muddy the waters, they want to put in place every single barrier they can think of to prevent this committee doing the task that the government has identified is necessary; that is, investigating whether or not we end up with an EPA. Cane toads are already in Kakadu; they have been spotted in Tennant Creek and Katherine. Unfortunately, the previous government did ignore the issue of cane toads. Successive concerns were raised over the years by people saying, ‘Cane toads are becoming a real issue in the Territory. Can something be done?’ The previous government sat on its hands and did nothing, saying, ‘Their march into the Territory is inevitable and we do not think there is going to be such a big problem’. Well, we are hearing anecdotal evidence already of the impact on freshwater crocodiles and our frogs.
I am really pleased that a critical need issue at the moment is able to be tasked to the committee. However, it is my concern that the committee be given a body of work that it can realistically work through and achieve outcomes for Territorians. A committee that meets as a sessional committee, meeting from time to time, usually during the sittings or around the sittings period itself, with members of that committee already having their electorate, shadow portfolio, and other committee responsibilities - the reality is if we take on the whole world of every single environmental issue, we will be so bogged down that we will not actually achieve any real outcomes.
People in this Chamber who have bothered to look at how committees operate in other jurisdictions and achieve outcomes, will know that committees these days are actually being tasked with specific tasks. They pursue that task, they receive an outcome of that task and then they move on to another task. I listened intently to the member for Nelson, because I know he is genuine, rather than political grandstanding. I know that he is genuine in the issues he has raised, because he has raised them before. The issue of the wetlands, the Ware Peninsula, heritage, tramway preservation, genetically modified cotton, aquaculture, tourism and gas - these are all issues that the member has raised before in this term of government. He is proactively working to continue to ensure that this government is aware of the environmental issues out there. I know he makes representations to the ministers, and does his utmost to deal with the departments and to pursue outcomes for these issues. I do not feel that that will change. I am sure the member for Nelson will continue to progress these issues.
However, my concern is that we are losing sight of the important task that we are here today to discuss, which is the establishment of the committee that can weigh up the future needs of the Territory: the opportunity to provide the environmental safeguards in accord with community expectations that Territorians out there are calling for. I strongly believe the current generation, people 30 years and below, have been raised in an education system that puts great value on environmental issues. We are seeing an evolution, I guess, in Territory politics here today; that is an evolution of recognising the importance of environmental safeguards, the importance of the environment, while at the same time weighing up the very necessary needs of sustainable development.
It is development that gives people the growth, gives them the jobs that puts food on the tables and enables them to care for their children. We must embrace the balancing act of sustaining our environment while we sustain economic development and growth.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion before the House today. I encourage members to put aside political wizardry and stunts and move forward in a collaborative and positive nature.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, we should start with some fairy tales because there are a lot of them today. The first one is, the member for Millner reckons the reason people voted for him is he sat down with that Good Government document, he said in the debate about FOI, and that is what convinced them. He sat down with every single member of his electorate and he door knocked the whole lot of them and that convinced them. Well, have another read of that document. It is worth revisiting because that is the one that says, ‘open’, ‘transparent’, ‘legislatively based’, ‘taking references of their own choosing’; all of that sort of stuff was in there. So, myth one, we are not going to do what we promised the punters. That is the first one.
The second one is talking about how we have to be careful of the economy and balance it all up. The then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fannie Bay, sacked the member for Arnhem, sacked him, took him out of the shadow cabinet because of what he said about mining and the environment. Said that is not the Labor position. Whoops! Don’t say miners are bad guys, they are good guys. We are going to an election and the last thing we want is the real Jack coming out just before the election and saying that mining is bad for the environment. So, there is another little one.
The one about the Hotel Darwin and how we crowed about demolishing it. We had nothing to do with it. It was not an issue for this government. It is all very well saying, ‘Oh, he came in here and he crowed about it’. I recall the member for Katherine’s statement on cane toads, and that has been jocularly dismissed saying, ‘Oh, he said they were coming in 2007,’ or whatever. What he said was, this is a debate we have to have because although they have not arrived yet, it is inevitable. And the chairman is saying, ‘Oh, well, we could have done these various things’. Well, I am glad it is a term of reference because he has obviously done no research into this and it is worth at least reading the debate that was held in parliament about the work that had been done over a long time.
I know the heritage of some of these committees is to look for someone to blame and cane toads is probably convenient. They will probably say it is 27 years of CLP neglect that we ended up with the cane toad. We heard that with a little interjection when Bill Freeland got the sack; that was one of the things that was thrown out as a deficiency in his managerial regime - something about cane toads. I suspect we are going on a little excursion for a scapegoat here.
But let’s get some of those myths out of the way. The other one: you can go to Katherine and spot a cane toad. My oath you can, Madam Speaker, they are everywhere. And for the new chairman of the environmental committee to be unaware that Katherine is so close and absolutely crawling with these little beasties is a bit astounding. She is obviously very Darwin-centric in the first place and in the second place, she is not aware that this is a very entrenched feral animal in Katherine at this very time. Indeed, I travelled to Alice Springs and back only a couple of weeks ago and saw some at Dunmarra and other places. A couple of years ago I was at Borrolloola and they were everywhere. So let’s get this straight: they are here to stay and that is something that should be put well and truly on the record.
We have the sacking of the member for Arnhem because of his behavior about the environment or some of the things he says. We have a document taken to the punters at the election saying how this was going to be a wonderful committee and the first thing they did was disband the environment committee. So, whether you liked it or not, it existed. I was a member of it and I thought it did pretty good work. In fact, in the main, its reports were unanimous, so when people stand up and talk dismissively of it, it is actually a reflection on this parliament because there were members of both sides on it. They had the opportunity to talk in dissenting reports about whether they thought the thing was good or not, and they chose not to. It did pretty good work. It is all very well saying, look it only looked at this little uranium province; that was a significant environmental issue at the time, as was and is Mimosa pigra, as is salt water intrusion on our wetlands.
They are some little mythical things that come creeping into debate. The other one, I suppose, is issues relating to the PAC. My colleague did not suggest self-referral, although that is the benchmark, of course, that was taken out to the last election. That is your mandate. But he did say that it could be modelled on a PAC where you could go, for instance, to the annual report of the department, DIPE, and you could ask DIPE that if things appear in the annual report they could be taken on for further investigation by this committee.
I cannot understand why the new committee is so jumpy about this. This amendment that my colleague has proposed is that we can take some other issues on. Now, if you don’t want to self-refer, we can come back a level. We can say: ‘Well, okay, what about issues that have been canvassed broadly in the annual report or some other report?’ Don’t forget there are still two gates that they can lock. Gate number one: ‘ …the committee shall be empowered unless otherwise ordered ...’ So the minister or the parliament could say: ‘No, please don’t look at matters relating to biodiversity or genetically modified cotton’. They could say that to the committee. So there is the first gate they could slam in our face. The second is: they have the numbers. So as we sit in committee, and as we say: ‘Okay, well, my colleague, the member for Nelson, and the member for Daly and myself might say we are really keen to look at some of these things like, for instance, the cyanide spill on the Tanami Highway’. The numbers that are in that committee could preclude us from doing it. So there are two great big steel gates they can clang in our face without having to worry about it having coming from the minister or the Assembly.
They have set up three doors that can be shut. All he is asking is open one of them. If you are really worried, if you are really jittery about it, you still have ‘unless otherwise ordered’ so you can order us not to look at the Tanami spill, and you can still use your numbers on committee not to investigate it. Why are you so frightened about this amendment? What is causing you so much concern?
You still have the potency, you still have the power. All we are saying is that there are some other issues to look at. Cane toads are important, but I can guarantee I can tell you what the answer is going to be: this is a big problem and there is not much we can do about it, but here are some of the things we can do to mitigate it; but the cane toad is here to stay. That is what it will say.
We have been given an invitation by the Leader of Government Business, and he said there are other things you can look at if you so choose. So I would suggest that in this debate, the minister - at least the dot points put to him by my colleague, the member for Greatorex, when he put out a press release that probably kicked this off because this was probably the straw that broke the camel’s back, the one that said: ‘For God’s sake, put a committee into place’. Lo! and behold: here is the committee. All plaudits to Dr Lim. Some of the things that he mentioned here such as the cyanide spill on the Tanami Highway, are deserving of the work of the committee. I think we should look at that. The damage to endangered bird sanctuaries and the draining of waterholes along the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line, possibly that is something we could look at; it should not take too long.
The contaminated water at Perkins Shipping is probably a good one. In fact, there is a link between those two because there is at least one gentleman with his fingerprints all over both of them. The lack of monitoring of the uranium province in East Arnhem is something we could put back on. It has been done for some decades and we should continue with it. Another is the impact of onshore gas coming to Darwin Harbour. I suggest that the minister, in his rejoinder could, as a ministerial reference, give us at least those. I am sure the member for Nelson, although he is precluded from speaking again, could probably think of some others.
Whilst the new chairman is saying: ‘Look, we are really busy’ and ‘We had better not take too much on because we are going to be really busy’, I could suggest that if she is a bit more punctual, for instance, at turning up at meetings, then we could get a little bit further. I know that there was some difficulty with her at least getting to the new membership of the Public Accounts Committee …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Drysdale is casting aspersions on my punctuality at meetings …
Mr Dunham: Yes, yes.
Ms LAWRIE: …and that is incorrect. I have been punctual to all meetings.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr DUNHAM: I am just suggesting that you could modify your behaviour, a little more diary control, and when you are called to a meeting immediately at the commencement of the luncheon adjournment, for instance, you could get there. So there are little things like that where you would get through a lot more business now that you are the chairman. So, there is something you could do. I think you could also get out of Darwin a bit more often. Katherine might be a good start. It is not that far away. If you start doing that, you might have a bit more notion of what the environment is.
There is also a dismissive attitude about the environment in terms of heritage and the protection of the environment that has been inherited by the new government. It is in pretty good shape: the harbour, the green belts around our city, the various protection organs that sit in government, and our monitoring devices are in good shape,. As a previous Essential Services minister, I spoke in debate about the wonderful work that is being done - the green work that is being done - through PowerWater and others, and that sustainable effort that has been put into place. It is on the Parliamentary Record in the term of this new government, and it was recognised during that debate that some of them had quite a long heritage. I also worked for the minister for mineral resources at one stage, and there is quite a significant amount of environmental effort and benefit that comes from mining - surprise, surprise!
However, we have to get to this stage where we realise there are often calls on a resource that are compatible - and I can understand what the member for Nelson is saying that sometimes they are in collision, and you have to mitigate one or the other so that harm is minimised. If you look at, for instance, a couple of them - look for instance at the Gouldian finch. Much of the Gouldian finch habitat research was largely funded by Pegasus Mining, which was running Mt Todd at the time. A significant amount of money went into that from Pegasus. If you look at Enterprise at Pine Creek, the rehabilitation there provided some really good insights into how to rehabilitate natural scrub lands after mining.
The Office of the Supervising Scientist is entirely funded from Ranger, and it has done work on various flora and fauna, including long-necked tortoises and emus, if I recall. This is this trivial work done under the CLP government. We had a look at a lot of the work that was done by the OSS - significant contribution to the scientific effort and body of knowledge in Australia, and probably the world, funded from mining, and available to be looked at by this committee, this trivial committee that the CLP had. If you look at a lot of mining effort now, including extractive, there are a lot of better techniques that can be used in carting and the problems that can have on the environment; in blasting, extraction and, obviously, rehabilitation.
They are things we could look at as a committee, and I am sure there are plenty of mining companies around that would like to show us their ‘green’ credentials. They would say: ‘Look, we think we have a good record here, come and have a look’. They are things that could be part of the work for the committee. I would like to see the committee have a wider look at this.
I can understand the embarrassment, as I said, given that it is only less than two years that the then Leader of the Opposition had to sack the member for Arnhem for his comments in this area. I can understand that there is still a little sore spot there. However, I am sure we would get over that. Once we got out bush and started talking to companies, I think you would find that it would be work that we all enjoyed and the reports might even be of a bipartisan nature - heaven forbid!
I am proud to be a member of this committee. I believe we can make it work hard. We certainly have to pack some swags and get on the road: we have to get out and see where the environment is. It is not, even though most of the news from the media and other places about the built environment and its close proximity to the vegetation here in Darwin and other highly habited areas - it is other areas as well. Mimosa pigra continues to be a problem, as do feral animals - a significant problem.
Some of the problems we have had with bushfires in Alice Springs, if we do not have rain and that vegetation does not regenerate quickly, we have a significant problem with dust in Alice Springs. You have lived there long enough, Madam Speaker, to know that bushfires equals denuding of the flora, equals significant dust storms that can go as far as the eastern seaboard - and they have in previous times.
There is a powerful body of work to look at. I believe that the body of work that was looked at by previous committees, and has been dismissed in this place, is tantamount to a reflection on this parliament. It was good, powerful work and, if there is to be such a fear of us venturing into places that will embarrass the government, take confidence in the fact that you have the numbers on the committee, even though that is another broken promise. Take confidence in the fact that you have the capacity for the minister to declare a forbidden area. He can do it still. We are not asking for that bit to be amended. He can still say, ‘unless otherwise ordered’. ‘Thou shalt not look at mining,’ says the minister for DIPE. There are two great big caveats he has. He does not need this other one of saying it all has to come through parliament or the minister for us look at it.
I suggest that some of the more powerful work of this committee might be contemporary references. So, if there is a cyanide spill, and if there is a variety of pieces of information going to and fro, from various agencies, it might be a good thing for this parliament to have some of the members look at it. In an effort, dare I say, to get to the truth. Because that is, after all, what we are about. We are supposed to be able to come from this parliament, interrogate the documents, departments, without fear or favour, and report in the best interests of the people who voted us to come to this place.
I would think that this augurs well - if it is half the rhetoric. Unfortunately, the rhetoric thus far has shown it to be a shadow of its former self. I have not pulled out the election platform on the environment from the last foray that we had into an election. Suffice to say that this is covered with a legacy of broken promises at its birth and that sort of heritage does not augur well for the apolitical feeling that the member for Karama is trying to engender.
I also caution that against this being used as a political tool. Certainly it is not my intention to use it to poke spikes into the side of government. They will do that well enough themselves without our having to divulge it. I think that if it is used with good intention and the good intention is that we work in the best interests of the people who elected us, we cannot go too far wrong. I hope that in his contribution, which is forthcoming, the member for Millner is able to tell us why this document that was so powerful in matters relating to FOI and other things ‘good government’, when he took it to the living rooms of the people who were voting for him in Millner, how somehow that page was ripped out, or turned over, or he did not actually get to that page. Or, if he did actually divulge that when he sat in their living rooms and told them what was going to happen with the incoming Labor government, he is now going to tell us how he is going to address that. It probably should be in some form of apology that the so-called ‘good government document’ is nowhere near the shape of this thing. It bears no resemblance to its shape.
In fact, quite proudly, in some sort of a defensive mechanism, the member for Wanguri, said, ‘No, it is like yours. Have a look. They are very similar’. What he is saying is you had a terrible thing and we have pinched it, and put a couple of outriggers on it and it is going to go faster. Maybe. Well, I reckon that what they should have been going for is probably is something more closely approximated to their promises. Because that is what it is supposed to be about. You have a mandate, you get elected and you are supposed to put things in place that are pretty close to what you promise.
I support not only the motion of my colleague, Madam Speaker, because, as I said, if you worry about the padlocks on the gates, you have two big gates with padlocks all over it, if you are worried about finding out stuff. I also support the foreshadowed motion of the member for Nelson because more and more heritage and environment are intertwined, more and more notions of preservation and conservation flow through both of those arms, and certainly, in an administrative arrangement sense, they sit quite neatly cheek by cheek in the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment that the environment minister has. It is probably a good idea that we put heritage in there as well.
I encourage the incoming chairman to refrain from some of the more florid bias that she shows in this place, and some of the interjections that demonstrate her having a very single minded approach to things rather than opening her mind up and being a little bit more bipartisan. I encourage her to truly respect the role of the chairman of a committee of this parliament, albeit on a much lesser scale than that which they promised the people, and at least exhibit some of those traits a chairman should have in terms of impartiality and a quest for the truth and pursuit of the best interests of the people that put us here.
With those comments, I look forward to getting on the track with my swag and investigating matters of great concern in the environment. They are certainly much greater than setting up a committee, whether it is called an EPA, or anything else, and cane toads. There is a lot more to look at. I hope we get back to the uranium province. I hope that, having kicked this thing off in the first place by prompting the minister into action, at least some of those issues that the member for Greatorex put to the minister only a mere week or so ago can feature among our terms of reference. In closing debate, I hope the minister is able to tell us that he is quite happy to accept those because it was an invitation that was given to us by the member for Wanguri.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your time has expired.
Mr DUNHAM: No, it hasn’t.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The question is …
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak.
Madam SPEAKER: You wish to speak?
Dr LIM: Yes. I thought you were going to call the luncheon adjournment.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, no. The difficulty we have is that we were hoping the committee would be able to meet at lunch time. Obviously it won’t now. Do you wish to speak to this?
Dr LIM: Yes, I do wish to speak, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Can I have some other indication of people who may be speaking to this?
Dr LIM: I thought it was a foreshadowed motion.
Madam SPEAKER: We do have a foreshadowed motion, so I think, Leader of Government Business, at this stage we are obviously not going to get through the whole thing, so, yes, we could adjourn for lunch.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we do go on there are two things we need to do. The Attorney-General needs to give a couple of notices that he missed the call on. And I have allowed the member for Goyder time to give a personal explanation.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I place on the Parliamentary Record a personal explanation.
I am, of course, a member of parliament. I have a broad and diverse electorate and part of my role as a politician is to field questions from all constituents with different and varying views. Part of that process is to request answers from the government and from the responsible minister on any issue which touches upon and affects people in my electorate. Very much part of that process – indeed, it is one of the duties a politician has - is to reduce those questions and those concerns to writing and forward them to government for a response to be provided, and the information is then given to that particular constituent.
It is very much part of the parliamentary process. It is a duty I intend to continue to discharge and a process I intend to continue to utilise. If there is any confusion in government about the process, I am happy to provide a briefing. However, if the minister thinks that, during the course of Question Time, he can try to intimidate me, to prevent me from asking questions and acting on information on behalf of my constituents, then he is sadly mistaken.
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I join in the debate on the formation or reformation, reconstitution of the environment committee now renamed the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee.
The name itself, if the minister would take a bit of notice, is a bit of a oxymoron title - environment and sustainable development. Yet, this committee has no specific reference. All the references it has are listed in the third point of this motion where it says: ‘… makes recommendation on matters referred to it by …’. Until it gets referred it has no job to do. How it can be an Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, I wonder. That is why I stand in support …
Mr Bonson: What did you do for eight years?
Dr LIM: … of the amended motion put to the Chamber by the member for Daly. Taking on the inane interjection by the member for Millner - if he could understand law he might be able to read a bit better than he has purported to be doing for the last 18 months and understand what I am talking about when I talk about it being an oxymoron title because it relates to nothing, absolutely nothing.
For the last 18 months since the government has been in place I have continually called for the formation of the environment committee. When the government came in and allowed the environment committee to lapse I felt it was a very poor foresight of this government to do that. In the last 18 months my feeling about the lack of the environment committee has come to fruition. I thought it was wrong not to have it. A few things have occurred in the last 12 months in the Territory that should have rung lots of warning bells for the government, yet it did not, not until this week. For the last 18 months we have had the cyanide spill along the Tanami Highway; that has been of great significance to Central Australia. People could have been killed. Even the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure went up there and called the person who was alleged to have caused the spill an ‘eco-terrorist’. How shooting off from the hip could that be? It was a very significant environmental disaster that should have been closely monitored right from the very beginning and the truth be known things could have happened very, very quickly.
A letter in the NT News today commented about how the CEO or the EO of the Work Health Authority could have done his work a lot better instead of blaming former governments for something that he himself has been slow to deal with. An environment committee with the right references would enable this parliament to be quick to respond and quick to find out what exactly caused the spill and then prevent further impacts to the environment by such unfortunate accidents.
We have heard since the railway line commenced that there has been some environmental damage to the Gouldian finch habitat, and the almost complete drying out of water holes along the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line. These are things about which people should be very conscious. Parliament was not well informed at all about these issues. It is also something that the environmental committee could have been on top of. I spoke about the environment committee looking after the uranium province in East Arnhem land in the seven years that I was the chair. I know that I inherited the committee from previous members who had been there.
The committee has existed since about November 1977 and has been continuously active since its formation. The primary reference was amended around 1988 to include ministerial and parliamentary reference. In the seven years I was the chair we looked at other issues that were referred to us by parliament. They were on mimosa pigra and also the salt water intrusion into the Mary River wetlands. The mimosa pigra project has been recognised nationally as a very useful document. In the one document you get all the references and research that has been done nationally and internationally. Since our report I believe many biological inhibiting vectors have been used by the CSIRO through their very detailed research laboratories in Queensland, Western Australia and the Territory. They have had a major impact on patches of mimosa pigra that they have used the biological vectors against. That is the value of an environmental committee. They can gather information in a bipartisan way and provide parliament with appropriate advice to which government could then respond.
The membership of the Environment Committee in past years - and I am referring to the years when I was involved with the committee - Wes Lanhupuy was a member in 1994 until his retirement from parliament, and Maurice Rioli, John Bailey and John Ah Kit. Those were the four from the then opposition. I must say that Rioli and Bailey were very hard working members of the committee. They rarely missed any meetings and they travelled with the rest of the committee to look at the issues at hand. I cannot say that for the member for Arnhem. If he turned up for two meetings, it was two of many he had otherwise missed. He was just a very poor performer on the committee. I hope the new committee will have harder working people, and I trust the member for Millner who ums and ahs and walks away from his chair will be hard working as well.
The Environment Committee has a lot of work to do in the Territory. It can do it well if it chooses to. I believe that the amendment the member for Daly has proposed would allow the committee to do some serious work that the Territory has for it to look at.
I heard the member for Drysdale request of the minister that he take on the points that I had listed in my media release. That is a good start to what the committee can do. I will be very quick to advise the member for Karama that - she has hardly any committee work at the moment - what is so bad about taking on a few of those references? All she can say is she is going to be too busy - too busy doing what, I wonder? It is important for the environment committee to consider all issues that are here in the Territory, and if you agree to the member for Daly’s amendment, it will definitely do that.
There is no point moving the motion as per the minister’s motion. It says nothing. It is a sessional committee to be known as the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, but it has no matters referred to it. As it stands, that is all it has, and until parliament refers something to it, it sits there, impotent, doing absolutely nothing. What is the point?
Just to close my short comments, Madam Speaker, it is better to have the amended motion which will allow the committee to look at issues that are relevant to the Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the amendment be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mr Mills Ms Martin
Mr Reed Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Before I put the motion, I believe we had an amendment foreshadowed. If the member for Nelson would like to seek leave to move his amendment?
Mr WOOD (Nelson) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be amended by inserting in paragraph 3(a) after ‘environment’ (twice occurring) the words ‘and heritage’ I will speak quickly on the reasons for putting…
Madam SPEAKER: Can I just clarify this? Members who have already spoken may speak to the amendment only.
Mr WOOD: I will speak to that amendment. By adding the word ‘heritage’ into that paragraph it does cover what I believe is the role of a committee such as an environment and sustainable development committee. As I said before, the federal government has the National Heritage Trust, the NHT, which includes both the built environment and the natural environment. Also, listening to the member for Arnhem talking about the issues of the Hotel Darwin which was a heritage site, it is important that we do look at issues like that. I simply say that by adding ‘heritage’ in there, you make it a more complete committee which can deal with a broad range of issues that many people in the Territory have concerns about, and it does especially cover the phrase ‘sustainable development’.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, you will be speaking to the amendment only.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I indicate that the government will not be supporting the amendment. The reason is that essentially, we want this committee focussed on the environment and the balance between environmental issues and sustainable development.
But to pick up the concerns of the member for Nelson, I certainly believe that the community has the capacity, through the Heritage Advisory Council, to make representations to that body. If the member is not aware, I refer to the Heritage Conservation Act and the functions of that council. They do have very broad functions; they do have powers of self-referral. There are nine members on that council. I will not go through all of the functions of the council, but its functions include:
(a) to prepare criteria for the assessment of places and objects of heritage value in accordance with
the objectives specified in section 18(3); and
So there is the capacity for members of this parliament and members of the public to make representation to the council to assess the heritage value of sites in the Northern Territory. We think that this amendment would further broaden and dilute the effectiveness of the work of this committee in dealing with issues of environmental significance and sustainable development.
I advise the member for Nelson that we do have the capability through the Heritage Advisory Council for members of the public and members of parliament to take up issues through that particular body. We believe, at this point in time, that the functions and powers of that body are effective. If members want to make representation to us, to the Minister for Environment …
Mr Dunham: How can you whinge about the Darwin Hotel being bulldozed – same process?
Ms Martin: He was a gutless minister who saw that come down - a gutless minister.
Mr HENDERSON: … and Heritage, if members of this House believe that the council is somehow …
Mr Dunham: Same process, same committee that you are telling Gerry works.
Ms Martin: He has told fibs.
Mr HENDERSON: … not as effective as it could be well we would be happy to hear from the members of the House.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister has accused me across the Chamber of telling fibs. I would ask her to withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, withdraw it.
Mr Dunham: Go on, easy to do. Just say ‘sorry’.
Ms MARTIN: If he is offended, I withdraw.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I will be brief. If members of this House or members of the public believe that the Heritage Advisory Council needs beefing up in any way, or does not have sufficient powers, I am sure the minister would be happy to hear from them. However, we do not want to over burden this committee. It is focussed on environmental issues and sustainable development, and we do have the Heritage Advisory Council with self-referral powers to look at issues of heritage significance in the Northern Territory.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the amendment from the member for Nelson, and I congratulate him on it.
The electorate of Port Darwin has a number of heritage icons. There is increasing pressure upon them because of the nature of the CBD and development. Also, the things that you have here in the Northern Territory that are heritage icons, are often things of fairly flimsy construction. They are not the things like the old Parliament House in Canberra and structures such as that. We have a unique group of buildings and heritage icons here. So, the member for Nelson’s amendment is a very good one because of the fact that there is more pressure on our icons. There will be more and more pressure coming along in the future as Darwin develops. I do not think it hurts at this point in time to start putting more and more work into the heritage area. To have a government committee that looks at and monitors the issue of heritage is a very good idea.
Some of the places of concern in my electorate that are going to need ongoing and special treatment are the Old Town Hall ruins, the Armed Storage site just outside my electorate in the member for Drysdale’s electorate at Bayview, the Myilly Point houses and, also, along Cavenagh Street, the Chinese shops that are there - the ones that have been there for many, many years. These are all structures in my electorate which would benefit from such a committee - an important committee within government. The committee, of course, acts as a watchdog over such things as the council, which the minister just mentioned. It does not hurt to have this included in a government committee. It is quite appropriate to have heritage linked into the environment committee because, often, heritage is linked at a government level. The Department of Lands, Planning and Environment, for example, in the previous government picked up the area of heritage. So, the environment committee that is being established here today is quite an appropriate one to also take on a watchdog role with regards to heritage.
In conclusion, I believe heritage is very important. It joins into a rich tapestry of our life here in Darwin for locals and visitors alike. It is desperately important that we remember our heritage, that we have physical elements to remind us of our heritage. It would be wonderful if we could support this amendment to assist in that area. I congratulate the member for Nelson again for thinking of it.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will just add to that. We on this side certainly support this amendment. I will just pick up on what the member for Wanguri said regarding the Heritage Advisory Committee. That committee, like the department’s Heritage Unit is a statutory authority that has a process under the act and it is all very well to come in here and say that we all have access to the Heritage Advisory Committee, which we do, but this is talking about a sessional committee of this parliament to look at other issues and oversee issues in terms of the environment as now referenced by this department and also heritage. I say that members should support this on the basis that it does then include the built environment which is a very strong point that the member for Nelson made. I cannot see why this Labor government would run away from doing this.
It seems to be a very logical step and they seem to be frightened to let this committee have any powers to have a look at issues of the environment which are going to be very important and now issues of heritage that are extremely important.
On the listing of heritage sites, I challenge this government to tell me whether I am correct – did I list, in the same period that the former minister for heritage has been in office, more heritage objects and items than he did?
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I am also the heritage minister who went to all that trouble to move the Wesleyan Church that they did not support but now claim that that is their development going on in Knuckey Street. Have a look …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Will the boxhead please be quiet. If boxhead wants to get up, he can get up and have his say. But Madam Speaker …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I think I am going to call a point of order on the comments made by the minister.
Mr BALDWIN: Absolutely.
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I am questioning whether ‘boxhead’ is parliamentary language.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think that is a point of order.
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, I was reacting to the interjections. I am happy to talk quietly because it hurts my voice to shout.
This government claims the development on Knuckey and Mitchell Streets to be a development they put together. They did not support …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I can wait all day, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, just stop. You are being very provocative with your interjections and they are being very disorderly, now just cease. Member for Daly.
Mr BALDWIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. They did not support of the removal of the Wesleyan Church, albeit the owners of the land and the building did, and that it is now restored and protected and a well used building. They can knock my credentials as much as they like but I challenge them, and I challenge the former minister for heritage, for the same period that he was in office for, that I was in office for, that I listed many more that he did. I do not think he could stand up here and refute that. In fact, there was a question asked in the estimates and an answer was given. I know the answer, so he could go and look that up.
We will support this amendment to include the built environment for those reasons. I congratulate the member for Nelson for bringing it forward.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, may I reply?
Madam SPEAKER: You have already spoken.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I am closing debate.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think he gets another chance, does he? He has already spoken.
Mr Baldwin: You did not give me one.
Madam SPEAKER: No, sorry.
Mr Wood: I know I had my say.
Madam SPEAKER: I thought I made it clear that you speak once to the amendment.
The question is the amendment as proposed by the member for Nelson be agreed to:
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mr Mills Ms Martin
Mr Reed Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Amendment negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee inquire into and report on:
1. the efficacy of the establishment of an Environmental Protection Agency for the Northern Territory
inclusive of but not restricted to -
Northern Territory;
demographic, geographic and financial context of the Northern Territory; and
2. issues associated with the progressive entry into the Northern Territory of cane toads.
Madam Speaker, this has been a fairly wide ranging debate today from this morning onwards. There have been many issues canvassed, including the establishment of the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, examining the efficacy of an EPA, an environmental protection agency. It is my understanding that in other states an environmental protection agency provides a structure to examine and report on, and looks at addressing and remedying, environmental issues. As the member for Karama said earlier today, the committee will be looking at a structure that can explore a whole range of environmental issues as they arise - I am talking about an EPA - rather than the committee simply having a whole set of individual and discrete environmental issues that it is given. Considering the time available and the range of issues involved, it would make it very difficult for the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to look at each one in depth.
This is a more strategic approach. Determining whether an Environmental Protection Agency would be efficacious, and I think that is the way to go. It shows how this government is interested in working strategically. It will also give community members, and different groups within the community - some of them obviously well known to the member for Goyder - to come along and give their points of view. Inherent in the establishment of an EPA there are quite considerable resource implications. This committee is also charged with looking at the feasibility in that way, but also taking account of the unique nature of the Northern Territory; its demographic, geographic and financial context. I believe all those things are important. It is a strategic way for the committee to go. I recommend the first term of reference for that very reason.
The second term of reference relates to the progressive entry of cane toads into the Northern Territory. I am a regular door-knocker in my electorate and I know other people from other places door-knock in other people’s electorate, but I am a regular in my own electorate because I am interested to hear what my own electorate says. Actually, it has been a very clear question on a number of occasions from people: what can we do about the spread of the cane toad?
Mr Dunham: Then why didn’t you tell them? You are the minister. Tell them what you say.
Dr BURNS: When I door-knocked, I was not the minister, member for Drysdale.
Mr Dunham: You did not have a clue!
Mr Kiely: We told them the CLP brought them in.
Mr Dunham: Yes, I bet you did!
Dr BURNS: May I continue, Madam Speaker? Very disruptive. I will look at you, Madam Speaker, and continue.
People do raise this issue. There is a perception in the community that government, and I guess the departments, have acquiesced all too easily to the spread of the cane toads. People are saying: ‘What can I do when they come to my garden?’ How do I protect my native species of frogs?’ These are the questions that people ask about the issues associated with the progressive entry of cane toads into the Northern Territory. It is a very important reference. I think they will come to Darwin within a Wet season or so and people will be confronted by them. It is important that this committee look at issues to do with that.
Before I close, I was rather intrigued when I was in Alice Springs, it was last week, that the member for Greatorex released a press statement about an environment committee and the likely terms of reference for an environment committee. I will have to confess my ignorance. I thought the member for Greatorex was actually the shadow minister for the environment. So it has come as a bit of an eye-opener for me to find out it is actually the member for Daly. The passion with which the member for Greatorex spoke about his involvement with past environment committees, how he had actually chaired an environment committee, how he had written a press release about an environment committee and the need for an environment committee and cane toads, I am just wondering why he has been left off? It has just left me a little bit flummoxed about what is the role of the member for Daly. He seems to sit back, he seems to do nothing, he is letting the member for Greatorex run his shadow portfolio for him.
I hear that there is this allegation that somehow the member for Daly, when he was the heritage minister, rolled over, was out of town, when the Hotel Darwin was knocked down. Well, I think his performance over the last week actually belies that, it actually shows how it can happen. He is willing to come in here and show pony, but he is not prepared to do the work. I commend the member for Greatorex. The member for Greatorex is doing a fantastic job.
There are mixed signals from the opposition. Get your act together, get some policies together, and move forward.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, let’s start with the last issue first. If you want the member for Greatorex on the committee, invite us to have three, because that is what you have in your platform. You said, ‘Let’s have even numbers’, so let us have three and we can fix up this little dilemma of yours and we can have Dr Lim on the committee. He is most keen. He is a very hardworking member, unlike the two, or three, that you have nominated. I can tell you that he would be most grateful to go on to committee where we had even numbers instead of this notion where you have to keep at least that door locked. So we can fix it up. Here is the person who has designed this thing, and you could say, ‘Okay Dr Lim, not only are you on the PAC, not only are you on the Use and Abuse of Alcohol, or whatever the grog thing is, but you are on this’, and I will tell you what, he would be pretty good at it. They are the three probably hardest working committees of the lot. But he is precluded from being on the environment committee because we can only have two members.
Now we come to the vexed issue of how dare he speak about the environment. He is very knowledgable about the environment, and while we do have shadow responsibilities, don’t ever assume that in this pack here, there is not a repertoire of skills that would eat any of your ministers any day, on any issue. Dr Lim, my colleague, the member for Greatorex, I am sure would be very keen to be on this committee. The fact is, he is on several others. The fact is, you have made sure there are only a couple of seats there, and you could remedy that.
I was interested then that the minister mentioned that cane toads are a good thing to look at, because he does not have a clue about them. I thought, oh my god, this will be good, we are on a voyage of discovery for him here, basically this is a little tuition session. Cane toads 101 for the minister. You have a whole department of scientists out there. You have a body of knowledge that goes back half a century across a couple of states of Australia plus the Northern Territory. We have debated it in this House. There was a brochure produced by the previous Parks and Wildlife minister to identify them. There has been some stuff put out for people who are interested in addressing this. He knows none of it. None of it! Here they have the gall to talk about my colleague, the member for Goyder, asking questions to elicit an answer, and you did not even, as a backbencher knocking on doors, big issue out there, they were all coming to you saying, ‘Gosh, local member, we are really worried about cane toads’, and what did he say to them? Nothing. Why? Because he did not know.
So what he has done now as a minister? He has set us off to educate him on the issue of cane toads. Well, this is going to be a top terms of reference, because, I tell you, we can virtually write the answer and recommendations now. If he really wants lucid, scientific opinion he has a vast repository of knowledge within his department. He could even, dare I say it, put on a chap by the name of Bill Freeland, as a consultant, who is immensely talented in this area. Bill would provide him great knowledge. The reason Bill is not available to him as a public servant is because he was sacked. Let me see now, Clare Martin, ‘… under Labor there will be no job losses from the public sector …’ Well, there is one. And not only that, the reason, I guess, he was forced, was because there was significant job losses in the area that he once had. So here we go, here we go.
Here are a couple of ways for the minister to get a little bit of knowledge about cane toads: he can get a book out of the library. He promotes himself as a wonderful researcher. He has this great boffin-like knowledge and vision of himself. Get on the net, surf the net, hit cane toads, search. He could even get some of the documents that have been tabled in this parliament. You can go to the NT Library. You can go to the parliamentary library. So there are three or four ways you can do it. Or, if he was in a particularly filibustering point of view and a mind to send us off on, dare I say, a wild frog chase, he could give us the terms of reference, because he knows what the answer is going to be. He knows he is going to be impotent - in a ministerial sense rather than any other - in terms of how to fix the problem, and he is going to find that he gets a report that is entirely self-evident, tells him things that have happened in Queensland, and over the last decade or so here, including extensive field experiments by our own Parks and Wildlife Commission and the former Conservation Commission in the Woolagorang area. So he has substantial knowledge that will be fed back to him in a tutorial type session. That is one term of reference.
The other one is also to keep us busy, active and out of trouble. That is, tell us how we should regulate the whole business of environmental protection. Well, I mean, we have a little bit of a dj vu problem here because we could look at lots of places and come back and say, ‘We have been to Tasmania and they have a really good model there and it might be something you want to have a look at. It is a great model. It fits well, dovetails with your policy, it has a great veracity with your rhetoric that you have said in public’, and you might do a backflip like you did with the PAC. You might come here and say, ‘No, don’t want one of them’, or you might use it to fob us off on this very busy errand where we are all going to be really busy for two years to get greater proximity to the election date.
I reckon we can knock these terms of reference over in the first six months – less, three months maybe. I don’t think they look that hard. I would like to think that the people who are on the committee with me are prepared to work hard. I would like to think that we can access some of the people in the minister’s department and in the commission. These are pretty simple really, should not take us too long to do them, and then I would like the minister to put his head to something that he did not answer, and that is: how do we get our other terms of reference?
If you are really, really paranoid and jumpy about us getting some sort of a sneaky jump on you and getting some sort of exposure about the minister’s incompetence and the various falsehoods told by people leading up to an election, you can still veto that. You still have the chairman with a casting vote. Even if we could get the Independent to side with us, you have the votes, you have the numbers. You can also declare it under the terms of reference that we passed mere minutes ago as a verboten area: ‘the committee shall be empowered unless otherwise ordered …’. The minister can say, ‘No, I don’t want you looking at that area’. I cannot understand why they are running so scared on the issue of ‘let’s look at issues of environmental concern for the Northern Territory’.
I can tell you that we will be looking at them anyway, regardless of whether this committee is in place; we will be looking at all sorts of issues that impact on the Northern Territory as we have always done. It is part of our ethic. If you think that you can set some sort of a sump-up, a little gammon - this is where all the action is and it does not take place anywhere else – you are sadly mistaken. Because if this turns into a committee that looks at its navel for a long time as a holding pattern to get you close to an election, we are not going to be part of that sort of politics.
Words like ‘strategic’ do worry me a bit because it is that sort of, ‘let’s sit around and talk about imponderables, but for god’s sake, don’t talk about action’. Anything we do in this parliament should have recommendations that can lead to action.
They are some of the issues of concern. I have a greater issue of concern and that is funding, because when I talked about the minister’s capacity to hobble us, as I said, he can do it by his numbers, he can do it by giving us only certain things. He can do it also by resources. I am pleased that Rick Gray has found himself as the executive officer to this committee. I have known Rick for possibly 20 years now and he will perform a good and competent job as an officer of this parliament, but you can only do so much. I understood Rick was pretty busy. Let’s assume he has been relieved of some of his workload or, alternatively, he is going to get this as an extra. Let’s say he is getting an extra. Let’s say we think that we should travel to see some of this. Where is that budget? You really nobble something if you do not allocate any resources. There has been a big silence here. Where is the cash?
What you have done is appended onto an already busy officer a whole new workload. We all know, because we are all on committees, that some of the work up there is already rationed; it is rationed across officers who are already busy doing other things. Members would be aware that we asked questions in this area during estimates, and members would also be aware that when we talked about our Estimates Committee, one of the strong recommendations that flowed into that was it must be resourced. The best way the government can nobble this committee is to set it up with a great big name plate in brass over the door, various ads in the paper, calls for submissions, but do it on a shoestring.
For the minister to set up a committee like this, there should be something to give comfort to those people who think that this is paraded out as good government, dare I say it, that this will actually do things. If the committee had met at lunch time today, I would like to have talked about where we might go to look at other places’ Environmental Protection Agencies. I would like to have talked about, for instance, how long we were going to take for our work schedule, whether it included travel or not, whether there were some places we should look at as models, a la PAC, the aborted Tasmania PAC trip.
That is essential to this. And if the minister is serious about proscribing terms of reference, proscribing what we are going to do, he has to describe the how. It is not good enough to say: ‘Rick will give you a hand’. That is just not good enough. I would like to hear the minister, in his rejoinder to this debate, describe two things: the first thing I have already called on him to do and he has not, and that is how other items for the committee will be provided to the committee, and the route by which that will happen. If it is to come through this parliament or through the minister, I would like to know if that is going to be a frequent thing. Can we make suggestions to him? Can third parties or members of the community go to him and say: ‘These are issues we think should be afforded some priority status’? This business of: ‘They are going to be really busy,’ - I don’t really care. I am not in this job for a holiday. I don’t care if we are really busy.
This is something that has to be done. If the members for Karama, Barkly and Millner find this workload a bit odious, perhaps that is a problem for government. I can definitely speak on behalf of my colleagues, the members for Daly and Nelson. We are quite happy to put the work in as long as it is productive.
Let us have some discussion about how new references come aboard, the route by which that will occur, how other people can shape that priority list and shape that reference list. Let’s talk about resources; let’s talk about a guarantee to the parliament – and I am sure you would be keen to hear this, Madam Speaker, because you know at the end of the day that if additional workload is put on you without cost, your good officers are going to be the ones ferreting around looking for things to cut or jettison in an aborted attempt to try to find the cash for this committee.
Don’t think this can be done cheaply. We have yet to meet, and in meeting we might well decide, for instance, that we should go back out to the uranium province. We might well decide that we should look at other jurisdictions. We might decide that we should have some formal expert advice. You might well find you have to pay for that.
For all of those reasons, I would like some assurance that this is not going to be nobbled by some gammon efficiency drive so that when we become involved with it, they say: ‘You really don’t need that much because all you are going to do is a bit of a desktop exercise looking at an EPA. And the cane toad thing, you can probably get that out of the NT Library’, both of which are probably true. But if that is the case, why doesn’t the minister do it?
Why have us run around and do this for him if it is going to be some desktop exercise where we gather together a few bits of paper, come up with some recommendations which may not be to his liking, and then he has to go through the business of standing in parliament and saying why he disagrees with us. Why put yourself to that trouble? Make sure the committee is focussed on working and delivering outcomes, all that rhetoric that you read in various bureaucratic documents. I would hope in his opportunity for a rejoinder, the minister can tell us the route by which additional references will be made and give us the assurance, the ready assurance, that having decided on our work program, that it will be adequately funded.
I would also like him to tell us what sort of timeline he would like on this. It is pretty rare for a minister to give someone a job and say off you go and I don’t really care when you come back. You feel like there is the potential for us to be sent on a fools errand here. I would like him to tell us that he would expect this within the first quarter or the second quarter of next year and we would come back with recommendations. I think that we could make that deadline and those timetables are within making.
Having decided they want an EPA, I would like him to know that if we come up with recommendations we expect that it would become a matter for some priority for government and it would not be drawn out with various devices parading as consultation and the intricacies of drafting legislation; that it would come to this parliament quickly so that they can set up their EPA.
These are my comments on it the matter. I am disappointed with the early behaviour of the chairman, but that is probably something we can take up in session. Her puerile and juvenile behaviour through much of the debate, her attitude at being less than partial in virtually everything she talks about in relation to the CLP, does not mark her well as a person to sit as a chairman on a committee like this. But, let’s give her a shot, let’s see how she goes. I am heartened that she took offence at the label of being tardy to meetings, even though that is demonstrably true. It is good that that sort of label does offend her. Hopefully, we can get her in quick, we can get the meetings under way, we can run through agendas and we can really get cracking.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Just as members are not allowed to refer to the presence or otherwise of members in the Chamber, I believe that same rule applies to parliamentary committees which are an extension of the Chamber’s business.
Madam SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, it is an esoteric point. Okay, let’s say - and I will be polite to the member for Karama here - she is a person who likes to get to meetings on time. If that is the case, if that is the mark she would like to be measured by, I am happy with that, because I hope this committee does a lot of work.
Cane toads are coming to Darwin. I think I saw one on Leanyer Drive last week. I did a u-turn but I could not find the particular beast. I would be very surprised if cane toads are not somewhere around the Darwin and outer Darwin suburbs by now. Certainly they are right through Katherine, right through the Katherine River valley, and it is a very easy thing for these beasties to hitch rides as they have done in the past. I would suspect with the commuting between Katherine/Darwin done on an extremely regular basis that we could have them here now. The inevitability of them being here is something we have to grapple with. Let’s looks at the most effective way to control the problem and that work has largely been done. I will judge it as we go through. We might find something that Queensland has not found in 50 years and our own researchers over the last couple of decades have not found, but let’s give it a shot.
If I sound a bit suspicious and cynical, it is because I am suspicious and cynical. This committee has to be judged by regular reporting to this parliament and it has to be judged by a workload that gets it into the field quickly and a resource phase that makes sure it can do its job.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I would like to make some comments on the terms of reference.
I note the very belated interest of the members of the other side about the EPA and their comments about our taking 18 months to actually put in place a reference for an EPA. On the other hand, it took them 27 years to come up with the idea of supporting the environment.
If I were to comment on some of the comments that the Opposition Leader made previously about the Gouldian finches and how well they have developed and how well they have protected at Mt Todd, I would also have to remind him that in a recent project they gave carte blanche to ADrail to do anything they liked. They did not have to obey any of the legislation in the Territory, either environmental or heritage. It is because of their good management they have not really done damage to the environment. There was some unavoidable damage, and certainly we have not bagged ADrail for their activities. The Gouldian finch situation that was widely criticised by the media, we have since found out after discussions with ADrail that the impact with the Gouldian finch colony was not as significant as first reported.
Secondly, the Ferguson River incident where ADrail took water. Well, ADrail was given permission to take water from any where they liked, as much water as they liked, whenever they liked. That was permission given by the previous government which did not put in place an EPA and notably the environment committee they had in place did not even consider the issue before they started talking to ADrail or awarded contracts to ADrail.
I find it very hypocritical of them to come in here today to tell us that we are going against our agenda, against our policy, and that it took us 18 months to come up with the idea of a committee to look into the establishment of an EPA. I would like to remind the members on the other side that I was the minister who landed myself in hot water when I publicly advocated the establishment of an EPA, and all of a sudden the mining industry came up howling because all these years you scared them stiff about an EPA. Anywhere else in Australia there is an Environmental Protection Agency, an environmental protection authority, a mining industry, and heavy and light industry which work very well with them. But not in the Territory. If we have one in the Territory it will work to our benefit. It is about time you were looking at an EPA. It is the time to avoid the mistakes other states and territories made in the past.
Let me also remind you, this government was the one that established the independence of the Office of the Environment and Heritage. This is the government that established total independent reporting to the minister directly, because we had to ensure that what this office was doing would not be a part of the public service and all the reports would not disappear in tonnes of paper work created by public service but would go direct to the minister. That was good because when we had some incidents with ADrail, the report was immediate. The minister reacted immediately, and the then minister - that was me - decided to appoint extra staff at the independent office of the environment to assist ADrail and also to assist in the future of the gas industry.
Yes, there is a new minister, but with the new minister I share common interest. We both care about the environment. We both live in Darwin; we have nowhere else to go, this is where our family is, our family is growing like your family. We care about the environment because we know that we do not own the environment. We only care for it while we are alive and we are going to give it to our children and they are going to give it to their children. What we are doing here is putting the basis of something that is actually going to do something for the Territory, for the environment. Our environment credentials are there for you to see. I cannot see yours – well, I have seen yours. The member for Daly was criticised for the Hotel Darwin. He told us that he was a great conservationist and also supported heritage, and he made so many heritage listings. I agree with him; he made them, surprise! - four months before the election. He is also a great supporter of heritage but he was the one who signed for the railway line to go through the railway precinct of the Adelaide River railway station and his signature is there to be seen by everybody because it is a public document.
Do not talk to us about heritage. We know what heritage means. We could see the great results of heritage conservation watching the car park break-up at the old Hotel Darwin. In other states, even if there is concrete cancer, governments are prepared to assist private businessmen to maintain these buildings because you cannot construct these buildings again. If they are gone, they are gone forever. You decided to go travelling. You did not decide to sign a stay of demolition - we will give you $1m to maintain it, we will give you $1m to go back and gut it and fix it. I can give many examples of buildings that have been gutted, maintained the exterior and repaired internally.
Actually, the previous Hotel Darwin had very good heritage potential. Everybody could see it. It is unfortunate, we might have to sell our legacy here.
Mr Henderson: You want the photos?
Mr VATSKALIS: We have the photos - that is a very good comment.
Madam Speaker, I note the concerns of the member for Drysdale about the terms of reference for the establishment of an EPA and the cane toads.
With regards to the EPA, I think it is a very good way to go. Let’s find out first of all if we need anything. Do we have to go through the process, the expenditure, to establish the EPA? It does not matter what I personally believe; I personally believe we want an EPA, we need an EPA, but let’s find out if we really need an EPA. What is the point of actually starting an organisation that can cost millions of dollars, another bureaucratic structure, if at the end we do not need it? But, let’s find out about it.
The committee consists of three members of the government, an Independent and two members of the opposition. It is up to them to work together and to come to a decision, yes or no, we need it or we do not need an EPA. Also, how are we going to implement an EPA? How are we going to put an EPA into place? How are we going to persuade the mining industry and all the other interests of the need for an EPA and how well they can work with an EPA? There has been 20 years of scaremongering about how an EPA is going to destroy them and put restrictions in place. We have used an EPA. The previous government used an EPA - not in the Territory, there isn’t one - but they used the Western Australian Environmental Protection Agency to pick their brains about the establishment of noise legislation. I know that very well because I was part of that process. We went to Western Australia and asked for their assistance to draft our own noise legislation and that legislation is going to be introduced very soon as part of the environmental pollution process.
I do not know much about cane toads, but I know what I read in the media. I have read some information during my studies, and I believe the same applies to the member for Johnston. I do not know about nuclear energy but I can understand what nuclear energy is. I can understand where it comes from and what it causes. I do not have to be an expert, I do not have to be a scientist. I only have to have common-sense and understand what I read.
Cane toads are a problem, we know that much. Since they were introduced in 1935 they have become one of the worst environmental nightmares in Australia. At the moment we do not have a way to defend the Australian environment against the cane toads - the physical environment, the fauna and the flora.
There has been research done by the CSIRO, by scientists in Queensland, and yes, by Bill Freeland when he was working for Parks and Wildlife. But, at the same time, just because Bill Freeland wrote something it does not mean that it is the gospel. You can ask Dr Graeme Webb and he will give you a different opinion. I am very well aware that currently out in Kakadu, there are scientists telling us to wave goodbye to the northern quoll because it is going to disappear in the next year or two. Bill Freeland had a theory that the wildlife will suffer in the beginning but then it will bounce back. There is another scientist who says to us, ‘No, it will not bounce back. The northern quoll is going to disappear’. There are many examples. How many Australian species and especially Territory species have disappeared because we interfered with the environment, either through the fire regimes or change of the fire regimes, or through the introduction of different plants, different farming techniques, or the introduction of cattle?
Just because one scientist says ‘This is going to happen,’ it does not mean it is going to happen that way. There are too many factors that you cannot consider unless you do extensive research. I found it very curious to hear the member for Drysdale saying that we might find a way to exterminate the cane toads. Cane toads have been here for the past two or three years; how much money did you put into cane toad research? How much money did you actually offer to the CSIRO to come back with a solution? I cannot remember any headlines saying, ‘The CLP government is offering $1m to save Kakadu or to save the Territory’. The only thing I remember is cane toads will come here in 2007. Two years ago in Katherine we were kicking cane toads around. Now, do not tell me that you did not know about that - you simply ignored it. You put your hands up - cane toads are coming here, there is nothing we can do about it and let’s live with them.
This environment committee is going to look into that, and it is up to you, the members of the committee, to come to us with solutions because you are the members. The parliament entrusts you to be a member of the committee, get together and work together efficiently and come back to us with some solutions, some suggestions. We will be here to listen to you and if they are good suggestions, we are prepared to accept them. It does not matter if they come from this side of the House or from the Independent or from the other side of the House.
This is a very good start and I hope that the outcome will be even better. I hope there will be an EPA in place in years to come.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I might just preface my remarks with a couple of things that the minister said and also just one thing I believe might need some clarification and that is we now have two ministers to deal with the environment. It would be perhaps the time …
Ms Lawrie: No. One with Environment and one with Parks.
Mr WOOD: We have a Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment and a Minister for the Office of Environment and Heritage.
Madam SPEAKER: I think you will find the minister is just Lands and Planning, no longer Environment.
Ms Lawrie: Infrastructure and Planning.
Mr WOOD: I do not want to challenge your ruling, Madam Speaker, but there was reference earlier to Environment still existing in that minister’s department. Perhaps there should be a clarification.
Dr Burns: I will address that.
Mr WOOD: Anyway, it was just a query. It would be worth clarifying the role, if an Environmental Protection Agency is established, of an independent office of Environment and Heritage. That needs to be looked at. Of course, I have always been concerned that we really should have had one Department of Environment which is inclusive of environmental sections of other departments. That would make a lot more sense. Mines and Energy comes to mind straight away. Their environmental section should have been part of that one larger Environment entity.
One other thing that becomes a bit disappointing as an Independent is that sometimes there are good amendments – I am not talking about the amendment that just happened - but sometimes there are good ideas that come up for discussion in this House. It seems that one side decides that the sins of the past can be cited and therefore judgement is made because something was not right by the opposition when they were in power. I would rather see these issues dealt with on their merits at this time, not because of what happened in previous times. Sometimes I am worried that issues are not dealt with on their merit because politics gets in the road. That is something I make a note of today.
I support the motion that the Minister for Environment and Heritage has moved. I know one particular group that will be very happy to see this, and that would be the Environment Centre. People like Kirstin and Mark who work very hard for the environment – I do not always agree with them, but I think they are honest, hard working people who do a lot of work to put environmental issues into the public arena. They have been pushing for this for a long time, and I hope it does come to fruition.
On the second issue of cane toads, they are important and they are as inevitable as taxes and death at the moment. Whether we can do anything about them remains to be seen.
To some extent, the two issues that we are dealing with I would call ‘soft’ issues to a point because they are certainly not controversial in the public arena. I would be interested to know what the reaction would be if we tackled issues like the environmental effects of industrialisation of the harbour, or if we decided to take on issues like the spread of the neem tree. Neem trees have been introduced to the Territory as a good idea. They are supposed to be an organic insecticide, yet I gather they are spreading along the Katherine and Victoria Rivers. I know they are a valuable timber, but they are a potential disaster in some parts of the Territory unless someone keeps and eye on the situation.
Mission grass and gamba grass are two introduced species. Both species have the potential to change the whole landscape of parts of the Top End because they are fire hazards. One was introduced privately as a class of species; the other was introduced and, I think even now, is still allowed to be used as long as it is used for pastures. When there is no cattle chewing on gamba grass, it spreads. It is an area that government must look at seriously and to some form of biological control for those grasses.
An issue I raised earlier that needs looking at, and it would be good to get either an EPA to look at it or even a sessional committee, and that is what is happening with the rehabilitation of extractive mining sites. There is a large area of the Litchfield Shire covered in these extractive mining sites. I do not say that they all should be brought back to their original status. Of course they cannot be. In some cases, the land might be able to be used for a dual purpose. People know how mangoes grow in some of the worst country. You can go down to Pine Creek and you will see them growing on old mining sites. Perhaps the potential is there for dual use of the land. These are some of the issues that could be looked at.
I know from some of my visits to places such as Kidman Springs, which is a government research station, erosion is fairly rampant in some of those areas. Another possibility could be issues such as stocking controls. In Western Australia they do have a stocking control. I do not know if it is legislation, but stations are given an average number of stock that they can hold, based on the potential of their country in good and bad seasons to hold that number of stock. When you go to some parts of the Victoria River – I have been onto a couple of stations there - the ground has been very badly worn out from overstocking. Some of that land is very susceptible to erosion. It is very, very light.
These are some of the issues that could be referred to this sessional committee. I hope that because certain things might be a bit controversial, the government does not stop them. Again, I refer to the industrialisation of the centre of the harbour. That is going to have environmental impact. I hope that we can take on some of these difficult and, perhaps, controversial issues. Finally, I do support what is being proposed by the minister for the environment, and I hope we can take on plenty more issues before the end of this session of parliament.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, just briefly I would like to make similar comments along the lines of the member for Nelson. We do support these terms of references as being very important issues. It is just a shame that previous amendments did not go through to allow for all of those other issues that have just been articulated, not only by me previously, but by the member for Nelson as he spoke to this debate.
It is a shame that the Labor government is not living up to its promises as outlined in its position paper of good governance, where it stated parliamentary committees should be free to operate unhindered and to praise, criticise or call to account the actions of the government, and that they were going to move to legislate so that under that new regime, arrangements would be introduced that would free up the committees to investigate issues of public concern without the approval of the governing majority party. After 18 months, they have not lived up to their promises, but we are getting used to that and so is everybody else.
I hope the new environment minister will take on board the comments made in this debate regarding other important and serious issues, such as gas onshore and saltwater intrusion and all the others that have been mentioned as references for this committee to look at over the remainder of this term. It would be a waste of this parliament’s time if we were only going to get these two references, regardless of their importance.
Picking up on a couple of comments from the previous ministers for environment. He was big-noting himself that he now has an independent Office of the Environment. Well, it is no more independent than the old office under the old regime. It used to report to the minister as well, the same as the current one does. There is no legislative independence other than that which already existed. So that is a furphy. If he wants to big-note himself, that is fine. I congratulate and applaud him for offering to contribute $1m to cane toad investigation, if that is what the committee deems is required; an input from this particular government to pursue strategies to overcome the issue. I am glad he has put that on the record that there is no problem with contributing those sorts of dollars to overcome this issue. I also pick up on the fact that he did not particularly believe Bill Freeland and his attitude towards cane toads. I hope that is not the reason why he sacked him.
For the benefit of the current Minister for Environment and Heritage, who took the opportunity to slag off at me in his contribution to this debate, saying, ‘Who is the shadow minister?’ Well, this is a new minister who I thought was keeping track of what was going on. I have been the shadow minister since the change of government. If he does not like the fact that the member for Greatorex has been calling, as the seven-year serving chairman of the previous environment committee, to form this committee, well, that is his problem. This is the same minister who only just discovered the Outer Darwin signs the other day when he happened to drive into town for the first time ever.
Dr Burns: Do not misrepresent what I said.
Mr BALDWIN: Get a grip on yourself, minister and keep up with what is going on around the place. Maybe we will get some action out of you rather than the inaction of the previous minister for the environment.
With those comments, and the plea for further references to this committee now that the committee has been embargoed from having a look at anything else other than what this parliament can direct to the committee - albeit Labor has broken a promise to unfetter these committees – we look forward to working on these two particular references, and bringing back valuable information for the benefit of this House.
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. We have been at this debate for some time and I do not want to rake up the coals, except to say yes, I do know a bit about cane toads. The member for Drysdale was suggesting that, basically, I knew nothing about cane toads. The observation I was making was that there is a public perception out there: ‘Well, what is being done, what is the history, what can be done?’ and I believe that is important.
Picking up briefly on what the member for Nelson said: yes, I am the Minister for Environment and Heritage. The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure and I share a department which is called DIPE so there are administrative arrangements there. There are also legislative responsibilities for which we are responsible. There is a line of command there. I am clear about it. It is an arrangement that occurs interstate where ministers share, if you like, a department. I am more than happy and proud to be sharing DIPE - they are a fine group of people - with the member for Casuarina. I do not want to dwell any longer on this debate. We have spoken about enough. I believe it is time now for the motion to be put.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, on behalf of, and at the request of, the Chief Minister, I nominate the following members to serve on the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee: the member for Karama, the member Barkly and the member Millner.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I also wish to move that the member for Nhulunbuy be discharged from the Standing Orders Committee and that I be nominated in his place.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I nominate the following members to serve on the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee: the member for Daly and the member for Drysdale.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move - That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Superannuation Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 113); Superannuation Guarantee (Safety Net) Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 114); Administrators Pensions Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 117); Supreme Court (Judges Pensions) Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 115); and Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 116):
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bills is to introduce amendments to the Superannuation Act, the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Act, the Supreme Court (Judges Pensions) Act, the Superannuation Guarantee (Safety Net) Act and the Administrators Pensions Act, to include the requirements of the Commonwealth Family Law Act amendments in the governing rules of these schemes.
Under current law, superannuation interests can, and usually are, taken into account in court proceedings for property settlement following marriage breakdown. However, under the laws that now stand, superannuation interests are not able to be split in a family law property settlement. Commencing 28 December this year, it will be mandatory for superannuation schemes to comply with the new laws which give effect to the Commonwealth government’s family law reforms to allow legally married persons to divide their superannuation in the same way as property and other assets on marriage breakdown.
Our Department of Justice is working with its counterparts in all other jurisdictions with the aim of enabling de facto relationships to be covered by this legislation. The complexities of family law, and taxation and superannuation laws, means that together the new laws will create a complex and complicated legislative framework which will impose a significant impact upon trustees of all superannuation funds. Trustees will be required to comply with the new laws and will be bound to give effect to a binding superannuation agreement, or court order, to divide the value of the superannuation interest between separating persons. The division of the superannuation interest will become an interest in the person’s own name. Actuarial methods will be developed to calculate the value of a defined benefit interest in the Territory’s defined benefits schemes which will take into account movements in salary, membership periods, benefit multiples, contributions, and investment returns.
The value that is determined by these actuarial calculations will be the superannuation interest to be divided to create the separate superannuation interest in the name of an ex-spouse. The creation of the separate interest for an ex-spouse will result in a reduction in the value of a member’s superannuation entitlement, which represents the value of the superannuation interest created for the ex-spouse.
The amendments will enable the various Territory superannuation schemes to comply with the Commonwealth requirements; to provide information to members and their spouses; to reduce the superannuation benefit payable to a member; and to create a separate interest in the name of an ex-spouse. I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Trade Measurement Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 110) and Trade Measurement Administration Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 111):
(a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively,
the second readings; the committee’s report stage; and the third readings of the bills together; and
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of these bills is to amend the Trade Measurement Act and the Trade Measurement Administration Act.
I will deal first with the Trade Measurement Amendment Bill. The objective of the Trade Measurement Act is to ensure the accuracy of measurements conducted in trade situations, for example, where the price of goods is determined by reference to the measurement. Under the formal agreement signed in 1990 between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories, except Western Australia, all participating jurisdictions passed uniform Trade Measurement legislation. It should be noted that Western Australia has passed consistent legislation since that time. The act therefore provides for a scheme of uniform trade measurement legislation throughout Australia.
In 1995, a Trade Measurement Advisory Committee was formed by the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, and one of its functions was the ongoing review of uniform trade measurement legislation nationally. The advisory committee has recommended more than 40 amendments to the Trade Measurement acts and regulations. The Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs endorsed these recommendations some time ago. Most, if not all, other jurisdictions have now passed these amendments.
The amendments contained in this bill will ensure that the Northern Territory legislation remains uniform with the legislation interstate. The amendments are of a minor or technical nature which are necessary to overcome difficulties with the administration of the legislation which has been identified.
Members will be aware that the Consumer and Business Affairs Division of the Department of Justice has a responsibility for enforcing trade measurement legislation. The amendments contained in the Trade Measurement Amendment Bill will enable some flexibility in the enforcement of the legislation. Under two new provisions, an inspector will have the discretionary power to grant an owner of a measuring instrument up to 28 days to correct an instrument which does not conform with the requirements of the act. If the discretion is exercised, a person can only be prosecuted if the time allowed has expired and the instrument has not been corrected. The discretion to allow an extended period will only be exercised where the error is in favour of the consumer. If the error is to the detriment of the consumer, the trader will not be given an extended period to correct the instrument but will be required to cease using the instrument until it is repaired.
A new offence is created in relation to the misuse of Class 4 measuring instruments. Class 4 measuring instruments are less precise measuring instruments which are suitable for weighing items such as airport baggage, freight, sand or gravel. An offence will occur if such a instrument is used for a purpose other than the listed purpose.
A new section will require a trader who uses a measuring instrument at premises where items are pre-packaged to have at least one measuring instrument that is approved for use by the National Standards Commission. The amendments will also require a person who performs batch testing of measuring instruments to be the holder of a servicing licence or an employee of the holder of a servicing licence.
Some of the amendments to the Trade Measurement Act will remove the regulatory burden of marking weights on agricultural products with a consequent cost savings. A further amendment will allow persons in partnership to be jointly licensed under one servicing or weighbridge licence. This amendment will reduce business costs of all partners having to obtain an individual licence.
The amendments will also allow inspectors to stop and weigh a vehicle to determine the net measurement of its load. Currently, an inspector has power to stop a vehicle, but does not have the power to require a driver to allow the vehicle to be weighed. This amendment will allow inspectors to determine, for example, the weight of a load of crushed metal being delivered to a work site.
In line with current practice, the bill converts current penalties in the act to penalty units.
In relation to the Trade Measurement Administration Bill, the amendment permits the issuing of infringement notices for alleged breeches of the Trade Measurement Act, or the regulations made under either that act or the Trade Measurement Administration Act. This is consistent with other legislation administered by Consumer and Business Affairs.
In line with current penalties policy, the penalty for breeching the secrecy provisions of the act have been increased to a maximum of 200 penalty units, or imprisonment for 12 months. I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr AH KIT (Assisting Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 120) passing through all stages at this sittings.
Motion agreed to.
Mr AH KIT (Assisting Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
This is a bill to amend the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act to provide for compensation on just terms to persons in the event that the provisions of the act result in an acquisition of property. I have had a request from the shadow minister for a copy of the second reading speech and I am making that available very shortly to him, the member for Daly, and the member for Nelson.
Members will be aware that the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act gives effect to a scheme of protection of Aboriginal sacred sites applying to all land in the Northern Territory. The broad purpose of the act is to:
The Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, and the earlier Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1978, were enacted under power of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act of the Commonwealth. It was replaced in 1989 with the current act which commenced on 15 August that year.
Specifically, section 73 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act provides for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to enact reciprocal legislation to the Land Rights Act, including:
I emphasise that this blanket exclusion from all sacred site land applies to all landowners and all users of land in the Northern Territory. Currently, there are in the order of 11 000 such sites recorded in the Northern Territory, of which 1503 are registered sacred sites. The vast majority of recorded and registered sites are off Aboriginal land. The Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act is the law of the Northern Territory that, under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, provides relief to landowners and to other users of land in respect of sacred sites.
It does so in two ways. First, there is section 44 of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act. This provides that landowners and persons with their permission may enter and remain on sacred site areas and do anything there for the normal enjoyment of their proprietary interest in the land, though they may be subject to conditions necessary to avoid damage to the sacred sites. Secondly, the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act provides a defence against prosecution for entry and carrying out works on sacred sites if these are in accordance with an authority certificate.
Members will be aware of the critical importance of the authority certificate processes to the Northern Territory. In effect, the site avoidance provisions of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act under which authority certificates are issued, transfers the risk in relation to sacred sites from developers or users of the land to the authority and, hence, ultimately, to the government.
To date the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority has issued 2312 authority certificates that identify in total about 5000 areas where works are restricted to avoid damage to sacred sites. Many of these certificates continue to have effect for continuing uses of land across a range of economic and social activities. It is only necessary to point to a few examples to indicate the importance of authority certificates for development in the Northern Territory. The Alice Springs to Darwin railway is being constructed under the provisions of an authority certificate; likewise, the Bradshaw Defence Training facility, the McArthur River Mine, tourism at Uluru, and the use of areas in national parks proceed under conditions set out in authority certificates. These examples provide a brief indication of the range and importance of the authority certificate processes for the social and economic development of the Northern Territory.
Without these provisions of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, projects like these and uses of land on smaller scales that involve land comprising sacred sites could not proceed in the Northern Territory, given the blanket protection of sites under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.
The Legislative Assembly’s powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory are limited under section 50(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. This precludes it making laws with respect to the acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms. At present, the act does not provide for compensation to be paid on just terms in the event that the act may affect an acquisition of property. Our legal advice is that this means the current legislation is inconsistent with the provisions of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. Should the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act be found to affect an acquisition of property other than on just terms, then the act could be invalid in toto.
That would mean that all of the authority certificates issued to date and all current applications would be invalid. It would also mean that no-one other than custodians acting in accordance with Aboriginal tradition could enter and remain on land that is a sacred site in the Northern Territory.
The present bill is intended to rectify this omission by an amendment to allow compensation to be paid on just terms in the event that the act affects an acquisition of property. The proposed amendment is to have retrospective effect. It would apply retrospectively to 15 August 1989, the commencement date of the act. The proposed amendment is to ensure constitutional validity of the act. It is a precaution against a finding by a court according to the current state of law, that the existence of a sacred site and the provisions of the act would effectively sterilise the proprietary rights which flow from a person’s interest in land.
Without the amendment having retrospective effect, it maybe found by a court, prior to the amendment, that the act affected an acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms, rendering it invalid from the time of its enactment. This would invalidate all the things done by the authority from the time of its enactment including prosecutions and the issuing of certificates. The government is not prepared to allow such uncertainty to prevail and to effectively put the Territory’s development at risk.
Whilst this amendment may impact on three cases currently before the courts by removing a potential defence, if successful such a defence would allow the persons concerned to evade prosecution on a technicality. Moreover, this minor effect of the retrospective operation of the bill is balanced by the fact that we are acting to ensure the provision of a ‘just terms’ clause that ensures land-holders’ proprietary rights are protected, consistent with the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978.
The potential invalidity of the act could lead to enormous costs for the Northern Territory flowing from possible legal action by developers operating in accordance with authority certificates, and from the interruption to a range of projects of which the Darwin to Alice Springs railway is the most conspicuous.
These wholesale risks are likely to be far more costly than compensation that may be due under the provisions of this bill. The value of just terms compensation in relation to acquisitions of property would be determined at law in relation to the facts of individual cases. In redressing this omission the bill will ensure a maintenance of the already high level of public confidence in the act and avoid situations that would tend to undermine this public confidence. For these reasons I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Commercial Passenger (Road) Transport Act to implement the first stage of the reforms which the government is implementing for the taxi, minibus and private hire car industries in the Northern Territory. When the government came to power last year, we found that the commercial passenger vehicle industry in some disarray. Whilst the previous government’s actions in removing the controls on the numbers of licences had meant that there were sufficient to meet public demand, the industry itself was suffering from poor returns and poorly trained and motivated drivers. The community was suffering from poor driver standards which on occasion challenged the perception that taking a taxi or a minibus was a safe way to travel.
This government decided, before we addressed these issues, that we wanted to find out what the industry and the community wanted from the commercial passenger vehicle industry. Also, as we were new to government, we needed to find out what could be realistically achieved. To that end, we put in place a temporary cap on taxi, minibus and private hire car numbers from 26 November 2001 to provide some stability in the industry while the review was undertaken.
Terms of reference for the review were established and advertisements seeking comments were placed in all Northern Territory newspapers. In addition, I met personally with a diverse range of industry representative groups and individuals. Out of that initial consultation came a discussion paper which was circulated to interested parties in the industry and the broader community. Over 40 further formal submissions were received in response to that discussion paper. Following this consultation and after extensive consideration of all the options, government decided to implement a number of recommendations. These were made public in the form of fact sheets and can be viewed on my department’s web site if anyone has not already seen them.
The first stage of the implementation of these recommendations is contained in this bill. The bill provides for those measures which this government wants to have in place by March 2003. It is proposed that a further bill, comprising the balance of the reforms, will be introduced to the Assembly in February next year.
I would like to draw your attention to the following key areas which the bill addresses: first, and perhaps most importantly, it puts the legislative machinery in place for the establishment of a Commercial Passenger Vehicle Board. The role of this board will be primarily advisory, but it will also have some specific powers in relation to areas such as driver standards and training. For the first time, this industry and its stakeholders will have a voice in its management and regulation. In the meantime, I have appointed an interim board from industry and the community to provide me with advice on implementation of the review. We have been fortunate to obtain the services of some very good people for this interim board which will be chaired by Ms Melanie Little. I am happy to advise that they had their first meeting on Thursday, 7 November.
An important requirement included in the bill provides for an identity card to only be issued to those drivers who meet the standards and have done the required amount of training. The amount of training required will be increased from 24 hours to 78 hours and training courses will meet nationally accepted standards.
Another amendment included in the bill provides for the requirement for a commercial passenger vehicle to be registered in the name of the licensee. We believe that will focus the responsibility for the vehicle and its condition on the person actually operating it. Also included is a provision which requires operators proposing to put on an additional vehicle to commit to the industry by paying in full their annual licence fee in advance. We believe that this bill, and the one to follow it, will deliver substantial improvements to the commercial passenger vehicle industry in the Northern Territory.
I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 16 October 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to place on the record the opposition’s observations and concerns about the proposed amendment. To deal with this legislation properly and to properly record some of the concerns that we have it is appropriate to speak briefly about the history of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act.
Historically, an individual citizen had common law rights if there was a motor vehicle accident and that person could sue the person who caused the injury. If you could establish that and, of course, that person had sufficient funds, the injured person could secure some sort of compensation. Speaking very generally, later on the no-fault scheme appeared, and that is the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act. It really took away the need to run the gauntlet of a sometimes complicated civil court action and took away the risk of suing someone and that person not having sufficient assets to pay any award of damages.
The no-fault scheme has been administered by the Territory Insurance Office for some time and it involves a number of clear, pre-specified statutory awards, and it includes medical expenses, etc. In some situations, a person injured in a car accident, if he is within the scope of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act, receives a weekly payment which, I understand, is about $451.60 nett per week, which according to the act is 85% of the average weekly earnings of Territorians, and that calculation includes casual and part-time employees. If you compare that with what is under the Work Health Act it shows a substantially higher calculation of the average weekly earnings, which is in the order of $817. So, because of the unusual way the average weekly earnings is calculated under the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act, it is significantly lower than the figure you use under a comparable piece of legislation dealing with injuries at work.
There have been some recent amendments to the Work Health Act, which effectively provide that if you are covered by the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act then that is the act under which you must be dealt with. Potentially, there are going to be more people who fall within the scope of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act in the future. However, the amendment that is to be considered by this parliament today, according to the second reading speech, is required because of a perceived ambiguity that has been created by the Tribunal comprised of a single judge sitting in the Supreme Court and the decision of Collman v the Territory Insurance Office.
The particular case that was reported this year in Northern Territory Supreme Court Volume 8, handed down on 18 January 2002, was that of a 25 year old man who suffered a fracture of the seventh cervical vertebrae and whiplash type injuries. The man’s payments were eventually cancelled by the TIO Board, and after exhausting a few administrative type reviews, he sought a determination by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, as I said earlier, is a single judge of the Supreme Court and the man, through counsel, made representations and argued that the payments he was receiving should not have been cancelled. To cut a long story short, the applicant was not successful, with the court finding against him after hearing a great deal of evidence. Effectively, the application was dismissed, but the real relevance of this case is that it forms the basis upon which the proposed amendments to the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act as contained in the amendment bill Serial 102 are required.
There are a number of issues associated with the case. It is not an easy area of law to instantly understand, and certainly it is not my area of expertise, but from my reading of the case there does not seem to be any serious ambiguity that would require the introduction of this particular piece of legislation. In fact, if you look at the true effect of what is going to occur, and to do that you have to get a general understanding of the previous provision and the operation of sections 13(1) and (2), and so on. Under the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act as it currently stands before the introduction of this particular piece of amending legislation, a person who suffers an injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in the Territory, in or from a Territory motor vehicle, is entitled - there are a couple of prerequisites, two or three things have to be satisfied: it is a Territory vehicle, a Territory person, and the accident occurred in the Territory. In any event, assuming you satisfy section 13(1), you are then entitled to seek or receive compensation.
Under section 13(1), as well as being involved in an accident with a Territory motor vehicle, it has a cumulative requirement; that is: ‘… that person’s capacity to earn to income from personal exertion, either physical or mental, is in the opinion of the board, reduced as a result of the injury …’. Then the requirement is that: ‘… that person should be paid such compensation for that loss of earning capacity as is provided in this section …’, and it goes on with section 13(2).
The court constituted by His Honour Justice Riley went on to look at some of the previous authorities. During the course of this judgment, he succinctly quotes some portions of section 13(2), but with a view to showing that, under the current regime, the amount of weekly compensation a person receives can be reduced by the board, and the board determines what sort of employment would be reasonably available to the applicant, and the relevant amount the applicant is capable of earning from that employment.
So you have this situation where once it has been determined that a person who has suffered a relevant injury, has also had a reduction in his or her earning capacity - that is to earn income from personal exertion - then it is necessary to refer the matter to section 13(2) to determine the quantity of compensation. In section 13(2), I suppose in summary, requires the determination of the most profitable employment, if any available, to the applicant for a given period. The onus, of course, rests on the board to establish that there was employment reasonably - and this is the important aspect to this, and this is the real difficulty which the opposition has with this amendment - the onus rests on the board to establish …
Mr Stirling: They ran it for 23 years without one iota of difficulty, your government.
Mr MALEY: I will ignore that rude interjection. The onus rests upon the respondent to establish that there was employment reasonably available to the applicant and the relevant amount the applicant is capable of earning from that employment. That is as it currently stands. The court goes on to say there is really no ambiguity. It talks about the issue being governed by the concept of reasonableness, and that the work must be reasonably available to the particular applicant, rather than being reasonably available to anybody.
If you look at the proposed amendment - and with all due respect, I suspect the minister is not really across this - but if you look at the proposed amendment …
Mr Stirling: You said yourself, you are not familiar with it. Why didn’t you get a briefing? You said: ‘It is not easy law, and I am not familiar with it’, but you did not seek a briefing.
Mr MALEY: Well, luckily I did obtain a briefing from qualified people - a very informative briefing - and they confirmed my initial interpretation of this particular amending provision.
If you look at the proposed section 13, it talks about omitting subsections (2) and (3), which are the two sections we spoke about, and inserting a new subsection (2), and a new subsection (3).
Can I just put on the record that the responsible minister has actually left the Chamber. This demonstrates how interested he is in the welfare of people who may be potential recipients under this type of legislation. I put on the record that I suspect he really does not have an understanding of …
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member for Goyder knows that he should not be reflecting on the character of a member when they are not present in the Chamber.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Goyder knows full well that he cannot refer to the absence of a member from the House. I ask him to withdraw.
Mr MALEY: Speaking to the point of order, there is absolutely no way you can take the comments I made as a reflection upon his character. It was merely a statement of fact for those people who have time to read the transcript that he left the Chamber during the course of this particular piece of legislation.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Nonetheless, member for Goyder, I think you should withdraw your reference to the fact that the …
Mr MALEY: I withdraw any possible inference I made which may have inadvertently reflected on his character.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. You may continue.
Mr MALEY: Not that I admit for a moment that I did.
This new amendment is about determining the amount of compensation a person receiving the weekly benefits should receive. If you look at section 5 of the amending legislation, and under the new provisions it will be section 13(3), there is a new formula. The formula talks about 40 being the number of hours which an average person works, and then if you take away X, and X is the figure which the board determines are the hours he is quite capable of working; and then you multiply that by the maximum payable per week as determined, and that is the sum which he is going to receive.
This is the crux of the argument, and this is why the opposition will not be supporting this piece of legislation. The board determines, this is this figure X, based on a medical assessment that the person is capable of working in any employment whether such employment is reasonably available or not. So here you have the situation where the board will be determining this person’s capability of working in any employment, irrespective of whether or not such employment is available in the Northern Territory. A practical example might be a person who loses a leg. The board then determines that he can work as a one-legged crane driver, and then they can make an arbitrary decision as to what sort of capacity he would have as a one-legged crane driver, and despite the fact that there is no such job in the Northern Territory, they could then cut or reduce his benefits.
How can you assess that person’s earning capacity if that employment is unavailable? It just does not make sense. It is not logical and is inherently flawed. During Question Time I could hear a few jibes about, ‘Your interpretation is wrong’, and the usual rudeness you come to expect. But I will be very interested to hear what succinct and logical explanation or interpretation you can put on this. It changes the current position; it changes it substantially …
Mr Stirling: That is a lie. That has existed for 23 years under your government and it is a good scheme.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The minister is fully aware of the conventions of this House. I ask that he withdraw.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw and I ask him to keep his remarks factual.
Mr MALEY: I am convinced that the minister has absolutely no idea about this legislation. He can rant and rave and try to get his minders no doubt to massage the press, but this is absolutely spot on. I will explain it for him, slowly. The current regime seems to be working. It has worked since 1979. There is no ambiguity created by Collman’s case which would warrant this amendment.
Mr Stirling: You still do not understand.
Mr MALEY: You have the previous position where – perhaps Justice Riley has made a mistake as well, according to the very learned minister:
In fact, in the objects of the amending bill, clause 4 states that one of the objects of this amending bill is to:
Perhaps the minister in reply can stick to that fairly narrow issue which I have flagged that goes to the heart of the amendment, and answer the question: how can you assess a person’s earning capacity if that type of employment is not ‘reasonably available’ and, second, perhaps he could address this question: perhaps minister can take members of the House to the precise paragraph in Collman v TIO which he says identifies the real ambiguity which is referred to in that first question.
In the second reading speech, I think there was a comment from the minister to the effect of ‘if the assessment of ongoing benefits is to have regard to employment availability and other factors as outlined by the tribunal …’ that is, of course, Justice Riley, ‘… people only with minor injuries will remain entitled to …’
Mr Stirling: If they are assessed as fit to work, and there is no job, they get social security.
Mr MALEY: I am willing to listen to that interjection if you want to speak up.
Mr Stirling: I think you miss the point. If the person is assessed as fit to work and there is no work available, there is a federal government thing called social security; it is not MACA’s job to pay unemployment benefit.
Mr MALEY: Okay, well, that is obvious. If the person is assessed to …
Mr Elferink: You are injured in a car accident, and this government’s result is get on the dole.
Mr MALEY: That is exactly right. So you go from your $460 down to exactly that; you are on the social security earning your $160 per week. That is precisely what I am saying. In one sense, albeit the minister is stating an inevitable conclusion of the effect of this amendment, that is right, that is exactly right. Here we have the board which makes a determination of whether a person is capable in any employment …
Mr Stirling: Medical assessment.
Mr MALEY: A medical assessment, yes, and that employment is not reasonably available in the Northern Territory, despite that fact, the assessment says he is still a person who is capable of working, his benefits are then cut and you are right, like every other Australian citizen, he is entitled to go on to social security.
Mr Stirling: He goes and gets a job. Fit to work, gets a job like everyone else.
Mr MALEY: Okay. Now, I want you to listen carefully to this and try to understand it, because it is an issue which one day may affect even members of your family. In this paragraph, one of the justifications which the minister uses is that:
and it goes on and on and on. Could the minister in reply perhaps just articulate the forecast potential liability, which he must have had on hand to make such an assertion and perhaps inform us as to the TIO’s liabilities under the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act for current and outstanding liabilities for claimants under the provision. If that is the rationale you are relying upon, you would expect it to be fiscally clear and not actuarial and the like.
I am not going to labour the point. The minister is clear as to why the opposition will not be supporting amendment. The second reading speech, however, is misleading. The proposed amendment does go further than dealing with any perceived ambiguity which the government says has been highlighted in Collman v TIO. And remember that the applicant in Collman’s case was not successful and I do not accept that there is an ambiguity that has been created by the Collman case. The court does refer to, and is bound by, a number of other decisions. For example, the decision of Gallop J and also the decision of I think it is - bear with me for a moment …
Mr Stirling: I think I can cover all those points.
Mr MALEY: I would appreciate that.
Mr Stirling: If we look at Collman closely, I think your legal mind will get around it.
Mr MALEY: Yes, it was Gallop J and it does not actually say the name of the second judge, but there were two judges, and Gallop J was referred to in this particular decision. I am able to be persuaded that if the minister had a clear understanding of the true purport of the amendment, he would not have put his neck, I suspect, on the chopping block here. I am not saying it was deliberate, but it was certainly reckless, and I think the House has been recklessly misled in terms of the effect of Collman’s case and the requirement for this particular amendment.
One of the pledges I made in my maiden speech was to do all that I could to ensure that only good law comes in this parliament. This is not good law. In fact, it is bad law and it is bad law for the people of the Northern Territory. It is an amendment, which in my view, will lead to hardship for some Territorians who come within the scope of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act. There seems no doubt that you do not want to be injured in a motor vehicle accident in the Northern Territory now. I am quite frankly surprised - and I accept that it would be along party lines and all the usual thing - but I am surprised that none of the drones who support the government have not had a close look at this and gone through it. If they had any real understanding of the issues addressed by the amendment and that change which really goes to the heart of the ongoing compensation aspect, they would not be supporting the amendment.
I look forward to the minister’s comments in closing, and any comments he is going to make in the committee stage if the legislation gets that far. I indicate the opposition will not be supporting the amendment.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have to say at the outset that I did not get a briefing on this, so do not hit me when you get up and say: ‘You did not get a briefing’. I am telling you I did not get …
Mr Stirling: Well, if you were interested in it, you ought to.
Mr WOOD: I did not get one because there …
Mr Stirling: You ought to if you have an interest in it.
Mr WOOD: I normally do, minister. In this case, I did not but that should not prevent me from being able to stand up here and ask questions. As you know, I normally do get briefings but this one I looked at a bit late. It did raise some questions which I simply would like to put and you can, perhaps, give me an explanation.
The member for Goyder has mentioned some things and I have a little difficulty with seeing how consistent section 4(c) is with section 5(3) which is the formula. Are the two in conflict? One is saying: ‘We do not take into account the availability of employment’, and then that section is saying: ‘Well, we do take into account whether such employment is reasonably available or not’. That is just a general question.
My other question is how does that section 5(3) work? I am trying to look at the practical side because I did not realise that was what you were trying to do. But you will pick up, if someone could not get employment you were going to basically say: ‘Well, you go down and get unemployment benefits now’. If it is recognised that the person could, say, work 5 hours - I do not know, as a motor mechanic - but that is all they could work because they get tired, and in this particular place, there was no job available for him as a motor mechanic: how does that 5 hours that he has been told he can work, work from the point of view of unemployment benefits? If he does receive unemployment benefits, does that affect his earnings? Does Social Security say: ‘What else are you earning?’ and I say: ‘Well, I am earning some compensation for an accident?’, are they conflicting? In other words, does he lose his compensation because he has received unemployment benefits? I am not sure what the mechanism of that is from an unemployment point of view. Can you go to the Social Security …
Mr Stirling: If you are on unemployment benefits and you are picking up money elsewhere and they catch you, you go to jail. It is called fraud.
Mr WOOD: But you are saying in here the formula is 40 minus X over 40 multiplied by MA - and MA is the maximum amount payable per week. So the person is entitled to compensation. You are reducing that compensation by the amount of hours this person could possibly work in a job. If that job is not available, then what do you do? Do you go down to Social Security and say: ‘This is what I am doing: I have been told I can work 5 hours in a job I cannot get because it is not available’. What do they pay me? Do they pay me a percentage of the unemployment benefits, or do they pay me the whole lot of the unemployment and this compensation section is then totally void?’
I am asking a question about the mechanism. Is someone disadvantaged by that happening? In other words, by going onto unemployment, are they disadvantaged because they should be entitled if they could get employment? The only reason they cannot get what they are entitled to is because there is no job available and, therefore, are they losing? That is my question, minister. I will take the brunt of not having the briefing but the point is, briefings can be held in parliament, that is what we are here for. I would like to hear what the answer is to that and I will make my judgment on what I hear.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have read this stuff, scratched my head, struggled with it, and thank god that the minister was here today because he has made it clear exactly what is going on with this piece of legislation. This legislation is geared up simply as a cost shifting exercise - shifting the cost from the MACA Scheme to the federal government through the social security system.
Mr Stirling: The way it has operated for 23 years, John. It was never a problem for the CLP in 23 years!
Mr ELFERINK: In the second reading speech - and you can sit here, minister, and say as much as you like about, ‘Oh, we worked under it for 27 years’, because for 27 years …
Mr Stirling: Twenty three years.
Mr ELFERINK: Twenty three years - we worked with a piece of legislation which was quite clear. In your second reading speech you talk about ambiguities and those sorts of things. There is no ambiguity in Collman’s case. I will quote you paragraph 7 from that case:
There is no ambiguity. This is what the court is saying: ‘This is not ambiguous. This is not the intention of the legislature. The intention of the legislature is clearly set out and that is what we, as judges, are interpreting’. They then go on to outline the issue in paragraph 11 of the decision:
There is nothing ambiguous about these statements. There is nothing untoward or unclear about these statements. These are very clear statements. And where the issue comes up is that the proposed change to the legislation changes that concept of reasonableness. The section in question, at the bottom end of section 5(3), is quite clear. It is changing it from what was visited by Collman to:
In the court they are talking about ‘reasonably available to anybody’. So what this shift is, is an attempt to erode the process of reasonableness which is available to the courts. If I register a car and then sign up for my third party insurance policy, it is a contract that I am engaging in with TIO and that contract has certain conditions applied to it. That is an obligatory contract. I have no choice about that. I have to deal with TIO under the arrangements in the Northern Territory. I have to pay the fee otherwise my car does not get registered. So I am stuck in this invidious situation already where I have to sign up to an insurance policy, which has certain terms and conditions, and now the government has found a way, if I should be injured and claim against that policy, to be able to shift the costs of that to push me on to the dole.
The MACA scheme does not pick up the cost anymore, now it is the federal government, therefore it is no longer a pain for the minister. That is really what this whole exercise is about. Does he say it in the second reading speech? Absolutely not! This is the intent of this change of legislation: to shift the cost of rehabilitation and lost earnings through employment from the Northern Territory to the federal government. That is the entire nub of this process, by changing the rules, by changing the contract in the extreme. Only governments have the privilege of doing that.
I now clearly understand where the government is coming from, and all members in this room should clearly understand where this government is coming from. I think that you are being a little bit cute, minister, by interjecting saying, ‘Oh well, if you are determined to be fit you have to go and work for the dole, when any job is available’. What are you going to suggest, a brickie who has a car accident; suddenly there is a job as a hairdresser available to him that he suddenly has to run off and become a hairdresser? That is what your legislation is going to allow you to do. The moment he cannot become a brain surgeon, or a hairdresser, or an astronaut, you are going to shift the cost away from MACA and onto the federal government. How could we support this?
Mr Stirling: For 23 years you did, you goose!. It was not a problem for 23 years.
Mr ELFERINK: Negative! It was clear. It was always clear.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I was not planning to speak on this, but having worked in this area as a medical practitioner for many years, I would like to say that the MACA system or the workers compensation system, whatever you like to call it, is about rehabilitation. It is not about giving people money just to survive. It is about providing a financial package and appropriate assistance to ensure that a person who is injured through a motor vehicle accident, in this instance, has the means to buy sustenance for himself, or herself, and the family if that happens to be the case, and also to be rehabilitated so that the person is able to return to work.
A person with a job of whatever description when unable to work will at least have part of the wages compensated through the MACA system. At the same time, while that person is being nursed through their injuries, hopefully you are able to provide rehabilitation in the physical as well as the mental sense to enable the person to eventually return to work.
The work has to be meaningful. When the minister agreed that it is a means of getting people off the TIO or the MACA system onto unemployment benefits, you are really signalling that ‘you guys are no good anymore, you are going to be on the scrap heap’. That is not the intention. The intention of any sort of insurance scheme for injury purposes is to ensure that a person gets proper rehabilitation and is returned to meaningful employment.
I recall when I was working on a semi-permanent basis for the mines, we had instances where people, on their way to work, encountered motor vehicle accidents and there was the argy-bargy about whether it was covered by MACA or by workers compensation. Put that aside. Irrespective of that, the insurance scheme was there to protect the person who was, until the accident, gainfully employed. If the minister says that this is about getting them off MACA so they can be on the dole, then I believe it is really an immoral act - an immoral act by this government to disenfranchise people who legitimately have the right to claim on their insurance. That is what it is about and anything else that this government is going to do, in my mind, can be labelled as immoral.
This government will be heading down the wrong path because it will cause people who have suffered motor vehicle accidents real anguish. They will not know where to turn to. If a doctor is not prepared to sign off a certificate saying that person is fit to work, then obviously they have to stay on MACA. They have no choice. The member for Nelson asked earlier can they go on to the dole? Obviously, they cannot; it will be illegal for them to receive it because if they receive unemployment benefits while they are still under MACA compensation they will be committing a criminal offence. I hope no person would even dare attempt to do that.
But once a person is declared fit to return to work, you would expect that there is work available. Otherwise, what is the person to do? The work does not necessarily have to be identical work to what that person was doing before - physical injuries might have produced a limitation on that person - but appropriate work to the level of fitness that the accident victim has. If work is not in that area, obviously alternative work needs to be found. But to say to the person: ‘Okay, you are fit for work now. Off you go; you are on your own’, is really wrong. I used the word ‘immoral’ earlier because I believe it is the responsibility of MACA to assist this person to find appropriate work, and until such time as the person finds appropriate work I believe MACA still has a responsibility for that accident victim. Anything else would really then be giving away the responsibilities that this government owes to the accident victim.
That is all I have to add. I say to the government: let’s not go down this immoral path.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Finally, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I get to talk.
The issues raised in the minister’s second reading speech will illustrate well the difficulties frequently experienced by modern Australian governments in adapting the principles and values imported with British common law to our life in a young and progressive independent nation. The touchstone of the common law was the recognition and protection of conventional property rights and the practices and institutions that supported and maintained those rights. Wealthy and well remunerated people in Victorian Britain tended to be better protected by the law than people lower down in the social pecking order. Some British social critics might be of the view that not a great deal has changed.
The pre-MACA era legal solutions to the problem of addressing financial hardships caused by severe motor vehicle injuries was for the players involved, and their respective insurers, to engage in a legal battle to try and maximise a damages payout. The damages payout would be based on a claimed dollar loss across a range of factors, one of them being earning capacity. In other words, rich people on big salaries would usually get more than poor, unskilled people.
The introduction of MACA heralded a refreshingly egalitarian approach to assisting the victims of devastating motor vehicle accident trauma. The focus shifted from quantifying the projected life earning expectancy of the rich and highly qualified to working at a fair standard compensation figure based on the nature and extent of the injury. Wealth or social status would not play a role in the calculation provided that, at least as far as section 13 was concerned, a basic level of earning capacity could be established. It would be retrogressive and unfortunate if after all these years we were to turn the clock back and start favouring individual accident victims by reference not to the nature of their residual disabilities, but by reference to factors such as the person’s educational and vocational achievements.
What I would hope to spell out in the following case is the difficulties still faced, in particular, by Aboriginal women in establishing a lack of earning capacity. In the 1988 case of McMillan v Territory Insurance Office, Justice Gallop, sitting as the Motor Accident Compensation Appeals Tribunal, found that a 56 year old Aboriginal woman from Santa Teresa was not entitled to compensation for loss of earning capacity in respect of personal injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicle accident. He described her personal work history in the following terms:
I pause there to note that perhaps putting to one side links with the Roman Catholic Church, the life story described by Justice Gallop could apply to many Aboriginal women who worked hard all their lives but were never paid a cent for it.
Justice Gallop’s conclusion on the issue on the loss of earning capacity was as follows:
Therefore, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I believe that people like Mrs McMillan deserve to be compensated at the same level as people with the same degree of injury who were in highly specialised paid jobs prior to their accident.
I appreciate that the amendments in this bill do not quite achieve that result. However, they do assist in underscoring the principle of equality and fairness that constitutes a first step along the way. For this government to sit on its hands, unlike the previous government, and continually allow an interpretation of section 13 of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act to take root, that allowed for differential compensation to different individuals - not by reference to their injuries, but by reference to their vocational background and employment history - would be to provide strong indirect endorsement and support for a state of affairs which condemns unpaid working women to second class status.
The passage of these amendments will serve as a reminder of what we stand for.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I see the member for Goyder nodding. I am a softy and a bit nave, but I take that as a genuine interest that he is expecting me to supply, and I hope I do provide, all the answers that he is seeking here. He briefly talked about the original way these things operated, of course, with the common law right, and the common law right being surrendered, if you like, in view of the introduction of the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme in 1979.
I pay the government of that day the credit that is due because this was visionary legislation. It was the first no-fault scheme of its kind in Australia. More than half the jurisdictions in Australia now have this type of scheme. Why? Because they saw what it did for the Northern Territory; that it promoted fairness, it enabled people a way through to benefits where they were injured; a way through to that level of reparation and rehabilitation without having to go through the messy court situation, litigation, and trying to find someone at fault and win a court case. That is to be commended. It was the first of its type in Australia, and many other jurisdictions have followed that lead by bringing in a no-fault scheme.
I want to be very clear at the outset - and the simpler I can keep this, the better it is. We are not seeking to change anything here in terms of how the act operated between 1979 when it was introduced, and January 2002, with the Collman case. We are not reducing the rights; we are not taking away anything that people have enjoyed for 23 years, up until January 2002. I want to go to Collman because that might help us. I make the point also at the outset, that these amendments are absolutely critical if we are going to have an ongoing, viable Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme.
With all the pressures that are on any insurance scheme at the moment, and including MACA, it is the Collman decision of January this year that reinforced the need to put through this amendment, or we would face a financially unsustainable position with MACA overall. The decision of Riley J – I have a date, 16 January, I am not sure if that coincides, same case:
(a) the onus rests upon TIO to establish that there was employment reasonably available to the
applicant and the relevant amount the applicant is capable of earning in that employment; and
is not necessarily to be assessed by the employment, if any, actually undertaken by that person. The
issue is one of capacity and that is assessed by reference to employment available to the person. In determining whether employment is available to the person, it is necessary to consider the whole of the surrounding circumstances including factors personal to the applicant (for example, any physical infirmities from which he may suffer) along with the level of availability of particular forms of employment within the relevant community. The issue is governed by the concept of reasonableness. The work must be reasonably available to the particular applicant rather than being reasonably available to anybody.
The point is, TIO won this case – because this guy was making no attempt to find work and the judge saw through that. But what the judge has drawn attention to is this issue of having to be able to find work, reasonable work, and it must be available within the relevant community, it must be suited for that particular individual. Never, ever happened, was never interpreted like that for 23 years. MACA is not a replacement income forever and a day once you are assessed fit. Six monthly medical intervention assessments – here is your medical certificate, still cannot work, you stay on MACA. At some point in the rehabilitation, the retraining, or whatever, that the doctor was able to assess the person as being medically fit for work, that was the end of MACA. You did not and could not stay on MACA benefits. It is not a form of unemployment benefit for the rest of your life. It is there until you are assessed as able and fit to go back to work.
Now, that is the way it worked. Daryl Manzie, the minister responsible for this legislation for many years, when I spoke to him this morning was honestly aghast at the attitude that you guys were taking to this. He understood very clearly what it meant, what the implications for the MACA scheme would be if we were not to address the ruling from Collman. This ruling from Collman has put a completely different spin on section 13. It is aligning it, and the confusion that Dr Lim had, much more to the work health style of scheme where there is a responsibility to get the person back into work. It never existed under MACA.
MACA had no responsibility to get the person back to work. It had a responsibility to pay benefits and see the person through until such time as the person was assessed as fit for employment. Once that medical certificate was in the hands of the board, assessed as fit for employment or if the person went back to work, once they were earning 85% of average weekly earnings, benefits ceased.
Now, unless something happened to that person that was related to the original accident or injury, they never went back onto MACA; they did not go back onto MACA unless it was a related injury. So, the MACA scheme was always administered on the basis that it provided this low cost, equitable scheme because it was designed to support those injured in motor vehicle accidents or in Territory registered motor vehicles.
As a key feature, as well as picking up all the legitimate medical rehabilitation and retraining costs, it also has that compensation component for those unable to work, or who have their capacity to work restricted, as a result of injury in a motor vehicle accident either temporarily or permanently. That compensation has always been linked to loss of earning capacity; it is not linked to actual loss of income. It is a distinction often misunderstood. If the scheme was to take into account past income prior to the accident, it would mean a huge financial impost on the scheme. Compensating for the loss of earning capacity rather than income is one of those key features that has kept the scheme affordable for Territorians.
It has a further related benefit in that compensation provided under this scheme is treated by the Taxation Office as a capital payment rather than a substitute for income. The big difference, of course, is payments are not subject to income tax because if payments under MACA were subject to income tax, two things flow: either the cash in hand of injured people would be reduced by the amount of income tax; or the payments that MACA make would have to be increased to offset the impact of income tax. Again, you would have to force up the cost of the scheme. That is a very clear difference. It means that the taxation benefit is realised.
Under current administrative practice, the entitlement to the benefit ceases once there is evidence that the person involved has the capacity to resume work. Once the person has the capacity to resume work, medically assessed every six months …
Mr Maley: What if a job is not available here, though, in the Territory?
Mr STIRLING: Nothing to do with the labour market; nothing to do with whether a job is available or not. They are okay to work, okay? You become an unemployed person, no longer on compensation from a motor accident. You are now assessed as fit to work, you are an unemployed person. You either travel to where you can find work, or you do go – and I am not suggesting this – I am accused or the government is accused of making this a substitution, it is the way it always worked. It is the way it always worked. TIO never had a responsibility to find a job to get a person back into work. The responsibility to pay the benefits, the retraining, the rehabilitation was TIO’s until such time as they were medically assessed fit for work. If one was never medically assessed fit for work, they stay on MACA. That is the difference.
Workers compensation – and I think Dr Lim was confused here – has that ongoing responsibility to get people back into employment. MACA never had that and was not designed to run around and find people employment.
A judicial interpretation of the relevant provisions has indicated that the payments have to be continued until the TIO can prove that there is a job available for the person. This is the Collman case: ‘for the person in the area which they reside, even though the person has recovered from injury sufficiently to resume work’. It never was the original intent; it never operated like that in 23 years until 16 January, Collman and this decision.
If a person cannot find work, it is a labour market reality, it is a question for income support from social security if they are assessed as fit for work. It cannot be an ongoing responsibility of the MACA scheme. It is simply that the whole funding, the premiums that are paid, do not support that type of scheme. It is not the original intention. If TIO were to keep paying compensation in these cases where the person was fit for work but the person refused to relocate to an area where suitable employment was available, then of course up go the costs of the scheme enormously. These amendments to the MACA scheme are to ensure that the administrative practices, the way that it has run for 23 years, can continue against that Collman decision.
TIO did, and I think that this is a question from the member for Goyder, TIO did an actuarial investigation of the scheme to work out what the impact would be if the government did nothing, and that is the interpretation in the Collman judgment of January, if we left that to stand and did nothing. First, to ensure the ongoing viability of the scheme, the existing claims reserve would need to be increased by about $14m. That is number 1. Number 2, an additional $9m would be required to cover the costs of new claims coming on each year. In order to collect this money through premiums, in the first year alone it would require an increase in the order of 50%, with further substantial, though lesser, increases in the following two years.
To put this in yearly terms, a premium increase in the first year of around $190 for a standard family car. Of course, it would be more for taxis, hire cars and buses. The government’s view is that this is simply unacceptable to the Territory taxpayer and to the Territory government. It is not the way the scheme was designed. It was never set up to do those sorts of things, and we believe that all Territory families would find this a burden. Of course, for those who register two or more vehicles, a much more substantial burden.
Of course, if you get fee increases like that, one consequence is that some people just do not bother to renew their registration, so that the additional premiums collected fall short of that required to meet the ongoing costs of the scheme. So government took the view that the only sensible decision in view of the Collman case in January was to introduce the amendments which in effect do not change anything. The amendments do not change anything at all about the way the scheme has operated since 1979 to January 16 2002. But they do address the outcome of the Collman case.
This is really the bottom line and it needs to be very strongly underlined. My staff spoke to some people who thought that these amendments went too far. That they pushed back beyond where MACA was. They do not. They simply put it back exactly as it was. There were a couple of points made along the lines of. ‘You are stripping people of their rights’. Not so. They have the same rights that have existed since 1979. We are simply ensuring, and legislating to ensure, that the scheme is able to operate as it has done in the past and continues to operate in a way that everyone understands it.
The ultimate safeguard for all Territorians is that MACA is a government scheme administered by a government owned enterprise. The administration of the scheme is therefore subject to the scrutiny of government. Now, any government is going to be mindful of the public’s perception of the administration of the scheme. It would be suicide for a government to ignore the concerns of the public in the administration of this scheme.
As well as addressing future claims costs, these amendments also ensure that past payments from the scheme are protected, so no one loses from these amendments, but Territorians will, as a community, lose enormously if these amendments do not pass. They will be up for about $190 in their registration almost immediately, with further increases over the next two years. All Territorians would say, ‘Why the hell are we having to pay this?’
We think that the amendments strike a balance. They put the scheme back to its original intent. I say again, I commend the government of the day back in 1979, because this was visionary legislation. No other state in Australia had such a no-fault scheme. But the government of the Northern Territory passed it back then and it has served the Territory exceedingly well, so much so that other jurisdictions have tossed out common law as the Territory did and adopted no-fault schemes of their own.
The amendments strike a balance and maintain the existing level of benefits under the MACA scheme since 1979 without the need to increase premiums. If the court’s interpretation from Collman of section 13 is allowed to stand, the opposite results. TIO is then responsible for the labour market reality of getting people back into work. If they decide they are better off on MACA than they ever were at work, you will never get them off MACA. So, up go the premiums to pay those people for ever and a day. Premiums would rise substantially and yet, most people who receive benefits under the scheme would receive no more than they do now.
I hope that goes to the core of the concerns of the member for Goyder. If he did have any further questions - I do not see a need to go into committee - however, if it is his wish to go into committee to explore anything that I have left undone, I have an expert here, and we can cover that in committee if he so wishes. There is no loss or stripping of rights. It is simply a restoration of what has always been - but thrown into doubt and confusion because of the decision in Collman.
I am not saying the judge was wrong - far from it. He interpreted that section 13 in a way that, conceivably, any judge could have in the past 23 years. It is a bit remarkable that it lasted 23 years without a judge bringing this interpretation to it. Nonetheless, it would have been done sooner or later, I would imagine. But it did happen on 16 January 2002. After all those years, someone said: ‘This is not right, Your Honour’. He said: ‘I think you are right’. That left government with the situation of having to restore it, if you like, to the integrity and the intention of what it once was. I am happy to go into committee if there are further questions.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr STIRLING: We do not want to pass the bill straight off, Mr Chairman, because there are some outstanding questions here. We wanted the availability of committee to clear up any other issues. I suggest we do not pass anything now, and we just explore whatever issues.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is the intention to now go through that.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, I am not suggesting that there was a responsibility that falls to the feet of the TIO or the Motor Accidents Compensation Board to find someone a job but, on a reasonable reading of the legislation as it stands, with Collman’s case, it seems the onus was only upon them to determine this earning capacity by virtue of whether there was other employment reasonably available. Whether that employment, like in Collman’s case, was taken up, was a matter entirely for the applicant. However, assuming that the respondent of the board at TIO could establish that the employment was reasonably available, having regard to some of those subjective factors, then payments could be cut. Okay? I agree that that is certainly not the role of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act and the whole regime to put people into jobs and they stay on this benefit, technically, for ever. From my reading the obligation is to put them in a position where there is an earning capacity there, albeit not exercised, then the payments can be cut.
You talk about the law changing substantially in January this year, and section 13(2) being the section which you say Riley J has interpreted in a new and expanded way. At paragraph 10 of the judgment, Riley J goes on to talk about how you approach the interpretation of section 13(2). He talks about:
He then goes on to cite a decision of Martin J, an unreported decision, of Kantros v The Territory Insurance Office Board reported in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory dated 5 December 1991. So the interpretation Riley J has given about employment reasonably available to the applicant and the onus being upon the board, he is relying upon a decision, it seems, of Martin J back in 1991. That is the first point. He does not seem to be quoting the law: he is relying upon a previous decision.
The second aspect is, just a reasonable examination of the term, ‘reasonably capable of earning in employment’, and the conclusion which Riley J comes to, and my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, read out the quote in toto, but just the conclusion he comes to that the issue is governed by the concept of ‘reasonableness’, that the work must be reasonably available to the particular applicant rather than being reasonably available to anybody. That is not an unreasonable conclusion to come to.
It does not seem to be an unreasonable set of parameters for the act to operate within. So, I am not saying that the TIO has to act as an employment agency and find someone a job. All they have to do is pay them enough money and look after medical expenses to put them in a position where they are reasonably able to secure a job. Whether they chose to do it - Mr Collman did not choose to do and the tribunal ruled against him so it did not cost the taxpayer any extra money apart from the legal fees - but that seems to be an inherently reasonable sort of interpretation and that is probably the second point.
Mr STIRLING: Can we deal with a couple first?
Mr MALEY: Yes, we will do it two at a time.
Mr STIRLING: It might get far away. In relation to a decision by Martin J and picked up on by this judge, I have no understanding or knowledge of what that decision was in 1991 and how that related to this case we are talking about here in January 2002. If a decision along these lines had been made way back in 1991, it is inconceivable that the repercussions would not have flowed then as we are seeing here.
Mr MALEY: Could I interrupt for a second. Can I give you a copy of this decision? Perhaps I can table this. At paragraph 10 and that is what I read from, that is Riley J saying as observed by Martin J as he then was in Kantros v The TIO unreported in December 1991, in the very next paragraph there is a citation directly from that decision. I will read that out - really the first two or three lines are not that relevant, but it goes on to say this, starting on the third line:
Once again you have this ‘reasonableness’ concept. It is specifically referring to the point which you say arose like a phoenix from the ashes in January this year.
Mr STIRLING: I am advised this was not in relation to section 13, although it would appear to have been picked up – oh, I should be standing up. Sorry, Mr Chairman, I am a bit confused.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I thought I had an opportunity there.
Mr MALEY: It says that specifically, though. That is the problem. It says: ‘A consideration of section 13(2)’, and then deals with the same things you have just touched upon. It then says: ‘As observed by Martin J’ and quotes what seems to be a portion of that judgement on the very point that you are talking about.
Mr STIRLING: Nonetheless, we are talking about a moot point. Clearly, whatever that decision was in 1991, it did not appear to create any sort of precedent or upset the way TIO and MACA have been operating since 1979 through to 1991 in the way that this interpretation of January 2002 has. He has made it very clear here that MACA does have the responsibility to ensure that there is not just ‘reasonable’ employment ‘reasonably’ available in the area where that person is, but particularly suited to that person. Now, that was never the intent of the scheme. It has no part in the origins of the scheme. Once the person was assessed as fit for work, they signed off on MACA and they went and got a job. If they did not get a job, there was income supplement available through Centrelink and the rest.
Under this, if we do not address this, then MACA has to carry this for – you know, it could carry people forever. Even though they are assessed as fit for work, MACA would still have the responsibility of looking after them and if they chose not to get a job – I mean, there is no labour market test here. There is nothing to say that if they earned more on the MACA benefit than they did in whatever form of employment they had before, there would be no incentive to get a job. Premiums for TIO and the MACA scheme would have to go up to cover those extra people sitting there unable to be moved, and nothing in the world would ever move them because there would be no incentive to go to work. If you are going to have to work and receive less money than the MACA benefit, there is no incentive.
It was never the intention that MACA had any responsibility to find a person employment, locate them or anything of that nature. Once the person was medically assessed fit for work, sorry about the accident but we have you right, see you later. No more MACA.
Mr MALEY: So even if a job is not available in the Territory?
Mr STIRLING: It never was a question in all the time MACA operated. I mean, I am interested in what you say in relation to Martin J in 1991. I do not understand - it is a further question that I would be interested to explore, but we do not have the time here - why that did not have the impact that this January 2002 decision quite clearly has had. I cannot answer that. You know the law better than I do. Some things blow up and affect everything, and it looks like this decision was allowed to sit there and seemingly have no effect, at least in relation to MACA. I cannot answer it.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am grateful to the minister for his long and careful explanation before going into committee because it did clear up a couple of issues for me, certainly what the government’s intent is. It brings me to the issue that concerns me. In the Collman decision, the judges simply turned to the legislation in the first instance for an interpretation as to what the intent of the legislation was, and did not visit at any stage the Hansard debates, the second reading speeches which they may do nowadays, for the purposes of interpretation because they found no ambiguity in the legislation.
What concerns me is that, one, if this legislation is going to be read on its face, and judges may choose not to find an ambiguity in what is there, what will be the precise effect of the current wording? Is it shored up sufficiently well? Second, and more importantly, for the purposes of process, if they do find an ambiguity, then they are allowed to turn to the second reading speech by the minister to find the intent of what the government had in mind.
The second reading speech is a little less than a page and a half long. I believe if the second reading speech had been far more comprehensive, not only would any perceived ambiguity or otherwise in the way we read it, be less of a problem, I also believe that ambiguity once placed in front of a court may also be easier for the court to divine from the second reading speech what the minister’s intent was.
I have raised this issue on several occasions with the Attorney-General and I am grateful to the Attorney-General that his second reading speeches are now far more comprehensive and far more explanatory in terms of the information that they give. Indeed, I have found that when dealing with those second reading speeches, that particular briefing is often enough to allay any reservations or fears I might have regarding the government’s intent.
However, on this occasion, we once again get shorter, condensed versions of second reading speeches, which then successfully lose the intent of the government. Now, the minister, only referring to notes, not even reading it out, was able to explain, comprehensively and clearly, the intent of what the government was trying to do. I would urge the minister, when he is bringing these complex matters to the House on future occasions, to simply make those second reading speeches more comprehensive, not only for our sake, but because the briefing in this Chamber counts above all other briefings. It would also have the effect, further down the track, of avoiding some of the confusion that the judges may have of the legislation that is before us. On reading the amendment, I still see sufficient latitude for confusion so as to allow another reading and this other reading may have detrimental effects on those people who take out these insurance policies.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I do not know about these second reading speeches, because in opposition I had a lot of difficulty sometimes even following a briefing. On occasions, I can remember being even more confused. In fact, I recall one bizarre, quite obscure maritime amendment that had been put forward by then Chief Minister Stone, I am not sure if he was Chief Minister at the time, and he admitted to me that he did not understand it himself. There was a two paragraph second reading speech that was just bizarre, and of course, so was the principal act and I think it was an aged piece of legislation.
Once I had been through the additional material -the Collman court case of January 2002 – and reading the second reading speech in retrospect, I think it reads fine, and you would probably agree if you went back and read it now. Just how much detail goes into a second reading speech? I guess there are the explanatory memoranda and the committee notes that back up the intent of the bill and what the government is trying to achieve with the piece of legislation that it is seeking to pass. I do not have a view. If you try to put everything into the second reading it gets cumbersome and unwieldy and possibly you start to get cross-purposes, or counter-purposes, within that.
As I say, I do not have a view. You may be right in this case, that it may have been more helpful if an explanation was offered. Reading it cold myself, I did not have a full understanding of it. Then I received additional material, and read the January 2002 case, and began to see where it impacted and what it meant. In terms of outcomes, I think it reads fine now, but that is with the addition of further information and clarity that I did not have when I first read it.
Bill agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
I thank members who contributed to the debate. It was useful to go into committee; we did get a clarity and greater understanding of those issues. I am comfortable that all members understand why the government needed to act as it did to preserve the integrity of the scheme. We are not legislating away people’s rights. We are putting back in place what is a very good and effective scheme put down on the books way back in 1979, way ahead of anyone else having a scheme like this. It was a novel, innovative first for the Territory. It still stands us in good stead today and it will continue to stand us in good stead with the benefits of these amendments behind it.
Motion agreed to, bill read a third time.
Continued from 10 October 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the bill. It was a very short second reading speech. I am not going to go into minutiae of what sections 13(1), (2) and (3) and section 21 of the act actually do and what they once did. However, they are being repealed. There is no information currently prescribed by the Supreme Court rules to be endorsed on a process against the Territory Crown, as the Attorney-General quite properly said. Accordingly, there would not appear to be any requirement for the current provisions in those sections 13 and 21. I echo what the Attorney-General said. They do not serve any other purpose and we will not be opposing this bill. In fact, we will be supporting this particular bill.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support. They took two steps: they did not oppose it and then actually supported it. That is good.
This is just a technical amendment to a bill. These are sections that the courts have not found the need to use, so the bill is simply repealing section 13(1), (2) and (3) and section 21, to remove the possibility within the current act of the court annexing a statement of constraints, I suppose, on processes that are being taken against the Territory Crown. I hope I got that right. It is really at the request of the Justices that these amendments be introduced and, for that reason, we would want to accommodate them.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 17 September 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I indicate the opposition will be supporting the passage of this bill. I do not intend to say too much on it. It relates to the prescribed property provisions of the Associations Incorporation Act as they apply to Aboriginal community living areas. The proposed amendment will permit the minister to consent to deal in land in a limited number of circumstances. The Attorney-General, in his very succinct second reading speech, talked about the spirit of an agreement between the Prime Minister and the then Chief Minister in 1989 and these amendments are confirming that agreement and reflect a clarification of probably an oversight in the previous legislation, probably could not have foreseen what was going to occur with the prescribed property.
In any event, I do not intend to labour the point. The opposition will be supporting this legislation.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, through at least the first decade after the passage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in 1976, it was possible to identify two classes of Aboriginal people living in that vast expanse of the Northern Territory that lies outside the principal towns and population centres along the Stuart Highway.
First, there were those whose traditional country, or part of it, lay within a previously designated Aboriginal reserve, or on some kind of unalienated Crown land. The Aboriginal reserves were simply transferred whole, or scheduled to Aboriginal land trusts established for that purpose. Other areas of unalienated Crown land were available for claim under the land claims process set up under the act, and such claims quickly followed to a range of areas from the Top End to the Centre. Then there were those Aboriginal people whose traditional land lay within the pastoral leases that had been granted, held and extended over much of the country that the Territory had to offer.
The Land Rights Act allowed land claims to be made over pastoral lease land only when all the interests in the pastoral lease were held by, or on behalf of, Aboriginal people, although there are a handful of pastoral lease purchases funded by the former Aboriginal Development Commission during the 1980s. The phenomenon of Aboriginal tenure over a significant percentage of the Northern Territory pastoral lease estate is comparatively recent. Many Aboriginal people who had given the best years of their lives to building up the Territory pastoral industry eked out a miserable existence living in car bodies or ramshackle housing in camps in Stuart Highway towns like Elliott.
A small number of intrepid individuals resisted the odds and the pressures imposed by pastoral leases and government agencies for what must have seemed like forever by squatting. They camped, often without power, and with inadequate water supplies, on pockets of pastoral lease land that they regarded as theirs by tradition, historical entitlement and basic need. They were asking for what had become known as excisions, and were often referred to as ‘the people land rights forgot’. As of the year 2002, the situation has improved substantially in the Barkly, in the Katherine West region, and in the Centre as a result of station purchases, through the Indigenous Land Corporation. But there remains many people whose aspirations to live on even a modest parcel of their traditional country remains unfulfilled. In many, if not most, cases such aspirations cannot be satisfied by the individual or group being directed to go and reside on someone else’s country, on land granted to some other Aboriginal group.
It became a key demand insisted on by the former government, and by the peak body representing the pastoralists, that claims or pleas for the grant of title to living areas on pastoral leases not be expressed, or formulated, by reference to traditional attachment to the land sought. This was a bizarre and distressing notion to most excision applicants who were forced to articulate a need for a place to live, divorced from their obligations to and love for their traditional country. Little progress was made throughout the 1980s and it is likely that the state of affairs would have continued, without change, right up until the Mabo High Court decision in 1993 if it had not been for a keen desire pursued by the pastoralists and the former government on their behalf to make a kind of land grab of their own.
The land that they were interested in was the stock routes that criss-crossed the main cattle station areas of the Territory. What was being called for was the abandonment of land claims under the Land Rights Act to the stock routes and the absorption of the relevant areas of stock route land into the pastoral leases that passed through.
The 1989 deal that was struck between the then Prime Minister and the then Chief Minister involved precious little input for excision claimants on the ground. Some areas of the stock routes and reserve lands were scheduled under the Land Rights Act but claims to much larger areas were abandoned with many pastoralists achieving windfall expansions of their pastoral leases. What the excision applicants got for their part was a virtually impenetrable and impassable bureaucratic obstacle course. A Kafka-like snakes and ladders scheme that was first tacked onto the then Crown Lands Act which now finds its home in Part 8 of the Pastoral Land Act.
It is of no surprise that a disappointingly small number of Community Living Areas’ titles have been granted. Those that have been granted have taken an inordinately long time to be processed. Because Part 8 of the Pastoral Land Act reflects the philosophy of the former government’s 1980 policy which was confirmed in the terms of the 1989 agreement, title to Community Living Areas could not be granted to an entity set up to benefit Aboriginal people with traditional interests in the land concerned like an Aboriginal land trust under the Land Rights Act.
Instead, the land holding entity had to be an association incorporated under either the Northern Territory Associations Incorporation Act or the Commonwealth Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act. Incorporated associations are siblings or cousins from the same family group as mega-corporations like BHP or the recently deceased HIH. They have to file annual financial statements and they have to pass through various hoops in terms of internal governance and administration. Complying with these requirements is very difficult for Aboriginal people living in remote pastoral country, many of whom, especially those from the older generation, have limited formal education. Unsurprisingly, things are left undone. Regulatory bodies step in and the notional membership, that is the Aboriginal people whom it was meant to benefit, have their title placed at risk. The amendments proposed in this bill allow for problems of this kind to be fixed up after the event.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill as a welcome and necessary measure.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support and the member for Arafura for what was an excellent contribution to the debate. She gave a good context to the amendments we are proposing today.
These are very sensible reforms. Obviously, the intent of creating Community Living Areas was to provide a secure site for a community to be established and obviously that security had to be guarded by not allowing land to be dealt with, and certainly not traded, so that that community would have a secure site. Difficulties have arisen with the somewhat inflexible original arrangements which did not allow even partial or limited dealings with the land. These amendments simply correct those problems.
Clearly, in the examples given in the second reading speech, there are cases where very worthwhile community initiatives, or initiatives forged between the community and agencies that are supporting their lifestyle in these living areas, have been prevented by the contents of the current act. This provides for limited dealings, once approved by the minister, so that leases for things like health clinics can be allowed on Community Living Areas and the title to those living areas can be transferred between incorporated bodies of similar intent and similar membership to the original recipients of that community living area arrangement. This will correct …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am sorry. I am a little bit confused, and perhaps I have missed something. I am not trying to be cute or anything. Which bill are we currently debating?
Madam SPEAKER: The Associations Incorporation Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 97)
Mr ELFERINK: I am a little bit confused because unless I am mistaken, I believe that the Shadow Attorney-General was dealing with the Crown Proceedings Amendment Bill 2002.
Madam SPEAKER: No, he has already spoken.
Mr ELFERINK: In support of this?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Perhaps you could check with him.
Mr ELFERINK: I am going to go and find out now, Madam Speaker.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, I am quite happy to see the member for Macdonnell given time.
Madam SPEAKER: Keep going, Attorney-General.
Dr TOYNE: We will keep going, will we?
Mr Reed: It is all a bit late, she cried, now. We are in reply closing debate.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, without further ado, I think I will sit down.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 17 September 2002
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the action taken in relation to this amendment flows principally from the National Competition Policy and it is yet another consequence of the agreement entered into between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories in relation to competition policy agreements.
Given that the minister in his second reading speech has given an assurance that the arrangements under the Aerodromes Act as regards the Connellan airport at Yulara are safe guarded in relation to these amendments, and that the arrangements now existing will continue to exist as they now stand following the passage of this legislation, and, further, that the other considerations under the Aerodromes Act, being the safety matters at airports and parking of aircraft and the like at aerodromes across the Northern Territory will likewise be safeguarded either by Commonwealth or the Northern Territory legislation, the opposition supports the bill.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I do not have to add anything more. As the member for Katherine said, it is the result of National Competition Policy and the agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories. I do not want to waste any more time on this. It is a simple bill, a repeal bill. Let’s proceed with it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to inform the House about the recent initiatives taken by my government in relation to NT parks and reserves. On 25 October 2002, I announced my government’s approach to resolving legal issues that had arisen as a result of the recent Ward High Court decision relating to a large number of NT parks and reserves. I also highlighted how our park systems represents one of the Territory’s major competitive advantages and needs to be leveraged into playing a key role in the Territory’s future economic development.
My government has acted responsibly and decisively to address the uncertainty that has arisen as a result of the High Court’s judgement to ensure the interests of all Territorians are protected both now and into the future. We have also acted in an open and transparent manner. This has involved briefing all major stakeholders at the first opportunity on the implications of our legal advice and the government’s approach to resolving the issues involved. This included briefing the Opposition Leader, the Commonwealth government, the land councils, the Conservation Land Corporation, representatives of the mining, tourism, pastoral and fishing industries, the media, and the community. My government has publicly laid down a set of core principles that will remain central to any negotiated framework agreement.
I am also pleased to report that I have raised these issues with the Prime Minister and Minister Ruddock, who both indicated in-principle support for the Northern Territory government’s approach of negotiation instead of litigation.
This evening I will bring the House up to date on developments over the past week, and set the record straight about the government’s approach to achieving certainty in relation to the future access and enjoyment of our parks and reserves. These issues are not only of importance to all Territorians, but also have significant implications for our numerous interstate and overseas visitors and for the future development of our tourism industry.
The recent Ward High Court decision held that the declaration of the Keep River National Park was invalid. The finding is a result of the wording of section 12(1) of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act which only provided, until it was amended in March 1998, that:
I know that the Leader of the Opposition questioned our reliance on legal advice from the Solicitor General following the briefing that was provided to him prior to the government’s public announcement. During that briefing, I drew the Opposition Leader’s specific attention to the fact that, because of the potentially serious implication of the Solicitor General’s advice, the government had engaged eminent external counsel in order to gain a second opinion. That second opinion not only supported the Solicitor General’s advice, but did so in ever more firm and clearer terms regarding the invalidity of the park declarations and the consequences for land claims to now proceed under the Land Rights Act.
In light of the Ward High Court decision and the legal advice before us, there were clearly two broad options available to the government in seeking to resolve the issues involved. The first option would be to engage in litigation and disputation at every possible level. In my government’s view, this would merely evade our responsibility to find a comprehensive solution. This approach would defer, for the time being, any transfer of title to Aboriginal interests and would keep the government and the land councils in the courts for years contesting native title and compensation issues. It provides no guarantee that land claims would not, ultimately, be successful and no guarantee that existing parks would remain open and part of our parks estate. It is obvious to anyone with a knowledge of the history of litigation in this area that this option would not only be horrendously expensive for Territory taxpayers but would even, more importantly, merely serve to exacerbate and prolong uncertainties in ways that frustrate and delay economic development and divide the community.
The second option was for all parties to agree to put litigation to one side and negotiate a framework agreement that not only deals with the implications of the High Court’s decision but also settles, once and for all, all other outstanding existing and potential litigation affecting NT parks and reserves. At its heart, this framework will provide the certainty required to establish a truly world class and fully integrated NT national parks and reserves conservation system. That certainty will mean that our parks can continue to operate with the necessary guarantee of continued access and enjoyment by all Territorians. Just as importantly, it will also result in new and exciting opportunities to develop our parks and reserves in ways that fully complement our tourism strategies, and will create economic opportunities that are currently going begging.
One only has to view the tourism and associated economic development that has occurred within the Nitmiluk National Park over the past decade, since title issues were resolved, to appreciate the potential in other parks where land and joint management issues remain unresolved.
The government recognised that if it was to pursue the framework agreement option it would need to lay down at the outset certain core principles that would have to be fully reflected in any final agreement. These core principles included re-declaration of all those parks and reserves that were invalidly declared under section 12 of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. This re-declaration does not include the 11 areas now available for hearing before the Aboriginal Land Commissioner as they cannot be legally re-declared.
As honourable members would be aware, the government moved quickly to address the issue, and the re-declaration of 38 parks and reserves occurred on 7 November. This prompt action has had the effect of putting the operation of park by-laws beyond any doubt, and of confirming their status as parks and reserves under relevant NT legislation. That was the first core principle.
The second: resolution by negotiation rather than through the courts. This requires both the government and the land councils to refrain from pursuing litigation whilst negotiations proceed. Because of the swift and decisive action of government, we were able to stay on the front foot and propose a reasonable course of action that will save governments and Aboriginal interests alike many millions of dollars in litigation costs. The land councils could have legally contested this approach but, to their credit, they have agreed to recognise the alternative path of agreement by negotiation.
Another core principle, that Territory parks and reserves will remain accessible to all Territorians and visitors on a no-fee, no-permit basis. By laying down this principle, the government is acting to ensure the interests of the whole community in retaining access to the NT parks and reserves is preserved under any agreement. Another core principle is business as usual in parks while negotiations are completed. This principle provides for all parks and reserves to continue to function as normal while negotiations are undertaken. The final core principle is, where title changes, it is conditional on being leased back to the government for the use as parks and subject to joint management arrangement under NT legislation.
The government will negotiate a framework agreement that effectively settles all outstanding issues in relation to our parks and reserves. This includes those areas which are now subject to hearing before the land commissioner, and all those other parks and reserves which are potentially, or are already, subject to native title determinations, native title compensation claims, and other related litigation. All will be the subject of one negotiation consistent with the core principles I am outlining here. The government expects that these negotiations will result in a framework agreement that provides for some parks and reserves where there are no changes to existing arrangements; others where, apart from new joint management arrangements, tenure will remain as it is; others where title will be transferred but be subject to immediate lease-back and joint management arrangements.
Another core principle: current mining and exploration leases and applications and current tourism operator concessions are guaranteed. This core principle ensures these existing interests are protected. Another core principle: develop a comprehensive parks masterplan to expand and more effectively manage the NT parks estate. This principle reflects the government’s intention to develop a parks masterplan that will guide the future management and uses of land under the NT parks estate.
Madam Speaker, I wonder how many honourable members have ever scrutinised the land holdings under the NT parks estate? We are closely examining the lands the previous government acquired over the years. If there was a strategic direction in these acquisitions, it is certainly not apparent in the ways that these land holdings were configured, and it is time they were systematically assessed. We will adopt a strategic approach and develop a comprehensive parks masterplan to guide the development and management of the NT parks estate.
The government recognises that apart from Aboriginal interests, there are also legitimate interests in the parks estate involving the mining and pastoral industries, and that there are areas which might be appropriate for multiple land use. The master planning process will also require extensive consultation with mining and pastoral interests, to canvass options to accommodate their needs within the parks estate. We will also recognise the reality that, at least for the present, Kakadu and Uluru are leased to the Commonwealth. Contrary to the previous government’s approach, we will work with the Commonwealth, through the master planning process, to pursue mutually beneficial arrangements, and to attract Commonwealth funds to the NT parks system. This will maximise the benefits of a comprehensive approach to park management.
My government has sought to develop a consensus approach from day one in addressing the matters I have identified today. I must therefore report my disappointment that the Opposition Leader has chosen to advocate the path of conflict and confrontation. It was this discredited approach that led us to the current position. The Opposition Leader has stated that we should just agree to support scheduling of the 11 parks on a lease-back arrangement and that he would fight native title determination and compensation claims in the court. Where it is found to exist, he would compulsorily acquire and thereby effectively extinguish the native title rights of Aboriginal people in all 38 parks not subject to Aboriginal Land Rights Act claims. Why would Aboriginal interests agree to lease back 11 parks that they can claim in their entirety whilst we would also seek to extinguish their native title rights in all other parks? This highlights the need for an all encompassing solution. Moreover, what the Opposition Leader does not tell us is how long his approach would take to resolve these issues, and what the potential cost in litigation and compensation might be, let alone the enormous community division and tension that would result. He argues we should not worry because the Commonwealth will pick up 75% of the compensation bill.
The Opposition Leader’s approach is one that will lead us absolutely nowhere. It will keep us in the courts for decades and the cost of litigation alone, without taking potential compensation into account, will be enormous. The Territory’s potential 25% share of the compensation cost conveniently overlooks the fact that that could itself still amount to a very significant impost on Territory taxpayers. Even more compelling would be the significant opportunity costs to the Territory community as a whole. Why would we want to spend the next 30 years in the courts, with all the attendant uncertainty when we could be investing in and creating real jobs and development for Territorians? It also stands in contrast to the actions of his own previous government which eventually realised the value of seeking negotiated solutions such as the model adopted in relation to Rosebery and Bellamack.
Fortunately, my government faces up to reality and is prepared to make the hard decisions and to do the hard work to achieve better outcomes for all Territorians. We recognise that here we have the opportunity to turn a potential problem into an opportunity.
I am pleased that the land councils, which are also native title representative bodies in the Territory, have agreed to these principles and committed to negotiating an outcome rather than fighting us every step of the way in the courts. When we briefed the land councils it was significant that leaders present, including Galarrwuy Yunupingu and David Ross, stated that we should have both adopted this approach 30 years ago. They recognised that we should have avoided the millions of dollars in litigation that could have been spent on schools, housing, and medical services.
As a responsible government, we realise the need to balance the public interest in this matter and ensure an outcome that meets the community benefit test. We are recognising, in contrast to the previous government, that Aboriginal interests exist equally validly alongside the interests of the tourism, mining and pastoral industries and all users of NT parks. We recognise that the traditional owners for each park will need to agree to these arrangements, so it will take some time before they are finalised. To ensure certainty, once the negotiation with the land council is finalised and traditional owner assent is forthcoming, we will legislate to guarantee the agreed arrangements.
The establishment of a viable and well resourced park system is crucial to the Territory’s future. The Territory’s natural environment and indigenous culture have a high value. As I mentioned at the outset, our park system represents one of the Territory’s major competitive advantages and needs to be leveraged into playing a key role in the Territory’s future economic development. One has only to examine the 2002-07 Draft NT Tourism Strategy to see how the approach we are adopting over parks should result in helping meet the demands of our interstate and international visitors to experience indigenous culture and visit remote and pristine areas. Investment in park infrastructure and development will bring significant financial returns to increased visitation numbers and expenditure in the Territory generally, improved tourism services opportunities, indigenous employment opportunities, as well as environmental and conservation benefits.
We have an historic opportunity to create a world class NT parks estate. We have the opportunity to invest in an expanded system of parks and reserves and to showcase to the world both the Territory’s indigenous art and culture and its unique national environment. We have the opportunity to start to turn around the dire social and economic situation for Aboriginal people in remote areas by building on current initiatives to manage and protect the land. We have the opportunity to enhance the eco- and cultural tourism industry by incorporating culture into the parks experience and enhancing services and facilities. We will do all this by working with Aboriginal people and using productively the money the previous government would have happily wasted on litigation.
The end result will be a larger and better resourced parks estate for the Territory. We will achieve a lasting solution to yet another problem that we inherited from the previous government. While we work towards this resolution, it will be business as usual in NT parks and reserves.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this very important statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): It is an important statement, Madam Speaker, because it is not often that you get to see your estate traded away so easily.
We have a number of problems with this statement, not the least being that the Chief Minister has already accepted that all Territory parks have traditional owners and that the land claims over 11 of the parks are valid. I am not surprised, then, that this government should say it would be wrong to litigate over these matters. The Chief Minister has already with this statement conceded that whatever case might have been put, that some or all of these parks belong to Territorians.
Let us imagine for a moment going into court or even to the negotiating table to argue the position that all Territorians own these parks. Now, even before you put the case the land councils would say, ‘Just hang on a second, Chief Minister. You told parliament that we can claim 11 parks in their entirety. Then you talked about the traditional owners of each and every park in the Northern Territory. So, you have already admitted that you do not have any case. You have already admitted ownership in your statement today, in the Assembly, of all the parks in the Northern Territory because you refer to them all having traditional owners, so well done. This is a great way to begin negotiations on keeping the Territory park estate. You have conceded whatever negotiating position you might have had’.
We should not be surprised that the Chief Minister has so blatantly handed over the common lands of Territorians. It is consistent with the way this government has reacted since the implications of the Ward High Court decision became obvious. Its first reaction was to declare that there was a crisis. Its second reaction was to declare, ‘we have a crisis but do not worry, we will soon solve it.’ Both reactions were wrong.
Mr Ah Kit: What did you want? More litigation?
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I would ask for silence in the Chamber. I have given the Chief Minister silence with her statement and I expect the same in return.
So if we go back to the advice that this government received from the Solicitor General on the High Court ruling, it is interesting - and I would hope also, as the Chief Minister has said that she has now been provided with second expect legal opinion, surely that expert legal opinion is available to the opposition? I would hope she would provide it from her eminent external counsel.
But back to the summary provided to me by the government on what the Solicitor General advised, and he advised this:
That was the advice from the Solicitor General. That is the crisis - or the so-called crisis.
We have a problem with a few of our parks, but for the vast majority of our parks the solution is simply to re-declare them. The government did that in respect of 38 of the parks and reserves on 7 November. The remaining do present a problem because, despite the law of the time and various rulings of the High Court, the land council placed claims over them before the sunset clause of the Land Rights Act came into effect in 1997. According to the Solicitor General, this small number of parks have no underlying tenure and, as their original declaration as parks has probably been made invalid by the High Court decision, then the claims over them may now proceed to be heard by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner under the Land Rights Act.
That is the sum of the problem. The government is right to attempt to negotiate in relation to those parks so that even if they do become Aboriginal land rights scheduled land they can still be used as parks. But, obviously, it is the threat of legal action over these parks which has prompted the government to throw the rest of the park estate on to the negotiating table. The Chief Minister has made this patently clear in her statement today and I quote:
The Chief Minister says her government will not litigate over these matters so the only ones threatening such action - if we are going to talk about hundreds of millions of dollars of cost, and the government is not going to litigate, who is going to litigate? Obviously, the land council is going to litigate. So any action with regards to any or all of these parks can only come from land councils themselves. Is that what the Chief Minister has been told? Has the Chief Minister been told that, unless she puts all the parks on the table, the land councils will take these land claims to court and stop them being used as parks? Why else would the Chief Minister wrap it all up in a global deal, when there are, in fact, two entirely different situations?
The reality is that the other parks are under no threat from native title claims that did not exist before the High Court ruling or may come in the future, because native title is a fact of life that has to be addressed whenever a claim is made. In fact, if you look in today’s newspaper, the listing of claims over 12 areas of the Territory including Adelaide River, Koolpinyah, areas around Mataranka and Larrimah and so on, are there. It is a fact of life in the Northern Territory. Indeed, one of these claims is over the Devils Marbles Conservation Reserve, which is also on the list of parks available for claim under the Land Rights Act. So, if the Chief Minister is not protecting Territorians’ interest with regard to the 38 remaining parks whilst this good faith negotiation is taking place, you can be damned sure the land councils are protecting their interests, because over certainly one of the 11, they have ensured that they maintain the land claim litigious aspect of it in place.
That is the fact of life with native title. These claims have to be addressed as to what native title does exist, what it comprises, and whether or not it has been extinguished for any reason.
It is worth recalling that native title is no one thing, as the Chief Minister claims to assert, or tends to assert too easily. It is actually a bundle of rights. It is laid down very clearly by the National Native Title Tribunal and they explain it in this way:
It goes on:
And the important point that the Native Title Tribunal makes is this: ‘Indigenous Australians are not being given land under native title’. Now, that is straight out of the Native Title Tribunal: are not being given land under native title.
So, how does that sit with what we have been told today by the Chief Minister? She seems to be saying that native title claims and land rights claims are interchangeable. No title to the parks needs to be changed to address native title issues; that is clear. Yet, that is what this statement aims to do. The Chief Minister is sending the very clear signal that as part of resolving the land claims over the 11 parks, she is willing to hand over title to some, or all, of the other 38. That point should be very clear to Territorians. It should be very clear that this Labor government is preparing to relinquish the rights of all Territorians to the park estate to solve this so-called crisis.
That should not be done; it should not be entertained; it should not be on the table. Any native title that exists over any of the parks may have been extinguished, or it may need to be compensated, or it may co-exist with the operation of the park. We need an assurance from the government that in its negotiations it will explore and resolve exactly what native title rights do exist, and not just do a blanket deal and accept that the full bundle of native title rights exist in all cases.
The spurious suggestions by the Chief Minister, that somehow her policy of handing over the parks will enable, in her words, ‘the establishment of a viable and well resourced park system’, is a damning and undeserved indictment of all those who have strived for years, and for so long, and so hard, to establish the great parks system that we already have in the Northern Territory. She says her deal will lead to investment in park infrastructure and development, improve tourism services, opportunities and indigenous employment opportunities. I ask the question: why can’t that happen now? What is the thing that is somehow tied up in this High Court decision that is hamstringing that particular initiative and development now? If it is not happening now, it is not happening because of this decision or anything that the Chief Minister intends to negotiate. And in fact, it did happen under previous CLP governments. There were many opportunities in many parks for indigenous employment, and development, and enterprising ventures.
Any deal this government is preparing to do does not preclude it happening now or make it any more likely it will happen in the future. Nor do you need any deal to have Aboriginal involvement on the board of the management of the parks. The government can do that now. You do not need to do this deal to have Aborigines involved on the board of management.
The Chief Minister says that the end result will be a larger and better resourced parks estate for the Northern Territory. But I ask the question: how does handing over the parks estate contribute to them being larger or better resourced? These actions of the government have no impact whatsoever for a larger and better resourced parks estate. That should be their aim now, as it was to CLP governments, to have large and good resourced parks. It does not change because of these rulings or these actions. That is proved, from the CLP point of view, if you look at the parks estate, you look at how well resourced they are; actions that we have been conducting since 1978. But this deal is totally opposite to that particular ideal.
Let me pick up on a number of other points that the Chief Minister made. She criticises me for not saying how long an ordinate approach would take, but offers no time scale for how long she will take to hand over the parks estate. Will it take six months, 12 or 18 months for these negotiations? How long does it take to sign over the parks?
The second point is the Chief Minister’s attempt to blame the previous government for the crisis she claims exists. Somehow, the previous CLP government was supposed to have worked out native title 14 years before the High Court did. Somehow, the previous CLP government was supposed to have second-guessed the latest ruling, even though it came as a surprise to her government and to the land councils.
I am also becoming a little tired of the mantra continually trotted out about how much money the CLP cost Territorians by contesting land claims. The government has already found out that land claims have to be tested. They are doing that themselves. Somehow, you justify your actions by claiming it is in the public interest when you do it, but when the CLP did it, it was red-necked and racist. What hypocrisy!
The final point, Madam Speaker, is more crucial. I ask the question: just how much are Territorians going to have to pay for their parks in the future? The Chief Minister is at pains to point out that parks will remain accessible to all Territorians and visitors on a no-fee, no-permit basis. While I accept that as a core principle of this government, it does not address how much of Territorians’ funds will be paid out each year to lease back the parks that she hands title over for. Will it be a global figure for the whole deal? Will it be an annual fee for each an every park? Will further fees be charged to rent back any of the infrastructure already developed in any of the parks? Will tourist developments or cafes and canteens have to pay fees to the new owners, or will they be wrapped up in the government’s leasing deal? No matter which way you look at it, Territorians will be paying for access to their parks under this government deal. For many of the parks, that is not necessary except now for the actions that this government has decided upon.
The Chief Minister has managed to forecast how much this would cost if the litigation route were followed. She says it would be between $50m and $100m over 30 years. To that, I simply say they must be a litigious lot, these land councils, because it is not the government that is going to litigate on any of these matters, so they must be a litigious lot, very generous with the taxpayers purse. Perhaps she could be equally prescient and tell us how much it will cost Territorians to lease back all these parks for the rest of time.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I will put a suggestion to the Chief Minister. If she is so intent on doing a deal about our parks, why not make it really worthwhile and include Kakadu and Uluru and bring them back into the Territory parks estate? The former parks minister, the member for Casuarina, made the government’s position quite clear on Kakadu and Uluru only last month when he said:
So, in this global negotiation over the Territory parks estate, in this atmosphere of non-litigious goodwill, why not get Kakadu and Uluru put on the table and, in doing so, achieve a real expansion? Why not? It would not only be an expansion of the Territory parks estate, but I am sure the government’s no-fee policy would be extended to these two icons. That would provide a tangible return and a positive aspect to this whole deal.
In conclusion, we do accept that the government has to do something about the 11 parks affected by land rights claims. If they can achieve an acceptable outcome for those parks by negotiation, then on that score, that is a good thing. However, we are very concerned that this government is using the High Court ruling to pursue its own agenda of handing over large areas of parks that belong to all Territorians when there is no need to do so.
The Chief Minister’s statement today has done nothing to dissuade me that that is not their intention. I cannot understand why if one half of the negotiating table continues to protect their rights by ensuring that land claims continue to be made and will continue that based on the High Court decision, why doesn’t the government follow the procedures that are laid down under the Native Title Act where the government can freely negotiate, but at the same time protect its interests to compulsorily acquire? In doing so, an acceptable negotiated outcome can be achieved and where it cannot be achieved under the processes of the Native Title Act, compensatory payments can be made for native title rights that may be deemed to have been lost, and that compensation will be shared equally with fellow Australians.
From both sides of the equation, the procedures are in place and it can be done in an atmosphere of good will. The Chief Minister refers to the situation with Rosebery and Bellamack but what she cheerfully admits is that as part of reaching the acceptable outcome on Rosebery and Bellamack, the government maintained its position of moving to compulsory acquire.
To give away that position at the outset, and claiming that this is a good deal, stating also that the claimant or would be claimants, because most claimants, have not even come to the table for 38 of the parks, to already concede that the claimants whom we do not know and who have not yet lodged a claim are already the traditional owners is, to my mind, like giving away every bargaining position you have. Well done, a good effort in your mind, good Territory Labor policy. Call us rednecks if you like. If that is your position, fine. I believe any reasonable minded person would believe that any government has an obligation to not only achieve a win/win solution, but also to achieve it in a way that protects the interests of everyone.
It seems to me that at the start, at the outset, the interests that are paramount are those would be unknown claimants who have not even begun to claim. We know how powerful they are and we know the power of their representation. The government needs to ensure that it is equally armed to reach an equitable solution. It is a worrying statement. It creates, I believe, an alarming situation at the outset, where the Chief Minister quite cheerfully talks about title changing to many of our parks in a situation where it is totally unnecessary to make those statements.
Those parks are there for all Territorians. The management regime that is in place is good. The opportunity for joint management arrangements and better opportunities for Aboriginal people remain and can always be improved outside of this particular action. I believe it is a sad day for Territorians when the Chief Minister and the government quite cheerfully look forward to the day that all Territorians can enjoy less and less of their parks estate.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I pick up on some of the comments made by the opposition leader, basically to let him know that as far as the government is concerned, this is a win/win situation. In rising to commend the Chief Minister’s statement on parks and reserves, I point out that this is one that holds enormous significance for the future of the Northern Territory for two important reasons.
First, it marks a irrevocable shift in the way government does business. The days of secretive back room deals, with vested interests, mindless confrontation and damaging disputation are over. The people of the Northern Territory have demanded that we treat them and their representative organisations with openness, transparency and honesty, whether they be miners, tourism operators, fishermen, business people or ordinary citizens. They have demanded that we seek solutions that provide win/win solutions for all sectors of society. This government has listened.
The second critical significance of the statement is that it recognises that we must harness the skills, knowledge, and financial and human capital of our citizens if we are to build a strong, vibrant and independent community. National parks are one of the key assets of the Northern Territory in terms of the maintenance of biodiversity and tourism. Therefore, it is vital that we pursue strategies that will combine all our collective resources and to work together as a community.
The approach outlined by the Chief Minister makes a virtue of the fact that all parties have been consulted, and will continue to be consulted, over ways to maximise the benefit of these parks and reserves. It is a simple logic that seems to have escaped the attention of the Leader of the Opposition. Funnily enough, it was a simple logic that for a brief time seemed to be embraced by the Country Liberal Party, but which is now rejected by them. The Leader of the Opposition now seems to be saying that recognising Aboriginal interest in national parks is a process of being conned into giving up our parks. Yet, in the case of Nitmiluk, the CLP government put into place a properly negotiated joint management plan that fully took into account Aboriginal interests.
In the 1980s and 1990s, I was privileged to work with the senior Jawoyn people who were to form the first board of the Nitmiluk National Park. This group of proud Aboriginal men and women had spent two years appearing before land claim hearings, and then they had a five-year wait before the Land Commissioner recommended the return of Nitmiluk to its traditional owners. They then faced further delays. I should point out that the then CLP government, through most of the 1980s, opposed the Jawoyn claim in Nitmiluk in no uncertain terms. Indeed, a predecessor of yours, as Speaker, led rowdy demonstrations in the streets of Katherine. As a park ranger, the current Deputy Opposition Leader made accusing statements against the Jawoyn claiming they would remove Katherine Gorge from the Northern Territory parks estate.
The Jawoyn elders had always made their position clear from the time of the land claim hearings through to getting the Nitmiluk National Park established under joint management with the Northern Territory government. They wanted to care for their traditional lands as a national park. They wanted to do that in partnership with the people of the Northern Territory. They wanted to establish the park as the basis for the future economic independence of their people, their children and grandchildren, through economic enterprise and land management activities. Since 1989, the Nitmiluk board has been doing these things. In all of this, not a single non-Aboriginal person has lost his or her job. Indeed, the opposite is true. There are many more sustainable jobs at Nitmiluk as park rangers, tour guides and other employees than back in 1989.
All but two of those first board members have since passed away. I am certain that the regime they established and nurtured since 1989 would be the model they would have wanted other Aboriginal groups in the Territory to follow. The great irony is that the joint management arrangements set in place back in 1989 had bilateral support in this parliament, and the active endorsement of the then Country Liberal Party government. But let us get it clear. Since 1989, the CLP has refused to countenance a single other Nitmiluk-style joint management arrangement anywhere in the Northern Territory; that is, in 12 years, they have refused to have anything to do with meaningful joint management arrangements with Aboriginal people.
Just listen to what the Opposition Leader wrote the other week. He said that, while the CLP would negotiate Nitmiluk-style arrangements, he would refuse to accept any native title interests in Territory parks and reserves. He would have them extinguished. He would rather pour taxpayers’ money into the pockets of lawyers as he fights compensation claims over each and every parcel of land. While he said he would negotiate with the CLC over 11 land rights claims under the Land Rights Act, so they remain within the parks estate, he seems to think it is all right to have the other 38 parks and reserves become legal wilderness zones while he fights all native title claims.
If we went down that path of litigation rather than negotiation, these parks could not be developed or provide jobs and training opportunities until their status was decided. No sensible Territorian would want that outcome. Let us look closely at what we can learn from the arrangements the CLP put in place after the successful Jawoyn land claim over Nitmiluk. The first is that Nitmiluk continues to build on its success as one of the important tourism assets we have in the Territory. A key part of that success is joint management between traditional owners and the Territory government. Yes, the traditional owners of Nitmiluk have shown that Aboriginal and broader community interests can work together rather than against each other. The fact that Aboriginal interests are an integral part of their arrangement is because of the pride and certainty the Jawoyn people have in the recognition of their traditional ownership, and in their capacity to provide leadership on the board of management. Indeed, all the market research shows us that increasing numbers of visitors to the Territory value highly Aboriginal involvement in our parks and reserves and indeed, they want more of it.
The second thing we can learn is that the economic venture half owned by the Jawoyn people, Nitmiluk Tours, has traded successfully and profitably throughout its joint venture with Travel North. This is despite the obstacles faced by the tourism industry in recent years, such as 11 September, the collapse of Ansett, and more recently, the tragic event in Bali. In this, I would like to pay tribute to Travel North’s Werner Sarny and his previous partner, Brian Lambert, for their visionary contributions to developments at Nitmiluk, not least of which has been their willingness and desire to work closely with Aboriginal people in an important economic enterprise.
The third thing we can learn is that it is entirely feasible to raise capital for ventures on Aboriginal land. Much of the expansion of visitor facilities at the Gorge over the past half a dozen years has been made possible through capital raised by the Jawoyn through private financial institutions. The fourth thing we can learn is that Aboriginal economic enterprise in national parks can provide sustainable benefits for Aboriginal people in training and employment. Visit Nitmiluk today and compare it to a decade ago. Aboriginal people are rising through the ranks of both the parks service and the enterprises in Nitmiluk in greater numbers.
What we want is to learn the lessons of the past, and the lesson from Nitmiluk is that joint management can work. It is an interesting fact that it was the CLP that showed the way. In this case, what a shame now they are not following their own lead. We need to learn the lesson from Nitmiluk that when it comes to Aboriginal economic development, study the good partnerships that can develop with non-Aboriginal commercial operators. We need to acknowledge the fundamental importance of recognising the legitimate interests of Aboriginal stakeholders in land and the importance that that recognition has in building confidence and pride and hope for the future. We can learn from the example set by the Jawoyn in their engagement with the capital market for investment funds. We must recognise the importance and benefit of sustainable long term training and employment for indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians.
The resolution of land issues over parks and reserves can give us an important lead in this regard. The choice is between the shortsighted politics of confrontation and litigation versus the process of negotiation in which we can make a collective investment in the future for our national parks. It is time for a proper masterplan for our parks and reserves that incorporates all these positive elements through properly worked out plans of management taking into account all proper interests. We look, for example, the change of national parks, pastoral properties and traditional Aboriginal clan estates, being linked in terms of land management, such as through traditional and contemporary fire management regimes. We look towards visitor experiences that can maximise our assets such that visitors can pass through such a chain of different lands and sustainable land uses from north to south, and east to west of the Northern Territory. This might involve, for example, joint venture tourism operations stretching from Coburg through Kakadu and Western Arnhem Land, and south through Nitmiluk and Elsey and hence south east to the Roper and the Gulf or west through Gregory and Keep River, or south west through the Tanami.
This is the kind of vision that all Territorians will support, not the knee-jerk rear view mirror appeals for litigation offered us by our opponents. Just because the policies are recycled does not mean that they are environmentally sound.
I would like to make one final point: the financial cost of travelling the road of court battles and extinguishing native title and of forking out compensation has been estimated over the next decade or so at anything between $50m to $100m. Imagine what the government could better spend that money on: Aboriginal and other private interests alike on investment in conservation projects, visitor infrastructure, accommodation, training and employment. I do not know about you, Madam Speaker, but it sounds a heck of a lot better approach than lining the pockets of lawyer for the next 20 years.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a few comments in relation to what has been said here today. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition surmised the position of the opposition particularly well, in a careful and articulate fashion. I am pleased that the debate is proceeding in a calm and rational fashion which is something that is long overdue with these sorts of debates in this House and I am grateful for it. I am grateful to the minister for the consideration of his comments, but I would like to pick up on a few things without being critical of the minister at all.
There is nothing inconsistent with what the Leader of the Opposition said and what occurred at Nitmiluk in terms of the claims process. What occurred was that the Jawoyn people asserted a claim of right over the Katherine Gorge and the Northern Territory government of the day said, ‘We are the keepers of that estate on behalf of the Crown and ultimately the people of the Northern Territory and if, under the Land Rights Act, you wish to assert a claim of right, we, as keepers of the estate, want to test the validity of that claim’. This does not change the law. It does not change anything other than the fact that we are saying to a person who lodges a claim against the Commonwealth of the Northern Territory that they should prove that claim as being lawful which the Jawoyn successfully did.
When the Jawoyn successfully proved that claim as being a lawful claim, the Northern Territory government of the day was perfectly well prepared to engage in a joint management arrangement to ensure the joint management into the future of that piece of private property which was owned by the Jawoyn people. The Jawoyn people agreed with the Northern Territory government of the day that for their return of expertise and money and those sorts of things, they would engage in a 99 year lease, I think it is, or a 50 year lease over that park so that the park could continue to operate as a park into the future for the benefit of all Territorians.
There is nothing inconsistent with that approach in what the Leader of the Opposition has said today. What is being proposed here is different from that process. That process is now changed under what is being proposed by the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister is proposing that we accept prima facie that there are automatically people with a right of claim over some 11 parks in terms of land rights claims and a further 38 in terms of native title issues and automatically, especially in terms of the native title issue, the Chief Minister is already asserting that people who have yet to put their hand up already have native title rights over particular areas. That is a very large step sideways from asking people to prove those native title rights and all of the …
Ms Martin: No, it is not. The CLP did it in government all the time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It is a large step sideways from simply asking people to prove the claim that they make. Now a government may choose, and the CLP government did choose, to accept that prima facie - which is a demonstration that it is indeed a myth that we resisted all land rights claims. Tempe Downs is a classic example, Central Mount Wedge also springs to mind. So, we can accept prime facie a claim that is made against the estate of the Northern Territory but there are occasions when it is proper and fitting that a government should ask the claimant to make a test.
Recently in the case of De Rose Hill in South Australia, claimants who would appear on the face of it to have a strong claim after being tested did not or were not able to establish their native title claim over a pastoral lease despite the fact that they were Pitjantjatjara speakers. So there are times when it is valid to be able to ask a group of people to assert the claim that they make against Commonwealth property held on behalf of all Territorians including Aboriginal Territorians. Aboriginal Territorians are just as capable of enjoying the amenity of national parks or the Territory parks estate as any other Territorian. The step which the Chief Minister is taking in this instance is saying that all of the parks estate are prepared to engage in a management plan. That will involve the transfer from the public estate into private ownership of some of those parks. How many of those parks she does not make clear.
All I am saying is that we have to be very careful as we take this approach. This is the stated position of the government. Even when they were in opposition they said they wanted to negotiate ILUAs, the Indigenous Land Use Agreements. This is essentially an Indigenous Land Use Agreement over the Territory’s parks estate. What we need to know is how much of the parks estate is going to transfer from public ownership, ownership that every Territorian has including Aboriginal Territorians, into private hands and what the effect of that is going to be.
The Chief Minister says that this is all done in an effort to avoid litigation. That is fine; I have no problems with that approach. But bear in mind that she has already stipulated six key areas, principles, they are like lines in the sand, where we will not allow this situation or these principles to be breached. What happens, Chief Minister, if the other party you are negotiating with chooses in one fashion or another to step over one of those boundaries? You then have two choices. You either continue to negotiate and give ground on an area where you have vacated the field, or draw a line in the sand and the matter ends up before an arbiter. Whether the Chief Minister likes it or not, that arbiter is none other than the courts. I am intrigued and I am heartened by the areas of principle the Chief Minister has outlined, but what I want from the Chief Minister today is a clear and unequivocal statement that those positions will not be retreated from at all as a starting point in the negotiated process.
There is another aspect I am a little concerned about. Information has come to my attention which demonstrates that where the Chief Minister and the government have been prepared to give ground for purposes of goodwill negotiation, I am not entirely certain that the other potential claimants in this environment are entirely prepared to negotiate. That is evidenced by, as I understand it, a great deal of activity in the West MacDonnell National Park, where I notice that six of the gorges in question are located, there is a heavy amount of anthropological activity. That is indicative to me that the other party which is involved in the negotiation process may be preparing for a litigation process, because that is the sort of work that is required to be done to prove things. If they feel that they have to prove things when we have a Chief Minister who is in the position of saying, ‘I am prepared to negotiate’, then I am concerned that those are the signals that they are sending. I certainly hope that that is not the case, but I know in recent times that level of activity has sharply increased.
I am also wondering if the Chief Minister can answer me a simple question as to how many of the parks in question - that is, Gregory’s Tree Historical Reserve, Arltunga Historical Reserve, Chambers Pillar Historical Reserve, Devils Marbles Conservation Reserve, Emily and Jessie Gaps Nature Park, Ewaninga Rock Carvings Conservation Reserve, Finke Gorge National Park, N’Dhala Gorge Nature Park, Trephina Gorge Nature Park and parts of the West MacDonnell National Park are actually standing on LandCorp land, and how many of them are listed as reserves on the parks estate? I would like the Chief Minister to answer that question if she is able to do so.
I am also intrigued by her comment in relation to seeking Commonwealth funds to assist with the management of the parks. I would like to see where the Chief Minister anticipates these Commonwealth funds coming from, and does this mean in any way that the National Parks and Wildlife Service will be gaining any form of control or input into the management of the Territory parks estate? That is also an important issue and a matter for Territorians to be reassured about. The other question that is worth posing is how much will this cost should there be a transfer of land title back into private hands in lease-back arrangements? Will we have to lease back roads, will we have to lease back quarters for the staff of the Territory Parks service, those sorts of things? It is also important that we have an estimation, at least, of how much that process will cost.
I am curious to know also, how the Chief Minister anticipates, as a result of this, the parks estate of the Northern Territory is going to be larger and if the Chief Minister can indicate as to whether or not the other negotiating parties are prepared to put up other sections of the Northern Territory which they privately own, as being part of the parks estate, or whether she intends to purchase pastoral leases for that purpose? I am curious about the word ‘larger’ because I presume it means bigger in terms of its physical size and that means acquiring land from somewhere to that end. I would like to hear from the Chief Minister exactly what ‘larger’ means.
In terms of better resourced, is she solely relying on the funds of the federal government to better resource the parks and what sources is she anticipating? Or does she anticipate that the potential private owners of the park will also place some funds into the bucket so that they can help develop the parks for the goals that the Chief Minister has outlined? It is very important, if they are planning to do so, that that also be announced. It would be good to see that goodwill coming out from the potential private owners of the parks estate.
Ultimately, I also wish to point out that the CLP does have a history of negotiating native title outcomes. Rosebery and Bellamack have been discussed here today, and that is quite correct. It was a negotiated outcome. It is entirely possible at any time to negotiate for native title purposes over any piece of land, and yes, it does require the goodwill of both parties. The goodwill of the CLP was always available to other protagonists, and it must be remembered that the cost of litigation in relation to these sorts of claims begins when somebody makes a claim against the government. Which means that when we talk about $20m worth of litigation over a place like Kenbi, or we talk about the $1m worth of litigation over various other places, it was very often that the Northern Territory government was formally the respondent, which means that it was responding to a claim lodged against it.
Madam Speaker, I support the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in this House today. However, we are not in government. The Labor Party holds government, and the Chief Minister is the head of this government, and they have made a decision to pursue this process. I hope it works out for them and more to the point, I hope that it results in the best outcomes for the people of the Northern Territory. But I am concerned that by making too many concessions too early in the process, that too much ground may have been given in that process, and if the matter ends up in court, which is something that the Chief Minister is not able to guarantee this House, I hope that the promises and assertions that she made here today do not come back to haunt her.
Mr VATSKALIS (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, the truth is that the Australian High Court has ruled that 50 of our park declarations are invalid. This government has sought legal advice from both our respected Solicitor General, Tom Pauling, QC and a Senior Counsel from New South Wales, and the advice was clear. The High Court decision means that 50 park declarations are invalid. They remain open to existing and potential native title determinations and native title compensation claims, and 11 parks are now subject to land claims.
This government was faced with two clear choices: fight this in the courts, or negotiate an outcome that resolves the matter forever. This government chose negotiation. Why? Well, we looked at the history. Every CLP administration has fought these type of issues, and every CLP administration has lost. Almost every land claim fought was lost. Native title legal battles had very mixed results. We also looked at the financial costs. Considerably, the legal option would cost us between $50m and $100m and we probably would fare very badly. For $100m I can employ a thousand rangers and I can have the best parks system in the world. In addition, we can probably employ numerous police, more nurses, more teachers. We could add enormously to our social and economic infrastructure. $100m is a lot of money; it is a lot of money to spend on lawyers.
We looked at the cost to the community. There is a cost of division, a cost that we have all paid in the last number of years. There is the cost of having our parks system in limbo for 20 years. No new parks, all parks unattended and unable to have a management system in place, and questions about our regulations. There is the cost of having other policy initiatives such as improved land release, development of Aboriginal land, the resolution of measure of standing acquisition of native title issues, all placed in jeopardy. We looked closely at policy issues: what was in the best interest of the Territory and Territorians? It is in the conservation by diversity interests for the Territory to have a first class park system. It is in the financial interest of the Territory to promote our parks as major tourist attractions. It is in the development interest of the Territory to have the future infrastructure and needs of our parks rolling along smoothly. It is in education, training and employment interests of the Territory, to have more Aboriginal people being trained, skilled and employed in our parks system. It is in the interest of good governance of the Territory that all people are united and work towards one purpose, not divided by litigation and division.
Given those important interests, the policy decision for government is and was clear. Having established the right way to go, the government then went about fleshing out our position. We determined what principles guided the negotiation; these principles would be embedded in the outcomes of negotiations and draw a line beyond which the government will not go. Those broad principles are:
resolution by negotiation rather than through the courts;
Territory parks and reserves will remain accessible to all Territorians and visitors on a no-fee,
no permit basis. No fee, no entry fee;
business as usual in parks while negotiations are completed;
where title changes, it is conditional on being leased back to the government for use as parks and
subject to joint management arrangements; and
current mining exploration leases and current tour operator concessions are guaranteed.
Those principles mean that the way in which Territorians enjoy their parks will not change. Access will remain as is. There will be no fees, there will be no permits and there will be business as usual. Regardless of title to the land, the Territory government will receive the land through very long-term leases. Existing rights of tourist franchises and mining operation leases all remain in place. The government has specifically acted to protect the interests of the mining industry by including a core principle in any negotiation which guarantees existing exploration and mining leases and existing applications.
Just as importantly, we will take the opportunity to put in place a comprehensive park master planning process that will proceed over the next 18 months to systematically examine the parks estate and recommend on future land use. The government recognises that apart from Aboriginal interests, there are also legitimate interests in the parks estate involving the mining industry. We know there are areas that might be appropriate for multiple land use. The master planning process will involve extensive consultation with mining interests to canvass options to accommodate their needs within the parks estate.
These principles retain the essential operation of our parks as they are today by the enhancement of those operations by leading to the resolution of all outstanding legal issues. Those outstanding legal issues have tied up our park management for many years. Since 1998, the previous government and this one have had our plans for park expansion and development tied up in legalities. The declaration and expansion of further parks had ceased. The Limmen National Park, for example, is actually not a real park. It is a park in name only, a sign at its entrance. There is no legal basis for its existence. Park expansion in the Gregory region has ceased, and yet, here we have an area with two parks divided by Aboriginal land that should be merged into one large park. The implications for management, the implications for weed control, feral animal control and for biodiversity management are clearly damaged by this arrangement and the government must act to fix it.
In Central Australia, our existing park master plan calls for the establishment of a greater park stretching from Palm Valley through Watarrka to Uluru. Such an expansion of the parks would add enormous value to the conservation effort of the Territory and contribute greatly to the national effort. This plan has been stalled from day one because of the title and land tenure issues. It must be acted upon and resolved.
When this government inherited the parks portfolio, we inherited the Devonport Murchison legal matter, the Cobourg Peninsula legal problems, the breakdown in management of wildlife programs in some areas due to legal matters, the Murganella legal standoff, the Limmen Park legal standoff, the Gregory Park stall, the ongoing dispute over the Devils Marbles, and the list goes on. We inherited a parks system in legal crisis. All of these things and more had been bogged down in a legal mire for a number of years. Can we afford to have them bogged down for another 20 years? I think not.
Once the original shock of these decisions settled, and once the government saw a clear policy path, we opened our eyes to the opportunities created by this decision. It is more than just an opportunity to overcome damaging, divisive and costly legal matters; it is the opportunity to expand our parks system. It is an opportunity to improve our conservation and biodiversity regimes. It is the opportunity to expand the tourism industry. The Tourism Master Plan identifies parks as being our crown jewels. It identifies parks and our environment as a key attractor of tourists to the Territory.
Tourism industry representatives to whom we have spoken see this as a unique opportunity. They want more infrastructure in parks and a resolution of legal issues that have been holding up their expansion. This will be achieved by these negotiations. It is also an opportunity for the Territory to lead the nation in practical reconciliation. For too long reconciliation has been used as a buzz-word; sometimes I feel that no practical outcomes are easily identifiable.
By approaching this type of situation in the way we have, the government is demonstrating reconciliation. By responding positively in the way we have, the land councils are now confirming their willingness to be part of this reconciliation and the future of the Territory. I am very pleased to say that we have reached several agreements with the land councils and one, in particular, that will interest you in Central Australia. We have a new way of doing business with the land councils. They trust us, and we trust them, and soon we will have some very good news to announce about Central Australia. News that will certainly please the tourism industry and the building industry. The outcome of all of which will be positive and will be the demonstration of practical reconciliation. It will mean jobs, training, careers for Aboriginal people and it will bring money to depressed Aboriginal communities. It will also help the general community in the area. It will provide, in some cases, title to areas of significance to Aboriginal people. It is a significant shift from the politics of division and litigation and one I am proud to be part of.
With these positive outcomes and the likely result of the negotiation, I fail to see what, if any objections, can be held by the CLP. After all, the Labor government did not create this issue. The High Court made this decision. The legislation that failed was not legislation that we introduced but legislation the previous CLP government introduced. We have not highlighted this to score political points. We would like to, but we choose not to. We understand the moveable nature of legal opinion. I urge all members of this House to approach this issue in the same positive framework we have, and urge all members to await the outcomes of what will be tough, but interesting, negotiations.
These negotiations are not going to be easy. There are vested interests, our vested interest in the Territory. They will be tough negotiations, but I believe at the end, the outcome will be very positive. At the end of the day, it must be outcomes that are judged here, and I believe these outcomes will be extremely positive for the Territory, for all Territorians, Aboriginal Territorians and all other Territorians.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Chief Minister’s statement. The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment’s division of conservation and natural resources will negotiate a new comprehensive parks masterplan with the NT land councils to expand and more effectively manage the Northern Territory parks estate. This negotiation process presents many benefits for the tourism industry, particularly in gaining access to previously inaccessible indigenous land, and in developing closer links with indigenous people. I understand that the Tourism Council of the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry was present at the initial briefing on this issue and was very positive about the opportunities for the tourism industry.
The Northern Territory’s Tourism Strategic Plan 2003-07 identifies some of the major building blocks to build a better tourism industry in the Northern Territory. The two integral building blocks are nature-based tourism and cultural tourism. The importance of these two building blocks to our tourism industry is demonstrated by the following statistic. In 2001-02, 54% of interstate and international holiday visitors undertook to see indigenous art and engage in other cultural activities. While in the Territory, 50% went bushwalking. These were the top two activities for holiday visitors and the key points of difference that we can build on. It will be immediately obvious to members that there is potential for huge linkages between these two areas. Consumers have, for some time, requested more opportunity for interaction with indigenous people on their own land and this principle forms the basis of indigenous cultural product offerings.
At an indigenous tourism workshop I hosted last Thursday in Alice Springs, indigenous people were clear that they were interested in further developing appropriate cultural tourism products that would be sustainable and match their lifestyles. They are very keen on joint venture-type arrangements to assist and advance projects. Talking informally with members of the tourism industry in Alice Springs last week, including some of these people at the indigenous tourism workshop, it seems that there are quite a number of tourists who are actually demanding, if you like, an indigenous tourism experience. Some of them, I am told, question quite closely: ‘Where is this money going? Who is it benefiting?’ Often they will pick products based on that inquiry, so it is a very important aspect.
The renegotiation of the parks master plan presents an opportunity to engage indigenous people, and to give tourists increased access to areas, such as Arnhem Land, which are currently largely inaccessible. As someone who has travelled quite extensively in Arnhem Land, in some of those more inaccessible regions, I know the beauty and potential of those areas and the wonderful people who live there. This represents a fantastic opportunity. There are places there just as special as Jim Jim Falls or Gunlom. Tourism operators feel these areas may well form the foundation of our industry right through this century and into the next.
The essential part of this process is that we need to work in partnership with the land councils, not against them. I commend the Chief Minister for choosing this path; I believe it is the best way forward. I always believed that negotiation and dialogue is probably the best way forward, instead of conflict, battle and wasting valuable resources - but also setting up bad feelings, conflict, and enmity, which I do not think do anyone any good.
During the indigenous tourism workshop last week, Nick Dicandilo and Robert Lee from the Jawoyn Association gave a presentation on their activities in the Nitmiluk National Park. Nitmiluk in Katherine, as the member for Arnhem said previously, is an excellent example of how successful a joint management arrangement can be for the Northern Territory government, the traditional owners and the tourism industry. I was very interested to hear the member for Arnhem talk about some of the history. I do not want to rake over the coals but I can remember watching 60 Minutes a decade or so ago showing people in the main streets of Katherine. There were some quite nasty feelings and things being said about doom and gloom and the sky was going to fall in. However, the last time I visited Nitmiluk, the place was full of tourists; the local operators were operating at full capacity and everyone was having a great time. We have to be careful when we say the world is falling apart and this is the beginning of the end. It sets up bad feelings between people and it is not constructive.
Within Nitmiluk, as the member for Arnhem has said, the Katherine Gorge has remained accessible to all people and there is no entry fee to the park. Importantly, the visitors centre heightens tourists’ experience at the park through the sharing of the indigenous culture of the area. Again, consumers have been telling us that they want to gain an increased appreciation of indigenous culture during their Northern Territory experience and the Nitmiluk model is fulfilling this market need.
The Northern Territory government’s position, as stated by the Chief Minister, is that Territory parks and reserves will remain accessible to all Territorians and visitors on a no-fee, no-permit basis. This is strongly supported by the tourism industry. It will be business as usual for tourism operators with concessionaire arrangements within Northern Territory parks while the negotiation process takes place. Importantly, the path being taken by this government assists the delivery of certainty for our tourism operators. In the international market place, it is essential that consumers can have faith that their booked tour to a park will, in fact, occur. Without certainty in our parks, we cannot expect tourism operators to undertake product development. Had the Northern Territory followed this path, it could have stagnated our product at the worse possible time and called the whole product into question. Instead, we have the opportunity to negotiate new areas being open for tourism, a fabulous result.
Madam Speaker, I commend this government and the Chief Minister for the conciliatory approach it has taken in working in partnership with land councils, and also looking to protect the interests of the tourism industry and other industries and, certainly, opening up a path for visitors to the Territory to experience the special beauty of our place, of our Territory, and understand more about indigenous culture. I commend this statement to the House.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I will not take too much time. I thank my colleagues for their contribution. I cannot thank the two opposition members who spoke, because their contributions were not constructive. This was a situation that emerged from a decision of the High Court. There were two clear options for a government who wanted to see jobs created, enterprises started and flourishing, and when the alternative presented to government was simply to litigate and spend tens of millions of dollars on lawyers, I do not think that there actually was a choice for government.
I am not keen on litigation. I will litigate, but I am not keen on litigation. With an opportunity like this presented to us with the 50-odd parks and reserves in the Territory, then what government has done - and it would have been nice to have had some recognition from the opposition that we have taken a potential problem and a potentially very tricky problem and created an opportunity for Territorians. This is what good government is about, and that is what we are determined to do. It disappoints me greatly that the Opposition Leader, who was given a detailed briefing before this was made public, and had opportunity to ask all the questions he would like about what had happened, what our approach was going to be, how we were going to ensure that the parks and reserves were accessible for all Territorians, talked about the principles we were going to take to any negotiation, walked out of that meeting and immediately started to distort what he had heard and mislead Territorians. It is very disappointing. It makes someone like the Opposition Leader irrelevant to the process, and that is not what we want.
I was hoping that the Opposition Leader and other members of the opposition would listen to what the problem was, and work with us for a solution. But all we have is distortion. We have the CLP, whose patterns on this have been developed over many years, talking the kind of rhetoric we have heard before, ‘Look what the Labor government’s going to do, they are going to give away our parks, they are going to cost us millions of dollars, they are rolling over’, and implicit in what we heard from the Opposition Leader was, you are rolling over to indigenous Aboriginal interests and casting again, in relatively sophisticated terms, that the land councils are not to be trusted.
This is what cost us tens of millions of dollars in litigation, year after year after year. Because we had a CLP government that would not sit down and talk to indigenous interests, and certainly would not sit down and talk to land councils. While I am not pretending that these negotiations over the parks and reserves future are going to be straightforward I am not pretending they are going to happen in a short time frame. We think it will be somewhere between 18 months and two years. We think sitting down at the table shows good will. Not the head butting approach, the protagonistic approach we have seen before, but sitting down at the table and discussing these issues in a way that will benefit all Territorians, while recognising legitimate indigenous interests, native title interests and the land rights interests, recognising the indigenous and ecotourism potential of Territory parks and reserves, and creating a world class parks master system for the Territory.
What an exciting opportunity. It is going to be tough, but what an exciting opportunity, to actually build our tourism market, build the potential of tourism for the Territory and at the same time be able to give tourists and our visitors, whether from interstate or overseas, the opportunities they are telling us they want more of. They want to know about indigenous culture. They want to see our beautiful areas, our pristine areas of the Territory, and they want that Territorian experience. You combine both and we really have magic here. Combine that with the opportunity to create jobs in those parks, and enterprises, while at the same time recognising the tourism interest currently there, and the mining interest currently there.
What offended me about what we heard from the Leader of the Opposition, and also from the member for Macdonnell, was that I have gone out very clearly and said so many times, these are our core principles. I sat down with the land councils and said: ‘We have two ways to go here. We can litigate. We can take the parks and the reserves one by one, and we can go through the court system. Just to attend a native title hearing, to go through the process without contesting it will cost you something like $150 000’. So to contest the parks and reserves, one by one, there is no change from $100m. Add the compensation to that, and you are probably looking at $150m. On lawyers fees alone, to go to litigation would be $50m to $100m. The other way, the practical, sensible, positive, opening up opportunities way is to negotiate. And I said to the land councils: ‘This is where I want to go, but I will only go here if you two agree to the core principles, and that is all these core principles’ - not you pick and choose, not like the member for Macdonnell saying: ‘Which ones are you going to give in on?’ It is not a picking and choosing exercise. It is the whole lot.
It is the lease-back for a minimum of 99 years. It is no fees, no permits. It is the recognising of current interests in the parks for tourism and mines. It is certainly, where appropriate, engaging in joint management and it is working with us to create this master plan, this world-class master plan, for the Territory. So who loses? Who loses from this? The only loser is if we have to go to litigation. The momentum and the goodwill to negotiate and find an agreement here is very strong. But I said clearly to the land councils: ‘This is a package. You cannot walk away from any element of these core principles. No element. And if you do, I will go back to litigation. This government will go back to litigation’. That is very clear and I am putting that on the record.
I believe we will not have to do that. When the Opposition Leader was saying: ‘Go in and test some of that native title. Test one, just to show’, at least he does understand that native title is not a simple thing. It is a bundle of rights, as established through the Ward High Court decision. It is a bundle of rights. So to test one means nothing; all you have done is tested one. There are no implications for anything else. Many of our parks and reserves in the Territory have very substantial native title interests that could be extensive and exclusive. The Opposition Leader - and implicit in this, the opposition - is saying: ‘Go and work through each one of those. Don’t give in’, they are saying. ‘Don’t give in to a thing’. But I said to the Opposition Leader in the briefing we had: ‘We are only following the precedent that you have set in a number of cases: the railway corridor, Rosebery and Bellamack, Mount Todd’. There are a number of different areas where the previous government said: ‘We recognise that native title does exist; let us negotiate’. There was not all the work done to test this; it did not go to the Native Title Tribunal. So the precedent set by the previous government on a number of occasions is the one we are using, and we believe it is the way to go. It is where the positive outcomes are.
It does disappoint me that we have the Country Liberal Party, we have the opposition, trying to say: ‘Let us see where we can divide here; let us see where we can go back to our old tricks’. I was hoping they were old tricks, Madam Speaker, but they are obviously the current tricks. ‘Let us start revving up some of the issues; let us start saying: “Never trust the land councils, never trust Labor, because Labor is not about protecting all Territorians’ interests and worse, still, it is going to cost us a fortune.” Implicit in this is Labor is rolling over to indigenous interests’.
Let me say, very proudly, I am standing up for all Territorians, for all of our interests, and very properly recognising indigenous rights and interests. We will have a very successful outcome from that. It will be a win/win for Territorians, it will be a win/win for job creation and it will be a win/win for enterprise development.
Cost is another issue that was raised. So what is this going to cost us? Well, I spelt out how much it is going to cost us in terms of litigation if we go that way: $100m. Then add the cost of compensation on top of that. Even if the federal government picked up 75%, it would still be quite a significant cost. Then the member for Macdonnell says: ‘So, spell out this cost! What is it going to cost in this negotiation?’ There will be a cost, Madam Speaker, of course there will be. A quite appropriate cost for government. Government is about creating jobs. Government is about stimulating the tourism industry. Government is about creating a world class master plan for parks and this is where the dollars should be spent. And if this government has a choice between spending money on lawyers, or spending money on job creation, enterprise development, tourism, parks management and a world class master plan for parks, then I know where we are going to be proudly putting the Territory’s dollars and that is in the latter.
So there will be a cost. Creating jobs will come at some cost, but when you think of the opportunities of creating jobs in remoter parts of the Territory this is an opportunity to be grasped. I am talking to the Commonwealth government about how they can be part of this and where there might be a financial contribution and it is welcome. I have already started to raise those issues with people like parks’ minister, Dr David Kemp. I am very gratified that we have in principle support for negotiation rather than litigation from both the Prime Minister and the indigenous affairs minister, Philip Ruddock.
So when you hear implicit in what the opposition is saying that we should litigate, that we should test, we should be back in the courts for 20 to 30 years, they are out by themselves. They are not supported by their colleagues in Canberra. I doubt whether you could find one party of government, or party in opposition in this country which would support them. They are the dinosaurs and sadly in this debate they have shown just how irrelevant they are. I am proud of the fact that we have found a solution to what could have been a very difficult problem for the Territory. I think we have found a solution that is inclusive, that will see jobs develop in the Territory, that will see enterprises develop in the Territory and will really give a significant boost to our tourism industry while recognising, most properly, indigenous culture and indigenous rights to land.
As Chief Minister, and I know that I speak for every member of this government, we are very proud of that.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, I have a few issues to talk about tonight and one of them is the St John Ambulance annual parade which was held on 26 October. I attended the annual parade for the NT branch of St John Ambulance and it was a privilege to be present at an event that celebrates the selfless service that so many people give to our Territory community. It is a familiar part of many Territory events to have people who are readily identifiable in their smart black and white uniforms, who provide a very professional and personal service to those people in need of urgent medical attention. A lasting impression of the evening was that there were up to 200 people on parade in full uniform. There was a wide range of people involved from the very young who were engaged in school-based units right through to those people who, in retirement, are still active in their contribution to our community by their active St John Service.
I would like to thank Mr Andrew Hodges, the Commissioner for St John, and pay a personal tribute to the following people who are recognised for their contribution:
Certificates of appreciation were given to Glen Denmeade, John Carman, Shane Burry,
Linda Fazldeen, Liz Talbot, Doug Smith and Vanessa Curtiss.
Commissioner’s Commendation went to Bryon May and Kate Anning.
Volunteer of the Year, the adult was Frank Dunstan and the cadet was Susan Rosenzweig.
Ambulance Employees Australia Cadet Award went to Ross Jacobson.
Grand Prior’s badge was awarded to Kathryn Ainsworth.
Showing how enduring the commitment to St John is:
the 12 year medal went to Glen Denmeade, Bruce Jones and Bruce Wilde;
the 17 year service bar went to Simon Spillet and Des Thornton; and
the 22 year service bar to Ros Jones.
The Division of the Year in the adult area was Humpty Doo and the cadet area was Alice Springs. I must say the commitment given by people right across the Territory to St John is most impressive, the many hours they put in and the selfless and enthusiastic way that they do it.
This Labor government recognises the important contribution of mining to the Territory economy. I was delighted to present certificates of appreciation and life memberships at the Minerals Council dinner on 14 November. Certificates of appreciation for support of the Mineral Council’s work program were presented to Woodside Energy, Sally Horsnell from GHD Services and two of our public servants in DBIRD, Tony McGill and Bob Adams for their excellent work with Minerals Council.
Certificates for support of the Minerals Council education program were presented to Alcan Gove. It was good to meet their new CEO in Australia, Richard Yank, tonight. Certificates of support went to AngloGold Exploration. The best part of the night was the life memberships, recognising those who had put in many years. There was Lance Martin, Alan Wright, who was for years at GEMCO and worked after he left GEMCO …
Mr Henderson: A constituent of mine.
Ms MARTIN: A constituent of the member for Wanguri. Lance could not be there, but Alan was certainly delighted to receive that life membership. Then a blast from the past received a life membership - Grant Watt. Grant came back from New South Wales where he is now living, just north of Sydney, to receive his life membership. The most extraordinary thing about Grant is that he had his hair in a ponytail. The idea of that Scottish icon with his grey hair in a ponytail was more than most of us could cope with.
A man who had been awarded his life membership before but now received it in a framed award was Joe Fisher, who certainly has been involved with mining and mining issues in the Territory for the best part of 50 years.
I extend my congratulations to the Northern Territory Minerals Council; their hard working CEO, Kezia Purick, and all the award winners.
I was also pleased to attend the AGM of the NT Chamber of Commerce and Industry as guest speaker on 30 October, and to be given the opportunity to outline the many crime prevention initiatives that have been implemented by government. The government and the chamber have established an effective working relationship, and the growth of the Territory economy is an objective we both share. I congratulate President Bruce Fadelli and Chief Executive Officer, Carole Frost, on a very professional organisation and a very professionally organised and well attended AGM.
I also acknowledge this evening the humanitarian work of two of my constituents, John and Elaine Edwards. They recognised the plight of children at the Woomera detention centre and, very much in keeping with the kind of people that John and Elaine are, rather than say: ‘Well, that would be somebody else’s problem’, decided to do something about it themselves. They developed a proposal to establish an educational playgroup for the children of detainees. Again, simply not content to say: ‘Well look, somebody else might do something about this’, they set about to collect the kind of educational support activities that were needed - everything from tape recorders to toys for the kids to play with - and bundled them all in their car and drove to Woomera.
The story they tell about their time there is - well, the best way to describe it is probably that they had a pretty tough time trying to achieve what they wanted to do. In the end they did, but they were seen as - and if you know John and Elaine, the last people you would ever suspect of anything subversive is those two - but they did actually get to deliver the resources to the centre for an under six years of age playgroup. They are a remarkable couple. The fact that they heard about that need, decided to do something, collected all the materials, put them in their car, drove all the way to Woomera, and then persisted until they got to deliver the goods and to talk to the people involved, is a real tribute to them. I congratulate John and Elaine for their humanitarism and their abiding commitment to the wellbeing of young people. I congratulate all those who supported this wonderful project.
It always gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the achievements of schools and students in my electorate. Young Sam Van Den Nieuwenhof, who goes to Parap Primary School, participated in the MS Readathon and raised the second highest amount of money in the NT. Sam read 23 books and raised $317.05. Altogether, the Parap School students read 487 books and raised $2214.70. The Stuart Park Primary students participated in the Heart Foundation’s Jump Rope for Heart and raised just over $6000. My congratulations to the students, the teachers and all those involved. They are both fine primary schools, Parap and Stuart Park, and when you see how the children actually get involved in those fundraising activities and with the enthusiasm they do it, it certainly makes us very confident about the Territory’s future.
Another outstanding achiever in the Fannie Bay electorate is Betty Barham. Betty recently attended the International Federation of Ageing conference in Perth with Leigh Hillman who is the Executive Officer of NT Council on the Ageing. IFA is an international non-government organisation committed to the dignity, independence and empowerment of older people. Betty is a Territorian of long standing and is widely involved with community associations. She is one of those people who makes the Territory a better place to live and I certainly commend her contribution. She is a terrific person, she lives at Kurringal and she is one of the stalwarts of the place. There is barely an organisation around town that you do not find Betty involved with. She really is an outstanding senior Territorian.
The end of another school year comes to a close and leaving school in many ways marks the entry of those young men and women into adulthood. I was reminded of this because I was fortunate on Friday, 15 November to be invited to open the Casuarina Senior College end of year art exhibition. Principal, Steve Sjoberg and Deputy Principal, Mary Rees, talked to me enthusiastically about some of the successes enjoyed by the staff and students throughout the year and the school’s plans for the future. To meet the demands of Stage II art, craft and design, students are required to undertake a number of tasks which cover both practice and theory in their chosen fields and students keep a journal documenting the creative processes. The exhibition contained ceramics, photographs, fashion design, architectural and graphic design, painting, sculpture, digital and other two and three dimensional artistic interpretations of the world. The artworks were breathtaking and a great credit to both the staff and students.
Casuarina Senior College has a number of staff who contributed to this exhibition and I would like to mention them by name: Justine Staniforth is the acting arts faculty coordinator who heads the creative team which also included Jane Barlow, Karl Brand, Pas Cosentino, Kim Kerr, Serena Kuhl, Jenny Shepherd, Jill Stevens and Russell Wither.
Works from 10 students were shortlisted to be included in the exit art exhibition to be held in Parliament House and those students are to be particularly congratulated for all their efforts and skill. I am sure that honourable members will join me in congratulating them. The 10 students who will be exhibited here at Parliament House are Andy Liong, Tara O’Mullane, Celeste Wilde, Keita Jenke, Vashti Silva, Joanna Roberts, Lauren Clark, Jessica Ong, Ebone Coats and Louise Errington.
Above all, I would like to commend all the students throughout the Territory who are finishing their studies this year. Whatever the levels achieved, and not everyone can be an honours student, these young people deserve recognition for reaching the end of their school years and moving onto a new phase in their life. As they enter the world of adulthood they should be proud and congratulated on their achievements and on behalf of all of us I wish them good luck and much success in their life after this. They are of course the future of the Territory.
Last Friday, 22 November 2002, I had the pleasure to attend the inaugural meeting of the Northern Territory Arts Grants Board. The establishment of the Arts Grants Board achieved my government’s commitment to enhance the accountability and transparency of arts funding to providing an arm’s length peer assessment process for arts project allocations. In the formation of the board, the government aimed for a mixture of industry and regional diversity, youth and experience, combining skills of both business and practitioners. Out of 24 applications received, of an extraordinary high standard, I had the difficult but exciting task of appointing 12 outstanding Territorians to the board who offer artistic, business and marketing skills across a range of art forms and regions. The calibre of the applications is testimony to the strength of our art sector and I am confident the appointed members will provide the expertise and commitment we need to establish this very important board.
We are indeed fortunate in our choice of chair, Gillian Harrison, who comes from Alice Springs but before that was in Darwin for many years. Gillian has a wide experience in arts training and development, employment and related issues across the Territory and is currently employed as the music manager by CAAMA in Alice Springs. The other members are Joanna Barrkman from Batchelor; Peter Callinan from Tennant Creek; Ken Conway, Don Whyte, Neil Weeks, Gary Lee, Bong Ramilo and Chips Mackinolty all from Darwin; from Alice Springs, Craig Mathewson and Heather Shearer; from Katherine, Fleur Parry; and Pirjo Ward from Palmerston. The inaugural Arts Grants Board represents some of the extraordinary talent and ability of the arts industry in the Territory. I congratulate them and their chair and wish them well for the rest of their terms ahead.
In the final minutes I have left, I would like to take a few moments to salute the passing of two colourful Territorians. I believe our lives would be the poorer for their absences. I speak firstly of our own Queen Mother, Peter Morgan, who passed away on Monday. He was eccentric but he had a value system based on total integrity. He cared deeply about the Territory’s heritage and retaining the Darwin he had always known. Bob Collins told me a story about Peter which epitomises his humanitarianism and deep concerns for community; about the time he was involved in fund raising at Holtze Cottage, one of the many restaurants he helped to create. On this occasion, Peter organised a totally outrageous male fashion show to raise money for the Ash Wednesday bushfires. Bob recalls it being an extraordinary event, but he also managed to raise a large sum of money to help the victims of the bushfire which was just so totally Peter. He had a unilateral appeal and boasted of a congratulatory letter from the then Chief Minister, Paul Everingham, recognising Peter’s role in the success of the first self-government celebrations.
As one person said this week, when he died, Darwin was engraved on his heart. A resident since 1984, who began his working life in the Territory as a clerk at the Rum Jungle Mine, he will be very sadly missed.
I am also sad to recall the passing of another great person: Stella Kirk, activist, ardent letter writer and protector of heritage who arrived on a yacht in Darwin in 1967. As she walked down Cavenagh Street for the first time and witnessed bodies thrown from the Don Hotel, she knew Darwin was the city for her. She was the first woman to hold a real estate licence in the Territory, and ran her business from a Sidney Williams Hut in my electorate of Fannie Bay. Always sensitive to Darwin’s history, she was a major campaigner against the proposed destruction of Myilly Point. As Peter Forrest put in his column in the NT News:
She often staged lone protests, a single voice against the demolition of the nurses’ quarters at the old Darwin Hospital or the old Supreme Court building.
Both Peter and Stella were people who believed in the power of the people. They believed people had a responsibility to take action against the destruction of Darwin’s heritage. This parliament should say Vale! to two stalwart campaigners and loyal Darwinites.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to advise members of the Assembly of a school in my electorate and the good work that is being done there. I should admit to having something of a soft spot for Yirara College since I first went there a couple of years ago. That arises from being so terribly impressed with the principal, staff and students and many of the programs that Yirara was running at that time and, indeed, continues to run. I certainly do not purport to be an expert in the area of indigenous education, but I do think I am capable of spotting a good thing when I see it and the work that they do at Yirara is truly wonderful.
For members who do not know, and particularly, for the benefit of members who reside in the Top End, Yirara College of the Finke River Mission is located off the Stuart Highway, 7 km south of Alice Springs and is a Christian boarding school for post-primary Aboriginal students from communities around Central Australia but as far away as Borroloola.
The college opened in 1973 as a secondary school for Aboriginal students, and was at that time part of the Department of Education. In 1992, negotiations were initiated between government and the Finke River Mission Board of the Lutheran Church with a view to handing it over to the church. Local indigenous families requested that Finke River Mission take over the management of the college and, of course, Finke River Mission formed as a result of the establishment of the Hermannsburg Mission 125 years ago in Central Australia. The college became an independent education provider in January 1993 and is now part of the extensive Lutheran school system. I understand that there are about 100 of those schools around the country.
Presently, there are 218 students enrolled at Yirara College. The key staff are the Reverend Mark Doecke, Principal; Mrs Wendy Russ, Assistant Principal; and Mr Lester Kerber, the Business Manager. It has a governing council comprising 18 members, 12 of whom are indigenous. As many of us know, one of the difficulties with indigenous education is ensuring the support of family. At Yirara College, family and community meetings are held and family members are involved in the governing council, and this ensures that Aboriginal interests are preserved in all decision making. This, I believe, is part of the reason why the college works so well.
The college operates as a co-educational boarding school, and of course, boarding guarantees regular class attendance. It is obvious that Aboriginal people expressed strong support for the school, and its mission, even though at times they feel frustrated by their children’s unwillingness to stay at school as long as they should. I am told though, that families express strong support for the Christian ethos of the college and indeed the college’s firm rules and believe that that will ensure that their children are assisted in the education process.
The courses at Yirara College provide for pathways for entering into secondary education. The college has extensive information technology hardware and software systems, homework packages, extensive music programs, extensive sports programs and some teams compete in local competitions. I have been advised that some highlights for Yirara College for 2002 have been the refurbishment of the recreation hall into a chapel and a multi-purpose hall. Whilst this might sound a bit of an odd combination, I am very happy to say that I attended the opening of the multi-purpose hall and the chapel, and the way the architecture is set out is truly amazing. It ensures that the same building can be used very separately as both a place of worship as well as a multi-purpose hall. I am told that the request was made by parents about nine years ago, that Yirara College, being a Christian school, there should be a place for worship, exclusively for worship, and therefore there should be a chapel. I was very pleased indeed to attend the opening earlier this month.
I am advised that extensions to the library have now commenced and that will be open in the first quarter next year. I am looking forward to attending Yirara College again for that opening. In relation to the hall, I should say that it was with some interest, and delight, that at the opening, not only were there the usual dignitaries that one might expect at these sorts of things, but the hall was packed, absolutely chockers with staff, students, parents and friends and it was a joyous occasion. I can say very sincerely that I was very honoured to attend as the local member.
Another highlight of the 2002 year for staff and students at Yirara College was a visit earlier this month by the Prime Minister. I am very pleased to say that I had a hand to play in encouraging him to visit the college. It really was a wonderful occasion and it was clear that the Prime Minister enjoyed his visit. After touring the school and speaking to students, we were treated to a number of performances by several music groups, then the Prime Minister spoke to a few of the staff and the Principal, Mark Doecke, about indigenous education, and what great work the college was doing, and how the federal government could further assist in that area.
The college is very obviously aware of the challenges its staff face in the future and providing education to indigenous students in Central Australia. However, the college is well equipped to meet those challenges, mostly I think, because its staff and principal are honest about what those challenges are, and equally honest about what needs to be done in order to meet them. On behalf of all members of the Assembly, I congratulate all of the work that has been done by the college over the last nine years, and congratulate all of those involved, and of course, at this time of year, wish the principal, staff, students, parents and friends, the very best wishes for 2003.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on 29 and 30 October this year, I led a Territory trade delegation to Singapore with the aim of building trade links and encouraging Singapore-based businesses to consider investing in the Territory. The delegation’s activities included taking part in the Offshore South East Asia exhibition in Singapore, visiting Jurong Port, meeting with the Jurong Town Corporation and attending a range of networking functions.
OSEA is held in Singapore every two years and allows manufacturers, product distributors and service providers to showcase their wares and establish contacts with buyers. Of particular interest to the Territory was the opportunity to develop contacts with international contractors who are involved or potentially involved in the Bayu-Undan project. There were around 900 exhibiting companies and 250 stands. More than 8000 trade visitors and 3000 people from exhibiting companies attended OSEA.
My department, and a group of Territory companies, provided a display on an Australian stand which was shared with some Victorian-based companies. The Territory display promoted Darwin as an oil and mining industry service and supply centre for northern Australia and the surrounding region. Companies represented in the display included Universal Engineering, Hercules Offshore Lifting Gear, Darwin Offshore Logistics Base, Kim Heng Marine and Oilfield, Environmental Health Services, AJ Mayr, Tech Rentals and Jacindo. Other groups promoted at the display but were unable to send representatives included NTISO, Nortrade, Delta Electrics and WasteMaster.
Singapore is one of the important players in the oil and gas supply industry in our region, and this was an important opportunity for Territory business to experience and develop links with this area. There are already a number of important links between Singapore and Darwin. These links include Singapore’s Gas Services International with Darwin’s Universal Engineering; Kim Heng Marine and Oilfield’s purchase of the Darwin Offshore Logistics Base; and Rooney Shipping with the Labrooy Group, to name a few. I found there was widespread knowledge in Singapore of the big oil industry projects in the Territory’s region of influence including Bayu-Undan, Sunrise and Tangguh.
However, there is only a limited understanding in Singapore of Darwin’s capabilities and the role Darwin could play in supporting major oil, gas and mining projects. I believe we need to raise the Territory’s profile in Singapore to build trade and tourism and attract investments, and the delegation to OSEA is an important part of achieving this objective.
Austrade arranged a function for the Territory and Victorian delegations to meet key Singapore-based purchasing investment representatives. This was well attended and a number of good contacts were made with the procurement, engineering design and management people working on projects in our region. Whilst at OSEA, I also gave a briefing about regional energy developments and what the Territory hopes to achieve to key energy journals including EnergyAsia, Petromin, Ogilvie Publishing, Upstream Newspaper and OPEC News Agency. This will help to lift the Territory’s profile amongst the broad readership of these journals in the oil and gas industry.
There was considerable interest during OSEA in the lifting frames which are designed and built in Darwin by Hercules Offshore Lifting Gear. The other Territory exhibitors were also kept busy and generated good leads or won business at the exhibition. Environmental Health Services is negotiating business with General Electric throughout eastern Asia. A proposal was received from the Golden Aquarius engineering group for Northern Territory companies to bid for work on two FPSOs being constructed in Singapore for the Brazilian oil company, Petrobras.
The visit to Jurong Port and the Jurong Town Corporation was most impressive. The Jurong Town Corporation’s vision in planning and redeveloping a shanty town and swampland into an impressive port logistics complex and industrial estate in just 25 years is extraordinary. It presents a model of what can be achieved with good planning and commitment, albeit the Territory is operating on a considerably smaller scale.
Singapore’s ability to create waterfront land by reclamation has allowed it to develop world class marine construction and maintenance facilities. These point to the potential for Darwin to handle major oil rig refits, and even build concrete platforms for the industry if we plan appropriately for such developments. The business delegation to OSEA and the associated activities will have valuable outcomes for the Territory’s growing offshore service and supply industries. I commend the businesses which took part in the delegation, and I look forward to them pursuing further opportunities as a result.
I place on the record my thanks to Thomas Tan of Kim Heng Marine and Oilfield and to Austrade for their help in developing programs for the Territory delegates and I, and also for Kim Hang’s extraordinary generous time that he put in assisting me and the delegation and the hospitality that he showed me and other Territory businesses. I also thank the officers of my department for their work in making the delegation a success.
The Australasian Council of Women and Policing present national awards for excellence in policing. This provides an opportunity to publicly acknowledge and reward the significant contributions of women and men who make policing and law enforcement better for women. The awards were presented in October this year and it is my pleasure to report to the House that two women from the Northern Territory won awards. Ms Mary-Anne Skelton won the Community Policing Award and Ms Joy Kuhl won the Bev Lawson Memorial Award. The awards were meritorious and it is my pleasure to provide further details to the House on the achievements of the winners.
Mary-Anne Skelton was nominated as a professional officer who uses her multilingual skills to improve how the Northern Territory police work with the incredibly culturally diverse community we have in the Territory, using her significant networks to make positive impacts on how women from culturally diverse backgrounds access the justice system. Mary-Anne, who has recently been promoted to Sergeant of the Northern Territory Police Juvenile Diversion Division, was originally trained as a teacher in her native country of the Philippines. Her ability to speak several languages - English, Filipino/Tagalog, Japanese and Indonesian - has had a positive impact on the interaction the police has with our ethnic community. This has been evident through the course of Mary-Anne’s police career. An example was when she commenced work in the domestic violence unit in 1995. Mary-Anne immediately recognised the difficulties women from non-English speaking backgrounds experienced in dealing with the police and reporting of domestic violence.
Cultural and language problems led to a fear of police and a lack of information on the range of support and assistance available. As a result, Mary-Anne initiated a project to produce and distribute an information pamphlet on domestic violence to ethnic communities. The project specifically targeted five ethnic community groups and was translated into the languages of Tagalog, Thai, Vietnamese, Greek and Indonesian. The project was instrumental in promoting ways in which women could protect themselves and their children. The pamphlets are still in production today. Mary-Anne actively works to promote policing as a career option to women from ethnic backgrounds and works in partnership with other agencies to provide a positive image of police.
The initiative that has been shown by Mary-Anne since she joined the NT police 15 years ago has had a significant positive impact on the relationship between NT police and ethnic communities. Mary-Anne Skelton is a worthy winner of the Community Policing Award.
The Bev Lawson Memorial Award is for the most outstanding woman who has been first in any policing or law enforcement activity or support service. Joy Kuhl was nominated for her leadership in establishing and developing the Northern Territory’s forensic investigation capacity combined with mentoring and supporting women within the policing and the community generally. Joy has a Master of Science in Biochemistry from the Sydney University and when she was employed by the Northern Territory police in January 1984 she was the only graduate scientist in the forensic unit and the only woman on the staff. At the time of her employment in the Territory, Joy was required to set up her own laboratory, stock and equip the laboratory, establish methods and perform all the work necessary to provide a forensic biology service to her employer.
The career highlights for Joy are many and all impressive. I take the time tonight to focus on a very topical achievement. I believe her most significant achievement for not only the Northern Territory police but also for the people of the Northern Territory was the introduction of DNA technology to the laboratory’s repertoire. To achieve this, Joy conducted a detailed feasibility study which included the researching of models on a international and national level, prepared detail budgets submissions and actively lobbied the then Commissioner Mick Palmer for the funding and approval for the implementation of DNA technology. Under Joy’s direction and guidance, the Northern Territory has been operating a successful DNA database since 1995. The Northern Territory has been using the DNA database as a crime solving and intelligence tool far longer than any other jurisdiction and on a ‘per capita’ basis has mirrored the success rate of the huge UK database for many years.
Her work initiated the very successful ‘Operation Genesweep’ which resulted in over 200 hits in a few weeks and has lead to ‘Operation Genesweep 2’. Joy has recently been invited to join the governing committee of the Victims of Crime NT, the support group established to provide support services and direction to victims of all types of crime and their families in the Northern Territory.
I commend the efforts of these estimable women to the House and I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating them for not just what they have achieved but also for their ongoing efforts.
On 15 November 2002, I had the privilege of attending the start of a very special alliance in the northern suburbs. The Wanguri Primary School and the Village Shopping Centre in Casuarina have entered into a unique partnership that benefits both parties. Wanguri Primary has always been a smaller school in the northern suburbs but this alliance will hopefully gain it some important exposure and funding that will allow it to grow in size and statue. There are a number of benefits for both parties in this agreement. For Wanguri school the first benefit is that the Village Shopping Centre will host some of Wanguri's larger school events. Instead of being cramped in their library, Wanguri will have the option to host events in the large area of the Village.
The second benefit for the school is additional areas to display school work. With work going up in a public forum it will give the children a chance to show off their skills and for the people not regularly involved in the school to see what Wanguri Primary is all about .
The third benefit to the school is assistance in school fundraising. A Wanguri school barrel will be placed in the shopping centre by placing a docket from any shop within the Centre with a contact name and details on the back. The Village will donate 1% of the docket total to Wanguri School Council to a maximum of $1200 a year. The first project that this money will go towards will be new play equipment. There is also a chance for monthly prizes to be won for the shoppers. In return, the Village Shopping Centre will get their logo on all Wanguri school letterhead. The newsletter will include advertising for Village shops and a commitment from the Wanguri council to shop at the Village whenever possible.
I congratulate the principal, Sharon Reeves, Wanguri school chairperson, Lea Rowe, and the shopping centre mangers Mr Tony Miaoudis and Dr Ean Ong for this exciting venture as, to my knowledge, it is one of the first of its kind in the Northern Territory. I wish the Village and Wanguri School all the best of luck in the future with their alliance. I am sure it will be about for many years to come.
One of the things that I am extremely proud of in my electorate is the way it looks. The people of Wanguri and Leanyer, especially the children, take a great pride in the appearance of our suburbs, and the 2002 Territory Tidy Town School Awards proved that. All four primary schools in my electorate picked up awards in this year’s 2002 Territory Tidy Town School Awards, with some of them picking up major awards.
St Andrew Lutheran Primary received the Outstanding Commitment to School Environment Award, which is a great effort, and I congratulate staff, students and principal, Dennis Ruddiger.
Holy Spirit Primary School received two awards: the first was for a school-wide award for an Outstanding School Project; the second was an individual award going to Alan Falkingham for Outstanding School Citizen. A great effort by Alan, and I congratulate him as well as his fellow students, staff and principal, Gill Webb.
Leanyer Primary School received 10 awards, the most in the electorate. There were many individual and class or group efforts. Nadia Mahmood, Shiyao Zhu, Alana Michell, and Nikki McInnes all picked up awards for the Upper Primary Chuck that Sucker competition. They were awarded first, second, third and fourth respectively. It was a great effort by all four students to be recognised so highly in a Territory-wide competition. In the Bag the Bags competition, Leanyer finished first in both the Year 4 and under and the Year 5 and up categories. For the poster competition, the Leanyer Primary Junior Art Club came first for the Transition to Year 3 category and for the Year 4 to 7 bracket. The Student Rep Art Club finished third, while Leanyer pair, Stacie Reader and Danielle Lede were awarded second. Leanyer also won an Outstanding School Project Award.
In total, Leanyer received over $1400 in prizes with over $200 of it going directly to the students. It is a great effort by a great school, and I know how committed staff, students and the principal, Henry Gray, are to keeping their grounds clean and I congratulate them for it.
Wanguri Primary School received six awards including one very prestigious one. In the Bag the Bags competition, student Elise Baldock finished third in the Community category, while in the Year 5 and up category, Wanguri was awarded second place. In the Poster Competition in the Year 4 to 7 category, Elise Baldock again was awarded first place. Wanguri also had an award presented to one of its teachers, Kaye Baldock, for the Environmental Visionary Teachers that I wholeheartedly agree with. Kaye puts in an enormous amount of work for the school and its grounds and she really does deserve this recognition. Kaye, congratulations, great recognition for a job well done.
For school-wide awards, Wanguri were awarded two: second for the Best Urban School; and picked up the highly prestigious Schools Environment Award School of the Year 2002, an award only bettered by School of the Year. A great effort by all students and staff and principal, Sharon Reeves and I congratulate them all.
It makes me so proud to drive around my electorate and to know that we have some of the best grounds the Territory has to offer. It makes Leanyer and Wanguri a great place to live. I thank all of the students, staff and parents involved with all four schools for their effort. I hope they continue it for many years to come, and keep Wanguri and Leanyer as being great places to live in the northern suburbs.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about the effort of many people in the Karama and Malak community, and to recognise some very sad events that in effect drew the community together, but also the achievements of people who have been out there proving that the Territory is full of great talent.
I start on a very sad note, that is, services that I attended on 20 October to commemorate the victims of the Bali bombing. On Sunday morning, I went to the Philadelphia Indonesian Church that is in Koolinda Crescent in my electorate of Karama and participated in the Indonesian congregation service that morning. That service was conducted by the Very Reverend Salomo Bangun. It was a beautiful church service conducted in Bahasa Indonesian, which challenged me to refresh my knowledge of Bahasa which I had studied in Darwin some 20 odd years ago. For the benefit of the Aussies in the congregation, who were primarily the spouses of some gorgeous Indonesian women, the service was conducted partially in English as well. I did my best to sing in Bahasa and certainly enjoyed the service and the translation in English.
I congratulate the Indonesian community in my electorate for being so profoundly strong even in their deepest sadness. The members of the congregation were particularly concerned as some were related to one of the victims and they were concerned about some orphaned children. It was a deeply touching and moving ceremony. I was able to talk to them on behalf of the Northern Territory government, as well as about the peace and the friendship we have with the Indonesian community. And about why harmony in our lives is very important. We spoke about how it is often times of such grief and sadness that strengthens our peace and our harmony and, indeed, our enduring friendships.
That afternoon, I attended the commemoration services down on the Esplanade. Again, it was a very moving service. There were no words spoken. The Chief Minister and the Indonesian Consul led the ceremony by laying flowers at the cenotaph. This as followed by at least a couple of hundred people silently laying flowers on the cenotaph and pausing briefly to say their prayers for the victims of the Bali bombing. It was a deeply moving ceremony in which to participate.
That evening, I went to the Buddhist Society of the Northern Territory’s Leanyer temple. A temple that I frequent not as often as I would like, but I do manage to get there several times throughout the year. The Buddhist Society put on a Light Offering Ceremony. In that ceremony we lit candles and walked around a very large Buddha. After a ceremony of blessing in the gardens we moved into the temple and participated in a prayer ceremony that ended up with a beautiful meditation period. I congratulate the Buddhist Society for putting on this Light Offering Ceremony and the prayers that help, in their belief, with the passage of the souls into better reincarnation and to ameliorate the pain and suffering of the people who had died because their souls are still suffering. Through special prayers that occur over a period of about a month those prayers are believed to send the soul onto a better reincarnation, rather than to carry that pain and suffering with them. I hope that those prayers work.
Whilst there is deep sadness in our society, as the Chief Minister has clearly said, life goes on. We do have to go about our business and show the terrorists that whatever horrific actions they take to strike out at us that as a community, we are strong. And so it was on the very next day, 21 October, that I had the honour of representing the Minister for Education, Employment and Training, the Honourable Syd Stirling, at the WorldSkills Competitors Function at Parliament House. I was presenting scarves to the women and ties to the men, who were aged in their late teens and early 20s, who were going off to compete at the National WorldSkills Competition in Newcastle. They were a nice group of young Territorians and very excited about this opportunity to compete at a national level.
As one does in these situations, I made a very encouraging speech to them and said to them, ‘You are the crme of the Territory. Go down there knowing that you are as good as anyone else in the nation’, and bless them, they came back as national winners when they took out the national competition for the first time. It truly was a team effort and they all excelled. They had every reason to be very proud of their effort. I will single out the gold medal winner in construction, Rafael Kammas from Dripstone High School; the gold medal winner in business education was Colleen McAlpine from Casuarina Senior College; and from my very own electorate, the bronze medal winner in information technology, Liam Kuhl from O’Loughlin College. I know Liam’s parents very well; his mother is a teacher’s assistant in my daughter’s class. So it was a particular joy, and I was very proud, to congratulate Liam. In the open competition as an apprentice, Kelly Smith won silver in Business Services.
They are a very amazing mix of talented young Territorians, and it just goes to show that we can produce the best in the nation with our vocational education and training, and apprenticeship and trade training. Again, I congratulate our winners.
On 22 October, I attended the Women’s Health Day at the Greek Orthodox School. This was the 6th annual health day, and it is used as a forum to provide health information to women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. There were women there from many nations - Filipino, Thai, Greek, Indonesian, Cambodian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Timorese, and Indian. It was a very large gathering of about 60 women. There were representatives of all the non-government sector health-based organisations, as well as the government Health Department sections. This day was organised by the Northern Territory Women’s Cancer Prevention Program. I say a special congratulation to Beth Amega and Mahasti Farshidi for putting a tremendous event together, as they did.
On 25 October, I again represented the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, at the Discovering Democracy Week awards in Parliament House. There were many participants who received certificates of merit and book vouchers. Winners of each category received achievement awards and cheques. I make special mention that the Katherine School of the Air won the national Discovering Democracy Award for the second year running. The Territory can be very proud of the Katherine School of the Air and the great effort they all make. As the member for Karama, I congratulate Jeannie Bennett, from Manunda Terrace Primary School, for winning a certificate of merit.
Also on the same day, I had the opportunity to duck into Malak School in my electorate, because they were having a ‘Moovin @ Malak’ fundraising event. That event was a day of different activities in the school ground. The curriculum for the day was suspended and the children were encouraged to go out and be physical with a variety of activities from hockey, basketball, and rock climbing. I heard that they had a great water fight in the middle of the day as a means of cooling themselves down. That fundraising event raised a total of $3462 for the school. I congratulate the principal and the staff, the parents and the teachers, and all the people I saw really get behind that fundraising event in a great way.
The top ten fundraisers were presented with trophies donated by me, and they were: Dannille Edwards, Jennifer Mu, Tianna Beale, Katelyn Mitchell, Davina Lay, Dillion Morris, Kiry McKenzie, Kalvin Kaltenbach, Alexander Moore, and Kimberley Devery. I also presented medals to other good fundraisers who were: Villin Phinitkittikhun, Jessica Marris, Angela Carter-Ritter, Daniel Acklin, Lindsay Wilson, Angie Ng, Freddie Nona, Chloe Crozier, Justin Moore, Kylie Gaykamangu, and Arkanay Saengurit.
In the local school community, I attended the launch of the Catholic schools ‘Shaping Our Future: Towards 2007’ strategic plan. This launch occurred at the Catholic school in my electorate, Holy Family School, which is the school that my children attend. I felt very pleased to be, essentially, right at home amongst the Catholic community there, participating in the launch of their strategic plan. I congratulate the Catholic Education Office for all the hard work that they have done in creating the plan. I congratulate the principals, the parents and the teachers of the Catholic education community here in the Northern Territory, for putting in the hard work. The very wonderful Bishop Ted Collins was there to launch the plan. The Minister for Education, Employment and Training, our Hon Syd Stirling, was there to assist with the launch of the plan.
I also attended a very different kind of a function for the government which was a Safe Sex campaign launch at which I represented the Minister for Health and Community Services. This campaign launch is titled ‘Put it on so we can get it on’. Essentially, it is targeted young women aged from 18 to 30 years and it is really saying to them that they are in control of their own body and their own health and that they have to start to make sure that they are taking the steps to protect themselves from ‘at risk’ behavior.
We are concerned about the increase in the HIV/Aids cases being detected particularly amongst young women in the Territory. The government has put in $60 000 into a campaign. I congratulate Discovery; I congratulate Hot 100 for the effort that they are making. Hot 100 is giving a lot of free air time in Darwin to the campaign and it really is a very funky new way of getting the message out to the 18 to 30-something women. I was told that I looked as though I was representing the demographic which I said was a compliment given that I was indeed closer to 40 than 30 these days.
Dr Burns: I would have thought you were closer to 30.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, member for Johnston, for that.
I also congratulate students at Manunda Terrace Primary School who took part in the Australian Mathematics Competition. Sita Rogers achieved a Special Achievement Award for the school’s Best Standardised Score and a Certificate of Merit. Andrew Staib achieved a Certificate of Credit, as did Katie Barr and Minas Kassiou. The following students received Certificates of Participation: John Nguyen, Carlo Tran, Melinda Fegan, Brian Evans and Reinel Jionco. I congratulate all these students. It is quite daunting to enter an Australian Mathematics Competition and it is to their credit that they participated in it and excelled in their participation. I also congratulate their parents who are obviously encouraging their children to learn and to apply themselves to their schooling, and to their teachers and the other staff at the school for making the huge effort that I know Manunda Terrace makes; it is a wonderful school in my community.
I also had the opportunity to sponsor a couple of students from my electorate to participate in the North Queensland Championships for Athletics in early October. The Northern Territory team of some 37 athletes from the Moil Athletics Club attended and participated. The team brought home two gold, 17 silver and 20 bronze medals. I congratulate Narelle Long. I made a contribution towards her cost to attend; she won the bronze medal for high jump and was part of a gold medal team in the under 14 girls’ relay that broke the Townsville meet record for the 100 m with a time of 13.67 seconds. Congratulations to Narelle Long. She obviously has a wonderful athletics career ahead of her. And I congratulate Jacob Andrea who won a silver medal in the time of 54.82 seconds in the men’s 400 m and was fifth in the 100 m which he ran in 12.02 seconds.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would just like to speak on two issues tonight. The first issue is a little girl called Jessie Bartolo. Jessie was born in August 1998, a happy and loving little girl. In June 2000, geneticists from Sydney’s Children’s Hospital tentatively diagnosed her with Cardiofaciocutaneous Syndrome, called CFC for short. CFC is an extremely rare genetic disorder and there are around 75 families worldwide registered with the CFC family network. The exact number of these cases throughout the world is not known, however, there are estimated to be less than 300 cases worldwide. There are only five registered Australian cases. Next year, there is going to be an international conference on CFC to be held in Maryland, USA.
Jessie Bartolo is the much loved daughter of Rocky and Judy Bartolo who work at the Wildlife Park. For quite a while they believed they were on their own until they found out there were other people in the world who had this particular disease. I should mention what this rare genetic condition is: you have a distinctive facial appearance; sparse, brittle, woolly, curly hair; skin abnormalities; heart malformations that may be present at birth or develop later; varying degrees of mental retardation; psycho-motor retardation; and other medical complications and issues such as feeding difficulties which may affect particular individuals.
Having met this young lady, I can tell you it would not matter; she is just a lovable person, has the most beautiful smile and she is just like one of those great little cuddly kids. She is a terrific little girl and her parents love her. They have other children, but they are certainly anxious to do the best they can.
Earlier this year, there was a quiz night at the Wildlife Park. I was honoured to be asked to MC and they raised $4500. It was a great evening; you could not get a better setting than the Wildlife Park. People like Tracy Stephens and Michelle Nuske worked tirelessly to get this thing off the ground. We had some really generous sponsors; Qantas gave a double return ticket to Perth and also the Wildlife Park worked extremely hard to get the place set up so that we could have a wonderful quiz night. About 150 people attended.
The reason I am mentioning this dear, young girl tonight is that the family is hopefully on its way to Maryland, USA next year to meet other parents and families of children with the same condition. They have now formed what is called the Jessie Bartolo Trust Appeal through the Kiwanis Club of Darwin. They are still raising money. I thought it would be an appropriate time, and maybe I should turn to the right camera here just in case someone is watching, and just mention that on 6 December in the Mall, the Christmas in Darwin Association is hosting a Breakfast in the Mall in association with the Kiwanis Club of Darwin. That breakfast is being held between 6.30 am and 8.15 am. It is a cooked breakfast for only $7. The Darwin City Brass Band and the Essington School Choir will be there. I would invite any politicians who happen to be hungry that morning and are close to the Mall to come and spend their $7 because it will go to a very worthy project to help Jessie Bartolo and her family get to America and hopefully get the best medical attention that she can have. I hope members and anyone else who can hear this can help.
My other concern actually was raised by the member for Karama a minute ago when she was talking about being at the launch of the Safe Sex campaign. I know we live in a pluralistic society and what my personal beliefs are may not be someone else’s, but we live in a society where we tolerate that. I really feel that this campaign is a very one-sided campaign. I also received these posters today and I was told: ‘Well, put them up in your electorate office’, but when I read it, I just asked myself: ‘Is this really a case of just being an old fuddy-duddy or an old conservative?’ I do not really think it is because this poster to me is not about safe sex. It is about other things. It is about, as it says here, ‘Sex is about having a good time’.
Sex may be about having a good time, but is this the thing I want to stick on my window for young kids to see and think: ‘That’s what we should be doing’? That is exactly what you will do when you stick it on the front of your office. It is not big grown up girls who will see that. It will be young people. And they will say: ‘Well, Gerry Wood reckons…’ by putting this up ‘…that sex is about having a good time’. Sex is about having a good time, but where and when is a different matter, and who with.
Ms Scrymgour: But read the second bit after it.
Mr WOOD: Yes, ‘Don’t ruin it by being careless.’ But you can still promote these things. Why don’t you promote responsible sex at the same time? I am not saying that the government should not promote that, but why cannot it promote a balanced view? We are a pluralistic society; why then do I only get one point of view? That is the government’s morals department; that is its viewpoint. Why not another viewpoint - for instance why don’t they put emphasis on responsible sex, on sex with one partner, or even abstinence? Are they so old-fashioned? You are not going to get HIV from abstaining. You are not going to get HIV from having sex with one partner only, if both of you have never had sex with anyone else. Now, is that so old-fashioned and so silly that that cannot be advertised? It is not advertised. You can say this is okay, why can’t you say other things are okay?
That is a really one-sided and a biased campaign about safe sex. It is time the government spent some money telling kids this is not the only way. We talk about unwanted pregnancies - condoms do not give you 100% surety you are not going to get pregnant. There are other issues involved here. There are moral issues. There are issues about what sex is all about.
I hope we are trying to bring up our kids to say sex is not just having a cup of tea or going to buy a Kit Kat; I hope it is a bit more than that. This does not send that message out; it just says sex is having a good time. Big deal! I do not think it is the right message and our department should rethink that campaign. By all means, if that is the campaign it wants to make sure that people have safe sex and they do not get HIV, so be it. However, we should balance these things a little better and we should not be so flippant. These are serious subjects. It is not just about having a party, or hopping into bed with some person you have never met before tonight after having a few drinks. We should be able to stand up here and be able to do things more responsibly.
We have a job as members of parliament, as parents, as grandparents and as leaders in the community, to put alternative points of view. I do not go along with the crowd. Just because Hot 100 does it, that would be the last radio station I would be looking to for moral advice. They sponsor this and they sponsor that, and they do all sorts of shows and things that I would not want my kids going to, especially if they were young. They are all grown up now, they can jolly well do what they like.
I believe we can do a better job, I will be writing to the minister and saying that this is a one-sided campaign and we can do a lot better. I have said my bit. I know I will get criticised, but so what? I am not going to sit here in parliament and be a wimp. That is not the right campaign, not just like that on its own.
With that off my chest, I feel much better, and I would like to wish everyone a happy Christmas. That is the other reason I would like to stay here today, because I think I am sitting in the Chair tomorrow, so my chances of perhaps getting a few words in tomorrow might be a bit grim.
I wish all my staff – this might sound to be a lot of staff for one person - Jo, Jenny, Lida, Liz and Loz. The reason I have Jo, Jenny, Lida, Liz and Loz, is because one of my staff works for four days and one staff works for one day in my electorate office. Then one of those staff is not working at the moment, she has taken six months off, so I had to get another staff member. One of those staff is going to university some days, so I have had to get another staff member. So I have ended up having four electorate officers at the moment. I know it sounds complicated. Of course, I have Loz – everyone knows Loz, she is the good lady who knows how to work the Internet for me and do the research when I need it. I wish them all a happy Christmas and a peaceful new year.
To all the staff at the Assembly - there is one poor bloke sitting down the front there all by himself - and his colleagues and all the people who do help us, they are a great group of people to work with and they certainly help me. I could not get through being Chairman of Committees without them.
To all my parliamentary colleagues, whether you agree or disagree with me, whether I vote with you or do not vote with you, that is beside the point. The one thing we should be trying to bring to this parliament, regardless of what side of politics we are on, is a feeling that we are Territorians working for the benefit of the Territory.
Dr Burns: We love you anyway, Gerry.
Mr Scrymgour: Didn’t you hear the member for Johnston?
Mr WOOD: Oh, I heard him. He was …
Ms Scrymgour: We love you, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: That’s right, thank you. But I hope he fixes up his pronunciation of Coomalie. That is the only thing that worries me. He was using the Irish version Coo-mar-lee, because Dr Burns comes from long Irish stock.
Mr Elferink: He would have been the member for Jin-gar-lee.
Mr WOOD: That is right, and Parrup. Anyway, we have got off the track there. As I said, I would like to wish everybody here a happy Christmas. It is a pity we cannot wish everybody a happy Christmas every day and keep that friendliness right through the year.
To my family, I know they will be glad to see me at Christmas, because most of the time they do not see me. I will be wishing them a happy Christmas and, hopefully, everybody is there. We will be celebrating that at Bachelor, about 10 km out of Bachelor in the bush, so that will be a great day.
Lastly, I thank all the people of Nelson for all the support they have given, and especially for FOG. For those who do not know FOG, it is not a secret organisation, but you will only find it in the Nelson electorate. It is a little group of supporters called the Friends of Gerry. I would like to thank them very much. We meet about three times a year. It is nice to know there are people out there who, of all political persuasions, I think Friends of Gerry have left, right and in between people, when it comes to political viewpoints. I get a fairly well balanced group of people who tell me what they think about various issues. I certainly thank them very much.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I give recognition to a number of individuals and organisations in my electorate. At this time of the year, it is always an opportunity to acknowledge the work and the commitment of those individuals and, in particular, for the hard work over the last 11 months. I am certainly looking forward to seeing a number of them in the coming weeks leading up to Christmas.
Barry Puruntatameri and his wife Teresita, or Kilapawu. Kilapawu is the president of the girls’ school at Nguiu. Both have, for many years, strived to better the social and cultural environment in the community for the maintenance and future of all Tiwi children. Having gone to the Tiwi Islands a number of times lately and, in particular Nguiu, there are certainly some real issues with alcohol and the influx and continual increase of cannabis on the island and causing a lot of grief amongst, and with the community over there.
Gawain Tipiloura, who has recently been appointed the community services manager at Nguiu. Gawain is the son of the former member for Arafura, Stanley Tipiloura. Having seen this young fellow growing up from the child he was, into the man he is, when you have a look it is almost taking a step back in time and looking at his father all over again. It is certainly heartening to see him playing the lead role that he is in the community at the moment.
John and Joy Naden who have been on the island at Nguiu for some time. They are two non-Tiwi people who have been living over there for more than 10 years, and have often gone unrecognised for a lot of the work they do with many of the disabled artists in the community. They have set up an arts and crafts centre at Nguiu. Every time I visit the island, as well as visiting Tiwi Design and Bima Wear, because they are important too, I visit this arts and crafts centre which showcases the work of the disabled artists which is just as good as the work of the able bodied artists. I do not believe that it gets enough exposure. Nor is there sufficient recognition of these two people who spend a lot of time, not just during normal working hours, but certainly after hours, working with those disabled artists and their families, to give some sort of quality of life, in particular, to Tiwi people with disabilities who often get quite neglected amongst families.
I mention the Tiwi Island Training Education Board, Norm Buchan and all the staff. The graduations in September this year saw another 100-odd graduates graduating. There are still some challenges that they are facing and they are working to overcome, and I wish them all the best. We will continue to work closely with them, in particular, my role, not just as the local member but more importantly, as parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training.
Matthew Wonaeamirri, Walter Kerinauia, Charles Tipungwuti and Cyril Rioli: some time ago, the Tiwi Land Council did a major restructuring of the Tiwi Land Council, and rather than the secretary that they have had there for some time, they looked at giving the four managers, a representative from each of the four major skin groups on the Tiwi Islands, a greater role in the control of the Tiwi Land Council. Certainly, those four men have got to a point in their lives because they have been involved with the politics and the running of the Tiwi Land Council for many years. One of the biggest things that they have put into place, which we did not think would happen, is a succession plan, which all four managers have developed and now put in place, with younger Tiwi men. Also there have been a couple of women nominated, which is also very heartening. It is not just young men that are being singled out to take on the succession of these men on the land council; they are actually looking at women taking on these roles.
That is a huge step for my mob on the Tiwi Islands. I stood up and told those men and congratulated them for looking beyond just seeing men as the successors, in having a say in issues about land and law. It is important that they see, now, that their women certainly should have a part in that.
Jo Kane and Greta Kerinauia: Jo Kane runs a fantastic aged care program on Nguiu, the hostel. She has a Tiwi lady who works with her, Greta Kerinauia. If you go out to most communities, when we talk about quality of life with our old people, quality of life does not exist. It is heartening with the program that is happening on the Tiwi Islands and the hostel that has been built there, that at least the old people at Nguiu are getting some level or access to some quality of life. Recently, I saw an old lady whom I call cousin; she is about 86 years old. Old Ada, when she was put into that hostel about six months ago, everyone had sort of given up and thought, oh well, she is 86, and she is ready to look towards death. She was quite neglected and run down. Seeing her only recently in the last couple of weeks, she is looking about 10 years younger since she has been in that hostel and getting the care and the support that a lot of our old people certainly do not get.
Something that we do not pay enough attention to when we talk about domestic violence and all the other violence that is happening, and one of the other issues that continually gets swept under the carpet in our communities is the elder abuse that is happening in our communities. People are reluctant to address that, but it is certainly something that needs to happen, because the level of disrespect that is happening amongst the young people towards our old people has to be stopped.
Tiwi Health Board staff have strived all year to work towards the better health of Tiwi people despite the hardship and levels of trauma and grief. We have had a number of suicides on the Tiwi Islands this year. To date there have been about eight suicides since May. The coroner’s office has certainly weighed into some of the arguments with the suicides in terms of the impact that alcohol and that club has had on that community. That is something that certainly, through the Substance Abuse Committee, we are looking at addressing. Because whilst marijuana is certainly a big issue in these communities, I still say, and I know and I have heard a number of people in this parliament saying, and I agree totally, that alcohol, or grog, is still the biggest menace and demon that is causing problems amongst our mob.
Lawrence Costa, Henry Dunn, Patrick Puruntatameri and Patricia Brogan who has just recently - and that is another thing on the Tiwi Islands, and it is really good to see the mood that has happened with the Tiwis where young Tiwi women are going into many of these positions - so Patricia Brogan, congratulations. She was recently appointed the Community Services Manager with Pirlangimpi Council. Gibson Farmer is the president of Milikapiti, and one person who I think has life after politics. I was listening to her talk with Daryl Manzie at the Territory Tidy Towns forum last week where he was giving a talk in between the breaks about life after politics. I think we should have encouraged Maurice Rioli to give a bit of a talk about life after politics because he is doing a fantastic job at Milikapiti where he is now the Community Services Manager for Milikapiti Council. He is looking well, he is feeling well and he is back home. It is always good to get out to Milikapiti and touch base with Maurice and the community.
I move on to Maningrida. David Bond and all Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation management council and staff who do a fantastic job; Lyn Hollow, the principal of Maningrida CEC, and Helen Bond-Sharp. Sitting down and talking to Lyn and Helen, there are some positive and exciting plans for secondary education at Maningrida. All the staff have worked well all year and unfortunately there are some teachers leaving at the end of the year and moving to other communities or into Darwin as they have been there for some time and are seeking a change. I will be seeing all those teachers on my visit to Maningrida next week on the 5th and 6th to thank them personally for their commitment to improving the Maningrida children’s education.
Maningrida Council president Morris Geinbaraba and Council members; John Horgan and staff at the Council; Bill Young, Council and staff of the Maningrida Progress Association, Gordon Machbirrbirr and Council members of the Maningrida Health Board. One of the great things that is happening at Maningrida at the moment - for years that community has had a number of problems with levels of politics - it has been really good in the last six months where finally the community is coming together to address issues of governance and that is working with the traditional owners, whom I think over time have become disempowered and pushed out of the community. So, all the agencies are finally all talking about how they can now empower the traditional owners and get things happening at Maningrida to lay the foundations for a better future.
Anyone who knows Maningrida - and I am sure the member for Johnston and I certainly share mutual colleagues and friends there - can say that that is certainly a huge step forward of working with that community and getting them to come together and getting the agencies to work together.
Jabiluka Association Council in Jabiru, CEO Liam Maher and all the staff at Jabiluka; Gunbalanya, Esther and Joe Singh. Esther is the principal of Gunbalanya School and also the co-chair of the Learning Lessons committee. There is one teacher in particular who I would like to single out at the Jabiru Area School and that is Jo Vandermark. Jo works very hard to strive for better outcomes for indigenous students in Kakadu, has worked in many communities around the Top End but has been in at Jabiru Area School for some years. She has put a lot of her spare time, when she is not teaching in the classroom, setting up the centre inside the school to work intensively with indigenous children to try to lift the benchmarks with both their literacy and numeracy. She puts a lot of time and energy into providing these children with the support and mentoring that they need.
I thank the Legislative Assembly staff for all their support during the year. I know there are constant phone calls and e-mails from my office because there is a whole lot of confusion and just sorting out bills and different things, so I thank all the staff for their patience and helping us to sort that out. To Lyle, my new electorate officer, who, whilst it gets very serious and full on, can make you laugh and smile, and he just makes it all the better. It is certainly funny watching some of the countrymen when they come into the office. The minute Lyle opens his mouth, you see them slowly retreat - and not because they do not like him, but because of his antics that he shows. Certainly, they love him and he has been good in that office.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in the House and report on some of the very good things that are happen in my electorate. St Philip’s College is a college that strives for excellence amongst the students, not just academically, but also in the area of sport. They are very delighted that two volleyball teams from St Philip’s will head to Melbourne on Saturday. They will be the first Alice Springs team ever to compete in the Australian Schools Volleyball Championships.
This particular competition will have 3000 students from all around Australia, for a week of competition. The St Philip’s girls and boys teams will play in division one, the open section for players aged under 20, and play a minimum of eight games each. They have worked very hard to get to this level of competition. They leave by bus, and it is a long way from Alice Springs to Melbourne by bus. They leave at 4 am in the morning and they arrive on the Sunday morning. Then four hours later they will be there for their first training session. They have worked hard, and they take this competition very seriously.
The girls team is the St Philip’s team which won the Northern Territory Schools Volleyball Championships this year. They were invited to play in the Masters Games competition in October, which was an opportunity for them to get some strong, outstanding competition, and from which they learned a great deal. Their coach is Alex Pollitt. They are all delighted that, during the Masters competition, they were able to have a training workshop with the Olympic gold medal winner, Kerri Pottharst. She was very encouraging and enthusiastic about the school’s involvement in the Australian Schools Championship this year. Whenever we send students away it costs so much, but they have raised over $3000 as a group through such activities as envelope stuffing for the Masters Games, food stalls, chocolate sales and all those things. I wish them well and hope they do well in their first attempt to participate in the Australian Schools Volleyball Championships. I seek leave to have their names incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
Dean Williams Captain
Mrs BRAHAM: I also make mention of Braitling Primary School, which happens to be one of my favourite schools, as you can imagine. This year, a group of their students entered the Natural History Challenge. The title of the project they did for the challenge was Voyages and Journeys. They decided to research the history of one of the early Italian families who came by boat from Italy to Australia and then settled in Central Australia. They put together this history of the migrants of Central Australia, and the vital role they played, particularly in mining.
They had a suitcase as their museum display, because many migrants arrived just with a suitcase as you can imagine. The Ragonesi family went out to the Winnecke gold fields and it must have been such a hard life for them to have done it. So the suitcase had photographs and the handicrafts and all the little things that they had then. It was such a striking exhibition of that journey the Ragonesi family made, commencing their new life in the Centre of Australia after leaving Italy. It was very fitting that they used the Ragonesi family because that family has direct links with the Braitling school. Many of their descendants have attended Braitling, and there are currently three great-grandchildren there. The principal, Mary Blaiklock, grew up with the Ragonesi children in Central Australia. Her parents also were part of the Italian migrant families who came from Italy onto the gold fields.
The exciting thing about it, when they entered this, is that they did so well. They won first place in the Northern Territory Awards for the Year 5/6 level. They won for the museum display and primary sources. As well as that, they have been awarded the best overall entry in the Northern Territory from Years 5 to 12, receiving the Chief Minister’s Young Historian Awards. I am pleased to say that the Chief Minister attended the school assembly and presented this award to the young students.
Most exciting for them also, is that they are going to be attending the national championships as they went on to win at the national level. They will travel to Parliament House in Canberra in December for the national presentations. They are particularly chuffed about all this. I make mention of these students: they are Steven Crawford, Sianne Van Abkoude, Lauren Hicks and Misha Wakerman. They are typical of young, confident students today who have done this. Their teacher is Sue Endean, who has been involved in many of these projects in the past. It is a great credit to them. I congratulate these young students from Braitling Primary School for the tremendous effort they have put in and for receiving a prize in the national presentations. I know that they will do their school proud at the presentations in Canberra.
I also opened the Alice Springs Quilting Club exhibition this year. The Quilting Club has been established in Alice Springs since 1981. They have been holding their exhibitions at Araluen since it was opened in 1984. The exhibition was fantastic in my opinion. I am not a quilter so I can only just admire the work of these people. This year, they had to actually have their display in Witchetty’s, not in one of the galleries. I mention this because, since 1984, they have always held their exhibition in a gallery. It has always been well received and they have had many visitors – hundreds - to have a look at their exhibition. So it was a little sad that they were not allowed to be in a gallery this year.
This brings me to a point that I want to raise. I feel as though Araluen is beginning to lose what it was meant to be. It was established a long time ago by a gentleman called Jonah Jones, who had the foresight to establish a community art centre in Alice Springs. When it was first built, everyone use to laugh and call it the egg factory because it looked like a big tin shed. However, it has developed into a beautiful art exhibition area and governments over the year have certainly improved and upgraded it. It was meant for community groups to use and community groups have used it a lot. We have the Centralian Art Award, the Art Exhibition, all sorts of things go in there. Many of the community groups would sit the galleries and by doing that they would earn points which would assist in the cost of hiring the gallery to put on their display. There has been a trend recently that this has been discouraged. To be a sitter now, you have to be in a corporate uniform so, of course, the sitters do not come from the voluntary groups anymore.
The art gallery is beautiful, it has been upgraded, but it is becoming quite elitist. The fact that the Quilting Club could not hold their exhibition in one of these galleries reflects a little of the trend. There have been comments made that quilts are not art. To me, they are pieces of art. What these people have done in creating these quilts is beautiful. It is a little unfortunate that this thought is coming through that, perhaps, we have this elitist art gallery.
Some comments were made that we should have exhibitions that last six to eight weeks. Well, that is a little extreme in a place like Alice Springs. ‘We should not have the Centralian Art Award there, because that is really just local art’. This is a rather sad way to go. When it was built, it was built for the people of Alice Springs. We have always had Friends of Araluen, but I feel as though the Friends of Araluen are being squeezed out. We had an advisory board and I hear tell that they feel as though they have no place anymore in running the establishment; that they are only a token committee.
I would just like to say to the Chief Minister, I know she has been approached on this matter but she should think seriously about the way Araluen is being managed at the moment, and the trend to deter community groups from using Araluen for what it was originally intended. Even though it is great to have all these wonderful art exhibitions and the Namatjira Collection and such like that tourists like to see, it is also important to retain that community involvement in a centre like that, and have people– be it quilters or potters or whatever they are – be able to have their little exhibitions in those galleries. The galleries have been built to highlight works. Where the quilts were this year had a carpet on the floor and to be honest, it deadened it a little. But when you go into the gallery it is so light, it brings out the best in any works of arts that are there.
I would like the Chief Minister to take seriously some of the concerns that have been expressed to her about the trend that is occurring at Araluen, and to put the focus back on to community groups. Okay, so they are not in a corporate uniform but does it really matter who sits the gallery? I am quite sure that it would have save a lot in the way of payment of staff if they continued this voluntary work that happens at Araluen. The little caf there is run purely by voluntary people, and I am not sure whether that is going to survive, because of the fact that they do not seem to be welcome anymore at Araluen. Araluen is a great place. I am not knocking it as an establishment; it is fantastic. What I am suggesting is that we need to make sure that the community owns Araluen and is able to use it and feel comfortable there, but most of all, be encouraged to go there.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to raise an issue that has arisen during the course of the day, which is of some concern to me, or potential concern, as to the arrangements that currently exist in the Northern Territory and the supply of essential services into remote localities. This is by no means meant to be an attack on government and it should not be heard in that fashion. Rather, I seek to flag this as a potential issue for the future that may raise its ugly head, and needs to be considered at this early stage. It is incumbent upon me, as a member of this House, to raise this issue with government. It may or may not even become an issue, but I cannot forbear but to mention it.
What I am referring to is the arrangements that now occur in remote and regional communities in relation to the provision of services. I am somewhat concerned by the circumstances which arose this morning in the House, when I raised the question and a matter I have been pursuing for the last week or so, in relation to the supply of water in a couple of remote schools. I am heartened by the minister’s answer this morning and hope that the situation certainly does not repeat itself. Indeed, the minister himself made those observations.
However, because we have the devolution of the Power and Water Corporation into PowerWater, which is now a GBD - actually, no, it is a government owned business, so it is a free standing company, of which there is a shareholder, namely, the Treasurer, I believe, who is the only shareholder. But in every other sense, it is a company. This company operates in the same commercial environment that any other company would operate in, with the exception that it is owned by the government. What this means is that it is now very difficult to trace the movement of money through the government. The Minister for Community Development now gets a wad of money which is accounted for in the budget books; he then uses that wad of money to purchase services from PowerWater to deliver those services to remote and regional communities around the Northern Territory, similar to the old community service obligation, the obligation being on the government to provide the service to the remote and regional community.
In the old days, through the budget processes, we were able to drill down and pursue which money went where, and who got what, which was a handy tool to make sure that those services were being delivered. We are now dealing with an outside provider. This provider is no longer part of government and therefore when a government purchases a service from any other company, what the government pays for it specifically is not necessarily public information. In fact, in most instances such information I imagine would be commercial-in-confidence. It then makes it more difficult to pursue the movement of money, and we do not know whether or not the same amounts of money are being spent in the remote communities, and indeed, government is to some degree at arm’s length from the purchase of these services.
Certainly a minister - I notice that the Treasurer and the minister for education in this instance is the same person, but let’s say the health minister running a clinic in a remote community is in no position to be able to dictate how much money is spent. The government purchases the service through an expenditure through the Minister for Community Development, but there is no way for the Minister for Health to check, really, to find out how much clinics are getting, or more importantly, not getting.
Now, that is one of the ways that services are provided in the bush to remote communities, but unfortunately the processes that now exist is that there are two other levels. This is what the minister was at pains to point out this morning, is that in the instance where these particular schools were concerned, they were actually supposed to be supplied by local government authorities. In one instance, the local government authority is supposed to have its services purchased at a Territory government level from PowerWater; that is the example of Areyonga community. However, at the Hill outstation, the money is supplied by the federal government through ATSIC directly to the resource centre which is then supposed to outsource the funding to remote communities and homelands.
We have three tiers of government overlapping in this area; we have no way of really knowing where the money is being spent at a federal, state or local level which means that cost-cutting is going to become very tempting to the federal level, to the state level and to the local level, and one of the products of this is that the services that are delivered into the bush are going to be seriously undermined. That is what we have seen in the schools over the last week, the issue I have been raising, is the thin edge of the wedge. What concerns me is because of the disparate and disorganised fashion in which these services are being delivered, we may be going from the sublime to the ridiculous at a horrible pace. Because it is in the jurisdictional area of the Northern Territory, this government will seriously have to start looking at ways to rationalise or streamline the delivery of these services. There is no communication between these tiers and I have the ugly premonition that as a consequence of this lack of communication, holes are going to form.
You are going to see concentrations of cash in some places, where places are going to be over-serviced, and then in between those overs-serviced areas you are going to find holes in the fabric and through the holes in the fabric, is where the pain is going to occur in these remote communities.
I do not want to see that happen, simply do not want to see that happen. I am gravely concerned that you have three different levels of government offering similar services in remote communities and in communities where it is difficult to find the conduits of complaint. As I said at the outset, this is not a criticism of government; I merely flag this as an issue of concern into the future.
We have no guarantees in how these services are delivered; we have no system through estimates or otherwise as this parliament to know where the money is going into the bush for the supply of services, and more importantly and more fearfully, where the money is not going into the bush. As I said before, there is a real risk that this could turn into cost shifting exercises, not because of any act of malice on the part of government, but simply because it becomes so tempting. If it is not traceable, if it is not accountable, and the pressure is on to save money, then the areas where accountability is at lower levels or non-existent levels, are the ones which will suffer first. I do not want to see a situation where we have a minister saying, kids at school, no water, not my problem. I am grateful that the minister this afternoon, during Question Time said, ‘Not my problem; I appreciate that, but we will still take steps to intervene for the sake of the kids’, and I am grateful for that.
The other thing that concerns me is a curious question as to the asset structure of PowerWater. There are any number of assets sitting in any number of remote communities - generators, powerhouses, tanks, bores, those sorts of things - which were previously listed, or would be listed, on accounting systems as a zero value. The reason that would occur is because a zero value would be applied to an asset which we would effectively have no control over. These powerhouses stand on somebody else’s land. There are no leasing arrangements that I am aware, for the existence of powerhouses and those sorts of things. The land they stand on is certainly not excised from the freehold land that they stand on, and therefore, there is a very big question mark as to who owns it.
Now, if PowerWater, in relation to these assets, still values them as nil, who owns them, where are they owned? And if there is no sense of ownership over these assets, I am gravely concerned that this too will erode the sense of responsibility that the owner of the property, whoever that may be, will have in relation to those assets. And if the sense of responsibility is the same as its asset value figure, then there is a diabolical problem awaiting just around the corner for this government, and any other government which will be in the Northern Territory into the future. It is totally uncertain as to where those assets stand at law or even who owns them now. Who is taking responsibility for the power station at Alpurrurulam, or at Nyirripi, or at Maningrida? I do not know. I do not know if PowerWater says that they are their own, and if they are, what value they place on them.
I flag that as a matter of concern. I see it as a matter of concern which is going to play itself out in the future, in a very ugly way, unless there is some sort of intervention to prevent the further degradation of services and the further breakdown in communication which will lead to a degradation of services in the bush.
I also make my Christmas message tonight fairly brief. I thank the staff of the Legislative Assembly, as I do every year. They have put in a sterling effort. Sometimes I wonder why they put up with us, but they are unflappable in the face of the bear pit in here. I also wish to pass on my Christmas regards to each and every member of this Chamber. No, we do not always agree, but I still believe that the vast majority of us are in here for the right reasons, and that is the advancement of the people of the Northern Territory.
I pass on my Christmas cheer to Mal and Jan Derby. Jan is my ever zealous electorate officer. She and her husband, Malcolm, moved to Alice Springs a couple of years ago. I picked Jan up almost by accident, and she has been an absolute boon to me, and Mal has been also a very helpful gentleman. I am grateful for the many hours that he has put in on my behalf, for no reward other than for the thrill of doing it, I suppose, or some other such madness.
I also place on the record again, a happy and merry Christmas to my wife, a lady I love very much, and for some reason, has for another year chosen to stick it out with me. I asked her once why she married me and she said, ‘Charity’. I am not entirely sure if she was joking! She is an extraordinary lady and I consider myself blessed beyond words to be married to her, and to have her into my life and all the stuff that we have done over the years continues to be a reason I get out of bed in the morning. Once again, I place on the record a merry Christmas to her.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to make my contribution, which may, be my last contribution for this year. Firstly, to look back and then to look forward with expectation, when we survey the scene behind us and look at the way our paths have wound throughout the course of this year, and our fortunes, one way or another, have shone on us and given us some joy, and other times the opposite. We then look forward to see what lies ahead of us. These are, indeed, interesting times for the Northern Territory and its people - and the people are really what this is all about.
We come to Christmas and we often consider things such as family and that base line issue of what we are getting for Christmas. As a local member and representative of a good portion of Palmerston, and a cross section of the Top End of the Northern Territory’s population, I would hope that we would be receiving some of the things that Santa has promised to the good people. We are eagerly looking forward to these. We are anticipating the arrival of these gifts and, this being the second Christmas, we hope that these gifts will be deposited beneath the tree.
An indoor recreation facility for Palmerston has been talked about under the previous government and $500 000 committed to the foundation infrastructure development. We wait for something more; the next stage of this. I hope that we do not have to wait for yet another Christmas.
A home ground for the Palmerston Magpies, which have won two NTFL grand finals and seem to be doing quite well in the current round. Hopefully, we are not going past our second Christmas. Underneath the Christmas tree is no clear and concrete commitment to what this promise of a gift from Santa actually meant; that we would have a home ground facility. The commitment has been made and we eagerly sit around that tree waiting to see how this will manifest.
A health precinct for Palmerston that delivers what the good people of Palmerston expected it would, that they would be able to go to a place in the evening where their health concerns would be met.
Another expectation has been raised; we are sitting around the Christmas tree waiting for the announcement that there will actually be, in real terms, a new school for Rosebery to take the pressure off schools such as Bakewell and Woodroffe. That the students, staff and the parents of Bakewell School will have the promised four demountables and ablution block delivered to them in real terms, and that the female staff of the school will have an ablution block. With the increased population of the female gender in the school there are insufficient toilet facilities.
On a broader scale, I hope that we see underneath the Christmas tree in the new year the unpacking of gifts in the form of many more teachers than we expected - eager and keen to impart that spark of life and enthusiasm and vision for community service and developing of skills inherent in our young in the Northern Territory. Many more teachers than we expected would arrive and vie for the positions, to have these honoured positions to stand before classrooms right across the Northern Territory, remote communities and in urban communities. That our relief teacher lists would be bolstered with talent and quality, and that principals would have no concern in the mornings when the phone rings that one of the teachers is ill; and we would have a vast list of numbers to phone, each of them ringing in the home of a relief teacher who is keen to come in and serve that day.
That each of these teachers would be well and comprehensively supported by professional development and curriculum support. That the idea that has been spoken about, the promise of a teachers’ registration board, would be more clearly defined, so we would know exactly what this gift is and what it can actually do. And for the people of the Northern Territory, even wider still, we would have the gift that this construct, being the parliament, would begin to evaporate the cynicism that we have in our community – and not just this community, but in most western worlds – of what is it really all about.
There would be a greater and increased connection with the people of the Northern Territory, so that when we stand in the mornings and say, ‘may we advance and prosper the true welfare of all Territorians’, that is exactly what would happen as a result of our activities in here. That the interchange across the Chamber would be to advance and prosper the true welfare of Territorians as opposed to the true welfare and prosperity of our own political agendas.
I now acknowledge the most valuable resources that any person can have. It has been acknowledged, importantly, even in Scripture, that it is not good for man to be alone. I am not alone. I have a wife, and I acknowledge my dear wife and the pressures that are placed on her by the task that I have taken upon myself, and the responsibilities I have taken to serve my community. It falls in quiet ways upon my wife. And on my two children, Kristen and Matthew. They are just entering adult life now. I entered this place when they were in school and now they have left school, and have both taken their own paths. I thank them very much for the relationship that I have with them.
I thank my electorate officer, Tasma, for the relationship that we have and the way that we are together in supporting our electorate, and her family, and the pressure that it places on her family, that strange notion we have of service and commitment and delivering a more favourable outcome for the people we have responsibility for. To those who work on the 4th floor in the Leader of the Opposition’s office - Imelda, Kylie, Gary and Jim - the many additional hours they contribute, hours that do not equate to dollars, but hours that equate to devotion and service and commitment, to the true welfare and prosperity of the people of the Northern Territory.
I do not draw a line when I refer to parliamentary colleagues because I still do believe that our task is to advance and prosper the true welfare of Territorians, and to parliamentary colleagues from both sides, I pray that we will continue to work actively to make that a reality and that our debates would have that as the central core.
The party members in the CLP who are going through a very interesting period, as an understatement, but it is a very exciting period because it is a time of reformation, restructure, and refocus of the challenges there and the challenges to be met. The party members in the Labor Party, who are also true believers have been there through dark times and now it is their time in the sun. May both sides be able to reposition and readjust and ensure that their endeavours and activities are primarily to advance and prosper the true welfare of all Territorians. I wish them all the best for Christmas and beyond.
I thank the media for the friendships that have been formed; the relationships are valued because it is too easy to be distracted by the superficial, the headline and the article in the paper or the grab on the news, and to know it is really all about people. I respect the media and appreciate the contribution they do make and value each one of you for the time that we have spent together. I look forward to your contribution in the coming year and years beyond.
I also acknowledge the staff of this great Chamber. It was not until coming into this Chamber that I began to understand how important this place is. I thank Ian for his guidance, Gaddy, Stoksie and Samantha - there will be a name or two that I do not acknowledge - please do not take it that I have not valued your contribution; it is just at this point that I cannot encompass everybody.
To those in Hansard, it was tremendous earlier in the year to go up there and visit you and see the work that you do and to know who you are because, once again, it is all about people. I value the contribution that you do make and the friendships that have been formed and the way that you participate in the very important role for Territorians in recording that which is debated and discussed here in this Chamber.
So once again, for Christmas I hope that the notion of advancement and prosperity of the true welfare of all Territorians would be central and foremost in the minds and the hearts of everybody who is involved in this game one way or another. I wish all who read and listen to these words a very happy, prosperous and blessed Christmas and a new year that has a spark in it that counters the concerns that have unsettled the hearts and minds of many families and people right around the world, particularly here in the Northern Territory, with recent events of 11 September, and 12 October.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about a few events in my electorate and beyond. I will be delivering a bit of a Christmas wind-up tomorrow night - not a wind-up, but just a few words.
On 25 October, a group from Jingili Primary School Year 6/7 visited Parliament House with their teacher, Kaye Creek. The students were participating in the Discovering Democracy Forum and tour of the law courts, Darwin City Council and Parliament House. They were a fantastic group of children who asked intelligent, well-thought out questions and were exceptionally well behaved. Also on 25 October, I represented the Chief Minister at the COTA AGM at the Darwin City Council Chambers with the Lord Mayor as guest speaker. It was great to see so many people who had come out to support COTA and to see what an active organisation it is.
On Saturday, 26 October, I attended the Neighbourhood Watch 12th Annual Conference and AGM at the university. The theme was Crime: Combating the Cause, and the special guest speaker was Ross McCrone from Tasmania. He addressed some of the recent trends in fraud that have been identified by the National Fraud Desk including plastic card fraud, fraud related to the Internet and a particular scam that is generally called West African sympathy or advance fee card. It was good to see members of Neighbourhood Watch from all over the Territory participating at this conference.
On Saturday 26th and Sunday 27th October, it was the commemoration of the Greek October ‘OXI’ Day at the Nightcliff Greek School and the church service at St Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church followed by a wreath laying ceremony at the Esplanade Cenotaph on Sunday. On the Saturday it was great to see all he kids there, reciting poems and singing songs. It was a great crowd and all the parents and families really appreciated it. Sunday was a somber day but I know the Greek people are very proud of their war history during World War II and the way that they resisted the fascists.
On Saturday 26 October, I attended the Duke Street Rainforest Landcare Group official opening of the new boardwalk and walking track into the rainforest that they have helped regenerate and rehabilitate. They are a very active group. The member for Port Darwin was there and the Lord Mayor also came along. I have not been there before and I really pay tribute to that group for the great way they have rehabilitated that area and put in walking tracks. They are looking for other areas to do likewise and I commend them.
On 28 October I attended a COGSO meeting in Len Kiely’s office and the subject was school based constables and the DARE program. That was a pretty lively discussion but there is evidence about school based constables and the DARE program and about teachers delivering drug education in our schools.
On 29 October, I attend the Cattle Council dinner in Katherine and, as Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, had a look over a few facilities there in Katherine. I am very interested in the grain industry and the cattle industry. I am looking forward to many trips to Katherine. It is a great place.
Now, about some schools and other community events. Moil Athletics Club: I donated some money to help Joshua Brogan and Kevin Howard to compete as part of the NT Athletics team at the Northern Queensland championships held on 5 and 6 October 2002 in Townsville. Over 500 athletes from the northern region of Queensland competed in the event. The NT team consisted of 37 athletes and they performed fantastically, bringing home 22 gold, 17 silver and 20 bronze medals. They also won five out of six relay events which shows they have been training and practicing quite a lot. Kevin Howard won a bronze medal for the 100m with an impressive time of 13.71s and a gold medal as part of the relay team. Unfortunately, Josh Brogan sustained injury and was unable to contest in his events.
In terms of Moil School, the University of New South Wales Mathematics competition has been held. Congratulations to Year 7 student, Samantha Leung, who received a high distinction award. Distinctions awards were received by Millicent Crowe, Oliver Bruekers, Lenny Quong in Year 7; Puanna Kapi in Year 6; Simon Long, Iona Watson and Ian Moriarty in Year 5; Darcy Stanford, Jamie Lang, Joshua Rudd and Christopher Frew in Year 4; and Megan Party, Charlotte Nathan, Phoebe Martin and Mallory McGuiness in Year 3. Credit awards went to Ayrial Harburn, James Roberts and Daniel Reeves in Year 7; Jordan Jones and Paul Anderson in Year 6; Rebecca Waddington in Year 5; Zac Anderson, Zara Geraghty and Clancy Bennett-Kellam in Year 4; and David Carroll, Brianna Harding, Alex Nathan and Rachel Quong in Year 3.
Wagaman Primary School achieved great results in this year’s University of New South Wales Australian School English Competition with a High Distinction to Adam Pulford; Distinction to Afif Whykes, Kirsten Heslop, Brooke Ottley, and Amy Whykes; and Credit to Steven Heslop, Amy Russell and Dale Motter. Achievement (School Award) were presented to Alexandra Presswell, Isabel Kallinosis, Andri Ladju, Sam Larder, Samantha Sheehy, Melody Rayson, Candice Sanchez, Tyson Cigobia, Joshua Larder, Ella Thomson, Latoya Wauchope, Glenn Silva and Meg Polkinghorne.
Jingili School: at the Nightcliff Zone Swimming Carnival in October, the following students swam very well: congratulations to Jake Gilbert, Jack Simpson, Chantel Holloway, John Holloway, Sam Sommerville, Allan Sommerville, Luke Eggins, Jarrod Eggins and Jessica Shalders.
Casuarina Senior College: congratulations to Colleen McAlpine, who won the national VET in Schools WorldSkills competition in the Business Administration section. The competition was held in Newcastle in late October, with participants from every state across several skills areas.
Finally, I take this opportunity to wish the graduating students all the best as they move on to their career path and lifestyle; it is a big transition. To all the schools in the Johnston electorate - Wagaman, Moil, Jingili and, of course, Casuarina Senior College, to all the staff and students, and all the parents, I wish them a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from the Administrator, Message No 10 notifying of assent to bills passed in the October 2002 sittings.
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petitions No 17 and No 19 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the responses will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
- Petition No 17
Lack of medical and pharmaceutical facilities available on a 24 hour basis in Palmerston and rural area
Date petition presented: 19 September 2002
Presented by: Mr Maley
Referred to: Minister for Health and Community Services
Date response received: 26 November 2002
Date response presented: 27 November 2002
Response:
Thank you for your letters of 20 September and 8 October 2002, regarding petition No 17 and petition
No 19 respectively. In that these petitions appear to be identical, I propose to provide this one response to both.
Both petitions were presented by the Member for Goyder. Petition No 17 was presented on 19 September and
petition No 19 was presented to the House on 8 October 2002.
In essence, the petitions request the Legislative Assembly to:
- 1. reinstate the newly established Farrar Medical Centre as a 24-hour medical assessment service,
allowing Palmerston and rural residents personal access to medical advice from nurses, paramedics
and registered general practitioners, or the ability to be transported to Royal Darwin Hospital Accident
and Emergency; and
- 2. establish with Farrar medical facility, a 24-hour chemist facility as further support to the 24-hour
medical assessment service.
It is now common knowledge that a 10 pm to 8 am general practitioner service was established in Palmerston
by the former government on a trial basis. It was always intended by the former government that this trial
would be reviewed to assess whether or not the service was viable. The review found that the service was
under-utilised and costly to implement. The service providers also noted that funding would need to be doubled
if all costs were considered and the service was to continue. As a result, this government decided that the
10 pm to 8 am service would no longer be funded.
A recent review of urban after-hours services conducted by the Top End Division of General Practice concluded
that 24-hour general practitioner services, particularly those provided after 10 pm, are neither sustainable within
present resources nor required, and that the more acute situations after 10 pm are best managed through hospital
services.
An after-hours medical service continues to be available between 6 pm to 10 pm, seven days a week at the Farrar
Medical Centre. The Northern Territory government subsidises this service at a cost of $150 000 per annum to enable
all patients to be bulk-billed during these hours.
In relation to medical assessments provided by nurses or paramedics, while these professionals are highly competent,
they are not qualified to provide medical advice other than for minor health problems and generally people with
such problems are able to see their general practitioner the following day. Anyone with more urgent health needs
would still need to go to the Royal Darwin Hospital even if seen by a nurse or paramedic. If people are in doubt, they
can call the Royal Darwin Hospital and discuss their concerns directly with hospital staff.
This government, at a cost of $260 000 this financial year, has taken steps to ensure that emergency access to Royal
Darwin Hospital from Palmerston and the rural area has been made easier. Firstly, extra ambulance shifts have
been added to the Darwin area, which frees the Palmerston-based ambulance to better service its area. Secondly,
a voluntary ambulance service has been successfully implemented in Humpty Doo where locally trained volunteers
provide services on an after-hours basis every day and all day on weekends.
The second issue raised in the petitions concerns the provision of a 24-hour chemist facility. In general terms,
pharmacy services operate on a commercial basis and provide services that match usage and demand. Patients
who see doctors after hours, whether a general practitioner or a hospital doctor, are normally provided with
adequate medication to meet their needs until the chemist opens the next day. There is no 24-hour pharmacy
operating anywhere in the Northern Territory, including Darwin, because there is not sufficient demand to
keep such a service open.
The provision of appropriate medical services is an important commitment of this government. The petitioners
should be assured that services are continually monitored and reviewed in light of changing community need
and the availability of resources to ensure the provision of the most effective health services possible.
Petition No 19
Lack of medical and pharmaceutical facilities available on a 24 hour basis in Palmerston and rural area
Date petition presented: 8 October 2002
Presented by: Mr Maley
Referred to: Minister for Health and Community Services
Date response received: 26 November 2002
Date response presented: 27 November 2002
Response:
See above.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
AustralAsia Railway – Connection of Line between Tennant Creek and Katherine
AustralAsia Railway – Connection of Line between Tennant Creek and Katherine
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to announce that a major milestone in the Alice Springs to Darwin railway project is fast approaching: the joining of the tracks between Tennant Creek and Katherine.
On Friday 13 December, I will be joined by the Acting Premier of South Australia, and a Commonwealth government representative, at the ADrail Buchanan camp site near Dunmarra to ignite the final thermal weld that joins the two tracks. The joining of the tracks will be covered live on national television, providing an opportunity for all Australians to witness the symbolic milestone in the history of the AustralAsia Railway project.
Since track laying began in April this year, over 580 km of track have been completed. Two crews have been laying track at an average of 2 km per day, sometimes achieving even more than that at 2.2 km, which is interesting, because initially it was only considered about 1.5 km or 1.6 km could be achieved. The track laying machines have actually achieved significantly more than they thought they would at this stage.
Some track work has been completed to approximately 50 km south of Tennant Creek, and to the ballast quarry 20 km north of Katherine. With the construction of the railway, now involving the passage of construction trains across our roads through the Territory, I would certainly like to alert the travelling public to be increasingly aware of the fact that trains are operating at level crossings, and they need to obey signs and traffic control devices. Over 1200 km of the corridor clearing is now complete, 960 000 sleepers have been manufactured, 1 725 000 tonnes of ballast has been produced and 82 000 tonnes of rail has been delivered to Roe Creek near Alice Springs from Whyalla in South Australia. Closer to Darwin, at the 510 m long Elizabeth River Bridge, concrete beams continue to be placed by a gantry system on a weekly basis. I certainly encourage anyone to have a look at the development of the rail crossing across the Elizabeth River Bridge; it really is very impressive.
Employment has reached a peak of 1451 direct employees. Of those, nearly 1000 – 916 - were from the Northern Territory. Training, in particular Aboriginal participation, is an important aspect of the work being carried out by ADrail, the Territory Construction Agency, and the Northern and the Central Land Councils. Of the 660 nationally accredited training courses run since the railway project began, over 100 Aboriginal participants have completed the courses and now have skills that are transferable to other fields, such as mining and construction, when their work on the railway has been complete. As at the end of September, the value of contracts awarded was $825m; of that amount $480m has been awarded to Territory-based businesses and industries. So, a significant injection of dollars into the Territory economy and a substantial support for Territory businesses has been achieved.
One of the issues to do with the railway that is causing a reasonable amount of controversy and discussion is the issue of the passenger terminals and their location. It is the subject of a submission currently being prepared for Cabinet’s consideration. Consideration of the issues confronting government requires a reasoned approach, taking into account the immediate and the longer term issues, and that will be done. I expect an announcement on the decision by the end of the year.
Finally, I wish to point out once again that, although construction is going ahead at a rapid rate, it is prudent to remember that there are two Wet Seasons from now until the official completion date of the rail in April 2004. Therefore, even though we are ahead of schedule at this stage, it would be unwise to predict an earlier completion date just yet.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister is indeed fortunate to be able to be part of a national media effort to see this historic and symbolic occasion with the joining of the rail lines from north to south. I hope the Chief Minister, when she is part of that ceremony, considers where that railway would be if Labor had had their way just prior to the signing. It is worth reminding the Chief Minister that we would have been part of a Royal Commission, just on the eve of the signing of the railway contract. It was the present Chief Minister who called for a Royal Commission into why the funding for the railway had been taken away by one of the large American organisations. It was the Labor Party, federally and in the Northern Territory which fought, every inch of the way, the actual completion of that signing. It is now this same Labor Party that takes every opportunity to herald their involvement in this great project. Well, Chief Minister, you and I and Territorians know the truth.
In terms of this particular comment, I ask the Chief Minister: if you are going to stand up and talk about the railway, would you tell us what your plan is when the railway is completed next November? Can you address the fact that there are already work gangs being laid off on that project? Can you address the question of what this government has in place to replace those 916 workers in other projects in the Northern Territory? Can you tell us what you are going to do with gas onshore in the Northern Territory? That is your other plan B, supposedly, that is going to achieve great economic fortunes for the Northern Territory. Chief Minister - and do not lie to us about the fact that the government has not considered …
Mr HENDERSON: Point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition well knows that he cannot accuse members of lying.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I do not think you should.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw.
Do not mislead Territorians about the fact that you have not decided where the railway station will be, when I have already spoken with Mr Branford, the CEO of Southern Pacific, who told me he is very pleased with the location. So you know the location; he is happy with it and you are still telling Territorians that it is still to go before Cabinet. Be honest, if you want to talk about the railway, be honest …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr BURKE: Tell us where the workers will be and tell us what you are going to do to get this economy going.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, my comments in no way are going to devalue what is a great project, the railway. In my one minute I would like to make a quick comment. One is, that although the railway is progressing well, sometimes some of the concerns that people have, especially about heritage, have been overlooked. The case of the over 100 year old tramway abutments at Grove Hill that were destroyed was a very sad thing to happen, especially as originally ADrail said they would not have to be destroyed. It was a piece of heritage that was marked as part of that gold fields loop for the tourists, and sadly it has been bulldozed and that is just one of the sad things has occurred.
I am not trying to diminish the rail. It is a great project, but just because it is a big project does not mean it should not look at some of the smaller issues that occur. Just quickly, the other thing, and I may have mentioned this before, but in 1988 there was a study of the Tiger Brennan Drive and in that Tiger Brennan Drive book brought out by the government at the time, it had Darwin-Alice Springs railway, it had a section on a Berrimah terminus and marshalling facilities. I would be interested to know whether the government of the day has seen that. It was planned for the 11 Mile. The marshalling yards and terminus were discussed and the intention was that is where the terminal would be. I do not know whether there is any reason why that still could not occur, and I would be interested to hear.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I briefly refer to the member for Nelson’s point about the abutments at Yam Creek. It was very disappointing; the assessment was that they would be able to survive the work being done by ADrail. They did not. I have had an extensive briefing on what happened and am confident that they will be adequately rebuilt. They are an important part of our heritage and, hopefully, it will reach heritage listing - which it should at this stage, I believe - and those abutments will exist and be part of our heritage trail. It is very disappointing that it happened.
Also, part of the work done by ADrail has been to identify many of our heritage sites that were not previously identified and give us a much better opportunity to protect them. So, while there have been negatives, there are certainly positives from what ADrail has done.
What we heard from the Opposition Leader was the most churlish and bad tempered response to anything that we have heard in here for a considerable time. Simply the inaccuracy of Royal Commissions and all kinds of rubbish, accusing the government of having owned this project. Where did I say Labor Party in one comment I made? It is bipartisan and I expect your support.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Burke: You and your Labor mates wanted a Royal Commission before we signed the contract.
Ms MARTIN: I did not.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, order! Recently, when I drove to Darwin, I was more than impressed by the amount of work that has been done on the railway, and the speed with which it has been done. It is a very impressive project and we should all get behind it and congratulate ADrail which is doing a fantastic job. If you have not driven up, perhaps is something you should do over the Christmas period.
Mobile Preschool Programs
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, it is just wonderful to be here and share in the Christmas good spirit and good will that emanates through the Chamber at this time of year.
Mobile preschool programs, Madam Speaker, have been established by DEET under the early childhood component of the National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy. Mobile preschools aim to increase the enrolment, attendance and participation of indigenous children in early childhood experiences and prepare for their commencement of formal schooling through exposure to pre-literacy and numeracy activities.
In 2001, 40% of schools in the Territory did not offer approved preschool programs, and of these 40%, all the schools are in remote areas. The Learning Lessons review made several recommendations about early childhood experiences and programs in recognition of the vital importance of an early acquisition of literacy. The review pointed out that the children who fall behind are unlikely to catch up and in fact are more likely to find the gap widening in secondary school. The mobile preschools are part of addressing the problem.
Mobile preschools provide access to early childhood programs for three to five year old children, and their families, who live in isolated, remote areas where there is no approved preschool program currently operating. The pilot programs commenced during 2002 in the following sites, and have the following enrolment numbers: Anindilyakwa, Groote Eylandt – that includes Umbakumba, Milyakburra - 31 children; the Katherine cluster: Timber Creek, Mataranka, Bulman, Urapunga, Bulla Camp – 39 children; the Yelgun/Arnhem cluster, Gunyangara, Yirrkala, Dhalinybuy, Biranybirany, Ramingirr - 54 children; and Elliott/Newcastle Waters - 12 children. That is 136 children provided with a preschool experience in communities where there has previously not been a preschool opportunity.
For many indigenous students the school is the predominant - in many cases the only - site of literacy and numeracy practice and it is critical every effort is made to introduce the precursors of literacy and numeracy available at all possible environments. Literacy and numeracy precursors include, importantly, access to paper and writing equipment for scribble and formative letter making, and structured play to introduce both literacy and numeracy concepts, for example, measurement, shape, location, handling and interpretation of quantitative data.
In mobile preschools children are provided with age appropriate play-based activities consistent with best practice noted above which is available to urban children in all preschool programs. The mobile preschool programs are developed by qualified early childhood teachers and delivered locally by locally recruited staff. Professional development is provided to these staff regularly by DEET Indigenous Early Childhood Officers. Each mobile preschool site is equipped with a specialised play pack comprising a variety of early childhood resources and activities, for example, puzzles, books, playdough, paints, music, block construction, cars, trucks, bikes, basketball sets, climbing and sand play equipment, home corner material, puppets and many more. Play packs are rotated between sites and are transported by teachers either by off-road vehicles or light aircraft on a weekly and/or fortnightly basis.
Many mothers and grandmothers and younger siblings are attending mobile preschool sites. The obvious benefit of this wider community involvement in the delivery of pre-schooling experiences can not be overstated. Although two year olds and younger are not enrolled in the program, they are attending and enjoying being read to, and playing with the assortment of play learning equipment on offer. It is the government’s hope that at each mobile preschool pilot cluster site, sufficient numbers of children will enrol and attend so that the DEET staffing formula will automatically provide for the staff currently being paid for through the pilot initiative.
As the staffing formula kicks in, the pilot locations will move to other remote areas of the Northern Territory. Early indications are that attendance is sufficient and plans are being made for new mobile preschool sites to be established in Central Australia. Mobile preschools are one of the most innovative and practical solutions to a major deficit in infrastructure in the rural areas and the challenge of distance in remote Northern Territory. It is a great initiative and another example of the fact that our government views education as its first priority.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, this is a good initiative and I wish the pilot program well. I am interested to hear a little bit more about it. The word ‘infrastructure’ was used. An aspect of this that I did not hear, which I would like to hear, is that in order for a preschool child to take the full benefit of this initiative, there needs to be a very strong aspect of working with the parents so that as the mobile unit moves off, there is something residing within that community to support that which has occurred in the community and sustain it so that next time the mobile unit returns, the activity will be added to. I would like to see that aspect explored. Perhaps it is already included in the initiative. It was not referred to in the statement.
The professional development, of course, is going to be the critical aspect of this. As a pilot program, it will receive the support and recognition of educationalists because preschool really is the key. The comprehensive nature of the professional development and the sustaining of that will make it successful rather than just an innovative program that we are able to tell everyone about and get excited about. We do need to see some results in this. I am sure the intent of the initiative is to achieve those results, but professional development and parental support is critical.
I am curious to know, though, about the provision of essential services, such as will it carry water and provide adequate support, as have in a couple of cases been alerted to me by my colleague, the member for Macdonnell. Two schools in remote areas, Areyonga and Red Sand Hill, do not currently have an adequate supply of water. I am sure this will be addressed as the pilot scheme travels around the country side to make sure that the young students have adequate supplies of water, as they are not enjoying at Areyonga and Red Sand Hill.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): I thank the member for Blain for his support, Madam Speaker. In relation to the program itself, it is mobile, it visits the community; we simply do not have the financial resources available to build preschools in all of these communities. That is why we are trying to address this issue by using these mobile visits. Professional development is provided to the locally recruited staff by DEET early childhood officers, so there is skill development there with the local people that, albeit the mobile preschools move on and will be back the next week or fortnightly visits, whichever the case is. So there would be some scope for some ongoing program.
In relation to the situation at Areyonga, Red Sand Hill, and Urapunga; these questions about water have been drifting in the media and that somehow DEET is the agency responsible for all infrastructure in remote communities. That is simply not the case. DEET, as an agency responsible for education service delivery, is extremely concerned when it cannot deliver that service because of infrastructure problems. However, let us get away from the fact that DEET somehow has to wear responsibility for all these infrastructures.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired.
Mr Elferink: What are you going to do about it? What are you going to do to deliver education in these schools? This was your primary thing. This is how you were going to save the world.
Mr STIRLING: When did you ever raise it? It is your negligence! The local member and you never raised it once! Never raised it once with the CLP!
Mr Elferink: Rubbish! You should get off your bum and go and fix it, man. Rubbish, Syd. Build it in the spirit of Christmas.
Mr Burke: Merry Christmas, Syd!
Mr STIRLING: Never raised it; you are not doing your job.
Mr Elferink: Scrooge! ‘Bah humbug’, he says.
Madam SPEAKER: You are on a warning, member for Macdonnell. You have had your warning, minister.
Progress of Personal Injuries
(Liabilities and Damages) Bill
(Liabilities and Damages) Bill
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I too would like to wish all members a very Merry Christmas.
I report on progress with the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Bill which was introduced in the October sittings. Public liability is a national problem and requires a national solution. With less than 1% of the public liability insurance market, we cannot influence premiums the way larger jurisdictions can. That makes it crucial to support national measures.
The government has decided to delay the debate of this important bill until February 2003 for several reasons. We foreshadowed that we would consider our legislative reforms in the light of the Ipp and Neave Reports. These reports have raised new issues that we need to consider and consult with stakeholders. The national debate about legislative reform has developed during the past few weeks to a new level, and we have seen several jurisdictions modify their reform programs.
The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General met in Perth last month and endorsed the recommendations of the Ipp and Neave Reports, as well as the principles of national uniformity and national consistency for these areas of law. SCAG formed an officers working party which will work with the insurance minister’s forum to achieve this end. Locally, we have sought feedback and input from a number of stakeholder groups and we have received some valuable input. We have also sought advice directly from Justice David Ipp, the architect of the Ipp Report.
Several new issues have arisen during this consultation process which we need to investigate further. We also need to monitor developments in other jurisdictions to ensure uniformity and consistency principles are observed as fully as possible. The Chief Minister has promised a timely response to the insurance problem, and we will deliver on that promise. We will also deliver legislation that is well considered and thorough.
In February 2003, we will progress a package of reforms. Firstly, the Personal Injuries (Liability and Damages) Bill will be debated; the legislation to regulate legal practitioners with regard to advertising and costs, will be introduced; legislation aimed at improving the court processes associated with personal injury claims will be introduced; and the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Amendment Bill will be debated, pending changes to the Trade Practices Act by the federal government.
We will also begin to consider the recommendations of the Ipp Report regarding codification of common law of negligence, looking particularly at issues such as causation, standard of care, and contributory negligence. This next step in the reform process will take some time and careful deliberation. We aim to provide Territorians with a good, workable structure to the law of negligence, a structure which complements legislation in other jurisdictions, and which takes pressure off insurance costs.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I welcome the postponement of the introduction of the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Bill in its current form. There is absolutely no doubt that the blind introduction of what the Labor government’s southern counterparts do may not be adequate for the Territory.
There is feedback coming from various interest groups and stakeholders and I appreciate the government, at least, taking on board those suggestions. There are real issues; there are new issues which need to be investigated. I get the feeling that perhaps rather than talking to the people who are on the ground who know about this particular area first, the government has gone down south, had been told what their counterparts are doing then brought it back. It is like putting the cart before the horse. There are some real issues that need to be addressed.
I welcome the delay and the proper consideration of some issues which have arisen, certainly from the Law Society’s perspective in that the committee is now liaising with the Attorney-General and has put forward a number of recommendations to alleviate the problem. I look forward to seeing the revised bills, the amendments if any, and dealing with these four pieces of important legislation in February next year.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support of our course of action. I invite you to have a positive input to the deliberations we are going through. Any opinions that you want to bring into our process from interest groups within the Territory community would be welcome. Let’s keep working on this to make good law.
I take this opportunity, though, to quickly reiterate that the Chief Minister went to the national forum because we had a national insurance crisis. There was a crisis in the removal of coverage of liability on some of the most important organisations in our community. There was a crisis in the increase in the premium levels. There is a real problem here; there continues to be a real problem. We do need to continue the urgency by which we are addressing this problem. It will not be a case of hastening slowly for any other reason than to deal with the very complex issues that exist within this area of law.
Brolga Awards for Tourism Excellence 2002
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I report on the Brolga Awards for Tourism Excellence which were held in Alice Springs last week at the magnificent venue of the Convention Centre, and yes, I guess it was an initiative of the previous government, but it is a fantastic venue. There were about 400 people there in very convivial surroundings who were really enjoying themselves. The shadow tourism minister and my colleague, the member for Wanguri, were there and that was fantastic.
The Brolga Awards look to recognise tourism business excellence in the Northern Territory. They are an important marketing point-of-difference for operators and assist to promote the highest standards amongst NT tourism businesses and individuals. The winners of these awards, Madam Speaker, as you are probably aware, are automatically entered in the Australian Tourism Awards, which this year will be held in Adelaide in 2003. The Territory has a proud history of doing very well in those national awards.
I presented the Minister for Tourism’s Award for Tourism Excellence Perpetual Trophy to Mrs Jackie Hargreaves. Mrs Hargreaves has demonstrated a lifetime involvement and commitment to the Territory and the tourism industry, particularly in Litchfield Park. She said herself for many years she ran ‘the flashiest pub in the scrub’. Unfortunately, Mrs Hargreaves was not able to attend the presentations in Alice Springs, but I have undertaken to personally visit her to let her know how valued her contribution is to tourism.
The Minister for Tourism’s Special Recognition Certificates - there were two of them - were awarded to Mr George Thompson, and Mindil Beach Sunset Markets. Mr Thompson, as many would be aware, has been a stalwart of the tourism industry in the Katherine region for some thirty years. He started the Katherine Pony Club many years ago and then opened his trail riding business, Brumby Tracks. Unfortunately, Mr Thompson was not able to attend the awards but I have undertaken that the next time I am in Katherine, I will be endeavouring to meet Mr Thompson, and let him know just how much his long-term efforts are appreciated.
The Mindil Beach Sunset Markets are known to everyone. They provide a lot of colour and vitality. All sorts of visitors to Darwin flock to the markets and have a great time. They are a wonderful tourism attraction and all praise to the committee that manages the sunset markets, especially to all the stall holders. The markets draw thousands of tourists to Mindil Beach every week. They are getting bigger and bigger and I wish to acknowledge the role, as I said, of the stall holders. There are about 100 of them, and I commend them.
Generally, I commend all the winners of the 2002 Brolga Awards. I have a list here which is quite extensive. I cannot go through everyone. Voyages Hotels and Resorts are major shareholders and significant stakeholders in the tourism industry in the Northern Territory. They won an award for ecotourism, meetings and business tourism, and tourism retailing. It has been my pleasure to meet Mr Grant Hunt the Managing Director of Voyages on several occasions. They do a fantastic job.
Anangu Tours received special recognition for their heritage and cultural tourism, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tourism. Laurie Berryman has been a main stay there for quite some time, and he is a very innovative person. I also met Marg Smith and Wally Jacobs.
The Centre fared very well in the awards, but the Top End also featured with Cape Don taking out awards for adventure tourism, and hosted accommodation. Also Lake Bennett. One award that I liked was the tourism restaurants and catering services award: Bojangles Saloon and Restaurant. That was a really fun place. When I see those swinging doors, I just want to go through them and put the six guns back in the holsters. It is a fantastic place. I met and had a good talk with Chris and Avril Vaughan who do a fantastic job.
Madam Speaker, the Brolga Awards are a great award night. Yes, the tourism industry has been doing it tough but, as I said yesterday, I am endeavouring to do all I can, particularly in the area of airline capacity in the Northern Territory both international into Darwin and domestic into Alice Springs, and I will keep up that hard work.
Members: Hear, hear.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement and join with him to congratulate the winners. And, of course, not only the winners, but all those people who nominated. All of them could have won and, as the judges said on the night, most of the decisions were very close indeed. It was very pleasing to see so many people from the industry there. As a person from Alice Springs, I was delighted to see that the Centre took out about 15 of the 22 awards. So hear, hear for Alice Springs.
I was also pleased to see the minister and the former minister, the member for Wanguri, in attendance. A brave move, I would have thought for the member for Wanguri, but he was there anyway. I note with some interest that the Brolga Awards this year were cut by this government by the sum of $16 000. The former minister called the Alice Springs Town Council’s contribution ‘miserly’ which did not impress any of the alderman, I can assure you, and which probably explains why there was only one representative from the Alice Springs Town Council at the Brolga Awards on that occasion.
In any event, apart from that incredibly disappointing aspect, I thank the minister for his report and join with him in congratulating everyone involved.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, on the night I acknowledged the fact - and I was proud to acknowledge the fact - that the Northern Territory government is the major cash sponsor of the Brolga Awards. My information was that the Territory government kicked in about $85 000 for the awards. I know that there was some argy-bargy about that. My information is that the government is keen for the Brolga Awards to get some cash support outside of government.
The night was a success. Let’s not knock it. It was an important night.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: No, let’s not knock it. There was a magician with a great act. He pulled all sorts of things out of a hat. I hope to do the same as the tourism minister with a bit of hard work.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, minister.
Ministerial Reports noted pursuant to sessional order.
MOTION
Environment and Sustainable Development Committee - Appointment
Environment and Sustainable Development Committee - Appointment
Dr BURNS (Environment): Madam Speaker, I believe we are taking these motions separately which is the establishment of the committee and then the terms of reference. I am pleased to be moving the re-establishment of the sessional committee for environmental issues but I would like to …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, would you like to move your motion first?
Dr BURNS: Do I have to read the whole thing?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you do, to put it on the Parliamentary Record.
Dr BURNS: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I went through it yesterday but I am pleased to go through it again.
Madam Speaker, I move –
That, during the present session of the Assembly -
1. a sessional committee to be known as the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee
be appointed;
by the Chief Minister, two members to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and one Independent
member and that the committee shall elect a government member as chair;
upon and make recommendations on matters referred to it by the relevant minister or resolution of the
Legislative Assembly on any matter concerned with:
(a) the environment or how the quality of the environment might be protected or improved; and
(b) the sustainable development of the Northern Territory.
4. the committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records; to sit in public or in private session, notwithstanding any adjournment of the Assembly, to adjourn from place to place and have leave to report
from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken, and make such interim recommendations as it may
deem fit; and to publish information pertaining to its activities from time to time;
5. the committee be empowered to consider, disclose and publish the minutes of proceedings, evidence taken
and records of similar committees appointed in previous Assemblies;
in public;
any such subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine and that the quorum of a subcommittee shall be two; and
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to move this motion, but this is much more than an environment committee. Its name says it all: it is also about sustainable development. I know this government, certainly when we came to power, our platform emphasised the whole issue of sustainable development. Under our environment and planning platform it says:
- Government programs: Labor will:
- (1) ensure that environmental considerations are integrated into economic decisions. Cabinet submissions
on matters that have significant environmental implications will be required to address the environmental
issues.
So it is up there in lights. It is not just an environment committee. It is not just a carry on of what the previous government did. We have spent the last year - and I commend the member for Karama - thinking very closely about how to move forward effectively on environmental issues, how to safeguard our environment but, at the same time, ensure that economic development is not compromised.
We know in our Territory, that the minerals industry provides just under 20% or thereabouts of our GSP. They are a very important industry. But I am also aware that the modern mining industry is very, very cognisant and careful of their environmental performance. I know from travelling around the Territory to various mining operations, what a fantastic job they do in rehabilitation and preserving and protecting the environment. So, environmental values are very high up on their list. I am sure that they will want to have a great deal of input into this committee, as they should because they are a major industry.
However, balanced against economic development is the very important issue of maintaining our wonderful environmental integrity. I believe that my portfolios of tourism and the environment fit together very closely because it is our wonderful environment, our natural assets, our environmental integrity that many tourists come to see in the Northern Territory. They are interested in our wildlife and our bird life. They are interested in our natural attractions. Some of those things are under threat and we will discuss part of that when we come to the terms of reference. I do not want to foreshadow that debate. But it is important that we address serious environmental issues and sustainable development.
We also recognise that environmental conservation is an essential element of promoting a high quality of life and lifestyle. We recognise that ecological sustainability is compatible with economic development through the adoption of environmentally sound and sustainable development practices. We can actually bolster economic development and employment opportunities. I hope that this view is shared by all members of this Assembly. I look forward to the committee providing informative reports to the parliament and the government as we strive to balance the needs of economic growth with the imperative of protecting our Territory for the enjoyment of future generations.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will be brief because this is an important committee to have reconstituted in the Northern Territory. It is a committee that I have just been advised was first initiated in 1977; a long time for a sessional committee to be continually a part of this parliament, and only stopped on the election of the Labor government. It surprised members on this side of the House that a party and a government that would put such a store in environmental issues as soon as they were elected disbanded that particular environmental committee. One thing that could be said about that committee, and I certainly hope that this new committee conducts itself in a similar way, is that it took a very bipartisan approach to environmental matters. They worked constructively together and, in my time as Chief Minister, I was particularly pleased with the way they conducted themselves.
It is a moot point, but if you want to talk about how effective these committees will be, one of the first things you could do is be consistent with your own motion. The motion says that the committee shall elect a government member as chair. The member for Karama has already been paraded out as the chairperson of the committee. There is a bit of simple convention here. I have no doubt that the member for Karama may be an excellent chair and that is fine; that is not the point. The point is, though, that it is a motion to the parliament, it is the parliament’s committee and it is the parliament’s prerogative to give the committee the right to elect the chair. To abuse that right at the outset simply does not auger well for the independence of that particular committee. I notice that the independent member for Nelson is a member of the committee. Again, it is not going to be the case, but there would be strong arguments for such a committee to have an independent chair, and that opportunity has not even been provided at all by the government.
If the government is going to construct this committee it would be good at the outset if they did construct it in a neutral fashion so it can go about its business positively. I know that the member for Greatorex has been the chairman of the previous committee for seven years straight and I applaud him for his efforts as chairman. He has been on the record consistently since the election pointing to the fact that there have been a number of issues that need to be addressed that are not being addressed.
The cyanide spill on the Tanami Highway was a classic. Without going into that in any real detail we had allegations from the Minister for the Environment that it was ecoterrorism. A report was eventually produced after 12 months and said nothing. It is an issue that I believe could have been quickly referenced to a committee such as the environmental committee if that committee had been in place. There has been the damage to endangered bird sanctuaries and draining of water along the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line. In some respects, I think, fairly irresponsible statements about the attitude of ADrail, irresponsible and incorrect, and again, something where a reference could have been made to that committee to look at that particular issue.
There was contaminated water at Perkins Shipping, and the lack of monitoring of the uranium mining province in East Arnhem. The terms of reference of this committee are interesting. It is restricted in two ways: one is that it can only investigate issues that are referenced to it from the minister or by a resolution of this parliament. The reference to particularly looking at uranium issues is gone. I guess the minister is going to assure us and say: ‘Oh, they will be able to do that in any case’, but if you look at the previous references to that committee, they had a particular reference to monitor uranium issues in the Northern Territory. That was a standing reference for them to investigate those issues. That is now gone. I would have thought you would have taken the opportunity as a government to give them a bit more flexibility and that is give them an own reference capability.
If the minister is so applauding of the Labor government’s love of the environment, I would have thought that one of the things you could do is give this committee an own reference capability. The reality is that this committee cannot investigate anything if it is not referenced to it directly by the minister so it is harnessed in that regard, or by motion of this Assembly, and the only way you can get a motion from this Assembly is if the government agrees with it. In that respect I am disappointed.
I wish the committee well in its efforts. I take the opportunity to nominate the two opposition members of the committee will be Mr Stephen Dunham, the member for Drysdale, and Mr Tim Baldwin, the member for Daly. They will bring a depth of experience and strong interest on these issues to the committee. I can give an undertaking that the opposition will approach the committee in the same way it has approached previous committees since 1977.
I also take the opportunity to forecast that the opposition has an amendment to make to the motion and that will be proposed by the member for Daly.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the establishment of the committee. It is a very important committee. Nobody can doubt the Labor Party’s strong commitment to the environment. We have stated many times our support of the environment. I have personally stood up and defended myself and my colleagues against allegations by certain people that we do not care about the environment, that we are here to destroy the environment and the most recent example actually is the LNG plant.
The committee is a unique opportunity for the government and also for the opposition to take a bipartisan approach to work together on the committee in order to examine issues that are either brought by the relevant minister or ministers and by the parliament …
Mr Elferink: They could have certainly looked into the effect on mangroves.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, certainly in protecting the mangroves. I will pick up the interjection. It is surprising that members on the other side complain about that, but in the past 26 years I have not heard any sounds from any member on the other side about the mangroves, even from Dr Lim who was a member of the committee for seven years and all of a sudden was dumped by his leader who appointed the member for Drysdale, and quite rightly so, and the member for Daly. At least those two people have genuine experience and interest in the environment …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: … and will be competent and be able to participate actively and constructively in the committee …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order, the minister has the floor.
Mr Elferink: And he is talking about mangroves.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I thought I gave you a warning.
Mr Elferink: You did, Madam Speaker.
Mr VATSKALIS: Send him to the mangroves, Madam Speaker. As for the mangroves, there is a very rare species in Macdonnell that is unique to the rest of the Territory. The government has taken active steps to protect them by incorporating them into the planning process. Next time somebody wants to do something that will effect mangroves, he has to actually seek permission or produce evidence why even one piece of mangrove has to be removed.
The same thing is happening about the Darwin Harbour and all the other coastal areas in the Territory. At least we are genuine in our approach. We have established a committee to look after the coastal areas in the Territory, a committee not comprising one particular sector of the community, but also comprising environmentalists, the so-called greenies, people who use the harbour, developers, people with boating interests - a very broad spectrum of our community.
I am very pleased that the Minister for Environment and Heritage has brought this to the House. It is a very good start and, in the future, we will see that committee dealing with issues in the Territory that will affect the Territory’s environment. At the moment, we are on the crest of industrial development which we have been pursuing for some time - and the other side of this House, the then government now opposition, really worked hard to bring gas onshore. It continues to do so, it will do exactly the same.
The Territory will change significantly should gas come onshore. Certainly, when the railway finishes at East Arm, people will not be able to recognise Darwin Harbour, or the Territory if – let us say ‘if’ - Pechiney establishes their aluminium smelter at Gunn Point and when the Wickham Point LNG plant is up and running.
I congratulate my colleague, the Minister for Environment and Heritage. Certainly, I would like to see active bipartisan support. You have to remember that it is up to us to be independent, and to contribute positively and constructively to this committee in order to protect the environment of the Territory.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition said, I will be flagging an amendment to this motion that I encourage all members to support.
It is at long last that this government has acted in doing something to show its credentials as far as the environment. At long last, after 20-odd years of a sessional committee on the environment in this parliament, we had to wait 18 months. I thank my colleague, the member for Greatorex, for reminding and keeping in front of this government the fact that they had not established anything in the way of a committee, independent or otherwise, to monitor the concerns of the environment. All of the issues that have come up over the last 18 months - whatever it is since this government has been in power - that could have been examined quite expeditiously by a committee, have gone begging. It is about time you introduced this. We had to get a new minister. The former minister who had coverage for environment has been almost deathly silent on matters concerning the environment. It took a new minister to unload the old minister, to finally discover that they should do something. That minister was reminded of that by my colleague as recently as 20 November 2002 in a press release calling for the establishment of a sessional committee once again.
I certainly welcome it. This side of the House welcomes it, and we will work diligently to ensure that matters of concern that are referred by this parliament, and also by the minister, are worked through very diligently. You will get full cooperation from members from this side of the House who are going to sit on that committee.
Having said all of that, I move the amendment. I will distribute it; it is in writing. The government Whip has a copy of the amendment. It is a very simple amendment. It says we should insert two words. I move that the following words be inserted in paragraph (3) of the motion standing in the name of Dr Burns:
- That the motion be amended by inserting in paragraph (3), after ‘matter’ the words ‘including those’.
Those are the two new words to be inserted.
Speaking to that amendment what it does is allow the committee some flexibility - not excluding those matters that are referred by this House and the minister - but some flexibility to look into matters that it thinks should be looked into. We will get to the motion regarding references to this committee at a later point. We have two references: one is to look at an Environmental Protection Authority and the other is to look at cane toads, very good things to look at, I am sure.
But there are other major issues that have not at this time been referred that are now of great importance to Territorians, and have been for some time, and some issues that will become of major importance in the future. I talk particularly of the onset of gas onshore in whatever form it might take including LNG onshore, even if it is floating platforms, what sort of environmental impact will that have on our harbour, and that is the major issue that is facing Territorians, particularly people living in Darwin in the future. That is not all. We could go on all day about what are important issues. The government is moving to sustainable development and so they should; all governments are around Australia. We are talking about land clearing reforms and biodiversity protection in our rural estates. They are matters of great concern that this committee should have the power to overlook; not necessarily get involved in but to have a watching brief on.
One major issue that is threatening the environment currently, and has for some time, and the previous government put a lot of effort into it, is salt water intrusion of one of our most important wetlands in the Top End, the Mary River system. There have been enormous …
Ms Martin: Significant commitments through COAG go into that.
Mr BALDWIN: … amounts of money put into that. I note that the government, in its last budget, reduced the amount of money that will go into that during this financial year. They talk about money from COAG and probably from the salinity action plan. All those things are in train, but it is imperative that somebody has carriage of having a watching brief on those sorts of issues. You could go on, as I said, on all sorts of issues pertaining to the environment and sustainable development.
All I am asking for here in this amendment to the motion is a very simple one to say ‘including those matters’. Like the PAC, this is no different from the PAC. Where the PAC has had …
Dr Burns: The PAC is not self-referring. You know that as well as I do.
Mr BALDWIN: The PAC has had the ability, Madam Speaker – I am not asking for this to be self-referring. I am asking for this to be the same as the PAC. Where the PAC can take on Auditor-General reports, all sorts of things, scrutinise all sorts of activities, and if they were serious about the environment, they would let this reference go through. They would let this amendment go through if they were really serious.
They have shown they are not serious by the fact that they took 18 months to reintroduce a sessional committee of this parliament that is one of the most important after the PAC. That is how serious they are. If they were really serious about giving this committee the ability to do its job on behalf of Territorians, they would let this go through. They are not serious. This is all window washing for them. They like to go out there and say, ‘We stand up for the environment. It only took us 18 months to do something about it’.
A minister who could not be bothered. It had to take a new minister to bring it forward after my colleague kept reminding them month after month after month, and then I bring forward a reference like this that allows a bit of flexibility. Already I can see the reaction, ‘No, don’t let them go off looking at all sorts of things because that is self-referral’. That is the same as the PAC, and what is wrong with that? What is wrong with that? I am sure Territorians would agree with me that – I am sure the Environment Committee, whom you like to get into bed with would agree that this committee should have some latitude. That is all that is being asked for here, some latitude.
If they do not do this, they are recalcitrant in their job because they have already shown that they do not want to go near the environment The terms of reference that we will get into later on will deal with the establishment of an Environment Protection Authority, which is not a bad thing.
Ms Lawrie: Agency.
Mr BALDWIN: Agency, authority – you call it what you like. It is probably not a bad thing. But it also deals with the staged introduction of an EPA. What does that tell you? Election – yes, we will promise it in the election.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe the member is pre-empting debate.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr BALDWIN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, this is what I mean.
Madam SPEAKER: I have already ruled.
Mr BALDWIN: They are frightened to tackle this issue!
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay, okay. Let us talk about an EPA and the staged introduction. I have no problem with a staged introduction of an EPA if the committee so recommends, if the parliament decides, but all that tells you is there is nobody who has a watching brief in the meantime on all things environment and sustainable development. All I am saying is give this committee some latitude to have the watching brief until such time as this mob want to introduce their EPA. That is all I am asking, and if you were serious, sitting on the other side, you particularly and the former minister and the new minister, they would agree to this. It is no different from the PAC, no different whatsoever.
Dr Burns: I will have my say.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, you will have your say. So I think we are off to a good start. We will look at the cane toads because I know this is not going to get up. I hope the member for Nelson supports me in this small amendment. It probably won’t get up on the government numbers.
Mr Stirling: Was that the way your Environment Committee worked, was it, Tim? It had self-referencing?
Mr BALDWIN: This is the way the PAC works! What’s wrong with it? Picking up on the interjection from the member for Nhulunbuy, who is the biggest boxhead in this place, if he was serious, if he wanted to go out there and talk to the environmental groups and say, ‘We have done the best possible thing we can do to make sure there is a watching brief on the environment, on heritage issues, on sustainable development issues, we have given …
Mr Henderson: Like you did?
Mr BALDWIN: You are in government now! You make the decisions. You get out there an justify yourself. You cannot. You like to go out there with your hand on your heart and say, ‘We’re green. Love us’. But you cannot bring yourself to do the gutsy stuff. That is your problem.
We will go along with it, but, boy, it is going to be a great ride. You should support this and if you were at least sincere in what you are proposing, you would certainly support this as well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to support the establishment of an Environment and Sustainable Development Sessional Committee. I think it is an important Committee, but I should make it clear that just because I think it is a great idea does not mean I agree with everything the government has just said.
Ms Lawrie: We don’t expect you to.
Mr WOOD: No.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Karama, order! I have spoken to you before.
Mr WOOD: I have it on record that I do have some strong concerns about the development of the Northern Territory, especially from an environmental and sustainable development point of view. The member for Daly knows about some of the issues I have raised because he was the minister for planning, and those issues that I have raised strongly with him I would also raise strongly with the government.
I notice the Minister for the Environment mentioned that the economy should not be compromised. I think the word ‘economy’ has to be balanced. One has to look at the economy not just from one particular point of view. For sure, mining is a major part of the economy in the Northern Territory, and so is tourism, which is also the minister’s portfolio. But if one is likely to destroy the other, then you should carefully look at the effects from both sides; you should not just say that, for instance, mining should go ahead and not take into account the possible effects that will have on tourism.
Mining is not all good in the Northern Territory. I am not referring to the mineral side of mining. I am talking about more the extractive side of mining. While extractive industries have certainly cleaned up there act - and I talk about extractive industries because the area I come from is one of the main areas for extractive industries in the Northern Territory; it is the area that builds Darwin and Palmerston. There have been times, and there still are times, where the environmental track record for the extractive mineral industry is not up to scratch. Sometimes now, because of the downturn in the building industry and the competition to supply materials at the cheap rate, corners can be cut. There needs to be a lot more work done on the rehabilitation of extractive mining areas, especially in the Litchfield Shire, because a lot of these extractive mineral areas come from the wetlands. The sand that you get is mainly extracted from the Howard River floodplains, and those areas are scarred once they have done that. They can be re-established, but it takes some work.
That is an area that the committee could look at and could see what has happened in the past, and what is happening now and, in fact, perhaps make some recommendations. It is certainly important for people who live in that part of the world, and it is important if you notice how many mosquitoes were around recently in the rural area, that we do not make breeding areas for mosquitoes unnecessarily. We have plenty of them just in the natural areas.
The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure said a few things about the track record of the government and, for sure, on some issues in the Litchfield Land Use Objectives, I support them wholeheartedly. The removal of some of the wetlands in the form of creeks and lagoons is a great move. However, on the other hand, to say that they are concerned about the environment begs the question as to why two major wetlands have now been declared something that they were not under the previous government? I refer especially to Lambells Lagoon, where a public meeting was held about 10 years ago, and a section of land which is substantially wet with large magnetic ant hills, was removed from a government horticultural subdivision. Now, under the new Litchfield Land Use Objectives, it is about 80% zoned Horticulture. I do not know why. It was raised in briefings with the minister before the land use objectives were declared and, for some reason, it is now horticulture. People out there will be quite disgusted to see that.
The other issue is the land next to BP Palms. It has been highlighted time and time again that that land is zoned - or was zoned - Open Conservation. The reason it was zoned Open Conservation was because the majority of that land is a wetland. I would love people and the minister to have a look at it. However, there has been an application by the neighbours to buy the land for the expansion of the caravan park. ‘I am sorry, but the land is zoned Open Conservation because it is a wetland. Sorry you cannot expand’. But, in the new Litchfield Land Use Objectives, it is now purple, Industrial. Therefore, on one hand the minister is saying, ‘What a great job’, and on the other hand the facts are that, in some cases, that is not happening.
As the minister said, we need the economy. But it has to be balanced with other factors. Sustainable development is about making sure that development does not cost a lot of money to future generations. What you do in the short term might look terrific, but if, in 20 years or 10 years time, you now begin spending money as they do in a lot of Landcare projects throughout Australia, repairing damage done by poorly thought out decisions today, well, you are just being silly. As I say to a lot of people: look at the Torrens River in Adelaide - there are plenty of other examples - and see the millions being poured into re-fencing the Torrens and trying to take out all the ash trees that were planted there. Millions and millions of dollars spent trying to restore a river system that, if it had been left as it was, would not cost the money that is being spent there today.
We have the opportunity to make decisions that will not leave a legacy for our children and their grandchildren to pick up the cost. When you see a decision that says the site next to the BP Palms is now Industrial, you have to wonder whether we have learnt anything. The Ware Peninsula is the other classic. Here is an example of the government saying on one hand, ‘We are looking at sustainable development’ but, on the other hand, they will not look at options, and the motion that was defeated in parliament previously where we were trying to look at options to save the Ware Peninsula from being Industrial. I would hope that the sessional committee can broaden and I would probably speak on it a little bit later, some of the things it is looking at and one would be the future of the Ware Peninsula.
Other issues that could be touched on are things like genetic engineering, for instance cotton, what effect that would have. That is an important issue and that is something perhaps the sustainable development committee could look at. It is an issue that I have not commented on much because I have a lot of learning to do on that particular issue, but once again, that is another issue.
I am also going to move a small amendment. I have just notified the Whip that I have an amendment which I think is an important amendment. If I could flag that motion now, Madam Speaker, and that amendment refers to, I will say it as it is: I move that the motion be amended by inserting in paragraph …
Dr Lim: You can’t move an amendment.
Mr WOOD: Oh sorry, I was just doing what the member for Daly did.
Dr Lim: He has moved an amendment. You cannot move it. You can foreshadow.
Mr WOOD: Can I foreshadow the amendment? I will foreshadow the amendment which is basically to insert in paragraph (3)(a) after where it says, ‘ …any matter concerned with the environment or how the quality of that environment might be protected or removed’, I was going to insert after the word ‘environment’, ‘heritage’, which may require the word ‘heritage’ twice. The word ‘heritage’ is very important.
The Commonwealth government has always referred to the National Heritage Trust because it encompassed both the built and natural environment. It is important that this Environment and Sustainable Development Committee make that its focus as well. The minister is minister for the Office of Environment and Heritage, if I am correct. That would make it far more consistent and it would take up issues that I believe are a mixture. I will refer here to one of my favourite subjects, the World War II airstrips. They are both historical and they also have a natural heritage emphasis as well. There are probably other sites that I mentioned before when we were discussing the railway at Grove Hill; those particular issues of the tramway.
They are issues that a committee like this could take into account. Preservation of that is part of sustainable development. Yes, we have a railway but at the same time we want to preserve our heritage. We do not want to ruin that heritage because it is not only valuable from a historical point of view but it is valuable from an economic point of view. History and tourism go hand in hand in the Territory. So, I will foreshadow that that will be my amendment and we will talk to that later.
Once again, I congratulate the government on the establishment of the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. It is a very important committee, especially as the Territory grows, especially as more and more industries develop; agriculture, tourism and gas, as the member for Daly said. These are things that are all going to affect the environment. I support the establishment of this committee.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Speaking to the amendment, Madam Speaker. I rise to make some very brief points and something that all members in this Chamber, especially those members of the Labor Party, would like to consider in relation to the committee and what is being talked about here in the amendment proposed by the member for Daly. I remind honourable members, those members of the Labor Party, of the Labor in Government document in relation to the committee system. I quote a couple of things from page 6:
- … parliamentary committees should be free to operate unhindered and to praise or criticise, or call to account the
actions of government.
I then go further on:
- Labor will enshrine the broad structure of the committee system in legislation so that the status of committees is raised
and they become part of the institutional framework of parliament and are not subject to the wishes of the party that holds
the majority of numbers in the House.
I also go on to quote:
- This arrangement will free the committees to investigate issues of public concern without the approval of the
governing majority party. Each committee will have the power to consider issues, conduct hearings, report on
them and make recommendations. The committees will have enhanced powers to call evidence.
Madam Speaker, it is time that the Labor government comes into this House and stands by the promise and contract that they made to Territorians in an effort to ensure their votes.
It is a fairly straight forward amendment that the member for Daly has proposed. It is entirely consistent with the principles and promises that the Labor Party made to the Northern Territory, entirely consistent, and now all I do is ask the Labor members opposite to live up to their promises.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, and again it’s …
Mr Baldwin: Here he is the Pine Creek boy, the Pine Creek environmental officer.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly!
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to establish a Sessional Committee on the Environment, and just to flag that the government will not be …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think there is some confusion on the part of the minister. We are discussing the amendment that the member for Daly has moved and we just …
Ms Lawrie: No, your amendments are foreshadowed.
Mr Ah Kit: It was foreshadowed.
Mr Baldwin: No, I moved it.
Mr ELFERINK: I would like some guidance as to if the minister is actually supporting the amendment or supporting the motion. If he is not, he should be speaking to the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: Just be mindful of the fact that you would be speaking as you just have done to the motion and the amendment. You cannot speak again.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I made it quite clear at the outset when I made my comments that I was speaking to the amendment and I believe the amendment is currently the item being debated, not the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, you may speak to the motion and the amendment at this stage but you cannot speak again.
Dr LIM: Well, may I ask the question, Madam Speaker ...
Mr Stirling: They are dissenting, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I would seek some advice.
Madam SPEAKER: As I said, after the amendment has been moved, you are speaking to the motion and the amendment. You can only speak again by leave after the amendment was moved. At the moment, you have spoken, and you cannot speak again, except by leave. The minister on his feet now can speak to the motion and the amendment. The minister has the floor.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. Don’t bother. That is the attitude and that is the problem.
Madam SPEAKER: You have already spoken.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, if the member for Macdonnell would let me get past my first sentence, I would have clarified the matters to which I will be referring, and they are the motion and the amendment, and to signal to the opposition that we will not be supporting the amendment moved. I will now address my comments to the reasoning for that.
The member for Daly – it must have been his leadership speech in the run up. It must be a contest between the member for Blain and the member for Daly. This is the first time that we have seen a bit of animation and a bit of passion from the member for Daly. It is good to see, member for Daly, it is good to see a bit of passion. Obviously it is the environmental issues that really arouse your passions. It is good to see.
Not only did he speak with passion, he spoke with a great deal of hypocrisy given that he was a minister in the previous government in this place and, as a minister supported the terms of reference for previous environment committees that were part of this parliamentary process. He is there with his heart on his sleeve, proposing the amendment which is for the greater good of the people of the Northern Territory. It is amazing, this new level of democracy that they purport to support, when they had 27 years to establish it themselves. Let us just remind honourable members, because we have quite a few on our side of the House, in what were the terms of reference of the previous environmental committee that was established on 27 June 1994, and then re-established on 26 November 1997, with exactly the same terms of reference.
Let us look at these wide and extensive terms of reference that the previous parliamentary committee had to work to, and I quote:
- Terms of reference:
(1) the committee shall be empowered unless otherwise ordered, to inquire into, and from time to
time report upon and make recommendations on:
- (a) all matters relating to uranium mining and processing activities and their effects on the environment
within the Alligator River region; and
- (b) any matter relating to mining and/or the environment within the Northern Territory which is referred to
it by:
(i) the relevant minister; or
(ii) resolution of the Legislative Assembly.
Not recommendations on ‘matters including those’. They are exactly the same.
Now let’s look at our terms of reference here, and it is almost exactly the same:
(3) The committee shall be empowered, unless otherwise ordered, to inquire into and from time to time
report upon and make recommendations on matters referred to it by the relevant minister or resolution
of the Legislative Assembly.
Let us look at the work of the previous environment committee that they had carriage of over the years. Apart from uranium mining - and they did a great job of that and a huge amount of work went into that - in the 26 years, since 1977, how many other terms of reference were referred to it by the parliament or the minister? In 27 years, how many? The answer is two. Apart from uranium mining, there were two issues: salt water intrusion and Mimosa pigra. They were the only two in 27 years. The member for Daly is saying we should have a flying squad, it can roam into all the issues that are in the media at the moment and, in 27 years, the previous environment committee of this House looked into three issues: uranium mining, Mimosa pigra and Mary River wetlands.
So, if they are trying to reinvent themselves over there on the other side of the House as being the new Greenies that are out there championing the environment, actions speak louder than words. The historical record speaks louder than that. Really, this is nothing more than just a cheap stunt from those opposite because they have no commitment to the environment. There was absolutely no commitment to it and, certainly, the previous sessional committees that were established under their term of government had such enormous wide-ranging powers, such enormous capacity to look into issues - all the issues that occurred over those 26, 27 years - and they looked into three issues in 27 years. Our environment committee is certainly going to be a lot more active than that. We will certainly be looking into and have terms of reference from government and from the parliament.
I say to members opposite that they have every capacity to bring motions to this House regarding terms of reference for issues of the environment committee, and to convince government and parliament that these issues should be something that the environment committee can look into. The parliament can instruct, as it could under previous governments, by resolution of the Legislative Assembly. We will take that process on openly; we in this House have a commitment to protect the environment.
However, given the absolute hypocrisy of the member for Daly, in trying to put a self-referencing term into the terms of reference when they in 27 years looked into three issues, we have picked up exactly the same terms of reference that they had. That is absolute hypocrisy. The parliament can refer issues to it. I am sure over the term of our government we will look at a number of significant issues. If we look at the issue of the environmental protection agency, again, 26, 27 years they had the opportunity to look into that and dared not even breathe its name. We will have a look at how that could or should be structured. I am sure the committee will report back to this House very fulsomely. Actions speak louder than words.
I bet London to a brick, by the end of this term of parliament, our environment committee would have looked at more than three issues. Three issues in 27 years under the CLP. A great start for us and we will not be supporting the amendment.
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I have consulted with the Clerk and I believe that I have the right to speak to the amendment, and reserve the right to speak to the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: That is right.
Dr BURNS: I would just like to speak very briefly to this amendment. I think the member for Wanguri said …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Given that I would like to speak in this debate, do I have the same right?
Madam SPEAKER: No, the mover of the motion has the right to speak to amendments and to any amendment, and to sum up at the end. That is his right. But you can talk in this debate.
Mr DUNHAM: But not to the amendment and then to the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: You can talk as the minister has just done, to the motion and the amendment, and then when we pass that or fail it, we wait and see what happens next. Whether we have another motion.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, just to reiterate: I cannot really add to what the member for Wanguri has said. He set out the case very clearly. There is just one issue about the amendment, one important issue. He talked about the terms of reference that you had. You mentioned the Public Accounts Committee and how the Public Accounts Committee is self-referencing. It is not self-referencing. It is in relation to the amendment here, Madam Speaker, that the Public Accounts Committee is allowed to reference things that are specifically in the Auditor-General’s report. And that is a very important issue. I wanted to clarify it. I wanted to put it on the record, because I know the mischief that the member for Daly will try to engage in. I wanted to put that on the record.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, we just heard an interjection from the chairman of seven years, and we heard from the Leader of Government Business the three things they have achieved. And, what a record! Twenty six or 27 years to try to do things around the Alligator Rivers region, and also with the salt water intrusion, and mimosa. We had debates over the last seven years that I have been in this Chamber where they would not entertain the thought of an environmental protection agency. They would not entertain, they would never entertain, the thought of going beyond the scope that they gave that committee. They would never go beyond that. Firstly, I suppose, they were a bit worried there was too much work for the chairman; beyond his comprehension and intelligence. Secondly, they wanted to keep control of it.
The change of heart that has come across the former government members, now in opposition, is really interesting. I have nothing against environmentalists. Good people! A good cause. We have to balance it up. We have to balance it up with business. The shadow spokesperson for business is now keen to ensure that the big business and small business community does well out of what we are doing in moving the Territory forward, and ensuring that we become a very prosperous Northern Territory. We have a situation where I have seen the former Deputy Chief Minister stand up in this House and claim credit for the bulldozing of the Hotel Darwin across the road. Where was this new so-called greenie when that was happening? Out bush! He got sent bush because he was the Lands minister at the time and he did not want to take all the blame when the Hotel Darwin was bulldozed overnight, and he has the audacity to come in here and put up an amendment that is all about muck raking.
Whilst we are on the former Deputy Chief Minister, he stood up in this House bragging about ‘cane toads will be here probably in the year 2007’. Well, goodness me! I hope he is getting an update on the cane toad reports now because they are almost here, and it is 2002. So, something has gone wrong there. We would love to see him put on a greenie guernsey.
We have a situation where we as the government have a responsibility to ensure that we weigh up the balance and get it right, and we do. We want to move forward in respect of the business opportunities; but we also need to seriously take into account the environmental concerns and heritage concerns that were pointed out by the member for Nelson. Striking the balance is the way to go.
We have a situation now where these members opposite have done this big somersault and now they are all bleeding hearts. They are all there, all over us. It is a wonder they are not all wearing green guernsies today. They say things like ‘get it right’ to us. They were in power for 27 years and they would not go anywhere near …
Mr Baldwin: Haven’t you read your own promises?
Mr AH KIT: Oh, look, we have no problems with the policies; they encompass what we are doing. It is what you read into it; you and the spinifex lawyer from Central Australia. That is your interpretation, you mugs! Stop believing in each other because you are not as good as you think you are.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, would you confine your remarks to the motion, thank you.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, yes, I digress. I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I will address my comments to you because someone needs to show respect around this Chamber, unlike the members opposite.
Madam Speaker, we saw the former environment committee do very little, and we know why that happened: because of the scope that it had. It was limited by this parliament, neither did it have a brains trust leading it. We have proposed a way of establishing the work that needs to be done to ensure that Territorians will have something established that will look after the interests and weigh up those balances that are so urgently needed throughout the Northern Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I will speak to the motion and the amendment. First, I want to express my disappointment at members opposite for the cheap political stunts and grandstanding of this morning. I had hoped that this Chamber would deal with this motion in a constructive and positive manner because the establishment of an environment and resource development committee is indeed new. There has not been a committee like that …
Mr Baldwin interjecting
Ms LAWRIE: … and it is new because - and give someone the decency of speaking without incessant interruptions, member for Daly.
Mr Dunham: Oh, yes! That’s not bad from you, you little hypocrite. You do it all the time.
Ms LAWRIE: It is new because of the past from 19 …
Ms Scrymgour: Listen, listen!
Ms LAWRIE: It is new because in the past, since 1977, which was the Second Assembly of this parliament, only an environment committee was established. There has never been an Environment and Sustainable Development Committee in this parliament. I believe it is also ground breaking because for the first time, it is not looking at discrete, tiny, segmented environmental issues. Really, it is taking an holistic approach of asking, ‘is the Territory ready to mature like other jurisdictions and follow the path of an Environment Protection Agency that can oversee all of the issues that have been raised in this Chamber in debate this morning?’
It was interesting to listen to the shadow spokesperson for the environment, the member for Daly, because I have not heard him speak on the environment at all, ever, any time while he has been the shadow spokesperson. All of a sudden he has found his portfolio responsibilities. He is talking about flexibility, about looking at major issues such as gas onshore, the biodiversity protection in rural estates, saltwater intrusion in the Mary River, and he says that it is imperative someone has carriage of these issues.
I can inform the member for Daly that the person who has carriage of those issues is the Minister for the Environment and Heritage; and there is a department called the Office of Environment and Heritage. So, if you have all of a sudden found a burning desire to represent constituents of the Territory on these issues, I very strongly recommend that you engage in dialogue both with the minister and his office. That is a proactive, reasonable and constructive fashion of going about your business.
Unfortunately, the debate in this Chamber today has shown that people want to muddy the waters, they want to put in place every single barrier they can think of to prevent this committee doing the task that the government has identified is necessary; that is, investigating whether or not we end up with an EPA. Cane toads are already in Kakadu; they have been spotted in Tennant Creek and Katherine. Unfortunately, the previous government did ignore the issue of cane toads. Successive concerns were raised over the years by people saying, ‘Cane toads are becoming a real issue in the Territory. Can something be done?’ The previous government sat on its hands and did nothing, saying, ‘Their march into the Territory is inevitable and we do not think there is going to be such a big problem’. Well, we are hearing anecdotal evidence already of the impact on freshwater crocodiles and our frogs.
I am really pleased that a critical need issue at the moment is able to be tasked to the committee. However, it is my concern that the committee be given a body of work that it can realistically work through and achieve outcomes for Territorians. A committee that meets as a sessional committee, meeting from time to time, usually during the sittings or around the sittings period itself, with members of that committee already having their electorate, shadow portfolio, and other committee responsibilities - the reality is if we take on the whole world of every single environmental issue, we will be so bogged down that we will not actually achieve any real outcomes.
People in this Chamber who have bothered to look at how committees operate in other jurisdictions and achieve outcomes, will know that committees these days are actually being tasked with specific tasks. They pursue that task, they receive an outcome of that task and then they move on to another task. I listened intently to the member for Nelson, because I know he is genuine, rather than political grandstanding. I know that he is genuine in the issues he has raised, because he has raised them before. The issue of the wetlands, the Ware Peninsula, heritage, tramway preservation, genetically modified cotton, aquaculture, tourism and gas - these are all issues that the member has raised before in this term of government. He is proactively working to continue to ensure that this government is aware of the environmental issues out there. I know he makes representations to the ministers, and does his utmost to deal with the departments and to pursue outcomes for these issues. I do not feel that that will change. I am sure the member for Nelson will continue to progress these issues.
However, my concern is that we are losing sight of the important task that we are here today to discuss, which is the establishment of the committee that can weigh up the future needs of the Territory: the opportunity to provide the environmental safeguards in accord with community expectations that Territorians out there are calling for. I strongly believe the current generation, people 30 years and below, have been raised in an education system that puts great value on environmental issues. We are seeing an evolution, I guess, in Territory politics here today; that is an evolution of recognising the importance of environmental safeguards, the importance of the environment, while at the same time weighing up the very necessary needs of sustainable development.
It is development that gives people the growth, gives them the jobs that puts food on the tables and enables them to care for their children. We must embrace the balancing act of sustaining our environment while we sustain economic development and growth.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion before the House today. I encourage members to put aside political wizardry and stunts and move forward in a collaborative and positive nature.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, we should start with some fairy tales because there are a lot of them today. The first one is, the member for Millner reckons the reason people voted for him is he sat down with that Good Government document, he said in the debate about FOI, and that is what convinced them. He sat down with every single member of his electorate and he door knocked the whole lot of them and that convinced them. Well, have another read of that document. It is worth revisiting because that is the one that says, ‘open’, ‘transparent’, ‘legislatively based’, ‘taking references of their own choosing’; all of that sort of stuff was in there. So, myth one, we are not going to do what we promised the punters. That is the first one.
The second one is talking about how we have to be careful of the economy and balance it all up. The then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fannie Bay, sacked the member for Arnhem, sacked him, took him out of the shadow cabinet because of what he said about mining and the environment. Said that is not the Labor position. Whoops! Don’t say miners are bad guys, they are good guys. We are going to an election and the last thing we want is the real Jack coming out just before the election and saying that mining is bad for the environment. So, there is another little one.
The one about the Hotel Darwin and how we crowed about demolishing it. We had nothing to do with it. It was not an issue for this government. It is all very well saying, ‘Oh, he came in here and he crowed about it’. I recall the member for Katherine’s statement on cane toads, and that has been jocularly dismissed saying, ‘Oh, he said they were coming in 2007,’ or whatever. What he said was, this is a debate we have to have because although they have not arrived yet, it is inevitable. And the chairman is saying, ‘Oh, well, we could have done these various things’. Well, I am glad it is a term of reference because he has obviously done no research into this and it is worth at least reading the debate that was held in parliament about the work that had been done over a long time.
I know the heritage of some of these committees is to look for someone to blame and cane toads is probably convenient. They will probably say it is 27 years of CLP neglect that we ended up with the cane toad. We heard that with a little interjection when Bill Freeland got the sack; that was one of the things that was thrown out as a deficiency in his managerial regime - something about cane toads. I suspect we are going on a little excursion for a scapegoat here.
But let’s get some of those myths out of the way. The other one: you can go to Katherine and spot a cane toad. My oath you can, Madam Speaker, they are everywhere. And for the new chairman of the environmental committee to be unaware that Katherine is so close and absolutely crawling with these little beasties is a bit astounding. She is obviously very Darwin-centric in the first place and in the second place, she is not aware that this is a very entrenched feral animal in Katherine at this very time. Indeed, I travelled to Alice Springs and back only a couple of weeks ago and saw some at Dunmarra and other places. A couple of years ago I was at Borrolloola and they were everywhere. So let’s get this straight: they are here to stay and that is something that should be put well and truly on the record.
We have the sacking of the member for Arnhem because of his behavior about the environment or some of the things he says. We have a document taken to the punters at the election saying how this was going to be a wonderful committee and the first thing they did was disband the environment committee. So, whether you liked it or not, it existed. I was a member of it and I thought it did pretty good work. In fact, in the main, its reports were unanimous, so when people stand up and talk dismissively of it, it is actually a reflection on this parliament because there were members of both sides on it. They had the opportunity to talk in dissenting reports about whether they thought the thing was good or not, and they chose not to. It did pretty good work. It is all very well saying, look it only looked at this little uranium province; that was a significant environmental issue at the time, as was and is Mimosa pigra, as is salt water intrusion on our wetlands.
They are some little mythical things that come creeping into debate. The other one, I suppose, is issues relating to the PAC. My colleague did not suggest self-referral, although that is the benchmark, of course, that was taken out to the last election. That is your mandate. But he did say that it could be modelled on a PAC where you could go, for instance, to the annual report of the department, DIPE, and you could ask DIPE that if things appear in the annual report they could be taken on for further investigation by this committee.
I cannot understand why the new committee is so jumpy about this. This amendment that my colleague has proposed is that we can take some other issues on. Now, if you don’t want to self-refer, we can come back a level. We can say: ‘Well, okay, what about issues that have been canvassed broadly in the annual report or some other report?’ Don’t forget there are still two gates that they can lock. Gate number one: ‘ …the committee shall be empowered unless otherwise ordered ...’ So the minister or the parliament could say: ‘No, please don’t look at matters relating to biodiversity or genetically modified cotton’. They could say that to the committee. So there is the first gate they could slam in our face. The second is: they have the numbers. So as we sit in committee, and as we say: ‘Okay, well, my colleague, the member for Nelson, and the member for Daly and myself might say we are really keen to look at some of these things like, for instance, the cyanide spill on the Tanami Highway’. The numbers that are in that committee could preclude us from doing it. So there are two great big steel gates they can clang in our face without having to worry about it having coming from the minister or the Assembly.
They have set up three doors that can be shut. All he is asking is open one of them. If you are really worried, if you are really jittery about it, you still have ‘unless otherwise ordered’ so you can order us not to look at the Tanami spill, and you can still use your numbers on committee not to investigate it. Why are you so frightened about this amendment? What is causing you so much concern?
You still have the potency, you still have the power. All we are saying is that there are some other issues to look at. Cane toads are important, but I can guarantee I can tell you what the answer is going to be: this is a big problem and there is not much we can do about it, but here are some of the things we can do to mitigate it; but the cane toad is here to stay. That is what it will say.
We have been given an invitation by the Leader of Government Business, and he said there are other things you can look at if you so choose. So I would suggest that in this debate, the minister - at least the dot points put to him by my colleague, the member for Greatorex, when he put out a press release that probably kicked this off because this was probably the straw that broke the camel’s back, the one that said: ‘For God’s sake, put a committee into place’. Lo! and behold: here is the committee. All plaudits to Dr Lim. Some of the things that he mentioned here such as the cyanide spill on the Tanami Highway, are deserving of the work of the committee. I think we should look at that. The damage to endangered bird sanctuaries and the draining of waterholes along the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line, possibly that is something we could look at; it should not take too long.
The contaminated water at Perkins Shipping is probably a good one. In fact, there is a link between those two because there is at least one gentleman with his fingerprints all over both of them. The lack of monitoring of the uranium province in East Arnhem is something we could put back on. It has been done for some decades and we should continue with it. Another is the impact of onshore gas coming to Darwin Harbour. I suggest that the minister, in his rejoinder could, as a ministerial reference, give us at least those. I am sure the member for Nelson, although he is precluded from speaking again, could probably think of some others.
Whilst the new chairman is saying: ‘Look, we are really busy’ and ‘We had better not take too much on because we are going to be really busy’, I could suggest that if she is a bit more punctual, for instance, at turning up at meetings, then we could get a little bit further. I know that there was some difficulty with her at least getting to the new membership of the Public Accounts Committee …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Drysdale is casting aspersions on my punctuality at meetings …
Mr Dunham: Yes, yes.
Ms LAWRIE: …and that is incorrect. I have been punctual to all meetings.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr DUNHAM: I am just suggesting that you could modify your behaviour, a little more diary control, and when you are called to a meeting immediately at the commencement of the luncheon adjournment, for instance, you could get there. So there are little things like that where you would get through a lot more business now that you are the chairman. So, there is something you could do. I think you could also get out of Darwin a bit more often. Katherine might be a good start. It is not that far away. If you start doing that, you might have a bit more notion of what the environment is.
There is also a dismissive attitude about the environment in terms of heritage and the protection of the environment that has been inherited by the new government. It is in pretty good shape: the harbour, the green belts around our city, the various protection organs that sit in government, and our monitoring devices are in good shape,. As a previous Essential Services minister, I spoke in debate about the wonderful work that is being done - the green work that is being done - through PowerWater and others, and that sustainable effort that has been put into place. It is on the Parliamentary Record in the term of this new government, and it was recognised during that debate that some of them had quite a long heritage. I also worked for the minister for mineral resources at one stage, and there is quite a significant amount of environmental effort and benefit that comes from mining - surprise, surprise!
However, we have to get to this stage where we realise there are often calls on a resource that are compatible - and I can understand what the member for Nelson is saying that sometimes they are in collision, and you have to mitigate one or the other so that harm is minimised. If you look at, for instance, a couple of them - look for instance at the Gouldian finch. Much of the Gouldian finch habitat research was largely funded by Pegasus Mining, which was running Mt Todd at the time. A significant amount of money went into that from Pegasus. If you look at Enterprise at Pine Creek, the rehabilitation there provided some really good insights into how to rehabilitate natural scrub lands after mining.
The Office of the Supervising Scientist is entirely funded from Ranger, and it has done work on various flora and fauna, including long-necked tortoises and emus, if I recall. This is this trivial work done under the CLP government. We had a look at a lot of the work that was done by the OSS - significant contribution to the scientific effort and body of knowledge in Australia, and probably the world, funded from mining, and available to be looked at by this committee, this trivial committee that the CLP had. If you look at a lot of mining effort now, including extractive, there are a lot of better techniques that can be used in carting and the problems that can have on the environment; in blasting, extraction and, obviously, rehabilitation.
They are things we could look at as a committee, and I am sure there are plenty of mining companies around that would like to show us their ‘green’ credentials. They would say: ‘Look, we think we have a good record here, come and have a look’. They are things that could be part of the work for the committee. I would like to see the committee have a wider look at this.
I can understand the embarrassment, as I said, given that it is only less than two years that the then Leader of the Opposition had to sack the member for Arnhem for his comments in this area. I can understand that there is still a little sore spot there. However, I am sure we would get over that. Once we got out bush and started talking to companies, I think you would find that it would be work that we all enjoyed and the reports might even be of a bipartisan nature - heaven forbid!
I am proud to be a member of this committee. I believe we can make it work hard. We certainly have to pack some swags and get on the road: we have to get out and see where the environment is. It is not, even though most of the news from the media and other places about the built environment and its close proximity to the vegetation here in Darwin and other highly habited areas - it is other areas as well. Mimosa pigra continues to be a problem, as do feral animals - a significant problem.
Some of the problems we have had with bushfires in Alice Springs, if we do not have rain and that vegetation does not regenerate quickly, we have a significant problem with dust in Alice Springs. You have lived there long enough, Madam Speaker, to know that bushfires equals denuding of the flora, equals significant dust storms that can go as far as the eastern seaboard - and they have in previous times.
There is a powerful body of work to look at. I believe that the body of work that was looked at by previous committees, and has been dismissed in this place, is tantamount to a reflection on this parliament. It was good, powerful work and, if there is to be such a fear of us venturing into places that will embarrass the government, take confidence in the fact that you have the numbers on the committee, even though that is another broken promise. Take confidence in the fact that you have the capacity for the minister to declare a forbidden area. He can do it still. We are not asking for that bit to be amended. He can still say, ‘unless otherwise ordered’. ‘Thou shalt not look at mining,’ says the minister for DIPE. There are two great big caveats he has. He does not need this other one of saying it all has to come through parliament or the minister for us look at it.
I suggest that some of the more powerful work of this committee might be contemporary references. So, if there is a cyanide spill, and if there is a variety of pieces of information going to and fro, from various agencies, it might be a good thing for this parliament to have some of the members look at it. In an effort, dare I say, to get to the truth. Because that is, after all, what we are about. We are supposed to be able to come from this parliament, interrogate the documents, departments, without fear or favour, and report in the best interests of the people who voted us to come to this place.
I would think that this augurs well - if it is half the rhetoric. Unfortunately, the rhetoric thus far has shown it to be a shadow of its former self. I have not pulled out the election platform on the environment from the last foray that we had into an election. Suffice to say that this is covered with a legacy of broken promises at its birth and that sort of heritage does not augur well for the apolitical feeling that the member for Karama is trying to engender.
I also caution that against this being used as a political tool. Certainly it is not my intention to use it to poke spikes into the side of government. They will do that well enough themselves without our having to divulge it. I think that if it is used with good intention and the good intention is that we work in the best interests of the people who elected us, we cannot go too far wrong. I hope that in his contribution, which is forthcoming, the member for Millner is able to tell us why this document that was so powerful in matters relating to FOI and other things ‘good government’, when he took it to the living rooms of the people who were voting for him in Millner, how somehow that page was ripped out, or turned over, or he did not actually get to that page. Or, if he did actually divulge that when he sat in their living rooms and told them what was going to happen with the incoming Labor government, he is now going to tell us how he is going to address that. It probably should be in some form of apology that the so-called ‘good government document’ is nowhere near the shape of this thing. It bears no resemblance to its shape.
In fact, quite proudly, in some sort of a defensive mechanism, the member for Wanguri, said, ‘No, it is like yours. Have a look. They are very similar’. What he is saying is you had a terrible thing and we have pinched it, and put a couple of outriggers on it and it is going to go faster. Maybe. Well, I reckon that what they should have been going for is probably is something more closely approximated to their promises. Because that is what it is supposed to be about. You have a mandate, you get elected and you are supposed to put things in place that are pretty close to what you promise.
I support not only the motion of my colleague, Madam Speaker, because, as I said, if you worry about the padlocks on the gates, you have two big gates with padlocks all over it, if you are worried about finding out stuff. I also support the foreshadowed motion of the member for Nelson because more and more heritage and environment are intertwined, more and more notions of preservation and conservation flow through both of those arms, and certainly, in an administrative arrangement sense, they sit quite neatly cheek by cheek in the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment that the environment minister has. It is probably a good idea that we put heritage in there as well.
I encourage the incoming chairman to refrain from some of the more florid bias that she shows in this place, and some of the interjections that demonstrate her having a very single minded approach to things rather than opening her mind up and being a little bit more bipartisan. I encourage her to truly respect the role of the chairman of a committee of this parliament, albeit on a much lesser scale than that which they promised the people, and at least exhibit some of those traits a chairman should have in terms of impartiality and a quest for the truth and pursuit of the best interests of the people that put us here.
With those comments, I look forward to getting on the track with my swag and investigating matters of great concern in the environment. They are certainly much greater than setting up a committee, whether it is called an EPA, or anything else, and cane toads. There is a lot more to look at. I hope we get back to the uranium province. I hope that, having kicked this thing off in the first place by prompting the minister into action, at least some of those issues that the member for Greatorex put to the minister only a mere week or so ago can feature among our terms of reference. In closing debate, I hope the minister is able to tell us that he is quite happy to accept those because it was an invitation that was given to us by the member for Wanguri.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your time has expired.
Mr DUNHAM: No, it hasn’t.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The question is …
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak.
Madam SPEAKER: You wish to speak?
Dr LIM: Yes. I thought you were going to call the luncheon adjournment.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, no. The difficulty we have is that we were hoping the committee would be able to meet at lunch time. Obviously it won’t now. Do you wish to speak to this?
Dr LIM: Yes, I do wish to speak, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Can I have some other indication of people who may be speaking to this?
Dr LIM: I thought it was a foreshadowed motion.
Madam SPEAKER: We do have a foreshadowed motion, so I think, Leader of Government Business, at this stage we are obviously not going to get through the whole thing, so, yes, we could adjourn for lunch.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we do go on there are two things we need to do. The Attorney-General needs to give a couple of notices that he missed the call on. And I have allowed the member for Goyder time to give a personal explanation.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I place on the Parliamentary Record a personal explanation.
I am, of course, a member of parliament. I have a broad and diverse electorate and part of my role as a politician is to field questions from all constituents with different and varying views. Part of that process is to request answers from the government and from the responsible minister on any issue which touches upon and affects people in my electorate. Very much part of that process – indeed, it is one of the duties a politician has - is to reduce those questions and those concerns to writing and forward them to government for a response to be provided, and the information is then given to that particular constituent.
It is very much part of the parliamentary process. It is a duty I intend to continue to discharge and a process I intend to continue to utilise. If there is any confusion in government about the process, I am happy to provide a briefing. However, if the minister thinks that, during the course of Question Time, he can try to intimidate me, to prevent me from asking questions and acting on information on behalf of my constituents, then he is sadly mistaken.
MOTION
Environment and Sustainable Development Committee - Appointment
Environment and Sustainable Development Committee - Appointment
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I join in the debate on the formation or reformation, reconstitution of the environment committee now renamed the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee.
The name itself, if the minister would take a bit of notice, is a bit of a oxymoron title - environment and sustainable development. Yet, this committee has no specific reference. All the references it has are listed in the third point of this motion where it says: ‘… makes recommendation on matters referred to it by …’. Until it gets referred it has no job to do. How it can be an Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, I wonder. That is why I stand in support …
Mr Bonson: What did you do for eight years?
Dr LIM: … of the amended motion put to the Chamber by the member for Daly. Taking on the inane interjection by the member for Millner - if he could understand law he might be able to read a bit better than he has purported to be doing for the last 18 months and understand what I am talking about when I talk about it being an oxymoron title because it relates to nothing, absolutely nothing.
For the last 18 months since the government has been in place I have continually called for the formation of the environment committee. When the government came in and allowed the environment committee to lapse I felt it was a very poor foresight of this government to do that. In the last 18 months my feeling about the lack of the environment committee has come to fruition. I thought it was wrong not to have it. A few things have occurred in the last 12 months in the Territory that should have rung lots of warning bells for the government, yet it did not, not until this week. For the last 18 months we have had the cyanide spill along the Tanami Highway; that has been of great significance to Central Australia. People could have been killed. Even the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure went up there and called the person who was alleged to have caused the spill an ‘eco-terrorist’. How shooting off from the hip could that be? It was a very significant environmental disaster that should have been closely monitored right from the very beginning and the truth be known things could have happened very, very quickly.
A letter in the NT News today commented about how the CEO or the EO of the Work Health Authority could have done his work a lot better instead of blaming former governments for something that he himself has been slow to deal with. An environment committee with the right references would enable this parliament to be quick to respond and quick to find out what exactly caused the spill and then prevent further impacts to the environment by such unfortunate accidents.
We have heard since the railway line commenced that there has been some environmental damage to the Gouldian finch habitat, and the almost complete drying out of water holes along the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line. These are things about which people should be very conscious. Parliament was not well informed at all about these issues. It is also something that the environmental committee could have been on top of. I spoke about the environment committee looking after the uranium province in East Arnhem land in the seven years that I was the chair. I know that I inherited the committee from previous members who had been there.
The committee has existed since about November 1977 and has been continuously active since its formation. The primary reference was amended around 1988 to include ministerial and parliamentary reference. In the seven years I was the chair we looked at other issues that were referred to us by parliament. They were on mimosa pigra and also the salt water intrusion into the Mary River wetlands. The mimosa pigra project has been recognised nationally as a very useful document. In the one document you get all the references and research that has been done nationally and internationally. Since our report I believe many biological inhibiting vectors have been used by the CSIRO through their very detailed research laboratories in Queensland, Western Australia and the Territory. They have had a major impact on patches of mimosa pigra that they have used the biological vectors against. That is the value of an environmental committee. They can gather information in a bipartisan way and provide parliament with appropriate advice to which government could then respond.
The membership of the Environment Committee in past years - and I am referring to the years when I was involved with the committee - Wes Lanhupuy was a member in 1994 until his retirement from parliament, and Maurice Rioli, John Bailey and John Ah Kit. Those were the four from the then opposition. I must say that Rioli and Bailey were very hard working members of the committee. They rarely missed any meetings and they travelled with the rest of the committee to look at the issues at hand. I cannot say that for the member for Arnhem. If he turned up for two meetings, it was two of many he had otherwise missed. He was just a very poor performer on the committee. I hope the new committee will have harder working people, and I trust the member for Millner who ums and ahs and walks away from his chair will be hard working as well.
The Environment Committee has a lot of work to do in the Territory. It can do it well if it chooses to. I believe that the amendment the member for Daly has proposed would allow the committee to do some serious work that the Territory has for it to look at.
I heard the member for Drysdale request of the minister that he take on the points that I had listed in my media release. That is a good start to what the committee can do. I will be very quick to advise the member for Karama that - she has hardly any committee work at the moment - what is so bad about taking on a few of those references? All she can say is she is going to be too busy - too busy doing what, I wonder? It is important for the environment committee to consider all issues that are here in the Territory, and if you agree to the member for Daly’s amendment, it will definitely do that.
There is no point moving the motion as per the minister’s motion. It says nothing. It is a sessional committee to be known as the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, but it has no matters referred to it. As it stands, that is all it has, and until parliament refers something to it, it sits there, impotent, doing absolutely nothing. What is the point?
Just to close my short comments, Madam Speaker, it is better to have the amended motion which will allow the committee to look at issues that are relevant to the Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the amendment be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mr Mills Ms Martin
Mr Reed Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Before I put the motion, I believe we had an amendment foreshadowed. If the member for Nelson would like to seek leave to move his amendment?
Mr WOOD (Nelson) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be amended by inserting in paragraph 3(a) after ‘environment’ (twice occurring) the words ‘and heritage’ I will speak quickly on the reasons for putting…
Madam SPEAKER: Can I just clarify this? Members who have already spoken may speak to the amendment only.
Mr WOOD: I will speak to that amendment. By adding the word ‘heritage’ into that paragraph it does cover what I believe is the role of a committee such as an environment and sustainable development committee. As I said before, the federal government has the National Heritage Trust, the NHT, which includes both the built environment and the natural environment. Also, listening to the member for Arnhem talking about the issues of the Hotel Darwin which was a heritage site, it is important that we do look at issues like that. I simply say that by adding ‘heritage’ in there, you make it a more complete committee which can deal with a broad range of issues that many people in the Territory have concerns about, and it does especially cover the phrase ‘sustainable development’.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, you will be speaking to the amendment only.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I indicate that the government will not be supporting the amendment. The reason is that essentially, we want this committee focussed on the environment and the balance between environmental issues and sustainable development.
But to pick up the concerns of the member for Nelson, I certainly believe that the community has the capacity, through the Heritage Advisory Council, to make representations to that body. If the member is not aware, I refer to the Heritage Conservation Act and the functions of that council. They do have very broad functions; they do have powers of self-referral. There are nine members on that council. I will not go through all of the functions of the council, but its functions include:
(a) to prepare criteria for the assessment of places and objects of heritage value in accordance with
the objectives specified in section 18(3); and
- (b) to carry out research into, and evaluate the heritage value of, places and objects;
So there is the capacity for members of this parliament and members of the public to make representation to the council to assess the heritage value of sites in the Northern Territory. We think that this amendment would further broaden and dilute the effectiveness of the work of this committee in dealing with issues of environmental significance and sustainable development.
I advise the member for Nelson that we do have the capability through the Heritage Advisory Council for members of the public and members of parliament to take up issues through that particular body. We believe, at this point in time, that the functions and powers of that body are effective. If members want to make representation to us, to the Minister for Environment …
Mr Dunham: How can you whinge about the Darwin Hotel being bulldozed – same process?
Ms Martin: He was a gutless minister who saw that come down - a gutless minister.
Mr HENDERSON: … and Heritage, if members of this House believe that the council is somehow …
Mr Dunham: Same process, same committee that you are telling Gerry works.
Ms Martin: He has told fibs.
Mr HENDERSON: … not as effective as it could be well we would be happy to hear from the members of the House.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister has accused me across the Chamber of telling fibs. I would ask her to withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, withdraw it.
Mr Dunham: Go on, easy to do. Just say ‘sorry’.
Ms MARTIN: If he is offended, I withdraw.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I will be brief. If members of this House or members of the public believe that the Heritage Advisory Council needs beefing up in any way, or does not have sufficient powers, I am sure the minister would be happy to hear from them. However, we do not want to over burden this committee. It is focussed on environmental issues and sustainable development, and we do have the Heritage Advisory Council with self-referral powers to look at issues of heritage significance in the Northern Territory.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the amendment from the member for Nelson, and I congratulate him on it.
The electorate of Port Darwin has a number of heritage icons. There is increasing pressure upon them because of the nature of the CBD and development. Also, the things that you have here in the Northern Territory that are heritage icons, are often things of fairly flimsy construction. They are not the things like the old Parliament House in Canberra and structures such as that. We have a unique group of buildings and heritage icons here. So, the member for Nelson’s amendment is a very good one because of the fact that there is more pressure on our icons. There will be more and more pressure coming along in the future as Darwin develops. I do not think it hurts at this point in time to start putting more and more work into the heritage area. To have a government committee that looks at and monitors the issue of heritage is a very good idea.
Some of the places of concern in my electorate that are going to need ongoing and special treatment are the Old Town Hall ruins, the Armed Storage site just outside my electorate in the member for Drysdale’s electorate at Bayview, the Myilly Point houses and, also, along Cavenagh Street, the Chinese shops that are there - the ones that have been there for many, many years. These are all structures in my electorate which would benefit from such a committee - an important committee within government. The committee, of course, acts as a watchdog over such things as the council, which the minister just mentioned. It does not hurt to have this included in a government committee. It is quite appropriate to have heritage linked into the environment committee because, often, heritage is linked at a government level. The Department of Lands, Planning and Environment, for example, in the previous government picked up the area of heritage. So, the environment committee that is being established here today is quite an appropriate one to also take on a watchdog role with regards to heritage.
In conclusion, I believe heritage is very important. It joins into a rich tapestry of our life here in Darwin for locals and visitors alike. It is desperately important that we remember our heritage, that we have physical elements to remind us of our heritage. It would be wonderful if we could support this amendment to assist in that area. I congratulate the member for Nelson again for thinking of it.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will just add to that. We on this side certainly support this amendment. I will just pick up on what the member for Wanguri said regarding the Heritage Advisory Committee. That committee, like the department’s Heritage Unit is a statutory authority that has a process under the act and it is all very well to come in here and say that we all have access to the Heritage Advisory Committee, which we do, but this is talking about a sessional committee of this parliament to look at other issues and oversee issues in terms of the environment as now referenced by this department and also heritage. I say that members should support this on the basis that it does then include the built environment which is a very strong point that the member for Nelson made. I cannot see why this Labor government would run away from doing this.
It seems to be a very logical step and they seem to be frightened to let this committee have any powers to have a look at issues of the environment which are going to be very important and now issues of heritage that are extremely important.
On the listing of heritage sites, I challenge this government to tell me whether I am correct – did I list, in the same period that the former minister for heritage has been in office, more heritage objects and items than he did?
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I am also the heritage minister who went to all that trouble to move the Wesleyan Church that they did not support but now claim that that is their development going on in Knuckey Street. Have a look …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Will the boxhead please be quiet. If boxhead wants to get up, he can get up and have his say. But Madam Speaker …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I think I am going to call a point of order on the comments made by the minister.
Mr BALDWIN: Absolutely.
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I am questioning whether ‘boxhead’ is parliamentary language.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think that is a point of order.
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, I was reacting to the interjections. I am happy to talk quietly because it hurts my voice to shout.
This government claims the development on Knuckey and Mitchell Streets to be a development they put together. They did not support …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I can wait all day, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, just stop. You are being very provocative with your interjections and they are being very disorderly, now just cease. Member for Daly.
Mr BALDWIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. They did not support of the removal of the Wesleyan Church, albeit the owners of the land and the building did, and that it is now restored and protected and a well used building. They can knock my credentials as much as they like but I challenge them, and I challenge the former minister for heritage, for the same period that he was in office for, that I was in office for, that I listed many more that he did. I do not think he could stand up here and refute that. In fact, there was a question asked in the estimates and an answer was given. I know the answer, so he could go and look that up.
We will support this amendment to include the built environment for those reasons. I congratulate the member for Nelson for bringing it forward.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, may I reply?
Madam SPEAKER: You have already spoken.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I am closing debate.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think he gets another chance, does he? He has already spoken.
Mr Baldwin: You did not give me one.
Madam SPEAKER: No, sorry.
Mr Wood: I know I had my say.
Madam SPEAKER: I thought I made it clear that you speak once to the amendment.
The question is the amendment as proposed by the member for Nelson be agreed to:
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mr Mills Ms Martin
Mr Reed Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Amendment negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Environment and Sustainable Development Committee – References to Committee
Environment and Sustainable Development Committee – References to Committee
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee inquire into and report on:
1. the efficacy of the establishment of an Environmental Protection Agency for the Northern Territory
inclusive of but not restricted to -
Northern Territory;
demographic, geographic and financial context of the Northern Territory; and
2. issues associated with the progressive entry into the Northern Territory of cane toads.
Madam Speaker, this has been a fairly wide ranging debate today from this morning onwards. There have been many issues canvassed, including the establishment of the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, examining the efficacy of an EPA, an environmental protection agency. It is my understanding that in other states an environmental protection agency provides a structure to examine and report on, and looks at addressing and remedying, environmental issues. As the member for Karama said earlier today, the committee will be looking at a structure that can explore a whole range of environmental issues as they arise - I am talking about an EPA - rather than the committee simply having a whole set of individual and discrete environmental issues that it is given. Considering the time available and the range of issues involved, it would make it very difficult for the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to look at each one in depth.
This is a more strategic approach. Determining whether an Environmental Protection Agency would be efficacious, and I think that is the way to go. It shows how this government is interested in working strategically. It will also give community members, and different groups within the community - some of them obviously well known to the member for Goyder - to come along and give their points of view. Inherent in the establishment of an EPA there are quite considerable resource implications. This committee is also charged with looking at the feasibility in that way, but also taking account of the unique nature of the Northern Territory; its demographic, geographic and financial context. I believe all those things are important. It is a strategic way for the committee to go. I recommend the first term of reference for that very reason.
The second term of reference relates to the progressive entry of cane toads into the Northern Territory. I am a regular door-knocker in my electorate and I know other people from other places door-knock in other people’s electorate, but I am a regular in my own electorate because I am interested to hear what my own electorate says. Actually, it has been a very clear question on a number of occasions from people: what can we do about the spread of the cane toad?
Mr Dunham: Then why didn’t you tell them? You are the minister. Tell them what you say.
Dr BURNS: When I door-knocked, I was not the minister, member for Drysdale.
Mr Dunham: You did not have a clue!
Mr Kiely: We told them the CLP brought them in.
Mr Dunham: Yes, I bet you did!
Dr BURNS: May I continue, Madam Speaker? Very disruptive. I will look at you, Madam Speaker, and continue.
People do raise this issue. There is a perception in the community that government, and I guess the departments, have acquiesced all too easily to the spread of the cane toads. People are saying: ‘What can I do when they come to my garden?’ How do I protect my native species of frogs?’ These are the questions that people ask about the issues associated with the progressive entry of cane toads into the Northern Territory. It is a very important reference. I think they will come to Darwin within a Wet season or so and people will be confronted by them. It is important that this committee look at issues to do with that.
Before I close, I was rather intrigued when I was in Alice Springs, it was last week, that the member for Greatorex released a press statement about an environment committee and the likely terms of reference for an environment committee. I will have to confess my ignorance. I thought the member for Greatorex was actually the shadow minister for the environment. So it has come as a bit of an eye-opener for me to find out it is actually the member for Daly. The passion with which the member for Greatorex spoke about his involvement with past environment committees, how he had actually chaired an environment committee, how he had written a press release about an environment committee and the need for an environment committee and cane toads, I am just wondering why he has been left off? It has just left me a little bit flummoxed about what is the role of the member for Daly. He seems to sit back, he seems to do nothing, he is letting the member for Greatorex run his shadow portfolio for him.
I hear that there is this allegation that somehow the member for Daly, when he was the heritage minister, rolled over, was out of town, when the Hotel Darwin was knocked down. Well, I think his performance over the last week actually belies that, it actually shows how it can happen. He is willing to come in here and show pony, but he is not prepared to do the work. I commend the member for Greatorex. The member for Greatorex is doing a fantastic job.
There are mixed signals from the opposition. Get your act together, get some policies together, and move forward.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, let’s start with the last issue first. If you want the member for Greatorex on the committee, invite us to have three, because that is what you have in your platform. You said, ‘Let’s have even numbers’, so let us have three and we can fix up this little dilemma of yours and we can have Dr Lim on the committee. He is most keen. He is a very hardworking member, unlike the two, or three, that you have nominated. I can tell you that he would be most grateful to go on to committee where we had even numbers instead of this notion where you have to keep at least that door locked. So we can fix it up. Here is the person who has designed this thing, and you could say, ‘Okay Dr Lim, not only are you on the PAC, not only are you on the Use and Abuse of Alcohol, or whatever the grog thing is, but you are on this’, and I will tell you what, he would be pretty good at it. They are the three probably hardest working committees of the lot. But he is precluded from being on the environment committee because we can only have two members.
Now we come to the vexed issue of how dare he speak about the environment. He is very knowledgable about the environment, and while we do have shadow responsibilities, don’t ever assume that in this pack here, there is not a repertoire of skills that would eat any of your ministers any day, on any issue. Dr Lim, my colleague, the member for Greatorex, I am sure would be very keen to be on this committee. The fact is, he is on several others. The fact is, you have made sure there are only a couple of seats there, and you could remedy that.
I was interested then that the minister mentioned that cane toads are a good thing to look at, because he does not have a clue about them. I thought, oh my god, this will be good, we are on a voyage of discovery for him here, basically this is a little tuition session. Cane toads 101 for the minister. You have a whole department of scientists out there. You have a body of knowledge that goes back half a century across a couple of states of Australia plus the Northern Territory. We have debated it in this House. There was a brochure produced by the previous Parks and Wildlife minister to identify them. There has been some stuff put out for people who are interested in addressing this. He knows none of it. None of it! Here they have the gall to talk about my colleague, the member for Goyder, asking questions to elicit an answer, and you did not even, as a backbencher knocking on doors, big issue out there, they were all coming to you saying, ‘Gosh, local member, we are really worried about cane toads’, and what did he say to them? Nothing. Why? Because he did not know.
So what he has done now as a minister? He has set us off to educate him on the issue of cane toads. Well, this is going to be a top terms of reference, because, I tell you, we can virtually write the answer and recommendations now. If he really wants lucid, scientific opinion he has a vast repository of knowledge within his department. He could even, dare I say it, put on a chap by the name of Bill Freeland, as a consultant, who is immensely talented in this area. Bill would provide him great knowledge. The reason Bill is not available to him as a public servant is because he was sacked. Let me see now, Clare Martin, ‘… under Labor there will be no job losses from the public sector …’ Well, there is one. And not only that, the reason, I guess, he was forced, was because there was significant job losses in the area that he once had. So here we go, here we go.
Here are a couple of ways for the minister to get a little bit of knowledge about cane toads: he can get a book out of the library. He promotes himself as a wonderful researcher. He has this great boffin-like knowledge and vision of himself. Get on the net, surf the net, hit cane toads, search. He could even get some of the documents that have been tabled in this parliament. You can go to the NT Library. You can go to the parliamentary library. So there are three or four ways you can do it. Or, if he was in a particularly filibustering point of view and a mind to send us off on, dare I say, a wild frog chase, he could give us the terms of reference, because he knows what the answer is going to be. He knows he is going to be impotent - in a ministerial sense rather than any other - in terms of how to fix the problem, and he is going to find that he gets a report that is entirely self-evident, tells him things that have happened in Queensland, and over the last decade or so here, including extensive field experiments by our own Parks and Wildlife Commission and the former Conservation Commission in the Woolagorang area. So he has substantial knowledge that will be fed back to him in a tutorial type session. That is one term of reference.
The other one is also to keep us busy, active and out of trouble. That is, tell us how we should regulate the whole business of environmental protection. Well, I mean, we have a little bit of a dj vu problem here because we could look at lots of places and come back and say, ‘We have been to Tasmania and they have a really good model there and it might be something you want to have a look at. It is a great model. It fits well, dovetails with your policy, it has a great veracity with your rhetoric that you have said in public’, and you might do a backflip like you did with the PAC. You might come here and say, ‘No, don’t want one of them’, or you might use it to fob us off on this very busy errand where we are all going to be really busy for two years to get greater proximity to the election date.
I reckon we can knock these terms of reference over in the first six months – less, three months maybe. I don’t think they look that hard. I would like to think that the people who are on the committee with me are prepared to work hard. I would like to think that we can access some of the people in the minister’s department and in the commission. These are pretty simple really, should not take us too long to do them, and then I would like the minister to put his head to something that he did not answer, and that is: how do we get our other terms of reference?
If you are really, really paranoid and jumpy about us getting some sort of a sneaky jump on you and getting some sort of exposure about the minister’s incompetence and the various falsehoods told by people leading up to an election, you can still veto that. You still have the chairman with a casting vote. Even if we could get the Independent to side with us, you have the votes, you have the numbers. You can also declare it under the terms of reference that we passed mere minutes ago as a verboten area: ‘the committee shall be empowered unless otherwise ordered …’. The minister can say, ‘No, I don’t want you looking at that area’. I cannot understand why they are running so scared on the issue of ‘let’s look at issues of environmental concern for the Northern Territory’.
I can tell you that we will be looking at them anyway, regardless of whether this committee is in place; we will be looking at all sorts of issues that impact on the Northern Territory as we have always done. It is part of our ethic. If you think that you can set some sort of a sump-up, a little gammon - this is where all the action is and it does not take place anywhere else – you are sadly mistaken. Because if this turns into a committee that looks at its navel for a long time as a holding pattern to get you close to an election, we are not going to be part of that sort of politics.
Words like ‘strategic’ do worry me a bit because it is that sort of, ‘let’s sit around and talk about imponderables, but for god’s sake, don’t talk about action’. Anything we do in this parliament should have recommendations that can lead to action.
They are some of the issues of concern. I have a greater issue of concern and that is funding, because when I talked about the minister’s capacity to hobble us, as I said, he can do it by his numbers, he can do it by giving us only certain things. He can do it also by resources. I am pleased that Rick Gray has found himself as the executive officer to this committee. I have known Rick for possibly 20 years now and he will perform a good and competent job as an officer of this parliament, but you can only do so much. I understood Rick was pretty busy. Let’s assume he has been relieved of some of his workload or, alternatively, he is going to get this as an extra. Let’s say he is getting an extra. Let’s say we think that we should travel to see some of this. Where is that budget? You really nobble something if you do not allocate any resources. There has been a big silence here. Where is the cash?
What you have done is appended onto an already busy officer a whole new workload. We all know, because we are all on committees, that some of the work up there is already rationed; it is rationed across officers who are already busy doing other things. Members would be aware that we asked questions in this area during estimates, and members would also be aware that when we talked about our Estimates Committee, one of the strong recommendations that flowed into that was it must be resourced. The best way the government can nobble this committee is to set it up with a great big name plate in brass over the door, various ads in the paper, calls for submissions, but do it on a shoestring.
For the minister to set up a committee like this, there should be something to give comfort to those people who think that this is paraded out as good government, dare I say it, that this will actually do things. If the committee had met at lunch time today, I would like to have talked about where we might go to look at other places’ Environmental Protection Agencies. I would like to have talked about, for instance, how long we were going to take for our work schedule, whether it included travel or not, whether there were some places we should look at as models, a la PAC, the aborted Tasmania PAC trip.
That is essential to this. And if the minister is serious about proscribing terms of reference, proscribing what we are going to do, he has to describe the how. It is not good enough to say: ‘Rick will give you a hand’. That is just not good enough. I would like to hear the minister, in his rejoinder to this debate, describe two things: the first thing I have already called on him to do and he has not, and that is how other items for the committee will be provided to the committee, and the route by which that will happen. If it is to come through this parliament or through the minister, I would like to know if that is going to be a frequent thing. Can we make suggestions to him? Can third parties or members of the community go to him and say: ‘These are issues we think should be afforded some priority status’? This business of: ‘They are going to be really busy,’ - I don’t really care. I am not in this job for a holiday. I don’t care if we are really busy.
This is something that has to be done. If the members for Karama, Barkly and Millner find this workload a bit odious, perhaps that is a problem for government. I can definitely speak on behalf of my colleagues, the members for Daly and Nelson. We are quite happy to put the work in as long as it is productive.
Let us have some discussion about how new references come aboard, the route by which that will occur, how other people can shape that priority list and shape that reference list. Let’s talk about resources; let’s talk about a guarantee to the parliament – and I am sure you would be keen to hear this, Madam Speaker, because you know at the end of the day that if additional workload is put on you without cost, your good officers are going to be the ones ferreting around looking for things to cut or jettison in an aborted attempt to try to find the cash for this committee.
Don’t think this can be done cheaply. We have yet to meet, and in meeting we might well decide, for instance, that we should go back out to the uranium province. We might well decide that we should look at other jurisdictions. We might decide that we should have some formal expert advice. You might well find you have to pay for that.
For all of those reasons, I would like some assurance that this is not going to be nobbled by some gammon efficiency drive so that when we become involved with it, they say: ‘You really don’t need that much because all you are going to do is a bit of a desktop exercise looking at an EPA. And the cane toad thing, you can probably get that out of the NT Library’, both of which are probably true. But if that is the case, why doesn’t the minister do it?
Why have us run around and do this for him if it is going to be some desktop exercise where we gather together a few bits of paper, come up with some recommendations which may not be to his liking, and then he has to go through the business of standing in parliament and saying why he disagrees with us. Why put yourself to that trouble? Make sure the committee is focussed on working and delivering outcomes, all that rhetoric that you read in various bureaucratic documents. I would hope in his opportunity for a rejoinder, the minister can tell us the route by which additional references will be made and give us the assurance, the ready assurance, that having decided on our work program, that it will be adequately funded.
I would also like him to tell us what sort of timeline he would like on this. It is pretty rare for a minister to give someone a job and say off you go and I don’t really care when you come back. You feel like there is the potential for us to be sent on a fools errand here. I would like him to tell us that he would expect this within the first quarter or the second quarter of next year and we would come back with recommendations. I think that we could make that deadline and those timetables are within making.
Having decided they want an EPA, I would like him to know that if we come up with recommendations we expect that it would become a matter for some priority for government and it would not be drawn out with various devices parading as consultation and the intricacies of drafting legislation; that it would come to this parliament quickly so that they can set up their EPA.
These are my comments on it the matter. I am disappointed with the early behaviour of the chairman, but that is probably something we can take up in session. Her puerile and juvenile behaviour through much of the debate, her attitude at being less than partial in virtually everything she talks about in relation to the CLP, does not mark her well as a person to sit as a chairman on a committee like this. But, let’s give her a shot, let’s see how she goes. I am heartened that she took offence at the label of being tardy to meetings, even though that is demonstrably true. It is good that that sort of label does offend her. Hopefully, we can get her in quick, we can get the meetings under way, we can run through agendas and we can really get cracking.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Just as members are not allowed to refer to the presence or otherwise of members in the Chamber, I believe that same rule applies to parliamentary committees which are an extension of the Chamber’s business.
Madam SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, it is an esoteric point. Okay, let’s say - and I will be polite to the member for Karama here - she is a person who likes to get to meetings on time. If that is the case, if that is the mark she would like to be measured by, I am happy with that, because I hope this committee does a lot of work.
Cane toads are coming to Darwin. I think I saw one on Leanyer Drive last week. I did a u-turn but I could not find the particular beast. I would be very surprised if cane toads are not somewhere around the Darwin and outer Darwin suburbs by now. Certainly they are right through Katherine, right through the Katherine River valley, and it is a very easy thing for these beasties to hitch rides as they have done in the past. I would suspect with the commuting between Katherine/Darwin done on an extremely regular basis that we could have them here now. The inevitability of them being here is something we have to grapple with. Let’s looks at the most effective way to control the problem and that work has largely been done. I will judge it as we go through. We might find something that Queensland has not found in 50 years and our own researchers over the last couple of decades have not found, but let’s give it a shot.
If I sound a bit suspicious and cynical, it is because I am suspicious and cynical. This committee has to be judged by regular reporting to this parliament and it has to be judged by a workload that gets it into the field quickly and a resource phase that makes sure it can do its job.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I would like to make some comments on the terms of reference.
I note the very belated interest of the members of the other side about the EPA and their comments about our taking 18 months to actually put in place a reference for an EPA. On the other hand, it took them 27 years to come up with the idea of supporting the environment.
If I were to comment on some of the comments that the Opposition Leader made previously about the Gouldian finches and how well they have developed and how well they have protected at Mt Todd, I would also have to remind him that in a recent project they gave carte blanche to ADrail to do anything they liked. They did not have to obey any of the legislation in the Territory, either environmental or heritage. It is because of their good management they have not really done damage to the environment. There was some unavoidable damage, and certainly we have not bagged ADrail for their activities. The Gouldian finch situation that was widely criticised by the media, we have since found out after discussions with ADrail that the impact with the Gouldian finch colony was not as significant as first reported.
Secondly, the Ferguson River incident where ADrail took water. Well, ADrail was given permission to take water from any where they liked, as much water as they liked, whenever they liked. That was permission given by the previous government which did not put in place an EPA and notably the environment committee they had in place did not even consider the issue before they started talking to ADrail or awarded contracts to ADrail.
I find it very hypocritical of them to come in here today to tell us that we are going against our agenda, against our policy, and that it took us 18 months to come up with the idea of a committee to look into the establishment of an EPA. I would like to remind the members on the other side that I was the minister who landed myself in hot water when I publicly advocated the establishment of an EPA, and all of a sudden the mining industry came up howling because all these years you scared them stiff about an EPA. Anywhere else in Australia there is an Environmental Protection Agency, an environmental protection authority, a mining industry, and heavy and light industry which work very well with them. But not in the Territory. If we have one in the Territory it will work to our benefit. It is about time you were looking at an EPA. It is the time to avoid the mistakes other states and territories made in the past.
Let me also remind you, this government was the one that established the independence of the Office of the Environment and Heritage. This is the government that established total independent reporting to the minister directly, because we had to ensure that what this office was doing would not be a part of the public service and all the reports would not disappear in tonnes of paper work created by public service but would go direct to the minister. That was good because when we had some incidents with ADrail, the report was immediate. The minister reacted immediately, and the then minister - that was me - decided to appoint extra staff at the independent office of the environment to assist ADrail and also to assist in the future of the gas industry.
Yes, there is a new minister, but with the new minister I share common interest. We both care about the environment. We both live in Darwin; we have nowhere else to go, this is where our family is, our family is growing like your family. We care about the environment because we know that we do not own the environment. We only care for it while we are alive and we are going to give it to our children and they are going to give it to their children. What we are doing here is putting the basis of something that is actually going to do something for the Territory, for the environment. Our environment credentials are there for you to see. I cannot see yours – well, I have seen yours. The member for Daly was criticised for the Hotel Darwin. He told us that he was a great conservationist and also supported heritage, and he made so many heritage listings. I agree with him; he made them, surprise! - four months before the election. He is also a great supporter of heritage but he was the one who signed for the railway line to go through the railway precinct of the Adelaide River railway station and his signature is there to be seen by everybody because it is a public document.
Do not talk to us about heritage. We know what heritage means. We could see the great results of heritage conservation watching the car park break-up at the old Hotel Darwin. In other states, even if there is concrete cancer, governments are prepared to assist private businessmen to maintain these buildings because you cannot construct these buildings again. If they are gone, they are gone forever. You decided to go travelling. You did not decide to sign a stay of demolition - we will give you $1m to maintain it, we will give you $1m to go back and gut it and fix it. I can give many examples of buildings that have been gutted, maintained the exterior and repaired internally.
Actually, the previous Hotel Darwin had very good heritage potential. Everybody could see it. It is unfortunate, we might have to sell our legacy here.
Mr Henderson: You want the photos?
Mr VATSKALIS: We have the photos - that is a very good comment.
Madam Speaker, I note the concerns of the member for Drysdale about the terms of reference for the establishment of an EPA and the cane toads.
With regards to the EPA, I think it is a very good way to go. Let’s find out first of all if we need anything. Do we have to go through the process, the expenditure, to establish the EPA? It does not matter what I personally believe; I personally believe we want an EPA, we need an EPA, but let’s find out if we really need an EPA. What is the point of actually starting an organisation that can cost millions of dollars, another bureaucratic structure, if at the end we do not need it? But, let’s find out about it.
The committee consists of three members of the government, an Independent and two members of the opposition. It is up to them to work together and to come to a decision, yes or no, we need it or we do not need an EPA. Also, how are we going to implement an EPA? How are we going to put an EPA into place? How are we going to persuade the mining industry and all the other interests of the need for an EPA and how well they can work with an EPA? There has been 20 years of scaremongering about how an EPA is going to destroy them and put restrictions in place. We have used an EPA. The previous government used an EPA - not in the Territory, there isn’t one - but they used the Western Australian Environmental Protection Agency to pick their brains about the establishment of noise legislation. I know that very well because I was part of that process. We went to Western Australia and asked for their assistance to draft our own noise legislation and that legislation is going to be introduced very soon as part of the environmental pollution process.
I do not know much about cane toads, but I know what I read in the media. I have read some information during my studies, and I believe the same applies to the member for Johnston. I do not know about nuclear energy but I can understand what nuclear energy is. I can understand where it comes from and what it causes. I do not have to be an expert, I do not have to be a scientist. I only have to have common-sense and understand what I read.
Cane toads are a problem, we know that much. Since they were introduced in 1935 they have become one of the worst environmental nightmares in Australia. At the moment we do not have a way to defend the Australian environment against the cane toads - the physical environment, the fauna and the flora.
There has been research done by the CSIRO, by scientists in Queensland, and yes, by Bill Freeland when he was working for Parks and Wildlife. But, at the same time, just because Bill Freeland wrote something it does not mean that it is the gospel. You can ask Dr Graeme Webb and he will give you a different opinion. I am very well aware that currently out in Kakadu, there are scientists telling us to wave goodbye to the northern quoll because it is going to disappear in the next year or two. Bill Freeland had a theory that the wildlife will suffer in the beginning but then it will bounce back. There is another scientist who says to us, ‘No, it will not bounce back. The northern quoll is going to disappear’. There are many examples. How many Australian species and especially Territory species have disappeared because we interfered with the environment, either through the fire regimes or change of the fire regimes, or through the introduction of different plants, different farming techniques, or the introduction of cattle?
Just because one scientist says ‘This is going to happen,’ it does not mean it is going to happen that way. There are too many factors that you cannot consider unless you do extensive research. I found it very curious to hear the member for Drysdale saying that we might find a way to exterminate the cane toads. Cane toads have been here for the past two or three years; how much money did you put into cane toad research? How much money did you actually offer to the CSIRO to come back with a solution? I cannot remember any headlines saying, ‘The CLP government is offering $1m to save Kakadu or to save the Territory’. The only thing I remember is cane toads will come here in 2007. Two years ago in Katherine we were kicking cane toads around. Now, do not tell me that you did not know about that - you simply ignored it. You put your hands up - cane toads are coming here, there is nothing we can do about it and let’s live with them.
This environment committee is going to look into that, and it is up to you, the members of the committee, to come to us with solutions because you are the members. The parliament entrusts you to be a member of the committee, get together and work together efficiently and come back to us with some solutions, some suggestions. We will be here to listen to you and if they are good suggestions, we are prepared to accept them. It does not matter if they come from this side of the House or from the Independent or from the other side of the House.
This is a very good start and I hope that the outcome will be even better. I hope there will be an EPA in place in years to come.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I might just preface my remarks with a couple of things that the minister said and also just one thing I believe might need some clarification and that is we now have two ministers to deal with the environment. It would be perhaps the time …
Ms Lawrie: No. One with Environment and one with Parks.
Mr WOOD: We have a Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment and a Minister for the Office of Environment and Heritage.
Madam SPEAKER: I think you will find the minister is just Lands and Planning, no longer Environment.
Ms Lawrie: Infrastructure and Planning.
Mr WOOD: I do not want to challenge your ruling, Madam Speaker, but there was reference earlier to Environment still existing in that minister’s department. Perhaps there should be a clarification.
Dr Burns: I will address that.
Mr WOOD: Anyway, it was just a query. It would be worth clarifying the role, if an Environmental Protection Agency is established, of an independent office of Environment and Heritage. That needs to be looked at. Of course, I have always been concerned that we really should have had one Department of Environment which is inclusive of environmental sections of other departments. That would make a lot more sense. Mines and Energy comes to mind straight away. Their environmental section should have been part of that one larger Environment entity.
One other thing that becomes a bit disappointing as an Independent is that sometimes there are good amendments – I am not talking about the amendment that just happened - but sometimes there are good ideas that come up for discussion in this House. It seems that one side decides that the sins of the past can be cited and therefore judgement is made because something was not right by the opposition when they were in power. I would rather see these issues dealt with on their merits at this time, not because of what happened in previous times. Sometimes I am worried that issues are not dealt with on their merit because politics gets in the road. That is something I make a note of today.
I support the motion that the Minister for Environment and Heritage has moved. I know one particular group that will be very happy to see this, and that would be the Environment Centre. People like Kirstin and Mark who work very hard for the environment – I do not always agree with them, but I think they are honest, hard working people who do a lot of work to put environmental issues into the public arena. They have been pushing for this for a long time, and I hope it does come to fruition.
On the second issue of cane toads, they are important and they are as inevitable as taxes and death at the moment. Whether we can do anything about them remains to be seen.
To some extent, the two issues that we are dealing with I would call ‘soft’ issues to a point because they are certainly not controversial in the public arena. I would be interested to know what the reaction would be if we tackled issues like the environmental effects of industrialisation of the harbour, or if we decided to take on issues like the spread of the neem tree. Neem trees have been introduced to the Territory as a good idea. They are supposed to be an organic insecticide, yet I gather they are spreading along the Katherine and Victoria Rivers. I know they are a valuable timber, but they are a potential disaster in some parts of the Territory unless someone keeps and eye on the situation.
Mission grass and gamba grass are two introduced species. Both species have the potential to change the whole landscape of parts of the Top End because they are fire hazards. One was introduced privately as a class of species; the other was introduced and, I think even now, is still allowed to be used as long as it is used for pastures. When there is no cattle chewing on gamba grass, it spreads. It is an area that government must look at seriously and to some form of biological control for those grasses.
An issue I raised earlier that needs looking at, and it would be good to get either an EPA to look at it or even a sessional committee, and that is what is happening with the rehabilitation of extractive mining sites. There is a large area of the Litchfield Shire covered in these extractive mining sites. I do not say that they all should be brought back to their original status. Of course they cannot be. In some cases, the land might be able to be used for a dual purpose. People know how mangoes grow in some of the worst country. You can go down to Pine Creek and you will see them growing on old mining sites. Perhaps the potential is there for dual use of the land. These are some of the issues that could be looked at.
I know from some of my visits to places such as Kidman Springs, which is a government research station, erosion is fairly rampant in some of those areas. Another possibility could be issues such as stocking controls. In Western Australia they do have a stocking control. I do not know if it is legislation, but stations are given an average number of stock that they can hold, based on the potential of their country in good and bad seasons to hold that number of stock. When you go to some parts of the Victoria River – I have been onto a couple of stations there - the ground has been very badly worn out from overstocking. Some of that land is very susceptible to erosion. It is very, very light.
These are some of the issues that could be referred to this sessional committee. I hope that because certain things might be a bit controversial, the government does not stop them. Again, I refer to the industrialisation of the centre of the harbour. That is going to have environmental impact. I hope that we can take on some of these difficult and, perhaps, controversial issues. Finally, I do support what is being proposed by the minister for the environment, and I hope we can take on plenty more issues before the end of this session of parliament.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, just briefly I would like to make similar comments along the lines of the member for Nelson. We do support these terms of references as being very important issues. It is just a shame that previous amendments did not go through to allow for all of those other issues that have just been articulated, not only by me previously, but by the member for Nelson as he spoke to this debate.
It is a shame that the Labor government is not living up to its promises as outlined in its position paper of good governance, where it stated parliamentary committees should be free to operate unhindered and to praise, criticise or call to account the actions of the government, and that they were going to move to legislate so that under that new regime, arrangements would be introduced that would free up the committees to investigate issues of public concern without the approval of the governing majority party. After 18 months, they have not lived up to their promises, but we are getting used to that and so is everybody else.
I hope the new environment minister will take on board the comments made in this debate regarding other important and serious issues, such as gas onshore and saltwater intrusion and all the others that have been mentioned as references for this committee to look at over the remainder of this term. It would be a waste of this parliament’s time if we were only going to get these two references, regardless of their importance.
Picking up on a couple of comments from the previous ministers for environment. He was big-noting himself that he now has an independent Office of the Environment. Well, it is no more independent than the old office under the old regime. It used to report to the minister as well, the same as the current one does. There is no legislative independence other than that which already existed. So that is a furphy. If he wants to big-note himself, that is fine. I congratulate and applaud him for offering to contribute $1m to cane toad investigation, if that is what the committee deems is required; an input from this particular government to pursue strategies to overcome the issue. I am glad he has put that on the record that there is no problem with contributing those sorts of dollars to overcome this issue. I also pick up on the fact that he did not particularly believe Bill Freeland and his attitude towards cane toads. I hope that is not the reason why he sacked him.
For the benefit of the current Minister for Environment and Heritage, who took the opportunity to slag off at me in his contribution to this debate, saying, ‘Who is the shadow minister?’ Well, this is a new minister who I thought was keeping track of what was going on. I have been the shadow minister since the change of government. If he does not like the fact that the member for Greatorex has been calling, as the seven-year serving chairman of the previous environment committee, to form this committee, well, that is his problem. This is the same minister who only just discovered the Outer Darwin signs the other day when he happened to drive into town for the first time ever.
Dr Burns: Do not misrepresent what I said.
Mr BALDWIN: Get a grip on yourself, minister and keep up with what is going on around the place. Maybe we will get some action out of you rather than the inaction of the previous minister for the environment.
With those comments, and the plea for further references to this committee now that the committee has been embargoed from having a look at anything else other than what this parliament can direct to the committee - albeit Labor has broken a promise to unfetter these committees – we look forward to working on these two particular references, and bringing back valuable information for the benefit of this House.
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. We have been at this debate for some time and I do not want to rake up the coals, except to say yes, I do know a bit about cane toads. The member for Drysdale was suggesting that, basically, I knew nothing about cane toads. The observation I was making was that there is a public perception out there: ‘Well, what is being done, what is the history, what can be done?’ and I believe that is important.
Picking up briefly on what the member for Nelson said: yes, I am the Minister for Environment and Heritage. The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure and I share a department which is called DIPE so there are administrative arrangements there. There are also legislative responsibilities for which we are responsible. There is a line of command there. I am clear about it. It is an arrangement that occurs interstate where ministers share, if you like, a department. I am more than happy and proud to be sharing DIPE - they are a fine group of people - with the member for Casuarina. I do not want to dwell any longer on this debate. We have spoken about enough. I believe it is time now for the motion to be put.
Motion agreed to.
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Nomination of Government Members
Nomination of Government Members
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, on behalf of, and at the request of, the Chief Minister, I nominate the following members to serve on the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee: the member for Karama, the member Barkly and the member Millner.
MOTION
Standing Orders Committee –
Alteration of Membership
Standing Orders Committee –
Alteration of Membership
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I also wish to move that the member for Nhulunbuy be discharged from the Standing Orders Committee and that I be nominated in his place.
Motion agreed to.
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Nomination of Opposition Members
Nomination of Opposition Members
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I nominate the following members to serve on the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee: the member for Daly and the member for Drysdale.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take Five Bills Together
Take Five Bills Together
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move - That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Superannuation Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 113); Superannuation Guarantee (Safety Net) Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 114); Administrators Pensions Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 117); Supreme Court (Judges Pensions) Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 115); and Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 116):
- (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regards to, respectively,
the second readings; the committee’s report stage; and the third readings of the bills together; and
- (b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 113)
SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (SAFETY NET) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 114)
SUPREME COURT (JUDGES PENSIONS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 115)
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS’ SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 116)
ADMINISTRATORS PENSIONS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 117)
(Serial 113)
SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (SAFETY NET) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 114)
SUPREME COURT (JUDGES PENSIONS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 115)
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS’ SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 116)
ADMINISTRATORS PENSIONS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 117)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bills is to introduce amendments to the Superannuation Act, the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Act, the Supreme Court (Judges Pensions) Act, the Superannuation Guarantee (Safety Net) Act and the Administrators Pensions Act, to include the requirements of the Commonwealth Family Law Act amendments in the governing rules of these schemes.
Under current law, superannuation interests can, and usually are, taken into account in court proceedings for property settlement following marriage breakdown. However, under the laws that now stand, superannuation interests are not able to be split in a family law property settlement. Commencing 28 December this year, it will be mandatory for superannuation schemes to comply with the new laws which give effect to the Commonwealth government’s family law reforms to allow legally married persons to divide their superannuation in the same way as property and other assets on marriage breakdown.
Our Department of Justice is working with its counterparts in all other jurisdictions with the aim of enabling de facto relationships to be covered by this legislation. The complexities of family law, and taxation and superannuation laws, means that together the new laws will create a complex and complicated legislative framework which will impose a significant impact upon trustees of all superannuation funds. Trustees will be required to comply with the new laws and will be bound to give effect to a binding superannuation agreement, or court order, to divide the value of the superannuation interest between separating persons. The division of the superannuation interest will become an interest in the person’s own name. Actuarial methods will be developed to calculate the value of a defined benefit interest in the Territory’s defined benefits schemes which will take into account movements in salary, membership periods, benefit multiples, contributions, and investment returns.
The value that is determined by these actuarial calculations will be the superannuation interest to be divided to create the separate superannuation interest in the name of an ex-spouse. The creation of the separate interest for an ex-spouse will result in a reduction in the value of a member’s superannuation entitlement, which represents the value of the superannuation interest created for the ex-spouse.
The amendments will enable the various Territory superannuation schemes to comply with the Commonwealth requirements; to provide information to members and their spouses; to reduce the superannuation benefit payable to a member; and to create a separate interest in the name of an ex-spouse. I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take Two Bills Together
Take Two Bills Together
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Trade Measurement Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 110) and Trade Measurement Administration Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 111):
(a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively,
the second readings; the committee’s report stage; and the third readings of the bills together; and
Motion agreed to.
TRADE MEASUREMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 110)
TRADE MEASUREMENT ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 111)
(Serial 110)
TRADE MEASUREMENT ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 111)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of these bills is to amend the Trade Measurement Act and the Trade Measurement Administration Act.
I will deal first with the Trade Measurement Amendment Bill. The objective of the Trade Measurement Act is to ensure the accuracy of measurements conducted in trade situations, for example, where the price of goods is determined by reference to the measurement. Under the formal agreement signed in 1990 between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories, except Western Australia, all participating jurisdictions passed uniform Trade Measurement legislation. It should be noted that Western Australia has passed consistent legislation since that time. The act therefore provides for a scheme of uniform trade measurement legislation throughout Australia.
In 1995, a Trade Measurement Advisory Committee was formed by the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, and one of its functions was the ongoing review of uniform trade measurement legislation nationally. The advisory committee has recommended more than 40 amendments to the Trade Measurement acts and regulations. The Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs endorsed these recommendations some time ago. Most, if not all, other jurisdictions have now passed these amendments.
The amendments contained in this bill will ensure that the Northern Territory legislation remains uniform with the legislation interstate. The amendments are of a minor or technical nature which are necessary to overcome difficulties with the administration of the legislation which has been identified.
Members will be aware that the Consumer and Business Affairs Division of the Department of Justice has a responsibility for enforcing trade measurement legislation. The amendments contained in the Trade Measurement Amendment Bill will enable some flexibility in the enforcement of the legislation. Under two new provisions, an inspector will have the discretionary power to grant an owner of a measuring instrument up to 28 days to correct an instrument which does not conform with the requirements of the act. If the discretion is exercised, a person can only be prosecuted if the time allowed has expired and the instrument has not been corrected. The discretion to allow an extended period will only be exercised where the error is in favour of the consumer. If the error is to the detriment of the consumer, the trader will not be given an extended period to correct the instrument but will be required to cease using the instrument until it is repaired.
A new offence is created in relation to the misuse of Class 4 measuring instruments. Class 4 measuring instruments are less precise measuring instruments which are suitable for weighing items such as airport baggage, freight, sand or gravel. An offence will occur if such a instrument is used for a purpose other than the listed purpose.
A new section will require a trader who uses a measuring instrument at premises where items are pre-packaged to have at least one measuring instrument that is approved for use by the National Standards Commission. The amendments will also require a person who performs batch testing of measuring instruments to be the holder of a servicing licence or an employee of the holder of a servicing licence.
Some of the amendments to the Trade Measurement Act will remove the regulatory burden of marking weights on agricultural products with a consequent cost savings. A further amendment will allow persons in partnership to be jointly licensed under one servicing or weighbridge licence. This amendment will reduce business costs of all partners having to obtain an individual licence.
The amendments will also allow inspectors to stop and weigh a vehicle to determine the net measurement of its load. Currently, an inspector has power to stop a vehicle, but does not have the power to require a driver to allow the vehicle to be weighed. This amendment will allow inspectors to determine, for example, the weight of a load of crushed metal being delivered to a work site.
In line with current practice, the bill converts current penalties in the act to penalty units.
In relation to the Trade Measurement Administration Bill, the amendment permits the issuing of infringement notices for alleged breeches of the Trade Measurement Act, or the regulations made under either that act or the Trade Measurement Administration Act. This is consistent with other legislation administered by Consumer and Business Affairs.
In line with current penalties policy, the penalty for breeching the secrecy provisions of the act have been increased to a maximum of 200 penalty units, or imprisonment for 12 months. I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
NORTHERN TERRITORY ABORIGINAL SACRED SITES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 120)
(Serial 120)
Bill presented and read a first time.
______________________
Suspension of Standing Orders
Pass all Stages
Pass all Stages
Mr AH KIT (Assisting Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 120) passing through all stages at this sittings.
Motion agreed to.
______________________
Mr AH KIT (Assisting Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
This is a bill to amend the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act to provide for compensation on just terms to persons in the event that the provisions of the act result in an acquisition of property. I have had a request from the shadow minister for a copy of the second reading speech and I am making that available very shortly to him, the member for Daly, and the member for Nelson.
Members will be aware that the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act gives effect to a scheme of protection of Aboriginal sacred sites applying to all land in the Northern Territory. The broad purpose of the act is to:
- effect a practical balance between the recognised need to preserve and enhance Aboriginal cultural tradition in
relation to certain land in the Territory and the aspirations of Aboriginal and all other peoples of the Territory
for their economic, cultural and social advancement, by establishing a procedure for the protection and registration
of sacred sites, providing for entry onto sacred sites and the conditions to which such entry is subject, establishing
a procedure for the avoidance of sacred sites in the development and use of land and establishing an Authority for
the purposes of the act and a procedure for the review of decisions of the Authority by the minister, and for related
purposes.
The Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, and the earlier Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1978, were enacted under power of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act of the Commonwealth. It was replaced in 1989 with the current act which commenced on 15 August that year.
Specifically, section 73 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act provides for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to enact reciprocal legislation to the Land Rights Act, including:
- laws providing for the protection of, and the prevention of the desecration of, sacred sites in the Northern Territory,
including sacred sites on Aboriginal land, and, in particular, laws regulating or authorising the entry of persons on
those sites, but so that any such laws shall provide for the right of Aboriginals to have access to those sites in accordance
with Aboriginal tradition and shall take into account the wishes of Aboriginals relating to the extent to which those sites
should be protected.
I emphasise that this blanket exclusion from all sacred site land applies to all landowners and all users of land in the Northern Territory. Currently, there are in the order of 11 000 such sites recorded in the Northern Territory, of which 1503 are registered sacred sites. The vast majority of recorded and registered sites are off Aboriginal land. The Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act is the law of the Northern Territory that, under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, provides relief to landowners and to other users of land in respect of sacred sites.
It does so in two ways. First, there is section 44 of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act. This provides that landowners and persons with their permission may enter and remain on sacred site areas and do anything there for the normal enjoyment of their proprietary interest in the land, though they may be subject to conditions necessary to avoid damage to the sacred sites. Secondly, the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act provides a defence against prosecution for entry and carrying out works on sacred sites if these are in accordance with an authority certificate.
Members will be aware of the critical importance of the authority certificate processes to the Northern Territory. In effect, the site avoidance provisions of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act under which authority certificates are issued, transfers the risk in relation to sacred sites from developers or users of the land to the authority and, hence, ultimately, to the government.
To date the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority has issued 2312 authority certificates that identify in total about 5000 areas where works are restricted to avoid damage to sacred sites. Many of these certificates continue to have effect for continuing uses of land across a range of economic and social activities. It is only necessary to point to a few examples to indicate the importance of authority certificates for development in the Northern Territory. The Alice Springs to Darwin railway is being constructed under the provisions of an authority certificate; likewise, the Bradshaw Defence Training facility, the McArthur River Mine, tourism at Uluru, and the use of areas in national parks proceed under conditions set out in authority certificates. These examples provide a brief indication of the range and importance of the authority certificate processes for the social and economic development of the Northern Territory.
Without these provisions of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, projects like these and uses of land on smaller scales that involve land comprising sacred sites could not proceed in the Northern Territory, given the blanket protection of sites under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.
The Legislative Assembly’s powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory are limited under section 50(1) of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. This precludes it making laws with respect to the acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms. At present, the act does not provide for compensation to be paid on just terms in the event that the act may affect an acquisition of property. Our legal advice is that this means the current legislation is inconsistent with the provisions of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. Should the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act be found to affect an acquisition of property other than on just terms, then the act could be invalid in toto.
That would mean that all of the authority certificates issued to date and all current applications would be invalid. It would also mean that no-one other than custodians acting in accordance with Aboriginal tradition could enter and remain on land that is a sacred site in the Northern Territory.
The present bill is intended to rectify this omission by an amendment to allow compensation to be paid on just terms in the event that the act affects an acquisition of property. The proposed amendment is to have retrospective effect. It would apply retrospectively to 15 August 1989, the commencement date of the act. The proposed amendment is to ensure constitutional validity of the act. It is a precaution against a finding by a court according to the current state of law, that the existence of a sacred site and the provisions of the act would effectively sterilise the proprietary rights which flow from a person’s interest in land.
Without the amendment having retrospective effect, it maybe found by a court, prior to the amendment, that the act affected an acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms, rendering it invalid from the time of its enactment. This would invalidate all the things done by the authority from the time of its enactment including prosecutions and the issuing of certificates. The government is not prepared to allow such uncertainty to prevail and to effectively put the Territory’s development at risk.
Whilst this amendment may impact on three cases currently before the courts by removing a potential defence, if successful such a defence would allow the persons concerned to evade prosecution on a technicality. Moreover, this minor effect of the retrospective operation of the bill is balanced by the fact that we are acting to ensure the provision of a ‘just terms’ clause that ensures land-holders’ proprietary rights are protected, consistent with the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978.
The potential invalidity of the act could lead to enormous costs for the Northern Territory flowing from possible legal action by developers operating in accordance with authority certificates, and from the interruption to a range of projects of which the Darwin to Alice Springs railway is the most conspicuous.
These wholesale risks are likely to be far more costly than compensation that may be due under the provisions of this bill. The value of just terms compensation in relation to acquisitions of property would be determined at law in relation to the facts of individual cases. In redressing this omission the bill will ensure a maintenance of the already high level of public confidence in the act and avoid situations that would tend to undermine this public confidence. For these reasons I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
COMMERCIAL PASSENGER (ROAD) TRANSPORT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 112)
(Serial 112)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Commercial Passenger (Road) Transport Act to implement the first stage of the reforms which the government is implementing for the taxi, minibus and private hire car industries in the Northern Territory. When the government came to power last year, we found that the commercial passenger vehicle industry in some disarray. Whilst the previous government’s actions in removing the controls on the numbers of licences had meant that there were sufficient to meet public demand, the industry itself was suffering from poor returns and poorly trained and motivated drivers. The community was suffering from poor driver standards which on occasion challenged the perception that taking a taxi or a minibus was a safe way to travel.
This government decided, before we addressed these issues, that we wanted to find out what the industry and the community wanted from the commercial passenger vehicle industry. Also, as we were new to government, we needed to find out what could be realistically achieved. To that end, we put in place a temporary cap on taxi, minibus and private hire car numbers from 26 November 2001 to provide some stability in the industry while the review was undertaken.
Terms of reference for the review were established and advertisements seeking comments were placed in all Northern Territory newspapers. In addition, I met personally with a diverse range of industry representative groups and individuals. Out of that initial consultation came a discussion paper which was circulated to interested parties in the industry and the broader community. Over 40 further formal submissions were received in response to that discussion paper. Following this consultation and after extensive consideration of all the options, government decided to implement a number of recommendations. These were made public in the form of fact sheets and can be viewed on my department’s web site if anyone has not already seen them.
The first stage of the implementation of these recommendations is contained in this bill. The bill provides for those measures which this government wants to have in place by March 2003. It is proposed that a further bill, comprising the balance of the reforms, will be introduced to the Assembly in February next year.
I would like to draw your attention to the following key areas which the bill addresses: first, and perhaps most importantly, it puts the legislative machinery in place for the establishment of a Commercial Passenger Vehicle Board. The role of this board will be primarily advisory, but it will also have some specific powers in relation to areas such as driver standards and training. For the first time, this industry and its stakeholders will have a voice in its management and regulation. In the meantime, I have appointed an interim board from industry and the community to provide me with advice on implementation of the review. We have been fortunate to obtain the services of some very good people for this interim board which will be chaired by Ms Melanie Little. I am happy to advise that they had their first meeting on Thursday, 7 November.
An important requirement included in the bill provides for an identity card to only be issued to those drivers who meet the standards and have done the required amount of training. The amount of training required will be increased from 24 hours to 78 hours and training courses will meet nationally accepted standards.
Another amendment included in the bill provides for the requirement for a commercial passenger vehicle to be registered in the name of the licensee. We believe that will focus the responsibility for the vehicle and its condition on the person actually operating it. Also included is a provision which requires operators proposing to put on an additional vehicle to commit to the industry by paying in full their annual licence fee in advance. We believe that this bill, and the one to follow it, will deliver substantial improvements to the commercial passenger vehicle industry in the Northern Territory.
I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
MOTOR ACCIDENTS (COMPENSATION) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 102)
(Serial 102)
Continued from 16 October 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to place on the record the opposition’s observations and concerns about the proposed amendment. To deal with this legislation properly and to properly record some of the concerns that we have it is appropriate to speak briefly about the history of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act.
Historically, an individual citizen had common law rights if there was a motor vehicle accident and that person could sue the person who caused the injury. If you could establish that and, of course, that person had sufficient funds, the injured person could secure some sort of compensation. Speaking very generally, later on the no-fault scheme appeared, and that is the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act. It really took away the need to run the gauntlet of a sometimes complicated civil court action and took away the risk of suing someone and that person not having sufficient assets to pay any award of damages.
The no-fault scheme has been administered by the Territory Insurance Office for some time and it involves a number of clear, pre-specified statutory awards, and it includes medical expenses, etc. In some situations, a person injured in a car accident, if he is within the scope of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act, receives a weekly payment which, I understand, is about $451.60 nett per week, which according to the act is 85% of the average weekly earnings of Territorians, and that calculation includes casual and part-time employees. If you compare that with what is under the Work Health Act it shows a substantially higher calculation of the average weekly earnings, which is in the order of $817. So, because of the unusual way the average weekly earnings is calculated under the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act, it is significantly lower than the figure you use under a comparable piece of legislation dealing with injuries at work.
There have been some recent amendments to the Work Health Act, which effectively provide that if you are covered by the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act then that is the act under which you must be dealt with. Potentially, there are going to be more people who fall within the scope of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act in the future. However, the amendment that is to be considered by this parliament today, according to the second reading speech, is required because of a perceived ambiguity that has been created by the Tribunal comprised of a single judge sitting in the Supreme Court and the decision of Collman v the Territory Insurance Office.
The particular case that was reported this year in Northern Territory Supreme Court Volume 8, handed down on 18 January 2002, was that of a 25 year old man who suffered a fracture of the seventh cervical vertebrae and whiplash type injuries. The man’s payments were eventually cancelled by the TIO Board, and after exhausting a few administrative type reviews, he sought a determination by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, as I said earlier, is a single judge of the Supreme Court and the man, through counsel, made representations and argued that the payments he was receiving should not have been cancelled. To cut a long story short, the applicant was not successful, with the court finding against him after hearing a great deal of evidence. Effectively, the application was dismissed, but the real relevance of this case is that it forms the basis upon which the proposed amendments to the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act as contained in the amendment bill Serial 102 are required.
There are a number of issues associated with the case. It is not an easy area of law to instantly understand, and certainly it is not my area of expertise, but from my reading of the case there does not seem to be any serious ambiguity that would require the introduction of this particular piece of legislation. In fact, if you look at the true effect of what is going to occur, and to do that you have to get a general understanding of the previous provision and the operation of sections 13(1) and (2), and so on. Under the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act as it currently stands before the introduction of this particular piece of amending legislation, a person who suffers an injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in the Territory, in or from a Territory motor vehicle, is entitled - there are a couple of prerequisites, two or three things have to be satisfied: it is a Territory vehicle, a Territory person, and the accident occurred in the Territory. In any event, assuming you satisfy section 13(1), you are then entitled to seek or receive compensation.
Under section 13(1), as well as being involved in an accident with a Territory motor vehicle, it has a cumulative requirement; that is: ‘… that person’s capacity to earn to income from personal exertion, either physical or mental, is in the opinion of the board, reduced as a result of the injury …’. Then the requirement is that: ‘… that person should be paid such compensation for that loss of earning capacity as is provided in this section …’, and it goes on with section 13(2).
The court constituted by His Honour Justice Riley went on to look at some of the previous authorities. During the course of this judgment, he succinctly quotes some portions of section 13(2), but with a view to showing that, under the current regime, the amount of weekly compensation a person receives can be reduced by the board, and the board determines what sort of employment would be reasonably available to the applicant, and the relevant amount the applicant is capable of earning from that employment.
So you have this situation where once it has been determined that a person who has suffered a relevant injury, has also had a reduction in his or her earning capacity - that is to earn income from personal exertion - then it is necessary to refer the matter to section 13(2) to determine the quantity of compensation. In section 13(2), I suppose in summary, requires the determination of the most profitable employment, if any available, to the applicant for a given period. The onus, of course, rests on the board to establish that there was employment reasonably - and this is the important aspect to this, and this is the real difficulty which the opposition has with this amendment - the onus rests on the board to establish …
Mr Stirling: They ran it for 23 years without one iota of difficulty, your government.
Mr MALEY: I will ignore that rude interjection. The onus rests upon the respondent to establish that there was employment reasonably available to the applicant and the relevant amount the applicant is capable of earning from that employment. That is as it currently stands. The court goes on to say there is really no ambiguity. It talks about the issue being governed by the concept of reasonableness, and that the work must be reasonably available to the particular applicant, rather than being reasonably available to anybody.
If you look at the proposed amendment - and with all due respect, I suspect the minister is not really across this - but if you look at the proposed amendment …
Mr Stirling: You said yourself, you are not familiar with it. Why didn’t you get a briefing? You said: ‘It is not easy law, and I am not familiar with it’, but you did not seek a briefing.
Mr MALEY: Well, luckily I did obtain a briefing from qualified people - a very informative briefing - and they confirmed my initial interpretation of this particular amending provision.
If you look at the proposed section 13, it talks about omitting subsections (2) and (3), which are the two sections we spoke about, and inserting a new subsection (2), and a new subsection (3).
Can I just put on the record that the responsible minister has actually left the Chamber. This demonstrates how interested he is in the welfare of people who may be potential recipients under this type of legislation. I put on the record that I suspect he really does not have an understanding of …
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member for Goyder knows that he should not be reflecting on the character of a member when they are not present in the Chamber.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Goyder knows full well that he cannot refer to the absence of a member from the House. I ask him to withdraw.
Mr MALEY: Speaking to the point of order, there is absolutely no way you can take the comments I made as a reflection upon his character. It was merely a statement of fact for those people who have time to read the transcript that he left the Chamber during the course of this particular piece of legislation.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Nonetheless, member for Goyder, I think you should withdraw your reference to the fact that the …
Mr MALEY: I withdraw any possible inference I made which may have inadvertently reflected on his character.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. You may continue.
Mr MALEY: Not that I admit for a moment that I did.
This new amendment is about determining the amount of compensation a person receiving the weekly benefits should receive. If you look at section 5 of the amending legislation, and under the new provisions it will be section 13(3), there is a new formula. The formula talks about 40 being the number of hours which an average person works, and then if you take away X, and X is the figure which the board determines are the hours he is quite capable of working; and then you multiply that by the maximum payable per week as determined, and that is the sum which he is going to receive.
This is the crux of the argument, and this is why the opposition will not be supporting this piece of legislation. The board determines, this is this figure X, based on a medical assessment that the person is capable of working in any employment whether such employment is reasonably available or not. So here you have the situation where the board will be determining this person’s capability of working in any employment, irrespective of whether or not such employment is available in the Northern Territory. A practical example might be a person who loses a leg. The board then determines that he can work as a one-legged crane driver, and then they can make an arbitrary decision as to what sort of capacity he would have as a one-legged crane driver, and despite the fact that there is no such job in the Northern Territory, they could then cut or reduce his benefits.
How can you assess that person’s earning capacity if that employment is unavailable? It just does not make sense. It is not logical and is inherently flawed. During Question Time I could hear a few jibes about, ‘Your interpretation is wrong’, and the usual rudeness you come to expect. But I will be very interested to hear what succinct and logical explanation or interpretation you can put on this. It changes the current position; it changes it substantially …
Mr Stirling: That is a lie. That has existed for 23 years under your government and it is a good scheme.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. The minister is fully aware of the conventions of this House. I ask that he withdraw.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw and I ask him to keep his remarks factual.
Mr MALEY: I am convinced that the minister has absolutely no idea about this legislation. He can rant and rave and try to get his minders no doubt to massage the press, but this is absolutely spot on. I will explain it for him, slowly. The current regime seems to be working. It has worked since 1979. There is no ambiguity created by Collman’s case which would warrant this amendment.
Mr Stirling: You still do not understand.
Mr MALEY: You have the previous position where – perhaps Justice Riley has made a mistake as well, according to the very learned minister:
- The issue is one of capacity and that is assessed by reference to employment ‘available’ to the person. In
determining whether employment is available to the person it is necessary to consider the whole of the
surrounding circumstances including factors personal to the applicant … along with the level of availability
of particular forms of employment within the relevant community. The issue is governed by the concept of
reasonableness. The work must be reasonably available to the particular applicant rather than being
reasonably available to anybody.
In fact, in the objects of the amending bill, clause 4 states that one of the objects of this amending bill is to:
- confirm that the medical assessment of the person’s earning capacity only has regard to any residual disabilities
arising from the accident and does not have regard to factors such as the availability of employment or the person’s
level of education, vocational skills, numeracy and literacy skills, or employment or other experience.
Perhaps the minister in reply can stick to that fairly narrow issue which I have flagged that goes to the heart of the amendment, and answer the question: how can you assess a person’s earning capacity if that type of employment is not ‘reasonably available’ and, second, perhaps he could address this question: perhaps minister can take members of the House to the precise paragraph in Collman v TIO which he says identifies the real ambiguity which is referred to in that first question.
In the second reading speech, I think there was a comment from the minister to the effect of ‘if the assessment of ongoing benefits is to have regard to employment availability and other factors as outlined by the tribunal …’ that is, of course, Justice Riley, ‘… people only with minor injuries will remain entitled to …’
Mr Stirling: If they are assessed as fit to work, and there is no job, they get social security.
Mr MALEY: I am willing to listen to that interjection if you want to speak up.
Mr Stirling: I think you miss the point. If the person is assessed as fit to work and there is no work available, there is a federal government thing called social security; it is not MACA’s job to pay unemployment benefit.
Mr MALEY: Okay, well, that is obvious. If the person is assessed to …
Mr Elferink: You are injured in a car accident, and this government’s result is get on the dole.
Mr MALEY: That is exactly right. So you go from your $460 down to exactly that; you are on the social security earning your $160 per week. That is precisely what I am saying. In one sense, albeit the minister is stating an inevitable conclusion of the effect of this amendment, that is right, that is exactly right. Here we have the board which makes a determination of whether a person is capable in any employment …
Mr Stirling: Medical assessment.
Mr MALEY: A medical assessment, yes, and that employment is not reasonably available in the Northern Territory, despite that fact, the assessment says he is still a person who is capable of working, his benefits are then cut and you are right, like every other Australian citizen, he is entitled to go on to social security.
Mr Stirling: He goes and gets a job. Fit to work, gets a job like everyone else.
Mr MALEY: Okay. Now, I want you to listen carefully to this and try to understand it, because it is an issue which one day may affect even members of your family. In this paragraph, one of the justifications which the minister uses is that:
- This would result in large increases in contribution rates payable on registration of all motor vehicles to ensure
that the scheme should continue to afford to pay for past and ongoing benefits …
and it goes on and on and on. Could the minister in reply perhaps just articulate the forecast potential liability, which he must have had on hand to make such an assertion and perhaps inform us as to the TIO’s liabilities under the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act for current and outstanding liabilities for claimants under the provision. If that is the rationale you are relying upon, you would expect it to be fiscally clear and not actuarial and the like.
I am not going to labour the point. The minister is clear as to why the opposition will not be supporting amendment. The second reading speech, however, is misleading. The proposed amendment does go further than dealing with any perceived ambiguity which the government says has been highlighted in Collman v TIO. And remember that the applicant in Collman’s case was not successful and I do not accept that there is an ambiguity that has been created by the Collman case. The court does refer to, and is bound by, a number of other decisions. For example, the decision of Gallop J and also the decision of I think it is - bear with me for a moment …
Mr Stirling: I think I can cover all those points.
Mr MALEY: I would appreciate that.
Mr Stirling: If we look at Collman closely, I think your legal mind will get around it.
Mr MALEY: Yes, it was Gallop J and it does not actually say the name of the second judge, but there were two judges, and Gallop J was referred to in this particular decision. I am able to be persuaded that if the minister had a clear understanding of the true purport of the amendment, he would not have put his neck, I suspect, on the chopping block here. I am not saying it was deliberate, but it was certainly reckless, and I think the House has been recklessly misled in terms of the effect of Collman’s case and the requirement for this particular amendment.
One of the pledges I made in my maiden speech was to do all that I could to ensure that only good law comes in this parliament. This is not good law. In fact, it is bad law and it is bad law for the people of the Northern Territory. It is an amendment, which in my view, will lead to hardship for some Territorians who come within the scope of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act. There seems no doubt that you do not want to be injured in a motor vehicle accident in the Northern Territory now. I am quite frankly surprised - and I accept that it would be along party lines and all the usual thing - but I am surprised that none of the drones who support the government have not had a close look at this and gone through it. If they had any real understanding of the issues addressed by the amendment and that change which really goes to the heart of the ongoing compensation aspect, they would not be supporting the amendment.
I look forward to the minister’s comments in closing, and any comments he is going to make in the committee stage if the legislation gets that far. I indicate the opposition will not be supporting the amendment.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have to say at the outset that I did not get a briefing on this, so do not hit me when you get up and say: ‘You did not get a briefing’. I am telling you I did not get …
Mr Stirling: Well, if you were interested in it, you ought to.
Mr WOOD: I did not get one because there …
Mr Stirling: You ought to if you have an interest in it.
Mr WOOD: I normally do, minister. In this case, I did not but that should not prevent me from being able to stand up here and ask questions. As you know, I normally do get briefings but this one I looked at a bit late. It did raise some questions which I simply would like to put and you can, perhaps, give me an explanation.
The member for Goyder has mentioned some things and I have a little difficulty with seeing how consistent section 4(c) is with section 5(3) which is the formula. Are the two in conflict? One is saying: ‘We do not take into account the availability of employment’, and then that section is saying: ‘Well, we do take into account whether such employment is reasonably available or not’. That is just a general question.
My other question is how does that section 5(3) work? I am trying to look at the practical side because I did not realise that was what you were trying to do. But you will pick up, if someone could not get employment you were going to basically say: ‘Well, you go down and get unemployment benefits now’. If it is recognised that the person could, say, work 5 hours - I do not know, as a motor mechanic - but that is all they could work because they get tired, and in this particular place, there was no job available for him as a motor mechanic: how does that 5 hours that he has been told he can work, work from the point of view of unemployment benefits? If he does receive unemployment benefits, does that affect his earnings? Does Social Security say: ‘What else are you earning?’ and I say: ‘Well, I am earning some compensation for an accident?’, are they conflicting? In other words, does he lose his compensation because he has received unemployment benefits? I am not sure what the mechanism of that is from an unemployment point of view. Can you go to the Social Security …
Mr Stirling: If you are on unemployment benefits and you are picking up money elsewhere and they catch you, you go to jail. It is called fraud.
Mr WOOD: But you are saying in here the formula is 40 minus X over 40 multiplied by MA - and MA is the maximum amount payable per week. So the person is entitled to compensation. You are reducing that compensation by the amount of hours this person could possibly work in a job. If that job is not available, then what do you do? Do you go down to Social Security and say: ‘This is what I am doing: I have been told I can work 5 hours in a job I cannot get because it is not available’. What do they pay me? Do they pay me a percentage of the unemployment benefits, or do they pay me the whole lot of the unemployment and this compensation section is then totally void?’
I am asking a question about the mechanism. Is someone disadvantaged by that happening? In other words, by going onto unemployment, are they disadvantaged because they should be entitled if they could get employment? The only reason they cannot get what they are entitled to is because there is no job available and, therefore, are they losing? That is my question, minister. I will take the brunt of not having the briefing but the point is, briefings can be held in parliament, that is what we are here for. I would like to hear what the answer is to that and I will make my judgment on what I hear.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have read this stuff, scratched my head, struggled with it, and thank god that the minister was here today because he has made it clear exactly what is going on with this piece of legislation. This legislation is geared up simply as a cost shifting exercise - shifting the cost from the MACA Scheme to the federal government through the social security system.
Mr Stirling: The way it has operated for 23 years, John. It was never a problem for the CLP in 23 years!
Mr ELFERINK: In the second reading speech - and you can sit here, minister, and say as much as you like about, ‘Oh, we worked under it for 27 years’, because for 27 years …
Mr Stirling: Twenty three years.
Mr ELFERINK: Twenty three years - we worked with a piece of legislation which was quite clear. In your second reading speech you talk about ambiguities and those sorts of things. There is no ambiguity in Collman’s case. I will quote you paragraph 7 from that case:
- Both of their Honours observed that whilst it may be the case that the legislature did not intend to provide
compensation to a person who has suffered a loss of earning capacity where that capacity would never have
been exercised, that is not what the legislation says. It would have been a simple drafting exercise to limit
the right to compensation to a person whose capacity to earn income is reduced …
There is no ambiguity. This is what the court is saying: ‘This is not ambiguous. This is not the intention of the legislature. The intention of the legislature is clearly set out and that is what we, as judges, are interpreting’. They then go on to outline the issue in paragraph 11 of the decision:
- … The issue is governed by the concept of reasonableness. The work must be reasonably available to the
particular applicant rather than being reasonably available to anybody.
There is nothing ambiguous about these statements. There is nothing untoward or unclear about these statements. These are very clear statements. And where the issue comes up is that the proposed change to the legislation changes that concept of reasonableness. The section in question, at the bottom end of section 5(3), is quite clear. It is changing it from what was visited by Collman to:
- X is the number of hours worked per week (not exceeding 40) the Board determines, based on a medical assessment,
that the person is capable of working in any employment, whether such employment is reasonably available or not;
In the court they are talking about ‘reasonably available to anybody’. So what this shift is, is an attempt to erode the process of reasonableness which is available to the courts. If I register a car and then sign up for my third party insurance policy, it is a contract that I am engaging in with TIO and that contract has certain conditions applied to it. That is an obligatory contract. I have no choice about that. I have to deal with TIO under the arrangements in the Northern Territory. I have to pay the fee otherwise my car does not get registered. So I am stuck in this invidious situation already where I have to sign up to an insurance policy, which has certain terms and conditions, and now the government has found a way, if I should be injured and claim against that policy, to be able to shift the costs of that to push me on to the dole.
The MACA scheme does not pick up the cost anymore, now it is the federal government, therefore it is no longer a pain for the minister. That is really what this whole exercise is about. Does he say it in the second reading speech? Absolutely not! This is the intent of this change of legislation: to shift the cost of rehabilitation and lost earnings through employment from the Northern Territory to the federal government. That is the entire nub of this process, by changing the rules, by changing the contract in the extreme. Only governments have the privilege of doing that.
I now clearly understand where the government is coming from, and all members in this room should clearly understand where this government is coming from. I think that you are being a little bit cute, minister, by interjecting saying, ‘Oh well, if you are determined to be fit you have to go and work for the dole, when any job is available’. What are you going to suggest, a brickie who has a car accident; suddenly there is a job as a hairdresser available to him that he suddenly has to run off and become a hairdresser? That is what your legislation is going to allow you to do. The moment he cannot become a brain surgeon, or a hairdresser, or an astronaut, you are going to shift the cost away from MACA and onto the federal government. How could we support this?
Mr Stirling: For 23 years you did, you goose!. It was not a problem for 23 years.
Mr ELFERINK: Negative! It was clear. It was always clear.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I was not planning to speak on this, but having worked in this area as a medical practitioner for many years, I would like to say that the MACA system or the workers compensation system, whatever you like to call it, is about rehabilitation. It is not about giving people money just to survive. It is about providing a financial package and appropriate assistance to ensure that a person who is injured through a motor vehicle accident, in this instance, has the means to buy sustenance for himself, or herself, and the family if that happens to be the case, and also to be rehabilitated so that the person is able to return to work.
A person with a job of whatever description when unable to work will at least have part of the wages compensated through the MACA system. At the same time, while that person is being nursed through their injuries, hopefully you are able to provide rehabilitation in the physical as well as the mental sense to enable the person to eventually return to work.
The work has to be meaningful. When the minister agreed that it is a means of getting people off the TIO or the MACA system onto unemployment benefits, you are really signalling that ‘you guys are no good anymore, you are going to be on the scrap heap’. That is not the intention. The intention of any sort of insurance scheme for injury purposes is to ensure that a person gets proper rehabilitation and is returned to meaningful employment.
I recall when I was working on a semi-permanent basis for the mines, we had instances where people, on their way to work, encountered motor vehicle accidents and there was the argy-bargy about whether it was covered by MACA or by workers compensation. Put that aside. Irrespective of that, the insurance scheme was there to protect the person who was, until the accident, gainfully employed. If the minister says that this is about getting them off MACA so they can be on the dole, then I believe it is really an immoral act - an immoral act by this government to disenfranchise people who legitimately have the right to claim on their insurance. That is what it is about and anything else that this government is going to do, in my mind, can be labelled as immoral.
This government will be heading down the wrong path because it will cause people who have suffered motor vehicle accidents real anguish. They will not know where to turn to. If a doctor is not prepared to sign off a certificate saying that person is fit to work, then obviously they have to stay on MACA. They have no choice. The member for Nelson asked earlier can they go on to the dole? Obviously, they cannot; it will be illegal for them to receive it because if they receive unemployment benefits while they are still under MACA compensation they will be committing a criminal offence. I hope no person would even dare attempt to do that.
But once a person is declared fit to return to work, you would expect that there is work available. Otherwise, what is the person to do? The work does not necessarily have to be identical work to what that person was doing before - physical injuries might have produced a limitation on that person - but appropriate work to the level of fitness that the accident victim has. If work is not in that area, obviously alternative work needs to be found. But to say to the person: ‘Okay, you are fit for work now. Off you go; you are on your own’, is really wrong. I used the word ‘immoral’ earlier because I believe it is the responsibility of MACA to assist this person to find appropriate work, and until such time as the person finds appropriate work I believe MACA still has a responsibility for that accident victim. Anything else would really then be giving away the responsibilities that this government owes to the accident victim.
That is all I have to add. I say to the government: let’s not go down this immoral path.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Finally, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I get to talk.
The issues raised in the minister’s second reading speech will illustrate well the difficulties frequently experienced by modern Australian governments in adapting the principles and values imported with British common law to our life in a young and progressive independent nation. The touchstone of the common law was the recognition and protection of conventional property rights and the practices and institutions that supported and maintained those rights. Wealthy and well remunerated people in Victorian Britain tended to be better protected by the law than people lower down in the social pecking order. Some British social critics might be of the view that not a great deal has changed.
The pre-MACA era legal solutions to the problem of addressing financial hardships caused by severe motor vehicle injuries was for the players involved, and their respective insurers, to engage in a legal battle to try and maximise a damages payout. The damages payout would be based on a claimed dollar loss across a range of factors, one of them being earning capacity. In other words, rich people on big salaries would usually get more than poor, unskilled people.
The introduction of MACA heralded a refreshingly egalitarian approach to assisting the victims of devastating motor vehicle accident trauma. The focus shifted from quantifying the projected life earning expectancy of the rich and highly qualified to working at a fair standard compensation figure based on the nature and extent of the injury. Wealth or social status would not play a role in the calculation provided that, at least as far as section 13 was concerned, a basic level of earning capacity could be established. It would be retrogressive and unfortunate if after all these years we were to turn the clock back and start favouring individual accident victims by reference not to the nature of their residual disabilities, but by reference to factors such as the person’s educational and vocational achievements.
What I would hope to spell out in the following case is the difficulties still faced, in particular, by Aboriginal women in establishing a lack of earning capacity. In the 1988 case of McMillan v Territory Insurance Office, Justice Gallop, sitting as the Motor Accident Compensation Appeals Tribunal, found that a 56 year old Aboriginal woman from Santa Teresa was not entitled to compensation for loss of earning capacity in respect of personal injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicle accident. He described her personal work history in the following terms:
- Before the accident she worked for a little while in the laundry at the Santa Teresa Mission washing clothes,
kids, ironing clothes, sewing, kitchen work, cooking and work in the presbytery. It seems clear from her evidence
that she never earned income from that work or from any other job, even though she had been offered a job
with the Tangentyere Council before the accident. Both her parents were Aboriginal. Her father died when she was
a little baby. From when she was a very little baby she lived on Missions run by the Roman Catholic Church. She never
went back to the Mission after the accident. She stayed in Alice Springs looking after her children and grandchildren.
She is in receipt of a supporting mother's pension.
I pause there to note that perhaps putting to one side links with the Roman Catholic Church, the life story described by Justice Gallop could apply to many Aboriginal women who worked hard all their lives but were never paid a cent for it.
Justice Gallop’s conclusion on the issue on the loss of earning capacity was as follows:
- In my view, the applicant has not demonstrated any capacity to earn income from personal exertion, either physical
or mental. She does not have a work history in the sense of a history of earning income at all. She has simply worked
in a domestic sense as an inmate of a Mission. Since the accident she has done domestic work as a mother figure to
her children and grandchildren. She has never demonstrated a capacity to earn income from personal exertion.
- In my opinion, it is not the intention of the legislature that persons who have suffered an injury as a result of an accident
in the Territory in a Territory motor vehicle should be compensated for loss of a capacity to earn income from
personal exertion, either physical or mental, as a result of the injury, which capacity has never been demonstrated.
In the peculiar circumstances of the Northern Territory, there may be large numbers of persons, e.g. nomadic
Aborigines, who have never earned income during their lifetime and have no intention or inclination to do so. Such
persons may well have a capacity to do certain physical things, e.g. ride a horse and tend cattle. But if they had never
done it for money because they had never been motivated to do so, it would seem to me to be a misuse of language to
say that they have a capacity to earn income from personal exertion, either physical or mental. If, because of injury,
such persons have a reduced capacity to do physical things, they have still not suffered loss of their earning capacity.
Therefore, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I believe that people like Mrs McMillan deserve to be compensated at the same level as people with the same degree of injury who were in highly specialised paid jobs prior to their accident.
I appreciate that the amendments in this bill do not quite achieve that result. However, they do assist in underscoring the principle of equality and fairness that constitutes a first step along the way. For this government to sit on its hands, unlike the previous government, and continually allow an interpretation of section 13 of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act to take root, that allowed for differential compensation to different individuals - not by reference to their injuries, but by reference to their vocational background and employment history - would be to provide strong indirect endorsement and support for a state of affairs which condemns unpaid working women to second class status.
The passage of these amendments will serve as a reminder of what we stand for.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I see the member for Goyder nodding. I am a softy and a bit nave, but I take that as a genuine interest that he is expecting me to supply, and I hope I do provide, all the answers that he is seeking here. He briefly talked about the original way these things operated, of course, with the common law right, and the common law right being surrendered, if you like, in view of the introduction of the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme in 1979.
I pay the government of that day the credit that is due because this was visionary legislation. It was the first no-fault scheme of its kind in Australia. More than half the jurisdictions in Australia now have this type of scheme. Why? Because they saw what it did for the Northern Territory; that it promoted fairness, it enabled people a way through to benefits where they were injured; a way through to that level of reparation and rehabilitation without having to go through the messy court situation, litigation, and trying to find someone at fault and win a court case. That is to be commended. It was the first of its type in Australia, and many other jurisdictions have followed that lead by bringing in a no-fault scheme.
I want to be very clear at the outset - and the simpler I can keep this, the better it is. We are not seeking to change anything here in terms of how the act operated between 1979 when it was introduced, and January 2002, with the Collman case. We are not reducing the rights; we are not taking away anything that people have enjoyed for 23 years, up until January 2002. I want to go to Collman because that might help us. I make the point also at the outset, that these amendments are absolutely critical if we are going to have an ongoing, viable Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme.
With all the pressures that are on any insurance scheme at the moment, and including MACA, it is the Collman decision of January this year that reinforced the need to put through this amendment, or we would face a financially unsustainable position with MACA overall. The decision of Riley J – I have a date, 16 January, I am not sure if that coincides, same case:
- Mr Collman suffered a slight fracture of his spine in December 1996. His two day stay in hospital and his medical
expenses were paid. He underwent rehabilitation and training. In February 1997, he was advised by his doctor to
return to work gardening and lawnmowing, and in April 1997 he returned to full duties doing the same as he was
before his car accident, except he was told to avoid heavy work and vibrating machinery. He then changed jobs and
helped fit windscreens and reduced his work to two days per week and later quit because he could not cope and
MACA benefits were resumed.
While he was unemployed, but on MACA section 13 benefits, he went to the gym, he trained five nights per week with
weights, he went jogging, he rode his bicycle, and he worked on his car. His pre-accident wage was never higher
than $390 gross per week, and he was getting more money on MACA benefits. He told his rehabilitation officer that
trying to find work with his lack of qualifications, lack of experience and his injury was a waste of time.
(a) the onus rests upon TIO to establish that there was employment reasonably available to the
applicant and the relevant amount the applicant is capable of earning in that employment; and
is not necessarily to be assessed by the employment, if any, actually undertaken by that person. The
issue is one of capacity and that is assessed by reference to employment available to the person. In determining whether employment is available to the person, it is necessary to consider the whole of the surrounding circumstances including factors personal to the applicant (for example, any physical infirmities from which he may suffer) along with the level of availability of particular forms of employment within the relevant community. The issue is governed by the concept of reasonableness. The work must be reasonably available to the particular applicant rather than being reasonably available to anybody.
The point is, TIO won this case – because this guy was making no attempt to find work and the judge saw through that. But what the judge has drawn attention to is this issue of having to be able to find work, reasonable work, and it must be available within the relevant community, it must be suited for that particular individual. Never, ever happened, was never interpreted like that for 23 years. MACA is not a replacement income forever and a day once you are assessed fit. Six monthly medical intervention assessments – here is your medical certificate, still cannot work, you stay on MACA. At some point in the rehabilitation, the retraining, or whatever, that the doctor was able to assess the person as being medically fit for work, that was the end of MACA. You did not and could not stay on MACA benefits. It is not a form of unemployment benefit for the rest of your life. It is there until you are assessed as able and fit to go back to work.
Now, that is the way it worked. Daryl Manzie, the minister responsible for this legislation for many years, when I spoke to him this morning was honestly aghast at the attitude that you guys were taking to this. He understood very clearly what it meant, what the implications for the MACA scheme would be if we were not to address the ruling from Collman. This ruling from Collman has put a completely different spin on section 13. It is aligning it, and the confusion that Dr Lim had, much more to the work health style of scheme where there is a responsibility to get the person back into work. It never existed under MACA.
MACA had no responsibility to get the person back to work. It had a responsibility to pay benefits and see the person through until such time as the person was assessed as fit for employment. Once that medical certificate was in the hands of the board, assessed as fit for employment or if the person went back to work, once they were earning 85% of average weekly earnings, benefits ceased.
Now, unless something happened to that person that was related to the original accident or injury, they never went back onto MACA; they did not go back onto MACA unless it was a related injury. So, the MACA scheme was always administered on the basis that it provided this low cost, equitable scheme because it was designed to support those injured in motor vehicle accidents or in Territory registered motor vehicles.
As a key feature, as well as picking up all the legitimate medical rehabilitation and retraining costs, it also has that compensation component for those unable to work, or who have their capacity to work restricted, as a result of injury in a motor vehicle accident either temporarily or permanently. That compensation has always been linked to loss of earning capacity; it is not linked to actual loss of income. It is a distinction often misunderstood. If the scheme was to take into account past income prior to the accident, it would mean a huge financial impost on the scheme. Compensating for the loss of earning capacity rather than income is one of those key features that has kept the scheme affordable for Territorians.
It has a further related benefit in that compensation provided under this scheme is treated by the Taxation Office as a capital payment rather than a substitute for income. The big difference, of course, is payments are not subject to income tax because if payments under MACA were subject to income tax, two things flow: either the cash in hand of injured people would be reduced by the amount of income tax; or the payments that MACA make would have to be increased to offset the impact of income tax. Again, you would have to force up the cost of the scheme. That is a very clear difference. It means that the taxation benefit is realised.
Under current administrative practice, the entitlement to the benefit ceases once there is evidence that the person involved has the capacity to resume work. Once the person has the capacity to resume work, medically assessed every six months …
Mr Maley: What if a job is not available here, though, in the Territory?
Mr STIRLING: Nothing to do with the labour market; nothing to do with whether a job is available or not. They are okay to work, okay? You become an unemployed person, no longer on compensation from a motor accident. You are now assessed as fit to work, you are an unemployed person. You either travel to where you can find work, or you do go – and I am not suggesting this – I am accused or the government is accused of making this a substitution, it is the way it always worked. It is the way it always worked. TIO never had a responsibility to find a job to get a person back into work. The responsibility to pay the benefits, the retraining, the rehabilitation was TIO’s until such time as they were medically assessed fit for work. If one was never medically assessed fit for work, they stay on MACA. That is the difference.
Workers compensation – and I think Dr Lim was confused here – has that ongoing responsibility to get people back into employment. MACA never had that and was not designed to run around and find people employment.
A judicial interpretation of the relevant provisions has indicated that the payments have to be continued until the TIO can prove that there is a job available for the person. This is the Collman case: ‘for the person in the area which they reside, even though the person has recovered from injury sufficiently to resume work’. It never was the original intent; it never operated like that in 23 years until 16 January, Collman and this decision.
If a person cannot find work, it is a labour market reality, it is a question for income support from social security if they are assessed as fit for work. It cannot be an ongoing responsibility of the MACA scheme. It is simply that the whole funding, the premiums that are paid, do not support that type of scheme. It is not the original intention. If TIO were to keep paying compensation in these cases where the person was fit for work but the person refused to relocate to an area where suitable employment was available, then of course up go the costs of the scheme enormously. These amendments to the MACA scheme are to ensure that the administrative practices, the way that it has run for 23 years, can continue against that Collman decision.
TIO did, and I think that this is a question from the member for Goyder, TIO did an actuarial investigation of the scheme to work out what the impact would be if the government did nothing, and that is the interpretation in the Collman judgment of January, if we left that to stand and did nothing. First, to ensure the ongoing viability of the scheme, the existing claims reserve would need to be increased by about $14m. That is number 1. Number 2, an additional $9m would be required to cover the costs of new claims coming on each year. In order to collect this money through premiums, in the first year alone it would require an increase in the order of 50%, with further substantial, though lesser, increases in the following two years.
To put this in yearly terms, a premium increase in the first year of around $190 for a standard family car. Of course, it would be more for taxis, hire cars and buses. The government’s view is that this is simply unacceptable to the Territory taxpayer and to the Territory government. It is not the way the scheme was designed. It was never set up to do those sorts of things, and we believe that all Territory families would find this a burden. Of course, for those who register two or more vehicles, a much more substantial burden.
Of course, if you get fee increases like that, one consequence is that some people just do not bother to renew their registration, so that the additional premiums collected fall short of that required to meet the ongoing costs of the scheme. So government took the view that the only sensible decision in view of the Collman case in January was to introduce the amendments which in effect do not change anything. The amendments do not change anything at all about the way the scheme has operated since 1979 to January 16 2002. But they do address the outcome of the Collman case.
This is really the bottom line and it needs to be very strongly underlined. My staff spoke to some people who thought that these amendments went too far. That they pushed back beyond where MACA was. They do not. They simply put it back exactly as it was. There were a couple of points made along the lines of. ‘You are stripping people of their rights’. Not so. They have the same rights that have existed since 1979. We are simply ensuring, and legislating to ensure, that the scheme is able to operate as it has done in the past and continues to operate in a way that everyone understands it.
The ultimate safeguard for all Territorians is that MACA is a government scheme administered by a government owned enterprise. The administration of the scheme is therefore subject to the scrutiny of government. Now, any government is going to be mindful of the public’s perception of the administration of the scheme. It would be suicide for a government to ignore the concerns of the public in the administration of this scheme.
As well as addressing future claims costs, these amendments also ensure that past payments from the scheme are protected, so no one loses from these amendments, but Territorians will, as a community, lose enormously if these amendments do not pass. They will be up for about $190 in their registration almost immediately, with further increases over the next two years. All Territorians would say, ‘Why the hell are we having to pay this?’
We think that the amendments strike a balance. They put the scheme back to its original intent. I say again, I commend the government of the day back in 1979, because this was visionary legislation. No other state in Australia had such a no-fault scheme. But the government of the Northern Territory passed it back then and it has served the Territory exceedingly well, so much so that other jurisdictions have tossed out common law as the Territory did and adopted no-fault schemes of their own.
The amendments strike a balance and maintain the existing level of benefits under the MACA scheme since 1979 without the need to increase premiums. If the court’s interpretation from Collman of section 13 is allowed to stand, the opposite results. TIO is then responsible for the labour market reality of getting people back into work. If they decide they are better off on MACA than they ever were at work, you will never get them off MACA. So, up go the premiums to pay those people for ever and a day. Premiums would rise substantially and yet, most people who receive benefits under the scheme would receive no more than they do now.
I hope that goes to the core of the concerns of the member for Goyder. If he did have any further questions - I do not see a need to go into committee - however, if it is his wish to go into committee to explore anything that I have left undone, I have an expert here, and we can cover that in committee if he so wishes. There is no loss or stripping of rights. It is simply a restoration of what has always been - but thrown into doubt and confusion because of the decision in Collman.
I am not saying the judge was wrong - far from it. He interpreted that section 13 in a way that, conceivably, any judge could have in the past 23 years. It is a bit remarkable that it lasted 23 years without a judge bringing this interpretation to it. Nonetheless, it would have been done sooner or later, I would imagine. But it did happen on 16 January 2002. After all those years, someone said: ‘This is not right, Your Honour’. He said: ‘I think you are right’. That left government with the situation of having to restore it, if you like, to the integrity and the intention of what it once was. I am happy to go into committee if there are further questions.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr STIRLING: We do not want to pass the bill straight off, Mr Chairman, because there are some outstanding questions here. We wanted the availability of committee to clear up any other issues. I suggest we do not pass anything now, and we just explore whatever issues.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is the intention to now go through that.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, I am not suggesting that there was a responsibility that falls to the feet of the TIO or the Motor Accidents Compensation Board to find someone a job but, on a reasonable reading of the legislation as it stands, with Collman’s case, it seems the onus was only upon them to determine this earning capacity by virtue of whether there was other employment reasonably available. Whether that employment, like in Collman’s case, was taken up, was a matter entirely for the applicant. However, assuming that the respondent of the board at TIO could establish that the employment was reasonably available, having regard to some of those subjective factors, then payments could be cut. Okay? I agree that that is certainly not the role of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act and the whole regime to put people into jobs and they stay on this benefit, technically, for ever. From my reading the obligation is to put them in a position where there is an earning capacity there, albeit not exercised, then the payments can be cut.
You talk about the law changing substantially in January this year, and section 13(2) being the section which you say Riley J has interpreted in a new and expanded way. At paragraph 10 of the judgment, Riley J goes on to talk about how you approach the interpretation of section 13(2). He talks about:
- … determining what is ‘the most profitable employment (if any) available’ to the applicant in a given period. The onus
rests upon the respondent to establish that there was employment reasonably available to the applicant and the
relevant amount the applicant is capable of earning from that employment.
He then goes on to cite a decision of Martin J, an unreported decision, of Kantros v The Territory Insurance Office Board reported in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory dated 5 December 1991. So the interpretation Riley J has given about employment reasonably available to the applicant and the onus being upon the board, he is relying upon a decision, it seems, of Martin J back in 1991. That is the first point. He does not seem to be quoting the law: he is relying upon a previous decision.
The second aspect is, just a reasonable examination of the term, ‘reasonably capable of earning in employment’, and the conclusion which Riley J comes to, and my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, read out the quote in toto, but just the conclusion he comes to that the issue is governed by the concept of ‘reasonableness’, that the work must be reasonably available to the particular applicant rather than being reasonably available to anybody. That is not an unreasonable conclusion to come to.
It does not seem to be an unreasonable set of parameters for the act to operate within. So, I am not saying that the TIO has to act as an employment agency and find someone a job. All they have to do is pay them enough money and look after medical expenses to put them in a position where they are reasonably able to secure a job. Whether they chose to do it - Mr Collman did not choose to do and the tribunal ruled against him so it did not cost the taxpayer any extra money apart from the legal fees - but that seems to be an inherently reasonable sort of interpretation and that is probably the second point.
Mr STIRLING: Can we deal with a couple first?
Mr MALEY: Yes, we will do it two at a time.
Mr STIRLING: It might get far away. In relation to a decision by Martin J and picked up on by this judge, I have no understanding or knowledge of what that decision was in 1991 and how that related to this case we are talking about here in January 2002. If a decision along these lines had been made way back in 1991, it is inconceivable that the repercussions would not have flowed then as we are seeing here.
Mr MALEY: Could I interrupt for a second. Can I give you a copy of this decision? Perhaps I can table this. At paragraph 10 and that is what I read from, that is Riley J saying as observed by Martin J as he then was in Kantros v The TIO unreported in December 1991, in the very next paragraph there is a citation directly from that decision. I will read that out - really the first two or three lines are not that relevant, but it goes on to say this, starting on the third line:
- … but it is for the defendant to establish the failure of the plaintiff to mitigate, or, for the respondent to prove here
the amount which the applicant is reasonably capable of earning for the purposes of the subsection.
Once again you have this ‘reasonableness’ concept. It is specifically referring to the point which you say arose like a phoenix from the ashes in January this year.
Mr STIRLING: I am advised this was not in relation to section 13, although it would appear to have been picked up – oh, I should be standing up. Sorry, Mr Chairman, I am a bit confused.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I thought I had an opportunity there.
Mr MALEY: It says that specifically, though. That is the problem. It says: ‘A consideration of section 13(2)’, and then deals with the same things you have just touched upon. It then says: ‘As observed by Martin J’ and quotes what seems to be a portion of that judgement on the very point that you are talking about.
Mr STIRLING: Nonetheless, we are talking about a moot point. Clearly, whatever that decision was in 1991, it did not appear to create any sort of precedent or upset the way TIO and MACA have been operating since 1979 through to 1991 in the way that this interpretation of January 2002 has. He has made it very clear here that MACA does have the responsibility to ensure that there is not just ‘reasonable’ employment ‘reasonably’ available in the area where that person is, but particularly suited to that person. Now, that was never the intent of the scheme. It has no part in the origins of the scheme. Once the person was assessed as fit for work, they signed off on MACA and they went and got a job. If they did not get a job, there was income supplement available through Centrelink and the rest.
Under this, if we do not address this, then MACA has to carry this for – you know, it could carry people forever. Even though they are assessed as fit for work, MACA would still have the responsibility of looking after them and if they chose not to get a job – I mean, there is no labour market test here. There is nothing to say that if they earned more on the MACA benefit than they did in whatever form of employment they had before, there would be no incentive to get a job. Premiums for TIO and the MACA scheme would have to go up to cover those extra people sitting there unable to be moved, and nothing in the world would ever move them because there would be no incentive to go to work. If you are going to have to work and receive less money than the MACA benefit, there is no incentive.
It was never the intention that MACA had any responsibility to find a person employment, locate them or anything of that nature. Once the person was medically assessed fit for work, sorry about the accident but we have you right, see you later. No more MACA.
Mr MALEY: So even if a job is not available in the Territory?
Mr STIRLING: It never was a question in all the time MACA operated. I mean, I am interested in what you say in relation to Martin J in 1991. I do not understand - it is a further question that I would be interested to explore, but we do not have the time here - why that did not have the impact that this January 2002 decision quite clearly has had. I cannot answer that. You know the law better than I do. Some things blow up and affect everything, and it looks like this decision was allowed to sit there and seemingly have no effect, at least in relation to MACA. I cannot answer it.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I am grateful to the minister for his long and careful explanation before going into committee because it did clear up a couple of issues for me, certainly what the government’s intent is. It brings me to the issue that concerns me. In the Collman decision, the judges simply turned to the legislation in the first instance for an interpretation as to what the intent of the legislation was, and did not visit at any stage the Hansard debates, the second reading speeches which they may do nowadays, for the purposes of interpretation because they found no ambiguity in the legislation.
What concerns me is that, one, if this legislation is going to be read on its face, and judges may choose not to find an ambiguity in what is there, what will be the precise effect of the current wording? Is it shored up sufficiently well? Second, and more importantly, for the purposes of process, if they do find an ambiguity, then they are allowed to turn to the second reading speech by the minister to find the intent of what the government had in mind.
The second reading speech is a little less than a page and a half long. I believe if the second reading speech had been far more comprehensive, not only would any perceived ambiguity or otherwise in the way we read it, be less of a problem, I also believe that ambiguity once placed in front of a court may also be easier for the court to divine from the second reading speech what the minister’s intent was.
I have raised this issue on several occasions with the Attorney-General and I am grateful to the Attorney-General that his second reading speeches are now far more comprehensive and far more explanatory in terms of the information that they give. Indeed, I have found that when dealing with those second reading speeches, that particular briefing is often enough to allay any reservations or fears I might have regarding the government’s intent.
However, on this occasion, we once again get shorter, condensed versions of second reading speeches, which then successfully lose the intent of the government. Now, the minister, only referring to notes, not even reading it out, was able to explain, comprehensively and clearly, the intent of what the government was trying to do. I would urge the minister, when he is bringing these complex matters to the House on future occasions, to simply make those second reading speeches more comprehensive, not only for our sake, but because the briefing in this Chamber counts above all other briefings. It would also have the effect, further down the track, of avoiding some of the confusion that the judges may have of the legislation that is before us. On reading the amendment, I still see sufficient latitude for confusion so as to allow another reading and this other reading may have detrimental effects on those people who take out these insurance policies.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I do not know about these second reading speeches, because in opposition I had a lot of difficulty sometimes even following a briefing. On occasions, I can remember being even more confused. In fact, I recall one bizarre, quite obscure maritime amendment that had been put forward by then Chief Minister Stone, I am not sure if he was Chief Minister at the time, and he admitted to me that he did not understand it himself. There was a two paragraph second reading speech that was just bizarre, and of course, so was the principal act and I think it was an aged piece of legislation.
Once I had been through the additional material -the Collman court case of January 2002 – and reading the second reading speech in retrospect, I think it reads fine, and you would probably agree if you went back and read it now. Just how much detail goes into a second reading speech? I guess there are the explanatory memoranda and the committee notes that back up the intent of the bill and what the government is trying to achieve with the piece of legislation that it is seeking to pass. I do not have a view. If you try to put everything into the second reading it gets cumbersome and unwieldy and possibly you start to get cross-purposes, or counter-purposes, within that.
As I say, I do not have a view. You may be right in this case, that it may have been more helpful if an explanation was offered. Reading it cold myself, I did not have a full understanding of it. Then I received additional material, and read the January 2002 case, and began to see where it impacted and what it meant. In terms of outcomes, I think it reads fine now, but that is with the addition of further information and clarity that I did not have when I first read it.
Bill agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
I thank members who contributed to the debate. It was useful to go into committee; we did get a clarity and greater understanding of those issues. I am comfortable that all members understand why the government needed to act as it did to preserve the integrity of the scheme. We are not legislating away people’s rights. We are putting back in place what is a very good and effective scheme put down on the books way back in 1979, way ahead of anyone else having a scheme like this. It was a novel, innovative first for the Territory. It still stands us in good stead today and it will continue to stand us in good stead with the benefits of these amendments behind it.
Motion agreed to, bill read a third time.
CROWN PROCEEDINGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 100)
(Serial 100)
Continued from 10 October 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the bill. It was a very short second reading speech. I am not going to go into minutiae of what sections 13(1), (2) and (3) and section 21 of the act actually do and what they once did. However, they are being repealed. There is no information currently prescribed by the Supreme Court rules to be endorsed on a process against the Territory Crown, as the Attorney-General quite properly said. Accordingly, there would not appear to be any requirement for the current provisions in those sections 13 and 21. I echo what the Attorney-General said. They do not serve any other purpose and we will not be opposing this bill. In fact, we will be supporting this particular bill.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support. They took two steps: they did not oppose it and then actually supported it. That is good.
This is just a technical amendment to a bill. These are sections that the courts have not found the need to use, so the bill is simply repealing section 13(1), (2) and (3) and section 21, to remove the possibility within the current act of the court annexing a statement of constraints, I suppose, on processes that are being taken against the Territory Crown. I hope I got that right. It is really at the request of the Justices that these amendments be introduced and, for that reason, we would want to accommodate them.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 97)
(Serial 97)
Continued from 17 September 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I indicate the opposition will be supporting the passage of this bill. I do not intend to say too much on it. It relates to the prescribed property provisions of the Associations Incorporation Act as they apply to Aboriginal community living areas. The proposed amendment will permit the minister to consent to deal in land in a limited number of circumstances. The Attorney-General, in his very succinct second reading speech, talked about the spirit of an agreement between the Prime Minister and the then Chief Minister in 1989 and these amendments are confirming that agreement and reflect a clarification of probably an oversight in the previous legislation, probably could not have foreseen what was going to occur with the prescribed property.
In any event, I do not intend to labour the point. The opposition will be supporting this legislation.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, through at least the first decade after the passage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in 1976, it was possible to identify two classes of Aboriginal people living in that vast expanse of the Northern Territory that lies outside the principal towns and population centres along the Stuart Highway.
First, there were those whose traditional country, or part of it, lay within a previously designated Aboriginal reserve, or on some kind of unalienated Crown land. The Aboriginal reserves were simply transferred whole, or scheduled to Aboriginal land trusts established for that purpose. Other areas of unalienated Crown land were available for claim under the land claims process set up under the act, and such claims quickly followed to a range of areas from the Top End to the Centre. Then there were those Aboriginal people whose traditional land lay within the pastoral leases that had been granted, held and extended over much of the country that the Territory had to offer.
The Land Rights Act allowed land claims to be made over pastoral lease land only when all the interests in the pastoral lease were held by, or on behalf of, Aboriginal people, although there are a handful of pastoral lease purchases funded by the former Aboriginal Development Commission during the 1980s. The phenomenon of Aboriginal tenure over a significant percentage of the Northern Territory pastoral lease estate is comparatively recent. Many Aboriginal people who had given the best years of their lives to building up the Territory pastoral industry eked out a miserable existence living in car bodies or ramshackle housing in camps in Stuart Highway towns like Elliott.
A small number of intrepid individuals resisted the odds and the pressures imposed by pastoral leases and government agencies for what must have seemed like forever by squatting. They camped, often without power, and with inadequate water supplies, on pockets of pastoral lease land that they regarded as theirs by tradition, historical entitlement and basic need. They were asking for what had become known as excisions, and were often referred to as ‘the people land rights forgot’. As of the year 2002, the situation has improved substantially in the Barkly, in the Katherine West region, and in the Centre as a result of station purchases, through the Indigenous Land Corporation. But there remains many people whose aspirations to live on even a modest parcel of their traditional country remains unfulfilled. In many, if not most, cases such aspirations cannot be satisfied by the individual or group being directed to go and reside on someone else’s country, on land granted to some other Aboriginal group.
It became a key demand insisted on by the former government, and by the peak body representing the pastoralists, that claims or pleas for the grant of title to living areas on pastoral leases not be expressed, or formulated, by reference to traditional attachment to the land sought. This was a bizarre and distressing notion to most excision applicants who were forced to articulate a need for a place to live, divorced from their obligations to and love for their traditional country. Little progress was made throughout the 1980s and it is likely that the state of affairs would have continued, without change, right up until the Mabo High Court decision in 1993 if it had not been for a keen desire pursued by the pastoralists and the former government on their behalf to make a kind of land grab of their own.
The land that they were interested in was the stock routes that criss-crossed the main cattle station areas of the Territory. What was being called for was the abandonment of land claims under the Land Rights Act to the stock routes and the absorption of the relevant areas of stock route land into the pastoral leases that passed through.
The 1989 deal that was struck between the then Prime Minister and the then Chief Minister involved precious little input for excision claimants on the ground. Some areas of the stock routes and reserve lands were scheduled under the Land Rights Act but claims to much larger areas were abandoned with many pastoralists achieving windfall expansions of their pastoral leases. What the excision applicants got for their part was a virtually impenetrable and impassable bureaucratic obstacle course. A Kafka-like snakes and ladders scheme that was first tacked onto the then Crown Lands Act which now finds its home in Part 8 of the Pastoral Land Act.
It is of no surprise that a disappointingly small number of Community Living Areas’ titles have been granted. Those that have been granted have taken an inordinately long time to be processed. Because Part 8 of the Pastoral Land Act reflects the philosophy of the former government’s 1980 policy which was confirmed in the terms of the 1989 agreement, title to Community Living Areas could not be granted to an entity set up to benefit Aboriginal people with traditional interests in the land concerned like an Aboriginal land trust under the Land Rights Act.
Instead, the land holding entity had to be an association incorporated under either the Northern Territory Associations Incorporation Act or the Commonwealth Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act. Incorporated associations are siblings or cousins from the same family group as mega-corporations like BHP or the recently deceased HIH. They have to file annual financial statements and they have to pass through various hoops in terms of internal governance and administration. Complying with these requirements is very difficult for Aboriginal people living in remote pastoral country, many of whom, especially those from the older generation, have limited formal education. Unsurprisingly, things are left undone. Regulatory bodies step in and the notional membership, that is the Aboriginal people whom it was meant to benefit, have their title placed at risk. The amendments proposed in this bill allow for problems of this kind to be fixed up after the event.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill as a welcome and necessary measure.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support and the member for Arafura for what was an excellent contribution to the debate. She gave a good context to the amendments we are proposing today.
These are very sensible reforms. Obviously, the intent of creating Community Living Areas was to provide a secure site for a community to be established and obviously that security had to be guarded by not allowing land to be dealt with, and certainly not traded, so that that community would have a secure site. Difficulties have arisen with the somewhat inflexible original arrangements which did not allow even partial or limited dealings with the land. These amendments simply correct those problems.
Clearly, in the examples given in the second reading speech, there are cases where very worthwhile community initiatives, or initiatives forged between the community and agencies that are supporting their lifestyle in these living areas, have been prevented by the contents of the current act. This provides for limited dealings, once approved by the minister, so that leases for things like health clinics can be allowed on Community Living Areas and the title to those living areas can be transferred between incorporated bodies of similar intent and similar membership to the original recipients of that community living area arrangement. This will correct …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am sorry. I am a little bit confused, and perhaps I have missed something. I am not trying to be cute or anything. Which bill are we currently debating?
Madam SPEAKER: The Associations Incorporation Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 97)
Mr ELFERINK: I am a little bit confused because unless I am mistaken, I believe that the Shadow Attorney-General was dealing with the Crown Proceedings Amendment Bill 2002.
Madam SPEAKER: No, he has already spoken.
Mr ELFERINK: In support of this?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Perhaps you could check with him.
Mr ELFERINK: I am going to go and find out now, Madam Speaker.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, I am quite happy to see the member for Macdonnell given time.
Madam SPEAKER: Keep going, Attorney-General.
Dr TOYNE: We will keep going, will we?
Mr Reed: It is all a bit late, she cried, now. We are in reply closing debate.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, without further ado, I think I will sit down.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
AERODROMES ACT REPEAL BILL
(Serial 98)
(Serial 98)
Continued from 17 September 2002
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the action taken in relation to this amendment flows principally from the National Competition Policy and it is yet another consequence of the agreement entered into between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories in relation to competition policy agreements.
Given that the minister in his second reading speech has given an assurance that the arrangements under the Aerodromes Act as regards the Connellan airport at Yulara are safe guarded in relation to these amendments, and that the arrangements now existing will continue to exist as they now stand following the passage of this legislation, and, further, that the other considerations under the Aerodromes Act, being the safety matters at airports and parking of aircraft and the like at aerodromes across the Northern Territory will likewise be safeguarded either by Commonwealth or the Northern Territory legislation, the opposition supports the bill.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I do not have to add anything more. As the member for Katherine said, it is the result of National Competition Policy and the agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories. I do not want to waste any more time on this. It is a simple bill, a repeal bill. Let’s proceed with it.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Northern Territory Parks and Reserves
Northern Territory Parks and Reserves
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to inform the House about the recent initiatives taken by my government in relation to NT parks and reserves. On 25 October 2002, I announced my government’s approach to resolving legal issues that had arisen as a result of the recent Ward High Court decision relating to a large number of NT parks and reserves. I also highlighted how our park systems represents one of the Territory’s major competitive advantages and needs to be leveraged into playing a key role in the Territory’s future economic development.
My government has acted responsibly and decisively to address the uncertainty that has arisen as a result of the High Court’s judgement to ensure the interests of all Territorians are protected both now and into the future. We have also acted in an open and transparent manner. This has involved briefing all major stakeholders at the first opportunity on the implications of our legal advice and the government’s approach to resolving the issues involved. This included briefing the Opposition Leader, the Commonwealth government, the land councils, the Conservation Land Corporation, representatives of the mining, tourism, pastoral and fishing industries, the media, and the community. My government has publicly laid down a set of core principles that will remain central to any negotiated framework agreement.
I am also pleased to report that I have raised these issues with the Prime Minister and Minister Ruddock, who both indicated in-principle support for the Northern Territory government’s approach of negotiation instead of litigation.
This evening I will bring the House up to date on developments over the past week, and set the record straight about the government’s approach to achieving certainty in relation to the future access and enjoyment of our parks and reserves. These issues are not only of importance to all Territorians, but also have significant implications for our numerous interstate and overseas visitors and for the future development of our tourism industry.
The recent Ward High Court decision held that the declaration of the Keep River National Park was invalid. The finding is a result of the wording of section 12(1) of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act which only provided, until it was amended in March 1998, that:
- An area of land could only be declared as a park or reserve if all the right title and interest in that land is vested
in the Territory, or if no person other than the Territory or the Conservation Land Corporation holds a right,
title or interest in that land.
I know that the Leader of the Opposition questioned our reliance on legal advice from the Solicitor General following the briefing that was provided to him prior to the government’s public announcement. During that briefing, I drew the Opposition Leader’s specific attention to the fact that, because of the potentially serious implication of the Solicitor General’s advice, the government had engaged eminent external counsel in order to gain a second opinion. That second opinion not only supported the Solicitor General’s advice, but did so in ever more firm and clearer terms regarding the invalidity of the park declarations and the consequences for land claims to now proceed under the Land Rights Act.
In light of the Ward High Court decision and the legal advice before us, there were clearly two broad options available to the government in seeking to resolve the issues involved. The first option would be to engage in litigation and disputation at every possible level. In my government’s view, this would merely evade our responsibility to find a comprehensive solution. This approach would defer, for the time being, any transfer of title to Aboriginal interests and would keep the government and the land councils in the courts for years contesting native title and compensation issues. It provides no guarantee that land claims would not, ultimately, be successful and no guarantee that existing parks would remain open and part of our parks estate. It is obvious to anyone with a knowledge of the history of litigation in this area that this option would not only be horrendously expensive for Territory taxpayers but would even, more importantly, merely serve to exacerbate and prolong uncertainties in ways that frustrate and delay economic development and divide the community.
The second option was for all parties to agree to put litigation to one side and negotiate a framework agreement that not only deals with the implications of the High Court’s decision but also settles, once and for all, all other outstanding existing and potential litigation affecting NT parks and reserves. At its heart, this framework will provide the certainty required to establish a truly world class and fully integrated NT national parks and reserves conservation system. That certainty will mean that our parks can continue to operate with the necessary guarantee of continued access and enjoyment by all Territorians. Just as importantly, it will also result in new and exciting opportunities to develop our parks and reserves in ways that fully complement our tourism strategies, and will create economic opportunities that are currently going begging.
One only has to view the tourism and associated economic development that has occurred within the Nitmiluk National Park over the past decade, since title issues were resolved, to appreciate the potential in other parks where land and joint management issues remain unresolved.
The government recognised that if it was to pursue the framework agreement option it would need to lay down at the outset certain core principles that would have to be fully reflected in any final agreement. These core principles included re-declaration of all those parks and reserves that were invalidly declared under section 12 of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. This re-declaration does not include the 11 areas now available for hearing before the Aboriginal Land Commissioner as they cannot be legally re-declared.
As honourable members would be aware, the government moved quickly to address the issue, and the re-declaration of 38 parks and reserves occurred on 7 November. This prompt action has had the effect of putting the operation of park by-laws beyond any doubt, and of confirming their status as parks and reserves under relevant NT legislation. That was the first core principle.
The second: resolution by negotiation rather than through the courts. This requires both the government and the land councils to refrain from pursuing litigation whilst negotiations proceed. Because of the swift and decisive action of government, we were able to stay on the front foot and propose a reasonable course of action that will save governments and Aboriginal interests alike many millions of dollars in litigation costs. The land councils could have legally contested this approach but, to their credit, they have agreed to recognise the alternative path of agreement by negotiation.
Another core principle, that Territory parks and reserves will remain accessible to all Territorians and visitors on a no-fee, no-permit basis. By laying down this principle, the government is acting to ensure the interests of the whole community in retaining access to the NT parks and reserves is preserved under any agreement. Another core principle is business as usual in parks while negotiations are completed. This principle provides for all parks and reserves to continue to function as normal while negotiations are undertaken. The final core principle is, where title changes, it is conditional on being leased back to the government for the use as parks and subject to joint management arrangement under NT legislation.
The government will negotiate a framework agreement that effectively settles all outstanding issues in relation to our parks and reserves. This includes those areas which are now subject to hearing before the land commissioner, and all those other parks and reserves which are potentially, or are already, subject to native title determinations, native title compensation claims, and other related litigation. All will be the subject of one negotiation consistent with the core principles I am outlining here. The government expects that these negotiations will result in a framework agreement that provides for some parks and reserves where there are no changes to existing arrangements; others where, apart from new joint management arrangements, tenure will remain as it is; others where title will be transferred but be subject to immediate lease-back and joint management arrangements.
Another core principle: current mining and exploration leases and applications and current tourism operator concessions are guaranteed. This core principle ensures these existing interests are protected. Another core principle: develop a comprehensive parks masterplan to expand and more effectively manage the NT parks estate. This principle reflects the government’s intention to develop a parks masterplan that will guide the future management and uses of land under the NT parks estate.
Madam Speaker, I wonder how many honourable members have ever scrutinised the land holdings under the NT parks estate? We are closely examining the lands the previous government acquired over the years. If there was a strategic direction in these acquisitions, it is certainly not apparent in the ways that these land holdings were configured, and it is time they were systematically assessed. We will adopt a strategic approach and develop a comprehensive parks masterplan to guide the development and management of the NT parks estate.
The government recognises that apart from Aboriginal interests, there are also legitimate interests in the parks estate involving the mining and pastoral industries, and that there are areas which might be appropriate for multiple land use. The master planning process will also require extensive consultation with mining and pastoral interests, to canvass options to accommodate their needs within the parks estate. We will also recognise the reality that, at least for the present, Kakadu and Uluru are leased to the Commonwealth. Contrary to the previous government’s approach, we will work with the Commonwealth, through the master planning process, to pursue mutually beneficial arrangements, and to attract Commonwealth funds to the NT parks system. This will maximise the benefits of a comprehensive approach to park management.
My government has sought to develop a consensus approach from day one in addressing the matters I have identified today. I must therefore report my disappointment that the Opposition Leader has chosen to advocate the path of conflict and confrontation. It was this discredited approach that led us to the current position. The Opposition Leader has stated that we should just agree to support scheduling of the 11 parks on a lease-back arrangement and that he would fight native title determination and compensation claims in the court. Where it is found to exist, he would compulsorily acquire and thereby effectively extinguish the native title rights of Aboriginal people in all 38 parks not subject to Aboriginal Land Rights Act claims. Why would Aboriginal interests agree to lease back 11 parks that they can claim in their entirety whilst we would also seek to extinguish their native title rights in all other parks? This highlights the need for an all encompassing solution. Moreover, what the Opposition Leader does not tell us is how long his approach would take to resolve these issues, and what the potential cost in litigation and compensation might be, let alone the enormous community division and tension that would result. He argues we should not worry because the Commonwealth will pick up 75% of the compensation bill.
The Opposition Leader’s approach is one that will lead us absolutely nowhere. It will keep us in the courts for decades and the cost of litigation alone, without taking potential compensation into account, will be enormous. The Territory’s potential 25% share of the compensation cost conveniently overlooks the fact that that could itself still amount to a very significant impost on Territory taxpayers. Even more compelling would be the significant opportunity costs to the Territory community as a whole. Why would we want to spend the next 30 years in the courts, with all the attendant uncertainty when we could be investing in and creating real jobs and development for Territorians? It also stands in contrast to the actions of his own previous government which eventually realised the value of seeking negotiated solutions such as the model adopted in relation to Rosebery and Bellamack.
Fortunately, my government faces up to reality and is prepared to make the hard decisions and to do the hard work to achieve better outcomes for all Territorians. We recognise that here we have the opportunity to turn a potential problem into an opportunity.
I am pleased that the land councils, which are also native title representative bodies in the Territory, have agreed to these principles and committed to negotiating an outcome rather than fighting us every step of the way in the courts. When we briefed the land councils it was significant that leaders present, including Galarrwuy Yunupingu and David Ross, stated that we should have both adopted this approach 30 years ago. They recognised that we should have avoided the millions of dollars in litigation that could have been spent on schools, housing, and medical services.
As a responsible government, we realise the need to balance the public interest in this matter and ensure an outcome that meets the community benefit test. We are recognising, in contrast to the previous government, that Aboriginal interests exist equally validly alongside the interests of the tourism, mining and pastoral industries and all users of NT parks. We recognise that the traditional owners for each park will need to agree to these arrangements, so it will take some time before they are finalised. To ensure certainty, once the negotiation with the land council is finalised and traditional owner assent is forthcoming, we will legislate to guarantee the agreed arrangements.
The establishment of a viable and well resourced park system is crucial to the Territory’s future. The Territory’s natural environment and indigenous culture have a high value. As I mentioned at the outset, our park system represents one of the Territory’s major competitive advantages and needs to be leveraged into playing a key role in the Territory’s future economic development. One has only to examine the 2002-07 Draft NT Tourism Strategy to see how the approach we are adopting over parks should result in helping meet the demands of our interstate and international visitors to experience indigenous culture and visit remote and pristine areas. Investment in park infrastructure and development will bring significant financial returns to increased visitation numbers and expenditure in the Territory generally, improved tourism services opportunities, indigenous employment opportunities, as well as environmental and conservation benefits.
We have an historic opportunity to create a world class NT parks estate. We have the opportunity to invest in an expanded system of parks and reserves and to showcase to the world both the Territory’s indigenous art and culture and its unique national environment. We have the opportunity to start to turn around the dire social and economic situation for Aboriginal people in remote areas by building on current initiatives to manage and protect the land. We have the opportunity to enhance the eco- and cultural tourism industry by incorporating culture into the parks experience and enhancing services and facilities. We will do all this by working with Aboriginal people and using productively the money the previous government would have happily wasted on litigation.
The end result will be a larger and better resourced parks estate for the Territory. We will achieve a lasting solution to yet another problem that we inherited from the previous government. While we work towards this resolution, it will be business as usual in NT parks and reserves.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this very important statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): It is an important statement, Madam Speaker, because it is not often that you get to see your estate traded away so easily.
We have a number of problems with this statement, not the least being that the Chief Minister has already accepted that all Territory parks have traditional owners and that the land claims over 11 of the parks are valid. I am not surprised, then, that this government should say it would be wrong to litigate over these matters. The Chief Minister has already with this statement conceded that whatever case might have been put, that some or all of these parks belong to Territorians.
Let us imagine for a moment going into court or even to the negotiating table to argue the position that all Territorians own these parks. Now, even before you put the case the land councils would say, ‘Just hang on a second, Chief Minister. You told parliament that we can claim 11 parks in their entirety. Then you talked about the traditional owners of each and every park in the Northern Territory. So, you have already admitted that you do not have any case. You have already admitted ownership in your statement today, in the Assembly, of all the parks in the Northern Territory because you refer to them all having traditional owners, so well done. This is a great way to begin negotiations on keeping the Territory park estate. You have conceded whatever negotiating position you might have had’.
We should not be surprised that the Chief Minister has so blatantly handed over the common lands of Territorians. It is consistent with the way this government has reacted since the implications of the Ward High Court decision became obvious. Its first reaction was to declare that there was a crisis. Its second reaction was to declare, ‘we have a crisis but do not worry, we will soon solve it.’ Both reactions were wrong.
Mr Ah Kit: What did you want? More litigation?
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I would ask for silence in the Chamber. I have given the Chief Minister silence with her statement and I expect the same in return.
So if we go back to the advice that this government received from the Solicitor General on the High Court ruling, it is interesting - and I would hope also, as the Chief Minister has said that she has now been provided with second expect legal opinion, surely that expert legal opinion is available to the opposition? I would hope she would provide it from her eminent external counsel.
But back to the summary provided to me by the government on what the Solicitor General advised, and he advised this:
- Firstly, all parks declared between 1978 and 1998 were potentially …
- … affected by the Court High decision. Secondly, whether or not they are will depend on whether or not any native
title existed at the time the parks were declared. Thirdly, the majority of the parks can be re-declared as parks.
Fourthly, even some of the parks claimed under the Aboriginal (Land Rights) Act can be re-declared. Fifthly,
there are a small number of parks that cannot be re-declared and are now subject to claim under the Aboriginal
(Land Rights) Act. Six, notwithstanding any invalidity of the original declaration of the parks, the Parks and
Wildlife Commission’s powers to manage all the areas remains, although the plans of management for these parks
would not have the same statutory force. Seven, in respect of the majority of parks, the legal solution is to re-declare
the parks.
That was the advice from the Solicitor General. That is the crisis - or the so-called crisis.
We have a problem with a few of our parks, but for the vast majority of our parks the solution is simply to re-declare them. The government did that in respect of 38 of the parks and reserves on 7 November. The remaining do present a problem because, despite the law of the time and various rulings of the High Court, the land council placed claims over them before the sunset clause of the Land Rights Act came into effect in 1997. According to the Solicitor General, this small number of parks have no underlying tenure and, as their original declaration as parks has probably been made invalid by the High Court decision, then the claims over them may now proceed to be heard by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner under the Land Rights Act.
That is the sum of the problem. The government is right to attempt to negotiate in relation to those parks so that even if they do become Aboriginal land rights scheduled land they can still be used as parks. But, obviously, it is the threat of legal action over these parks which has prompted the government to throw the rest of the park estate on to the negotiating table. The Chief Minister has made this patently clear in her statement today and I quote:
- Why would Aboriginal interests agree to lease back 11 parks that they can claim in their entirety whilst we also
seek to extinguish their native title rights in all other parks?
The Chief Minister says her government will not litigate over these matters so the only ones threatening such action - if we are going to talk about hundreds of millions of dollars of cost, and the government is not going to litigate, who is going to litigate? Obviously, the land council is going to litigate. So any action with regards to any or all of these parks can only come from land councils themselves. Is that what the Chief Minister has been told? Has the Chief Minister been told that, unless she puts all the parks on the table, the land councils will take these land claims to court and stop them being used as parks? Why else would the Chief Minister wrap it all up in a global deal, when there are, in fact, two entirely different situations?
The reality is that the other parks are under no threat from native title claims that did not exist before the High Court ruling or may come in the future, because native title is a fact of life that has to be addressed whenever a claim is made. In fact, if you look in today’s newspaper, the listing of claims over 12 areas of the Territory including Adelaide River, Koolpinyah, areas around Mataranka and Larrimah and so on, are there. It is a fact of life in the Northern Territory. Indeed, one of these claims is over the Devils Marbles Conservation Reserve, which is also on the list of parks available for claim under the Land Rights Act. So, if the Chief Minister is not protecting Territorians’ interest with regard to the 38 remaining parks whilst this good faith negotiation is taking place, you can be damned sure the land councils are protecting their interests, because over certainly one of the 11, they have ensured that they maintain the land claim litigious aspect of it in place.
That is the fact of life with native title. These claims have to be addressed as to what native title does exist, what it comprises, and whether or not it has been extinguished for any reason.
It is worth recalling that native title is no one thing, as the Chief Minister claims to assert, or tends to assert too easily. It is actually a bundle of rights. It is laid down very clearly by the National Native Title Tribunal and they explain it in this way:
- When indigenous Australians make a native title claimant application they are seeking recognition under Australian
law of their native title rights. For example, an application may claim the right to go onto land to practise
traditional ceremonies, to gather food and bush medicines, and in some cases, to live on the land and share in the
return for the resources of the area.
It goes on:
- Often claims are made for non-exclusive or shared rights. Native title rights can exist and be exercised alongside
the rights of other people. This is called co-existence. The recognition of native title does not take away other
people’s rights over the same area.
And the important point that the Native Title Tribunal makes is this: ‘Indigenous Australians are not being given land under native title’. Now, that is straight out of the Native Title Tribunal: are not being given land under native title.
So, how does that sit with what we have been told today by the Chief Minister? She seems to be saying that native title claims and land rights claims are interchangeable. No title to the parks needs to be changed to address native title issues; that is clear. Yet, that is what this statement aims to do. The Chief Minister is sending the very clear signal that as part of resolving the land claims over the 11 parks, she is willing to hand over title to some, or all, of the other 38. That point should be very clear to Territorians. It should be very clear that this Labor government is preparing to relinquish the rights of all Territorians to the park estate to solve this so-called crisis.
That should not be done; it should not be entertained; it should not be on the table. Any native title that exists over any of the parks may have been extinguished, or it may need to be compensated, or it may co-exist with the operation of the park. We need an assurance from the government that in its negotiations it will explore and resolve exactly what native title rights do exist, and not just do a blanket deal and accept that the full bundle of native title rights exist in all cases.
The spurious suggestions by the Chief Minister, that somehow her policy of handing over the parks will enable, in her words, ‘the establishment of a viable and well resourced park system’, is a damning and undeserved indictment of all those who have strived for years, and for so long, and so hard, to establish the great parks system that we already have in the Northern Territory. She says her deal will lead to investment in park infrastructure and development, improve tourism services, opportunities and indigenous employment opportunities. I ask the question: why can’t that happen now? What is the thing that is somehow tied up in this High Court decision that is hamstringing that particular initiative and development now? If it is not happening now, it is not happening because of this decision or anything that the Chief Minister intends to negotiate. And in fact, it did happen under previous CLP governments. There were many opportunities in many parks for indigenous employment, and development, and enterprising ventures.
Any deal this government is preparing to do does not preclude it happening now or make it any more likely it will happen in the future. Nor do you need any deal to have Aboriginal involvement on the board of the management of the parks. The government can do that now. You do not need to do this deal to have Aborigines involved on the board of management.
The Chief Minister says that the end result will be a larger and better resourced parks estate for the Northern Territory. But I ask the question: how does handing over the parks estate contribute to them being larger or better resourced? These actions of the government have no impact whatsoever for a larger and better resourced parks estate. That should be their aim now, as it was to CLP governments, to have large and good resourced parks. It does not change because of these rulings or these actions. That is proved, from the CLP point of view, if you look at the parks estate, you look at how well resourced they are; actions that we have been conducting since 1978. But this deal is totally opposite to that particular ideal.
Let me pick up on a number of other points that the Chief Minister made. She criticises me for not saying how long an ordinate approach would take, but offers no time scale for how long she will take to hand over the parks estate. Will it take six months, 12 or 18 months for these negotiations? How long does it take to sign over the parks?
The second point is the Chief Minister’s attempt to blame the previous government for the crisis she claims exists. Somehow, the previous CLP government was supposed to have worked out native title 14 years before the High Court did. Somehow, the previous CLP government was supposed to have second-guessed the latest ruling, even though it came as a surprise to her government and to the land councils.
I am also becoming a little tired of the mantra continually trotted out about how much money the CLP cost Territorians by contesting land claims. The government has already found out that land claims have to be tested. They are doing that themselves. Somehow, you justify your actions by claiming it is in the public interest when you do it, but when the CLP did it, it was red-necked and racist. What hypocrisy!
The final point, Madam Speaker, is more crucial. I ask the question: just how much are Territorians going to have to pay for their parks in the future? The Chief Minister is at pains to point out that parks will remain accessible to all Territorians and visitors on a no-fee, no-permit basis. While I accept that as a core principle of this government, it does not address how much of Territorians’ funds will be paid out each year to lease back the parks that she hands title over for. Will it be a global figure for the whole deal? Will it be an annual fee for each an every park? Will further fees be charged to rent back any of the infrastructure already developed in any of the parks? Will tourist developments or cafes and canteens have to pay fees to the new owners, or will they be wrapped up in the government’s leasing deal? No matter which way you look at it, Territorians will be paying for access to their parks under this government deal. For many of the parks, that is not necessary except now for the actions that this government has decided upon.
The Chief Minister has managed to forecast how much this would cost if the litigation route were followed. She says it would be between $50m and $100m over 30 years. To that, I simply say they must be a litigious lot, these land councils, because it is not the government that is going to litigate on any of these matters, so they must be a litigious lot, very generous with the taxpayers purse. Perhaps she could be equally prescient and tell us how much it will cost Territorians to lease back all these parks for the rest of time.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I will put a suggestion to the Chief Minister. If she is so intent on doing a deal about our parks, why not make it really worthwhile and include Kakadu and Uluru and bring them back into the Territory parks estate? The former parks minister, the member for Casuarina, made the government’s position quite clear on Kakadu and Uluru only last month when he said:
- The joint management of those parks with the government is a matter for the traditional owners to decide. As minister
for the Environment, I would like the Territory more involved in those joint management arrangements. I reiterate this
is a matter ultimately for the traditional owners.
So, in this global negotiation over the Territory parks estate, in this atmosphere of non-litigious goodwill, why not get Kakadu and Uluru put on the table and, in doing so, achieve a real expansion? Why not? It would not only be an expansion of the Territory parks estate, but I am sure the government’s no-fee policy would be extended to these two icons. That would provide a tangible return and a positive aspect to this whole deal.
In conclusion, we do accept that the government has to do something about the 11 parks affected by land rights claims. If they can achieve an acceptable outcome for those parks by negotiation, then on that score, that is a good thing. However, we are very concerned that this government is using the High Court ruling to pursue its own agenda of handing over large areas of parks that belong to all Territorians when there is no need to do so.
The Chief Minister’s statement today has done nothing to dissuade me that that is not their intention. I cannot understand why if one half of the negotiating table continues to protect their rights by ensuring that land claims continue to be made and will continue that based on the High Court decision, why doesn’t the government follow the procedures that are laid down under the Native Title Act where the government can freely negotiate, but at the same time protect its interests to compulsorily acquire? In doing so, an acceptable negotiated outcome can be achieved and where it cannot be achieved under the processes of the Native Title Act, compensatory payments can be made for native title rights that may be deemed to have been lost, and that compensation will be shared equally with fellow Australians.
From both sides of the equation, the procedures are in place and it can be done in an atmosphere of good will. The Chief Minister refers to the situation with Rosebery and Bellamack but what she cheerfully admits is that as part of reaching the acceptable outcome on Rosebery and Bellamack, the government maintained its position of moving to compulsory acquire.
To give away that position at the outset, and claiming that this is a good deal, stating also that the claimant or would be claimants, because most claimants, have not even come to the table for 38 of the parks, to already concede that the claimants whom we do not know and who have not yet lodged a claim are already the traditional owners is, to my mind, like giving away every bargaining position you have. Well done, a good effort in your mind, good Territory Labor policy. Call us rednecks if you like. If that is your position, fine. I believe any reasonable minded person would believe that any government has an obligation to not only achieve a win/win solution, but also to achieve it in a way that protects the interests of everyone.
It seems to me that at the start, at the outset, the interests that are paramount are those would be unknown claimants who have not even begun to claim. We know how powerful they are and we know the power of their representation. The government needs to ensure that it is equally armed to reach an equitable solution. It is a worrying statement. It creates, I believe, an alarming situation at the outset, where the Chief Minister quite cheerfully talks about title changing to many of our parks in a situation where it is totally unnecessary to make those statements.
Those parks are there for all Territorians. The management regime that is in place is good. The opportunity for joint management arrangements and better opportunities for Aboriginal people remain and can always be improved outside of this particular action. I believe it is a sad day for Territorians when the Chief Minister and the government quite cheerfully look forward to the day that all Territorians can enjoy less and less of their parks estate.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I pick up on some of the comments made by the opposition leader, basically to let him know that as far as the government is concerned, this is a win/win situation. In rising to commend the Chief Minister’s statement on parks and reserves, I point out that this is one that holds enormous significance for the future of the Northern Territory for two important reasons.
First, it marks a irrevocable shift in the way government does business. The days of secretive back room deals, with vested interests, mindless confrontation and damaging disputation are over. The people of the Northern Territory have demanded that we treat them and their representative organisations with openness, transparency and honesty, whether they be miners, tourism operators, fishermen, business people or ordinary citizens. They have demanded that we seek solutions that provide win/win solutions for all sectors of society. This government has listened.
The second critical significance of the statement is that it recognises that we must harness the skills, knowledge, and financial and human capital of our citizens if we are to build a strong, vibrant and independent community. National parks are one of the key assets of the Northern Territory in terms of the maintenance of biodiversity and tourism. Therefore, it is vital that we pursue strategies that will combine all our collective resources and to work together as a community.
The approach outlined by the Chief Minister makes a virtue of the fact that all parties have been consulted, and will continue to be consulted, over ways to maximise the benefit of these parks and reserves. It is a simple logic that seems to have escaped the attention of the Leader of the Opposition. Funnily enough, it was a simple logic that for a brief time seemed to be embraced by the Country Liberal Party, but which is now rejected by them. The Leader of the Opposition now seems to be saying that recognising Aboriginal interest in national parks is a process of being conned into giving up our parks. Yet, in the case of Nitmiluk, the CLP government put into place a properly negotiated joint management plan that fully took into account Aboriginal interests.
In the 1980s and 1990s, I was privileged to work with the senior Jawoyn people who were to form the first board of the Nitmiluk National Park. This group of proud Aboriginal men and women had spent two years appearing before land claim hearings, and then they had a five-year wait before the Land Commissioner recommended the return of Nitmiluk to its traditional owners. They then faced further delays. I should point out that the then CLP government, through most of the 1980s, opposed the Jawoyn claim in Nitmiluk in no uncertain terms. Indeed, a predecessor of yours, as Speaker, led rowdy demonstrations in the streets of Katherine. As a park ranger, the current Deputy Opposition Leader made accusing statements against the Jawoyn claiming they would remove Katherine Gorge from the Northern Territory parks estate.
The Jawoyn elders had always made their position clear from the time of the land claim hearings through to getting the Nitmiluk National Park established under joint management with the Northern Territory government. They wanted to care for their traditional lands as a national park. They wanted to do that in partnership with the people of the Northern Territory. They wanted to establish the park as the basis for the future economic independence of their people, their children and grandchildren, through economic enterprise and land management activities. Since 1989, the Nitmiluk board has been doing these things. In all of this, not a single non-Aboriginal person has lost his or her job. Indeed, the opposite is true. There are many more sustainable jobs at Nitmiluk as park rangers, tour guides and other employees than back in 1989.
All but two of those first board members have since passed away. I am certain that the regime they established and nurtured since 1989 would be the model they would have wanted other Aboriginal groups in the Territory to follow. The great irony is that the joint management arrangements set in place back in 1989 had bilateral support in this parliament, and the active endorsement of the then Country Liberal Party government. But let us get it clear. Since 1989, the CLP has refused to countenance a single other Nitmiluk-style joint management arrangement anywhere in the Northern Territory; that is, in 12 years, they have refused to have anything to do with meaningful joint management arrangements with Aboriginal people.
Just listen to what the Opposition Leader wrote the other week. He said that, while the CLP would negotiate Nitmiluk-style arrangements, he would refuse to accept any native title interests in Territory parks and reserves. He would have them extinguished. He would rather pour taxpayers’ money into the pockets of lawyers as he fights compensation claims over each and every parcel of land. While he said he would negotiate with the CLC over 11 land rights claims under the Land Rights Act, so they remain within the parks estate, he seems to think it is all right to have the other 38 parks and reserves become legal wilderness zones while he fights all native title claims.
If we went down that path of litigation rather than negotiation, these parks could not be developed or provide jobs and training opportunities until their status was decided. No sensible Territorian would want that outcome. Let us look closely at what we can learn from the arrangements the CLP put in place after the successful Jawoyn land claim over Nitmiluk. The first is that Nitmiluk continues to build on its success as one of the important tourism assets we have in the Territory. A key part of that success is joint management between traditional owners and the Territory government. Yes, the traditional owners of Nitmiluk have shown that Aboriginal and broader community interests can work together rather than against each other. The fact that Aboriginal interests are an integral part of their arrangement is because of the pride and certainty the Jawoyn people have in the recognition of their traditional ownership, and in their capacity to provide leadership on the board of management. Indeed, all the market research shows us that increasing numbers of visitors to the Territory value highly Aboriginal involvement in our parks and reserves and indeed, they want more of it.
The second thing we can learn is that the economic venture half owned by the Jawoyn people, Nitmiluk Tours, has traded successfully and profitably throughout its joint venture with Travel North. This is despite the obstacles faced by the tourism industry in recent years, such as 11 September, the collapse of Ansett, and more recently, the tragic event in Bali. In this, I would like to pay tribute to Travel North’s Werner Sarny and his previous partner, Brian Lambert, for their visionary contributions to developments at Nitmiluk, not least of which has been their willingness and desire to work closely with Aboriginal people in an important economic enterprise.
The third thing we can learn is that it is entirely feasible to raise capital for ventures on Aboriginal land. Much of the expansion of visitor facilities at the Gorge over the past half a dozen years has been made possible through capital raised by the Jawoyn through private financial institutions. The fourth thing we can learn is that Aboriginal economic enterprise in national parks can provide sustainable benefits for Aboriginal people in training and employment. Visit Nitmiluk today and compare it to a decade ago. Aboriginal people are rising through the ranks of both the parks service and the enterprises in Nitmiluk in greater numbers.
What we want is to learn the lessons of the past, and the lesson from Nitmiluk is that joint management can work. It is an interesting fact that it was the CLP that showed the way. In this case, what a shame now they are not following their own lead. We need to learn the lesson from Nitmiluk that when it comes to Aboriginal economic development, study the good partnerships that can develop with non-Aboriginal commercial operators. We need to acknowledge the fundamental importance of recognising the legitimate interests of Aboriginal stakeholders in land and the importance that that recognition has in building confidence and pride and hope for the future. We can learn from the example set by the Jawoyn in their engagement with the capital market for investment funds. We must recognise the importance and benefit of sustainable long term training and employment for indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians.
The resolution of land issues over parks and reserves can give us an important lead in this regard. The choice is between the shortsighted politics of confrontation and litigation versus the process of negotiation in which we can make a collective investment in the future for our national parks. It is time for a proper masterplan for our parks and reserves that incorporates all these positive elements through properly worked out plans of management taking into account all proper interests. We look, for example, the change of national parks, pastoral properties and traditional Aboriginal clan estates, being linked in terms of land management, such as through traditional and contemporary fire management regimes. We look towards visitor experiences that can maximise our assets such that visitors can pass through such a chain of different lands and sustainable land uses from north to south, and east to west of the Northern Territory. This might involve, for example, joint venture tourism operations stretching from Coburg through Kakadu and Western Arnhem Land, and south through Nitmiluk and Elsey and hence south east to the Roper and the Gulf or west through Gregory and Keep River, or south west through the Tanami.
This is the kind of vision that all Territorians will support, not the knee-jerk rear view mirror appeals for litigation offered us by our opponents. Just because the policies are recycled does not mean that they are environmentally sound.
I would like to make one final point: the financial cost of travelling the road of court battles and extinguishing native title and of forking out compensation has been estimated over the next decade or so at anything between $50m to $100m. Imagine what the government could better spend that money on: Aboriginal and other private interests alike on investment in conservation projects, visitor infrastructure, accommodation, training and employment. I do not know about you, Madam Speaker, but it sounds a heck of a lot better approach than lining the pockets of lawyer for the next 20 years.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a few comments in relation to what has been said here today. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition surmised the position of the opposition particularly well, in a careful and articulate fashion. I am pleased that the debate is proceeding in a calm and rational fashion which is something that is long overdue with these sorts of debates in this House and I am grateful for it. I am grateful to the minister for the consideration of his comments, but I would like to pick up on a few things without being critical of the minister at all.
There is nothing inconsistent with what the Leader of the Opposition said and what occurred at Nitmiluk in terms of the claims process. What occurred was that the Jawoyn people asserted a claim of right over the Katherine Gorge and the Northern Territory government of the day said, ‘We are the keepers of that estate on behalf of the Crown and ultimately the people of the Northern Territory and if, under the Land Rights Act, you wish to assert a claim of right, we, as keepers of the estate, want to test the validity of that claim’. This does not change the law. It does not change anything other than the fact that we are saying to a person who lodges a claim against the Commonwealth of the Northern Territory that they should prove that claim as being lawful which the Jawoyn successfully did.
When the Jawoyn successfully proved that claim as being a lawful claim, the Northern Territory government of the day was perfectly well prepared to engage in a joint management arrangement to ensure the joint management into the future of that piece of private property which was owned by the Jawoyn people. The Jawoyn people agreed with the Northern Territory government of the day that for their return of expertise and money and those sorts of things, they would engage in a 99 year lease, I think it is, or a 50 year lease over that park so that the park could continue to operate as a park into the future for the benefit of all Territorians.
There is nothing inconsistent with that approach in what the Leader of the Opposition has said today. What is being proposed here is different from that process. That process is now changed under what is being proposed by the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister is proposing that we accept prima facie that there are automatically people with a right of claim over some 11 parks in terms of land rights claims and a further 38 in terms of native title issues and automatically, especially in terms of the native title issue, the Chief Minister is already asserting that people who have yet to put their hand up already have native title rights over particular areas. That is a very large step sideways from asking people to prove those native title rights and all of the …
Ms Martin: No, it is not. The CLP did it in government all the time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It is a large step sideways from simply asking people to prove the claim that they make. Now a government may choose, and the CLP government did choose, to accept that prima facie - which is a demonstration that it is indeed a myth that we resisted all land rights claims. Tempe Downs is a classic example, Central Mount Wedge also springs to mind. So, we can accept prime facie a claim that is made against the estate of the Northern Territory but there are occasions when it is proper and fitting that a government should ask the claimant to make a test.
Recently in the case of De Rose Hill in South Australia, claimants who would appear on the face of it to have a strong claim after being tested did not or were not able to establish their native title claim over a pastoral lease despite the fact that they were Pitjantjatjara speakers. So there are times when it is valid to be able to ask a group of people to assert the claim that they make against Commonwealth property held on behalf of all Territorians including Aboriginal Territorians. Aboriginal Territorians are just as capable of enjoying the amenity of national parks or the Territory parks estate as any other Territorian. The step which the Chief Minister is taking in this instance is saying that all of the parks estate are prepared to engage in a management plan. That will involve the transfer from the public estate into private ownership of some of those parks. How many of those parks she does not make clear.
All I am saying is that we have to be very careful as we take this approach. This is the stated position of the government. Even when they were in opposition they said they wanted to negotiate ILUAs, the Indigenous Land Use Agreements. This is essentially an Indigenous Land Use Agreement over the Territory’s parks estate. What we need to know is how much of the parks estate is going to transfer from public ownership, ownership that every Territorian has including Aboriginal Territorians, into private hands and what the effect of that is going to be.
The Chief Minister says that this is all done in an effort to avoid litigation. That is fine; I have no problems with that approach. But bear in mind that she has already stipulated six key areas, principles, they are like lines in the sand, where we will not allow this situation or these principles to be breached. What happens, Chief Minister, if the other party you are negotiating with chooses in one fashion or another to step over one of those boundaries? You then have two choices. You either continue to negotiate and give ground on an area where you have vacated the field, or draw a line in the sand and the matter ends up before an arbiter. Whether the Chief Minister likes it or not, that arbiter is none other than the courts. I am intrigued and I am heartened by the areas of principle the Chief Minister has outlined, but what I want from the Chief Minister today is a clear and unequivocal statement that those positions will not be retreated from at all as a starting point in the negotiated process.
There is another aspect I am a little concerned about. Information has come to my attention which demonstrates that where the Chief Minister and the government have been prepared to give ground for purposes of goodwill negotiation, I am not entirely certain that the other potential claimants in this environment are entirely prepared to negotiate. That is evidenced by, as I understand it, a great deal of activity in the West MacDonnell National Park, where I notice that six of the gorges in question are located, there is a heavy amount of anthropological activity. That is indicative to me that the other party which is involved in the negotiation process may be preparing for a litigation process, because that is the sort of work that is required to be done to prove things. If they feel that they have to prove things when we have a Chief Minister who is in the position of saying, ‘I am prepared to negotiate’, then I am concerned that those are the signals that they are sending. I certainly hope that that is not the case, but I know in recent times that level of activity has sharply increased.
I am also wondering if the Chief Minister can answer me a simple question as to how many of the parks in question - that is, Gregory’s Tree Historical Reserve, Arltunga Historical Reserve, Chambers Pillar Historical Reserve, Devils Marbles Conservation Reserve, Emily and Jessie Gaps Nature Park, Ewaninga Rock Carvings Conservation Reserve, Finke Gorge National Park, N’Dhala Gorge Nature Park, Trephina Gorge Nature Park and parts of the West MacDonnell National Park are actually standing on LandCorp land, and how many of them are listed as reserves on the parks estate? I would like the Chief Minister to answer that question if she is able to do so.
I am also intrigued by her comment in relation to seeking Commonwealth funds to assist with the management of the parks. I would like to see where the Chief Minister anticipates these Commonwealth funds coming from, and does this mean in any way that the National Parks and Wildlife Service will be gaining any form of control or input into the management of the Territory parks estate? That is also an important issue and a matter for Territorians to be reassured about. The other question that is worth posing is how much will this cost should there be a transfer of land title back into private hands in lease-back arrangements? Will we have to lease back roads, will we have to lease back quarters for the staff of the Territory Parks service, those sorts of things? It is also important that we have an estimation, at least, of how much that process will cost.
I am curious to know also, how the Chief Minister anticipates, as a result of this, the parks estate of the Northern Territory is going to be larger and if the Chief Minister can indicate as to whether or not the other negotiating parties are prepared to put up other sections of the Northern Territory which they privately own, as being part of the parks estate, or whether she intends to purchase pastoral leases for that purpose? I am curious about the word ‘larger’ because I presume it means bigger in terms of its physical size and that means acquiring land from somewhere to that end. I would like to hear from the Chief Minister exactly what ‘larger’ means.
In terms of better resourced, is she solely relying on the funds of the federal government to better resource the parks and what sources is she anticipating? Or does she anticipate that the potential private owners of the park will also place some funds into the bucket so that they can help develop the parks for the goals that the Chief Minister has outlined? It is very important, if they are planning to do so, that that also be announced. It would be good to see that goodwill coming out from the potential private owners of the parks estate.
Ultimately, I also wish to point out that the CLP does have a history of negotiating native title outcomes. Rosebery and Bellamack have been discussed here today, and that is quite correct. It was a negotiated outcome. It is entirely possible at any time to negotiate for native title purposes over any piece of land, and yes, it does require the goodwill of both parties. The goodwill of the CLP was always available to other protagonists, and it must be remembered that the cost of litigation in relation to these sorts of claims begins when somebody makes a claim against the government. Which means that when we talk about $20m worth of litigation over a place like Kenbi, or we talk about the $1m worth of litigation over various other places, it was very often that the Northern Territory government was formally the respondent, which means that it was responding to a claim lodged against it.
Madam Speaker, I support the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in this House today. However, we are not in government. The Labor Party holds government, and the Chief Minister is the head of this government, and they have made a decision to pursue this process. I hope it works out for them and more to the point, I hope that it results in the best outcomes for the people of the Northern Territory. But I am concerned that by making too many concessions too early in the process, that too much ground may have been given in that process, and if the matter ends up in court, which is something that the Chief Minister is not able to guarantee this House, I hope that the promises and assertions that she made here today do not come back to haunt her.
Mr VATSKALIS (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, the truth is that the Australian High Court has ruled that 50 of our park declarations are invalid. This government has sought legal advice from both our respected Solicitor General, Tom Pauling, QC and a Senior Counsel from New South Wales, and the advice was clear. The High Court decision means that 50 park declarations are invalid. They remain open to existing and potential native title determinations and native title compensation claims, and 11 parks are now subject to land claims.
This government was faced with two clear choices: fight this in the courts, or negotiate an outcome that resolves the matter forever. This government chose negotiation. Why? Well, we looked at the history. Every CLP administration has fought these type of issues, and every CLP administration has lost. Almost every land claim fought was lost. Native title legal battles had very mixed results. We also looked at the financial costs. Considerably, the legal option would cost us between $50m and $100m and we probably would fare very badly. For $100m I can employ a thousand rangers and I can have the best parks system in the world. In addition, we can probably employ numerous police, more nurses, more teachers. We could add enormously to our social and economic infrastructure. $100m is a lot of money; it is a lot of money to spend on lawyers.
We looked at the cost to the community. There is a cost of division, a cost that we have all paid in the last number of years. There is the cost of having our parks system in limbo for 20 years. No new parks, all parks unattended and unable to have a management system in place, and questions about our regulations. There is the cost of having other policy initiatives such as improved land release, development of Aboriginal land, the resolution of measure of standing acquisition of native title issues, all placed in jeopardy. We looked closely at policy issues: what was in the best interest of the Territory and Territorians? It is in the conservation by diversity interests for the Territory to have a first class park system. It is in the financial interest of the Territory to promote our parks as major tourist attractions. It is in the development interest of the Territory to have the future infrastructure and needs of our parks rolling along smoothly. It is in education, training and employment interests of the Territory, to have more Aboriginal people being trained, skilled and employed in our parks system. It is in the interest of good governance of the Territory that all people are united and work towards one purpose, not divided by litigation and division.
Given those important interests, the policy decision for government is and was clear. Having established the right way to go, the government then went about fleshing out our position. We determined what principles guided the negotiation; these principles would be embedded in the outcomes of negotiations and draw a line beyond which the government will not go. Those broad principles are:
resolution by negotiation rather than through the courts;
Territory parks and reserves will remain accessible to all Territorians and visitors on a no-fee,
no permit basis. No fee, no entry fee;
business as usual in parks while negotiations are completed;
where title changes, it is conditional on being leased back to the government for use as parks and
subject to joint management arrangements; and
current mining exploration leases and current tour operator concessions are guaranteed.
Those principles mean that the way in which Territorians enjoy their parks will not change. Access will remain as is. There will be no fees, there will be no permits and there will be business as usual. Regardless of title to the land, the Territory government will receive the land through very long-term leases. Existing rights of tourist franchises and mining operation leases all remain in place. The government has specifically acted to protect the interests of the mining industry by including a core principle in any negotiation which guarantees existing exploration and mining leases and existing applications.
Just as importantly, we will take the opportunity to put in place a comprehensive park master planning process that will proceed over the next 18 months to systematically examine the parks estate and recommend on future land use. The government recognises that apart from Aboriginal interests, there are also legitimate interests in the parks estate involving the mining industry. We know there are areas that might be appropriate for multiple land use. The master planning process will involve extensive consultation with mining interests to canvass options to accommodate their needs within the parks estate.
These principles retain the essential operation of our parks as they are today by the enhancement of those operations by leading to the resolution of all outstanding legal issues. Those outstanding legal issues have tied up our park management for many years. Since 1998, the previous government and this one have had our plans for park expansion and development tied up in legalities. The declaration and expansion of further parks had ceased. The Limmen National Park, for example, is actually not a real park. It is a park in name only, a sign at its entrance. There is no legal basis for its existence. Park expansion in the Gregory region has ceased, and yet, here we have an area with two parks divided by Aboriginal land that should be merged into one large park. The implications for management, the implications for weed control, feral animal control and for biodiversity management are clearly damaged by this arrangement and the government must act to fix it.
In Central Australia, our existing park master plan calls for the establishment of a greater park stretching from Palm Valley through Watarrka to Uluru. Such an expansion of the parks would add enormous value to the conservation effort of the Territory and contribute greatly to the national effort. This plan has been stalled from day one because of the title and land tenure issues. It must be acted upon and resolved.
When this government inherited the parks portfolio, we inherited the Devonport Murchison legal matter, the Cobourg Peninsula legal problems, the breakdown in management of wildlife programs in some areas due to legal matters, the Murganella legal standoff, the Limmen Park legal standoff, the Gregory Park stall, the ongoing dispute over the Devils Marbles, and the list goes on. We inherited a parks system in legal crisis. All of these things and more had been bogged down in a legal mire for a number of years. Can we afford to have them bogged down for another 20 years? I think not.
Once the original shock of these decisions settled, and once the government saw a clear policy path, we opened our eyes to the opportunities created by this decision. It is more than just an opportunity to overcome damaging, divisive and costly legal matters; it is the opportunity to expand our parks system. It is an opportunity to improve our conservation and biodiversity regimes. It is the opportunity to expand the tourism industry. The Tourism Master Plan identifies parks as being our crown jewels. It identifies parks and our environment as a key attractor of tourists to the Territory.
Tourism industry representatives to whom we have spoken see this as a unique opportunity. They want more infrastructure in parks and a resolution of legal issues that have been holding up their expansion. This will be achieved by these negotiations. It is also an opportunity for the Territory to lead the nation in practical reconciliation. For too long reconciliation has been used as a buzz-word; sometimes I feel that no practical outcomes are easily identifiable.
By approaching this type of situation in the way we have, the government is demonstrating reconciliation. By responding positively in the way we have, the land councils are now confirming their willingness to be part of this reconciliation and the future of the Territory. I am very pleased to say that we have reached several agreements with the land councils and one, in particular, that will interest you in Central Australia. We have a new way of doing business with the land councils. They trust us, and we trust them, and soon we will have some very good news to announce about Central Australia. News that will certainly please the tourism industry and the building industry. The outcome of all of which will be positive and will be the demonstration of practical reconciliation. It will mean jobs, training, careers for Aboriginal people and it will bring money to depressed Aboriginal communities. It will also help the general community in the area. It will provide, in some cases, title to areas of significance to Aboriginal people. It is a significant shift from the politics of division and litigation and one I am proud to be part of.
With these positive outcomes and the likely result of the negotiation, I fail to see what, if any objections, can be held by the CLP. After all, the Labor government did not create this issue. The High Court made this decision. The legislation that failed was not legislation that we introduced but legislation the previous CLP government introduced. We have not highlighted this to score political points. We would like to, but we choose not to. We understand the moveable nature of legal opinion. I urge all members of this House to approach this issue in the same positive framework we have, and urge all members to await the outcomes of what will be tough, but interesting, negotiations.
These negotiations are not going to be easy. There are vested interests, our vested interest in the Territory. They will be tough negotiations, but I believe at the end, the outcome will be very positive. At the end of the day, it must be outcomes that are judged here, and I believe these outcomes will be extremely positive for the Territory, for all Territorians, Aboriginal Territorians and all other Territorians.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Chief Minister’s statement. The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment’s division of conservation and natural resources will negotiate a new comprehensive parks masterplan with the NT land councils to expand and more effectively manage the Northern Territory parks estate. This negotiation process presents many benefits for the tourism industry, particularly in gaining access to previously inaccessible indigenous land, and in developing closer links with indigenous people. I understand that the Tourism Council of the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry was present at the initial briefing on this issue and was very positive about the opportunities for the tourism industry.
The Northern Territory’s Tourism Strategic Plan 2003-07 identifies some of the major building blocks to build a better tourism industry in the Northern Territory. The two integral building blocks are nature-based tourism and cultural tourism. The importance of these two building blocks to our tourism industry is demonstrated by the following statistic. In 2001-02, 54% of interstate and international holiday visitors undertook to see indigenous art and engage in other cultural activities. While in the Territory, 50% went bushwalking. These were the top two activities for holiday visitors and the key points of difference that we can build on. It will be immediately obvious to members that there is potential for huge linkages between these two areas. Consumers have, for some time, requested more opportunity for interaction with indigenous people on their own land and this principle forms the basis of indigenous cultural product offerings.
At an indigenous tourism workshop I hosted last Thursday in Alice Springs, indigenous people were clear that they were interested in further developing appropriate cultural tourism products that would be sustainable and match their lifestyles. They are very keen on joint venture-type arrangements to assist and advance projects. Talking informally with members of the tourism industry in Alice Springs last week, including some of these people at the indigenous tourism workshop, it seems that there are quite a number of tourists who are actually demanding, if you like, an indigenous tourism experience. Some of them, I am told, question quite closely: ‘Where is this money going? Who is it benefiting?’ Often they will pick products based on that inquiry, so it is a very important aspect.
The renegotiation of the parks master plan presents an opportunity to engage indigenous people, and to give tourists increased access to areas, such as Arnhem Land, which are currently largely inaccessible. As someone who has travelled quite extensively in Arnhem Land, in some of those more inaccessible regions, I know the beauty and potential of those areas and the wonderful people who live there. This represents a fantastic opportunity. There are places there just as special as Jim Jim Falls or Gunlom. Tourism operators feel these areas may well form the foundation of our industry right through this century and into the next.
The essential part of this process is that we need to work in partnership with the land councils, not against them. I commend the Chief Minister for choosing this path; I believe it is the best way forward. I always believed that negotiation and dialogue is probably the best way forward, instead of conflict, battle and wasting valuable resources - but also setting up bad feelings, conflict, and enmity, which I do not think do anyone any good.
During the indigenous tourism workshop last week, Nick Dicandilo and Robert Lee from the Jawoyn Association gave a presentation on their activities in the Nitmiluk National Park. Nitmiluk in Katherine, as the member for Arnhem said previously, is an excellent example of how successful a joint management arrangement can be for the Northern Territory government, the traditional owners and the tourism industry. I was very interested to hear the member for Arnhem talk about some of the history. I do not want to rake over the coals but I can remember watching 60 Minutes a decade or so ago showing people in the main streets of Katherine. There were some quite nasty feelings and things being said about doom and gloom and the sky was going to fall in. However, the last time I visited Nitmiluk, the place was full of tourists; the local operators were operating at full capacity and everyone was having a great time. We have to be careful when we say the world is falling apart and this is the beginning of the end. It sets up bad feelings between people and it is not constructive.
Within Nitmiluk, as the member for Arnhem has said, the Katherine Gorge has remained accessible to all people and there is no entry fee to the park. Importantly, the visitors centre heightens tourists’ experience at the park through the sharing of the indigenous culture of the area. Again, consumers have been telling us that they want to gain an increased appreciation of indigenous culture during their Northern Territory experience and the Nitmiluk model is fulfilling this market need.
The Northern Territory government’s position, as stated by the Chief Minister, is that Territory parks and reserves will remain accessible to all Territorians and visitors on a no-fee, no-permit basis. This is strongly supported by the tourism industry. It will be business as usual for tourism operators with concessionaire arrangements within Northern Territory parks while the negotiation process takes place. Importantly, the path being taken by this government assists the delivery of certainty for our tourism operators. In the international market place, it is essential that consumers can have faith that their booked tour to a park will, in fact, occur. Without certainty in our parks, we cannot expect tourism operators to undertake product development. Had the Northern Territory followed this path, it could have stagnated our product at the worse possible time and called the whole product into question. Instead, we have the opportunity to negotiate new areas being open for tourism, a fabulous result.
Madam Speaker, I commend this government and the Chief Minister for the conciliatory approach it has taken in working in partnership with land councils, and also looking to protect the interests of the tourism industry and other industries and, certainly, opening up a path for visitors to the Territory to experience the special beauty of our place, of our Territory, and understand more about indigenous culture. I commend this statement to the House.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I will not take too much time. I thank my colleagues for their contribution. I cannot thank the two opposition members who spoke, because their contributions were not constructive. This was a situation that emerged from a decision of the High Court. There were two clear options for a government who wanted to see jobs created, enterprises started and flourishing, and when the alternative presented to government was simply to litigate and spend tens of millions of dollars on lawyers, I do not think that there actually was a choice for government.
I am not keen on litigation. I will litigate, but I am not keen on litigation. With an opportunity like this presented to us with the 50-odd parks and reserves in the Territory, then what government has done - and it would have been nice to have had some recognition from the opposition that we have taken a potential problem and a potentially very tricky problem and created an opportunity for Territorians. This is what good government is about, and that is what we are determined to do. It disappoints me greatly that the Opposition Leader, who was given a detailed briefing before this was made public, and had opportunity to ask all the questions he would like about what had happened, what our approach was going to be, how we were going to ensure that the parks and reserves were accessible for all Territorians, talked about the principles we were going to take to any negotiation, walked out of that meeting and immediately started to distort what he had heard and mislead Territorians. It is very disappointing. It makes someone like the Opposition Leader irrelevant to the process, and that is not what we want.
I was hoping that the Opposition Leader and other members of the opposition would listen to what the problem was, and work with us for a solution. But all we have is distortion. We have the CLP, whose patterns on this have been developed over many years, talking the kind of rhetoric we have heard before, ‘Look what the Labor government’s going to do, they are going to give away our parks, they are going to cost us millions of dollars, they are rolling over’, and implicit in what we heard from the Opposition Leader was, you are rolling over to indigenous Aboriginal interests and casting again, in relatively sophisticated terms, that the land councils are not to be trusted.
This is what cost us tens of millions of dollars in litigation, year after year after year. Because we had a CLP government that would not sit down and talk to indigenous interests, and certainly would not sit down and talk to land councils. While I am not pretending that these negotiations over the parks and reserves future are going to be straightforward I am not pretending they are going to happen in a short time frame. We think it will be somewhere between 18 months and two years. We think sitting down at the table shows good will. Not the head butting approach, the protagonistic approach we have seen before, but sitting down at the table and discussing these issues in a way that will benefit all Territorians, while recognising legitimate indigenous interests, native title interests and the land rights interests, recognising the indigenous and ecotourism potential of Territory parks and reserves, and creating a world class parks master system for the Territory.
What an exciting opportunity. It is going to be tough, but what an exciting opportunity, to actually build our tourism market, build the potential of tourism for the Territory and at the same time be able to give tourists and our visitors, whether from interstate or overseas, the opportunities they are telling us they want more of. They want to know about indigenous culture. They want to see our beautiful areas, our pristine areas of the Territory, and they want that Territorian experience. You combine both and we really have magic here. Combine that with the opportunity to create jobs in those parks, and enterprises, while at the same time recognising the tourism interest currently there, and the mining interest currently there.
What offended me about what we heard from the Leader of the Opposition, and also from the member for Macdonnell, was that I have gone out very clearly and said so many times, these are our core principles. I sat down with the land councils and said: ‘We have two ways to go here. We can litigate. We can take the parks and the reserves one by one, and we can go through the court system. Just to attend a native title hearing, to go through the process without contesting it will cost you something like $150 000’. So to contest the parks and reserves, one by one, there is no change from $100m. Add the compensation to that, and you are probably looking at $150m. On lawyers fees alone, to go to litigation would be $50m to $100m. The other way, the practical, sensible, positive, opening up opportunities way is to negotiate. And I said to the land councils: ‘This is where I want to go, but I will only go here if you two agree to the core principles, and that is all these core principles’ - not you pick and choose, not like the member for Macdonnell saying: ‘Which ones are you going to give in on?’ It is not a picking and choosing exercise. It is the whole lot.
It is the lease-back for a minimum of 99 years. It is no fees, no permits. It is the recognising of current interests in the parks for tourism and mines. It is certainly, where appropriate, engaging in joint management and it is working with us to create this master plan, this world-class master plan, for the Territory. So who loses? Who loses from this? The only loser is if we have to go to litigation. The momentum and the goodwill to negotiate and find an agreement here is very strong. But I said clearly to the land councils: ‘This is a package. You cannot walk away from any element of these core principles. No element. And if you do, I will go back to litigation. This government will go back to litigation’. That is very clear and I am putting that on the record.
I believe we will not have to do that. When the Opposition Leader was saying: ‘Go in and test some of that native title. Test one, just to show’, at least he does understand that native title is not a simple thing. It is a bundle of rights, as established through the Ward High Court decision. It is a bundle of rights. So to test one means nothing; all you have done is tested one. There are no implications for anything else. Many of our parks and reserves in the Territory have very substantial native title interests that could be extensive and exclusive. The Opposition Leader - and implicit in this, the opposition - is saying: ‘Go and work through each one of those. Don’t give in’, they are saying. ‘Don’t give in to a thing’. But I said to the Opposition Leader in the briefing we had: ‘We are only following the precedent that you have set in a number of cases: the railway corridor, Rosebery and Bellamack, Mount Todd’. There are a number of different areas where the previous government said: ‘We recognise that native title does exist; let us negotiate’. There was not all the work done to test this; it did not go to the Native Title Tribunal. So the precedent set by the previous government on a number of occasions is the one we are using, and we believe it is the way to go. It is where the positive outcomes are.
It does disappoint me that we have the Country Liberal Party, we have the opposition, trying to say: ‘Let us see where we can divide here; let us see where we can go back to our old tricks’. I was hoping they were old tricks, Madam Speaker, but they are obviously the current tricks. ‘Let us start revving up some of the issues; let us start saying: “Never trust the land councils, never trust Labor, because Labor is not about protecting all Territorians’ interests and worse, still, it is going to cost us a fortune.” Implicit in this is Labor is rolling over to indigenous interests’.
Let me say, very proudly, I am standing up for all Territorians, for all of our interests, and very properly recognising indigenous rights and interests. We will have a very successful outcome from that. It will be a win/win for Territorians, it will be a win/win for job creation and it will be a win/win for enterprise development.
Cost is another issue that was raised. So what is this going to cost us? Well, I spelt out how much it is going to cost us in terms of litigation if we go that way: $100m. Then add the cost of compensation on top of that. Even if the federal government picked up 75%, it would still be quite a significant cost. Then the member for Macdonnell says: ‘So, spell out this cost! What is it going to cost in this negotiation?’ There will be a cost, Madam Speaker, of course there will be. A quite appropriate cost for government. Government is about creating jobs. Government is about stimulating the tourism industry. Government is about creating a world class master plan for parks and this is where the dollars should be spent. And if this government has a choice between spending money on lawyers, or spending money on job creation, enterprise development, tourism, parks management and a world class master plan for parks, then I know where we are going to be proudly putting the Territory’s dollars and that is in the latter.
So there will be a cost. Creating jobs will come at some cost, but when you think of the opportunities of creating jobs in remoter parts of the Territory this is an opportunity to be grasped. I am talking to the Commonwealth government about how they can be part of this and where there might be a financial contribution and it is welcome. I have already started to raise those issues with people like parks’ minister, Dr David Kemp. I am very gratified that we have in principle support for negotiation rather than litigation from both the Prime Minister and the indigenous affairs minister, Philip Ruddock.
So when you hear implicit in what the opposition is saying that we should litigate, that we should test, we should be back in the courts for 20 to 30 years, they are out by themselves. They are not supported by their colleagues in Canberra. I doubt whether you could find one party of government, or party in opposition in this country which would support them. They are the dinosaurs and sadly in this debate they have shown just how irrelevant they are. I am proud of the fact that we have found a solution to what could have been a very difficult problem for the Territory. I think we have found a solution that is inclusive, that will see jobs develop in the Territory, that will see enterprises develop in the Territory and will really give a significant boost to our tourism industry while recognising, most properly, indigenous culture and indigenous rights to land.
As Chief Minister, and I know that I speak for every member of this government, we are very proud of that.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, I have a few issues to talk about tonight and one of them is the St John Ambulance annual parade which was held on 26 October. I attended the annual parade for the NT branch of St John Ambulance and it was a privilege to be present at an event that celebrates the selfless service that so many people give to our Territory community. It is a familiar part of many Territory events to have people who are readily identifiable in their smart black and white uniforms, who provide a very professional and personal service to those people in need of urgent medical attention. A lasting impression of the evening was that there were up to 200 people on parade in full uniform. There was a wide range of people involved from the very young who were engaged in school-based units right through to those people who, in retirement, are still active in their contribution to our community by their active St John Service.
I would like to thank Mr Andrew Hodges, the Commissioner for St John, and pay a personal tribute to the following people who are recognised for their contribution:
Certificates of appreciation were given to Glen Denmeade, John Carman, Shane Burry,
Linda Fazldeen, Liz Talbot, Doug Smith and Vanessa Curtiss.
Commissioner’s Commendation went to Bryon May and Kate Anning.
Volunteer of the Year, the adult was Frank Dunstan and the cadet was Susan Rosenzweig.
Ambulance Employees Australia Cadet Award went to Ross Jacobson.
Grand Prior’s badge was awarded to Kathryn Ainsworth.
Showing how enduring the commitment to St John is:
the 12 year medal went to Glen Denmeade, Bruce Jones and Bruce Wilde;
the 17 year service bar went to Simon Spillet and Des Thornton; and
the 22 year service bar to Ros Jones.
The Division of the Year in the adult area was Humpty Doo and the cadet area was Alice Springs. I must say the commitment given by people right across the Territory to St John is most impressive, the many hours they put in and the selfless and enthusiastic way that they do it.
This Labor government recognises the important contribution of mining to the Territory economy. I was delighted to present certificates of appreciation and life memberships at the Minerals Council dinner on 14 November. Certificates of appreciation for support of the Mineral Council’s work program were presented to Woodside Energy, Sally Horsnell from GHD Services and two of our public servants in DBIRD, Tony McGill and Bob Adams for their excellent work with Minerals Council.
Certificates for support of the Minerals Council education program were presented to Alcan Gove. It was good to meet their new CEO in Australia, Richard Yank, tonight. Certificates of support went to AngloGold Exploration. The best part of the night was the life memberships, recognising those who had put in many years. There was Lance Martin, Alan Wright, who was for years at GEMCO and worked after he left GEMCO …
Mr Henderson: A constituent of mine.
Ms MARTIN: A constituent of the member for Wanguri. Lance could not be there, but Alan was certainly delighted to receive that life membership. Then a blast from the past received a life membership - Grant Watt. Grant came back from New South Wales where he is now living, just north of Sydney, to receive his life membership. The most extraordinary thing about Grant is that he had his hair in a ponytail. The idea of that Scottish icon with his grey hair in a ponytail was more than most of us could cope with.
A man who had been awarded his life membership before but now received it in a framed award was Joe Fisher, who certainly has been involved with mining and mining issues in the Territory for the best part of 50 years.
I extend my congratulations to the Northern Territory Minerals Council; their hard working CEO, Kezia Purick, and all the award winners.
I was also pleased to attend the AGM of the NT Chamber of Commerce and Industry as guest speaker on 30 October, and to be given the opportunity to outline the many crime prevention initiatives that have been implemented by government. The government and the chamber have established an effective working relationship, and the growth of the Territory economy is an objective we both share. I congratulate President Bruce Fadelli and Chief Executive Officer, Carole Frost, on a very professional organisation and a very professionally organised and well attended AGM.
I also acknowledge this evening the humanitarian work of two of my constituents, John and Elaine Edwards. They recognised the plight of children at the Woomera detention centre and, very much in keeping with the kind of people that John and Elaine are, rather than say: ‘Well, that would be somebody else’s problem’, decided to do something about it themselves. They developed a proposal to establish an educational playgroup for the children of detainees. Again, simply not content to say: ‘Well look, somebody else might do something about this’, they set about to collect the kind of educational support activities that were needed - everything from tape recorders to toys for the kids to play with - and bundled them all in their car and drove to Woomera.
The story they tell about their time there is - well, the best way to describe it is probably that they had a pretty tough time trying to achieve what they wanted to do. In the end they did, but they were seen as - and if you know John and Elaine, the last people you would ever suspect of anything subversive is those two - but they did actually get to deliver the resources to the centre for an under six years of age playgroup. They are a remarkable couple. The fact that they heard about that need, decided to do something, collected all the materials, put them in their car, drove all the way to Woomera, and then persisted until they got to deliver the goods and to talk to the people involved, is a real tribute to them. I congratulate John and Elaine for their humanitarism and their abiding commitment to the wellbeing of young people. I congratulate all those who supported this wonderful project.
It always gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the achievements of schools and students in my electorate. Young Sam Van Den Nieuwenhof, who goes to Parap Primary School, participated in the MS Readathon and raised the second highest amount of money in the NT. Sam read 23 books and raised $317.05. Altogether, the Parap School students read 487 books and raised $2214.70. The Stuart Park Primary students participated in the Heart Foundation’s Jump Rope for Heart and raised just over $6000. My congratulations to the students, the teachers and all those involved. They are both fine primary schools, Parap and Stuart Park, and when you see how the children actually get involved in those fundraising activities and with the enthusiasm they do it, it certainly makes us very confident about the Territory’s future.
Another outstanding achiever in the Fannie Bay electorate is Betty Barham. Betty recently attended the International Federation of Ageing conference in Perth with Leigh Hillman who is the Executive Officer of NT Council on the Ageing. IFA is an international non-government organisation committed to the dignity, independence and empowerment of older people. Betty is a Territorian of long standing and is widely involved with community associations. She is one of those people who makes the Territory a better place to live and I certainly commend her contribution. She is a terrific person, she lives at Kurringal and she is one of the stalwarts of the place. There is barely an organisation around town that you do not find Betty involved with. She really is an outstanding senior Territorian.
The end of another school year comes to a close and leaving school in many ways marks the entry of those young men and women into adulthood. I was reminded of this because I was fortunate on Friday, 15 November to be invited to open the Casuarina Senior College end of year art exhibition. Principal, Steve Sjoberg and Deputy Principal, Mary Rees, talked to me enthusiastically about some of the successes enjoyed by the staff and students throughout the year and the school’s plans for the future. To meet the demands of Stage II art, craft and design, students are required to undertake a number of tasks which cover both practice and theory in their chosen fields and students keep a journal documenting the creative processes. The exhibition contained ceramics, photographs, fashion design, architectural and graphic design, painting, sculpture, digital and other two and three dimensional artistic interpretations of the world. The artworks were breathtaking and a great credit to both the staff and students.
Casuarina Senior College has a number of staff who contributed to this exhibition and I would like to mention them by name: Justine Staniforth is the acting arts faculty coordinator who heads the creative team which also included Jane Barlow, Karl Brand, Pas Cosentino, Kim Kerr, Serena Kuhl, Jenny Shepherd, Jill Stevens and Russell Wither.
Works from 10 students were shortlisted to be included in the exit art exhibition to be held in Parliament House and those students are to be particularly congratulated for all their efforts and skill. I am sure that honourable members will join me in congratulating them. The 10 students who will be exhibited here at Parliament House are Andy Liong, Tara O’Mullane, Celeste Wilde, Keita Jenke, Vashti Silva, Joanna Roberts, Lauren Clark, Jessica Ong, Ebone Coats and Louise Errington.
Above all, I would like to commend all the students throughout the Territory who are finishing their studies this year. Whatever the levels achieved, and not everyone can be an honours student, these young people deserve recognition for reaching the end of their school years and moving onto a new phase in their life. As they enter the world of adulthood they should be proud and congratulated on their achievements and on behalf of all of us I wish them good luck and much success in their life after this. They are of course the future of the Territory.
Last Friday, 22 November 2002, I had the pleasure to attend the inaugural meeting of the Northern Territory Arts Grants Board. The establishment of the Arts Grants Board achieved my government’s commitment to enhance the accountability and transparency of arts funding to providing an arm’s length peer assessment process for arts project allocations. In the formation of the board, the government aimed for a mixture of industry and regional diversity, youth and experience, combining skills of both business and practitioners. Out of 24 applications received, of an extraordinary high standard, I had the difficult but exciting task of appointing 12 outstanding Territorians to the board who offer artistic, business and marketing skills across a range of art forms and regions. The calibre of the applications is testimony to the strength of our art sector and I am confident the appointed members will provide the expertise and commitment we need to establish this very important board.
We are indeed fortunate in our choice of chair, Gillian Harrison, who comes from Alice Springs but before that was in Darwin for many years. Gillian has a wide experience in arts training and development, employment and related issues across the Territory and is currently employed as the music manager by CAAMA in Alice Springs. The other members are Joanna Barrkman from Batchelor; Peter Callinan from Tennant Creek; Ken Conway, Don Whyte, Neil Weeks, Gary Lee, Bong Ramilo and Chips Mackinolty all from Darwin; from Alice Springs, Craig Mathewson and Heather Shearer; from Katherine, Fleur Parry; and Pirjo Ward from Palmerston. The inaugural Arts Grants Board represents some of the extraordinary talent and ability of the arts industry in the Territory. I congratulate them and their chair and wish them well for the rest of their terms ahead.
In the final minutes I have left, I would like to take a few moments to salute the passing of two colourful Territorians. I believe our lives would be the poorer for their absences. I speak firstly of our own Queen Mother, Peter Morgan, who passed away on Monday. He was eccentric but he had a value system based on total integrity. He cared deeply about the Territory’s heritage and retaining the Darwin he had always known. Bob Collins told me a story about Peter which epitomises his humanitarianism and deep concerns for community; about the time he was involved in fund raising at Holtze Cottage, one of the many restaurants he helped to create. On this occasion, Peter organised a totally outrageous male fashion show to raise money for the Ash Wednesday bushfires. Bob recalls it being an extraordinary event, but he also managed to raise a large sum of money to help the victims of the bushfire which was just so totally Peter. He had a unilateral appeal and boasted of a congratulatory letter from the then Chief Minister, Paul Everingham, recognising Peter’s role in the success of the first self-government celebrations.
As one person said this week, when he died, Darwin was engraved on his heart. A resident since 1984, who began his working life in the Territory as a clerk at the Rum Jungle Mine, he will be very sadly missed.
I am also sad to recall the passing of another great person: Stella Kirk, activist, ardent letter writer and protector of heritage who arrived on a yacht in Darwin in 1967. As she walked down Cavenagh Street for the first time and witnessed bodies thrown from the Don Hotel, she knew Darwin was the city for her. She was the first woman to hold a real estate licence in the Territory, and ran her business from a Sidney Williams Hut in my electorate of Fannie Bay. Always sensitive to Darwin’s history, she was a major campaigner against the proposed destruction of Myilly Point. As Peter Forrest put in his column in the NT News:
- She spent the best part of the next 35 years striving to keep Darwin’s quality of difference, trying to stop
decision makers turning Darwin into a dreadful copy of anywhere else.
She often staged lone protests, a single voice against the demolition of the nurses’ quarters at the old Darwin Hospital or the old Supreme Court building.
Both Peter and Stella were people who believed in the power of the people. They believed people had a responsibility to take action against the destruction of Darwin’s heritage. This parliament should say Vale! to two stalwart campaigners and loyal Darwinites.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to advise members of the Assembly of a school in my electorate and the good work that is being done there. I should admit to having something of a soft spot for Yirara College since I first went there a couple of years ago. That arises from being so terribly impressed with the principal, staff and students and many of the programs that Yirara was running at that time and, indeed, continues to run. I certainly do not purport to be an expert in the area of indigenous education, but I do think I am capable of spotting a good thing when I see it and the work that they do at Yirara is truly wonderful.
For members who do not know, and particularly, for the benefit of members who reside in the Top End, Yirara College of the Finke River Mission is located off the Stuart Highway, 7 km south of Alice Springs and is a Christian boarding school for post-primary Aboriginal students from communities around Central Australia but as far away as Borroloola.
The college opened in 1973 as a secondary school for Aboriginal students, and was at that time part of the Department of Education. In 1992, negotiations were initiated between government and the Finke River Mission Board of the Lutheran Church with a view to handing it over to the church. Local indigenous families requested that Finke River Mission take over the management of the college and, of course, Finke River Mission formed as a result of the establishment of the Hermannsburg Mission 125 years ago in Central Australia. The college became an independent education provider in January 1993 and is now part of the extensive Lutheran school system. I understand that there are about 100 of those schools around the country.
Presently, there are 218 students enrolled at Yirara College. The key staff are the Reverend Mark Doecke, Principal; Mrs Wendy Russ, Assistant Principal; and Mr Lester Kerber, the Business Manager. It has a governing council comprising 18 members, 12 of whom are indigenous. As many of us know, one of the difficulties with indigenous education is ensuring the support of family. At Yirara College, family and community meetings are held and family members are involved in the governing council, and this ensures that Aboriginal interests are preserved in all decision making. This, I believe, is part of the reason why the college works so well.
The college operates as a co-educational boarding school, and of course, boarding guarantees regular class attendance. It is obvious that Aboriginal people expressed strong support for the school, and its mission, even though at times they feel frustrated by their children’s unwillingness to stay at school as long as they should. I am told though, that families express strong support for the Christian ethos of the college and indeed the college’s firm rules and believe that that will ensure that their children are assisted in the education process.
The courses at Yirara College provide for pathways for entering into secondary education. The college has extensive information technology hardware and software systems, homework packages, extensive music programs, extensive sports programs and some teams compete in local competitions. I have been advised that some highlights for Yirara College for 2002 have been the refurbishment of the recreation hall into a chapel and a multi-purpose hall. Whilst this might sound a bit of an odd combination, I am very happy to say that I attended the opening of the multi-purpose hall and the chapel, and the way the architecture is set out is truly amazing. It ensures that the same building can be used very separately as both a place of worship as well as a multi-purpose hall. I am told that the request was made by parents about nine years ago, that Yirara College, being a Christian school, there should be a place for worship, exclusively for worship, and therefore there should be a chapel. I was very pleased indeed to attend the opening earlier this month.
I am advised that extensions to the library have now commenced and that will be open in the first quarter next year. I am looking forward to attending Yirara College again for that opening. In relation to the hall, I should say that it was with some interest, and delight, that at the opening, not only were there the usual dignitaries that one might expect at these sorts of things, but the hall was packed, absolutely chockers with staff, students, parents and friends and it was a joyous occasion. I can say very sincerely that I was very honoured to attend as the local member.
Another highlight of the 2002 year for staff and students at Yirara College was a visit earlier this month by the Prime Minister. I am very pleased to say that I had a hand to play in encouraging him to visit the college. It really was a wonderful occasion and it was clear that the Prime Minister enjoyed his visit. After touring the school and speaking to students, we were treated to a number of performances by several music groups, then the Prime Minister spoke to a few of the staff and the Principal, Mark Doecke, about indigenous education, and what great work the college was doing, and how the federal government could further assist in that area.
The college is very obviously aware of the challenges its staff face in the future and providing education to indigenous students in Central Australia. However, the college is well equipped to meet those challenges, mostly I think, because its staff and principal are honest about what those challenges are, and equally honest about what needs to be done in order to meet them. On behalf of all members of the Assembly, I congratulate all of the work that has been done by the college over the last nine years, and congratulate all of those involved, and of course, at this time of year, wish the principal, staff, students, parents and friends, the very best wishes for 2003.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on 29 and 30 October this year, I led a Territory trade delegation to Singapore with the aim of building trade links and encouraging Singapore-based businesses to consider investing in the Territory. The delegation’s activities included taking part in the Offshore South East Asia exhibition in Singapore, visiting Jurong Port, meeting with the Jurong Town Corporation and attending a range of networking functions.
OSEA is held in Singapore every two years and allows manufacturers, product distributors and service providers to showcase their wares and establish contacts with buyers. Of particular interest to the Territory was the opportunity to develop contacts with international contractors who are involved or potentially involved in the Bayu-Undan project. There were around 900 exhibiting companies and 250 stands. More than 8000 trade visitors and 3000 people from exhibiting companies attended OSEA.
My department, and a group of Territory companies, provided a display on an Australian stand which was shared with some Victorian-based companies. The Territory display promoted Darwin as an oil and mining industry service and supply centre for northern Australia and the surrounding region. Companies represented in the display included Universal Engineering, Hercules Offshore Lifting Gear, Darwin Offshore Logistics Base, Kim Heng Marine and Oilfield, Environmental Health Services, AJ Mayr, Tech Rentals and Jacindo. Other groups promoted at the display but were unable to send representatives included NTISO, Nortrade, Delta Electrics and WasteMaster.
Singapore is one of the important players in the oil and gas supply industry in our region, and this was an important opportunity for Territory business to experience and develop links with this area. There are already a number of important links between Singapore and Darwin. These links include Singapore’s Gas Services International with Darwin’s Universal Engineering; Kim Heng Marine and Oilfield’s purchase of the Darwin Offshore Logistics Base; and Rooney Shipping with the Labrooy Group, to name a few. I found there was widespread knowledge in Singapore of the big oil industry projects in the Territory’s region of influence including Bayu-Undan, Sunrise and Tangguh.
However, there is only a limited understanding in Singapore of Darwin’s capabilities and the role Darwin could play in supporting major oil, gas and mining projects. I believe we need to raise the Territory’s profile in Singapore to build trade and tourism and attract investments, and the delegation to OSEA is an important part of achieving this objective.
Austrade arranged a function for the Territory and Victorian delegations to meet key Singapore-based purchasing investment representatives. This was well attended and a number of good contacts were made with the procurement, engineering design and management people working on projects in our region. Whilst at OSEA, I also gave a briefing about regional energy developments and what the Territory hopes to achieve to key energy journals including EnergyAsia, Petromin, Ogilvie Publishing, Upstream Newspaper and OPEC News Agency. This will help to lift the Territory’s profile amongst the broad readership of these journals in the oil and gas industry.
There was considerable interest during OSEA in the lifting frames which are designed and built in Darwin by Hercules Offshore Lifting Gear. The other Territory exhibitors were also kept busy and generated good leads or won business at the exhibition. Environmental Health Services is negotiating business with General Electric throughout eastern Asia. A proposal was received from the Golden Aquarius engineering group for Northern Territory companies to bid for work on two FPSOs being constructed in Singapore for the Brazilian oil company, Petrobras.
The visit to Jurong Port and the Jurong Town Corporation was most impressive. The Jurong Town Corporation’s vision in planning and redeveloping a shanty town and swampland into an impressive port logistics complex and industrial estate in just 25 years is extraordinary. It presents a model of what can be achieved with good planning and commitment, albeit the Territory is operating on a considerably smaller scale.
Singapore’s ability to create waterfront land by reclamation has allowed it to develop world class marine construction and maintenance facilities. These point to the potential for Darwin to handle major oil rig refits, and even build concrete platforms for the industry if we plan appropriately for such developments. The business delegation to OSEA and the associated activities will have valuable outcomes for the Territory’s growing offshore service and supply industries. I commend the businesses which took part in the delegation, and I look forward to them pursuing further opportunities as a result.
I place on the record my thanks to Thomas Tan of Kim Heng Marine and Oilfield and to Austrade for their help in developing programs for the Territory delegates and I, and also for Kim Hang’s extraordinary generous time that he put in assisting me and the delegation and the hospitality that he showed me and other Territory businesses. I also thank the officers of my department for their work in making the delegation a success.
The Australasian Council of Women and Policing present national awards for excellence in policing. This provides an opportunity to publicly acknowledge and reward the significant contributions of women and men who make policing and law enforcement better for women. The awards were presented in October this year and it is my pleasure to report to the House that two women from the Northern Territory won awards. Ms Mary-Anne Skelton won the Community Policing Award and Ms Joy Kuhl won the Bev Lawson Memorial Award. The awards were meritorious and it is my pleasure to provide further details to the House on the achievements of the winners.
Mary-Anne Skelton was nominated as a professional officer who uses her multilingual skills to improve how the Northern Territory police work with the incredibly culturally diverse community we have in the Territory, using her significant networks to make positive impacts on how women from culturally diverse backgrounds access the justice system. Mary-Anne, who has recently been promoted to Sergeant of the Northern Territory Police Juvenile Diversion Division, was originally trained as a teacher in her native country of the Philippines. Her ability to speak several languages - English, Filipino/Tagalog, Japanese and Indonesian - has had a positive impact on the interaction the police has with our ethnic community. This has been evident through the course of Mary-Anne’s police career. An example was when she commenced work in the domestic violence unit in 1995. Mary-Anne immediately recognised the difficulties women from non-English speaking backgrounds experienced in dealing with the police and reporting of domestic violence.
Cultural and language problems led to a fear of police and a lack of information on the range of support and assistance available. As a result, Mary-Anne initiated a project to produce and distribute an information pamphlet on domestic violence to ethnic communities. The project specifically targeted five ethnic community groups and was translated into the languages of Tagalog, Thai, Vietnamese, Greek and Indonesian. The project was instrumental in promoting ways in which women could protect themselves and their children. The pamphlets are still in production today. Mary-Anne actively works to promote policing as a career option to women from ethnic backgrounds and works in partnership with other agencies to provide a positive image of police.
The initiative that has been shown by Mary-Anne since she joined the NT police 15 years ago has had a significant positive impact on the relationship between NT police and ethnic communities. Mary-Anne Skelton is a worthy winner of the Community Policing Award.
The Bev Lawson Memorial Award is for the most outstanding woman who has been first in any policing or law enforcement activity or support service. Joy Kuhl was nominated for her leadership in establishing and developing the Northern Territory’s forensic investigation capacity combined with mentoring and supporting women within the policing and the community generally. Joy has a Master of Science in Biochemistry from the Sydney University and when she was employed by the Northern Territory police in January 1984 she was the only graduate scientist in the forensic unit and the only woman on the staff. At the time of her employment in the Territory, Joy was required to set up her own laboratory, stock and equip the laboratory, establish methods and perform all the work necessary to provide a forensic biology service to her employer.
The career highlights for Joy are many and all impressive. I take the time tonight to focus on a very topical achievement. I believe her most significant achievement for not only the Northern Territory police but also for the people of the Northern Territory was the introduction of DNA technology to the laboratory’s repertoire. To achieve this, Joy conducted a detailed feasibility study which included the researching of models on a international and national level, prepared detail budgets submissions and actively lobbied the then Commissioner Mick Palmer for the funding and approval for the implementation of DNA technology. Under Joy’s direction and guidance, the Northern Territory has been operating a successful DNA database since 1995. The Northern Territory has been using the DNA database as a crime solving and intelligence tool far longer than any other jurisdiction and on a ‘per capita’ basis has mirrored the success rate of the huge UK database for many years.
Her work initiated the very successful ‘Operation Genesweep’ which resulted in over 200 hits in a few weeks and has lead to ‘Operation Genesweep 2’. Joy has recently been invited to join the governing committee of the Victims of Crime NT, the support group established to provide support services and direction to victims of all types of crime and their families in the Northern Territory.
I commend the efforts of these estimable women to the House and I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating them for not just what they have achieved but also for their ongoing efforts.
On 15 November 2002, I had the privilege of attending the start of a very special alliance in the northern suburbs. The Wanguri Primary School and the Village Shopping Centre in Casuarina have entered into a unique partnership that benefits both parties. Wanguri Primary has always been a smaller school in the northern suburbs but this alliance will hopefully gain it some important exposure and funding that will allow it to grow in size and statue. There are a number of benefits for both parties in this agreement. For Wanguri school the first benefit is that the Village Shopping Centre will host some of Wanguri's larger school events. Instead of being cramped in their library, Wanguri will have the option to host events in the large area of the Village.
The second benefit for the school is additional areas to display school work. With work going up in a public forum it will give the children a chance to show off their skills and for the people not regularly involved in the school to see what Wanguri Primary is all about .
The third benefit to the school is assistance in school fundraising. A Wanguri school barrel will be placed in the shopping centre by placing a docket from any shop within the Centre with a contact name and details on the back. The Village will donate 1% of the docket total to Wanguri School Council to a maximum of $1200 a year. The first project that this money will go towards will be new play equipment. There is also a chance for monthly prizes to be won for the shoppers. In return, the Village Shopping Centre will get their logo on all Wanguri school letterhead. The newsletter will include advertising for Village shops and a commitment from the Wanguri council to shop at the Village whenever possible.
I congratulate the principal, Sharon Reeves, Wanguri school chairperson, Lea Rowe, and the shopping centre mangers Mr Tony Miaoudis and Dr Ean Ong for this exciting venture as, to my knowledge, it is one of the first of its kind in the Northern Territory. I wish the Village and Wanguri School all the best of luck in the future with their alliance. I am sure it will be about for many years to come.
One of the things that I am extremely proud of in my electorate is the way it looks. The people of Wanguri and Leanyer, especially the children, take a great pride in the appearance of our suburbs, and the 2002 Territory Tidy Town School Awards proved that. All four primary schools in my electorate picked up awards in this year’s 2002 Territory Tidy Town School Awards, with some of them picking up major awards.
St Andrew Lutheran Primary received the Outstanding Commitment to School Environment Award, which is a great effort, and I congratulate staff, students and principal, Dennis Ruddiger.
Holy Spirit Primary School received two awards: the first was for a school-wide award for an Outstanding School Project; the second was an individual award going to Alan Falkingham for Outstanding School Citizen. A great effort by Alan, and I congratulate him as well as his fellow students, staff and principal, Gill Webb.
Leanyer Primary School received 10 awards, the most in the electorate. There were many individual and class or group efforts. Nadia Mahmood, Shiyao Zhu, Alana Michell, and Nikki McInnes all picked up awards for the Upper Primary Chuck that Sucker competition. They were awarded first, second, third and fourth respectively. It was a great effort by all four students to be recognised so highly in a Territory-wide competition. In the Bag the Bags competition, Leanyer finished first in both the Year 4 and under and the Year 5 and up categories. For the poster competition, the Leanyer Primary Junior Art Club came first for the Transition to Year 3 category and for the Year 4 to 7 bracket. The Student Rep Art Club finished third, while Leanyer pair, Stacie Reader and Danielle Lede were awarded second. Leanyer also won an Outstanding School Project Award.
In total, Leanyer received over $1400 in prizes with over $200 of it going directly to the students. It is a great effort by a great school, and I know how committed staff, students and the principal, Henry Gray, are to keeping their grounds clean and I congratulate them for it.
Wanguri Primary School received six awards including one very prestigious one. In the Bag the Bags competition, student Elise Baldock finished third in the Community category, while in the Year 5 and up category, Wanguri was awarded second place. In the Poster Competition in the Year 4 to 7 category, Elise Baldock again was awarded first place. Wanguri also had an award presented to one of its teachers, Kaye Baldock, for the Environmental Visionary Teachers that I wholeheartedly agree with. Kaye puts in an enormous amount of work for the school and its grounds and she really does deserve this recognition. Kaye, congratulations, great recognition for a job well done.
For school-wide awards, Wanguri were awarded two: second for the Best Urban School; and picked up the highly prestigious Schools Environment Award School of the Year 2002, an award only bettered by School of the Year. A great effort by all students and staff and principal, Sharon Reeves and I congratulate them all.
It makes me so proud to drive around my electorate and to know that we have some of the best grounds the Territory has to offer. It makes Leanyer and Wanguri a great place to live. I thank all of the students, staff and parents involved with all four schools for their effort. I hope they continue it for many years to come, and keep Wanguri and Leanyer as being great places to live in the northern suburbs.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about the effort of many people in the Karama and Malak community, and to recognise some very sad events that in effect drew the community together, but also the achievements of people who have been out there proving that the Territory is full of great talent.
I start on a very sad note, that is, services that I attended on 20 October to commemorate the victims of the Bali bombing. On Sunday morning, I went to the Philadelphia Indonesian Church that is in Koolinda Crescent in my electorate of Karama and participated in the Indonesian congregation service that morning. That service was conducted by the Very Reverend Salomo Bangun. It was a beautiful church service conducted in Bahasa Indonesian, which challenged me to refresh my knowledge of Bahasa which I had studied in Darwin some 20 odd years ago. For the benefit of the Aussies in the congregation, who were primarily the spouses of some gorgeous Indonesian women, the service was conducted partially in English as well. I did my best to sing in Bahasa and certainly enjoyed the service and the translation in English.
I congratulate the Indonesian community in my electorate for being so profoundly strong even in their deepest sadness. The members of the congregation were particularly concerned as some were related to one of the victims and they were concerned about some orphaned children. It was a deeply touching and moving ceremony. I was able to talk to them on behalf of the Northern Territory government, as well as about the peace and the friendship we have with the Indonesian community. And about why harmony in our lives is very important. We spoke about how it is often times of such grief and sadness that strengthens our peace and our harmony and, indeed, our enduring friendships.
That afternoon, I attended the commemoration services down on the Esplanade. Again, it was a very moving service. There were no words spoken. The Chief Minister and the Indonesian Consul led the ceremony by laying flowers at the cenotaph. This as followed by at least a couple of hundred people silently laying flowers on the cenotaph and pausing briefly to say their prayers for the victims of the Bali bombing. It was a deeply moving ceremony in which to participate.
That evening, I went to the Buddhist Society of the Northern Territory’s Leanyer temple. A temple that I frequent not as often as I would like, but I do manage to get there several times throughout the year. The Buddhist Society put on a Light Offering Ceremony. In that ceremony we lit candles and walked around a very large Buddha. After a ceremony of blessing in the gardens we moved into the temple and participated in a prayer ceremony that ended up with a beautiful meditation period. I congratulate the Buddhist Society for putting on this Light Offering Ceremony and the prayers that help, in their belief, with the passage of the souls into better reincarnation and to ameliorate the pain and suffering of the people who had died because their souls are still suffering. Through special prayers that occur over a period of about a month those prayers are believed to send the soul onto a better reincarnation, rather than to carry that pain and suffering with them. I hope that those prayers work.
Whilst there is deep sadness in our society, as the Chief Minister has clearly said, life goes on. We do have to go about our business and show the terrorists that whatever horrific actions they take to strike out at us that as a community, we are strong. And so it was on the very next day, 21 October, that I had the honour of representing the Minister for Education, Employment and Training, the Honourable Syd Stirling, at the WorldSkills Competitors Function at Parliament House. I was presenting scarves to the women and ties to the men, who were aged in their late teens and early 20s, who were going off to compete at the National WorldSkills Competition in Newcastle. They were a nice group of young Territorians and very excited about this opportunity to compete at a national level.
As one does in these situations, I made a very encouraging speech to them and said to them, ‘You are the crme of the Territory. Go down there knowing that you are as good as anyone else in the nation’, and bless them, they came back as national winners when they took out the national competition for the first time. It truly was a team effort and they all excelled. They had every reason to be very proud of their effort. I will single out the gold medal winner in construction, Rafael Kammas from Dripstone High School; the gold medal winner in business education was Colleen McAlpine from Casuarina Senior College; and from my very own electorate, the bronze medal winner in information technology, Liam Kuhl from O’Loughlin College. I know Liam’s parents very well; his mother is a teacher’s assistant in my daughter’s class. So it was a particular joy, and I was very proud, to congratulate Liam. In the open competition as an apprentice, Kelly Smith won silver in Business Services.
They are a very amazing mix of talented young Territorians, and it just goes to show that we can produce the best in the nation with our vocational education and training, and apprenticeship and trade training. Again, I congratulate our winners.
On 22 October, I attended the Women’s Health Day at the Greek Orthodox School. This was the 6th annual health day, and it is used as a forum to provide health information to women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. There were women there from many nations - Filipino, Thai, Greek, Indonesian, Cambodian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Timorese, and Indian. It was a very large gathering of about 60 women. There were representatives of all the non-government sector health-based organisations, as well as the government Health Department sections. This day was organised by the Northern Territory Women’s Cancer Prevention Program. I say a special congratulation to Beth Amega and Mahasti Farshidi for putting a tremendous event together, as they did.
On 25 October, I again represented the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, at the Discovering Democracy Week awards in Parliament House. There were many participants who received certificates of merit and book vouchers. Winners of each category received achievement awards and cheques. I make special mention that the Katherine School of the Air won the national Discovering Democracy Award for the second year running. The Territory can be very proud of the Katherine School of the Air and the great effort they all make. As the member for Karama, I congratulate Jeannie Bennett, from Manunda Terrace Primary School, for winning a certificate of merit.
Also on the same day, I had the opportunity to duck into Malak School in my electorate, because they were having a ‘Moovin @ Malak’ fundraising event. That event was a day of different activities in the school ground. The curriculum for the day was suspended and the children were encouraged to go out and be physical with a variety of activities from hockey, basketball, and rock climbing. I heard that they had a great water fight in the middle of the day as a means of cooling themselves down. That fundraising event raised a total of $3462 for the school. I congratulate the principal and the staff, the parents and the teachers, and all the people I saw really get behind that fundraising event in a great way.
The top ten fundraisers were presented with trophies donated by me, and they were: Dannille Edwards, Jennifer Mu, Tianna Beale, Katelyn Mitchell, Davina Lay, Dillion Morris, Kiry McKenzie, Kalvin Kaltenbach, Alexander Moore, and Kimberley Devery. I also presented medals to other good fundraisers who were: Villin Phinitkittikhun, Jessica Marris, Angela Carter-Ritter, Daniel Acklin, Lindsay Wilson, Angie Ng, Freddie Nona, Chloe Crozier, Justin Moore, Kylie Gaykamangu, and Arkanay Saengurit.
In the local school community, I attended the launch of the Catholic schools ‘Shaping Our Future: Towards 2007’ strategic plan. This launch occurred at the Catholic school in my electorate, Holy Family School, which is the school that my children attend. I felt very pleased to be, essentially, right at home amongst the Catholic community there, participating in the launch of their strategic plan. I congratulate the Catholic Education Office for all the hard work that they have done in creating the plan. I congratulate the principals, the parents and the teachers of the Catholic education community here in the Northern Territory, for putting in the hard work. The very wonderful Bishop Ted Collins was there to launch the plan. The Minister for Education, Employment and Training, our Hon Syd Stirling, was there to assist with the launch of the plan.
I also attended a very different kind of a function for the government which was a Safe Sex campaign launch at which I represented the Minister for Health and Community Services. This campaign launch is titled ‘Put it on so we can get it on’. Essentially, it is targeted young women aged from 18 to 30 years and it is really saying to them that they are in control of their own body and their own health and that they have to start to make sure that they are taking the steps to protect themselves from ‘at risk’ behavior.
We are concerned about the increase in the HIV/Aids cases being detected particularly amongst young women in the Territory. The government has put in $60 000 into a campaign. I congratulate Discovery; I congratulate Hot 100 for the effort that they are making. Hot 100 is giving a lot of free air time in Darwin to the campaign and it really is a very funky new way of getting the message out to the 18 to 30-something women. I was told that I looked as though I was representing the demographic which I said was a compliment given that I was indeed closer to 40 than 30 these days.
Dr Burns: I would have thought you were closer to 30.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, member for Johnston, for that.
I also congratulate students at Manunda Terrace Primary School who took part in the Australian Mathematics Competition. Sita Rogers achieved a Special Achievement Award for the school’s Best Standardised Score and a Certificate of Merit. Andrew Staib achieved a Certificate of Credit, as did Katie Barr and Minas Kassiou. The following students received Certificates of Participation: John Nguyen, Carlo Tran, Melinda Fegan, Brian Evans and Reinel Jionco. I congratulate all these students. It is quite daunting to enter an Australian Mathematics Competition and it is to their credit that they participated in it and excelled in their participation. I also congratulate their parents who are obviously encouraging their children to learn and to apply themselves to their schooling, and to their teachers and the other staff at the school for making the huge effort that I know Manunda Terrace makes; it is a wonderful school in my community.
I also had the opportunity to sponsor a couple of students from my electorate to participate in the North Queensland Championships for Athletics in early October. The Northern Territory team of some 37 athletes from the Moil Athletics Club attended and participated. The team brought home two gold, 17 silver and 20 bronze medals. I congratulate Narelle Long. I made a contribution towards her cost to attend; she won the bronze medal for high jump and was part of a gold medal team in the under 14 girls’ relay that broke the Townsville meet record for the 100 m with a time of 13.67 seconds. Congratulations to Narelle Long. She obviously has a wonderful athletics career ahead of her. And I congratulate Jacob Andrea who won a silver medal in the time of 54.82 seconds in the men’s 400 m and was fifth in the 100 m which he ran in 12.02 seconds.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would just like to speak on two issues tonight. The first issue is a little girl called Jessie Bartolo. Jessie was born in August 1998, a happy and loving little girl. In June 2000, geneticists from Sydney’s Children’s Hospital tentatively diagnosed her with Cardiofaciocutaneous Syndrome, called CFC for short. CFC is an extremely rare genetic disorder and there are around 75 families worldwide registered with the CFC family network. The exact number of these cases throughout the world is not known, however, there are estimated to be less than 300 cases worldwide. There are only five registered Australian cases. Next year, there is going to be an international conference on CFC to be held in Maryland, USA.
Jessie Bartolo is the much loved daughter of Rocky and Judy Bartolo who work at the Wildlife Park. For quite a while they believed they were on their own until they found out there were other people in the world who had this particular disease. I should mention what this rare genetic condition is: you have a distinctive facial appearance; sparse, brittle, woolly, curly hair; skin abnormalities; heart malformations that may be present at birth or develop later; varying degrees of mental retardation; psycho-motor retardation; and other medical complications and issues such as feeding difficulties which may affect particular individuals.
Having met this young lady, I can tell you it would not matter; she is just a lovable person, has the most beautiful smile and she is just like one of those great little cuddly kids. She is a terrific little girl and her parents love her. They have other children, but they are certainly anxious to do the best they can.
Earlier this year, there was a quiz night at the Wildlife Park. I was honoured to be asked to MC and they raised $4500. It was a great evening; you could not get a better setting than the Wildlife Park. People like Tracy Stephens and Michelle Nuske worked tirelessly to get this thing off the ground. We had some really generous sponsors; Qantas gave a double return ticket to Perth and also the Wildlife Park worked extremely hard to get the place set up so that we could have a wonderful quiz night. About 150 people attended.
The reason I am mentioning this dear, young girl tonight is that the family is hopefully on its way to Maryland, USA next year to meet other parents and families of children with the same condition. They have now formed what is called the Jessie Bartolo Trust Appeal through the Kiwanis Club of Darwin. They are still raising money. I thought it would be an appropriate time, and maybe I should turn to the right camera here just in case someone is watching, and just mention that on 6 December in the Mall, the Christmas in Darwin Association is hosting a Breakfast in the Mall in association with the Kiwanis Club of Darwin. That breakfast is being held between 6.30 am and 8.15 am. It is a cooked breakfast for only $7. The Darwin City Brass Band and the Essington School Choir will be there. I would invite any politicians who happen to be hungry that morning and are close to the Mall to come and spend their $7 because it will go to a very worthy project to help Jessie Bartolo and her family get to America and hopefully get the best medical attention that she can have. I hope members and anyone else who can hear this can help.
My other concern actually was raised by the member for Karama a minute ago when she was talking about being at the launch of the Safe Sex campaign. I know we live in a pluralistic society and what my personal beliefs are may not be someone else’s, but we live in a society where we tolerate that. I really feel that this campaign is a very one-sided campaign. I also received these posters today and I was told: ‘Well, put them up in your electorate office’, but when I read it, I just asked myself: ‘Is this really a case of just being an old fuddy-duddy or an old conservative?’ I do not really think it is because this poster to me is not about safe sex. It is about other things. It is about, as it says here, ‘Sex is about having a good time’.
Sex may be about having a good time, but is this the thing I want to stick on my window for young kids to see and think: ‘That’s what we should be doing’? That is exactly what you will do when you stick it on the front of your office. It is not big grown up girls who will see that. It will be young people. And they will say: ‘Well, Gerry Wood reckons…’ by putting this up ‘…that sex is about having a good time’. Sex is about having a good time, but where and when is a different matter, and who with.
Ms Scrymgour: But read the second bit after it.
Mr WOOD: Yes, ‘Don’t ruin it by being careless.’ But you can still promote these things. Why don’t you promote responsible sex at the same time? I am not saying that the government should not promote that, but why cannot it promote a balanced view? We are a pluralistic society; why then do I only get one point of view? That is the government’s morals department; that is its viewpoint. Why not another viewpoint - for instance why don’t they put emphasis on responsible sex, on sex with one partner, or even abstinence? Are they so old-fashioned? You are not going to get HIV from abstaining. You are not going to get HIV from having sex with one partner only, if both of you have never had sex with anyone else. Now, is that so old-fashioned and so silly that that cannot be advertised? It is not advertised. You can say this is okay, why can’t you say other things are okay?
That is a really one-sided and a biased campaign about safe sex. It is time the government spent some money telling kids this is not the only way. We talk about unwanted pregnancies - condoms do not give you 100% surety you are not going to get pregnant. There are other issues involved here. There are moral issues. There are issues about what sex is all about.
I hope we are trying to bring up our kids to say sex is not just having a cup of tea or going to buy a Kit Kat; I hope it is a bit more than that. This does not send that message out; it just says sex is having a good time. Big deal! I do not think it is the right message and our department should rethink that campaign. By all means, if that is the campaign it wants to make sure that people have safe sex and they do not get HIV, so be it. However, we should balance these things a little better and we should not be so flippant. These are serious subjects. It is not just about having a party, or hopping into bed with some person you have never met before tonight after having a few drinks. We should be able to stand up here and be able to do things more responsibly.
We have a job as members of parliament, as parents, as grandparents and as leaders in the community, to put alternative points of view. I do not go along with the crowd. Just because Hot 100 does it, that would be the last radio station I would be looking to for moral advice. They sponsor this and they sponsor that, and they do all sorts of shows and things that I would not want my kids going to, especially if they were young. They are all grown up now, they can jolly well do what they like.
I believe we can do a better job, I will be writing to the minister and saying that this is a one-sided campaign and we can do a lot better. I have said my bit. I know I will get criticised, but so what? I am not going to sit here in parliament and be a wimp. That is not the right campaign, not just like that on its own.
With that off my chest, I feel much better, and I would like to wish everyone a happy Christmas. That is the other reason I would like to stay here today, because I think I am sitting in the Chair tomorrow, so my chances of perhaps getting a few words in tomorrow might be a bit grim.
I wish all my staff – this might sound to be a lot of staff for one person - Jo, Jenny, Lida, Liz and Loz. The reason I have Jo, Jenny, Lida, Liz and Loz, is because one of my staff works for four days and one staff works for one day in my electorate office. Then one of those staff is not working at the moment, she has taken six months off, so I had to get another staff member. One of those staff is going to university some days, so I have had to get another staff member. So I have ended up having four electorate officers at the moment. I know it sounds complicated. Of course, I have Loz – everyone knows Loz, she is the good lady who knows how to work the Internet for me and do the research when I need it. I wish them all a happy Christmas and a peaceful new year.
To all the staff at the Assembly - there is one poor bloke sitting down the front there all by himself - and his colleagues and all the people who do help us, they are a great group of people to work with and they certainly help me. I could not get through being Chairman of Committees without them.
To all my parliamentary colleagues, whether you agree or disagree with me, whether I vote with you or do not vote with you, that is beside the point. The one thing we should be trying to bring to this parliament, regardless of what side of politics we are on, is a feeling that we are Territorians working for the benefit of the Territory.
Dr Burns: We love you anyway, Gerry.
Mr Scrymgour: Didn’t you hear the member for Johnston?
Mr WOOD: Oh, I heard him. He was …
Ms Scrymgour: We love you, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: That’s right, thank you. But I hope he fixes up his pronunciation of Coomalie. That is the only thing that worries me. He was using the Irish version Coo-mar-lee, because Dr Burns comes from long Irish stock.
Mr Elferink: He would have been the member for Jin-gar-lee.
Mr WOOD: That is right, and Parrup. Anyway, we have got off the track there. As I said, I would like to wish everybody here a happy Christmas. It is a pity we cannot wish everybody a happy Christmas every day and keep that friendliness right through the year.
To my family, I know they will be glad to see me at Christmas, because most of the time they do not see me. I will be wishing them a happy Christmas and, hopefully, everybody is there. We will be celebrating that at Bachelor, about 10 km out of Bachelor in the bush, so that will be a great day.
Lastly, I thank all the people of Nelson for all the support they have given, and especially for FOG. For those who do not know FOG, it is not a secret organisation, but you will only find it in the Nelson electorate. It is a little group of supporters called the Friends of Gerry. I would like to thank them very much. We meet about three times a year. It is nice to know there are people out there who, of all political persuasions, I think Friends of Gerry have left, right and in between people, when it comes to political viewpoints. I get a fairly well balanced group of people who tell me what they think about various issues. I certainly thank them very much.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I give recognition to a number of individuals and organisations in my electorate. At this time of the year, it is always an opportunity to acknowledge the work and the commitment of those individuals and, in particular, for the hard work over the last 11 months. I am certainly looking forward to seeing a number of them in the coming weeks leading up to Christmas.
Barry Puruntatameri and his wife Teresita, or Kilapawu. Kilapawu is the president of the girls’ school at Nguiu. Both have, for many years, strived to better the social and cultural environment in the community for the maintenance and future of all Tiwi children. Having gone to the Tiwi Islands a number of times lately and, in particular Nguiu, there are certainly some real issues with alcohol and the influx and continual increase of cannabis on the island and causing a lot of grief amongst, and with the community over there.
Gawain Tipiloura, who has recently been appointed the community services manager at Nguiu. Gawain is the son of the former member for Arafura, Stanley Tipiloura. Having seen this young fellow growing up from the child he was, into the man he is, when you have a look it is almost taking a step back in time and looking at his father all over again. It is certainly heartening to see him playing the lead role that he is in the community at the moment.
John and Joy Naden who have been on the island at Nguiu for some time. They are two non-Tiwi people who have been living over there for more than 10 years, and have often gone unrecognised for a lot of the work they do with many of the disabled artists in the community. They have set up an arts and crafts centre at Nguiu. Every time I visit the island, as well as visiting Tiwi Design and Bima Wear, because they are important too, I visit this arts and crafts centre which showcases the work of the disabled artists which is just as good as the work of the able bodied artists. I do not believe that it gets enough exposure. Nor is there sufficient recognition of these two people who spend a lot of time, not just during normal working hours, but certainly after hours, working with those disabled artists and their families, to give some sort of quality of life, in particular, to Tiwi people with disabilities who often get quite neglected amongst families.
I mention the Tiwi Island Training Education Board, Norm Buchan and all the staff. The graduations in September this year saw another 100-odd graduates graduating. There are still some challenges that they are facing and they are working to overcome, and I wish them all the best. We will continue to work closely with them, in particular, my role, not just as the local member but more importantly, as parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training.
Matthew Wonaeamirri, Walter Kerinauia, Charles Tipungwuti and Cyril Rioli: some time ago, the Tiwi Land Council did a major restructuring of the Tiwi Land Council, and rather than the secretary that they have had there for some time, they looked at giving the four managers, a representative from each of the four major skin groups on the Tiwi Islands, a greater role in the control of the Tiwi Land Council. Certainly, those four men have got to a point in their lives because they have been involved with the politics and the running of the Tiwi Land Council for many years. One of the biggest things that they have put into place, which we did not think would happen, is a succession plan, which all four managers have developed and now put in place, with younger Tiwi men. Also there have been a couple of women nominated, which is also very heartening. It is not just young men that are being singled out to take on the succession of these men on the land council; they are actually looking at women taking on these roles.
That is a huge step for my mob on the Tiwi Islands. I stood up and told those men and congratulated them for looking beyond just seeing men as the successors, in having a say in issues about land and law. It is important that they see, now, that their women certainly should have a part in that.
Jo Kane and Greta Kerinauia: Jo Kane runs a fantastic aged care program on Nguiu, the hostel. She has a Tiwi lady who works with her, Greta Kerinauia. If you go out to most communities, when we talk about quality of life with our old people, quality of life does not exist. It is heartening with the program that is happening on the Tiwi Islands and the hostel that has been built there, that at least the old people at Nguiu are getting some level or access to some quality of life. Recently, I saw an old lady whom I call cousin; she is about 86 years old. Old Ada, when she was put into that hostel about six months ago, everyone had sort of given up and thought, oh well, she is 86, and she is ready to look towards death. She was quite neglected and run down. Seeing her only recently in the last couple of weeks, she is looking about 10 years younger since she has been in that hostel and getting the care and the support that a lot of our old people certainly do not get.
Something that we do not pay enough attention to when we talk about domestic violence and all the other violence that is happening, and one of the other issues that continually gets swept under the carpet in our communities is the elder abuse that is happening in our communities. People are reluctant to address that, but it is certainly something that needs to happen, because the level of disrespect that is happening amongst the young people towards our old people has to be stopped.
Tiwi Health Board staff have strived all year to work towards the better health of Tiwi people despite the hardship and levels of trauma and grief. We have had a number of suicides on the Tiwi Islands this year. To date there have been about eight suicides since May. The coroner’s office has certainly weighed into some of the arguments with the suicides in terms of the impact that alcohol and that club has had on that community. That is something that certainly, through the Substance Abuse Committee, we are looking at addressing. Because whilst marijuana is certainly a big issue in these communities, I still say, and I know and I have heard a number of people in this parliament saying, and I agree totally, that alcohol, or grog, is still the biggest menace and demon that is causing problems amongst our mob.
Lawrence Costa, Henry Dunn, Patrick Puruntatameri and Patricia Brogan who has just recently - and that is another thing on the Tiwi Islands, and it is really good to see the mood that has happened with the Tiwis where young Tiwi women are going into many of these positions - so Patricia Brogan, congratulations. She was recently appointed the Community Services Manager with Pirlangimpi Council. Gibson Farmer is the president of Milikapiti, and one person who I think has life after politics. I was listening to her talk with Daryl Manzie at the Territory Tidy Towns forum last week where he was giving a talk in between the breaks about life after politics. I think we should have encouraged Maurice Rioli to give a bit of a talk about life after politics because he is doing a fantastic job at Milikapiti where he is now the Community Services Manager for Milikapiti Council. He is looking well, he is feeling well and he is back home. It is always good to get out to Milikapiti and touch base with Maurice and the community.
I move on to Maningrida. David Bond and all Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation management council and staff who do a fantastic job; Lyn Hollow, the principal of Maningrida CEC, and Helen Bond-Sharp. Sitting down and talking to Lyn and Helen, there are some positive and exciting plans for secondary education at Maningrida. All the staff have worked well all year and unfortunately there are some teachers leaving at the end of the year and moving to other communities or into Darwin as they have been there for some time and are seeking a change. I will be seeing all those teachers on my visit to Maningrida next week on the 5th and 6th to thank them personally for their commitment to improving the Maningrida children’s education.
Maningrida Council president Morris Geinbaraba and Council members; John Horgan and staff at the Council; Bill Young, Council and staff of the Maningrida Progress Association, Gordon Machbirrbirr and Council members of the Maningrida Health Board. One of the great things that is happening at Maningrida at the moment - for years that community has had a number of problems with levels of politics - it has been really good in the last six months where finally the community is coming together to address issues of governance and that is working with the traditional owners, whom I think over time have become disempowered and pushed out of the community. So, all the agencies are finally all talking about how they can now empower the traditional owners and get things happening at Maningrida to lay the foundations for a better future.
Anyone who knows Maningrida - and I am sure the member for Johnston and I certainly share mutual colleagues and friends there - can say that that is certainly a huge step forward of working with that community and getting them to come together and getting the agencies to work together.
Jabiluka Association Council in Jabiru, CEO Liam Maher and all the staff at Jabiluka; Gunbalanya, Esther and Joe Singh. Esther is the principal of Gunbalanya School and also the co-chair of the Learning Lessons committee. There is one teacher in particular who I would like to single out at the Jabiru Area School and that is Jo Vandermark. Jo works very hard to strive for better outcomes for indigenous students in Kakadu, has worked in many communities around the Top End but has been in at Jabiru Area School for some years. She has put a lot of her spare time, when she is not teaching in the classroom, setting up the centre inside the school to work intensively with indigenous children to try to lift the benchmarks with both their literacy and numeracy. She puts a lot of time and energy into providing these children with the support and mentoring that they need.
I thank the Legislative Assembly staff for all their support during the year. I know there are constant phone calls and e-mails from my office because there is a whole lot of confusion and just sorting out bills and different things, so I thank all the staff for their patience and helping us to sort that out. To Lyle, my new electorate officer, who, whilst it gets very serious and full on, can make you laugh and smile, and he just makes it all the better. It is certainly funny watching some of the countrymen when they come into the office. The minute Lyle opens his mouth, you see them slowly retreat - and not because they do not like him, but because of his antics that he shows. Certainly, they love him and he has been good in that office.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in the House and report on some of the very good things that are happen in my electorate. St Philip’s College is a college that strives for excellence amongst the students, not just academically, but also in the area of sport. They are very delighted that two volleyball teams from St Philip’s will head to Melbourne on Saturday. They will be the first Alice Springs team ever to compete in the Australian Schools Volleyball Championships.
This particular competition will have 3000 students from all around Australia, for a week of competition. The St Philip’s girls and boys teams will play in division one, the open section for players aged under 20, and play a minimum of eight games each. They have worked very hard to get to this level of competition. They leave by bus, and it is a long way from Alice Springs to Melbourne by bus. They leave at 4 am in the morning and they arrive on the Sunday morning. Then four hours later they will be there for their first training session. They have worked hard, and they take this competition very seriously.
The girls team is the St Philip’s team which won the Northern Territory Schools Volleyball Championships this year. They were invited to play in the Masters Games competition in October, which was an opportunity for them to get some strong, outstanding competition, and from which they learned a great deal. Their coach is Alex Pollitt. They are all delighted that, during the Masters competition, they were able to have a training workshop with the Olympic gold medal winner, Kerri Pottharst. She was very encouraging and enthusiastic about the school’s involvement in the Australian Schools Championship this year. Whenever we send students away it costs so much, but they have raised over $3000 as a group through such activities as envelope stuffing for the Masters Games, food stalls, chocolate sales and all those things. I wish them well and hope they do well in their first attempt to participate in the Australian Schools Volleyball Championships. I seek leave to have their names incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
- Coach Manager Alex Pollitt
Dean Williams Captain
- Pip North VC David Tudor VC
Beck Tudor Nathan Flanigan
Jo Kesby Chris Bullock
Danni McGinness Jake Bruce
Carly Spencely Matt Morton
Brittany Fischer Dan Goringe
Mrs BRAHAM: I also make mention of Braitling Primary School, which happens to be one of my favourite schools, as you can imagine. This year, a group of their students entered the Natural History Challenge. The title of the project they did for the challenge was Voyages and Journeys. They decided to research the history of one of the early Italian families who came by boat from Italy to Australia and then settled in Central Australia. They put together this history of the migrants of Central Australia, and the vital role they played, particularly in mining.
They had a suitcase as their museum display, because many migrants arrived just with a suitcase as you can imagine. The Ragonesi family went out to the Winnecke gold fields and it must have been such a hard life for them to have done it. So the suitcase had photographs and the handicrafts and all the little things that they had then. It was such a striking exhibition of that journey the Ragonesi family made, commencing their new life in the Centre of Australia after leaving Italy. It was very fitting that they used the Ragonesi family because that family has direct links with the Braitling school. Many of their descendants have attended Braitling, and there are currently three great-grandchildren there. The principal, Mary Blaiklock, grew up with the Ragonesi children in Central Australia. Her parents also were part of the Italian migrant families who came from Italy onto the gold fields.
The exciting thing about it, when they entered this, is that they did so well. They won first place in the Northern Territory Awards for the Year 5/6 level. They won for the museum display and primary sources. As well as that, they have been awarded the best overall entry in the Northern Territory from Years 5 to 12, receiving the Chief Minister’s Young Historian Awards. I am pleased to say that the Chief Minister attended the school assembly and presented this award to the young students.
Most exciting for them also, is that they are going to be attending the national championships as they went on to win at the national level. They will travel to Parliament House in Canberra in December for the national presentations. They are particularly chuffed about all this. I make mention of these students: they are Steven Crawford, Sianne Van Abkoude, Lauren Hicks and Misha Wakerman. They are typical of young, confident students today who have done this. Their teacher is Sue Endean, who has been involved in many of these projects in the past. It is a great credit to them. I congratulate these young students from Braitling Primary School for the tremendous effort they have put in and for receiving a prize in the national presentations. I know that they will do their school proud at the presentations in Canberra.
I also opened the Alice Springs Quilting Club exhibition this year. The Quilting Club has been established in Alice Springs since 1981. They have been holding their exhibitions at Araluen since it was opened in 1984. The exhibition was fantastic in my opinion. I am not a quilter so I can only just admire the work of these people. This year, they had to actually have their display in Witchetty’s, not in one of the galleries. I mention this because, since 1984, they have always held their exhibition in a gallery. It has always been well received and they have had many visitors – hundreds - to have a look at their exhibition. So it was a little sad that they were not allowed to be in a gallery this year.
This brings me to a point that I want to raise. I feel as though Araluen is beginning to lose what it was meant to be. It was established a long time ago by a gentleman called Jonah Jones, who had the foresight to establish a community art centre in Alice Springs. When it was first built, everyone use to laugh and call it the egg factory because it looked like a big tin shed. However, it has developed into a beautiful art exhibition area and governments over the year have certainly improved and upgraded it. It was meant for community groups to use and community groups have used it a lot. We have the Centralian Art Award, the Art Exhibition, all sorts of things go in there. Many of the community groups would sit the galleries and by doing that they would earn points which would assist in the cost of hiring the gallery to put on their display. There has been a trend recently that this has been discouraged. To be a sitter now, you have to be in a corporate uniform so, of course, the sitters do not come from the voluntary groups anymore.
The art gallery is beautiful, it has been upgraded, but it is becoming quite elitist. The fact that the Quilting Club could not hold their exhibition in one of these galleries reflects a little of the trend. There have been comments made that quilts are not art. To me, they are pieces of art. What these people have done in creating these quilts is beautiful. It is a little unfortunate that this thought is coming through that, perhaps, we have this elitist art gallery.
Some comments were made that we should have exhibitions that last six to eight weeks. Well, that is a little extreme in a place like Alice Springs. ‘We should not have the Centralian Art Award there, because that is really just local art’. This is a rather sad way to go. When it was built, it was built for the people of Alice Springs. We have always had Friends of Araluen, but I feel as though the Friends of Araluen are being squeezed out. We had an advisory board and I hear tell that they feel as though they have no place anymore in running the establishment; that they are only a token committee.
I would just like to say to the Chief Minister, I know she has been approached on this matter but she should think seriously about the way Araluen is being managed at the moment, and the trend to deter community groups from using Araluen for what it was originally intended. Even though it is great to have all these wonderful art exhibitions and the Namatjira Collection and such like that tourists like to see, it is also important to retain that community involvement in a centre like that, and have people– be it quilters or potters or whatever they are – be able to have their little exhibitions in those galleries. The galleries have been built to highlight works. Where the quilts were this year had a carpet on the floor and to be honest, it deadened it a little. But when you go into the gallery it is so light, it brings out the best in any works of arts that are there.
I would like the Chief Minister to take seriously some of the concerns that have been expressed to her about the trend that is occurring at Araluen, and to put the focus back on to community groups. Okay, so they are not in a corporate uniform but does it really matter who sits the gallery? I am quite sure that it would have save a lot in the way of payment of staff if they continued this voluntary work that happens at Araluen. The little caf there is run purely by voluntary people, and I am not sure whether that is going to survive, because of the fact that they do not seem to be welcome anymore at Araluen. Araluen is a great place. I am not knocking it as an establishment; it is fantastic. What I am suggesting is that we need to make sure that the community owns Araluen and is able to use it and feel comfortable there, but most of all, be encouraged to go there.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to raise an issue that has arisen during the course of the day, which is of some concern to me, or potential concern, as to the arrangements that currently exist in the Northern Territory and the supply of essential services into remote localities. This is by no means meant to be an attack on government and it should not be heard in that fashion. Rather, I seek to flag this as a potential issue for the future that may raise its ugly head, and needs to be considered at this early stage. It is incumbent upon me, as a member of this House, to raise this issue with government. It may or may not even become an issue, but I cannot forbear but to mention it.
What I am referring to is the arrangements that now occur in remote and regional communities in relation to the provision of services. I am somewhat concerned by the circumstances which arose this morning in the House, when I raised the question and a matter I have been pursuing for the last week or so, in relation to the supply of water in a couple of remote schools. I am heartened by the minister’s answer this morning and hope that the situation certainly does not repeat itself. Indeed, the minister himself made those observations.
However, because we have the devolution of the Power and Water Corporation into PowerWater, which is now a GBD - actually, no, it is a government owned business, so it is a free standing company, of which there is a shareholder, namely, the Treasurer, I believe, who is the only shareholder. But in every other sense, it is a company. This company operates in the same commercial environment that any other company would operate in, with the exception that it is owned by the government. What this means is that it is now very difficult to trace the movement of money through the government. The Minister for Community Development now gets a wad of money which is accounted for in the budget books; he then uses that wad of money to purchase services from PowerWater to deliver those services to remote and regional communities around the Northern Territory, similar to the old community service obligation, the obligation being on the government to provide the service to the remote and regional community.
In the old days, through the budget processes, we were able to drill down and pursue which money went where, and who got what, which was a handy tool to make sure that those services were being delivered. We are now dealing with an outside provider. This provider is no longer part of government and therefore when a government purchases a service from any other company, what the government pays for it specifically is not necessarily public information. In fact, in most instances such information I imagine would be commercial-in-confidence. It then makes it more difficult to pursue the movement of money, and we do not know whether or not the same amounts of money are being spent in the remote communities, and indeed, government is to some degree at arm’s length from the purchase of these services.
Certainly a minister - I notice that the Treasurer and the minister for education in this instance is the same person, but let’s say the health minister running a clinic in a remote community is in no position to be able to dictate how much money is spent. The government purchases the service through an expenditure through the Minister for Community Development, but there is no way for the Minister for Health to check, really, to find out how much clinics are getting, or more importantly, not getting.
Now, that is one of the ways that services are provided in the bush to remote communities, but unfortunately the processes that now exist is that there are two other levels. This is what the minister was at pains to point out this morning, is that in the instance where these particular schools were concerned, they were actually supposed to be supplied by local government authorities. In one instance, the local government authority is supposed to have its services purchased at a Territory government level from PowerWater; that is the example of Areyonga community. However, at the Hill outstation, the money is supplied by the federal government through ATSIC directly to the resource centre which is then supposed to outsource the funding to remote communities and homelands.
We have three tiers of government overlapping in this area; we have no way of really knowing where the money is being spent at a federal, state or local level which means that cost-cutting is going to become very tempting to the federal level, to the state level and to the local level, and one of the products of this is that the services that are delivered into the bush are going to be seriously undermined. That is what we have seen in the schools over the last week, the issue I have been raising, is the thin edge of the wedge. What concerns me is because of the disparate and disorganised fashion in which these services are being delivered, we may be going from the sublime to the ridiculous at a horrible pace. Because it is in the jurisdictional area of the Northern Territory, this government will seriously have to start looking at ways to rationalise or streamline the delivery of these services. There is no communication between these tiers and I have the ugly premonition that as a consequence of this lack of communication, holes are going to form.
You are going to see concentrations of cash in some places, where places are going to be over-serviced, and then in between those overs-serviced areas you are going to find holes in the fabric and through the holes in the fabric, is where the pain is going to occur in these remote communities.
I do not want to see that happen, simply do not want to see that happen. I am gravely concerned that you have three different levels of government offering similar services in remote communities and in communities where it is difficult to find the conduits of complaint. As I said at the outset, this is not a criticism of government; I merely flag this as an issue of concern into the future.
We have no guarantees in how these services are delivered; we have no system through estimates or otherwise as this parliament to know where the money is going into the bush for the supply of services, and more importantly and more fearfully, where the money is not going into the bush. As I said before, there is a real risk that this could turn into cost shifting exercises, not because of any act of malice on the part of government, but simply because it becomes so tempting. If it is not traceable, if it is not accountable, and the pressure is on to save money, then the areas where accountability is at lower levels or non-existent levels, are the ones which will suffer first. I do not want to see a situation where we have a minister saying, kids at school, no water, not my problem. I am grateful that the minister this afternoon, during Question Time said, ‘Not my problem; I appreciate that, but we will still take steps to intervene for the sake of the kids’, and I am grateful for that.
The other thing that concerns me is a curious question as to the asset structure of PowerWater. There are any number of assets sitting in any number of remote communities - generators, powerhouses, tanks, bores, those sorts of things - which were previously listed, or would be listed, on accounting systems as a zero value. The reason that would occur is because a zero value would be applied to an asset which we would effectively have no control over. These powerhouses stand on somebody else’s land. There are no leasing arrangements that I am aware, for the existence of powerhouses and those sorts of things. The land they stand on is certainly not excised from the freehold land that they stand on, and therefore, there is a very big question mark as to who owns it.
Now, if PowerWater, in relation to these assets, still values them as nil, who owns them, where are they owned? And if there is no sense of ownership over these assets, I am gravely concerned that this too will erode the sense of responsibility that the owner of the property, whoever that may be, will have in relation to those assets. And if the sense of responsibility is the same as its asset value figure, then there is a diabolical problem awaiting just around the corner for this government, and any other government which will be in the Northern Territory into the future. It is totally uncertain as to where those assets stand at law or even who owns them now. Who is taking responsibility for the power station at Alpurrurulam, or at Nyirripi, or at Maningrida? I do not know. I do not know if PowerWater says that they are their own, and if they are, what value they place on them.
I flag that as a matter of concern. I see it as a matter of concern which is going to play itself out in the future, in a very ugly way, unless there is some sort of intervention to prevent the further degradation of services and the further breakdown in communication which will lead to a degradation of services in the bush.
I also make my Christmas message tonight fairly brief. I thank the staff of the Legislative Assembly, as I do every year. They have put in a sterling effort. Sometimes I wonder why they put up with us, but they are unflappable in the face of the bear pit in here. I also wish to pass on my Christmas regards to each and every member of this Chamber. No, we do not always agree, but I still believe that the vast majority of us are in here for the right reasons, and that is the advancement of the people of the Northern Territory.
I pass on my Christmas cheer to Mal and Jan Derby. Jan is my ever zealous electorate officer. She and her husband, Malcolm, moved to Alice Springs a couple of years ago. I picked Jan up almost by accident, and she has been an absolute boon to me, and Mal has been also a very helpful gentleman. I am grateful for the many hours that he has put in on my behalf, for no reward other than for the thrill of doing it, I suppose, or some other such madness.
I also place on the record again, a happy and merry Christmas to my wife, a lady I love very much, and for some reason, has for another year chosen to stick it out with me. I asked her once why she married me and she said, ‘Charity’. I am not entirely sure if she was joking! She is an extraordinary lady and I consider myself blessed beyond words to be married to her, and to have her into my life and all the stuff that we have done over the years continues to be a reason I get out of bed in the morning. Once again, I place on the record a merry Christmas to her.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to make my contribution, which may, be my last contribution for this year. Firstly, to look back and then to look forward with expectation, when we survey the scene behind us and look at the way our paths have wound throughout the course of this year, and our fortunes, one way or another, have shone on us and given us some joy, and other times the opposite. We then look forward to see what lies ahead of us. These are, indeed, interesting times for the Northern Territory and its people - and the people are really what this is all about.
We come to Christmas and we often consider things such as family and that base line issue of what we are getting for Christmas. As a local member and representative of a good portion of Palmerston, and a cross section of the Top End of the Northern Territory’s population, I would hope that we would be receiving some of the things that Santa has promised to the good people. We are eagerly looking forward to these. We are anticipating the arrival of these gifts and, this being the second Christmas, we hope that these gifts will be deposited beneath the tree.
An indoor recreation facility for Palmerston has been talked about under the previous government and $500 000 committed to the foundation infrastructure development. We wait for something more; the next stage of this. I hope that we do not have to wait for yet another Christmas.
A home ground for the Palmerston Magpies, which have won two NTFL grand finals and seem to be doing quite well in the current round. Hopefully, we are not going past our second Christmas. Underneath the Christmas tree is no clear and concrete commitment to what this promise of a gift from Santa actually meant; that we would have a home ground facility. The commitment has been made and we eagerly sit around that tree waiting to see how this will manifest.
A health precinct for Palmerston that delivers what the good people of Palmerston expected it would, that they would be able to go to a place in the evening where their health concerns would be met.
Another expectation has been raised; we are sitting around the Christmas tree waiting for the announcement that there will actually be, in real terms, a new school for Rosebery to take the pressure off schools such as Bakewell and Woodroffe. That the students, staff and the parents of Bakewell School will have the promised four demountables and ablution block delivered to them in real terms, and that the female staff of the school will have an ablution block. With the increased population of the female gender in the school there are insufficient toilet facilities.
On a broader scale, I hope that we see underneath the Christmas tree in the new year the unpacking of gifts in the form of many more teachers than we expected - eager and keen to impart that spark of life and enthusiasm and vision for community service and developing of skills inherent in our young in the Northern Territory. Many more teachers than we expected would arrive and vie for the positions, to have these honoured positions to stand before classrooms right across the Northern Territory, remote communities and in urban communities. That our relief teacher lists would be bolstered with talent and quality, and that principals would have no concern in the mornings when the phone rings that one of the teachers is ill; and we would have a vast list of numbers to phone, each of them ringing in the home of a relief teacher who is keen to come in and serve that day.
That each of these teachers would be well and comprehensively supported by professional development and curriculum support. That the idea that has been spoken about, the promise of a teachers’ registration board, would be more clearly defined, so we would know exactly what this gift is and what it can actually do. And for the people of the Northern Territory, even wider still, we would have the gift that this construct, being the parliament, would begin to evaporate the cynicism that we have in our community – and not just this community, but in most western worlds – of what is it really all about.
There would be a greater and increased connection with the people of the Northern Territory, so that when we stand in the mornings and say, ‘may we advance and prosper the true welfare of all Territorians’, that is exactly what would happen as a result of our activities in here. That the interchange across the Chamber would be to advance and prosper the true welfare of Territorians as opposed to the true welfare and prosperity of our own political agendas.
I now acknowledge the most valuable resources that any person can have. It has been acknowledged, importantly, even in Scripture, that it is not good for man to be alone. I am not alone. I have a wife, and I acknowledge my dear wife and the pressures that are placed on her by the task that I have taken upon myself, and the responsibilities I have taken to serve my community. It falls in quiet ways upon my wife. And on my two children, Kristen and Matthew. They are just entering adult life now. I entered this place when they were in school and now they have left school, and have both taken their own paths. I thank them very much for the relationship that I have with them.
I thank my electorate officer, Tasma, for the relationship that we have and the way that we are together in supporting our electorate, and her family, and the pressure that it places on her family, that strange notion we have of service and commitment and delivering a more favourable outcome for the people we have responsibility for. To those who work on the 4th floor in the Leader of the Opposition’s office - Imelda, Kylie, Gary and Jim - the many additional hours they contribute, hours that do not equate to dollars, but hours that equate to devotion and service and commitment, to the true welfare and prosperity of the people of the Northern Territory.
I do not draw a line when I refer to parliamentary colleagues because I still do believe that our task is to advance and prosper the true welfare of Territorians, and to parliamentary colleagues from both sides, I pray that we will continue to work actively to make that a reality and that our debates would have that as the central core.
The party members in the CLP who are going through a very interesting period, as an understatement, but it is a very exciting period because it is a time of reformation, restructure, and refocus of the challenges there and the challenges to be met. The party members in the Labor Party, who are also true believers have been there through dark times and now it is their time in the sun. May both sides be able to reposition and readjust and ensure that their endeavours and activities are primarily to advance and prosper the true welfare of all Territorians. I wish them all the best for Christmas and beyond.
I thank the media for the friendships that have been formed; the relationships are valued because it is too easy to be distracted by the superficial, the headline and the article in the paper or the grab on the news, and to know it is really all about people. I respect the media and appreciate the contribution they do make and value each one of you for the time that we have spent together. I look forward to your contribution in the coming year and years beyond.
I also acknowledge the staff of this great Chamber. It was not until coming into this Chamber that I began to understand how important this place is. I thank Ian for his guidance, Gaddy, Stoksie and Samantha - there will be a name or two that I do not acknowledge - please do not take it that I have not valued your contribution; it is just at this point that I cannot encompass everybody.
To those in Hansard, it was tremendous earlier in the year to go up there and visit you and see the work that you do and to know who you are because, once again, it is all about people. I value the contribution that you do make and the friendships that have been formed and the way that you participate in the very important role for Territorians in recording that which is debated and discussed here in this Chamber.
So once again, for Christmas I hope that the notion of advancement and prosperity of the true welfare of all Territorians would be central and foremost in the minds and the hearts of everybody who is involved in this game one way or another. I wish all who read and listen to these words a very happy, prosperous and blessed Christmas and a new year that has a spark in it that counters the concerns that have unsettled the hearts and minds of many families and people right around the world, particularly here in the Northern Territory, with recent events of 11 September, and 12 October.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about a few events in my electorate and beyond. I will be delivering a bit of a Christmas wind-up tomorrow night - not a wind-up, but just a few words.
On 25 October, a group from Jingili Primary School Year 6/7 visited Parliament House with their teacher, Kaye Creek. The students were participating in the Discovering Democracy Forum and tour of the law courts, Darwin City Council and Parliament House. They were a fantastic group of children who asked intelligent, well-thought out questions and were exceptionally well behaved. Also on 25 October, I represented the Chief Minister at the COTA AGM at the Darwin City Council Chambers with the Lord Mayor as guest speaker. It was great to see so many people who had come out to support COTA and to see what an active organisation it is.
On Saturday, 26 October, I attended the Neighbourhood Watch 12th Annual Conference and AGM at the university. The theme was Crime: Combating the Cause, and the special guest speaker was Ross McCrone from Tasmania. He addressed some of the recent trends in fraud that have been identified by the National Fraud Desk including plastic card fraud, fraud related to the Internet and a particular scam that is generally called West African sympathy or advance fee card. It was good to see members of Neighbourhood Watch from all over the Territory participating at this conference.
On Saturday 26th and Sunday 27th October, it was the commemoration of the Greek October ‘OXI’ Day at the Nightcliff Greek School and the church service at St Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church followed by a wreath laying ceremony at the Esplanade Cenotaph on Sunday. On the Saturday it was great to see all he kids there, reciting poems and singing songs. It was a great crowd and all the parents and families really appreciated it. Sunday was a somber day but I know the Greek people are very proud of their war history during World War II and the way that they resisted the fascists.
On Saturday 26 October, I attended the Duke Street Rainforest Landcare Group official opening of the new boardwalk and walking track into the rainforest that they have helped regenerate and rehabilitate. They are a very active group. The member for Port Darwin was there and the Lord Mayor also came along. I have not been there before and I really pay tribute to that group for the great way they have rehabilitated that area and put in walking tracks. They are looking for other areas to do likewise and I commend them.
On 28 October I attended a COGSO meeting in Len Kiely’s office and the subject was school based constables and the DARE program. That was a pretty lively discussion but there is evidence about school based constables and the DARE program and about teachers delivering drug education in our schools.
On 29 October, I attend the Cattle Council dinner in Katherine and, as Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, had a look over a few facilities there in Katherine. I am very interested in the grain industry and the cattle industry. I am looking forward to many trips to Katherine. It is a great place.
Now, about some schools and other community events. Moil Athletics Club: I donated some money to help Joshua Brogan and Kevin Howard to compete as part of the NT Athletics team at the Northern Queensland championships held on 5 and 6 October 2002 in Townsville. Over 500 athletes from the northern region of Queensland competed in the event. The NT team consisted of 37 athletes and they performed fantastically, bringing home 22 gold, 17 silver and 20 bronze medals. They also won five out of six relay events which shows they have been training and practicing quite a lot. Kevin Howard won a bronze medal for the 100m with an impressive time of 13.71s and a gold medal as part of the relay team. Unfortunately, Josh Brogan sustained injury and was unable to contest in his events.
In terms of Moil School, the University of New South Wales Mathematics competition has been held. Congratulations to Year 7 student, Samantha Leung, who received a high distinction award. Distinctions awards were received by Millicent Crowe, Oliver Bruekers, Lenny Quong in Year 7; Puanna Kapi in Year 6; Simon Long, Iona Watson and Ian Moriarty in Year 5; Darcy Stanford, Jamie Lang, Joshua Rudd and Christopher Frew in Year 4; and Megan Party, Charlotte Nathan, Phoebe Martin and Mallory McGuiness in Year 3. Credit awards went to Ayrial Harburn, James Roberts and Daniel Reeves in Year 7; Jordan Jones and Paul Anderson in Year 6; Rebecca Waddington in Year 5; Zac Anderson, Zara Geraghty and Clancy Bennett-Kellam in Year 4; and David Carroll, Brianna Harding, Alex Nathan and Rachel Quong in Year 3.
Wagaman Primary School achieved great results in this year’s University of New South Wales Australian School English Competition with a High Distinction to Adam Pulford; Distinction to Afif Whykes, Kirsten Heslop, Brooke Ottley, and Amy Whykes; and Credit to Steven Heslop, Amy Russell and Dale Motter. Achievement (School Award) were presented to Alexandra Presswell, Isabel Kallinosis, Andri Ladju, Sam Larder, Samantha Sheehy, Melody Rayson, Candice Sanchez, Tyson Cigobia, Joshua Larder, Ella Thomson, Latoya Wauchope, Glenn Silva and Meg Polkinghorne.
Jingili School: at the Nightcliff Zone Swimming Carnival in October, the following students swam very well: congratulations to Jake Gilbert, Jack Simpson, Chantel Holloway, John Holloway, Sam Sommerville, Allan Sommerville, Luke Eggins, Jarrod Eggins and Jessica Shalders.
Casuarina Senior College: congratulations to Colleen McAlpine, who won the national VET in Schools WorldSkills competition in the Business Administration section. The competition was held in Newcastle in late October, with participants from every state across several skills areas.
Finally, I take this opportunity to wish the graduating students all the best as they move on to their career path and lifestyle; it is a big transition. To all the schools in the Johnston electorate - Wagaman, Moil, Jingili and, of course, Casuarina Senior College, to all the staff and students, and all the parents, I wish them a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016