2007-05-03
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 354 petitioners relating to the amalgamation of the Litchfield Shire Council. This petition is in similar terms to petition No 55 read in the Assembly during the April sittings. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, this government promised in 2001 that we would work with the Commonwealth and private providers to build a high quality, safe, sustainable radiation oncology unit in Darwin. We are delivering on that promise.
I am pleased to report that on 13 March 2007, I signed a formal agreement with federal Health minister, Tony Abbott, which should see the construction of the unit begin later this year, and the unit operational by early 2009. This formalises the position that the Commonwealth will commit an initial $13m while the Northern Territory government will commit land on the RDH campus on which the unit can be built. The Northern Territory will fund Allied Health and Community Nursing staff to support the service and the Northern Territory will develop accommodation options for cancer patients and their families coming to Darwin.
The agreement opens the way for the Commonwealth government to go out to tender for a provider to set up and run the service. This tender process is a requirement of the Commonwealth and part of their commitment to this service. Fortunately, the Australian government has contracted the services of Professor Michael Barton to provide specialist clinical advice on the contents of the tender documents. Professor Barton, as well as being one of the foremost experts in the field, is also one of the authors of the report that the Northern Territory government commissioned on how to establish this service.
The request for tender will include the building and the development of the radiation oncology unit with two-linear accelerator or linac capacity. The two accelerators will allow for growth capacity and continuation of local treatment should repairs be required. As I understand it, the Australian government has advised that the anticipated date of the release for the request for tender that I have just mentioned will be mid- to late May 2007.
The radiation oncology unit will expand the current cancer services available to all Territory residents, and will be staffed by specialists to ensure the delivery of a high quality service. The unit will be an extension of an established unit operating elsewhere in Australia. Contrary to some recent claims, I can inform you that in common with most such units in Australia, the unit will operate as a day service, Monday to Friday. I can further confirm that the provision of medical staff will be the responsibility of the provider and will be funded through access to the Medical Benefits Scheme or MBS.
We owe it to all Territorians, especially cancer sufferers and their families, to get this right. We have been up-front and open about the timing for the unit. While much of the detail of the timing will be determined through the Commonwealth’s tender process, estimates of the unit being operational by March next year may unrealistically raise cancer sufferers’ hopes and the hopes of their families.
Building and opening such a high tech service is a complex matter. The linac machines need to be purchased, transported to Darwin, installed and calibrated, and the technical staff have to be recruited and put on deck. This gives a realistic time frame of mid- to late 2007 for construction to begin, with the unit becoming operational in early 2009. That was the text of the conversation I had with Tony Abbott when we signed the agreement, and that is the Commonwealth’s time frame …
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This week we have heard people refer to members of other parliaments by their Christian names and surnames. I remind members of Standing Orders 62 and 65; we should only refer to other parliamentarians by their electorate names or titles.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Braitling. Minister for Health, if you would rephrase, please.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. When I spoke to the federal Health minister on this topic, that was his time frame also. When the radiation oncology unit commences, Territory residents will be able to access radiotherapy services within the Territory. While the service will be able to treat a wide range of cancers, it is anticipated that some complex conditions and those requiring sub-speciality expertise may not be able to be treated locally. Clients requiring services not available in Darwin will, of course, remain eligible for support through Patient Assisted Travel Scheme, or PATS, to allow them to access specialist treatment interstate.
This commitment to build the facilities could not have been achieved without the close cooperation of the Territory and Commonwealth governments. I thank the federal government for their cooperation, and look forward to working with them further to deliver this important health facility for Territorians suffering from cancer and, of course, the families who support them.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report on the radiation oncology unit. Thank God for David Tollner who convinced the federal government to commit the money …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Rather than have the member for Braitling up on this one, I think we just had a ruling about referring to members in other parliaments.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, if you could refer to him as the member for Solomon.
Dr LIM: If I can have the clock stopped to speak to point of order, Madam Speaker. In this House, members of government are the worst offenders of this rule and …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex …
Dr LIM: … I will withdraw the name of the member for Solomon. That is fine. I believe that if we are going to implement this standing order, let’s do it across the board at all times from now on. Let us do it from now on. The ministers are the worst.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, if you would just refer to the member for Solomon by his correct title and continue.
Dr LIM: The member for Solomon was the one who actually got the money for the radiation oncology unit and it has taken this government a long time to get it settled. The sooner it is done, the better. Territorians who suffer from cancer need this service as quickly as possible.
For years I have asked this government to give a commitment for cancer sufferers in Alice Springs, who have had strong links with Adelaide for a long time, and Adelaide knows Alice Springs patients well. They know the clinicians in Alice Springs well. They have worked together as a team for more years than I care to remember. It is important for this government to give Alice Springs residents a commitment that if they need to go to Adelaide, the government will provide Patient Assisted Travel Scheme funding to get to Adelaide.
For years this government has continued to refuse to give that commitment. At the last sittings, the question was asked again of the government, and again government refused to give the commitment. Every time I raise this issue with government, the member for Braitling slams it, saying: ‘Why are you asking that question? It is a silly question’. This is the woman who decided …
Mrs Braham interjecting
Dr LIM: … to object to the question when I asked …
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex is misleading the House. I was the one in Alice Springs who asked whether the minister would provide facilities for Alice Springs people.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling, resume your seat.
Mrs Braham: He should withdraw.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Member for Braitling, if you wish, you may approach me about a making a personal explanation. Member for Greatorex, please continue.
Dr LIM: The member for Braitling in Alice Springs grandstanded and asked the question. For years, she slagged the CLP for trying to fight for people in Alice Springs, to seek support from government to get to Adelaide for cancer treatment. This is the government that refuses to treat Alice Springs residents as equal citizens. Alice Springs patients deserve to go to Adelaide for treatment.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I put on the record that I remember the member for Braitling asking the question about what was going to happen to people living in Alice Springs in relation to the oncology unit. We should not just be talking about Alice Springs in relation to this oncology unit; we should be talking about all Territorians. Not everyone who lives far away from Darwin lives in Alice Springs. There are remote communities like Borroloola. There are Aboriginal communities here, there and everywhere. I ask the government not only if they are going to provide accommodation for those people, but what support are you going to give in relation to transporting people to and from the oncology unit and what support would you give?
One of the issues I raised earlier in this debate was that by sending especially Aboriginal people a long way from home, they do not have support, especially in places like Adelaide. We would have the same issue if someone was coming from Kintore, Yuendumu and other parts of the Territory. They would find Darwin a fairly foreign place as well. I am interested to know what sort of support we are going to give to those people because that is a very important part of the health aspect. It is not just the radiation treatment, but the way we deal with people as a whole.
I welcome the report from the minister. It has taken a long time. I remember a little figure called 2001 when this was going to happen. It is happening and it is a great thing. People might see this as a bit political, but I ask, in all seriousness, if a radiation oncology unit is going to create radioactive waste, is part of the tender document going to include the storage of waste products when this facility is completed?
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I welcome the comments from the member for Nelson. Obviously, Aboriginal people currently have to travel to Adelaide and they receive support services there for their treatment. I am very keen, as I said in the Alice Springs parliament, and I have given an undertaking to the Central Australian group Bosom Buddies, to visit Greenhill Lodge to look at the support services there. I want to see a similar standard of service here. In terms of travel, that would be through patient travel for anyone in the Territory to enable them to come to Darwin. I understand that it is a difficult issue for those in Alice Springs.
In relation to the issues raised by the member for Greatorex, if he has concerns about the nature of the service, he should be talking with the Commonwealth because they are the ones who are going out to tender on the shape, size and catchment of the service. As well as talking to the Northern Territory government, member for Greatorex, you also need to be speaking to the Commonwealth on the issues that you have raised.
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I will update the House on my recent overseas travel during March to Dubai, London and Berlin. It is recognised that building the economic value of tourism in the Territory is likely to come primarily from the international markets. Underpinning any success in this area is increasing aviation access to the Territory from our key source markets of the United Kingdom and Europe, which currently deliver more than 60% of all our international visitors. A key focus of this trip was to meet with airlines located in the Middle East, that is Etihad Airways and Emirates.
I met with the Regional GM Asia Pacific of Etihad Airways in Abu Dhabi. Etihad Airways is a relatively young company and was recently granted additional flights to Australia by the federal government. These services out of Sydney offer good connecting passenger flows from our key source markets of Paris, Frankfurt and Milan.
I also met with Emirates Airlines Vice-President Route and Fleet Planning in Dubai. This airline has also successfully secured additional flights every week to Australia. During my discussions with officials from both Etihad and Emirates, I outlined the benefits of using Darwin as an entry point into Australia. These meetings were very positive, and both airlines were impressed by what the Territory has to offer.
I have extended invitations to both Etihad Airways and Emirate officials to visit the Territory so they can experience firsthand the range of products and unique lifestyle the Territory has to offer. There is great potential for the Territory, but realistically, these are medium- to long-term opportunities I will continue to pursue in the future.
In London, I met with Royal Brunei officials who outlined their long-term plans for Australia and in particular the Territory, including the upcoming joint Royal Brunei-Tourism NT campaign. This campaign is targeted to a consumer base which traditionally travels to Asia for business and leisure. This will be a major push by Royal Brunei to increase visitation from the important UK market. Finally, the aviation meetings concluded with a briefing from Qantas UK. Qantas is our key cooperative marketing airline partner in the UK and central Europe.
Whilst in London, I met with senior representatives of STA, a leading UK youth travel group, who highlighted the challenges and future potential of the Territory. STA have been our partners in the recent Tiger Airways campaign, aimed at encouraging working holidaymakers to consider Darwin as a low cost gateway into Australia with a lead in fare of ₤299.
Darwin as a gateway destination proved immensely popular to the target segment. For the two month period of the campaign, STA achieved a 407% increase in passengers, from 386 in January 2006 to 1956 passengers from February 2007. Discussions were also held with STA Travel about the enormous demand for working holiday visa opportunities, conservation and volunteer tourism products in the Northern Territory. The General Manager of STA Travel believes there are great opportunities for the Territory and is keen to work in partnership with the government in developing culturally sensitive and sustainable tourism opportunities.
At the Australian Embassy in Berlin, I caught up with the last leg of the Australian Aboriginal Roadshow, a federal initiative that enabled indigenous tour operators to meet with European buyers and media. The Territory was well represented, with participation by the Jawoyn Association and Mandy Muir representing the Kakadu group. By all accounts, they have done an excellent job representing Northern Territory indigenous experiences and supporting our desire to be the leading nature and cultural destination. The diversity of Australian indigenous product at the road show served as a reminder that we cannot become complacent as others are aggressively pursuing indigenous tourism.
In Berlin, I also attended ITB, the world’s largest tourism show. It was at ITB that I had the pleasure of launching our new updated consumer websites in German, French and Italian language to over 20 German journalists, transforming the Internet into an integral tool for European travellers researching holiday destinations. The sites offer Germans, French and Italians a more comprehensive source of Northern Territory travel information. Further website upgrades are planned by the end of June, including language translations of Japanese and simplified Chinese. The consumer website will feature a new look, a more experience-based content, including multimedia and video, greater functionality, better search capabilities, an improved menu and user friendly navigation tools.
The redevelopment of this award-winning site will enhance travelnt.com and australiasoutback.com capacity to capture people’s awareness and encourage them to visit the Northern Territory, that is, convert people’s interest into actual visitation. It is initiatives like this that will see the Territory keep pace with consumer trends and expectations out of our key markets in Europe and Asia.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I am pleased to hear that you contacted as many airlines as you possibly could while you were overseas. Of course, that happens to be one of the challenges that the tourism industry faces in the Northern Territory, the lack of seats into the Territory. It was very good to hear that you have approached them. I want to know, in your reply, if you would tell me how you got on with Emirates because it would be interesting to know if they are seriously considering using Darwin even as a stopover. There is a great opportunity to bring many more people into Australia and I know that Emirates may be a very keen competitor there.
I know we have some members of the Northern Territory tourism industry who go to ITB each year and it is enormous. I have not had the privilege of going there myself, but I know that all of those who go to ITB represent the Northern Territory and their product very well. Werner Sarny from Katherine never fails to attend ITB and with the success of Travel North it has paid dividends for him.
I was particularly interested to see the Australian Aboriginal Roadshow this year because I believe that cultural tourism has still not anywhere near fully developed in the Northern Territory. The opportunity for us to develop that sector needs to be promoted even further. I know the Jawoyn had a very successful trip overseas and I congratulate them for taking the opportunity to go. So, well done. I would like to see some more passenger seats coming into the Territory, and I would like to hear the results of the talks, minister.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, it is good that the minister is continuing the push to get other airlines to the Territory. Could you give us an update of where we may be at regarding an international airport at Alice Springs? Let us not forget that it is great to get other airlines into Darwin, but we do not have much choice in Alice. We would love to have an alternative airline coming into the Centre so that we could have a choice and more frequent flights. Could you also let us know whether there are any other airlines considering coming to Alice? The charters that have come in from Japan have been extremely successful and, if we can promote and encourage more of those, it would be great.
It is unfortunate that all the goodwill that you are generating in the tourism industry was undone by the Today Tonight program. I saw it last night. Apparently, what we saw in Darwin was not the whole program that was aired down south. People have to ask what the hidden agenda was in promoting the program by going to the national media. We probably all know exactly what that hidden agenda is. Minister, if we could put that aside, could you update us on what you have in respect of encouraging more airlines to come to the Centre?
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for positive comments.
To the member for Katherine, regarding Emirates and Etihad Airways, the key and the next stage is getting senior representatives from those airlines to the Northern Territory. It is all very well doing a presentation, but there is nothing like actually getting your feet on the ground and experiencing the Northern Territory. Invitations have been issued and I am hopeful that towards the end of this year, we will have visits from both of those airlines. As I said, it is medium- to long-term, but we will continue to pursue it because it is important to get these people on the ground. ITB is huge, as you said.
To the member for Braitling, we continue to push opportunities for competition into Alice Springs. Recently, the CE of Tourism NT met with senior executives from Virgin Blue to put yet another case to them. I am working very hard to secure Tiger Airways into Darwin and Alice Springs as part of their new national network. Hopefully, there will be announcements later in the year. They are commercial decisions, but we are working very hard with Virgin Blue and Tiger Airways.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I would like this morning to introduce members to a largely unknown part of my department, the Northern Territory Herbarium.
Most people are not aware of the existence of this priceless, irreplaceable collection of plant specimens located in a very cold bunker in Palmerston with a smaller collection in Alice Springs. The herbarium has a preserved collection of over 230 000 plant specimens. The Alice Springs collection focuses, naturally, on desert flora.
The herbarium collection has been built up largely over 53 years by dedicated staff of the herbarium and other government agencies. It is utilised by scientists, students, consultants and the general public for research on the Territory’s flora. A checklist of the plants of the Northern Territory, both naturally occurring and naturalised exotic plant species, is regularly produced. The latest recognises 4279 native species and 396 naturalised plants.
On a recent visit to the herbarium, I was shown a number of plant species from the collection which are unique to the Tiwi Islands, including a new species, Mitrella tiwiensis, which has been formally recognised. I was also privileged to see the oldest specimen held in the herbarium, collected by Joseph Banks 237 years ago. How this specimen came to be part of our collection is a secret, but I can tell you it involves typical Territory ingenuity and sleight of hand.
The herbarium is currently transferring its collections from top-loading cardboard boxes to purpose-built front-loading plastic herbarium boxes. The new boxes will provide a number of benefits to the herbarium, its users and to the specimens including: increased storage capacity; providing a moisture resistance barrier to condensation formed from the 24-hour airconditioning and from post-CO2 discharge in the case of fire; easier access to specimens; and decreasing the levels of naphthalene in the vault. I can attest to the levels of naphthalene not only in the vault housing the specimens, which is extremely cold; the smell of mothballs is almost overbearing.
The Biodiversity Conservation Division of NRETA is responsible for the herbarium and is undertaking a related and very important ethnobiology project.
In January, I travelled to Kybrook Farm to meet with some of the Wagiman–Guwardagun rangers to launch the latest Territory publication on Aboriginal knowledge, Wagiman Plants and Animals. The member for Nelson spoke about this book during the February sittings. It is the 15th book produced by the Ethnobiology Project Group in the department, and the fifth that includes plants and animals. Many of you will be familiar with the very successful Tiwi Plants and Animals printed in 2001 and the Jawoyn Plants and Animals of 2005.
Wagiman Plants and Animals records the names and uses of 240 plants and 260 animals, together with their scientific names, common English names and illustrations of almost half of the species. The project was undertaken at the request of senior Wagiman elders who were concerned about the possible loss of knowledge when they passed away. Unfortunately, this concern was correct because, as is too often the case with the indigenous society, three of the senior Wagiman authors passed away before the book was completed.
NRETA biologists and Wagiman elders began working on the book in June 1998 and final checking of the information was completed in April 2006, an eight year labour of love. The knowledge contained in the book represents thousands of years of research by thousands of Wagiman people over many generations.
The Katherine Region Aboriginal Language Centre and the University of Newcastle also provided a great deal of support to the project. In a similar collaboration, a revised version of The Mangroves of the Northern Territory, Australia: Identification and Traditional Use, which was first published in 1989, has recently been released. I have copies of both of these publications to distribute to all members. I encourage all members to arrange a visit to see these wonderful facilities for themselves.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the husband of the member for Arnhem, Mr Norm Grogan, and family members, the member for Arnhem’s mother, Mrs Maisie Charlie, and aunt, Mrs Miriam Charlie. On behalf of all honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear! Hear!
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. As you said, minister, it is a little known part of the portfolio and while I feel very guilty that I have not visited the Herbarium, I believe the members for Nelson and Blain have. It is something that I have to get up to speed on. I know that it has been working away very quietly in the background for some time because it was established many years ago. We did something right under the CLP government. We established it along time ago and it is very pleasing to see that it is still working well. I look forward to visiting it. I applaud the people who work in a dedicated way to maintain the credibility of the herbarium. I thank the minister for her report.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am sure the Northern Territory herbarium was here before any political parties existed. I am a great fan of herbariums; they are wonderful places. If you have problems with silverfish in your clothes and you want to get rid of them, visit for an hour and you will not have any left because, as the minister said, she came out smelling like mothballs.
They are a great source of knowledge and history because many of the plants we have in the herbarium date back quite a number of years. I am pleased that the minister has spoken about the ethnology projects, especially the Tiwi, the Wagiman and the Jawoyn books, which are the main ones I discussed in parliament. It is great that we are able to expand our knowledge because the normal European-type herbarium included an English name and a Latin or botanic name, and it is interesting to hear the crossover there of Latin and Tiwi in one of the species names. The minister, if she can speak Tiwi, can pronounce botanical names because I find them both difficult.
Another interesting thing is that you do not have to go to the herbarium. You can put your picture online and ask them for identification. That is what happened recently. Bees Creek Primary School has a garden. Up came this fantastic looking plant. They asked me to identify it. I thought it was a watermelon, but the flowers were wrong so I got my camera out, took some photographs, e-mailed them off to the herbarium. Sure enough, it was not a watermelon. It was a plant belonging to the convolvulus family, which had come from south of Katherine. How it got there we do not know, but we think that somewhere in the compost was some cow manure that was shifted to Bees Creek Primary School. So there was an easy way, without having to go into the herbarium, to get identification of a plant. People who live a long way from the herbarium can use that facility. I also congratulate all the people who work there because it is a great place.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank both members for their comments. I acknowledge the work done by the herbarium staff, in particular Greg Leach, Glenn Wightman, Dale Dixon, Ian Cowie, Phillip Short, Raelee Kerrigan, Andrea Hope, Mireille Beaupellet, David Albrecht, Angus Duguid and Hilary Coulson.
I congratulate the authors of the Wagiman book: Lenny Gappuya Liddy, Joe Galwaying Huddlestone, Helen Imorrotjba Liddy, George Jabarlgarri Huddlestone, and I note the three who have since passed away, and Mark Harvey from the University of Newcastle. I particularly thank Glenn Wightman on his excellent publication and the dedication he devotes to his work.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The bill seeks to put in place a package of revenue measures announced as part of the 2007-08 Budget and the national tax reform measure announced as part of the 2005-06 Budget by proposing amendments to the Stamp Duty Act, the Taxation (Administration) Act and the First Home Owner Grant Act.
I will now address the changes proposed in the bill in more detail. To further assist first homebuyers to purchase a home, the government proposes to increase the stamp duty first homeowner concession from the first $225 000 of a property’s value to the first $350 000 of a property’s value. This will result in the maximum concession increasing from $8016 to $15 312, almost doubling the stamp duty saving on the purchase of a first home. It is proposed that this change apply to instruments executed on or after 1 May 2007. Purchases secured prior to that date either by contract or option will not be eligible for the increased concession. This measure is expected to save Territory first homebuyers $3.9m in 2007-08.
As part of the Territory’s commitment to national tax reform that was announced in the 2005-06 Budget, stamp duty on hiring arrangements will be abolished from 1 July 2007. This is expected to save all Territorians about $5.3m in 2007-08. The way in which stamp duty on hiring arrangements is proposed to be abolished will mean that no stamp duty will be payable on amounts received after 30 June 2007 by those taxpayers who pay hiring duty on a monthly returns basis.
However, for all other taxpayers who have paid stamp duty up-front on an instrument subject to hiring duty, no refund will be available for amounts received after 30 June 2007 in respect of the unexpired term of the arrangement. This treatment is consistent with that of other states and territories that have already legislated for the abolition of stamp duty on hiring arrangements. Importantly, the old rules, such as the requirement to keep records and when a liability to pay hiring duty arises will continue to apply to hiring arrangements entered into before 1 July 2007. Greater detail of these changes and all changes proposed in the bill are set out in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the bill.
I turn now to the other measures contained in the bill, which, unless otherwise indicated, are all proposed to commence on 1 July 2007. In addition to the abolition of stamp duty on hiring arrangements, the bill also proposes to remove two other stamp duties. The first of these is stamp duty on guarantees. Currently, certain types of guarantees are exempt from stamp duty while others are subject to $20 nominal duty. Upon reviewing the position, there do not appear to be good policy reasons for this different treatment. Accordingly, all guarantees will be exempt from stamp duty to rectify this inconsistent treatment while also reducing compliance costs for business.
The other stamp duty to be abolished is that applying to the grant of a lease for no consideration or nominal consideration. Stamp duty on the grant of a lease for no or nominal consideration was originally imposed because of concerns that this could be used as a way to avoid stamp duty on what would ordinarily be a conveyance of property. However, after considering this position more closely, it is now believed that this risk is minimal and therefore it is proposed to remove stamp duty on the grant of such leases.
The bill also proposes several measures to improve the integrity of the stamp duty legislation and to minimise the possibility of weaknesses in that legislation being exploited.
The first of these changes proposes that anything physically fixed to land is considered to be land for the purposes of the landholder stamp duty provisions. The landholder stamp duty provisions seek to levy duty where a person obtains 50% or more of the interests in a company or 20% or more of the interests in a trust that holds land in the Northern Territory that has a value of $500 000 or more. These provisions are aimed at ensuring stamp duty is paid where the ownership of land is transferred indirectly through changing the ownership of the landholding company or trust. Under the current landholder stamp duty laws, only land and fixtures to land are subject to stamp duty, but chattels are not. This is in contrast with direct conveyances, where many forms of property are subject to stamp duty.
The current law that determines whether a structure is a fixture to land or a chattel is, in some circumstances, unclear and can lead to protracted and expensive valuation and legal disputes about the proper classification of buildings and other substantial structures on land. The amendments seek to remove the uncertainty in this area by ensuring that the landholder provisions will apply even if the item that is fixed to the land would not be considered to be a fixture through the application of the common law.
The second measure proposes to insert the valuation principle that the unencumbered value of land for stamp duty purposes must be based on the full value and best use of the land. This change is proposed in response to practices to minimise landholder stamp duty by artificially apportioning value that is properly attributable to land and buildings to other property that is not subject to stamp duty. Providing legislative guidance to valuers and the courts on how the unencumbered value of land is to be determined for stamp duty purposes should assist in addressing these minimisation practices.
The last of these measures proposes to rectify an anomaly in the stamp duty legislation that brings to duty mining information for mines subject to the Mining Act that are conveyed, but not for other mines. The amendment will ensure that mining information relating to all mines will be taken into account when valuing a mine to assess the stamp duty payable on the conveyance of that mine.
It is also proposed that, from 1 May 2007, the stamp duty corporate reconstruction exemption will not apply if the restructure is used to avoid or frustrate the recovery of stamp duty tax or royalties payable to the Territory. This exemption currently does not apply if a corporate reconstruction is undertaken to avoid or reduce the stamp duty that would otherwise be payable on a conveyance or transfer. However, the exemption cannot be denied if the reconstruction will result in the payment of other existing Territory tax debts, such as a payroll tax liability, being avoided. This bill proposes to correct this oversight.
I turn now to three final measures proposed by the bill that relate to the Territory’s home ownership schemes. The first seeks to rectify an anomaly in the stamp duty legislation to ensure that a person who has previously owned a home interstate under a long-term lease cannot qualify for the stamp duty first homeowner concession for a subsequent home purchase. This change aligns the treatment of prior home ownership and the long-term Crown leases granted by the Northern Territory or the Australian government with such leases granted by other states or territories. It also aligns with the treatment of long-term leases under the First Home Owner Grant Act, on which the rules of the stamp duty first homeowner concession are based.
The second measure proposes to amend the First Home Owner Grant Act to clarify that consideration must actually be paid to the purchase of a home prior to an applicant receiving the first homeowner grant. It is not an issue for nearly all first homebuyers, as they usually pay substantially more consideration than $7000. However, uncertainty could arise in transactions between related parties, such as parents and their children, about whether a home has been purchased or whether it has been provided as a gift. The amendment will ensure that the grant can only be paid when a home is purchased and not when it has been gifted.
The final measure proposes to amend the first homeowner grant to clarify that any overpayment of a first homeowner grant can be recovered. Under the current legislation, ineligible grant applicants are required to repay the grant. However, the legislation is being amended to clarify that an amount overpaid to an otherwise eligible recipient of the grant can be recovered. For example, it makes it clear that where a person has been paid $7000 but is only entitled to $5000, the $2000 overpaid can be recovered.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the honourable members and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Traffic Act, Motor Vehicles Act and Motor Vehicles Regulations in order to implement elements of this government’s road safety reform package.
The bill I am introducing today will provide new requirements for learner and provisional licence holders, and creates an offence for learner and provisional licence holders to use mobile phones in any context while driving. It will broaden the scope of who can take blood from drink drivers and those involved in accidents. It will create harsher penalties for low level drink-drive repeat offenders and clarify the legislation in relation to how information is recorded on speed camera infringement notices, and repeal the Road Safety Council Act.
It is an unfortunate fact that our young and inexperienced drivers are most at risk in the early years of driving. This phenomenon is consistent in most developed countries and in all Australian states. We cannot stand back and do nothing while this over-representation continues. Here are some sobering Northern Territory statistics from the Road Safety Task Force report:
Phase 1 will commence on 1 July 2007 and will provide:
The government is also serious about targeting low-level repeat drink drivers. A ‘two strikes and you are out’ regime will apply to all repeat drink drive offences. The bill will introduce tough new measures for all low level drink-drive offences, whereby an expiation of a 0.05 to 0.08 offence will now count as a finding of guilt and will be recorded by police. A second low level offence within three years will result in immediate licence suspension and a minimum licence disqualification of three months imposed by the court.
A subsequent offence within three years will result in immediate suspension and a court imposed minimum six month licence loss.
It needs to be clear to all NT drivers and riders that these new penalties will apply to all low level zero and 0.05 to 0.08 offences currently dealt with by a ticket. A first offence will result in a ticket and further offences within three years will be dealt with harshly. These provisions apply to drivers and riders currently subject to zero alcohol requirements, including taxi and hire car drivers, heavy vehicle, bus, tourist vehicle and 18- to 25-year-olds who have not held their licence for three years. These drivers are not permitted to have any alcohol in their system when driving.
These changes will mean that young drivers as well as commercial and heavy vehicle drivers will not be able to risk having a couple of drinks and driving. A second offence within three years will immediately put them off the road and any offence will count - that is, whether they go over 0.05 in their private vehicle of if they go over zero in their taxi, truck or bus. There are no short cuts for anyone: two strikes and you are out.
These changes confirm the government’s commitment to tackling drink driving. This bill makes it clear that having a few drinks after work, out on a boat, or at a barby and driving home is just not okay. The time limit for persons to submit to breath or blood sampling will be extended from two to four hours. This will go some way to address practical policing difficulties with drink drivers or those involved in road accidents where injuries have occurred in a place where breath analysis cannot occur or where blood sampling cannot take place.
The bill also includes scope for medical practitioners, registered nurses or qualified persons to collect blood samples for alcohol testing in locations other than registered hospitals. This expansion of who can take blood and where it can be taken will be optional. It will remain a government responsibility to ensure blood is taken in Northern Territory registered hospitals from those involved in road crashes or brought in by police. Expanding who can take blood in hospitals will help in reducing pressures faced by doctors.
The bill amends the Traffic Act to clarify how information is captured by a speed camera and transferred to the infringement notice sent to the owner of the vehicle. This change will remove any confusion as to what was intended to appear on the infringement notice.
The final feature of the bill that I would like to address in this debate concerns the establishment of the Road Safety Coordination Group to replace the long-standing Road Safety Council of the Northern Territory. Government, as part of considering responses to the road safety problem in the NT, identified the need for a high level, strategically focused Road Safety Coordination Group. The group was formed in December 2006 and includes senior departmental members from Health and Police, and there are community group representatives including Local Government, TIO, AANT and, importantly, a yet to be appointed a road safety expert.
The group will take a leadership role in the implementation of the Road Safety Task Force recommendations which were announced by government on 2 November 2006. As well as focusing on longer term road safety strategies and measures, the group will report regularly to government on implementation of the task force recommendations. I undertake to keep members of this House informed of its progress. I am sure that all members of this Assembly will join with me in sincerely thanking all the past members of the Road Safety Council for their years of tireless effort in attempting to address the particular road safety problems of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a delegation of senior business representatives from Kupang in West Timor. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from 2 May 2007.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I support this very important bill. I am quite surprised that people are walking out.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, you cannot refer to the presence or absence of members in the Chamber.
Mrs MILLER: I am quite surprised, actually. I support the bill, but it is with reservation and pause. I profess this pause because, upon contemplation, this bill is not all it appears to be. The process we are using today is barely a process at all. What is happening needs to be examined and explained so that people understand what is going on.
The minister has come into this House with a bill that will change the law of the Northern Territory. Putting it bluntly, it will change what the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory has deemed to be unlawful and make it lawful. To that end, the minister has asked this parliament to set aside its normal procedure and rush through a bill that is designed to change what the Supreme Court said was unlawful. I ask members to ponder the gravity of this. We are about to change the law to suit the outcomes of one party over another, and we are asked to do that in a rush.
The decision in the Supreme Court in the matter of Larson v Minister for Mines and Energy is the product of litigation. It is now a settled dispute between opposing parties. In the adversarial system upon which Australian law is based, there is an approach that produces winners and losers. In that case, Mr Larson was the winner and the Minister for Mines and Energy was the loser. If the Minister for Mines and Energy was an ordinary citizen, the only course of action open to him would be an appeal, but he is not an ordinary citizen; he is a member of this House and a minister of the Crown. As a consequence, he is vested with some very special privileges.
One of those privileges is that he can, if he musters the support of most people in this Chamber, change the law. He can do that which other citizens cannot do. He can move a motion to overrule a decision of the Supreme Court because he has been given that authority by the people of the Northern Territory. It is for that reason that parliament is, theoretically at least, the superior court of the Northern Territory. That power is something that should be exercised carefully, soberly and judiciously. We as legislators have an onerous responsibility, and what the minister is asking this House to do is to take the rights of a winner and turn that winner into a loser. This is where I have pause.
The minister has asked these special favours of this House because he did not bother to read his paperwork. The minister signed off on a mine management plan that was based on an authority that was, in turn, based on an application that said the miner in question wanted to develop an underground mine.
The decision of the court, which this minister described as a technicality, was not a technicality at all. It was determination that an application for an underground mine was not an application for an open cut mine. I do not blame Xstrata for this; I blame the minister because I know where Xstrata got their advice. In any event, because this minister did not read or did not understand the paperwork in front of him, we now come to a point where he has to appeal to this House and a majority of its members to get him out of the self-made trap he has built for himself, and the thousands or so jobs that he has failed to protect.
Let us turn our attention to what he has asked us to do. He has introduced a bill. That bill asks us to pass a law that ratifies the decision that he made and that the Supreme Court ruled was beyond his power to make.
However, he has asked more than that of us. The bill will have the desired effect of ratifying what he tried to do, but it will also have a second effect. That second effect was not referred to at all in the second reading speech by the minister. The second effect is not only are we striking down the successful grounds for complaint that Mr Larson had, but we are striking down all grounds for complaint that Mr Larson had.
The arguments for appeal that were put in front of Justice Angel were staged. A good analogy is that there are hurdles placed before the minister, and before the minister tries to jump over the second hurdle, he needs to clear the first hurdle. Justice Angel’s decision said that the minister did not clear the first hurdle and, that being the case, Justice Angel did not have to bother to ask if he had got over any other hurdles. The minister had already come crashing to the ground.
The language of this amendment creates a legal super minister, because not only will he now clear the first hurdle with this House’s assent, he will clear them all in a single bound. To do that, we will not only say to Mr Larson: ‘You were a winner, but now you are a loser’, we are also going to take away his rights to legally question the minister on any of the points that he raised before Justice Angel.
Minister, why did you not talk about this in your second reading speech yesterday? Why did you not tell this House that you were intending to crush Mr Larson’s grounds for complaint forever completely? The minister’s wilful stupidity and subsequent appeal to this House has now saddled each and every member of this House with a dreadful burden, for he has now asked us to join in his drive to deprive Mr Larson of his rights of challenge completely in relation to this issue. The minister did not even have the decency to be transparent about that intention yesterday when he walked into this place and asked us to extricate him from this mire.
I do not believe that the minister understands the enormity of what he was doing because, once again, he is merely doing what he is told. The tragedy is that I do not believe that he understands the irony of that. However, this is no longer about the minister and his short-sightedness. This is now about the burden that has been thrust on our shoulders as legislators, and that is the burden of taking Mr Larson’s vindication and treading on it as well as taking Mr Larson’s other rights of complaint and crushing them. I know that in legislation we do this from time to time, but on this occasion we are doing it retrospectively, with the effect of taking an established right to complain away from a person who is identifiable. We will also remove that plaintiff’s choice to pursue his and his family’s remaining issues.
That is why the haste of this bill frustrates me. I understand why it has to be pushed through in a hurry. The mine must go ahead. There are too many jobs and too much investment rides on its proceeding. I was last night and again this morning attracted to the idea of amending this bill, but today is the last sitting day for seven weeks. If we do not pass this bill today, that will do too much damage to the mine and to the people who work there. Compounding this, the bill is drafted in such a fashion that it is impossible to separate the dual effects of its passage, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to redraft the bill before the close of business tonight at the same time making certain that we were not committing the same sin of haste that the minister has visited upon us here today. No, we are stuck with this bill in its present form, and if this House turns the request by the minister for rescue down, over 1000 people may find themselves without work.
I wonder whether the member for Arnhem has been apprised of what has been done here today. I would suggest, by her lack of presence, that she has been.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, I remind you that you are not refer to a member’s presence or absence in the Chamber. I ask you to withdraw those comments.
Mrs MILLER: I withdraw that, Madam Speaker, because I realise the sensitivity. She, of all of the members in this House, should feel the burden of what we are being asked to do. The member for Arnhem, in such impassioned tones, talked in this House about the causes of her people on 19 October last year. She is also being asked to share the burden of taking away those very people’s rights. In this case, the rights of the elders she says she respects so much, and I know that she does very sincerely.
She talked in her adjournment speech in October about believing strongly in the same things of her people. Of course, she does. She said to her countrymen of all the four clans that she supported them and she understood and respected their right to be heard. What this effectively does today is take away that right.
The member for Arnhem and all members who have professed their commitment to their Aboriginality have reached a moral threshold here today. It is not unlike some of the other moral thresholds they have reached in this place and have been found wanting. They know it because of the discord that has been reported amongst their number about some of these issues. Sooner or later, they will have to make a stand to defend their passion for their people or risk falling into a credibility chasm. Today, they are hanging over that abyss by a thread.
We are taking the rights of complaint of these Aboriginal people, complaints that the Supreme Court held as being legitimate, and we are extinguishing them forever, and all of this from a government which promoted itself as the champion of the concept of negotiation rather than litigation. Now they do not negotiate; they litigate. In the case of Blue Mud Bay, they buy full-page ads in the newspaper to say they are not litigious. What is worse, when they lose their litigation, they legislate. To top it off, when they legislate, they do it with retrospective effect.
When the enormity of what we are doing here today began to dawn on me yesterday afternoon, I started to feel very uncomfortable. That disquiet has not abated, and I began to realise the multitude of sins that I am being asked to support. To summarise: the minister cannot tell the difference between on open cut and an underground mine; the minister now has to fix his error by changing the law; the minister wants this House to set aside its normal operating procedure; the minister wants to push this bill through in 24 hours. That change in law will take away the otherwise lawful grounds of argument that Mr Larson has. The minister has the audacity to put into his bill not only the effect he is looking for, but also a secondary effect of taking away other actionable grounds for Mr Larson. To cap off the abuse of process, the minister does not tell this House that he wants to close off all of Mr Larson’s grounds of complaint to the court when he gave his second reading speech.
I have gone from having a sense of disquiet to having a sense of feeling very grubby. The abuse of process that is proposed here is a stopgap solution to preventing over 1000 people losing their jobs and a solution to the loss of over $100m of investment to the Northern Territory. As with every other member of this House, I am now, in all practical terms, acting as the minister’s court of appeal. We are being asked to do so with all of the judicial integrity of a star chamber.
Community leadership is about not only making the good decisions, but making the hard decisions, and this is one of the hard ones. Reluctantly, I have decided that I will voice my support in taking away Mr Larson’s rights. I have taken that decision with a heavy heart because of the impact it will have upon him and his family.
I have followed this process through from start to finish. I have satisfied myself that the Environmental Impact Statement as completed and presented by Xstrata is sufficient to protect the McArthur River. For all practical reasons, I cannot see a convincing argument to stay the progress of the McArthur River mine.
I believe that the other grounds that Mr Larson has would fail, and the government feels the same way. Therefore, my concerns about Mr Larson’s rights to make the complaints would amount to being academic statements of intent, but although the issues are consequential and, in my opinion, theoretical, that does not make the protection of them any less grave. People should have the right to expect that the rule of law means something.
I also turn my mind to the many jobs and livelihoods that would be affected by a contrary position by this House. Those jobs are not academic; they are real and immediately present. Therefore I cannot, in better conscience, vote in favour of the victor in the Supreme Court and place those jobs and investment of the mine at risk. I place upon the record my utter disgust and fury at this minister’s complete disregard for his duty to do his job properly, and my even deeper resentment at the abuse of process that he has chosen to embark upon to use the processes of this place to cover his folly.
Madam Speaker, for the sake of the jobs of the men and women who rely upon the work that McArthur River mine generates, but certainly not for this minister, I support this bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the minister for Mines said on 17 October in relation to this debate:
We would not be standing here today if that were correct. Like the member for Katherine, I am very concerned about the process that we are going through today. Much of what I have to say and how I will judge what I will do today will very much depend on what I hear in response from the government.
I have said on many occasions I do not like urgency debates, and here we have the most urgent of urgent debates where there are principles at stake that require a lot of thought. I sat up fairly late last night until I finally grasped the whole issue from the legal point of view; that is, Justice Angel’s conclusion in relation to this. I also had a briefing this morning for which I thank the minister. It was a good briefing, but, to some extent, after thinking more about it, some of the issues remain difficult to come to terms with.
Government has said that this issue is a technicality and therefore we will change the law. I do not think this is a technicality. I think this is an error. There is a big difference. A technicality would be if you had written something into the law that was like a misprint. This is not a misprint. Justice Angel has said that the issue about what constitutes a mining activity is clearly shown in the act. In this case, the mining activity was specified as being an underground mine. Even though the management plan dealt with an open cut mine, the mining activities do not relate to an open cut mine.
Is the government trying to cover up its mistake by bringing this law in today? I believe it is a mistake. There are a number of ways they could overcome this mistake. First of all, they could, for instance, ask for a new authorisation, which says the law can stay as it is today. We are not changing the law. The law is here.
My understanding of what Justice Angel said is that you could not give an authorisation for this because there was an incorrect term used in ‘mining activities’. Therefore, surely you could go back and say to the mining company: ‘Please apply for a new authorisation. You have done the mine management plan according to an open cut mine. You have been through the EIS in relation to an open cut mine. The only thing that is different is that you have to identify exactly what the mining activities will be for this new version of the mine’.
Some may say that will take a long time. I would say: ‘Tell me how long’. You have done all the groundwork. Maybe there is a smart lawyer who says if you apply for a new authorisation, you have to go through a new EIS. Surely commonsense would say we have already done an EIS for an open cut mine; all we need to do is get a new definition of what we regard as the mining activities. If the government says that might take a couple of weeks, perhaps the principle we should be sticking to is: you made the mistake; you pay for it. If the company has people unemployed for three weeks, perhaps the government has to pay their wages. The other side of it is that if you did not fix this, I am sure the company would be suing the government. It believed it had the authority to mine.
What we have done is short-cut the process. We have regarded this as a technicality, but what we are really doing is covering up our mistake. The department made a mistake. That is what Justice Angel was saying. The consequences of that are that we can throw many people out of work. I do not want that to happen.
Where does the government take responsibility for its actions? Should it take responsibility for its actions by overriding the legislation so that it covers up its mistake and we have new legislation that validates the mistake? Should we go down the normal process of asking the mine for a new authorisation? If that takes a little while, we have to bear the consequences of it. I do not like saying to the taxpayers of the Northern Territory: ‘You will have to pay for this mistake,’ but maybe that is what we have to do. We are parliament, and there has been an error made. We have to accept the consequences of that error. Which way do we go? Do we just change the law because it is convenient? Do we do it in such a hurry that I have not really had enough time to thoroughly assess what all this means? Do we bear the consequences and pay the cost to those people who are employed at the mine while we get this mine legitimised through a proper authorisation?
This is similar to what the member for Katherine said: would the government do this if a one man tin mine out at the Finniss River had the same problem? Would they change the law for that one person or is it because it is Xstrata? I do not care whether it is Xstrata or whoever, but because it is a big company that has a lot of influence, would they have changed the law for the one man tin mine out on the Finniss who might have made a mistake in his authorisation? He might not have written down the correct mining activity when he went from an open cut to an underground mine. My feeling is that it would not have happened because we are dealing here with the power of a big company.
Minister, the Mining Act was meant to be reviewed a long time ago. This is where some of these issues should have been raised. I am concerned that the government has taken so long to come to parliament with a draft Mining Act. Here we are with a very important change that has implications for the Mining Management Act in this case, but I imagine a review would cover both the Mining Act and the Mining Management Act. This has ramifications for that act. Although I will be asking for this review to be fast-tracked, it is a shame that the government has not brought this review on much earlier. Then, perhaps we would not be in this situation; this situation would not have occurred because it might have been looked at in the review.
I need to ask: what does the previous minister have to say on this issue? I know that in the rough and tumble of politics, the existing minister for Mines is now going to have to wear the criticism of this mistake, but this minister had the job for about a week when this occurred. There was a previous minister who dealt with this for a much longer period, and it would be interesting to hear what he has to say as to how this mistake came about. That is what we need to hear today. The minister runs the department. The department is the one that gives the minister advice. What advice was given to the minister? There are people in the department who have years and years of experience. They would know the Mining Management Act much better than I would because it is not the sort of thing I read every day of the week. The minister has taken advice and signed off on a document, and there clearly has been an error. I would like to know what the consequences of that are going to be within the government. If we go down the path of the government paying the company due compensation while we ask for a new authorisation, I will be certainly asking questions about whom in the department made the mistake. These are all important questions.
I know that, on the surface, this might look easy. It is a very short bill which retrospectively overrides any issues that the government might have, but there are many other matters that need to be thoroughly fleshed out in this debate. The member for Katherine summarised many of the issues that concern me.
I would like to hear why the company cannot apply for a new authorisation. If it can, we do not need to change the law. If it can, I support that path because that would be allowing due process to occur. It would be telling the people at least that government is not making special provision for itself having made the mistake.
We are caught in a bind. I do not want to see people lose their jobs. Many people in my electorate work at McArthur River. I am on record as supporting the mine. I did look at the environmental impacts. I went to the mine. I did look at the river. I know some people still do not agree with me, but at least I made the effort to try to analyse the situation before I put my support behind the new open cut mine. However, that does not mean that everything else gets a little nod of approval from me.
Minister, I am not happy. I have yet to make up my mind. I will wait to see what you have to say. I am not happy about supporting this bill as it is. If there is a way around it that can use the existing law, I would support that. If that costs the Territory some money, well, that is what you get for making a mistake. Would it not be a little more principled that we pay for the mistake rather than change the law to suit ourselves?
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I have listened closely to the contributions made in the debate so far. I believe the member for Katherine’s contribution more than anything else demonstrated the luxury of opposition. That is, if I had not heard her on three separate occasions say that the opposition supports the bill, on hearing her contribution, I would have absolutely believed that they were totally opposed to the bill.
It was a curious contribution in the sense that they support this bill but, and we heard very, very many buts. Some of the points made by the member for Katherine were, indeed, quite valid. Others were totally invalid, such as the attack on the minister for Mines and her accusation that it is all his fault and he has made a mistake. That is totally unfounded.
I would have thought that in a contribution of this style, she would have at least got the litigant’s name right. It is Harry Lansen, not Mr Larson as referred to by the member for Katherine consistently throughout her speech. She can rail on about that, but she is not as accurate in everything she has to say as she might believe.
The member referred to the process this morning in passing this legislation through all stages as an abuse of process. The very fact that every parliament has a process to deal with matters of great urgency is a process in itself. It is used very infrequently in this House and for good reason. You do want legislation, as a rule, to sit on the Table for at least 28 days. However, there comes a time when there are issues that cannot wait. In the case of the member for Katherine, she correctly referred to the fact that it will be seven weeks before this parliament sits again. This is not an issue that can sit around for seven weeks. It cannot sit around for seven weeks for a number of reasons, and the member herself referred to the hundreds of workers whose jobs would be entirely at risk.
She referred to the massive investment made by the mine owners in this case in relation to the shift from open cut to underground. She referred to the need for certainty for the mine operation. She may have even referred to the need for certainty for the mining industry at large which would be watching the outcome of this decision very carefully. While she mentioned those things in passing, though - and that is all true; every word she said there was true - she spent most of the contribution on the fact that this legislation is defeating Mr Lansen’s right at law. Of course, there are two sets of rights operating in conjunction here. The first is the mine and its continued operation, its massive investment, and the hundreds of jobs that are at stake. That is compared with those who are opposed. Some people are opposed to the mine full stop, and some opposed to the shift in operations from underground to open cut.
The mine plan and all of its circumstances, of course, were subject to the closest scrutiny when the application came through, including those deep concerns around the environmental questions and the diversion of the McArthur River. There was the closest scrutiny that you can bring to these sorts of questions. So close was that scrutiny, in fact, that the original application was rejected. It was rejected on grounds that it did not meet the safeguards around environmental concerns and questions that were being asked. It was resubmitted before it gained that approval.
The member for Katherine also mentioned the Blue Mud Bay decision in passing. I was not quite sure of the context. It is, in fact, subject to legal challenge from this government in the High Court. However, I point out in the Blue Mud Bay Federal Court decision, there has been no move by this government or, indeed, the federal government to seek to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in relation to that court decision. We disagree with the Federal Court decision. We have made that very clear. We are appealing the decision.
In a similar vein here, legal advice to this government indicates that Justice Angel’s decision is entirely appealable. We still believe the process was right, we always did. We believe that His Honour’s decision is appealable. We cannot wait for a Supreme Court appeal in this case in the same way that we cannot wait, and cannot expect the mine owner and operators to wait, seven weeks for this House to come back to rectify this matter. Given the urgency around this matter, legislative amendment to correct the technical ruling is warranted.
One of the issues the member for Katherine raised is that it is important that everyone understands the nature of the technicality. It is an important question that she raised. It does give rise to the need for this legislation because it is a highly technical matter. It is not - I repeat, not - a breakdown in process, nor is it any fault of the minister for Mines involved.
If we go back to MRM’s 2002 application for an authorisation, it stated that the proposed form of mining was underground because that is what the operation was at the time; that is how they started. I remember going down that big, deep hole in the ground before the mine had commenced production. However, the 2003 grant of the authorisation allowed all types of mining activity, which included both underground and open pit operations. It was a condition of the authorisation that a new mining management plan would be required for any change in mining operations.
In October 2006, a new mining management plan was approved in order to allow open pit mining operations following, of course, a quite lengthy and detailed, comprehensive, closely monitored environmental study raising many questions, which, as I said, was originally rejected.
Every step of that process was followed on the best legal advice available to this government. The court’s technical ruling in relation to this was that, even though the authorisation of 2003 said that it allowed all types of mining, it was limited by the original application in 2002 which was for underground mining. That is Justice Angel’s read of that legislation. It is not this government’s understanding, and we believe there is a clause in the current act that gets us across that, but it is not the view of Justice Angel. Justice Angel is a Supreme Court judge. He has made a ruling. This parliament has to abide by that or seek to have that ruling overturned by whatever means we have, and the means we have is, of course, legislative, which is what Justice Angel actually said. That is what he actually said: ‘Well, it is up to the government to amend it’. That is what he said.
That is the reason we are here today. I have prosecuted the case for urgency. This government does not like using urgency in relation to legislation. It is not something you will see from me as Attorney-General, using urgency in this House but for those occasions when it absolutely required. The member for Katherine, in between what she had to say, clearly prosecuted the case for urgency: the need for certainty, the need for certainty for the mine, the need for certainty for those hundreds of jobs. I do not need to go over all of those areas again.
It is unfortunate that the member for Katherine seeks the opportunity to attack the minister for Mines. That attack is totally unwarranted, and totally unfounded. He has followed, as the government has followed, due and proper process every step of the way only to find an interpretation on the action from Justice Angel. His Honour, in his own words, said: ‘It is up to the government to amend it’. We are amending it. We are amending it on urgency because of the pressing circumstances around this case.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, having read through the minister’s second reading speech and listened carefully to what the Attorney-General and Deputy Chief Minister had to say, I am astounded at how the government has responded to this. I listened also very carefully to the words of the shadow minister for mines, and for all the reasons and sentiments she articulated, we really have no option but to support the passage of this bill.
The minister’s second reading speech told me nothing. When you hear the Deputy Chief Minister say this is all very convenient for opposition, if the government was genuine about this thing, it has to treat this parliament with some respect.
I really must voice my concerns that in this very serious matter, it appears that no other person in government has or will be contributing to the debate. Seven hundred direct jobs approximately, and I understand something in the order of 1000 indirect jobs are on the line. Do we say to these people that they no longer have a job? Do we say to the many companies that have a significant proportion of their business hanging on the McArthur River project to look elsewhere for their business? What will happen to the budget that was presented only two days ago? Its revenue stream in part is dependent on the taxes and stamp duty this mine will contribute. What choice to we have but for us to say we support the passage of this bill?
There is more to this than the shadow minister for mines pointed out. Let me summarise the process so far. The Minister for Mines and Energy cannot tell the difference between an open cut mine and an underground mine. It is because of that simple fact that we are here today. Due process in the Northern Territory has enabled Mr Larson and others to establish an error on the part of the minister. The minister is using this Assembly today as his own personal court of appeal. The minister, through his own error, has to fix it by changing the law. The minister wants us in this Assembly to put aside normal operating procedures to allow him to do that, thus diminishing the process even further.
The minister wants to push this bill through on urgency. How much careful consideration and reflection on law has that engendered? The decision was made only a few days ago by the Supreme Court, and there has been a very hurried response. That change of law will take away the impediment that was identified by Mr Larson.
Mrs Miller: Lansen.
Dr LIM: Mr Lansen. The change in law will also take away the otherwise lawful grounds of argument that Mr Lansen has in other areas of complaint. The minister had the audacity to put into this bill not only the effect he is looking for, but also a secondary effect of taking away other actionable grounds for Mr Lansen. To cap it all off, the abuse of this process, the minister does not tell this House that he wants to close off all of Mr Lansen’s grounds of complaint to the courts when he should have done so in his second reading speech.
I ask members - especially members of the Labor Party who are the ones who said we care for justice - to reflect. Remember when the member for Arnhem stood in this place and said how important this was and how her heart ached for what was happening? I will come back to that in a little while. What about the other members who have talked about protecting the rights of indigenous people? They were going to be the protectors of rights of indigenous people. I remember when Tracker Tilmouth complained that the Australian Labor Party would not let Aboriginal people onto the white man’s porch. It does not look like much has changed. This could not be a clearer threshold issue for them.
This is now a clear cut case of the interests of Aboriginal people versus the interests of the ALP. If those members support or remain silent today, they will have confirmed their status as ALP members through and through, but never again will they be able in good conscience to stand by their mantle as the protectors of indigenous rights with any integrity. Leadership of people, any people, is about courage. It is time for members who profess deep, heartfelt support for indigenous people to step up to the plate.
There is more to this than the minister’s shortcomings. Surely the minister has not been operating in a vacuum. He is part of a machine, part of government, part of Cabinet. That machine has been operating since before he was even a minister. I have been in Cabinet, and I know the process. I am certain the minister for Mines was not working in a vacuum.
The minister would have discussed this with the Chief Minister and canvassed the directions he could take. He would have been given directions from the Chief Minister. The minister would have discussed this with senior members of Cabinet to consider their advice. Furthermore, there was another minister for Mines in place when this circus started. I put it to you that the new minister consulted the old minister about what has been going on, and received a handover of the issue at hand, including the files. Not only that, surely, with a project of this size and complexity, a project that impacted on environmental issues, meant that the minister for Environment had to be involved, so the minister would have to bring this matter in front of Cabinet. In Cabinet, under our Westminster system and the principle of Cabinet solidarity, the responsibility for this debacle now falls upon the shoulders of much more experienced people than the Minister for Mines and Energy.
I note the Chief Minister frowning across the Chamber. If she does not understand this process then the government has a problem. The minister brought the matter before Cabinet for deliberation. The decision was made by Cabinet for him to proceed to sign off. You can bet that senior members would have contributed to the debate in Cabinet. Senior members, such as the Deputy Chief Minister, and in his capacity as Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Northern Territory, and the Leader of Government Business. Surely experienced people like the Deputy Chief Minister, who has been in this Chamber for 15 years, the longest-serving member of this Assembly, who is also Attorney-General and Treasurer, would have known what was going on and how the process was going ahead, but he failed in his duty. So did the Leader of Government Business and the Chief Minister. Maybe the Chief Minister was too busy to concern herself about this issue.
I know that the Chief Minister met with the CEO of Xstrata and discussed this matter with him. In fact, did not the Chief Minister personally intervene? Documents that have come before the Supreme Court suggest that she did. Did these ministers read their Cabinet briefs? I think not or we would not be here to debate this bill. Yes, we are urged that this problem must be fixed, but we do not advocate that the minister and government act beyond their powers. This was not a minister’s decision alone; it was a Cabinet decision. It was a government decision.
Where is the support for the minister for Mines? Where are the other colleagues, standing beside him, propping him up as his reputation is quickly disintegrating into the general title of buffoon? The Cabinet that made this decision should stand around him like the stakes that prop up the wilting tomato plants, to quote another member, but their silence has resonated through my ears.
The Chief Minister stood with him yesterday in a joint statement that had more to do with the fact that she wanted to cover for his incompetence. Two days ago, the minister, in the eye of the storm, disappeared. He took no media inquiries. That is the ministerial equivalent of a general abandoning the battlefield, digging a hole for himself and hiding in it while the storm rages. He is now not relevant for two reasons: first, because of the folly of his actions; and second because he went missing when people needed him most. He is so embarrassing that the Chief Minister’s minders have sought to hide him. That brings us back to who pulled the strings. Clearly, this minister for Mines has not got his head around the portfolio. Who has? All roads lead back to Cabinet and his Cabinet colleagues who are visibly melting away from him. The cringe factor is almost palpable. If the Chief Minister feels that, then I ask her to contribute to this debate.
This circus is the government’s fault, and the government is accountable. As I said, I listened closely to the contribution made by the Deputy Chief Minister. You have not even apologised to Xstrata for the foul-up. The government has chosen not to apologise to the traditional owners of the land the mine occupies.
I wonder how the member for Arnhem now feels. I read her adjournment speech of October last year, when she made an impassioned plea to her government to listen to her people. The member for Arnhem said:
I look forward to her contribution today, not at adjournment when the decision has already been made, but here and now where she may have the influence on the decision to be made by this Assembly.
I wonder what the member for Barkly will have to say when Cabinet, which includes him, has committed such errors. I wonder what the member for Arafura, also a Cabinet member, has to say on this matter. She was as much responsible for the botched decision as is the minister for Mines and the rest of Cabinet. I wonder what the member for Macdonnell has to say. I know she is a very strong member representing indigenous rights. Will she voice her concerns? This is the place where her voice should be heard. I wonder what the member for Millner will say. He has a law degree, and I assume he understands the legal ramifications of what we are doing today. I wonder what the member for Stuart will have to say; newly elected and, I hope, not yet tarnished with the compromises that he obviously has to make to live with the decisions of his executive ALP government.
This Assembly is asked by this government to pass legislation retrospectively covering the errors of this government. While the government can say this is only for the McArthur River project and no other, it does create a precedent and the government has to be very, very cautious.
You have heard many of us complain about urgency. I understand the business imperatives in front of government, but had government been careful right from the very beginning and done its work properly, this would not have happened. Every member of the Executive government has to share responsibility. Do not put up the minister for Mines as the sacrificial lamb, which is what he is doing. He sits there, passively copping it because he has nowhere else to go and none of those members across the Chamber are there to support him. That is the tragedy. A decent man …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex well knows he cannot make observations about members’ presence or absence in the Chamber.
Dr LIM: I did not reflect on anybody’s absence or presence in the Chamber.
Dr BURNS: Yes, you did.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: I said: ‘Nobody is there to support him’. Nobody is there to support him. He was on his own.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order, the member for Greatorex was trying to assert that there was no one on this side of the Chamber other than the minister, which is untrue and he should withdraw it.
Dr LIM: I did not say that. I did not even assert that. I said that the minister is on his own.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I do not think there is any point of order. The member for Greatorex was being more general in his comments. Please continue, member for Greatorex.
Dr LIM: This man, a decent man, is fed to the lions, and that is very shameful of his fellow Cabinet members. The member for Johnston, who tried to interject, was in Cabinet as well. He has to take responsibility. I would like to hear what he has to say in defence of his role in this decision.
This is a difficult time for us, and like the members for Nelson and Katherine, we all have to take the necessary steps to deal with the debacle caused by this government and through the incompetence of this minister.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, previous speakers have laid it out fairly clearly. You have given us a dilemma by rushing this through. It is not as though it is a simple thing. I have to admit I have not got my head right around it, even though we had a briefing this morning for 20 minutes. You do not need to look at the bill. You need to look at what was there previously, and you need to look at the process that has carried on before you can make a really informed decision.
One argument is if this does not go through, Xstrata is going to sack all these people and hundreds and hundreds of people are going to be out of a job. This is something that concerns us all. We do not want to be responsible for that, but that is the dilemma you have given us. Do we, in fact, shortcut the process of this parliament and not really scrutinise this as well as we would like to? Or do we say to Xstrata: ‘We need longer’? The member for Nelson made a good point when he said it is your fault; you have stuffed up. Why don’t you allow due process to occur? If you have to compensate the workers via Xstrata, then so be it. You do it.
I am still trying to think of an occasion in this House when you have asked us to debate something as important as this in such a short time with such short notice and with such an involved area. It is not an easy decision to make. It would be easy to say: ‘Okay, Xstrata wants this. We will fix everything for them. The Supreme Court, and we all respect their decision, I think that is most important that we do, has said it is a technicality. Let us just change it.’
Are we going to get into the process of every time something is technically wrong, we will just change legislation? Surely we should be much more thorough in our approach in how we go about business. We should be making sure when we decide on these amendments, we do it from an informed base. Quite frankly, I am not sure whether I have my head around it, except the very blatant statements about doing this to protect jobs. That is important. I am not denying that, but it is not the only thing we have to consider.
In previous debate on this matter, I spoke on behalf of some of the traditional owners and asked questions. The fact that they had to come to me to do that because no one else in the House would do it for them indicates that this House is slipping away from the principles of democracy, which are true scrutiny, not pushing through things in a hurry, but honest, open, true scrutiny. Having to come to me to have their queries raised in a parliament should not have been necessary. It is something the government should have covered. There is no reason why the minister in his reply should not talk about both sides of the argument and justify why he is sticking to the government’s side. Surely in his reply, he can talk about the balance, the dilemmas, the justification and what would happen if we did not do this.
The member for Nelson asked why we do not wait for a new application to go through. I guess the answer is time. It may take another three months before this is all decided. We do not really have time like that; we want to do it in a hurry. The only argument I keep hearing is that jobs will be lost. Surely there are other reasons to justify why this is being pushed through in such a hurry.
It is in my opinion, and I have said this about other bills on urgency, a breakdown of our system when we do not allow adequate time for interpretation of what we are doing. I would hate to the think that we are going to use this method of correcting something that has been pointed out to us through change of legislation when in fact we should be very thorough in what we have done beforehand.
As we all know, the McArthur River Project Agreement Ratification Act has been there since 1992. Surely the people who advise on these matters would have gone back to that to make sure, when this application went through, it was all covered because it is not just Xstrata’s fault. It is government’s fault as well because they had to be giving them advice as necessary. I am finding this a moral as well as a political dilemma. We are often faced with that in this House. Do I support an international mining company and their workers? Do I support government that has decided to take the shortcut approach? Do I support the traditional owners? We all remember the article in the paper where they expressed their joy at this decision. They thought they had a win. Now, the rug has been pulled from under their feet. They are out there saying: ‘Not only have we had that decision pulled away from us, but government is going to make it even worse and we are not going to be able to appeal’.
I know government members are not speaking, but if you really believe this is the right thing to do, then surely other speakers on the government side would have spoken up and justified to us why the government has agreed to this. Surely the previous minister for mines would have put his case because he was the one holding the baby before.
This is not a simple decision. I am not quite sure why another application could not have gone through, except it is a matter of time, and that Xstrata is basically saying they will shut down. If you can believe that the largest zinc mining company in the world will close down overnight because of this decision, they are bully boy tactics. I do not think that could happen just like that. I think they are calling the bluff of the government very well. Then again, as I said, I have not even had time to discuss this with Xstrata. I have not had time to talk to the mining companies or the people in the field to see what their reaction is because yesterday, plonk, it is going to go through. If it had been a simple amendment that was not affecting so many people, perhaps, as we have done in the past, we would have allowed it to go through, but this is not a simple debate and government members must recognise that.
This is not a simple case of rubberstamping this shortcut for government to allow this mine to go ahead. It saddens me a little that we are placed in this situation as members of this House. I wonder what some of the government members who have not spoken, and we have only had one other than the minister, are really thinking. Do they support it as strongly? If they do, why are they not giving the minister their support? Are they like me in this dilemma? I am going to wait until I hear what the minister has to say in reply before I decided whether I will support this bill.
Fair enough, I know one voice is fairly lonely if I do not support it, but it is a matter of principle. That is why we are here. Sometimes we have to make decisions on our principles. As a long-term member of this parliament, I believe that to do our job properly and adequately, I need to be able to walk outside and say to people: ‘I supported it for these reasons’, and really justify it. That is what I ask the minister to do in his summing up. Give me reasons to support this other than Xstrata is going to close down and all these people are going to lose their jobs. You must have a better argument than that. You may think it is the only argument, but there have to be other things involved and you have to consider all the arguments.
This will eliminate any right to further appeal. That is what I believe is happening if this is passed. In a way, due process says to me that there should be some means to appeal any decision like this. The error occurred in the first place. Why are we now saying: ‘We made this mistake. We should not have made it in the first place. We should have done our homework better. We will accept it. This is our problem as government’? You still have to justify why we are going to push this through in such a hurry.
I notice there is also a change to the section about compensation, and that is probably a good change because it does allow people, as far as I can read clause 4B(1):
That is giving just process, I suppose, and the compensation is determined by agreement with the person from whom the property was acquired. I do not know if that actually refers to some of the land of the traditional owners. I have not had time to find out. That might be something the minister could clarify. To whom does that compensation clause apply? Who is going to benefit from it? Have you included it for a reason? Please cover that point. In the short time we have had, I am not terribly clear in my mind. I do not know if other members feel like this, perhaps I am getting slow in my old age, but I find it a bit hard to grasp all the implications of this. It would be very easy just to say: ‘Okay, it is too hard. I will just pass it. What the heck does it matter?’ I do not think I can do that until you give me good reasons to support this, and I hope it is more than what has been said so far.
We talked about the review of the Mining Act. It was four years ago that we decided to review the Mining Act, wasn’t it? Perhaps if that had been done, this may have been picked up. I do not know. It may not have. Because it has taken so long, who knows? That review may have highlighted a need for change even before this process started. All the reviews the government has promised have been on the back burner for so long. Perhaps the minister can explain to us why this review is taking so long. In his opinion, if this review had been done, would there have been a need for this process? The mistake might have been picked up earlier.
I am checking my notes to see if I had anything else, Madam Speaker. I really do not think I have, except to say that at this stage, I am not sure how I will vote. Government still has not given me a good argument. I understand people will be appalled if I said I am going to vote against it because all those people who rely on this mine feel as though their jobs will be lost. Let us consider the option that government should be subsidising those jobs because they stuffed up in the first place, as the member for Nelson said. Government does many different things to help business out. Perhaps while we sort all this out and it goes through due process, we can support workers in that way.
In closing, I am sorry we have not heard more people on the government side speak. I am sorry that we have not seen …
Ms Martin: Loraine, the debate is not over yet. That is pre-empting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs BRAHAM: We have only had the minister and Treasurer. We have had both Independents ..
Mr Vatskalis: Give us time!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Martin: We are listening to what you say. With great courtesy, we are listening to what you say, okay?
Mrs BRAHAM: It will be interesting if after Question Time, we have more people speak. I am not sure whether we are going to rush the vote through now or whether we are going to have it after Question Time.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs BRAHAM: With that, Madam Speaker, I conclude my remarks.
Debate suspended.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this is the first motion of no confidence since I have been a member of the Legislative Assembly. Clearly, they do not come up very often but, then again, clearly a minister who has this level of incompetence does not come along very often. I know there are varying scales of incompetence over there, but this one takes the cake.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, do you have the motion? You need to read the motion into the Parliamentary Record.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, my apologies.
Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly has no confidence in the Minister for Mines and Energy for his incompetence, and his inability to execute his duties as a minister of the Crown.
I am sorry, Madam Speaker; I gave it to Mr Stokes.
It is rare that such an incompetent minister comes along. We are used to, as I said, various levels of competence, but this one really does take the cake. I will outline why it is that the minister is so incompetent. The government took this decision as a group with the exception, of course, of the member for Arnhem, but certainly the Cabinet as a whole cannot possibly get off the hook.
I will go through matters in some detail obviously, but if one steps back from this, one cannot help but wonder whether Xstrata takes the view that they are dealing with the Clampetts. You are the Clampetts. We have Jethro over there, he even looks like him, the Attorney-General may as well as be Jed. Then we have Elly May over there. This is Xstrata, one of the world’s most impressive mining companies, one which you, incidentally, have sought to smooch up to as much as you possibly can, but they come to the Northern Territory and they meet the Clampetts! If one looks at the history of this government’s conduct since it came to government and in particular since the McArthur River Mine expansion was sought, you can only come to the conclusion that Xstrata and the mining industry generally takes the view that this government is the Clampetts. The Clampetts might even have done it a little better than this government.
In terms of some of the comments we heard earlier in debate from the Attorney-General, all I can say is: how the worm turns! He had a go at my colleagues, the members for Katherine and Greatorex, for talking about due process. We remember when, in opposition, the Attorney-General used to be something of an advocate for due process, used to be a bit of a supporter of competence in government ministers and that, of course, has all changed, poor old member for Nhulunbuy.
This minister thoroughly deserves a no confidence motion. We look forward to the vote of the member for Arnhem and perhaps some of her colleagues at the conclusion of the motion. Let us make no bones about it: the motion comes about, as does the bill that we were discussing this morning, because of the minister’s rank incompetence. We know he is not up to the job, you know he is not up to the job, Xstrata knows he is not up to the job, the mining industry knows he is not up to the job and, indeed, Territorians know he is not up to the job.
You know he is not up to the job. Why else would the Chief Minister and her minders go to such unprecedented lengths to keep a minister of the Crown hidden from the media for over a day? It was laughable. It was so embarrassing to see the footage last night. The Chief Minister went out and said: ‘I will take all the questions, I will take all of the questions’. They were desperately trying to speak to the minister who carries the responsibility. She had no choice other than to say: ‘Oh, okay’. The answers during Question Time were terribly interesting. No doubt, the minister owes a great debt of gratitude to his colleagues who stretched their answers as they were ordered to do. There was hinting from his colleagues every time he was asked a question, none of which he answered, to the extent that we could understand his incoherent responses. His colleagues may as well have just held up little signs of ‘say this’, ‘say that’.
That is not the way in which Territorians expect any minister of any government to conduct him or herself. Political observers would know when a minister is getting very close to being - it might have been Ros Kelly or Paul Keating who coined the expression or used it in a political sense - ‘a carcass swinging in the breeze’. You know when there is a political carcass swinging in the breeze because that is when his boss and colleagues go to great lengths to either hide him, when they can get away with it, or help him when he is exposed in the forum of this parliament.
Put simply, this minister has demonstrated that he just does not get it. I do not believe he has a reading difficulty, many people do, but I do not believe he does. He cannot read the paperwork properly and he does not know the difference between an open cut and an underground mine. He has made a series of bungles and they have all been embarrassing. The ones we know about have been public. No doubt he has made a series of bungles behind the scenes. Carcass swinging in the breeze, rabbit caught in the headlights; that is this minister. His colleagues should do something about it. The Chief Minister should do something about it. We reckon the member for Brennan is worth promoting. If Peter Garrett can belong to a party that supports uranium mining notwithstanding his difficulties, we believe that someone from the far left, as the member for Brennan is, would make a very interesting mining minister. We challenge the Chief Minister to put the minister for Mines out of his misery and get someone else, and our money is on the member for Brennan.
My colleague, the member for Katherine, referred to some of the bungles. There was the time when this minister said in this place, words to the effect, and I do not have his direct quote, but the government was responsible for the mining boom and then, a week or so later, he decided they did not have that much to do with it at all. I am only going from memory, but then there was the time when he was caught on camera, he was launching something and he could not remember the name of it. That was a classic. I did enjoy that. There have been others.
When the decision of the court was delivered on Monday or Tuesday, like a rabbit caught in the headlights, this bloke had nothing to say. He needed to bury himself under a desk to see what he could come up with before he faced the media. That is terribly interesting, given that he was on notice of the proceedings from late 2006.
Having been a lawyer, I know that a Statement of Claim or a writ would have been filed at the Supreme Court. I know that this minister would have been across the issues. Like any legal proceeding, a defendant contemplates the possibility of being unsuccessful. Surely the minister contemplated that possibility. If he did not, he is even worse than we thought, and that is pretty bad.
The minister has said in this parliament repeatedly in relation to the approval that he was satisfied with his decision and satisfied that his decision met the requirements of and complied with the Mining Management Act, his words not ours. He said his decision was the ‘result of a careful evaluation of the facts’, his words, not ours. Here is another quote:
He said expert advice, he was satisfied with it, there was careful consideration, he has thought about it a lot, and on and on the list goes.
The minister is unable to continue to be a minister because if he was satisfied to the extent that he was with the approval process, you have to ask: can anyone believe what the minister says? Given his portfolio, this minister will be making a number of representations to the mining industry. He will be the Territory’s mining ambassador. We all know that when ministers go overseas, they are ambassadors; they promote the Northern Territory. Given the Jethro Clampett-type behaviour and conduct of the minister, I strongly doubt that heads of mining companies will be able to keep a straight face. How on earth will they be able to stop themselves from laughing when they see this bloke for an appointment?
Another interesting thing the minister said by way of media release on 5 September 2006 in relation to the approval just before it was given was: ‘I am focused on this project’. If that is a minister focused on the project, we would hate to see what he is like when he is not focused. Indeed, that could be catastrophic for pretty much everyone.
There is, clearly, a long line of conduct by the minister, and ramifications to the Territory and to the mining industry in particular if this minister continues with his portfolio. To add to what I have said already, I refer to the minister’s media release dated 4 January 2007. He got back early in the new year but, then again, he had to because he does not know much. He issued the release on 4 January 2007. It said:
As I said at the outset, whilst this motion is a no confidence motion in the minister, it has to be put on the Parliamentary Record in the strongest possible terms that it is the Cabinet as a whole, as a collective, that has to take some responsibility for this man’s incompetence. His predecessor, the former minister for Mines, must have done a lot of the legwork; he must have known about this issue in Cabinet. The Chief Minister, the Attorney-General, certainly those in Cabinet whose eyes might have been glazing over, and there would have been a few of them because they do it naturally anyway, but senior Cabinet ministers must have know about the seriousness of this issue. I will come to how serious the consequences of Xstrata closing down are before too long. If beggars belief if senior Cabinet ministers did not ask questions of the minister, if they did not satisfy themselves that he understood what he was writing or reading. Surely there has to be that sort of level of collective responsibility.
I am interested in the fact that the word ‘mentoring’ is tossed around more on the Labor side of politics then my own. I guess there are all sorts of reasons for that, but given that you lot seem to be the champions of mentoring, one cannot help but wonder whether you have failed in your duty to mentor and assist a new and obviously not very competent or capable minister charged with an extremely serious responsibility. You cannot just stand on the Titanic and say: ‘My bit is sinking’. You all have to cop responsibility together.
It is worth stating for the record that there was much concern about this minister’s appointment from the outset. He knows that, everyone knows that; it was aired publicly. I will quote an extract from an interview on Tuesday, 5 September 2006, on Julia Christensen’s show. Ms Christensen said, and I quote:
It was well known and taken generally as a disappointment that this minister was appointed. Yet if senior Cabinet ministers helped him and got it wrong, that is even worse, but you have to ask whether the senior Cabinet ministers just left him to it. That becomes a real issue given the importance of Xstrata and the McArthur River Mine to the Northern Territory.
I think it was in the September sittings last year when we had protestors about the McArthur River Mine here. I remember looking up in the gallery and it had a few more people than it does now, and I said to them: ‘At least you know where the CLP stands on this. We have always been up-front. We have not mucked around when it comes to mining. We strongly support Xstrata and the industry’ unlike the conduct of those opposite, starting with the then minister for the Environment, the minister for Mines at the time, and the endless delays and confusion that resulted from their incompetence. Maybe incompetence is contagious, I do not know.
In any event, it is worth looking at the history of this matter to gain an appreciation of two things. First, the importance of Xstrata to the Territory; and second, the breadth of incompetence shown not only by this minister, but by his predecessor and other ministers. The minister for the Environment said in about February 2006 that she would not approve the expansion of McArthur River Mine. There is no need for me to go into it now; we do not have enough time anyway. Then there was the controversy about the EPA, which you promised would be independent and nothing could be further from the truth. All of the indications were that the EPA, from government at least, gave a fantastic independent report. I cannot remember how we got it - it may have fallen off the back of a truck, but it does not really matter – but the report from URS and the letter dated 28 February 2006, said of the EPA process, and I quote:
This letter went on for a couple of pages with annexures, but you could not even get the environmental assessment right. Then when the minister announced that she would not approve the expansion, all hell broke loose. Who can forget, I think it was on or about 23 February 2006, the full-page ad from a range of local businesses on behalf of 400 businesses or so who rely on the McArthur River Mine for business? I remember the ad. I remember going to the meetings. Some of those suppliers could have been financially devastated as a result of this government’s prevarication and incompetence, and they were deeply concerned, and rightly so.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: You will have your turn. You will have your turn later, you bully! You will have your turn later. You will have your turn later and you are a bully.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, thereafter …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: When are you going to retire? Stop protecting your incompetent friend.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Then, Madam Speaker, in about March 2006, the head of Xstrata arrives for talks with the government. Now this is not just any bloke. This is the boss of one of the world’s leading mining companies. He arrives for talks. People who work in the industry and at McArthur River are deeply concerned. The suppliers are deeply concerned. Workers, indigenous and non-indigenous, are deeply concerned. I think from memory the price of zinc went down as a result of what happened. The head of Xstrata comes here to see what can be done from this incompetent government. Various indications were made. The former minister for Mines got out of this by the skin of his teeth because he was sacked and you cannot help but ask whether he was sacked because of his incompetence during what happened in 2006.
Anyway, we go to October 2006. The present minister granted the approval and, as I have said already, he went to great lengths to assure pretty much everyone that he had looked at pretty much everything: relied on his expert advice, he had been very focused on the project, he had considered everything very carefully and he thought it was rock solid.
On the last day of April, earlier this week, the decision is announced that the minister got it wrong. Why? Because the minister could not tell the difference between and open cut and an underground mine. The minister knew about this because he was a party to the legal proceedings, so therefore he must have known, had to know. I hope he knew about the legal proceedings. I hope he just does not go through his job not wanting to be told everything. We can only assume that he knew about the legal proceedings. He knew about it late in 2006. He must have been concerned, but he thought that everything was rock solid.
We now go to the last day of April 2007, and he has to go back to square one. Without having apparently contemplated being an unsuccessful litigant, he hides under his desk, or perhaps probably more likely his ministerial colleagues and in particular the Chief Minister locked him up and said: ‘For goodness sake, you are not very competent and you will really make a fool of yourself so we will keep you behind closed doors for a while’. Eventually, he is helped and he comes up with legislation which will be debated at the end of this motion no doubt.
For the sake of the record, I should make it abundantly clear, notwithstanding our reservations in respect of the bill, why we will support it: because there is 1000 miles of difference between the Labor Party and the County Liberal Party when it comes to developing the Northern Territory and mining. The CLP supports and has always supported mining. We do not have the sort of disorder that members of the Labor Party have when it comes to mining. We are not like the Chief Minister who used to say: ‘I really hate uranium mining’ until she got a note from Kevin and said: ‘I really like uranium mining now because I just want to be like everyone else’. That is what Elly May Clampett said. That was Elly May. Elly May changed her mind because it was convenient for her to do so.
Everyone knows where they stand with the CLP and, I might say, everyone knows the views of the member for Arnhem and I expect her to be consistent. I look forward to hearing from her, both during this no confidence motion, because I am quite certain that she would share with us a lack of confidence in the minister, and when the bill is debated. I am not allowed to say that members left the Chamber, but I thought it was interesting when the bill came up this morning that many members of the parliament from the Labor side were not concentrating on the bill. If that is not a silent protest, I do not know what is. I look forward to the member for Arnhem’s contribution.
The CLP would never in a million years have done to workers what this government did. The CLP in a million years would never have done over Xstrata and potentially put in jeopardy a mining company and a mine like McArthur River with all of its jobs and all of its money. That is money to be injected into the economy of the Northern Territory. Lots of jobs, lots of money and this government cannot get it right. I remember describing their conduct in a media release last year as ‘a dog’s breakfast’. It has gone well beyond a dog’s breakfast. It is now a special episode of the Beverly Hillbillies starring Jethro over there, Jed there, and Elly May just there.
You need to go, minister. We have no confidence in you. Your colleagues do not have any confidence in you. The mining industry will look at you and they will not be able to keep a straight face because they know you are incompetent. They do not have any confidence in you because you just cannot read documents properly. You do not know the difference between an open cut mine and an underground mine. This minister of the Crown cannot even answer questions during Question Time. You wanted to sit down as soon as you possibly could. You had your little friends saying: ‘Say this, Chris’. I thought they were going to start to hold up signs for a while, but alas, they did not do that.
Minister, you are so incredibly incompetent. We support the member for Brennan. We believe that, as I said earlier, if Peter Garrett can belong to a party that can reconcile its previous positions with new positions, if Peter Garrett can still be a member of that party, then the member for Brennan, being from the far left, will make a very interesting minister for Mines. Certainly, he would be, we think, a much more competent minister …
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: I cannot hear you, I really literally cannot hear. We can keep going. I mean, you do that, I will do this and we will keep going.
I have said before, and I will obviously need to keep saying it, you always know when you are on to something with these people because of their reactions. You are becoming painfully predictable. One of the great parts about this job and this Chamber is that there are surprises on occasion, and the adrenalin goes and you get stuck into it. You are becoming so tired, so lazy, so arrogant and so predictable that I just cannot help wondering whether the fun is going to go out of it. You are predictable because you know we know what happens.
We know when we are heading in the right direction because you go ballistic. You become very loud, very personal and very hostile. I suppose some of you are loyal to each other. I note the Chief Ministerial aspirant has been quite noisy for the period he has been in the Chamber during this debate. I do not know; maybe there is a factional deal. Maybe he wants the support of the incompetent Minister for Mines and Energy, although he has so many numbers I am not sure whether his support or otherwise is integral to his achieving his Chief Ministerial aspirations.
However, I digress. They are very keen to wrap themselves around him in the same way that, metaphorically speaking, the Chief Minister took the minister for Mines down yesterday, held his little hand: ‘I will take the questions because I am the boss, because I know you are an idiot and I cannot possibly let you dig yourself into this hole any longer’.
Madam Speaker, it is clear that even those opposite know that their friend and colleague deserves this motion. It is a motion of no confidence in a minister who has not just mucked up in the last few days, not just mucked up this year, but who has been an incompetent since his appointment.
We support the bill because we support mining, jobs and investment in the Territory. However, if you look at the minister for Mines, it is hard to see that he is a supporter of jobs, the mine or investment in the Territory simply by virtue of his incompetence. This minister should go. He does not deserve to be a minister of the Crown, and the Chief Minister should sack him.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you time has expired.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Clampetts. I can remember the show very well. I remember one part of the introduction song: ‘… and up from the ground came a bubbling crude …’.
Mr Henderson: I do not know this show.
Mr NATT: They ended up quite rich. I am rich, having a loving family, being surrounded by great friends, being surrounded by supportive colleagues, to be in the party that I am in and moving the Territory ahead.
This has been a hard decision based on a legal technicality, but it is a decision that had to be made. The Supreme Court rested solely on the contents of the 2002 application for the mine and its relationship to the authorisation granted to expand the mine in 2006. This is a technical legal issue. There is absolutely no suggestion that my department or I, as the Mines minister, did not properly consider the environment issues or bypass necessary procedural steps. There is also absolutely no suggestion in the judge’s decision that the supposed government fast-tracking caused this problem.
If there is any deficiency, it rests in the legislation, which means we need to fix the legislation immediately. It provides surety, and it returns the mine to the status quo. It provides surety for its employees, the suppliers and all the contractors involved. The more we play politics in here today, the more we debate it, we are holding back the mine from progressing to restart. All in all, there are about 1700 jobs involved. As I said, it is a big decision and we are making that decision to ensure that the mine does progress.
As I said earlier, I knew what this job entailed when I took it on. I knew that I had to make hard decisions, and this is one of them. Let us have a look at what I have done while I have been in the role. I have worked hard to build on the great work that my predecessor, the member for Casuarina, has done in the past.
In November, I visited China as part of our marketing strategy to get them interested. The mining industry is experiencing massive economic expansion and that is driven by the demands of China for resources. We visited China as a group to customise and develop a campaign titled Australia’s Northern Territory: vast land, rich minerals and future opportunity. It aimed to put the Northern Territory on the map and it sent a very strong message that the Northern Territory is rich in mineral endowment and is vastly under explored. This made the ears of the Chinese listen. I attended 12 meetings scheduled over eight days when I was in Changsha and Beijing. From that, we have had a commitment from six organisations to visit the Northern Territory in the next 12 months. I understand three have visited already.
Applications for exploration licenses from China have come forth since that visit, with particular interest in the uranium deposit south of Alice Springs, but some Chinese giants, Citic and SinoSteel, are very interested in the Northern Territory and are making more inquiries as we speak.
While I was there I visited the Chinese Chamber of Commerce Metals, Minerals and Chemical Importers and Exporters, commonly known as the CCCMC. This was a very worthwhile meeting. They have over 3000 members on their books. Following a suggestion from our party, I asked if they would consider putting the Northern Territory mining website on their webpage. This has happened. The Northern Territory website is quite substantial. If you are not aware of it, have a look at it. It is chock full of important information that prospective mining companies are after. That is now on the website of the Chamber of Commerce in China, with over 3000 members accessing it. There is another interest that will be created from China.
Since that visit in November, enormous interest has come from China. We have had organisations travelling to the Northern Territory and the General Manager of the CCCMC visited Darwin in February, with members from China Minmetals and representatives from SinoSteel, who are the second to largest or maybe third to largest steel company in the whole of China.
Staff in the department are planning another trip, and that is to the China Mining Expo in November because we feel that by promoting the Territory over there, we create limitless opportunities for Chinese companies in Australia.
In October last year, I attended the Mining 2006 Resource Convention in Brisbane. I spoke there with a number of potential mining exploration and development companies that are all interested in the Territory. We had a stall at the convention and I had the opportunity to be there for two or three hours. It was fantastic to see the interest that Northern Territory has created in the mining industry. A number of prospective mining companies looking at the Territory spoke with me and members of my department. The main focus of that stall obviously was to promote exploration, mining, development and the investment opportunities in the Territory. We highlighted to those companies the competitive advantages of exploring and mining in the Territory.
The convention provided me with an opportunity to meet personally with a number of industrial representatives and, during those networking sessions, I promoted the Territory as much as I could to induce their interest in coming to the Territory. I also presented at that convention an Energy Opportunities and Development talk, which was attended by about 80 delegates. I reiterate that we were overwhelmed by the interest in the Territory and by the number of people who visited the booth and attended my talk.
Another highly successful event was the AGES conference in Alice Springs recently. AGES, which is the Annual Geoscience Exploration Seminar, communicates with industry. It is set up by the department and it attracts many interested mining companies from around Australia to Alice Springs. The purpose of AGES is to communicate to industry and academia the results and significance of our targeted geoscience programs. If anyone has the opportunity to visit the Mines department to see the work that they do in the geoscience area, I encourage them to do so because it is quite outstanding. We lead the world in some of those areas.
This was the second year of the Mining Services Expo, which runs in conjunction with AGES. That is organised by the Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development. It is an opportunity for Central Australian businesses to showcase their capacity to support the exploration and mining industries. It was a feather in our cap because a number of these businesses were exceptionally pleased with the set up of the expo and by the level of interest from people attending the expo.
Interestingly enough, there were four Chinese companies registered to come to AGES. It is significant that these organisations come all the way to the Northern Territory from China and demonstrates the interest that has been created by the department and my visit to China. This year’s AGES conference grew yet again, with 56 exploration companies represented; 33% more than in 2006. There were representatives from two indigenous organisations, three international companies and 31 delegates from research institutions and consultancies.
I have had the opportunity this year to secure, through the budgeting process in Cabinet, more funds for mining in a new initiative called Bringing Forward Discovery. It is a major mining exploration and investment attraction. The Bringing Forward Discovery initiative follows Building the Territory’s Resource Base, which has run for the past four years and has been enormously successful.
Bringing Forward Discovery is worth $12m over four years. This year, we will be spending $2.75m on geoscience data and $0.25m to promote long-term exploration investment in the Territory. It will ensure that we not only build on our past successes, but we create new ones.
In summary of what I have been doing in the last six months, the government’s exploration initiatives, led by me and the department, have resulted in a doubling of exploration licence applications from an average of 250 a year to almost 600 last year. At the moment, there are over 900 granted exploration licences in the Territory. There has been a huge increase in exploration expenditure. It has increased from $75m in 2005-06, and it has increased nearly 100% since 2003. Of course, the exploration that we have in the Territory is leading to new mines. Five opened in 2006. Bootu Creek near Tennant Creek was one of them. There have been several gold mines in the Pine Creek area, and the Matilda Mineral Zircon sand mine at Melville Island has been a coup for the Tiwi Islands.
The minerals and petroleum sectors are booming, and the boom is underpinned by the Northern Territory’s unequivocal support for the industry. The new exploration and potential developments will help stimulate further investment in the Territory and, obviously, employment opportunities. It is all about creating jobs for Territorians.
Let me return to McArthur River. I would like to outline some of the key issues. The facts are, as I stated yesterday, the hard decision on the McArthur River Mine expansion was made six months ago. After following a rigorous process, in considering all relevant evidence, I made the call. I did so on the condition that strict environmental standards and safeguards were in place. I did so recognising the important economic contribution the mine makes to the Territory. My decision was the right decision. It was the right decision for the region, and it was the right decision for the entire Northern Territory.
However, this technical deficiency in the approval process as identified by the Supreme Court must be rectified to give effect to my decision and to ensure the status quo of the mine. The Supreme Court rests solely on the content of the 2002 application for the mine and its relationship to the authorisation granted to expand the mine in 2006. This is a technical legal issue. There is absolutely no suggestion that the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines, or I as minister, did not properly consider environmental issues or bypass necessary procedural steps.
The government has been advised by the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory, Tom Pauling QC, that this is the most appropriate method to resolve this issue. The court decision said nothing about environmental or consultation concerns. It is clear that the government has got it right. This legislation is not about riding rough shod over the decision or over the rights of the plaintiffs. A technical problem was identified and a minor law change is all that is needed to rectify it.
Let me turn to the member for Katherine’s response. On 24 February 2006, the shadow minister wrote to my predecessor. In that letter, she said:
Now the shadow minister is saying that the process that we are undertaking today is flawed and will cost the jobs of Territorians. That is simply not the case.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I reject this censure. It has no basis at all. They simply seek to attack McArthur River Mine and they do not want to give certainty to the mine workers. They simply want to turn it into a political football.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, after listening to what the minister had to say, I am not exactly sure that he answered any of the points of the censure.
I will go first to what he said about my letter of January or February last year. It was in relation to expediency by looking at the environmental impact statement and ensuring that it met all the requirements, urging him to push forward the McArthur River Mine. It had absolutely nothing to do with treading on the rights of the people to have their say or lodging an appeal. It had nothing to do with that at all.
From the outset, I support the McArthur River Mine and always have. What you are doing, in introducing the bill that you have to this House, is putting a second tier to it that has made it pretty unpalatable. That unpalatable part, and you know it very well, is the fact that you are now taking away all the rights for anyone to appeal anything to do with McArthur River Mine retrospectively and forever. That makes me feel very uncomfortable. That is why I am putting my point of view because that is not what you said in your second reading speech yesterday. You did not even mention that part.
The Treasurer said: ‘Get a briefing, have a briefing’. We had a briefing all right, but it was only we had burrowed into the findings that we worked out very quick smart that you were going to take away the rights of anyone to appeal. That is not what we are about. This is a democracy. We live in a democracy. You are calling it a technicality; it is actually an authority. It is an authority to mine underground. That was the beginning of the McArthur River Mine; it was an authority to mine underground.
The mine management plan that came underneath that authority to mine underground could not change the original authority. Therefore, you have to make a new application for authority to mine above ground, open cut. That is what you did not do, and that is what the department did not tell you to do.
To introduce this bill now is to ride rough shod over all of us by saying this has to be rushed through on a matter of urgency because everyone of us want to protect the jobs of those people who work at McArthur River Mine. We also need to protect the rights of the people who want to, if they can, challenge the authorisation in the Supreme Court, as every other person has the democratic right to do.
This is where I am very uncomfortable. We have now said: ‘Sorry, guys, you do not have any rights left at all because I forgot to look at that word’. You forgot to look at, as you call it, a technicality. I call it a pretty important word. It is the difference between underground mining and open cut mining. You missed that bit. You missed it so that has become a very big cost to the people, to the elders, the tribal elders, who live around McArthur River who have such passion about the area. I do not think that we should take away their rights of appeal, but that is what you are doing with this bill. That is where I am very uncomfortable with it. I have no problem with the first part of this bill which …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Is the member for Katherine talking about the bill that will be debated presently in this House this afternoon? If so, this is anticipation of the debate. Is she talking about the motion of no confidence? She appears to me to be speaking on the bill. Therefore she is anticipating debate.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek some clarification on that matter. The motion of want of confidence does not say anything about the bill. You are talking quite specifically about the bill.
Shadow minister, I will caution you on confining your remarks to the motion before us. It does refer to the ability of the minister. As you are aware, we are currently in the second reading debate on the bill so you cannot anticipate discussing that bill. I draw your attention to the specific wording of the motion.
Mrs MILLER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will go back to the motion. It seems to be all tied into one. I am sorry if I cross to the other side.
Ms Carney: But they are interrelated.
Mrs MILLER: Yes, they are very much interrelated. The proceedings and the actions this week of the minister and this government by introducing this bill as a matter of urgency, without due process for everyone here to study the implications of the bill, is not something that I want to be part of again.
I feel very uncomfortable about it and I blame the minister. That is why this censure has been brought. The minister failed to understand what he was signing off. He calls it a technicality but, quite frankly, he did not realise the difference between authority to mine underground and authority to mine open cut, each of which need a different mine management plan. What government has had to do is go into damage control and introduce this bill as a matter of urgency. I am sorry that I have referred to urgency again, but it is exactly what this censure is about.
The minister has handled this whole affair very incompetently. It is a no confidence motion so I have every right to say why we do not have any confidence in the minister. I am terribly disappointed that we have had to come to this because it has taken up very important time that should be spent on government business. Instead, we are trying to get this minister out of a quagmire.
I support the motion. I do not have any confidence in this minister at all. I am extremely concerned that the message he is sending to the industry nationally and internationally is that the Northern Territory does not have the competence to make accurate decisions, and that does not bode well for any business wanting to research and develop in the Northern Territory being confident about coming here. That is a serious concern considering the impact that mining has on the economy of the Northern Territory, so I support this motion of no confidence in the minister.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is quite extraordinary for the opposition to blame the minister for Mines for a Supreme Court decision that really does, no matter what they say, swing on a technicality in the interpretation of the legislation.
The government and its legal advisors are absolutely convinced that an appeal against that Supreme Court decision would be successful. However, such an appeal process would take considerable time and would cost, of course, mine owners and operators many millions of dollars in delay whilst a workforce, which is geared and ready to go on this project, stands by. That would create enormous uncertainty in the meantime for the future of the mine and the many hundreds of jobs it provides.
That uncertainty would also throw into jeopardy the government of the Northern Territory’s reputation for support for the mining industry in general. That uncertainty would jeopardise the millions of dollars spent in exploration across the Northern Territory each year. That would be the outcome of waiting many weeks and months for an appeal to be heard. Similar uncertainty would arise if we were to wait for the next sitting of parliament, a wait of seven weeks. As I said, this project is geared to go.
What would happen to the contractors and the hundreds of workers who are on-site on this project? The opposition thinks that they are going to simply sit down and wait for the outcome of a Supreme Court appeal or wait seven weeks for the next parliamentary sitting before any amendment can be passed and before they can resume work. I will tell you what would happen: those workers would dissipate very quickly in search of other major projects and jobs across the country, and there is no shortage of them to go to.
What this project requires and requires today is absolute certainty, the certainty that this legislation will provide so that that project can continue. The member for Katherine goes on about urgency. The fact is it has been used far less frequently by this government in its time in office …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Whereas the other side raised a point of order in relation to my colleague the member for Katherine referring to the bill, put simply, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I ask that you rule accordingly.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, this discussion is in relation to the motion about the abilities and competence of the minister and not the bill before the Assembly, so if you could confine your remarks to the motion.
Mr STIRLING: I am not sure what your ruling means, Mr Deputy Speaker. The question of urgency is very much a part of the censure debate, I would have thought. If the opposition had any rational logic in this at all, the fact that it is here on urgency, I would have thought, would be part of the reason for the censure.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Do you take it, with respect, that he is dissenting from your ruling?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not make a ruling. As I did with the shadow minister for Mines and Energy, I caution you to contain your remarks to the motion of want of confidence rather than the amending bill. The motion is in regards to the competence and abilities of the Mines minister. I have cautioned the shadow minister in regards to this matter and I caution you also, Attorney-General.
Mr STIRLING: It would render me almost speechless, as the fourth speaker in a four person debate not to be able to respond to points made by members opposite. The member for Katherine raised the question of urgency.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The Deputy Chief Minister is being both argumentative and disrespectful. You have given him a caution yet he continues to argue.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, there is no point of order. I have cautioned the deputy leader as I have cautioned the shadow minister to try to maintain the discussion about the motion rather than the bill.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, in contrast to the member for Katherine, the member for Nhulunbuy is speaking to the motion in that, basically, the issue of competence and the need to bring this bill on urgency was raised as a question mark over the minister’s competence. In that light, the member for Nhulunbuy, I believe, has every right to comment on it.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Deputy Speaker, in the interests of not being here all day, I will move on.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment. There was no point of order, Leader of the Opposition. I have cautioned you. Continue your remarks as I have asked.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will move on. The member for Katherine asked about another couple of steps in the Supreme Court process about environmental aspects and the community consultation process, which the Supreme Court did not get to. There is no doubt that this amendment puts to rest any doubt around those issues because the environmental process, above all else, around the shift in the mine’s operation was so exhaustive and so comprehensive that the first application was, in fact, found deficient, and the plan had to be modified in order to get approval through the government around the environmental issues. The Leader of the Opposition suggests that this was incompetence. Well, we well know the history of the CLP in relation to mining approval issues.
She seemed to suggest that rejecting that application and asking for it to be revisited and strengthened around some of those environmental concerns has thrown the mine, its workers and its suppliers into doubt. Nothing could be further from the truth. We stand by our decisions in this regard. We ought to be commended for the diligent approach to approval that the government adopted in and around the environmental processes.
Clearly, on the Opposition Leader’s own remarks, the CLP would have supported any application, no matter what it had to say in relation to questions about what environmental outcomes might have been for an approval for a shift in operations. That is no surprise to me. It is no surprise to the members who were with me through those years in opposition. It was the CLP that authorised the Woodcutters Mine, one of the most dangerous mines ever to operate in Australia, certainly the most dangerous mine in terms of injuries inflicted on its workers in the Northern Territory, authorised by the Country Liberal Party, no question. It was one of the most dangerous mines of all times. It was, of course, the CLP that authorised Mt Todd. Where were the environmental processes around Mt Todd? Where was the environmental application process around Mt Todd? It is a legacy mine that leaves the Territory taxpayers today exposed to a cleanup bill, at latest count, of $35m and climbing.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: The Leader of the Opposition has the hide to suggest that we were putting that mine in jeopardy because we sent it back because we did not think the environmental safeguards were there. You idiot!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Deputy Chief Minister, I would like you to withdraw that last comment, please.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Leader of the Opposition, what is your point of order?
Ms CARNEY: Now that you have settled him down, Madam Speaker, there is no point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Please resume your seat, Leader of the Opposition. Minister, please continue.
Mr STIRLING: Why would I be surprised by the CLP’s views on these matters when they have such an unhealthy reputation in relation to mining and the sorts of approvals they allowed? We stand by the strict, diligent and disciplined approach we took to environmental issues. That is why this bill is putting those issues beyond doubt. They have been comprehensively examined and they were found to be deficient. They have been revisited, strengthened, and gone through the approval process.
The second extraordinary aspect to this motion of censure is that throughout the day, the Country Liberal Party has pretended to support the amendment so that the mine may continue. They have, at the same time, spent an inordinate amount of time in debate earlier today and, of course, during the entire Question Time on this matter. It is a strange way…
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It was ordered earlier, on the basis of an objection from the Minister for Health, that it is not appropriate for the Deputy Chief Minister to be talking about the bill. After the Deputy Speaker making that ruling, I ask that you rule accordingly and restrict the minister, who has been around long enough to know better, to confine himself to the terms of the no confidence motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat …
Mr STIRLING: Speaking to the point …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I have already made my decision. Leader of the Opposition, there is no point of order. The Deputy Chief Minister is speaking in a general context, not specifically regarding the bill. Please continue, minister.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I simply say it is an extraordinarily curious way to demonstrate so-called support for legislation. Of course, if they do not support the bill, they do not support the mine, they do not support the jobs, they do not support the suppliers and the revenue and economic growth generated by that mine …
Mrs Miller: I could call you a…
Ms Carney: You could call him a liar.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, Madam Speaker. I withdraw the word ‘liar’.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Please continue, Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, the legislation before the Assembly for which the minister is being censured is, on advice from the Solicitor-General, the most appropriate method to resolve this issue. The legislation is not about dismissing and riding rough shod over the court’s decision or, indeed, over the rights of the plaintiffs. It is a technical problem that was identified; a minor law change is all that is needed to rectify it. Justice Angel said the very same thing himself. The hard work around this decision has already been done in relation to all of those issues that I canvassed before. However, we do need to ensure that the technical legal framework is in place to support this mine’s expansion.
There is no suggestion that the department of Mines or the Mines minister did not properly consider all of those issues, or that they bypassed any necessary procedural steps. The decision of the Supreme Court was that the authorisation granted could only authorise mining activities specified in the original mining application. The 2002 application, as we know, did not specifically request open cut mining as one of the activities it wished to undertake. Approval of a new mining management plan to deal with open cut mining was ineffective because the 2003 authorisation for the mine did not authorise the McArthur River Mining company’s proposed open cut mining operation. It is a legal technical question. Justice Angel said quite clearly in his judgment on Monday that the technical issue could be resolved through an amendment to legislation, and that is what the government is proceeding with.
The opposition’s position on the bill, which they purport to be supporting, and their stance with this censure motion, is all about politics at the end of the day. It is all about politics. It has nothing to do with the substance of the legislation. They have seized on a political opportunity, with which they think they can divide government members. They think they can divide government members on this issue because it is an issue of enormous sensitivity to some of our members. There is no secret about that. We have seen firsthand the depth of the sensitivities around this whole question in previous debate in this Chamber. We understand that sensitivity as a government. We are a broad church in this Labor government of the Northern Territory. We encompass all of those views and we respect them, notwithstanding tough decisions that have to be made.
We understand where our members come from. We understand some of the cultural sensitivities around these issues. All of those issues put together make this a much more difficult decision for government than you might expect a normal legislative amendment may cause. That is a fact. We make no effort to hide that. Because of the makeup of the Labor Party in this Assembly, this government, a makeup of which we are enormously proud, given its diversity and given its representative nature of the Northern Territory community, this government is honest to everyone involved in this issue. It has the courage to take the tough decisions when they have to be made in the best interests of the Territory overall, and in the interests of communicating to all players involved. We are not seeking to give false hope or encouragement or expectation that a decision might not be forthcoming or a decision might not be taken at all. Up-front and honest is the only way that it could be.
In seeking political opportunity to damage the government today, the opposition is absolutely oblivious to the importance of the matter at hand, which is the continuation of the mining operation at McArthur River. They simply do not care about the mine at the end of the day. They do not care about its workers, they do not care about its suppliers, and they do not care about the economic growth that it generates or indeed its future. They have demonstrated that clearly by their attitude today, by contribution to debate and their tactics with this censure motion.
As the member for Nelson reminds me from time to time, this Chamber is all about politics. I accept that; we all accept that as members of the Legislative Assembly. Whilst being about politics, this Assembly has to be about the passage of proper public policy and that is what this is about at the end of the day. The mining industry will shudder when they see and read the comments of the CLP opposition recorded on Hansard today, when they see the opposition’s antics in regard to what is a very important amendment in relation to the future of one mine. They have proven themselves today unable to put proper public policy above gutter politics. That is what this censure motion is all about: gutter politics rather than proper public policy.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be put.
Madam SPEAKER: There are two motions before the Chair. The first is that the question be put and the second is the want of confidence motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The question is that the question be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion of want of confidence as moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, the member for Drysdale, the minister for Mines. I am disappointed because first, the opposition said they were going to support the bill. Second, they said they support the mine, they support the business it generates, they support the wealth and income for the Territory but all of a sudden they start to play politics. What is really disappointing is that they tried to play politics by attacking the minister for Mines, calling him all sorts of names and stating that what happened was his mistake.
First, the member for Katherine said that due process was not followed, but matters of urgency come to this parliament all the time. It is due process to address issues that emerge unexpectedly, issues that have to be addressed quickly. This is the same person, the same member, who wrote me a letter which states clearly that she read the EIS, she read everything, everything is okay, approve it and approve it now. I was the minister for Mines, and I am always supportive mines and business, but at that time, I had serious reservations about the consequences that the diversion of the river as described by the mining company in the first submission would have for the environment. I was not prepared to put my signature on a document and authorise the operation of the mine under those conditions. I sent it back. I recommended to my colleague, the minister for Environment, for it to be sent back for additional information to satisfy me, as the minister at the time, that there would be no disadvantage to the environment arising from the expansion of the mine and the operation of the mine as open cut.
I doubt very much whether the member for Katherine, first, has read the decision of the court and, second, whether she has gone through the Mining Management Act. There is some confusion. Even the member for Nelson was referring to the Mining Act when this situation clearly falls under the Mining Management Act, not the Mining Act.
If the member for Katherine had a clear look at the act, and I have it in front of me because I want to ensure that when I say something, it is correct. First, if you look at the definitions of the Mining Management Act 2001, you will see:
And so on. There is nowhere here any definition or description of what kind of mining activity, above ground or underground, because that is part of mining activity. The mining activity is the mining for minerals, not the way you mine for minerals. They can be interchanged and have been interchanged in the past.
Section 35(2), the one on which Justice Angel based his decision, says:
In early 2003, McArthur River Mine was operating the mine pursuant to Authorisation 59/01 dated 21 January 2003, and that was granted by the minister in accordance with section 35(2) of the Mining Management Act. During 2003, McArthur River Mine proposed to convert the mine from an underground to an open cut operation in order to fully explore the resources and to extend the life of the mine from 25 years to 35 years. McArthur River Mine also advised the department that the underground mine had reached such a stage that to extract more minerals would compromise the safety of the mine and the safety workers.
The Authorization granted by the minister at that time was to carry out mining activities on the subject mining site. As I said before, ‘mining activities’ are clearly defined in the act as mining for minerals and processing of minerals. There is no specification or demand to specify which way you are going to mine for minerals.
In the past, the department and the ministers have treated it as mining activity without taking into consideration the type of mining activity. There is provision in the act if an Authorisation is granted to a mine, the company can apply for a variation of the Authorisation or the minister may, by written noticed served on an operator, vary or revoke an Authorisation. The minister can vary an Authorisation after taking into consideration environmental issues, occupational health and safety issues or mining practices. This is clearly described in the documentation provided to us by the court.
Our lawyers defended our action. The change from underground mining to open cut mining was a variation of an existing Authorisation because the minister took into account the different circumstances that were occurring at that time at the mine. Ministers are not experts of their field. Ministers are put there under the Westminster system to manage departments. Ministers make decisions relying on the advice of departments and the Crown Solicitor or other experts. Every minister in every government in the past and in the future has done so and will do so.
This was a very difficult decision. You know very well it was a very difficult decision. Too many things had to be considered. There was opposition. At the same time, we were very well aware of the impact that any decision would have on the economy, the future and the reputation of the Northern Territory. We were not prepared to go down the path of development at any cost. I am aware, and there are examples, that should the CLP have been in government, there would not be an EIS to the level we took it. There would not be any package for the community. There would not be any compensation at the level we have put it.
Do I have to remind you of the level of compensation of $900 000 for Mt Todd? That is the biggest mine site in the Territory and one that can actually be seen from space. There was $900 000 compensation payable by a mine that degraded the environment. We managed to arrest the degradation in the last year, but ultimately, to rehabilitate it to what it was before it will cost $50m.
We went through a rigorous environmental process. We were not satisfied with the original process. I spoke to Professor Erskine with regard to the diversion of the river and his response to me was alarming. It sent alarm bells ringing in my head and that is why, despite my support for the mine and business, I went back to the minister for the Environment and said it has to be done again; this is not correct. It was done again to the satisfaction of Professor Erskine and then, and only then, was I prepared to sign it. The reality is if I was the minister for Mines, I would have done exactly the same. I would have signed this Authorisation based on the advice of the department and based on the advice of our legal experts.
What happened? We had a court case. The people who opposed the mine took us to court on three issues. The first was the process was faulty; second, the environmental process was not done properly; and the third was community consultation. Justice Angel had a look at these three, and he stopped at the first one, that the process was faulty. That is the opinion of the esteemed Justice. He said: ‘This is what should have been done’. Lawyers have different opinions, depending on where you stand. You are a plaintiff or a defendant. Then there is the judge. There is no argument about it. We accept the decision of the judge.
The problem we have now is we either ask McArthur River Mine to put another application for an Authorisation, which will take time, or appeal. We can appeal. Lawyers say we have strong grounds, but you cannot guarantee we are going to win an appeal. Another problem we have is that 700 workers at the mine would be stood down, because the mine cannot operate without a valid Authorisation, at a cost to the mine of $500 000-plus every day. The suppliers who supply the mine will stop supplying so they will not be paid. An airline that has made an order of $40m for a jet to service the mine will not service the mine and would not be able to meet the payments.
So we have the situation of every day we delay, the mine will lose money, suppliers will lose money, people will be without work and without income, and the threat to the Territory of legal action against the government. It is not that the government made a mistake. The judge decided that interpretation of the Mining Management Act should be very narrow, not very broad. As I said before, this approval went through such a rigorous process, step by step, in the environmental stage, in the legal stage, in the approval stage, and I bet if you were the minister for Mines, you would have received exactly the same advice, your signature would be on the Authorisation and you would have exactly the same problem.
I am the first to say that, as the minister for Mines, based on the advice we received, and I have gone back and looked at it, I would have signed the Authorisation. I strongly believe the mining activity was to extract lead, zinc and silver. The way you do it is irrelevant. The mining activity is the one that counts, and what is also important is that when the mine advised that there were some potential dangers to the occupational health and safety of people working there, as the government, we had to act and, quite rightly, the minister approved the variation of the original Authorisation to go to open pit.
We find ourselves in a situation now that we have to fix that technical error to authorise the open cut method. The only way we can do it is as a matter of urgency. The reason we are doing it is because we want to protect Territorians from paying compensation, protect Territorians from losing their income, and protect Territory companies from going bankrupt. We can play politics here; I do not have a problem with that. The reality is that, by playing politics, we are playing with the livelihood of hundreds and hundreds of people in Darwin, Borroloola and elsewhere. The minister is not incompetent and he did not make a mistake. As I told you before, I would have done exactly the same based on the legal advice that we received from the legal eagles who work for this government.
Ministers are not mining experts. I am not. I am the last one to say I know everything about mining; I do not. We rely on advice received from the experts and, based on that expert advice, we do things to the best of our abilities. You can say anything you like and you can play politics; the reality is we support the mine, and I personally support the mine, but not at any cost. The mine should comply with the rules and regulations that we put in place in order to safeguard the environment and in order to safeguard occupational health and safety.
Once again, I say we can play politics and you can delay as much as you like but, by playing this kind of politics, you are playing with the livelihoods of hundreds and hundreds of Territorians.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, let us make it very clear: it seems as though other ministers have the same understanding difficulties as the minister for Mines. We support the mine, we always have; we stand on our record in that respect. We support jobs, indigenous and non-indigenous, at the mine. We support investment in the Territory. For members opposite to be suggesting that is not the case really does take them to another planet entirely.
This bill is clearly is supported. Do we have reservations about the precise nature of it and its ramifications? Yes. I thought it was too cute by half, to use a phrase oft quoted by the Deputy Chief Minister, when he said this morning in relation to matters raised by my colleagues, the members for Katherine and Greatorex, that we were nitpicking and we should not dare to suggest that we even had concerns. Certainly other people do, too. The Deputy Chief Minister being almost offended that we have concerns about some of the precise nature and ramifications of this bill, reeks of hypocrisy.
I profess to not having followed the career of the Deputy Chief Minister in any great detail before he became the Deputy Chief Minister; however, as a person living in the Territory, I do recall he, the member for Nhulunbuy, now Deputy Chief Minister, being something of a champion for good parliamentary process, for ministers who were competent and for robust debate. He has certainly changed his tune. I will bet London to a brick that if he were on this side of the Chamber, he would be popping his veins and going red in much the same way he was before for no apparent reason.
My colleagues have put very well the reservations they have. My colleague, the member for Katherine, has done it both in and out of the Chamber and I congratulate her for doing so, and for doing it so well. It is important to put on the record in the context of this bill that the opposition moved earlier, for reasons that were entirely understandable, a motion of no confidence in the minister. If ever a vote of no confidence or a no confidence motion was required, it was today. Why is it that we are talking about this bill? Why is it that this bill is before us now? It is because of the minister’s incompetence. His incompetence has had the effect of potentially jeopardising the mine’s future. Everyone knows that.
Had the minister been better at his job, we say that this would not have happened. We say it in the context of this: various assurances given in this case by the minister that had studied everything properly, it was rock solid, he had given a careful evaluation of the facts and he relied on expert advice. On and on the list went. Yet now he comes in here and, in relation to the no confidence motion, did very little to assure any objective observer that the no confidence motion was not deserved. I noted with a great deal of interest that his colleague, the Deputy Chief Minister, did not leap to his defence, and I noted the absence of the contribution of his boss, the Chief Minister. Let us be very clear. This bill would not have happened had this minister been doing his job.
I note with interest and a level of concern the way in which some ministers and the former minister for Mines went dangerously close - there does seems to be a movement on the government side to blame others. If this minister and the former minister want to hang out public servants to dry, that is a matter for them. We would caution you very strongly against doing so. It seems that you are trying to create the impression that ministerial responsibility is a concept that you do not really need to worry about because it was other people’s fault. Sorry, but the buck actually does stop with you. It does. To argue otherwise is, with the greatest respect, a no brainer. I know it is politics and we have been talking about that, and I know it is increasingly hard for you to be honest in the way you conduct yourselves, but do not go any further. Arguably, you have gone too far to date but we counsel you very strongly and very respectfully: do not go further in having a go at the public servants who provided you with the advice.
Earlier, I gave an account of the history of this matter and made the observation that Xstrata, other people in the industry and, I think, most Territorians, would regard this government as akin to the Clampetts when it comes to how they have conducted the whole thing. From February 2006, when the minister for the Environment made her decision, all of the controversy and highly questionable decisions that were made, and I referred to the decision of the EPA, the report from URS, a copy of which we tabled in February 2006 or thereabouts, the ongoing prevarication of the former minister for Mines, the concern that was very widespread within the industry, certainly as expressed by those 400 or so people who put the ad in the paper. I said in the no confidence motion that I went to a meeting where all of the suppliers were present. Were they concerned? Absolutely, they were. It has been a tale of woe, a tale of incompetence, but it has never been quite as bad as it has been in the last few days.
The minister now needs to change that and we accept it. Do we want this to go ahead? Absolutely! It should not have got to this. I know you are pretending, and good on you, but we all know that you should get rid of the minister. Why should you do that? It is because he is not good for the industry. When you have managing directors and CEOs of mining companies coming to engage with the Northern Territory government, they will have a lot of trouble keeping a straight face because they will look at this conduct over the last 15 months or so and they will just look at you in amazement. They will think you are the Clampetts. We have young Jethro, the minister; Jed, the Attorney-General; and little Elly May over there who just cannot get it right because it underscores the schizophrenic approach they have to mining, both federallly and here.
The member for Arnhem, I note with interest, did not contribute to the no confidence motion. I assume, because she has not got to her feet thus far, is not going to make a contribution to this debate. One cannot help but ask the question, Madam Speaker, whether she has been instructed by her …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: Point of order, Madam Speaker! Speak from your chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you would be aware that during the second reading debate the minister who has carriage of a bill is allowed to sit in the Leader of Government Business …
Ms CARNEY: Have you given that permission, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, last year. In fact, the Leader of Government Business is allowed to speak from that minister’s chair. Leader of Government Business, what is your point of order?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, we are debating the second reading of a bill. I ask that you urge the Leader of the Opposition to confine her remarks to the bill rather than hypothesising about who may or may not speak on the bill. That is not the issue or the question before the Chair. The question before the Chair is the bill and she should be speaking to the bill.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, it has often been the case in this Chamber that members discuss who is and who is not going to talk on the legislation that we debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I will uphold the Leader of Government Business’ point of order. I ask you to contain your remarks as closely as to possible to the bill.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It really has been a tale of woe. One cannot help but wonder whether the minister retains any level of respect or credibility amongst his colleagues. Certainly outwardly, it would appear to be so, but I have a great sense that behind the scenes they might be expressing a different view. This is a junior minister. He should never have been put in this position in the first place in fairness to him. His appointment was a surprise to those in the industry. He has demonstrated himself to be incapable of holding the job.
I come back to the central point: we will be supporting the bill. You wonder whether members of the government are going to support it. We will be looking to see who does and who does not support it. We support the mine. We have been very consistent on that point. With those comments, Madam Speaker, I conclude. I look forward to hearing from anyone else who is going to be talking on the bill.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I appreciate, finally, from the opposition a clear line that they will be supporting this amendment to the act. I will not mention who is in the House or not, that is not right, but I listened carefully to the members for Katherine and Greatorex, and I had trouble working out whether they supported this amendment. The opposition was trying to walk on both sides of the fence at the same time. It is very hard to respect members who try to have it both ways. Simply put, it is good to have the Opposition Leader clarify …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members, cease interjecting!
Ms MARTIN: It is good to have the Opposition Leader clarify where the opposition stands. In the difficult and prolonged process that we went through until last October with the expansion of the McArthur River Mine, the loud voices were coming from the opposition about the need to support this mine, to move it through as quickly as possible; government, you are delaying this mine. They were the loud voices of criticism that we heard about making the McArthur River expansion go through every single hoop. We are proud that this government did.
I am pleased that we got support to deal with a technical issue to establish certainty for the future of the McArthur River Mine, and that is what this bill is about.
Madam Speaker, I was in opposition for a fair time, and I understand that, in opposition, what you do is play politics and you take opportunities …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I understand that from an opposition point of view, you play politics, but you have to play politics based on the facts. You have to play politics, but recognise the facts of the matter before us. What I struggled to find through any contribution from the opposition were the facts. The facts are spelt out. The facts are there in the judgment from the court and the response from the Solicitor-General, about this issue and why this amendment is important.
Mrs Miller interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: If the member for Katherine would respect the fact that I am on my feet, thank you.
The first issue I would like to deal with is urgency for this amendment. The judgment was only on Monday, and we had to create certainty as quickly as possible for a large mining operation. Hundreds of workers, many, many businesses supplying that mine and a major economic operation that needed certainty, so we do not take …
Mrs Miller interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, cease interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: The government does not use urgency lightly. We do not use urgency lightly and there were suggestions today that it is not a proper process for this parliament. Of course it is a proper process. If you look back on how many times urgency was used by the previous government, between 1992 and 2001, the CLP government passed 172 bills on urgency. We would have taken issue with some of those. I was not here for them all, but we would have strongly supported others. Forty two of those bills were introduced one day and then passed the next. Fifteen were introduced and passed on the same day.
I am not going back through vast amounts of history here, but what I am saying is that this parliament does pass bills on urgency, and if we went back through the Hansard, we would see some of those bills were supported in urgency and some of them would have been questioned seriously.
Urgency has a role in this parliament when an issue needs to be dealt with very quickly, and this is one of those. We are dealing with it quickly, and to question the nature of having urgency is your right, but in this case, it is justified. I say again: we use it very cautiously in government and only when required. That is why we are in this parliament today dealing with a matter on urgency, a very important matter that I believe qualifies very well for an amendment under urgency.
The mine clearly needs a licence to operate. When you look at why we can move on urgency, we went through, as I mentioned before, a substantial process leading up to last October when the mine expansion was finally approved. There was an extensive environmental process subject to public scrutiny. It went through two phases of that, much to the displeasure, I must say, of the miner, but we insisted, as government, that every aspect of the questions raised about environmental standards were met. We went through all the other aspects. There was extensive community consultation. Issues about sacred sites were dealt with; the other aspects of this mine were gone through in great detail.
In terms of where we stand today, the other aspects about which the judge on Monday did not make any findings, and we can say quite confidently he made no adverse findings, we are confident they were gone through in great detail and to a very high level of probity and satisfaction.
The judge has questioned the authorisation of the mine. Other members have gone through the whole process of the authorisation of the mine: how, in 2002, the application was for an underground mine and how the then minister granted an authorisation for mining activities, broad range mining activities. That is the basis of the authorisation.
There is a technical issue that the judge has identified, which our best legal minds in government say they believe is clearly able to be appealed. You have the lawyers lined up who say: ‘This is the judgment’. Lawyers do disagree with each other; the Opposition Leader knows that. She has been in court many times, I am sure, where she would argue one thing and the other side would argue something different, and the magistrate will come up with a third opinion. It does happen. Our best legal minds believe that this technical issue with the first application, as opposed to the authorisation, is one that could clearly be appealed.
We are talking about a mine and its certainty and the jobs of hundreds of workers, and the right of that mine to continue to operate. These are very significant things in the Territory. We had a choice. We could either say we would be appeal the process, or we could create certainty immediately. The appeal process would take months. In the interim, that mine would have no licence to operate so hundreds of workers would be stood down. Many tens of businesses which supply that mine would have no business happening and, for the local community who have jobs and training opportunities, there is a community benefit package that has been negotiated worth $32m, all that stops. All that stops for that period of time.
There was no alternative for government. Given the option of going for an appeal and taking months, or moving decisively and quickly, there was no choice for government. That is why we are here today. It is all very well for the opposition to say we have an incompetent minister. That minister was guided by the best legal advice through those processes over those years. We have a sequence of ministers. We believe that our processes were right. We disagree with the judge and we could appeal, but there is no point in going through the appeal mechanism when you put a mine on hold. So we have this amendment before us today.
What we also have is a very real issue for this government. There is a most important funeral happening in Borroloola on Saturday. It is for the brother of the member for Arnhem, a very fine man who fought against this mine and its expansion. Government, of course, considered that issue and the impact on the local community of this debate happening now. Government had to be honest, had to create certainty and had to do the right thing. This is not about disrespect for culture or disrespect for the people of Borroloola who fought against this mine; this is about government doing the right thing to create certainty.
For all of us in this parliament, it is a difficult time, but government is also charged with having to do what is right for the future of the Territory; to create legal certainty for a mine that has the right to operate; and to look to the future in terms of jobs, certainty of jobs, certainty of confidence in the Territory’s future and investing in the Territory for the future. It is always a balance. There is not a person on the government side of the House who does not feel this conflict, as we are now, very deeply. It is difficult, and I certainly understand members in this House who are finding this a very difficult time. I am no exception, but this is an important amendment.
The opposition said that we have a minister who should have known better. The legal advice was there; we believed the legal advice was right. As I said, we could have appealed it. That would have left this mine not operating for a number of months. The implications for the Territory are wide and very profound if a mine sits in limbo. It is all very well, and I listened carefully to the members for Braitling and Nelson, to say that government should pick up the tab for that, potentially, tens of millions of dollars. Balance that against the proper operation of government, a budget where we have important initiatives that would no longer be able to happen. There are important initiatives for the community of Borroloola: upgrading the CEC, doing the infrastructure, roads, all those things are important to the future of that community. It is easy to say, if you are sitting where you are: ‘Government, cop it’. We did not make a mistake. We believe we can appeal it, but time is not on our side.
We could have what in the end would be a pyrrhic victory in court. We could have that, but we would have a mine not operating for many months. The cost to the Territory would be extraordinarily high and that is in tens of millions of dollars.
This is an important amendment. I want to restate that I recognise that for all of us, it is a very tough time to be doing this. We all recognise that but it is something that has to be done to create certainty for this mine, but also certainty for investment for our very fine Territory.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone on this side of the House for their contributions. It has been a difficult time, as I said earlier, and a difficult decision. At the end of the day, we all have to make difficult decisions and I have done that.
I reiterate that this decision has not been taken lightly. We have gone into it very thoroughly and we have had some exceptional advice from the Solicitor-General. It is a technical deficiency in the legislation and we are moving to rectify that. We need to ensure that we have certainty for the mine. We need to ensure that the status quo remains for the mine. Based on that, I move that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, have you finished your speech?
Mr NATT: No, I haven’t. First, I thank the opposition for their support for the passage of this bill. I thank the Independent members for their contribution. All members are aware of the importance and the necessity of the urgency of this debate and this amendment. I hope this summing up will help you understand the process that we are undertaking. I thank the members opposite for taking the time to have a briefing with the Solicitor-General on this issue.
It is important to go back to the history of this. MRM’s 2002 application for the authorisation stated that the proposed form for mining was not underground, and that has been mentioned before, because that is what the operation was at the time. However, the 2003 grant of the Authorisation allowed all types of mining activity, which includes both underground and open pit operations. It was a condition of the Authorisation that a new mine management plan would be required for any changes in the mining operations.
In October 2006, a new mine management plan was approved in order to allow the open pit mining operations. This process was undertaken following legal advice. The court’s technical ruling was that even though the Authorisation of 2003 allowed all types of mining, it was limited by the original application in 2002, which was for underground mining. Legal advice indicates that the decision is appealable, however, we were advised yesterday that given the urgency, a legislative amendment was needed to correct the technical ruling.
As I stated yesterday, it was a hard decision on the McArthur River Mine expansion, which was made over six months ago. After following the rigorous processes that we undertook and considering all the relevant evidence, I made the call for the expansion to go ahead. I did so on the condition that strict environmental standards and safeguards were all put in place; I did so recognising the importance of the economic contribution that the mine makes to the Northern Territory economy. My decision was the right decision, and I have reiterated that several times today. It was the right decision for the region and for the Territory. We took the best available advice on this matter.
However, this technical deficiency in the approval process as identified by the Supreme Court must be rectified to provide certainty and to ensure that the mine does continue.
I should state that the Supreme Court decision rests solely on the content of the 2002 application for the mine and its relationship to the Authorisation granted to expand the mine in 2006. This is a technical legal issue. There is absolutely no suggestion that the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines or I, as the minister, did not properly consider environmental issues or bypass all of the necessary procedural steps. There is also absolutely no suggestion in the judge’s decision that supposed government fast-tracking caused this problem. If there is any deficiency, it lies in the legislation, which means we need to fix the legislation immediately.
Justice Angel during the trial recognised that the issue could be fixed by legislation. The government has conducted lengthy, extensive consultation with the affected groups over many months. Hard decisions have to be made, and they are the right decisions. The Chief Minister has outlined several of those aspects and some of the issues that we as a Caucus are facing with this decision as well.
We need to move on with the project and we have to do that as quickly as possible. An easily solved technical legal issue should not hold up what is a very important project to the Northern Territory and the region. We are talking about the third biggest zinc mine in the world.
The member for Katherine suggested that my second reading speech made no mention of the entirety of what is being debated today. I would like to read my central paragraph from that speech, which does outline what I intended:
The member for Katherine provided great insight into why the bill is required. She also mentioned the analogy of falling at hurdles. It is an issue about legal technicality, member for Katherine, about the application form. I stand behind the extensive assessment processes that we initiated.
The member for Katherine also acknowledged that the environmental assessment process has been thorough, and I thank her for that. The environmental assessment process was transparent. It provided for extensive public input, and included an environmental impact statement and supplement, as well as a subsequent public environmental report. The Environment Protection Agency flagged several issues about the EIS submitted by McArthur River Mining. These issues were properly dealt with and specifically addressed.
My approval of the mining management plan addressed a range of issues, which included an independent monitoring process for the life of the mine. We are currently working through that process, looking at applications and that independent monitor should be in place by the end of the year.
There is a $55.5m security to cover rehabilitation of the mine operations and, under the mining management plan, that security will be reviewed every year as the mine expands. As the mine gets bigger, that security gets bigger.
We also undertook vast research into the revegetation of the river diversion. We got experts in from around Australia to ensure that that process was done properly. I thank the member for Katherine for her support on the thorough environmental assessment.
The member for Nelson raised issues about the most appropriate way forward. I have outlined the reasons for bringing this bill before the parliament today. The Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory advises that this is the most appropriate way forward. Revoking the Authorisation has been suggested by the member for Nelson. This process would require a reassessment of the entire application and it would take months. We cannot sit around for months, member for Nelson; we need to provide certainty today.
The member for Nelson also suggested the alternative approach of appealing the decision. Again, the Solicitor-General has offered us specific advice. He does not recommend an appeal. Again, it will take several months, and the surety of everyone involved at that mine would be at risk.
He suggested that the government pay compensation. Again, there is no surety to the mine’s operator or the subcontractors involved at the mine if that were to happen. It is not in the best interests of the Northern Territory. Leaving a large mine like McArthur River Mine in limbo, the third largest zinc mine in the world, would be diabolical. Again, we have received the best available advice to make this decision.
The environmental evaluation has been thorough and extensive. We have engaged independent environmental experts to ensure that this process was undertaken properly and the plans that we have put in place will stand the test of time. It is a legal technicality. The Solicitor-General’s advice is that the most appropriate way forward is to change this legislation. This decision will, obviously, confirm that the mining management plan will move to open cut.
I thank the member for Greatorex for his comments. He highlighted the need for urgency on this bill. He also touched upon the extensive environmental assessment. Yes, it was an extensive environmental assessment, as was the consultation for the traditional owners. I mention again to the member for Greatorex that the court’s technical ruling was that even though the Authorisation of 2003 allowed all types of mining, it was limited by the original application of 2002, which was for underground mining.
The member for Braitling was a little confused between the two separate acts. The Mining Management Act was enacted in 2002, and it regulates the operations of mining activities on the site. The Mining Act is used to administer tenures. We are currently going through the stages of updating that act. We are dealing with the mining management plan under the Mining Management Act.
MRM’s 2002 application for an Authorisation stated that the proposed form of mining was underground. That was the operation being undertaken at the time. However, in 2003, it was granted an Authorisation allowing all types of mining activity. This is a legal technical issue around the initial application under the mining management plan.
It also raised issues around the people on the ground. I can assure the member for Braitling that we have written to everyone directly about this decision, to several key stakeholder groups, and it includes the Borroloola region. We have brought them up to date with where we are heading with all of these changes ...
Mrs Braham: How long ago?
Mr NATT: Yesterday. The members for Nelson and Braitling asked whether there were alternative pathways. We need to ratify the mining management plan in totality. We cannot pick and choose excerpts out of that mining management plan. We want certainty around the mining management plan, and we want the Authorisation to be valid. The changes in this bill will provide certainly around that.
There is absolutely no suggestion that the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines or I, as the mining minister, did not properly consider environmental issues or by-pass necessary procedural steps. The decision of the Supreme Court was about the Authorisation granted, as it can only authorise mining activities specified in the original mining application. It is a legal technical question and one in which differing opinions have been offered over time.
Since taking on this portfolio, as I mentioned earlier, I have worked hard to build the significant achievements of my predecessor, the member for Casuarina. I have supported a very exciting campaign for exploration and mining in the Territory by personal attendance and presentations at numerous national and international events. It is pleasing to note the support of the Minerals Council for these programs, as well as the council’s comment yesterday that I personally have a good working record with industry since taking up the portfolio.
Decisions need to be made. I am very conscious of my responsibility in this area, and I have demonstrated that I am up for the challenge.
Let me reiterate: the Solicitor-General is clear in his advice as to how to resolve this issue, and that is what we are doing. Justice Angel said during the proceedings that this technical issue could be resolved through an amendment to the legislation, and that is what we are doing.
In conclusion, I thank members for their contribution and indulgence in proceeding with this technical amendment as a matter of urgency. This strictly controlled mining operation is too important to be left at a standstill over a technical legal issue. Government considers that the Northern Territory community does not have the time to wait for an appeal on this decision, which could take months, when a minor change to our legislation is all that is required to resolve this minor legal technical issue.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mrs BRAHAM: A division is called, Madam Speaker. A division, please. I said no.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For a division to be called the member needs someone to support it.
Madam SPEAKER: I am aware of that. I am aware that they need support.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I seek clarification because if someone supports the division they must vote against …
Madam SPEAKER: I am aware of that, minister. The issue is that I did not hear any noes whatsoever.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! There were no noes when I called. There was no noise made.
Mrs Braham: It is all right. I will do it at the end of the third reading if you will not accept it now.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek clarification. I heard no negatives whatsoever. Is a division supported?
Mr Wood: Yes, but …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson. Are you supporting the division?
Mr WOOD: I ask for a point of clarification. I was presuming we were going into committee. Are you allowed to have a division before we go into committee?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. This is a second reading motion.
Mr WOOD: I do not want to vote until we have had more debate on this.
Madam SPEAKER: Can I just clarify, member for Nelson, are you supporting the division?
Mr WOOD: Not at this stage.
Madam SPEAKER: No, there is no division called. Member for Braitling, if you wish you can have a vote noted.
Mrs BRAHAM: I can have my vote recorded as a negative?
Madam SPEAKER: You can have your vote recorded.
Mrs BRAHAM: May I have also the fact that the division was called and no one supported it recorded?
Madam SPEAKER: No. Your vote can be recorded.
Members interjecting.
Mrs BRAHAM: Sorry, I am trying to hear, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You called for a division and it was not supported, but you can have your vote recorded as negative.
Mrs BRAHAM: Why can’t I have the fact that I called for a division and the division was not supported recorded?
Madam SPEAKER: That will be part of the Parliamentary Record because we are having this discussion now.
Mrs BRAHAM: That will be part of the Parliamentary Record? Check with the Clerk?
Madam SPEAKER: I draw your attention to Standing Order 157:
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, Madam Speaker, at this stage. Can I also seek clarification from you: if someone supports a division, does that mean they have to vote in the negative?
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct. Otherwise, when it comes the …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! When it comes to the counting of the votes, if the people who have not supported the division are not on the side of the House in which they have indicated they were going to be, the division is voided totally and it is carried on the voices.
Mrs BRAHAM: Okay, that does not look too good, does it?
Madam SPEAKER: I think we have passed the second reading now, have we? The member for Braitling has indicated she wants her vote recorded …
Mrs BRAHAM: At this stage, yes, I would like my vote recorded as a negative. Will that also mean that the call for a division was disallowed on numbers will be recorded as well?
Mr Henderson: In the Parliamentary Record.
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, in Parliamentary Record.
Mr Henderson: Yes.
Mrs BRAHAM: Where else would it be recorded? What I mean is I called a division …
Madam SPEAKER: This whole debate is being recorded, member for Braitling.
Mrs BRAHAM: I called for a division. It was not supported. Will that be recorded in Hansard, the fact that the division was not recorded?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! It happens as a matter of course with everything that we say in here, member for Braitling.
Mrs BRAHAM: All right, thank you. That is all I wanted to know.
Madam SPEAKER: The bill is being supported at this stage. I understand we are going into committee, is that correct?
Mr Wood: Yes, please.
Madam SPEAKER: I shall vacate the chair and call for the Chairman of Committees.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! The committee has before it the McArthur River Project Amendment (Ratification of Mining Authorities) Bill 2007, Serial 99. The question is …
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order, Mr Chairman! Going back to the debate we have just had, Standing Order 164 says:
So what I am saying is …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Braitling, there has been a ruling, thank you.
Mrs BRAHAM: But it was incorrect, Mr Chairman.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Chairman! The only way that the member for Braitling can assert the ruling was incorrect is to move dissent against the Speaker’s ruling. Otherwise, she withdraws.
Mrs BRAHAM: All right. I was quoting a standing order. I thought this parliament stood by standing orders.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Braitling, there is no point of order. If you would like to take the matter up with the Speaker, I am sure she will be more than willing to oblige.
Mrs BRAHAM: I will speak to her.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr WOOD: We are dealing with clause 3, which relates to new section 4AB?
Mr CHAIRMAN: That is correct.
Mr WOOD: Minister, the area I would like to explore is related to authorisations. This amendment basically overrides what Justice Angel said in his conclusions. On the last page:
Mr NATT: I understand that it is the process, and that process is going to take far too long.
Mr WOOD: Minister, this is something I need clarified. Where and in what act does it specify the time taken for a variation to be considered? The advice I was given today is that it can happen very quickly. I need to know, if you are saying that, on what basis you are saying that it would take a long time.
Mr NATT: Member for Nelson, I understand that you are referring to the Environment minister under the Environmental Assessment Act, and I, as minister, would have to follow the process in section 36(2) of the Mining Management Act. We would have to go through a full environmental process again if that were to be undertaken.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. Knowing that you have already been through that process for this particular mine, that is, the open cut version of the mine, the management plan has had a full environmental impact statement done on it for an open cut mine, why would you do it again? You have it. This is what …
Mr Stirling: Processes demand it.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but is not the process immediate if it is all there already?
Mr NATT: Member for Nelson, the first question that you asked would have to be put to the Environment minister. Under section 36(2), it would be quicker, but we need to follow the process and the procedural issues. Once that decision is made, it would be subject to judicial review again, and that would put us back in court.
Mr WOOD: There were two parts to that question. You are saying that this would have to go back to the Environment minister. Bearing in mind that this occurred on Monday, and I presume there has been a lot of work done on all of the options, one of the options was to look at a new Authorisation. If that is the case, did anyone ask the Environment minister whether she would be satisfied if the existing EIS would be satisfactory for the requirements of a new Authorisation in relation to the mine management plan?
Minister, I am not trying to be tricky. This will determine where I will go with my vote. I do not believe it is a good course to go the way we are going. I understand why and I may support that. However, I also feel that, instead of going down that path, we use the existing law that sets a better precedent, if possible. If the existing law can allow you as minister to approve a new Authorisation, and do not forget all we really need here is a change in the terminology that is included in the mining activities section. That was the bit that killed this Authorisation. The word ‘underground’ in the first ‘mining activities’ then applied to the second mine management plan, and the judge said you cannot do that.
What I want to know is: can we look at a more appropriate way of handling this? The questions I am asking are aimed in that direction, to suss out whether the government could have done this. If you say it cannot be done, then I am asking why not. You have not gone very far yet in showing me that it could not happen.
Mr NATT: Member for Nelson, the option of a new Authorisation was considered. There was no referral made to the Environment minister. The decision was made to proceed with the legislation on legal advice that this provides the best certainty, and validates the actions already taken at the mine for the expansion. I reiterate: we have gone to the Solicitor-General for this advice, and he has recommended that this is the best course of action.
Mr STIRLING: Can I just add a bit that might help the member for Nelson because it is a very genuine inquiry that he is putting here? A fresh application would not have provided the certainty that the legislative amendment does in the sense that the new application would not have retrospectively approved and authorised the works already done; there would still be uncertainty about that and it would still be subject to review in a way that this legislative amendment is not.
This legislative amendment provides absolute certainty to the work that is done, and approves the continuation of that work into the future. A new application does not carry the certainty to the same degree. What you are asking is a very good question. You are asking why we did not go that way. It was around that question of absolute certainty.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I can understand that you are saying that you had to cover the period, I presume, between October last year and when it went to court. You could make an Authorisation to cover from here onwards. I can live with an urgency amendment to cover that gap because that would be legitimate. I would rather say that if we came into parliament today and we are looking at this process, we do it through the normal process of authorisation from now on, and perhaps the government look at another process to cover that period of uncertainty. That is, the time you originally authorised this mine to operate in 2006 to the date that the judge said that it could not operate. I presume that is the uncertainty that you are talking about. Most reasonable people would have thought: ‘Okay, there is not much we can do about that. That has happened. We need to give that some legitimacy and we can do that through the normal process of legislation in the parliament’. Then, go down the path of not changing the law at the moment. If we need to change the law because it is a bit sort of dicey about what the meaning is, let us look at that later. If we can use the law as it is to obtain the answer that the government wants, people would see that as a much better democratic process.
The argument we are getting from people outside is that we are avoiding the democratic process. We are not technically avoiding the democratic process because that is what this place is about. It is open for debate and we are going through on urgency. All of that is permitted under the parliamentary process, but from an outsider’s point of view, we look like we are taking a short cut because the judge made a decision that parliament did not like. All I am saying is that I would be far more comfortable if we could use a new authorisation. As I said, the advice I received was that this could happen quickly. I know the minister has said that he has received legal advice from the government’s lawyers. I would be more satisfied if the minister could say on what basis that legal advice was given. I could say I am speaking based on some legal advice, but I am not going to tell you what that was. I really need to know that to be satisfied that that is the correct way to go.
Mr STIRLING: The member for Nelson puts the same question. It does revolve around that question of certainty. It would be no good ticking off a fresh Authorisation that may survive and get around just the same for its ruling, but leave in doubt what has occurred already out there. This has the retrospectivity and the prospectivity that what has been done is duly authorised, and what will be done in the future is duly authorised. Now, you must have that certainty given the situation we are in now. A fresh application and Authorisation would also be subject to further review and possible further doubt given what has occurred up to this point now.
We are absolutely confident that it was a rigorous environmental assessment process in the first place. It was rejected the first time round because we did not think it met the benchmark that government would be satisfied with in terms of all the work that would be done to convert the mine, the shift in operations. It may not have been necessary to go through all of that again, but it very much revolved around the question of certainty for what is done and what is going to be done in the future.
The clear advice from the Solicitor-General is if you want to obtain absolute 100% certainty around this for what is done in the past and for going into the future, you need a legislative amendment and this is what you need to do.
Mr WOOD: I had better ask the minister a basic question. The mine operated from the time you gave them Authorisation in 2006 until Justice Angel made his decision. That is past. It has happened and it was done on a belief that the Authorisation was legal.
What is the point in making it retrospective? It has been done. The hole has been dug. Water has been sent off somewhere. It has already happened. It was not necessarily anyone’s fault because until someone challenged it, we did not know that it was not supposed to happen, but you cannot fix it because it is done. Even though you are saying we should create some certainty, what is the point? No one can bring back what has been removed.
Mr STIRLING: Clearly, if you do not have legal certainty, you leave the way open for challenge and for compensation. If you do not have certainty and legal authorisation for what work has already been done, you are leaving a massive exposure in terms of claims.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I wanted clarification of that. What I am saying is if you need that, why don’t we pass an amendment to cover that section of time? That is, from the time of the original Authorisation to the time the judge made a ruling or until today. So we determine that it was the correct process at the time, and then we use the existing law …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, I am not. My argument is: why can’t we have an Authorisation in one or two days? This is my reasoning: we have to have an Environmental Impact Statement. You have it. You have done it. The mine management plan has not changed. It is the same mine management plan, and that environmental impact statement relates to that mine management plan. All that needed to change in the Authorisation application is to state what the mining activities were, and ensure it did not say ‘underground’. It could just say ‘mining activities’. That seems to me the problem with what Justice Angel said.
Why can’t we get a new Authorisation from you, minister, using exactly the same mine management plan and exactly the same EIS, and just change the words on mining activities and, bingo!, there it is? We can come back next sitting and review the whole thing in a less urgent manner.
Dr Burns: Are you going to foot the bill?
Mr WOOD: I am trying to use the law we have, and that is a reasonable approach.
Mr Henderson: We are using the best legal advice that we have.
Mrs Braham: The question is to the minister, not to the Treasurer.
Mr Henderson: He is the Attorney-General!
Mr WOOD: In committee stage, anyone can respond.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, the member for Nelson suggested a two-stage approach, one which would fix the retrospectivity we were talking about, but would not have provided certainty in the future. That would still be subject to review. In answer to why we did not go that way, it is not just the Solicitor-General and the legal advice to government recommending this legislative amendment for absolute certainty both retrospectively and prospectively, it was Justice Angel himself. Justice Angel said: ‘They need to amend it’.
Mr WOOD: I will respond to the minister. I have a little note here that says: ‘Unfortunately, we do not have those notes from Justice Angel’. We have the judgment from the court. It does not have any notes other than the plaintiffs, the story, the argument and the judgment. I do not know that Justice Angel has said this is a technicality; I have the judgment that says it was done incorrectly. That is what I have based my argument on. Why can’t we fix it under the existing laws?
Mr NATT: It was in the transcript of the trial, member for Nelson. It is not in the judgment itself. I have a copy of that page of the transcript. I can table it or I can read it.
Mr WOOD: Could you read it out, please?
Mr NATT: After some conversation with Mr Robertson, His Honour said:
They could pass an act of parliament.
Mr WOOD: Would you table that document, please?
Mr NATT: Yes, I table it.
Ms CARNEY: My question is to the Mines minister. In an early answer before the Attorney-General answered some questions seemingly on your behalf, you told the member for Nelson that part of the reason you did not seek a new authority was that: one, it was not subject to judicial review; second, you said that it would have to go back to the Environment minister; and you referred to time being a factor. I think they were the three points.
I have a few questions. In terms of your reference to going back to the Environment minister, what process, formal or otherwise, have you undertaken since Justice Angel delivered his decision that has involved the minister for the Environment?
Mr NATT: Leader of the Opposition, we considered a range of options. The advice from the Solicitor-General was that this is the option we should take.
Ms CARNEY: So, no consultation with the Environment minister?
Mr NATT: Well …
Ms CARNEY: Okay.
Ms Lawrie: Don’t put words in his mouth.
Ms CARNEY: Your reference to the time factor, what advice did you receive on what was the most expeditious in terms of time alternative: legislation or a new authority?
Mr NATT: It was singularly legislation.
Ms CARNEY: Legislation, and who gave you that advice?
Mr NATT: The Solicitor-General.
Ms CARNEY: Would you be able to table a copy of the legal advice that you received?
Mr NATT: Leader of the Opposition, as you know, members of your party were offered a briefing. They have had a briefing. The papers that you refer to are normal business papers and we will not table them.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you for your answer. So much has changed I thought perhaps that had changed in the last 24 hours.
Minister, in relation to the page of the transcript of the hearing before His Honour, the Attorney-General, as I understood his answer, was indicating, and you may have as well, that His Honour advised the government to pass an act of parliament …
Mr Henderson: He did not say that! Don’t put words into people’s mouths.
Ms CARNEY: We look forward to reading the Hansard because, by jingo, that is what it sounded like. Minister, even you can answer this. The judge did not actually advise you to do that, did he?
Mr Henderson: No, we did not say that.
Ms CARNEY: The judge did not advise you to do that, did he?
Mr Henderson: We did not say that.
Ms CARNEY: Have you read it?
Mr NATT: I did not say that.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, I am wondering, given the references to certainty that you have made, could you please take us through the process and explain, give your own account of the issues regarding certainty, and why it is that the legislation is better in terms of certainty, and outline what those certainties are, better than seeking a new authority?
Mr NATT: The decision was made to approve the mine in October 2006. This legislation will confirm that approval, and all the proper processes that were followed in 2006. It was an extensive process to get there, and it would be pointless to go back on them again.
Ms CARNEY: Can I clarify: how does it apply to the mine? What exactly are you talking about when you …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Chairman! We are in committee stage and we are looking at specific clauses of the bill before us. I am not exactly sure where the Leader of the Opposition is going with this. She does not seem to be relating her comments to the clauses before us as a committee. I ask about relevancy.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will seek clarification. Leader of the Opposition, I would like you to try to relate back to the clauses of the amendment that is at hand, if you could.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The member for Nelson asked the minister, but the Attorney-General, gallant fellow that he is on occasion, leapt in and wanted to take the pressure off the minister for Mines because of his inability to answer questions. The Attorney-General went on in relation to this particular clause, during which no point of order was raised, and talked about certainty, and he said that the legislation was better because it is better for certainty, what is done, and what is going to be done in the future. That is what he said, and he is nodding his head, for which I thank him.
Minister, can you please tell us what does he mean by ‘certainty’? What do you, as Mines minister, mean by ‘certainty’? How does it apply to the mine? Why is it better for the mine …
Dr Burns: What you are not giving …
Ms CARNEY: Hang on, hang on. Look, you are so desperate to save him and we respect your attempts. Can you take us through, minister, what you understand to mean by the references to certainty? Why is it better? Can you tell us that, minister?
Mr NATT: Leader of the Opposition, quite obviously the certainty of all of this process is to ensure that the mine will continue. It is the certainty for miners to keep their jobs, and subcontractors to maintain their work contracts within the mine. Not to have this certainty, the mine would close.
Mr WOOD: Minister, is it possible to retrospectively apply an Authorisation under the present law? In other words, if someone applies for an Authorisation, can the application be retrospective?
Mr NATT: No.
Mr WOOD: That is the clarification. So this section 4AB is applying certainty via an Authorisation to cover not only what happened from 2006, but it will introduce a new definition of ‘mining activities’. The definition in 4AB is:
That is the new definition of mining activity?
Mr NATT: That is correct.
Mr WOOD: I do not want to go on forever and day about this, but, forgetting the previous bit that we can cover by legislation, which is the bit between 2006 that Justice Angel said should not have happened, what is stopping you from determining an application for an Authorisation right now if the minister for the Environment said it is fine? Could it not be done very quickly?
When I was arguing about the government having to pay, I accept that an appeal would be really out of all proportion with what we are trying to save, but if this only took a couple of days, and that might cost the government some money, I don’t know, and we used existing law, it sends out a better signal to the community that we have used the processes we have before us and we are willing to change them later on in due course. That is what I am getting out.
I have not been convinced that we cannot use the existing section 36 of the act. In fact, in this transcript Mr Robertson mentions at the end that the government could decide to lodge a fresh Authorisation and seek a ruling from the minister for the Environment. That is what I am saying. Isn’t that possible, or was Mr Roberston being a little cheeky? Was he hoping you would do that because he thinks he might be able to have another go at you? That is what is written here.
Mr Henderson: What did the judge say?
Mr WOOD: His Honour said: ‘They could pass an act of parliament’.
Mr Henderson: Exactly.
Mr WOOD: He said they ‘could’. He did not say they had to.
Mrs Braham: It was an option.
Mr WOOD: It was an option. But Mr Robertson was talking about the option that I am talking about.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Nelson, what is your question?
Mr WOOD: My question is: could it be done? Could you actually do it and still create certainty under the existing law in very quick time?
Mr STIRLING: The clear advice is no. I went through that it terms of certainty before.
Mr WOOD: I understand that. Are we able to see the reasons behind you saying that? I know the minister said: ‘I got legal advice’. I do not have the legal advice …
Mr Henderson: You had a briefing with the Solicitor-General.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, we have a bill that we got yesterday. I spent a good part of last night reading it so I could understand the ruling. I went to a briefing this morning which was at 8.30 am, parliament starts at 10 am. We went to a briefing. The problem is this is a complex issue. I don’t think of all these things just like that. I have been listening to this debate carefully from the previous minister; everyone has been putting things forward. The one thing about which I have not been satisfied is that we cannot use existing legislation to pass this.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Well, I think it is a reasonable way to go about it. Otherwise it appears as though we have taken a short cut. I know it is a legal short cut. Parliament is here to do those sorts of things, but I am not satisfied yet that we cannot do it. The advice I have, and I don’t think I am going to get killed for saying so, is from the Northern Territory Minerals Council. They said: ‘Yes, you should be able to get that done pretty quickly’. I have not been convinced here that you cannot do it.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Do you have a question?
Mr WOOD: We are allowed to comment at this stage. We are getting some answers.
Mr NATT: I am repeating myself from an answer we had before. All of the processes were followed in 2006, and as we have been through it before, the processes we undertook prior to October 2006 were very extensive, they were very rigorous and it would be pointless, absolutely pointless, to go through all that again.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I support the process the government has been through with the Environmental Impact Statement. We had enormous debates in this parliament. I know that. I am not asking for that to happen again. We would be crazy if we are going to ask for that to happen again. The mine management plan and the environmental impact statement go hand in glove. They went together. I am not asking for a change in that and surely the minister for the Environment would say: ‘That is fine, it has been done’. All I am saying is change the definition of ‘mining activities’ and give them an Authorisation. Is there something that would legally make that uncertain, if you did? Can someone tell me why we cannot use section 36 of the existing act? Right now.
Mr STIRLING: I explained it before. You would leave exposed, in a retrospective sense, the work that was done, to claim for compensation. You would have uncertainty going forward in the sense that you are subject to review. The strength of the legislative amendment approves what was done retrospectively. It approves what is going to be done prospectively without review and without leaving exposure to claims of any kind, compensation or otherwise, for the work that has been done.
If you cannot understand the certainty that this legislation delivers in a way that a new application does not, I cannot help you any further.
Mr WOOD: Thank you.
Mr NATT: Further to what the Attorney-General said, it is pointless to go through it all again. It would expose the mine to further possible challenge. It would waste time. We would be back in courts and would go through the whole rigmarole again.
Mr WOOD: A point of clarification, then. I heard what the Attorney-General had to say. A management plan normally is reviewed every 12 months. Are you saying in this case there will be no review of the management plan until the time that this mine finishes?
Mr NATT: No.
Mr WOOD: Then what is the problem with it being reviewed continually? Maybe I misunderstood the Attorney-General, but I understood from what he said, if we go down the path that I am advocating, it will have to be reviewed and reviewed and reviewed. That sounds like the legislation will stipulate no review. Is that what it is saying?
Mr Vatskalis: No, every year.
Mrs Braham: Every year? It will continue to be reviewed every year?
Mr Vatskalis: Yes.
Mr NATT: The mine management plan is reviewed each year.
Mr WOOD: Through you, Mr Chairman, could I ask the Attorney-General what he meant in his last comments about reviewing it would be a problem?
Mr STIRLING: Let’s use the word ‘challenge’. The new Authorisation would be subject to legal challenge in the way that we have seen this one, in a way that this bill is not. That is the certainty that we are driving at. This legislation is not challengeable. It puts right what Justice Angel found: a technical inconsistency on his interpretation of the current legislation. This clarifies that. This takes it beyond ambiguity. This takes it beyond the reach of the Supreme Court. This clarifies what has been done, authorises what has been done, and authorises what will be done in the future in an unchallengeable fashion.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, paragraph 39 of the judgment reads:
Surely to make it certain, we have a mining activity which mentions open cut for 0059-02. Surely that is not challengeable because that is exactly what Justice Angel was saying was wrong.
Mr NATT: Basically, we wanted the 2002 Authorisation to be legal as well as the second Authorisation, which was in October 2006, and that will include all of the activities at the mine for the open cut processes. That includes the bond I mentioned before, the $55.5m, and the independent monitor. We wanted to make sure that that was all covered.
Mr WOOD: I know I am going to be in trouble for labouring the point, but this was all covered in that, surely, before you knew there was a problem, when you gave this original Authorisation. All the judge said is that you should not have done it without changing the mining activity clause. That is really what it is; it was not about the bonds or about this or that. None of that has come into this judgment, which purely says you simply did not use the right words in the mining activity clause. You had ‘underground’ when it should have been ‘open cut’ or just ‘mining’.
That is the crux of this issue. I am not at lawyer, and I do not pretend to be one, but I have done my best to read this document, and it seems to me that Justice Angel simply said – and forget the retrospective issue the Treasurer has brought up, which is very important - the only problem was that it was the wrong definition under the mining activities clause.
Mr NATT: The Solicitor-General has given us the advice that the best way to go is to change the legislation to ensure that both Authorisations are legal.
Mr WOOD: I am not happy with that, and I am not taking it out on you, minister. You have legal advice which I do not have. I will leave it at that, but I do feel, and that is the problem with this urgency, there should have been much more debate about why it could not have been done under normal processes.
I do not want to put 400 or 700 people’s jobs at risk, but we here are today in parliament to discuss a very serious bill which contains some important changes. I understand where the government is coming from. I have spoken to others and have said the government could be up for a fortune if this mine does not go ahead. I accept that. As the Chief Minister said, if we lose money over this issue, there might be less money for a school or a road somewhere. I accept that, although governments do insure themselves, surely, against bad decision-making, just like lawyers have professional indemnity. If one makes a bad decision, you have to wear it, but we have to realistic in this case. An appeal could for six months or whatever and that will cost a fortune
All I am trying to say, minister, is that I am not satisfied with answer. I understand what the Treasurer said, but we should have been doing our best to use the existing law and then come back and review the whole Mining Act later and get this thing sorted out. To me, it sends a signal out to the community that we have taken a short cut. That is why I am not particularly happy about the process we are using today.
Mr STIRLING: I share what the member for Nelson is saying in relation to a perception of a short cut. I accept that might be the view of many. However, government did consider every option. If there were another way to do it which did not open up exposure at the beginning or an avenue for challenge further on, such as you are suggesting, that provided the equal amount of certainty that could have been done in the same sort of time frame, government would have opted for that route rather than urgent legislation. However, there was not the certainty provided for by, what you are suggesting, another application, another Authorisation, to the strength of the certainty that this legislation provides.
I suppose I am saying the same thing and you are asking the same question, and I do not understand why you are not hearing or understanding what I am saying. I empathise with your question; it is a fair question. If there was a better way to do it, a simpler way to do it, rather than urgent legislation, and it provided the certainty that this legislation does, government would have opted for that course. No other course was made apparent to government that provided the certainty of this legislation.
Mr WOOD: It is actually the issue I raised at the briefing this morning, which was simply given to me back that, if you went down the path of a new Authorisation, it would take time, etcetera. However, we did not nut out the nitty-gritty of where that conclusion came from. That is what I was trying to do today. I am not satisfied that I have been given the full reasoning as to why you cannot go down that way. The answer I have is: ‘That is what our solicitor said’. I am not here to challenge the solicitor - heaven help us! However, I do not have the reasoning from our solicitor, so I have to take it on faith. That might be all right with my religion, but it is not, obviously, all right with the legislation we are dealing with today.
Minister, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not want the mine to stop. My argument is that we should have really nutted out this with a bit more timing. I know time is the essence, and I am unhappy about the process, but let us go on, minister.
Mr NATT: Member for Nelson, I think we agree on the retrospectivity. The prospectivity into the future will provide all that certainty that we have been talking about. I will go into it again: the extensive assessment that we have already undertaken, and it was very extensive, will cover all of that, but there would be lengthy delays if we have to go through all that again. That is the reason that we are pushing this through on urgency today.
Mr WOOD: I am not satisfied that process would take more than a day if the government really put its will into doing it, that is all.
Mr NATT: In answer to that, it is still subject to challenge. What you are suggesting will still be subject to challenge.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr WOOD: Sorry, I blinked.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Do you have any questions, member for Nelson, on clause 4?
Mr WOOD: No, Mr Chairman.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak to the third reading. I have sat patiently through all the debate and listened to what has been said. I understand fully what the government is saying. They want to make sure there is certainty for the future, and none of us in this House want the mine to be closed, jobs to be lost or the future of this mine to be delayed in any way. I can appreciate this is the intent of the government for this legislation.
Yes, we did have a briefing, short though it was. Unfortunately, not all the relevant information was given to us, and the member for Nelson raised that. We did not, obviously, have time to read the whole trial; we did not have access to it. We did read the judgment. This is part of the problem of having something lumped on you so quickly. It is such an important bill and has so much detail it is very difficult to get across it. Perhaps if we had had a little more time, as we have all said, it would have been better.
The reason I voted in the negative for the second reading debate was I wanted to test the waters of other members in this House. It is quite apparent that I am not going to get support for a division, but it is very important for the general public to understand that it was not supported, that only one person wanted it recorded how members would vote on this bill; for, against and who would not vote at all. It is the vote of who would not vote for it all that was important to be recorded. In saying that, I do not think I have support for a division again.
I appreciate what you are doing. I know what you are doing, but there is a process and dilemma that you have given to members who would like to be thorough in their debate. That is why I feel, as the member for Nelson, a little unsatisfied with what we are doing today.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this has been a long and interesting debate for a number of reasons. The most obvious is the unprecedented display of incompetence by the minister. It is important to put on the Parliamentary Record that this minister barely answered any questions without seeking advice and some of the questions were not tricky.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: He is a minister of the Crown. I know he is your friend. I know he is your friend, but he is a minister of the Crown. There was a vote of no confidence earlier. He should have …
Members interjecting:
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are into the third reading of the bill. Standing orders are very clear that the third reading debate should be specifically pertaining to the legislation. The Leader of the Opposition getting into a smear campaign against my colleague, the minister for Mines, has absolutely nothing to do with the detail of the bill, which is exactly what the third reading is confined to. I would urge you to seek that the Leader of the Opposition confines her comments to the detail of the legislation, which is the subject of the third reading.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the sensitivities on the other side, we are …
Mr Henderson: It is parliamentary procedure.
Ms CARNEY: I know you are rude and I know you are a bully, but you have had your go.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, I would like you to withdraw that, please.
Ms CARNEY: Rude?
Madam SPEAKER: Referring to a member in such a way.
Ms CARNEY: Bully? We cannot use the word bully any more in parliament, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, simply withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I am happy to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue.
Ms CARNEY: It is just that the word has been used on other occasions, but I am happy to …
Madam SPEAKER: Are you speaking to a point of order?
Ms CARNEY: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Very briefly.
Ms CARNEY: The point of order is this: this is the third reading stage. It is an opportunity for members to speak again to the legislation. We have come out of the committee stage and I invite the Leader of Government Business to refer to the standing order which says that members are precluded from talking about matters that were discussed in the second reading stage. There are other things, too, but that is the main thing, Madam Speaker. I would invite you to reject the call for a point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: I am going to seek advice from the Clerk.
Mrs Braham: We only get five minutes.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, I know.
Madam SPEAKER: The advice that I have received is that the third reading relates simply to matters that have been raised in the committee stage of the bill and should not revisit matters which were in the second reading debate. Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to make sure that it is relevant to that.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, Madam Speaker. During the committee stage, it was clear that the minister was unable to answer almost every question without seeking advice. That is what occurred during the committee stage.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have just ruled that discussion in the third reading of the bill should be in relation to matters raised during the committee stage. That goes to the content of the debate, not an opinionated slur about how the debate was conducted and who assisted in the debate. The debate should be confined to matters that were raised, not to the conduct of the debate in itself.
Dr LIM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: I have already come to a decision on this. The Leader of Government Business is absolutely correct. It is meant to be on the legislation itself and on matters which were raised as specific points in the committee stage. Leader of the Opposition, you may continue, but stick with the legislation as such.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In relation to clause 3 of the bill, that was discussed and the minister received various questions regarding the ramifications of clause 3. They were the matters debated to the extent that they were debated in the committee stage. In terms of specifics, it is clear that in relation to the word ‘certainty’, the minister had no idea, and after about his seventh attempt, eventually provided something that vaguely resembled a sensible explanation.
He did not, by a country mile, adequately explain why it was that a new authority was not sought. He somewhat incoherently outlined and kept relying on the advice from the Solicitor-General, a copy to which members of this Chamber are not entitled. The minister was asked questions in relation to whether the minister for the Environment was consulted. In one of the questions he answered from the member for Nelson, the indication was that she could be, might have been and subsequently, no, she was not consulted. I am summarising because this is yet another demonstration of the minister’s incompetence.
I appreciate, turning to the call for a division, why the member for Braitling wants a division. We made it clear we will support the legislation and, for the record, and let us speak plainly, the member for Braitling wants a division because she wants to see how members of the Labor Party are going to vote. Far be it from me to suggest that many of you are gutless.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have ruled consistently that the third reading debate relates to matters that were considered in the committee stage of the bill. I would urge that you keep the Leader of the Opposition on that point.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, first, I would like to withdraw the term ‘gutless’ ...
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I withdraw the term ‘gutless’.
Madam SPEAKER: Before you continue, I draw reference from House of Representatives Practice in relation to third reading debates. This, of course, is something we follow in this House as well:
I will be following that very strictly.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do not think there is much more for me to say in any event. I am quite certain the point has been made.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I speak against this bill and put my voice on the record as to the reasons why I must speak against the bill. I have listened intently to the debate that has continued throughout the day and I commend the Attorney-General on his comments in this House about the Northern Territory Labor government and the fact that we are a broad church, the fact that we …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Noting the ruling you have made and the extract you have quoted from House of Representatives Practice, I ask that you impose on others what has been respectfully imposed on us.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arnhem, I ask you to speak specifically to the legislation.
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, indeed. As I was getting to the legislation I put on the record that this is legislation to which I am opposed for personal reasons and what I see as legislation being pushed through on urgency, when for the Aboriginal people in the Borroloola region, the Yanyuwa, the Garrwa, the Mara and the Gudanji, there is Sorry Business going on right now. It is unfortunate that any kind of legislation has to be forced through at a time when families are grieving over a very important person who has fought for the rights of the Gulf region in this case against the diversion of the river.
I have stood in this House on two occasions, Madam Speaker, to express the deep sincerity of the people of the Gulf region regarding the importance of the river. This legislation is being rushed through on urgency without having first buried a very important man, my brother, who has stood in the Supreme Court to argue for the rights of indigenous people in this country. I have explained and expressed this quite well with my colleagues, who I know have fought difficult situations regarding this particular project in the Gulf region ...
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The point has been made. We know how the member for Arnhem feels. It was only a few minutes ago when there was near hysteria on the other side of the House in relation to what could and could not be said at the third reading stage. I ask that you rule consistently, in particular given the broad ranging comments made by the member for Arnhem.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition …
Mr STIRLING: Speaking to the point of order, I cannot believe the rudeness and the arrogance of the Leader of the Opposition when a member is on her feet, whose emotions …
Ms Carney: You are a hypocrite, Syd. You are a hypocrite.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition!
Ms Carney: You were jumping up and down, saying I could not say a thing.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! I ask you to withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: Withdraw what, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Hypocrite.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw ‘hypocrite’, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Resume your seat.
Mr STIRLING: … whose emotions and sensitivities around this matter run quite deep. I simply cannot believe the insensitivity, rudeness and arrogance exhibited by the Leader of the Opposition and her fellow member for Greatorex.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, if words like ‘hypocrite’ and ‘bully’ are to be withdrawn, I do ask that you apply the same standard to the government side as you apply to the opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I believe you are reflecting on the Speaker, and I rule, as I said, at the time. Member for Arnhem, I ask you to speak as closely as possible to the legislation, as I have discussed before. Please continue.
Ms McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In regards to this legislation, I must speak against it. I certainly feel that, on behalf of the people of the Gulf region, and in particular indigenous people right across the Northern Territory and, indeed, Australia, that to pass this legislation on urgency, in the middle of Sorry Business is the lowest sign of respect for those people and families. I still encourage my colleagues in government to negotiate with the traditional owners on a level of equality and equity. I sincerely put to the House that I vote against this bill. I thank members for allowing me this opportunity.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I take note of the words of the member for Arnhem, and I realise how brave she is.
I also will not be supporting this legislation. I am on record as supporting the mine, and I said that at the beginning of this debate. I am not convinced that this is the right process. I have not felt that I have been given the answers to satisfy that we could not use existing legislation to make the changes government wanted. I would like it on record why I am not supporting this legislation. People might say: ‘He did not support the legislation; he must be against the mine’.
A member: Yep, exactly right.
Mr WOOD: See! There you are. That is pretty shallow thinking, Madam Speaker. I am saying that the process we used today to keep the mine going is the wrong process. We should have used another process. Surely it is my right to say that. It does not mean I am opposed to the mine …
Mr Stirling: Yes, it does.
Mr WOOD: I am saying the type of legislation you have put through parliament today is the wrong process; it sends out the wrong message. I am not convinced by what the minister said, with all his advice, that we could not have used existing processes. At least that would have satisfied some people. It would not have satisfied everyone. Obviously, the member for Arnhem feels deeply about this, as do other people. I know this because I have spoken to those people outside.
However, I have weighed up the issues and believe the mine is a good thing. I believe the environment …
Mr Stirling: Under your approach, it would remain closed.
Mr WOOD: You can play politics, but I am giving you the reasons why …
Mr Stirling: No, it is not; that is exactly what you are doing.
Mr WOOD: You are playing politics. Just because I give a different reason than you does not mean I do not support the mine ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Look at that. You belong to the ‘yes and no’ people, the black and white. As I said before, you can have three sides to a triangle, and you can have five sides to an argument. In your case, you believe there is one side for and one side against. There are other points of view, and that is why I am Independent. That is why I like to give a different point of view. That is why I spent so much time debating this issue. It is important and processes are important, and I think this process is wrong. You should have done this a different way. If you sat down with the miner and the Environment minister, we could have worked through this process as normal, and you may have had to bring in some retrospective legislation.
I am putting it clearly on record that I do support the mine. I support the work that the department of Environment has done in looking at all the environmental impacts the mine has had. I was part of that debate, and I support that as well. I know there are some risks, but there are always risks. Those risks are well covered by the conditions the government has put on this mine. I want to make it clear to the people out there that I do support the mine.
We could still have come up with the same result using the existing legislation. I have not been convinced by what I have heard. Government has not put its argument clearly to me and to others as to why its process is better. One of the problems with this debate being on urgency is that we simply have not had enough time to absorb these changes. Unfortunately, that is the problem with us sitting for three days this week; we have not had enough time to look at the ramifications of the process which occurred today.
Madam Speaker, I respect the bravery of the member of Arnhem for standing up and giving her opinion. It is very difficult for her to do that in the circumstances, and I commend her for it.
I do not support this bill for the reasons I have given. If people now say: ‘Gerry Wood does not support the mine’, you are not telling the truth as you have heard it from me today. I support the mine, but not the process by which we tried to change things today.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I vote against this bill and to put on record my objections to the way it has been put through.
I have always been an advocate for indigenous people, fighting for the rights of Aboriginal people. I understand the economic argument for this bill but, as the Deputy Chief Minister said, the Labor Party has become a broad church in the sense that it understands the diversity of its members. I want to put on record that I do object to and vote against this bill.
I want to make sure people understand and see the ramifications that this will have on the people at Borroloola. As the member for Arnhem said, they are going through Sorry Business; she is burying her brother on Saturday. I do not think this bill should have been put through on urgency. I want to make sure that I put on record that I vote against this bill, and I support the member for Arnhem.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I do not support the amendment. I stand in support of my colleague, the member for Arnhem. It is probably the most difficult thing, in such a short career in this House, but when I came to this parliament, I said that I would represent people in my electorate to the best of my ability, and I would stand up for their rights.
As a Warlpiri man and an Aboriginal man, I also have Yanyuwa and Mara blood running through my veins, and out of respect for family members in the Borroloola region, I wish to pay respects by saying that I support my colleagues, the member for Macdonnell and Arnhem. I will not support this legislation and I would like it on the public record.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I think we should put the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 17 Noes 5
Mr Bonson Ms Anderson
Mr Burke Mrs Braham
Dr Burns Mr Hampton
Ms Carney Ms McCarthy
Mr Henderson Mr Wood
Mr Kiely
Mr Knight
Dr Lim
Ms Lawrie
Ms Martin
Mr McAdam
Mr Mills
Mr Natt
Ms Sacilotto
Mr Stirling
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Warren
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given permission for the member for Greatorex to make a personal explanation.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, earlier today I sought permission from you to make a personal explanation in relation to an assertion made today by the Minister for Essential Services that, as shadow minister, I expressed or implied that the Country Liberal Party in government would remove all subsidies to Power and Water with a consequent increase in the cost of electricity for Territorians.
This came about when I noticed a discrete notice in the Government Gazette late last year that revealed that the Northern Territory Treasury had stepped in to pay $535 250 of PAWA’s costs to improve PAWA’s accounting system and there was a bill from PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
In seeing that, I felt that PAWA should have paid its own bill. The words I used in my media release of 11 January were:
Following that media release, within 24 hours, the Treasurer issued a media release asserting that what I said meant that the CLP would remove all subsidies from Power and Water and would therefore push up Territory electricity prices. What the minister in fact was referring to is the subsidy that the Northern Territory government provides to Power and Water for power tariff equalisation across the Territory.
When you have a private corporation performing a function, it has to make a profit to ensure its own viability. If the government chooses to have a policy such as electricity tariff equalisation across the Territory, it is government policy. A private corporation would say: ‘No, we cannot do that because we cannot afford to have tariff equalisation across the Territory’, but if the government chooses to do so as a measure of public policy, then government would need to provide Power and Water with a Community Service Obligation payment to allow tariff equalisation to occur. This is what happened with the CLP government. We paid Power and Water several million dollars each year to ensure that every Territorian pays the same for each unit of power.
This government continues to do that and this financial year coming, the Northern Territory government will be providing $57m or so to Power and Water to continue the policy of tariff equalisation. That is not a subsidy; that is a government cost. That is a cost the government provides to Power and Water to ensure that the policy is implemented. That is what it is.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex sought leave for a personal explanation. He is making comment on government policy and I believe it is outside the realms of a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I would like it to be a very short personal explanation, which is what we had discussed.
Dr LIM: I am about to wind up, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue.
Dr LIM: The fact is that the CLP introduced a CSO to PAWA to avoid Territorians paying unequal rates of electricity tariff. That will continue as a CSO.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Once again, I raise the issue of a personal explanation. The member is going into previous practices of the last government, which I cannot see has any relevance at all to his personal explanation in this case.
Madam SPEAKER: I will allow the member to continue, but, please member for Greatorex, be very swift.
Dr LIM: It therefore refutes the government’s assertion that I, as shadow minister for Essential Services, either expressed or implied that a Country Liberal Party government will remove all subsidies from Power and Water, with the consequence of increasing the cost of electricity for Territorians.
That was never the case, and I put on record that will never be the case because it is a CSO we are talking about and not paying extra bills for Power and Water.
Continued from 2 May 2007.
Mr HENDERSON (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I support what we believe, in the government, is the best budget the Martin government has brought down since we came to government in 2001.
As the Treasurer said, this is a budget our children would like us to deliver. In all aspects of the budget, this will consolidate the gains that this government has made across all areas of economic and social policy since we came to government in 2001, and continue to move the Territory ahead and build a better Territory for all Territorians. It is a budget of which we, on this side of the House, are very proud. This budget delivers across all areas of government and, as Minister for Employment, Education and Training, I would like to speak to some of the highlights of the budget. I will also speak about Tourism.
In Employment, Education and Training, we are on a huge policy agenda to improve outcomes in schools across the Northern Territory. One of the real highlights was Jobs Plan 3. Speaking to Jobs Plan 3, there is $21.3m over four years to be spent on upskilling and training Territorians, particularly our young Territorians, whether they are in Darwin, Alice, Katherine, Tennant, Ngukurr or Ampilatwatja. Wherever they may be across the Northern Territory, all of our young people deserve the best opportunities for education and training to get them a job. That $21.3m over four years is funding that was never there under the previous CLP administration. They never had a jobs plan. Their policy in regard to training was: ‘You finish school and you get a job’. That is a total abrogation of what should be good public policy. Additional funding of $6.9m has been applied over the four years for Jobs Plan 3 to continue the comprehensive and coordinated approach to planning for jobs and mapping the future needs for a skilled, flexible Territory workforce for local business.
That is a huge investment, a significant investment, and there are many aspects to it. The investment is there for Charles Darwin University and Batchelor Institute, our two main public training providers, to continue to provide training to apprentices and trainees. I can speak specifically about Charles Darwin University which does an absolutely fantastic job, particularly in the trade areas. I am looking forward to going to Batchelor in a couple of weeks’ time to see the work occurring there and the great training they provide.
One of the highlights in Jobs Plan 3 this year is to build better partnerships, better linkages, particularly with business, schools and registered training organisations. I had the benefit of being minister for Business and the economy for many years and developed good relationships with the business community right across the Northern Territory. Since I have taken over the portfolio and have shaped, as minister, Jobs Plan 3, what I can see is a willingness for better partnerships to be developed between businesses which have the jobs and our schools and major training providers which have the people who are looking for the jobs.
A real focus in Jobs Plan 3 is to work with each and every student to make sure they are doing the education and training that is going to lead to a pathway to a job. For many years in the Northern Territory - and it is not a criticism; there is a great industry around training - there has not been the focus of people being trained for the jobs that are available across the Northern Territory. As we have heard, at any one time, there could be up to 2000 jobs going begging any given day across the Northern Territory. The first responsibility that we have as government is to ensure that our Territorians, whether they are in the majority our young Territorians or people who are seeking to switch careers, have the capacity to do that. That is the aim for Jobs Plan 3.
I will tell you an anecdote about where this funding is making a real difference. The Work Ready program already exists, under Jobs Plan 3, in five or six high schools across the Territory. We want to roll it out across the Territory, and we will. At all high schools across the Northern Territory, there are young students in Years 10 and 11 who are at risk of dropping out of the system, who are not attending school on a regular basis for whatever reason, and we want to capture those students and try to get them a VET sponsored traineeship in a business that will lead them to continue to their Year 12 and NTCE and then a formal apprenticeship.
Yesterday, I was at a business in Berrimah, Gold Medal Plumbing. It is a small business employing five plumbers. They have three apprentices on their books, which is an enormous effort. Not only do they have three apprentice plumbers on their books, they also have two office trainees. One of these office trainees is a Year 11 student from Sanderson High School. When I spoke to her, she said she had been doing her VET sponsored traineeship at Gold Medal Plumbing Services for nearly 12 months. This young lady, Toni-Lee Kirby, told me she was really dropping out of school; she was not attending school regularly. As many young people do, she was running with the wrong pack from time to time. This opportunity came up and a really good careers advisor/teacher working with Toni-Lee suggested: ‘School is not 100% for you, but you really should finish Year 12. How about taking some time out and working in a VET sponsored training program in a business in office administration and see how you go?’
She took the opportunity and what a bright, confident, wonderful young person I met yesterday. She is succeeding. She is working two days a week at Gold Medal Plumbing; she is at Sanderson High School two days a week doing her Year 12 at 18 years of age; and one day a week is focused on organised study. She will get her Year 12 and will be offered a formal apprenticeship and job in that business. This young student has been given an opportunity to make something of herself, get the qualifications that are so important in the 21st century and, importantly, get a job. If this funding had not been here for that program, young Toni-Lee Kirby would have, in all likelihood, dropped out at Year 11, may or may not be working, may or may not be running with the wrong crowd and certainly would not have been studying for her Year 12. The story gets even better. I am sure this is replicated across the Northern Territory. The Principal at Sanderson High School advised me there are 20 other young students like Toni-Lee who were in similar VET training and employment programs whilst studying for their Year 12 who otherwise would probably have dropped out of school.
We have had a tough day in this parliament today, as it was yesterday when government made the decision that we made. I went out and did media and I came back and young Toni–Lee Kirby reinforced to me why we do this job, why we make the tough decisions and why we are in government. It is because at the end of the day it is being in government that can actually make a difference to peoples’ lives. We are not all going to agree on everything all of the time, and we are going to be faced with some tough decisions. It is for the Toni-Lee Kirbys of this world that we are in government in the Northern Territory. If we were not here, the alternative government would not have such programs in place because they did not see the need for a jobs plan. People just went to school and if they succeeded at school, they got a job.
This government is about all Territorians. It is about reaching out and supporting kids who are struggling, who are at risk of dropping out of the system, and putting programs in place to support those people and hopefully give them an opportunity to grasp at something real and meaningful to help them turn their lives around.
I came back from my media conference yesterday reinforced, as we all are, when we get around the Territory and see that this government is making a difference. It is making a difference that previous governments ignored, and all across the Northern Territory, whether it is improving education services, health services or infrastructure across the Northern Territory day by day, piece by piece, this is a government which is improving the lives of the people. That is why it is so important to maintain ourselves as the government of the Northern Territory because it is making a difference to peoples’ lives, as this budget will.
We made a commitment in the lead up to the 2005 election that we would create 10 000 new trainee and apprentice positions across the Northern Territory, a very ambitious target: 2500 trainees and apprentices a year over the four year period. It is a number, but what we are talking about is 10 000 individuals who will be given an opportunity for a traineeship or an apprenticeship to lead to a job and a real opportunity in life. That is double the number of people who were being trained when the CLP was in office and had the view that it all happened by itself and you did not have to do anything or spend any money, and somehow the economy and the market would pick up people. Yes, it did pick up people who had the family support and personal ability to be able to go on and push themselves to the highest levels of achievement. The reality is, and I am a parent as well, that some of our kids need a bit of a hand up, a bit of encouragement, a push, a shove, and a guiding hand into the right areas, and that is what Jobs Plan 3 will do.
One of the features of Jobs Plan 3 is that every Year 10 student is going to have an individual learning plan which will help guide students in subject choices, VET and training programs they may attend, or, if they are academically bright and gifted and want to go on to university and achieve a professional career, real support there. With the careers advisors we have put back in schools above formula and the additional support we are providing through the department, each and every Year 10 student will be challenged with their parents or carers to sit down and think where they want to go and what they want to do.
It is a tough call for somebody at Year 10, but unless they are given the opportunities of work experience and VET programs in employment and business areas, many people just drift. We are hoping through this that we can guide people to think about what they want to do, target the courses and training they are going to take which is either going to lead to a TER score and a placement at university, or to an apprenticeship, or a job. There is focused thinking around this, and I am proud of Jobs Plan 3.
A major initiative undertaken by my predecessor in this portfolio, the Treasurer and Attorney-General, was our Building Better Schools initiative to further develop education outcomes and a greater focus around improving secondary eduction in the Northern Territory. Again, when we came to government, there was very little attention paid to measuring the success of our students, comparing how we were going with other jurisdictions and pushing the system and schools and principals and the education community to look at what we were doing, how we were performing, how we can do things better.
We had a situation under the very lazy policy approach of our predecessors that, yes, the brightest and the best of our kids were amongst the brightest and the best, and we have many good teachers out there, but there was no look across the system at how we move the system forward so more and more of our students who are average students become good students, that students who were dropping out of the system and not going on to Years 11 and 12 could be captured so we ensured that they did complete Year 12. There was none of that type of thinking.
Building Better Schools sees $11.76m in 2007-08 being allocated to implement a wide range of activities, including improving students’ learning through implementing the middle years approach throughout the Northern Territory, an approach that was widely criticised and condemned by the CLP. I have absolute and total confidence that it will lead to better Year 12 outcomes in the years to come, a higher retention rate of students going from Year 10 to Years 11 and 12, more students undertaking formal VET training courses leading to apprenticeships, and a real focus and support around those students in Years 7, 8 and 9 when everyone knows students have a capacity, if they are not the high achievers, just to drift out and drop through the cracks of the system. The middle years reform is going to continue in 2007-08 and at the beginning of the 2008 school year, the Year 7s will move up into those middle schools.
The $11.6m will also provide wellbeing counsellors to secondary schools, another initiative of this government to put counsellors back into schools to help assist those students who have personal issues, who are struggling through the latter stages of adolescence. We all, as parents, know what a difficult time that is and sometimes these young people do need someone to talk to outside of their family environment, to help and encourage them work through those issues. There is funding there for that.
We are improving and expanding the delivery of VET programs in secondary schools, including the provision of Enterprise Establishment Grants to schools to support enterprise building activities that enhance VET enterprise and vocational learning. I have spoken about that.
We are supporting the Territory’s teachers and educators by providing opportunities to develop and share good teaching and learning practices, enhancements to teaching and learning for students with special needs, developing a new teaching and learning framework and developing and implementing a flexible, transparent and equitable staffing formula to meet the needs of students. That is a huge body of work that is funded and it supports our teachers and educators in developing best practice in the classroom by allowing our best teachers to share what they do, how they do it and how they achieve the outcomes they do with other teachers across the Northern Territory.
We are developing a new teaching and learning framework, which is exactly what I have just been speaking about. It is about focusing on what makes a difference in the classroom, what makes a difference to individual students studying and to improving those outcomes. We all know that if you have a really great teacher in front of a classroom of kids, the vast majority of them will do very well. This is a program about developing many more very great teachers.
Funding is also there to improve indigenous students’ educational outcomes and social and emotional wellbeing through the new Indigenous Students’ Leadership and Mentorship program in collaborative trial sites to enable onsite delivery of secondary education in remote schools. One of the biggest reform agendas put in place was the roll-out of secondary education to remote schools across the Northern Territory. We have spoken about this many times in the past. It was something that was totally neglected, to their eternal shame, by our predecessors, but there is additional funding in the budget this year to further roll out secondary education in the bush. There is money for improving data collection analysis and reporting for school communities, and supporting school communities by developing programs to encourage young people to undertake community leadership roles, and new programs to help parents and teachers work together more effectively.
Then there is improving data collection and analysis. We had the debate about the MAP testing results over the last few weeks. We have done an enormous job in implementing whole new systems for student monitoring and reporting and data collection about student outcomes and student profiles. We are implementing a system whereby parents can log in at any time to their son or daughter’s student profile, see what their academic results have been, to be able to correspond online with teachers to understand and have access to the school timetable and assessments of assignments have been let to their kids, when they are due. All of these things are being done under this government to better support parents, students, schools, and, again, will lead to better outcomes over the years.
There are many aspects to the education and training budget this year, but it is all being done to give opportunities to people to get the best training they can, the best education they can to ensure that they get the best career and job that they can. There is a real focused approach to it in Jobs Plan 3 and it is a focused approach that never existed under the predecessors who sit opposite.
There is significant capital funding there this year to improve our schools throughout the Northern Territory. First and foremost is $5m for the Borroloola Community Education Centre, which is a very significant undertaking to totally rebuild the primary school at Borroloola as well as developing better secondary facilities for the CEC, replace existing primary school facilities and construct a new home economics and science facility for the secondary students. The students at Borroloola are going to have a state of the art, new primary and secondary facility as a result of funding provided in this budget.
There is significant new funding for the Desert Peoples Centre. One of the key aspects of the Desert Peoples Centre is $1.6m for constructing buildings for Livelihood and Economic Futures Learning Themes, and constructing four buildings for Information and Technology Learning Themes at $6.4m. There is around $8m to Central Australia, to Alice Springs, for the Desert Peoples Centre.
Katherine High School will receive $600 000 for Stage 2 for middle year schooling. Millner Primary School gets a $1m upgrade of the assembly area. Ross Park, again in Alice Springs, so there is $9m going to Alice Springs to improve educational facilities, $1m to Ross Park for the Stage 1 upgrade of classroom facilities. Wanguri Primary School gets an upgrade to accommodate students from the very significant Lyons development in the northern suburbs of Darwin.
We continue to roll out big sums of capital money to improve our education facilities across the Northern Territory. They are the highlights from the capital works budget, but there is a large minor new works budget this year that will go to upgrading and improving schools across the Northern Territory.
As I said, it is a very significant budget this year, up 35% from when we came to government. I commit, as does this government, to doing all I can to improve student outcomes.
Just quickly on tourism, a vital, economic driver for the Northern Territory, we have a tourism industry that is much more healthy today than it was four or five years ago, due in large part to the drive and determination of previous Tourism ministers, including my friend and colleague, the Chief Minister, who had the portfolio at a very difficult time, and additional funding of $10m per annum that this government put into the base of Tourism NT’s funding to drive marketing; very focused marketing to niche target market areas that have really turned tourism around in the last 12 to 18 months.
We are swimming against the tide. We had an increase in tourism visitation to the Territory of 9% last year when most of the rest of Australia went backwards, particularly in the international area. We have seen new carriers come to the market, Tiger Airways in particular, and we are looking forward to positive announcements. The capacity to support those new airlines has been an increase in the base funding for tourism so they can do cooperative marketing with those airlines to grow business for the airlines and bring tourists to the Northern Territory.
Some of the budget highlights for the tourism budget this year are funding to revise the strategic plan for the Northern Territory to guide the direction and growth of tourism for the next five years. It is absolutely important that we have a strategic plan that focuses Tourism NT. I have attended a number of public forums for the strategic plan across the Northern Territory, and it is a document I hope and want to see owned by individual tourism enterprises across the Northern Territory so they can see where their business needs to be in five years time to accommodate where the industry is going, and to help them make investment, marketing and product decisions for their business. It is an important strategic work.
There is $1m to maximise opportunities presented by existing and emerging aviation networks through cooperative marketing activities. That is $1m to work with airlines in marketing campaigns to drive business, passenger numbers and tourists to the Northern Territory.
There is funding to develop a series of niche experience Dreaming Trail networks which package nature and cultural experiences for special interest groups and enthusiasts. I will be launching the first of those dreaming trails over the next couple of weeks, picking up on the major competitive edge we have, which is our unique flora, fauna, landscapes and indigenous culture. We are packaging that up as a trail and then marketing it to people who are interested in those areas.
There is funding of $2m for continued marketing of priority destinations through dedicated campaigns and programs to encourage increased visitation in regional areas. Again, for the first time, this is a government which has had specific destination marketing campaigns in place for Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin, and there is funding to continue those this year.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a budget which is going to continue to drive economic and social development across the Northern Territory. It is a budget that only a Labor government could have handed down, a Labor government which is absolutely committed to building better opportunities and better lives for people across the Northern Territory. I commend Budget 2007-08 to the House.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, the 2007-08 Budget will further consolidate the Territory’s strong and resilient economy, and protect our great Territory lifestyle.
It is a budget with job creation and economic growth as its focus, and the most extensive infrastructure program we have seen. As the Treasurer has outlined, this budget has five key objectives: it backs business, improves educational outcomes, and builds a healthier and safer Territory. Importantly, it is also a budget which continues to improve on our great Territory lifestyle.
My ministerial colleagues with responsibility for Youth, Seniors, Women and Multicultural Affairs will speak on these aspects of my department’s work shortly. This evening, I will focus on my portfolio responsibilities of Major Projects, Indigenous Policy, building our workforce, and some of the events and activities that build on our Territory lifestyle.
Our major projects are important for the Territory and the long-term wellbeing of all Territorians. Projects such as our burgeoning gas industry, trade development and the continued expansion of the AustralAsia trade route are set to create jobs and opportunities for Territorians now and into the future. Initiatives such as Creating Darwin’s Future, including our exciting waterfront project, and Moving Alice Ahead will create even more opportunities while preserving our great Territory lifestyle.
Our gas industry continues to have a positive impact on the economy. Significant progress has been made on developing Timor Sea gas reserves and the associated industry onshore. A major shut-down of the offshore facilities and LNG plant for planned maintenance is scheduled for September this year, providing a significant boost for local business. ConocoPhillips and its joint venture partner Santos, the operator of the Evans Shoal gas field, are aggressively undertaking exploration activity to prove up sufficient reserves for a new LNG train. The establishment of a downstream gas industry to enhance and diversify the economic benefits derived from the Timor Sea gas continues to be a high priority.
Earlier this year I visited Japan to reaffirm our relationship with our partners in LNG and to discuss important issues like the development of the Timor Sea gas reserves, LNG expansion and the establishment of a downstream gas industry. The Ministry for Economy, Trade and Industry, IMPEX, Tokyo Electric Power Company, Tokyo Gas and Osaka Gas were among the organisations our delegation met. Our performance in delivering the Bayu-Undan and Darwin LNG projects is well known and drew praise from our hosts. The highlight of the trip was meeting with Jim McIlvenny, the Asia-Pacific President of Dow Chemical. Jim undertook to visit Darwin for SEAAOC conference early next month and to discuss opportunities for investment in petrochemical industries.
Alcan’s $2.9bn G3 expansion of its alumina refinery at Gove is expected to be completed in the next few months and will be commissioned and ramped up to name plate capacity over a period of 18 months. We are working closely with Alcan to identify how local industry can access opportunities provided by the expanded refinery and allied developments in Nhulunbuy.
In 2007-08, we will continue to provide strong support for Territory business and industry to raise its profile internationally and increase export performance. We will continue to develop trade opportunities through the Growing our Trade Route strategy, and our focus will be on establishing new direct shipping linkages and new value adding industries leveraging off the port and rail developments. We will also continue to coordinate and lead joint industry government trade missions to priority markets such as Indonesia, China and, most recently, Vietnam. Our trade support schemes continue to be successful in helping Territory businesses develop new international markets.
Another initiative that assists traders is Australia’s only Indonesian Customs pre-inspection facility. It is a unique service for exporters using Darwin port for goods bound for Eastern Indonesia.
Our partnership with the International Business Council will continue. Our goal is to increase the export potential of the Territory’s service sector through delivery of export training workshops and export development activities and export assistance through our Trade Support Scheme and individual case manager advice. We also sponsor overseas indigenous arts and craft buyers to generate sales from indigenous art centres and to establish future business relationships and, together with Charles Darwin University, we are developing and promoting international education and trade links within the region.
The AustralAsia Trade Route and the freight task of the railway continues to grow. FreightLink carried 663 000 tonnes of freight to the end of the last financial year and that is an increase of over 100 000 tonnes for the year. Further innovations in services by FreightLink have seen the start of bulk fuel haulage by rail from Darwin to Alice Springs using purpose designed wagons capable of carrying road fuel tankers.
Our $24m investment in modern bulk handling facilities at East Arm has generated new business for Territory companies. New bulk mineral exports of manganese began from Bootu Creek in April last year, adding 650 000 tonnes a year to the current rail freight task. Territory Iron operations at Frances Creek are expected to commence iron ore exports mid- this year and that will add around 1.5m tonnes of freight per annum. More contracts are expected to commence later in the year.
As I mentioned, increasing direct shipping linkages with foreign ports is a priority for us in developing trade opportunities. We are currently negotiating an increase in the frequency of the Shanghai to Darwin shipping service from monthly to fortnightly, and further initiatives are in train for shipping services to Indonesia and Surabaya in particular.
The Darwin Business Park is quickly attracting clients of all sizes, which is good news for local business and employment. Stage 2 of the Toll facility is well under way and John Bain’s Westrans have just started construction of their freight forwarding facility. Similarly, Shaw’s Transport is set to commence construction at the Business Park shortly. The construction of a new classified goods facility at Hidden Valley is expected to begin by early June. The facility will enhance international trade and help deliver important chemicals for the mining industry in north Australia via Darwin.
The continued development of Darwin and Alice Springs are key priorities for us. In October last year, I launched Creating Darwin’s Future, which contains 93 separate proposals for the future development of Darwin. Since then, the community has had a chance to look at the proposals and put their own ideas and vision for our capital city. Our aim is to build on the work that is already under way and create an even better tropical harbour city where people want to live and visit, and a place that will attract investment. That, of course, means more jobs and opportunities for Territorians.
The time is right to focus on the future of Darwin. We are growing rapidly and evolving into a major city, and we need to move now to secure our future. There has been strong community support for some of the key proposals outlined in Creating Darwin’s Future, like a ring of green around the CBD, a city centre that looks outward to the harbour, vibrant community spaces, attractive streetscapes and buildings that complement the look and feel of our city.
Last week’s urban planning forum in Darwin was an important step in moving things ahead. There were 200 stakeholders at the forum and they participated in plenary sessions. An additional 30 people attended the evening community session. The outcome of the forum will be an action plan covering the way in which future developments in the CBD will be undertaken.
With this budget, we have kept things moving while a lot of this work is done with Creating Darwin’s Future and we have funded a number of initiatives in this 2007-08 Budget. $6m has been set aside for the Myilly Point redevelopment, including Flagstaff Park, and a further $1m has been committed to urban roads landscaping.
We have also committed to $250 000 to engage stakeholders and scope A Darwin Experience, perhaps a World War II museum, and a further $250 000 has been allocated to develop a master plan for the State Square Precinct, including a pedestrian link from the waterfront to the mall. I will be keeping the House updated on the progress we make in the coming months on Creating Darwin’s Future.
The Darwin waterfront and convention centre is an exciting development and a big part of Darwin’s future. We have allocated $12.05m to continue with stage 4 of the project in this budget, and a further $5m for stage 5. We have also committed $1.8m for the management of the Darwin Waterfront Corporation, including the associated marketing of the waterfront precinct. Construction of Stage 1 is scheduled for completion next year, and work on the convention centre and other aspects of the development is under way and progressing well.
The waterfront project is creating significant opportunity for Territory business. Contracts valued at more than $100m have been awarded to local companies, with more than 1100 people having worked on the project. A recent report by the Auditor-General said that the waterfront will generate an increase in gross state product of around $350m over 20 years, and an additional $197m for tourism over the same period. The convention centre is expected to create 160 tourism jobs by the end of year 4 of its operation, growing to over 200 new jobs by year10.
The residential, commercial and hospitality elements of the project will be delivered entirely through private sector investment. Sales from residential and commercial properties in the precinct will provide a significant return to the Territory. I can report that these returns are currently estimated at $233m for stages 1 and 2 of the development.
Alice Springs is a major priority for us. We are working with the local community to create a safer, healthy and more prosperous future for all Central Australians. Moving Alice Ahead is a big part of our collaborative approach to addressing key issues and strengthening the capacity and economic development of the region. It will not replicate existing works and programs, but build on work that is happening right across the region. Eleven individual projects are under way. Let me briefly mention a few of them.
We are implementing a responsible Alcohol Management Plan to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related harm in Alice Springs, and $30 000 has been allocated to evaluate the effectiveness of that plan. Town camps will be standardised to ensure that residents have access to services of standards equivalent to surrounding suburbs. There will be more houses built; others upgraded, and short-term accommodation facilities will be developed to reduce overcrowding in town camps. We have already committed $10m to this project and, along with the Commonwealth government’s $70m, we are confident the wellbeing of town camp residents and, indeed, all people living in Alice Springs will be improved.
There is $14.14m allocated for the next stage of the Desert Peoples Centre and $1.47m to complete the Desert Knowledge Precinct headworks. This continues our commitment to the growth of the precinct, and the positioning of Alice Springs as a centre for smart and sustainable living, now further enhanced by it being declared a Solar City.
Some $10.5m is committed to continue the upgrade of the Red Centre Way, a major new tourism drawcard for the region. Speaking of tourism, the $2.1m Destination Alice Springs campaign, which is still under way, is set to draw even more visitors to the Centre. $2m has been committed to upgrade sections of the Tanami Road, meaning improved access to services for Aboriginal people and improved supply routes for mines and pastoral properties in the area.
Workforce developments and increased opportunities for local people to participate more fully in the workforce are key priorities. Central Australia will share an additional $8.5m over the next four years for training and employer incentives, through Jobs Plan 3, bringing our total commitment to $21.3m.
We are also committed to ensuring land is available for future residential development needs, and $1.3m has been allocated to continue the Mt John Valley subdivision headworks.
Growing the indigenous arts and cultural industry will continue to be a priority for us. We want to ensure Alice Springs is seen as a major and reputable centre for buying Aboriginal art in Australia.
The development of a focused government policy for Aboriginal Territorians is also a major priority. The Office of Indigenous Policy takes a whole-of-government strategic approach to Aboriginal affairs. It ensures indigenous issues are a fundamental and central consideration across government, and the office actively works with agencies to develop policy in areas like housing, health, education, governance, safer communities and economic development. The budget supports the office’s key objectives with funding of $1.5m.
The historic Overarching Agreement on Indigenous Affairs, which I signed with the Prime Minister in April 2005, was the first of its kind in the country and a major achievement for the Territory. The Office of Indigenous Policy is playing a key role in coordinating our activities with the federal government under this achievement. The first three schedules of the agreement are: Sustainable Indigenous Housing; Establishing Regional Authorities; and Strengthening and Sustaining the Indigenous Arts Sector. Two additional schedules were added last year: Boosting Indigenous Employment and Economic Development; and Healthy Country, Healthy People. Key initiatives under the Boosting Indigenous Employment and Economic Development schedule include:
Local Jobs for Local People, involving the development of a multi-stakeholder local employment strategy being piloted in Yirrkala;
Both the Territory and Australian governments have officially recognised the ongoing work of Aboriginal Territorians in managing their land and sea country through the development of Healthy Country, Healthy People. There have been significant achievements under the five agreed schedules. All have contributed to improved coordination between Australian and Territory government agencies, their activities and funding programs. In addition, both governments’ Indigenous Housing resources were pooled, a total of $254m over three years, and it will be managed by the Territory government. Negotiations are under way under the Indigenous Housing Schedule around a further investment of $140m by the Australian government in Aboriginal housing and infrastructure, a massive total.
Both governments are working collaboratively towards local government reform in the Territory through the framework provided under the Overarching Agreement. $4.9m will be provided by the Australian government over four years to employ 14 remotely located development coordinators to assist with the implementation of local government reform. Four economic development officers have been appointed to assist Aboriginal Territorians identify sustainable economic development opportunities, and $10m has been committed from the Aboriginal Benefits Account over two years to invest in indigenous land and sea management.
Additional schedules are being developed around Child Health and Wellbeing; Building Brighter Futures through Education and Training; Youth Development; Safer Families and Children; and Strategic Interventions in Priority Communities.
Mr Deputy Speaker, last July, COAG backed my call for a national long-term generational plan to address Aboriginal disadvantage. Chaired by the Territory, the national Working Group on Intergenerational Reform is working on a plan to significantly close the gaps in outcomes between Aboriginal people and other Australians. In conjunction with the national plan, we are developing Closing the Gap, an indigenous generational plan for the Territory.
Significant progress has been made in implementing our agenda for action over the past 12 months. The Chief Executive’s Task Force on Indigenous Affairs has continued to meet around every six weeks to support the implementation of our Aboriginal affairs policies. There has been a particular emphasis on establishing necessary linkages across NT government programs and with Australian government agencies. Community Cabinet meetings have been held regularly in Aboriginal communities in remote localities, Territory government agencies have significant input into the Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Key Indicators 2007 report expected for release later this year, and we have also been working to implement key policies and strategies, including the Indigenous Education Strategic Plan 2006-2009, and the Indigenous Economic Development Strategy.
There are major reforms under way in the Territory in relation to the provision of adequate housing, land tenure arrangements and local government in remote communities. A severe shortage of adequate housing is generating increased rates of overcrowding and substandard accommodation. This, in turn, is producing adverse health, education, economic and social outcomes in remote communities. Existing housing in remote communities comprises community housing, government employee housing provided by the Territory for employees living and working on communities, and community council-funded housing for council employees. To date, these housing programs and assets have been managed independently of each other, resulting in inefficiencies and poor outcomes. Aboriginal community housing has not been seen as an innovative and efficient sector of the housing industry but rather one characterised by short-term contracts, small annual construction programs and widespread duplication of efforts.
Last year, I announced that we will invest an additional $100m over five years for housing in remote areas as part of a package of measures to improve outcomes for Aboriginal Territorians. This is in addition to the $55.6m program for indigenous housing and related essential services for the next financial year. It will stimulate further investment in the sector, and it is our intention to move to a public housing model for remote area housing, better integrated housing construction, maintenance, and management programs.
Building Our Workforce in the NT is a major focus, and Jobs Plan 3, which was launched yesterday, provides us with strategies to achieve this. Jobs Plan 3 commits an extra $8.5m to deliver Territory business a skilled workforce and it has three broad themes: jobs in the bush; building better partnership between industry, government and community; and school-to-work transition. The Minister for Employment, Education and Training has already talked about Jobs Plan 3, but I would like to briefly outline the work my agency is doing to bring skilled workers to the Territory.
The skilled worker recruitment campaign began in March 2005 with the aim of attracting skilled tradespeople and professionals to the Territory. A major round of advertising was carried out during last year across Australia and New Zealand, and the good oil on the Territory was carried in newspapers and magazines, on radio and Internet job seeker sites. The message was clear: the Territory offers excellent career prospects and one of Australia’s best lifestyles. The skilled worker recruitment campaign was evaluated in March this year, and I can report that 5563 skilled tradespeople and professionals had called our hotline to March this year, all expressing an interest in moving to the Territory. The evaluation showed that most of the inquiries came from New South Wales and Victoria, and there was a fairly even spread of callers between city and country. Given that far fewer people live in regional areas, it shows that it is country people who have the highest level of interest in the Territory.
The challenge for us is to turn that interest into actual job applicants, and we are working with the private sector to make the best use of our growing database of potential Territorians. My agency has recently met with recruitment agencies, business associations, the unions and the Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development to discuss how we can better manage potential employees with interested employers. As a result of these consultations, campaign inquiries will now be channelled to private sector recruitment firms, and there will be a greater exchange of information between my agency’s recruitment firm and employers to make better use of the available data. We expect our close links with recruitment agencies will give us a clearer idea of the effectiveness of the campaign and why people come to live in the Territory. The next phase of the campaign will be launched later this month, and I will keep the House updated on progress.
Major events are an important part of our great Territory lifestyle and a key focus for my department. We remain committed to bringing the very best sport and entertainment to Territorians. Let me give you a few examples.
Round 6 of the 2007 V8 Supercar Championship Series will mark 10 years of V8s in Darwin. Around 5000 interstate visitors come to Darwin for the event, and it provides commercial opportunities for over 60 local service and supply companies. We have committed $1.07m to the event, and its overall costs are estimated at $2.6m each year.
BassintheGrass and BassintheDust are now firmly established as top line music festivals. Both attract high profile national and international acts and give Territorians, particularly young Territorians, the chance to see some of their favourite bands perform on home soil. Let us not forget the local bands which get a chance to play in front of a large local audience. We fund Major Events $400 000 to support the running of both music festivals and most Territorians will agree it is money well spent.
The Arafura Games continues to go from strength to strength and we are revving for another great games in just nine days time. The profile of the event was recognised in the form of a patronage from the International Olympic Committee and a partnership with the Australian Paralympic Committee to deliver International Paralympic Committee-endorsed events. The games continue to be staged by the Darwin community with around 2000 people directly involved in staging the opening ceremony.
The Tattersalls Finke Desert Race is a unique and challenging off-road endurance event run in Alice Springs on the Queen’s Birthday long weekend each year. Our $50 000 annual grant for the event is primarily spent on marketing and promotion and the reputation of the race is growing both domestically and internationally, and the event is now regarded as one of the true tests of driver skill.
The Tennant Creek Race Club, Barkly Rodeo Association, Tennant Creek Saddle Horse Club and Barkly Camp Draft Association have a common goal. They are committed to growing the Barkly May Day Muster into an activity that attracts and entertains a wide cross-section of the community. We agree with these organisations’ belief the muster has the potential to achieve great things in the years to come, which is why we contribute $30 000 to support the event. I wish the best of luck to all those involved in the event.
These are just some of the events we support each year, events that are growing in status and providing Territorians with top quality entertainment.
Before I finish, I would like to briefly talk about a real success story, Community Cabinet. Community Cabinet is extremely important, especially when it comes to effective policy formulation. It is only by getting out to our communities and talking to residents that we get a handle on local issues and fully appreciate the complexities of service delivery. We have just celebrated our fifth birthday and will soon reach an important milestone: 50 Community Cabinets. In the first half of this year, we visited and met with people living in the East Arnhem communities of Ramingining, Milingimbi, Gapuwiyak and Galiwinku, and just last week held a barbeque in Nightcliff. All up, Cabinet ministers have met with many thousands of Territorians during the program. We are strongly committed to this initiative and the Cabinet will continue to meet and talk with Territorians in their communities on a regular basis.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Treasurer on this strong, responsible, growth-focused budget.
Dr BURNS (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am proud to follow the Chief Minister’s speech in reply to our Treasurer’s budget. I would like to preface my speech by saying a couple of things. I am proud to be part of a government that is serving all Territorians. The budget shows in spades the investment that we have made as a government right across the Territory in infrastructure and recurrent programs. It was interesting to hear the Chief Minister put the canvas of all the activities of government and the ways in which we are serving the interests and needs of the people of the Northern Territory and, in particular, Aboriginal people right across the Territory in terms of education and housing.
What I am going to be talking about in some of my speech is in relation to Health, health services, improving health; Police, Fire and Emergency Services, and finally, Racing, Gaming and Licensing.
Budget 2007-08 builds on this government’s long-term plan for a safer and healthier Territory. As you heard the Treasurer say, Budget 2007-08 lays the foundation for the future of the Northern Territory for the next 10 years. Today, I am happy to announce a further major increase in the health budget for 2007-08, building on the consistent growth year by year since we came to government.
The budget for Health and Community Services in 2007-08 from all funding sources will be $838m. This represents a 73% increase in annual funding from this government since 2001-02. Sustained increases of this level are unprecedented in the Territory’s history and are built on sound economic management. These resources have been targeted to our areas of significant challenge so that we continue to make progress and improve the health of all Territorians.
This government is proud to have increased our doctor and nurse workforce dramatically since coming to office in 2001. By mid-April this year, the number of full-time equivalent doctors has risen by 110 to 382 FTE, a massive 41% increase in the number of publicly employed doctors. Similarly, the number of full-time equivalent nurses has increased by well over 300, an increase of 24% in our nursing workforce in less than six years.
Through the extra resources this government has put into the system, we are seeing positive gains in the most critical areas of need. For example, the strong partnerships we have developed with the Aboriginal community controlled health services and the Commonwealth are leading to a definite improvement in the health status of Aboriginal people. Over the short term, we have seen a three-year improvement in the life expectancy for Territory Aboriginal women. Life expectancy for Aboriginal women in 2000 was 65 years. In 2003, this had jumped to 67.9 years. Over the same period, there has been a 36% fall in the NT Aboriginal infant mortality rate.
Survival rates for clients on kidney dialysis have significantly improved, particularly in Central Australia, with the NT nearing the national average. To flesh that out a bit, if you look at the graphs on survival on renal dialysis, the Territory was manifold worse than the national average some years ago. This has been dramatically improved under the term of this government to now approach the national average, which is a significant advance for those people on renal dialysis, particularly Aboriginal people. This had been an area of neglect under the previous government and is something this government has tackled front and centre. I commend my predecessor, the former member for Stuart, who was the architect of many of these changes. That is a significant advance in survival rates for people with kidney disease.
We also recognise that these are small steps in many ways, and there is much more to do in the global picture, but they show that we are on the right track and we can continue to make significant gains by pursuing the directions we’ve set.
All health systems in the developed world are facing the challenge of increasing demand. The extra resources we are putting into the health system are about meeting that challenge, as well as expanding our services. The extra money means that more health staff are working to deliver more health services for Territorians. It also means significantly better wages and conditions for our staff and improved health system infrastructure.
I now turn to some of the specifics in the health budget. Budget 2007-08 allows this government to fund an additional $27.8m on acute services. This extra money will fund growth in services provided in our five public hospitals and associated facilities. As my colleague, the Treasurer, has already informed the House, we will continue to increase our funding to hospitals. Budget 2007-08 provides $207.3m for Royal Darwin Hospital. That represents an increase of 85% in funding since 2001.
Alice Springs Hospital will be funded to $104.7m this year, and has received 94% extra funding since 2001. I will repeat that: Alice Springs Hospital will be funded $104.7m this year, and has received 94% extra funding since 2001.
Other Territory hospitals have also benefited from increased funding. Katherine Hospital will receive $24.4m, up 72% since 2001. Gove District Hospital gets $17.8m, up 60% since 2001. Tennant Creek Hospital gets $10.6m, up 74% since 2001. The initiatives announced here offer further improvements in service and attention to patients and their families right across the Territory.
This government is proud to announce that we are delivering on one of our key election commitments, with $5.3m being spent on additional hospital beds at our major hospitals. In 2007-08, we will open 12 fully staffed new beds at Royal Darwin Hospital, and a further 12 fully staffed new beds at Alice Springs Hospital.
This will bring total new beds at RDH to 18 since 2005. Let me stress that when I talk about 20 fully staffed new beds, I am also talking about adding 52 new full-time staff to our hospital system to support those beds. With the opening of these new beds, the government will have increased the number of hospital beds since 2001 by 83 across the Territory.
Royal Darwin Hospital Rapid Admission and Planning Unit has been operating with nine beds since August 2001, and it has been effective in reducing access block. We have seen the average wait in the Emergency Department for surgical emergency patients requiring admission reduce from 18 hours to less than seven hours. We will further expand the Rapid Admission Unit to a 24 bed unit this financial year, allowing surgical and medical patients access to concentrated patient care, planning and treatment. When fully operational, the Rapid Admission Unit will mean another 80 full-time staff at Royal Darwin Hospital, including around 40 extra full-time equivalent nurses.
There will also be significant new capital works at Alice Springs Hospital, including the construction of a new Emergency Department. $6m has been allocated for a new Accident and Emergency Unit at Alice Springs Hospital, with consultation well under way for the design specifications. This facility will be housed on a new site on the hospital campus, allowing the current ED to operate uninterrupted. Services at Alice Springs Hospital will also be bolstered, with a commitment of $3m for a new back-up generator.
Gove District Hospital will be funded $400 000 to replace its emergency power generator. Royal Darwin Hospital will be allocated $6.63m for various capital works and equipment, including, I might add, an upgrade of the lifts, which is very important. Tennant Creek Hospital will benefit from a $1m upgrade of fire safety facilities.
Design work is well under way for a $3.1m health clinic for Wadeye, which will include primary health services in the community and the surrounding region.
Budget 2007-08 will also support the work of the St John Ambulance service. St John Ambulance will receive an additional $1.15m, rising to $1.37m ongoing from next year. This brings the total amount for St John Ambulance in 2007 to $12.7m.
I am pleased to announce that together with these budget initiatives and other developments across the portfolio, I have asked the department to commence a patient flow program in 2007-08 to improve patient care by enhancing the quality of a patient’s journey through its services. Reference groups for the program are being established in both Central Australia and the Top End to enable expert opinion in a wide variety of Department of Health and Community Services areas to be integrated into the planning, conduct and outcome of the program. These groups will play a key role in setting the directions and priorities for the development and implementation of specific improvement projects and facilitating consultation with key stakeholders, including other service providers and consumers, ensuring that these projects will make a difference on the ground. Similar projects throughout Australia and overseas have been very successful in helping health services provide better care for patients.
Over the course of the next four years, this government will be introducing a comprehensive three-pronged approach to tackle the ongoing demand for renal services through better management of early kidney disease, an increase in dialysis facilities and increased access to home and country-based dialysis. The first prong is for expansion of capital, with additional dialysis facilities. This recognises that despite the expansion of renal services over the past five years, existing units are at capacity and that demand, past and predicted, is estimated to continue at approximately 32 patients per year. Coupled with this is the endorsement to explore outsourcing of this and future renal satellite services. Additional and recurrent funding to manage these facilities as they come online has been approved. In 2007-08, $1.9m for capital works in Central Australia will be directed to a new renal dialysis facility and a further $700 000 will be allocated for recurrent operational expenses.
The second prong relates to the Building Healthier Communities framework and Renal Services Strategy, recognising that renal patients should be able to access treatment closer to home to enjoy better outcomes. Some $250 000 per year has been allocated for three years to the remote home and community-based self-care dialysis program. This enables a relocatable facility to be established so that people can undertake self-care treatment in a safe and clean environment in their own community where clinical and other rooms are not available.
The third prong relates to identifying and managing people with kidney disease in order to delay their progression to end-stage renal disease. Some $750 000 in recurrent funding from 2007-08 has been allocated for six new public health nurse positions to work with primary health care teams and renal services to achieve this outcome. This includes one position to focus on training and professional development across the chronic disease spectrum, working with government and non-government services. This initiative should make significant inroads into the current level of kidney failure and subsequent need for dialysis.
Budget 2007-08 recognises the need for enhanced clinical strategies across the hospital network. I am pleased to announce the following initiatives: $200 000 for palliative care; $400 000 for rehabilitation services; $250 000 for a logistical coordinator for our aeromedical services; $500 000 for social workers across the hospital network to assist with various services, including domestic and family violence; and $130 000 for a blood transfusion nurse.
An additional $500 000 will be directed towards the Primary Care Information System, or PCIS, an electronic health record system. The additional funding is aimed at ensuring the system meets the needs of remote health centres and their clients. It is anticipated that by 2008, at least 35 health centres will be using PCIS.
There will be a further increase in funding for disease control services in 2007-08, including the rotovirus vaccination program, and the ongoing funding for the new human papillomavirus, or HPV, of approximately $2.4m. This program, newly commenced in April 2007, has already made a flying start, with up to 85% of young women receiving their first injection as the vaccination team visits their high school.
Services to Territory women will be further enhanced at the BreastScreen NT unit with the purchase of a mammography digitiser which will enable the processing of breast screen X-rays by means of digital image. This will replace the current use of chemical processing. The cost of this equipment is expected to be around $140 000.
The Martin government is committed to a healthier Territory, and Budget 2007-08 builds on the significant progress we have made in this area since coming to office.
I now turn to Police, Fire and Emergency Services, and our commitment to building a safer community. Budget 2007-08 delivers a record $226m to Police, Fire and Emergency Services. When we came to government, the budget was $137m, but we have increased that amount by 65%. We have committed this extra funding because this government is serious about fighting crime.
When we came to office in 2001, we inherited a police force which had been starved of funds by the previous CLP administration and damaged by a three-year recruitment freeze. That is why we engaged former Police Commissioner Jim O’Sullivan to conduct a comprehensive assessment of what was needed to build our police force so they would be equipped to deal with crime head on. We are now in the final phase of the $75m Building Our Police Force plan, which has seen us add an extra 200 officers to the Northern Territory Police Service.
The Northern Territory has the highest number of police per capita of any jurisdiction in Australia. Over the past three years, thanks to the Building Our Police Force plan, the Territory has had the fastest growing police force in the country. Apart from the extra 200 police, the Building Our Police Force plan has also given Northern Territory police improved resources to fight crime.
Budget 2007-08 delivers $31m to continue the initiatives recommended by the O’Sullivan Report, including the maintenance of increased police numbers, and improvements to living and working conditions for police in the Territory. I have said that we have achieved our target of adding 200 extra police since 2003. In fact, we have more than achieved our target. We have added 189 Constables and above since the beginning of Building our Police Force program on the 1 July 2003. In addition, we have boosted the number of Aboriginal Community Police Officers by 38 and the number of Police Auxiliaries by 27; all adding up to a massive recruitment and training exercise on the part of our police force. I acknowledge the hard work of all staff at the Police College over the past four years.
I was pleased to announce last week that Darwin’s northern suburbs will get a new police station, thanks to Budget 2007-08. This is great news. A total of $4.8m has been allocated for the replacement of the 30-year-old Casuarina Police Station within this term of office. Northern Territory Police have already undertaken significant work to prepare a conceptual design for the new facility to maximise an officer’s daily work flow and make operational transactions as seamless as possible.
We have also committed $1.32m to establish highway patrols and rural area patrols as part of the government’s Safer Roads initiative. One patrol of each type will be located in Katherine and Alice Springs and will operate on highways and in communities throughout the Territory. The patrols will conduct joint traffic enforcement programs and campaigns with local police members and transport inspectors from DPI during annual sporting and festival events on a rotational basis. Rural and remote area patrols will work in conjunction with local police officers, local communities, Aboriginal Community Police Officers, DPI road safety officers, and MVR vehicle inspectors, and will carry out educational and enforcement duties. These two strategies address two very important issues which must be tackled if we are to reduce the Northern Territory’s shocking statistics relating to trauma and deaths on our roads in remote areas.
I am pleased to be able to announce that Budget 2007-08 also provides police with $580 000 to expand activities under the Criminal Property (Forfeiture) Act. This funding will allow the recruitment of three additional staff to target the proceeds of crime in general and drug related crime in particular in order to prevent the unjust enrichment of persons involved in criminal activities. Since the introduction of the act in March of last year, the Public Trustee has dealt with some 200 property forfeiture matters involving assets of $8m. This amount is made up of $1.9m in cash, real property and rent valued at $4.8m; vehicles valued at $800 000; and other property worth $600 000.
Government has provided a further $633 000 to assist in the operation of the Night Patrol service which was transferred to the Northern Territory Police from Mission Australia on 1 December 2005. Two vehicles were transferred from Mission Australia to Northern Territory Police, training of Aboriginal Community Police Officers is complete, and eight social order patrol positions have been created. Social order patrols incorporate Aboriginal Community Police Officers and target public order offences and public drunkenness through the use of police powers to apprehend or move on offenders.
Budget 2007-08 delivers $700 000 to the Northern Territory Police to provide vehicles for Aboriginal Community Police Officers in remote communities.
The highlight for our fire fighters in 2007 will undoubtedly be the opening of the Marrara Fire Station. Government allocated $3.6m in Budget 2005-06 to construct this station, which is being built behind the Toy Library on Marrara Drive and is due to be completed in the very near future. The station will include four appliance bays, a training conference room, a gymnasium and facilities, and accommodation for up to 10 fire fighters. The existing fire station on Dripstone Road in Casuarina is more than 30 years old. This will be the second fire station to be built by the Martin government following the construction of Humpty Doo Police and Fire station, which opened in February 2005.
As part of Budget 2007-08, the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service will receive $500 000 in capital funding for its major fire appliance replacement program. This program will also see the replacement of old tankers at Elliott and Timber Creek Fire and Emergency Response Groups.
This government is proud of the level of its spending on Police, Fire and Emergency Services. We are committed to maintaining the significant gains we have made with Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
I say this with particular reference to the significant increase we have achieved in our police numbers and I pay tribute to the former Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, who carried the reforms associated with the O’Sullivan Review, convinced Cabinet that this investment was required and it has turned out to be a very effective and strategic investment by this government. We can never afford a repeat of the cut in police numbers caused by the CLP’s three-year recruitment freeze. We are committed to providing police with the resources they require to serve and protect the people of the Northern Territory.
I now turn to Racing, Gaming and Licensing. As minister, I have a responsibility to ensure that these activities are carried out for the enjoyment of the community, not its detriment. Budget 2007-08 will further assist in moving ahead with addressing the harm to Territorians from gambling and alcohol as well as supporting the racing industry. In 2007-08, we will be distributing $1.7m for amelioration and research programs as part of our commitment to keep focus on areas in a national framework on problem gambling. This money goes towards services like Amity House and Anglicare, which provide valuable assistance to those who cannot responsibly manage their gambling. It also goes towards providing a sound research base for making decisions about gambling.
Our Community Benefit grants will make a further $700 000 available in small grants for community based organisations. Over the past few years the Martin government has funded over 450 organisations with grants of up to $5000 each. These grants are used to benefit the elderly, the young, those in remote communities, sporting groups, community service organisations, history buffs and all sorts of different interest groups in our wonderful Northern Territory.
The Martin government is also committed to ensuring a stable and vibrant racing industry with the Northern Territory. The thoroughbred racing industry is a key revenue earner for the Territory and this government is proud to support it. It also provides a lot of enjoyment to those who enjoy thoroughbred racing. Events like the Darwin Cup and this weekend’s Alice Springs Cup are not only wonderful social and sporting events, they attract significant tourism dollars for the Territory. We all know how positive our cup carnivals are for our hospitality sector. Country racing also plays an important part in the social and economic benefits to some of our smaller communities such as Tennant Creek, Pine Creek, Adelaide River and Katherine.
The industry also benefits from the revenue generated by the TAB and bookmakers. In the last year, TAB turnover has grown by almost 15%. Money from the TAB goes back into supporting the industry and I am pleased to announce that in 2007-08, industry grants to thoroughbred racing and greyhound racing totalling $7.56m will be provided.
Of course, funding to ensure the work on alcohol harm minimisation is an important part of this budget and the government’s ongoing efforts to deal with alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory. There is no doubting the significance of the challenge harmful consumption of alcohol poses to the Territory and as a government, we will continue to look at new ways to address this problem, which puts such a significant demand on not just our police, health and justice systems, but exacts such a tragic toll on the lives of so many Territorians. Programs funded for this most important issue range across government agencies and are managed under severalportfolios like police, health and justice.
However, as Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, I am pleased to announce that funding has also been set aside for the development and implementation of alcohol management plans and the continued implementation of the government’s alcohol reform program. Budget 2007-08 will fund and strengthen the crime prevention effort. The Office of Alcohol Policy, the Office of Crime Prevention and the Community Harmony Program are now combined to provide a key focus for each region.
Budget 2007-08 is a reflection of a confident Northern Territory. It is also a budget of which my colleague the Treasurer is justifiably proud. It is a budget that builds for the future, laying the key foundations of jobs, growth and lifestyle. Budget 2007-08 will provide $2.4m for this renewed Crime, Safety and Alcohol Program. The work will also be supported by a grants program to ensure that needs under the Alcohol Management Plan are prioritised and funded appropriately.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may finish where I began, Budget 2007-08 provides the framework and the support for the Territory to move forward in a whole range of areas. We are a very diverse Territory. We have very special needs. The Chief Minister outlined in her budget reply the efforts at a very high level within housing, in programs to redress Aboriginal disadvantage in terms of regional development within our community. The Education minister also outlined the initiatives in education, which are vital for the Territory moving ahead, providing equity for all Territorians and equipping people for their lives ahead.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a government that is all about equity. It is laid out in very plain terms in this budget, and I do commend it to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 10 am in Parliament House or such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to acknowledge and celebrate the achievements of an outstanding Territorian. Kate Hadden was recently named as the winner of the McKell Medal, which is a national award for Excellence in Natural Resource Management. Kate works for the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, but is on secondment to the Tiwi Land Council. Her work there involves overseeing economic projects such as forest plantation. I am told she has done a wonderful job in looking after the island’s precious natural environment. Kate is a past Territory Rural Woman of the Year winner and is the second Territorian to win the McKell Medal. Bob Purvis won the award in 1995 for his work on rangeland protection in Central Australia. On behalf of all of us, I extend congratulations to Kate on a terrific achievement and to the Tiwi Land Council for their support.
I would like to acknowledge DABSCO’s 40th anniversary of doing business in the Territory. DABSCO has been here since 1967, and in March I had the honour of helping them to celebrate the milestone by opening their new state-of-the-art showroom, office and manufacturing facility at Winnellie. It was a good evening and the big turnout was testament to the high regard in which the company is held. I was joined by an impressive group of speakers which included: Ken Verdon, the General Manager of Hunter Douglas; Peter Bouma, who is founding partner of Crimsafe; Nigel Chalk, the General Manager of Bradnams; Ernest Ullrich, founder and owner of Ullrich Aluminium; and Kevin Conlan, the owner of Dexion NQ.
I congratulate DABSCO directors, Phil and Patricia Grice, and General Manager Mark Broom for their innovation and continued commitment to the Territory.
Last month I was fortunate enough to attend, as a proud parent and Territory sports fan, the National Netball Under 17 and Under 19 Championships in Victoria. The championships were held at the State Netball and Hockey Centre in Melbourne, a great sports facility, and the best 12 players in each age group from every state and territory were there vying for the title of national champions. I was only able to see one game, unfortunately, but from what I saw, both our teams were most competitive. I was lucky enough to see our Under 19 girls in an upset victory over the ACT 32 to 29 and finish in that competition in sixth place. It was a brilliant win as most of the girls only moved up from the 2006 Under 17 team this year and it was their best result ever, which is great. The Under 19 team was: Coach, Stacey West; Assistant Coach, Karen Johnson; Manager, Lorna McLaughlin; and Primary Care person, Karen Schneider. The athletes were: Captain, Sarah Williams; Vice-Captain, Chloe Alderman; Alyce Casilli; Kim Bruyn; Jacinta Kay; Merissa Chaplin; Lucy Shannon; Megan Waters; Rosie Jennings; and Kelsey Weckert. There were also two import players: Alice Murt from South Australia and Tessa Burton from Victoria.
I have spoken to the players since the trip, and they have all told me that the highlight of the week was a very tight match against Western Australia. They only went down by three points, and then Western Australia went on to beat South Australia and Victoria, who were the teams that eventually played off in the grand final. Victoria went on to be worthy winners of the Under 19 championship trophy.
The average age of our Under 17 team this year was only 15, with most girls making the team for the first time. They faced a very tough and physical challenge, but it was pleasing to hear comments from onlookers courtside about how much the team improved as the week went on. The Under 17s coach was Kate Worden; Assistant Coach, Natalie Chatfield; Manager, Sally Winch; and Primary Care was Amy Terry. The athletes were: Captain, Tegan Pannel from Alice Springs; Jess Moller; Stacey McKenzie; Diana Radunz; Emma Kay; Lucy Williams; Eulaly Allen; Sarah Winch; Sharon Jennings; Mayy Hamde; Jess Smith; and Ashleigh Adams.
The future is looking good for the team, with all but two players eligible to play in this age group next year. I should mention that Kate Worden’s daughter, Sarrita King, played in the South Australian team, which is a mighty achievement. Sarrita is a product of our NTIS program, and relocated to South Australia just over 12 months ago to continue her dream of playing netball at the highest level. She competed against hundreds of girls for a spot in the team, which ended up finishing second.
The hard-working officials not only went away with the teams in their own time, taking time off work and away from family to help the athletes, but also volunteered hours of their time every week for training in the six months leading up to their national campaign; many thanks and congratulations to you all.
In conjunction with the NTIS program, the Territory is producing some first-class netballers. This group of young women proudly represented the Territory with their winning spirit, genuine friendliness and perseverance. They are, Mr Deputy Speaker, a credit to us all.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Before I commence tonight I extend a vote of thanks to the members for Arafura, Stuart and Macdonnell. I speak as the member for Blain. This time last night, I personally was struggling with what this parliament means. Some may have presumed my actions in this parliament last night were the result of personal disappointment in the reception of something I presented. It was far more than that. There comes a time, particularly as you move along in years and you spend time in your career, when you start to question the purpose of your service in this place. I came to such a point last night.
After again visiting a topic which was neither understood nor received in a manner in which it was delivered, I came to the point where I wondered whether there was any virtue in continuing in this place because it is simply unsatisfying. It was not a personal offence; it was a general concern about the fruitlessness of such pursuits in this place, where notions such as integrity or sincerity are trashed, when ideas one holds personally are not carried into this Chamber, and there is a disconnect between values and principles and beliefs in the interests of political debate.
It is called good fun and a game by some, but I cannot do that comfortably. I have never been a good actor, and I refuse to become one. I have been counselled to put up a wall and to allow these things to pass by. I decided last night I would never allow that to occur. I would much prefer to be hurt and offended by the behaviour that I see around me than to put up a wall and develop some kind of immunity so I can exist in a different form in this place. I refuse to do so.
Last night, I made a decision that I will continue, nonetheless. I am glad I made the decision to continue in this place last night because what I saw this evening has encouraged me immensely, more than words can express, and restored my confidence in this parliament in just a small way by seeing three members show extraordinary courage. I speak in plain terms. There is no hidden message or political agenda behind what I say. I speak genuinely. Though I actually stood at a different place, I did find it difficult to stand where I stood at the conclusion of that debate, but more than that, much, much more than that, to see an injection of courage shown by those members has encouraged me immensely and it in fact inspires me.
I am so grateful because last night, I went home and I wondered what is the point. What really is the point to have no attempt made to understand the motive by which an attempt is made to try to fix a problem where in fact not only is an attempt not made but it is denigrated in the cruellest possible ways? Rather than build up a callous approach to these things, I would much prefer to be hurt so that I can keep true to myself.
Also I must compliment to the member for Nelson. He has been an inspiration to me. I really appreciate the way he has carefully and in such a considered way approached the business of this Chamber. He, too, is an inspiration to me and I thank him for his role in this Chamber. It is people like him who keep me in this place.
As I said, I have made a decision to stay - not that I was in fact toying up whether I would pull out, but it was a serious consideration on the basis of the lack of genuine and deep satisfaction you get from such a job. I have done jobs where you feel like you are achieving something. To spend year after year in this place and find that it is just game playing, I have better things to do. I now know that I have better things to do, and it will be in here.
I will say again, as I have said many times, it is not a reflection on members opposite. There are some members on the other side who simply cannot hear what I am saying. I am not speaking strictly of members opposite. It is a condition of parliament, it is a condition of this place, and it infects us wherever we be. I am infected by it and I have been in the past when I was Opposition Leader. It was incredibly difficult to shake off the trappings of the game, as it has been described to me by a colleague on the other side. I do not see it as a game. I have shaken myself free of that and last night I decided to shake myself free of it again.
I must make an observation, though. As I have said on a number of occasions, I have sat over there as a back bencher coming in on a by-election when the CLP was in government. I saw many things that I was not happy with, and that was of the CLP. I saw the operations. I have said it so many times and still it seems not to be able to penetrate with some members on the other side.
I have seen, too, the members of the then opposition really hurt in a similar way that I exhibited some pain last night. I have seen the member for Nhulunbuy bursting through that door in exactly the same way as I did last night. I have heard him banging things in there, because of the sheer frustration of what was occurring in this Chamber. I sat over there and I observed you, member for Nhulunbuy, and I felt for you at that time. I have heard stories that the now Chief Minister found it immeasurably difficult in opposition with the abuse that was inflicted upon the then opposition.
What I find even more disturbing is that just as an abused child grows up to become an abuser of children, I find that really disappointing. I have seen that, in fact, occur. The very same offence that has been inflicted upon the members who were then in opposition and now in government is the same kind of activity, except now it is the abuser who was once the abused.
Sitting over there, I have observed the transition. Now I am sitting here and I am seeing it. I hope that I never become a contributor in that way in this parliament. There have been some elements exhibited particularly tonight that give me cause for confidence. I hope for other members, too, that when they reflect upon trying to leave this place leaving a legacy, they feel proud and will draw some courage from it. It is not an easy matter making decisions. It is easy to go along with the crowd, but we will never be judged by whether we stuck with the crowd. We will be judged by whether we did the right thing. Sometimes we are going to be at variance with our own parties. We can either attempt to change the party or we will have to change ourselves and change our position because it is too serious.
We are not going to get a round of applause at the end of the day just because we stuck with the pack. You are going to be an old man or an old woman and you are going to look back and you are going to be proud of some things or you are going to be a little disappointed in yourself, or you are going to have such a callous view of things that you cannot even think that deeply. Pity that day because you become the walking dead. I pledge to stay alive and I only hope that what has occurred tonight will feed the confidence of those in this Chamber to reflect upon their own positions as a single person who sits in a single seat representing people who have placed their confidence in them.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, with the onset of the Dry from 1 May, I again started my regular Saturday morning pastime of doorknocking and visiting in my area. It is wonderful to catch up with people again. During the Wet, most people lock themselves up in their houses, with the airconditioning on full blast and of course very rarely will listen to what is happening at their front gate.
It is not only catching up with people, but watching things change in my electorate. One of the big changes that I have seen is the development of the new suburb of Lyons. Stage 2 was released on Saturday, 14 April 2007 and the ballot is going to be held on 26 May. Stage 2 is situated at Tambling Terrace behind the aged persons’ accommodation on Lee Point Road behind Tracy Village and down to where the sales office is. A neighbourhood park will be located within walking distance of most home sites. The display village is due to commence construction and due to open in September 2007. The participants for the six homes to be built are PTM Homes, Shamrock Homes, Larrakia Homes and Darwin Constructions. Mind you, there are already some houses being built in Henbury Avenue and some of them are nearing completion.
The impressive building which is to become the neighbourhood facility is close to completion and should house the sales centre late in May or early June.
Garanmanuk Park, Larrakia language for ‘grandmother’, has greened up nicely and the planting of trees is well under way. Street signs have now been erected in Stage 1, with street names commemorating the Larrakia language for flora and fauna. Once again, this represents a strong economic boost for the Territory and more jobs for local contractors and workers and, of course, more houses for people who choose to live there.
Our Australian Red Cross does a fantastic job in providing aid all over the world. The month of March always signifies Red Cross Calling, and I thank very much Andrea Lee and Kia at the Red Cross office for organising, once again, the Red Cross collection. I was very pleased to help the Red Cross by staying in Casuarina and rattling the bucket, attracting the attention of people who were very generous in donating money. I was able to fill, within an hour-and-a-half, about three buckets with money. People who come from other countries know very well what the Red Cross does, especially in countries which have experienced civil war or war or some disaster. Congratulations and thank you very much to all the people who generously donated to the Red Cross.
Congratulations to Nakara Primary School for putting on a wonderful exhibition of cultural activities to celebrate Harmony Day recently. Well done to Jeannie Hampton, Nakara Primary’s Aboriginal Education Officer, for organising and coordinating the dancing and musical displays representing so many different cultures. Nakara School is one of the most multicultural schools in the northern suburbs. It has kids from 33 different cultures, all of them sharing the same school and all of them are friends.
I also enjoyed my welcome back to school afternoon tea with Nakara School staff last term. When the term starts, I always put on a morning or afternoon tea. It is always good to keep up to date with news and updates with my principals at the start of the school year and to meet new teachers. I was also very happy to see Principal Barry Griffin looking almost fully recovered from his recent heart problems.
As usual, it was always a pleasure to present my Student Achievement Awards at school assemblies. My March awards went to Alia Tutty from Mr Woods’ grade 1/2 for achievement and effort in school work, and Sahanna Skilton from upper primary for working cooperatively with all students in the class. Congratulations to Alia and Sahanna for all your excellent efforts in Term 1.
I recognise the huge contribution teachers bring to our society. I have made it a custom to officially welcome teachers back to school by putting on a morning tea for them. During my welcome back to school morning tea for Alawa Primary School teachers, I was pleased to catch up with some of the teachers from last year and some who had returned from maternity leave, as well as welcome some new teachers to the school. Teachers are hard-working professionals and I am pleased that parents in my electorate recognise this and support their children’s education by participating in school assemblies and activities. It is always very encouraging to see so many parents present at school assemblies.
My March Student Achievement Awards for Alawa Primary were won by Nicholas Sanders and Poppy Leotsakos for exemplary behaviour. Congratulations to you both for a wonderful start to the year.
Thanks also to Jeff Mosel and Pat King from the Casuarina Neighbourhood Watch Committee for organising flyers to go out with my electorate newsletter, providing important information to all my constituents about protecting and improving our neighbourhood and keeping our kids safe. The Casuarina Neighbourhood Watch Committee urgently needs new members and supporters. It is a good idea to get involved in crime prevention and help to make your community a safer place to live. To join, contact the Executive Officer, Jeff Mosel on 8922 3604 or you may ring my electorate office.
I am extremely happy for Tiwi residents who have been patiently waiting for the Tiwi Shopping Centre upgrade. It is now completed, with new brick paving, external lights, external footpath, tree planting and a high quality fence. It has changed the face of the centre. I thank the Northern Territory government for granting $180 000 to the Darwin City Council to undertake the work. My sincere thanks also go to all involved in the design and upgrade, especially to Brendan Dowd, the engineer from Darwin City Council, who had to put up with my constant inquiries, first, regarding when the job was going to start, and then when it was going to finish. I visited the Tiwi Shopping Centre last week. It looks fabulous and I am proud to able to deliver on another of my election promises.
Congratulations to my young constituents, Simone and Candice Liddy of Nakara, and Emily and Jonathan Peris of Tiwi for recently representing the NT at the Australian Hockey League in the Northern Territory Pearls and Territory Stingers teams. A large number of Casuarina families actively participate in hockey. I was pleased recently to be able to support the NT Hockey Association with an injection of up to $25 000 to support them for the rest of the season. Thank you very much to all the parents who called to say thank you. Please rest assured that anything that keeps our children active has my full support.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to the late Professor Aileen Plant.
Professor Aileen Plant was a major contributor to the public health of the Asia Pacific region, Australia and the Northern Territory. A world leading authority on deadly infectious diseases, she died suddenly at the age of 58 in Indonesia on 27 March 2007. We join colleagues, students and community members in mourning her passing.
Aileen Plant left school at 14, worked on the family farm and then in a bank. At 22, she started medicine at the University of Western Australia and graduated in 1977. She first worked as a junior doctor at Royal Darwin Hospital in 1978, later becoming a well respected Medical Registrar. She was Northern Territory Chief Health Officer and Deputy Secretary from 1989 until 1992, and during that time co-authored the first collection of Northern Territory Health Indicators. She most recently worked as Professor of International Health at Curtin University in Perth and as an advisor to the World Health Organisation. She worked to successfully control the SARS epidemic in Vietnam and received that country’s highest award. More recently, she worked as a key advisor to WHO and the Australian government on preparing for the threat of pandemic influenza.
An expert in public health, epidemiology, infectious diseases and international health, she retained strong personal and professional links with the Northern Territory. She was a great teacher and a mentor to many. I would like to close with a quote from Professor John Mathews who spoke at her memorial in Perth in April:
Mr Deputy Speaker, at the close of business on 4 May 2007, Hartley Dentith will retire from the Department of Health and Community Services after more than 23 years of service. Mr Dentith, a Registered Nurse and Manager for the Centre of Disease Control in Nhulunbuy, was employed with DHCS from 14 January 1980 to 9 December 1981. In 1986, he returned to the department to establish the Centre for Disease Control in Nhulunbuy, which opened on 17 December 1986.
Hartley has worked tirelessly to provide a health service for indigenous and non-indigenous people alike; in particular in relation to tuberculosis, leprosy, sexually transmitted infections, and general surveillance. He has also been instrumental in achieving high childhood immunisation coverage rates, and regular school screenings in the East Arnhem region. Mr Dentith has worked at Galiwinku, Gapuwiyak and Yirrkala Community Health Centres as a remote area nurse and often as a sole practitioner. He has also tutored, mentored and supported many Aboriginal Health Workers, community workers, registered nurses and other health professionals over the years, using his vast amount of knowledge and experience, both medical and local. Hartley is also a commercial pilot and, over the years, has accessed planes to provide health services in remote communities and very remote homelands.
I know I join the member for Nhulunbuy, who knows Hartley very well, in wishing Hartley and his family all the best in retirement. I spoke to Hartley this afternoon on the telephone, and he tells me he is going to keep flying those planes out to the remote communities and continue to enjoy life in Eastern Arnhem Land, so all the best, Hartley, in retirement.
Unfortunately, due to a point of order in the middle of my adjournment speech on 19 April, I missed a couple of paragraphs about kids in my electorate who have been chosen to represent their peers in Jingili Primary School. I want to make mention of the election of house captains and vice captains elected in Jingili Primary School in March this year, and offer my heartiest congratulations to Jeremy Kimm and Shannen Pugh as captains of Forest, with Koal Smith and Samantha Kearney as vice captains. William Anstey and Paige Wilson were elected as captains of Ocean, with Lance Schmidt and Jacqueline Withers as Ocean’s vice captains. Earth captains are Ryan McMurray and Chantel Holloway, with vice captains Gabrielle Farrow and Jordyn Carne.
Whilst talking about the great school students of my electorate, I extend my congratulations to Velmaine Wilson and Jeremy Kimm of Jingili Primary School, Taylah Hendy and Anthony Fuller of Wagaman Primary School, and Sean Johnston and Hannah Roche of Moil Primary School who were awarded my Quiet Achiever Awards for Term 1 of the 2007 school year. Well done for the deserved recognition. It is fantastic for these students to be recognised for their steady progress through their school years.
Last weekend, I was invited to the Swahili Language for Beginners course at the Casuarina Senior College to present the graduating participants with certificates and join them for an African cuisine lunch. The group of Darwinites had been studying Swahili language at the college for the last eight weeks. Swahili is currently the national language of Tanzania and Kenya. The language has spread further from the original coastal areas to countries such us Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique and beyond. While the African Union uses Arabic, French, English and Portuguese at its summits, there is a push for Swahili as one of the most used African native languages to be also included.
The Swahili language has also made its presence felt in music and art. One that comes to mind is the celebrated Walt Disney movie, The Lion King, which features Swahili words such as simba meaning lion, rafiqi meaning friend and, of course, hakuna matata, which means ‘no problems’.
Over the past 10 years, Darwin has had an increase in migrants from African countries, both through skilled and refugee migration, which has created an interest in the various African cultures. A number of the Swahili students have contact with migrants from various African countries through their work and volunteer activities, and this promoted their interest to learn Swahili. The Office of Multicultural Affairs of which my colleague, the member for Karama, has charge, through the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship program, provided funding assistance for the Swahili language classes, and the project was supported by Anglicare NT. The class was tutored by Mr McRoberts Agaa and Mr Doulat Alibhai.
The Swahili language group ended the pilot program with a fantastic African cuisine lunch. Frederica Gaskell, who facilitated the Swahili language program and a previous African cuisine cooking program, explained that African cuisine has been influenced not just by the diverse African cultures, but also their historical and contemporary trading partners. The strong influences in East African countries are Arabic, Portuguese and Indian. The dishes prepared by Frederica and by Bupe Kyela included biryani, kande, which is a maize and red kidney bean dish, and ugali, which is made from ground maize or corn and is a staple carbohydrate in the cuisine of many African countries.
Mr Warren: It sounds delicious.
Dr BURNS: It was absolutely delicious. It was served up with great company and they are a great group. These sorts of projects centred around language and food do such a lot to preserve unity and facilitate understanding between people.
I had great pleasure again in supporting the Pet Expo held at the Marrara Indoor Stadium and organised by Top End Pet Expo Incorporated, the Secretary of which is Mrs Rhonda Wise who I proudly say is a constituent of mine and has been running Rhonda’s Dog Grooming Service from her home in Moil for the past 11 years.
The Pet Expo is run by voluntary groups who get together to help educate the general public in health care and maintenance of their pet. Maybe I should go along there with Bruiser one night. I am sure the mighty Bruiser would enjoy such an outing. The Pet Expo is now in its seventh year and thousands of people take the opportunity to go along to learn some new skills, investigate new and popular pet products, and see dog obedience displays which are a fantastic incentive to learn to train your dog. There are also cat walks and talks on birds and snakes. I understand that Stuart Duncan was the coordinator of the very successful expo last week and is acknowledged by Rhonda as being absolutely incredible with his organisation and local knowledge.
I have had great pleasure in sponsoring Chavonne Carroll, a constituent of mine, who is attending the Australian National Agility Trials 2007 in Adelaide this month. I should explain that these are canine agility trials. Chavonne is a member of a four-person five-dog Territory team which has been selected by the North Australian Canine Association to represent the Northern Territory for the first time at the Australian trials. The National Agility trials are held every year in alternate states and this year has attracted entries from over 500 competitors from both Australia and overseas, with New Zealand competing for the first time. The Northern Territory has members from both Darwin and Alice Springs. I wish them all the very best for a successful meet. I am looking forward to telling members about Chavonne’s experience after she returns to Darwin.
Yesterday, the member for Greatorex made an assertion based on a media report aired on ABC Radio’s AM program on Wednesday, 2 May. I wish to inform the House that the quote attributed to me by the media has no basis in fact. The report related to the consumption of mouthwash as an alternative to alcohol by heavy drinkers in Alice Springs. In particular, the assertion made by the journalist was that I said it: ‘It would take several litres of Listerine before anyone was intoxicated’. This is completely untrue. Indeed, I never spoke to the journalist at all and I will be taking this matter up with the ABC. Finally, I can also assure the House that steps are being taken by the relevant agencies to address the issue raised in the media report.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, as members, we are often invited to functions, some more notable than others. One I would like to discuss tonight. The minister for Police who was acting in the role of Education minister in the absence of the Education minister, had the honour of presenting a number of awards for the Indigenous Students Leadership and Mentorship program recently at Parliament House. It was a great event. I was very proud to watch some of my students from Taminmin High School receive those awards.
When you look at students, particularly indigenous students, who do something really special and are awarded and acknowledged for it, you see that the future is very bright. Taminmin High School had 15 students apply for the Indigenous Students Leadership and Mentorship program awards in late 2006. Of the 50 students from around the Northern Territory, five from Taminmin were successful with their applications. They are Hayley Smith, Shari Hunt, Jesse Risk, Rebekah Raymond and Jade Scott. Each of those students did Taminmin very proud on the night. They were very dignified and were good ambassadors for the school.
The program provides students with the chance to build on their existing talents whilst developing the skills they need to make them more productive and resilient members of our community. There are several aspects of the program on which I want to touch because it shows the depth of the program and the value of the program showed in the faces of the students that night.
The first aspect of the program was the acknowledgment, induction and orientation, which is pretty standard in most programs, but it was a particularly important aspect of this one. The second aspect was identifying and working with a mentor, and that showed through in the dignified way they presented themselves on the night, which was a sight to behold. The third aspect was leadership. We all need leadership training at different times, and that was an important aspect. Student forums; participation, of course, is an important part of any sort of program, particularly for students. The fifth aspect was facilitating access to activities and equipment to enhance their educational outcomes, and that also is very important. Number six was achieving personal goals, which we all need to do. The seventh aspect was encouraging the students to participate in leadership roles in their schools and communities. I was at the next assembly and those students were acknowledged and the way in which they presented themselves showed that they really gleaned something from this program.
The awards presentation was a great ceremony and it was good that Parliament House hosted them. A number of photos were taken of the event and I was honoured to have my photo taken with the students. We put the photos on my noticeboard and I was proud to have them in my office. I had them up for several weeks and many people said how proud they were of the students. The whole community is very proud of them. It is not just about them being indigenous students; it is about them being active and participating members in our community, and the whole community acknowledges that.
Another event is coming up, and I am sure members in the House will be reporting on it in due course, and it is National Volunteer Week, which is being held from 14 to 20 May 2007. I want to take a moment to talk about some of the volunteers in my area, as we will not have another sitting before that occurs, because they are special to our community.
I wanted to find out for myself what volunteering involves. I looked on the website and I acknowledge Volunteering Australia and their volunteering fast fact sheet from which I am about to quote, but it is quite mind boggling how special it is for our volunteers to be part of our community. Volunteering contributes several billion dollars a year to the Australian economy. I find that mind boggling; we are not talking about millions, we are talking billions of dollars. Without that work there would be many organisations, groups and people who would be quite disadvantaged.
Who volunteers? In 2004, 6.3 million Australians over the age of 18 were active volunteers. Approximately 836 million hours were volunteered by adult Australians in 2004, averaging 132 hours of their time. The largest number of hours that were contributed, and this is pleasing to see, was by the elderly and young volunteers who averaged about 178 hours for the ages of 55 to 65, and 132 hours for those aged 18 to 24. The most active age group was the group in the middle, I guess, or those slightly younger, I should say, and that is the volunteers in the 35 to 44 years age group who were the most active at 47% participation. These figures are for 2004, so obviously they have gone up but they are the latest figures available. In 2004, 41% of adult Australians volunteered compared with 34% in 2002 and 24% in 1995. That is a doubling in a decade.
What do volunteers do? The most common volunteering activities were: fundraising, not surprisingly; management, yes; teaching, of course; and administration, that was an interesting aspect. People tend to choose volunteering activities that reflect their training and skills and consequently professionals tend to teach and trades people choose maintenance, repairs and gardening.
Why do people volunteer? That is a very interesting question. The main reasons for volunteering include being of service to the community and personal satisfaction. Young people tend to put down personal satisfaction and to help others in the community, to gain new skills and gain work experience. Particularly in the Northern Territory, the ABS data indicate that 30 000 Territorians undertook volunteering activities in 2006, and this is growing all the time.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, there are some very notable people I would like to mention from our rural community. These are the unsung heroes of our community of Goyder, particularly people such as school council members, volunteers in the local fire brigades, emergency services volunteers, Landcare group volunteers and, interestingly, those working with the Freds Pass Show Committee to make the show the success I am sure it will be as it is coming up very shortly. The show will be held on 19 and 20 May, and I guess this is a free plug for the show. I am sure I will see a lot of the local members at the Freds Pass Show.
I would like to say thank you to the following fantastic locals for their invaluable contributions to our rural community: Michelle Leach for her work doing a fantastic job with the starting up of the Guides. This group is now at capacity. In fact, I believe it is the largest Guides unit in the Top End at the moment. It provides much needed activities for rural youth. I pay tribute to her work for promoting the Guides in such a positive and fruitful manner.
I cannot go past Mr George Kasparek for doing the same for many years with the Humpty Doo Scouts. On Anzac Day, I was very pleased to see both the Scouts and the Guides turn out in such a great number. We had about 150 marchers, and they made up about 30 to 40 of the marchers.
Mr Greg and Mrs Lurline Payne do lots of work with St John Ambulance. They are out there every weekend, working at sporting events. They are just everywhere and they are really great volunteers.
Olive Frakking at Freds Pass Reserve organises seniors’ activities and gets involved in other events. I know she works there, but she spends much of her free time volunteering for other work. Olive is involved in many things in our area.
Sandra Parker is Palmerston’s poet laureate and is heavily involved in Palmerston Young Writers, and also the annual Seniors Poetry Launch at Taminmin Library with Librarian Iris Beale. Every year, I and the member for Nelson, Gerry Wood, are very pleased to write our own little odes and sonnets, and we get into the spirit of things, which is great fun. I commend those people because that is a big part of the Seniors calendar in the rural area.
There are many firies and in particular I mention Ron and Phyllis Thomas of Berry Springs Volunteer Fire Brigade. It should be noted that Ron was awarded the National Medal in 2006 for services to the Australian fire service, Defence force, police or ambulance. He has been Captain of the Berry Springs Volunteer Bushfire Brigade since 2002. He wanted to retire this year, but is still Captain owing to a lack of others willing to, or capable of, doing this valuable work. I understand that last Sunday he was helping to pull four vehicles out of a bog. He is a very senior member of our community, but he is still getting out there helping the community. He is 79 years of age, by the way. His wife, Phyllis, has worked alongside him all the time doing the administrative work of the brigade.
Mr Ray McCasker has spent many years heavily involved in the AFLNT Southern Districts Football Club. His son, Mark, a skilful and popular player, tragically passed away recently, but Ray continues supporting the team. He has not taken a step backwards in pushing the club. He was even working with us recently to finalise a grant application for future facilities, and all at very short notice.
Sydney ‘Robbo’ Robinson was Chair of the Berry Springs Primary School and Taminmin High School Councils at the same time until the end of 2006. He has recently helped set up the Darwin River Landcare Group and is one of the most active people in the Darwin rural area for sure. The energy that Robbo has is just mind-boggling. I am in awe of the energy and capabilities he has.
Finally, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I previously talked about the contribution of Maureen Newman, who fought tenaciously to bring the Bendigo Bank, the community bank, to the Northern Territory while she was also Chair of the Rural Area Business Group. Maureen spent a lot of time on both those activities. They were both very time-consuming, but she certainly put a lot of effort into it. We are very proud of her, and we are very proud we have such a fabulous facility for rural Territorians.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITION
Amalgamation of the
Litchfield Shire Council
Amalgamation of the
Litchfield Shire Council
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 354 petitioners relating to the amalgamation of the Litchfield Shire Council. This petition is in similar terms to petition No 55 read in the Assembly during the April sittings. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- We the residents of Litchfield Shire request that the NT government delay the implementations of its planned amalgamation of the Litchfield Shire Council and the development of the new super council until these changes are fully costed and the residents are adequately consulted.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Radiation Oncology Unit Update
Radiation Oncology Unit Update
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, this government promised in 2001 that we would work with the Commonwealth and private providers to build a high quality, safe, sustainable radiation oncology unit in Darwin. We are delivering on that promise.
I am pleased to report that on 13 March 2007, I signed a formal agreement with federal Health minister, Tony Abbott, which should see the construction of the unit begin later this year, and the unit operational by early 2009. This formalises the position that the Commonwealth will commit an initial $13m while the Northern Territory government will commit land on the RDH campus on which the unit can be built. The Northern Territory will fund Allied Health and Community Nursing staff to support the service and the Northern Territory will develop accommodation options for cancer patients and their families coming to Darwin.
The agreement opens the way for the Commonwealth government to go out to tender for a provider to set up and run the service. This tender process is a requirement of the Commonwealth and part of their commitment to this service. Fortunately, the Australian government has contracted the services of Professor Michael Barton to provide specialist clinical advice on the contents of the tender documents. Professor Barton, as well as being one of the foremost experts in the field, is also one of the authors of the report that the Northern Territory government commissioned on how to establish this service.
The request for tender will include the building and the development of the radiation oncology unit with two-linear accelerator or linac capacity. The two accelerators will allow for growth capacity and continuation of local treatment should repairs be required. As I understand it, the Australian government has advised that the anticipated date of the release for the request for tender that I have just mentioned will be mid- to late May 2007.
The radiation oncology unit will expand the current cancer services available to all Territory residents, and will be staffed by specialists to ensure the delivery of a high quality service. The unit will be an extension of an established unit operating elsewhere in Australia. Contrary to some recent claims, I can inform you that in common with most such units in Australia, the unit will operate as a day service, Monday to Friday. I can further confirm that the provision of medical staff will be the responsibility of the provider and will be funded through access to the Medical Benefits Scheme or MBS.
We owe it to all Territorians, especially cancer sufferers and their families, to get this right. We have been up-front and open about the timing for the unit. While much of the detail of the timing will be determined through the Commonwealth’s tender process, estimates of the unit being operational by March next year may unrealistically raise cancer sufferers’ hopes and the hopes of their families.
Building and opening such a high tech service is a complex matter. The linac machines need to be purchased, transported to Darwin, installed and calibrated, and the technical staff have to be recruited and put on deck. This gives a realistic time frame of mid- to late 2007 for construction to begin, with the unit becoming operational in early 2009. That was the text of the conversation I had with Tony Abbott when we signed the agreement, and that is the Commonwealth’s time frame …
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This week we have heard people refer to members of other parliaments by their Christian names and surnames. I remind members of Standing Orders 62 and 65; we should only refer to other parliamentarians by their electorate names or titles.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Braitling. Minister for Health, if you would rephrase, please.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. When I spoke to the federal Health minister on this topic, that was his time frame also. When the radiation oncology unit commences, Territory residents will be able to access radiotherapy services within the Territory. While the service will be able to treat a wide range of cancers, it is anticipated that some complex conditions and those requiring sub-speciality expertise may not be able to be treated locally. Clients requiring services not available in Darwin will, of course, remain eligible for support through Patient Assisted Travel Scheme, or PATS, to allow them to access specialist treatment interstate.
This commitment to build the facilities could not have been achieved without the close cooperation of the Territory and Commonwealth governments. I thank the federal government for their cooperation, and look forward to working with them further to deliver this important health facility for Territorians suffering from cancer and, of course, the families who support them.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report on the radiation oncology unit. Thank God for David Tollner who convinced the federal government to commit the money …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Rather than have the member for Braitling up on this one, I think we just had a ruling about referring to members in other parliaments.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, if you could refer to him as the member for Solomon.
Dr LIM: If I can have the clock stopped to speak to point of order, Madam Speaker. In this House, members of government are the worst offenders of this rule and …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex …
Dr LIM: … I will withdraw the name of the member for Solomon. That is fine. I believe that if we are going to implement this standing order, let’s do it across the board at all times from now on. Let us do it from now on. The ministers are the worst.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, if you would just refer to the member for Solomon by his correct title and continue.
Dr LIM: The member for Solomon was the one who actually got the money for the radiation oncology unit and it has taken this government a long time to get it settled. The sooner it is done, the better. Territorians who suffer from cancer need this service as quickly as possible.
For years I have asked this government to give a commitment for cancer sufferers in Alice Springs, who have had strong links with Adelaide for a long time, and Adelaide knows Alice Springs patients well. They know the clinicians in Alice Springs well. They have worked together as a team for more years than I care to remember. It is important for this government to give Alice Springs residents a commitment that if they need to go to Adelaide, the government will provide Patient Assisted Travel Scheme funding to get to Adelaide.
For years this government has continued to refuse to give that commitment. At the last sittings, the question was asked again of the government, and again government refused to give the commitment. Every time I raise this issue with government, the member for Braitling slams it, saying: ‘Why are you asking that question? It is a silly question’. This is the woman who decided …
Mrs Braham interjecting
Dr LIM: … to object to the question when I asked …
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex is misleading the House. I was the one in Alice Springs who asked whether the minister would provide facilities for Alice Springs people.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling, resume your seat.
Mrs Braham: He should withdraw.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Member for Braitling, if you wish, you may approach me about a making a personal explanation. Member for Greatorex, please continue.
Dr LIM: The member for Braitling in Alice Springs grandstanded and asked the question. For years, she slagged the CLP for trying to fight for people in Alice Springs, to seek support from government to get to Adelaide for cancer treatment. This is the government that refuses to treat Alice Springs residents as equal citizens. Alice Springs patients deserve to go to Adelaide for treatment.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I put on the record that I remember the member for Braitling asking the question about what was going to happen to people living in Alice Springs in relation to the oncology unit. We should not just be talking about Alice Springs in relation to this oncology unit; we should be talking about all Territorians. Not everyone who lives far away from Darwin lives in Alice Springs. There are remote communities like Borroloola. There are Aboriginal communities here, there and everywhere. I ask the government not only if they are going to provide accommodation for those people, but what support are you going to give in relation to transporting people to and from the oncology unit and what support would you give?
One of the issues I raised earlier in this debate was that by sending especially Aboriginal people a long way from home, they do not have support, especially in places like Adelaide. We would have the same issue if someone was coming from Kintore, Yuendumu and other parts of the Territory. They would find Darwin a fairly foreign place as well. I am interested to know what sort of support we are going to give to those people because that is a very important part of the health aspect. It is not just the radiation treatment, but the way we deal with people as a whole.
I welcome the report from the minister. It has taken a long time. I remember a little figure called 2001 when this was going to happen. It is happening and it is a great thing. People might see this as a bit political, but I ask, in all seriousness, if a radiation oncology unit is going to create radioactive waste, is part of the tender document going to include the storage of waste products when this facility is completed?
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I welcome the comments from the member for Nelson. Obviously, Aboriginal people currently have to travel to Adelaide and they receive support services there for their treatment. I am very keen, as I said in the Alice Springs parliament, and I have given an undertaking to the Central Australian group Bosom Buddies, to visit Greenhill Lodge to look at the support services there. I want to see a similar standard of service here. In terms of travel, that would be through patient travel for anyone in the Territory to enable them to come to Darwin. I understand that it is a difficult issue for those in Alice Springs.
In relation to the issues raised by the member for Greatorex, if he has concerns about the nature of the service, he should be talking with the Commonwealth because they are the ones who are going out to tender on the shape, size and catchment of the service. As well as talking to the Northern Territory government, member for Greatorex, you also need to be speaking to the Commonwealth on the issues that you have raised.
Tourism Trade Mission
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I will update the House on my recent overseas travel during March to Dubai, London and Berlin. It is recognised that building the economic value of tourism in the Territory is likely to come primarily from the international markets. Underpinning any success in this area is increasing aviation access to the Territory from our key source markets of the United Kingdom and Europe, which currently deliver more than 60% of all our international visitors. A key focus of this trip was to meet with airlines located in the Middle East, that is Etihad Airways and Emirates.
I met with the Regional GM Asia Pacific of Etihad Airways in Abu Dhabi. Etihad Airways is a relatively young company and was recently granted additional flights to Australia by the federal government. These services out of Sydney offer good connecting passenger flows from our key source markets of Paris, Frankfurt and Milan.
I also met with Emirates Airlines Vice-President Route and Fleet Planning in Dubai. This airline has also successfully secured additional flights every week to Australia. During my discussions with officials from both Etihad and Emirates, I outlined the benefits of using Darwin as an entry point into Australia. These meetings were very positive, and both airlines were impressed by what the Territory has to offer.
I have extended invitations to both Etihad Airways and Emirate officials to visit the Territory so they can experience firsthand the range of products and unique lifestyle the Territory has to offer. There is great potential for the Territory, but realistically, these are medium- to long-term opportunities I will continue to pursue in the future.
In London, I met with Royal Brunei officials who outlined their long-term plans for Australia and in particular the Territory, including the upcoming joint Royal Brunei-Tourism NT campaign. This campaign is targeted to a consumer base which traditionally travels to Asia for business and leisure. This will be a major push by Royal Brunei to increase visitation from the important UK market. Finally, the aviation meetings concluded with a briefing from Qantas UK. Qantas is our key cooperative marketing airline partner in the UK and central Europe.
Whilst in London, I met with senior representatives of STA, a leading UK youth travel group, who highlighted the challenges and future potential of the Territory. STA have been our partners in the recent Tiger Airways campaign, aimed at encouraging working holidaymakers to consider Darwin as a low cost gateway into Australia with a lead in fare of ₤299.
Darwin as a gateway destination proved immensely popular to the target segment. For the two month period of the campaign, STA achieved a 407% increase in passengers, from 386 in January 2006 to 1956 passengers from February 2007. Discussions were also held with STA Travel about the enormous demand for working holiday visa opportunities, conservation and volunteer tourism products in the Northern Territory. The General Manager of STA Travel believes there are great opportunities for the Territory and is keen to work in partnership with the government in developing culturally sensitive and sustainable tourism opportunities.
At the Australian Embassy in Berlin, I caught up with the last leg of the Australian Aboriginal Roadshow, a federal initiative that enabled indigenous tour operators to meet with European buyers and media. The Territory was well represented, with participation by the Jawoyn Association and Mandy Muir representing the Kakadu group. By all accounts, they have done an excellent job representing Northern Territory indigenous experiences and supporting our desire to be the leading nature and cultural destination. The diversity of Australian indigenous product at the road show served as a reminder that we cannot become complacent as others are aggressively pursuing indigenous tourism.
In Berlin, I also attended ITB, the world’s largest tourism show. It was at ITB that I had the pleasure of launching our new updated consumer websites in German, French and Italian language to over 20 German journalists, transforming the Internet into an integral tool for European travellers researching holiday destinations. The sites offer Germans, French and Italians a more comprehensive source of Northern Territory travel information. Further website upgrades are planned by the end of June, including language translations of Japanese and simplified Chinese. The consumer website will feature a new look, a more experience-based content, including multimedia and video, greater functionality, better search capabilities, an improved menu and user friendly navigation tools.
The redevelopment of this award-winning site will enhance travelnt.com and australiasoutback.com capacity to capture people’s awareness and encourage them to visit the Northern Territory, that is, convert people’s interest into actual visitation. It is initiatives like this that will see the Territory keep pace with consumer trends and expectations out of our key markets in Europe and Asia.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I am pleased to hear that you contacted as many airlines as you possibly could while you were overseas. Of course, that happens to be one of the challenges that the tourism industry faces in the Northern Territory, the lack of seats into the Territory. It was very good to hear that you have approached them. I want to know, in your reply, if you would tell me how you got on with Emirates because it would be interesting to know if they are seriously considering using Darwin even as a stopover. There is a great opportunity to bring many more people into Australia and I know that Emirates may be a very keen competitor there.
I know we have some members of the Northern Territory tourism industry who go to ITB each year and it is enormous. I have not had the privilege of going there myself, but I know that all of those who go to ITB represent the Northern Territory and their product very well. Werner Sarny from Katherine never fails to attend ITB and with the success of Travel North it has paid dividends for him.
I was particularly interested to see the Australian Aboriginal Roadshow this year because I believe that cultural tourism has still not anywhere near fully developed in the Northern Territory. The opportunity for us to develop that sector needs to be promoted even further. I know the Jawoyn had a very successful trip overseas and I congratulate them for taking the opportunity to go. So, well done. I would like to see some more passenger seats coming into the Territory, and I would like to hear the results of the talks, minister.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, it is good that the minister is continuing the push to get other airlines to the Territory. Could you give us an update of where we may be at regarding an international airport at Alice Springs? Let us not forget that it is great to get other airlines into Darwin, but we do not have much choice in Alice. We would love to have an alternative airline coming into the Centre so that we could have a choice and more frequent flights. Could you also let us know whether there are any other airlines considering coming to Alice? The charters that have come in from Japan have been extremely successful and, if we can promote and encourage more of those, it would be great.
It is unfortunate that all the goodwill that you are generating in the tourism industry was undone by the Today Tonight program. I saw it last night. Apparently, what we saw in Darwin was not the whole program that was aired down south. People have to ask what the hidden agenda was in promoting the program by going to the national media. We probably all know exactly what that hidden agenda is. Minister, if we could put that aside, could you update us on what you have in respect of encouraging more airlines to come to the Centre?
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for positive comments.
To the member for Katherine, regarding Emirates and Etihad Airways, the key and the next stage is getting senior representatives from those airlines to the Northern Territory. It is all very well doing a presentation, but there is nothing like actually getting your feet on the ground and experiencing the Northern Territory. Invitations have been issued and I am hopeful that towards the end of this year, we will have visits from both of those airlines. As I said, it is medium- to long-term, but we will continue to pursue it because it is important to get these people on the ground. ITB is huge, as you said.
To the member for Braitling, we continue to push opportunities for competition into Alice Springs. Recently, the CE of Tourism NT met with senior executives from Virgin Blue to put yet another case to them. I am working very hard to secure Tiger Airways into Darwin and Alice Springs as part of their new national network. Hopefully, there will be announcements later in the year. They are commercial decisions, but we are working very hard with Virgin Blue and Tiger Airways.
Northern Territory Herbarium
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I would like this morning to introduce members to a largely unknown part of my department, the Northern Territory Herbarium.
Most people are not aware of the existence of this priceless, irreplaceable collection of plant specimens located in a very cold bunker in Palmerston with a smaller collection in Alice Springs. The herbarium has a preserved collection of over 230 000 plant specimens. The Alice Springs collection focuses, naturally, on desert flora.
The herbarium collection has been built up largely over 53 years by dedicated staff of the herbarium and other government agencies. It is utilised by scientists, students, consultants and the general public for research on the Territory’s flora. A checklist of the plants of the Northern Territory, both naturally occurring and naturalised exotic plant species, is regularly produced. The latest recognises 4279 native species and 396 naturalised plants.
On a recent visit to the herbarium, I was shown a number of plant species from the collection which are unique to the Tiwi Islands, including a new species, Mitrella tiwiensis, which has been formally recognised. I was also privileged to see the oldest specimen held in the herbarium, collected by Joseph Banks 237 years ago. How this specimen came to be part of our collection is a secret, but I can tell you it involves typical Territory ingenuity and sleight of hand.
The herbarium is currently transferring its collections from top-loading cardboard boxes to purpose-built front-loading plastic herbarium boxes. The new boxes will provide a number of benefits to the herbarium, its users and to the specimens including: increased storage capacity; providing a moisture resistance barrier to condensation formed from the 24-hour airconditioning and from post-CO2 discharge in the case of fire; easier access to specimens; and decreasing the levels of naphthalene in the vault. I can attest to the levels of naphthalene not only in the vault housing the specimens, which is extremely cold; the smell of mothballs is almost overbearing.
The Biodiversity Conservation Division of NRETA is responsible for the herbarium and is undertaking a related and very important ethnobiology project.
In January, I travelled to Kybrook Farm to meet with some of the Wagiman–Guwardagun rangers to launch the latest Territory publication on Aboriginal knowledge, Wagiman Plants and Animals. The member for Nelson spoke about this book during the February sittings. It is the 15th book produced by the Ethnobiology Project Group in the department, and the fifth that includes plants and animals. Many of you will be familiar with the very successful Tiwi Plants and Animals printed in 2001 and the Jawoyn Plants and Animals of 2005.
Wagiman Plants and Animals records the names and uses of 240 plants and 260 animals, together with their scientific names, common English names and illustrations of almost half of the species. The project was undertaken at the request of senior Wagiman elders who were concerned about the possible loss of knowledge when they passed away. Unfortunately, this concern was correct because, as is too often the case with the indigenous society, three of the senior Wagiman authors passed away before the book was completed.
NRETA biologists and Wagiman elders began working on the book in June 1998 and final checking of the information was completed in April 2006, an eight year labour of love. The knowledge contained in the book represents thousands of years of research by thousands of Wagiman people over many generations.
The Katherine Region Aboriginal Language Centre and the University of Newcastle also provided a great deal of support to the project. In a similar collaboration, a revised version of The Mangroves of the Northern Territory, Australia: Identification and Traditional Use, which was first published in 1989, has recently been released. I have copies of both of these publications to distribute to all members. I encourage all members to arrange a visit to see these wonderful facilities for themselves.
_____________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the husband of the member for Arnhem, Mr Norm Grogan, and family members, the member for Arnhem’s mother, Mrs Maisie Charlie, and aunt, Mrs Miriam Charlie. On behalf of all honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear! Hear!
_____________________________
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. As you said, minister, it is a little known part of the portfolio and while I feel very guilty that I have not visited the Herbarium, I believe the members for Nelson and Blain have. It is something that I have to get up to speed on. I know that it has been working away very quietly in the background for some time because it was established many years ago. We did something right under the CLP government. We established it along time ago and it is very pleasing to see that it is still working well. I look forward to visiting it. I applaud the people who work in a dedicated way to maintain the credibility of the herbarium. I thank the minister for her report.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am sure the Northern Territory herbarium was here before any political parties existed. I am a great fan of herbariums; they are wonderful places. If you have problems with silverfish in your clothes and you want to get rid of them, visit for an hour and you will not have any left because, as the minister said, she came out smelling like mothballs.
They are a great source of knowledge and history because many of the plants we have in the herbarium date back quite a number of years. I am pleased that the minister has spoken about the ethnology projects, especially the Tiwi, the Wagiman and the Jawoyn books, which are the main ones I discussed in parliament. It is great that we are able to expand our knowledge because the normal European-type herbarium included an English name and a Latin or botanic name, and it is interesting to hear the crossover there of Latin and Tiwi in one of the species names. The minister, if she can speak Tiwi, can pronounce botanical names because I find them both difficult.
Another interesting thing is that you do not have to go to the herbarium. You can put your picture online and ask them for identification. That is what happened recently. Bees Creek Primary School has a garden. Up came this fantastic looking plant. They asked me to identify it. I thought it was a watermelon, but the flowers were wrong so I got my camera out, took some photographs, e-mailed them off to the herbarium. Sure enough, it was not a watermelon. It was a plant belonging to the convolvulus family, which had come from south of Katherine. How it got there we do not know, but we think that somewhere in the compost was some cow manure that was shifted to Bees Creek Primary School. So there was an easy way, without having to go into the herbarium, to get identification of a plant. People who live a long way from the herbarium can use that facility. I also congratulate all the people who work there because it is a great place.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank both members for their comments. I acknowledge the work done by the herbarium staff, in particular Greg Leach, Glenn Wightman, Dale Dixon, Ian Cowie, Phillip Short, Raelee Kerrigan, Andrea Hope, Mireille Beaupellet, David Albrecht, Angus Duguid and Hilary Coulson.
I congratulate the authors of the Wagiman book: Lenny Gappuya Liddy, Joe Galwaying Huddlestone, Helen Imorrotjba Liddy, George Jabarlgarri Huddlestone, and I note the three who have since passed away, and Mark Harvey from the University of Newcastle. I particularly thank Glenn Wightman on his excellent publication and the dedication he devotes to his work.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
REVENUE (BUDGET INITIATIVES) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 95)
(Serial 95)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The bill seeks to put in place a package of revenue measures announced as part of the 2007-08 Budget and the national tax reform measure announced as part of the 2005-06 Budget by proposing amendments to the Stamp Duty Act, the Taxation (Administration) Act and the First Home Owner Grant Act.
I will now address the changes proposed in the bill in more detail. To further assist first homebuyers to purchase a home, the government proposes to increase the stamp duty first homeowner concession from the first $225 000 of a property’s value to the first $350 000 of a property’s value. This will result in the maximum concession increasing from $8016 to $15 312, almost doubling the stamp duty saving on the purchase of a first home. It is proposed that this change apply to instruments executed on or after 1 May 2007. Purchases secured prior to that date either by contract or option will not be eligible for the increased concession. This measure is expected to save Territory first homebuyers $3.9m in 2007-08.
As part of the Territory’s commitment to national tax reform that was announced in the 2005-06 Budget, stamp duty on hiring arrangements will be abolished from 1 July 2007. This is expected to save all Territorians about $5.3m in 2007-08. The way in which stamp duty on hiring arrangements is proposed to be abolished will mean that no stamp duty will be payable on amounts received after 30 June 2007 by those taxpayers who pay hiring duty on a monthly returns basis.
However, for all other taxpayers who have paid stamp duty up-front on an instrument subject to hiring duty, no refund will be available for amounts received after 30 June 2007 in respect of the unexpired term of the arrangement. This treatment is consistent with that of other states and territories that have already legislated for the abolition of stamp duty on hiring arrangements. Importantly, the old rules, such as the requirement to keep records and when a liability to pay hiring duty arises will continue to apply to hiring arrangements entered into before 1 July 2007. Greater detail of these changes and all changes proposed in the bill are set out in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the bill.
I turn now to the other measures contained in the bill, which, unless otherwise indicated, are all proposed to commence on 1 July 2007. In addition to the abolition of stamp duty on hiring arrangements, the bill also proposes to remove two other stamp duties. The first of these is stamp duty on guarantees. Currently, certain types of guarantees are exempt from stamp duty while others are subject to $20 nominal duty. Upon reviewing the position, there do not appear to be good policy reasons for this different treatment. Accordingly, all guarantees will be exempt from stamp duty to rectify this inconsistent treatment while also reducing compliance costs for business.
The other stamp duty to be abolished is that applying to the grant of a lease for no consideration or nominal consideration. Stamp duty on the grant of a lease for no or nominal consideration was originally imposed because of concerns that this could be used as a way to avoid stamp duty on what would ordinarily be a conveyance of property. However, after considering this position more closely, it is now believed that this risk is minimal and therefore it is proposed to remove stamp duty on the grant of such leases.
The bill also proposes several measures to improve the integrity of the stamp duty legislation and to minimise the possibility of weaknesses in that legislation being exploited.
The first of these changes proposes that anything physically fixed to land is considered to be land for the purposes of the landholder stamp duty provisions. The landholder stamp duty provisions seek to levy duty where a person obtains 50% or more of the interests in a company or 20% or more of the interests in a trust that holds land in the Northern Territory that has a value of $500 000 or more. These provisions are aimed at ensuring stamp duty is paid where the ownership of land is transferred indirectly through changing the ownership of the landholding company or trust. Under the current landholder stamp duty laws, only land and fixtures to land are subject to stamp duty, but chattels are not. This is in contrast with direct conveyances, where many forms of property are subject to stamp duty.
The current law that determines whether a structure is a fixture to land or a chattel is, in some circumstances, unclear and can lead to protracted and expensive valuation and legal disputes about the proper classification of buildings and other substantial structures on land. The amendments seek to remove the uncertainty in this area by ensuring that the landholder provisions will apply even if the item that is fixed to the land would not be considered to be a fixture through the application of the common law.
The second measure proposes to insert the valuation principle that the unencumbered value of land for stamp duty purposes must be based on the full value and best use of the land. This change is proposed in response to practices to minimise landholder stamp duty by artificially apportioning value that is properly attributable to land and buildings to other property that is not subject to stamp duty. Providing legislative guidance to valuers and the courts on how the unencumbered value of land is to be determined for stamp duty purposes should assist in addressing these minimisation practices.
The last of these measures proposes to rectify an anomaly in the stamp duty legislation that brings to duty mining information for mines subject to the Mining Act that are conveyed, but not for other mines. The amendment will ensure that mining information relating to all mines will be taken into account when valuing a mine to assess the stamp duty payable on the conveyance of that mine.
It is also proposed that, from 1 May 2007, the stamp duty corporate reconstruction exemption will not apply if the restructure is used to avoid or frustrate the recovery of stamp duty tax or royalties payable to the Territory. This exemption currently does not apply if a corporate reconstruction is undertaken to avoid or reduce the stamp duty that would otherwise be payable on a conveyance or transfer. However, the exemption cannot be denied if the reconstruction will result in the payment of other existing Territory tax debts, such as a payroll tax liability, being avoided. This bill proposes to correct this oversight.
I turn now to three final measures proposed by the bill that relate to the Territory’s home ownership schemes. The first seeks to rectify an anomaly in the stamp duty legislation to ensure that a person who has previously owned a home interstate under a long-term lease cannot qualify for the stamp duty first homeowner concession for a subsequent home purchase. This change aligns the treatment of prior home ownership and the long-term Crown leases granted by the Northern Territory or the Australian government with such leases granted by other states or territories. It also aligns with the treatment of long-term leases under the First Home Owner Grant Act, on which the rules of the stamp duty first homeowner concession are based.
The second measure proposes to amend the First Home Owner Grant Act to clarify that consideration must actually be paid to the purchase of a home prior to an applicant receiving the first homeowner grant. It is not an issue for nearly all first homebuyers, as they usually pay substantially more consideration than $7000. However, uncertainty could arise in transactions between related parties, such as parents and their children, about whether a home has been purchased or whether it has been provided as a gift. The amendment will ensure that the grant can only be paid when a home is purchased and not when it has been gifted.
The final measure proposes to amend the first homeowner grant to clarify that any overpayment of a first homeowner grant can be recovered. Under the current legislation, ineligible grant applicants are required to repay the grant. However, the legislation is being amended to clarify that an amount overpaid to an otherwise eligible recipient of the grant can be recovered. For example, it makes it clear that where a person has been paid $7000 but is only entitled to $5000, the $2000 overpaid can be recovered.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the honourable members and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
TRANSPORT LEGISLATION (ROAD
SAFETY) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 98)
SAFETY) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 98)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Traffic Act, Motor Vehicles Act and Motor Vehicles Regulations in order to implement elements of this government’s road safety reform package.
The bill I am introducing today will provide new requirements for learner and provisional licence holders, and creates an offence for learner and provisional licence holders to use mobile phones in any context while driving. It will broaden the scope of who can take blood from drink drivers and those involved in accidents. It will create harsher penalties for low level drink-drive repeat offenders and clarify the legislation in relation to how information is recorded on speed camera infringement notices, and repeal the Road Safety Council Act.
It is an unfortunate fact that our young and inexperienced drivers are most at risk in the early years of driving. This phenomenon is consistent in most developed countries and in all Australian states. We cannot stand back and do nothing while this over-representation continues. Here are some sobering Northern Territory statistics from the Road Safety Task Force report:
- 16- to 20-year-olds comprise 6.3% of all drivers, but were drivers in 18% of all crashes and 18.7% of all crashes involving a fatality;
Phase 1 will commence on 1 July 2007 and will provide:
- a six months minimum learner licence period for drivers and riders under the age of 25;
a provisional licence period of two years for drivers under the age of 25; and
all mobile phone use, either for voice or text messaging, including hands free, will be prohibited during the learner and provisional periods of licensing.
The government is also serious about targeting low-level repeat drink drivers. A ‘two strikes and you are out’ regime will apply to all repeat drink drive offences. The bill will introduce tough new measures for all low level drink-drive offences, whereby an expiation of a 0.05 to 0.08 offence will now count as a finding of guilt and will be recorded by police. A second low level offence within three years will result in immediate licence suspension and a minimum licence disqualification of three months imposed by the court.
A subsequent offence within three years will result in immediate suspension and a court imposed minimum six month licence loss.
It needs to be clear to all NT drivers and riders that these new penalties will apply to all low level zero and 0.05 to 0.08 offences currently dealt with by a ticket. A first offence will result in a ticket and further offences within three years will be dealt with harshly. These provisions apply to drivers and riders currently subject to zero alcohol requirements, including taxi and hire car drivers, heavy vehicle, bus, tourist vehicle and 18- to 25-year-olds who have not held their licence for three years. These drivers are not permitted to have any alcohol in their system when driving.
These changes will mean that young drivers as well as commercial and heavy vehicle drivers will not be able to risk having a couple of drinks and driving. A second offence within three years will immediately put them off the road and any offence will count - that is, whether they go over 0.05 in their private vehicle of if they go over zero in their taxi, truck or bus. There are no short cuts for anyone: two strikes and you are out.
These changes confirm the government’s commitment to tackling drink driving. This bill makes it clear that having a few drinks after work, out on a boat, or at a barby and driving home is just not okay. The time limit for persons to submit to breath or blood sampling will be extended from two to four hours. This will go some way to address practical policing difficulties with drink drivers or those involved in road accidents where injuries have occurred in a place where breath analysis cannot occur or where blood sampling cannot take place.
The bill also includes scope for medical practitioners, registered nurses or qualified persons to collect blood samples for alcohol testing in locations other than registered hospitals. This expansion of who can take blood and where it can be taken will be optional. It will remain a government responsibility to ensure blood is taken in Northern Territory registered hospitals from those involved in road crashes or brought in by police. Expanding who can take blood in hospitals will help in reducing pressures faced by doctors.
The bill amends the Traffic Act to clarify how information is captured by a speed camera and transferred to the infringement notice sent to the owner of the vehicle. This change will remove any confusion as to what was intended to appear on the infringement notice.
The final feature of the bill that I would like to address in this debate concerns the establishment of the Road Safety Coordination Group to replace the long-standing Road Safety Council of the Northern Territory. Government, as part of considering responses to the road safety problem in the NT, identified the need for a high level, strategically focused Road Safety Coordination Group. The group was formed in December 2006 and includes senior departmental members from Health and Police, and there are community group representatives including Local Government, TIO, AANT and, importantly, a yet to be appointed a road safety expert.
The group will take a leadership role in the implementation of the Road Safety Task Force recommendations which were announced by government on 2 November 2006. As well as focusing on longer term road safety strategies and measures, the group will report regularly to government on implementation of the task force recommendations. I undertake to keep members of this House informed of its progress. I am sure that all members of this Assembly will join with me in sincerely thanking all the past members of the Road Safety Council for their years of tireless effort in attempting to address the particular road safety problems of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a delegation of senior business representatives from Kupang in West Timor. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
McARTHUR RIVER PROJECT AMENDMENT (RATIFICATION OF MINING AUTHORITIES) BILL
(Serial 99)
(Serial 99)
Continued from 2 May 2007.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I support this very important bill. I am quite surprised that people are walking out.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, you cannot refer to the presence or absence of members in the Chamber.
Mrs MILLER: I am quite surprised, actually. I support the bill, but it is with reservation and pause. I profess this pause because, upon contemplation, this bill is not all it appears to be. The process we are using today is barely a process at all. What is happening needs to be examined and explained so that people understand what is going on.
The minister has come into this House with a bill that will change the law of the Northern Territory. Putting it bluntly, it will change what the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory has deemed to be unlawful and make it lawful. To that end, the minister has asked this parliament to set aside its normal procedure and rush through a bill that is designed to change what the Supreme Court said was unlawful. I ask members to ponder the gravity of this. We are about to change the law to suit the outcomes of one party over another, and we are asked to do that in a rush.
The decision in the Supreme Court in the matter of Larson v Minister for Mines and Energy is the product of litigation. It is now a settled dispute between opposing parties. In the adversarial system upon which Australian law is based, there is an approach that produces winners and losers. In that case, Mr Larson was the winner and the Minister for Mines and Energy was the loser. If the Minister for Mines and Energy was an ordinary citizen, the only course of action open to him would be an appeal, but he is not an ordinary citizen; he is a member of this House and a minister of the Crown. As a consequence, he is vested with some very special privileges.
One of those privileges is that he can, if he musters the support of most people in this Chamber, change the law. He can do that which other citizens cannot do. He can move a motion to overrule a decision of the Supreme Court because he has been given that authority by the people of the Northern Territory. It is for that reason that parliament is, theoretically at least, the superior court of the Northern Territory. That power is something that should be exercised carefully, soberly and judiciously. We as legislators have an onerous responsibility, and what the minister is asking this House to do is to take the rights of a winner and turn that winner into a loser. This is where I have pause.
The minister has asked these special favours of this House because he did not bother to read his paperwork. The minister signed off on a mine management plan that was based on an authority that was, in turn, based on an application that said the miner in question wanted to develop an underground mine.
The decision of the court, which this minister described as a technicality, was not a technicality at all. It was determination that an application for an underground mine was not an application for an open cut mine. I do not blame Xstrata for this; I blame the minister because I know where Xstrata got their advice. In any event, because this minister did not read or did not understand the paperwork in front of him, we now come to a point where he has to appeal to this House and a majority of its members to get him out of the self-made trap he has built for himself, and the thousands or so jobs that he has failed to protect.
Let us turn our attention to what he has asked us to do. He has introduced a bill. That bill asks us to pass a law that ratifies the decision that he made and that the Supreme Court ruled was beyond his power to make.
However, he has asked more than that of us. The bill will have the desired effect of ratifying what he tried to do, but it will also have a second effect. That second effect was not referred to at all in the second reading speech by the minister. The second effect is not only are we striking down the successful grounds for complaint that Mr Larson had, but we are striking down all grounds for complaint that Mr Larson had.
The arguments for appeal that were put in front of Justice Angel were staged. A good analogy is that there are hurdles placed before the minister, and before the minister tries to jump over the second hurdle, he needs to clear the first hurdle. Justice Angel’s decision said that the minister did not clear the first hurdle and, that being the case, Justice Angel did not have to bother to ask if he had got over any other hurdles. The minister had already come crashing to the ground.
The language of this amendment creates a legal super minister, because not only will he now clear the first hurdle with this House’s assent, he will clear them all in a single bound. To do that, we will not only say to Mr Larson: ‘You were a winner, but now you are a loser’, we are also going to take away his rights to legally question the minister on any of the points that he raised before Justice Angel.
Minister, why did you not talk about this in your second reading speech yesterday? Why did you not tell this House that you were intending to crush Mr Larson’s grounds for complaint forever completely? The minister’s wilful stupidity and subsequent appeal to this House has now saddled each and every member of this House with a dreadful burden, for he has now asked us to join in his drive to deprive Mr Larson of his rights of challenge completely in relation to this issue. The minister did not even have the decency to be transparent about that intention yesterday when he walked into this place and asked us to extricate him from this mire.
I do not believe that the minister understands the enormity of what he was doing because, once again, he is merely doing what he is told. The tragedy is that I do not believe that he understands the irony of that. However, this is no longer about the minister and his short-sightedness. This is now about the burden that has been thrust on our shoulders as legislators, and that is the burden of taking Mr Larson’s vindication and treading on it as well as taking Mr Larson’s other rights of complaint and crushing them. I know that in legislation we do this from time to time, but on this occasion we are doing it retrospectively, with the effect of taking an established right to complain away from a person who is identifiable. We will also remove that plaintiff’s choice to pursue his and his family’s remaining issues.
That is why the haste of this bill frustrates me. I understand why it has to be pushed through in a hurry. The mine must go ahead. There are too many jobs and too much investment rides on its proceeding. I was last night and again this morning attracted to the idea of amending this bill, but today is the last sitting day for seven weeks. If we do not pass this bill today, that will do too much damage to the mine and to the people who work there. Compounding this, the bill is drafted in such a fashion that it is impossible to separate the dual effects of its passage, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to redraft the bill before the close of business tonight at the same time making certain that we were not committing the same sin of haste that the minister has visited upon us here today. No, we are stuck with this bill in its present form, and if this House turns the request by the minister for rescue down, over 1000 people may find themselves without work.
I wonder whether the member for Arnhem has been apprised of what has been done here today. I would suggest, by her lack of presence, that she has been.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, I remind you that you are not refer to a member’s presence or absence in the Chamber. I ask you to withdraw those comments.
Mrs MILLER: I withdraw that, Madam Speaker, because I realise the sensitivity. She, of all of the members in this House, should feel the burden of what we are being asked to do. The member for Arnhem, in such impassioned tones, talked in this House about the causes of her people on 19 October last year. She is also being asked to share the burden of taking away those very people’s rights. In this case, the rights of the elders she says she respects so much, and I know that she does very sincerely.
She talked in her adjournment speech in October about believing strongly in the same things of her people. Of course, she does. She said to her countrymen of all the four clans that she supported them and she understood and respected their right to be heard. What this effectively does today is take away that right.
The member for Arnhem and all members who have professed their commitment to their Aboriginality have reached a moral threshold here today. It is not unlike some of the other moral thresholds they have reached in this place and have been found wanting. They know it because of the discord that has been reported amongst their number about some of these issues. Sooner or later, they will have to make a stand to defend their passion for their people or risk falling into a credibility chasm. Today, they are hanging over that abyss by a thread.
We are taking the rights of complaint of these Aboriginal people, complaints that the Supreme Court held as being legitimate, and we are extinguishing them forever, and all of this from a government which promoted itself as the champion of the concept of negotiation rather than litigation. Now they do not negotiate; they litigate. In the case of Blue Mud Bay, they buy full-page ads in the newspaper to say they are not litigious. What is worse, when they lose their litigation, they legislate. To top it off, when they legislate, they do it with retrospective effect.
When the enormity of what we are doing here today began to dawn on me yesterday afternoon, I started to feel very uncomfortable. That disquiet has not abated, and I began to realise the multitude of sins that I am being asked to support. To summarise: the minister cannot tell the difference between on open cut and an underground mine; the minister now has to fix his error by changing the law; the minister wants this House to set aside its normal operating procedure; the minister wants to push this bill through in 24 hours. That change in law will take away the otherwise lawful grounds of argument that Mr Larson has. The minister has the audacity to put into his bill not only the effect he is looking for, but also a secondary effect of taking away other actionable grounds for Mr Larson. To cap off the abuse of process, the minister does not tell this House that he wants to close off all of Mr Larson’s grounds of complaint to the court when he gave his second reading speech.
I have gone from having a sense of disquiet to having a sense of feeling very grubby. The abuse of process that is proposed here is a stopgap solution to preventing over 1000 people losing their jobs and a solution to the loss of over $100m of investment to the Northern Territory. As with every other member of this House, I am now, in all practical terms, acting as the minister’s court of appeal. We are being asked to do so with all of the judicial integrity of a star chamber.
Community leadership is about not only making the good decisions, but making the hard decisions, and this is one of the hard ones. Reluctantly, I have decided that I will voice my support in taking away Mr Larson’s rights. I have taken that decision with a heavy heart because of the impact it will have upon him and his family.
I have followed this process through from start to finish. I have satisfied myself that the Environmental Impact Statement as completed and presented by Xstrata is sufficient to protect the McArthur River. For all practical reasons, I cannot see a convincing argument to stay the progress of the McArthur River mine.
I believe that the other grounds that Mr Larson has would fail, and the government feels the same way. Therefore, my concerns about Mr Larson’s rights to make the complaints would amount to being academic statements of intent, but although the issues are consequential and, in my opinion, theoretical, that does not make the protection of them any less grave. People should have the right to expect that the rule of law means something.
I also turn my mind to the many jobs and livelihoods that would be affected by a contrary position by this House. Those jobs are not academic; they are real and immediately present. Therefore I cannot, in better conscience, vote in favour of the victor in the Supreme Court and place those jobs and investment of the mine at risk. I place upon the record my utter disgust and fury at this minister’s complete disregard for his duty to do his job properly, and my even deeper resentment at the abuse of process that he has chosen to embark upon to use the processes of this place to cover his folly.
Madam Speaker, for the sake of the jobs of the men and women who rely upon the work that McArthur River mine generates, but certainly not for this minister, I support this bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the minister for Mines said on 17 October in relation to this debate:
We have not been indecisive; we have been diligent and forthright in our processes to ensure an appropriate outcome is achieved.
We would not be standing here today if that were correct. Like the member for Katherine, I am very concerned about the process that we are going through today. Much of what I have to say and how I will judge what I will do today will very much depend on what I hear in response from the government.
I have said on many occasions I do not like urgency debates, and here we have the most urgent of urgent debates where there are principles at stake that require a lot of thought. I sat up fairly late last night until I finally grasped the whole issue from the legal point of view; that is, Justice Angel’s conclusion in relation to this. I also had a briefing this morning for which I thank the minister. It was a good briefing, but, to some extent, after thinking more about it, some of the issues remain difficult to come to terms with.
Government has said that this issue is a technicality and therefore we will change the law. I do not think this is a technicality. I think this is an error. There is a big difference. A technicality would be if you had written something into the law that was like a misprint. This is not a misprint. Justice Angel has said that the issue about what constitutes a mining activity is clearly shown in the act. In this case, the mining activity was specified as being an underground mine. Even though the management plan dealt with an open cut mine, the mining activities do not relate to an open cut mine.
Is the government trying to cover up its mistake by bringing this law in today? I believe it is a mistake. There are a number of ways they could overcome this mistake. First of all, they could, for instance, ask for a new authorisation, which says the law can stay as it is today. We are not changing the law. The law is here.
My understanding of what Justice Angel said is that you could not give an authorisation for this because there was an incorrect term used in ‘mining activities’. Therefore, surely you could go back and say to the mining company: ‘Please apply for a new authorisation. You have done the mine management plan according to an open cut mine. You have been through the EIS in relation to an open cut mine. The only thing that is different is that you have to identify exactly what the mining activities will be for this new version of the mine’.
Some may say that will take a long time. I would say: ‘Tell me how long’. You have done all the groundwork. Maybe there is a smart lawyer who says if you apply for a new authorisation, you have to go through a new EIS. Surely commonsense would say we have already done an EIS for an open cut mine; all we need to do is get a new definition of what we regard as the mining activities. If the government says that might take a couple of weeks, perhaps the principle we should be sticking to is: you made the mistake; you pay for it. If the company has people unemployed for three weeks, perhaps the government has to pay their wages. The other side of it is that if you did not fix this, I am sure the company would be suing the government. It believed it had the authority to mine.
What we have done is short-cut the process. We have regarded this as a technicality, but what we are really doing is covering up our mistake. The department made a mistake. That is what Justice Angel was saying. The consequences of that are that we can throw many people out of work. I do not want that to happen.
Where does the government take responsibility for its actions? Should it take responsibility for its actions by overriding the legislation so that it covers up its mistake and we have new legislation that validates the mistake? Should we go down the normal process of asking the mine for a new authorisation? If that takes a little while, we have to bear the consequences of it. I do not like saying to the taxpayers of the Northern Territory: ‘You will have to pay for this mistake,’ but maybe that is what we have to do. We are parliament, and there has been an error made. We have to accept the consequences of that error. Which way do we go? Do we just change the law because it is convenient? Do we do it in such a hurry that I have not really had enough time to thoroughly assess what all this means? Do we bear the consequences and pay the cost to those people who are employed at the mine while we get this mine legitimised through a proper authorisation?
This is similar to what the member for Katherine said: would the government do this if a one man tin mine out at the Finniss River had the same problem? Would they change the law for that one person or is it because it is Xstrata? I do not care whether it is Xstrata or whoever, but because it is a big company that has a lot of influence, would they have changed the law for the one man tin mine out on the Finniss who might have made a mistake in his authorisation? He might not have written down the correct mining activity when he went from an open cut to an underground mine. My feeling is that it would not have happened because we are dealing here with the power of a big company.
Minister, the Mining Act was meant to be reviewed a long time ago. This is where some of these issues should have been raised. I am concerned that the government has taken so long to come to parliament with a draft Mining Act. Here we are with a very important change that has implications for the Mining Management Act in this case, but I imagine a review would cover both the Mining Act and the Mining Management Act. This has ramifications for that act. Although I will be asking for this review to be fast-tracked, it is a shame that the government has not brought this review on much earlier. Then, perhaps we would not be in this situation; this situation would not have occurred because it might have been looked at in the review.
I need to ask: what does the previous minister have to say on this issue? I know that in the rough and tumble of politics, the existing minister for Mines is now going to have to wear the criticism of this mistake, but this minister had the job for about a week when this occurred. There was a previous minister who dealt with this for a much longer period, and it would be interesting to hear what he has to say as to how this mistake came about. That is what we need to hear today. The minister runs the department. The department is the one that gives the minister advice. What advice was given to the minister? There are people in the department who have years and years of experience. They would know the Mining Management Act much better than I would because it is not the sort of thing I read every day of the week. The minister has taken advice and signed off on a document, and there clearly has been an error. I would like to know what the consequences of that are going to be within the government. If we go down the path of the government paying the company due compensation while we ask for a new authorisation, I will be certainly asking questions about whom in the department made the mistake. These are all important questions.
I know that, on the surface, this might look easy. It is a very short bill which retrospectively overrides any issues that the government might have, but there are many other matters that need to be thoroughly fleshed out in this debate. The member for Katherine summarised many of the issues that concern me.
I would like to hear why the company cannot apply for a new authorisation. If it can, we do not need to change the law. If it can, I support that path because that would be allowing due process to occur. It would be telling the people at least that government is not making special provision for itself having made the mistake.
We are caught in a bind. I do not want to see people lose their jobs. Many people in my electorate work at McArthur River. I am on record as supporting the mine. I did look at the environmental impacts. I went to the mine. I did look at the river. I know some people still do not agree with me, but at least I made the effort to try to analyse the situation before I put my support behind the new open cut mine. However, that does not mean that everything else gets a little nod of approval from me.
Minister, I am not happy. I have yet to make up my mind. I will wait to see what you have to say. I am not happy about supporting this bill as it is. If there is a way around it that can use the existing law, I would support that. If that costs the Territory some money, well, that is what you get for making a mistake. Would it not be a little more principled that we pay for the mistake rather than change the law to suit ourselves?
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I have listened closely to the contributions made in the debate so far. I believe the member for Katherine’s contribution more than anything else demonstrated the luxury of opposition. That is, if I had not heard her on three separate occasions say that the opposition supports the bill, on hearing her contribution, I would have absolutely believed that they were totally opposed to the bill.
It was a curious contribution in the sense that they support this bill but, and we heard very, very many buts. Some of the points made by the member for Katherine were, indeed, quite valid. Others were totally invalid, such as the attack on the minister for Mines and her accusation that it is all his fault and he has made a mistake. That is totally unfounded.
I would have thought that in a contribution of this style, she would have at least got the litigant’s name right. It is Harry Lansen, not Mr Larson as referred to by the member for Katherine consistently throughout her speech. She can rail on about that, but she is not as accurate in everything she has to say as she might believe.
The member referred to the process this morning in passing this legislation through all stages as an abuse of process. The very fact that every parliament has a process to deal with matters of great urgency is a process in itself. It is used very infrequently in this House and for good reason. You do want legislation, as a rule, to sit on the Table for at least 28 days. However, there comes a time when there are issues that cannot wait. In the case of the member for Katherine, she correctly referred to the fact that it will be seven weeks before this parliament sits again. This is not an issue that can sit around for seven weeks. It cannot sit around for seven weeks for a number of reasons, and the member herself referred to the hundreds of workers whose jobs would be entirely at risk.
She referred to the massive investment made by the mine owners in this case in relation to the shift from open cut to underground. She referred to the need for certainty for the mine operation. She may have even referred to the need for certainty for the mining industry at large which would be watching the outcome of this decision very carefully. While she mentioned those things in passing, though - and that is all true; every word she said there was true - she spent most of the contribution on the fact that this legislation is defeating Mr Lansen’s right at law. Of course, there are two sets of rights operating in conjunction here. The first is the mine and its continued operation, its massive investment, and the hundreds of jobs that are at stake. That is compared with those who are opposed. Some people are opposed to the mine full stop, and some opposed to the shift in operations from underground to open cut.
The mine plan and all of its circumstances, of course, were subject to the closest scrutiny when the application came through, including those deep concerns around the environmental questions and the diversion of the McArthur River. There was the closest scrutiny that you can bring to these sorts of questions. So close was that scrutiny, in fact, that the original application was rejected. It was rejected on grounds that it did not meet the safeguards around environmental concerns and questions that were being asked. It was resubmitted before it gained that approval.
The member for Katherine also mentioned the Blue Mud Bay decision in passing. I was not quite sure of the context. It is, in fact, subject to legal challenge from this government in the High Court. However, I point out in the Blue Mud Bay Federal Court decision, there has been no move by this government or, indeed, the federal government to seek to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in relation to that court decision. We disagree with the Federal Court decision. We have made that very clear. We are appealing the decision.
In a similar vein here, legal advice to this government indicates that Justice Angel’s decision is entirely appealable. We still believe the process was right, we always did. We believe that His Honour’s decision is appealable. We cannot wait for a Supreme Court appeal in this case in the same way that we cannot wait, and cannot expect the mine owner and operators to wait, seven weeks for this House to come back to rectify this matter. Given the urgency around this matter, legislative amendment to correct the technical ruling is warranted.
One of the issues the member for Katherine raised is that it is important that everyone understands the nature of the technicality. It is an important question that she raised. It does give rise to the need for this legislation because it is a highly technical matter. It is not - I repeat, not - a breakdown in process, nor is it any fault of the minister for Mines involved.
If we go back to MRM’s 2002 application for an authorisation, it stated that the proposed form of mining was underground because that is what the operation was at the time; that is how they started. I remember going down that big, deep hole in the ground before the mine had commenced production. However, the 2003 grant of the authorisation allowed all types of mining activity, which included both underground and open pit operations. It was a condition of the authorisation that a new mining management plan would be required for any change in mining operations.
In October 2006, a new mining management plan was approved in order to allow open pit mining operations following, of course, a quite lengthy and detailed, comprehensive, closely monitored environmental study raising many questions, which, as I said, was originally rejected.
Every step of that process was followed on the best legal advice available to this government. The court’s technical ruling in relation to this was that, even though the authorisation of 2003 said that it allowed all types of mining, it was limited by the original application in 2002 which was for underground mining. That is Justice Angel’s read of that legislation. It is not this government’s understanding, and we believe there is a clause in the current act that gets us across that, but it is not the view of Justice Angel. Justice Angel is a Supreme Court judge. He has made a ruling. This parliament has to abide by that or seek to have that ruling overturned by whatever means we have, and the means we have is, of course, legislative, which is what Justice Angel actually said. That is what he actually said: ‘Well, it is up to the government to amend it’. That is what he said.
That is the reason we are here today. I have prosecuted the case for urgency. This government does not like using urgency in relation to legislation. It is not something you will see from me as Attorney-General, using urgency in this House but for those occasions when it absolutely required. The member for Katherine, in between what she had to say, clearly prosecuted the case for urgency: the need for certainty, the need for certainty for the mine, the need for certainty for those hundreds of jobs. I do not need to go over all of those areas again.
It is unfortunate that the member for Katherine seeks the opportunity to attack the minister for Mines. That attack is totally unwarranted, and totally unfounded. He has followed, as the government has followed, due and proper process every step of the way only to find an interpretation on the action from Justice Angel. His Honour, in his own words, said: ‘It is up to the government to amend it’. We are amending it. We are amending it on urgency because of the pressing circumstances around this case.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, having read through the minister’s second reading speech and listened carefully to what the Attorney-General and Deputy Chief Minister had to say, I am astounded at how the government has responded to this. I listened also very carefully to the words of the shadow minister for mines, and for all the reasons and sentiments she articulated, we really have no option but to support the passage of this bill.
The minister’s second reading speech told me nothing. When you hear the Deputy Chief Minister say this is all very convenient for opposition, if the government was genuine about this thing, it has to treat this parliament with some respect.
I really must voice my concerns that in this very serious matter, it appears that no other person in government has or will be contributing to the debate. Seven hundred direct jobs approximately, and I understand something in the order of 1000 indirect jobs are on the line. Do we say to these people that they no longer have a job? Do we say to the many companies that have a significant proportion of their business hanging on the McArthur River project to look elsewhere for their business? What will happen to the budget that was presented only two days ago? Its revenue stream in part is dependent on the taxes and stamp duty this mine will contribute. What choice to we have but for us to say we support the passage of this bill?
There is more to this than the shadow minister for mines pointed out. Let me summarise the process so far. The Minister for Mines and Energy cannot tell the difference between an open cut mine and an underground mine. It is because of that simple fact that we are here today. Due process in the Northern Territory has enabled Mr Larson and others to establish an error on the part of the minister. The minister is using this Assembly today as his own personal court of appeal. The minister, through his own error, has to fix it by changing the law. The minister wants us in this Assembly to put aside normal operating procedures to allow him to do that, thus diminishing the process even further.
The minister wants to push this bill through on urgency. How much careful consideration and reflection on law has that engendered? The decision was made only a few days ago by the Supreme Court, and there has been a very hurried response. That change of law will take away the impediment that was identified by Mr Larson.
Mrs Miller: Lansen.
Dr LIM: Mr Lansen. The change in law will also take away the otherwise lawful grounds of argument that Mr Lansen has in other areas of complaint. The minister had the audacity to put into this bill not only the effect he is looking for, but also a secondary effect of taking away other actionable grounds for Mr Lansen. To cap it all off, the abuse of this process, the minister does not tell this House that he wants to close off all of Mr Lansen’s grounds of complaint to the courts when he should have done so in his second reading speech.
I ask members - especially members of the Labor Party who are the ones who said we care for justice - to reflect. Remember when the member for Arnhem stood in this place and said how important this was and how her heart ached for what was happening? I will come back to that in a little while. What about the other members who have talked about protecting the rights of indigenous people? They were going to be the protectors of rights of indigenous people. I remember when Tracker Tilmouth complained that the Australian Labor Party would not let Aboriginal people onto the white man’s porch. It does not look like much has changed. This could not be a clearer threshold issue for them.
This is now a clear cut case of the interests of Aboriginal people versus the interests of the ALP. If those members support or remain silent today, they will have confirmed their status as ALP members through and through, but never again will they be able in good conscience to stand by their mantle as the protectors of indigenous rights with any integrity. Leadership of people, any people, is about courage. It is time for members who profess deep, heartfelt support for indigenous people to step up to the plate.
There is more to this than the minister’s shortcomings. Surely the minister has not been operating in a vacuum. He is part of a machine, part of government, part of Cabinet. That machine has been operating since before he was even a minister. I have been in Cabinet, and I know the process. I am certain the minister for Mines was not working in a vacuum.
The minister would have discussed this with the Chief Minister and canvassed the directions he could take. He would have been given directions from the Chief Minister. The minister would have discussed this with senior members of Cabinet to consider their advice. Furthermore, there was another minister for Mines in place when this circus started. I put it to you that the new minister consulted the old minister about what has been going on, and received a handover of the issue at hand, including the files. Not only that, surely, with a project of this size and complexity, a project that impacted on environmental issues, meant that the minister for Environment had to be involved, so the minister would have to bring this matter in front of Cabinet. In Cabinet, under our Westminster system and the principle of Cabinet solidarity, the responsibility for this debacle now falls upon the shoulders of much more experienced people than the Minister for Mines and Energy.
I note the Chief Minister frowning across the Chamber. If she does not understand this process then the government has a problem. The minister brought the matter before Cabinet for deliberation. The decision was made by Cabinet for him to proceed to sign off. You can bet that senior members would have contributed to the debate in Cabinet. Senior members, such as the Deputy Chief Minister, and in his capacity as Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Northern Territory, and the Leader of Government Business. Surely experienced people like the Deputy Chief Minister, who has been in this Chamber for 15 years, the longest-serving member of this Assembly, who is also Attorney-General and Treasurer, would have known what was going on and how the process was going ahead, but he failed in his duty. So did the Leader of Government Business and the Chief Minister. Maybe the Chief Minister was too busy to concern herself about this issue.
I know that the Chief Minister met with the CEO of Xstrata and discussed this matter with him. In fact, did not the Chief Minister personally intervene? Documents that have come before the Supreme Court suggest that she did. Did these ministers read their Cabinet briefs? I think not or we would not be here to debate this bill. Yes, we are urged that this problem must be fixed, but we do not advocate that the minister and government act beyond their powers. This was not a minister’s decision alone; it was a Cabinet decision. It was a government decision.
Where is the support for the minister for Mines? Where are the other colleagues, standing beside him, propping him up as his reputation is quickly disintegrating into the general title of buffoon? The Cabinet that made this decision should stand around him like the stakes that prop up the wilting tomato plants, to quote another member, but their silence has resonated through my ears.
The Chief Minister stood with him yesterday in a joint statement that had more to do with the fact that she wanted to cover for his incompetence. Two days ago, the minister, in the eye of the storm, disappeared. He took no media inquiries. That is the ministerial equivalent of a general abandoning the battlefield, digging a hole for himself and hiding in it while the storm rages. He is now not relevant for two reasons: first, because of the folly of his actions; and second because he went missing when people needed him most. He is so embarrassing that the Chief Minister’s minders have sought to hide him. That brings us back to who pulled the strings. Clearly, this minister for Mines has not got his head around the portfolio. Who has? All roads lead back to Cabinet and his Cabinet colleagues who are visibly melting away from him. The cringe factor is almost palpable. If the Chief Minister feels that, then I ask her to contribute to this debate.
This circus is the government’s fault, and the government is accountable. As I said, I listened closely to the contribution made by the Deputy Chief Minister. You have not even apologised to Xstrata for the foul-up. The government has chosen not to apologise to the traditional owners of the land the mine occupies.
I wonder how the member for Arnhem now feels. I read her adjournment speech of October last year, when she made an impassioned plea to her government to listen to her people. The member for Arnhem said:
- I say to my countrymen of all the four clans: I support you, I understand and I respect your right to be heard. I stand with you in your concerns about the development of the traditional lands of our people.
- I would be failing in my duty to not only my people but also to the people of Arnhem Land whose culture is strong and whose song lines mix with the Yanyuwa, the Garrwa, the Mara and the Gudanji, and who would say to me: ‘How can you represent us if you cannot represent you own people?’ That is why I speak here tonight, so my colleagues will understand and see the struggles, not only from an economic point of view but from a social, environmental, spiritual and cultural point of view. Understand that it has been a long journey for these old people. What they ask is your respect - they have shown you every single day. The traditional owners feel as though they have been left on the sidelines. I ask all the members of this House: what have you done this week to talk to them, sit with them, to ask them what troubles them? Are they so insignificant? Can you not ask them why they have travelled so far?
I look forward to her contribution today, not at adjournment when the decision has already been made, but here and now where she may have the influence on the decision to be made by this Assembly.
I wonder what the member for Barkly will have to say when Cabinet, which includes him, has committed such errors. I wonder what the member for Arafura, also a Cabinet member, has to say on this matter. She was as much responsible for the botched decision as is the minister for Mines and the rest of Cabinet. I wonder what the member for Macdonnell has to say. I know she is a very strong member representing indigenous rights. Will she voice her concerns? This is the place where her voice should be heard. I wonder what the member for Millner will say. He has a law degree, and I assume he understands the legal ramifications of what we are doing today. I wonder what the member for Stuart will have to say; newly elected and, I hope, not yet tarnished with the compromises that he obviously has to make to live with the decisions of his executive ALP government.
This Assembly is asked by this government to pass legislation retrospectively covering the errors of this government. While the government can say this is only for the McArthur River project and no other, it does create a precedent and the government has to be very, very cautious.
You have heard many of us complain about urgency. I understand the business imperatives in front of government, but had government been careful right from the very beginning and done its work properly, this would not have happened. Every member of the Executive government has to share responsibility. Do not put up the minister for Mines as the sacrificial lamb, which is what he is doing. He sits there, passively copping it because he has nowhere else to go and none of those members across the Chamber are there to support him. That is the tragedy. A decent man …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex well knows he cannot make observations about members’ presence or absence in the Chamber.
Dr LIM: I did not reflect on anybody’s absence or presence in the Chamber.
Dr BURNS: Yes, you did.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: I said: ‘Nobody is there to support him’. Nobody is there to support him. He was on his own.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order, the member for Greatorex was trying to assert that there was no one on this side of the Chamber other than the minister, which is untrue and he should withdraw it.
Dr LIM: I did not say that. I did not even assert that. I said that the minister is on his own.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I do not think there is any point of order. The member for Greatorex was being more general in his comments. Please continue, member for Greatorex.
Dr LIM: This man, a decent man, is fed to the lions, and that is very shameful of his fellow Cabinet members. The member for Johnston, who tried to interject, was in Cabinet as well. He has to take responsibility. I would like to hear what he has to say in defence of his role in this decision.
This is a difficult time for us, and like the members for Nelson and Katherine, we all have to take the necessary steps to deal with the debacle caused by this government and through the incompetence of this minister.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, previous speakers have laid it out fairly clearly. You have given us a dilemma by rushing this through. It is not as though it is a simple thing. I have to admit I have not got my head right around it, even though we had a briefing this morning for 20 minutes. You do not need to look at the bill. You need to look at what was there previously, and you need to look at the process that has carried on before you can make a really informed decision.
One argument is if this does not go through, Xstrata is going to sack all these people and hundreds and hundreds of people are going to be out of a job. This is something that concerns us all. We do not want to be responsible for that, but that is the dilemma you have given us. Do we, in fact, shortcut the process of this parliament and not really scrutinise this as well as we would like to? Or do we say to Xstrata: ‘We need longer’? The member for Nelson made a good point when he said it is your fault; you have stuffed up. Why don’t you allow due process to occur? If you have to compensate the workers via Xstrata, then so be it. You do it.
I am still trying to think of an occasion in this House when you have asked us to debate something as important as this in such a short time with such short notice and with such an involved area. It is not an easy decision to make. It would be easy to say: ‘Okay, Xstrata wants this. We will fix everything for them. The Supreme Court, and we all respect their decision, I think that is most important that we do, has said it is a technicality. Let us just change it.’
Are we going to get into the process of every time something is technically wrong, we will just change legislation? Surely we should be much more thorough in our approach in how we go about business. We should be making sure when we decide on these amendments, we do it from an informed base. Quite frankly, I am not sure whether I have my head around it, except the very blatant statements about doing this to protect jobs. That is important. I am not denying that, but it is not the only thing we have to consider.
In previous debate on this matter, I spoke on behalf of some of the traditional owners and asked questions. The fact that they had to come to me to do that because no one else in the House would do it for them indicates that this House is slipping away from the principles of democracy, which are true scrutiny, not pushing through things in a hurry, but honest, open, true scrutiny. Having to come to me to have their queries raised in a parliament should not have been necessary. It is something the government should have covered. There is no reason why the minister in his reply should not talk about both sides of the argument and justify why he is sticking to the government’s side. Surely in his reply, he can talk about the balance, the dilemmas, the justification and what would happen if we did not do this.
The member for Nelson asked why we do not wait for a new application to go through. I guess the answer is time. It may take another three months before this is all decided. We do not really have time like that; we want to do it in a hurry. The only argument I keep hearing is that jobs will be lost. Surely there are other reasons to justify why this is being pushed through in such a hurry.
It is in my opinion, and I have said this about other bills on urgency, a breakdown of our system when we do not allow adequate time for interpretation of what we are doing. I would hate to the think that we are going to use this method of correcting something that has been pointed out to us through change of legislation when in fact we should be very thorough in what we have done beforehand.
As we all know, the McArthur River Project Agreement Ratification Act has been there since 1992. Surely the people who advise on these matters would have gone back to that to make sure, when this application went through, it was all covered because it is not just Xstrata’s fault. It is government’s fault as well because they had to be giving them advice as necessary. I am finding this a moral as well as a political dilemma. We are often faced with that in this House. Do I support an international mining company and their workers? Do I support government that has decided to take the shortcut approach? Do I support the traditional owners? We all remember the article in the paper where they expressed their joy at this decision. They thought they had a win. Now, the rug has been pulled from under their feet. They are out there saying: ‘Not only have we had that decision pulled away from us, but government is going to make it even worse and we are not going to be able to appeal’.
I know government members are not speaking, but if you really believe this is the right thing to do, then surely other speakers on the government side would have spoken up and justified to us why the government has agreed to this. Surely the previous minister for mines would have put his case because he was the one holding the baby before.
This is not a simple decision. I am not quite sure why another application could not have gone through, except it is a matter of time, and that Xstrata is basically saying they will shut down. If you can believe that the largest zinc mining company in the world will close down overnight because of this decision, they are bully boy tactics. I do not think that could happen just like that. I think they are calling the bluff of the government very well. Then again, as I said, I have not even had time to discuss this with Xstrata. I have not had time to talk to the mining companies or the people in the field to see what their reaction is because yesterday, plonk, it is going to go through. If it had been a simple amendment that was not affecting so many people, perhaps, as we have done in the past, we would have allowed it to go through, but this is not a simple debate and government members must recognise that.
This is not a simple case of rubberstamping this shortcut for government to allow this mine to go ahead. It saddens me a little that we are placed in this situation as members of this House. I wonder what some of the government members who have not spoken, and we have only had one other than the minister, are really thinking. Do they support it as strongly? If they do, why are they not giving the minister their support? Are they like me in this dilemma? I am going to wait until I hear what the minister has to say in reply before I decided whether I will support this bill.
Fair enough, I know one voice is fairly lonely if I do not support it, but it is a matter of principle. That is why we are here. Sometimes we have to make decisions on our principles. As a long-term member of this parliament, I believe that to do our job properly and adequately, I need to be able to walk outside and say to people: ‘I supported it for these reasons’, and really justify it. That is what I ask the minister to do in his summing up. Give me reasons to support this other than Xstrata is going to close down and all these people are going to lose their jobs. You must have a better argument than that. You may think it is the only argument, but there have to be other things involved and you have to consider all the arguments.
This will eliminate any right to further appeal. That is what I believe is happening if this is passed. In a way, due process says to me that there should be some means to appeal any decision like this. The error occurred in the first place. Why are we now saying: ‘We made this mistake. We should not have made it in the first place. We should have done our homework better. We will accept it. This is our problem as government’? You still have to justify why we are going to push this through in such a hurry.
I notice there is also a change to the section about compensation, and that is probably a good change because it does allow people, as far as I can read clause 4B(1):
- To the extent that a relevant legislative or administrative act results in the acquisition of property on terms that would not … be just, the Territory is liable to pay compensation sufficient to remedy the injustice.
That is giving just process, I suppose, and the compensation is determined by agreement with the person from whom the property was acquired. I do not know if that actually refers to some of the land of the traditional owners. I have not had time to find out. That might be something the minister could clarify. To whom does that compensation clause apply? Who is going to benefit from it? Have you included it for a reason? Please cover that point. In the short time we have had, I am not terribly clear in my mind. I do not know if other members feel like this, perhaps I am getting slow in my old age, but I find it a bit hard to grasp all the implications of this. It would be very easy just to say: ‘Okay, it is too hard. I will just pass it. What the heck does it matter?’ I do not think I can do that until you give me good reasons to support this, and I hope it is more than what has been said so far.
We talked about the review of the Mining Act. It was four years ago that we decided to review the Mining Act, wasn’t it? Perhaps if that had been done, this may have been picked up. I do not know. It may not have. Because it has taken so long, who knows? That review may have highlighted a need for change even before this process started. All the reviews the government has promised have been on the back burner for so long. Perhaps the minister can explain to us why this review is taking so long. In his opinion, if this review had been done, would there have been a need for this process? The mistake might have been picked up earlier.
I am checking my notes to see if I had anything else, Madam Speaker. I really do not think I have, except to say that at this stage, I am not sure how I will vote. Government still has not given me a good argument. I understand people will be appalled if I said I am going to vote against it because all those people who rely on this mine feel as though their jobs will be lost. Let us consider the option that government should be subsidising those jobs because they stuffed up in the first place, as the member for Nelson said. Government does many different things to help business out. Perhaps while we sort all this out and it goes through due process, we can support workers in that way.
In closing, I am sorry we have not heard more people on the government side speak. I am sorry that we have not seen …
Ms Martin: Loraine, the debate is not over yet. That is pre-empting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs BRAHAM: We have only had the minister and Treasurer. We have had both Independents ..
Mr Vatskalis: Give us time!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Martin: We are listening to what you say. With great courtesy, we are listening to what you say, okay?
Mrs BRAHAM: It will be interesting if after Question Time, we have more people speak. I am not sure whether we are going to rush the vote through now or whether we are going to have it after Question Time.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs BRAHAM: With that, Madam Speaker, I conclude my remarks.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Want of Confidence –
Minister for Mines and Energy
Want of Confidence –
Minister for Mines and Energy
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this is the first motion of no confidence since I have been a member of the Legislative Assembly. Clearly, they do not come up very often but, then again, clearly a minister who has this level of incompetence does not come along very often. I know there are varying scales of incompetence over there, but this one takes the cake.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, do you have the motion? You need to read the motion into the Parliamentary Record.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, my apologies.
Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly has no confidence in the Minister for Mines and Energy for his incompetence, and his inability to execute his duties as a minister of the Crown.
I am sorry, Madam Speaker; I gave it to Mr Stokes.
It is rare that such an incompetent minister comes along. We are used to, as I said, various levels of competence, but this one really does take the cake. I will outline why it is that the minister is so incompetent. The government took this decision as a group with the exception, of course, of the member for Arnhem, but certainly the Cabinet as a whole cannot possibly get off the hook.
I will go through matters in some detail obviously, but if one steps back from this, one cannot help but wonder whether Xstrata takes the view that they are dealing with the Clampetts. You are the Clampetts. We have Jethro over there, he even looks like him, the Attorney-General may as well as be Jed. Then we have Elly May over there. This is Xstrata, one of the world’s most impressive mining companies, one which you, incidentally, have sought to smooch up to as much as you possibly can, but they come to the Northern Territory and they meet the Clampetts! If one looks at the history of this government’s conduct since it came to government and in particular since the McArthur River Mine expansion was sought, you can only come to the conclusion that Xstrata and the mining industry generally takes the view that this government is the Clampetts. The Clampetts might even have done it a little better than this government.
In terms of some of the comments we heard earlier in debate from the Attorney-General, all I can say is: how the worm turns! He had a go at my colleagues, the members for Katherine and Greatorex, for talking about due process. We remember when, in opposition, the Attorney-General used to be something of an advocate for due process, used to be a bit of a supporter of competence in government ministers and that, of course, has all changed, poor old member for Nhulunbuy.
This minister thoroughly deserves a no confidence motion. We look forward to the vote of the member for Arnhem and perhaps some of her colleagues at the conclusion of the motion. Let us make no bones about it: the motion comes about, as does the bill that we were discussing this morning, because of the minister’s rank incompetence. We know he is not up to the job, you know he is not up to the job, Xstrata knows he is not up to the job, the mining industry knows he is not up to the job and, indeed, Territorians know he is not up to the job.
You know he is not up to the job. Why else would the Chief Minister and her minders go to such unprecedented lengths to keep a minister of the Crown hidden from the media for over a day? It was laughable. It was so embarrassing to see the footage last night. The Chief Minister went out and said: ‘I will take all the questions, I will take all of the questions’. They were desperately trying to speak to the minister who carries the responsibility. She had no choice other than to say: ‘Oh, okay’. The answers during Question Time were terribly interesting. No doubt, the minister owes a great debt of gratitude to his colleagues who stretched their answers as they were ordered to do. There was hinting from his colleagues every time he was asked a question, none of which he answered, to the extent that we could understand his incoherent responses. His colleagues may as well have just held up little signs of ‘say this’, ‘say that’.
That is not the way in which Territorians expect any minister of any government to conduct him or herself. Political observers would know when a minister is getting very close to being - it might have been Ros Kelly or Paul Keating who coined the expression or used it in a political sense - ‘a carcass swinging in the breeze’. You know when there is a political carcass swinging in the breeze because that is when his boss and colleagues go to great lengths to either hide him, when they can get away with it, or help him when he is exposed in the forum of this parliament.
Put simply, this minister has demonstrated that he just does not get it. I do not believe he has a reading difficulty, many people do, but I do not believe he does. He cannot read the paperwork properly and he does not know the difference between an open cut and an underground mine. He has made a series of bungles and they have all been embarrassing. The ones we know about have been public. No doubt he has made a series of bungles behind the scenes. Carcass swinging in the breeze, rabbit caught in the headlights; that is this minister. His colleagues should do something about it. The Chief Minister should do something about it. We reckon the member for Brennan is worth promoting. If Peter Garrett can belong to a party that supports uranium mining notwithstanding his difficulties, we believe that someone from the far left, as the member for Brennan is, would make a very interesting mining minister. We challenge the Chief Minister to put the minister for Mines out of his misery and get someone else, and our money is on the member for Brennan.
My colleague, the member for Katherine, referred to some of the bungles. There was the time when this minister said in this place, words to the effect, and I do not have his direct quote, but the government was responsible for the mining boom and then, a week or so later, he decided they did not have that much to do with it at all. I am only going from memory, but then there was the time when he was caught on camera, he was launching something and he could not remember the name of it. That was a classic. I did enjoy that. There have been others.
When the decision of the court was delivered on Monday or Tuesday, like a rabbit caught in the headlights, this bloke had nothing to say. He needed to bury himself under a desk to see what he could come up with before he faced the media. That is terribly interesting, given that he was on notice of the proceedings from late 2006.
Having been a lawyer, I know that a Statement of Claim or a writ would have been filed at the Supreme Court. I know that this minister would have been across the issues. Like any legal proceeding, a defendant contemplates the possibility of being unsuccessful. Surely the minister contemplated that possibility. If he did not, he is even worse than we thought, and that is pretty bad.
The minister has said in this parliament repeatedly in relation to the approval that he was satisfied with his decision and satisfied that his decision met the requirements of and complied with the Mining Management Act, his words not ours. He said his decision was the ‘result of a careful evaluation of the facts’, his words, not ours. Here is another quote:
- In making my decision, I have relied on expert advice.
He said expert advice, he was satisfied with it, there was careful consideration, he has thought about it a lot, and on and on the list goes.
The minister is unable to continue to be a minister because if he was satisfied to the extent that he was with the approval process, you have to ask: can anyone believe what the minister says? Given his portfolio, this minister will be making a number of representations to the mining industry. He will be the Territory’s mining ambassador. We all know that when ministers go overseas, they are ambassadors; they promote the Northern Territory. Given the Jethro Clampett-type behaviour and conduct of the minister, I strongly doubt that heads of mining companies will be able to keep a straight face. How on earth will they be able to stop themselves from laughing when they see this bloke for an appointment?
Another interesting thing the minister said by way of media release on 5 September 2006 in relation to the approval just before it was given was: ‘I am focused on this project’. If that is a minister focused on the project, we would hate to see what he is like when he is not focused. Indeed, that could be catastrophic for pretty much everyone.
There is, clearly, a long line of conduct by the minister, and ramifications to the Territory and to the mining industry in particular if this minister continues with his portfolio. To add to what I have said already, I refer to the minister’s media release dated 4 January 2007. He got back early in the new year but, then again, he had to because he does not know much. He issued the release on 4 January 2007. It said:
- Another boom is expected in the Territory’s mining and exploration industry as investors bid to secure exploration licences over new land areas, Mines Minister Chris Natt said today.
As I said at the outset, whilst this motion is a no confidence motion in the minister, it has to be put on the Parliamentary Record in the strongest possible terms that it is the Cabinet as a whole, as a collective, that has to take some responsibility for this man’s incompetence. His predecessor, the former minister for Mines, must have done a lot of the legwork; he must have known about this issue in Cabinet. The Chief Minister, the Attorney-General, certainly those in Cabinet whose eyes might have been glazing over, and there would have been a few of them because they do it naturally anyway, but senior Cabinet ministers must have know about the seriousness of this issue. I will come to how serious the consequences of Xstrata closing down are before too long. If beggars belief if senior Cabinet ministers did not ask questions of the minister, if they did not satisfy themselves that he understood what he was writing or reading. Surely there has to be that sort of level of collective responsibility.
I am interested in the fact that the word ‘mentoring’ is tossed around more on the Labor side of politics then my own. I guess there are all sorts of reasons for that, but given that you lot seem to be the champions of mentoring, one cannot help but wonder whether you have failed in your duty to mentor and assist a new and obviously not very competent or capable minister charged with an extremely serious responsibility. You cannot just stand on the Titanic and say: ‘My bit is sinking’. You all have to cop responsibility together.
It is worth stating for the record that there was much concern about this minister’s appointment from the outset. He knows that, everyone knows that; it was aired publicly. I will quote an extract from an interview on Tuesday, 5 September 2006, on Julia Christensen’s show. Ms Christensen said, and I quote:
- Last week’s elevation of one of the most junior members of parliament, Chris Natt, to the very high profile Mines and Energy portfolio caught some industry bodies by surprise. The Minerals Council, for one, said they were disappointed and concerned the portfolio would lose prestige and of course it covers one of the most important and profitable industries in the Territory with thousands of local jobs and the future of the McArthur River mine ….
It was well known and taken generally as a disappointment that this minister was appointed. Yet if senior Cabinet ministers helped him and got it wrong, that is even worse, but you have to ask whether the senior Cabinet ministers just left him to it. That becomes a real issue given the importance of Xstrata and the McArthur River Mine to the Northern Territory.
I think it was in the September sittings last year when we had protestors about the McArthur River Mine here. I remember looking up in the gallery and it had a few more people than it does now, and I said to them: ‘At least you know where the CLP stands on this. We have always been up-front. We have not mucked around when it comes to mining. We strongly support Xstrata and the industry’ unlike the conduct of those opposite, starting with the then minister for the Environment, the minister for Mines at the time, and the endless delays and confusion that resulted from their incompetence. Maybe incompetence is contagious, I do not know.
In any event, it is worth looking at the history of this matter to gain an appreciation of two things. First, the importance of Xstrata to the Territory; and second, the breadth of incompetence shown not only by this minister, but by his predecessor and other ministers. The minister for the Environment said in about February 2006 that she would not approve the expansion of McArthur River Mine. There is no need for me to go into it now; we do not have enough time anyway. Then there was the controversy about the EPA, which you promised would be independent and nothing could be further from the truth. All of the indications were that the EPA, from government at least, gave a fantastic independent report. I cannot remember how we got it - it may have fallen off the back of a truck, but it does not really matter – but the report from URS and the letter dated 28 February 2006, said of the EPA process, and I quote:
- Our major concerns with the assessment report relate to the lack of due process from the EPA regarding their major issues of concern and what appears to be a disconnect between the analysis undertaken in the assessment report and its conclusion.
This letter went on for a couple of pages with annexures, but you could not even get the environmental assessment right. Then when the minister announced that she would not approve the expansion, all hell broke loose. Who can forget, I think it was on or about 23 February 2006, the full-page ad from a range of local businesses on behalf of 400 businesses or so who rely on the McArthur River Mine for business? I remember the ad. I remember going to the meetings. Some of those suppliers could have been financially devastated as a result of this government’s prevarication and incompetence, and they were deeply concerned, and rightly so.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: You will have your turn. You will have your turn later, you bully! You will have your turn later. You will have your turn later and you are a bully.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, thereafter …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: When are you going to retire? Stop protecting your incompetent friend.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Then, Madam Speaker, in about March 2006, the head of Xstrata arrives for talks with the government. Now this is not just any bloke. This is the boss of one of the world’s leading mining companies. He arrives for talks. People who work in the industry and at McArthur River are deeply concerned. The suppliers are deeply concerned. Workers, indigenous and non-indigenous, are deeply concerned. I think from memory the price of zinc went down as a result of what happened. The head of Xstrata comes here to see what can be done from this incompetent government. Various indications were made. The former minister for Mines got out of this by the skin of his teeth because he was sacked and you cannot help but ask whether he was sacked because of his incompetence during what happened in 2006.
Anyway, we go to October 2006. The present minister granted the approval and, as I have said already, he went to great lengths to assure pretty much everyone that he had looked at pretty much everything: relied on his expert advice, he had been very focused on the project, he had considered everything very carefully and he thought it was rock solid.
On the last day of April, earlier this week, the decision is announced that the minister got it wrong. Why? Because the minister could not tell the difference between and open cut and an underground mine. The minister knew about this because he was a party to the legal proceedings, so therefore he must have known, had to know. I hope he knew about the legal proceedings. I hope he just does not go through his job not wanting to be told everything. We can only assume that he knew about the legal proceedings. He knew about it late in 2006. He must have been concerned, but he thought that everything was rock solid.
We now go to the last day of April 2007, and he has to go back to square one. Without having apparently contemplated being an unsuccessful litigant, he hides under his desk, or perhaps probably more likely his ministerial colleagues and in particular the Chief Minister locked him up and said: ‘For goodness sake, you are not very competent and you will really make a fool of yourself so we will keep you behind closed doors for a while’. Eventually, he is helped and he comes up with legislation which will be debated at the end of this motion no doubt.
For the sake of the record, I should make it abundantly clear, notwithstanding our reservations in respect of the bill, why we will support it: because there is 1000 miles of difference between the Labor Party and the County Liberal Party when it comes to developing the Northern Territory and mining. The CLP supports and has always supported mining. We do not have the sort of disorder that members of the Labor Party have when it comes to mining. We are not like the Chief Minister who used to say: ‘I really hate uranium mining’ until she got a note from Kevin and said: ‘I really like uranium mining now because I just want to be like everyone else’. That is what Elly May Clampett said. That was Elly May. Elly May changed her mind because it was convenient for her to do so.
Everyone knows where they stand with the CLP and, I might say, everyone knows the views of the member for Arnhem and I expect her to be consistent. I look forward to hearing from her, both during this no confidence motion, because I am quite certain that she would share with us a lack of confidence in the minister, and when the bill is debated. I am not allowed to say that members left the Chamber, but I thought it was interesting when the bill came up this morning that many members of the parliament from the Labor side were not concentrating on the bill. If that is not a silent protest, I do not know what is. I look forward to the member for Arnhem’s contribution.
The CLP would never in a million years have done to workers what this government did. The CLP in a million years would never have done over Xstrata and potentially put in jeopardy a mining company and a mine like McArthur River with all of its jobs and all of its money. That is money to be injected into the economy of the Northern Territory. Lots of jobs, lots of money and this government cannot get it right. I remember describing their conduct in a media release last year as ‘a dog’s breakfast’. It has gone well beyond a dog’s breakfast. It is now a special episode of the Beverly Hillbillies starring Jethro over there, Jed there, and Elly May just there.
You need to go, minister. We have no confidence in you. Your colleagues do not have any confidence in you. The mining industry will look at you and they will not be able to keep a straight face because they know you are incompetent. They do not have any confidence in you because you just cannot read documents properly. You do not know the difference between an open cut mine and an underground mine. This minister of the Crown cannot even answer questions during Question Time. You wanted to sit down as soon as you possibly could. You had your little friends saying: ‘Say this, Chris’. I thought they were going to start to hold up signs for a while, but alas, they did not do that.
Minister, you are so incredibly incompetent. We support the member for Brennan. We believe that, as I said earlier, if Peter Garrett can belong to a party that can reconcile its previous positions with new positions, if Peter Garrett can still be a member of that party, then the member for Brennan, being from the far left, will make a very interesting minister for Mines. Certainly, he would be, we think, a much more competent minister …
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: I cannot hear you, I really literally cannot hear. We can keep going. I mean, you do that, I will do this and we will keep going.
I have said before, and I will obviously need to keep saying it, you always know when you are on to something with these people because of their reactions. You are becoming painfully predictable. One of the great parts about this job and this Chamber is that there are surprises on occasion, and the adrenalin goes and you get stuck into it. You are becoming so tired, so lazy, so arrogant and so predictable that I just cannot help wondering whether the fun is going to go out of it. You are predictable because you know we know what happens.
We know when we are heading in the right direction because you go ballistic. You become very loud, very personal and very hostile. I suppose some of you are loyal to each other. I note the Chief Ministerial aspirant has been quite noisy for the period he has been in the Chamber during this debate. I do not know; maybe there is a factional deal. Maybe he wants the support of the incompetent Minister for Mines and Energy, although he has so many numbers I am not sure whether his support or otherwise is integral to his achieving his Chief Ministerial aspirations.
However, I digress. They are very keen to wrap themselves around him in the same way that, metaphorically speaking, the Chief Minister took the minister for Mines down yesterday, held his little hand: ‘I will take the questions because I am the boss, because I know you are an idiot and I cannot possibly let you dig yourself into this hole any longer’.
Madam Speaker, it is clear that even those opposite know that their friend and colleague deserves this motion. It is a motion of no confidence in a minister who has not just mucked up in the last few days, not just mucked up this year, but who has been an incompetent since his appointment.
We support the bill because we support mining, jobs and investment in the Territory. However, if you look at the minister for Mines, it is hard to see that he is a supporter of jobs, the mine or investment in the Territory simply by virtue of his incompetence. This minister should go. He does not deserve to be a minister of the Crown, and the Chief Minister should sack him.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you time has expired.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Clampetts. I can remember the show very well. I remember one part of the introduction song: ‘… and up from the ground came a bubbling crude …’.
Mr Henderson: I do not know this show.
Mr NATT: They ended up quite rich. I am rich, having a loving family, being surrounded by great friends, being surrounded by supportive colleagues, to be in the party that I am in and moving the Territory ahead.
This has been a hard decision based on a legal technicality, but it is a decision that had to be made. The Supreme Court rested solely on the contents of the 2002 application for the mine and its relationship to the authorisation granted to expand the mine in 2006. This is a technical legal issue. There is absolutely no suggestion that my department or I, as the Mines minister, did not properly consider the environment issues or bypass necessary procedural steps. There is also absolutely no suggestion in the judge’s decision that the supposed government fast-tracking caused this problem.
If there is any deficiency, it rests in the legislation, which means we need to fix the legislation immediately. It provides surety, and it returns the mine to the status quo. It provides surety for its employees, the suppliers and all the contractors involved. The more we play politics in here today, the more we debate it, we are holding back the mine from progressing to restart. All in all, there are about 1700 jobs involved. As I said, it is a big decision and we are making that decision to ensure that the mine does progress.
As I said earlier, I knew what this job entailed when I took it on. I knew that I had to make hard decisions, and this is one of them. Let us have a look at what I have done while I have been in the role. I have worked hard to build on the great work that my predecessor, the member for Casuarina, has done in the past.
In November, I visited China as part of our marketing strategy to get them interested. The mining industry is experiencing massive economic expansion and that is driven by the demands of China for resources. We visited China as a group to customise and develop a campaign titled Australia’s Northern Territory: vast land, rich minerals and future opportunity. It aimed to put the Northern Territory on the map and it sent a very strong message that the Northern Territory is rich in mineral endowment and is vastly under explored. This made the ears of the Chinese listen. I attended 12 meetings scheduled over eight days when I was in Changsha and Beijing. From that, we have had a commitment from six organisations to visit the Northern Territory in the next 12 months. I understand three have visited already.
Applications for exploration licenses from China have come forth since that visit, with particular interest in the uranium deposit south of Alice Springs, but some Chinese giants, Citic and SinoSteel, are very interested in the Northern Territory and are making more inquiries as we speak.
While I was there I visited the Chinese Chamber of Commerce Metals, Minerals and Chemical Importers and Exporters, commonly known as the CCCMC. This was a very worthwhile meeting. They have over 3000 members on their books. Following a suggestion from our party, I asked if they would consider putting the Northern Territory mining website on their webpage. This has happened. The Northern Territory website is quite substantial. If you are not aware of it, have a look at it. It is chock full of important information that prospective mining companies are after. That is now on the website of the Chamber of Commerce in China, with over 3000 members accessing it. There is another interest that will be created from China.
Since that visit in November, enormous interest has come from China. We have had organisations travelling to the Northern Territory and the General Manager of the CCCMC visited Darwin in February, with members from China Minmetals and representatives from SinoSteel, who are the second to largest or maybe third to largest steel company in the whole of China.
Staff in the department are planning another trip, and that is to the China Mining Expo in November because we feel that by promoting the Territory over there, we create limitless opportunities for Chinese companies in Australia.
In October last year, I attended the Mining 2006 Resource Convention in Brisbane. I spoke there with a number of potential mining exploration and development companies that are all interested in the Territory. We had a stall at the convention and I had the opportunity to be there for two or three hours. It was fantastic to see the interest that Northern Territory has created in the mining industry. A number of prospective mining companies looking at the Territory spoke with me and members of my department. The main focus of that stall obviously was to promote exploration, mining, development and the investment opportunities in the Territory. We highlighted to those companies the competitive advantages of exploring and mining in the Territory.
The convention provided me with an opportunity to meet personally with a number of industrial representatives and, during those networking sessions, I promoted the Territory as much as I could to induce their interest in coming to the Territory. I also presented at that convention an Energy Opportunities and Development talk, which was attended by about 80 delegates. I reiterate that we were overwhelmed by the interest in the Territory and by the number of people who visited the booth and attended my talk.
Another highly successful event was the AGES conference in Alice Springs recently. AGES, which is the Annual Geoscience Exploration Seminar, communicates with industry. It is set up by the department and it attracts many interested mining companies from around Australia to Alice Springs. The purpose of AGES is to communicate to industry and academia the results and significance of our targeted geoscience programs. If anyone has the opportunity to visit the Mines department to see the work that they do in the geoscience area, I encourage them to do so because it is quite outstanding. We lead the world in some of those areas.
This was the second year of the Mining Services Expo, which runs in conjunction with AGES. That is organised by the Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development. It is an opportunity for Central Australian businesses to showcase their capacity to support the exploration and mining industries. It was a feather in our cap because a number of these businesses were exceptionally pleased with the set up of the expo and by the level of interest from people attending the expo.
Interestingly enough, there were four Chinese companies registered to come to AGES. It is significant that these organisations come all the way to the Northern Territory from China and demonstrates the interest that has been created by the department and my visit to China. This year’s AGES conference grew yet again, with 56 exploration companies represented; 33% more than in 2006. There were representatives from two indigenous organisations, three international companies and 31 delegates from research institutions and consultancies.
I have had the opportunity this year to secure, through the budgeting process in Cabinet, more funds for mining in a new initiative called Bringing Forward Discovery. It is a major mining exploration and investment attraction. The Bringing Forward Discovery initiative follows Building the Territory’s Resource Base, which has run for the past four years and has been enormously successful.
Bringing Forward Discovery is worth $12m over four years. This year, we will be spending $2.75m on geoscience data and $0.25m to promote long-term exploration investment in the Territory. It will ensure that we not only build on our past successes, but we create new ones.
In summary of what I have been doing in the last six months, the government’s exploration initiatives, led by me and the department, have resulted in a doubling of exploration licence applications from an average of 250 a year to almost 600 last year. At the moment, there are over 900 granted exploration licences in the Territory. There has been a huge increase in exploration expenditure. It has increased from $75m in 2005-06, and it has increased nearly 100% since 2003. Of course, the exploration that we have in the Territory is leading to new mines. Five opened in 2006. Bootu Creek near Tennant Creek was one of them. There have been several gold mines in the Pine Creek area, and the Matilda Mineral Zircon sand mine at Melville Island has been a coup for the Tiwi Islands.
The minerals and petroleum sectors are booming, and the boom is underpinned by the Northern Territory’s unequivocal support for the industry. The new exploration and potential developments will help stimulate further investment in the Territory and, obviously, employment opportunities. It is all about creating jobs for Territorians.
Let me return to McArthur River. I would like to outline some of the key issues. The facts are, as I stated yesterday, the hard decision on the McArthur River Mine expansion was made six months ago. After following a rigorous process, in considering all relevant evidence, I made the call. I did so on the condition that strict environmental standards and safeguards were in place. I did so recognising the important economic contribution the mine makes to the Territory. My decision was the right decision. It was the right decision for the region, and it was the right decision for the entire Northern Territory.
However, this technical deficiency in the approval process as identified by the Supreme Court must be rectified to give effect to my decision and to ensure the status quo of the mine. The Supreme Court rests solely on the content of the 2002 application for the mine and its relationship to the authorisation granted to expand the mine in 2006. This is a technical legal issue. There is absolutely no suggestion that the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines, or I as minister, did not properly consider environmental issues or bypass necessary procedural steps.
The government has been advised by the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory, Tom Pauling QC, that this is the most appropriate method to resolve this issue. The court decision said nothing about environmental or consultation concerns. It is clear that the government has got it right. This legislation is not about riding rough shod over the decision or over the rights of the plaintiffs. A technical problem was identified and a minor law change is all that is needed to rectify it.
Let me turn to the member for Katherine’s response. On 24 February 2006, the shadow minister wrote to my predecessor. In that letter, she said:
- Minister, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to use your discretion in favour of the people of the Territory. You have the power to fix a perilous situation for the people in the area, the workers that are employed there, and to salvage the reputation of the Territory as a place to explore and mine.
Now the shadow minister is saying that the process that we are undertaking today is flawed and will cost the jobs of Territorians. That is simply not the case.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I reject this censure. It has no basis at all. They simply seek to attack McArthur River Mine and they do not want to give certainty to the mine workers. They simply want to turn it into a political football.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, after listening to what the minister had to say, I am not exactly sure that he answered any of the points of the censure.
I will go first to what he said about my letter of January or February last year. It was in relation to expediency by looking at the environmental impact statement and ensuring that it met all the requirements, urging him to push forward the McArthur River Mine. It had absolutely nothing to do with treading on the rights of the people to have their say or lodging an appeal. It had nothing to do with that at all.
From the outset, I support the McArthur River Mine and always have. What you are doing, in introducing the bill that you have to this House, is putting a second tier to it that has made it pretty unpalatable. That unpalatable part, and you know it very well, is the fact that you are now taking away all the rights for anyone to appeal anything to do with McArthur River Mine retrospectively and forever. That makes me feel very uncomfortable. That is why I am putting my point of view because that is not what you said in your second reading speech yesterday. You did not even mention that part.
The Treasurer said: ‘Get a briefing, have a briefing’. We had a briefing all right, but it was only we had burrowed into the findings that we worked out very quick smart that you were going to take away the rights of anyone to appeal. That is not what we are about. This is a democracy. We live in a democracy. You are calling it a technicality; it is actually an authority. It is an authority to mine underground. That was the beginning of the McArthur River Mine; it was an authority to mine underground.
The mine management plan that came underneath that authority to mine underground could not change the original authority. Therefore, you have to make a new application for authority to mine above ground, open cut. That is what you did not do, and that is what the department did not tell you to do.
To introduce this bill now is to ride rough shod over all of us by saying this has to be rushed through on a matter of urgency because everyone of us want to protect the jobs of those people who work at McArthur River Mine. We also need to protect the rights of the people who want to, if they can, challenge the authorisation in the Supreme Court, as every other person has the democratic right to do.
This is where I am very uncomfortable. We have now said: ‘Sorry, guys, you do not have any rights left at all because I forgot to look at that word’. You forgot to look at, as you call it, a technicality. I call it a pretty important word. It is the difference between underground mining and open cut mining. You missed that bit. You missed it so that has become a very big cost to the people, to the elders, the tribal elders, who live around McArthur River who have such passion about the area. I do not think that we should take away their rights of appeal, but that is what you are doing with this bill. That is where I am very uncomfortable with it. I have no problem with the first part of this bill which …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Is the member for Katherine talking about the bill that will be debated presently in this House this afternoon? If so, this is anticipation of the debate. Is she talking about the motion of no confidence? She appears to me to be speaking on the bill. Therefore she is anticipating debate.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek some clarification on that matter. The motion of want of confidence does not say anything about the bill. You are talking quite specifically about the bill.
Shadow minister, I will caution you on confining your remarks to the motion before us. It does refer to the ability of the minister. As you are aware, we are currently in the second reading debate on the bill so you cannot anticipate discussing that bill. I draw your attention to the specific wording of the motion.
Mrs MILLER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will go back to the motion. It seems to be all tied into one. I am sorry if I cross to the other side.
Ms Carney: But they are interrelated.
Mrs MILLER: Yes, they are very much interrelated. The proceedings and the actions this week of the minister and this government by introducing this bill as a matter of urgency, without due process for everyone here to study the implications of the bill, is not something that I want to be part of again.
I feel very uncomfortable about it and I blame the minister. That is why this censure has been brought. The minister failed to understand what he was signing off. He calls it a technicality but, quite frankly, he did not realise the difference between authority to mine underground and authority to mine open cut, each of which need a different mine management plan. What government has had to do is go into damage control and introduce this bill as a matter of urgency. I am sorry that I have referred to urgency again, but it is exactly what this censure is about.
The minister has handled this whole affair very incompetently. It is a no confidence motion so I have every right to say why we do not have any confidence in the minister. I am terribly disappointed that we have had to come to this because it has taken up very important time that should be spent on government business. Instead, we are trying to get this minister out of a quagmire.
I support the motion. I do not have any confidence in this minister at all. I am extremely concerned that the message he is sending to the industry nationally and internationally is that the Northern Territory does not have the competence to make accurate decisions, and that does not bode well for any business wanting to research and develop in the Northern Territory being confident about coming here. That is a serious concern considering the impact that mining has on the economy of the Northern Territory, so I support this motion of no confidence in the minister.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is quite extraordinary for the opposition to blame the minister for Mines for a Supreme Court decision that really does, no matter what they say, swing on a technicality in the interpretation of the legislation.
The government and its legal advisors are absolutely convinced that an appeal against that Supreme Court decision would be successful. However, such an appeal process would take considerable time and would cost, of course, mine owners and operators many millions of dollars in delay whilst a workforce, which is geared and ready to go on this project, stands by. That would create enormous uncertainty in the meantime for the future of the mine and the many hundreds of jobs it provides.
That uncertainty would also throw into jeopardy the government of the Northern Territory’s reputation for support for the mining industry in general. That uncertainty would jeopardise the millions of dollars spent in exploration across the Northern Territory each year. That would be the outcome of waiting many weeks and months for an appeal to be heard. Similar uncertainty would arise if we were to wait for the next sitting of parliament, a wait of seven weeks. As I said, this project is geared to go.
What would happen to the contractors and the hundreds of workers who are on-site on this project? The opposition thinks that they are going to simply sit down and wait for the outcome of a Supreme Court appeal or wait seven weeks for the next parliamentary sitting before any amendment can be passed and before they can resume work. I will tell you what would happen: those workers would dissipate very quickly in search of other major projects and jobs across the country, and there is no shortage of them to go to.
What this project requires and requires today is absolute certainty, the certainty that this legislation will provide so that that project can continue. The member for Katherine goes on about urgency. The fact is it has been used far less frequently by this government in its time in office …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Whereas the other side raised a point of order in relation to my colleague the member for Katherine referring to the bill, put simply, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I ask that you rule accordingly.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, this discussion is in relation to the motion about the abilities and competence of the minister and not the bill before the Assembly, so if you could confine your remarks to the motion.
Mr STIRLING: I am not sure what your ruling means, Mr Deputy Speaker. The question of urgency is very much a part of the censure debate, I would have thought. If the opposition had any rational logic in this at all, the fact that it is here on urgency, I would have thought, would be part of the reason for the censure.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Do you take it, with respect, that he is dissenting from your ruling?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not make a ruling. As I did with the shadow minister for Mines and Energy, I caution you to contain your remarks to the motion of want of confidence rather than the amending bill. The motion is in regards to the competence and abilities of the Mines minister. I have cautioned the shadow minister in regards to this matter and I caution you also, Attorney-General.
Mr STIRLING: It would render me almost speechless, as the fourth speaker in a four person debate not to be able to respond to points made by members opposite. The member for Katherine raised the question of urgency.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The Deputy Chief Minister is being both argumentative and disrespectful. You have given him a caution yet he continues to argue.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, there is no point of order. I have cautioned the deputy leader as I have cautioned the shadow minister to try to maintain the discussion about the motion rather than the bill.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, in contrast to the member for Katherine, the member for Nhulunbuy is speaking to the motion in that, basically, the issue of competence and the need to bring this bill on urgency was raised as a question mark over the minister’s competence. In that light, the member for Nhulunbuy, I believe, has every right to comment on it.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Deputy Speaker, in the interests of not being here all day, I will move on.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment. There was no point of order, Leader of the Opposition. I have cautioned you. Continue your remarks as I have asked.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will move on. The member for Katherine asked about another couple of steps in the Supreme Court process about environmental aspects and the community consultation process, which the Supreme Court did not get to. There is no doubt that this amendment puts to rest any doubt around those issues because the environmental process, above all else, around the shift in the mine’s operation was so exhaustive and so comprehensive that the first application was, in fact, found deficient, and the plan had to be modified in order to get approval through the government around the environmental issues. The Leader of the Opposition suggests that this was incompetence. Well, we well know the history of the CLP in relation to mining approval issues.
She seemed to suggest that rejecting that application and asking for it to be revisited and strengthened around some of those environmental concerns has thrown the mine, its workers and its suppliers into doubt. Nothing could be further from the truth. We stand by our decisions in this regard. We ought to be commended for the diligent approach to approval that the government adopted in and around the environmental processes.
Clearly, on the Opposition Leader’s own remarks, the CLP would have supported any application, no matter what it had to say in relation to questions about what environmental outcomes might have been for an approval for a shift in operations. That is no surprise to me. It is no surprise to the members who were with me through those years in opposition. It was the CLP that authorised the Woodcutters Mine, one of the most dangerous mines ever to operate in Australia, certainly the most dangerous mine in terms of injuries inflicted on its workers in the Northern Territory, authorised by the Country Liberal Party, no question. It was one of the most dangerous mines of all times. It was, of course, the CLP that authorised Mt Todd. Where were the environmental processes around Mt Todd? Where was the environmental application process around Mt Todd? It is a legacy mine that leaves the Territory taxpayers today exposed to a cleanup bill, at latest count, of $35m and climbing.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: The Leader of the Opposition has the hide to suggest that we were putting that mine in jeopardy because we sent it back because we did not think the environmental safeguards were there. You idiot!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Deputy Chief Minister, I would like you to withdraw that last comment, please.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Leader of the Opposition, what is your point of order?
Ms CARNEY: Now that you have settled him down, Madam Speaker, there is no point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Please resume your seat, Leader of the Opposition. Minister, please continue.
Mr STIRLING: Why would I be surprised by the CLP’s views on these matters when they have such an unhealthy reputation in relation to mining and the sorts of approvals they allowed? We stand by the strict, diligent and disciplined approach we took to environmental issues. That is why this bill is putting those issues beyond doubt. They have been comprehensively examined and they were found to be deficient. They have been revisited, strengthened, and gone through the approval process.
The second extraordinary aspect to this motion of censure is that throughout the day, the Country Liberal Party has pretended to support the amendment so that the mine may continue. They have, at the same time, spent an inordinate amount of time in debate earlier today and, of course, during the entire Question Time on this matter. It is a strange way…
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It was ordered earlier, on the basis of an objection from the Minister for Health, that it is not appropriate for the Deputy Chief Minister to be talking about the bill. After the Deputy Speaker making that ruling, I ask that you rule accordingly and restrict the minister, who has been around long enough to know better, to confine himself to the terms of the no confidence motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat …
Mr STIRLING: Speaking to the point …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I have already made my decision. Leader of the Opposition, there is no point of order. The Deputy Chief Minister is speaking in a general context, not specifically regarding the bill. Please continue, minister.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I simply say it is an extraordinarily curious way to demonstrate so-called support for legislation. Of course, if they do not support the bill, they do not support the mine, they do not support the jobs, they do not support the suppliers and the revenue and economic growth generated by that mine …
Mrs Miller: I could call you a…
Ms Carney: You could call him a liar.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, Madam Speaker. I withdraw the word ‘liar’.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Please continue, Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, the legislation before the Assembly for which the minister is being censured is, on advice from the Solicitor-General, the most appropriate method to resolve this issue. The legislation is not about dismissing and riding rough shod over the court’s decision or, indeed, over the rights of the plaintiffs. It is a technical problem that was identified; a minor law change is all that is needed to rectify it. Justice Angel said the very same thing himself. The hard work around this decision has already been done in relation to all of those issues that I canvassed before. However, we do need to ensure that the technical legal framework is in place to support this mine’s expansion.
There is no suggestion that the department of Mines or the Mines minister did not properly consider all of those issues, or that they bypassed any necessary procedural steps. The decision of the Supreme Court was that the authorisation granted could only authorise mining activities specified in the original mining application. The 2002 application, as we know, did not specifically request open cut mining as one of the activities it wished to undertake. Approval of a new mining management plan to deal with open cut mining was ineffective because the 2003 authorisation for the mine did not authorise the McArthur River Mining company’s proposed open cut mining operation. It is a legal technical question. Justice Angel said quite clearly in his judgment on Monday that the technical issue could be resolved through an amendment to legislation, and that is what the government is proceeding with.
The opposition’s position on the bill, which they purport to be supporting, and their stance with this censure motion, is all about politics at the end of the day. It is all about politics. It has nothing to do with the substance of the legislation. They have seized on a political opportunity, with which they think they can divide government members. They think they can divide government members on this issue because it is an issue of enormous sensitivity to some of our members. There is no secret about that. We have seen firsthand the depth of the sensitivities around this whole question in previous debate in this Chamber. We understand that sensitivity as a government. We are a broad church in this Labor government of the Northern Territory. We encompass all of those views and we respect them, notwithstanding tough decisions that have to be made.
We understand where our members come from. We understand some of the cultural sensitivities around these issues. All of those issues put together make this a much more difficult decision for government than you might expect a normal legislative amendment may cause. That is a fact. We make no effort to hide that. Because of the makeup of the Labor Party in this Assembly, this government, a makeup of which we are enormously proud, given its diversity and given its representative nature of the Northern Territory community, this government is honest to everyone involved in this issue. It has the courage to take the tough decisions when they have to be made in the best interests of the Territory overall, and in the interests of communicating to all players involved. We are not seeking to give false hope or encouragement or expectation that a decision might not be forthcoming or a decision might not be taken at all. Up-front and honest is the only way that it could be.
In seeking political opportunity to damage the government today, the opposition is absolutely oblivious to the importance of the matter at hand, which is the continuation of the mining operation at McArthur River. They simply do not care about the mine at the end of the day. They do not care about its workers, they do not care about its suppliers, and they do not care about the economic growth that it generates or indeed its future. They have demonstrated that clearly by their attitude today, by contribution to debate and their tactics with this censure motion.
As the member for Nelson reminds me from time to time, this Chamber is all about politics. I accept that; we all accept that as members of the Legislative Assembly. Whilst being about politics, this Assembly has to be about the passage of proper public policy and that is what this is about at the end of the day. The mining industry will shudder when they see and read the comments of the CLP opposition recorded on Hansard today, when they see the opposition’s antics in regard to what is a very important amendment in relation to the future of one mine. They have proven themselves today unable to put proper public policy above gutter politics. That is what this censure motion is all about: gutter politics rather than proper public policy.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be put.
Madam SPEAKER: There are two motions before the Chair. The first is that the question be put and the second is the want of confidence motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The question is that the question be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion of want of confidence as moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
McARTHUR RIVER PROJECT AMENDMENT
(RATIFICATION OF MINING AUTHORITIES) BILL
(Serial 99)
(RATIFICATION OF MINING AUTHORITIES) BILL
(Serial 99)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, the member for Drysdale, the minister for Mines. I am disappointed because first, the opposition said they were going to support the bill. Second, they said they support the mine, they support the business it generates, they support the wealth and income for the Territory but all of a sudden they start to play politics. What is really disappointing is that they tried to play politics by attacking the minister for Mines, calling him all sorts of names and stating that what happened was his mistake.
First, the member for Katherine said that due process was not followed, but matters of urgency come to this parliament all the time. It is due process to address issues that emerge unexpectedly, issues that have to be addressed quickly. This is the same person, the same member, who wrote me a letter which states clearly that she read the EIS, she read everything, everything is okay, approve it and approve it now. I was the minister for Mines, and I am always supportive mines and business, but at that time, I had serious reservations about the consequences that the diversion of the river as described by the mining company in the first submission would have for the environment. I was not prepared to put my signature on a document and authorise the operation of the mine under those conditions. I sent it back. I recommended to my colleague, the minister for Environment, for it to be sent back for additional information to satisfy me, as the minister at the time, that there would be no disadvantage to the environment arising from the expansion of the mine and the operation of the mine as open cut.
I doubt very much whether the member for Katherine, first, has read the decision of the court and, second, whether she has gone through the Mining Management Act. There is some confusion. Even the member for Nelson was referring to the Mining Act when this situation clearly falls under the Mining Management Act, not the Mining Act.
If the member for Katherine had a clear look at the act, and I have it in front of me because I want to ensure that when I say something, it is correct. First, if you look at the definitions of the Mining Management Act 2001, you will see:
- ‘mining activity’ means any of the following activities:
(a) exploration for minerals;
(b) mining of minerals;
(c) processing of minerals, tailings, spoil heaps or waste dumps;
…
And so on. There is nowhere here any definition or description of what kind of mining activity, above ground or underground, because that is part of mining activity. The mining activity is the mining for minerals, not the way you mine for minerals. They can be interchanged and have been interchanged in the past.
Section 35(2), the one on which Justice Angel based his decision, says:
- The operator for a mining site may apply in writing to the Minister for an Authorisation to carry out on the site the mining activities specified in the application.
In early 2003, McArthur River Mine was operating the mine pursuant to Authorisation 59/01 dated 21 January 2003, and that was granted by the minister in accordance with section 35(2) of the Mining Management Act. During 2003, McArthur River Mine proposed to convert the mine from an underground to an open cut operation in order to fully explore the resources and to extend the life of the mine from 25 years to 35 years. McArthur River Mine also advised the department that the underground mine had reached such a stage that to extract more minerals would compromise the safety of the mine and the safety workers.
The Authorization granted by the minister at that time was to carry out mining activities on the subject mining site. As I said before, ‘mining activities’ are clearly defined in the act as mining for minerals and processing of minerals. There is no specification or demand to specify which way you are going to mine for minerals.
In the past, the department and the ministers have treated it as mining activity without taking into consideration the type of mining activity. There is provision in the act if an Authorisation is granted to a mine, the company can apply for a variation of the Authorisation or the minister may, by written noticed served on an operator, vary or revoke an Authorisation. The minister can vary an Authorisation after taking into consideration environmental issues, occupational health and safety issues or mining practices. This is clearly described in the documentation provided to us by the court.
Our lawyers defended our action. The change from underground mining to open cut mining was a variation of an existing Authorisation because the minister took into account the different circumstances that were occurring at that time at the mine. Ministers are not experts of their field. Ministers are put there under the Westminster system to manage departments. Ministers make decisions relying on the advice of departments and the Crown Solicitor or other experts. Every minister in every government in the past and in the future has done so and will do so.
This was a very difficult decision. You know very well it was a very difficult decision. Too many things had to be considered. There was opposition. At the same time, we were very well aware of the impact that any decision would have on the economy, the future and the reputation of the Northern Territory. We were not prepared to go down the path of development at any cost. I am aware, and there are examples, that should the CLP have been in government, there would not be an EIS to the level we took it. There would not be any package for the community. There would not be any compensation at the level we have put it.
Do I have to remind you of the level of compensation of $900 000 for Mt Todd? That is the biggest mine site in the Territory and one that can actually be seen from space. There was $900 000 compensation payable by a mine that degraded the environment. We managed to arrest the degradation in the last year, but ultimately, to rehabilitate it to what it was before it will cost $50m.
We went through a rigorous environmental process. We were not satisfied with the original process. I spoke to Professor Erskine with regard to the diversion of the river and his response to me was alarming. It sent alarm bells ringing in my head and that is why, despite my support for the mine and business, I went back to the minister for the Environment and said it has to be done again; this is not correct. It was done again to the satisfaction of Professor Erskine and then, and only then, was I prepared to sign it. The reality is if I was the minister for Mines, I would have done exactly the same. I would have signed this Authorisation based on the advice of the department and based on the advice of our legal experts.
What happened? We had a court case. The people who opposed the mine took us to court on three issues. The first was the process was faulty; second, the environmental process was not done properly; and the third was community consultation. Justice Angel had a look at these three, and he stopped at the first one, that the process was faulty. That is the opinion of the esteemed Justice. He said: ‘This is what should have been done’. Lawyers have different opinions, depending on where you stand. You are a plaintiff or a defendant. Then there is the judge. There is no argument about it. We accept the decision of the judge.
The problem we have now is we either ask McArthur River Mine to put another application for an Authorisation, which will take time, or appeal. We can appeal. Lawyers say we have strong grounds, but you cannot guarantee we are going to win an appeal. Another problem we have is that 700 workers at the mine would be stood down, because the mine cannot operate without a valid Authorisation, at a cost to the mine of $500 000-plus every day. The suppliers who supply the mine will stop supplying so they will not be paid. An airline that has made an order of $40m for a jet to service the mine will not service the mine and would not be able to meet the payments.
So we have the situation of every day we delay, the mine will lose money, suppliers will lose money, people will be without work and without income, and the threat to the Territory of legal action against the government. It is not that the government made a mistake. The judge decided that interpretation of the Mining Management Act should be very narrow, not very broad. As I said before, this approval went through such a rigorous process, step by step, in the environmental stage, in the legal stage, in the approval stage, and I bet if you were the minister for Mines, you would have received exactly the same advice, your signature would be on the Authorisation and you would have exactly the same problem.
I am the first to say that, as the minister for Mines, based on the advice we received, and I have gone back and looked at it, I would have signed the Authorisation. I strongly believe the mining activity was to extract lead, zinc and silver. The way you do it is irrelevant. The mining activity is the one that counts, and what is also important is that when the mine advised that there were some potential dangers to the occupational health and safety of people working there, as the government, we had to act and, quite rightly, the minister approved the variation of the original Authorisation to go to open pit.
We find ourselves in a situation now that we have to fix that technical error to authorise the open cut method. The only way we can do it is as a matter of urgency. The reason we are doing it is because we want to protect Territorians from paying compensation, protect Territorians from losing their income, and protect Territory companies from going bankrupt. We can play politics here; I do not have a problem with that. The reality is that, by playing politics, we are playing with the livelihood of hundreds and hundreds of people in Darwin, Borroloola and elsewhere. The minister is not incompetent and he did not make a mistake. As I told you before, I would have done exactly the same based on the legal advice that we received from the legal eagles who work for this government.
Ministers are not mining experts. I am not. I am the last one to say I know everything about mining; I do not. We rely on advice received from the experts and, based on that expert advice, we do things to the best of our abilities. You can say anything you like and you can play politics; the reality is we support the mine, and I personally support the mine, but not at any cost. The mine should comply with the rules and regulations that we put in place in order to safeguard the environment and in order to safeguard occupational health and safety.
Once again, I say we can play politics and you can delay as much as you like but, by playing this kind of politics, you are playing with the livelihoods of hundreds and hundreds of Territorians.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, let us make it very clear: it seems as though other ministers have the same understanding difficulties as the minister for Mines. We support the mine, we always have; we stand on our record in that respect. We support jobs, indigenous and non-indigenous, at the mine. We support investment in the Territory. For members opposite to be suggesting that is not the case really does take them to another planet entirely.
This bill is clearly is supported. Do we have reservations about the precise nature of it and its ramifications? Yes. I thought it was too cute by half, to use a phrase oft quoted by the Deputy Chief Minister, when he said this morning in relation to matters raised by my colleagues, the members for Katherine and Greatorex, that we were nitpicking and we should not dare to suggest that we even had concerns. Certainly other people do, too. The Deputy Chief Minister being almost offended that we have concerns about some of the precise nature and ramifications of this bill, reeks of hypocrisy.
I profess to not having followed the career of the Deputy Chief Minister in any great detail before he became the Deputy Chief Minister; however, as a person living in the Territory, I do recall he, the member for Nhulunbuy, now Deputy Chief Minister, being something of a champion for good parliamentary process, for ministers who were competent and for robust debate. He has certainly changed his tune. I will bet London to a brick that if he were on this side of the Chamber, he would be popping his veins and going red in much the same way he was before for no apparent reason.
My colleagues have put very well the reservations they have. My colleague, the member for Katherine, has done it both in and out of the Chamber and I congratulate her for doing so, and for doing it so well. It is important to put on the record in the context of this bill that the opposition moved earlier, for reasons that were entirely understandable, a motion of no confidence in the minister. If ever a vote of no confidence or a no confidence motion was required, it was today. Why is it that we are talking about this bill? Why is it that this bill is before us now? It is because of the minister’s incompetence. His incompetence has had the effect of potentially jeopardising the mine’s future. Everyone knows that.
Had the minister been better at his job, we say that this would not have happened. We say it in the context of this: various assurances given in this case by the minister that had studied everything properly, it was rock solid, he had given a careful evaluation of the facts and he relied on expert advice. On and on the list went. Yet now he comes in here and, in relation to the no confidence motion, did very little to assure any objective observer that the no confidence motion was not deserved. I noted with a great deal of interest that his colleague, the Deputy Chief Minister, did not leap to his defence, and I noted the absence of the contribution of his boss, the Chief Minister. Let us be very clear. This bill would not have happened had this minister been doing his job.
I note with interest and a level of concern the way in which some ministers and the former minister for Mines went dangerously close - there does seems to be a movement on the government side to blame others. If this minister and the former minister want to hang out public servants to dry, that is a matter for them. We would caution you very strongly against doing so. It seems that you are trying to create the impression that ministerial responsibility is a concept that you do not really need to worry about because it was other people’s fault. Sorry, but the buck actually does stop with you. It does. To argue otherwise is, with the greatest respect, a no brainer. I know it is politics and we have been talking about that, and I know it is increasingly hard for you to be honest in the way you conduct yourselves, but do not go any further. Arguably, you have gone too far to date but we counsel you very strongly and very respectfully: do not go further in having a go at the public servants who provided you with the advice.
Earlier, I gave an account of the history of this matter and made the observation that Xstrata, other people in the industry and, I think, most Territorians, would regard this government as akin to the Clampetts when it comes to how they have conducted the whole thing. From February 2006, when the minister for the Environment made her decision, all of the controversy and highly questionable decisions that were made, and I referred to the decision of the EPA, the report from URS, a copy of which we tabled in February 2006 or thereabouts, the ongoing prevarication of the former minister for Mines, the concern that was very widespread within the industry, certainly as expressed by those 400 or so people who put the ad in the paper. I said in the no confidence motion that I went to a meeting where all of the suppliers were present. Were they concerned? Absolutely, they were. It has been a tale of woe, a tale of incompetence, but it has never been quite as bad as it has been in the last few days.
The minister now needs to change that and we accept it. Do we want this to go ahead? Absolutely! It should not have got to this. I know you are pretending, and good on you, but we all know that you should get rid of the minister. Why should you do that? It is because he is not good for the industry. When you have managing directors and CEOs of mining companies coming to engage with the Northern Territory government, they will have a lot of trouble keeping a straight face because they will look at this conduct over the last 15 months or so and they will just look at you in amazement. They will think you are the Clampetts. We have young Jethro, the minister; Jed, the Attorney-General; and little Elly May over there who just cannot get it right because it underscores the schizophrenic approach they have to mining, both federallly and here.
The member for Arnhem, I note with interest, did not contribute to the no confidence motion. I assume, because she has not got to her feet thus far, is not going to make a contribution to this debate. One cannot help but ask the question, Madam Speaker, whether she has been instructed by her …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: Point of order, Madam Speaker! Speak from your chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you would be aware that during the second reading debate the minister who has carriage of a bill is allowed to sit in the Leader of Government Business …
Ms CARNEY: Have you given that permission, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, last year. In fact, the Leader of Government Business is allowed to speak from that minister’s chair. Leader of Government Business, what is your point of order?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, we are debating the second reading of a bill. I ask that you urge the Leader of the Opposition to confine her remarks to the bill rather than hypothesising about who may or may not speak on the bill. That is not the issue or the question before the Chair. The question before the Chair is the bill and she should be speaking to the bill.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, it has often been the case in this Chamber that members discuss who is and who is not going to talk on the legislation that we debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I will uphold the Leader of Government Business’ point of order. I ask you to contain your remarks as closely as to possible to the bill.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It really has been a tale of woe. One cannot help but wonder whether the minister retains any level of respect or credibility amongst his colleagues. Certainly outwardly, it would appear to be so, but I have a great sense that behind the scenes they might be expressing a different view. This is a junior minister. He should never have been put in this position in the first place in fairness to him. His appointment was a surprise to those in the industry. He has demonstrated himself to be incapable of holding the job.
I come back to the central point: we will be supporting the bill. You wonder whether members of the government are going to support it. We will be looking to see who does and who does not support it. We support the mine. We have been very consistent on that point. With those comments, Madam Speaker, I conclude. I look forward to hearing from anyone else who is going to be talking on the bill.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I appreciate, finally, from the opposition a clear line that they will be supporting this amendment to the act. I will not mention who is in the House or not, that is not right, but I listened carefully to the members for Katherine and Greatorex, and I had trouble working out whether they supported this amendment. The opposition was trying to walk on both sides of the fence at the same time. It is very hard to respect members who try to have it both ways. Simply put, it is good to have the Opposition Leader clarify …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members, cease interjecting!
Ms MARTIN: It is good to have the Opposition Leader clarify where the opposition stands. In the difficult and prolonged process that we went through until last October with the expansion of the McArthur River Mine, the loud voices were coming from the opposition about the need to support this mine, to move it through as quickly as possible; government, you are delaying this mine. They were the loud voices of criticism that we heard about making the McArthur River expansion go through every single hoop. We are proud that this government did.
I am pleased that we got support to deal with a technical issue to establish certainty for the future of the McArthur River Mine, and that is what this bill is about.
Madam Speaker, I was in opposition for a fair time, and I understand that, in opposition, what you do is play politics and you take opportunities …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I understand that from an opposition point of view, you play politics, but you have to play politics based on the facts. You have to play politics, but recognise the facts of the matter before us. What I struggled to find through any contribution from the opposition were the facts. The facts are spelt out. The facts are there in the judgment from the court and the response from the Solicitor-General, about this issue and why this amendment is important.
Mrs Miller interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: If the member for Katherine would respect the fact that I am on my feet, thank you.
The first issue I would like to deal with is urgency for this amendment. The judgment was only on Monday, and we had to create certainty as quickly as possible for a large mining operation. Hundreds of workers, many, many businesses supplying that mine and a major economic operation that needed certainty, so we do not take …
Mrs Miller interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, cease interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: The government does not use urgency lightly. We do not use urgency lightly and there were suggestions today that it is not a proper process for this parliament. Of course it is a proper process. If you look back on how many times urgency was used by the previous government, between 1992 and 2001, the CLP government passed 172 bills on urgency. We would have taken issue with some of those. I was not here for them all, but we would have strongly supported others. Forty two of those bills were introduced one day and then passed the next. Fifteen were introduced and passed on the same day.
I am not going back through vast amounts of history here, but what I am saying is that this parliament does pass bills on urgency, and if we went back through the Hansard, we would see some of those bills were supported in urgency and some of them would have been questioned seriously.
Urgency has a role in this parliament when an issue needs to be dealt with very quickly, and this is one of those. We are dealing with it quickly, and to question the nature of having urgency is your right, but in this case, it is justified. I say again: we use it very cautiously in government and only when required. That is why we are in this parliament today dealing with a matter on urgency, a very important matter that I believe qualifies very well for an amendment under urgency.
The mine clearly needs a licence to operate. When you look at why we can move on urgency, we went through, as I mentioned before, a substantial process leading up to last October when the mine expansion was finally approved. There was an extensive environmental process subject to public scrutiny. It went through two phases of that, much to the displeasure, I must say, of the miner, but we insisted, as government, that every aspect of the questions raised about environmental standards were met. We went through all the other aspects. There was extensive community consultation. Issues about sacred sites were dealt with; the other aspects of this mine were gone through in great detail.
In terms of where we stand today, the other aspects about which the judge on Monday did not make any findings, and we can say quite confidently he made no adverse findings, we are confident they were gone through in great detail and to a very high level of probity and satisfaction.
The judge has questioned the authorisation of the mine. Other members have gone through the whole process of the authorisation of the mine: how, in 2002, the application was for an underground mine and how the then minister granted an authorisation for mining activities, broad range mining activities. That is the basis of the authorisation.
There is a technical issue that the judge has identified, which our best legal minds in government say they believe is clearly able to be appealed. You have the lawyers lined up who say: ‘This is the judgment’. Lawyers do disagree with each other; the Opposition Leader knows that. She has been in court many times, I am sure, where she would argue one thing and the other side would argue something different, and the magistrate will come up with a third opinion. It does happen. Our best legal minds believe that this technical issue with the first application, as opposed to the authorisation, is one that could clearly be appealed.
We are talking about a mine and its certainty and the jobs of hundreds of workers, and the right of that mine to continue to operate. These are very significant things in the Territory. We had a choice. We could either say we would be appeal the process, or we could create certainty immediately. The appeal process would take months. In the interim, that mine would have no licence to operate so hundreds of workers would be stood down. Many tens of businesses which supply that mine would have no business happening and, for the local community who have jobs and training opportunities, there is a community benefit package that has been negotiated worth $32m, all that stops. All that stops for that period of time.
There was no alternative for government. Given the option of going for an appeal and taking months, or moving decisively and quickly, there was no choice for government. That is why we are here today. It is all very well for the opposition to say we have an incompetent minister. That minister was guided by the best legal advice through those processes over those years. We have a sequence of ministers. We believe that our processes were right. We disagree with the judge and we could appeal, but there is no point in going through the appeal mechanism when you put a mine on hold. So we have this amendment before us today.
What we also have is a very real issue for this government. There is a most important funeral happening in Borroloola on Saturday. It is for the brother of the member for Arnhem, a very fine man who fought against this mine and its expansion. Government, of course, considered that issue and the impact on the local community of this debate happening now. Government had to be honest, had to create certainty and had to do the right thing. This is not about disrespect for culture or disrespect for the people of Borroloola who fought against this mine; this is about government doing the right thing to create certainty.
For all of us in this parliament, it is a difficult time, but government is also charged with having to do what is right for the future of the Territory; to create legal certainty for a mine that has the right to operate; and to look to the future in terms of jobs, certainty of jobs, certainty of confidence in the Territory’s future and investing in the Territory for the future. It is always a balance. There is not a person on the government side of the House who does not feel this conflict, as we are now, very deeply. It is difficult, and I certainly understand members in this House who are finding this a very difficult time. I am no exception, but this is an important amendment.
The opposition said that we have a minister who should have known better. The legal advice was there; we believed the legal advice was right. As I said, we could have appealed it. That would have left this mine not operating for a number of months. The implications for the Territory are wide and very profound if a mine sits in limbo. It is all very well, and I listened carefully to the members for Braitling and Nelson, to say that government should pick up the tab for that, potentially, tens of millions of dollars. Balance that against the proper operation of government, a budget where we have important initiatives that would no longer be able to happen. There are important initiatives for the community of Borroloola: upgrading the CEC, doing the infrastructure, roads, all those things are important to the future of that community. It is easy to say, if you are sitting where you are: ‘Government, cop it’. We did not make a mistake. We believe we can appeal it, but time is not on our side.
We could have what in the end would be a pyrrhic victory in court. We could have that, but we would have a mine not operating for many months. The cost to the Territory would be extraordinarily high and that is in tens of millions of dollars.
This is an important amendment. I want to restate that I recognise that for all of us, it is a very tough time to be doing this. We all recognise that but it is something that has to be done to create certainty for this mine, but also certainty for investment for our very fine Territory.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone on this side of the House for their contributions. It has been a difficult time, as I said earlier, and a difficult decision. At the end of the day, we all have to make difficult decisions and I have done that.
I reiterate that this decision has not been taken lightly. We have gone into it very thoroughly and we have had some exceptional advice from the Solicitor-General. It is a technical deficiency in the legislation and we are moving to rectify that. We need to ensure that we have certainty for the mine. We need to ensure that the status quo remains for the mine. Based on that, I move that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, have you finished your speech?
Mr NATT: No, I haven’t. First, I thank the opposition for their support for the passage of this bill. I thank the Independent members for their contribution. All members are aware of the importance and the necessity of the urgency of this debate and this amendment. I hope this summing up will help you understand the process that we are undertaking. I thank the members opposite for taking the time to have a briefing with the Solicitor-General on this issue.
It is important to go back to the history of this. MRM’s 2002 application for the authorisation stated that the proposed form for mining was not underground, and that has been mentioned before, because that is what the operation was at the time. However, the 2003 grant of the Authorisation allowed all types of mining activity, which includes both underground and open pit operations. It was a condition of the Authorisation that a new mine management plan would be required for any changes in the mining operations.
In October 2006, a new mine management plan was approved in order to allow the open pit mining operations. This process was undertaken following legal advice. The court’s technical ruling was that even though the Authorisation of 2003 allowed all types of mining, it was limited by the original application in 2002, which was for underground mining. Legal advice indicates that the decision is appealable, however, we were advised yesterday that given the urgency, a legislative amendment was needed to correct the technical ruling.
As I stated yesterday, it was a hard decision on the McArthur River Mine expansion, which was made over six months ago. After following the rigorous processes that we undertook and considering all the relevant evidence, I made the call for the expansion to go ahead. I did so on the condition that strict environmental standards and safeguards were all put in place; I did so recognising the importance of the economic contribution that the mine makes to the Northern Territory economy. My decision was the right decision, and I have reiterated that several times today. It was the right decision for the region and for the Territory. We took the best available advice on this matter.
However, this technical deficiency in the approval process as identified by the Supreme Court must be rectified to provide certainty and to ensure that the mine does continue.
I should state that the Supreme Court decision rests solely on the content of the 2002 application for the mine and its relationship to the Authorisation granted to expand the mine in 2006. This is a technical legal issue. There is absolutely no suggestion that the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines or I, as the minister, did not properly consider environmental issues or bypass all of the necessary procedural steps. There is also absolutely no suggestion in the judge’s decision that supposed government fast-tracking caused this problem. If there is any deficiency, it lies in the legislation, which means we need to fix the legislation immediately.
Justice Angel during the trial recognised that the issue could be fixed by legislation. The government has conducted lengthy, extensive consultation with the affected groups over many months. Hard decisions have to be made, and they are the right decisions. The Chief Minister has outlined several of those aspects and some of the issues that we as a Caucus are facing with this decision as well.
We need to move on with the project and we have to do that as quickly as possible. An easily solved technical legal issue should not hold up what is a very important project to the Northern Territory and the region. We are talking about the third biggest zinc mine in the world.
The member for Katherine suggested that my second reading speech made no mention of the entirety of what is being debated today. I would like to read my central paragraph from that speech, which does outline what I intended:
- The bill operates to overcome this technicality by removing the limitation placed by the court on and ratifying the operation of the original Authorisation made under section 36 of the Mining Management Act and dated 21 January 2003 as varied by the further Authorisation dated 13 October 2006 together with my approval on 13 October 2006 of the mining management plan for open cut mining in McArthur River.
The bill also includes an addition to the existing compensation provisions in section 4B of the principal act to include this ratification in the class of actions for which just terms compensation is payable should an acquisition of property be effected.
The member for Katherine provided great insight into why the bill is required. She also mentioned the analogy of falling at hurdles. It is an issue about legal technicality, member for Katherine, about the application form. I stand behind the extensive assessment processes that we initiated.
The member for Katherine also acknowledged that the environmental assessment process has been thorough, and I thank her for that. The environmental assessment process was transparent. It provided for extensive public input, and included an environmental impact statement and supplement, as well as a subsequent public environmental report. The Environment Protection Agency flagged several issues about the EIS submitted by McArthur River Mining. These issues were properly dealt with and specifically addressed.
My approval of the mining management plan addressed a range of issues, which included an independent monitoring process for the life of the mine. We are currently working through that process, looking at applications and that independent monitor should be in place by the end of the year.
There is a $55.5m security to cover rehabilitation of the mine operations and, under the mining management plan, that security will be reviewed every year as the mine expands. As the mine gets bigger, that security gets bigger.
We also undertook vast research into the revegetation of the river diversion. We got experts in from around Australia to ensure that that process was done properly. I thank the member for Katherine for her support on the thorough environmental assessment.
The member for Nelson raised issues about the most appropriate way forward. I have outlined the reasons for bringing this bill before the parliament today. The Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory advises that this is the most appropriate way forward. Revoking the Authorisation has been suggested by the member for Nelson. This process would require a reassessment of the entire application and it would take months. We cannot sit around for months, member for Nelson; we need to provide certainty today.
The member for Nelson also suggested the alternative approach of appealing the decision. Again, the Solicitor-General has offered us specific advice. He does not recommend an appeal. Again, it will take several months, and the surety of everyone involved at that mine would be at risk.
He suggested that the government pay compensation. Again, there is no surety to the mine’s operator or the subcontractors involved at the mine if that were to happen. It is not in the best interests of the Northern Territory. Leaving a large mine like McArthur River Mine in limbo, the third largest zinc mine in the world, would be diabolical. Again, we have received the best available advice to make this decision.
The environmental evaluation has been thorough and extensive. We have engaged independent environmental experts to ensure that this process was undertaken properly and the plans that we have put in place will stand the test of time. It is a legal technicality. The Solicitor-General’s advice is that the most appropriate way forward is to change this legislation. This decision will, obviously, confirm that the mining management plan will move to open cut.
I thank the member for Greatorex for his comments. He highlighted the need for urgency on this bill. He also touched upon the extensive environmental assessment. Yes, it was an extensive environmental assessment, as was the consultation for the traditional owners. I mention again to the member for Greatorex that the court’s technical ruling was that even though the Authorisation of 2003 allowed all types of mining, it was limited by the original application of 2002, which was for underground mining.
The member for Braitling was a little confused between the two separate acts. The Mining Management Act was enacted in 2002, and it regulates the operations of mining activities on the site. The Mining Act is used to administer tenures. We are currently going through the stages of updating that act. We are dealing with the mining management plan under the Mining Management Act.
MRM’s 2002 application for an Authorisation stated that the proposed form of mining was underground. That was the operation being undertaken at the time. However, in 2003, it was granted an Authorisation allowing all types of mining activity. This is a legal technical issue around the initial application under the mining management plan.
It also raised issues around the people on the ground. I can assure the member for Braitling that we have written to everyone directly about this decision, to several key stakeholder groups, and it includes the Borroloola region. We have brought them up to date with where we are heading with all of these changes ...
Mrs Braham: How long ago?
Mr NATT: Yesterday. The members for Nelson and Braitling asked whether there were alternative pathways. We need to ratify the mining management plan in totality. We cannot pick and choose excerpts out of that mining management plan. We want certainty around the mining management plan, and we want the Authorisation to be valid. The changes in this bill will provide certainly around that.
There is absolutely no suggestion that the Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines or I, as the mining minister, did not properly consider environmental issues or by-pass necessary procedural steps. The decision of the Supreme Court was about the Authorisation granted, as it can only authorise mining activities specified in the original mining application. It is a legal technical question and one in which differing opinions have been offered over time.
Since taking on this portfolio, as I mentioned earlier, I have worked hard to build the significant achievements of my predecessor, the member for Casuarina. I have supported a very exciting campaign for exploration and mining in the Territory by personal attendance and presentations at numerous national and international events. It is pleasing to note the support of the Minerals Council for these programs, as well as the council’s comment yesterday that I personally have a good working record with industry since taking up the portfolio.
Decisions need to be made. I am very conscious of my responsibility in this area, and I have demonstrated that I am up for the challenge.
Let me reiterate: the Solicitor-General is clear in his advice as to how to resolve this issue, and that is what we are doing. Justice Angel said during the proceedings that this technical issue could be resolved through an amendment to the legislation, and that is what we are doing.
In conclusion, I thank members for their contribution and indulgence in proceeding with this technical amendment as a matter of urgency. This strictly controlled mining operation is too important to be left at a standstill over a technical legal issue. Government considers that the Northern Territory community does not have the time to wait for an appeal on this decision, which could take months, when a minor change to our legislation is all that is required to resolve this minor legal technical issue.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mrs BRAHAM: A division is called, Madam Speaker. A division, please. I said no.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For a division to be called the member needs someone to support it.
Madam SPEAKER: I am aware of that. I am aware that they need support.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I seek clarification because if someone supports the division they must vote against …
Madam SPEAKER: I am aware of that, minister. The issue is that I did not hear any noes whatsoever.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! There were no noes when I called. There was no noise made.
Mrs Braham: It is all right. I will do it at the end of the third reading if you will not accept it now.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek clarification. I heard no negatives whatsoever. Is a division supported?
Mr Wood: Yes, but …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson. Are you supporting the division?
Mr WOOD: I ask for a point of clarification. I was presuming we were going into committee. Are you allowed to have a division before we go into committee?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. This is a second reading motion.
Mr WOOD: I do not want to vote until we have had more debate on this.
Madam SPEAKER: Can I just clarify, member for Nelson, are you supporting the division?
Mr WOOD: Not at this stage.
Madam SPEAKER: No, there is no division called. Member for Braitling, if you wish you can have a vote noted.
Mrs BRAHAM: I can have my vote recorded as a negative?
Madam SPEAKER: You can have your vote recorded.
Mrs BRAHAM: May I have also the fact that the division was called and no one supported it recorded?
Madam SPEAKER: No. Your vote can be recorded.
Members interjecting.
Mrs BRAHAM: Sorry, I am trying to hear, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You called for a division and it was not supported, but you can have your vote recorded as negative.
Mrs BRAHAM: Why can’t I have the fact that I called for a division and the division was not supported recorded?
Madam SPEAKER: That will be part of the Parliamentary Record because we are having this discussion now.
Mrs BRAHAM: That will be part of the Parliamentary Record? Check with the Clerk?
Madam SPEAKER: I draw your attention to Standing Order 157:
- A division shall not be proceeded with unless more than one Member has called for a division. If one Member only calls for a division, that Member may inform the Speaker that he wishes …
… dissent to be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings and in the Parliamentary Record and his dissent shall be so recorded.
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, Madam Speaker, at this stage. Can I also seek clarification from you: if someone supports a division, does that mean they have to vote in the negative?
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct. Otherwise, when it comes the …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! When it comes to the counting of the votes, if the people who have not supported the division are not on the side of the House in which they have indicated they were going to be, the division is voided totally and it is carried on the voices.
Mrs BRAHAM: Okay, that does not look too good, does it?
Madam SPEAKER: I think we have passed the second reading now, have we? The member for Braitling has indicated she wants her vote recorded …
Mrs BRAHAM: At this stage, yes, I would like my vote recorded as a negative. Will that also mean that the call for a division was disallowed on numbers will be recorded as well?
Mr Henderson: In the Parliamentary Record.
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, in Parliamentary Record.
Mr Henderson: Yes.
Mrs BRAHAM: Where else would it be recorded? What I mean is I called a division …
Madam SPEAKER: This whole debate is being recorded, member for Braitling.
Mrs BRAHAM: I called for a division. It was not supported. Will that be recorded in Hansard, the fact that the division was not recorded?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! It happens as a matter of course with everything that we say in here, member for Braitling.
Mrs BRAHAM: All right, thank you. That is all I wanted to know.
Madam SPEAKER: The bill is being supported at this stage. I understand we are going into committee, is that correct?
Mr Wood: Yes, please.
Madam SPEAKER: I shall vacate the chair and call for the Chairman of Committees.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! The committee has before it the McArthur River Project Amendment (Ratification of Mining Authorities) Bill 2007, Serial 99. The question is …
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order, Mr Chairman! Going back to the debate we have just had, Standing Order 164 says:
- The Members supporting the call for a division and every other member in the Chamber, when the question is stated, shall vote, except the Speaker, or the Chairman of Committees in the Chair of a Committee of the Whole, for whom voting shall be optional. *Members having accordingly taken sides, the Chair shall appoint a Teller for each side.
So what I am saying is …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Braitling, there has been a ruling, thank you.
Mrs BRAHAM: But it was incorrect, Mr Chairman.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Chairman! The only way that the member for Braitling can assert the ruling was incorrect is to move dissent against the Speaker’s ruling. Otherwise, she withdraws.
Mrs BRAHAM: All right. I was quoting a standing order. I thought this parliament stood by standing orders.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Braitling, there is no point of order. If you would like to take the matter up with the Speaker, I am sure she will be more than willing to oblige.
Mrs BRAHAM: I will speak to her.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr WOOD: We are dealing with clause 3, which relates to new section 4AB?
Mr CHAIRMAN: That is correct.
Mr WOOD: Minister, the area I would like to explore is related to authorisations. This amendment basically overrides what Justice Angel said in his conclusions. On the last page:
The Minister for Mines and Energy’s acceptance of the amended mining management plan was of no effect because the mining management plan was not in respect of the mining activities to which Authorisation No 0059–01 related …
Mr NATT: I understand that it is the process, and that process is going to take far too long.
Mr WOOD: Minister, this is something I need clarified. Where and in what act does it specify the time taken for a variation to be considered? The advice I was given today is that it can happen very quickly. I need to know, if you are saying that, on what basis you are saying that it would take a long time.
Mr NATT: Member for Nelson, I understand that you are referring to the Environment minister under the Environmental Assessment Act, and I, as minister, would have to follow the process in section 36(2) of the Mining Management Act. We would have to go through a full environmental process again if that were to be undertaken.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. Knowing that you have already been through that process for this particular mine, that is, the open cut version of the mine, the management plan has had a full environmental impact statement done on it for an open cut mine, why would you do it again? You have it. This is what …
Mr Stirling: Processes demand it.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but is not the process immediate if it is all there already?
Mr NATT: Member for Nelson, the first question that you asked would have to be put to the Environment minister. Under section 36(2), it would be quicker, but we need to follow the process and the procedural issues. Once that decision is made, it would be subject to judicial review again, and that would put us back in court.
Mr WOOD: There were two parts to that question. You are saying that this would have to go back to the Environment minister. Bearing in mind that this occurred on Monday, and I presume there has been a lot of work done on all of the options, one of the options was to look at a new Authorisation. If that is the case, did anyone ask the Environment minister whether she would be satisfied if the existing EIS would be satisfactory for the requirements of a new Authorisation in relation to the mine management plan?
Minister, I am not trying to be tricky. This will determine where I will go with my vote. I do not believe it is a good course to go the way we are going. I understand why and I may support that. However, I also feel that, instead of going down that path, we use the existing law that sets a better precedent, if possible. If the existing law can allow you as minister to approve a new Authorisation, and do not forget all we really need here is a change in the terminology that is included in the mining activities section. That was the bit that killed this Authorisation. The word ‘underground’ in the first ‘mining activities’ then applied to the second mine management plan, and the judge said you cannot do that.
What I want to know is: can we look at a more appropriate way of handling this? The questions I am asking are aimed in that direction, to suss out whether the government could have done this. If you say it cannot be done, then I am asking why not. You have not gone very far yet in showing me that it could not happen.
Mr NATT: Member for Nelson, the option of a new Authorisation was considered. There was no referral made to the Environment minister. The decision was made to proceed with the legislation on legal advice that this provides the best certainty, and validates the actions already taken at the mine for the expansion. I reiterate: we have gone to the Solicitor-General for this advice, and he has recommended that this is the best course of action.
Mr STIRLING: Can I just add a bit that might help the member for Nelson because it is a very genuine inquiry that he is putting here? A fresh application would not have provided the certainty that the legislative amendment does in the sense that the new application would not have retrospectively approved and authorised the works already done; there would still be uncertainty about that and it would still be subject to review in a way that this legislative amendment is not.
This legislative amendment provides absolute certainty to the work that is done, and approves the continuation of that work into the future. A new application does not carry the certainty to the same degree. What you are asking is a very good question. You are asking why we did not go that way. It was around that question of absolute certainty.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I can understand that you are saying that you had to cover the period, I presume, between October last year and when it went to court. You could make an Authorisation to cover from here onwards. I can live with an urgency amendment to cover that gap because that would be legitimate. I would rather say that if we came into parliament today and we are looking at this process, we do it through the normal process of authorisation from now on, and perhaps the government look at another process to cover that period of uncertainty. That is, the time you originally authorised this mine to operate in 2006 to the date that the judge said that it could not operate. I presume that is the uncertainty that you are talking about. Most reasonable people would have thought: ‘Okay, there is not much we can do about that. That has happened. We need to give that some legitimacy and we can do that through the normal process of legislation in the parliament’. Then, go down the path of not changing the law at the moment. If we need to change the law because it is a bit sort of dicey about what the meaning is, let us look at that later. If we can use the law as it is to obtain the answer that the government wants, people would see that as a much better democratic process.
The argument we are getting from people outside is that we are avoiding the democratic process. We are not technically avoiding the democratic process because that is what this place is about. It is open for debate and we are going through on urgency. All of that is permitted under the parliamentary process, but from an outsider’s point of view, we look like we are taking a short cut because the judge made a decision that parliament did not like. All I am saying is that I would be far more comfortable if we could use a new authorisation. As I said, the advice I received was that this could happen quickly. I know the minister has said that he has received legal advice from the government’s lawyers. I would be more satisfied if the minister could say on what basis that legal advice was given. I could say I am speaking based on some legal advice, but I am not going to tell you what that was. I really need to know that to be satisfied that that is the correct way to go.
Mr STIRLING: The member for Nelson puts the same question. It does revolve around that question of certainty. It would be no good ticking off a fresh Authorisation that may survive and get around just the same for its ruling, but leave in doubt what has occurred already out there. This has the retrospectivity and the prospectivity that what has been done is duly authorised, and what will be done in the future is duly authorised. Now, you must have that certainty given the situation we are in now. A fresh application and Authorisation would also be subject to further review and possible further doubt given what has occurred up to this point now.
We are absolutely confident that it was a rigorous environmental assessment process in the first place. It was rejected the first time round because we did not think it met the benchmark that government would be satisfied with in terms of all the work that would be done to convert the mine, the shift in operations. It may not have been necessary to go through all of that again, but it very much revolved around the question of certainty for what is done and what is going to be done in the future.
The clear advice from the Solicitor-General is if you want to obtain absolute 100% certainty around this for what is done in the past and for going into the future, you need a legislative amendment and this is what you need to do.
Mr WOOD: I had better ask the minister a basic question. The mine operated from the time you gave them Authorisation in 2006 until Justice Angel made his decision. That is past. It has happened and it was done on a belief that the Authorisation was legal.
What is the point in making it retrospective? It has been done. The hole has been dug. Water has been sent off somewhere. It has already happened. It was not necessarily anyone’s fault because until someone challenged it, we did not know that it was not supposed to happen, but you cannot fix it because it is done. Even though you are saying we should create some certainty, what is the point? No one can bring back what has been removed.
Mr STIRLING: Clearly, if you do not have legal certainty, you leave the way open for challenge and for compensation. If you do not have certainty and legal authorisation for what work has already been done, you are leaving a massive exposure in terms of claims.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I wanted clarification of that. What I am saying is if you need that, why don’t we pass an amendment to cover that section of time? That is, from the time of the original Authorisation to the time the judge made a ruling or until today. So we determine that it was the correct process at the time, and then we use the existing law …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, I am not. My argument is: why can’t we have an Authorisation in one or two days? This is my reasoning: we have to have an Environmental Impact Statement. You have it. You have done it. The mine management plan has not changed. It is the same mine management plan, and that environmental impact statement relates to that mine management plan. All that needed to change in the Authorisation application is to state what the mining activities were, and ensure it did not say ‘underground’. It could just say ‘mining activities’. That seems to me the problem with what Justice Angel said.
Why can’t we get a new Authorisation from you, minister, using exactly the same mine management plan and exactly the same EIS, and just change the words on mining activities and, bingo!, there it is? We can come back next sitting and review the whole thing in a less urgent manner.
Dr Burns: Are you going to foot the bill?
Mr WOOD: I am trying to use the law we have, and that is a reasonable approach.
Mr Henderson: We are using the best legal advice that we have.
Mrs Braham: The question is to the minister, not to the Treasurer.
Mr Henderson: He is the Attorney-General!
Mr WOOD: In committee stage, anyone can respond.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, the member for Nelson suggested a two-stage approach, one which would fix the retrospectivity we were talking about, but would not have provided certainty in the future. That would still be subject to review. In answer to why we did not go that way, it is not just the Solicitor-General and the legal advice to government recommending this legislative amendment for absolute certainty both retrospectively and prospectively, it was Justice Angel himself. Justice Angel said: ‘They need to amend it’.
Mr WOOD: I will respond to the minister. I have a little note here that says: ‘Unfortunately, we do not have those notes from Justice Angel’. We have the judgment from the court. It does not have any notes other than the plaintiffs, the story, the argument and the judgment. I do not know that Justice Angel has said this is a technicality; I have the judgment that says it was done incorrectly. That is what I have based my argument on. Why can’t we fix it under the existing laws?
Mr NATT: It was in the transcript of the trial, member for Nelson. It is not in the judgment itself. I have a copy of that page of the transcript. I can table it or I can read it.
Mr WOOD: Could you read it out, please?
Mr NATT: After some conversation with Mr Robertson, His Honour said:
They could pass an act of parliament.
Mr WOOD: Would you table that document, please?
Mr NATT: Yes, I table it.
Ms CARNEY: My question is to the Mines minister. In an early answer before the Attorney-General answered some questions seemingly on your behalf, you told the member for Nelson that part of the reason you did not seek a new authority was that: one, it was not subject to judicial review; second, you said that it would have to go back to the Environment minister; and you referred to time being a factor. I think they were the three points.
I have a few questions. In terms of your reference to going back to the Environment minister, what process, formal or otherwise, have you undertaken since Justice Angel delivered his decision that has involved the minister for the Environment?
Mr NATT: Leader of the Opposition, we considered a range of options. The advice from the Solicitor-General was that this is the option we should take.
Ms CARNEY: So, no consultation with the Environment minister?
Mr NATT: Well …
Ms CARNEY: Okay.
Ms Lawrie: Don’t put words in his mouth.
Ms CARNEY: Your reference to the time factor, what advice did you receive on what was the most expeditious in terms of time alternative: legislation or a new authority?
Mr NATT: It was singularly legislation.
Ms CARNEY: Legislation, and who gave you that advice?
Mr NATT: The Solicitor-General.
Ms CARNEY: Would you be able to table a copy of the legal advice that you received?
Mr NATT: Leader of the Opposition, as you know, members of your party were offered a briefing. They have had a briefing. The papers that you refer to are normal business papers and we will not table them.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you for your answer. So much has changed I thought perhaps that had changed in the last 24 hours.
Minister, in relation to the page of the transcript of the hearing before His Honour, the Attorney-General, as I understood his answer, was indicating, and you may have as well, that His Honour advised the government to pass an act of parliament …
Mr Henderson: He did not say that! Don’t put words into people’s mouths.
Ms CARNEY: We look forward to reading the Hansard because, by jingo, that is what it sounded like. Minister, even you can answer this. The judge did not actually advise you to do that, did he?
Mr Henderson: No, we did not say that.
Ms CARNEY: The judge did not advise you to do that, did he?
Mr Henderson: We did not say that.
Ms CARNEY: Have you read it?
Mr NATT: I did not say that.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, I am wondering, given the references to certainty that you have made, could you please take us through the process and explain, give your own account of the issues regarding certainty, and why it is that the legislation is better in terms of certainty, and outline what those certainties are, better than seeking a new authority?
Mr NATT: The decision was made to approve the mine in October 2006. This legislation will confirm that approval, and all the proper processes that were followed in 2006. It was an extensive process to get there, and it would be pointless to go back on them again.
Ms CARNEY: Can I clarify: how does it apply to the mine? What exactly are you talking about when you …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Chairman! We are in committee stage and we are looking at specific clauses of the bill before us. I am not exactly sure where the Leader of the Opposition is going with this. She does not seem to be relating her comments to the clauses before us as a committee. I ask about relevancy.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will seek clarification. Leader of the Opposition, I would like you to try to relate back to the clauses of the amendment that is at hand, if you could.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The member for Nelson asked the minister, but the Attorney-General, gallant fellow that he is on occasion, leapt in and wanted to take the pressure off the minister for Mines because of his inability to answer questions. The Attorney-General went on in relation to this particular clause, during which no point of order was raised, and talked about certainty, and he said that the legislation was better because it is better for certainty, what is done, and what is going to be done in the future. That is what he said, and he is nodding his head, for which I thank him.
Minister, can you please tell us what does he mean by ‘certainty’? What do you, as Mines minister, mean by ‘certainty’? How does it apply to the mine? Why is it better for the mine …
Dr Burns: What you are not giving …
Ms CARNEY: Hang on, hang on. Look, you are so desperate to save him and we respect your attempts. Can you take us through, minister, what you understand to mean by the references to certainty? Why is it better? Can you tell us that, minister?
Mr NATT: Leader of the Opposition, quite obviously the certainty of all of this process is to ensure that the mine will continue. It is the certainty for miners to keep their jobs, and subcontractors to maintain their work contracts within the mine. Not to have this certainty, the mine would close.
Mr WOOD: Minister, is it possible to retrospectively apply an Authorisation under the present law? In other words, if someone applies for an Authorisation, can the application be retrospective?
Mr NATT: No.
Mr WOOD: That is the clarification. So this section 4AB is applying certainty via an Authorisation to cover not only what happened from 2006, but it will introduce a new definition of ‘mining activities’. The definition in 4AB is:
- authorises mining activity of any kind (including the conversion of the Mine from underground mine into an open-cut mine).
That is the new definition of mining activity?
Mr NATT: That is correct.
Mr WOOD: I do not want to go on forever and day about this, but, forgetting the previous bit that we can cover by legislation, which is the bit between 2006 that Justice Angel said should not have happened, what is stopping you from determining an application for an Authorisation right now if the minister for the Environment said it is fine? Could it not be done very quickly?
When I was arguing about the government having to pay, I accept that an appeal would be really out of all proportion with what we are trying to save, but if this only took a couple of days, and that might cost the government some money, I don’t know, and we used existing law, it sends out a better signal to the community that we have used the processes we have before us and we are willing to change them later on in due course. That is what I am getting out.
I have not been convinced that we cannot use the existing section 36 of the act. In fact, in this transcript Mr Robertson mentions at the end that the government could decide to lodge a fresh Authorisation and seek a ruling from the minister for the Environment. That is what I am saying. Isn’t that possible, or was Mr Roberston being a little cheeky? Was he hoping you would do that because he thinks he might be able to have another go at you? That is what is written here.
Mr Henderson: What did the judge say?
Mr WOOD: His Honour said: ‘They could pass an act of parliament’.
Mr Henderson: Exactly.
Mr WOOD: He said they ‘could’. He did not say they had to.
Mrs Braham: It was an option.
Mr WOOD: It was an option. But Mr Robertson was talking about the option that I am talking about.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Nelson, what is your question?
Mr WOOD: My question is: could it be done? Could you actually do it and still create certainty under the existing law in very quick time?
Mr STIRLING: The clear advice is no. I went through that it terms of certainty before.
Mr WOOD: I understand that. Are we able to see the reasons behind you saying that? I know the minister said: ‘I got legal advice’. I do not have the legal advice …
Mr Henderson: You had a briefing with the Solicitor-General.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, we have a bill that we got yesterday. I spent a good part of last night reading it so I could understand the ruling. I went to a briefing this morning which was at 8.30 am, parliament starts at 10 am. We went to a briefing. The problem is this is a complex issue. I don’t think of all these things just like that. I have been listening to this debate carefully from the previous minister; everyone has been putting things forward. The one thing about which I have not been satisfied is that we cannot use existing legislation to pass this.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Well, I think it is a reasonable way to go about it. Otherwise it appears as though we have taken a short cut. I know it is a legal short cut. Parliament is here to do those sorts of things, but I am not satisfied yet that we cannot do it. The advice I have, and I don’t think I am going to get killed for saying so, is from the Northern Territory Minerals Council. They said: ‘Yes, you should be able to get that done pretty quickly’. I have not been convinced here that you cannot do it.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Do you have a question?
Mr WOOD: We are allowed to comment at this stage. We are getting some answers.
Mr NATT: I am repeating myself from an answer we had before. All of the processes were followed in 2006, and as we have been through it before, the processes we undertook prior to October 2006 were very extensive, they were very rigorous and it would be pointless, absolutely pointless, to go through all that again.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I support the process the government has been through with the Environmental Impact Statement. We had enormous debates in this parliament. I know that. I am not asking for that to happen again. We would be crazy if we are going to ask for that to happen again. The mine management plan and the environmental impact statement go hand in glove. They went together. I am not asking for a change in that and surely the minister for the Environment would say: ‘That is fine, it has been done’. All I am saying is change the definition of ‘mining activities’ and give them an Authorisation. Is there something that would legally make that uncertain, if you did? Can someone tell me why we cannot use section 36 of the existing act? Right now.
Mr STIRLING: I explained it before. You would leave exposed, in a retrospective sense, the work that was done, to claim for compensation. You would have uncertainty going forward in the sense that you are subject to review. The strength of the legislative amendment approves what was done retrospectively. It approves what is going to be done prospectively without review and without leaving exposure to claims of any kind, compensation or otherwise, for the work that has been done.
If you cannot understand the certainty that this legislation delivers in a way that a new application does not, I cannot help you any further.
Mr WOOD: Thank you.
Mr NATT: Further to what the Attorney-General said, it is pointless to go through it all again. It would expose the mine to further possible challenge. It would waste time. We would be back in courts and would go through the whole rigmarole again.
Mr WOOD: A point of clarification, then. I heard what the Attorney-General had to say. A management plan normally is reviewed every 12 months. Are you saying in this case there will be no review of the management plan until the time that this mine finishes?
Mr NATT: No.
Mr WOOD: Then what is the problem with it being reviewed continually? Maybe I misunderstood the Attorney-General, but I understood from what he said, if we go down the path that I am advocating, it will have to be reviewed and reviewed and reviewed. That sounds like the legislation will stipulate no review. Is that what it is saying?
Mr Vatskalis: No, every year.
Mrs Braham: Every year? It will continue to be reviewed every year?
Mr Vatskalis: Yes.
Mr NATT: The mine management plan is reviewed each year.
Mr WOOD: Through you, Mr Chairman, could I ask the Attorney-General what he meant in his last comments about reviewing it would be a problem?
Mr STIRLING: Let’s use the word ‘challenge’. The new Authorisation would be subject to legal challenge in the way that we have seen this one, in a way that this bill is not. That is the certainty that we are driving at. This legislation is not challengeable. It puts right what Justice Angel found: a technical inconsistency on his interpretation of the current legislation. This clarifies that. This takes it beyond ambiguity. This takes it beyond the reach of the Supreme Court. This clarifies what has been done, authorises what has been done, and authorises what will be done in the future in an unchallengeable fashion.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, paragraph 39 of the judgment reads:
- The Minister for Mines and Energy’s acceptance of the amended mining management plan was of no effect because the mining management plan was not in respect of the mining activities to which Authorisation No 0059–01 related …
Surely to make it certain, we have a mining activity which mentions open cut for 0059-02. Surely that is not challengeable because that is exactly what Justice Angel was saying was wrong.
Mr NATT: Basically, we wanted the 2002 Authorisation to be legal as well as the second Authorisation, which was in October 2006, and that will include all of the activities at the mine for the open cut processes. That includes the bond I mentioned before, the $55.5m, and the independent monitor. We wanted to make sure that that was all covered.
Mr WOOD: I know I am going to be in trouble for labouring the point, but this was all covered in that, surely, before you knew there was a problem, when you gave this original Authorisation. All the judge said is that you should not have done it without changing the mining activity clause. That is really what it is; it was not about the bonds or about this or that. None of that has come into this judgment, which purely says you simply did not use the right words in the mining activity clause. You had ‘underground’ when it should have been ‘open cut’ or just ‘mining’.
That is the crux of this issue. I am not at lawyer, and I do not pretend to be one, but I have done my best to read this document, and it seems to me that Justice Angel simply said – and forget the retrospective issue the Treasurer has brought up, which is very important - the only problem was that it was the wrong definition under the mining activities clause.
Mr NATT: The Solicitor-General has given us the advice that the best way to go is to change the legislation to ensure that both Authorisations are legal.
Mr WOOD: I am not happy with that, and I am not taking it out on you, minister. You have legal advice which I do not have. I will leave it at that, but I do feel, and that is the problem with this urgency, there should have been much more debate about why it could not have been done under normal processes.
I do not want to put 400 or 700 people’s jobs at risk, but we here are today in parliament to discuss a very serious bill which contains some important changes. I understand where the government is coming from. I have spoken to others and have said the government could be up for a fortune if this mine does not go ahead. I accept that. As the Chief Minister said, if we lose money over this issue, there might be less money for a school or a road somewhere. I accept that, although governments do insure themselves, surely, against bad decision-making, just like lawyers have professional indemnity. If one makes a bad decision, you have to wear it, but we have to realistic in this case. An appeal could for six months or whatever and that will cost a fortune
All I am trying to say, minister, is that I am not satisfied with answer. I understand what the Treasurer said, but we should have been doing our best to use the existing law and then come back and review the whole Mining Act later and get this thing sorted out. To me, it sends a signal out to the community that we have taken a short cut. That is why I am not particularly happy about the process we are using today.
Mr STIRLING: I share what the member for Nelson is saying in relation to a perception of a short cut. I accept that might be the view of many. However, government did consider every option. If there were another way to do it which did not open up exposure at the beginning or an avenue for challenge further on, such as you are suggesting, that provided the equal amount of certainty that could have been done in the same sort of time frame, government would have opted for that route rather than urgent legislation. However, there was not the certainty provided for by, what you are suggesting, another application, another Authorisation, to the strength of the certainty that this legislation provides.
I suppose I am saying the same thing and you are asking the same question, and I do not understand why you are not hearing or understanding what I am saying. I empathise with your question; it is a fair question. If there was a better way to do it, a simpler way to do it, rather than urgent legislation, and it provided the certainty that this legislation does, government would have opted for that course. No other course was made apparent to government that provided the certainty of this legislation.
Mr WOOD: It is actually the issue I raised at the briefing this morning, which was simply given to me back that, if you went down the path of a new Authorisation, it would take time, etcetera. However, we did not nut out the nitty-gritty of where that conclusion came from. That is what I was trying to do today. I am not satisfied that I have been given the full reasoning as to why you cannot go down that way. The answer I have is: ‘That is what our solicitor said’. I am not here to challenge the solicitor - heaven help us! However, I do not have the reasoning from our solicitor, so I have to take it on faith. That might be all right with my religion, but it is not, obviously, all right with the legislation we are dealing with today.
Minister, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not want the mine to stop. My argument is that we should have really nutted out this with a bit more timing. I know time is the essence, and I am unhappy about the process, but let us go on, minister.
Mr NATT: Member for Nelson, I think we agree on the retrospectivity. The prospectivity into the future will provide all that certainty that we have been talking about. I will go into it again: the extensive assessment that we have already undertaken, and it was very extensive, will cover all of that, but there would be lengthy delays if we have to go through all that again. That is the reason that we are pushing this through on urgency today.
Mr WOOD: I am not satisfied that process would take more than a day if the government really put its will into doing it, that is all.
Mr NATT: In answer to that, it is still subject to challenge. What you are suggesting will still be subject to challenge.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr WOOD: Sorry, I blinked.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Do you have any questions, member for Nelson, on clause 4?
Mr WOOD: No, Mr Chairman.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak to the third reading. I have sat patiently through all the debate and listened to what has been said. I understand fully what the government is saying. They want to make sure there is certainty for the future, and none of us in this House want the mine to be closed, jobs to be lost or the future of this mine to be delayed in any way. I can appreciate this is the intent of the government for this legislation.
Yes, we did have a briefing, short though it was. Unfortunately, not all the relevant information was given to us, and the member for Nelson raised that. We did not, obviously, have time to read the whole trial; we did not have access to it. We did read the judgment. This is part of the problem of having something lumped on you so quickly. It is such an important bill and has so much detail it is very difficult to get across it. Perhaps if we had had a little more time, as we have all said, it would have been better.
The reason I voted in the negative for the second reading debate was I wanted to test the waters of other members in this House. It is quite apparent that I am not going to get support for a division, but it is very important for the general public to understand that it was not supported, that only one person wanted it recorded how members would vote on this bill; for, against and who would not vote at all. It is the vote of who would not vote for it all that was important to be recorded. In saying that, I do not think I have support for a division again.
I appreciate what you are doing. I know what you are doing, but there is a process and dilemma that you have given to members who would like to be thorough in their debate. That is why I feel, as the member for Nelson, a little unsatisfied with what we are doing today.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this has been a long and interesting debate for a number of reasons. The most obvious is the unprecedented display of incompetence by the minister. It is important to put on the Parliamentary Record that this minister barely answered any questions without seeking advice and some of the questions were not tricky.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: He is a minister of the Crown. I know he is your friend. I know he is your friend, but he is a minister of the Crown. There was a vote of no confidence earlier. He should have …
Members interjecting:
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are into the third reading of the bill. Standing orders are very clear that the third reading debate should be specifically pertaining to the legislation. The Leader of the Opposition getting into a smear campaign against my colleague, the minister for Mines, has absolutely nothing to do with the detail of the bill, which is exactly what the third reading is confined to. I would urge you to seek that the Leader of the Opposition confines her comments to the detail of the legislation, which is the subject of the third reading.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the sensitivities on the other side, we are …
Mr Henderson: It is parliamentary procedure.
Ms CARNEY: I know you are rude and I know you are a bully, but you have had your go.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, I would like you to withdraw that, please.
Ms CARNEY: Rude?
Madam SPEAKER: Referring to a member in such a way.
Ms CARNEY: Bully? We cannot use the word bully any more in parliament, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, simply withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I am happy to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue.
Ms CARNEY: It is just that the word has been used on other occasions, but I am happy to …
Madam SPEAKER: Are you speaking to a point of order?
Ms CARNEY: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Very briefly.
Ms CARNEY: The point of order is this: this is the third reading stage. It is an opportunity for members to speak again to the legislation. We have come out of the committee stage and I invite the Leader of Government Business to refer to the standing order which says that members are precluded from talking about matters that were discussed in the second reading stage. There are other things, too, but that is the main thing, Madam Speaker. I would invite you to reject the call for a point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: I am going to seek advice from the Clerk.
Mrs Braham: We only get five minutes.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, I know.
Madam SPEAKER: The advice that I have received is that the third reading relates simply to matters that have been raised in the committee stage of the bill and should not revisit matters which were in the second reading debate. Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to make sure that it is relevant to that.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, Madam Speaker. During the committee stage, it was clear that the minister was unable to answer almost every question without seeking advice. That is what occurred during the committee stage.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have just ruled that discussion in the third reading of the bill should be in relation to matters raised during the committee stage. That goes to the content of the debate, not an opinionated slur about how the debate was conducted and who assisted in the debate. The debate should be confined to matters that were raised, not to the conduct of the debate in itself.
Dr LIM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: I have already come to a decision on this. The Leader of Government Business is absolutely correct. It is meant to be on the legislation itself and on matters which were raised as specific points in the committee stage. Leader of the Opposition, you may continue, but stick with the legislation as such.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In relation to clause 3 of the bill, that was discussed and the minister received various questions regarding the ramifications of clause 3. They were the matters debated to the extent that they were debated in the committee stage. In terms of specifics, it is clear that in relation to the word ‘certainty’, the minister had no idea, and after about his seventh attempt, eventually provided something that vaguely resembled a sensible explanation.
He did not, by a country mile, adequately explain why it was that a new authority was not sought. He somewhat incoherently outlined and kept relying on the advice from the Solicitor-General, a copy to which members of this Chamber are not entitled. The minister was asked questions in relation to whether the minister for the Environment was consulted. In one of the questions he answered from the member for Nelson, the indication was that she could be, might have been and subsequently, no, she was not consulted. I am summarising because this is yet another demonstration of the minister’s incompetence.
I appreciate, turning to the call for a division, why the member for Braitling wants a division. We made it clear we will support the legislation and, for the record, and let us speak plainly, the member for Braitling wants a division because she wants to see how members of the Labor Party are going to vote. Far be it from me to suggest that many of you are gutless.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have ruled consistently that the third reading debate relates to matters that were considered in the committee stage of the bill. I would urge that you keep the Leader of the Opposition on that point.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, first, I would like to withdraw the term ‘gutless’ ...
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I withdraw the term ‘gutless’.
Madam SPEAKER: Before you continue, I draw reference from House of Representatives Practice in relation to third reading debates. This, of course, is something we follow in this House as well:
- The motion may be debated, although such debates are not common. The scope of debate is more restrictive than at the second reading stage, being limited to the contents of the bill. That is, the matters contained in the clauses and schedules of the bill. It is not in order to reopen or repeat debate on matters discussed on the motion for the second reading or during the detailed stage. It has been held that debate on the motion for the third reading is limited to the bill as agreed to by the House to that stage.
I will be following that very strictly.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do not think there is much more for me to say in any event. I am quite certain the point has been made.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I speak against this bill and put my voice on the record as to the reasons why I must speak against the bill. I have listened intently to the debate that has continued throughout the day and I commend the Attorney-General on his comments in this House about the Northern Territory Labor government and the fact that we are a broad church, the fact that we …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Noting the ruling you have made and the extract you have quoted from House of Representatives Practice, I ask that you impose on others what has been respectfully imposed on us.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arnhem, I ask you to speak specifically to the legislation.
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, indeed. As I was getting to the legislation I put on the record that this is legislation to which I am opposed for personal reasons and what I see as legislation being pushed through on urgency, when for the Aboriginal people in the Borroloola region, the Yanyuwa, the Garrwa, the Mara and the Gudanji, there is Sorry Business going on right now. It is unfortunate that any kind of legislation has to be forced through at a time when families are grieving over a very important person who has fought for the rights of the Gulf region in this case against the diversion of the river.
I have stood in this House on two occasions, Madam Speaker, to express the deep sincerity of the people of the Gulf region regarding the importance of the river. This legislation is being rushed through on urgency without having first buried a very important man, my brother, who has stood in the Supreme Court to argue for the rights of indigenous people in this country. I have explained and expressed this quite well with my colleagues, who I know have fought difficult situations regarding this particular project in the Gulf region ...
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The point has been made. We know how the member for Arnhem feels. It was only a few minutes ago when there was near hysteria on the other side of the House in relation to what could and could not be said at the third reading stage. I ask that you rule consistently, in particular given the broad ranging comments made by the member for Arnhem.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition …
Mr STIRLING: Speaking to the point of order, I cannot believe the rudeness and the arrogance of the Leader of the Opposition when a member is on her feet, whose emotions …
Ms Carney: You are a hypocrite, Syd. You are a hypocrite.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition!
Ms Carney: You were jumping up and down, saying I could not say a thing.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! I ask you to withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: Withdraw what, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Hypocrite.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw ‘hypocrite’, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Resume your seat.
Mr STIRLING: … whose emotions and sensitivities around this matter run quite deep. I simply cannot believe the insensitivity, rudeness and arrogance exhibited by the Leader of the Opposition and her fellow member for Greatorex.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, if words like ‘hypocrite’ and ‘bully’ are to be withdrawn, I do ask that you apply the same standard to the government side as you apply to the opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I believe you are reflecting on the Speaker, and I rule, as I said, at the time. Member for Arnhem, I ask you to speak as closely as possible to the legislation, as I have discussed before. Please continue.
Ms McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In regards to this legislation, I must speak against it. I certainly feel that, on behalf of the people of the Gulf region, and in particular indigenous people right across the Northern Territory and, indeed, Australia, that to pass this legislation on urgency, in the middle of Sorry Business is the lowest sign of respect for those people and families. I still encourage my colleagues in government to negotiate with the traditional owners on a level of equality and equity. I sincerely put to the House that I vote against this bill. I thank members for allowing me this opportunity.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I take note of the words of the member for Arnhem, and I realise how brave she is.
I also will not be supporting this legislation. I am on record as supporting the mine, and I said that at the beginning of this debate. I am not convinced that this is the right process. I have not felt that I have been given the answers to satisfy that we could not use existing legislation to make the changes government wanted. I would like it on record why I am not supporting this legislation. People might say: ‘He did not support the legislation; he must be against the mine’.
A member: Yep, exactly right.
Mr WOOD: See! There you are. That is pretty shallow thinking, Madam Speaker. I am saying that the process we used today to keep the mine going is the wrong process. We should have used another process. Surely it is my right to say that. It does not mean I am opposed to the mine …
Mr Stirling: Yes, it does.
Mr WOOD: I am saying the type of legislation you have put through parliament today is the wrong process; it sends out the wrong message. I am not convinced by what the minister said, with all his advice, that we could not have used existing processes. At least that would have satisfied some people. It would not have satisfied everyone. Obviously, the member for Arnhem feels deeply about this, as do other people. I know this because I have spoken to those people outside.
However, I have weighed up the issues and believe the mine is a good thing. I believe the environment …
Mr Stirling: Under your approach, it would remain closed.
Mr WOOD: You can play politics, but I am giving you the reasons why …
Mr Stirling: No, it is not; that is exactly what you are doing.
Mr WOOD: You are playing politics. Just because I give a different reason than you does not mean I do not support the mine ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Look at that. You belong to the ‘yes and no’ people, the black and white. As I said before, you can have three sides to a triangle, and you can have five sides to an argument. In your case, you believe there is one side for and one side against. There are other points of view, and that is why I am Independent. That is why I like to give a different point of view. That is why I spent so much time debating this issue. It is important and processes are important, and I think this process is wrong. You should have done this a different way. If you sat down with the miner and the Environment minister, we could have worked through this process as normal, and you may have had to bring in some retrospective legislation.
I am putting it clearly on record that I do support the mine. I support the work that the department of Environment has done in looking at all the environmental impacts the mine has had. I was part of that debate, and I support that as well. I know there are some risks, but there are always risks. Those risks are well covered by the conditions the government has put on this mine. I want to make it clear to the people out there that I do support the mine.
We could still have come up with the same result using the existing legislation. I have not been convinced by what I have heard. Government has not put its argument clearly to me and to others as to why its process is better. One of the problems with this debate being on urgency is that we simply have not had enough time to absorb these changes. Unfortunately, that is the problem with us sitting for three days this week; we have not had enough time to look at the ramifications of the process which occurred today.
Madam Speaker, I respect the bravery of the member of Arnhem for standing up and giving her opinion. It is very difficult for her to do that in the circumstances, and I commend her for it.
I do not support this bill for the reasons I have given. If people now say: ‘Gerry Wood does not support the mine’, you are not telling the truth as you have heard it from me today. I support the mine, but not the process by which we tried to change things today.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I vote against this bill and to put on record my objections to the way it has been put through.
I have always been an advocate for indigenous people, fighting for the rights of Aboriginal people. I understand the economic argument for this bill but, as the Deputy Chief Minister said, the Labor Party has become a broad church in the sense that it understands the diversity of its members. I want to put on record that I do object to and vote against this bill.
I want to make sure people understand and see the ramifications that this will have on the people at Borroloola. As the member for Arnhem said, they are going through Sorry Business; she is burying her brother on Saturday. I do not think this bill should have been put through on urgency. I want to make sure that I put on record that I vote against this bill, and I support the member for Arnhem.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I do not support the amendment. I stand in support of my colleague, the member for Arnhem. It is probably the most difficult thing, in such a short career in this House, but when I came to this parliament, I said that I would represent people in my electorate to the best of my ability, and I would stand up for their rights.
As a Warlpiri man and an Aboriginal man, I also have Yanyuwa and Mara blood running through my veins, and out of respect for family members in the Borroloola region, I wish to pay respects by saying that I support my colleagues, the member for Macdonnell and Arnhem. I will not support this legislation and I would like it on the public record.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I think we should put the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 17 Noes 5
Mr Bonson Ms Anderson
Mr Burke Mrs Braham
Dr Burns Mr Hampton
Ms Carney Ms McCarthy
Mr Henderson Mr Wood
Mr Kiely
Mr Knight
Dr Lim
Ms Lawrie
Ms Martin
Mr McAdam
Mr Mills
Mr Natt
Ms Sacilotto
Mr Stirling
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Warren
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Greatorex
Member for Greatorex
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given permission for the member for Greatorex to make a personal explanation.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, earlier today I sought permission from you to make a personal explanation in relation to an assertion made today by the Minister for Essential Services that, as shadow minister, I expressed or implied that the Country Liberal Party in government would remove all subsidies to Power and Water with a consequent increase in the cost of electricity for Territorians.
This came about when I noticed a discrete notice in the Government Gazette late last year that revealed that the Northern Territory Treasury had stepped in to pay $535 250 of PAWA’s costs to improve PAWA’s accounting system and there was a bill from PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
In seeing that, I felt that PAWA should have paid its own bill. The words I used in my media release of 11 January were:
- PAWA is essentially a private company, although government owned. It is a corporation by every measure so it needs to operate in that fashion. That means that it has to live by its own resources.
Following that media release, within 24 hours, the Treasurer issued a media release asserting that what I said meant that the CLP would remove all subsidies from Power and Water and would therefore push up Territory electricity prices. What the minister in fact was referring to is the subsidy that the Northern Territory government provides to Power and Water for power tariff equalisation across the Territory.
When you have a private corporation performing a function, it has to make a profit to ensure its own viability. If the government chooses to have a policy such as electricity tariff equalisation across the Territory, it is government policy. A private corporation would say: ‘No, we cannot do that because we cannot afford to have tariff equalisation across the Territory’, but if the government chooses to do so as a measure of public policy, then government would need to provide Power and Water with a Community Service Obligation payment to allow tariff equalisation to occur. This is what happened with the CLP government. We paid Power and Water several million dollars each year to ensure that every Territorian pays the same for each unit of power.
This government continues to do that and this financial year coming, the Northern Territory government will be providing $57m or so to Power and Water to continue the policy of tariff equalisation. That is not a subsidy; that is a government cost. That is a cost the government provides to Power and Water to ensure that the policy is implemented. That is what it is.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex sought leave for a personal explanation. He is making comment on government policy and I believe it is outside the realms of a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I would like it to be a very short personal explanation, which is what we had discussed.
Dr LIM: I am about to wind up, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue.
Dr LIM: The fact is that the CLP introduced a CSO to PAWA to avoid Territorians paying unequal rates of electricity tariff. That will continue as a CSO.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Once again, I raise the issue of a personal explanation. The member is going into previous practices of the last government, which I cannot see has any relevance at all to his personal explanation in this case.
Madam SPEAKER: I will allow the member to continue, but, please member for Greatorex, be very swift.
Dr LIM: It therefore refutes the government’s assertion that I, as shadow minister for Essential Services, either expressed or implied that a Country Liberal Party government will remove all subsidies from Power and Water, with the consequence of increasing the cost of electricity for Territorians.
That was never the case, and I put on record that will never be the case because it is a CSO we are talking about and not paying extra bills for Power and Water.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2007-08
(Serial 94)
(Serial 94)
Continued from 2 May 2007.
Mr HENDERSON (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I support what we believe, in the government, is the best budget the Martin government has brought down since we came to government in 2001.
As the Treasurer said, this is a budget our children would like us to deliver. In all aspects of the budget, this will consolidate the gains that this government has made across all areas of economic and social policy since we came to government in 2001, and continue to move the Territory ahead and build a better Territory for all Territorians. It is a budget of which we, on this side of the House, are very proud. This budget delivers across all areas of government and, as Minister for Employment, Education and Training, I would like to speak to some of the highlights of the budget. I will also speak about Tourism.
In Employment, Education and Training, we are on a huge policy agenda to improve outcomes in schools across the Northern Territory. One of the real highlights was Jobs Plan 3. Speaking to Jobs Plan 3, there is $21.3m over four years to be spent on upskilling and training Territorians, particularly our young Territorians, whether they are in Darwin, Alice, Katherine, Tennant, Ngukurr or Ampilatwatja. Wherever they may be across the Northern Territory, all of our young people deserve the best opportunities for education and training to get them a job. That $21.3m over four years is funding that was never there under the previous CLP administration. They never had a jobs plan. Their policy in regard to training was: ‘You finish school and you get a job’. That is a total abrogation of what should be good public policy. Additional funding of $6.9m has been applied over the four years for Jobs Plan 3 to continue the comprehensive and coordinated approach to planning for jobs and mapping the future needs for a skilled, flexible Territory workforce for local business.
That is a huge investment, a significant investment, and there are many aspects to it. The investment is there for Charles Darwin University and Batchelor Institute, our two main public training providers, to continue to provide training to apprentices and trainees. I can speak specifically about Charles Darwin University which does an absolutely fantastic job, particularly in the trade areas. I am looking forward to going to Batchelor in a couple of weeks’ time to see the work occurring there and the great training they provide.
One of the highlights in Jobs Plan 3 this year is to build better partnerships, better linkages, particularly with business, schools and registered training organisations. I had the benefit of being minister for Business and the economy for many years and developed good relationships with the business community right across the Northern Territory. Since I have taken over the portfolio and have shaped, as minister, Jobs Plan 3, what I can see is a willingness for better partnerships to be developed between businesses which have the jobs and our schools and major training providers which have the people who are looking for the jobs.
A real focus in Jobs Plan 3 is to work with each and every student to make sure they are doing the education and training that is going to lead to a pathway to a job. For many years in the Northern Territory - and it is not a criticism; there is a great industry around training - there has not been the focus of people being trained for the jobs that are available across the Northern Territory. As we have heard, at any one time, there could be up to 2000 jobs going begging any given day across the Northern Territory. The first responsibility that we have as government is to ensure that our Territorians, whether they are in the majority our young Territorians or people who are seeking to switch careers, have the capacity to do that. That is the aim for Jobs Plan 3.
I will tell you an anecdote about where this funding is making a real difference. The Work Ready program already exists, under Jobs Plan 3, in five or six high schools across the Territory. We want to roll it out across the Territory, and we will. At all high schools across the Northern Territory, there are young students in Years 10 and 11 who are at risk of dropping out of the system, who are not attending school on a regular basis for whatever reason, and we want to capture those students and try to get them a VET sponsored traineeship in a business that will lead them to continue to their Year 12 and NTCE and then a formal apprenticeship.
Yesterday, I was at a business in Berrimah, Gold Medal Plumbing. It is a small business employing five plumbers. They have three apprentices on their books, which is an enormous effort. Not only do they have three apprentice plumbers on their books, they also have two office trainees. One of these office trainees is a Year 11 student from Sanderson High School. When I spoke to her, she said she had been doing her VET sponsored traineeship at Gold Medal Plumbing Services for nearly 12 months. This young lady, Toni-Lee Kirby, told me she was really dropping out of school; she was not attending school regularly. As many young people do, she was running with the wrong pack from time to time. This opportunity came up and a really good careers advisor/teacher working with Toni-Lee suggested: ‘School is not 100% for you, but you really should finish Year 12. How about taking some time out and working in a VET sponsored training program in a business in office administration and see how you go?’
She took the opportunity and what a bright, confident, wonderful young person I met yesterday. She is succeeding. She is working two days a week at Gold Medal Plumbing; she is at Sanderson High School two days a week doing her Year 12 at 18 years of age; and one day a week is focused on organised study. She will get her Year 12 and will be offered a formal apprenticeship and job in that business. This young student has been given an opportunity to make something of herself, get the qualifications that are so important in the 21st century and, importantly, get a job. If this funding had not been here for that program, young Toni-Lee Kirby would have, in all likelihood, dropped out at Year 11, may or may not be working, may or may not be running with the wrong crowd and certainly would not have been studying for her Year 12. The story gets even better. I am sure this is replicated across the Northern Territory. The Principal at Sanderson High School advised me there are 20 other young students like Toni-Lee who were in similar VET training and employment programs whilst studying for their Year 12 who otherwise would probably have dropped out of school.
We have had a tough day in this parliament today, as it was yesterday when government made the decision that we made. I went out and did media and I came back and young Toni–Lee Kirby reinforced to me why we do this job, why we make the tough decisions and why we are in government. It is because at the end of the day it is being in government that can actually make a difference to peoples’ lives. We are not all going to agree on everything all of the time, and we are going to be faced with some tough decisions. It is for the Toni-Lee Kirbys of this world that we are in government in the Northern Territory. If we were not here, the alternative government would not have such programs in place because they did not see the need for a jobs plan. People just went to school and if they succeeded at school, they got a job.
This government is about all Territorians. It is about reaching out and supporting kids who are struggling, who are at risk of dropping out of the system, and putting programs in place to support those people and hopefully give them an opportunity to grasp at something real and meaningful to help them turn their lives around.
I came back from my media conference yesterday reinforced, as we all are, when we get around the Territory and see that this government is making a difference. It is making a difference that previous governments ignored, and all across the Northern Territory, whether it is improving education services, health services or infrastructure across the Northern Territory day by day, piece by piece, this is a government which is improving the lives of the people. That is why it is so important to maintain ourselves as the government of the Northern Territory because it is making a difference to peoples’ lives, as this budget will.
We made a commitment in the lead up to the 2005 election that we would create 10 000 new trainee and apprentice positions across the Northern Territory, a very ambitious target: 2500 trainees and apprentices a year over the four year period. It is a number, but what we are talking about is 10 000 individuals who will be given an opportunity for a traineeship or an apprenticeship to lead to a job and a real opportunity in life. That is double the number of people who were being trained when the CLP was in office and had the view that it all happened by itself and you did not have to do anything or spend any money, and somehow the economy and the market would pick up people. Yes, it did pick up people who had the family support and personal ability to be able to go on and push themselves to the highest levels of achievement. The reality is, and I am a parent as well, that some of our kids need a bit of a hand up, a bit of encouragement, a push, a shove, and a guiding hand into the right areas, and that is what Jobs Plan 3 will do.
One of the features of Jobs Plan 3 is that every Year 10 student is going to have an individual learning plan which will help guide students in subject choices, VET and training programs they may attend, or, if they are academically bright and gifted and want to go on to university and achieve a professional career, real support there. With the careers advisors we have put back in schools above formula and the additional support we are providing through the department, each and every Year 10 student will be challenged with their parents or carers to sit down and think where they want to go and what they want to do.
It is a tough call for somebody at Year 10, but unless they are given the opportunities of work experience and VET programs in employment and business areas, many people just drift. We are hoping through this that we can guide people to think about what they want to do, target the courses and training they are going to take which is either going to lead to a TER score and a placement at university, or to an apprenticeship, or a job. There is focused thinking around this, and I am proud of Jobs Plan 3.
A major initiative undertaken by my predecessor in this portfolio, the Treasurer and Attorney-General, was our Building Better Schools initiative to further develop education outcomes and a greater focus around improving secondary eduction in the Northern Territory. Again, when we came to government, there was very little attention paid to measuring the success of our students, comparing how we were going with other jurisdictions and pushing the system and schools and principals and the education community to look at what we were doing, how we were performing, how we can do things better.
We had a situation under the very lazy policy approach of our predecessors that, yes, the brightest and the best of our kids were amongst the brightest and the best, and we have many good teachers out there, but there was no look across the system at how we move the system forward so more and more of our students who are average students become good students, that students who were dropping out of the system and not going on to Years 11 and 12 could be captured so we ensured that they did complete Year 12. There was none of that type of thinking.
Building Better Schools sees $11.76m in 2007-08 being allocated to implement a wide range of activities, including improving students’ learning through implementing the middle years approach throughout the Northern Territory, an approach that was widely criticised and condemned by the CLP. I have absolute and total confidence that it will lead to better Year 12 outcomes in the years to come, a higher retention rate of students going from Year 10 to Years 11 and 12, more students undertaking formal VET training courses leading to apprenticeships, and a real focus and support around those students in Years 7, 8 and 9 when everyone knows students have a capacity, if they are not the high achievers, just to drift out and drop through the cracks of the system. The middle years reform is going to continue in 2007-08 and at the beginning of the 2008 school year, the Year 7s will move up into those middle schools.
The $11.6m will also provide wellbeing counsellors to secondary schools, another initiative of this government to put counsellors back into schools to help assist those students who have personal issues, who are struggling through the latter stages of adolescence. We all, as parents, know what a difficult time that is and sometimes these young people do need someone to talk to outside of their family environment, to help and encourage them work through those issues. There is funding there for that.
We are improving and expanding the delivery of VET programs in secondary schools, including the provision of Enterprise Establishment Grants to schools to support enterprise building activities that enhance VET enterprise and vocational learning. I have spoken about that.
We are supporting the Territory’s teachers and educators by providing opportunities to develop and share good teaching and learning practices, enhancements to teaching and learning for students with special needs, developing a new teaching and learning framework and developing and implementing a flexible, transparent and equitable staffing formula to meet the needs of students. That is a huge body of work that is funded and it supports our teachers and educators in developing best practice in the classroom by allowing our best teachers to share what they do, how they do it and how they achieve the outcomes they do with other teachers across the Northern Territory.
We are developing a new teaching and learning framework, which is exactly what I have just been speaking about. It is about focusing on what makes a difference in the classroom, what makes a difference to individual students studying and to improving those outcomes. We all know that if you have a really great teacher in front of a classroom of kids, the vast majority of them will do very well. This is a program about developing many more very great teachers.
Funding is also there to improve indigenous students’ educational outcomes and social and emotional wellbeing through the new Indigenous Students’ Leadership and Mentorship program in collaborative trial sites to enable onsite delivery of secondary education in remote schools. One of the biggest reform agendas put in place was the roll-out of secondary education to remote schools across the Northern Territory. We have spoken about this many times in the past. It was something that was totally neglected, to their eternal shame, by our predecessors, but there is additional funding in the budget this year to further roll out secondary education in the bush. There is money for improving data collection analysis and reporting for school communities, and supporting school communities by developing programs to encourage young people to undertake community leadership roles, and new programs to help parents and teachers work together more effectively.
Then there is improving data collection and analysis. We had the debate about the MAP testing results over the last few weeks. We have done an enormous job in implementing whole new systems for student monitoring and reporting and data collection about student outcomes and student profiles. We are implementing a system whereby parents can log in at any time to their son or daughter’s student profile, see what their academic results have been, to be able to correspond online with teachers to understand and have access to the school timetable and assessments of assignments have been let to their kids, when they are due. All of these things are being done under this government to better support parents, students, schools, and, again, will lead to better outcomes over the years.
There are many aspects to the education and training budget this year, but it is all being done to give opportunities to people to get the best training they can, the best education they can to ensure that they get the best career and job that they can. There is a real focused approach to it in Jobs Plan 3 and it is a focused approach that never existed under the predecessors who sit opposite.
There is significant capital funding there this year to improve our schools throughout the Northern Territory. First and foremost is $5m for the Borroloola Community Education Centre, which is a very significant undertaking to totally rebuild the primary school at Borroloola as well as developing better secondary facilities for the CEC, replace existing primary school facilities and construct a new home economics and science facility for the secondary students. The students at Borroloola are going to have a state of the art, new primary and secondary facility as a result of funding provided in this budget.
There is significant new funding for the Desert Peoples Centre. One of the key aspects of the Desert Peoples Centre is $1.6m for constructing buildings for Livelihood and Economic Futures Learning Themes, and constructing four buildings for Information and Technology Learning Themes at $6.4m. There is around $8m to Central Australia, to Alice Springs, for the Desert Peoples Centre.
Katherine High School will receive $600 000 for Stage 2 for middle year schooling. Millner Primary School gets a $1m upgrade of the assembly area. Ross Park, again in Alice Springs, so there is $9m going to Alice Springs to improve educational facilities, $1m to Ross Park for the Stage 1 upgrade of classroom facilities. Wanguri Primary School gets an upgrade to accommodate students from the very significant Lyons development in the northern suburbs of Darwin.
We continue to roll out big sums of capital money to improve our education facilities across the Northern Territory. They are the highlights from the capital works budget, but there is a large minor new works budget this year that will go to upgrading and improving schools across the Northern Territory.
As I said, it is a very significant budget this year, up 35% from when we came to government. I commit, as does this government, to doing all I can to improve student outcomes.
Just quickly on tourism, a vital, economic driver for the Northern Territory, we have a tourism industry that is much more healthy today than it was four or five years ago, due in large part to the drive and determination of previous Tourism ministers, including my friend and colleague, the Chief Minister, who had the portfolio at a very difficult time, and additional funding of $10m per annum that this government put into the base of Tourism NT’s funding to drive marketing; very focused marketing to niche target market areas that have really turned tourism around in the last 12 to 18 months.
We are swimming against the tide. We had an increase in tourism visitation to the Territory of 9% last year when most of the rest of Australia went backwards, particularly in the international area. We have seen new carriers come to the market, Tiger Airways in particular, and we are looking forward to positive announcements. The capacity to support those new airlines has been an increase in the base funding for tourism so they can do cooperative marketing with those airlines to grow business for the airlines and bring tourists to the Northern Territory.
Some of the budget highlights for the tourism budget this year are funding to revise the strategic plan for the Northern Territory to guide the direction and growth of tourism for the next five years. It is absolutely important that we have a strategic plan that focuses Tourism NT. I have attended a number of public forums for the strategic plan across the Northern Territory, and it is a document I hope and want to see owned by individual tourism enterprises across the Northern Territory so they can see where their business needs to be in five years time to accommodate where the industry is going, and to help them make investment, marketing and product decisions for their business. It is an important strategic work.
There is $1m to maximise opportunities presented by existing and emerging aviation networks through cooperative marketing activities. That is $1m to work with airlines in marketing campaigns to drive business, passenger numbers and tourists to the Northern Territory.
There is funding to develop a series of niche experience Dreaming Trail networks which package nature and cultural experiences for special interest groups and enthusiasts. I will be launching the first of those dreaming trails over the next couple of weeks, picking up on the major competitive edge we have, which is our unique flora, fauna, landscapes and indigenous culture. We are packaging that up as a trail and then marketing it to people who are interested in those areas.
There is funding of $2m for continued marketing of priority destinations through dedicated campaigns and programs to encourage increased visitation in regional areas. Again, for the first time, this is a government which has had specific destination marketing campaigns in place for Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin, and there is funding to continue those this year.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a budget which is going to continue to drive economic and social development across the Northern Territory. It is a budget that only a Labor government could have handed down, a Labor government which is absolutely committed to building better opportunities and better lives for people across the Northern Territory. I commend Budget 2007-08 to the House.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, the 2007-08 Budget will further consolidate the Territory’s strong and resilient economy, and protect our great Territory lifestyle.
It is a budget with job creation and economic growth as its focus, and the most extensive infrastructure program we have seen. As the Treasurer has outlined, this budget has five key objectives: it backs business, improves educational outcomes, and builds a healthier and safer Territory. Importantly, it is also a budget which continues to improve on our great Territory lifestyle.
My ministerial colleagues with responsibility for Youth, Seniors, Women and Multicultural Affairs will speak on these aspects of my department’s work shortly. This evening, I will focus on my portfolio responsibilities of Major Projects, Indigenous Policy, building our workforce, and some of the events and activities that build on our Territory lifestyle.
Our major projects are important for the Territory and the long-term wellbeing of all Territorians. Projects such as our burgeoning gas industry, trade development and the continued expansion of the AustralAsia trade route are set to create jobs and opportunities for Territorians now and into the future. Initiatives such as Creating Darwin’s Future, including our exciting waterfront project, and Moving Alice Ahead will create even more opportunities while preserving our great Territory lifestyle.
Our gas industry continues to have a positive impact on the economy. Significant progress has been made on developing Timor Sea gas reserves and the associated industry onshore. A major shut-down of the offshore facilities and LNG plant for planned maintenance is scheduled for September this year, providing a significant boost for local business. ConocoPhillips and its joint venture partner Santos, the operator of the Evans Shoal gas field, are aggressively undertaking exploration activity to prove up sufficient reserves for a new LNG train. The establishment of a downstream gas industry to enhance and diversify the economic benefits derived from the Timor Sea gas continues to be a high priority.
Earlier this year I visited Japan to reaffirm our relationship with our partners in LNG and to discuss important issues like the development of the Timor Sea gas reserves, LNG expansion and the establishment of a downstream gas industry. The Ministry for Economy, Trade and Industry, IMPEX, Tokyo Electric Power Company, Tokyo Gas and Osaka Gas were among the organisations our delegation met. Our performance in delivering the Bayu-Undan and Darwin LNG projects is well known and drew praise from our hosts. The highlight of the trip was meeting with Jim McIlvenny, the Asia-Pacific President of Dow Chemical. Jim undertook to visit Darwin for SEAAOC conference early next month and to discuss opportunities for investment in petrochemical industries.
Alcan’s $2.9bn G3 expansion of its alumina refinery at Gove is expected to be completed in the next few months and will be commissioned and ramped up to name plate capacity over a period of 18 months. We are working closely with Alcan to identify how local industry can access opportunities provided by the expanded refinery and allied developments in Nhulunbuy.
In 2007-08, we will continue to provide strong support for Territory business and industry to raise its profile internationally and increase export performance. We will continue to develop trade opportunities through the Growing our Trade Route strategy, and our focus will be on establishing new direct shipping linkages and new value adding industries leveraging off the port and rail developments. We will also continue to coordinate and lead joint industry government trade missions to priority markets such as Indonesia, China and, most recently, Vietnam. Our trade support schemes continue to be successful in helping Territory businesses develop new international markets.
Another initiative that assists traders is Australia’s only Indonesian Customs pre-inspection facility. It is a unique service for exporters using Darwin port for goods bound for Eastern Indonesia.
Our partnership with the International Business Council will continue. Our goal is to increase the export potential of the Territory’s service sector through delivery of export training workshops and export development activities and export assistance through our Trade Support Scheme and individual case manager advice. We also sponsor overseas indigenous arts and craft buyers to generate sales from indigenous art centres and to establish future business relationships and, together with Charles Darwin University, we are developing and promoting international education and trade links within the region.
The AustralAsia Trade Route and the freight task of the railway continues to grow. FreightLink carried 663 000 tonnes of freight to the end of the last financial year and that is an increase of over 100 000 tonnes for the year. Further innovations in services by FreightLink have seen the start of bulk fuel haulage by rail from Darwin to Alice Springs using purpose designed wagons capable of carrying road fuel tankers.
Our $24m investment in modern bulk handling facilities at East Arm has generated new business for Territory companies. New bulk mineral exports of manganese began from Bootu Creek in April last year, adding 650 000 tonnes a year to the current rail freight task. Territory Iron operations at Frances Creek are expected to commence iron ore exports mid- this year and that will add around 1.5m tonnes of freight per annum. More contracts are expected to commence later in the year.
As I mentioned, increasing direct shipping linkages with foreign ports is a priority for us in developing trade opportunities. We are currently negotiating an increase in the frequency of the Shanghai to Darwin shipping service from monthly to fortnightly, and further initiatives are in train for shipping services to Indonesia and Surabaya in particular.
The Darwin Business Park is quickly attracting clients of all sizes, which is good news for local business and employment. Stage 2 of the Toll facility is well under way and John Bain’s Westrans have just started construction of their freight forwarding facility. Similarly, Shaw’s Transport is set to commence construction at the Business Park shortly. The construction of a new classified goods facility at Hidden Valley is expected to begin by early June. The facility will enhance international trade and help deliver important chemicals for the mining industry in north Australia via Darwin.
The continued development of Darwin and Alice Springs are key priorities for us. In October last year, I launched Creating Darwin’s Future, which contains 93 separate proposals for the future development of Darwin. Since then, the community has had a chance to look at the proposals and put their own ideas and vision for our capital city. Our aim is to build on the work that is already under way and create an even better tropical harbour city where people want to live and visit, and a place that will attract investment. That, of course, means more jobs and opportunities for Territorians.
The time is right to focus on the future of Darwin. We are growing rapidly and evolving into a major city, and we need to move now to secure our future. There has been strong community support for some of the key proposals outlined in Creating Darwin’s Future, like a ring of green around the CBD, a city centre that looks outward to the harbour, vibrant community spaces, attractive streetscapes and buildings that complement the look and feel of our city.
Last week’s urban planning forum in Darwin was an important step in moving things ahead. There were 200 stakeholders at the forum and they participated in plenary sessions. An additional 30 people attended the evening community session. The outcome of the forum will be an action plan covering the way in which future developments in the CBD will be undertaken.
With this budget, we have kept things moving while a lot of this work is done with Creating Darwin’s Future and we have funded a number of initiatives in this 2007-08 Budget. $6m has been set aside for the Myilly Point redevelopment, including Flagstaff Park, and a further $1m has been committed to urban roads landscaping.
We have also committed to $250 000 to engage stakeholders and scope A Darwin Experience, perhaps a World War II museum, and a further $250 000 has been allocated to develop a master plan for the State Square Precinct, including a pedestrian link from the waterfront to the mall. I will be keeping the House updated on the progress we make in the coming months on Creating Darwin’s Future.
The Darwin waterfront and convention centre is an exciting development and a big part of Darwin’s future. We have allocated $12.05m to continue with stage 4 of the project in this budget, and a further $5m for stage 5. We have also committed $1.8m for the management of the Darwin Waterfront Corporation, including the associated marketing of the waterfront precinct. Construction of Stage 1 is scheduled for completion next year, and work on the convention centre and other aspects of the development is under way and progressing well.
The waterfront project is creating significant opportunity for Territory business. Contracts valued at more than $100m have been awarded to local companies, with more than 1100 people having worked on the project. A recent report by the Auditor-General said that the waterfront will generate an increase in gross state product of around $350m over 20 years, and an additional $197m for tourism over the same period. The convention centre is expected to create 160 tourism jobs by the end of year 4 of its operation, growing to over 200 new jobs by year10.
The residential, commercial and hospitality elements of the project will be delivered entirely through private sector investment. Sales from residential and commercial properties in the precinct will provide a significant return to the Territory. I can report that these returns are currently estimated at $233m for stages 1 and 2 of the development.
Alice Springs is a major priority for us. We are working with the local community to create a safer, healthy and more prosperous future for all Central Australians. Moving Alice Ahead is a big part of our collaborative approach to addressing key issues and strengthening the capacity and economic development of the region. It will not replicate existing works and programs, but build on work that is happening right across the region. Eleven individual projects are under way. Let me briefly mention a few of them.
We are implementing a responsible Alcohol Management Plan to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related harm in Alice Springs, and $30 000 has been allocated to evaluate the effectiveness of that plan. Town camps will be standardised to ensure that residents have access to services of standards equivalent to surrounding suburbs. There will be more houses built; others upgraded, and short-term accommodation facilities will be developed to reduce overcrowding in town camps. We have already committed $10m to this project and, along with the Commonwealth government’s $70m, we are confident the wellbeing of town camp residents and, indeed, all people living in Alice Springs will be improved.
There is $14.14m allocated for the next stage of the Desert Peoples Centre and $1.47m to complete the Desert Knowledge Precinct headworks. This continues our commitment to the growth of the precinct, and the positioning of Alice Springs as a centre for smart and sustainable living, now further enhanced by it being declared a Solar City.
Some $10.5m is committed to continue the upgrade of the Red Centre Way, a major new tourism drawcard for the region. Speaking of tourism, the $2.1m Destination Alice Springs campaign, which is still under way, is set to draw even more visitors to the Centre. $2m has been committed to upgrade sections of the Tanami Road, meaning improved access to services for Aboriginal people and improved supply routes for mines and pastoral properties in the area.
Workforce developments and increased opportunities for local people to participate more fully in the workforce are key priorities. Central Australia will share an additional $8.5m over the next four years for training and employer incentives, through Jobs Plan 3, bringing our total commitment to $21.3m.
We are also committed to ensuring land is available for future residential development needs, and $1.3m has been allocated to continue the Mt John Valley subdivision headworks.
Growing the indigenous arts and cultural industry will continue to be a priority for us. We want to ensure Alice Springs is seen as a major and reputable centre for buying Aboriginal art in Australia.
The development of a focused government policy for Aboriginal Territorians is also a major priority. The Office of Indigenous Policy takes a whole-of-government strategic approach to Aboriginal affairs. It ensures indigenous issues are a fundamental and central consideration across government, and the office actively works with agencies to develop policy in areas like housing, health, education, governance, safer communities and economic development. The budget supports the office’s key objectives with funding of $1.5m.
The historic Overarching Agreement on Indigenous Affairs, which I signed with the Prime Minister in April 2005, was the first of its kind in the country and a major achievement for the Territory. The Office of Indigenous Policy is playing a key role in coordinating our activities with the federal government under this achievement. The first three schedules of the agreement are: Sustainable Indigenous Housing; Establishing Regional Authorities; and Strengthening and Sustaining the Indigenous Arts Sector. Two additional schedules were added last year: Boosting Indigenous Employment and Economic Development; and Healthy Country, Healthy People. Key initiatives under the Boosting Indigenous Employment and Economic Development schedule include:
Local Jobs for Local People, involving the development of a multi-stakeholder local employment strategy being piloted in Yirrkala;
Both the Territory and Australian governments have officially recognised the ongoing work of Aboriginal Territorians in managing their land and sea country through the development of Healthy Country, Healthy People. There have been significant achievements under the five agreed schedules. All have contributed to improved coordination between Australian and Territory government agencies, their activities and funding programs. In addition, both governments’ Indigenous Housing resources were pooled, a total of $254m over three years, and it will be managed by the Territory government. Negotiations are under way under the Indigenous Housing Schedule around a further investment of $140m by the Australian government in Aboriginal housing and infrastructure, a massive total.
Both governments are working collaboratively towards local government reform in the Territory through the framework provided under the Overarching Agreement. $4.9m will be provided by the Australian government over four years to employ 14 remotely located development coordinators to assist with the implementation of local government reform. Four economic development officers have been appointed to assist Aboriginal Territorians identify sustainable economic development opportunities, and $10m has been committed from the Aboriginal Benefits Account over two years to invest in indigenous land and sea management.
Additional schedules are being developed around Child Health and Wellbeing; Building Brighter Futures through Education and Training; Youth Development; Safer Families and Children; and Strategic Interventions in Priority Communities.
Mr Deputy Speaker, last July, COAG backed my call for a national long-term generational plan to address Aboriginal disadvantage. Chaired by the Territory, the national Working Group on Intergenerational Reform is working on a plan to significantly close the gaps in outcomes between Aboriginal people and other Australians. In conjunction with the national plan, we are developing Closing the Gap, an indigenous generational plan for the Territory.
Significant progress has been made in implementing our agenda for action over the past 12 months. The Chief Executive’s Task Force on Indigenous Affairs has continued to meet around every six weeks to support the implementation of our Aboriginal affairs policies. There has been a particular emphasis on establishing necessary linkages across NT government programs and with Australian government agencies. Community Cabinet meetings have been held regularly in Aboriginal communities in remote localities, Territory government agencies have significant input into the Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Key Indicators 2007 report expected for release later this year, and we have also been working to implement key policies and strategies, including the Indigenous Education Strategic Plan 2006-2009, and the Indigenous Economic Development Strategy.
There are major reforms under way in the Territory in relation to the provision of adequate housing, land tenure arrangements and local government in remote communities. A severe shortage of adequate housing is generating increased rates of overcrowding and substandard accommodation. This, in turn, is producing adverse health, education, economic and social outcomes in remote communities. Existing housing in remote communities comprises community housing, government employee housing provided by the Territory for employees living and working on communities, and community council-funded housing for council employees. To date, these housing programs and assets have been managed independently of each other, resulting in inefficiencies and poor outcomes. Aboriginal community housing has not been seen as an innovative and efficient sector of the housing industry but rather one characterised by short-term contracts, small annual construction programs and widespread duplication of efforts.
Last year, I announced that we will invest an additional $100m over five years for housing in remote areas as part of a package of measures to improve outcomes for Aboriginal Territorians. This is in addition to the $55.6m program for indigenous housing and related essential services for the next financial year. It will stimulate further investment in the sector, and it is our intention to move to a public housing model for remote area housing, better integrated housing construction, maintenance, and management programs.
Building Our Workforce in the NT is a major focus, and Jobs Plan 3, which was launched yesterday, provides us with strategies to achieve this. Jobs Plan 3 commits an extra $8.5m to deliver Territory business a skilled workforce and it has three broad themes: jobs in the bush; building better partnership between industry, government and community; and school-to-work transition. The Minister for Employment, Education and Training has already talked about Jobs Plan 3, but I would like to briefly outline the work my agency is doing to bring skilled workers to the Territory.
The skilled worker recruitment campaign began in March 2005 with the aim of attracting skilled tradespeople and professionals to the Territory. A major round of advertising was carried out during last year across Australia and New Zealand, and the good oil on the Territory was carried in newspapers and magazines, on radio and Internet job seeker sites. The message was clear: the Territory offers excellent career prospects and one of Australia’s best lifestyles. The skilled worker recruitment campaign was evaluated in March this year, and I can report that 5563 skilled tradespeople and professionals had called our hotline to March this year, all expressing an interest in moving to the Territory. The evaluation showed that most of the inquiries came from New South Wales and Victoria, and there was a fairly even spread of callers between city and country. Given that far fewer people live in regional areas, it shows that it is country people who have the highest level of interest in the Territory.
The challenge for us is to turn that interest into actual job applicants, and we are working with the private sector to make the best use of our growing database of potential Territorians. My agency has recently met with recruitment agencies, business associations, the unions and the Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development to discuss how we can better manage potential employees with interested employers. As a result of these consultations, campaign inquiries will now be channelled to private sector recruitment firms, and there will be a greater exchange of information between my agency’s recruitment firm and employers to make better use of the available data. We expect our close links with recruitment agencies will give us a clearer idea of the effectiveness of the campaign and why people come to live in the Territory. The next phase of the campaign will be launched later this month, and I will keep the House updated on progress.
Major events are an important part of our great Territory lifestyle and a key focus for my department. We remain committed to bringing the very best sport and entertainment to Territorians. Let me give you a few examples.
Round 6 of the 2007 V8 Supercar Championship Series will mark 10 years of V8s in Darwin. Around 5000 interstate visitors come to Darwin for the event, and it provides commercial opportunities for over 60 local service and supply companies. We have committed $1.07m to the event, and its overall costs are estimated at $2.6m each year.
BassintheGrass and BassintheDust are now firmly established as top line music festivals. Both attract high profile national and international acts and give Territorians, particularly young Territorians, the chance to see some of their favourite bands perform on home soil. Let us not forget the local bands which get a chance to play in front of a large local audience. We fund Major Events $400 000 to support the running of both music festivals and most Territorians will agree it is money well spent.
The Arafura Games continues to go from strength to strength and we are revving for another great games in just nine days time. The profile of the event was recognised in the form of a patronage from the International Olympic Committee and a partnership with the Australian Paralympic Committee to deliver International Paralympic Committee-endorsed events. The games continue to be staged by the Darwin community with around 2000 people directly involved in staging the opening ceremony.
The Tattersalls Finke Desert Race is a unique and challenging off-road endurance event run in Alice Springs on the Queen’s Birthday long weekend each year. Our $50 000 annual grant for the event is primarily spent on marketing and promotion and the reputation of the race is growing both domestically and internationally, and the event is now regarded as one of the true tests of driver skill.
The Tennant Creek Race Club, Barkly Rodeo Association, Tennant Creek Saddle Horse Club and Barkly Camp Draft Association have a common goal. They are committed to growing the Barkly May Day Muster into an activity that attracts and entertains a wide cross-section of the community. We agree with these organisations’ belief the muster has the potential to achieve great things in the years to come, which is why we contribute $30 000 to support the event. I wish the best of luck to all those involved in the event.
These are just some of the events we support each year, events that are growing in status and providing Territorians with top quality entertainment.
Before I finish, I would like to briefly talk about a real success story, Community Cabinet. Community Cabinet is extremely important, especially when it comes to effective policy formulation. It is only by getting out to our communities and talking to residents that we get a handle on local issues and fully appreciate the complexities of service delivery. We have just celebrated our fifth birthday and will soon reach an important milestone: 50 Community Cabinets. In the first half of this year, we visited and met with people living in the East Arnhem communities of Ramingining, Milingimbi, Gapuwiyak and Galiwinku, and just last week held a barbeque in Nightcliff. All up, Cabinet ministers have met with many thousands of Territorians during the program. We are strongly committed to this initiative and the Cabinet will continue to meet and talk with Territorians in their communities on a regular basis.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Treasurer on this strong, responsible, growth-focused budget.
Dr BURNS (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am proud to follow the Chief Minister’s speech in reply to our Treasurer’s budget. I would like to preface my speech by saying a couple of things. I am proud to be part of a government that is serving all Territorians. The budget shows in spades the investment that we have made as a government right across the Territory in infrastructure and recurrent programs. It was interesting to hear the Chief Minister put the canvas of all the activities of government and the ways in which we are serving the interests and needs of the people of the Northern Territory and, in particular, Aboriginal people right across the Territory in terms of education and housing.
What I am going to be talking about in some of my speech is in relation to Health, health services, improving health; Police, Fire and Emergency Services, and finally, Racing, Gaming and Licensing.
Budget 2007-08 builds on this government’s long-term plan for a safer and healthier Territory. As you heard the Treasurer say, Budget 2007-08 lays the foundation for the future of the Northern Territory for the next 10 years. Today, I am happy to announce a further major increase in the health budget for 2007-08, building on the consistent growth year by year since we came to government.
The budget for Health and Community Services in 2007-08 from all funding sources will be $838m. This represents a 73% increase in annual funding from this government since 2001-02. Sustained increases of this level are unprecedented in the Territory’s history and are built on sound economic management. These resources have been targeted to our areas of significant challenge so that we continue to make progress and improve the health of all Territorians.
This government is proud to have increased our doctor and nurse workforce dramatically since coming to office in 2001. By mid-April this year, the number of full-time equivalent doctors has risen by 110 to 382 FTE, a massive 41% increase in the number of publicly employed doctors. Similarly, the number of full-time equivalent nurses has increased by well over 300, an increase of 24% in our nursing workforce in less than six years.
Through the extra resources this government has put into the system, we are seeing positive gains in the most critical areas of need. For example, the strong partnerships we have developed with the Aboriginal community controlled health services and the Commonwealth are leading to a definite improvement in the health status of Aboriginal people. Over the short term, we have seen a three-year improvement in the life expectancy for Territory Aboriginal women. Life expectancy for Aboriginal women in 2000 was 65 years. In 2003, this had jumped to 67.9 years. Over the same period, there has been a 36% fall in the NT Aboriginal infant mortality rate.
Survival rates for clients on kidney dialysis have significantly improved, particularly in Central Australia, with the NT nearing the national average. To flesh that out a bit, if you look at the graphs on survival on renal dialysis, the Territory was manifold worse than the national average some years ago. This has been dramatically improved under the term of this government to now approach the national average, which is a significant advance for those people on renal dialysis, particularly Aboriginal people. This had been an area of neglect under the previous government and is something this government has tackled front and centre. I commend my predecessor, the former member for Stuart, who was the architect of many of these changes. That is a significant advance in survival rates for people with kidney disease.
We also recognise that these are small steps in many ways, and there is much more to do in the global picture, but they show that we are on the right track and we can continue to make significant gains by pursuing the directions we’ve set.
All health systems in the developed world are facing the challenge of increasing demand. The extra resources we are putting into the health system are about meeting that challenge, as well as expanding our services. The extra money means that more health staff are working to deliver more health services for Territorians. It also means significantly better wages and conditions for our staff and improved health system infrastructure.
I now turn to some of the specifics in the health budget. Budget 2007-08 allows this government to fund an additional $27.8m on acute services. This extra money will fund growth in services provided in our five public hospitals and associated facilities. As my colleague, the Treasurer, has already informed the House, we will continue to increase our funding to hospitals. Budget 2007-08 provides $207.3m for Royal Darwin Hospital. That represents an increase of 85% in funding since 2001.
Alice Springs Hospital will be funded to $104.7m this year, and has received 94% extra funding since 2001. I will repeat that: Alice Springs Hospital will be funded $104.7m this year, and has received 94% extra funding since 2001.
Other Territory hospitals have also benefited from increased funding. Katherine Hospital will receive $24.4m, up 72% since 2001. Gove District Hospital gets $17.8m, up 60% since 2001. Tennant Creek Hospital gets $10.6m, up 74% since 2001. The initiatives announced here offer further improvements in service and attention to patients and their families right across the Territory.
This government is proud to announce that we are delivering on one of our key election commitments, with $5.3m being spent on additional hospital beds at our major hospitals. In 2007-08, we will open 12 fully staffed new beds at Royal Darwin Hospital, and a further 12 fully staffed new beds at Alice Springs Hospital.
This will bring total new beds at RDH to 18 since 2005. Let me stress that when I talk about 20 fully staffed new beds, I am also talking about adding 52 new full-time staff to our hospital system to support those beds. With the opening of these new beds, the government will have increased the number of hospital beds since 2001 by 83 across the Territory.
Royal Darwin Hospital Rapid Admission and Planning Unit has been operating with nine beds since August 2001, and it has been effective in reducing access block. We have seen the average wait in the Emergency Department for surgical emergency patients requiring admission reduce from 18 hours to less than seven hours. We will further expand the Rapid Admission Unit to a 24 bed unit this financial year, allowing surgical and medical patients access to concentrated patient care, planning and treatment. When fully operational, the Rapid Admission Unit will mean another 80 full-time staff at Royal Darwin Hospital, including around 40 extra full-time equivalent nurses.
There will also be significant new capital works at Alice Springs Hospital, including the construction of a new Emergency Department. $6m has been allocated for a new Accident and Emergency Unit at Alice Springs Hospital, with consultation well under way for the design specifications. This facility will be housed on a new site on the hospital campus, allowing the current ED to operate uninterrupted. Services at Alice Springs Hospital will also be bolstered, with a commitment of $3m for a new back-up generator.
Gove District Hospital will be funded $400 000 to replace its emergency power generator. Royal Darwin Hospital will be allocated $6.63m for various capital works and equipment, including, I might add, an upgrade of the lifts, which is very important. Tennant Creek Hospital will benefit from a $1m upgrade of fire safety facilities.
Design work is well under way for a $3.1m health clinic for Wadeye, which will include primary health services in the community and the surrounding region.
Budget 2007-08 will also support the work of the St John Ambulance service. St John Ambulance will receive an additional $1.15m, rising to $1.37m ongoing from next year. This brings the total amount for St John Ambulance in 2007 to $12.7m.
I am pleased to announce that together with these budget initiatives and other developments across the portfolio, I have asked the department to commence a patient flow program in 2007-08 to improve patient care by enhancing the quality of a patient’s journey through its services. Reference groups for the program are being established in both Central Australia and the Top End to enable expert opinion in a wide variety of Department of Health and Community Services areas to be integrated into the planning, conduct and outcome of the program. These groups will play a key role in setting the directions and priorities for the development and implementation of specific improvement projects and facilitating consultation with key stakeholders, including other service providers and consumers, ensuring that these projects will make a difference on the ground. Similar projects throughout Australia and overseas have been very successful in helping health services provide better care for patients.
Over the course of the next four years, this government will be introducing a comprehensive three-pronged approach to tackle the ongoing demand for renal services through better management of early kidney disease, an increase in dialysis facilities and increased access to home and country-based dialysis. The first prong is for expansion of capital, with additional dialysis facilities. This recognises that despite the expansion of renal services over the past five years, existing units are at capacity and that demand, past and predicted, is estimated to continue at approximately 32 patients per year. Coupled with this is the endorsement to explore outsourcing of this and future renal satellite services. Additional and recurrent funding to manage these facilities as they come online has been approved. In 2007-08, $1.9m for capital works in Central Australia will be directed to a new renal dialysis facility and a further $700 000 will be allocated for recurrent operational expenses.
The second prong relates to the Building Healthier Communities framework and Renal Services Strategy, recognising that renal patients should be able to access treatment closer to home to enjoy better outcomes. Some $250 000 per year has been allocated for three years to the remote home and community-based self-care dialysis program. This enables a relocatable facility to be established so that people can undertake self-care treatment in a safe and clean environment in their own community where clinical and other rooms are not available.
The third prong relates to identifying and managing people with kidney disease in order to delay their progression to end-stage renal disease. Some $750 000 in recurrent funding from 2007-08 has been allocated for six new public health nurse positions to work with primary health care teams and renal services to achieve this outcome. This includes one position to focus on training and professional development across the chronic disease spectrum, working with government and non-government services. This initiative should make significant inroads into the current level of kidney failure and subsequent need for dialysis.
Budget 2007-08 recognises the need for enhanced clinical strategies across the hospital network. I am pleased to announce the following initiatives: $200 000 for palliative care; $400 000 for rehabilitation services; $250 000 for a logistical coordinator for our aeromedical services; $500 000 for social workers across the hospital network to assist with various services, including domestic and family violence; and $130 000 for a blood transfusion nurse.
An additional $500 000 will be directed towards the Primary Care Information System, or PCIS, an electronic health record system. The additional funding is aimed at ensuring the system meets the needs of remote health centres and their clients. It is anticipated that by 2008, at least 35 health centres will be using PCIS.
There will be a further increase in funding for disease control services in 2007-08, including the rotovirus vaccination program, and the ongoing funding for the new human papillomavirus, or HPV, of approximately $2.4m. This program, newly commenced in April 2007, has already made a flying start, with up to 85% of young women receiving their first injection as the vaccination team visits their high school.
Services to Territory women will be further enhanced at the BreastScreen NT unit with the purchase of a mammography digitiser which will enable the processing of breast screen X-rays by means of digital image. This will replace the current use of chemical processing. The cost of this equipment is expected to be around $140 000.
The Martin government is committed to a healthier Territory, and Budget 2007-08 builds on the significant progress we have made in this area since coming to office.
I now turn to Police, Fire and Emergency Services, and our commitment to building a safer community. Budget 2007-08 delivers a record $226m to Police, Fire and Emergency Services. When we came to government, the budget was $137m, but we have increased that amount by 65%. We have committed this extra funding because this government is serious about fighting crime.
When we came to office in 2001, we inherited a police force which had been starved of funds by the previous CLP administration and damaged by a three-year recruitment freeze. That is why we engaged former Police Commissioner Jim O’Sullivan to conduct a comprehensive assessment of what was needed to build our police force so they would be equipped to deal with crime head on. We are now in the final phase of the $75m Building Our Police Force plan, which has seen us add an extra 200 officers to the Northern Territory Police Service.
The Northern Territory has the highest number of police per capita of any jurisdiction in Australia. Over the past three years, thanks to the Building Our Police Force plan, the Territory has had the fastest growing police force in the country. Apart from the extra 200 police, the Building Our Police Force plan has also given Northern Territory police improved resources to fight crime.
Budget 2007-08 delivers $31m to continue the initiatives recommended by the O’Sullivan Report, including the maintenance of increased police numbers, and improvements to living and working conditions for police in the Territory. I have said that we have achieved our target of adding 200 extra police since 2003. In fact, we have more than achieved our target. We have added 189 Constables and above since the beginning of Building our Police Force program on the 1 July 2003. In addition, we have boosted the number of Aboriginal Community Police Officers by 38 and the number of Police Auxiliaries by 27; all adding up to a massive recruitment and training exercise on the part of our police force. I acknowledge the hard work of all staff at the Police College over the past four years.
I was pleased to announce last week that Darwin’s northern suburbs will get a new police station, thanks to Budget 2007-08. This is great news. A total of $4.8m has been allocated for the replacement of the 30-year-old Casuarina Police Station within this term of office. Northern Territory Police have already undertaken significant work to prepare a conceptual design for the new facility to maximise an officer’s daily work flow and make operational transactions as seamless as possible.
We have also committed $1.32m to establish highway patrols and rural area patrols as part of the government’s Safer Roads initiative. One patrol of each type will be located in Katherine and Alice Springs and will operate on highways and in communities throughout the Territory. The patrols will conduct joint traffic enforcement programs and campaigns with local police members and transport inspectors from DPI during annual sporting and festival events on a rotational basis. Rural and remote area patrols will work in conjunction with local police officers, local communities, Aboriginal Community Police Officers, DPI road safety officers, and MVR vehicle inspectors, and will carry out educational and enforcement duties. These two strategies address two very important issues which must be tackled if we are to reduce the Northern Territory’s shocking statistics relating to trauma and deaths on our roads in remote areas.
I am pleased to be able to announce that Budget 2007-08 also provides police with $580 000 to expand activities under the Criminal Property (Forfeiture) Act. This funding will allow the recruitment of three additional staff to target the proceeds of crime in general and drug related crime in particular in order to prevent the unjust enrichment of persons involved in criminal activities. Since the introduction of the act in March of last year, the Public Trustee has dealt with some 200 property forfeiture matters involving assets of $8m. This amount is made up of $1.9m in cash, real property and rent valued at $4.8m; vehicles valued at $800 000; and other property worth $600 000.
Government has provided a further $633 000 to assist in the operation of the Night Patrol service which was transferred to the Northern Territory Police from Mission Australia on 1 December 2005. Two vehicles were transferred from Mission Australia to Northern Territory Police, training of Aboriginal Community Police Officers is complete, and eight social order patrol positions have been created. Social order patrols incorporate Aboriginal Community Police Officers and target public order offences and public drunkenness through the use of police powers to apprehend or move on offenders.
Budget 2007-08 delivers $700 000 to the Northern Territory Police to provide vehicles for Aboriginal Community Police Officers in remote communities.
The highlight for our fire fighters in 2007 will undoubtedly be the opening of the Marrara Fire Station. Government allocated $3.6m in Budget 2005-06 to construct this station, which is being built behind the Toy Library on Marrara Drive and is due to be completed in the very near future. The station will include four appliance bays, a training conference room, a gymnasium and facilities, and accommodation for up to 10 fire fighters. The existing fire station on Dripstone Road in Casuarina is more than 30 years old. This will be the second fire station to be built by the Martin government following the construction of Humpty Doo Police and Fire station, which opened in February 2005.
As part of Budget 2007-08, the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service will receive $500 000 in capital funding for its major fire appliance replacement program. This program will also see the replacement of old tankers at Elliott and Timber Creek Fire and Emergency Response Groups.
This government is proud of the level of its spending on Police, Fire and Emergency Services. We are committed to maintaining the significant gains we have made with Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
I say this with particular reference to the significant increase we have achieved in our police numbers and I pay tribute to the former Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, who carried the reforms associated with the O’Sullivan Review, convinced Cabinet that this investment was required and it has turned out to be a very effective and strategic investment by this government. We can never afford a repeat of the cut in police numbers caused by the CLP’s three-year recruitment freeze. We are committed to providing police with the resources they require to serve and protect the people of the Northern Territory.
I now turn to Racing, Gaming and Licensing. As minister, I have a responsibility to ensure that these activities are carried out for the enjoyment of the community, not its detriment. Budget 2007-08 will further assist in moving ahead with addressing the harm to Territorians from gambling and alcohol as well as supporting the racing industry. In 2007-08, we will be distributing $1.7m for amelioration and research programs as part of our commitment to keep focus on areas in a national framework on problem gambling. This money goes towards services like Amity House and Anglicare, which provide valuable assistance to those who cannot responsibly manage their gambling. It also goes towards providing a sound research base for making decisions about gambling.
Our Community Benefit grants will make a further $700 000 available in small grants for community based organisations. Over the past few years the Martin government has funded over 450 organisations with grants of up to $5000 each. These grants are used to benefit the elderly, the young, those in remote communities, sporting groups, community service organisations, history buffs and all sorts of different interest groups in our wonderful Northern Territory.
The Martin government is also committed to ensuring a stable and vibrant racing industry with the Northern Territory. The thoroughbred racing industry is a key revenue earner for the Territory and this government is proud to support it. It also provides a lot of enjoyment to those who enjoy thoroughbred racing. Events like the Darwin Cup and this weekend’s Alice Springs Cup are not only wonderful social and sporting events, they attract significant tourism dollars for the Territory. We all know how positive our cup carnivals are for our hospitality sector. Country racing also plays an important part in the social and economic benefits to some of our smaller communities such as Tennant Creek, Pine Creek, Adelaide River and Katherine.
The industry also benefits from the revenue generated by the TAB and bookmakers. In the last year, TAB turnover has grown by almost 15%. Money from the TAB goes back into supporting the industry and I am pleased to announce that in 2007-08, industry grants to thoroughbred racing and greyhound racing totalling $7.56m will be provided.
Of course, funding to ensure the work on alcohol harm minimisation is an important part of this budget and the government’s ongoing efforts to deal with alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory. There is no doubting the significance of the challenge harmful consumption of alcohol poses to the Territory and as a government, we will continue to look at new ways to address this problem, which puts such a significant demand on not just our police, health and justice systems, but exacts such a tragic toll on the lives of so many Territorians. Programs funded for this most important issue range across government agencies and are managed under severalportfolios like police, health and justice.
However, as Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, I am pleased to announce that funding has also been set aside for the development and implementation of alcohol management plans and the continued implementation of the government’s alcohol reform program. Budget 2007-08 will fund and strengthen the crime prevention effort. The Office of Alcohol Policy, the Office of Crime Prevention and the Community Harmony Program are now combined to provide a key focus for each region.
Budget 2007-08 is a reflection of a confident Northern Territory. It is also a budget of which my colleague the Treasurer is justifiably proud. It is a budget that builds for the future, laying the key foundations of jobs, growth and lifestyle. Budget 2007-08 will provide $2.4m for this renewed Crime, Safety and Alcohol Program. The work will also be supported by a grants program to ensure that needs under the Alcohol Management Plan are prioritised and funded appropriately.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may finish where I began, Budget 2007-08 provides the framework and the support for the Territory to move forward in a whole range of areas. We are a very diverse Territory. We have very special needs. The Chief Minister outlined in her budget reply the efforts at a very high level within housing, in programs to redress Aboriginal disadvantage in terms of regional development within our community. The Education minister also outlined the initiatives in education, which are vital for the Territory moving ahead, providing equity for all Territorians and equipping people for their lives ahead.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a government that is all about equity. It is laid out in very plain terms in this budget, and I do commend it to the House.
Debate adjourned.
SPECIAL ADJOUORNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 10 am in Parliament House or such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to acknowledge and celebrate the achievements of an outstanding Territorian. Kate Hadden was recently named as the winner of the McKell Medal, which is a national award for Excellence in Natural Resource Management. Kate works for the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, but is on secondment to the Tiwi Land Council. Her work there involves overseeing economic projects such as forest plantation. I am told she has done a wonderful job in looking after the island’s precious natural environment. Kate is a past Territory Rural Woman of the Year winner and is the second Territorian to win the McKell Medal. Bob Purvis won the award in 1995 for his work on rangeland protection in Central Australia. On behalf of all of us, I extend congratulations to Kate on a terrific achievement and to the Tiwi Land Council for their support.
I would like to acknowledge DABSCO’s 40th anniversary of doing business in the Territory. DABSCO has been here since 1967, and in March I had the honour of helping them to celebrate the milestone by opening their new state-of-the-art showroom, office and manufacturing facility at Winnellie. It was a good evening and the big turnout was testament to the high regard in which the company is held. I was joined by an impressive group of speakers which included: Ken Verdon, the General Manager of Hunter Douglas; Peter Bouma, who is founding partner of Crimsafe; Nigel Chalk, the General Manager of Bradnams; Ernest Ullrich, founder and owner of Ullrich Aluminium; and Kevin Conlan, the owner of Dexion NQ.
I congratulate DABSCO directors, Phil and Patricia Grice, and General Manager Mark Broom for their innovation and continued commitment to the Territory.
Last month I was fortunate enough to attend, as a proud parent and Territory sports fan, the National Netball Under 17 and Under 19 Championships in Victoria. The championships were held at the State Netball and Hockey Centre in Melbourne, a great sports facility, and the best 12 players in each age group from every state and territory were there vying for the title of national champions. I was only able to see one game, unfortunately, but from what I saw, both our teams were most competitive. I was lucky enough to see our Under 19 girls in an upset victory over the ACT 32 to 29 and finish in that competition in sixth place. It was a brilliant win as most of the girls only moved up from the 2006 Under 17 team this year and it was their best result ever, which is great. The Under 19 team was: Coach, Stacey West; Assistant Coach, Karen Johnson; Manager, Lorna McLaughlin; and Primary Care person, Karen Schneider. The athletes were: Captain, Sarah Williams; Vice-Captain, Chloe Alderman; Alyce Casilli; Kim Bruyn; Jacinta Kay; Merissa Chaplin; Lucy Shannon; Megan Waters; Rosie Jennings; and Kelsey Weckert. There were also two import players: Alice Murt from South Australia and Tessa Burton from Victoria.
I have spoken to the players since the trip, and they have all told me that the highlight of the week was a very tight match against Western Australia. They only went down by three points, and then Western Australia went on to beat South Australia and Victoria, who were the teams that eventually played off in the grand final. Victoria went on to be worthy winners of the Under 19 championship trophy.
The average age of our Under 17 team this year was only 15, with most girls making the team for the first time. They faced a very tough and physical challenge, but it was pleasing to hear comments from onlookers courtside about how much the team improved as the week went on. The Under 17s coach was Kate Worden; Assistant Coach, Natalie Chatfield; Manager, Sally Winch; and Primary Care was Amy Terry. The athletes were: Captain, Tegan Pannel from Alice Springs; Jess Moller; Stacey McKenzie; Diana Radunz; Emma Kay; Lucy Williams; Eulaly Allen; Sarah Winch; Sharon Jennings; Mayy Hamde; Jess Smith; and Ashleigh Adams.
The future is looking good for the team, with all but two players eligible to play in this age group next year. I should mention that Kate Worden’s daughter, Sarrita King, played in the South Australian team, which is a mighty achievement. Sarrita is a product of our NTIS program, and relocated to South Australia just over 12 months ago to continue her dream of playing netball at the highest level. She competed against hundreds of girls for a spot in the team, which ended up finishing second.
The hard-working officials not only went away with the teams in their own time, taking time off work and away from family to help the athletes, but also volunteered hours of their time every week for training in the six months leading up to their national campaign; many thanks and congratulations to you all.
In conjunction with the NTIS program, the Territory is producing some first-class netballers. This group of young women proudly represented the Territory with their winning spirit, genuine friendliness and perseverance. They are, Mr Deputy Speaker, a credit to us all.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Before I commence tonight I extend a vote of thanks to the members for Arafura, Stuart and Macdonnell. I speak as the member for Blain. This time last night, I personally was struggling with what this parliament means. Some may have presumed my actions in this parliament last night were the result of personal disappointment in the reception of something I presented. It was far more than that. There comes a time, particularly as you move along in years and you spend time in your career, when you start to question the purpose of your service in this place. I came to such a point last night.
After again visiting a topic which was neither understood nor received in a manner in which it was delivered, I came to the point where I wondered whether there was any virtue in continuing in this place because it is simply unsatisfying. It was not a personal offence; it was a general concern about the fruitlessness of such pursuits in this place, where notions such as integrity or sincerity are trashed, when ideas one holds personally are not carried into this Chamber, and there is a disconnect between values and principles and beliefs in the interests of political debate.
It is called good fun and a game by some, but I cannot do that comfortably. I have never been a good actor, and I refuse to become one. I have been counselled to put up a wall and to allow these things to pass by. I decided last night I would never allow that to occur. I would much prefer to be hurt and offended by the behaviour that I see around me than to put up a wall and develop some kind of immunity so I can exist in a different form in this place. I refuse to do so.
Last night, I made a decision that I will continue, nonetheless. I am glad I made the decision to continue in this place last night because what I saw this evening has encouraged me immensely, more than words can express, and restored my confidence in this parliament in just a small way by seeing three members show extraordinary courage. I speak in plain terms. There is no hidden message or political agenda behind what I say. I speak genuinely. Though I actually stood at a different place, I did find it difficult to stand where I stood at the conclusion of that debate, but more than that, much, much more than that, to see an injection of courage shown by those members has encouraged me immensely and it in fact inspires me.
I am so grateful because last night, I went home and I wondered what is the point. What really is the point to have no attempt made to understand the motive by which an attempt is made to try to fix a problem where in fact not only is an attempt not made but it is denigrated in the cruellest possible ways? Rather than build up a callous approach to these things, I would much prefer to be hurt so that I can keep true to myself.
Also I must compliment to the member for Nelson. He has been an inspiration to me. I really appreciate the way he has carefully and in such a considered way approached the business of this Chamber. He, too, is an inspiration to me and I thank him for his role in this Chamber. It is people like him who keep me in this place.
As I said, I have made a decision to stay - not that I was in fact toying up whether I would pull out, but it was a serious consideration on the basis of the lack of genuine and deep satisfaction you get from such a job. I have done jobs where you feel like you are achieving something. To spend year after year in this place and find that it is just game playing, I have better things to do. I now know that I have better things to do, and it will be in here.
I will say again, as I have said many times, it is not a reflection on members opposite. There are some members on the other side who simply cannot hear what I am saying. I am not speaking strictly of members opposite. It is a condition of parliament, it is a condition of this place, and it infects us wherever we be. I am infected by it and I have been in the past when I was Opposition Leader. It was incredibly difficult to shake off the trappings of the game, as it has been described to me by a colleague on the other side. I do not see it as a game. I have shaken myself free of that and last night I decided to shake myself free of it again.
I must make an observation, though. As I have said on a number of occasions, I have sat over there as a back bencher coming in on a by-election when the CLP was in government. I saw many things that I was not happy with, and that was of the CLP. I saw the operations. I have said it so many times and still it seems not to be able to penetrate with some members on the other side.
I have seen, too, the members of the then opposition really hurt in a similar way that I exhibited some pain last night. I have seen the member for Nhulunbuy bursting through that door in exactly the same way as I did last night. I have heard him banging things in there, because of the sheer frustration of what was occurring in this Chamber. I sat over there and I observed you, member for Nhulunbuy, and I felt for you at that time. I have heard stories that the now Chief Minister found it immeasurably difficult in opposition with the abuse that was inflicted upon the then opposition.
What I find even more disturbing is that just as an abused child grows up to become an abuser of children, I find that really disappointing. I have seen that, in fact, occur. The very same offence that has been inflicted upon the members who were then in opposition and now in government is the same kind of activity, except now it is the abuser who was once the abused.
Sitting over there, I have observed the transition. Now I am sitting here and I am seeing it. I hope that I never become a contributor in that way in this parliament. There have been some elements exhibited particularly tonight that give me cause for confidence. I hope for other members, too, that when they reflect upon trying to leave this place leaving a legacy, they feel proud and will draw some courage from it. It is not an easy matter making decisions. It is easy to go along with the crowd, but we will never be judged by whether we stuck with the crowd. We will be judged by whether we did the right thing. Sometimes we are going to be at variance with our own parties. We can either attempt to change the party or we will have to change ourselves and change our position because it is too serious.
We are not going to get a round of applause at the end of the day just because we stuck with the pack. You are going to be an old man or an old woman and you are going to look back and you are going to be proud of some things or you are going to be a little disappointed in yourself, or you are going to have such a callous view of things that you cannot even think that deeply. Pity that day because you become the walking dead. I pledge to stay alive and I only hope that what has occurred tonight will feed the confidence of those in this Chamber to reflect upon their own positions as a single person who sits in a single seat representing people who have placed their confidence in them.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, with the onset of the Dry from 1 May, I again started my regular Saturday morning pastime of doorknocking and visiting in my area. It is wonderful to catch up with people again. During the Wet, most people lock themselves up in their houses, with the airconditioning on full blast and of course very rarely will listen to what is happening at their front gate.
It is not only catching up with people, but watching things change in my electorate. One of the big changes that I have seen is the development of the new suburb of Lyons. Stage 2 was released on Saturday, 14 April 2007 and the ballot is going to be held on 26 May. Stage 2 is situated at Tambling Terrace behind the aged persons’ accommodation on Lee Point Road behind Tracy Village and down to where the sales office is. A neighbourhood park will be located within walking distance of most home sites. The display village is due to commence construction and due to open in September 2007. The participants for the six homes to be built are PTM Homes, Shamrock Homes, Larrakia Homes and Darwin Constructions. Mind you, there are already some houses being built in Henbury Avenue and some of them are nearing completion.
The impressive building which is to become the neighbourhood facility is close to completion and should house the sales centre late in May or early June.
Garanmanuk Park, Larrakia language for ‘grandmother’, has greened up nicely and the planting of trees is well under way. Street signs have now been erected in Stage 1, with street names commemorating the Larrakia language for flora and fauna. Once again, this represents a strong economic boost for the Territory and more jobs for local contractors and workers and, of course, more houses for people who choose to live there.
Our Australian Red Cross does a fantastic job in providing aid all over the world. The month of March always signifies Red Cross Calling, and I thank very much Andrea Lee and Kia at the Red Cross office for organising, once again, the Red Cross collection. I was very pleased to help the Red Cross by staying in Casuarina and rattling the bucket, attracting the attention of people who were very generous in donating money. I was able to fill, within an hour-and-a-half, about three buckets with money. People who come from other countries know very well what the Red Cross does, especially in countries which have experienced civil war or war or some disaster. Congratulations and thank you very much to all the people who generously donated to the Red Cross.
Congratulations to Nakara Primary School for putting on a wonderful exhibition of cultural activities to celebrate Harmony Day recently. Well done to Jeannie Hampton, Nakara Primary’s Aboriginal Education Officer, for organising and coordinating the dancing and musical displays representing so many different cultures. Nakara School is one of the most multicultural schools in the northern suburbs. It has kids from 33 different cultures, all of them sharing the same school and all of them are friends.
I also enjoyed my welcome back to school afternoon tea with Nakara School staff last term. When the term starts, I always put on a morning or afternoon tea. It is always good to keep up to date with news and updates with my principals at the start of the school year and to meet new teachers. I was also very happy to see Principal Barry Griffin looking almost fully recovered from his recent heart problems.
As usual, it was always a pleasure to present my Student Achievement Awards at school assemblies. My March awards went to Alia Tutty from Mr Woods’ grade 1/2 for achievement and effort in school work, and Sahanna Skilton from upper primary for working cooperatively with all students in the class. Congratulations to Alia and Sahanna for all your excellent efforts in Term 1.
I recognise the huge contribution teachers bring to our society. I have made it a custom to officially welcome teachers back to school by putting on a morning tea for them. During my welcome back to school morning tea for Alawa Primary School teachers, I was pleased to catch up with some of the teachers from last year and some who had returned from maternity leave, as well as welcome some new teachers to the school. Teachers are hard-working professionals and I am pleased that parents in my electorate recognise this and support their children’s education by participating in school assemblies and activities. It is always very encouraging to see so many parents present at school assemblies.
My March Student Achievement Awards for Alawa Primary were won by Nicholas Sanders and Poppy Leotsakos for exemplary behaviour. Congratulations to you both for a wonderful start to the year.
Thanks also to Jeff Mosel and Pat King from the Casuarina Neighbourhood Watch Committee for organising flyers to go out with my electorate newsletter, providing important information to all my constituents about protecting and improving our neighbourhood and keeping our kids safe. The Casuarina Neighbourhood Watch Committee urgently needs new members and supporters. It is a good idea to get involved in crime prevention and help to make your community a safer place to live. To join, contact the Executive Officer, Jeff Mosel on 8922 3604 or you may ring my electorate office.
I am extremely happy for Tiwi residents who have been patiently waiting for the Tiwi Shopping Centre upgrade. It is now completed, with new brick paving, external lights, external footpath, tree planting and a high quality fence. It has changed the face of the centre. I thank the Northern Territory government for granting $180 000 to the Darwin City Council to undertake the work. My sincere thanks also go to all involved in the design and upgrade, especially to Brendan Dowd, the engineer from Darwin City Council, who had to put up with my constant inquiries, first, regarding when the job was going to start, and then when it was going to finish. I visited the Tiwi Shopping Centre last week. It looks fabulous and I am proud to able to deliver on another of my election promises.
Congratulations to my young constituents, Simone and Candice Liddy of Nakara, and Emily and Jonathan Peris of Tiwi for recently representing the NT at the Australian Hockey League in the Northern Territory Pearls and Territory Stingers teams. A large number of Casuarina families actively participate in hockey. I was pleased recently to be able to support the NT Hockey Association with an injection of up to $25 000 to support them for the rest of the season. Thank you very much to all the parents who called to say thank you. Please rest assured that anything that keeps our children active has my full support.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to the late Professor Aileen Plant.
Professor Aileen Plant was a major contributor to the public health of the Asia Pacific region, Australia and the Northern Territory. A world leading authority on deadly infectious diseases, she died suddenly at the age of 58 in Indonesia on 27 March 2007. We join colleagues, students and community members in mourning her passing.
Aileen Plant left school at 14, worked on the family farm and then in a bank. At 22, she started medicine at the University of Western Australia and graduated in 1977. She first worked as a junior doctor at Royal Darwin Hospital in 1978, later becoming a well respected Medical Registrar. She was Northern Territory Chief Health Officer and Deputy Secretary from 1989 until 1992, and during that time co-authored the first collection of Northern Territory Health Indicators. She most recently worked as Professor of International Health at Curtin University in Perth and as an advisor to the World Health Organisation. She worked to successfully control the SARS epidemic in Vietnam and received that country’s highest award. More recently, she worked as a key advisor to WHO and the Australian government on preparing for the threat of pandemic influenza.
An expert in public health, epidemiology, infectious diseases and international health, she retained strong personal and professional links with the Northern Territory. She was a great teacher and a mentor to many. I would like to close with a quote from Professor John Mathews who spoke at her memorial in Perth in April:
- In Aileen we mourn a dear friend and wonderful human being. She was greatly admired for her idealism, her integrity, her empathy, her humility, her energy, her originality, the breadth and depth of her intellect, and her commitment to evidence. These personal qualities, together with her capacity to work round problems, and also around problem people, underpinned her many achievements.
Mr Deputy Speaker, at the close of business on 4 May 2007, Hartley Dentith will retire from the Department of Health and Community Services after more than 23 years of service. Mr Dentith, a Registered Nurse and Manager for the Centre of Disease Control in Nhulunbuy, was employed with DHCS from 14 January 1980 to 9 December 1981. In 1986, he returned to the department to establish the Centre for Disease Control in Nhulunbuy, which opened on 17 December 1986.
Hartley has worked tirelessly to provide a health service for indigenous and non-indigenous people alike; in particular in relation to tuberculosis, leprosy, sexually transmitted infections, and general surveillance. He has also been instrumental in achieving high childhood immunisation coverage rates, and regular school screenings in the East Arnhem region. Mr Dentith has worked at Galiwinku, Gapuwiyak and Yirrkala Community Health Centres as a remote area nurse and often as a sole practitioner. He has also tutored, mentored and supported many Aboriginal Health Workers, community workers, registered nurses and other health professionals over the years, using his vast amount of knowledge and experience, both medical and local. Hartley is also a commercial pilot and, over the years, has accessed planes to provide health services in remote communities and very remote homelands.
I know I join the member for Nhulunbuy, who knows Hartley very well, in wishing Hartley and his family all the best in retirement. I spoke to Hartley this afternoon on the telephone, and he tells me he is going to keep flying those planes out to the remote communities and continue to enjoy life in Eastern Arnhem Land, so all the best, Hartley, in retirement.
Unfortunately, due to a point of order in the middle of my adjournment speech on 19 April, I missed a couple of paragraphs about kids in my electorate who have been chosen to represent their peers in Jingili Primary School. I want to make mention of the election of house captains and vice captains elected in Jingili Primary School in March this year, and offer my heartiest congratulations to Jeremy Kimm and Shannen Pugh as captains of Forest, with Koal Smith and Samantha Kearney as vice captains. William Anstey and Paige Wilson were elected as captains of Ocean, with Lance Schmidt and Jacqueline Withers as Ocean’s vice captains. Earth captains are Ryan McMurray and Chantel Holloway, with vice captains Gabrielle Farrow and Jordyn Carne.
Whilst talking about the great school students of my electorate, I extend my congratulations to Velmaine Wilson and Jeremy Kimm of Jingili Primary School, Taylah Hendy and Anthony Fuller of Wagaman Primary School, and Sean Johnston and Hannah Roche of Moil Primary School who were awarded my Quiet Achiever Awards for Term 1 of the 2007 school year. Well done for the deserved recognition. It is fantastic for these students to be recognised for their steady progress through their school years.
Last weekend, I was invited to the Swahili Language for Beginners course at the Casuarina Senior College to present the graduating participants with certificates and join them for an African cuisine lunch. The group of Darwinites had been studying Swahili language at the college for the last eight weeks. Swahili is currently the national language of Tanzania and Kenya. The language has spread further from the original coastal areas to countries such us Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique and beyond. While the African Union uses Arabic, French, English and Portuguese at its summits, there is a push for Swahili as one of the most used African native languages to be also included.
The Swahili language has also made its presence felt in music and art. One that comes to mind is the celebrated Walt Disney movie, The Lion King, which features Swahili words such as simba meaning lion, rafiqi meaning friend and, of course, hakuna matata, which means ‘no problems’.
Over the past 10 years, Darwin has had an increase in migrants from African countries, both through skilled and refugee migration, which has created an interest in the various African cultures. A number of the Swahili students have contact with migrants from various African countries through their work and volunteer activities, and this promoted their interest to learn Swahili. The Office of Multicultural Affairs of which my colleague, the member for Karama, has charge, through the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship program, provided funding assistance for the Swahili language classes, and the project was supported by Anglicare NT. The class was tutored by Mr McRoberts Agaa and Mr Doulat Alibhai.
The Swahili language group ended the pilot program with a fantastic African cuisine lunch. Frederica Gaskell, who facilitated the Swahili language program and a previous African cuisine cooking program, explained that African cuisine has been influenced not just by the diverse African cultures, but also their historical and contemporary trading partners. The strong influences in East African countries are Arabic, Portuguese and Indian. The dishes prepared by Frederica and by Bupe Kyela included biryani, kande, which is a maize and red kidney bean dish, and ugali, which is made from ground maize or corn and is a staple carbohydrate in the cuisine of many African countries.
Mr Warren: It sounds delicious.
Dr BURNS: It was absolutely delicious. It was served up with great company and they are a great group. These sorts of projects centred around language and food do such a lot to preserve unity and facilitate understanding between people.
I had great pleasure again in supporting the Pet Expo held at the Marrara Indoor Stadium and organised by Top End Pet Expo Incorporated, the Secretary of which is Mrs Rhonda Wise who I proudly say is a constituent of mine and has been running Rhonda’s Dog Grooming Service from her home in Moil for the past 11 years.
The Pet Expo is run by voluntary groups who get together to help educate the general public in health care and maintenance of their pet. Maybe I should go along there with Bruiser one night. I am sure the mighty Bruiser would enjoy such an outing. The Pet Expo is now in its seventh year and thousands of people take the opportunity to go along to learn some new skills, investigate new and popular pet products, and see dog obedience displays which are a fantastic incentive to learn to train your dog. There are also cat walks and talks on birds and snakes. I understand that Stuart Duncan was the coordinator of the very successful expo last week and is acknowledged by Rhonda as being absolutely incredible with his organisation and local knowledge.
I have had great pleasure in sponsoring Chavonne Carroll, a constituent of mine, who is attending the Australian National Agility Trials 2007 in Adelaide this month. I should explain that these are canine agility trials. Chavonne is a member of a four-person five-dog Territory team which has been selected by the North Australian Canine Association to represent the Northern Territory for the first time at the Australian trials. The National Agility trials are held every year in alternate states and this year has attracted entries from over 500 competitors from both Australia and overseas, with New Zealand competing for the first time. The Northern Territory has members from both Darwin and Alice Springs. I wish them all the very best for a successful meet. I am looking forward to telling members about Chavonne’s experience after she returns to Darwin.
Yesterday, the member for Greatorex made an assertion based on a media report aired on ABC Radio’s AM program on Wednesday, 2 May. I wish to inform the House that the quote attributed to me by the media has no basis in fact. The report related to the consumption of mouthwash as an alternative to alcohol by heavy drinkers in Alice Springs. In particular, the assertion made by the journalist was that I said it: ‘It would take several litres of Listerine before anyone was intoxicated’. This is completely untrue. Indeed, I never spoke to the journalist at all and I will be taking this matter up with the ABC. Finally, I can also assure the House that steps are being taken by the relevant agencies to address the issue raised in the media report.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, as members, we are often invited to functions, some more notable than others. One I would like to discuss tonight. The minister for Police who was acting in the role of Education minister in the absence of the Education minister, had the honour of presenting a number of awards for the Indigenous Students Leadership and Mentorship program recently at Parliament House. It was a great event. I was very proud to watch some of my students from Taminmin High School receive those awards.
When you look at students, particularly indigenous students, who do something really special and are awarded and acknowledged for it, you see that the future is very bright. Taminmin High School had 15 students apply for the Indigenous Students Leadership and Mentorship program awards in late 2006. Of the 50 students from around the Northern Territory, five from Taminmin were successful with their applications. They are Hayley Smith, Shari Hunt, Jesse Risk, Rebekah Raymond and Jade Scott. Each of those students did Taminmin very proud on the night. They were very dignified and were good ambassadors for the school.
The program provides students with the chance to build on their existing talents whilst developing the skills they need to make them more productive and resilient members of our community. There are several aspects of the program on which I want to touch because it shows the depth of the program and the value of the program showed in the faces of the students that night.
The first aspect of the program was the acknowledgment, induction and orientation, which is pretty standard in most programs, but it was a particularly important aspect of this one. The second aspect was identifying and working with a mentor, and that showed through in the dignified way they presented themselves on the night, which was a sight to behold. The third aspect was leadership. We all need leadership training at different times, and that was an important aspect. Student forums; participation, of course, is an important part of any sort of program, particularly for students. The fifth aspect was facilitating access to activities and equipment to enhance their educational outcomes, and that also is very important. Number six was achieving personal goals, which we all need to do. The seventh aspect was encouraging the students to participate in leadership roles in their schools and communities. I was at the next assembly and those students were acknowledged and the way in which they presented themselves showed that they really gleaned something from this program.
The awards presentation was a great ceremony and it was good that Parliament House hosted them. A number of photos were taken of the event and I was honoured to have my photo taken with the students. We put the photos on my noticeboard and I was proud to have them in my office. I had them up for several weeks and many people said how proud they were of the students. The whole community is very proud of them. It is not just about them being indigenous students; it is about them being active and participating members in our community, and the whole community acknowledges that.
Another event is coming up, and I am sure members in the House will be reporting on it in due course, and it is National Volunteer Week, which is being held from 14 to 20 May 2007. I want to take a moment to talk about some of the volunteers in my area, as we will not have another sitting before that occurs, because they are special to our community.
I wanted to find out for myself what volunteering involves. I looked on the website and I acknowledge Volunteering Australia and their volunteering fast fact sheet from which I am about to quote, but it is quite mind boggling how special it is for our volunteers to be part of our community. Volunteering contributes several billion dollars a year to the Australian economy. I find that mind boggling; we are not talking about millions, we are talking billions of dollars. Without that work there would be many organisations, groups and people who would be quite disadvantaged.
Who volunteers? In 2004, 6.3 million Australians over the age of 18 were active volunteers. Approximately 836 million hours were volunteered by adult Australians in 2004, averaging 132 hours of their time. The largest number of hours that were contributed, and this is pleasing to see, was by the elderly and young volunteers who averaged about 178 hours for the ages of 55 to 65, and 132 hours for those aged 18 to 24. The most active age group was the group in the middle, I guess, or those slightly younger, I should say, and that is the volunteers in the 35 to 44 years age group who were the most active at 47% participation. These figures are for 2004, so obviously they have gone up but they are the latest figures available. In 2004, 41% of adult Australians volunteered compared with 34% in 2002 and 24% in 1995. That is a doubling in a decade.
What do volunteers do? The most common volunteering activities were: fundraising, not surprisingly; management, yes; teaching, of course; and administration, that was an interesting aspect. People tend to choose volunteering activities that reflect their training and skills and consequently professionals tend to teach and trades people choose maintenance, repairs and gardening.
Why do people volunteer? That is a very interesting question. The main reasons for volunteering include being of service to the community and personal satisfaction. Young people tend to put down personal satisfaction and to help others in the community, to gain new skills and gain work experience. Particularly in the Northern Territory, the ABS data indicate that 30 000 Territorians undertook volunteering activities in 2006, and this is growing all the time.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, there are some very notable people I would like to mention from our rural community. These are the unsung heroes of our community of Goyder, particularly people such as school council members, volunteers in the local fire brigades, emergency services volunteers, Landcare group volunteers and, interestingly, those working with the Freds Pass Show Committee to make the show the success I am sure it will be as it is coming up very shortly. The show will be held on 19 and 20 May, and I guess this is a free plug for the show. I am sure I will see a lot of the local members at the Freds Pass Show.
I would like to say thank you to the following fantastic locals for their invaluable contributions to our rural community: Michelle Leach for her work doing a fantastic job with the starting up of the Guides. This group is now at capacity. In fact, I believe it is the largest Guides unit in the Top End at the moment. It provides much needed activities for rural youth. I pay tribute to her work for promoting the Guides in such a positive and fruitful manner.
I cannot go past Mr George Kasparek for doing the same for many years with the Humpty Doo Scouts. On Anzac Day, I was very pleased to see both the Scouts and the Guides turn out in such a great number. We had about 150 marchers, and they made up about 30 to 40 of the marchers.
Mr Greg and Mrs Lurline Payne do lots of work with St John Ambulance. They are out there every weekend, working at sporting events. They are just everywhere and they are really great volunteers.
Olive Frakking at Freds Pass Reserve organises seniors’ activities and gets involved in other events. I know she works there, but she spends much of her free time volunteering for other work. Olive is involved in many things in our area.
Sandra Parker is Palmerston’s poet laureate and is heavily involved in Palmerston Young Writers, and also the annual Seniors Poetry Launch at Taminmin Library with Librarian Iris Beale. Every year, I and the member for Nelson, Gerry Wood, are very pleased to write our own little odes and sonnets, and we get into the spirit of things, which is great fun. I commend those people because that is a big part of the Seniors calendar in the rural area.
There are many firies and in particular I mention Ron and Phyllis Thomas of Berry Springs Volunteer Fire Brigade. It should be noted that Ron was awarded the National Medal in 2006 for services to the Australian fire service, Defence force, police or ambulance. He has been Captain of the Berry Springs Volunteer Bushfire Brigade since 2002. He wanted to retire this year, but is still Captain owing to a lack of others willing to, or capable of, doing this valuable work. I understand that last Sunday he was helping to pull four vehicles out of a bog. He is a very senior member of our community, but he is still getting out there helping the community. He is 79 years of age, by the way. His wife, Phyllis, has worked alongside him all the time doing the administrative work of the brigade.
Mr Ray McCasker has spent many years heavily involved in the AFLNT Southern Districts Football Club. His son, Mark, a skilful and popular player, tragically passed away recently, but Ray continues supporting the team. He has not taken a step backwards in pushing the club. He was even working with us recently to finalise a grant application for future facilities, and all at very short notice.
Sydney ‘Robbo’ Robinson was Chair of the Berry Springs Primary School and Taminmin High School Councils at the same time until the end of 2006. He has recently helped set up the Darwin River Landcare Group and is one of the most active people in the Darwin rural area for sure. The energy that Robbo has is just mind-boggling. I am in awe of the energy and capabilities he has.
Finally, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I previously talked about the contribution of Maureen Newman, who fought tenaciously to bring the Bendigo Bank, the community bank, to the Northern Territory while she was also Chair of the Rural Area Business Group. Maureen spent a lot of time on both those activities. They were both very time-consuming, but she certainly put a lot of effort into it. We are very proud of her, and we are very proud we have such a fabulous facility for rural Territorians.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016