2014-05-07
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, on your desk you will see – some people have them on – the national Yellow Ribbon Road Safety Week communication strategy to try to encourage safety awareness for all who drive on our roads. Thank you for wearing the ribbons.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two exceptionally clever Year 5/6 classes from Bees Creek Primary School, accompanied by the brilliant teachers Gayle Purdue and Brianna Gibbs. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also have pleasure in advising you of the presence in the gallery of an Australia Indonesia Partnership for Local Government Planning and Budgeting study tour which has come to Darwin. I wanted to read out everyone’s names but realised I would have a bit of difficulty, but our guests today are from the various districts across Indonesia and are CEOs and general managers. They are from the areas of Merauke, Fakfak, Sorong Selatan, Pegunungan Bintang and Sumba Barat Daya. How was that? Welcome one and all. I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House today and also in the Northern Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present the Poppy Regulation Bill to honourable members. When this government was elected it had the clear intention of growing the Northern Territory economy in a number of priority areas, three of which include my portfolio responsibilities of energy, mining and the primary industry sectors. All three sectors are strong drivers contributing to the development of northern Australia.
Today the Country Liberal government takes a stride forward in its efforts to expand and diversify the Territory’s agricultural base by introducing a robust regulatory framework to facilitate establishment of the opium poppy cultivation and processing industry.
For those who may not be aware Papaver somniferum is the plant species from which opium and poppy seeds are derived. Opium is a source of many narcotics, including morphine, thebaine, codeine, papaverine and noscapine.
Australia, along with Turkey and India, is a major producer of opium poppies grown for medicinal purposes which produce poppy-based drugs such as morphine and codeine. Each year Australia, and specifically Tasmania to date, produces about half the world’s legal narcotic product.
Globally the licit opium poppy industry is strictly regulated under international law. Australia, as a signatory to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, is required to carefully control and supervise all stages of the growing and production of opium poppies as well as the import and export of narcotic material. Implementation of the convention is overseen by the International Narcotics Control Board which determines annual quotas for the growing of narcotic plants based on estimates of worldwide production needs.
Under the Northern Territory’s Misuse of Drugs Act a number of substances and plants are classified as Schedule 2 dangerous drugs, and this includes Papaver somniferum and its derivatives. As a result, it is an offence to supply, cultivate, manufacture, produce or possess these substances. Thus, there is no current ability to allow for the legal growing of opium poppy in the Territory for medicinal or any other purposes.
It is for this reason this government has now drafted the Poppy Regulation Bill before you today. Whilst this government strongly supports the creation of an opium poppy industry in the Territory, it also clearly recognises some varities of poppies are potentially harmful. Access to these varieties and derived substances therefore needs to be carefully controlled at all stages, whether during an involved refining process or from more humble beginnings as tall plants maturing in a sunlit paddock.
With this in mind, the objects of the prepared Poppy Regulation Bill are:
(a) to provide for regulation of activities in relation to poppies and things derived from or associated with poppies, and
(b) to reduce the risk to the safety and security of persons in the Territory resulting from those activities, by providing for licensing of those activities.
I will now outline some of the more specific parts and clauses within the bill to demonstrate how the Territory government intends to deliver on these objects.
Clause 7 under Part 2 of the bill creates a licensing system for those wishing to grow, possess, store or transport poppy, poppy product, poppy material or poppy-related material, all of which are defined earlier under clause 4 of the bill. Also, the term ‘process’ is clearly defined under the bill to capture any activity which intends transforming a poppy into a poppy product.
Under the bill, a granted poppy licence can be for a period of up to three years but is not transferrable. For activities to be carried out under a Northern Territory-issued poppy processing licence, the licensee must also hold the required Commonwealth licence as the manufacturing of poppy materials and products are licensed under the Commonwealth’s Narcotic Drugs Act 1967.
Under clause 8 of the bill there is a requirement for an applicant wishing to obtain a poppy licence, and any of his or her associates, to demonstrate they are fit and proper persons to be issued with a licence. Further, the applicant also needs to submit for assessment a detailed plan for the management of any risks associated with the activity to be carried out under the poppy licence, for example, ensuring there will be an appropriate level of site security measures to minimise the risk of unauthorised access to poppy or poppy-related material grown, processed or stored at the site, or during transportation to and from the site.
To further ensure those wishing to hold a poppy licence in the Territory are fit and proper to do so, under clause 9 of the bill it will be a requirement of the designated Licensing Authority – appointed under clause 15 of the bill – to seek the views of the Commissioner of Police on whether or not a licence should be granted to a person. Similar to other statutes, the Commissioner of Police will be able to use protected information to assist with his or her decision-making. Should the Commissioner form a view that a licence should not be issued to a particular person, the Licensing Authority is obliged to take this advice and not issue the licence …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can you please pause.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two exceptionally clever Year 5/6 classes from Bees Creek Primary School, accompanied by their brilliant teachers, Margaret Syme and Linda Brodie. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: To summarise the high degree of scrutiny applied to the issuing of a poppy licence under the prepared bill, the Licensing Authority can only grant a licence if he or she is:
satisfied that the applicant or any associates are fit and proper persons
satisfied that the applicant’s plan to manage any risks associated with the activities conducted under a poppy licence is appropriate
satisfied the applicant’s intended site for these activities with respect to location, facilities and proposed security arrangements are also appropriate
satisfied the Commissioner of Police is not opposed to the granting of the licence to the applicant.
Once a poppy licence has been granted, clause 12 of the bill allows for the suspension or cancellation of the licence should the holder seek its cancellation or the Licensing Authority believes a condition or term of the licence has been contravened.
In addition, the Commissioner of Police is able to ask the Licensing Authority to suspend or cancel an already granted licence should information come to light regarding the licence holder or any associates.
Clause 13 sets out the process for a person served a notice under the bill for the non-granting, suspension or cancellation of a licence to apply to the new Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a review of that decision.
To ensure that regulatory requirements are complied with under Part 3, Division 2, the bill allows for the appointment of poppy control officers to undertake a range of activities to ensure that licensees and other persons are meeting their obligations under the act.
Part 4 of the bill details the specific offences under the act. For example, clause 32 makes it an offence for a person to cultivate, possess, transport or process poppy material if the person is not a licensee under the act. Further, this offence provision also captures employees or contractors working under a poppy licence. If guilty, the maximum penalty for this offence is 250 penalty units or a two-year imprisonment.
Under clause 42 of the bill, an executive officer of a body corporate is deemed to have committed an offence if the body corporate itself commits an offence. This applies if the executive officer was in a position to influence the conduct of the body corporate, failed to prevent the commissioning of the offence, or was reckless about whether or not the offence would happen. If guilty, the maximum penalty is that which may be imposed for the relevant offence. Having an offence which allows for the apportion of criminal liability to an executive officer of a body corporate sends a clear message that those entrusted with a poppy licence in the Northern Territory are accountable for their actions.
Some may be wondering how all the detailed regulatory controls outlined in this bill are of relevance to the Territory’s economic advancement. This prepared bill, if enacted, will enable the Territory to become an active participant in a global market which previously was closed to us. The regulatory controls included in this bill will assist to reduce the risk to the safety and security of persons both within the industry and the wider community. It will also allow the Territory to work collaboratively with the Commonwealth government to assist Australia in meeting its obligations under international agreements controlling poppy cultivation, manufacturing and distribution.
It is this government’s strong intention to work proactively with licensees to build a successful and sustainable poppy growing and processing industry in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Poppy Regulation Bill 2014 (Serial 78) passing through all stages during these sittings.
I will now outline the reasons why urgency for this bill is sought. Firstly, the bill, when passed, will allow for the immediate broadening of the Northern Territory’s economic base by diversifying our agricultural capability to capitalise on a new and highly lucrative market. Other jurisdictions, particularly Victoria, are also looking to capitalise on this opportunity. Last month it commenced its own legislation allowing for the growing and processing of opium poppy in that state. By not having a legislative regime in place as soon as possible we run a real risk of missing out on attracting companies to the Territory to spend investment dollars, which in turn serves to grow our economy. Delaying the Territory being able to compete with Tasmania and Victoria for a share of the poppy growing and processing market has the potential to jeopardise our financial position.
Secondly, when passed, the bill will allow the current proponent to immediately begin the large scale commercial trial it is seeking to undertake this Dry Season, which represents the yearly growing window for this crop.
If that window is missed, no growing will take place until the 2015 Dry Season at the earliest. This will mean the Territory misses out on the economic benefit the activity would have brought this year arising from the proponent’s capital expenditure on the large-scale trial, as well as the employment opportunities and flow-on benefits.
The Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has been working on the development of a poppy growing industry in the Northern Territory since 2012. In the 2013 Dry Season, Tasmanian-based TPI Enterprises, or TPI, conducted a small-scale research growing trial on land located at the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries’ Katherine Research Station and the Douglas Daly Research Farm.
Due to the existing prohibition on the cultivation of opium poppy, TPI sought and was granted an authorisation under section 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act to conduct that research activity.
Results obtained from the small trials were encouraging, and demonstrated the viability of growing opium poppy in the Top End, albeit under very controlled conditions. The substance which is taken from poppies, the opiate material, was shown during those trials to be every bit as good if not better than the yield shown from Tasmanian grown poppies. There is certainly an indication this industry could be viable in the Northern Territory.
In late 2013 TPI submitted a proposal seeking to conduct a large-scale – approximately 250 ha – commercial growing trial in 2014 on Tipperary Station south of Darwin, which is part of the Northern Territory government’s pastoral estate.
However, the new proposal put forward by TPI was beyond the scope of activities that can be authorised under the Misuse of Drugs Act due to its commercial nature. In order for the Territory to move forward to develop an opium poppy growing and processing industry, there was a need to put in place a robust, regulatory regime, and to do so in a timely manner to allow for the commencement of growing activities in the 2014 Dry Season, lest the opportunity of being on the cusp of growing on the mainland is missed.
To this end, my department coordinated an inter-agency working group to examine the benefits of establishing an industry in the NT. Part of this examination involved undertaking cost-benefit analysis on the proposal received.
I am confident the passage of this bill through these sittings will be of significant economic benefit to the Northern Territory.
To provide further detail on the need to have this bill passed on urgency in these sittings, I am happy to provide to the House an estimation of the proposed time lines for passage of this bill if it is not passed on urgency.
Normally we introduce legislation to this House and it sits on the books for 30 days before it can be debated. That would take us into the next lot of sittings which are, in essence, the Estimates Committee hearings on the budget to be held in June. The last day of estimates goes back to sitting in this parliament, but, given past experience, a large number of issues need to be dealt with on that day, often resulting in very late nights. It is unlikely this Poppy Regulation Bill would be dealt with on the last day. I do not want members of this House sitting until 2 am or 3 am debating a very important piece of legislation for the Northern Territory.
It carries that importance because we are talking about the regulatory regime around a brand spanking new industry in the Northern Territory. I believe it should be given due care and attention, albeit being passed in this House next week. Given that, there would be sufficient time for members and the opposition to be fully briefed on this legislation before it is set down for debate later next week. I have already offered briefings to the opposition and other members, and some members have taken up the opportunity to be briefed on this.
If this legislation could not be dealt with in the June sittings at the end of estimates it would be pushed out to August. Frankly, that would not facilitate the growing of a commercial trial crop in the Northern Territory this calendar year. The growing of poppies must take place in the Dry Season. There are probably two reasons for that. Firstly, poppies grown in Wet Season conditions have the alkaloids leached out by the rain so the yields for poppies grown in Wet Season conditions are considerably less. A risk would also be run with plant pests, diseases and fungus affecting those plants if grown during the Wet Season.
The mantra of the Country Liberals government has been it is open for business, and it is not just words. We have walked the talk. We have introduced and passed legislation in this House to change the Pastoral Land Act, as an example, to allow for the long-term diversification of activities on pastoral property. The reason for that was because opportunities were being missed by the pastoral sector to grow its economic base, therefore contributing to the economic base and economic growth of the Northern Territory. It was also in response to difficulties pastoralists were experiencing in the cattle industry given the disastrous live cattle suspension in 2011. That is an example of this government walking the talk.
The introduction of poppy control legislation and facilitating this new industry in the Northern Territory is another example of this government walking the talk about being open for business.
I am delighted that so many of the economic bases of the Northern Territory sit within my portfolio responsibilities. I can inform the House I am driven to ensure this government provides every opportunity it can for the growth of our agricultural sector as an important part of that economic base.
I do not want the Northern Territory to miss out on a 2104 commercial trial of poppies should the proponent go ahead with it. I probably should be perfectly up-front: there is a possibility that, notwithstanding the introduction and passage of this bill, there may not be a commercial trial. That will be up to TPI, but I will not stand in the way of allowing that to happen. This is enabling legislation. It will enable the commercial trial of poppies to be grown in the Territory in the 2014 Dry Season. If we sit on our hands on this matter, there is no way in the world TPI, or any other company, could get a successful commercial trial happening this calendar year.
I do not want to be responsible for that. I want this legislation in place so we provide TPI, and every any other company coming to the Territory to grow poppies, with the opportunity to have the trial and commence this new industry in the Northern Territory.
I urge members opposite to support this urgency motion and agree to have this legislation passed in this sittings. I believe it is our only opportunity to provide a 2014 growing season. I would like to think every member in this House would do everything they can to support the growth of the agricultural industry in the Northern Territory.
We are not trying to escape scrutiny. I have not had an opportunity to speak to the shadow minister today – I mentioned it to him yesterday – about the opposition’s attitude towards supporting this urgency motion, but I hope he and his colleagues can see the sense in doing it now.
We are not escaping scrutiny. There is time between now and next Thursday for all members to be briefed and provided with any information they need to scrutinize this bill. We will facilitate briefings from Police, the Health department and the department of Primary Industry if members opposite feel they need that.
I encourage every member to support our agricultural sector in the Northern Territory. This is an exciting day for the Territory ...
Mr Barrett interjecting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Blain. He is keen to see this bill pass and provide opportunities which do not now exist.
At the moment there is no opportunity for this industry in the Territory. To have this bill passed on urgency in these sittings provides for the industry to get up and running. I am driven to make sure we grow our agriculture sector as quickly and sustainably as we can.
I encourage all members in this House to support passage of this bill on urgency, which will provide for the growth of our agricultural sector in this new industry of poppies.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the view on urgency proposed by the minister in regard to immediately broadening the economic base with this new potential market, and that Victoria is proceeding with its own legislation and there is a risk we will miss out on attracting companies to the Northern Territory. The reality is TPI is here and has undertaken trials of smaller scale research at Katherine and Douglas Daly Research Farms. As the minister advised the House this morning, he maintains that TPI has discovered the yield in the Northern Territory is better.
Therefore, commercial viability, profitability based on yield – TPI wants to go to commercial-scale production; not passing the bill on urgency will not stop that.
Would it potentially delay commercial yields? We do not know, because there is no firm view from TPI as to whether they would proceed this Dry Season.
The minister said if this legislation is not passed on urgency this sittings it is unlikely it would be debated in June and it would be laid over until August. That is not the case; it could easily be dealt with in June. We have a track record of passing legislation on resumption of parliament in June following the estimates process. This meets the type of legislation we would deal with in June. That is purely the government’s decision. I urge you, minister, to consider that as a fulsome option.
The Northern Territory opposition would like to see consultation not just with members of parliament but with the community, particularly members of the Katherine region. We have no information, given your second reading speech and contribution to the urgency debate, to tell us what the extent of consultation has been with people in the region and those affected. We do not know, from the information before us today, what the water requirement is for irrigation on a large scale, what type of water extraction licences are required, what the herbicide controls are and what consultation has occurred.
In your own words this industry needs to be highly regulated and needs a high degree of scrutiny. One thing I press upon the government is that scrutiny, if we are to be truly transparent with Territorians, should go down to the level of consultation with affected stakeholders within the region. I have heard nothing today from you, minister, to satisfy this. By all means, in your wrap if you could step out what the local and the industry organisation consultation has been, so be it.
The other thing I urge, minister, is due consideration of some of the risks of this crop. Again, we have not had time to consider all this information. The first we became aware of this was yesterday morning, when the minister mentioned to our shadow minister he was introducing legislation and seeking to pass it on urgency.
When something is approved by Cabinet and you get the green light for Parliamentary Counsel to draft the legislation, if there is a timeliness issue around that – which you have because you are pursuing this on urgency – why did you not, at the point you had the Cabinet approval and were issuing drafting instructions to Parliamentary Counsel and saw the need for urgency – advise the opposition, the Independent and members of the minority party of this legislation and enter into consultation? We could have asked questions around what consultations have occurred with stakeholders. Whilst you are offering briefings to the opposition and the Independent member – I assume the same offer applies to the minority party – we are tied to our work commitments in this parliament. This is pre-budget week and we have a multitude of issues to work through this week.
Are you suggesting we go to the Katherine region, consult with affected stakeholders to find their views and represent that properly for passage debate next week? It is patently unfair and unreasonable to suggest that. This was dropped on us yesterday morning. You have known about this for months. If you genuinely wanted passage on urgency why not, some months ago, have discussions to seek bipartisan support to get it through?
We are not talking about just any crop here. We are talking about a crop with very specific biosecurity issues. I am led to believe the stalks they are looking at introducing come from Turkey, for example. I do not know. We are reading up on this as much as we can, because it was dropped on us yesterday.
A select committee of the Tasmanian parliament held an inquiry to inform it of the regulatory environment required for this industry. We would not have that opportunity if this is passed on urgency. We have a matter of days, when we are in parliament doing all our other work, to consider this before we debate passage next week. Tasmania saw fit to have a select committee inquiry, such is the importance they put on this industry, which they say yields about $1m for that economy.
We are guessing what the potential yields will be in the Northern Territory. We are guessing what the capital investment would be, could be, might be this Dry Season, because in your submission today you said there is no guarantee this company will proceed.
We are guessing the security arrangements around the farms. What do the health organisations of the Katherine region have to say about this? Tragically, there have been four deaths in Tasmania – three or four deaths in how many years? What is the time frame? I do not know; this was dropped on us yesterday morning.
As a Territorian I know we have a cohort of addictive substance abusers in that region. We have gone to huge and vast expense to roll out Opal, to get petrol sniffing control regimes in place and we are introducing commercial-yield-scale crops of opium poppies with what security?
What risk are we running to the young cohort of that region? What consultation has occurred with the health organisations of the region asking their views? ‘Are there risks associated with commercial scale yields of this crop in the region and what are your suggestions for regulating it?’ Are we proposing to simply translate the Tasmanian regulatory environment to the Northern Territory? I do not know because we have not had time to consider that. Is that enough when you look at the social environment of the Northern Territory? Are you satisfied, minister? Has your department undertaken consultation with the Department of Health? What are its views on that?
We have not heard anything this morning about the broader consultation, because consultation should not just be with members of this Assembly. We are representatives and we need to hear what people on the ground, those who would be affected, have to say on this. We cannot do that in the time provided. We will fire off some e-mails, minister, but that is not the same as consultation. What consultation is occurring in the region? What has been done by your departmental officers? Have you had public forums? I do not know because consultation was not mentioned in your contribution other than with the members of parliament.
The reasons for urgency are thin when you accept the government can pass this legislation in June, allowing for consultation. It is your decision whether we pass it in June, not the opposition’s. It is your timing and, as an opposition, we say we are up for that debate in June.
You say due care and attention needs to be paid to this legislation in a highly sophisticated, highly regulated industry. However, we are given a matter of days while we focus on the other business of parliament, including the Northern Territory budget. Minister, that is not reasonable. If we are to do our job thoroughly as an opposition and not just scrutinise this ourselves but seek informed advice – consult with the people affected in your Katherine region – we cannot do that in the next few days. That is not achievable, and I put to you, minister, it is not reasonable to propose that.
None of us want to stop potential regional economic development. I know you will make a political football out of this and say, ‘The opposition is just about trashing the economy’, and all that. That is so far from the truth it is nonsense. It is not about politics. It is about understanding what you are dealing with, ensuring all the mechanisms are in place and it is managed in the best possible way in the interests of all Territorians.
We do not want to stand in the way of regional economic development, but it needs to be thoroughly scrutinised. You said due care and attention needs to be paid to the nature of this crop. That is why it requires specific legislation.
On 9 April the NT News reported:
A month ago we were looking at legislation this year. There was no indication then it would be on urgency. What has changed in the last month where it has gone from introducing legislation this year to introducing it right now and passing it on urgency during these sittings? The only other time, minister, there has been a discussion on the record about this was in October 2013 when you said:
In the space of seven months you have moved from starting the trial to legislation we have to pass on urgency.
We need a sound consultative process to underpin these changes. Providing for a good and informed debate, as we should, is important to Territorians and how our system of parliamentary democracy works. Proper and informed consideration of bills before us is crucial to us doing our job properly. The laws from this House do not just belong to us. They are for our consideration and other Territorians who are affected by what we do.
I am genuinely concerned because I have not heard about consultation processes in the region. I would like to know if health stakeholders have been consulted and put their views forward. I am genuinely concerned about the cohort that could be affected. The risks, minister, are very high. We are talking death. That is no small risk, and it is not a long bow to draw when we understand the cohort of the region. The real issue we have all grappled with across the political spectrum is substance abuse. We know our cohort switches from substance to substance. As we crack down on one substance and access to it they switch. Will we have big razor wire fences around these crops, electrified, alarms – I do not know. How much extraction of water will there be for these crops? What are the pesticide and herbicide arrangements? We do not know, and what really concerns me is I do not know if anyone in the region knows either. It would be good to know, would it not? If we have to debate this on urgency we expect the right to know.
If we look at advice on parliamentary process such as the 5th Edition of the House of Representatives Practice, which guides our national parliament, it says consideration of debate on urgency may be influenced by such factors as:
This is not machinery legislation.
As I said last month, the public comment was this was being introduced this year. There was no indication your program had this pegged for passage in May when you have the opportunity in June.
Minister, I am genuine in saying when you got the green light from Cabinet, if you had a view of urgency that is when it would have been appropriate to have discussions so these considerations could be fully fleshed out.
Further:
Is there a report we can see on the success of the growing trials? What is the size of the large-scale commercialised growing envisaged for the Territory? How does the proposed area of commercial growing compare with the current areas in Tasmania? Where would that occur in the region, because we know trials have occurred in Katherine and Douglas Daly? Are there other requirements such as water licences? How was the appropriate regulatory framework designed? Who was consulted in the design? How does it compare to the framework elsewhere in Australia and frameworks overseas? There is a host of issues.
From a health perspective, I am advised of the three reported Tasmania poppy-related deaths. In February 2014 a Danish tourist died after drinking toxic tea brewed with poppies reportedly stolen from a farm in Tasmania. In November 2012 a teenager died from morphine toxicity after he and others reportedly stole poppies from a farm. In February 2011 a 50-year old man died in similar circumstances. I am not fully acquainted with the farms in Tasmania having never been to that area. I am told there is a small fence and you can access the poppies easily. I am not sure what arrangements you propose for the Northern Territory, whether you would build security issues into the legislation or regulations.
What lessons have been learnt from these tragic deaths elsewhere? How will they be informed in the drafting of this legislation and the regulatory arrangements to ensure robust safeguards are in place for adequate security of the crop? How do we meet our international obligations? The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 is implemented through the Commonwealth Narcotic Drugs Act 1967. What consultation has occurred with the federal government?
There is a May 2012 report into the Poppy Advisory and Control Board Funding by the Tasmanian Department of Justice noting the 2011-12 budget indicated the cost of the operations of the board was about $690 000 per annum. What budget will be allocated to the Territory’s regulatory regime to ensure public safety? How can we be confident the appropriate regulation will be adequately resourced and, from an agricultural point of view, what cultivation practices will be used?
Neighbouring landholders and other members of the community will have questions. Have they been consulted and have their questions been satisfied? If so, please provide advice on that feedback.
What hardship is being caused if this is not dealt with on urgency? Standing Order 179 provides for consideration of bills on urgency. It says:
What hardship is being caused and to who? Could you please explain that? We suspect this is not about hardship. We suspect it is about a convenience of time frame; we do not yet know the purpose behind this.
If it is to establish a robust, regulatory regime for a poppy industry in the Northern Territory, with the appropriate safeguards and security measures to protect our community from possible impact, including death, let us not take short cuts. Let us deal with it as we normally would with legislation of such importance. Let us not take the short cut and rush of urgency. I propose you allow us time to fully consider all these matters. Do not rush it through in the next few days; give the community the opportunity and time to fully consider all these matters.
Please do not play petty politics with this. This is a serious matter which has led to deaths in another jurisdiction. We have genuine concerns about the impact it could have on the region and its cohort. We have a host of questions, as you just heard.
We do not have the time to be fully satisfied about those questions and, more importantly, the community and stakeholders of the region will not be given that time if this is rushed through next week.
Let us debate this in June. There is ample opportunity to debate it in June when parliament resumes following the estimates process. The opposition is ready and willing to do that. We may be fully supportive of the legislation in June, but today we have too many unanswered questions to arrive at that position. We want to consult the affected stakeholders of the region and the appropriate industries, including health stakeholders, because I will not ignore the issue of substance abuse in the region.
We are talking about an opium crop, no small thing in our considerations. We have no position on whether we support or oppose the legislation. We want the time to appropriately consider it so the best interests of all Territorians – the economic and social interests – can be weighed up and we can achieve the best possible outcome for Territorians.
We oppose urgency.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, there is only five minutes before the luncheon adjournment and I will probably go over that. It is interesting to hear the member opposite pleading for extra time when urgency was a vehicle regularly used when she was in government. She directed at least one, if not a number, of urgency motions through the House. It is indicative of how governments and oppositions change in how these matters are brought forward.
As Leader of Government Business I do not take urgency motions lightly. When a minister says to me, as Leader of Government Business, a bill must go through on urgency, my first question is: why? When you walk into parliament there will be an automatic push back from members of the House for all the reasons outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. I remind honourable members of the former government’s form in this area. If we look at debates from 23 February 2006, Dr Burns said:
He then sat down; he did not bother to explain why urgency was sought. The former government was quite cavalier in its approach to urgency. If you read the Parliamentary Record from that period, Mr Wood, the member for Nelson, and Mrs Braham, the former member for Braitling, arced up and said similar things to what the Leader of the Opposition has. Mr Henderson, Chief Minister, had this to say:
However, in 2006 the former Labor Chief Minister said:
They were prepared to do it for licensing and complex legal issues:
A licensing issue, I am sure it was urgent.
Exactly what the current minister is doing was the form of the former Chief Minister in urgency matters.
A suspension of standing orders was moved by Ms Lawrie on 11 February 2009 to pass a bill on urgency through all stages to amend evidence legislation. I understand the reason for that; it was clearly articulated in the legislation at the time. The Leader of the Opposition is a little bit cute by half when saying, ‘No, we cannot pass anything on urgency because it is wrong to do so’, when she has guided urgency motions through this House.
She says she is not playing politics: balderdash. That is precisely what she is doing because there is good ground for hardship in this instance.
On 19 February 2009, other matters were dealt with in relation to urgency. I will not go through it all, but it shows from time to time bills come into the House where government seeks urgency because, in the opinion of government, and hopefully the opinion of the House, there is a desire to have that legislation pass more quickly than it otherwise would.
Clearly the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has made out the case that you have to get the crop in the ground. It is as simple as that.
The member for Nelson has not spoken on this but I hope he does. He brings horticultural expertise into this House, and I suspect if he has to address this issue he realises you place crops in the ground at particular times of the year. The minister, in his submission to the House, made it very clear there was a reality to be considered in relation to this crop. It has to go into the ground at a particular time of year otherwise the alkaloids are leached from the heads, which diminishes the quality of the crop. Consequently, you do not want to be growing it in the Wet season because it would be the equivalent of putting your wheat crop – when do you put wheat crops in …
Mr Styles: May, down south.
Mr ELFERINK: … spring. I am showing my ignorance. I am already in trouble.
A political maxim for people listening in the public gallery: when you are in a hole, stop digging. I will stop digging right now.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney General and Justice): Madam Speaker, as a government we find ourselves a little on the horns of a dilemma not entirely unlike a ship deciding to sail out of Sadgroves Creek but the crew decides to have a quick committee meeting to determine whether the ship should sail. By the time the committee has decided to sail it is sitting in the mud because the tide has gone out. That is the dilemma we have.
I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition describe the normal way matters go through Cabinet, and that she felt they should have been spoken to earlier in the process. Because of the way this has rolled out, Cabinet was only recently able to review the matter and reach a decision. The legislative instrument was prepared prior to the Cabinet meeting so the expedited process could be advanced by the minister.
I understand this is outside the normal boundaries, which is why we are seeking urgency. However, in the time allotted we should be able to deal with most of the issues involved. I would hate to see, because we are too nervous to move forward, an opportunity lost. Whilst I heard what the Leader of the Opposition had to say in relation to the potential risks she perceives, there are risks of not doing it as well.
The Leader of the Opposition made reference to the health risks associated with this crop and that she was aware of substance abuse in remote communities. My response is this crop may provide job opportunities in the communities she has concerns about. To take those job opportunities away would also be a calamity in my opinion and, I presume, many of my colleagues on this side of the House.
There is a straightforward question before the House: do we allow this legislation to pass through all stages in this sittings of parliament or not? If we do, it will enable us to pursue a new industry in Darwin with all the enthusiasm we can muster to make it happen in the spirit of competitive federalism. I would welcome that. Alternatively, we can hurry up and wait and, potentially, lose a new industry in the Northern Territory.
Whilst I understand what the Leader of the Opposition is saying in regard to taking these steps forward, I do not believe, on balance, the risks identified outweigh the advantages of pursuing this.
Therefore, the minister has been correct in going through an expedited Cabinet process, as well as an expedited process through this House.
The House will still have the opportunity to satisfy itself next week that all the requisite security systems are in place to create a safe environment around this new venture. If something becomes apparent in the next two weeks which makes the venture unpalatable to the people of the Northern Territory, this House or the government, there is still an opportunity to sidestep this process and withdraw the legislation, or the government can invite defeat. Alternatively, if a reason to delay is discovered in the next few weeks, do not bring the matter on and it can sit on the Notice Paper until a later date.
Nothing in a suspension of standing orders to enable legislation to pass through all stages means – within a single sittings – it will automatically pass through all stages. This is an insurance policy of certainty for people who are making substantial investments in the Northern Territory. I ask the minister, by way of indication, whether or not there will be substantial investments tied to the passage of this bill and note the minister is nodding his head.
I understand there was an interview on the Country Hour on ABC radio today where this matter was discussed by the potential investors. They described a number of things they were prepared to do and were currently engaging in which expose the investors to potential losses if this legislation does not pass in a timely fashion.
It is still up to the investors to convince Territory people of the merits of what they are doing. Whilst they manage this with government, they still have to take people with them. I note the potential investors are prepared to talk publicly about the crop they intend to produce in the Northern Territory.
I accept there is a potential risk that passage through all stages might see not all the ‘i’s dotted and ‘t’s crossed. However, you have to balance that with the potential risk of loss to the investor and the community in jobs and investment in the Northern Territory.
On balance, the merit for an urgency motion has been made out by the minister. There is potential hardship evinced by failing to allow this investment to go ahead because it will affect locals who will receive income, not only through work directly on this site, but also people who support the workers living on the site – the local pubs, shops and other places.
Weighing the balance is often a difficult task; it is often what this House wrestles with. On this occasion, the minister has made out the requisite potential hardship, as well as a perfectly good case to determine we should step forward through this process. If something comes up in the next two weeks which is unknown to government at this stage – I would be surprised if that were the case – it does not automatically follow that this House will pass the legislation as a result of this motion.
Consequently, the case is made out. It is an interesting step forward for the Northern Territory to take and an interesting industry to get into. We will examine it over the course of the next two weeks to make certain the checks and balances are in place. As a consequence, the balance tips me in favour of supporting this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am generally not keen on legislation being put through on urgency, although I have supported it from time to time. Each time it comes before parliament one has to weigh up the pros and cons before supporting or rejecting the arguments put forward, normally by the government, to push something through faster than would normally occur.
I received a briefing from the department, which I appreciate. I listened to the minister’s statement, where he gave reasons for pushing this legislation through. I am not sure if there was enough clarity in what the minister was saying in relation to other issues I discovered at lunch time which need to be brought out in this debate. At lunch time I discussed, informally, with several staff of the department, what would happen if we delayed this until the budget sittings.
There appears to be not only the issue of getting the land ready for planting and timing to plant the crop, but the company has to apply for a licence. That process will take some time, and it will not be able to plant something if it does not have a licence. That should have been better explained when the minister was giving his reasons.
The government talks about being open for business and that is fine. It is like the discussion yesterday about competition. Competition is fine; you can have competition and ethical competition. We sometimes use clichs which might sound good but they do not exempt us from doing right by the community. In this case I am not saying the government is doing the wrong thing. However, I sometimes feel when it says it is open for business it gives the impression it will avoid all normal hurdles and go on regardless because the economy is the most important thing to worry about.
It is important, and I am a great supporter of the changes to the Pastoral Land Act, which have allowed the pastoral industry to diversify. I have spoken about that diversification before. There is nothing worse than an economy reliant on one business, such as live cattle. We know what happens when live cattle exports are curtailed because of government policy changes, prices drop or there is a drought. Pastoralists who rely on one business are well placed to come down with a crash because their economy is based on one thing.
Opportunities like growing poppies on a pastoral property offer diversification, not only for pastoralists but also the economy of the Northern Territory. To help that along in the present situation we need some legislation. That legislation needs to be put forward, according to the minister, early. The minister mentioned it could be done in the budget sittings but would have to be on the last day. I have been through the Estimates Committee process many times and the last day is generally not the best one to be debating legislation, although we have done it. It is not necessarily a life changer if we need to go down that path.
I am not sure of the last day for budget sittings, but it is late May. As someone who has grown crops – definitely not opium – if you are growing a Dry Season crop, you try to get that …
A member: Rural folk.
Mr WOOD: I am a poppy, but I do not grow them. Generally speaking, you try to get your land prepared as soon after the Wet Season as possible so you can get your crops in at the ideal time, which is usually warm days and cool to cold nights, the ideal for many crops in the Northern Territory. I imagine the issues around growing poppies in the Wet Season are the same as with growing cotton.
I do not want to get into a debate about GM cotton, but cotton was grown in the Wet Season in Kununurra and ran into enormous difficulties with pests and diseases. Even though it grew, it was difficult to ensure the crop was pest free. You need to prepare a crop early and have it in the ground as soon as possible. You also have the other side of it: you do not want an early Wet Season. That can also be a problem.
I support the concept of the poppy industry and think we need to put this into context. A trial was done last year in two places. One was in Katherine and one in the Douglas Daly. There would be no doubt growing that crop required consultation with various people. It could not be grown in the Northern Territory without the knowledge of the police, and I am not sure which other departments would have to be informed. There would also have been security risks, which would have been looked at in the trial. After all, it was a trial.
To some extent this is an extension of that trial. The minister said it is a broader trial. Whether TPI goes further than this will, I presume, be dependent on the success of the trial, because this is getting into the semi-commercial area of poppy growing. One thing the government might consider, when going ahead with the legislation, is to request a report back to parliament in relation to how this legislation is working: the performance of the company in relation to community consultation, security and all the matters that need to be part of growing this crop. All that needs to be done before the licence is extended to grow a crop the next year.
This could be an extension of last year’s – not in the legal sense, but regarded as a much broader trial than last year. A report could be tabled in parliament to show what framework has occurred to allow this crop to be grown and the conditions, failures and successes in growing the crop. Then, if there is an extension of a licence, at least there is something to report back. There should already be a report on the previous crop from either the police or the community, especially if you were growing a crop near Katherine.
One issue which has been discussed is how much local communities are involved. If it is being grown on Tipperary it is a fair distance from any major community. I am not saying people have no attachment to the land in that area, but knowing Tipperary Station is not close to a township is a good reason to grow the crop in that area. If security is an important issue in this debate you do not want it growing against the back yard of people in Katherine, or any other town in that area. This crop has been grown for at least one year in the Northern Territory under trial. In that sense it is not brand new. This legislation is meant to enable the company to plant the crop.
During my briefing the concern raised was if we did not get this legislation through it would cause problems for TPI getting the crop in at the right time. I have to weigh up whether that is an important factor in supporting the suspension of standing orders. Do I risk my other concern, which is are we giving this adequate time by rushing it through, or whether my concerns – even though I might have concerns which can be debated when the bill comes up – will be answered sufficiently that delaying it would be a waste of time?
The Leader of the Opposition raised some really good points. I have looked at this from a – the member for Port Darwin said I would look at it from a horticultural point of view. Although poppies grow in flower beds I do not know if this is regarded as horticulture. This is probably agriculture because it is more broad scale, but I understand there are some limits to holding up the growth of a crop due to the weather.
In listening to this debate I have been trying to work out if some of the ‘risks’ the Opposition Leader spoke about will be naturally covered. This crop cannot be grown without consultation with the police. It will not get approval unless security is up to standard because that is what happened during the trial. There are some things we know will be done because that is the way the crop has to be grown. Whether community consultation is a major factor in this – I know the crop is a drug – who you consult with in relation to this is an interesting debate. One area you have to watch when growing a crop like this is security. Do you have an open session where you mark out where the crop is? I do not think so. You might say it will be grown somewhere. The consultation has to be a little general so people understand what the growth of this crop is about.
It is a pity this debate could not be put to committee stage – it is not a bill – because it would be nice to ask the minister some questions. They will not be controversial, but to get more clarity on why the minister thinks this is a good time.
I weighed this up before lunch, during lunch and after lunch and am trying to look at it from two points of view. If I was the managing director of TPI and had come to the Northern Territory wanting to grow a crop, had done some experimental work last year which had been successful and had the opportunity to do it this year – if I do not get the crop in this year it is a whole year wasted.
Whether the government should have introduced the legislation earlier can be debated, although my understanding is it has taken quite some time to put together. I am unsure if that came out in the minister’s brief today, but it came out in my briefing. Part of the reason for the rush is because this legislation had to be drawn up correctly because it deals with the growing of a crop which has some restrictions on it and security matters are involved as well.
I support the suspension of standing orders. I will do my best to look at the issues coming from this legislation. I hope the department – I will try to contact TPI – will assist with the issues of concern to me and perhaps it can give some idea of how the trials worked last year.
I have had verbal reports, but it would be good to see what was required from a security and police consultation point of view. Was there community consultation? Are there issues I did not recognise which need to be looked at?
I support the idea of the Territory going ahead. From a practical point of view, the crop has to go in within a certain time frame otherwise there is a risk it will not happen.
I do not see major concerns for this company because it has been in the poppy industry in Tasmania for many years and knows the issues. The poppy industry in Tasmania is a lot less secure than it would be in the Northern Territory.
If you go to a poppy field in Tasmania you can jump over the fence. They might have a sign up saying, ‘Please do not jump in here and collect poppy seeds’, but in the Northern Territory we have a much better chance of making it far more secure. We are isolated and there have been recent changes. We will make sure the issues which occurred in Tasmania do not occur in the Territory.
We have a company which knows how to grow poppies and grew poppies in the Northern Territory last year. Will we allow it to grow the crop this year? The only way to do that is by passing this legislation. Yes, there are some issues with timing. Could this legislation have been in the budget sittings, which would give us more time to look at it?
My concern, from a practical point of view, is if they need a licence they cannot get one until legislation has passed. If we pass this legislation in the budget sittings, will there be extra complications which will not allow the company to operate until some of the regulatory matters have been approved?
There is a grey area. On one hand I would prefer it be debated in the budget sittings. However, from a practical point of view, am I being impractical in my views on this issue? Am I standing on my heels about the suspension of standing orders for good reason? If good reason means the crop will not be grown this year, I will have to justify those reasons to the company. It is not an easy debate.
I am reluctant to push through or support matters on urgency. I have supported them before. There have been cases brought before the parliament where we have debated this. In this case, weighing up the benefits of what we are doing – there are many benefits in having an opium industry in the Northern Territory.
Diversification of the economy has been spoken of before, more employment – good goals any government would support. I have to balance this with the fact we are dealing with a crop with opioids, which are dangerous, but trials were done last year. There would have been security and police would know about this crop.
I support it and will leave it at that.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the phone call yesterday. I would have loved a briefing and an opportunity to talk to departmental staff, as a group of people who have an interest in economic development.
We have always been interested, as Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, in economic opportunities. We can see the economic benefits in supporting a motion on urgency, because we know the crop has a time frame.
We know the Wet Season is finished and the Dry Season is here. It is a new project in the Northern Territory and gives us a great opportunity to have something we have not had before. Yes, we have had trials, but this could be real for the Northern Territory. As the member for Port Darwin said, it provides job opportunities.
Some things we might be able to put in place include identifying the number of jobs we have in that area, and giving opportunities to everybody in that region, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to have a stake in the future of that industry through employment opportunities. It is good for the Territory and good for the future of economic sustainability.
We agree to support you on urgency, but there are some things we need to talk about. They include asking for urgency and saying the investor needs to do it at this time. I am sure the investor will not run away if this parliament says, ‘No, we will go through the right processes’, and debate it on the last day of the budget sittings.
This is some of the information we are providing. It would have been nice to receive a briefing instead of – I appreciate the phone call from you, but it would have been nice to look at other issues and concerns we have. Listening to the Leader of the Opposition, the Independent member and doing our own research this morning has given us – on the record, minister: have you undertaken market research on this?
Can we have a committee, as the Independent member said, to report back to parliament on economic opportunities, where it will go into the future and if there is growth? Sixty per cent of the poppy industry takes place in Tasmania. It supplies 60% and the other 40% comes from Asian countries. Where is our niche market in this? Where are we going? That is the type of information we would like reported back to parliament. We would like to look at the legal risk management. These are some of the things we would like you to come back with.
The operational planning – we want to know who owns the business so we can spread it around in that area as well. The member for Daly is the local member in that area, but Barunga and Beswick are in the member for Stuart’s electorate, and the member for Arnhem in her area – there can be education strategies to combat issues the Opposition Leader has spoken about.
Our people are into drugs such as ganja and speed. Have we a strategy in place to educate remote Aboriginal people in the area about poppies and opium? We need to put all those things in place so we do not run into problems afterwards.
We are struggling with alcohol. Government after government struggles to talk about alcohol issues. We do not want future politicians saying it is the fault of the CLP from when it was in power 50 years ago, and that it did not think about this and did not have strategies in remote Aboriginal communities and towns like Katherine and Tennant Creek. Darwin is close enough, and we need to put all this information out to make sure we are educating future generations of Territorians about the impact of opium, and to make sure we do not run into problems.
As you can see, we struggle to identify and deal with issues with Indigenous people. If you look at the socioeconomic indicators in all areas and all aspects of Aboriginal life, we are at the bottom end of the human rubbish dump. In education, health, housing, the lack of infrastructure and the lack of job opportunities – we are at the bottom of the human rubbish dump. What strategies do you have with this project, minister, to lift some of those people out of the human rubbish dump, to educate them and get them to understand what we are doing with this poppy farm?
What are the ramifications of this? In allowing this kind of business to happen we need to make sure people, through consultation, understand where we are going. We do not want to run into trouble, because many of our Territory kids are already dealing with drugs. It has taken years to put Opal in place and get rid of petrol, and all we have done is shifted the drug. We have taken them off petrol and they are now on ganja. They are going from ganja to speed and we have to stop it.
We do not want a future generation of Territorians going on to harder drugs because it will be very hard for any politician, any parliament to deal with drugs like cocaine or heroin. I am not a professional on poppies. I know very little about it, but from the research we have done these are some of the ideas we give, minister, to support you and support economic development and economic growth for the future of the Territory.
We will support your urgency motion because we believe in economic development and we want to move the Territory forward. We will give you these ideas again in the debate next week to make sure all these strategies are in place for a better future and better Territory for our grandchildren. Thanks, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I would like to acknowledge and welcome in the gallery the Mayor of Alice Springs, Damien Ryan. Welcome.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): I am privileged to contribute to this debate after my untimely departure from the House for one hour. I apologise for that, Madam Speaker.
It is an interesting debate because this is not about the legislation; it is about suspension of standing orders on urgency. The minister phoned me the other morning, and I thank him for that. We had a brief conversation about this bill and the need for urgency. I made assumptions in that phone call. I thought we could be talking about peanuts, lucerne or sandalwood, but when I understood we were talking about opium I knew it was an extremely important debate for a number of reasons.
The Leader of the Opposition has summed up a very good argument not only dealing with the constitutional processes of this House, but also putting a clear alternative to the minister and the government around this legislation. That clear alternative is to bring this to the House in June, and that would reflect a suitable time frame to consult with the community. One piece of advice I could provide for the minister, having had the privilege and honour of sitting on that side of the House as a minister, is if you want to see the success of legislative reform that relates to community development, take the community with you. You have to.
It is imperative you take the community with you, and we see time and time again examples of failure by not doing so. It is the essence of democracy, the people we represent. When we are talking about broadacre peanut farming, there is a serious element of community consultation needed. If we are talking about the introduction of opium growing in the Northern Territory, the Territory opposition has no problems with that. We get labelled as closed for business and the enemies of the pastoral sector – what rubbish.
I lived in the pastoral sector for over 20 years. I raised my kids on cattle stations and understand that community. I value that community and respect the pastoral community, and that translates to the opposition’s policy development, because when I finished the conversation with the minister on the phone I took it immediately to Caucus, that Labor team where we meet and discuss the issues, use the wise heads and achieve a consensus. The challenges I got for the minister, and myself as an opposition spokesperson, were, ‘What do you know about it?’ There were specific questions around it and then came the very broad, general question, ‘What are you doing about communicating this to the community? What are you doing about researching?’ Good legislation is backed by community consultation, good research and translates into good outcomes. That is what we are all about in this House.
The member for Port Darwin added some interesting points to the debate and spoke about risks. I want to challenge the minister with the risk of failure by rushing this. If we are talking about development of northern Australia and the Chief Minister’s agenda that is basically articulated through white papers and green papers, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has brought a pragmatic example of a new possible industry for northern Australia and we want to see it succeed.
Rushing this, when there is a clear alternative pathway to getting community consultation established and the legislative pathway under control – wise heads should prevail. The risk of failure is like the rice crops in the Northern Territory in the 1960s. We do not want to take any backward steps in the development of northern Australia agenda. It is small steps taken by politicians that really underpin the good outcomes. I add to the member for Port Darwin’s debate to say yes, there are risks of failure if the government does not get the process right.
The minister is leading the Northern Territory into this new horticultural agribusiness environment, and I will read from the Tasmanian Government Submission Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry: Tasmanian Poppy Industry November 2012. This puts on the public record the scope of the environment we are moving into:
The Tasmanian example will give you an indication of the potential of this industry. It really is unexplored in the development of northern Australia, which is definitely a bipartisan agenda in this House, and beyond to the states of Queensland and Western Australia. We better make sure we get this right. To start the journey with a sense of urgency – I question that.
During my phone call with the minister I picked up a slight anomaly which concerned me. The minister went from singular to plural in the same sentence. It started with a singular ‘one company’, and turned into plural ‘any company’. I have some concerns and would like to discuss that further. I have not had a chance for a briefing.
When you live 1000 km south of the great capital of Darwin and rattle around the largest electorate in the Northern Territory most of your time, you have a serious agenda which does not allow you to answer all phone calls or turn up for a briefing – it is all done, she’ll be right mate.
I try to fit in as best I can. It took four goes to get a briefing from the Treasurer on the MACA bill. Those at the minister’s office were doing the best they could and I thank them for that. It does not always fit so I do the best I can. I do not want to be an obstacle, but it is fair to assume I have many competing interests.
I am looking forward to a briefing. In the normal legislative time frame, not only will I have time for an adequate briefing from the department, I will also be able to research in the regional and remote community with stakeholders and those directly affected by this potential Northern Territory agribusiness. With the meagre resources the Leader of the Opposition’s office has, I have asked staff to make contact with some broadacre farmers, Indigenous communities and some of the Katherine agribusiness interests, including stakeholder groups, and the police. As a parliamentarian, a politician and an elected community member, I will then be able to participate in this debate and support the minister and government in ensuring we get it right.
My concerns around urgency were shared by the Labor Caucus and our opposition is to urgency. We want this to conform to the normal protocols of passage through the House.
Let me give you an example of how things go wrong. I will quote from a media release from the shadow minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage on 2 May 2014 titled Concerns Rise of CLP Water Allocation:
This is good advice about proper and adequate community consultation and taking the community with you.
When I took the information from that brief phone call with the minister to the Labor Caucus and we discussed it those questions arose. How much water does it take to grow opium poppies?
If my great aunts were alive I could ask them because they were growing opium poppies in their residence at Coogee, Sydney in the 1940s and 1950s. One family story is quite hilarious. An environmental health officer came knocking on the door and notified my great aunts about the recently passed New South Wales Pure Food and Drug Act. A team was coming to take all the poppies and it was now illegal to grow opium poppies in your garden. The debate from my great aunts, who were great gardeners, was an interesting family story, regaled through a number of generations.
I could not answer that for the Labor Caucus, but there were also questions about security. The member for Nelson has breached security in the best way ever by naming the trial site at Tipperary Station. In my opinion, growing opium poppies in isolation is probably the worst security. I am a back road specialist; I have spent more than half my life exploring the Territory and enjoy the back roads much better than the main roads. If word gets out this trial is at Tipperary Station, some logistical issues with security will emerge. That needs to be discussed with important affected stakeholders and with police.
In his second reading speech the minister mentioned a commercial trial crop. The speech was a bit light on detail. If it is to go through on urgency it should be a comprehensive brief for the House. Being a commercial trial crop, I presume we are talking about a significant amount of opium poppies being grown in this next trial. The site has been named and I believe it is at Tipperary Station. I look forward to the briefing from the department and will probably explore some maps. I will be interested in neighbours around that area, as well as the broadacre farming community around Katherine, to see what they think about this new initiative, what they know and any concerns that need addressing by the government.
The other factors are around biosecurity. I am interested in opium poppies grown on a commercial scale and management of that crop. Are there pesticides, herbicides, and is fertiliser used? I am interested in the water allocation needed to irrigate the crop and security around the crop. All these points will be shared by the Katherine region community.
We support agriculture, horticulture, the pastoral industry and want to see the agenda for growth and development of northern Australia shared. However, we will continue to bring challenges where we see gaps, and where we see government policy needing more substance, some scaffolding and support, and we do that in good faith. I know it can be frustrating for a minister with an agenda and a busy life to have the brakes applied by that troublesome opposition. Why is it always getting in the way? That is the true essence of democracy.
I would try to turn that into a positive where we could be doing you a favour. Under your watch, the water allocation story has already received a lot of negative talk in the community.
You are trying to do a good thing; you want to cut red and green tape and have ploughs in the field. However, the community wants it done properly. We do not want to make the same mistakes as southern Australia in this new, bipartisan agenda to develop northern Australia.
That is my advice and position in this debate. I acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution and encourage members to consider this as a good opportunity for northern Australia if done properly. The member for Port Darwin spoke about the risks – this is too good an opportunity to risk. It could fail with defective legislation, lack of community consultation, or any other elements rushed through to suit an agenda that may not be in the best interests of the people of the Northern Territory. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Could I introduce Steve Hennessy, acting Mayor of the Victoria Daly Shire. Welcome.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank members who have contributed to the debate on the motion to suspend standing orders. I intend to do several things. First, I assure members opposite that there are avenues available today onward to provide much of the information sought during this debate. Those opportunities will come from a number of sources. I have indicated that briefings will be made available and will be as comprehensive as members wish them to be, including details around what work has been done by the interagency working group on poppies. This has included the Department of Health, police and the Attorney-General and Justice department.
Briefings will also be provided during the committee stage of the bill, which will occur next Thursday if this motion is passed. It sounds like it will with the support of the Independent members, and I thank them for that support. There will be plenty of opportunity to get the requisite information members are seeking.
Whilst listening to the debate from those opposite, what became apparent was the very reason the Northern Territory stalled under the Labor government. The member for Port Darwin used a good analogy. If you intend to sail your ship into the harbour but need a committee meeting to decide when to sail, you might find the tide has gone out.
The contributions from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister, the member for Barkly, confirmed their committee would see the tide gone out and their ship sitting on the mudflat while they dithered and dilly-dallied, waiting to get a consensus from the community.
On the matter of community consultation, something spoken about at length by the Leader of the Opposition, the proposal to grow poppies in the Northern Territory is not new; it has been around for a while. I am looking at a media release of mine from October 2013 – I know there was quite a bit of discussion. The ABC Country Hour has run stories on this and it has been on television news. We reported on the outcome of trials and have spoken about it in parliament, if memory serves me right. There has been ample opportunity for the community, if they had any concerns about a new poppy industry and the opiate derivatives that come from it, to provide feedback to me, my department, the police or anyone else in government who has been involved in this. My advice, as recently as a couple of hours ago, is there has been no feedback to the government expressing any concerns about the poppy industry and the implications for the Northern Territory – nothing positive or negative. The people of the Territory see this as an opportunity and will place their trust in the government to get the regulatory environment right.
That said, I acknowledge there should be concerns about some of the issues raised by certain members. The members for Nelson and Namatjira raised it, the Leader of the Opposition raised it, and it is security of the crop in general terms, but also issues around drug abuse and the problems we have in the Northern Territory. I acknowledge it, and that is why we have done exhaustive work to examine the regulatory environment of Tasmania and look at the legislation Victoria has recently put up to come up with the most contemporary legislation we can.
That work has been quite extensive. It has involved members of the department of Primary Industry and the police visiting Tasmania. If I understand it correctly, they visited on several occasions to look at their regulatory environment and how they do things. I acknowledge that if any one person, group or department acted as an antagonist in this it was the police. The police had some significant concerns about maintaining security on a crop that is a precursor to a number of dangerous drugs. That is why it is scheduled in the Poisons and Dangerous Goods Act. Through their consultation with Tasmania, they were satisfied we can successfully regulate to minimise the risks and harm to the community.
That said, you cannot completely remove all risks. Even if you put a six foot chain mesh fence around the crop with three strands of barbed wire at the top, had security cameras all over the place, guard dogs and people running around on perimeters 24 hours a day, some clown, someone with intent would still get in if they really wanted to, to take poppy material. Let us be reasonable about this. You cannot legislate for stupid people. You cannot always legislate for people who have a criminal tendency. Therefore, you provide an environment that minimises the risk of harm to the community as best you can, one that is robust yet still allows for investment to take place, but provides a penalty regime so if people do the wrong thing they can be charged and put before the court. We have taken that commonsense approach to regulation of the poppy industry, albeit in its early stages.
Today we have a bill that will provide the backbone to the regulatory environment – I explained that well enough in my second reading speech – and the backbone to the regulations that will, no doubt, follow. The regulations have not yet been drawn up, so it is the intention of this government, through the department, to issue a licence, if it were to be issued, conditionally. The conditions on that licence would reflect what we would expect to see in the regulation.
If a regulation were to cover fencing there would be a condition on the licence to cover fencing. If there was a regulation to cover video surveillance, there would be a condition on the licence to cover it and so on. We have taken the lessons of Tasmania and the work done by Victoria and applied it in the Northern Territory in a way that will facilitate the investment, yet provide reasonable protection and safety to the community.
Another thing raised by members during the course of the debate was reporting, I suppose on the industry, and reporting back to parliament. A fair bit of information is available publicly about the poppy industry. I am sure if you Google poppies in Tasmania you would find more than ample reading. The members for Nelson and Namatjira indicated their desire to have a report come back to parliament on the trial.
There is no need to form a parliamentary committee because, although it is a new industry to the Northern Territory, it is not a new industry to Australia. Tasmania formed a parliamentary committee because it was a new industry to Australia and we can use some of that information. In an appropriate form, I will ensure the parliament is informed on the results of this trial. I should be able to make available some information on cost-benefit analysis; much of the work has already been done although it is not necessarily complete. I want this industry to be as transparent as it can. There will be commercial confidence, but I do not intend to hide a great success for the Northern Territory agriculture sector. I want to talk about poppies so let us get it out there.
Education and concern around the abuse of substances by Aboriginal people – the member for Namatjira mentioned that. I am more than happy to ensure there is an education program on the danger of poppies. We have seen, as the member for Karama pointed out, a number of deaths in Tasmania from people who have misused poppy material. The bottom line is: do not do drugs. What would possess a person to break into a fenced enclosure to steal poppy material to get a high? As I said before, you cannot legislate for stupid people, but we do what we can.
The opposition talking about community consultation and not ramming through on urgency is disingenuous at best and hypocritical at worst. I did not do the research, but the member for Port Darwin spoke about the urgency bills the opposition rammed through when in government, some quite questionable. There is a clear economic benefit to be gained from this bill going through.
The member for Nelson mentioned further information he would like on the process and what else would get in the way of the growing season. He is right to point out that once this legislation is enacted there would be a period of time during which TPI must apply for the licence to grow, transport and process poppies, or whatever form that licence will take. That will probably take four to six weeks. If this passes next week that will be the middle of May. It would probably be the end of June before it is properly licensed to carry out these activities. Once it is licensed, it is likely to make the investments necessary to get the plantation up and running.
It would be foolhardy to make those investments prior to a licence being issued, so it is unlikely it will do that. That shortens the window. If we let this go through in the normal course of parliamentary business and dealt with it in the second week of estimates in June, that is six weeks gone from the available window. That would probably push the planting cycle back to about mid-August if you go on the timings I spoke about. That would not allow for a proper poppy growing season. It is not just about passing this and the plants going in the ground; there is more to it than that.
I am more than happy to ensure all members are briefed. I am happy to provide any information that is not in-confidence. I want the opposition and the Independent members to have every confidence in government’s moves in this area to make sure we regulate properly.
We do not want to make any mistakes. These are the early stages. We have a 250 ha trial proposed, and it is an opportunity for us to make sure any issues are ironed out while the trial is under way. I would like to make sure our entire regulatory environment is robust and 100% right as we move towards, hopefully, full commercialisation of the poppy industry in the Northern Territory.
I could probably address more of the issues raised. I do not intend to talk too much about water; the member for Barkly raised that. If the crop is grown on Tipperary – eight megalitres per hectare comes to mind, which I understand would fall within the station’s existing water allocation. Concerns around water – water, generally, is a matter of opinion. The opposition has been quite strident in its views on our position of allocating water to the agricultural industry; however, it is all based on science.
The Oolloo aquifer is probably the one we have the best scientific information on, and the figures are conservative in the consumptive pool that would be allowed. I do not want to get too much into it, it just muddies – pardon the pun – the waters a little.
I am not surprised the opposition is opposing this motion on urgency, but I thank the Independent members for their support. We look forward to the debate next week and the committee stage, where every answer will be given on the spot or taken on notice. Thank you everyone for your contribution, and I am pleased this motion will be largely supported in the House.
Motion agreed to.
MOTOR ACCIDENTS (COMPENSATION) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 71)
Continued from 20 March 2014.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I contribute to the debate on the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Amendment Bill 2014 and acknowledge the passage of legislation to align the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act (MACA) with the National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS) minimum benchmarks for motor vehicle accidents in the NT.
The Northern Territory government has signed an intergovernmental agreement with the Commonwealth for the reform of disability care and support services through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The agreement includes provision that the NT implement nationally consistent minimum benchmarks under the National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS) to provide no fault lifetime care and support for people who are catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident before the commencement of the NDIS trial to be conducted in the Barkly region from 1 July 2014.
The amendments to the MACA will provide for increased benefits for those catastrophically injured in a motor accident from 1 July 2014 and are consistent with the Northern Territory’s commitment to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I thank the minister’s office and staff of the Territory Insurance Office for providing the briefing. It took a while to organise – four attempts – but we got there. It was a valuable briefing. I also acknowledge a valuable handout provided by staff of the Territory Insurance Office. There was an opportunity to ask questions so I had some answered. I shared that time with the member for Nelson. It was only half-an-hour so there was not a great time to go into questions and answers. I had to race back to the House when parliament resumed, but it was a good opportunity and I thank all involved.
Some of the questions were answered; however, Treasurer, I have some questions you could address in your final summary and statement on the legislation.
Reading the legislation I found it interesting there was an area relating to removing exposure of the MACA scheme to high-speed vehicle testing to align with the National Injury Insurance Scheme minimum benchmarks.
This activity will occur in open speed limit zones. We may see motor vehicle companies testing their vehicles, possibly at very high speeds. It made a lot of sense and was clearly articulated by representatives of the Territory Insurance Office that this cover would not apply to drivers of vehicles conducting the high-speed testing. I asked if compensation applies to drivers of other vehicles in case they hit somebody else or to pedestrians. When we are talking about the new speedway, the 200 km section of the Stuart Highway, there are many Aboriginal communities, pastoral properties, many people will be around the roadside, possibly children; there will be lots of vehicles entering and exiting that speedway and there will be risk associated with that testing.
It was clear that drivers of those vehicles will not be covered. They will be in a formal arrangement, some sort of legal framework. TIO representatives said anybody else injured in relation to high-speed vehicles on the open speed section would be compensated, so that is good.
Clause 9A relates to exclusion for criminal conduct contributing to an accident. It outlines a person is not entitled to certain benefits if they are involved in an accident deemed as a result of criminal conduct, such as manslaughter, reckless or criminal negligence and dangerous driving.
I did not get the opportunity to ask this because I only had half-an-hour, after four goes, to get to the minister’s office, but I would like the minister to define dangerous driving in an open speed limit area. This is new CLP legislation. They have created a new open speed limit area on a national highway within the Northern Territory, and the TIO, administering the new legislation, will have to make those decisions. The sections around criminal conduct are fairly easily interpreted by the lay person. However, I am particularly interested in the minister’s definition of dangerous driving in an open speed limit area.
I was recently privileged to be a strapper and run water for the Tennant Creek rugby league squad that played in the Central Australian Rugby Football League nine-a-side carnival. For the public record, Tennant Creek was back on the paddock for the first time in 20 years, taking on Alice Springs sides, and came third out of seven. That was a great result for the Tennant Creek team, but it gave me a chance to travel with the team and talk to people on the way.
I met a very interesting character riding a new motorcycle, a 1290cc twin cylinder water-cooled KTM. He had it on the verandah of the Ti Tree Roadhouse and had gear unpacked. He was an interesting character, loved a chat and we had a great discussion. I started the conversation with, ‘I have never seen a KTM off the dirt’. He assured me KTM made production bikes which race on tracks all around the world. This was one of their latest models and he showed me the promo which marketed it as ready to race. This KTM 1290cc bike was capable of doing well and truly over 250 km/h and this guy was telling me about a number of near fatal accidents he had already incurred in excess of 200 km/h.
I discussed the gear he was carrying on the bike. It was a little alarming when he described he had to carry additional fuel because he could not make the distance between roadhouses. He was carrying 10 L of petrol in a pack on the back surrounded by tools and other associated items to support his trip. I spoke to him about the weight on the back of that production bike and how the manufacturer might not accept liability for him operating that motorcycle in excess of 200 km/h because the whole dynamics of the motorcycle would be out of balance.
He accepted that, but he was certainly an Australian adventurer. He was from Victoria. He also mentioned a culture that has emerged in Melbourne of recording motorcycles times travelling between Melbourne and Darwin, and some of those times were quite alarming. He described this culture and definitely that Territory section was out there. People were talking about the open speed limit section.
When I was researching this bill I thought the minister might want to comment on how you would assess dangerous driving in an open speed limit by a KTM superbike doing in excess of 200 km/h.
From the background I received from TIO representatives, it was clear any high-speed registered testing activity is not covered, but it is a formal legal agreement and the companies entering into it would have their own insurance liability. The minister might like to define his definition of dangerous driving in this respect. It might not only relate to a KTM 1290cc motorcycle; it could relate to driving a 1986 Toyota Hilux. I think the minister will be able to define it for me and clear it up. We will not need any committee stage in this; we will be interested in the minister’s definition of dangerous driving in an open speed limit area.
New clause 9B outlines that a person is excluded from certain benefits for an injury suffered if they are involved in an accident which occurred while the injured person was engaged in conduct that created a substantial risk of injury. Can the minister define driving conduct that creates a substantial risk of injury in an open speed limit area?
I told this character from Melbourne that operating a KTM superbike in the Northern Territory on open roads at above 200 km/h was risking injury. Not only was he risking injury to himself, he was risking injury to me and the football team who had to share that section of road with him. He described the surface in an area of open speed limits which was so rough it caused the back wheel of the motorcycle to leave the bitumen – while he was travelling at over 200 km/h – and the manoeuvres he put in place to get the motorcycle back on to the bitumen and under control. The last thing he wanted to know about was oncoming traffic, pedestrians or anyone from a roadside reserve entering or exiting the highway. The minister, no doubt, will have a definition of what he considers driving conduct creating a substantial risk of injury in an open speed limit area.
Clauses 9B(1) and (2) exclude a person from economic benefits for loss of earnings capacity and lump sum compensation for permanent impairment if they were injured in an accident and if injuries were caused by recklessly ignoring the risk.
Minister, could you define driving conduct recklessly ignoring risk of injury in an open speed limit area? Once again, this guy on the KTM put it out there and if what he says is true – if this culture is emerging among the superbike community of Victoria and the track between Melbourne and Darwin – there will be some necessary definition around this. These guys are operating at high risk to the people who live in the area and other road users.
I asked a few questions and had them answered. I was interested in clause 9E: Total Exclusion: unregistered motor vehicle – other accidents. This provides that the driver of an unregistered vehicle is excluded from all benefits for an injury or death sustained as a result of an accident if none of the vehicles involved in the accident are considered registered for the purpose of the act. A three-month grace period will apply for unregistered vehicles. I had to ask for the definition of a three-month grace period applying for unregistered vehicles. That was clearly explained.
I ask about the three-month registrations. They used to be available in the Northern Territory, but I was advised this is now not the case; there would not be any conjecture around somebody who only registered a vehicle for three-month periods.
I was also interested in wandering stock. It was good to talk with the insurers. I put on the record that I have seen areas of the southern Barkly and Central Australia significantly restocked over the last 10 years. There were areas, after the BTEC program of the early 1980s, with no stock for two decades. With developments around the pastoral industry, supplement feeding and new animal management practices, many more areas are now stocked. This relates to many more animals being hit and killed on the road. Between Tennant Creek and Alice Springs an alarming number of beasts have been hit and killed on the road, directly related to motor vehicle accidents. When I do the 1000 km run heading north from Tennant Creek to parliament I see that a significant number of animals around the northern Barkly and southern Katherine region have been hit and killed on the roads.
I asked about liability around that, and it was explained. It is good to know motorists will be covered if they hit a beast. Apparently they are not covered in Western Australia, so be careful if you hit livestock there.
It was good to talk through the legislation. The opposition supports the legislation, and I am interested in the minister defining those issues around dangerous driving in an open speed limit area, driving conduct creating a substantial risk of injury in an open speed limit area and driving conduct recklessly ignoring the risk of injury in an open speed limit area.
For the minister’s benefit, I told the guy on the KTM superbike to slow down. I used a number of strategies talking about the nature of the country, about animal strike, and I told him to talk to his countrymen from the city because they need to learn what is signposted on the new speedway. That is, drive to the conditions. They need to understand this is a challenging environment with lots of risks, and he did heed some of my advice.
I then tried a good old-fashioned one by talking about police. I advised him the police are very active on Territory roads these days. It is not like the old days. Police are very active, officers have very sophisticated gear and there are some very highly-policed spots. Our hard-working, diligent police officers are saving people’s lives, and I can testify to that.
They risk their lives, operate long hours in isolated areas away from home and put in the hard yards across public holidays, 24/7 in some cases, to save people’s lives. I got that story through to the guy operating the KTM superbike through the Territory.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to make comment. The opposition supports this legislation, and I am interested in the minister’s definitions around the questions I have posed.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I support this legislation. I was hoping – it is not often I hope for this – the member for Barkly would talk a bit longer because I am waiting for a textbook to come down from my office to answer his questions more fulsomely. However, I will have to wing it. The textbook is one of several sitting on my shelf which deals with the concept of recklessness and that sort of thing.
A number of considerations grow out of a tortious action and the law of torts, in many respects, is a measure of likelihood. That is something the courts wrestle with on a daily basis. Nearly every expression used in this legislative instrument that requires definition, if not already having been defined in that or some other piece of legislation, will be clearly defined by reams of court cases that have determined, historically, matters such as the term ‘recklessness’ and what recklessness may mean.
Speak of the devil, here is my book. I will see if I can wing it off the top of my head. You will find a number of references to words like ‘recklessness’ in a number of cases over the years. Do you think I can place my hands on recklessness as a definition …
Mr McCarthy: Are there any in open speed limits, John?
Mr ELFERINK: There will be, and I will get to that in a second. I do not have it in front of me and will not waste the time in this House ….
Mr McCarthy: What do you think of the KTM rider? Was he reckless? I do not think he will find that in the book.
Mr ELFERINK: That is the point and I am glad you said that. I will pick up on the interjection, ‘I do not think you will find that in the book’. That is how the law of torts works. The law of torts examines every case on its merits. You will find this not only in the law of torts but things like the Traffic Act. I cannot quite remember the section, but there is a dangerous driving section in the Traffic Act which deals with questions the court has to ask about what is dangerous. It deals with the condition of the road, the condition of the vehicle being driven, the use of the road and the way the vehicle is being driven, the nature of the driving and the traffic.
That leads to an unfortunate acronym but one all police officers remember, and I will take you through each step of the way. The condition of the road, or conditions, deals with the condition of the road and of the car. I will paint a picture for you. Let us take your KTM rider; you described several elements of his behaviour which, in your opinion, made his conduct dangerous. I suspect a court would probably agree with you, which means this person was breaking the law because nothing about an open speed limit says you can drive dangerously.
You can drive dangerously at 60 km/h in an open speed limit area if you breach these elements. Let me give you an example. You are in an open speed limit area travelling at 60km/h and you pass a road train on the other side of the road during the worst storm in history. You had your lights turned off and it was 10 pm. That is dangerous driving. It can occur in an open speed limit area at 60km/h.
Let us talk about your KTM rider who has decided to let rip with his you-beaut super bike. I presume it is 1000cc or better; it sounds pretty thirsty, particularly when you open up the throttles and get the injectors doing their job. He has given this thing a whole bunch of stick, has petrol loaded onto the back and it changes the configuration of the bike. I suggest your KTM rider is on the wrong side of the law because the condition of his bike is no longer what the design parameters determined. The use of the bike is improper. These superbikes are, by their very nature, structured in such a way as to be designed to be aerodynamic, particularly at speed. If you load them up with luggage you change the aerodynamics of the bike. That is change in the use.
The nature of the use – going at 300 km/h on a KTM which is designed for it; it sounds a bit excessive but happens fairly regularly. A fellow died recently riding the very same motorcycle at 300 km/h on the open graded section of the road somewhere around Alice Springs. I understand it is subject to a coronial investigation, but at 300 km/h with the right training a rider on the right piece of equipment may be safe. I struggle to imagine a court would determine 300 km/h was safe, but a court should examine these things on an individual basis.
When the police determine to prosecute somebody for dangerous riding they are saying to the court, ‘The guy was doing something we consider dangerous around the condition, use, nature or traffic component’. It is for a court to determine, which is consistent with the government philosophy in relation to open speed limits. We have never, on this side of the House, advocated dangerous driving; we advocated for judgment. We expect people to demonstrate judgment when driving on our roads. We ask them to do it not only on open speed areas, but everywhere. Because 70 km/h is posted on Dick Ward Drive, there may be circumstances where that is not warranted and a person should not drive at 70 km/h. In those circumstances, I expect the police would pursue people for dangerous driving if they did something dangerous or reckless.
Recklessness has clearly been defined in many court cases. You do not have to go very far to discover where the courts have dealt with recklessness and what danger means, etcetera. There are judgments pages long exploring each of these concepts in detail. Courts are well guided by a long history of what these words mean. If you open legislation and go to the definition section, it will generally give you a one or two line definition of what something means. Courts are inherently unsatisfied with those definitions so they explore way beyond what the legislative definition is to fill out those definitions. Those judgments can run into, in some instances, hundreds of pages. An enormous body of law already exists around what these things do and do not mean. They are implied in such a way that they apply individually to each case as it comes up.
This legislation does not try to predetermine what reckless is. I have often said when you grab legislation like this and cast it, it is like a fisherman casting a net into the future hoping to catch only one variety of fish. It does not work that way. You have to design the net so the weave is sufficiently large and there is sufficient latitude for the person to use it the way this parliament intends.
This may sound funny coming from a parliamentarian, but I am often concerned about the amount of legislation we pass and how prescriptive it becomes. We, as parliaments, have taken it upon ourselves to pass legislation for almost every facet of people’s lives – what goes into their underarm deodorant, etcetera. We have a legislative response for almost every occasion. Does it make the world a better place? I am not entirely sure it does.
If we are obliged to legislate because of the way we interact with the rest of the country, that is, we have agreements in place – this is a product of the former Labor government’s introduction of the NDIS, which is still rolling forward, and the NIIS – we cannot work in a vacuum and call ourselves the People’s Republic of the Northern Territory. We have to create legislative environments which meet our commitments and agreements with other jurisdictions so we pass legislation, but let us do it in a way where a certain amount of latitude is available to the people who do the interpreting on a case to case basis. That is, essentially, what this says.
This also says when you screw up and have insurance, as the insured we will protect you. The quality of your protection will go up. However, we are narrowing the base of what the insurance covers. In this process we say there are certain things we will not insure because the NDIS will capture you there. If you are driving around in a vehicle that has been unregistered for the last 10 years, clearly you have no interest in paying your dues as an insurer and you do not have a claim of right against people who have done the right thing. The claim you make as a person driving an unregistered vehicle is unfair because people who do the right thing, pay the premiums and then pay increased premiums because they pay for this guy over here – our society, for better or worse, determines we will capture those who are permanently incapacitated by virtue of an injury. However, what the support looks like changes depending on whether you pay your insurance dues or not.
We expect people to pay their insurance dues, so much so that this legislation has passed, saying you will pay your insurance dues before you drive for at least the third party personal component of your exposure. You reckon we do not take it seriously? This legislation was last updated in the 1980s, I think, and the maximum fine for driving unregistered was about $500. Driving uninsured was $10 000. Parliament at the time clearly thought unregistered was just a component of the requirement we have that people register their car. My goodness, we think insurance is so important that parliament of the time said, ‘We will whack you with a $10 000 fine’, which would easily have been six months’ wages when it was outlined originally. They said it was so serious a claim against the rest of the community they would place a maximum penalty of six months’ wages as an impost for not paying insurance fees.
The insurance component has been recognised for a long time as needing to be just in the sense people who pay are covered. If you then refuse to pay, you will fall into the domain of the NDIS scheme, which means the quality of your care in the future will be different to if you had paid your bills. There is nothing wrong with this. I concur with it and think it is fair.
I hope this goes some distance to answering the questions of the member for Barkly around what these things mean and how they are defined. I am more than happy, if the member for Barkly is so motivated, to provide him with a copy of my text book so he might look at these things and …
Mr Styles: They are searching out the back for it.
Mr ELFERINK: They are ferretting around out the back. Do not worry too much …
Mr McCarthy: Can I wait until it comes out on video?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, you can wait for the movie to come out. I understand you would need it ...
Mr McCarthy: I love law though.
Mr ELFERINK: Good. The point is what you are asking is already defined in many places. Had you been on your feet a bit longer I would have given you several references in relation to it. If you are so motivated I am prepared, after the passage of this legislative instrument, to have you briefed by the department as to how these tortious elements work so you can satisfy yourself these definitions exist and have long since been recognised at law.
This is a commonsense legislative amendment and I – as I am sure all members in this House do – support this commonsense change.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I wish to add further to some questions the member for Barkly had about his friend on the superbike.
Member for Barkly, in a former life I was a police officer and was required to make judgments on a regular basis as to what constituted driving at high speed, in a manner dangerous, reckless driving and driving without due care. Not one single thing makes you decide what you might charge somebody with.
You talked about the open speed limit, member for Barkly. I refer to a brochure released with information for people who might choose to drive in the open speed limit areas. I will pick up on something the member for Port Darwin said in relation to rain storms. I remember clearly, in the early 1980s I was in a police vehicle on patrol going down Bagot Road. We stopped a vehicle doing about 20 km/h. If people are unaware, Bagot Road has, for many years, been an 80 km/h speed zone. This guy was doing 20 km/h. We arrested him, and he was charged with driving in a dangerous manner, including for his speed.
It was during a torrential downpour and we could hardly see driving at 10 km/h, and this guy passed us. I will not comment on the words used to describe the person driving the car. We both decided this person needed to be stopped in a hurry. We began a pursuit with lights and sirens and just about had to push the guy off the road. Driving at 20 km/h an hour was dangerous in a serious downpour, especially if there was a motorcyclist or pedestrians, and there was also the risk of running into the back of another car.
That driver was convicted on that evidence – speed and the road condition. For those listening and anyone who might think getting on a superbike and coming to the Territory is great fun, and you can do 300 km/h – as someone who raced motorcycles I understand what the member for Barkly is talking about when you change the balance of bikes.
However, you cannot legislate against stupidity. If I was faced with a number of conditions and options I would, like the member for Port Darwin, probably decide the person was driving at a speed not only dangerous to himself, but other road users. I would say police officers today patrolling our highways on a regular basis – if it is an open speed limit area or restricted area the same rules apply.
When the open speed limit section was introduced on 1 February, media interviewed the Assistant Commissioner Southern Region, who was asked, ‘How will you police open speed limits?’ He said, ‘It is quite simple, we will go back to what we were doing six years ago’. They have been policing open speed limits for many years. If you talk to people at roadhouses or those who have been in the Territory for a long time, they will tell you there were open speed limits when there was a single lane of bitumen.
People were required to drive to the conditions. If you were driving on a single lane highway – as sections of it were when we had open speed limits – and a road train was coming and you were doing – even 100 km/h in that situation would probably be considered dangerous. If a police officer saw that, or there were people in a vehicle quite happy to give statements to police, officers would investigate, interview people and, if the evidence was there, people would be charged.
What happens, unfortunately, is police are not everywhere. They are not in the northern suburbs, not on the main street of Tennant Creek when people do stupid things, nor are they on the highways when people chose to do stupid things. That is a shame. We would like to catch people who treat our roads as a racetrack.
Sadly, most of the deaths on our roads in urban areas or on secondary country roads are as a result of people being under the influence of alcohol and failing to wear seatbelts. The government is creating programs to intensify training in relation to that.
In the open speed section the member for Barkly refers to, for those who read the Hansard or those listening interstate, or perhaps the superbike clubs that seem to exist in Victoria, when you drive to conditions we ask you to drive safely to your driving skills and experience.
Drive to your vehicle’s capability. The member for Barkly was correct to say manufacturers have certain specifications. If you go outside those specifications they will not accept liability. That is a decision people make.
The other thing I mentioned in earlier debate is if you exceed the speed the tyres on your car are rated to, police will want to talk to you and ask, ‘Why were you exceeding the capability of your tyres?’
Many tyres are only rated for 130 km/h. I struggle to understand why you would have that when quite often people exceed the speed limit when passing road trains. Most people I know do not want to be on the right hand side of the road any longer than they have to, so people accelerate passed road trains and go back onto the other side of the road. However, if you have tyres on your car that are not rated over 130 km/h and you exceed that, manufacturers will not accept liability. I agree with the member for Barkly on that issue.
It is so important that people understand the capability of their vehicle. It is so important people understand the braking capacity of the car. When I taught my children to drive we found sections of road on private property not being used and practiced braking so they knew exactly what the car was capable of.
We expect, as road users, that every driver has the capacity to understand how long it will to take them to stop, what distance they are travelling for each 10 km/h they increase their speed, reaction times – these are calculations we expect every driver to make irrespective of whether they are on the open road or in suburbia.
Sadly, I have seen accidents in my own electorate. I am sure we have all seen accidents in our electorates – those who have urban electorates – where you asked, ‘Why did this happen here?’ It is because someone made stupid decisions about how they would drive. I said earlier you cannot legislate against stupidity. We can only hope these people are reported to the police. I do it on a regular basis. I get on my hands free, call the police, give them registration numbers and say, ‘You might like to see this person down the road’. You give them the direction they are heading and if there is a patrol car there and people are doing stupid things, hopefully someone will find them.
Sadly, I do not have a warrant card anymore and, on that level, cannot do anything. However, as a citizen I can and I encourage anyone, if they see people driving in a dangerous manner, being stupid or endangering other people on the road, to call police and give them the number. It might not work that time, but if they see them driving around a different area later the police might pay particular attention to the manner of driving. These are things we ask responsible people on the road to do.
The next point in relation to drive to conditions – you drive to the condition of the road. As was described by the member for Barkly, the guy on the superbike said the back wheels were bouncing all over the place. Clearly, that is not riding to conditions. Clearly, the guy is carrying extra weight on the bike. I suggest that person may not understand how motorcycles work or understand the balance. People should make themselves familiar with the vehicle they are travelling in. Sadly, people probably do not.
I was driving next to a car yesterday and looked over at it at the traffic lights. I kid you not; you would think the front tyre was flat. There clearly was not sufficient air in the tyre. This was in a suburban area. People are supposed to check their tyres; it is all part of driving a safe motor vehicle. If you want to drive around in unsafe motor vehicles, police are likely to summons you, give you a ticket, or, if it is bad enough and serious enough, like the brakes do not work, you might find yourself arrested.
The condition of the road – when you talk about rural roads, country roads, outback Territory, our main roads, people have to understand it is the time of day you drive. It is the conditions: dust storms, rain or water across the road. Once it rains and there are floodways across the road and people are driving at speed manifestly excessive for the conditions, then someone will want to talk to them. Someone will make a decision based on the facts whether they arrest a person or give them a traffic infringement notice. There are so many different factors you take into account before you take – they could give a caution, so there are four options.
Every day police officers are required to make decisions about what people do. I suggest your friend on the 1290cc superbike has probably made some poor decisions which could lead them to some serious trouble. Again, the message is if people think they can race through our open speed trial area then they have another thing coming. Police officers are there every day patrolling the road with mobile radars, and people get caught. There are people here who understand what it is like to get caught for exceeding the speed limit. It happens.
These people, it appears, have a club game where they leave Melbourne and see how quickly they can reach Darwin. I suspect some of them are not just racing through our open speed limit trial area; they are racing on our 130 km/h sections of road. If they think it is good fun to do that they should be prepared to get into some serious trouble because we have police patrolling the highways from Kulgera north, and on the Barkly Highway and the Victoria Highway. Highway patrol is doing a fantastic job keeping our highways safe, not only for people from themselves, but other road users as well.
The condition of the road is another aspect. Weather conditions obviously dictate. If you are in the centre of Australia in the desert areas and it is a hot day – 46 or 47 - you have to look at the temperature of the pavement, which can be 65 or 70. That is serious heat, and when you start putting serious heat into tyres you lose tyre performance. If you do not have rated tyres you are looking at blowouts. We have all seen the result, sadly, of people who do not have the correct tyres, correct tyre pressure or tyres in very poor condition. Blowouts create many of our single vehicle rollovers. That is a sad reality.
As a government we try to educate people. We have the DriveSafe NT program trying to educate people who live in the bush about a range of initiatives, including tyres. The weather conditions and the time of day – if it is the middle of the night you do not want to be exceeding a safe speed for the conditions – your experience and your car. Some people might find they can drive 10 km or 15 km faster if they have a newer car, if they have an extra couple thousand watts of lights across the front of the car set up for the side of the road and set up as spotlights should be. Those who live and work in the bush are probably aware of how you are supposed to set those things up. There are ways to do it so you maximise your spots on the road where danger occurs. At dusk and dawn, when stock and native animals are moving – these things are on our highways, our secondary roads and our rural roads every day.
To the club in Melbourne that thinks it will be great fun I say: this is not an autobahn. In this area of the Territory there are good sections of road, but some are a bit lumpy and when the rain comes you have washaways. Obviously, Department of Transport staff will put warning signs up, witches hats or advisory signs saying there is damage or water on the road. I doubt anyone in this House would be flying up the highway on a motorcycle at 200 km/h-plus trying to get through floodways and water on the road. That is plain stupid, but some people are plain stupid and they are the ones police need to chase.
That brings me to the next point in our open speed trial brochure, a simple brochure that gives different points to different people. Drive at a safe speed. I gave the example of the person on Bagot Road exceeding the speed limit. The member for Port Darwin gave some great examples of driving to a safe speed. That applies whether you are in rural or suburban areas or open roads. I hope my speech this afternoon is not affecting the member for Nelson …
Mr Wood: I am in deep thought.
Mr STYLES: I hope I am not putting him to sleep.
Mr Wood: No, no.
Mr STYLES: It is about driving at a safe speed. It is a decision we expect all road users to make every day.
The next point is to keep a safe distance between vehicles. That is about training and driving safely for yourself, your passengers and other road users. Unfortunately, we see people who think one car length is a safe distance at 60 km/h. The bare minimum recommended up to about 60 km/h is one car length minimum – three car lengths is a bare minimum even if you have great reflexes and a good car with excellent brakes.
In our driver training examination, we try to make sure safety is the number one issue young people coming through – and those coming from overseas or older people getting their driver’s licence – understand how it all works.
Obey speed advisory signs. As I said, open roads in the Northern Territory are not autobahns. Autobahns have big sweeping turns and increased camber to accommodate higher speeds. We have designed roads and camber, but when you get to a corner you have to slow down. What do we do? Traffic engineers work out a safe speed might be reducing to 80 km, 70 km, or if you are going through the Blue Mountains it is 20 km/h on some of the bends. Again, we have advisory signs.
I have been on country roads – I am sure we all have – and you go through an area where the speed is 80 km/h and people come up behind you at a rate of knots. Then they get a bit too close when you are trying to drive at a safe speed and follow the advisory signs, which is what we expect people to do. Someone has recommended, based on evidence, this would be a good speed to drive at and we ask people to do that.
The next point is slow down at night. We expect people to do this for obvious reasons. I do not need to waste people’s time saying that slowing down at night is something we should do.
Watch out for people. It is not only in the northern suburbs or the main street of Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine or Nhulunbuy, but everywhere. People walk from one area to another, or cars have broken down and people are walking back to a community, town or fuel station. It is imperative we watch out. Some people, sadly, think on a cold night the black bitumen is a good place to sleep. Cattle seem to think it is a good place to sleep too. If you have black cattle on a black road at night, they are pretty hard to see.
Watch out for animals. Coming along the Victoria Highway many years ago, doing about 60 km/h through some tight turns and across creeks, I thought 50 km or 60 km was pretty good. We came around a bend and, fortunately, with good lights and paying attention, I saw about 20 cattle sitting on the road absorbing the heat. If you have some clown who thinks they can race through that area at night time – that is how tragedies happen. Sometimes it is unavoidable when cattle run out in front of you – that happens from time to time.
I ask the member for Barkly to take note of some of the things I have said. I ask those listening to this debate to take note. I refer people to the Traffic Act, which provides definitions of various things. Section 3 of the Traffic Act gives interpretations of various definitions. Section 29AB also gives definitions under the Traffic Act and what the basics are in relation to a range of activities.
I ask people to drive safely and remind them this is Yellow Ribbon National Road Safety Week. We encourage people to drive safely, to talk to people in their businesses, their homes, families, relatives and friends, and ask them to ensure they drive safely.
The Treasurer will be on his feet soon talking about amendments to the act in relation to insurance matters, and they are great initiatives. It all boils down to people being aware they need to drive to conditions, irrespective of whether they are in an open or restricted speed limit area, and that roads are not racetracks. We encourage people, if they want to do that, to join car or motorcycle clubs.
We have some great racetracks in the Northern Territory. In the Top End we have Hidden Valley. If people want to race around on a bitumen road to see how good they are, there are various car clubs they can join. Many young people take up that option, tear around the place, have a great time and then drive home safely within the speed limit.
Sadly, some people are injured or killed on our roads, not from their driving but from the driving of others who choose not to follow the rules, drive to conditions, travel at safe speeds, keep safe distances between vehicles and obey speed signs. Much of this happens at night when people exceed speed limits. They do not watch out for people; they are too busy talking to each other in the car and do not look out for dogs or other animals in built up areas, or cattle and kangaroos in others.
In this week of road safety awareness we ask everyone to take stock of that. I encourage any parents listening to take their kids to road safety facilities in the Territory.
I paid for an advanced driver training course for my kids. There are a number of people in the Territory who run them. They put people on wet areas and skidpans and people learn how to control a car. They slide on wet roads and are taught about sliding on gravel. We do not want kids to learn how to hoon around the streets, but this is about showing them how easy it is to lose control of a car. Young people, if they accidentally lose control, can then recover from that and understand what has happened.
Drive to conditions. Do your kids and relatives a favour, if you are looking for a good birthday or Christmas present give them an advanced driver training course. Hopefully that will help keep them alive so you can enjoy them and they can enjoy the rest of their lives.
I commend the amendments to this legislation. I ask people to take note of what I have said in reply to the member for Barkly. I agree with him. Many of the issues he raised are valid and I hope we have answered them. Thank you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was not falling asleep; there was an involuntary relaxation of my neck muscles and eyelids due to the dulcet tones of the minister over the last 40 minutes.
I support the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Amendment Bill. There are a couple of areas …
Mr Tollner: Who would have thought?
Mr WOOD: It is unfortunate we have a one-eyed Treasurer stuck in a time warp caused by indoctrination from his own party. People do not have to belong to either party to agree to things in the parliament. I support this legislation; there are some excellent things in it. One excellent thing the member for Barkly and I discovered in our briefing is the improvement in the carers’ allowance.
Many people in the Northern Territory care for disabled people. I have often heard about the inadequate pay they receive looking after our most vulnerable – those who are either permanently or partially incapacitated – so it is good to see this coming forward.
I am sure if I make a mistake the minister will correct me. Presently, attendant care hours are 32 hours per week. The prescribed rate is 2% of average weekly earnings, which currently works out at $28.18 an hour. The new rate will be set by gazettal to allow services to be reasonably acquired. The price is yet to be set, but is estimated at an average of $50 per hour. That, as is explained, will vary according to the role of the helper.
For instance, if someone comes to mow the lawn it is a little different than somebody who has to care for the person in the house – shower them, do the housework, feed them, etcetera. Also where they live – if they live in the Barkly a long way from the regional town, it will obviously cost more to care for that person. It is good that not only have we changed the rate, but we have varied it according to the circumstances and the type of work the person is doing.
I congratulate the government. Obviously it is bringing it in line with the national scheme. However, regardless of that it is a good thing. We sometimes forget carers; we take them for granted, and by paying them a decent amount the carer will be better looked after, and we are showing we care for the carers by giving them a proper income for the work they do. That is a very important part of this bill.
The explanatory statement says:
I noticed in the documents given to us at the briefing the issue of unregisterable vehicles – I am interested in that – but also unregistered vehicles in the case of quad bikes.
I have had concerns for a long time about misuse of quad bikes and regularly receive complaints about them. Most are unregistered. It takes a fair bit to register a quad bike. Usually the more popular models, such as Honda, are easier to register. Many of the cheaper models sold at Coolalinga – the Chinese brands – are good for kids and they love running them around the back yard. Even some of the farm vehicle types are difficult to get registered. People do not bother or they are not registered.
I have photos I sent to the Chief Minister of people driving down Gunn Point Road standing on the bike, no helmet and unregistered. I have had many complaints about people driving them there. The nature strip – if you can call it that on a rural road – is dangerous because someone will come out of their driveway – and that happened – besides the issues of noise and dust. We are not dealing with that at the moment.
I wonder how many who drive quad bikes realise under this scheme – some of this may have applied before – if they have an accident and are permanently or partially injured – my understanding is they will receive medical benefits but not employment benefits. I wonder if they understand that. If they have an accident, yes, people who do not have a registered vehicle will receive medical help. However, if a 35-year old man has a prang on his quad bike – by the way, your quad bike has to be registered for Crown land.
Police have booked people on Gunn Point beach for having an unregistered quad bike. It is either the Traffic Act or the Road Act. I am not sure which one says that. I am not sure if we publicise this enough. Not only do you need to be registered, but publicising the fact if you are not registered – quad bikes are the biggest killer of people on farm-type machinery, bigger than tractors.
I do not have the figures in front of me, but in the Queensland Country Life last weekend there was a section on quad bikes and a debate around whether they should have roll bars of some description. Some companies refuse to do it saying, for whatever reason, it would not work. Others say it is a necessity.
Whilst it is good the government brings in this legislation, how does it get the message to people that it is not just a matter of me being upset if someone goes down the road on an unregistered vehicle without a helmet? According to this legislation, you have broken about three rules. They are driving on the road unregistered, driving an unregistered vehicle, do not have a helmet on and, in many cases, would have a child in the front or back seat. You are not supposed to carry two people on a quad bike, yet we see it time and time again. I have driven on a road where the bloke on the quad bike was going faster than me, not wearing a helmet, not registered and was on the dirt side of the road ...
Mr Elferink: I apologised to you for that.
Mr WOOD: You should not do it on the Mitchell Street footpath.
How can we show the community the penalty if people do not do the right thing? I hope the government, TIO as well, runs a publicity campaign telling people if they do this they will lose benefits.
Any sensible person would say, ‘It’s a pretty big risk to take. If I end up with a quad bike on top of me and am a paraplegic for the rest of my life my family will not have an income from me.’ That needs to come out and people need to understand.
You also have the issue of unregistered vehicles. The Chief Magistrate, who was looking at a car accident in Central Australia recently, criticised the government for not acting on unregistered vehicles. I have spoken in parliament before about impounding unregistered vehicles. You are not taking the vehicle away in the sense they have to purchase it again. You are saying. ‘Until it’s registered you can’t have it’. It takes it off the road.
I understand there is three months’ grace in the legislation, but we should tell people if they drive an unregistered vehicle there is a chance, if they have an accident, they will only receive medical benefits not employment benefits. That is one penalty. The other penalty can be the government legislating that if a vehicle has not been registered twice in a row, the car is forfeited and can be returned when the registration is paid. It is a double whammy.
There are difficulties in the bush, especially with unregistered cars, and that was raised at our briefing. Access to registration can be difficult; sometimes the cars might be pushing to be registered, but you need to – when making rules about registration – be flexible, because sometimes it is not as simple as me going from Howard Springs to Palmerston. People living at Canteen Creek may have to travel to – I am not sure if Avon Downs still does registrations – otherwise they might have to go to Tennant Creek, but they have a fair way to travel. There is some leniency in this legislation. The member for Barkly and I discussed the three month period and the cover you would lose if you were not insured.
The other area mentioned in the explanatory note was speed vehicle testing. For me, there is an anomaly. A company has professional drivers and vehicles and wants to race a car at unlimited speed, yet is not allowed insurance because that is regarded as similar to racing. However, a person gets on a KTM bike, flies down the road and is not part of a speed trial and that is allowed. It seems a bit anomalous. One is formal, but I am not sure which one is more dangerous.
Most of the time testing is operating under high temperatures to see how cars last under high road and air temperatures. This would be done under fairly tight control by motor vehicle companies at pretty low risk, compared to the bloke who bought a super duper bike and put his foot down.
Minister for Transport, we can argue the case for open speed limits. It is annoying when people say, ‘You supported the no speed limit zone before’, but fail to understand I did not support the government changing it because I did not see evidence of it being a good thing to change …
Mr Tollner: Then you flip-flopped.
Mr WOOD: Hang on. The member who has been indoctrinated by his party to think one way forgets when I argue that way then say to the minister, ‘Now you’re changing it, show me the scientific evidence’. ‘No, these reports are top secret’. They have nothing on the KGB, ASIO or the CIA. ‘These are Cabinet documents, not to be looked at by folk out there. They are secret; they could damage a normal person’s hearing and ability to analyse things.’
This government is so open and transparent it had reports done by a company and delivered to Cabinet. It is not necessarily a Cabinet document. It is when it ends up there, but it was previously a plain, ordinary report on whether our roads were suitable for the speed limit.
Minister, are these documents so secret? Will the …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Calm down, my argument is worthy. If you want to change things show us the scientific evidence. You can read Hansard, but when I asked to see the evidence you did not show me. Do not let fly with clichs and smart comments not based on facts. ‘If we tell people often enough Gerry said that they will believe it, even if it is not true.’
I digress. The point is the government has changed the speed limit and we have not been given reasons why or seen the reports. If the reports say it is safe, let us live with that.
The first thing your government did was drop speed limits on the Arnhem and Stuart Highways. Why? Is the document so secret you cannot tell us what …
Mr Tollner: Labor did not put money into roads.
Mr WOOD: Yes, the Commonwealth government probably did not put money into roads because – let us be realistic, when all sides of parliament talk about how much money is put into roads, be real. Around 90% comes from the Commonwealth, but we put it on our badge and say, ‘Look what we did’. You know about Tiger Brennan Drive, you were in federal parliament. Most of that money came from the Commonwealth. There would have been some …
Mr Tollner: Absolutely.
Mr WOOD: That is right, but you say, ‘Look what we did for Territorians. We put it together out of Australia’s GST, which we get a fair bit of.’ Again, I digress.
I am concerned it is all right to allow a person to drive at a very high speed and be covered by this legislation, yet someone who is testing a vehicle – which I imagine would happen under controlled conditions – is not covered. That is an anomaly.
I have concerns. The minister spoke about an autobahn. An autobahn is separated by a concrete wall and all traffic travels in the same direction. If a motorcycle is going 200 km/h and a car doing 150 km/h and they collide, you have a 350 km/h disaster.
In this debate we have not taken into account other road users and the person who might want to travel at 130 km/h. Are they at risk because someone can drive faster down the road? That has not come up in this debate. It has all been about being able to drive fast, but what about the person who is enjoying the road not to have a speed thrill, but just getting from A to B like most people do? Although I have digressed, I was wondering why that group of people is exempt, considering they are probably a much safer bet than people driving their KTM down the Stuart Highway.
I saw a few KTMs at the Kamfari on the weekend so they have a good range of motorbikes. They had the tent up, and I am not sure if a KTM won the Kamfari. The Kamfari is not covered by this. I presume they must take out their own insurance because you could drown. If you looked at what they had to travel through, you could have been eaten by a crocodile. Compared to last year it was some Kamfari. It is a wonder people did not die from exhaustion. It was a very difficult course. I presume motorsports are not covered by this. MotorSports NT, I presume, would raise its own insurance to cover things like that. People pay to belong to those associations and insurance cover would be provided.
If you want to get a close photograph of people in a Kamfari do not wear your nice shirt and black trousers because you will come back covered in mud.
I thank the minister for the legislation. It is excellent, especially because the carer rate has increased. That is important. I have no problem with some of the changes, but if you make changes which penalise people who are doing the wrong thing, then it is the government or TIO’s job to make sure people understand there is a real problem by them not abiding by the law – wearing a helmet, wearing a seatbelt or having a registered vehicle.
It would be really good to show people, even if it was an advertising campaign, if they do not do the right thing they will not be covered. It would be worthwhile the government doing that.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all members who have spoken on this bill. It is a very important bill because it provides a safety net for people who suffer catastrophic accidents involving motor vehicles.
The members for Barkly and Nelson raised concerns about dangerous driving in open speed limit areas. My friend and colleague, the Attorney-General, did a good job of explaining the definition of dangerous driving and how it is dealt with. Determination of dangerous driving is made by police as to what constitutes dangerous or reckless driving in an open speed limit area.
The member for Nelson put on the record his thanks that carers were being looked after. I have enormous respect for people who care for people with disabilities, the aged and the like; not enough can be done in the area of carers.
I was fortunate to be part of the implementation of the national carer’s roundtable when I was the federal member and have had quite a bit to do with Carers NT over the years; it is a wonderful organisation providing a valuable service. In the mid-2000s it was estimated that carers in the Northern Territory saved the government around $60m a year with the valuable work they provide. That is an enormous amount of money the government would have to find if carers were not around, so it is great to see support being given to them.
The quixotic member for Nelson has done it again. He has banged on about his phobia and hatred for quad bikes and quad bike riders. He must have lived near a beach where people were tearing up and down on quad bikes. He is not a fan of people enjoying themselves on quad bikes. Quad bikes are clearly dangerous. He said they are hard to register. It is hard to register a quad bike. I had to register one when the Country Liberals were last in government and I was seeking election as an independent in the electorate of Nelson and it was difficult to register the quad bike. I eventually got it and doorknocked the electorate on a quad bike. I have had quad bikes for years and, admittedly, they can be dangerous if you do silly things, but they are also quite valuable.
The member for Nelson seems to think quad bikes are more dangerous than tractors on farms. That may well be the case, but I do not think he is advocating to get rid of tractors; he just has a real issue with quad bikes.
Concerns I have about the member for Nelson and speed limits – another area he banged on about – he went to an election campaign on speed limits. I remember when we copied the stickers he had to campaign for open speed limits, and how affronted he was that the Country Liberals would steal his idea and use his stickers to support open speed limits.
Typical of the member for Nelson, he decided he no longer supported open speed limits even though he had gone to an election saying he did and then backflipped. My guess is he backflipped because he became invaluable to the Henderson Labor government and, for that reason, felt he had to give up something in order to get something. That something was obviously a swimming pool in the rural area. He did not do a very good job because they did not get around to digging a hole, let alone installing a swimming pool.
At the end of the term they pointed to a block of land and said, ‘Maybe we can put the swimming pool there’. It was too little too late, and the member for Nelson failed on his swimming pool even though he traded off open speed limits in the Northern Territory.
Good on him. He might think that was a good outcome. Scientific testing and the like, you have to wonder what an election commitment is worth to the member for Nelson when he can so blatantly campaign for open speed limits then roll over so easily when he finds he has the ability to do something about it. That is for him to deal with.
This is important legislation. In August 2011, as part of a national disability strategy, the Productivity Commission released a report into disability care and support in Australia which found the sector was underfunded, unfair, fragmented and a lottery based on the type of disability and which jurisdiction the patient was living in. Things had to change.
The then federal Labor government established two schemes, both supported in the Northern Territory by the former Territory Labor government and this Country Liberal government. The National Disability Insurance Scheme was supported by us and we accepted a trial to occur in the Tennant Creek region, and the National Injury Insurance Scheme.
The National Injury Insurance Scheme is to be phased in over several years and has been established to provide nationally consistent, no-fault lifetime care to support catastrophic injuries caused by a range of accidents, four types in particular: motor vehicle accidents; workplace accidents; medical accidents; and general accidents.
The first stage of the NIIS centres on the standardisation of statutory attendant care provided under state and territory mandatory motor accident compensation schemes, which is why this bill is being put forward today. The Territory is required to implement the first stage of the National Injury Insurance Scheme by fulfilling nationally consistent benchmarks for motor vehicle accidents.
The fact is ...
Mr Wood: I am here.
Mr TOLLNER: You are back; you missed my slurring your good name. Do you want me to go over it again? I just explained how you flip-flopped on speed limits and election commitments mean nothing to you, but that is the Labor way. Member for Nelson, I am glad you support this legislation.
This legislation provides a better safety net for people injured in catastrophic motor vehicle accidents. It reduces the types of claims our insurance company or Motor Accident Compensation Scheme will pay out on. However, it increases benefits for claims that are accepted. For those that are not and fall through the cracks – a number of areas will no longer be covered under the Motor Accident Compensation Scheme – they will be picked up and supported by the National Disability Insurance Scheme as well as the National Injury Insurance Scheme. There is quite a good safety net there, with some of it provided by the Commonwealth government and other parts underwritten by the Northern Territory government through the Motor Accident Compensation Scheme. This is largely funded by people’s registrations.
As a government we encourage people to act safely when they are using motor vehicles, whether they are registered or unregistered. When people are driving on Northern Territory government roads we expect them to have registered and well-operating motor vehicles on those roads. We expect people to drive to the conditions of the road and not drive dangerously, but the fundamental difference is people on this side of the Chamber believe in the individual and the individual’s ability to be responsible. Those on the other side – I say all of them – do not have that faith in individuals. They would rather regulate everybody’s lives and actions as much as possible to the point of outlawing quad bikes for certain people, certain locations and all that type of stuff …
Mr Wood: Who said that?
Mr TOLLNER: I got the impression the member for Nelson was not very keen on quad bikes, just like he is not keen on open speed limits …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I gave you a plug for thinking of the carers. We understand the Independent Labor member for Nelson will always support his socialist mates who want to limit and restrict people’s lives as much as possible. Fundamentally, he does not have much faith in people.
I thank those on the other side of the Chamber for supporting this legislation. It is important legislation and will give people greater peace of mind and benefit those injured in catastrophic motor vehicles. It is retrospective so will cost the motor accident compensation fund significant money initially, but I am informed by the actuaries there are more than adequate reserves in that fund.
I will not waste any more time apart from thanking very much all who support the legislation. In particular, I thank Treasury and TIO staff who pulled a lot of this together and have done the lion’s share of the work in making sure it is workable.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer) (by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I could not let the minister get away with talking rubbish. He introduced a few things in the debate, and in the third reading I will not introduce anything new.
I want to say something about his knocking of people on this side for not believing in the individual. I believe in the individual, but I also believe in community, and there is a balance to be looked after. A classic example is the balance between someone who is disabled – an individual – and someone who cares for them. That is community. We need individuality to give us enterprise and new ideas, but we are also part of a community. We are part of the human race. No man is an island, and if you say the individual is the only thing you need to worry about you are very self-centred ...
Mr Tollner: Goodness me.
Mr WOOD: You raised it. You put everyone in a bucket and said, ‘You are a bunch of socialists, you do not care about the individual. You just regulate because you like regulating.’ Sometimes you should be taken to task for those silly ideas.
The individual should be able to show their character and individual traits, but I also believe people have a responsibility in what they do, and that they do not impinge on the greater community in a way that could be harmful.
If someone drives down the road at 300 km/h because that is a great thing for your individual beliefs, I would be concerned the community is affected by someone else on the road, the cost of that person being injured and the effect on the community. I take exception to what you say as a blanket statement of the way I feel about individuals and the community. You are well off the mark.
I also take exception to your saying I dislike quad bikes. I have a quad bike in my back yard, but it does not work anymore. My grandson, who was a bit heavier than the quad bike, drove it into the ground. I regularly go to the Territory Quad Association. If you want to see a group of people who do the right thing with quad bikes, visit the Territory Quad Association at Knuckey Lagoon and see its races being well run. If you had been to the Kamfari, you would have seen blokes who nearly died from exhaustion, crocodiles and drowning on their quad bikes last weekend ...
Mr Giles: Gerry, where is the quad bike club?
Mr WOOD: The Territory Quad Association is on the road to the shooting range at Mickett Creek, on the left hand side. It has a one-year licence and have to move after that. I try to go regularly. It is a great group of people that uses quad bikes responsibly.
If I criticise people for driving down the road without helmets, without registration, why does that make me anti-quad bike? I thought you would support me saying it is an illegal practice, or are you close to your old mate Peter Maley? He wanted to have registration for quad bikes – one you could drive everywhere with cheap registration. You have not brought that in. He wanted that in parliament; you were probably not here when that was debated.
You twist the facts. There is only so much you can take. Sometimes I need to fire back at you because you make unfair statements.
I supported open speed limit ...
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Hang on, I have not finished. Are you saying because I am now not a great fan of the speed limit I am not allowed to change my mind?
Mr Tollner: You went to an election …
Mr WOOD: Hang on, let me finish. The original change to the speed limit was to 110 km/h. That was in the reports we did not see from the Labor Party. The government conducted some trials and came up with the average speed most people travel on the open highway. It was about 10% give or take, around 140 km/h or 130 km/h. That was the speed it found most people drove at and it picked 130 km/h.
Some people love the open speed limit, but if you ask me how many people complain the speed limit is too low – most people are quite happy with 130 km/h. They think that is reasonable. What you say presumes a person cannot say, ‘I think that is not a bad speed limit and I accept it’.
You can be a stick in the mud and quote what I said 20 years ago, what I should say today and that I do not have the right to change my mind. You harp on; you are a professional harper. You go on regardless of the truth, and I have been here long enough to see you do that. There should be something in the standing orders restricting people who go on and on.
I wanted to straighten the record. I am an individual. He does not quite get that; he puts me in the Labor Party. Who just supported passage of the bill and suspension of standing orders to bring on the poppy legislation? I did. Who supported this legislation? If I use your logic, am I an Independent CLP person? That is dreadful logic for a minister ...
Mr Tollner: If you were an Independent CLP I would be backing you, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: If I believed every piece of your legislation was worth supporting I would support it. Bits of your legislation are sometimes not worth the paper they are written on.
I wanted to straighten some things the minister mentioned in his summary of the debate today. To be honest, I hope Hansard has a section which says, ‘Not worth writing about.’ Most of your second reading would fit that category quite well. Thank you.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 27 March 2014.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, it was interesting listening to our colleague, the member for Nelson, taking the opportunity in the third reading debate to put a few things straight. My, what short memories they have on that side, given the crisis of a few weeks ago when three of their members walked out. Who was the first to be across the floor talking to the member for Nelson? It was senior figures from the CLP because they will rely on his vote in the event their numbers drop by just one more or in something crucial, yet they treat him abominably. It is incredibly good-humoured the way the member for Nelson responds to members opposite.
We have before us today the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Amendment Bill 2014. I thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House. The government’s claimed purpose of the bill is to ensure effect is given to the original intent of the act by improving clarity and functionality of existing provisions, and introducing new provisions to improve efficiencies of the scheme’s operation and administration, and this is a good thing.
In the second reading of the original bill the minister for Environment, who was the former member for Stuart, Karl Hampton – a good minister he was too – outlined the purpose of the bill he brought to the House. It is worth reiterating for the record a number of things he said during the second reading debate on 25 November 2010, because these things stand true:
I make no apology for quoting at length from the original second reading speech from the former minister for the Environment because this was landmark legislation. The commitment he undertook, the intent, the vision and the purpose he outlined remains today. I do not think much has changed, if anything, in the original intent he outlined. We can say today, a few years down the road from when the bill was introduced, the rationale behind the cash for containers scheme has stood the test of time.
The most recent quarterly report on the scheme found during the October to December 2013 quarter over 40 million approved containers were sold in the Northern Territory and 15.5 million of those containers were returned to CDS coordinators. This equates to a return rate of 38.83% across all material types. That is, 38.83% of all containers sold in the Northern Territory were recycled or reused through the container deposit scheme or CDS. That is a considerable increase on where it was before this legislation came into being. Quite clearly the scheme has been taken up by Territorians. In some communities we see reduced litter and cleaner streets and waterways.
The opposition remains the same in supporting the intent of our original legislation when we were in government, along with today’s amendments to make this legislation work, particularly with regard to container deposit legislation.
In my own community I note the change in people’s behaviour when shopping in that the vast majority take bags they have generally had stored in their cars. On more than one occasion I have sent one my kids racing to the car to get a couple of extra bags. I have reached the point where I cannot bare to use plastic bags; I would rather go back to the car and grab the bags. I am not the only one. Quite clearly, people have changed their behaviour around how they utilise plastic bags.
However, it is clear the view of the CLP on the Territory’s container deposit scheme has evolved from opposing it – some of them – in opposition, to today, in government, supporting this legislation.
The amendments in this bill codify many of the relationships between scheme participants. It takes a regulatory rather than a market-based approach to managing the scheme. It represents an evolution of the scheme.
The former Labor government introduced the container deposit scheme into the Northern Territory because Territorians could not keep waiting. The CLP failed to introduce the scheme when it was in power for more than two decades, even though it may have talked about it. If we had not enacted the scheme when we did, we would still be waiting, with further delays happening at the national level.
The Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment claims to be a supporter of the container deposit scheme, but his track record is not an entirely good one. Hansard from 23 February 2011 captures the second and third reading debates when the original bill had passage through this House. It was quite a lengthy debate, as the Hansard record will reveal, but, interestingly, it did not go to the committee stage. Clearly the shadow minister at the time, now the minister, had no questions to drill into the detail of the bill before the House. What was interesting about his contribution during that debate was a shift in the CLP’s commitment from having given clear support for a legislated container deposit legislation scheme, CDL, to wavering support following a visit to New Zealand a couple of weeks before the bill came before the House for the second reading debate. It was a leaning towards what is known as a product stewardship program, which was what the now minister – then shadow minister – was touting.
During the member for Brennan’s contribution in 2011, which was full of facts and figures, he claimed to have uncovered, during hours of research including a fact-finding mission to New Zealand – he was at pains to point out he had paid for the trip and was not a guest of any industry group. During his contribution to debate and as a result of this new research, he queried the viability of a legislated and regulatory scheme through CDL. It seemed his head had been turned by some of the messages the Australian Food and Grocery Council, known supporters of product stewardship programs for recycling and strong vocal opponents of regulated schemes such as CDL – it actively drove a scare campaign in the Northern Territory with full page advertisements in the NT News and regional newspapers, as well as media releases and plenty of commentary.
It was a curious shift of position by the CLP. Whilst the member for Brennan ultimately supported the bill – we are pleased he did – he touted – I quote from the second reading debate of 23 February 2011:
There we have it; it was a bob each way from the member for Brennan when push came to shove in supporting CDL. However, support from numerous members within the then CLP opposition is on the record. In fact, then Chief Minister Paul Henderson listed them and their comments in support for CDL during the debate in 2011.
Let us see what the Chief Minister at the time quoted in support of CDL. On 30 April 2009, in the Parliamentary Record, the member for Brennan said:
The member for Fong Lim – not known for his green credentials – in his September 2004 newsletter said he was all for it to help clean up, to recycle and to put some money in the pockets of responsible people.
The member for Port Darwin, on 26 November 2003, said the CLP supported CDL.
Some clear support for CDL. However, it was strange during the second reading debate where the shadow minister – now minister – seemed not to be entirely sold on CDL and looked for a bob each way, potentially with a mix of CDL and a product stewardship scheme.
I cannot help but think that in opposition – and I am not the only one – the CLP’s continual carping and complaining about the scheme, when it had become legislation, gave the green light to suppliers to challenge the scheme. They were the naysayers determined to find fault with it and see it fall over. Some with a vested interest in the industry group got on board. Some would say the lack of support from the minister, when in opposition, may have contributed to undermining the scheme. Now he is positioning himself as the saviour and champion of the scheme. Well, good on him!
More recently, the communique from the meeting of Environment ministers on 28 April, the first since the 2013 federal election and change of government, informs that ministers failed to back a national container deposit scheme. The Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment told the ABC on 1 May 2014 it will be better to have a national scheme because it will be more efficient. Did the minister representing the Territory, and Territorians, argue in favour of a national scheme at the meeting? Did he put it to the meeting of Environment ministers from jurisdictions around the country? Did he make the point the Northern Territory scheme continues to grow and has strong support from Territorians? Did he argue that the other states should join the Northern Territory and South Australia, which has had a scheme in place for more than three decades, and extend our container deposit schemes to their jurisdictions?
If not, why? If he did, why he was not able to convince his Liberal Party colleagues from other states of the benefits he believes there would be for a national scheme? I look forward, as he wraps this debate, to his response to these questions.
On 30 January 2014, the minister’s media release said the Environment Protection Authority would conduct a:
It is important to put on the record who was consulted and why it was such a small industry focus group. Why were no other stakeholders, such as users – those who use container depots – afforded the opportunity to provide advice into the consultation? Maybe I am wrong and they were involved. I ask you to address the consultation campaign you talked about with industry.
It would be remiss of me not to touch on mutual recognition during my contribution to this debate. The minister referred to a declaration by the federal court that components of the act were inconsistent with the Mutual Recognition Act 1992.
At the time of the legal challenge the opposition offered full support to continue the fight to keep Cash for Containers going in the Territory. The former shadow minister for the environment, my colleague the member for Nightcliff, said in a media release on 4 March 2013:
Resolving the mutual recognition matter was relatively straightforward. It is clear a mutual recognition exemption for the scheme was required and why a temporary exemption was put in place. In his media release of 11 April 2013, the minister said he was out to score one last signature from all Australian jurisdictions for the Territory’s bid to get a Commonwealth exemption to keep the popular container recycling scheme going. In that media release he said:
The question the minister needs to answer is why contact had not been made with Tasmania earlier so arrangements could be put in place before the end of the temporary exemption.
I will quote from the Northern Territory Container Deposit Scheme Decision Regulation Impact Statement which was required as part of the process to seek permanent mutual recognition exemption. It found:
The amendments in the bill introduced to parliament are not related to the mutual recognition matter but are strongly focused on splits, sorts and arrangements between co-ordinators and depots.
Prior to the introduction of Cash for Containers the Territory had a particularly low rate of recycling by national standards in the municipal, that is domestic and at home sector, and the commercial, that is hospitality, and institutional sectors, which is away from home. The Territory’s recycling rate was approximately 3.5% while the national rate was approximately 48%. As I said in my opening, the rate for the October/December 2013 quarter was 38.83%. That is an incredible increase and clear indication of the popularity of the scheme and the number of Territorians wanting to take it up. It is not only to recycle containers to get 10 c back in their pocket, but recognising the main beverage manufacturers should be responsible for the containers and taking them back, all the while reducing the impact of litter on our environment, parks, waterways and so on.
Poor recycling leads to environmental impacts such as litter and high clean-up costs, the loss of finite resources, elevated landfill costs and elevated environmental impacts in general. For these reasons it is our intention to support the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Amendment Bill and ask further questions about the provisions of the bill when we get to the committee stage.
I thank the minister’s office for providing a briefing on the bill, and I also thank staff of the NT Environment Protection Authority who attended the briefing and provided background as well as answering questions.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her contribution and support of the legislation.
A few things in your debate were more focused on politics than cleaning up rubbish in our community. I was gobsmacked you went anywhere near the mutual recognition process this side worked tirelessly on. Had that been dealt with earlier, as it should have, we would not have had to do anything.
I will answer a few of the questions you raised. Firstly, for the record, I will go over the purpose of the bill and the key features and benefits of this legislation. I am mindful of the time, and suggest we finish at 5.30 pm for General Business Day and continue afterwards.
The member for Nhulunbuy raised a couple of things in regard to the original intent and went to the trouble of reading the Parliamentary Record from the then Environment minister, minister Hampton. She is right; there is no difference in this legislation. The intent is the same as the original bill. However, I put to the Labor opposition that had the legislation not been rushed originally, we probably would not be in the mess we are and not had to do much of the work we have over the last 18 months.
You also mentioned my track record. That is pretty irrelevant, but for the record needs to be unpacked a little. The Country Liberals have a long relationship with and support for CDL. You failed to mention my trip to New Zealand and the depths I went to to uncover what was wrong with the legislation put forward. At no stage was I against CDL being a concept, I was against the model put forward by the Labor government. The model we are trying to fix today was what we complained about, not the concept of CDL and not the intent of the legislation.
To insinuate we had changed our mind about CDL or were pushing for other methods is disingenuous. The fact I travelled to New Zealand – I am sure the member for Nelson will back me up on this – the beverage company at the time – I think it was Lion Nathan and a number of others offered to pay for both the member for Nelson and me to travel to New Zealand to investigate their product stewardship program. They had spoken to me, and then Opposition Leader Terry Mills, about their programs. I spoke to the member for Nelson afterwards and he reminded me they had been talking about this process for years but never got around to introducing it. Anything they tried to do was seen as stall tactics.
However, I went to New Zealand to look at the product stewardship program. Some coordination was done by Lion Nathan and a committee to get me in front of the New Zealand Environment minister, also the secretary to the Environment, and Nicky Wagner, member for Christchurch, who was also deeply involved in the environment and the product stewardship program. For the first time I saw a concept working in New Zealand.
In opposition, our job is to investigate and hold government to account, which is what I was doing and why I travelled to New Zealand. The one thing I did not want to get caught up in was the company paying for my visit and the perception that my decision was based on them supporting that travel. I did not allow them to pay for it; I paid for the trip. This was to ensure there was no perception I was influenced in any way.
The model proposed for the Northern Territory, which I saw working in New Zealand, changed my view not on CDL, but on a model of recycling which could possibly work in the Northern Territory. What was I to do? Was I to come back to Darwin and not suggest alternative measures and programs? There are alternative programs and I still believe the product stewardship program has a place in recycling in Australia. Suggesting we have flipped, flopped and changed is not true.
It is a bit like the Ford or Holden model; they are both cars. CDL is a particular model. I did not think the model – and proven correct – you put forward would deliver everything you hoped it would or the intent you hoped.
No one denies CDL is a good concept and a good idea, but, as I have learnt since coming into government, had NRETAS had a bit more time to develop the model we would not be in the predicament we are today. I doubt we would have had problems with the Mutual Recognition Act had NRETAS had time to complete the process of negotiating with every state and territory, as well as the Commonwealth, to ensure they would not be in breach of legislation.
No, the government of the day rushed through the legislation and today history demonstrates it was clunky, and when tested in the courts it failed. This government and staff of the EPA worked damn hard chasing their tails trying to fix what was a mess in the first place.
The member for Nhulunbuy has a hide as thick as a buffalo to question our motives and support for CDL. It is trying to re-write history. The Country Liberals have always supported CDL; it was the model you put forward we had concerns with. Those concerns were correct because of what happened with the Mutual Recognition Act and the big beverage companies having too much control in operating the scheme. That caused many Territorians to not have faith in the program when it seemed to fail at every turn.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we start General Business Day, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 12, I hereby nominate the following members to act as Deputy Chairs of Committees: Mr Gerry Wood and Mr Nathan Barrett.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I move that this House expresses its support for the investigation into the feasibility of a gas pipeline which connects the Northern Territory with the Australian eastern seaboard.
The Australian domestic gas market is characterised by three separate pipeline systems, the smallest of which is in the Northern Territory. The major pipeline traversing the Northern Territory is the Amadeus gas pipeline. This valuable piece of infrastructure is 1640 km-odd in length with a capacity of approximately 30 PJ per month. There are spurs from this pipeline going to Wadeye, McArthur River and Alice Springs. This pipeline enables a supply of gas-generated electricity to Territory regional centres, such as Tennant Creek, and Katherine along the route of the haulage pipeline.
I was in the Territory when establishment of this pipeline was taking place. I found an article by Barry Wood and will read part of that to give people some history on this:
Those who were around at the time remember the old diesel power station at Stokes Hill. If we think our recent blackout was bad, they should have been around then. Further:
The pipeline transports gas from the offshore Blacktip gas field to Darwin. The Blacktip field goes from Wadeye, Alice Springs and the regional centres of Katherine and Tennant Creek, principally to fuel power generation in the Northern Territory. Gas is delivered in the Amadeus pipeline via the Bonaparte gas pipeline, into the infrastructure investment at Ban Ban Springs, and flows north to Darwin and south to Alice Springs.
I mentioned APA purchased that on 17 June 2011, and remind members the Treasurer issued a media release on 26 March 2014 saying how the Labor government could have bought this pipeline for $57.8m. However, they rejected the opportunity to secure the infrastructure asset despite the purchase price being only three years’ worth of payments to lease the asset.
The west and east coast markets have also been served by markets which were structurally separated. Today there have been some plans to connect these networks. I did some digging around – Epic Energy was the hint – and found a media release dated 23 June 1997 by the then Minister for Mines and Energy, Hon Daryl Manzie. In that media release he said the potential demand for natural gas supplied from the Timor Sea into northern and eastern Australia would be assessed in a study conducted by the Northern Territory government and Epic Energy.
Announcing the study, the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy, Hon Daryl Manzie, said the Territory was set to enter a new and exciting era in the development of gas and energy infrastructure and marketing – I am going back to 1997 here.
Hon Daryl Manzie said it was the Northern Territory government’s vision that Timor Sea gas would increasingly be used in northern Australia in the short term, and throughout southern and eastern Australia in the longer term. It was a vision way back in 1997.
Mr Manzie also said that as Australia’s demand for natural gas was expected to triple by 2013, the study would be important in building on recent studies and in mapping the early market opportunities for the Timor Sea gas. He also stated Australian demand for gas was expected to rise from 784 PJ in 1995-96 to around 2100 PJ in 2029-30.
At that time, Opposition Leader Maggie Hickey said, if feasible, the proposed open access pipeline development would require an investment of around $1.2bn to $2bn. That shows this was not a small visionary project.
In the more recent past, plans for a transcontinental pipeline from gas-rich Western Australia to the east coast have been mooted on occasions. However, these have been discounted on the basis of development over the past 10 years of a vast quantity of coal seam gas in Queensland.
This gas is different to what we are looking at in the NT, which is shale gas. In the current economic climate a number of companies are exploring the notion of connecting gas reserves in the Northern Territory to the country’s eastern seaboard.
The idea to connect the Territory to the east coast network has been in the public domain for some time now – as far back as 1997 – and it is anticipated the benefits of a connection would flow in both directions. The rationale to connect has been driven by the dynamic space for gas supply on the east coast. This infrastructure will potentially stimulate investment in gas production in and around the Territory which can be transported east.
In particular, New South Wales is currently 95% dependent upon its neighbours for its gas supplies. Existing long-term gas contracts are coming to an end so the state is facing a potential supply shortage. Companies and government agencies are both concerned New South Wales could face a gas supply shortage around 2015-17. There is no shortage of gas in the ground, but there is a concern about getting it to the New South Wales market on a peak day of gas demand.
The Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future was advised the potential amount of gas in the Northern Territory is enough to power a city of one million people for a period of 50 years; there is a fair bit around.
Overall, the current domestic demand in eastern Australia is set to triple by 2017. Unfortunately I do not have figures to compare that to what Hon Daryl Manzie said in 1997. As a result, gas prices are steadily rising from their historic levels of approximately $4 per gigajoule to oil-linked export parity levels.
Recently the Australian Industry Group surveyed gas users in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia on the experience of obtaining gas contracts in the current market. Sixty-two responded. Of the respondents to the survey, the average price for existing gas contracts was around $4.80 per gigajoule. Twenty nine respondents were seeking to renew or add to existing gas contracts – all those offered contracts received offers at prices above the current average. Of particular note, customers who wanted long-term contracts – more than two years – or contracts commencing after 2013 were quoted an average price of $8.70 per gigajoule – almost double. The price is much higher than the average price of $5.10 per gigajoule for short-term contracts – less than two years from 2013.
To some extent the higher price for gas contracts beyond 2015 reflects the broader state of the gas market – a shortage. Having established there is a buoyant market, the next challenge surrounding the feasibility of a proposed pipeline connecting the Territory to the east coast grid is to deliver gas at a competitive price in the market. There has been a strong indicative interest in creating such a link across the board from producers, customers and government.
The Country Liberal government of the Northern Territory has advocated its support for a connection into the east coast gas grid for some time. In 2013, the Territory government held talks on the proposal with ENI, CDF Suez, Santos and INPEX, all of which are significant gas resource holders in the Northern Territory. To date, a number of proposals have been put forward by various proponents to connect the Territory to the east coast. One proposal is to build an entirely new pipeline with considerable capacity to connect the existing Amadeus gas pipeline. Connecting a new or existing pipeline would provide the backbone for additional security of supply.
One company which has publicly announced plans is the APA group, the owner of the Amadeus gas pipeline – could have been the Northern Territory government. The APA group has launched a feasibility study for a $1bn gas pipeline which would connect fields in Australia’s Northern Territory with markets on the eastern seaboard.
APA is Australia’s largest gas infrastructure owner. It has committed almost $2m to studying two options to connect its existing Amadeus gas pipeline in the Northern Territory with its east coast network. The APA group has identified two potential routes: a northern route and a southern route. The northern route would involve a 700 km connection from the Amadeus pipeline to the Carpentaria pipeline in Queensland at a cost of approximately $900m.
The alternative southern route would run 111 km from Amadeus to the Moomba gas-producing hub, which currently supplies the eastern markets in New South Wales and Victoria through existing infrastructure owned by APA. The cost of the southern route is approximately $1.3bn. The proposed connection will expand APA’s network and, potentially, provide customers in eastern Australia, southern Australia and the Northern Territory with gas from any source between the Timor Sea and the Bass Strait. According to APA, they are positioning themselves to negotiate commercial terms with gas shippers and make a financial investment decision on the project some time in the next two years.
Naturally, as with all APA’s existing pipelines, the proposed connection would be an open access pipeline that would be used by any producer, retailer or gas consumer consistent with the regulatory framework. The regulatory framework governing Australia’s gas market is set out in the natural gas law, NGL, and associated national gas rules, NGR. The NGL is underpinned by the national gas objective, which is to promote the efficient investment in, and efficient operation and use of, natural gas services for the long-term interest of consumers of natural gas with respect to price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply of natural gas.
Support for investigation into the feasibility of a gas pipeline which connects the Northern Territory with Australia’s eastern seaboard is in the interest of all Territorians. Just as the above investment in the Amadeus Basin gas pipeline in the mid-1980s drove development of the Territory’s gas reserves, reduced the cost of electricity to Territorians and created new jobs, not least of which allowed mines such as Woodcutters at McArthur to go ahead, connecting the Territory to the eastern seaboard will provide further investment economic opportunities.
Therefore, I move that this House supports my motion to express support to investigate the feasibility of such a pipeline. Thank you.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, people will expect me, as a member of the opposition, to spend the next 30 minutes rubbishing this proposal and saying why it cannot be done, should not be done and why it is wrong. I support this sensible motion.
It is about time we explore any option to expand the gas network from the Territory to the rest of Australia, or the rest of Australia to the Territory. I agree that natural gas is the future of the Territory for many reasons, not only as liquefied natural gas but also as potential for a chemical industry in the Northern Territory.
I support the idea of connecting to the eastern seaboard or to the south. However, my prediction is if there is a gas pipeline it will be from the Amadeus gas fields to the south because Moomba is currently run by Santos. Santos has invested a significant amount of money in Central Petroleum to explore in the Amadeus Basin south of Alice Springs. Central Petroleum, in one exploration well a few years ago, discovered oil and had 400 barrels a day coming out of it. With the money provided by Santos, exploration has been accelerated and they recently discovered more oil of a higher quantity than expected, and soon they expect to find gas.
As the member opposite said, infrastructure from Moomba to the eastern seaboard – Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia – already exists, and it is in Santos’ financial interests to explore the Amadeus Basin and bring gas to Moomba.
The option to bring gas to or from Queensland to the Territory – with a pipeline you can have gas here – is an alternative. Queensland currently uses a lot of gas for power generation, together with coal, or for export as LNG. We have a clear pipeline from Alice Springs to Darwin with a 100 m corridor providing options to anyone wanting to construct more pipelines in that corridor to provide gas for industry, and for liquefied natural gas to be exported to other countries.
You might ask why it was not done previously. No government 10 or 20 years ago could have imagined the demand for liquefied natural gas from Japan or China and exploration techniques were not as advanced as today. Companies can now explore in significant depths underwater, or in significant depths into solid earth like they have in the past.
I will not waste your time or mine rubbishing this proposal. It is a good and sensible motion and the opposition supports it. This House needs to support the exploration opportunities to link the Territory to the gas networks in the eastern or southern seaboards of Australia.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I welcome support from the members opposite. Frankly, I would have been surprised if it had been otherwise because, whilst I am highly critical of many Labor policies, during the period they were the government I welcomed the work they did in gas exploration. I acknowledge the former Labor government, especially the former Chief Minister Clare Martin, in taking advantage of a slight opportunity and turning it into the deal struck with INPEX, and managing to steal, for lack of better words, access to the Ichthys field and perhaps the whole of the Browse Basin. Ichthys and the Browse Basin, whilst located in the same place, are two different things. Ichthys is a single development by INPEX, which we all know about.
There is no point talking about that today, but the Browse Basin is substantially larger than just the Ichthys field and, I understand, highly prospective. A number of fields have been firmed up in that area. That being the case, I look forward to more gas coming to Darwin because – I will not speak for INPEX, but who knows what it will do with its 42 inch pipe travelling the 900 km from that field into Darwin. That gas is spoken for; what is mooted to come down that pipeline will go to Japan. This motion contemplates another concept entirely, and that is onshore gas.
I was never critical of the Labor government for not insisting on what the Western Australia government did: gas reservation. Whilst it was not quite what people know gas reservation to be, it was enough to create INPEX sufficient concern to make it the straw that broke the camel’s back. This saw INPEX come to the Northern Territory and is something I am grateful for. An industry in the form of ConocoPhillips and the Bayu-Undan field had now substantially expanded.
Both ConocoPhillips and INPEX have offshore customers so we do not yet, under these arrangements, have a cigarette lighter’s worth of gas coming onshore. That has been a matter of public comment and debate and has created the catalyst to use gas for future development of the industry in the Northern Territory. I recall Roger Vale, the driving force behind building the Amadeus pipeline from Central Australia to Darwin, having screaming matches in Cabinet trying to convince his colleagues we should not go to coal or oil when they moved from Stokes Hill, but convert to gas.
It turns out, God rest Roger Vale’s soul, he was a lot more insightful than people gave him credit for. In the process of satisfying Darwin’s energy needs he created an environment which today sees us in a position to take advantage of his legacy and make overtures into other areas in Australia based on the existing pipeline. This is because of his foresight at that time.
I remember seeing the gas fields for the first time as a young police officer working out of Hermannsburg. I went to the Palm Valley well heads to watch State of Origin rugby on the hill. It was unique technology in those days to receive a TV program broadcast so remotely. It was something else – I sound like a dinosaur – but it reminds me that gas was developed by both governments over the years. We now have, for domestic reasons alone, one of the greatest opportunities before us, tantalisingly close but out of reach – unification with the gas matrix of the rest of the nation.
The member for Casuarina mentioned Santos and further exploration, and I understand they are producing oil from those fields. I remember the Mereenie fields were producing crude oil of such a grade they were pouring it straight into their diesel trucks and driving around because it was so light. That will be the nature of much of the oil they pull out of wells in Central Australia. If there is oil in them thar hills – we know there is gas in them thar hills – we are a short distance away from substantial markets.
Those markets are – as described by the members for Daly and Casuarina – close by and there are two options. We either go south or east to get our gas into those marketplaces. Understanding we have enough gas in particular fields to produce sufficient energy to satisfy the demands of a city of one million people for 50 years means we have a substantial resource close by. However, that is the existing demand in other places.
One thing I would like to see in the Northern Territory is creation of a local demand for gas. I am not necessarily talking about reticulation of gas into individual households, but the use of gas for a manufacturing industry.
One of the great shortcomings of the Territory economy is it has been resource-based, tourism-based and welfare-based for such a long time. The time has come for the Northern Territory to broaden its economic footprint, and by doing so it must turn its eye to manufacturing. We heard comments from the member for Casuarina today about chemical industries. That is a reference to Dow, which was recently looking at potential establishment into the future. Dow continues to keep one eye firmly fixed on the Northern Territory, but has a requirement for particular types of gas, or material cracked out of that gas, which is not immediately available through ConocoPhillips and INPEX because of the market share and market structure they have in place. If we could create a domestic gas demand which could satisfy companies like Dow Chemical Company I would welcome it.
The Territory’s economic history is a predictable roller coaster in that we have a boom-bust cycle which goes back as long as I have lived here. You see expansion, a slight contraction, greater expansion then a slighter contraction, and each period of expansion is larger than the period of contraction. Historically, that has caused a great deal of pain. During the recession we had to have the then Northern Territory government was forced to pump-prime the Territory economy in a serious way, particularly in Darwin because businesses were really hurting. The decision was taken during that period to build the building we stand in today. This building remains a testimony to the boom-bust cycle of the Territory economy.
If, however, we had an economy based not only on income derived from resource exportation, the tourist dollar and, sadly, a welfare dollar, but a manufacturing basis, we would have an economy much more resilient to the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune when it comes to positioning the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory needs a manufacturing sector. If we want to compete with places like Sydney and Melbourne, we must do so on their terms. If we want an entre into the Southeast Asia environment we must do so on the basis we have a broad enough based economy to successfully compete. If we do not we will expose ourselves to a continuing boom-bust cycle depending on the different factors that drive growth and contraction in the Northern Territory. Those things are often driven by factors well beyond our borders, including the manufacturing and infrastructure demands of other jurisdictions, including other countries.
Nevertheless, it remains a great truism that people still need to eat, and to eat they have to cook food. If other jurisdictions want to turn air conditioners on in summer or heaters in winter, they will need energy to change their domestic environment. These are constants, the stuff of life. Like bread, gas and electricity are what people in other jurisdictions are used to.
Creating access to those markets would create an environment in which exploration in the Territory would be stimulated substantially. On the back of that, our manufacturing industry could be born. Gas export interstate is something we should all strive to achieve. This is a commonsense suggestion by the member for Daly and I welcome him bringing it into this House.
I also welcome the comments from the member for Casuarina, as brief as they were, to support a straightforward and commonsense motion. The Northern Territory needs to grow up and set its terms more effectively then is historically has.
Gas, particularly along a pipeline like the Amadeus, offers opportunity for communities close to the pipeline. What those opportunities might look like I cannot be certain. However, with the future demand on land, particularly land being expensive in major cities, there may be opportunities for people or organisations living along a corridor, where cheap transport in the form of a railway, cheap energy in the form of gas and cheap land in the form of a large environment like the Northern Territory with a population of 250 000 people – there is a capacity in that environment to offer a commercial operator something not readily available in larger cities: cheap land, cheap gas and cheap transport.
I hope places like Ti Tree look at the potential of an energy sector in their part of the world, particularly with the horticultural and agricultural products coming from Ti Tree. Whilst the grape and other farms in that area have struggled from time to time financially, one of the great factors for them has been the cost of running diesel or purchasing electricity at commercial rates.
That could change if gas was readily available. It would be even better if they could value-add their product on site by canning or processing the raw produce into a much more manageable size. If you value-add the produce you put much less on the train and the product is worth much more in the marketplace. If you can do it in Ti Tree, you can do it in Tennant Creek and places where cheap energy could be the difference between being economically viable or not.
For those reasons, and many more I could discuss at length, this motion needs to be supported and explored. It is indicative it has been brought forward by a private member on this side of a government which says it is open for business because it is. This government is open for business and proudly so.
This party has supported business in the Northern Territory in the past and will continue to do so in the future. The members opposite accuse us of having it writ large in our DNA – guilty as charged. We believe in the value-adding that business can bring to communities as well as people. The Territory I moved to in the late 1960s is a fundamentally different place today.
By the time I pass from this life I predict the Territory will be unrecognisable compared to today. I will be proud to have been part of a government which took steps in that direction. I am sure members of the Labor Party will be proud of what they did with the INPEX development on the back of the Bayu-Undan ConocoPhillips development, which was built on the back of the original pipeline from the Amadeus Basin when gas was first discovered. This will grow. If you want a sense of the change this will bring to Darwin and the Northern Territory as a whole, look at Bass Strait in the 1960s and 1970s and the production which occurred at the time. You will get a clear picture of what the Northern Territory will undergo in the not-so-distant future.
Let us not be afraid, startled or overwhelmed by it, let us embrace it. Make sure we manage it effectively for the people of the Northern Territory, but embrace it nevertheless. Every time I look at my daughters, I wonder what their life will be like. If I can make sure an environment exists where through their skills, talents, passion and drive they have a future because of the economic legacy I leave behind, I will be grateful and proud. Whilst I talk about economic issues, I see them as the extension of the human condition as a way to fulfil human ambition, which is why we need to be careful with money. We also need to understand we have to generate wealth so human ambitions and desires can be realised.
You cannot legislate for a passion for life. You cannot, by a whole-of-government policy, generate a desire to achieve. It has to be driven from within and the rewards need to be available to people so they may enjoy the benefits of their labours, and their families, children and grandchildren will enjoy the benefits of their labours in an environment they can build upon.
We are not in the business of merely reaching an end point. We want to protect our part of the continuum which sees the human endeavour step forward every generation and makes sure the generation succeeding the one before enjoys a better standard of living, better quality of health, and better life all round.
This is an important step forward and I am grateful to the member for bringing it to this House. It is a small part of a much larger picture.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, you have to read this motion carefully. It says this House expresses its support for investigation into the feasibility of connecting the gas pipeline to the eastern seaboard, and I support it. Feasibility would raise many questions from when the study was done. We are a long way from the eastern seaboard. Probably the closest manufacturing area is Mt Isa, which runs its own private power grid. It supplies power to Cloncurry and the town of Mt Isa. I imagine it would be the most logical place for a pipeline to go through to connect to the eastern seaboard.
The member for Port Darwin raised some interesting things about the manufacturing industry. Manufacturing requires energy. I asked a question today about the abattoir at Livingstone. Its intention is to use gas from Santos and run its own power unit. Gas enables us to operate and expand manufacturing, especially in the Darwin region.
Theoretically, if you look at feasibility of a gas pipeline, look at the feasibility of what it would cost to run gas to communities like Gove. Unfortunately the pipeline did not happen but it should be looked at. The Alcoa plant still exists and some operations will occur at Gove; it has not closed down altogether. If a gas pipeline was extended to Gove, what opportunities are there for extending branches to some of the communities, many of which are totally reliant on diesel? Expand the notion of a gas pipeline not just to the eastern seaboard, but the possibility of it going to remote communities.
It also opens up the question of whether we should send gas to the eastern seaboard. Do they need gas? That is something you need to look at because PNG is just coming on board. I think LNG is produced there, and I understand some gas may be coming into Queensland from PNG. Part of your feasibility study could be to see if there is a demand. Is plenty of gas available without building a pipeline? You do not want a white elephant. You need to make sure there is a demand for gas. Is gas the right product? The Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future has a lot of work to do.
Many years ago, the leader of the Labor government, Clare Martin, announced – I will always remember it – when INPEX was coming, that gas was clean. Gas is not clean; it is just less dirty than coal. It still puts quite a bit of carbon into the atmosphere. I am concerned we live in a comfort zone in the Territory. A lot of shale gas in the Northern Territory can be extracted through fracking.
We have had reports from the Beetaloo area near Borroloola that there is enough gas to supply some of our cities for a long period. However, if we do not ask if we should promote use of gas and what result that will have on the environment we are living in a cocoon. We send a lot of gas to Japan; however, the Northern Territory takes up all the carbon dioxide from that gas beforehand. The question is: do we look at using gas for other alternatives?
I have just returned from a tour of Europe and know natural gas is sometimes mixed with hydrogen to produce a cleaner fuel. It is cleaner than using gas on its own.
Also, should we be looking at other fuels completely? One of the main reasons I went to Germany was to look at the possible development of hydrogen and fuel cells as alternative sources of electricity for small communities. For some, that might sound theoretical, but we are working down that path at present. I do not want to go into that debate too much, except to say I believe hydrogen energy will be the fuel of the future because it is clean. I am concerned we do not lock ourselves into a position where gas, because we have plenty of it, is the only alternative we worry about. Do we put alternative possibilities out for discussion or do we shut down discussion about innovation? Do we put ourselves in the too-easy basket, with open for business as the member for Port Darwin said? However, are we open for sustainable business?
It is a bit like competition. Are we open for competition or open for ethical competition? There are downsides to both those statements. If we think this is the way to go ahead, we are open for business, we have plenty of it, it is a cheap way to provide energy and we do not look any further, we do ourselves disfavour.
In the short term gas is probably our best alternative because some of the other alternatives, whilst promising and can help, still have a fair way to go to replace a cheaper and more efficient energy source which, at the present time, is gas.
We have many remote communities and some of us have heard a few ideas. One is that some remote communities may be able to run their own gas plant from shale gas nearby. Some companies have said they may be able to produce small gas plants close to communities so there is no need to bring gas in via pipeline or truck; they produce their own gas for the community. An interesting part of a feasibility study would be to see if that is economical.
We knocked the idea of bringing diesel into a community, but most vehicles out bush run on diesel. Diesel has to come into the community anyway. Do we look at other sources of energy for vehicles? At the moment most vehicles are run on diesel or petrol. If you want to bring gas into the community would you be better to run vehicles on gas?
I go back to the other alternative of looking at hydrogen and fuel cells. Hydrogen could be produced on site.
I raise those issues in a general way because the member for Daly raised a good point: the possibility of moving gas to the rest of Australia. However, broader questions need to be asked and I do not want to, in discussions about where the Territory is going in relation to energy – whether it is for us or for export – put aside some of the longer-term questions we have to look at.
Gas is not clean; gas is a dirty form of energy. It is just not as dirty as some other forms of energy.
I thank the member for Daly for bringing this on. Will the government, in supporting the member’s motion, do something about it?
These are nice words. Will the government put some money into an investigation? Will it expand the role of the body undertaking the investigation? It is a fairly narrow investigation; it just talks about taking gas to the eastern states. If we have an investigation it should be broadened. It may not take up the issues I raised, but it could see if we need gas in the Northern Territory for manufacturing and what manufacturing options could be available in various parts of the Territory. What options are there for gas in communities – if we build a pipeline down the centre and to the east – which may piggyback off a gas pipeline?
It is good to have this idea put forward by the member for Daly. If the government supports it when will it move ahead with this motion, what will the framework of the investigation be, who will do it and what will it cost? That would be worth discussing in this debate. Thank you.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly, Gary Higgins, for bringing this extremely important motion on.
I am surprised the opposition is not speaking on this. This is a fundamental opportunity to broadly develop and build the Northern Territory economy. I make lots of speeches on a range of things promoting the Northern Territory, seeking foreign investment – foreign to the Northern Territory – to help build our economy and create jobs. It is not just jobs for today, but jobs for our kids in the future.
When we look at the size and scale of the INPEX project in the Northern Territory, something like $36bn – albeit not all that money has come to the Territory, most is spent overseas or interstate, but a fairly large sum in the Northern Territory – and we look at how we classify that project. I classify it as the largest project in the Northern Territory and very important to our industry sector.
Of course, it is built on the back of Darwin LNG and Bayu-Undan, when wise men and women in the CLP in the 1980s and 1990s set the Northern Territory and Darwin as a gas hub. I remember hearing about the INPEX lease being granted, I think it was 1996. It has taken all this time to come to fruition and we still do not have gas coming out, but today INPEX is the number one economic project in the Northern Territory. A potential gas pipeline opportunity could be the number two project in the Northern Territory to support our economy.
We know how the economy works in the Northern Territory. As at today, Darwin is bubbling along quite well, albeit a few small businesses are not doing as well as others. However, our employment rate is ranging between 1.3% and 1.9% depending on which trend analysis you use. In the greater Darwin area it is so low you can identify the number of people without a job and pinpoint them to help get them jobs. It is a fundamental issue we have from an employment perspective, but it shows the significance of the growth opportunities and the economic diversity within the Northern Territory.
When you look outside what is happening in Darwin and the future growth prospects, you see how things are operating in Katherine. Katherine’s economy is bubbling along quite well. Alice Springs has had a significant downturn in the level of crime and is now restabilising itself and creating new direction from an economic point. You will see substantial change in the Central Australian economy in years to come, particularly around tourism, but also mining and other opportunities within the transport sector.
Tennant Creek has not been well supported for the last decade. It had a $36.5m investment into NPARIH – the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. That injected some money for a short period time, but the $36.5m, much to the surprise of everyone in the nation, did not produce another bedroom in Tennant Creek and has left it reeling, from an economic point of view. We need to work out how to drive economic stimulus in places like Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, then look at beyond the borders or the Stuart Highway.
Putting Uluru to the side and acknowledging the issues Gove has with Rio Tinto’s decision around the alumina refinery, we see a poor level of private sector jobs. We need to create jobs in those areas.
This is where the pipeline can come in. We also need to look at where the gas industry is in Australia. Fundamentally, there is no domestic wholesale market of gas in Australia, which presents an issue. For example, if a factory, house or small business wants to connect to electricity they plug the cord into the power point, to keep it simple. However, if a factory wanted gas to create power for its business it cannot just sign up and receive it. You have to enter into a long-term contract with a gas provider. The gas provider needs to identify that gas, because, on most occasions, gas companies do not have a reserve where people can just tap in and get gas.
The prime example was what happened in Gove where the innuendo was that the refinery needed gas. To identify where that gas would come from was a challenge because there were no developed gas fields ready to go. If it was just building a pipeline to connect gas from the deposit straight into Gove it would have been a much simpler argument because the market would have resolved itself. However, quite simply, the gas was not there.
We looked at ERA at Jabiru and its desire to move towards gas powered stations. That was a challenge for them because we were holding back the gas for Gove.
The idea of alternate power generation providers presenting themselves in the Top End had to be put on hold while we held all the gas for Gove. Many suspected the refinery would not go ahead under a gas powered electricity supply arrangement.
With that not going ahead, some gas is available from Santos down south and other gas is available around the Northern Territory. It shows that without a domestic gas market there is a challenge. Whether there will be a domestic gas wholesale market people can tap into remains to be seen.
I will not go into technical details, but the way it works around the world at the moment is there is a high enough demand for gas at the international level to drive prices to levels much higher than domestic gas usage in Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory. Japan will pay a higher price than Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria or any other jurisdiction in the country for gas to fire up their power stations.
If you put that into the context of what is happening in Gladstone, gas trains are being built to take much of the shale and coal seam gas out through the Port of Gladstone. Those trains require gas to fill their capacity and companies are working feverishly to do that.
There is an argument in Australia around whether we should be reserving our gas for Australians or selling it at market conditions. There is a balance there. We should be selling it to the market – that is what the free market is all about – but we need to make sure we do not jeopardise the future of Australia from an economic point of view – how we get cheap enough power – and look after the environment. Do we keep burning coal or do we work towards a greener fuel provider to make electricity in regard to gas?
We need to do that, but to reach that point we have to open sufficient gas opportunities in Australia to have a supply versus demand equation which will keep downward pressures on the supply and price of gas.
We know to our north there is an abundance of gas deposits waiting to be developed. I would be happy to speak more about those quite soon. The member uses a range of figures, but I use the figure of approximately 260 trillion cubic feet of gas in shale gas reserves available in the Northern Territory. To put that into a broader perspective, one trillion cubic feet of gas is estimated to power a population of around one million people for 20 years. If we have an estimated 260 trillion cubic feet of gas within shale gas reserves in the Northern Territory we must look at facilitating its exploration and development. That is where the idea of the pipeline comes in, and we have promoted this for quite a while.
It was something we promoted to the federal government. Ian Macfarlane, federal minister for Resources, took to the federal election campaign, as shadow minister, a $1m commitment going towards Infrastructure Australia to investigate the feasibility of a pipeline connecting the Northern Territory to the rest of Australia. I am not sure if the $1m and Infrastructure Australia will be required, because we are now setting market conditions to enable the private sector to get involved.
I will explain a little about the pipeline infrastructure in Australia in broad terms. A pipeline runs from Alice Springs to Darwin, and there is a side pipeline across to Borroloola for McArthur River mine. The Alice Springs to Darwin pipeline is known as the Amadeus pipeline, and, if we set Western Australia aside, pipeline network infrastructure runs between Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. The skeletal system of a gas pipeline provides the opportunity to distribute gas around the country. It also provides the opportunity to get into areas where there are gas deposits, whether that is coal seam, shale or conventional gas, to get that to market.
In some cases you might have a gas deposit in one part of the country where the pipeline network is and you want to get it where the customer is. There does not have to be the same gas flow from one point to the other. There is swap gas, where the pipeline operator can move gas around so there is less transportation cost. This can keep the price of gas down.
On the domestic power supply front we see New South Wales – I will not go into too much technical detail – will run out of 90% of its gas supply in the next three years, limiting its ability to produce electricity for the state. Victoria is not in as dire a situation as New South Wales. It is looking at future gas supplies at the end of its contract with power generation suppliers.
At the moment in New South Wales there is a big debate about coal seam gas, and some companies have deposits over coal seam gas opportunities. A growing debate in NSW is putting pressure on the government about whether it will proceed with coal seam gas or look for alternative options. Some of those alternate options would definitely be coal which, from a Northern Territory point of view, we do not want. We would like to see New South Wales remain with gas and acknowledge if it is not moving forward – politically or otherwise – with the exploration and development of coal seam gas deposits it may have, any gas it procures from overseas or interstate may have to compete on the international price market. That would cause concern about power prices in New South Wales increasing.
We have lobbied to link the Northern Territory to the eastern seaboard pipeline network. Initially we produced some design concepts, with a range of people looking at those opportunities. One goes from Tennant Creek to Mt Isa, around 740 km in length. One goes from Wauchope to an area near Longreach in Queensland and is slightly longer than the 740 km. My preferred model goes from Alice Springs to Moomba in South Australia.
Moomba is somewhat of a transaction point where pipelines come together. Moomba links into New South Wales and distributes throughout the eastern seaboard network. I prefer Alice Springs to Moomba over Tennant Creek to Mt Isa as it would serve two purposes, and I do not want to put any at jeopardy. Tennant Creek to Mt Isa could distribute gas into Queensland to support the exploration of gas and the international market to Gladstone. Supporting the free market is a good thing, but if we want to support New South Wales, and potentially Victoria into the future, the distribution of gas through to Moomba presents greater opportunities for the Northern Territory to open up our gas. It would also support the domestic front and keep prices down in New South Wales and Victoria. The price pressures through Gladstone would probably go towards the international market, albeit creating many jobs for the Northern Territory but not presenting solutions for the domestic gas requirements of Australia.
There could be an opportunity where three pipeline networks become viable into the future. However, at this stage we should be working on one model. The APA Group is looking at a $2m feasibility study on some pipelines. The APA Group owns and operates around 80% of Australia’s gas pipelines. The other company is Enbridge, a Canadian company and the world’s second-largest pipeline operator. I do not believe it has assets in Australia and is looking at how they can come into Australia. No matter which company gets involved – at this stage the government is not involved, apart from lobbying for this investment, because we believe it will be good for the Territory and the country. We are not involved in the process just in lobbying and trying to facilitate development.
This is important to this motion because if you connect the pipeline between Tennant Creek and Mt Isa, or my preference of Alice Springs to Moomba, it has the opportunity to connect us to the rest of the country. That makes some of the fields there at the moment – the basins, the leases, the deposits known and unknown – more viable for development and exploration.
While promoting the pipeline operation and potential building of that pipeline, we are also looking at what we can do to facilitate the development and exploration of the leases we have in the Northern Territory. My colleague, the minister for mining and resources, will go into detail about the percentage of the Northern Territory under development and exploration right now.
There are plenty of opportunities and the number of leases being issued or under negotiation for issue is substantial. Leases have been issued for many years for some companies and we have recently released a policy called ‘use it or lose it’. This means if you have an exploration lease for a gas deposit we expect in the tenure of that lease, whether it be a five-year tenure or otherwise, you to develop a work program of what you are doing to explore that potential deposit and how you can move that exploration into development phase. The ‘use it or lose it’ policy, from a philosophical and a regulatory point of view, says after your tenure there is an opportunity for the Northern Territory government to take back 50% of the lease and issue it to somebody else with a new work schedule we believe can move that exploration to a development phase.
We have recently moved through the first process of our ‘use it or lose it’ policy. One company has had to relinquish some title and we are just about to re-offer the remaining title to other companies. We are talking about sizeable pieces of land in the Northern Territory on which we want to see infrastructure development.
As the pipeline reaches a point where it can be built and builds a market case for itself, we believe companies will be not just motivated by the ‘use it or lose it’ policy, not just motivated by our no domestic gas reservation policy, but also motivated by the potential to earn a dollar from developing that deposit.
Of the six basins in the Northern Territory and some of the quite exciting deposits, we are trying to facilitate movement from companies warehousing their leases to a point where they will start developing their leases. When they develop their leases it will create jobs. The work schedules over the five-year programs for some of the leases are hundreds of millions of dollars.
There was an announcement recently by Falcon Energy, which has a lease in the Beetaloo Basin and has negotiated a farming agreement with Sasol and Origin Energy, who many would know – you would not know Sasol, a big company on the international stage. There is a farming agreement and …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: Thank you, member for Sanderson and Minister for Transport and also Infrastructure. I know you are keen to hear this. Was that a 20 or 30-minute extension I received?
Madam SPEAKER: It was 10.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am sure the member for Wanguri would like me to keep talking because I like talking about this subject.
There was an announcement recently about Falcon having a farming agreement with both Sasol and Origin Energy. Within the agreement will be a work schedule. I will not go into the details of that work schedule for confidentiality reasons. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars in the work schedule. We want that to reach a point where, in five years’ time, they move into a development phase. When hundreds of millions of dollars is spent on exploration, albeit these deposits near Beetaloo Basin are close to the Stuart Highway and infrastructure, they spend money on drill rigs, personnel, workers’ camps, fuel, maintenance and food, and it builds into our economy.
The pipeline which could potentially be built will see a greater level of energy put towards the forward works programs – the amount of money spent. As you reach the point where you need that gas to come out of the ground, many jobs will be created. Look at what is happening in Darwin with INPEX. Imagine large gas projects around the Northern Territory, not just in our capital city but the regional and remote areas that are starting to build infrastructure, build jobs to build that infrastructure and build jobs for the ongoing operation and servicing of that infrastructure. That is exciting.
If anyone has the opportunity to visit the US, during their parliamentary career in this Chamber or afterwards, I encourage them to go to North Dakota. Do some research before you go and discover what was in North Dakota before the emergence of the shale gas industry in the US. Look at what is there now. You will see a brand new level of economic energy in North Dakota, driving populations, stimulus, growth and driving families. It is quite exciting to see a cold desert barren environment become one that still might be a cold desert, but has economic activity which produces a vibrancy that is growing the state and, in many ways, growing the nation. Look at what changed in North Dakota and how it got to where it is now.
The US has a huge skeletal network of gas pipelines across the country which enabled North Dakota to get up and running. In the Northern Territory, or Australia, we do not have a huge skeletal network. We have part in the eastern seaboard through Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. They are not connected to Western Australia, and the Northern Territory is not connected to either. In the Northern Territory, which is much larger than North Dakota, we have one 1500 km pipeline plus the other one out to Borroloola. We need to enable development of a skeletal system of pipeline infrastructure which will see the shale gas network start to grow.
I get back to the point of where New South Wales is from a gas point of view. I had conversed briefly with – both in conversation and written material – the former Premier of New South Wales, Mr Barry O’Farrell. Now there has been a change in leadership in New South Wales I had an opportunity to catch up with some senior officials, also the new Premier of New South Wales Mike Baird, during my visit to Canberra last week for COAG. We had the opportunity, at an official level, to talk about what a pipeline between the Northern Territory and South Australia, or Tennant and Mt Isa – our conversation was particularly around Alice to Moomba – could do for New South Wales. I will not go to the exact conversation, but the Premier of New South Wales was quite excited by it. In the coming weeks I will be back in New South Wales and our officials – and at the Chief Minister to Premier level – will be talking about what we can do.
Building a pipeline 910 km from Alice Springs to Moomba for $1.3bn, doing all the exploration to make sure you know where the gas is – getting the gas into the pipeline and into New South Wales in three years would be unheard of. I think we can do it; we are up to the challenge. If the need and demand is there we can make supply happen.
That is why this motion is important. It gives the member for Daly an opportunity to learn about some of the things we are doing. It gives me an opportunity to talk to the Chamber and the Northern Territory about what we are doing and how we see it developing.
Fundamentally, this is not about New South Wales, Victoria or the rest of the country; this is about building jobs in the Northern Territory and regional remote areas. That is exciting. At the start of this debate I said INPEX is the number one project. If we can get the green light on the pipeline between Alice to Moomba, even Tennant Creek to Mt Isa, it would be the second most important project in the Northern Territory. It would drive jobs and growth for decades to come and would position us to look at a whole new industry for the Northern Territory.
I have not spoken about offshore gas. There is a potential opportunity for offshore gas into the pipeline network from Darwin to Alice and then through to Moomba. We need to look at some of the opportunities. We know about the Ichthys gas field and what is happening with INPEX and Total coming onshore, but we also know there are other opportunities. We talk about Prelude with Shell and the floating gas facility. We have other companies in that region. Woodside has an operating interest and operational role in other gas deposits. There is also Crown, Poseidon, Cronus, Tarosa, Brecknock and Calliance.
There is a high level of gas available now. ConocoPhillips and Bayu-Undan are operating. We also know the gas field firing up Darwin LNG can present itself for another eight or nine years, but what happens after that? We have to look at other gas deposits. This is being looked at now and, without wanting to go into confidential information, we need to look at where the pipeline skeletal structure is to the north of the Northern Territory. One pipeline is being built to Ichthys and we also have the Bayu-Undan opportunity. However, Blackwood, Heron and Evans Shoal have you thinking about what we can do with those gas deposits. Will these gas deposits go to the international market? Is there an opportunity to bring the gas onshore? If it comes onshore, can it go through the pipeline network to the rest of the country? I think it can.
This is why people like me in my role, and minister Westra Van Holthe, in the role of minister for Resources and Energy, attend functions such as APPEA in Perth a few weeks ago and lobby for companies to come onshore. We lobbied for supply bases and what we can do for New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria. We have promoted these things and are getting a long way. We have an announcement concerning Shell and its supply base being built here. Around $200m per annum will be spent in the Top End for the next 25 years, a fantastic investment. We will further lobby for the Woodside – whether it is onshore or supply base – facilitation works to be conducted from the Territory. There are significant opportunities.
Returning to the heart of this motion, it is about a pipeline and the Northern Territory. To me, it talks about jobs and a future. This is an important motion which presents opportunities for jobs into the future. I hope that can be realised and this debate could be part of bringing Territorians – all our colleagues – along the journey of what can be a fantastic new industry for the Northern Territory. This can create jobs for Territorians in our urban locations of Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine, and in our regional and remote locations, employing Territorians wherever they live.
Member for Daly, thank you. I support this motion. I am disappointed in the lack of Labor engagement. The shadow minister spoke for four or five minutes; he used to be minister for Resources. I thought he would have more commitment to a project which could drive the Northern Territory in the future.
I expect a number on this side of the Chamber to speak on this because it is so important to the future of the Northern Territory. The member for Wanguri is the only person from Labor here. Perhaps she might like to speak about how important this is for the future of the Northern Territory. I look forward to other people’s contributions, the wrap, and I hope to see more jobs in regional and remote areas of the Territory.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I was waiting for members opposite, but it appears they will not speak on this very important motion ...
Mr Giles: They do not want to create jobs.
Mr STYLES: Yes, we are about jobs. This is not at the expense of the environment, but is a structured and planned way to generate wealth in the Northern Territory to secure our children’s future.
I came to the Northern Territory in May 1981. In a few weeks I will have been here 33 years. I was a young person when I arrived ...
A member: I saw you looking at your watch.
Mr STYLES: I was looking at the date, and it is only 11 days from being 33 years. I came from Perth, looked around and saw nothing happening. I had left a business and my wife wondered what we would do. She said, ‘Let’s go to the Northern Territory’. She had worked here for two years prior to meeting me in Western Australia. She said, ‘It’s a fantastic place, great fun, the people are terrific and it is the land of opportunity’.
I applied for a job in the Northern Territory police force, was accepted and we moved here. For a place known as the land of opportunity, it has been just that. Sadly, my wife passed away 25 years ago. The kids and I could have left the Territory but had been here for eight years, had settled and had friends here.
I had well and truly seen the previous CLP government demonstrate it was a ‘can do’ government. The legacy we see today is what that government set up from the early days of self-government in 1978, and the work done by others. I said yesterday, we stand on the shoulders of the people who came before us. I thank the previous CLP government for its vision, and the Chief Ministers and ministers, during its various terms of parliament. They set it up for us. You had leadership in so many different things, as well as the exploration and geotechnical work that was done. It was all started by the previous CLP government.
I faced the decision of staying in the Territory or going back to family. I chose to stay here. I see my children’s future as secure. On Monday night I told a group of business people how I am so glad I am here and my children and grandchildren are here. I wound not want to be anywhere else in Australia.
Their future is secure because of what is happening now. I see ConocoPhillips in the gas industry, and I support my colleague, the member for Daly, on this important motion about planning for pipelines and the future.
I previously used the six Ps. I will not use the first word but it is: proper planning prevents pathetic poor performance. There are six basics to the forward planning we need to ensure our children’s future is secure. We did that in the 1980s and 1990s, and I watched ConocoPhillips come to fruition and saw the benefits that brought. Although I recall …
Mr Chandler: Who attracted them to Darwin?
Mr STYLES: The former CLP government did that deal and set us up …
Mr Chandler: They paved the way.
Mr STYLES: Yes, they paved the way. I acknowledge the previous Chief Minister did some work in that area, but we already had a gas industry courtesy of the former CLP government and the hard work it did.
Talking about the gas industry, ConocoPhillips led the way and when INPEX was looking for a place, in conversations I had with INPEX – granted the previous government was in power when this deal was signed – it saw benefits in being here. One benefit was native title issues. Another was being a capital city, so their workers could enjoy the facilities of a capital city. They chose Darwin and that was a good thing for us.
That then secured two onshore gas processing plants. That brought many jobs and jobs in the future for our youth. These projects, and the requirement for a pipeline, are not to be underestimated. Charles Darwin University has a magnificent new oil and gas facility for people wanting to get into that industry – into the engineering and chemistry side of it. It is a centre of excellence located at Charles Darwin University. About 12 or 18 months ago I had the privilege of attending the opening and listening to prominent people from Australia and overseas speak. We are fortunate to have that facility on our Darwin campus.
If we are to have sufficient gas for Australian industry we need to get on with it. To make it available to industry we need gas pipelines, and they do not happen overnight. For those who remember back to 1984, Ian Tuxworth announced we would look at a pipeline to bring gas to Darwin. The decision to make Channel Island a gas-fired power station was a vision of the former CLP government. People often ask why Channel Island is on Channel Island? When that was first mooted they were looking at burning coal. Getting ships into the harbour to offload directly at a power station – it was built at Channel Island so there could be an offloading facility and coal could be brought directly to shore.
Coal, at that stage, was a cheap option. I believe the previous CLP government made an excellent decision in ensuring it was gas fired.
When we look at a case for Australia to develop its energy resources, internal energy infrastructure has never been more evident and more important.
Eastern Australia, New South Wales in particular, will plunge into a gas shortage from around 2017. If I was in New South Wales I would be worried. In fact, if I was in New South Wales I would be ringing someone in the Territory asking for a pipeline from our gas reserves to New South Wales so they can enjoy what most people – perhaps not the member for Nelson – call clean energy. As the member for Nelson pointed out earlier, it is still fossil fuel, still burns, but it is cleaner than coal or other alternatives ...
Mr Chandler: It is renewable, it just takes a while.
Mr STYLES: As my colleague, the member for Brennan, said, it is renewable it just takes a while to form. Science is looking at a range of initiatives to produce cheaper power. In the meantime, we need base power loads.
When I look at figures and think of my children and their future, and my grandchildren’s future and those after them, I think we are well positioned in the Territory and I am glad I made the decision to stay.
Some of the figures I am about to quote substantiate what people have said about the Territory and what the government is saying to not only the local, national and international community about being open for business, but being here to look after you. The Northern Territory’s potential reserves – this goes to the crux of what we are talking about and why we need to support this motion to ensure plans for a pipeline get under way sooner rather than later.
The potential reserves of unconventional gas total about 205 trillion cubic feet. That goes across six basins including the Beetaloo sub-basin, which is approximately 157 trillion cubic feet, the McArthur Basin, with a possible 22 trillion cubic feet, and the Amadeus basis with a possible 26 trillion cubic feet.
Before I go any further, I acknowledge the excellent briefings from my colleague, the Minister for Mines and Energy, the member for Katherine. For the briefing papers and the notes, thank you very much, 10 out of 10.
I am happy to be corrected, but my information is the Ichthys project is about eight to 12 trillion cubic feet and they reckon it will take 40 years to get it out. How much is 205 trillion cubic feet? When you look at the infrastructure investment – I am Minister for Infrastructure and love seeing investment in infrastructure – that is a lot of gas. Anyone who wants to do the numbers on that – the industry rule of thumb, from my information, is one trillion cubic feet of gas is enough to power a city of one million people for 20 years.
To put this in perspective, the Northern Territory has the potential to power a population of 22 million people – recently we hit 23 million in Australia – for the next 200 years
That is an enormous supply of gas and one would say the Northern Territory has hit the jackpot. Why would you want to be anywhere else? When people are looking to invest in places – I said in the House yesterday, people with hundreds of millions of dollars are looking for somewhere to invest in a safe option where the sovereign risk is zero. We say, ‘Come to the Territory’. We have potential to invest so if you have $400bn or $800bn to invest, put it in pipelines. If we connect this system people will find gas and then we can join the national grid and look after our friends in New South Wales, Victoria and anyone else running a bit short on gas. We can continue to make Australia a good place to invest.
There needs to be a pipeline between here and cities on the eastern seaboard. To do that requires planning.
Another interesting aspect is a book I read recently about what is happening in the United States of America, where they are renewing their manufacturing base. It is written by the CEO of Dow Chemical Company, Mr Andrew N Liveris, who most people in this House would know is a Darwin boy. He grew up here, attended university in Australia, went to work for Dow Chemical Company in Melbourne as a chemical engineer, and 30 years later is CEO of the world’s biggest chemical company. I was fortunate to attend a dinner where he spoke for about an hour-and-a-half on how he saw the future. He spoke about his book. I was so moved I bought the book and have read it; it is called Make it in America.
When we talk about jobs for our kids and locking in the future for them, this book espouses the view if you send manufacturing offshore many related jobs go as well. There is packaging, packing, shifting the product from the factory to containers to export or shift it, delivery, the inventory, warehousing – all those jobs go when you move manufacturing offshore. One point he made was if you want to reinvigorate your economic future do not discount manufacturing, and do not say manufacturing cannot be done in a First World country or that we have to send it somewhere things are cheaper.
The United States of America has an overwhelming supply of gas these days and virtually supplies all its domestic needs. It will have an excess of gas in a very short space of time. They have shale gas and are undertaking hydraulic leveraging – commonly known as fracturing – to get gas out. Gas is very cheap, which makes energy production cheaper. In the Territory we have to get more gas out of the ground and encourage companies to drill for gas, but they need a market. The market has to be all of Australia.
If we have a gas pipeline connecting us with Western Australia and the eastern seaboard and can sell gas we have a competitive market. This happened in the US, where there is a very competitive market. They have reached the point where energy supplies are down and companies are bringing manufacturing back to the United States. Dow Chemical Company has built a massive chemical plant in Michigan where it manufactures everything. It exports and is still competitive. It is important for us to do this.
I spoke with Andrew N Liveris at the end of his presentation and he said, ‘What you need to do, because you can, given the gas you have in reserve, is create this activity and change the name of my book to Make it in Australia’. When I read his book I understood what he said. We can secure our future and have manufacturing jobs in this country. We can make it profitable for companies to make things in Australia. It is important we have the pipelines the member for Daly speaks about in his motion. It is critical to our future and we do not want to leave it too long. Infrastructure of this nature takes a lot of planning. There is an old saying, ‘Build it and they will come’.
Companies with tenements in the Northern Territory need to undertake exploration and get a move on ...
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask that the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker and member for Brennan, a fine job. We need to ensure, for our children’s future, we start planning for the pipeline as soon as possible. As we all know, energy is the life blood of our modern economy and underpins our way of life.
Let us look at power generation, transport and shipping. Shipping is starting to run on gas and bunkering facilities are being built at a number of ports around the world. I receive information from friends of mine saying in this country we need to get on board with LNG as a fuel source for ships. How will we get it there? We need pipelines, so we need to undertake infrastructure planning for that.
Australia needs to take immediate steps to secure its own energy future, not worry about shipping it offshore like ConocoPhillips and INPEX do. We need to ensure Australia has sufficient energy to meet the needs of our nation building infrastructure project, and the eastern seaboard gas market needs natural gas. If we do that we start to look at our future.
Imagine the jobs it will create. Pipelines and gas reticulation across Australia will need an enormous amount of infrastructure. It will power Australia and give us a competitive advantage over others who may not have access to the gas we do. The 200 years of gas we have in the Territory to power Australia is incredibly exciting. I can say to my kids, when I have finished my service to the people of the Northern Territory, ‘I was part of making all of this happen. I was part of a government that was open for business, and part of a government that had to, sadly, reduce a $5.5bn debt. I was part of a government that made things happen.’ That is what drives me. I need to leave a legacy not only to my children, but to my constituents and the people of the Northern Territory. It is the same for my colleagues on this side of the House.
It saddens me to see what those opposite did during 11 years in government. The biggest project was the gaol. The projected inmates – it was going up, a bit like the debt. However, we have a plan to secure our children’s future and will get on with that plan. It will include many things, like the significant offshore gas fields on the Northern Territory’s doorstep. The massive onshore gas and oil potential means the Northern Territory can secure Australia’s domestic energy security with the development of a natural gas grid connecting to the eastern and southern states as well as to the west.
Natural gas supply and transmission projects take years to plan, secure approvals and construct. Ordering pipe for this takes time because you have to put orders in to steel manufacturers. We cannot wait; we need to be a part of that.
Let us look at the Northern Territory’s role and the role of the government. The Northern Territory continues to play an increasing role in growing the offshore gas industry off the Northern Territory and Western Australia coastlines, the subsequent onshore LNG developments in the Darwin region and the emerging unconventional oil and gas sector onshore. That will provide much needed gas for the eastern seaboard and will hopefully provide the stimulus to get this gas pipe built sooner rather than later.
Shale gas has the potential to be a game-changer in Australia. It will cut our missions and boost our economy. Again, 205 trillion cubic feet is a large resource and we need to ensure that whatever comes out of the ground has a market. We need to be part of facilitating that and that will be, hopefully, by private enterprise, which will see the benefits of being involved in this. Connecting to the east coast gas grid would create a level of energy security for Australia that would be the envy of the world. When you look at those basins in the middle of Australia and in the Territory, we are the envy of the world. We will have security for our kids, jobs, technology and technological developments with Charles Darwin University contributing to much of that with its research and practical teaching of engineering required by the oil and gas industry.
Territory onshore gas has the potential means to supply expanding global LNG markets and supply resource projects across northern Australia. The development of north Australia means we will need energy. If we have energy at the right price we can bring manufacturing back to this country.
Andrew Liveris’ book is great. People might say it will not happen. If you read the book you will see it is possible to bring some of those jobs back onshore, and the results will be further jobs for people. The exploration area and the survey works – the building of it – not to mention the infrastructure required for roads and bridges to service all these gas pipelines, will benefit not only the economy of the Northern Territory, but Australia in general.
Looking at the economy of regional, rural and remote communities involved with Western Desert Resources and Sherwin Iron, a number of local Aboriginal people work at the mine sites. They spend five days at the mine site and go home for the weekend and think it is terrific. An ever increasing number of people in those communities are getting around in high-vis gear and it is great. It is a huge step forward for some communities to have people working who are role models for the kids. Once the kids see positive role models, as in any community, we will see a change in the way communities think and operate.
We need to get the national pipeline grid on the drawing board sooner rather than later. Looking at a map of the existing national energy grid it is relatively simple to solve the gas needs of the eastern states. A 940 km gas pipeline from Alice Springs to Moomba in South Australia, or a 700 km gas pipeline from Tennant Creek to Mt Isa in Queensland, would connect the vast gas fields I referred to in the Northern Territory to Australia’s existing national energy grid, particularly the more densely populated eastern seaboard. That is not much. We have one to Darwin that is over 1600 km long and are looking at half that. It will cost, yes, but it is an investment in our future, the future of the Territory, the future of Australia and the future of our children.
Australia has a proud history of nation building projects: the Snowy River Scheme; Ord River Irrigation Scheme; the railway line connecting Adelaide to Darwin; and major infrastructure projects that have made Australia a better place to live and played a key role in developing our economy.
A natural gas pipeline connecting the Territory to the eastern seaboard is the next big nationa building project. This pipeline must be built to ensure energy security for all Australians. Of course, now is the time to undertake the detailed planning, commence securing the necessary approvals to construct, order the pipe and other bits, get people in regional and rural remote Australia trained and ready, get the companies here, get people drilling and get started so we can secure our future.
I thank the member for Daly for bringing this motion forward and commend it to the House. Thank you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Mr Deputy Speaker, as Minister for Mines and Energy I am delighted to support the member for Daly’s motion regarding connection of the Northern Territory’s Amadeus gas pipeline to the eastern grid. I am disappointed, dismayed at best, and extremely surprised that members of the opposition, largely, have chosen not to speak on this motion. The member for Casuarina spoke on this motion earlier and I commend him for that ...
Mr Tollner: What would he know about mines and energy?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up the interjection from the Deputy Chief Minister saying, ‘What would he know about mines and energy?’ The member for Casuarina was a former Minister for Mines and Energy; however, under his stewardship we saw a serious decline in the mining sector. Sometimes I have lauded the member for Casuarina for the work he did, but the more I look into it the more I realise how he and his government took their hands off the tiller, resulting in the new government having to play catch up in the human resources area and some of the activities the department was undertaking and funding. Anyway, I digress. I find it reprehensible that only one member from the opposition has chosen to speak on this important motion.
That tells me the opposition has no interest whatsoever in the strategic direction of the Northern Territory and the importance such infrastructure could play in development of the Northern Territory for decades to come. It is no wonder they were soundly removed from office in 2012. Let us hope it is a long time before they are entrusted by the Northern Territory electorate to govern again. If that were to occur we would see more of the same in the 11 years of their government.
Having noted that only one speaker from the other side spoke, even more surprising is the shadow minister for Mines and Energy has not spoken yet. I will make it my business to point out to mining and oil and gas sector stakeholders in the Northern Territory that the shadow minister did not speak on this motion. I will also let them know they should note his disinterest in this area when they consider supporting anything the opposition does.
The opposition is clearly only interested in making political mileage out of the serious issues which present themselves to the Northern Territory. I am referring, in many ways, to the gas to Gove issue. We constantly hear from member opposite, particularly the member for Nhulunbuy, about the horrible failings of this government in not securing gas for Gove. Yes, it would have been nice to get gas to Gove and for that to become a solution to the problem Rio Tinto faced with its processing of bauxite in Gove.
Unfortunately, that was not the reality and no amount of telling the truth from this side of the House will be enough to convince the member for Nhulunbuy or any of those opposite that gas to Gove was never the solution. Yet, what we see from the opposition is that issue being constantly pounded out as a political football around this Chamber and elsewhere. We hear nothing but whining and carping from the opposition. At no point do we see anyone from the opposition offering to be part of, or assist with, the transition from where Gove sits to where it will be once the refinery closes down.
Therefore, you have an opposition not interested in the strategic direction of the Northern Territory, particularly in the context of gas and energy and the mineral sector. We see them hell-bent on creating political issues and using big important issues as political footballs. That is disgraceful.
Recently the Chief Minister spoke about having a sensible and mature debate. I do not think the opposition is up to a sensible and mature debate about anything. We would love to hear their views on policy issues. We would love to see them being part of the solution. Even today, talking in the motion to pass the poppy regulation bill on urgency, we saw them politicising this issue and whining and carping just for the sake of it – to be anti-government. They could not understand we are trying to drive economic growth. Clearly, they do not get the economic growth potential sitting behind the pipeline connection from our Amadeus gas pipeline to the eastern grid.
The Northern Territory has abundant unexplored gas resources which will play a critical and increasing role in meeting Australia’s future energy needs and driving economic development, particularly investment and employment opportunities in our regions. However, in order to help deliver energy securely for Australians, gas must first be delivered to the east coast gas grid in a price competitive manner. The Australian energy sector is undergoing significant transformation, with traditional energy sources of coal, gas and liquids continuing to be a key driver in the national economy for energy consumption as well as export.
In the Northern Territory we have two world-class LNG projects, Ichyths and Darwin LNG, both of which have been referred to tonight. We have domestic gas demands serviced by the ENI Blacktip offshore gas fields, and onshore conventional gas fields in Central Australia. We also have a combination of exciting new discoveries, in particular, potential shale gas reserves. The Northern Territory’s potential reserves of unconventional gas total around – many figures have been bandied around, but it is somewhere in the order of 240 trillion cubic feet spread across six basins, including the Beetaloo sub-basin, with a possible 164 trillion cubic feet; the McArthur Basin, with a possible 40 trillion cubic feet; the Bonaparte, with a possible 10 trillion cubic feet; and the Amadeus Basin, with a possible 25 trillion cubic feet
It is clear that Northern Territory gas exploration is significant. I heard the member for Sanderson describe in some detail what those figures mean. He was quite right when he said one trillion cubic feet of gas will provide power generation to a city of one million people for 20 years. That is a lot of gas. Ichthys knows of around 11 trillion cubic feet so far, but we expect there to be more in that gas field and fields nearby. A commercial quantity of shale gas has shown in the United States to be about one – you can get about one to one-and-a-half trillion cubic feet. Gas companies are looking closely at that reserve and consider it to be viable.
Let us look at 240 trillion cubic feet, or 240 of those one trillion cubic feet commercial quantities. A rule of thumb often applied in the gas sector – not a hard and fast rule, but one considered by industry to be a reasonable estimate – is that approximately 10% of known reserves are considered to be commercially recoverable. If we have suspected reserves of 240 trillion cubic feet we could reasonably and conservatively expect one tenth of that. Twenty four trillion cubic feet could be commercially recoverable. I hope that is the case or maybe more, but it is an enormous amount of gas.
The Ichthys project, as the member for Sanderson rightly pointed out, it is a 40-year project. What we are potentially looking at in recoverable reserves we know of in the Northern Territory is more than twice that. Even looking at a conservative estimate of one tenth of the reserves we still have abundant gas in the Northern Territory. While Northern Territory potential gas reserves are largely unproven with significant work required to demonstrate their existence, recoverability and economic viability – I have referred to some of that – our huge onshore potential has captured the imagination and interest of significant international exploration companies over the past two years
This is demonstrated in the significant investment companies are making in exploration activities in the Northern Territory. A clear indication of the high level of confidence companies have in the results of survey findings across the Northern Territory is that current work programs show no fewer than 25 exploration wells could be drilled in the next 12 months.
The Northern Territory’s onshore gas potential means we have a significant future in supplying the expanding global LNG markets, supplying gas to resource projects across northern Australia, supplying gas to hungry interstate markets such as New South Wales, and supplying gas to gas processing industries. All these issues were canvassed by previous speakers.
The Northern Territory government is firmly convinced that the future development of the Australian energy sector will require the provision of connecting gas pipelines from these emerging Northern Territory onshore resources to Australia’s existing national energy grid.
Currently there is speculation of potential pipeline connections, and a few have been mooted. Tennant Creek to Mt Isa is one, Wauchope to Longreach in Queensland is another, and the one currently attracting most attention is the Alice Springs to Moomba pipeline connection.
As Minister for Mines and Energy I was delighted when, earlier this year, the APA Group, the Territory’s major pipeline licensee, announced to the Australian Stock Exchange that the company was investing $2m into a study to determine the feasibility of a gas pipeline connecting the Northern Territory to the east coast.
The Northern Territory can and is playing a significant role in addressing energy security for Australia and our northern neighbours. The APA Group is not the only company looking to be engaged in this process, and the Northern Territory government is talking with several other proponents who are strongly considering connection to the eastern grid using the Alice Springs to Moomba model.
The member for Sanderson was also right about needing to consider what the markets will look like. Let us face it, the vast majority of Australia’s population is in the eastern states. Let us drill down into that a little further. Victoria – I will cover hydraulic fracturing later – currently has a moratorium on fracking. That means they are reliant on other sources of energy or other sources of gas to provide energy for their generation requirements.
New South Wales is in limbo at the moment. They have faced increased pressure from lobby groups over hydraulic fracturing, particularly in the coal seam gas area, and the environment for developing gas resources in New South Wales is quite difficult.
Queensland, on the other hand, is powering ahead. They have enormous developments in gas processing happening right now and the gas industry is booming. Where we see the opportunity is connecting our gas pipeline to the eastern grid to provide energy security to New South Wales and Victoria. Queensland will largely be self-sufficient and is looking at quite significant export facilities to meet the growing global demand for gas and energy.
If we can establish a market for gas that might be developed in the Northern Territory, that will provide the impetus for further exploration and development of the gas industry in the NT.
Going back to Gove, I want to speak positively about that for a moment. To be honest, I was genuinely disappointed the gas to Gove proposal did not get up. We know why – the opposition will continue to carp about it – it did not happen. I was disappointed because, apart from Power and Water, there are very few enterprises in the Northern Territory you could call users of gas. A refinery such as the one at Gove would have been a pretty good place to start a market beyond the Power and Water Corporation ...
Mr HIGGINS: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask for an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and thank you, member for Daly.
That would have provided a market within the Northern Territory for gas, which would have provided the impetus for further development of our gas sector. Now that is not happening we have to look for other markets for our gas. With Ichthys online and Darwin LNG and ConocoPhillips, they have offshore markets nailed down and there is potential for us to provide gas into the eastern grid to create another market. Should that occur we will most definitely see more gas development in the Northern Territory.
For the Territory that will mean a strong boost to the economy. You will see jobs created in regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory as gas companies look at those prospects and see the economics looking rosier. That is why it is critical we, in a physical sense, provide a mechanism for delivering gas to the eastern grid. It benefits the east coast, and we want to be good Australian neighbours and part of the energy solution for our interstate cousins, but we also want to provide an environment where we will grow the economy in the Northern Territory. That is critical.
In February this year I was pleased to grant a production licence to Central Petroleum for the development of its Surprise oil field in the western Amadeus basin. This is the first new onshore production licence to be granted in the Northern Territory in more than 32 years. An application for a production licence has also been submitted over the Dingo gas field for development of the field and construction of a pipeline to Alice Springs.
These new developments, along with Santos’ current drilling project to further appraise and develop its conventional oil reserves in the Mereenie fields, suggest increasing production from Central Australian petroleum fields over the coming years.
Exploration for unconventional gas and oil continues to gain momentum, particularly in the McArthur and Beetaloo Basins, with a number of significant exploration programs under way, progressing from seismic acquisition to the drilling of exploration wells.
As regulators, the government continues to work with industries to address community concerns around issues such as hydraulic fracturing of wells, or fracking. The Department of Mines and Energy is engaging industry, the public and stakeholders, and providing information on the unconventional oil and gas sector and the leading practice regulatory regime this government requires for these activities. The recent announcement of a public inquiry into fracking in the Territory is designed to provide certainty to the public and industry so it can proceed under a leading practice regulatory environment.
The Northern Territory government is committed to creating an attractive investment climate that provides certainty and a regulatory framework to meet the needs of investors and increase gas exploration and development. However, establishing energy security for the Northern Territory and contributing to Australia’s energy security needs is an issue the Northern Territory government is also tackling. The key issue for industry players is energy availability and, of course, cost.
In recognising this, the Northern Territory government has established a new Energy Directorate within my Department of Mines and Energy to bring a long-term strategic approach to developing the Northern Territory’s energy industry and meet our future energy needs. The Energy Directorate is constantly surveying the horizon for opportunities in the energy sector, not only for gas, but also for renewable energy.
There have been suggestions a gas reservation policy similar to that employed by Western Australia is the solution to energy security issues. The Northern Territory government disagrees. Unlike Western Australia’s more mature gas sector, our gas industry is young and we want to encourage investment. To increase domestic gas supply more work is required to make gas available from existing and new discoveries which requires more capital investment. A blanket gas reservation policy would, more than likely, put both the quantum and timing of further capital investment at risk at a time when it is imperative the Northern Territory continues to attract investment in oil and gas exploration and development.
The Northern Territory government’s strong focus is to continue to ensure the Northern Territory is an attractive place to invest in gas exploration and development. Another key to encouraging gas development is our policy of encouraging aggressive exploration within tenements for onshore gas development. Over recent years there has been a substantial increase in the number of exploration leases issued to companies to explore for onshore gas. Currently something like 90% or 95% of the Territory’s land mass is either under application or granted tenure for petroleum exploration, which is a very encouraging sign. While the Northern Territory government is supportive of such exploration occurring, we are also conscious that leases are not to be issued for purely speculative purposes, where companies land bank the leases without undertaking the requisite exploration work. As such, the Department of Mines and Energy is finalising a policy to ensure the exploration imperative is pursued within a reasonable commercial framework.
The Northern Territory has abundant unexplored gas resources which will play a critical and increasing role in meeting our future energy needs and driving economic development, particularly investment and employment opportunities in our regions. The Northern Territory can and is playing a significant role in addressing energy security for Australia and our northern neighbours. The next step in establishing energy security for Australia is the establishment of a gas pipeline connecting the Northern Territory to the east coast. To me it makes sense.
The other point to make about connecting to the east coast is gas flows both ways. While we are talking about a gas pipeline in the context of development of the Northern Territory’s gas sector and then exporting the gas through a pipeline interstate, if a pipeline was in place, gas from the eastern states, if available, could flow back into the Northern Territory.
The member for Sanderson mentioned the manufacturing sector. Would it not be wonderful if we could have a manufacturing sector in the Northern Territory around the oil and gas industry? About 14 months ago I visited Texas in the United States to look at gas field developments there. I was briefed on the benefits the gas industry brought to that state. I was also briefed on the lack of benefits available to states which chose not to pursue a gas industry. The differences in economies between those two jurisdictions – Texas might be one example and, from memory, in Washington State they do not explore for gas – was stark. Unemployment rates in the states without a gas industry were much higher than in states with a gas industry. Standards of living were much higher where there was a gas industry. People were happier being more engaged in the economy and growth of the economy in their state.
I see that as the future for the Northern Territory. Imagine Dow Chemical coming to the Territory. Something like 80 side businesses would sit around a chemical plant, such as the one we saw at Freeport in the United States. Imagine the opportunities, the employment, the economic growth, the boom and sustainability of the Territory’s economy should we achieve those dizzying heights.
I am delighted to support the member for Daly’s motion. It is very important and I reiterate how disappointed I am that the opposition has not spoken.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is thrilling to see you in the chair on your second day in this House. I tell you what …
Ms Walker: He will not be so thrilled when I raise a couple of points of order. No, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would not do it to you.
Mr TOLLNER: That is true, throw him straight in at the deep end. I urge you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, to use your book of standing orders because the member for Nhulunbuy is coming after you.
I support this motion brought by the member for Daly. It is timely and shows the member for Daly is interested in more than just his electorate. In fact, he has the interests of the entire Northern Territory and nation at heart. I pay tribute to the member for Daly for his vision in bringing forward this very good motion.
The Minister for Mines and Energy made some wonderful points at the end of his contribution about the experience in the USA and how gas has affected the livelihoods of the residents in states and jurisdictions that have allowed active development of the gas industry, and the importance of it to their communities. I will talk a bit more about the USA, but will leave it until later in the discussion.
There are many reasons why the Northern Territory needs to get cracking on its gas exploration, investigation into pipelines, selling gas both overseas and interstate, and the point raised by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, to see the development of advanced manufacturing in the Northern Territory. It is true that manufacturing is dying in Australia.
We tend to be outdone by countries with lower cost workforces and access to cheaper capital, and it is disappointing to see manufacturing jobs going overseas. However, I note people are stepping into other employment. What you lose on the swing you pick up on the roundabout, but we have some wonderful opportunities in the Northern Territory if we are prepared to embrace a gas future.
One would expect we are sitting on a sea of gas. When you look at offshore resources around the Northern Territory, we are blessed with the amount of proven fields to our north, west and east. There is no reason why those fields would not extend onshore to the point there are great opportunities. The need for gas in Australia is undisputed. Last week I was in Brisbane at the Energy ministers’ conference and, without a doubt, there is an enormous demand for gas in Australia.
Queensland has strongly growing fracking industry. It is raising concerns because they have coal seam methane in the main, and coal seam gas tends to be closer to the surface than the gas we have in the Northern Territory, which is shale gas. Coal seam methane has really enlivened Queensland. There has been construction of the LNG plants in Gladstone where there is now enormous demand for gas.
I have to question whether Queensland can deliver the amount of gas required to fill those LNG plants at Gladstone given the enormous amount of gas required. In Queensland, with a strong politically-tuned agricultural sector, it will be difficult for governments and resource companies to find an adequate supply of gas to meet the requirements of the facilities constructed.
In Queensland the agrarian socialists, the National Party, are still very much to the fore; they are a very powerful political lobby group in their own right. With an LNP government in place it is inevitable those voices of concern will be heard because the objections from farmers about coal seam gas and fracking will only become more heated. Queensland is by far the most progressive state when it comes to exploration for onshore gas through the hydraulic fracturing methods, much more progressed than New South Wales, which almost has an outright ban on it, and Victoria, which bans it completely.
I was talking to the New South Wales Energy minister who suggests they are paying upwards of $16 a petajoule for gas. That is an enormous price for natural gas and quite unsustainable. He is keen to see fracturing but, politically, he believes it will be too difficult in New South Wales to see any movement on that in the near future.
There is enormous desperation for gas in New South Wales; a similar situation would present itself in Victoria. Obviously Tasmania is not too fussed one way or the other as they have enormous amounts of hydroelectricity. They do not really need much gas as they have the subsea high-voltage DC power line going through Bass Strait powering whatever they need to that hydroelectricity does not power. Tasmania is reasonably self-sufficient.
South Australia is keen to progress more hydraulic fracturing. It does not have a lot of coal seam gas but does have shale gas. The politics around shale gas are not quite as heated; it is only a fraction compared to coal seam gas. South Australia is keen to start exploring for more gas.
Goodness knows what is happening in Western Australia, which seems to be surrounded by gas. They have a reserving policy which has done nothing to reduce the cost of gas in Western Australia, but they are not as focused on it because their energy needs are easily met from current resources.
In the Northern Territory we have an interesting situation. We probably have more gas than we currently require. We purchase more gas than we currently require, but the irony is it is not enough to warrant, at this stage, a pipeline anywhere …
Ms Walker interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I notice the member for Nhulunbuy is alarmed to know we have more gas than we require, but I can assure her there is nowhere near enough gas to suffice the Gove operations if they were interested in keeping the refinery going.
There is a desire to see more exploration in the Northern Territory for gas resources. The construction of pipelines, which is what the member for Daly’s motion is about, is integral to that. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport was dead right; there are a few things. You need to find a supplier and a market. We know the markets are in the eastern states and we need to connect to the national gas grid.
To do that, we need the Australian Energy Regulator operating in the Northern Territory. The Power and Water reforms the government is undertaking are about trying to get the Australian Energy Regulator to regulate our electricity and gas industries, or gas pipelines, in the Northern Territory. We are keen to see that occur because we want to adopt national laws as that provides certainty and security to investors and gives them confidence they are operating in a safe environment.
The markets are in the eastern states but how do we speed up the exploration of gas? We can build pipelines; however, rarely are pipelines built unless there is gas to go into them. Pipeline operators tend to be relatively conservative. Like other business people, they like to know when they spend many millions of dollars they will get a return on that money. It is difficult to build a pipeline if there is no certainty of a product going into it. Obviously, the product is in high demand in the eastern states, we all know that, but as yet we do not have proven gas fields in the Northern Territory so we need to speed up exploration.
I recently read a book called The Frackers. It was published late last year and looks at what changed the US situation. Fundamentally, the wildcatters in the United States really drove exploration. Wildcatters are generally small companies run and managed by people with serious enterprising spirit, serious ambitions, and people who are prepared to go out on a limb, have a real crack and see if they can strike large amounts of gas. They are serious speculators. In the US, the environment is a little different than Australia. In the US, people who own the land own what is under the land. Wildcatters were trying to get access to the land and had to talk to landowners, not governments and the like as you do in Australia. They were talking to farmers; there are well-known stories about farmers and cattlemen who became millionaires overnight when gas was found on their properties because the wildcatters would go in, do deals and offer to share the proceeds.
One or two characters did the same thing in cities. They would knock on people’s door in the cities saying, ‘Do you mind if I put a drilling rig in your backyard on your quarter acre block in the city?’ Surprisingly, this happened in an enormous number of cities across the US where small households saw the opportunity to cash in on the gas boom. We now see gas prices there, in some cases, below $3 a petajoule. I remind people in New South Wales they are paying $16 and above a petajoule. It is believed the international price for gas is somewhere between $9 and $12 a petajoule. The US, at $3 a petajoule, is getting remarkably cheap gas because they literally have a glut.
There is glut of gas in the US, and when there is more supply than demand, gas prices drop, which is what happened in the Northern Territory. The converse applies in NSW, where there is no gas to meet demand. Prices go through the roof, to the point where people are paying some unholy rates for gas to provide what most of us call an essential service.
The Frackers was an interesting book to read and explained how these guys were so enterprising. One fellow was working on drilling fluids and made a mistake in a well he was drilling. He failed to put any guar in the mixture; it was almost water and sand alone. Guar is generally used to thicken the mix and assist in the fracturing process, but in this case he left it out and, lo and behold, the well flowed at the same rate as other wells he had used guar in. In wells where they used guar over a short period of time the flows would reduce, but in this well the flows kept going and it was discovered guar was becoming an inhibitor to getting the gas flowing. This was a breakthrough. He drilled three other wells to test it and, sure enough, they started using only sand and water as their fracking fluid. It was not only a saving for the company, but it worked better than the more traditional and established drilling fluids people were using.
Another group of people were experimenting with horizontal drilling. They drilled down 600 m to 1 km and slowly turned the drill bit in a horizontal fashion; they were starting to release gas from shale structures with that horizontal fracking method. It was not until those two processes were combined that the whole industry went off to the point where the US now is self-sufficient in energy; it does not rely on imports.
This will have major connotations for the geopolitical environment of the globe. The US does not need Middle Eastern countries’ oil, it does not need energy resources from other parts of the world, and this is expected to impact on how the US funds its defence forces and how it treats its foreign policy. It is expected to have some rather profound impacts ...
Mr BARRETT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask that the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Blain steps up again. He has been doing it all night. He represented you very well in that chair, Madam Speaker. With all credit to the member for Nhulunbuy, who threatened to pull him to bits like a clock, he has come away unscathed. In a rare moment of sympathy the member for Nhulunbuy let him off in deference to new members.
The global environment has changed and will do so enormously because of the incredible gas breakthroughs in the US. Bringing that back to the Northern Territory, the lesson to be learnt is we need to free up regulations around drilling for gas. We need to encourage creative thinking in the industry. I spoke to CSIRO representatives last night, and they told me the shale rock in the Northern Territory is vastly different to the shale in the US. Fracturing methods used in the US will not necessarily work well in the Northern Territory so some work needs to be done.
In the US, the experience was the big established companies were not responsible for the gas boom. It was the small guys, the wildcatters, the people living on the edge. These people were having a go and pushing the boundaries.
It is interesting when you compare gas and mineral exploration. Madam Speaker, you have a long history in mineral exploration with the Minerals Council. You, along with others here, would understand the vast majority of big operating mines in Australia and around the world are not discovered by major mining companies. It is the small guys, the scratchers who make the discoveries that are later proven up by middle tier companies and taken over by big mining majors. If, in the Northern Territory, we intend to wait for major oil and gas companies to discover gas for us we could be waiting for a long time.
We need an environment conducive to people who are prepared to have a go, push the boundaries and prepared to risk their livelihood in order to make a big find. Those people will ultimately make the big onshore discoveries we are hoping for.
We need to encourage this, and those guys, to do this. What happened in the US was that big glittering prize of lots of money and riches got so many wildcatters having a go. A few were first in and grabbed a big chunk of that glittering prize. Many made discoveries after the price of gas had tanked and, eventually, there was a glut of gas. The first ones in made the big discoveries and the big money. After that, many had cracked it right across the country to the point they created a glut in natural gas. That is what we need in the Northern Territory because the future of Australia is so dependent on it.
Not only do we need to provide energy to the urban eastern parts of Australia, but we also want to see a massive reduction in the price of gas to facilitate things like advance manufacturing and production of plastics and fertilisers. That is all dependent on rock-bottom prices for natural gas. Ultimately, as a government, that is where we want to see the Northern Territory going. I think that is what is driving the Chief Minister and the Minister for Mines and Energy, who are both doing a remarkably good job in drumming up interest in the Northern Territory.
I am thrilled the Minister for Mines and Energy and the minister for the Environment have embarked on this study into hydraulic fracturing in the Northern Territory. If we can get that right and remove big chunks of red tape required in environmental approvals, it can only help speed up the process and create an environment where we get the little guys who are prepared to risk their lifestyles and their wealth to have a crack and make those big discoveries.
Madam Speaker, again I want to thank the member for Daly for bringing this motion to the parliament. It is worthwhile discussing and now is the right time. I am happy to support the recommendations of this motion.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for bringing this to the table. I support this motion because I believe in the future of the Northern Territory. Having spent a lot of time working in the finance industry looking at many smaller companies that undertake a lot of exploration in the Northern Territory, often they do not have a lot of funding, access or the ability to undertake large scale drilling programs. I hope development of this pipeline will open up prospects for them to get gas out of the Northern Territory so their feasibility studies take that into consideration and they can move forward knowing they have the ability to make a profit and, therefore, develop those fields.
I believe in what the Giles government and the federal government is doing to develop northern Australia. I see this tying in beautifully with the whole development of northern Australia project. I am also glad private funding is doing this, because it obviously helps our fiscal position.
I am also very excited about this because, as a member of parliament, I am possibly one of a few people who have worked reasonably directly with the oil and gas industry. Working at East Arm Wharf, we did a lot of work with rig tenders and oil rigs coming in to be supplied and fitted out then go back to their drilling programs.
The history of the Northern Territory is a history of isolation. We had the road through the centre, then the telegraph line through the centre and then the rail line through the centre. We are now looking at a pipeline to complete the picture and connect us to the southern and eastern states of Australia.
The development of possible onshore reserves is fantastic because it will create employment and revenue streams for the Northern Territory. From a finance perspective it is important we diversify our income streams because that makes you less susceptible to the swings and roundabouts of the business cycle.
With that in mind, I see our offshore industry leading beautifully into this pipeline project, which should lead to an onshore progression of opening up gas fields in the Northern Territory. I am also excited that bringing all this together creates off-shooting opportunities which centre on the pipeline.
Mining and pastoral industries have been the mainstay of the Northern Territory economy for a long time. One of the first industries to open up here was gold mining, and it is very strong today. However, we need to develop other industries to diversify and create a more stable employment base for the Territory. Things mentioned by other people, including the large-scale manufacturing sector, we hope would create employment in the Northern Territory.
I am excited about education and will talk about a university in Geelong I heard about. When car projects were closing down in Geelong, the university had to re-focus and researchers at the university looked at carbon fibre and how they could change the way it was put together. This is important because it shows us that through innovation and forward thinking we can change our industries.
I am pleased Charles Darwin University has set up an oil and gas unit, giving young people in the Northern Territory the opportunity to develop the industries we would like to grow, particularly the oil and gas sector.
A university in Edinburgh specialises in shipping – everything from getting a deckhand ticket to a coxswain ticket, a captain’s ticket, through to a pilot’s ticket. Working at Darwin port, where much of the oil and gas industry of the Northern Territory is centred, we had a hard time sourcing pilots. I have often thought we could have a world-class higher education system here where people all over the world know about Charles Darwin University and the maritime oil and gas faculties at the university. That would be fantastic to see.
We have incredibly intelligent people in the Northern Territory who use what is around them to make something from nothing. I am particularly thoughtful of the people I spoke about in my maiden speech, Dr Ben Hoffmann, who I went to school with, and the solar car team from the Northern Territory University which came up with a brushless electric motor that was so efficient it competed with the millions of dollars the Honda team put into the same project. That was just a little team from the Northern Territory. It shows where we have the ability we should encourage it, and where we develop industries we should not sit on the back of them but develop the education sector around those industries so we can become world leaders in that area.
I see this pipeline as a linchpin between offshore and onshore development and the capacity to branch into other areas. The possible area, looking at the whole drilling scenario – drill rig engineering is an amazing thing. When I worked at East Arm Wharf we knew the re-tenders that came from old rigs and new rigs, because often they would come back and the cargo loaded on the back of the rig tenders was a disastrous mess because they were in high seas. When you try to load 40 foot containers from one moving object to another moving object by crane which might be 30 m to 40 m in the air, it is not an easy job to land it in a perfect location.
People around the world came up with the idea of wave-correcting cranes which move in tandem with what is happening around them, which makes for a smoother transition. Ideas like this, which are ground breaking, would be fantastic to see through the industry sector, all working through our education system to make them our own. We have the intelligence and ability to do it.
Drilling improvement and drilling operators – you might remember the mine disaster in Chile where about 29 miners were trapped at the bottom of a mine. An Australian drill rig funded by BHP – Australian drillers – drilled down and saved those guys. For me, one of the prouder moments of being an Australian was seeing what the company did; how it hit the needle in a haystack with an incredibly good piece of machinery and great operators.
We make great operators because we have good systems and a good education to do it. That can be done out of the Northern Territory using our onshore, offshore and pipeline networks as a basis to give them real life experience in these sectors.
Drill chemistry, and the chemicals which go into drilling, is complex. We loaded brine and drill mud at the wharf. Brine might sound like salt water, but the chemistry relates to specific densities and specific gravities of the materials within the solution so they create seals on the bottom of the sea floor. Looking at the chemistry of it, I do not know why we could not have parts of our education sector focused around it.
Submersible technology sea floor research – these are high paying jobs – underwater welders – incredibly specialised professions. Loading these submersibles onto the back of rig tenders when we were mobilising them – these guys are flown all around the world to do these jobs, much like our pilots in Darwin Harbour coming from all over the world. It would be nice to see people working in the oil and gas industry, experts in the oil and gas industry, coming from the Territory.
We often talk about the innovative ability of Australians. We need to be the innovators owning the patents, and I see this as a pathway toward developing our education sector.
In the development of marine supply and logistics, we have seen an expansion of East Arm Wharf. I believe the Marine Supply Base will open in a few weeks. We can then service more rigs in the ocean and supply them in a more efficient manner.
Darwin has its issues, but it is important to know people prefer to come here because the turnaround time is fast. They know they can get a drill rig into the Port of Darwin and back out – often two in one day – which is fantastic. We want this to continue and jobs to develop and, as the offshore industry grows, we want to see the infrastructure around it grow as we develop northern Australia.
Thinking about those things, I look at the pipeline from the Ichthys project onshore and am excited to know when they were laying that pipe they put five tee pieces in which do not go anywhere. They know there are gas fields out there and were factoring in possible future finds in the area based on magnetic resonance and other subsea floor exploration. That means more gas can come onshore in Darwin and be processed.
Looking at the 11 trillion cubic feet project Ichthys is, I wonder what the possibility for Darwin as a starting location for a pipeline is, given there might be five more gas fields found between there and the coast. It is an exciting thing to be a part of and I am happy with the project.
In relation to onshore issues, the potential reserves of 240 trillion cubic feet in the Northern Territory are possible reserves. I remember analysing companies and looking at possible reserves as pie in the sky. Investors feel the same. These are often penny stocks and not well supported. However, the ability to open up this network connecting the north to the south and east is important, because it enables them to attract investors to projects which will move from possible to probable. Once we have probable reserves you are switching to a new type of business, a new company with more respect around the market and a better quality investor which is not just trading it. They would like to see the company develop in order to get large stakeholders and shareholders, which will be a long-term part of developing the Northern Territory.
That is often the basis of foreign investment, or investment from outside the Northern Territory. They will attract the more risky sections of super funds and things like that, which hold trillions of dollars globally. We would like some of that money here as private investment to develop these things. This pipeline is a good way of helping that happen and of bringing investment into the Northern Territory to develop reserves.
Once we move from the probable, more studies, testing and drilling is done, and we end up with a proven resource. That is what we see with the 11 trillion cubic feet from the Ichthys project. Moving to a proven resource is where you want to be. Even though it might not be drilled, it is, effectively, money in the bank for a company. It is then an incredibly saleable and developable asset. We will see a high-quality investor come in and possibly even buy-outs happen. We then have a calibre of companies which can not only develop that process and field, but connect that field to the pipeline we are discussing tonight.
That can have nothing but great benefits for the Northern Territory, particularly in regional areas where many areas are unexplored and have possible reserves. These areas are in the middle of nowhere. They will attract regional employment, and unemployment rates in those areas are high. This creates an opportunity to correct that.
The industries created around that are not short-term jobs to build a piece of pipe, commission a new drilling facility or commission a new facility to extract gas from the ground. We are looking at long-term jobs with meaning which last for many years. They would be cross-generational, where people know they are a mainstay. There is a solid point, an anchor to their community and they can embed that industry in their community. It can create excellent lasting effects and raise the standard of living in regional areas.
For those of us who have travelled across the Northern Territory, the standard of living in some places concerns us. It would put more money in, not rely on federal or Territory government funding and create smaller industries in those areas. It would be great to see some long-lasting, quality industries in those areas providing jobs to build schools and medical facilities.
Looking at it from an economics perspective, one thing that has concerned me for a long time about the Northern Territory economy – and listening to the budget handed down by previous Northern Territory governments – is the incredibly similar income streams coming to the Northern Territory.
I remember one budget breakfast with my colleagues from RBS Morgans listening to Delia Lawrie hand down the Treasurer’s report. One of the largest areas of funding coming in, and one they were hoping would fund their future, was stamp duty. Stamp duty is not a good industry to bank on. Royalties from onshore oil and gas and associated industries is the income stream this government needs to access as a whole. As part of developing northern Australia, Australia needs it so the Northern Territory is not such a mendicant state relying on federal funding for so much of its income; it can start to give back. It is important, looking forward, that people can start giving back and that we are looked at as leaders in this country, not just the poor brother who always has his hand out asking for money. I am fiercely proud of the Northern Territory, which is why I am excited about this pipeline and seeing it come to fruition.
The other thing about diversity and having a …
Mr HIGGINS: Madam Speaker, I seek an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standard Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BARRETT: The diversity which can be created by having separate income streams into the Northern Territory also provides stability for business cycles. They are an issue when we look at the two-speed economy things happening in the rest of Australia. When we do not have diversified income streams we are subject to the ebbs and flows of an individual market. I am excited by this because it is an industry we are not involved in and one that can stabilise us in a business cycle because people in the southern states will always need the energy provided by gas. The blue chip companies existing on the Australian Stock Exchange – the stocks which frequent most superannuation funds are ones like APA because they know the gas is in the pipeline and will be delivered because people need electricity.
The demand for electricity is incredibly inelastic. That means it does not matter whether people are having good times or bad, they tend to use the same amount of electricity. The price does not affect consumption. That is why we call it inelastic. I would like this business stabilised. I would like to see diversity in the income streams of the Northern Territory. I would like us to prove we can be what the federal government hopes for in the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia and the vision the Giles’ government has for the Northern Territory. I hope we can prove ourselves and match their faith in us and that we contribute to the rest of Australia.
I am a member of the LCAC committee, and it is interesting to look at that and statehood. We cannot justify becoming a state until we can stand on our own two feet. Fiscally, if we can stand on our own two feet it places us in a strong position to move towards statehood.
This offshore pipeline onshore development that can happen in the oil and gas industry in the Northern Territory has the capacity for long-term jobs and excellent revenue streams we currently do not have. It will correct many of the fiscal problems we have and our capacity to pay down debt and fund major infrastructure projects. I am particularly mindful of social infrastructure projects like the hospital in Gerry Wood’s electorate. I am excited about that and about development of northern Australia. I am excited about this pipeline and what it can bring.
There are short-term gains to be made from this in immediate employment. People can be employed in the industry, and building pipelines will be a major project. Getting the equipment in will provide projects through our port facilities and, obviously, will create employment in regional areas. As those pipelines work their way down through the heart of our Territory, they will attract employment, income and revenue to Indigenous communities.
I see long-term goals in this for local and regional employment, giving us something we can really hang our hat on and say we have a solid industry here. We will see improvements in the standard of living and in health and education outcomes because people will be working.
I often have great discussions with my colleague, Mr Elferink, about self-pity being a really negative force in people’s lives. If people can gain employment in a meaningful job and take control of their lives, it will go a long way to creating the change in culture we need across the Northern Territory, particularly in regional areas. People will be proud of what they are doing and excel in their workplace.
I also see huge gains for our education sector in developments in drill rig engineering, drilling improvement, drill chemistry technology, submersible technology, sea floor research and subsea floor research. These areas are moving towards deeper and more complex fields to access energy reserves, and it will be fantastic for people in the Northern Territory to create work and jobs through education and creating patents for fantastic improvements in this technology. It hits the whole gamut of employment capacity of individuals in the Territory. If someone wants to drive a truck or work on a drill rig, that is fantastic, good on them, go for it. If someone wants to be a high-end industrial chemist and work on better brine for better drill results from the sea floor, that is fantastic.
Not too many people in the world understand how they mix things with different specific gravities and specific densities so one fluid can create a seal for many other fluids. It isamazing to see that, and this pipeline will enable those things in the Northern Territory.
I also look at the manufacturing sectors that can exist in the Northern Territory. Obviously, as we improve our ties with Timor and countries around us, we can be seen for our high-end manufacturing products. We will never be able to compete with other nations in lower-end manufacturing. I do not think the Northern Territory will have a fantastic clothing manufacturing industry; it does not work to our advantage. However, we have the ability to develop high-quality steel or pipe work which can work under huge depths of water and incredibly harsh conditions. That is where a manufacturing industry in the Northern Territory could start. It is industry specific, highly specific in the qualifications and technical knowhow needed to produce these pipes, types of steel and alloys necessary in exact quantities to ensure these things work in harsh environments.
I think we can reinvent ourselves with high-end manufacturing products. Why can we not make submersibles here, the intricate pieces of machinery which are at the bottom of the sea floor all across the world, welding or changing valves 1 km under the water? The Australian ability to make something out of nothing we have seen throughout our history; many great inventions have come from this country.
I want to see this offshore pipeline onshore conglomerate work to ensure the Northern Territory’s future is not one dimensional, but multidimensional and multifaceted. I want it to take in all people in the Northern Territory, from Indigenous people at Ali Curung, people studying doctorates at Charles Darwin University and people who want a normal job from 9 am to 5 pm. Industries like that can support this, and I see industries being able to take the Northern Territory to the next level. It is a strong and integral part of the developing north Australia program the Giles government has put together.
With something as important as this, it is depressing to see my colleague, the member for Casuarina, is the only member of the opposition here …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, do not refer to people who are not in the Chamber.
Mr BARRETT: I apologise, I take that back.
I am not sure why they do not want input into this issue.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, when I knew the member for Daly was bringing this motion forward I was excited because I know the potential gas can and will bring the Northern Territory. I am proud to be a member of a Country Liberals government, and Minister for Education.
I want kids in schools in the Northern Territory to have jobs. Gas can provide the biggest opportunity the Northern Territory has ever had. When the member for Daly mentioned gas, all I could think about was if the pipelines could be connected to the eastern and southern states. As the Chief Minister said, the potential is there because it is where the customer base is. A network of pipes and gas could connect us with the rest of Australia and allow the Northern Territory to be the battery of this country and provide jobs. As Minister for Education, my goal in getting kids into employment. Why the hell educate children if we do not have jobs for them?
Gas is a commodity which is growing around the world. People see the potential in gas, and there is something about this which will take us to places we never thought possible. As Minister for Education and Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, to understand the gravity of what gas can deliver for the Northern Territory and future workers of the Northern Territory – children being educated in our schools today will have a completely different environment in five, 10 and 20 years from now because of gas.
Resources in the Northern Territory – the positive impact we can have on the rest of the country and the children we are educating today shows we are on the right track.
This is the right pipeline to follow. I thank the member for Daly for bringing this motion on. Everybody in this House should be very supportive. Thank you.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, being a man of few words, it is amazing how many words from my brief speech we have heard tonight. I found it very stimulating. It is probably the best …
Ms Walker: You do not want to talk about racial vilification.
Mr HIGGINS: … debate I have heard in this House for a long time.
The teacher from Nhulunbuy would know the saying, ‘Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them and tell them what you told them’. I am at the third phase, ‘Tell them what you told them’.
Before you open your mouth, you should always know what you want to say, what you want to achieve, and be guaranteed you will achieve it. During my speech I made a slight mistake. I said the potential gas we have is enough to run a power station for one million people for 50 years. That should have been 5000 years. If you do your multiplication that matches what the member for Sanderson said: 23 million people for 200 years. It would also match what the Mines and Energy minister said. He also took a conservative estimate at about 10%, which would be enough energy to run a power station for one million people for 500 years.
I thank all members for their contributions tonight, especially the member for Casuarina. His knowledge in this area is vast. He is very good on the energy futures committee. He mentioned the chemical industry, and it reminded me of the discussion I had with the Attorney-General when he returned from his visit to Dow Chemical in the United States. A by-product comes from gas processing and we have missed that potential – manufacturing comes from having all this available gas.
The member for Blain mentioned ancillary industries to come out of this new development. The other issue is it is not just gas. When you have manufacturing you need to power plants, which requires electricity, which leads to the reason for splitting Power and Water. We want competition to keep prices down, plus we want to build power stations we do not have the money for. We want to induce private enterprise into that field as well.
The Chief Minister mentioned development of a pipeline and development of gas exploration. In the Territory, that will be the next big project after INPEX. It needs to be reiterated that INPEX is a $35bn project and this is never ending. From now on we will see projects like this come up. It will not be a matter of saying this project cost so much, this one cost so much more. It will be about how much is being invested in this area each year.
The member for Nelson raised the issue, which I completely agree with, that gas is not clean energy, just a bit cleaner than coal. We need to bear in mind that while there is so much coal available in Australia, very few people will go away from it if the price of gas keeps increasing the way it is. We need to ensure we expand in the exploration area.
It is also interesting that gas – which was pointed out by the Chief Minister – is not like electricity. You do not simply plug into it, you need to run pipelines. An example of that was in Question Time yesterday regarding the power plant at the AACo abattoir at Acacia. Part of the problem was putting a spur into the gas pipeline. The cost of putting that in was prohibitive and alternative forms of energy worked out not to be cost effective. They are building their own power station.
We need to bear in mind we have discussed exploration and the market, and what I have learnt on the energy futures committee is many of the smaller development companies the member for Blain mentioned will not undertake any exploration unless they know there is a market and a mechanism to get their product to market. The market is in the eastern and southern states, so we have to get our Territory gas to those locations. The way to do that is with a pipeline.
The other interesting thing the Chief Minister mentioned was the swap of gas. That reminded me of when Internet shopping became available and we bought a Christmas basket for relatives in the UK. I was surprised when it arrived three days later. I wondered how they did it. They ship all the wine and other things from Australia to England and you ring up and it happens.
I was reminded of that tonight, as well as when we were in Western Australia talking to ENI about gas swaps. One of the examples they gave was if we wanted gas from ENI that was not available we could end up with INPEX gas. INPEX is shipping all its gas to Japan as LNG, and ENI had a plant off the coast of Africa which was also shipping LNG to Japan.
They said if we purchased gas from ENI out of the plant in South Africa they would do a deal with INPEX. INPEX would give us the gas out of their pipe and then the LNG which ENI had would be shipped directly to Japan. That is an example, in practical terms, of what the Chief Minister was talking about with LNG.
There is a difference between LNG and CNG. An option for our remote communities would be if we had a pipeline we would have the potential to truck CNG to power stations in Indigenous communities and remote towns, and that is a hell of a lot cheaper than using diesel. I know the Indigenous Essential Service administrator would not like to change his turbines to gas, but there is potential there.
The Chief Minister mentioned the Moomba gas hub. People need to remember if you have a gas pipeline and get gas out of one field which does not match the other you cannot mix them. Connecting into a hub has its advantages.
While the member for Casuarina was out the Chief Minister mentioned North Dakota as a good place to look at gas. We need consideration of that by the energy futures committee. These gas networks or pipelines are similar to power networks, and super funds have an interest in them.
When we went to Western Australia we spoke to many mining companies about reservation policies. The feedback we received is that they inhibit investment.
I reiterate, and the Treasurer mentioned it, in the Territory we have shale gas, not coal seam gas. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Assembly debating and voting on General Business Notice Number 2, Local Government Choices.
Tonight we have seen a total abuse of the system for General Business Day. We have had people playing the fool with this important part of the parliamentary process. I know what is going on; I have been around a long time. The members for Sanderson and Fong Lim, and the Chief Minister, knew time was running out and were laughing about it. This was a deliberate tactic to abuse the system of General Business Day.
You have plenty of time, as a government, to debate many issues. I am not knocking the member for Daly for bringing his motion forward, he is entitled to, but you have debated one item for three-and-a-half hours.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the question is put now the government will agree to the motion.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I am putting the motion that I be allowed to debate this bill. My argument is …
Madam SPEAKER: No, you are moving suspension of standing orders.
Mr WOOD: Yes, suspension of standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK: If you put the question now, we will agree to the suspension of standing orders so you can get through your topic.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, as long as they understand I am totally disgusted with what happened today. I have watched the laughing and sneering and watching the clock. I am no fool when it comes to tactics and think it is disgraceful.
I move the suspension of standing orders to allow me to do something that is important.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker and member for Port Darwin. At least there is some sensibility in allowing me to do this.
Madam Speaker, I move that local government councils in the Northern Territory be given the choice of appointing a person to run their own elections.
It should not have reached this stage. You are the government and have an opportunity to debate many issues through statements. You can have as many statements as you like in parliament every day of the week. On this side we have three-and-a-half hours to discuss issues we would like brought before this parliament, and today you have deliberately stymied that opportunity.
That is abuse of the parliamentary process. I am bringing this forward because although it is a small issue and the member for Fong Lim says he supports it, it is the one opportunity I have to bring forth things I consider important. I would have been able to debate this issue in the normal time if that side of parliament had not abused the process.
Of course the pipeline is important, I agree. It could have also come up as a statement from the Minister for Mines and Energy, the Treasurer, or the Chief Minister and you could have all spoken about it.
How many people spoke on the container deposit legislation? None apart from the minister – one on this side and one over there …
Mr Chandler: We have not finished.
Mr WOOD: We have finished that debate. We were hoping more people on your side would debate it. You are supporting this bill. No one else supported it on your side, and you know the reason I could not be here. We are trying to get briefings and do other things. One person on your side spoke on the container deposit legislation.
Madam Speaker, today I am bringing forward a simple item asking the government to reverse legislation passed in 2011 which was part of a series of amendments to the Electoral Act, the Local Government Act and the Local Government (Electoral) Regulations. The second reading said the change was to establish the Electoral Commissioner as a sole provider for all local government elections.
I am asking that local government councils in the Northern Territory be given the choice of appointing a person to run their own elections because, especially with by-elections, it has cost local government a lot of money. There may be some discussion about whether they can run full elections, but I know from letters I have received it has been costing local councils a considerable amount of money to run relatively small elections.
A letter from Craig Catchlove, Director Corporate and Community Services at Alice Springs Town Council, says the cost of their last by-election was $83 219. Whether Alice Springs wants to – we are not saying they have to do it; we are giving them the choice to run a by-election instead of the Electoral Commissioner.
Cathryn Hutton, Chief Executive Officer Central Desert Regional Council, said the council had a by-election in – the member for Barkly will know. I cannot pronounce language written by linguists, but I think it is Atitjere ward following the most recent general election. The cost of this by-election was $15 600. As a matter of perspective, that $15 600 allowed 953 people who are enrolled to vote, and 331 actually voted. That is a very big expense. I am not saying democracy is not important, but I am sure that expense would be a lot smaller if the council had been able to look at it.
Katherine Town Council recently quoted a $95 000 fee structure for a by-election. Dave Laugher, the CEO of Katherine, was not sure if he would save anything doing it himself. That is fair enough. I am not telling councils they have to go down this path; I am recommending councils have a choice.
It is a simple motion. It is important we realise many of our councils are suffering financial stress and suffering from by-elections, somebody dying, resigning, moving away or getting sick of the job. Many councils have had to put up with multiple by-elections which have cost them a lot of money. It is not money they have to throw around. They would rather spend that money on essential services in their community.
The option I am bringing forward would allow councils the choice. That has to be made clear, because I am not telling councils they have to do it themselves; we just allow them the freedom they had before these changes.
I do not know if there was pressure from the Electoral Commissioner who wanted a monopoly over it, or whether councils felt it was better only the Electoral Commissioner did it. Looking back, I do not think that was the right move. It has cost councils a lot of money.
Many of these councils do not have a high rate base, as we know. Some councils only get 2% or 3% of their total revenue from rates, so a figure of $19 000 for a by-election is a fair bump in their budget.
This is important. It can reduce the cost to the council and give them some choice. I am sure councillors could get some training on how to run elections from the Electoral Commissioner. Obviously you will need a returning officer, which would more than likely be the CEO.
It would be a good opportunity for local people to participate in the voting process. It would be educational for local people to see and officiate in the process of the by-election. Perhaps, because they are running it themselves, more people would take an interest in voting. As you can see, there were 900 people on the roll for that ward and only 330 voted. That is a very low number of people taking an interest in local government. Maybe there are other reasons people are not taking an interest, but it could be if it was run from a local perspective more people may be encouraged to vote.
Obviously you would need the normal format and voting must be secret. I believe it is proportional representation if more than one person is running in a ward, otherwise it is a preferential vote. The things that normally apply in an election run by the Electoral Commissioner would still happen. I am putting it forward as a simple motion.
We should not be speaking at 9.10 pm. We should have used our heads, not abused the process and shared the time. The member for Daly has every right to introduce his interesting motion, one I took part in. However, I knew people were running the clock down. You could see eyes looking at the clock and hear the snide remarks and the laughs. People were making sure they ran the full 40 minutes. We often do not get that when a minister gives a statement. Usually, the minister makes the statement, some on this side respond and that is it. Those tactics are okay when the government is running the show, but we have one opportunity a week to discuss matters important to our electorates and other people in the Northern Territory.
I find it disheartening that people think it is a laughing matter. I thought we took our parliamentary responsibilities more seriously than that. To some extent I feel ashamed that senior people in the government think it is funny. I put the motion forward and am sad I had to ask for a suspension of standing orders. Sometimes we should be ashamed of the way we run this parliament.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, clearly the member for Nelson should be ashamed of himself. The Chief Minister approached him prior to this debate and asked if he would like to bring his motion on first. As I understand it, the Chief Minister told the member for Nelson a number of people on this side of the Chamber were interested in the gas pipeline motion and would like to talk about it.
For the member for Nelson to rant and rave that he has missed out is appalling, and he should rightfully feel ashamed of himself ...
Mr Wood: I will correct that at the end.
Mr TOLLNER: You have a right to reply.
Ms Walker: Get on with it, Dave.
Mr TOLLNER: ‘Get on with it’. Now we now have a bunch of people interested in being in the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw that comment. You do not reference people coming in and out of the Chamber.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw.
A number of us are keen to speak on the local government motion put by the member for Nelson. I had a conversation with the member for Nelson to say the government would be happy to adopt his motion when the local government reforms are debated next week.
I do not know what you have to do for this guy. You bend over backwards to accommodate him and he still feels the need to have a self-righteous rant about the processes of parliament. To somehow belittle the gas pipeline industry and our desire to see development and energy in the Northern Territory is highly inappropriate. It is an important subject.
The points the member for Nelson makes in relation to local government elections are valid. The Northern Territory Electoral Commission is quite an expensive service. There are other ways of conducting by-elections, particularly if you look at some of the regional councils around the Territory. It seems we are having by-elections on a regular basis, as people resign or leave their jobs for one reason or another ...
Ms Walker: Or the higher mortality rates in remote communities.
Mr TOLLNER: As I said, for one reason or another. Some people, unfortunately, pass away in office. Some, for some reason or other, do not bother turning up. Whatever the reason, there are regular by-elections in our regional councils and local government sector. Having spoken to LGANT, this is also an issue for local government. As minister, I have heard their calls for more options in the way they run council by-elections. They are expensive, they drain local government funds and, in many cases, the election can be run far more cheaply and effectively by the local government bodies and people they employ to do the work, rather than using the Northern Territory Electoral Commission. There is a range of reasons.
The Department of Local Government and Regions has been consulting with the local government sector on the recommendations made by the Electoral Commission in its 2012 NT Council Elections Report which was tabled on 4 December 2013. Submissions were received in that review from the City of Darwin, the City of Palmerston and many other councils via LGANT. A committee was formed with representatives from the department, the Electoral Commission and LGANT to consider the results of those consultations and to determine which recommendations to adopt. One of the proposals under consideration includes reviewing the timing of local government general elections so they do not fall in the same year as elections for the Legislative Assembly.
The Electoral Commission faced logistic and administrative difficulties when holding elections for both local government and the Legislative Assembly in 2012. Both elections are currently scheduled to be held in 2016, and every four years thereafter, to give the Electoral Commission sufficient time and resources to plan adequately for both elections. Consideration is being given to ensure future Northern Territory and local government elections do not fall in the same year and to reduce the frequency of by-elections by allowing more vacancies to be filled by appointment. Currently, if a council member ceases to be a member within 12 months of the next general election, the council can appoint a person to act in that office until the election occurs.
Councils have stated that frequently occurring by-elections have placed significant strain on their resources, particularly by-elections occurring in regional and other municipal councils. To assist councils to address this issue, the committee is considering whether the 12-month period should be longer, which would reduce the frequency of by-elections occurring and relieve some of the strain councils have faced, giving councils more flexibility in conducting by-elections.
Another option being considered by the committee to address the significant strain on council resources caused from by-elections is to allow councils to run their own by-elections or, as I said earlier, engage a private election service provider. Work is being done on the availability of service providers. Other considerations are the role the Electoral Commissioner will play where councils choose to run by-elections on their own, and allowing municipal councils to conduct by-elections by postal voting only.
One of the submissions from councils was to conduct elections by postal voting only and get rid of polling booths. At present this will not work for all councils as the regions do not have adequate infrastructure or postal services. However, it may be possible to trial such a proposal by giving the municipals the option to conduct elections by way of postal vote only.
This already occurs during local government general elections in South Australia and Tasmania. Victoria is also reviewing the feasibility of this option. The committee is considering whether the electoral roll data is of sufficient quality to facilitate this proposal. Other measures seeking to improve administration and reduce costs of local government elections include: expanding the availability of early postal voting services to all constituents to improve voter participation, which is in line with Commonwealth elections practice; allowing the Electoral Commissioner to determine reasonable hours during which a polling booth for by-elections must be open based on expected voter turnout; reviewing the roll the Electoral Commission plays in revising council boundaries to assist councils in meeting their statutory obligations; increasing education to the public and councils on the preferential voting system used for local government elections in the Northern Territory; improving maintenance of the electoral roll by facilitating councils to play a more active role in the lead-up to major elections; and improving voter participation by encouraging the Electoral Commission to take a more active role in pursuing fines from electors who fail to vote.
The member for Nelson’s motion that councils be given the choice of election service providers is being considered by the committee as part of this process. Any legislative amendments which result from the committee’s recommendations are expected to be introduced later this year or early 2015 to allow enough time for implementation and preparation for the 2016 general elections, if that is when we choose to hold them.
The government has been doing an enormous job in reforming local government. Members are aware the Country Liberals did an enormous amount of work in the lead-up to the election around local government. We recognised the toxic shires had to go and Labor had failed Territorians by taking away their voice.
Members opposite may recall that a key issue raised during the 2012 election was that people felt shire councils were unrepresentative and unresponsive to their community, and they were described by most as having lost their voice. Before embarking on its local government reforms, our government consulted widely.
There was widespread dissatisfaction, particularly in the bush, with Labor’s super shire model, and many bush communities felt they had lost their voice and local control of their communities had disappeared. There are four key planks of the government’s local government reforms and I will go through them quickly: the modification and realignment from the super shires model into a network of regional councils and local authorities; the creation of a new regional council in the west Daly region, which I think has been well supported by the member for Daly and I understand that process is going well. Of course, the old super shire was too vast and the communities of interest were too diverse. Other key planks are the continual striving to increase local government’s ability to raise funds and the handing back of power and responsibility from the Territory government to the local government sector.
In relation to the creation of local authorities, since February 2014 regional councils have been establishing local authorities in 63 rural and remote communities and towns, all of which will be up and running by 1 July this year. It is vital for Territorians living in regional and remote communities to have a say on local government matters and other government services and programs delivered in their communities.
Each local authority is made up of community nominees and elected members. A council employee has now been assigned to each local authority to undertake secretariat functions and to ensure good communication between regional councils and their local authorities. The local authorities will play an important role in the business of their council and will represent their community’s interests in important council decision-making, such as in the development of annual plans and the budget, assessing service standards, providing input into council policies and contributing to the council’s annual report.
Eligible members of local authorities will now be paid an allowance, which for the first time acknowledges, in a concrete manner, that residents’ contributions to local planning and governance are critical and invaluable. In addition, the $5m I announced at the last LGANT meeting in Katherine will be paid to regional councils to distribute to local authorities. They will make recommendations to their councils on how this money can be best directed to meet community priorities. Local authorities will receive regular financial reports about council expenditure in their community so they are able to track how funds are being spent in their area and make recommendations about future allocations. In addition, local authorities will be able to provide a representative on employment selection panels in relation to managerial positions in their local authority areas.
These initiatives will strengthen the voice of people living in regional and remote areas and ensure they have a strong voice in local government and other government services.
Rural and remote communities have embraced the introduction of local authorities. Recently, the community of Nyirripi was the first community of the central desert region to conduct local authority elections. I congratulate the newly appointed members. I am sure they will provide a strong voice to the Central Desert Regional Council.
In relation to the new West Daly Regional Council, a well-attended meeting with representative clan groups from the west Daly region made it clear to the Chief Minister, me and the member for Daly they wanted a stronger voice and greater control over services in their local area. The new council for the Wadeye, Peppimenarti and Palumpa region was announced in November 2013.
The Northern Territory government appointed a transition committee in December 2013, including representatives from the new council area. The continuing council area, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory and Australian governments and the member for Nelson have been providing me with advice across a range of transition issues. The transition committee meetings to date have included discussion on the new council name – the West Daly Regional Council, council boundaries, staffing matters, service deliveries, assets and liabilities, transfer methodology, council offices, organisational structure and governance arrangements. A prospective council or transitional body was established via a restructuring order in April this year to assist in the preparations necessary for staff, assets and service delivery arrangements to be ready for commencement on 1 July this year. For example, this week the new prospective council was granted an ABN.
In addition to the full range of local government services, a number of agency and commercial services funded by external organisations will also transfer from day one. Based on decisions of the transition committee, all service delivery operations will continue to be provided from within the new council area, while head office activities will initially be based in Darwin to assist the new council to settle progressively over the first 12 months of operation.
The final stages of council planning, budgets, administrative systems and, importantly, council staff and asset transfers are now well advanced. From 1 July 2014 the new council will initially comprise the formal body corporate councillors and service delivery staff transferring from the Victoria Daly Regional Council. Council staff and the broader community will continue to be fully consulted throughout this transition process.
The transition is being progressed over a six-month period to ensure continuous service delivery and a smooth transition process for both the new and continuing councils. Members of the transition committee should be applauded – I say this from the bottom of my heart – on their deliberations to date, which have been well considered and approached very cooperatively by all involved. I thank the member for Nelson – because he is in the room – for his participation in the transition committee.
The Country Liberals government told people in remote and regional areas we would return their voices, and that is exactly what we are delivering.
The biggest criticism we have received is in relation to financial stability. Upon winning government the Country Liberals moved quickly to strengthen the financial viability of local government, especially in the bush. We increased the operational subsidy to bush councils by $5m, which is a 25% increase in the subsidy paid to provide local government services in the bush.
I recently announced a contribution of $5m for use by local authorities to allow communities to undertake small projects in their areas. How bush councils raise more of their own funding will always be an issue. It is important to note that, on average, regional councils raise approximately 5.3% of their income through rates. That compares to an Australian average for councils of between 60% and 70%.
In relation to increasing local government independence, I have offered to hand back certain functions from the Northern Territory government to the local government sector …
Ms Walker: How many jobs?
Mr TOLLNER: The move to hand back autonomy to the local government sector will provide the opportunity for greater self-management. This will be developed through a proposed new agreement with LGANT.
I take up the interjection from the member of Nhulunbuy, who asked, ‘How many jobs?’ It is abundantly clear maintaining government positions is far more important to the Labor Party than greater self-management of local government. Those opposite are not interested in better management practices, only in maintaining the status quo.
You would think, after the last election, they would have learnt their lesson and understood people in the bush were not happy with the toxic shires. They felt disillusioned and betrayed, and voted with their feet.
The CLP is keen to enable local government to, essentially, manage itself. This is a big departure from the way the previous government operated.
In particular, the government is offering LGANT the opportunity to taken on greater responsibilities in recognition that local government does not need the Territory government constantly looking over its shoulder. We want to strengthen the role played by LGANT by allowing it to assume a number of functions currently carried out by the Department of Local Government and Regions. Why people opposite think people will lose their jobs under this new regime is beyond me. LGANT will require people to maintain those functions. I encourage people currently working in the Northern Territory government to seriously consider the opportunities LGANT offers. While the department will still take a lead in policy development and high level compliance matters, the proposal allows local government to set its own agenda and have more control over issues that affect its ability to deliver value for its ratepayers.
Mr Damien Ryan, Chairman of LGANT and Mayor of Alice Springs, and I signed a statement of intent at the meeting in Katherine, paving the way for detailed negotiations to identify functions and appropriate funding that could be transferred to LGANT through a service delivery agreement. This innovative approach will create an environment where local government can operate with maximum efficiency. I can, without a doubt, say LGANT and the Department of Local Government and Regions are working together constructively on that service delivery agreement.
In relation to Indigenous jobs, local councils are a key source of employment in many regional and remote communities throughout the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government supports local government in its efforts to continue employing local people to provide local services. An example of this can be seen with the very successful Indigenous jobs package, another great partnership between the Territory government and the local government sector.
The Australian and Northern Territory governments introduced a three-year funding package to support real and sustainable jobs in delivering core local government services. The program began in 2011 to replace the former CDEP, which had supported Aboriginal employment over the previous 34 years. The Indigenous jobs package provides $6m of funding annually on a matching dollar-for-dollar basis. Included in the package was $500 000 for local area traffic management improvements with the focus on road safety initiatives. An additional $4.8m over three years was provided by the Australian government to fund Indigenous role models or mentors. This initiative has supported up to 30 positions, with retention strategies and capacity building for hundreds of other Indigenous employees. It allows employment of an additional 530 people each year and aims to give certainty in funding local governments so they can better support long-term employment and skills development.
The program supports core local government services and provides employment for civil work crews, road construction and maintenance, parks and gardens, grass and weed management, waste collection and dump management teams, front desk and back office customer services and council building maintenance and plant maintenance staff. The Indigenous employment grant program has been well received by regional councils, has made significant improvements in overall Indigenous employment in local government and has improved outcomes of local government service delivery.
The government is doing an enormous amount in the area of local government, an area we value and a genuine tier of government. At times I am stunned at the way the previous government treated the local government sector. It was as if it was meant to be a puppet doing what it was told and not bucking the system. However, to have a viable local government system you need buy-in by local people, and you cannot do that by running everything with a top-down approach. This government has been keen to devolve responsibility, as much as possible, from large toxic super shires into the regions through local authorities, to resource local authorities and give them a genuine say in their communities – devolve responsibility from the Northern Territory government to the local government sector through its representative body, LGANT. We constantly show faith in the local government sector and things are turning around.
There was not a high level of support for the Northern Territory government from the local government sector prior to us coming to office. Almost two years into government we are starting to see a change in outlook from people on the ground. At the last LGANT meeting I attended we were well received. The announcements made were well received, and the local government sector is starting to see the government is demonstrating genuine faith in the sector.
In that regard, I support the member for Nelson’s motion tonight. He might think he is being targeted, but we had no problem agreeing to set aside standing orders to debate his motion, and we are happy to support it. It fits in quite neatly with what the government is doing. We can easily oppose it as we have the numbers. When someone puts up a good idea we are more than happy to support it no matter how victimised the member may feel. It will be interesting to see what our Labor colleagues think about this with their top-down approach. It is good to see some of them listening to this debate. Thank you.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for getting a suspension of standing orders to debate the motion on the General Business Day Notice Paper. I agree with him; we have seen a gross abuse of government power this evening. General Business is, by convention, intended to be the business of opposition and Independents of the House. We get three-and-a-half hours one day a week for opposition and Independent members.
Madam Speaker, prior to commencement of the May sittings of parliament I met with you and the Clerk to discuss provision in the standing orders to deal with the new dynamic of the parliament: the crossbenches. I raised concerns about the government’s behaviour where we saw a breach of convention with members of the government leading General Business Day motions that could be dealt with by government and did not require motions. I have no issue, as Leader of the Opposition, with government members wanting to deal with private members’ bills through GBD. That has been the convention of the parliament. What has not been the convention is for General Business Day, not Government Business Day, to be consumed by motions from government members.
We have no issue whatsoever with looking at the feasibility of a gas pipeline to the eastern seaboard. The opposition contribution to the debate made that very clear up front. Stop talking about things; do it.
We see a government steeped in arrogance to the point it trashes across the convention and the wisdom of parliamentary process and procedures, to its shame. There is a need to genuinely look at standing orders for General Business Day.
Be honest and up front with parliamentary procedure. If you intend to consume General Business Day with government motions, say so and let us have an open, accountable and honest debate, because that is what you have done tonight.
Members witnessed government members talking, literally, to the clock. Members witnessed the joking and carrying on. You are patting yourselves on the back because you talked to the clock, consumed General Business Day and did not get the important issue of racial vilification up for debate. You would not want to touch it. I understand, politically, why not, because your position is somewhat untenable to date. I hope you read the discussion paper.
I seek to table the discussion paper tackling racial vilification in the Northern Territory.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE: I have written to all members of the parliament asking for bipartisan support. I knew the government would do whatever it could to talk to the clock and avoid a debate on racial vilification tonight. I will not seek to abuse parliamentary processes and procedures in the foolish manner the government has this evening. This is a debate on the local government motion from the member for Nelson and I will honour and respect it. However, I place on the record the deep reservations the opposition has concerning the government breaching convention and the gross misuse and abuse of parliamentary procedures in consuming General Business Day with a government matter. That could, frankly, have been sorted out in a conversation within the parliamentary wing and by getting on with the business of government.
Look at the feasibility, do your job. You are trapped in the psyche of an opposition. People of the Northern Territory need a government; they have not witnessed actions of a government. You are pathetic. Get on with government and allow General Business Day to be the domain of the opposition, the Independent and the crossbenchers of the minority party.
You do your business in Government Business and we will get on with our business on General Business Day. That would be the decent, respectful and honest thing to do. The challenge to you, Leader of Government Business, is to get your rabble to understand that.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I add my disgust to the way General Business Day has been treated by the government. Members opposite seem to think the three-and-a-half hours once a week during a sitting week is theirs for the taking. What a great joke it is to steal the time away from the opposition, the Independent and the three new members who have joined us. It is disgraceful. Clearly, talking the clock down to see who could get through their time was the source of much mirth on that side.
Whilst the matter discussed is important – around gas pipelines – I am ambivalent about gas pipelines at the moment. I chose not to contribute to the discussion because I have said an awful lot about a gas pipeline which never made it to Gove. Seeing members opposite pat themselves on the back about drumming up business in the Northern Territory and speeding up the gas market when there was an opportunity more than a year ago – that was lost thanks to the current Chief Minister.
I thank the member for Nelson for bringing his motion before the House because it is an important subject for discussion. GBD is an opportunity to put forward ideas and be constructive – not just for government but also Territorians – about how things might work better. In this case it is in the area of local government.
Members of the Labor opposition support the intent of the motion from the member for Nelson that councils have the choice of who oversees and conducts local government elections, particularly council by-elections. We support the motion, but note there is a body of work required on the extent of change to local government election arrangements, and how change inferred by this motion may be given effect.
In this debate about change and the way local government elections may be conducted, we need to stay focused on one core foundation of effective local government – the democratic election of councillors, that electors can exercise choice in who represents them, and that elections are conducted in a fair, transparent and proper way. We also recognise in the bush the cultural authority and voice of cultural leaders should be heard as part of an effective local government. We see that as the way local government needs to work in the context of regional councils.
Our regional councils are made up of elected representatives, often local councillors with strong cultural authority – men and women. We always envisaged they would stay strongly connected to their local boards and authorities, as well as being local cultural leaders in local issues and local government priorities.
On Aboriginal land, traditional owners can also exercise their rights as landowners through conditions attached to land leasing and the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.
Returning to the core purpose of the debate, I understand the driver for this motion is the view of some in the local government sector that there needs to be more choice available to councils regarding who conducts their elections, particularly their by-elections. I have had a discussion with the President of LGANT, Mayor Damien Ryan, about the costing impost that comes with elections, particularly by-elections. This is a key issue for councils because under current arrangements they have to budget and pay for the cost of elections. Councils are under continued pressure to reduce costs, including the cost of elections. At the same time, operating costs increase, no more so since the change of government.
The new government, far from delivering its commitment to reduce the cost of living, has increased the cost of living for not only families of the Northern Territory, but also service providers like councils and regional councils. They are currently grappling with the expected increased cost of street lighting, a core expense for our municipal councils. In the past, councils paid a fixed price for lighting, but Power and Water is now negotiating new service agreements with individual councils built around energy use, operations and maintenance, and what is described as a capital charge. In effect, this is a charge to cover the cost of asset depreciation of lights owned by Power and Water.
LGANT’s most recent estimate is costs to municipal councils will likely increase from the current $2.6m to $6.2m, an incredible increase in costs associated with street lighting for municipal councils. It is small wonder Mayor Ian Abbott, City of Palmerston, issued a media release on 17 March slamming the government for doing that. For them, the charge for maintaining assets owned by Power and Water equates to $575 906 annually. It was a very angry media release and I mentioned it in debate yesterday. Clearly, that sector of government and municipal councils is not happy.
I also know regional councils are not happy with the additional costs they have to wear with power increases. Again, I spoke yesterday about the impact on councils. This is perhaps illustrated no better than MacDonnell Shire Council, with three swimming pools and, at the hottest time of the year, insufficient funds to operate the pools until eventually the federal government was shamed into providing funds to allow the pools to operate for the benefit of families, particularly children.
The advice from LGANT is the sector wants to reduce the cost of by-elections in particular, potentially by appointing their own suitably qualified returning officer to oversee elections. They would also like to reintroduce choice in who conducts the elections, and to see a market opened for the supply of election services to local government in the Territory.
In 2008, our reform of the Local Government Act included choice. It allowed councils to decide the service provider through appointment of their CEO or another person as returning officer to conduct their elections.
The 10 new councils and the Litchfield Shire Council chose to use the services of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission for the 2008 election. The NTEC has the skills and experience to conduct elections, which is its core business. It also, importantly, maintains the electoral rolls that election and voter lists are built on.
Expenditure on that election by the NTEC was $995 056, of which $900 000 was funded by councils and the then Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services.
In line with usual practice, the NT Electoral Commissioner provided a detailed report on that election. The Commissioner’s report made a number of recommendations on opportunities for further development of arrangements for local government elections, including a review to find ways to increase the participation rate of enrolled electors, ways to reduce the level of informal votes and more involvement of the NTEC in local government boundary reviews as they occur in each term of the local government.
I wonder if the NTEC has been involved in the review of boundaries associated with the new West Daly Regional Council. I do not think so.
The report also recommended ways to clarify the role of various bodies involved in local government elections, and a range of administrative changes.
In particular, the NTEC recommended the Local Government Act be amended …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, can you take the drink outside please.
Ms WALKER: … to provide that the NTEC be appointed as a sole provider for local government elections, at least in respect to general elections.
There was consultation at the time with the local government sector about the recommendations made by the NTEC. One consequence was the Local Government Act was amended to remove reference to a returning officer, leaving the NT Electoral Commissioner as sole service provider for local government elections, effective May 2012.
Also, in late 2011 there were amendments to the regulation setting out how council elections were to conducted, including Regulation 4, which provides for the Electoral Commissioner to be the authorised officer referred to in the regulations who conducts elections, although the Electoral Commissioner can authorise a person to exercise powers or perform specific functions of an authorised officer.
The council elections on 24 March 2012 were the first for all NT local government authorities on the same date and under common legislation. It was a significant undertaking, with 21 mobile teams and 57 static booths. An additional 411 staff were employed by the NTEC, mostly for election day, and the total cost was $2.3m, with the NTEC meeting $700 000 of that.
We support the return of choice in the appointment of a suitable person to conduct elections, but we also call on the government, if it supports this motion, to work with local government on the development of appropriate legislation and regulation amendments.
It is important that changes do not degrade the quality of elections or the transparency and proper conduct of elections, but we support more choice in who provides election services, particularly for by-elections.
It is critically important that in developing any new arrangements the government fully considers the recommendations and views of the NTEC expressed in the detailed reports put out – the one from 2008 into shire and regional councils. These reports inform government about the best way to see this become a reality. That could include a solution where the government provides funding to the NTEC for elections, or other ways to reduce the cost burden on councils for general elections, particularly the burden on smaller councils and regional councils. We must ensure any new arrangements do not see a degrading in the conduct of elections.
It is fundamental we have fair and open elections in accordance with law, and elections which maximise the informed vote of electors. I am reminded of the words of the Electoral Commissioner last year, where he reminded us how notorious bush elections have been in the past in putting pressure on election staff and the opportunity for election shenanigans. Being a bush member and having spent a number of election campaigns, both Territory and federal, at polling booths, I know how true those words are.
There is still an action before the courts in relation to improper conduct at one booth in the seat of Daly during the last NT elections. Having gone through the federal election in September, I saw wide-ranging conduct at booths, from some booths where the support offered to voters was pretty ordinary, to where voters were clearly being influenced by people working in booths, particularly around the use of language. The use of language is a critical issue given we have so many people for whom English is not their first language, or even second, third or fourth.
This makes it very difficult, but one of the best run booths I saw was at Elcho Island where there was a genuine commitment from people working there. Working with officers from Centrelink was a smart move – to second Centrelink officers from the local area to the mobile polling booths because they work with the constituency and are culturally aware. At Elcho Island I could see they knew the voters and could pronounce names properly. Getting your tongue around the name of some of our Indigenous constituents can be a challenge. I give a gold star to the efforts of the people working for the NTEC at Elcho Island.
I was very taken with Captain Booth, and was also keen to work with scrutineers who, of course, are members of political parties. Their ultimate aim was to make sure everybody worked together with a clear understanding that the objective was to see every voter cast a valid vote. People were given the assistance needed to make sure every box was filled and numbered, and they had voted in accordance with their wishes and were given the right support, despite their, perhaps, lack of English language.
I mentioned Centrelink staff and how valuable they were in remote booths. However, there is an influx of people into the Territory specifically to fill that job. The member for Barkly observed that we get people who are perhaps on a holiday, retirees, good people who take the opportunity to make a bit of money working on the booths. We need to make sure we have the right people, especially in our remote Indigenous communities, who know how to deal with constituents and be sensitive to language and cultural barriers. I was pleased to see – it might seem insignificant to some – women working for the NTEC were not wearing short shorts but, appropriately, skirts to their knees.
A reform we introduced when in government was replacing an exhaustive preferential vote count system with a proportional representation system. Under the vote, old system groups of candidates from larger towns which cross-preferenced were advantaged so such a group could take available positions, even though candidates from smaller towns in the ward received a significant amount of first preference votes. This change was introduced after release of a discussion paper on the subject and extensive consultation. The reform had support in the bush, especially in Central Australia with its many dispersed smaller communities.
The change helped ensure significant first preference support candidates in smaller communities had their support recognised and smaller communities were not disadvantaged and under-represented in local government. It was, and remains, an important reform to providing an equitable and fair process for local voices to be heard. The vote count system also helps ensure a fairer count of votes in multimember wards, as we have in many of our local government bodies. This vote counting system requires some expertise and capacity to properly count and allocate preferences.
We support the intention of this motion in increasing choice for councils on who conducts elections they are required to pay for. We also support change which reduces the cost of relatively simple by-elections to fill casual vacancies for our councils, for example, by resignation, retirement or, sadly as I know too well in Arnhem Land, where elected councillors pass away. This happens with much greater frequency than our municipal councils. Given the level of chronic disease in our communities, good people pass well before their time.
The quality of and confidence in local government elections is at stake here. The changes sought need to be explored in more detail and in consultation with the local government sector, and the detailed and thoughtful reports of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission in relation to past local government elections and how they might inform future processes.
I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion before the House. With the qualifiers mentioned, I commend this motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Fong Lim and Nhulunbuy, and the Opposition Leader for their comments. I thank the member for Fong Lim for trying to work through this issue earlier today. I understand if you change a part of an act other parts of the act will be affected. Your department handed me about six pages of changes which would have to occur, with detailed reasons why.
This motion asks the government to start a process which would have to come back to parliament as legislation drafted by Parliamentary Counsel to ensure the changes fitted in with other parts of the act.
I thank the minister for his summary of what is happening in local government. I will not debate those issues now, but it would be good from a ministerial statement point of view. Some of the things you mentioned I spoke about many years ago, because some of the changes have occurred in municipal councils down south, especially postal voting, and matters would need to be thoroughly discussed before you go down that path. In many cases, the voter turnout can be extremely low as well. I support the Tasmanian system of local government, especially proportional voting, and I supported the previous government introducing that. It is a fairer way of representation, and where we have multimember wards is probably the only way you can get a fair outcome. Other people may disagree, but I have always supported that process.
The minister raised many issues. Is there a paper the public can look at, because local government is not just about those who are elected? It affects ratepayers or voters within local government, and they need to be consulted because there may be changes which affect them that they have not been consulted on. Councils may have been consulted, but whether people at the end of the line have been is another matter. If there is a paper it should not only go to LGANT and its members, but also the broader community for discussion.
I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her contribution. I fully understand other matters need to be looked at. NTEC will, naturally, be trying to keep its business. The member for Nhulunbuy said if the government gives it more money it may be able to reduce the cost. It still comes from one basket, so the option of by-elections being run locally is a way around extra subsidies and a practical way to reduce cost, which is what this is all about.
I thank all members for their support. I want to clarify a few things the member for Fong Lim said. He said the Chief Minister said I would be up first. I do not want to verbal anyone, but the Chief Minister spoke to me informally about that. I did not think so, because the Notice Paper said I was second. I spoke to the member for Daly, who said he was speaking first.
This is important because you cannot do that; even I cannot make that change. Standing Order 93A is the order and precedence of General Business, 93 is the order and precedence of Government Business. Standing Order 93 says:
Mr Gunner: Also, you cannot …
Mr WOOD: That is right. There is a clear distinction between what can be done by the government on its day and what can be done by the opposition and Independent members on their day. Reading those two sections, it is clear there is a section set out for the opposition and Independent members. It is there; the government has its time and we have our time. I expect the government to put forward something very occasionally, because we do not have other opportunities.
Minister, the Chief Minister could not change things. I checked with the member for Daly, who said he was speaking first, and that was the order of the day.
As for being victimised, member for Fong Lim, I am over it. My skin is thick. I have been kicked by the CLP for many years, even when in local government. I know what it is like, I am over it. My concern is my electorate is being victimised because you are stopping me, as the elected member for Nelson, from representing people in this parliament. I am not being victimised, my electorate is being victimised.
It disappoints me when you say that. It also disappoints me that you won an election by about 124 votes. You had a loss of 10% in voting patterns, and only about 50% of people turned out. It took another 50% of that, which is 52%; it was not a great win. One of the problems I have with the government is that it is arrogant. I do not mind having a good debate, but do not rub my nose in it all the time. I will lose the debate; the only number I have is me.
I do not mind that, but sometimes the way you deal with issues makes me think, ‘Put your foot in reality’. You have a one seat majority. You had more and it has still not sunk in. If something happened to one of your side you would not have a majority. I will not teach you how to suck eggs; it is your business how you run your side. However, the feeling out there is the government is arrogant. Let us take the people forward.
I said to the Minister for Education regarding the Education Act, ‘Take people forward, don’t just tell them to look up the website’. If you want to change the Planning Act or have plans for the greater Darwin area do not say, ‘Here is a sheet of A4 paper’, or ‘Look on the website’. Talk to people about the issues. If you think your policies are good and important allow them to be debated in open forums, do not preach to people – you may say I am preaching to you – discuss things in a proper manner because they are important to people. Regardless of who is on that side of politics I would say the same things anyway. The process I had when I was with the council was to talk to people.
I was and probably still am upset, but I have calmed down, member for Fong Lim. Obviously when you brought that can into parliament a minute ago you intended to speak on the container deposit scheme and were looking for a depot, is that right? Madam Speaker, you totally misunderstood the reason the member for Fong Lim brought a can of Coca-Cola in. It must have been empty and he was looking for 10c. Great promotion, member for Fong Lim. I realise …
Mr Tollner: You were disappointed with which manufacturer it was.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the support. It is getting late and is a pity we had to go this far to get a straightforward motion before parliament. I have said enough about how the government acted tonight. I appreciate the support.
Motion agreed to.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (BEVERAGE CONTAINERS AND PLASTIC BAGS) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 76)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I want to cover off on a few things before we move the motion and answer some questions the member for Nhulunbuy raised. She asked why I had not debated long and hard with my interstate colleagues. It is certainly on the agenda as two of the largest states in Australia are seriously looking at container deposit legislation. In fact, one of their Environment ministers, after lobbying from this government and understanding what we were doing, sent a delegation to the Northern Territory, and the EPA worked very hard with them in the time they were here. They were seriously looking at our legislation. The premier of that state is very interested in CDL.
The continued lobbying and work we have done is starting to pay dividends. It will not be too long before we see at least three states and one territory with CDL, perhaps two territories. To say I have not done my job – we worked really hard and there is a lot of interest, member for Nhulunbuy.
In regard to consultation, more than enough has been done on CDL. Even under your government there was a level of consultation, which led to a clunky old system that was not legal and not right for the Territory. Through the hard work of this government we finally have a system Territorians can get behind.
You mentioned Tasmania and the fact I was in New Zealand. You referred to me tapping Tasmania on the shoulder. Work had been done earlier in Tasmania but not just by me. If memory serves me correctly, there had been negotiations between the premier and their equivalent EPA in Tasmania. It had just fallen through the cracks; that is the only reason. The reminder I gave them in Wellington sped the process up a little. We do not want to rewrite history, member for Nhulunbuy.
It is very important we go through the legislation summary in brief and advise the purpose of this bill. This quick summary might cover off some of the questions you may have if your will is it goes to the committee stage.
The purpose of the bill is to improve the efficiency of the scheme, the operations and administration, and to enhance the functionality of CDS; strengthen enforcement potential; remedy systematic discrepancies experienced by participants of the CBS; and remedy, where possible, the difficulties currently being experienced by CDS participants.
The key features of the bill are that CDS coordinators must accept all approved containers from collection depots which have been sorted by material type only, for example aluminium, plastic, glass, cardboard, etcetera; removal of the CDS principles and introduction of key components of the principles directly into the bill in areas such as the need for a dispute resolution process and minimising the handling and sorting of containers; the requirement for all CDS participants to have a waste management arrangement approved by the NT EPA; the requirement that a collection depot must be open to the public in accordance with its waste management agreement; the validation of existing approvals despite any deficiencies in the granting of the approval to enable action to be taken against a breach of approval, and allow for existing participants to operate effectively whilst working towards implementation of the new provisions; and transitional arrangements to allow CDS participants the time to align their operations with the new requirements.
External consultation has been ongoing during the two years the CDS has been in operation. Extensive feedback has been received from the community and industry stakeholders. The bill addresses a number of operational issues identified by CDS participants and access issues raised by the community.
Targeted consultation was conducted on the consultation draft bill with all suppliers, collection depots and CDS coordinator approval holders and industry associations in January, February and March 2014.
The community will benefit from improved access to the CDS through the removal of some barriers to the urban and remote roll-out of the CDS. CDS participants will see a more stable framework for negotiating handling fees and improved facilitation of the development of effective waste management arrangements.
The NT EPA will have an improved and more flexible regulatory framework to work within and there will be improved efficiencies at collection depots.
Much has been said about the CDS over the last few years in this Chamber. I will not shy away from the fact I investigated other methods of recycling. In my position of opposition spokesperson at the time, that was my job and what I should have done. It was my job to bring alternatives to parliament and I did. The Country Liberals have always supported container deposit legislation; we did not support the model introduced by the former Labor government because – and it has proven to be correct – it was wrong. The legislation turned out to be illegal and it has taken the Country Liberals government, working with the staff of the EPA, to get the model right and as close to the South Australian model as we can, and to ensure it becomes so efficient that more collection depots will open across the Territory, giving more Territorians access to collection depots. We will then truly deliver on the original intent of the former Labor government.
No one is against the intent of the legislation, but we will now see legislation which is far less clunky, more efficient and everyone will win. Thank you.
Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Chair, I have some questions in relation to the second reading.
Unfortunately, minister, I was not here for the earlier debate; however, I have some questions in relation to the second reading ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Chair! I do not want to appear pedantic, but the committee stages are essentially an examination of specific sections of the bill as they come up. This would not be strictly in accordance with standing orders. I seek your guidance.
Mr CHAIR: Leader of Government Business, the advice I have is it does not have to be a qualified clause; it can be general discussion.
Mr WOOD: We asked Madam Speaker recently, when there was a bill where we discussed the second reading. You were chairing at that stage, Mr Deputy Chair, and it was permitted.
Minister, in relation to your statement that improving efficiencies within the container deposit scheme will be the key to its success in the future, what discussions have you had with South Australia – the only other state with this scheme – about improving the types of containers? As you know, wine bottles, milk bottles and certain fruit containers are not included in the scheme. Some people, when getting their 10c for bottles and cans, wonder why they are not accounted for.
For instance, fruit juice drinks give 10c, but real fruit juice does not. Milk has not, but iced coffee has. Has the department done any work in line with the EPA in South Australia, to see whether we could get better and more efficient coverage of all containers?
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you, member for Nelson. There are two things, and what comes to mind is Yakult – the little containers. That is the first thing I thought of when container deposit legislation was introduced; we had these small containers incurring the fee. The issue is twofold. Firstly, we have a commitment with South Australia that we will remain consistent with its containers. Secondly, I am mindful of the changes to our legislation. This is not legal fact, but if we push the boundaries too far and change our system too quickly – particularly out of step with another jurisdiction – we could find ourselves back in the courts. I want to prevent that and if, over the years, South Australia looks to change its containers and we have other states on board – it is something we should always be mindful of and prepared to do
Ms WALKER: I am conscious of the hour and that we have had hard-working public servants here for several hours – perhaps they have had an opportunity to have a bite to eat. It is not my intention to keep people going for hours, but I have some questions and will work through them from the beginning of the bill to the end.
My first question is about clause 2 and commencement of the act. The act commences on the day fixed by the Administrator by Gazette notice, but can you give an indication as to the proposed start date of the scheme? You must have a target in mind. Is it a year or two years?
Mr CHANDLER: The first thing is to get it through parliament. We will get the administration side of it done as soon as possible. You must remember there will also be a transition arrangement from the old system to the new system. We have to give operators and the beverage industry the opportunity to amend. The transition time is six to 14 months to get this bedded down, but the legislation will go through normal channels. We will get it approved as soon as we can, but it is important we get the transition arrangements right.
Ms WALKER: When we get to the part of the bill about specific transition arrangements I might have more questions. Through this transition phase, the six to 14 months, how will information be provided to scheme participants to ensure appropriate waste management arrangements are finalised in a timely fashion?
Mr CHANDLER: There are ongoing discussions between the EPA and operators at the moment, as well as the coordinators. Detailed guidelines are being produced for them to follow.
Ms WALKER: When will the guidelines be available? Would those guidelines be available for public scrutiny?
Mr CHANDER: I am advised that when the legislation passes the EPA becomes the authorised body. The guidelines can be created and it should not take too long. I cannot give you an actual date.
Ms WALKER: My next question is in relation to clause 7, Part 2. Division 2 has been replaced. This is where we go to the establishment of a container deposit scheme and waste management arrangements. What legal advice has the Northern Territory government received about contestability of the amendment, and will you release that legal advice?
Mr CHANDLER: First, Division 2 will be replaced to better reflect the need to establish the CDS and develop waste management agreements that are consistent with achieving the object of the act. Reference to the waste management agreements giving effect to the CDS principles will be removed, as the CDS principles are no longer a separate document. However, the relevant component will be incorporated into the act. As far as legal advice goes, this is where a lot of work – why I would argue the process has taken a considerable amount of time because every change we suggested be made to the legislation we had tested and legal advice has been given to the EPA. Again, we want to be careful we do not push the boundaries too far and turn a pear into an apple.
Ms WALKER: Minister, would you release the legal advice? We know the original bill was carefully drafted to minimise a constitutional challenge. How confident are you the regulatory changes in the bill do not open the scheme up to challenge?
On the strength of that, what legal advice do you have to support that and will you table it?
Mr CHANDLER: I suspect it would not be wise to table the legal advice given you would, potentially, be giving the operators or the beverage industry information. I would not want to give them that information.
Ms WALKER: Minister, surely we need to know what aspects have been considered to ensure the scheme is not being put at risk. In your media release of 7 March 2013 you said:
In that media release you quoted Graham R Nicholson and advice to the Solicitor for the Northern Territory on the 27 September 2010. Given you have released legal advice previously, why would you not release legal advice now in relation to the risks to the scheme from these amendments?
Mr CHANDLER: I do not think we released the advice; I said we had advice.
Ms WALKER: You quoted.
Mr CHANDLER: I could again quote that we have legal advice. There has been a very methodical approach to this legislation. Every step of the way we have had legal advice to ensure we do not overstep the mark. We are still not 100% sure a beverage industry will not challenge this legislation again.
The advice we have is, in their opinion, we have taken it about as far as we can. It is not our job to set this up to fail; we want this to work but we want to be careful not to take it too far.
Ms WALKER: In the second reading speech you said:
Minister, how confident are you the authorisation under the Competition and Consumer Act will not open the scheme up to challenge? What aspects have been considered by the government to ensure the scheme is not put at risk?
Mr CHANDLER: Member for Nhulunbuy, I am as confident as I can be.
Ms WALKER: In the same way the previous government was as confident as it could be and not wanting to see a bill fail.
Minister, the amendment bill repeals existing section 12 about coordinator arrangements, which require the development of principles for ensuring effective, efficient and equitable waste management arrangements. Some of those requirements have been moved into this bill – the principles. Why was the decision made to do this? What are the major differences between existing CDS principles and the new provisions in the bill?
Mr CHANDLER: Member for Nhulunbuy, the reason it was moved into the legislation was to strengthen it. They are nearly identical. Being taken from a guideline or regulation into the act itself gives us more power to enforce the legislation.
Ms WALKER: Minister, the CDS principles were in the original act. In the amendment to section 12, the CDS principles per se have been removed, including the heading of CDS principles, although some have been retained. Why did that change? What are the differences between the existing act and the provisions in the new bill?
Mr CHANDLER: You will find under the previous legislation the principles were required to be developed under the act but were not in the act. We have moved them into the act.
Ms WALKER: I will take your word for it, minister. My next question is around proposed section 12, Coordinator arrangement. Proposed section 12(1) of clause 7 requires:
Can you please outline the operation of this proposed section should a CDS coordinator decide not to, or is not able to, complete waste management arrangements with all other CDS coordinators? If one does not negotiate in good faith, all CDS coordinators would find themselves in breach of the provision, would they not?
Mr CHANDLER: In that case, I would suggest arbitration.
Ms WALKER: I will come to arbitration a little later because there is no guarantee of a result from arbitration and therefore …
Mr CHANDLER: As similar today.
Ms WALKER: What improvements are you making in this bill, knowing this is one of the sticking points in the current legislation?
Mr CHANDLER: It is a good point, but under the current legislation collection depots could have up to nine waste management arrangements in place. Under this legislation we require one. I argue that it would be far easier to get one management agreement in place than nine.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, minister. My next question, still within the coordinator arrangement in proposed section 12 – does the declaration by the Federal Court that components of the act were inconsistent with the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 apply to Division 2 of the original act?
Mr CHANDLER: I am advised we have an exemption that applies to the existing act and the new act. From my reading of the exemption, we were given enough scope within the exemption to allow us to develop this new act.
In that decision, scope was given realising there would need to be changes to the act. I am very confident we are covered by both the original act and this act.
Ms WALKER: Noting your confidence, will the declaration by the federal court that components of the act were inconsistent with the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 apply to Division 2 of the amended act – the amendments today? The new provisions have a different character to the existing act.
Mr CHANDLER: My advice is the federal court decision is not relevant anymore because we have an exemption.
Ms WALKER: That exemption is permanent? There is no time frame on that? Thanks, minister.
My next question pertains to labelling and regulation 13(1) of the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Regulations which says:
That is the bit that says a 10c refund at SA/NT collection depots in the state/territory of purchase.
However, the date set in the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Amendment Regulations No 2 of 2011 for transition was 31 December 2013. Why has the government extended the transition period by six months?
Mr CHANDLER: I am advised it covers off on the period the government was running the scheme.
Ms WALKER: Minister, what assurances have you received from industry that it will now meet the delayed time line for all labels to be updated? Not all companies have done it yet.
Mr CHANDLER: I am advised negotiations have been ongoing and it is looking good at the moment. If I was a betting man I would say some companies questioned whether we would continue in the Northern Territory, therefore, they have not changed their labels. Now we have the exemption and they know it is here for the long term, I suggest they will move in that direction pretty soon.
Ms WALKER: Moving in that direction is a little different from receiving assurances from beverage producers in the industry. The date of 30 June 2014 is only about six weeks away, so what assurances have you had and what are the implications for industry that do not meet that time frame?
Mr CHANDLER: The only reason they would go past the date in the legislation is if stores bought products prior to the date. Depending on the turnover of stock – if it was a big supermarket I expect it would only be weeks. For some smaller stores it could be months
Ms WALKER: Given the date is 30 June 2014, what latitude are you prepared to give industry in flexibility beyond that time frame? When would you say enough is enough? What actions would you take to ensure compliance?
Mr CHANDLER: To be fair, the scheme has been running for well over two years and there are still companies that never listened to you. I am hoping they listen to us, and we need to work with them. They know it is here for the long term; we have sustained the legal challenges. The legislation is more efficient for everyone involved. We are not walking away from this, and I will be calling on the big beverage companies in particular to get on board. We are not going away.
Ms WALKER: I sincerely hope you are right, minister.
Could you explain further Part 2 Division 2 clause 12(5), Coordinator Arrangement, which has the effect that anything mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) done by a CDS coordinator is not to be regarded in deciding whether the coordinator has contravened Part IV of the Commonwealth Competition and Consumer Act.
Mr CHANDLER: My advice is it has been written broadly enough to ensure we do not face a legal challenge. It was written incorrectly the first time, or not in accordance with the Competition and Consumer Act.
Ms WALKER: Clause 12(5)(a) to (c) is the exposure point for challenge. You say compared to the existing legislation this has strengthened it. On what occasion would a decision need to be made in relation to Commonwealth competition law?
Mr CHANDLER: It would depend whether it was challenged.
Ms WALKER: Section 51AD of the Commonwealth Competition and Consumer Act, Contravention of industry codes requires:
When do you expect regulations prescribing an industry code or specified provisions of an industry code for the purposes of Part 4 to be made? What assurances have you received from the Commonwealth of a willingness to make such a regulation?
Mr CHANDLER: Within a month of this legislation passing we must write to the ACCC advising of the section – it has never happened before – then they will then make the regulation.
Ms WALKER: Can you indicate what the contents of the industry code will be?
Mr CHANDLER: I am advised it would be a code to say this regulation exists within legislation.
Ms WALKER: Has there been consultation with the industry code? Is it stock standard code which is simply developed and does not require consultation?
Mr CHANDLER: Our understanding is there is no industry code relevant to this. The ACCC would make a regulation acknowledging this exists within our legislation.
Ms WALKER: The industry would be aware of this code and have been consulted about it?
Mr CHANDLER: We are not aware of any industry code, but we are aware that the industry itself is aware of this clause.
Ms WALKER: Minister, I will move to Part 2 Division 2(9) which sees sections 18 to 20 replaced. The amendments generally make it a more complicated scheme insofar as there is more waste management arrangement required between parties with an interest in disrupting the process, for example, between the coordinators as opposed to the depot operators who previously had to deal with a number of coordinators. The coordinators now need to make the arrangements. What assurances have you received from the coordinators that they will work expeditiously to agree on new arrangements amongst themselves, given their record?
Mr CHANDLER: To better achieve the purpose of the act, proposed section 18 will clearly state it is an offence of strict liability for a collection depot to not accept all containers, providing they are approved and purchased in the Territory, or corresponding jurisdiction, after the start of the CDS.
Further protection for the collection depot will be built into the proposed section in that a collection depot will not be required to accept an empty container if they are unable to verify that a supply approval is in force or if they are unable to identify the approved refund marking. However, if a waste management act stipulates otherwise, a collection depot will be required to accept those containers. Such a stipulation may be provided, for example, if agreements are made for the acceptance of materials that have been crushed prior to receipt and the approved refund marking cannot be identified as a result of this. Before accepting containers, the operator of a collection depot may require the person delivering the containers to sort them by material type. This will allow for increased efficiencies at the depot with less waiting time for the community.
Ms WALKER: Minister, I know it is late and perhaps I am getting confused, but I was seeking an understanding of how these coordinators will work together cooperatively and expeditiously to agree to these new arrangements. What will bind them to reach agreement?
Mr CHANDLER: They have indicated discussions will start once the legislation has been passed. If they did beforehand, they are in breach of the legislation.
Ms WALKER: Thanks minister, that is interesting. Are there sufficient powers within the bill to compel coordinators to have arrangements with each other if they cannot agree upon the details?
Mr CHANDLER: They would be forced into arbitration.
Ms WALKER: Can you force someone into arbitration?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes.
Ms WALKER: Can it force a result?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes.
Ms WALKER: People can be compelled into arbitration, and arbitration by nature of what it …
Mr CHANDLER: Within the legislation, arbitration is a legally binding decision. They can choose to remove themselves from the scheme altogether.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, minister. One of the issues the last time was going through an arbitration process to get a resolution. With the scheme itself, a depot coordinator would not be disadvantaged if a coordinator walked away from the scheme? Another coordinator would step in?
Mr CHANDLER: With five coordinators, you would expect a collection depot to form an agreement with at least one of them.
Ms WALKER: Let us hope so, minister. I now refer to Part 2 Division 2 clause 18(6). There is a new requirement that:
Mr CHANDLER: I think they would still accept them. There are no changes from the original act. This is what people are used to; this is what people do today in sorting materials.
Ms WALKER: I accept there has been a certain level of education for people who have been utilising depots and have, helpfully, sorted their containers. However, many places, especially in remote areas, have not had the experience, sadly, of having a depot to return containers to. We will have communities – I hope a number of our remote Indigenous communities – where consumers are not English literate. How will we educate these people and will depots be able to turn people away? You have suggested they would not be, but I am looking for an assurance on that.
Mr CHANDLER: Lately we have seen a lot of collection depots doing their own advertising, which is fantastic. In that advertising is a level of community education. The former government put quite a bit of money into community education. That is being carried on very effectively by the collection depots and I suspect it will continue. We can talk about what kind of advertising or community engagement will happen after the legislation passes.
Ms WALKER: Minister, people’s memories are such that two years down the road they may not recall the campaign, the importance of recycling and how helpful it would be to separate containers.
I will move to my next question.
Mr WOOD: Because there is another part further along I am not sure if I am jumping the gun, but when people come in with cans – people do not have to show each can, they are weighed. Should I be debating that further on? Part 2 Division 2 clause 20 talks about acceptance and payment for empty approved containers? Am I in the right spot? My question relates to an anomaly. People will bring in a bag full of cans and weigh them but not count them. Someone in Borroloola asked me to inquire into a bale of crushed cans. I felt there was an anomaly because they would only accept them as weight based on the value of the aluminium not the number of cans. I have seen cans being weighed.
Theoretically, they have to identify the cans with barcodes and that they were sold in the Northern Territory. However, at depots they do not check every can, they just weigh them. Are people penalised if they crush their cans and deliver them to the depot?
Mr CHANDLER: Potentially it is up to the depot, because it will ultimately take on the liability of a bag full of crushed cans. They have to get them back to the coordinator. I am aware certain depots will accept crushed cans; however, strictly speaking, they have to identify them so the depot would take on the liability not the customer if there was a risk.
Ms WALKER: Member for Nelson, out my way we have had lots of discussion about that prospect.
Minister, I have a few more questions. I am trying to trim them back and I apologise for keeping people here late.
There is a new requirement for each depot to accept all approved containers. How do you see this working where mobile or smaller depots may not be open every day? How do you see it operating for small depots, such as those in Alice Springs or Tennant Creek, or mobile ones? What assurances would a consumer have, if it is not open five days a week or is a mobile depot, they will be open when they say they will as opposed to full-time depots?
Mr CHANDLER: The nature of a mobile depot is just that: it is mobile. I assume, wherever it goes, the business operator would want it open. Wherever they take it, it would be open. I doubt they would take a mobile facility to a community and not open it.
The legislation is clear this time. Where under the previous legislation operators could operate within the scheme but only open to commercial operators, this legislation stipulates they must be open to the public. If they want to operate in the scheme, they have to be open to the public.
Ms WALKER: That is good, thank you.
How will the amendments in your bill make it easier for a depot to be established in places like Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt or Elcho Island? These are places where the tyranny of distance is a challenge and, with that, the challenge of containers. We do not want to transport large volumes of lightweight material carrying air.
What work will your department do with interested parties in remote communities, such as those I represent in Arnhem Land, to provide more options to people to drop off their recyclables and get their refund?
Mr CHANDLER: This is the beauty of the new legislation. There would be far more opportunity for collection depots to open for a number of reasons. You hit the nail on the head when it comes to why cash for cans would always be difficult in the Northern Territory – the tyranny of distance. We know the further products go the harder it is to have collection depots.
The difference between the old legislation, where collection depots needed a number of waste management agreements in place and now they require one – where collection depots had to split items up to 24 – it is reduced considerably. The operation is simpler. For that reason alone, it is easier to operate the business with fewer administrative requirements where it only needs an agreement with one coordinator. If you make the process to operate a business cheaper and easier administratively, you open up the potential for far more collection depots to operate. Under the old system they were expensive to operate. This will be a cheaper way to operate with far less requirement to have as many agreements in place. It will be simpler and should open the door for more operators.
Ms WALKER: We will see about that, minister. I recognise it as being simpler and more accessible, but the logistics, transport costs and tyranny of distance do not change.
I move to Part 2 Division 2 clause 20, Acceptance of and payment for empty approved containers by CDS coordinator. In relation to acceptance and payment for empty approved containers by a CDS coordinator, proposed section 20(1)(c) says:
How is ‘related amounts’ defined?
Mr CHANDLER: The related amount is the handling fee negotiated in the agreement.
Ms WALKER: Does that include the handling fee? For instance, would the handling fee include transportation costs, which will be greater in northeast Arnhem Land or Wadeye, compared to Darwin?
Mr CHANDLER: There is no change between the previous legislation and this legislation in that regard. Coordinators wear the cost of transport, not collection depots.
Ms WALKER: That being the case – I recognise the dilemma it presents – it would still make it more difficult to negotiate coordinator arrangements for depots to operate in remote areas. Does this bill make that any simpler than current legislation?
Mr CHANDLER: Again, there is nothing we can do about the tyranny of distance and this system. That argument will never change. I brought it to the House when the previous government introduced the legislation. The tyranny of distance will always be difficult. I maintain there will be difficulties in operating depots in any of our island communities.
I know there was good grace where barge operators would sometimes bring back cans from Groote Eylandt and other places. When the legislation was introduced the good grace disappeared because there was money involved. They brought them in for the Scouts, community groups, schools and others. However, when the legislation was introduced that stopped, which was disappointing. We will never have a CDL program where we can, 100%, address the tyranny of distance. However, this legislation will make it easier for operators to set up.
The less splitting and fewer management agreements in place with coordinators – we have made it simpler, and that is probably all we can do to make it as efficient as possible. I hope more operators will open up. Will they open up in every part of the Territory? I cannot guarantee that. I would like this to operate across the Territory, but the tyranny of distance will prevent it from happening in some places
Mr WOOD: Minister, one thing left out of this debate is Coca-Cola and Lion Nathan make a considerable amount of money from unreturned deposits. Would I be right in saying, ‘Don’t feel sad for them when they pay for transport because they are getting free bucks?’ That is how this system was meant to operate in South Australia – the money not returned would help the system operate. When I did the figures for a 10c deposit and 10c handling fee they showed those companies are making around $20m. Not all cans are returned. Do you feel sad about it?
The tyranny of distance can be well covered by unreturned deposits. Would you agree with that?
Mr CHANDLER: I do not feel sad. Member for Nelson, you are right Whilst I would argue the previous legislation was clunky, I was still gobsmacked that these companies would challenge the previous government with a threat – which was realised when we came to government – given they were making money out of the scheme. That was disappointing.
I can remember the debates in this House when the legislation went through. These companies can get the product to shops across the Northern Territory; there is no reason not to get them back.
Ms WALKER: To harp on about transport costs, I want to put to you an arrangement between people dropping off their approved containers to the depot coordinator then having arrangements with the coordinator to transport them out. We all agree it makes sense to crush the containers to compact the load then upload in Darwin, Katherine or Alice Springs.
Surely coordinators would be seeking an agreement that they are taking back approved containers. Do you envisage there might be some containers not eligible, yet, when crushed, you would not know what was in a particular pallet? I am looking at, potentially, the trigger where the coordinator might say, ‘We don’t know what’s in there’. Is it a case of having an arrangement, through regulation with an authorised inspection officer? I have, to a degree, experienced this when trying to establish a scheme in Nhulunbuy.
Mr CHANDLER: I am not sure I understand the question. Are you saying if a Scouts group goes to a collection depot with crushed cans they might not get their money back, or …
Ms WALKER: I hope everybody would trust Scouts. It is being assured what is crushed and presented to the coordinator is what it is. The depot coordinator needs that assurance in accepting recyclables. I am suggesting the depot might be doing the crushing. I have seen aluminium cans crushed into a flat pallet for the Lions Club in Nhulunbuy. How do the coordinators – knowing some coordinators and some industry members can be a bit recalcitrant and may take any opportunity to step away from their responsibilities to take back beverage containers …
Mr CHANDLER: My advice is the arrangements would be between the depots and the coordinator within that arrangement, and they would have the details of how the cans and bottles would be presented. I answered the question earlier for the member for Nelson. Some depots take crushed cans based on weight, but the collection depot takes the risk. If they do not have a strong agreement with the coordinator it is up to them to accept or not accept the cans. The legislation is cans are not crushed, they are identifiable so the collection depots knows, but we know some collection depots accept crushed cans.
At the end of the day, it comes down to the weight of aluminium and they know what a can weighs. Cans are crushed, obviously, before being taken interstate. It would be silly to take uncrushed cans all that way; it would be a light truck.
Mr WOOD: I was wondering if we have to get to the schedule in the bill titled Agreements for coordinator arrangement provisions, which has a section about weighing, counting and accepting containers. That is depot to coordinator, I imagine.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes.
Mr WOOD: The issue we have not covered is customer to depot, which is the issue the gentleman from Borroloola had. I presume at depots, if they are good, the coordinator will trust there are not half-a-dozen lead sinkers amongst the cans and they are getting what is expected.
When dealing with transport by barge – I am out of touch with barges now, although I had a lot to do with them at Bathurst Island – they charge per cubic metre. The issue of crushing cans, from a transport point of view – although if transport costs are not an issue because Coca-Cola makes a lot of money and is paying for it – it could be more convenient for people out bush to crush the cans so they fit in whatever vehicle they have rather than have them stacked up in bags blowing onto the road. As we develop this legislation we can speak more about that to find some ground in that area.
Mr CHANDLER: I will take that as a comment.
Ms WALKER: Minister, moving to proposed section 91A, which is all about acquisition on just terms, what is the rationale for insertion of this proposed section?
Mr CHANDLER: Proposed section 91A is a new provision titled Acquisition on just terms. This standard provision states if the operation of the act results in an acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms, the person is entitled to receive from the Territory the necessary compensation. A court may decide the amount of compensation or make the order to ensure the acquisition is on just terms.
Ms WALKER: Minister, you might have just answered it, but in what circumstances would proposed section 91A be activated in relation to a property being acquired on other than just terms?
Mr ELFERINK: If I may assist, member for Nhulunbuy, acquisition on just terms is in the Australian Constitution and has also found its way into the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. Whenever a government acquires property – property can mean any number of things – the acquisition has to be paid for so the property is properly settled. It comes from an old principle deep in common law.
The seminal case on this issue is Dalziel v Commonwealth, and I cannot give you the citation off the top of my head, but basically the presiding judge quoted Shakespeare from the Merchant of Venice where Shylock laments:
That means if a government, by any action, acquires property, either tangible or intangible, and a person feels aggrieved by that, the law in Australia is well established that the government must pay compensation as a result of the rules it establishes.
The case of Dalziel is interesting because it dates back to World War II where the Commonwealth commandeered a car park and, whilst it did not acquire the property itself, it acquired the capacity of the property to generate income for Mr Dalziel and his family. Mr Dalziel argued quite successfully in the High Court of Australia that the acquisition of property included an acquisition by action or by implication rather than an acquisition by title.
This would be a standardised cover-all clause to cover those type of circumstances so any aggrieved person feeling they had, by this legislation – wants to take an action in a court in the Northern Territory, this merely cements in the provisions inside the Australian Constitution and in the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, and reaffirms a stated principle which is at the very core of property rights of citizens against the claims against those property rights by governments.
Mr CHANDLER: Can I give an example? Let us say we decided to cancel somebody’s approval. Approval to operate in the Territory has been removed and they may then want just terms – they may want compensation – but due process would need to be followed before we reached that point, of course. If we reached that point there could be a challenge.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, minister. I also thank the Attorney-General for the mini-lecture in law, complete with a bit of Shakespeare thrown in.
Mr ELFERINK: Do not blame me, blame the High Court. They said it.
Ms WALKER: Minister, what is the estimated liability that accrues to the Northern Territory government as a result of just terms? Surely the Territory government would not agree to a blank cheque in a possible unknown liability …
Mr ELFERINK: That is not how it works.
Ms WALKER: Does an estimated liability accrue to the Northern Territory government as a result?
Mr CHANDLER: It would depend on what the case involved, what was being determined, and it would be by the court, I imagine …
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, they would determine the quantum of damages.
Ms WALKER: I will take your word on that one.
I am nearly done, minister. Proposed section 92, the annual report – I understand the EPA must prepare a report for each financial year about administration of the act. A curious point is the existing provision allows three months for tabling the annual report. Why has it been extended to four months in this bill?
Mr CHANDLER: I am glad you asked. This will be amended to say the NT EPA, as opposed to the minister, must prepare a report about administration of the act and the minister must table the annual report in the Legislative Assembly within four months, as opposed to three, after the end of the financial year. This is to maintain consistency with other similar reporting requirements of the NT EPA.
Ms WALKER: Thanks for clearing that up, minister. I was going to lose sleep over that.
I would like to go to Part 7, which is about transitional matters.
Can you explain the transitional provisions, in the hypothetical case of an existing coordinator with real employees in a real business, and address my concern that transitional arrangements may have four coordinator arrangements but are now only required to deal with one?
How will this affect the depot operator? What assistance will the government provide to get the new approvals in place without depots having to temporarily close?
Mr CHANDLER: I am advised the existing arrangements remain in place until the new arrangement begins. They have two months to make those arrangements. In your case they have four back to one, and they have two months. The original agreement stays in place until that has been arranged.
Ms WALKER: I do not have any more questions in relation to the bill. Thank you for answering my questions with the support of your staff.
Mr WOOD: I have a question in relation to the Schedule referred to in proposed section 12(3). It is a minor detail which talks about weighing, counting and accepting containers. It says:
Mr CHANDLER: They can do either or both. It will be in their agreement.
Mr WOOD: It is the way it is worded with the word ‘or’. It is not and/or, just ‘or’. I thought they must be able to say whether they want to weigh or count them. I did not know if that meant they were stuck and had to agree on weighing or counting them rather than using both means.
I do not want to argue with Parliamentary Counsel, but I thought it might be a loophole.
I thank the EPA for its recent briefing; I appreciated it. I did not find it easy. It has never been the easiest bill to read, especially when you do algebra with transportation costs. I appreciate a lot of hard work has gone into this bill and I hope it overcomes some of the problems. I was a critic when it was first introduced. It was not followed up as it should have been. Let us hope this makes it easier, especially for people in remote areas. You can say well done if we get containers from out bush.
Mr ELFERINK: You can be comfortable about the and/or provision. The provision requires something to actively occur. The way it has been drafted says you have to do this or that. In these circumstances if a contested matter ever ended up in court it would ask the purpose of the legislation.
The court would be satisfied that, if both things had been done, it would not be in contravention of the legislation because of the intent of this House. It would be an exercise of literalist interpretation to an absurd degree where a court would not entertain such an interpretation of legislation.
The legislation wants one of two things done. If both things are done, it will satisfy the needs of the law. That is my take on it.
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam Speaker: Honourable members, in accordance with clause 4.12 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination I table a travel report for the member for Johnston for a trip in March and April.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I table the Public Accounts Committee Report on the Inquiry into the Structural Separation of the Power and Water Corporation.
This is the committee’s first report under its new powers to consider anything under the Northern Territory’s administration. The committee resolved to undertake this inquiry on 26 March, received submissions on 25 April and held hearings on 28 April. This gave an opportunity for stakeholders to raise any concerns about the proposal to separate the Power and Water Corporation and for the committee to ask questions of the agencies promoting and implementing the changes.
This report highlights the key issues raised with the committee. Two key themes arose from the evidence before the committee. The first was concern that the bills before the Assembly allowed, or were a precursor to, privatisation. The second was whether there was adequate analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed structural separation.
Regarding privatisation, the committee heard fears from the Electrical Trades Union and the NT Council of Social Services that the transfer provisions in Part 5A of the Government Owned Corporations Act allowed Power and Water Corporation assets to be sold. The committee could find no basis for these fears. It is clear the intention of these provisions is to allow the transfer of assets to the new corporations, and the bill only allows for the transfer of assets to entities owned by the government.
Regardless of whether the bills allowed privatisation, concerns were also raised that the separation was part of a process to sell Power and Water. Again, the committee found no evidence to support the belief that the purpose of the reform was to privatise Power and Water.
The express purpose of the reforms is to remove barriers to competition in the electricity market and improve the efficiency of the government owned corporation. Further, the Treasurer has assured the Assembly the government has no interest in privatising Power and Water Corporation this term and will not seek to do so without a mandate from the people.
The committee also received advice showing there was no real possibility of privatising PWC without the Assembly passing a bill enabling this to occur. Privatisation cannot be done by stealth. Should a future government wish to privatise Power and Water, they would need to first get the agreement of the Assembly.
The second key theme was whether sufficient analysis had been done to ensure the benefits of separating Power and Water Corporation were greater than the costs. It was explained to the committee that the structural separation was essential for facilitating competition and providing more effective and accountable management of Power and Water Corporation’s businesses. The separation is informed by similar reforms that have been made in all other Australian jurisdictions and by some 14 years of working to improve the efficiency of the Power and Water Corporation. The committee could not find any modelling quantifying the costs and benefits of the process. The committee was informed that the analysis done by Treasury formed part of Cabinet’s deliberations and was, therefore, not available to the committee.
The committee heard explanations of how these reforms would drive improved efficiency, but was not provided with figures on what the impacts would be. This led some members of the committee to question whether the hoped-for benefits would be realised in the market and geographical circumstances of the Northern Territory. This is a point on which the committee did not come to a consensus. However, the report sets out the key arguments presented to the committee, and the members who disagreed with the majority view have included a dissenting report.
The committee also heard evidence on the cost of the separation process, the impact on taxpayers, write-downs of government generation assets resulting from competition and the impact of the separation on Power and Water staff.
Having heard the evidence for the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation, the majority of the committee agreed to recommend the Assembly pass three bills to enable the separation to occur.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I would like to recognise the new member for Blain and respectfully acknowledge his maiden speech yesterday.
On ABC news tonight, Mr Graeme Lewis, director of a company called Foundation 51, was quoted as follows, ‘Foundation 51’s contribution to the Blain by-election was research only and that any financial contribution was unsustainable’, or words to that effect.
Member for Blain, did you receive the sum of $10 000 for consultancy work paid to you by Foundation 51, either directly or indirectly, or a sum of money thereabouts? Are you aware, member for Blain, of any polling done by Foundation 51, either before or during the Blain by-election? Are you aware, member for Blain, that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory was advising others you had been preselected prior to preselection occurring the following day? Are you aware, member for Blain, of the whispering campaign which took place against you from within the ranks of the Country Liberal Party during the Blain by-election? Member for Blain, are you aware of the rules and regulations which make up the Northern Territory Electoral Commission in relation to financial disclosure? Member for Blain, are you aware of the penalties associated with non-disclosure …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! These questions should be put through the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Namatjira, could you direct your comments through the Chair.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Member for Blain, are you aware of the penalties associated with …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She remains in breach. She is using the second person accusative rather than the third person, referencing her comments through the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Namatjira, could you please reference your speech in such a way that it is in the third person.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Member for Blain, are you aware …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She is in breach of the standing order relating to all comments not being directed to a member but should go through the Chair.
Mr GUNNER: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker! She is directing her comments through the Chair and is talking about another member of the Chamber. I have talked about the member for Port Darwin in this Chamber in the past. Other members reference members in this Chamber when they are talking. The point of that standing order is comments need to be directed to you as the Chair not across the Chamber at another person. She is not directing her comments across the Chamber; she is directing them through you as the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Namatjira, continue but talk to me as the Speaker through the Chair.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Member for Blain, are you aware of the penalties associated with ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I refer to the standing order relating to direct references to other members across the Chamber. She should be directing her questions as follows, ‘Is the member for Blain aware’, in the third person. She is now directing her comments directly to the member. That is inappropriate and in breach of standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Namatjira, if you could phrase your statements – I think you get the general feeling.
Ms ANDERSON: Is the member for Blain aware of the penalties associated with non-disclosure regarding contributions, whether in kind or otherwise, or cash for an amount of $1500 or more? Is the member for Blain aware of the Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation taking place in New South Wales? Is the member for Blain prepared to go on the record and state he, members of his family, friends or others, including associated entities, did not receive any contributions, whether cash, research of any kind or donations from Foundation 51?
Is the member for Blain – are you aware that, upon a change of government there may be an opportunity for an inquiry into matters concerning the same? We call on the Northern Territory Electoral Commission to undertake an investigation into Foundation 51 and its apparent associated activities with the Country Liberal Party.
This is about transparency and honesty, and is a mantra this government preaches in the House all the time. Member for Blain, as you said so well in your maiden speech – do you want to represent the constituents of Blain with honesty and integrity or forever have your reputation tarnished? Would you like to come clean now or later? Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I cannot let that go without a response. I am desperately saddened that members opposite, particularly the members for Namatjira, Arnhem and Arafura, claimed to have gone their way because they are looking after the interests of people in remote communities. Unfortunately, all we have heard from day one is smear, innuendo and deceit. The only thing the member for Namatjira is interested in is engaging in the lowest and most base form of politics, using the Chamber to make inferences about the integrity of a person. If she has a shred of courage, I ask her to make those inferences outside this Chamber and suffer the consequences.
I do know what the member for Namatjira is referring to, but she is not looking after the interests of the people of the Northern Territory. The cowardice displayed is monumental and does nothing for people living in Papunya, the Tiwi Islands, Maningrida, Groote Eylandt or Beswick. This seems to be some bitterly motivated vitriol against the government. If that is what they want to do fine, but it is not a legitimate position to take when representing the people they claim to. How does this type of smear campaign and attack on people’s personal integrity help people in the bush?
All we have heard from the member for Namatjira are claims against the taxpayer. ‘You owe us money, you have to give us all this stuff. You have to give us staff. This is how we will represent people.’ There has been nothing more than self-interest from the member for Namatjira, and this is another example. This is puerile nonsense. It has no foundation and is information she is relying upon from disgruntled former CLP members. She has been on radio saying people have been calling them most outrageous names, and the only allegation they can attribute to an individual is from me. The allegation is of such a facile nature as to not warrant a response, and I will not respond to it. The things they claim to have been called are highly inflammatory, so the time has come for them to put up or shut up.
I have not seen the put up from any of these members. Let us hear the names of the people saying these awful things from the member for Namatjira, because what she has related on radio is lies.
The number of times I heard the former Leader of Government Business, Dr Chris Burns, say, ‘You guys can cuddle up to her to your peril’. In hindsight, I agree with Dr Burns. You rely on what the member for Namatjira says to your peril because it is not true.
She is prepared to use third party hearsay, if that is what she is hearing, as a way of slandering people and engaging in the most spiteful conduct. Spite does not produce better results for the people of Papunya, Nyirripi, the Tiwi Islands or Groote Eylandt.
It is always easy to destroy and tear down. It is difficult to build, create and strive to create something against the natural forces of the world. It takes time, dedication and focus.
The member for Namatjira has, as president and CEO of Papunya council, as an ATSIC commissioner, a Labor minister and a CLP minister, had opportunities to build. On each of those occasions, for whatever reason, she has stepped away from that opportunity and preferred to destroy. She has taken the easy step, which is what she is doing now. She is true to form. I am desperately disappointed that someone with the intellectual grunt of the member for Namatjira uses it for such nefarious purposes. From the get-go she has not been telling the truth. She has lied to me on a number of occasions and continues to do so.
I am like the member for Nelson in relation to this; it does not bother me as my skin is thick, but it does not serve the people of the Territory well, especially those who need representation the most.
Where are the impassioned pleas one would expect to hear from newly independent members for the things they perceive to need in remote communities? We hear none of it. We hear a leader of a small group of independents lashing out and trying to break things, rather than trying to lift things up. What she read out in the House was a ghastly abandonment of our sacred duty as parliamentarians, and I am deeply disappointed she has taken the coward’s response.
This is facile beyond all imagination. She must start stumping up evidence for these outrageous allegations. Of course she will not, because she cannot. She is left with nothing other than the hollow noise she will make in an empty vessel. The problem is people, en masse, have begun to see her as a person who cannot be trusted with the truth. She posed a bunch of thinly-veiled accusations as questions which, if she made them outside, would not stack up as non-actionable, despite the low level of protection afforded politicians for defamation actions.
The member for Namatjira has introduced into the public domain a series of allegations. Let us see the evidence and what she can build around this.
I ask the media to turn a critical eye to the motivations and actions of the member for Namatjira if they choose to report on them. I am concerned that whilst they give the member for Namatjira oxygen she will continue thriving on that oxygen. That is the problem we face.
I do not doubt the member for Namatjira’s comments will be reported, but I ask journalists to ask her, ‘Where is your evidence? Let’s see the paperwork.’ Until the member for Namatjira stumps up, this is just her, apparently, making stuff up or, worse still, somebody else is making stuff up and she is uncritically repeating it in this House at the expense of reputations of members of this House.
I am also starting to suspect an element of collusion between her and the Leader of the Opposition, particularly in the area of racial vilification, as one says they are the subject of racial vilification and the other wants to ride into the environment as the champion against racial vilification. Surely the Labor Party is not trying to drink from that well for the political ends of the Northern Territory Labor Party.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, this evening I congratulate local schools in the Wanguri electorate for the amazing work they did in commemorating Anzac Day.
Within the Wanguri electorate we have a growing population of Defence families: a strong population in Lyons; a growing population in Muirhead; and Defence housing throughout Leanyer and Wanguri.
It was wonderful, and it was a privilege to attend the assembly at Wanguri Primary School organised by the very hard-working Defence School Transition Aide, Rachel Dolan. She did an amazing job, and it was wonderful to see so many men and women in Defence uniforms commemorating Anzac Day with their children.
The assembly started with a welcome by student Samuel Everington. A catafalque party attended with Defence members and students from Wanguri Primary School. They stood at the front of the assembly for the entire time, and it was wonderful to see the Defence traditions passed on to the next generation of children, commemorating what is a very important day to all of us.
A welcome to country was made by Ms Bilwara Lee, which was great. We had an introduction by Adam McMillan, then a special commemorative address delivered by Squadron Leader Darren Dolan. Student Hannah Gulrichvoot then delivered the Ode. Warrant Officer Rod Fry was a very busy gentleman that morning because he played The Last Post then went to Leanyer Primary School. The next day I saw him on TV at the Anzac Day commemoration at the cenotaph, so he was very busy.
We saw the raising of the Australian flag by Mr Darrick Robinson, and then one of the more special parts of the assembly when Corporal Jason Stoddart and his daughter, Tahlie Stoddart, stood together in front of the school community and delivered their thoughts on Anzac Day, about being part of a Defence family and the sacrifices they make. It was lovely to see father and daughter delivering such a beautiful, heartfelt address.
Thank you again, Mrs Rachel Dolan for doing such a magnificent job. It was a wonderful, heartfelt commemorative assembly. Mrs Gail Quigley, the new principal at Wanguri Primary School, said it was the most amazing Anzac Day assembly she has ever taken part in. Being new to the Wanguri school community and getting to know all the Defence families was a lovely occasion for her.
Well done to all involved with the Wanguri Primary School Anzac Day assembly, you did a terrific job. Thank you to Captain Matthew Cooper, who was there to present the Military Kids Recognition medallions after the assembly.
After that I attended Leanyer Primary School where the Defence transition aide, Greg Grace, had organised the special Anzac Day commemoration assembly. It was another wonderful assembly where we saw Defence families attending with their children to commemorate Anzac Day. The commemorative address was delivered by Captain Brendan Sullivan from the Australian Army. As was mentioned before, bugler Warrant Officer Rod Fry delivered The Last Post, which was terrific. Chaplin Barry Porter delivered a prayer for the assembly, and the Ode was delivered by Sergeant Stephen Wilson.
Thank you to Mr Grace for all his hard work. It was a very well-attended assembly and it was wonderful to see the children learning more about Anzac Day and paying tribute to the ADF families within the community for the sacrifice they continue to make today.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, tonight I mention Anzac Day ceremonies that occurred in my electorate and just out of my electorate. On 24 April, the day before Anzac Day, I was fortunate to be invited to two schools to address assemblies. The first was Anula Primary School, where they had a beautiful wreath laying service and acknowledged the sacrifice of Australian soldiers, both men and women, who have died in all wars, from World War I through to the current theatre engagements throughout the world.
In my time working in schools as a community police officer and school-based police officer I attended many assemblies. The Anzac Day commemoration assembly at Anula this year would have to be one of the best, most respectful assemblies I have ever been to. Normally toddlers in Transition find it a bit hard to keep quiet and stop fidgeting, but every student in that school, and the parents, seemed to understand what a solemn day it was and how important it was to sit quietly and take in what was happening. I was very impressed.
I addressed those students on the meaning of Anzac Day and explained some of the tradition and ceremonial stuff that occurs on Anzac Day. I was so impressed l thought I would like to put on the public record what a wonder job every student at Anula Primary School in 2014 did.
To rival Anula, at lunchtime I was invited to another school in my electorate, Sanderson Middle School, for its assembly and to deliver a similar speech. It was a little more complicated in relation to what happened, what occurred, why we should acknowledge the ultimate sacrifice some made, as well as the mental and physical sacrifices people who fought for our country and freedom went through.
I told them freedom is a very fragile thing. As many a great person has said, ‘Freedom has no worth if you are not prepared to fight for it’. Bishop Eugene Hurley, from the Catholic Church, tells of a person he was talking to in a detention camp. The bishop was asked, ‘Do you understand freedom?’ He replied that he did. The man said, ‘I beg to differ with you. You do not understand real freedom because you have never lost it. You have had it all your life.’ The bishop had to agree with him. He relayed the conversation, but I will not repeat it all here. This young man said, ‘I understand what freedom is because for years I lost it’. Even though he is in a refugee camp he said, ‘I have freedom’, and he knows what it is like.
People in this country will fight for our freedom. They make a commitment many people do not understand and we have to admire and respect them. As someone whose father and grandfather fought in World War I and World War II respectively, it is an honour to carry their medals on Anzac Day. It is an honour to carry their medals in schools, as well as some of mine for service in the police force.
Moving on, I would like to thank Bev Newton, manager of the Darwin North RSL Club on Batten Road. The club has been struggling recently; however, through the hard work of Bev, her committee, and some volunteers, they have turned that around.
Anzac Day is their biggest day’s trading, and they have done a superb job of making the facility family friendly and a great place to go. I was fortunate enough to be invited to speak at their Dawn Service. I was able to repeat some of the things I said at the schools the day before.
As always, I was ably supported by my good friend John Moyle, a 95-year old World War II veteran. He is still raising money for charity in the northern suburbs. He turned up in a World War II uniform he has access to, along with a slouch hat with the Rising Sun badge on the side.
He is a very proud ex-serviceman who, until two years ago, marched. He believes they march a little too quick for him these days so he rides in Ron Baker’s old Willys jeep from World War II, along with the old World War II trailer. He gets to ride in the march these days. John and I both spoke to a large crowd at the Dawn Service. I have watched that crowd grow over the years. As it is just outside my electorate, for the last few years I have attended that service rather than the one in town.
Once breakfast finished people moved into town for the march. I was fortunate to be at the dais for the march, the largest one I have seen in Darwin. I spoke to some Army people, who said last year they were a bit light on for people. This year they thought they would put effort into getting as many military personnel there as possible. It was terrific.
I was told by some Australian Defence Force people they believe, with a few more people, they will probably have the biggest Defence Force contingent in Australia marching here. As we all know, we have a large contingent of Army, Air Force and Navy along with the Marines. It was great to see the US Marines marching with our troops in recognition of comrades in arms who have fought side by side in most conflicts in the 20th and 21st centuries.
A very moving service was held at the Catholic cathedral, one held in capital cities on Anzac Day, where an honour guard is guarding the altar. It is the only time of year the church allows weapons on military personnel guarding the altar during the service. I was able to pay my respects in a number of ways, but when the march concluded it was an honour to mingle with veterans at Darwin North RSL. It was fantastic to see many families attend and pay their respects, not only at the club but at the march.
I was able to tell a number of young children my first march was when I was two, not long before my third birthday. I stood on my father’s shoulders and walked up Kings Park Road. I was a little frightened; it was probably one of the first times I had been out in the dark and could not understand why people were walking around in the dark in Kings Park. As time went by, my father did a great job of telling me why he got up every Anzac Day and reflected on his father – a veteran who was shot at Gallipoli – and his own memories of losing so many friends in World War II.
It is a tradition I carry on and have taught my kids and grandkids. I was fortunate at the Dawn Service to have my grandson, Dakota Brown, carrying his great grandfather’s and great-great-grandfather’s medals.
I would like to say more about Anzac Day. It was an honour to speak at the functions and lead people in remembering our fallen and those who have come back wounded or injured.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Yellow Ribbon National Road Safety Week
Yellow Ribbon National Road Safety Week
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, on your desk you will see – some people have them on – the national Yellow Ribbon Road Safety Week communication strategy to try to encourage safety awareness for all who drive on our roads. Thank you for wearing the ribbons.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two exceptionally clever Year 5/6 classes from Bees Creek Primary School, accompanied by the brilliant teachers Gayle Purdue and Brianna Gibbs. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also have pleasure in advising you of the presence in the gallery of an Australia Indonesia Partnership for Local Government Planning and Budgeting study tour which has come to Darwin. I wanted to read out everyone’s names but realised I would have a bit of difficulty, but our guests today are from the various districts across Indonesia and are CEOs and general managers. They are from the areas of Merauke, Fakfak, Sorong Selatan, Pegunungan Bintang and Sumba Barat Daya. How was that? Welcome one and all. I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House today and also in the Northern Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
POPPY REGULATION BILL
(Serial 78)
(Serial 78)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present the Poppy Regulation Bill to honourable members. When this government was elected it had the clear intention of growing the Northern Territory economy in a number of priority areas, three of which include my portfolio responsibilities of energy, mining and the primary industry sectors. All three sectors are strong drivers contributing to the development of northern Australia.
Today the Country Liberal government takes a stride forward in its efforts to expand and diversify the Territory’s agricultural base by introducing a robust regulatory framework to facilitate establishment of the opium poppy cultivation and processing industry.
For those who may not be aware Papaver somniferum is the plant species from which opium and poppy seeds are derived. Opium is a source of many narcotics, including morphine, thebaine, codeine, papaverine and noscapine.
Australia, along with Turkey and India, is a major producer of opium poppies grown for medicinal purposes which produce poppy-based drugs such as morphine and codeine. Each year Australia, and specifically Tasmania to date, produces about half the world’s legal narcotic product.
Globally the licit opium poppy industry is strictly regulated under international law. Australia, as a signatory to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, is required to carefully control and supervise all stages of the growing and production of opium poppies as well as the import and export of narcotic material. Implementation of the convention is overseen by the International Narcotics Control Board which determines annual quotas for the growing of narcotic plants based on estimates of worldwide production needs.
Under the Northern Territory’s Misuse of Drugs Act a number of substances and plants are classified as Schedule 2 dangerous drugs, and this includes Papaver somniferum and its derivatives. As a result, it is an offence to supply, cultivate, manufacture, produce or possess these substances. Thus, there is no current ability to allow for the legal growing of opium poppy in the Territory for medicinal or any other purposes.
It is for this reason this government has now drafted the Poppy Regulation Bill before you today. Whilst this government strongly supports the creation of an opium poppy industry in the Territory, it also clearly recognises some varities of poppies are potentially harmful. Access to these varieties and derived substances therefore needs to be carefully controlled at all stages, whether during an involved refining process or from more humble beginnings as tall plants maturing in a sunlit paddock.
With this in mind, the objects of the prepared Poppy Regulation Bill are:
(a) to provide for regulation of activities in relation to poppies and things derived from or associated with poppies, and
(b) to reduce the risk to the safety and security of persons in the Territory resulting from those activities, by providing for licensing of those activities.
I will now outline some of the more specific parts and clauses within the bill to demonstrate how the Territory government intends to deliver on these objects.
Clause 7 under Part 2 of the bill creates a licensing system for those wishing to grow, possess, store or transport poppy, poppy product, poppy material or poppy-related material, all of which are defined earlier under clause 4 of the bill. Also, the term ‘process’ is clearly defined under the bill to capture any activity which intends transforming a poppy into a poppy product.
Under the bill, a granted poppy licence can be for a period of up to three years but is not transferrable. For activities to be carried out under a Northern Territory-issued poppy processing licence, the licensee must also hold the required Commonwealth licence as the manufacturing of poppy materials and products are licensed under the Commonwealth’s Narcotic Drugs Act 1967.
Under clause 8 of the bill there is a requirement for an applicant wishing to obtain a poppy licence, and any of his or her associates, to demonstrate they are fit and proper persons to be issued with a licence. Further, the applicant also needs to submit for assessment a detailed plan for the management of any risks associated with the activity to be carried out under the poppy licence, for example, ensuring there will be an appropriate level of site security measures to minimise the risk of unauthorised access to poppy or poppy-related material grown, processed or stored at the site, or during transportation to and from the site.
To further ensure those wishing to hold a poppy licence in the Territory are fit and proper to do so, under clause 9 of the bill it will be a requirement of the designated Licensing Authority – appointed under clause 15 of the bill – to seek the views of the Commissioner of Police on whether or not a licence should be granted to a person. Similar to other statutes, the Commissioner of Police will be able to use protected information to assist with his or her decision-making. Should the Commissioner form a view that a licence should not be issued to a particular person, the Licensing Authority is obliged to take this advice and not issue the licence …
________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can you please pause.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two exceptionally clever Year 5/6 classes from Bees Creek Primary School, accompanied by their brilliant teachers, Margaret Syme and Linda Brodie. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________________
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: To summarise the high degree of scrutiny applied to the issuing of a poppy licence under the prepared bill, the Licensing Authority can only grant a licence if he or she is:
satisfied that the applicant or any associates are fit and proper persons
satisfied that the applicant’s plan to manage any risks associated with the activities conducted under a poppy licence is appropriate
satisfied the applicant’s intended site for these activities with respect to location, facilities and proposed security arrangements are also appropriate
satisfied the Commissioner of Police is not opposed to the granting of the licence to the applicant.
Once a poppy licence has been granted, clause 12 of the bill allows for the suspension or cancellation of the licence should the holder seek its cancellation or the Licensing Authority believes a condition or term of the licence has been contravened.
In addition, the Commissioner of Police is able to ask the Licensing Authority to suspend or cancel an already granted licence should information come to light regarding the licence holder or any associates.
Clause 13 sets out the process for a person served a notice under the bill for the non-granting, suspension or cancellation of a licence to apply to the new Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a review of that decision.
To ensure that regulatory requirements are complied with under Part 3, Division 2, the bill allows for the appointment of poppy control officers to undertake a range of activities to ensure that licensees and other persons are meeting their obligations under the act.
Part 4 of the bill details the specific offences under the act. For example, clause 32 makes it an offence for a person to cultivate, possess, transport or process poppy material if the person is not a licensee under the act. Further, this offence provision also captures employees or contractors working under a poppy licence. If guilty, the maximum penalty for this offence is 250 penalty units or a two-year imprisonment.
Under clause 42 of the bill, an executive officer of a body corporate is deemed to have committed an offence if the body corporate itself commits an offence. This applies if the executive officer was in a position to influence the conduct of the body corporate, failed to prevent the commissioning of the offence, or was reckless about whether or not the offence would happen. If guilty, the maximum penalty is that which may be imposed for the relevant offence. Having an offence which allows for the apportion of criminal liability to an executive officer of a body corporate sends a clear message that those entrusted with a poppy licence in the Northern Territory are accountable for their actions.
Some may be wondering how all the detailed regulatory controls outlined in this bill are of relevance to the Territory’s economic advancement. This prepared bill, if enacted, will enable the Territory to become an active participant in a global market which previously was closed to us. The regulatory controls included in this bill will assist to reduce the risk to the safety and security of persons both within the industry and the wider community. It will also allow the Territory to work collaboratively with the Commonwealth government to assist Australia in meeting its obligations under international agreements controlling poppy cultivation, manufacturing and distribution.
It is this government’s strong intention to work proactively with licensees to build a successful and sustainable poppy growing and processing industry in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages –
Poppy Regulation Bill (Serial 78)
Pass Bill through all Stages –
Poppy Regulation Bill (Serial 78)
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Poppy Regulation Bill 2014 (Serial 78) passing through all stages during these sittings.
I will now outline the reasons why urgency for this bill is sought. Firstly, the bill, when passed, will allow for the immediate broadening of the Northern Territory’s economic base by diversifying our agricultural capability to capitalise on a new and highly lucrative market. Other jurisdictions, particularly Victoria, are also looking to capitalise on this opportunity. Last month it commenced its own legislation allowing for the growing and processing of opium poppy in that state. By not having a legislative regime in place as soon as possible we run a real risk of missing out on attracting companies to the Territory to spend investment dollars, which in turn serves to grow our economy. Delaying the Territory being able to compete with Tasmania and Victoria for a share of the poppy growing and processing market has the potential to jeopardise our financial position.
Secondly, when passed, the bill will allow the current proponent to immediately begin the large scale commercial trial it is seeking to undertake this Dry Season, which represents the yearly growing window for this crop.
If that window is missed, no growing will take place until the 2015 Dry Season at the earliest. This will mean the Territory misses out on the economic benefit the activity would have brought this year arising from the proponent’s capital expenditure on the large-scale trial, as well as the employment opportunities and flow-on benefits.
The Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has been working on the development of a poppy growing industry in the Northern Territory since 2012. In the 2013 Dry Season, Tasmanian-based TPI Enterprises, or TPI, conducted a small-scale research growing trial on land located at the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries’ Katherine Research Station and the Douglas Daly Research Farm.
Due to the existing prohibition on the cultivation of opium poppy, TPI sought and was granted an authorisation under section 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act to conduct that research activity.
Results obtained from the small trials were encouraging, and demonstrated the viability of growing opium poppy in the Top End, albeit under very controlled conditions. The substance which is taken from poppies, the opiate material, was shown during those trials to be every bit as good if not better than the yield shown from Tasmanian grown poppies. There is certainly an indication this industry could be viable in the Northern Territory.
In late 2013 TPI submitted a proposal seeking to conduct a large-scale – approximately 250 ha – commercial growing trial in 2014 on Tipperary Station south of Darwin, which is part of the Northern Territory government’s pastoral estate.
However, the new proposal put forward by TPI was beyond the scope of activities that can be authorised under the Misuse of Drugs Act due to its commercial nature. In order for the Territory to move forward to develop an opium poppy growing and processing industry, there was a need to put in place a robust, regulatory regime, and to do so in a timely manner to allow for the commencement of growing activities in the 2014 Dry Season, lest the opportunity of being on the cusp of growing on the mainland is missed.
To this end, my department coordinated an inter-agency working group to examine the benefits of establishing an industry in the NT. Part of this examination involved undertaking cost-benefit analysis on the proposal received.
I am confident the passage of this bill through these sittings will be of significant economic benefit to the Northern Territory.
To provide further detail on the need to have this bill passed on urgency in these sittings, I am happy to provide to the House an estimation of the proposed time lines for passage of this bill if it is not passed on urgency.
Normally we introduce legislation to this House and it sits on the books for 30 days before it can be debated. That would take us into the next lot of sittings which are, in essence, the Estimates Committee hearings on the budget to be held in June. The last day of estimates goes back to sitting in this parliament, but, given past experience, a large number of issues need to be dealt with on that day, often resulting in very late nights. It is unlikely this Poppy Regulation Bill would be dealt with on the last day. I do not want members of this House sitting until 2 am or 3 am debating a very important piece of legislation for the Northern Territory.
It carries that importance because we are talking about the regulatory regime around a brand spanking new industry in the Northern Territory. I believe it should be given due care and attention, albeit being passed in this House next week. Given that, there would be sufficient time for members and the opposition to be fully briefed on this legislation before it is set down for debate later next week. I have already offered briefings to the opposition and other members, and some members have taken up the opportunity to be briefed on this.
If this legislation could not be dealt with in the June sittings at the end of estimates it would be pushed out to August. Frankly, that would not facilitate the growing of a commercial trial crop in the Northern Territory this calendar year. The growing of poppies must take place in the Dry Season. There are probably two reasons for that. Firstly, poppies grown in Wet Season conditions have the alkaloids leached out by the rain so the yields for poppies grown in Wet Season conditions are considerably less. A risk would also be run with plant pests, diseases and fungus affecting those plants if grown during the Wet Season.
The mantra of the Country Liberals government has been it is open for business, and it is not just words. We have walked the talk. We have introduced and passed legislation in this House to change the Pastoral Land Act, as an example, to allow for the long-term diversification of activities on pastoral property. The reason for that was because opportunities were being missed by the pastoral sector to grow its economic base, therefore contributing to the economic base and economic growth of the Northern Territory. It was also in response to difficulties pastoralists were experiencing in the cattle industry given the disastrous live cattle suspension in 2011. That is an example of this government walking the talk.
The introduction of poppy control legislation and facilitating this new industry in the Northern Territory is another example of this government walking the talk about being open for business.
I am delighted that so many of the economic bases of the Northern Territory sit within my portfolio responsibilities. I can inform the House I am driven to ensure this government provides every opportunity it can for the growth of our agricultural sector as an important part of that economic base.
I do not want the Northern Territory to miss out on a 2104 commercial trial of poppies should the proponent go ahead with it. I probably should be perfectly up-front: there is a possibility that, notwithstanding the introduction and passage of this bill, there may not be a commercial trial. That will be up to TPI, but I will not stand in the way of allowing that to happen. This is enabling legislation. It will enable the commercial trial of poppies to be grown in the Territory in the 2014 Dry Season. If we sit on our hands on this matter, there is no way in the world TPI, or any other company, could get a successful commercial trial happening this calendar year.
I do not want to be responsible for that. I want this legislation in place so we provide TPI, and every any other company coming to the Territory to grow poppies, with the opportunity to have the trial and commence this new industry in the Northern Territory.
I urge members opposite to support this urgency motion and agree to have this legislation passed in this sittings. I believe it is our only opportunity to provide a 2014 growing season. I would like to think every member in this House would do everything they can to support the growth of the agricultural industry in the Northern Territory.
We are not trying to escape scrutiny. I have not had an opportunity to speak to the shadow minister today – I mentioned it to him yesterday – about the opposition’s attitude towards supporting this urgency motion, but I hope he and his colleagues can see the sense in doing it now.
We are not escaping scrutiny. There is time between now and next Thursday for all members to be briefed and provided with any information they need to scrutinize this bill. We will facilitate briefings from Police, the Health department and the department of Primary Industry if members opposite feel they need that.
I encourage every member to support our agricultural sector in the Northern Territory. This is an exciting day for the Territory ...
Mr Barrett interjecting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Blain. He is keen to see this bill pass and provide opportunities which do not now exist.
At the moment there is no opportunity for this industry in the Territory. To have this bill passed on urgency in these sittings provides for the industry to get up and running. I am driven to make sure we grow our agriculture sector as quickly and sustainably as we can.
I encourage all members in this House to support passage of this bill on urgency, which will provide for the growth of our agricultural sector in this new industry of poppies.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the view on urgency proposed by the minister in regard to immediately broadening the economic base with this new potential market, and that Victoria is proceeding with its own legislation and there is a risk we will miss out on attracting companies to the Northern Territory. The reality is TPI is here and has undertaken trials of smaller scale research at Katherine and Douglas Daly Research Farms. As the minister advised the House this morning, he maintains that TPI has discovered the yield in the Northern Territory is better.
Therefore, commercial viability, profitability based on yield – TPI wants to go to commercial-scale production; not passing the bill on urgency will not stop that.
Would it potentially delay commercial yields? We do not know, because there is no firm view from TPI as to whether they would proceed this Dry Season.
The minister said if this legislation is not passed on urgency this sittings it is unlikely it would be debated in June and it would be laid over until August. That is not the case; it could easily be dealt with in June. We have a track record of passing legislation on resumption of parliament in June following the estimates process. This meets the type of legislation we would deal with in June. That is purely the government’s decision. I urge you, minister, to consider that as a fulsome option.
The Northern Territory opposition would like to see consultation not just with members of parliament but with the community, particularly members of the Katherine region. We have no information, given your second reading speech and contribution to the urgency debate, to tell us what the extent of consultation has been with people in the region and those affected. We do not know, from the information before us today, what the water requirement is for irrigation on a large scale, what type of water extraction licences are required, what the herbicide controls are and what consultation has occurred.
In your own words this industry needs to be highly regulated and needs a high degree of scrutiny. One thing I press upon the government is that scrutiny, if we are to be truly transparent with Territorians, should go down to the level of consultation with affected stakeholders within the region. I have heard nothing today from you, minister, to satisfy this. By all means, in your wrap if you could step out what the local and the industry organisation consultation has been, so be it.
The other thing I urge, minister, is due consideration of some of the risks of this crop. Again, we have not had time to consider all this information. The first we became aware of this was yesterday morning, when the minister mentioned to our shadow minister he was introducing legislation and seeking to pass it on urgency.
When something is approved by Cabinet and you get the green light for Parliamentary Counsel to draft the legislation, if there is a timeliness issue around that – which you have because you are pursuing this on urgency – why did you not, at the point you had the Cabinet approval and were issuing drafting instructions to Parliamentary Counsel and saw the need for urgency – advise the opposition, the Independent and members of the minority party of this legislation and enter into consultation? We could have asked questions around what consultations have occurred with stakeholders. Whilst you are offering briefings to the opposition and the Independent member – I assume the same offer applies to the minority party – we are tied to our work commitments in this parliament. This is pre-budget week and we have a multitude of issues to work through this week.
Are you suggesting we go to the Katherine region, consult with affected stakeholders to find their views and represent that properly for passage debate next week? It is patently unfair and unreasonable to suggest that. This was dropped on us yesterday morning. You have known about this for months. If you genuinely wanted passage on urgency why not, some months ago, have discussions to seek bipartisan support to get it through?
We are not talking about just any crop here. We are talking about a crop with very specific biosecurity issues. I am led to believe the stalks they are looking at introducing come from Turkey, for example. I do not know. We are reading up on this as much as we can, because it was dropped on us yesterday.
A select committee of the Tasmanian parliament held an inquiry to inform it of the regulatory environment required for this industry. We would not have that opportunity if this is passed on urgency. We have a matter of days, when we are in parliament doing all our other work, to consider this before we debate passage next week. Tasmania saw fit to have a select committee inquiry, such is the importance they put on this industry, which they say yields about $1m for that economy.
We are guessing what the potential yields will be in the Northern Territory. We are guessing what the capital investment would be, could be, might be this Dry Season, because in your submission today you said there is no guarantee this company will proceed.
We are guessing the security arrangements around the farms. What do the health organisations of the Katherine region have to say about this? Tragically, there have been four deaths in Tasmania – three or four deaths in how many years? What is the time frame? I do not know; this was dropped on us yesterday morning.
As a Territorian I know we have a cohort of addictive substance abusers in that region. We have gone to huge and vast expense to roll out Opal, to get petrol sniffing control regimes in place and we are introducing commercial-yield-scale crops of opium poppies with what security?
What risk are we running to the young cohort of that region? What consultation has occurred with the health organisations of the region asking their views? ‘Are there risks associated with commercial scale yields of this crop in the region and what are your suggestions for regulating it?’ Are we proposing to simply translate the Tasmanian regulatory environment to the Northern Territory? I do not know because we have not had time to consider that. Is that enough when you look at the social environment of the Northern Territory? Are you satisfied, minister? Has your department undertaken consultation with the Department of Health? What are its views on that?
We have not heard anything this morning about the broader consultation, because consultation should not just be with members of this Assembly. We are representatives and we need to hear what people on the ground, those who would be affected, have to say on this. We cannot do that in the time provided. We will fire off some e-mails, minister, but that is not the same as consultation. What consultation is occurring in the region? What has been done by your departmental officers? Have you had public forums? I do not know because consultation was not mentioned in your contribution other than with the members of parliament.
The reasons for urgency are thin when you accept the government can pass this legislation in June, allowing for consultation. It is your decision whether we pass it in June, not the opposition’s. It is your timing and, as an opposition, we say we are up for that debate in June.
You say due care and attention needs to be paid to this legislation in a highly sophisticated, highly regulated industry. However, we are given a matter of days while we focus on the other business of parliament, including the Northern Territory budget. Minister, that is not reasonable. If we are to do our job thoroughly as an opposition and not just scrutinise this ourselves but seek informed advice – consult with the people affected in your Katherine region – we cannot do that in the next few days. That is not achievable, and I put to you, minister, it is not reasonable to propose that.
None of us want to stop potential regional economic development. I know you will make a political football out of this and say, ‘The opposition is just about trashing the economy’, and all that. That is so far from the truth it is nonsense. It is not about politics. It is about understanding what you are dealing with, ensuring all the mechanisms are in place and it is managed in the best possible way in the interests of all Territorians.
We do not want to stand in the way of regional economic development, but it needs to be thoroughly scrutinised. You said due care and attention needs to be paid to the nature of this crop. That is why it requires specific legislation.
On 9 April the NT News reported:
- Legislation in the Northern Territory is also being drafted to allow commercial poppy cultivation. A spokesman for the NT Land Resource Management Minister said two large trials have been agreed to, and the parliament was expected to introduce legislation this year.
A month ago we were looking at legislation this year. There was no indication then it would be on urgency. What has changed in the last month where it has gone from introducing legislation this year to introducing it right now and passing it on urgency during these sittings? The only other time, minister, there has been a discussion on the record about this was in October 2013 when you said:
- The Country Liberals Government in cooperation with Tasmanian Poppy Industry Enterprises (TPI) has trialled two poppy sites in the Northern Territory.
…
‘Whilst this is just a trial project, with the right legislative balance, we are keen to see a new industry emerge in the NT’.
In the space of seven months you have moved from starting the trial to legislation we have to pass on urgency.
We need a sound consultative process to underpin these changes. Providing for a good and informed debate, as we should, is important to Territorians and how our system of parliamentary democracy works. Proper and informed consideration of bills before us is crucial to us doing our job properly. The laws from this House do not just belong to us. They are for our consideration and other Territorians who are affected by what we do.
I am genuinely concerned because I have not heard about consultation processes in the region. I would like to know if health stakeholders have been consulted and put their views forward. I am genuinely concerned about the cohort that could be affected. The risks, minister, are very high. We are talking death. That is no small risk, and it is not a long bow to draw when we understand the cohort of the region. The real issue we have all grappled with across the political spectrum is substance abuse. We know our cohort switches from substance to substance. As we crack down on one substance and access to it they switch. Will we have big razor wire fences around these crops, electrified, alarms – I do not know. How much extraction of water will there be for these crops? What are the pesticide and herbicide arrangements? We do not know, and what really concerns me is I do not know if anyone in the region knows either. It would be good to know, would it not? If we have to debate this on urgency we expect the right to know.
If we look at advice on parliamentary process such as the 5th Edition of the House of Representatives Practice, which guides our national parliament, it says consideration of debate on urgency may be influenced by such factors as:
- … its subject matter – whether the bill is of a controversial nature, whether it has the general agreement of the House, or whether it is of a ‘machinery’ kind; …
This is not machinery legislation.
- … the nature of the Government’s legislative program; …
As I said last month, the public comment was this was being introduced this year. There was no indication your program had this pegged for passage in May when you have the opportunity in June.
- … the urgency connected with the passage of the bill; …
- … agreement reached between Government and Opposition;
Minister, I am genuine in saying when you got the green light from Cabinet, if you had a view of urgency that is when it would have been appropriate to have discussions so these considerations could be fully fleshed out.
Further:
- … the number of Members from each side who wish to speak on the bill.
Is there a report we can see on the success of the growing trials? What is the size of the large-scale commercialised growing envisaged for the Territory? How does the proposed area of commercial growing compare with the current areas in Tasmania? Where would that occur in the region, because we know trials have occurred in Katherine and Douglas Daly? Are there other requirements such as water licences? How was the appropriate regulatory framework designed? Who was consulted in the design? How does it compare to the framework elsewhere in Australia and frameworks overseas? There is a host of issues.
From a health perspective, I am advised of the three reported Tasmania poppy-related deaths. In February 2014 a Danish tourist died after drinking toxic tea brewed with poppies reportedly stolen from a farm in Tasmania. In November 2012 a teenager died from morphine toxicity after he and others reportedly stole poppies from a farm. In February 2011 a 50-year old man died in similar circumstances. I am not fully acquainted with the farms in Tasmania having never been to that area. I am told there is a small fence and you can access the poppies easily. I am not sure what arrangements you propose for the Northern Territory, whether you would build security issues into the legislation or regulations.
What lessons have been learnt from these tragic deaths elsewhere? How will they be informed in the drafting of this legislation and the regulatory arrangements to ensure robust safeguards are in place for adequate security of the crop? How do we meet our international obligations? The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 is implemented through the Commonwealth Narcotic Drugs Act 1967. What consultation has occurred with the federal government?
There is a May 2012 report into the Poppy Advisory and Control Board Funding by the Tasmanian Department of Justice noting the 2011-12 budget indicated the cost of the operations of the board was about $690 000 per annum. What budget will be allocated to the Territory’s regulatory regime to ensure public safety? How can we be confident the appropriate regulation will be adequately resourced and, from an agricultural point of view, what cultivation practices will be used?
Neighbouring landholders and other members of the community will have questions. Have they been consulted and have their questions been satisfied? If so, please provide advice on that feedback.
What hardship is being caused if this is not dealt with on urgency? Standing Order 179 provides for consideration of bills on urgency. It says:
- The Speaker may, on the application of the Chief Minister, or a Minister acting on the Chief Minister’s behalf, declare a bill to be an urgent bill if satisfied that the delay of one month provided by Standing Order 178 could result in hardship being caused.
What hardship is being caused and to who? Could you please explain that? We suspect this is not about hardship. We suspect it is about a convenience of time frame; we do not yet know the purpose behind this.
If it is to establish a robust, regulatory regime for a poppy industry in the Northern Territory, with the appropriate safeguards and security measures to protect our community from possible impact, including death, let us not take short cuts. Let us deal with it as we normally would with legislation of such importance. Let us not take the short cut and rush of urgency. I propose you allow us time to fully consider all these matters. Do not rush it through in the next few days; give the community the opportunity and time to fully consider all these matters.
Please do not play petty politics with this. This is a serious matter which has led to deaths in another jurisdiction. We have genuine concerns about the impact it could have on the region and its cohort. We have a host of questions, as you just heard.
We do not have the time to be fully satisfied about those questions and, more importantly, the community and stakeholders of the region will not be given that time if this is rushed through next week.
Let us debate this in June. There is ample opportunity to debate it in June when parliament resumes following the estimates process. The opposition is ready and willing to do that. We may be fully supportive of the legislation in June, but today we have too many unanswered questions to arrive at that position. We want to consult the affected stakeholders of the region and the appropriate industries, including health stakeholders, because I will not ignore the issue of substance abuse in the region.
We are talking about an opium crop, no small thing in our considerations. We have no position on whether we support or oppose the legislation. We want the time to appropriately consider it so the best interests of all Territorians – the economic and social interests – can be weighed up and we can achieve the best possible outcome for Territorians.
We oppose urgency.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, there is only five minutes before the luncheon adjournment and I will probably go over that. It is interesting to hear the member opposite pleading for extra time when urgency was a vehicle regularly used when she was in government. She directed at least one, if not a number, of urgency motions through the House. It is indicative of how governments and oppositions change in how these matters are brought forward.
As Leader of Government Business I do not take urgency motions lightly. When a minister says to me, as Leader of Government Business, a bill must go through on urgency, my first question is: why? When you walk into parliament there will be an automatic push back from members of the House for all the reasons outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. I remind honourable members of the former government’s form in this area. If we look at debates from 23 February 2006, Dr Burns said:
- Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Commercial Passenger Vehicles Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 (Serial 32) passing through all stages.
He then sat down; he did not bother to explain why urgency was sought. The former government was quite cavalier in its approach to urgency. If you read the Parliamentary Record from that period, Mr Wood, the member for Nelson, and Mrs Braham, the former member for Braitling, arced up and said similar things to what the Leader of the Opposition has. Mr Henderson, Chief Minister, had this to say:
- The legislation was not on the Notice Paper in December, it was put on to the Notice Paper on Tuesday last week. It has certainly been the intent of this government – without debating the context of the bill; we will do that in the second reading debate – to clarify the parliament’s intent as to who is a fit and proper person to hold a commercial passenger licence or vehicle licence.
However, in 2006 the former Labor Chief Minister said:
- We announced our intent to amend this legislation. There have been complex legal issues that have had to have been worked through, and they can be discussed when we debate the bill in the second reading. However, I say to both honourable members: we do not bring on urgency lightly.
They were prepared to do it for licensing and complex legal issues:
- We believe there are very real issue that have to be address urgently.
A licensing issue, I am sure it was urgent.
- In regards to the capacity to take the legislation back particularly to the taxi and commercial passenger vehicle industry, that is why, as I explained last week, we suspended standing orders to put the bill on the table on Tuesday last week, as opposed to giving notice on Tuesday and bringing it in on Wednesday: to give the industry opportunity and two weeks to look at the bill and raise any concerns with government, opposition or Independent members.
Exactly what the current minister is doing was the form of the former Chief Minister in urgency matters.
A suspension of standing orders was moved by Ms Lawrie on 11 February 2009 to pass a bill on urgency through all stages to amend evidence legislation. I understand the reason for that; it was clearly articulated in the legislation at the time. The Leader of the Opposition is a little bit cute by half when saying, ‘No, we cannot pass anything on urgency because it is wrong to do so’, when she has guided urgency motions through this House.
She says she is not playing politics: balderdash. That is precisely what she is doing because there is good ground for hardship in this instance.
On 19 February 2009, other matters were dealt with in relation to urgency. I will not go through it all, but it shows from time to time bills come into the House where government seeks urgency because, in the opinion of government, and hopefully the opinion of the House, there is a desire to have that legislation pass more quickly than it otherwise would.
Clearly the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has made out the case that you have to get the crop in the ground. It is as simple as that.
The member for Nelson has not spoken on this but I hope he does. He brings horticultural expertise into this House, and I suspect if he has to address this issue he realises you place crops in the ground at particular times of the year. The minister, in his submission to the House, made it very clear there was a reality to be considered in relation to this crop. It has to go into the ground at a particular time of year otherwise the alkaloids are leached from the heads, which diminishes the quality of the crop. Consequently, you do not want to be growing it in the Wet season because it would be the equivalent of putting your wheat crop – when do you put wheat crops in …
Mr Styles: May, down south.
Mr ELFERINK: … spring. I am showing my ignorance. I am already in trouble.
A political maxim for people listening in the public gallery: when you are in a hole, stop digging. I will stop digging right now.
Debate suspended.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages –
Poppy Regulation Bill (Serial 78)
Pass Bill through all Stages –
Poppy Regulation Bill (Serial 78)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney General and Justice): Madam Speaker, as a government we find ourselves a little on the horns of a dilemma not entirely unlike a ship deciding to sail out of Sadgroves Creek but the crew decides to have a quick committee meeting to determine whether the ship should sail. By the time the committee has decided to sail it is sitting in the mud because the tide has gone out. That is the dilemma we have.
I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition describe the normal way matters go through Cabinet, and that she felt they should have been spoken to earlier in the process. Because of the way this has rolled out, Cabinet was only recently able to review the matter and reach a decision. The legislative instrument was prepared prior to the Cabinet meeting so the expedited process could be advanced by the minister.
I understand this is outside the normal boundaries, which is why we are seeking urgency. However, in the time allotted we should be able to deal with most of the issues involved. I would hate to see, because we are too nervous to move forward, an opportunity lost. Whilst I heard what the Leader of the Opposition had to say in relation to the potential risks she perceives, there are risks of not doing it as well.
The Leader of the Opposition made reference to the health risks associated with this crop and that she was aware of substance abuse in remote communities. My response is this crop may provide job opportunities in the communities she has concerns about. To take those job opportunities away would also be a calamity in my opinion and, I presume, many of my colleagues on this side of the House.
There is a straightforward question before the House: do we allow this legislation to pass through all stages in this sittings of parliament or not? If we do, it will enable us to pursue a new industry in Darwin with all the enthusiasm we can muster to make it happen in the spirit of competitive federalism. I would welcome that. Alternatively, we can hurry up and wait and, potentially, lose a new industry in the Northern Territory.
Whilst I understand what the Leader of the Opposition is saying in regard to taking these steps forward, I do not believe, on balance, the risks identified outweigh the advantages of pursuing this.
Therefore, the minister has been correct in going through an expedited Cabinet process, as well as an expedited process through this House.
The House will still have the opportunity to satisfy itself next week that all the requisite security systems are in place to create a safe environment around this new venture. If something becomes apparent in the next two weeks which makes the venture unpalatable to the people of the Northern Territory, this House or the government, there is still an opportunity to sidestep this process and withdraw the legislation, or the government can invite defeat. Alternatively, if a reason to delay is discovered in the next few weeks, do not bring the matter on and it can sit on the Notice Paper until a later date.
Nothing in a suspension of standing orders to enable legislation to pass through all stages means – within a single sittings – it will automatically pass through all stages. This is an insurance policy of certainty for people who are making substantial investments in the Northern Territory. I ask the minister, by way of indication, whether or not there will be substantial investments tied to the passage of this bill and note the minister is nodding his head.
I understand there was an interview on the Country Hour on ABC radio today where this matter was discussed by the potential investors. They described a number of things they were prepared to do and were currently engaging in which expose the investors to potential losses if this legislation does not pass in a timely fashion.
It is still up to the investors to convince Territory people of the merits of what they are doing. Whilst they manage this with government, they still have to take people with them. I note the potential investors are prepared to talk publicly about the crop they intend to produce in the Northern Territory.
I accept there is a potential risk that passage through all stages might see not all the ‘i’s dotted and ‘t’s crossed. However, you have to balance that with the potential risk of loss to the investor and the community in jobs and investment in the Northern Territory.
On balance, the merit for an urgency motion has been made out by the minister. There is potential hardship evinced by failing to allow this investment to go ahead because it will affect locals who will receive income, not only through work directly on this site, but also people who support the workers living on the site – the local pubs, shops and other places.
Weighing the balance is often a difficult task; it is often what this House wrestles with. On this occasion, the minister has made out the requisite potential hardship, as well as a perfectly good case to determine we should step forward through this process. If something comes up in the next two weeks which is unknown to government at this stage – I would be surprised if that were the case – it does not automatically follow that this House will pass the legislation as a result of this motion.
Consequently, the case is made out. It is an interesting step forward for the Northern Territory to take and an interesting industry to get into. We will examine it over the course of the next two weeks to make certain the checks and balances are in place. As a consequence, the balance tips me in favour of supporting this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am generally not keen on legislation being put through on urgency, although I have supported it from time to time. Each time it comes before parliament one has to weigh up the pros and cons before supporting or rejecting the arguments put forward, normally by the government, to push something through faster than would normally occur.
I received a briefing from the department, which I appreciate. I listened to the minister’s statement, where he gave reasons for pushing this legislation through. I am not sure if there was enough clarity in what the minister was saying in relation to other issues I discovered at lunch time which need to be brought out in this debate. At lunch time I discussed, informally, with several staff of the department, what would happen if we delayed this until the budget sittings.
There appears to be not only the issue of getting the land ready for planting and timing to plant the crop, but the company has to apply for a licence. That process will take some time, and it will not be able to plant something if it does not have a licence. That should have been better explained when the minister was giving his reasons.
The government talks about being open for business and that is fine. It is like the discussion yesterday about competition. Competition is fine; you can have competition and ethical competition. We sometimes use clichs which might sound good but they do not exempt us from doing right by the community. In this case I am not saying the government is doing the wrong thing. However, I sometimes feel when it says it is open for business it gives the impression it will avoid all normal hurdles and go on regardless because the economy is the most important thing to worry about.
It is important, and I am a great supporter of the changes to the Pastoral Land Act, which have allowed the pastoral industry to diversify. I have spoken about that diversification before. There is nothing worse than an economy reliant on one business, such as live cattle. We know what happens when live cattle exports are curtailed because of government policy changes, prices drop or there is a drought. Pastoralists who rely on one business are well placed to come down with a crash because their economy is based on one thing.
Opportunities like growing poppies on a pastoral property offer diversification, not only for pastoralists but also the economy of the Northern Territory. To help that along in the present situation we need some legislation. That legislation needs to be put forward, according to the minister, early. The minister mentioned it could be done in the budget sittings but would have to be on the last day. I have been through the Estimates Committee process many times and the last day is generally not the best one to be debating legislation, although we have done it. It is not necessarily a life changer if we need to go down that path.
I am not sure of the last day for budget sittings, but it is late May. As someone who has grown crops – definitely not opium – if you are growing a Dry Season crop, you try to get that …
A member: Rural folk.
Mr WOOD: I am a poppy, but I do not grow them. Generally speaking, you try to get your land prepared as soon after the Wet Season as possible so you can get your crops in at the ideal time, which is usually warm days and cool to cold nights, the ideal for many crops in the Northern Territory. I imagine the issues around growing poppies in the Wet Season are the same as with growing cotton.
I do not want to get into a debate about GM cotton, but cotton was grown in the Wet Season in Kununurra and ran into enormous difficulties with pests and diseases. Even though it grew, it was difficult to ensure the crop was pest free. You need to prepare a crop early and have it in the ground as soon as possible. You also have the other side of it: you do not want an early Wet Season. That can also be a problem.
I support the concept of the poppy industry and think we need to put this into context. A trial was done last year in two places. One was in Katherine and one in the Douglas Daly. There would be no doubt growing that crop required consultation with various people. It could not be grown in the Northern Territory without the knowledge of the police, and I am not sure which other departments would have to be informed. There would also have been security risks, which would have been looked at in the trial. After all, it was a trial.
To some extent this is an extension of that trial. The minister said it is a broader trial. Whether TPI goes further than this will, I presume, be dependent on the success of the trial, because this is getting into the semi-commercial area of poppy growing. One thing the government might consider, when going ahead with the legislation, is to request a report back to parliament in relation to how this legislation is working: the performance of the company in relation to community consultation, security and all the matters that need to be part of growing this crop. All that needs to be done before the licence is extended to grow a crop the next year.
This could be an extension of last year’s – not in the legal sense, but regarded as a much broader trial than last year. A report could be tabled in parliament to show what framework has occurred to allow this crop to be grown and the conditions, failures and successes in growing the crop. Then, if there is an extension of a licence, at least there is something to report back. There should already be a report on the previous crop from either the police or the community, especially if you were growing a crop near Katherine.
One issue which has been discussed is how much local communities are involved. If it is being grown on Tipperary it is a fair distance from any major community. I am not saying people have no attachment to the land in that area, but knowing Tipperary Station is not close to a township is a good reason to grow the crop in that area. If security is an important issue in this debate you do not want it growing against the back yard of people in Katherine, or any other town in that area. This crop has been grown for at least one year in the Northern Territory under trial. In that sense it is not brand new. This legislation is meant to enable the company to plant the crop.
During my briefing the concern raised was if we did not get this legislation through it would cause problems for TPI getting the crop in at the right time. I have to weigh up whether that is an important factor in supporting the suspension of standing orders. Do I risk my other concern, which is are we giving this adequate time by rushing it through, or whether my concerns – even though I might have concerns which can be debated when the bill comes up – will be answered sufficiently that delaying it would be a waste of time?
The Leader of the Opposition raised some really good points. I have looked at this from a – the member for Port Darwin said I would look at it from a horticultural point of view. Although poppies grow in flower beds I do not know if this is regarded as horticulture. This is probably agriculture because it is more broad scale, but I understand there are some limits to holding up the growth of a crop due to the weather.
In listening to this debate I have been trying to work out if some of the ‘risks’ the Opposition Leader spoke about will be naturally covered. This crop cannot be grown without consultation with the police. It will not get approval unless security is up to standard because that is what happened during the trial. There are some things we know will be done because that is the way the crop has to be grown. Whether community consultation is a major factor in this – I know the crop is a drug – who you consult with in relation to this is an interesting debate. One area you have to watch when growing a crop like this is security. Do you have an open session where you mark out where the crop is? I do not think so. You might say it will be grown somewhere. The consultation has to be a little general so people understand what the growth of this crop is about.
It is a pity this debate could not be put to committee stage – it is not a bill – because it would be nice to ask the minister some questions. They will not be controversial, but to get more clarity on why the minister thinks this is a good time.
I weighed this up before lunch, during lunch and after lunch and am trying to look at it from two points of view. If I was the managing director of TPI and had come to the Northern Territory wanting to grow a crop, had done some experimental work last year which had been successful and had the opportunity to do it this year – if I do not get the crop in this year it is a whole year wasted.
Whether the government should have introduced the legislation earlier can be debated, although my understanding is it has taken quite some time to put together. I am unsure if that came out in the minister’s brief today, but it came out in my briefing. Part of the reason for the rush is because this legislation had to be drawn up correctly because it deals with the growing of a crop which has some restrictions on it and security matters are involved as well.
I support the suspension of standing orders. I will do my best to look at the issues coming from this legislation. I hope the department – I will try to contact TPI – will assist with the issues of concern to me and perhaps it can give some idea of how the trials worked last year.
I have had verbal reports, but it would be good to see what was required from a security and police consultation point of view. Was there community consultation? Are there issues I did not recognise which need to be looked at?
I support the idea of the Territory going ahead. From a practical point of view, the crop has to go in within a certain time frame otherwise there is a risk it will not happen.
I do not see major concerns for this company because it has been in the poppy industry in Tasmania for many years and knows the issues. The poppy industry in Tasmania is a lot less secure than it would be in the Northern Territory.
If you go to a poppy field in Tasmania you can jump over the fence. They might have a sign up saying, ‘Please do not jump in here and collect poppy seeds’, but in the Northern Territory we have a much better chance of making it far more secure. We are isolated and there have been recent changes. We will make sure the issues which occurred in Tasmania do not occur in the Territory.
We have a company which knows how to grow poppies and grew poppies in the Northern Territory last year. Will we allow it to grow the crop this year? The only way to do that is by passing this legislation. Yes, there are some issues with timing. Could this legislation have been in the budget sittings, which would give us more time to look at it?
My concern, from a practical point of view, is if they need a licence they cannot get one until legislation has passed. If we pass this legislation in the budget sittings, will there be extra complications which will not allow the company to operate until some of the regulatory matters have been approved?
There is a grey area. On one hand I would prefer it be debated in the budget sittings. However, from a practical point of view, am I being impractical in my views on this issue? Am I standing on my heels about the suspension of standing orders for good reason? If good reason means the crop will not be grown this year, I will have to justify those reasons to the company. It is not an easy debate.
I am reluctant to push through or support matters on urgency. I have supported them before. There have been cases brought before the parliament where we have debated this. In this case, weighing up the benefits of what we are doing – there are many benefits in having an opium industry in the Northern Territory.
Diversification of the economy has been spoken of before, more employment – good goals any government would support. I have to balance this with the fact we are dealing with a crop with opioids, which are dangerous, but trials were done last year. There would have been security and police would know about this crop.
I support it and will leave it at that.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the phone call yesterday. I would have loved a briefing and an opportunity to talk to departmental staff, as a group of people who have an interest in economic development.
We have always been interested, as Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, in economic opportunities. We can see the economic benefits in supporting a motion on urgency, because we know the crop has a time frame.
We know the Wet Season is finished and the Dry Season is here. It is a new project in the Northern Territory and gives us a great opportunity to have something we have not had before. Yes, we have had trials, but this could be real for the Northern Territory. As the member for Port Darwin said, it provides job opportunities.
Some things we might be able to put in place include identifying the number of jobs we have in that area, and giving opportunities to everybody in that region, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to have a stake in the future of that industry through employment opportunities. It is good for the Territory and good for the future of economic sustainability.
We agree to support you on urgency, but there are some things we need to talk about. They include asking for urgency and saying the investor needs to do it at this time. I am sure the investor will not run away if this parliament says, ‘No, we will go through the right processes’, and debate it on the last day of the budget sittings.
This is some of the information we are providing. It would have been nice to receive a briefing instead of – I appreciate the phone call from you, but it would have been nice to look at other issues and concerns we have. Listening to the Leader of the Opposition, the Independent member and doing our own research this morning has given us – on the record, minister: have you undertaken market research on this?
Can we have a committee, as the Independent member said, to report back to parliament on economic opportunities, where it will go into the future and if there is growth? Sixty per cent of the poppy industry takes place in Tasmania. It supplies 60% and the other 40% comes from Asian countries. Where is our niche market in this? Where are we going? That is the type of information we would like reported back to parliament. We would like to look at the legal risk management. These are some of the things we would like you to come back with.
The operational planning – we want to know who owns the business so we can spread it around in that area as well. The member for Daly is the local member in that area, but Barunga and Beswick are in the member for Stuart’s electorate, and the member for Arnhem in her area – there can be education strategies to combat issues the Opposition Leader has spoken about.
Our people are into drugs such as ganja and speed. Have we a strategy in place to educate remote Aboriginal people in the area about poppies and opium? We need to put all those things in place so we do not run into problems afterwards.
We are struggling with alcohol. Government after government struggles to talk about alcohol issues. We do not want future politicians saying it is the fault of the CLP from when it was in power 50 years ago, and that it did not think about this and did not have strategies in remote Aboriginal communities and towns like Katherine and Tennant Creek. Darwin is close enough, and we need to put all this information out to make sure we are educating future generations of Territorians about the impact of opium, and to make sure we do not run into problems.
As you can see, we struggle to identify and deal with issues with Indigenous people. If you look at the socioeconomic indicators in all areas and all aspects of Aboriginal life, we are at the bottom end of the human rubbish dump. In education, health, housing, the lack of infrastructure and the lack of job opportunities – we are at the bottom of the human rubbish dump. What strategies do you have with this project, minister, to lift some of those people out of the human rubbish dump, to educate them and get them to understand what we are doing with this poppy farm?
What are the ramifications of this? In allowing this kind of business to happen we need to make sure people, through consultation, understand where we are going. We do not want to run into trouble, because many of our Territory kids are already dealing with drugs. It has taken years to put Opal in place and get rid of petrol, and all we have done is shifted the drug. We have taken them off petrol and they are now on ganja. They are going from ganja to speed and we have to stop it.
We do not want a future generation of Territorians going on to harder drugs because it will be very hard for any politician, any parliament to deal with drugs like cocaine or heroin. I am not a professional on poppies. I know very little about it, but from the research we have done these are some of the ideas we give, minister, to support you and support economic development and economic growth for the future of the Territory.
We will support your urgency motion because we believe in economic development and we want to move the Territory forward. We will give you these ideas again in the debate next week to make sure all these strategies are in place for a better future and better Territory for our grandchildren. Thanks, Madam Speaker.
____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: I would like to acknowledge and welcome in the gallery the Mayor of Alice Springs, Damien Ryan. Welcome.
____________________
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): I am privileged to contribute to this debate after my untimely departure from the House for one hour. I apologise for that, Madam Speaker.
It is an interesting debate because this is not about the legislation; it is about suspension of standing orders on urgency. The minister phoned me the other morning, and I thank him for that. We had a brief conversation about this bill and the need for urgency. I made assumptions in that phone call. I thought we could be talking about peanuts, lucerne or sandalwood, but when I understood we were talking about opium I knew it was an extremely important debate for a number of reasons.
The Leader of the Opposition has summed up a very good argument not only dealing with the constitutional processes of this House, but also putting a clear alternative to the minister and the government around this legislation. That clear alternative is to bring this to the House in June, and that would reflect a suitable time frame to consult with the community. One piece of advice I could provide for the minister, having had the privilege and honour of sitting on that side of the House as a minister, is if you want to see the success of legislative reform that relates to community development, take the community with you. You have to.
It is imperative you take the community with you, and we see time and time again examples of failure by not doing so. It is the essence of democracy, the people we represent. When we are talking about broadacre peanut farming, there is a serious element of community consultation needed. If we are talking about the introduction of opium growing in the Northern Territory, the Territory opposition has no problems with that. We get labelled as closed for business and the enemies of the pastoral sector – what rubbish.
I lived in the pastoral sector for over 20 years. I raised my kids on cattle stations and understand that community. I value that community and respect the pastoral community, and that translates to the opposition’s policy development, because when I finished the conversation with the minister on the phone I took it immediately to Caucus, that Labor team where we meet and discuss the issues, use the wise heads and achieve a consensus. The challenges I got for the minister, and myself as an opposition spokesperson, were, ‘What do you know about it?’ There were specific questions around it and then came the very broad, general question, ‘What are you doing about communicating this to the community? What are you doing about researching?’ Good legislation is backed by community consultation, good research and translates into good outcomes. That is what we are all about in this House.
The member for Port Darwin added some interesting points to the debate and spoke about risks. I want to challenge the minister with the risk of failure by rushing this. If we are talking about development of northern Australia and the Chief Minister’s agenda that is basically articulated through white papers and green papers, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has brought a pragmatic example of a new possible industry for northern Australia and we want to see it succeed.
Rushing this, when there is a clear alternative pathway to getting community consultation established and the legislative pathway under control – wise heads should prevail. The risk of failure is like the rice crops in the Northern Territory in the 1960s. We do not want to take any backward steps in the development of northern Australia agenda. It is small steps taken by politicians that really underpin the good outcomes. I add to the member for Port Darwin’s debate to say yes, there are risks of failure if the government does not get the process right.
The minister is leading the Northern Territory into this new horticultural agribusiness environment, and I will read from the Tasmanian Government Submission Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry: Tasmanian Poppy Industry November 2012. This puts on the public record the scope of the environment we are moving into:
- As the world’s largest producer of licit narcotic raw material, supplying around half of the world’s demand, Tasmania is a significant supplier to the international pharmaceutical market. With a processing industry that grosses in excess of $100 million per annum and farm gate returns to growers estimated at between $70 and $90 million in recent years, the Tasmanian poppy industry benefits not only farmers and processors, but the entire local economy.
…In an increasingly competitive international market, it is vital that Tasmania continues to strengthen and expand the industry to achieve its full potential. With just over half of the annual sustainable area of suitable land in Tasmania utilised for poppy growing, there is potential to expand the industry further. Strategic investment by Government and private land owners in irrigation infrastructure in recent years is opening up opportunities for expansion. To support industry investment, the Government is working with growers and processors to develop a strategic framework to guide the industry over the next five to ten years. In addition, the Government and Poppy Growers Tasmania have jointly invested in a social research project which will better define the area of land suitable for poppy production and the social factors affecting its use for this crop.
The Tasmanian example will give you an indication of the potential of this industry. It really is unexplored in the development of northern Australia, which is definitely a bipartisan agenda in this House, and beyond to the states of Queensland and Western Australia. We better make sure we get this right. To start the journey with a sense of urgency – I question that.
During my phone call with the minister I picked up a slight anomaly which concerned me. The minister went from singular to plural in the same sentence. It started with a singular ‘one company’, and turned into plural ‘any company’. I have some concerns and would like to discuss that further. I have not had a chance for a briefing.
When you live 1000 km south of the great capital of Darwin and rattle around the largest electorate in the Northern Territory most of your time, you have a serious agenda which does not allow you to answer all phone calls or turn up for a briefing – it is all done, she’ll be right mate.
I try to fit in as best I can. It took four goes to get a briefing from the Treasurer on the MACA bill. Those at the minister’s office were doing the best they could and I thank them for that. It does not always fit so I do the best I can. I do not want to be an obstacle, but it is fair to assume I have many competing interests.
I am looking forward to a briefing. In the normal legislative time frame, not only will I have time for an adequate briefing from the department, I will also be able to research in the regional and remote community with stakeholders and those directly affected by this potential Northern Territory agribusiness. With the meagre resources the Leader of the Opposition’s office has, I have asked staff to make contact with some broadacre farmers, Indigenous communities and some of the Katherine agribusiness interests, including stakeholder groups, and the police. As a parliamentarian, a politician and an elected community member, I will then be able to participate in this debate and support the minister and government in ensuring we get it right.
My concerns around urgency were shared by the Labor Caucus and our opposition is to urgency. We want this to conform to the normal protocols of passage through the House.
Let me give you an example of how things go wrong. I will quote from a media release from the shadow minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage on 2 May 2014 titled Concerns Rise of CLP Water Allocation:
- Shadow Minister for Environment, Lynne Walker, has joined a chorus of concern about the CLP Government’s rush of water allocation in the Katherine and Tindall aquifers.
Ms Walker said the CLP is snubbing their nose at the amateur fishermen, environment and Indigenous organisations that have all raised concern with the significant allocation of water extraction licences before any Water Allocation Plans for this vital region are delivered.
- ‘How can this latest raft of allocations of 2,320.40 megalitres be based on solid science when even community consultation hasn’t occurred at the NT Water Fforum set down for 16 May?’ Ms Walker said.
- Ahead of any Northern Australia Development priorities the CLP Government is recklessly giving away the Territory’s precious water resources at an alarming rate.
‘On Wednesday public notice was given that the CLP Government intends to grant water extraction licences out of the Katherine River’.
This is good advice about proper and adequate community consultation and taking the community with you.
When I took the information from that brief phone call with the minister to the Labor Caucus and we discussed it those questions arose. How much water does it take to grow opium poppies?
If my great aunts were alive I could ask them because they were growing opium poppies in their residence at Coogee, Sydney in the 1940s and 1950s. One family story is quite hilarious. An environmental health officer came knocking on the door and notified my great aunts about the recently passed New South Wales Pure Food and Drug Act. A team was coming to take all the poppies and it was now illegal to grow opium poppies in your garden. The debate from my great aunts, who were great gardeners, was an interesting family story, regaled through a number of generations.
I could not answer that for the Labor Caucus, but there were also questions about security. The member for Nelson has breached security in the best way ever by naming the trial site at Tipperary Station. In my opinion, growing opium poppies in isolation is probably the worst security. I am a back road specialist; I have spent more than half my life exploring the Territory and enjoy the back roads much better than the main roads. If word gets out this trial is at Tipperary Station, some logistical issues with security will emerge. That needs to be discussed with important affected stakeholders and with police.
In his second reading speech the minister mentioned a commercial trial crop. The speech was a bit light on detail. If it is to go through on urgency it should be a comprehensive brief for the House. Being a commercial trial crop, I presume we are talking about a significant amount of opium poppies being grown in this next trial. The site has been named and I believe it is at Tipperary Station. I look forward to the briefing from the department and will probably explore some maps. I will be interested in neighbours around that area, as well as the broadacre farming community around Katherine, to see what they think about this new initiative, what they know and any concerns that need addressing by the government.
The other factors are around biosecurity. I am interested in opium poppies grown on a commercial scale and management of that crop. Are there pesticides, herbicides, and is fertiliser used? I am interested in the water allocation needed to irrigate the crop and security around the crop. All these points will be shared by the Katherine region community.
We support agriculture, horticulture, the pastoral industry and want to see the agenda for growth and development of northern Australia shared. However, we will continue to bring challenges where we see gaps, and where we see government policy needing more substance, some scaffolding and support, and we do that in good faith. I know it can be frustrating for a minister with an agenda and a busy life to have the brakes applied by that troublesome opposition. Why is it always getting in the way? That is the true essence of democracy.
I would try to turn that into a positive where we could be doing you a favour. Under your watch, the water allocation story has already received a lot of negative talk in the community.
You are trying to do a good thing; you want to cut red and green tape and have ploughs in the field. However, the community wants it done properly. We do not want to make the same mistakes as southern Australia in this new, bipartisan agenda to develop northern Australia.
That is my advice and position in this debate. I acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution and encourage members to consider this as a good opportunity for northern Australia if done properly. The member for Port Darwin spoke about the risks – this is too good an opportunity to risk. It could fail with defective legislation, lack of community consultation, or any other elements rushed through to suit an agenda that may not be in the best interests of the people of the Northern Territory. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Could I introduce Steve Hennessy, acting Mayor of the Victoria Daly Shire. Welcome.
________________________
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank members who have contributed to the debate on the motion to suspend standing orders. I intend to do several things. First, I assure members opposite that there are avenues available today onward to provide much of the information sought during this debate. Those opportunities will come from a number of sources. I have indicated that briefings will be made available and will be as comprehensive as members wish them to be, including details around what work has been done by the interagency working group on poppies. This has included the Department of Health, police and the Attorney-General and Justice department.
Briefings will also be provided during the committee stage of the bill, which will occur next Thursday if this motion is passed. It sounds like it will with the support of the Independent members, and I thank them for that support. There will be plenty of opportunity to get the requisite information members are seeking.
Whilst listening to the debate from those opposite, what became apparent was the very reason the Northern Territory stalled under the Labor government. The member for Port Darwin used a good analogy. If you intend to sail your ship into the harbour but need a committee meeting to decide when to sail, you might find the tide has gone out.
The contributions from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister, the member for Barkly, confirmed their committee would see the tide gone out and their ship sitting on the mudflat while they dithered and dilly-dallied, waiting to get a consensus from the community.
On the matter of community consultation, something spoken about at length by the Leader of the Opposition, the proposal to grow poppies in the Northern Territory is not new; it has been around for a while. I am looking at a media release of mine from October 2013 – I know there was quite a bit of discussion. The ABC Country Hour has run stories on this and it has been on television news. We reported on the outcome of trials and have spoken about it in parliament, if memory serves me right. There has been ample opportunity for the community, if they had any concerns about a new poppy industry and the opiate derivatives that come from it, to provide feedback to me, my department, the police or anyone else in government who has been involved in this. My advice, as recently as a couple of hours ago, is there has been no feedback to the government expressing any concerns about the poppy industry and the implications for the Northern Territory – nothing positive or negative. The people of the Territory see this as an opportunity and will place their trust in the government to get the regulatory environment right.
That said, I acknowledge there should be concerns about some of the issues raised by certain members. The members for Nelson and Namatjira raised it, the Leader of the Opposition raised it, and it is security of the crop in general terms, but also issues around drug abuse and the problems we have in the Northern Territory. I acknowledge it, and that is why we have done exhaustive work to examine the regulatory environment of Tasmania and look at the legislation Victoria has recently put up to come up with the most contemporary legislation we can.
That work has been quite extensive. It has involved members of the department of Primary Industry and the police visiting Tasmania. If I understand it correctly, they visited on several occasions to look at their regulatory environment and how they do things. I acknowledge that if any one person, group or department acted as an antagonist in this it was the police. The police had some significant concerns about maintaining security on a crop that is a precursor to a number of dangerous drugs. That is why it is scheduled in the Poisons and Dangerous Goods Act. Through their consultation with Tasmania, they were satisfied we can successfully regulate to minimise the risks and harm to the community.
That said, you cannot completely remove all risks. Even if you put a six foot chain mesh fence around the crop with three strands of barbed wire at the top, had security cameras all over the place, guard dogs and people running around on perimeters 24 hours a day, some clown, someone with intent would still get in if they really wanted to, to take poppy material. Let us be reasonable about this. You cannot legislate for stupid people. You cannot always legislate for people who have a criminal tendency. Therefore, you provide an environment that minimises the risk of harm to the community as best you can, one that is robust yet still allows for investment to take place, but provides a penalty regime so if people do the wrong thing they can be charged and put before the court. We have taken that commonsense approach to regulation of the poppy industry, albeit in its early stages.
Today we have a bill that will provide the backbone to the regulatory environment – I explained that well enough in my second reading speech – and the backbone to the regulations that will, no doubt, follow. The regulations have not yet been drawn up, so it is the intention of this government, through the department, to issue a licence, if it were to be issued, conditionally. The conditions on that licence would reflect what we would expect to see in the regulation.
If a regulation were to cover fencing there would be a condition on the licence to cover fencing. If there was a regulation to cover video surveillance, there would be a condition on the licence to cover it and so on. We have taken the lessons of Tasmania and the work done by Victoria and applied it in the Northern Territory in a way that will facilitate the investment, yet provide reasonable protection and safety to the community.
Another thing raised by members during the course of the debate was reporting, I suppose on the industry, and reporting back to parliament. A fair bit of information is available publicly about the poppy industry. I am sure if you Google poppies in Tasmania you would find more than ample reading. The members for Nelson and Namatjira indicated their desire to have a report come back to parliament on the trial.
There is no need to form a parliamentary committee because, although it is a new industry to the Northern Territory, it is not a new industry to Australia. Tasmania formed a parliamentary committee because it was a new industry to Australia and we can use some of that information. In an appropriate form, I will ensure the parliament is informed on the results of this trial. I should be able to make available some information on cost-benefit analysis; much of the work has already been done although it is not necessarily complete. I want this industry to be as transparent as it can. There will be commercial confidence, but I do not intend to hide a great success for the Northern Territory agriculture sector. I want to talk about poppies so let us get it out there.
Education and concern around the abuse of substances by Aboriginal people – the member for Namatjira mentioned that. I am more than happy to ensure there is an education program on the danger of poppies. We have seen, as the member for Karama pointed out, a number of deaths in Tasmania from people who have misused poppy material. The bottom line is: do not do drugs. What would possess a person to break into a fenced enclosure to steal poppy material to get a high? As I said before, you cannot legislate for stupid people, but we do what we can.
The opposition talking about community consultation and not ramming through on urgency is disingenuous at best and hypocritical at worst. I did not do the research, but the member for Port Darwin spoke about the urgency bills the opposition rammed through when in government, some quite questionable. There is a clear economic benefit to be gained from this bill going through.
The member for Nelson mentioned further information he would like on the process and what else would get in the way of the growing season. He is right to point out that once this legislation is enacted there would be a period of time during which TPI must apply for the licence to grow, transport and process poppies, or whatever form that licence will take. That will probably take four to six weeks. If this passes next week that will be the middle of May. It would probably be the end of June before it is properly licensed to carry out these activities. Once it is licensed, it is likely to make the investments necessary to get the plantation up and running.
It would be foolhardy to make those investments prior to a licence being issued, so it is unlikely it will do that. That shortens the window. If we let this go through in the normal course of parliamentary business and dealt with it in the second week of estimates in June, that is six weeks gone from the available window. That would probably push the planting cycle back to about mid-August if you go on the timings I spoke about. That would not allow for a proper poppy growing season. It is not just about passing this and the plants going in the ground; there is more to it than that.
I am more than happy to ensure all members are briefed. I am happy to provide any information that is not in-confidence. I want the opposition and the Independent members to have every confidence in government’s moves in this area to make sure we regulate properly.
We do not want to make any mistakes. These are the early stages. We have a 250 ha trial proposed, and it is an opportunity for us to make sure any issues are ironed out while the trial is under way. I would like to make sure our entire regulatory environment is robust and 100% right as we move towards, hopefully, full commercialisation of the poppy industry in the Northern Territory.
I could probably address more of the issues raised. I do not intend to talk too much about water; the member for Barkly raised that. If the crop is grown on Tipperary – eight megalitres per hectare comes to mind, which I understand would fall within the station’s existing water allocation. Concerns around water – water, generally, is a matter of opinion. The opposition has been quite strident in its views on our position of allocating water to the agricultural industry; however, it is all based on science.
The Oolloo aquifer is probably the one we have the best scientific information on, and the figures are conservative in the consumptive pool that would be allowed. I do not want to get too much into it, it just muddies – pardon the pun – the waters a little.
I am not surprised the opposition is opposing this motion on urgency, but I thank the Independent members for their support. We look forward to the debate next week and the committee stage, where every answer will be given on the spot or taken on notice. Thank you everyone for your contribution, and I am pleased this motion will be largely supported in the House.
Motion agreed to.
MOTOR ACCIDENTS (COMPENSATION) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 71)
Continued from 20 March 2014.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I contribute to the debate on the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Amendment Bill 2014 and acknowledge the passage of legislation to align the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act (MACA) with the National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS) minimum benchmarks for motor vehicle accidents in the NT.
The Northern Territory government has signed an intergovernmental agreement with the Commonwealth for the reform of disability care and support services through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The agreement includes provision that the NT implement nationally consistent minimum benchmarks under the National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS) to provide no fault lifetime care and support for people who are catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident before the commencement of the NDIS trial to be conducted in the Barkly region from 1 July 2014.
The amendments to the MACA will provide for increased benefits for those catastrophically injured in a motor accident from 1 July 2014 and are consistent with the Northern Territory’s commitment to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I thank the minister’s office and staff of the Territory Insurance Office for providing the briefing. It took a while to organise – four attempts – but we got there. It was a valuable briefing. I also acknowledge a valuable handout provided by staff of the Territory Insurance Office. There was an opportunity to ask questions so I had some answered. I shared that time with the member for Nelson. It was only half-an-hour so there was not a great time to go into questions and answers. I had to race back to the House when parliament resumed, but it was a good opportunity and I thank all involved.
Some of the questions were answered; however, Treasurer, I have some questions you could address in your final summary and statement on the legislation.
Reading the legislation I found it interesting there was an area relating to removing exposure of the MACA scheme to high-speed vehicle testing to align with the National Injury Insurance Scheme minimum benchmarks.
This activity will occur in open speed limit zones. We may see motor vehicle companies testing their vehicles, possibly at very high speeds. It made a lot of sense and was clearly articulated by representatives of the Territory Insurance Office that this cover would not apply to drivers of vehicles conducting the high-speed testing. I asked if compensation applies to drivers of other vehicles in case they hit somebody else or to pedestrians. When we are talking about the new speedway, the 200 km section of the Stuart Highway, there are many Aboriginal communities, pastoral properties, many people will be around the roadside, possibly children; there will be lots of vehicles entering and exiting that speedway and there will be risk associated with that testing.
It was clear that drivers of those vehicles will not be covered. They will be in a formal arrangement, some sort of legal framework. TIO representatives said anybody else injured in relation to high-speed vehicles on the open speed section would be compensated, so that is good.
Clause 9A relates to exclusion for criminal conduct contributing to an accident. It outlines a person is not entitled to certain benefits if they are involved in an accident deemed as a result of criminal conduct, such as manslaughter, reckless or criminal negligence and dangerous driving.
I did not get the opportunity to ask this because I only had half-an-hour, after four goes, to get to the minister’s office, but I would like the minister to define dangerous driving in an open speed limit area. This is new CLP legislation. They have created a new open speed limit area on a national highway within the Northern Territory, and the TIO, administering the new legislation, will have to make those decisions. The sections around criminal conduct are fairly easily interpreted by the lay person. However, I am particularly interested in the minister’s definition of dangerous driving in an open speed limit area.
I was recently privileged to be a strapper and run water for the Tennant Creek rugby league squad that played in the Central Australian Rugby Football League nine-a-side carnival. For the public record, Tennant Creek was back on the paddock for the first time in 20 years, taking on Alice Springs sides, and came third out of seven. That was a great result for the Tennant Creek team, but it gave me a chance to travel with the team and talk to people on the way.
I met a very interesting character riding a new motorcycle, a 1290cc twin cylinder water-cooled KTM. He had it on the verandah of the Ti Tree Roadhouse and had gear unpacked. He was an interesting character, loved a chat and we had a great discussion. I started the conversation with, ‘I have never seen a KTM off the dirt’. He assured me KTM made production bikes which race on tracks all around the world. This was one of their latest models and he showed me the promo which marketed it as ready to race. This KTM 1290cc bike was capable of doing well and truly over 250 km/h and this guy was telling me about a number of near fatal accidents he had already incurred in excess of 200 km/h.
I discussed the gear he was carrying on the bike. It was a little alarming when he described he had to carry additional fuel because he could not make the distance between roadhouses. He was carrying 10 L of petrol in a pack on the back surrounded by tools and other associated items to support his trip. I spoke to him about the weight on the back of that production bike and how the manufacturer might not accept liability for him operating that motorcycle in excess of 200 km/h because the whole dynamics of the motorcycle would be out of balance.
He accepted that, but he was certainly an Australian adventurer. He was from Victoria. He also mentioned a culture that has emerged in Melbourne of recording motorcycles times travelling between Melbourne and Darwin, and some of those times were quite alarming. He described this culture and definitely that Territory section was out there. People were talking about the open speed limit section.
When I was researching this bill I thought the minister might want to comment on how you would assess dangerous driving in an open speed limit by a KTM superbike doing in excess of 200 km/h.
From the background I received from TIO representatives, it was clear any high-speed registered testing activity is not covered, but it is a formal legal agreement and the companies entering into it would have their own insurance liability. The minister might like to define his definition of dangerous driving in this respect. It might not only relate to a KTM 1290cc motorcycle; it could relate to driving a 1986 Toyota Hilux. I think the minister will be able to define it for me and clear it up. We will not need any committee stage in this; we will be interested in the minister’s definition of dangerous driving in an open speed limit area.
New clause 9B outlines that a person is excluded from certain benefits for an injury suffered if they are involved in an accident which occurred while the injured person was engaged in conduct that created a substantial risk of injury. Can the minister define driving conduct that creates a substantial risk of injury in an open speed limit area?
I told this character from Melbourne that operating a KTM superbike in the Northern Territory on open roads at above 200 km/h was risking injury. Not only was he risking injury to himself, he was risking injury to me and the football team who had to share that section of road with him. He described the surface in an area of open speed limits which was so rough it caused the back wheel of the motorcycle to leave the bitumen – while he was travelling at over 200 km/h – and the manoeuvres he put in place to get the motorcycle back on to the bitumen and under control. The last thing he wanted to know about was oncoming traffic, pedestrians or anyone from a roadside reserve entering or exiting the highway. The minister, no doubt, will have a definition of what he considers driving conduct creating a substantial risk of injury in an open speed limit area.
Clauses 9B(1) and (2) exclude a person from economic benefits for loss of earnings capacity and lump sum compensation for permanent impairment if they were injured in an accident and if injuries were caused by recklessly ignoring the risk.
Minister, could you define driving conduct recklessly ignoring risk of injury in an open speed limit area? Once again, this guy on the KTM put it out there and if what he says is true – if this culture is emerging among the superbike community of Victoria and the track between Melbourne and Darwin – there will be some necessary definition around this. These guys are operating at high risk to the people who live in the area and other road users.
I asked a few questions and had them answered. I was interested in clause 9E: Total Exclusion: unregistered motor vehicle – other accidents. This provides that the driver of an unregistered vehicle is excluded from all benefits for an injury or death sustained as a result of an accident if none of the vehicles involved in the accident are considered registered for the purpose of the act. A three-month grace period will apply for unregistered vehicles. I had to ask for the definition of a three-month grace period applying for unregistered vehicles. That was clearly explained.
I ask about the three-month registrations. They used to be available in the Northern Territory, but I was advised this is now not the case; there would not be any conjecture around somebody who only registered a vehicle for three-month periods.
I was also interested in wandering stock. It was good to talk with the insurers. I put on the record that I have seen areas of the southern Barkly and Central Australia significantly restocked over the last 10 years. There were areas, after the BTEC program of the early 1980s, with no stock for two decades. With developments around the pastoral industry, supplement feeding and new animal management practices, many more areas are now stocked. This relates to many more animals being hit and killed on the road. Between Tennant Creek and Alice Springs an alarming number of beasts have been hit and killed on the road, directly related to motor vehicle accidents. When I do the 1000 km run heading north from Tennant Creek to parliament I see that a significant number of animals around the northern Barkly and southern Katherine region have been hit and killed on the roads.
I asked about liability around that, and it was explained. It is good to know motorists will be covered if they hit a beast. Apparently they are not covered in Western Australia, so be careful if you hit livestock there.
It was good to talk through the legislation. The opposition supports the legislation, and I am interested in the minister defining those issues around dangerous driving in an open speed limit area, driving conduct creating a substantial risk of injury in an open speed limit area and driving conduct recklessly ignoring the risk of injury in an open speed limit area.
For the minister’s benefit, I told the guy on the KTM superbike to slow down. I used a number of strategies talking about the nature of the country, about animal strike, and I told him to talk to his countrymen from the city because they need to learn what is signposted on the new speedway. That is, drive to the conditions. They need to understand this is a challenging environment with lots of risks, and he did heed some of my advice.
I then tried a good old-fashioned one by talking about police. I advised him the police are very active on Territory roads these days. It is not like the old days. Police are very active, officers have very sophisticated gear and there are some very highly-policed spots. Our hard-working, diligent police officers are saving people’s lives, and I can testify to that.
They risk their lives, operate long hours in isolated areas away from home and put in the hard yards across public holidays, 24/7 in some cases, to save people’s lives. I got that story through to the guy operating the KTM superbike through the Territory.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to make comment. The opposition supports this legislation, and I am interested in the minister’s definitions around the questions I have posed.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I support this legislation. I was hoping – it is not often I hope for this – the member for Barkly would talk a bit longer because I am waiting for a textbook to come down from my office to answer his questions more fulsomely. However, I will have to wing it. The textbook is one of several sitting on my shelf which deals with the concept of recklessness and that sort of thing.
A number of considerations grow out of a tortious action and the law of torts, in many respects, is a measure of likelihood. That is something the courts wrestle with on a daily basis. Nearly every expression used in this legislative instrument that requires definition, if not already having been defined in that or some other piece of legislation, will be clearly defined by reams of court cases that have determined, historically, matters such as the term ‘recklessness’ and what recklessness may mean.
Speak of the devil, here is my book. I will see if I can wing it off the top of my head. You will find a number of references to words like ‘recklessness’ in a number of cases over the years. Do you think I can place my hands on recklessness as a definition …
Mr McCarthy: Are there any in open speed limits, John?
Mr ELFERINK: There will be, and I will get to that in a second. I do not have it in front of me and will not waste the time in this House ….
Mr McCarthy: What do you think of the KTM rider? Was he reckless? I do not think he will find that in the book.
Mr ELFERINK: That is the point and I am glad you said that. I will pick up on the interjection, ‘I do not think you will find that in the book’. That is how the law of torts works. The law of torts examines every case on its merits. You will find this not only in the law of torts but things like the Traffic Act. I cannot quite remember the section, but there is a dangerous driving section in the Traffic Act which deals with questions the court has to ask about what is dangerous. It deals with the condition of the road, the condition of the vehicle being driven, the use of the road and the way the vehicle is being driven, the nature of the driving and the traffic.
That leads to an unfortunate acronym but one all police officers remember, and I will take you through each step of the way. The condition of the road, or conditions, deals with the condition of the road and of the car. I will paint a picture for you. Let us take your KTM rider; you described several elements of his behaviour which, in your opinion, made his conduct dangerous. I suspect a court would probably agree with you, which means this person was breaking the law because nothing about an open speed limit says you can drive dangerously.
You can drive dangerously at 60 km/h in an open speed limit area if you breach these elements. Let me give you an example. You are in an open speed limit area travelling at 60km/h and you pass a road train on the other side of the road during the worst storm in history. You had your lights turned off and it was 10 pm. That is dangerous driving. It can occur in an open speed limit area at 60km/h.
Let us talk about your KTM rider who has decided to let rip with his you-beaut super bike. I presume it is 1000cc or better; it sounds pretty thirsty, particularly when you open up the throttles and get the injectors doing their job. He has given this thing a whole bunch of stick, has petrol loaded onto the back and it changes the configuration of the bike. I suggest your KTM rider is on the wrong side of the law because the condition of his bike is no longer what the design parameters determined. The use of the bike is improper. These superbikes are, by their very nature, structured in such a way as to be designed to be aerodynamic, particularly at speed. If you load them up with luggage you change the aerodynamics of the bike. That is change in the use.
The nature of the use – going at 300 km/h on a KTM which is designed for it; it sounds a bit excessive but happens fairly regularly. A fellow died recently riding the very same motorcycle at 300 km/h on the open graded section of the road somewhere around Alice Springs. I understand it is subject to a coronial investigation, but at 300 km/h with the right training a rider on the right piece of equipment may be safe. I struggle to imagine a court would determine 300 km/h was safe, but a court should examine these things on an individual basis.
When the police determine to prosecute somebody for dangerous riding they are saying to the court, ‘The guy was doing something we consider dangerous around the condition, use, nature or traffic component’. It is for a court to determine, which is consistent with the government philosophy in relation to open speed limits. We have never, on this side of the House, advocated dangerous driving; we advocated for judgment. We expect people to demonstrate judgment when driving on our roads. We ask them to do it not only on open speed areas, but everywhere. Because 70 km/h is posted on Dick Ward Drive, there may be circumstances where that is not warranted and a person should not drive at 70 km/h. In those circumstances, I expect the police would pursue people for dangerous driving if they did something dangerous or reckless.
Recklessness has clearly been defined in many court cases. You do not have to go very far to discover where the courts have dealt with recklessness and what danger means, etcetera. There are judgments pages long exploring each of these concepts in detail. Courts are well guided by a long history of what these words mean. If you open legislation and go to the definition section, it will generally give you a one or two line definition of what something means. Courts are inherently unsatisfied with those definitions so they explore way beyond what the legislative definition is to fill out those definitions. Those judgments can run into, in some instances, hundreds of pages. An enormous body of law already exists around what these things do and do not mean. They are implied in such a way that they apply individually to each case as it comes up.
This legislation does not try to predetermine what reckless is. I have often said when you grab legislation like this and cast it, it is like a fisherman casting a net into the future hoping to catch only one variety of fish. It does not work that way. You have to design the net so the weave is sufficiently large and there is sufficient latitude for the person to use it the way this parliament intends.
This may sound funny coming from a parliamentarian, but I am often concerned about the amount of legislation we pass and how prescriptive it becomes. We, as parliaments, have taken it upon ourselves to pass legislation for almost every facet of people’s lives – what goes into their underarm deodorant, etcetera. We have a legislative response for almost every occasion. Does it make the world a better place? I am not entirely sure it does.
If we are obliged to legislate because of the way we interact with the rest of the country, that is, we have agreements in place – this is a product of the former Labor government’s introduction of the NDIS, which is still rolling forward, and the NIIS – we cannot work in a vacuum and call ourselves the People’s Republic of the Northern Territory. We have to create legislative environments which meet our commitments and agreements with other jurisdictions so we pass legislation, but let us do it in a way where a certain amount of latitude is available to the people who do the interpreting on a case to case basis. That is, essentially, what this says.
This also says when you screw up and have insurance, as the insured we will protect you. The quality of your protection will go up. However, we are narrowing the base of what the insurance covers. In this process we say there are certain things we will not insure because the NDIS will capture you there. If you are driving around in a vehicle that has been unregistered for the last 10 years, clearly you have no interest in paying your dues as an insurer and you do not have a claim of right against people who have done the right thing. The claim you make as a person driving an unregistered vehicle is unfair because people who do the right thing, pay the premiums and then pay increased premiums because they pay for this guy over here – our society, for better or worse, determines we will capture those who are permanently incapacitated by virtue of an injury. However, what the support looks like changes depending on whether you pay your insurance dues or not.
We expect people to pay their insurance dues, so much so that this legislation has passed, saying you will pay your insurance dues before you drive for at least the third party personal component of your exposure. You reckon we do not take it seriously? This legislation was last updated in the 1980s, I think, and the maximum fine for driving unregistered was about $500. Driving uninsured was $10 000. Parliament at the time clearly thought unregistered was just a component of the requirement we have that people register their car. My goodness, we think insurance is so important that parliament of the time said, ‘We will whack you with a $10 000 fine’, which would easily have been six months’ wages when it was outlined originally. They said it was so serious a claim against the rest of the community they would place a maximum penalty of six months’ wages as an impost for not paying insurance fees.
The insurance component has been recognised for a long time as needing to be just in the sense people who pay are covered. If you then refuse to pay, you will fall into the domain of the NDIS scheme, which means the quality of your care in the future will be different to if you had paid your bills. There is nothing wrong with this. I concur with it and think it is fair.
I hope this goes some distance to answering the questions of the member for Barkly around what these things mean and how they are defined. I am more than happy, if the member for Barkly is so motivated, to provide him with a copy of my text book so he might look at these things and …
Mr Styles: They are searching out the back for it.
Mr ELFERINK: They are ferretting around out the back. Do not worry too much …
Mr McCarthy: Can I wait until it comes out on video?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, you can wait for the movie to come out. I understand you would need it ...
Mr McCarthy: I love law though.
Mr ELFERINK: Good. The point is what you are asking is already defined in many places. Had you been on your feet a bit longer I would have given you several references in relation to it. If you are so motivated I am prepared, after the passage of this legislative instrument, to have you briefed by the department as to how these tortious elements work so you can satisfy yourself these definitions exist and have long since been recognised at law.
This is a commonsense legislative amendment and I – as I am sure all members in this House do – support this commonsense change.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I wish to add further to some questions the member for Barkly had about his friend on the superbike.
Member for Barkly, in a former life I was a police officer and was required to make judgments on a regular basis as to what constituted driving at high speed, in a manner dangerous, reckless driving and driving without due care. Not one single thing makes you decide what you might charge somebody with.
You talked about the open speed limit, member for Barkly. I refer to a brochure released with information for people who might choose to drive in the open speed limit areas. I will pick up on something the member for Port Darwin said in relation to rain storms. I remember clearly, in the early 1980s I was in a police vehicle on patrol going down Bagot Road. We stopped a vehicle doing about 20 km/h. If people are unaware, Bagot Road has, for many years, been an 80 km/h speed zone. This guy was doing 20 km/h. We arrested him, and he was charged with driving in a dangerous manner, including for his speed.
It was during a torrential downpour and we could hardly see driving at 10 km/h, and this guy passed us. I will not comment on the words used to describe the person driving the car. We both decided this person needed to be stopped in a hurry. We began a pursuit with lights and sirens and just about had to push the guy off the road. Driving at 20 km/h an hour was dangerous in a serious downpour, especially if there was a motorcyclist or pedestrians, and there was also the risk of running into the back of another car.
That driver was convicted on that evidence – speed and the road condition. For those listening and anyone who might think getting on a superbike and coming to the Territory is great fun, and you can do 300 km/h – as someone who raced motorcycles I understand what the member for Barkly is talking about when you change the balance of bikes.
However, you cannot legislate against stupidity. If I was faced with a number of conditions and options I would, like the member for Port Darwin, probably decide the person was driving at a speed not only dangerous to himself, but other road users. I would say police officers today patrolling our highways on a regular basis – if it is an open speed limit area or restricted area the same rules apply.
When the open speed limit section was introduced on 1 February, media interviewed the Assistant Commissioner Southern Region, who was asked, ‘How will you police open speed limits?’ He said, ‘It is quite simple, we will go back to what we were doing six years ago’. They have been policing open speed limits for many years. If you talk to people at roadhouses or those who have been in the Territory for a long time, they will tell you there were open speed limits when there was a single lane of bitumen.
People were required to drive to the conditions. If you were driving on a single lane highway – as sections of it were when we had open speed limits – and a road train was coming and you were doing – even 100 km/h in that situation would probably be considered dangerous. If a police officer saw that, or there were people in a vehicle quite happy to give statements to police, officers would investigate, interview people and, if the evidence was there, people would be charged.
What happens, unfortunately, is police are not everywhere. They are not in the northern suburbs, not on the main street of Tennant Creek when people do stupid things, nor are they on the highways when people chose to do stupid things. That is a shame. We would like to catch people who treat our roads as a racetrack.
Sadly, most of the deaths on our roads in urban areas or on secondary country roads are as a result of people being under the influence of alcohol and failing to wear seatbelts. The government is creating programs to intensify training in relation to that.
In the open speed section the member for Barkly refers to, for those who read the Hansard or those listening interstate, or perhaps the superbike clubs that seem to exist in Victoria, when you drive to conditions we ask you to drive safely to your driving skills and experience.
Drive to your vehicle’s capability. The member for Barkly was correct to say manufacturers have certain specifications. If you go outside those specifications they will not accept liability. That is a decision people make.
The other thing I mentioned in earlier debate is if you exceed the speed the tyres on your car are rated to, police will want to talk to you and ask, ‘Why were you exceeding the capability of your tyres?’
Many tyres are only rated for 130 km/h. I struggle to understand why you would have that when quite often people exceed the speed limit when passing road trains. Most people I know do not want to be on the right hand side of the road any longer than they have to, so people accelerate passed road trains and go back onto the other side of the road. However, if you have tyres on your car that are not rated over 130 km/h and you exceed that, manufacturers will not accept liability. I agree with the member for Barkly on that issue.
It is so important that people understand the capability of their vehicle. It is so important people understand the braking capacity of the car. When I taught my children to drive we found sections of road on private property not being used and practiced braking so they knew exactly what the car was capable of.
We expect, as road users, that every driver has the capacity to understand how long it will to take them to stop, what distance they are travelling for each 10 km/h they increase their speed, reaction times – these are calculations we expect every driver to make irrespective of whether they are on the open road or in suburbia.
Sadly, I have seen accidents in my own electorate. I am sure we have all seen accidents in our electorates – those who have urban electorates – where you asked, ‘Why did this happen here?’ It is because someone made stupid decisions about how they would drive. I said earlier you cannot legislate against stupidity. We can only hope these people are reported to the police. I do it on a regular basis. I get on my hands free, call the police, give them registration numbers and say, ‘You might like to see this person down the road’. You give them the direction they are heading and if there is a patrol car there and people are doing stupid things, hopefully someone will find them.
Sadly, I do not have a warrant card anymore and, on that level, cannot do anything. However, as a citizen I can and I encourage anyone, if they see people driving in a dangerous manner, being stupid or endangering other people on the road, to call police and give them the number. It might not work that time, but if they see them driving around a different area later the police might pay particular attention to the manner of driving. These are things we ask responsible people on the road to do.
The next point in relation to drive to conditions – you drive to the condition of the road. As was described by the member for Barkly, the guy on the superbike said the back wheels were bouncing all over the place. Clearly, that is not riding to conditions. Clearly, the guy is carrying extra weight on the bike. I suggest that person may not understand how motorcycles work or understand the balance. People should make themselves familiar with the vehicle they are travelling in. Sadly, people probably do not.
I was driving next to a car yesterday and looked over at it at the traffic lights. I kid you not; you would think the front tyre was flat. There clearly was not sufficient air in the tyre. This was in a suburban area. People are supposed to check their tyres; it is all part of driving a safe motor vehicle. If you want to drive around in unsafe motor vehicles, police are likely to summons you, give you a ticket, or, if it is bad enough and serious enough, like the brakes do not work, you might find yourself arrested.
The condition of the road – when you talk about rural roads, country roads, outback Territory, our main roads, people have to understand it is the time of day you drive. It is the conditions: dust storms, rain or water across the road. Once it rains and there are floodways across the road and people are driving at speed manifestly excessive for the conditions, then someone will want to talk to them. Someone will make a decision based on the facts whether they arrest a person or give them a traffic infringement notice. There are so many different factors you take into account before you take – they could give a caution, so there are four options.
Every day police officers are required to make decisions about what people do. I suggest your friend on the 1290cc superbike has probably made some poor decisions which could lead them to some serious trouble. Again, the message is if people think they can race through our open speed trial area then they have another thing coming. Police officers are there every day patrolling the road with mobile radars, and people get caught. There are people here who understand what it is like to get caught for exceeding the speed limit. It happens.
These people, it appears, have a club game where they leave Melbourne and see how quickly they can reach Darwin. I suspect some of them are not just racing through our open speed limit trial area; they are racing on our 130 km/h sections of road. If they think it is good fun to do that they should be prepared to get into some serious trouble because we have police patrolling the highways from Kulgera north, and on the Barkly Highway and the Victoria Highway. Highway patrol is doing a fantastic job keeping our highways safe, not only for people from themselves, but other road users as well.
The condition of the road is another aspect. Weather conditions obviously dictate. If you are in the centre of Australia in the desert areas and it is a hot day – 46 or 47 - you have to look at the temperature of the pavement, which can be 65 or 70. That is serious heat, and when you start putting serious heat into tyres you lose tyre performance. If you do not have rated tyres you are looking at blowouts. We have all seen the result, sadly, of people who do not have the correct tyres, correct tyre pressure or tyres in very poor condition. Blowouts create many of our single vehicle rollovers. That is a sad reality.
As a government we try to educate people. We have the DriveSafe NT program trying to educate people who live in the bush about a range of initiatives, including tyres. The weather conditions and the time of day – if it is the middle of the night you do not want to be exceeding a safe speed for the conditions – your experience and your car. Some people might find they can drive 10 km or 15 km faster if they have a newer car, if they have an extra couple thousand watts of lights across the front of the car set up for the side of the road and set up as spotlights should be. Those who live and work in the bush are probably aware of how you are supposed to set those things up. There are ways to do it so you maximise your spots on the road where danger occurs. At dusk and dawn, when stock and native animals are moving – these things are on our highways, our secondary roads and our rural roads every day.
To the club in Melbourne that thinks it will be great fun I say: this is not an autobahn. In this area of the Territory there are good sections of road, but some are a bit lumpy and when the rain comes you have washaways. Obviously, Department of Transport staff will put warning signs up, witches hats or advisory signs saying there is damage or water on the road. I doubt anyone in this House would be flying up the highway on a motorcycle at 200 km/h-plus trying to get through floodways and water on the road. That is plain stupid, but some people are plain stupid and they are the ones police need to chase.
That brings me to the next point in our open speed trial brochure, a simple brochure that gives different points to different people. Drive at a safe speed. I gave the example of the person on Bagot Road exceeding the speed limit. The member for Port Darwin gave some great examples of driving to a safe speed. That applies whether you are in rural or suburban areas or open roads. I hope my speech this afternoon is not affecting the member for Nelson …
Mr Wood: I am in deep thought.
Mr STYLES: I hope I am not putting him to sleep.
Mr Wood: No, no.
Mr STYLES: It is about driving at a safe speed. It is a decision we expect all road users to make every day.
The next point is to keep a safe distance between vehicles. That is about training and driving safely for yourself, your passengers and other road users. Unfortunately, we see people who think one car length is a safe distance at 60 km/h. The bare minimum recommended up to about 60 km/h is one car length minimum – three car lengths is a bare minimum even if you have great reflexes and a good car with excellent brakes.
In our driver training examination, we try to make sure safety is the number one issue young people coming through – and those coming from overseas or older people getting their driver’s licence – understand how it all works.
Obey speed advisory signs. As I said, open roads in the Northern Territory are not autobahns. Autobahns have big sweeping turns and increased camber to accommodate higher speeds. We have designed roads and camber, but when you get to a corner you have to slow down. What do we do? Traffic engineers work out a safe speed might be reducing to 80 km, 70 km, or if you are going through the Blue Mountains it is 20 km/h on some of the bends. Again, we have advisory signs.
I have been on country roads – I am sure we all have – and you go through an area where the speed is 80 km/h and people come up behind you at a rate of knots. Then they get a bit too close when you are trying to drive at a safe speed and follow the advisory signs, which is what we expect people to do. Someone has recommended, based on evidence, this would be a good speed to drive at and we ask people to do that.
The next point is slow down at night. We expect people to do this for obvious reasons. I do not need to waste people’s time saying that slowing down at night is something we should do.
Watch out for people. It is not only in the northern suburbs or the main street of Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine or Nhulunbuy, but everywhere. People walk from one area to another, or cars have broken down and people are walking back to a community, town or fuel station. It is imperative we watch out. Some people, sadly, think on a cold night the black bitumen is a good place to sleep. Cattle seem to think it is a good place to sleep too. If you have black cattle on a black road at night, they are pretty hard to see.
Watch out for animals. Coming along the Victoria Highway many years ago, doing about 60 km/h through some tight turns and across creeks, I thought 50 km or 60 km was pretty good. We came around a bend and, fortunately, with good lights and paying attention, I saw about 20 cattle sitting on the road absorbing the heat. If you have some clown who thinks they can race through that area at night time – that is how tragedies happen. Sometimes it is unavoidable when cattle run out in front of you – that happens from time to time.
I ask the member for Barkly to take note of some of the things I have said. I ask those listening to this debate to take note. I refer people to the Traffic Act, which provides definitions of various things. Section 3 of the Traffic Act gives interpretations of various definitions. Section 29AB also gives definitions under the Traffic Act and what the basics are in relation to a range of activities.
I ask people to drive safely and remind them this is Yellow Ribbon National Road Safety Week. We encourage people to drive safely, to talk to people in their businesses, their homes, families, relatives and friends, and ask them to ensure they drive safely.
The Treasurer will be on his feet soon talking about amendments to the act in relation to insurance matters, and they are great initiatives. It all boils down to people being aware they need to drive to conditions, irrespective of whether they are in an open or restricted speed limit area, and that roads are not racetracks. We encourage people, if they want to do that, to join car or motorcycle clubs.
We have some great racetracks in the Northern Territory. In the Top End we have Hidden Valley. If people want to race around on a bitumen road to see how good they are, there are various car clubs they can join. Many young people take up that option, tear around the place, have a great time and then drive home safely within the speed limit.
Sadly, some people are injured or killed on our roads, not from their driving but from the driving of others who choose not to follow the rules, drive to conditions, travel at safe speeds, keep safe distances between vehicles and obey speed signs. Much of this happens at night when people exceed speed limits. They do not watch out for people; they are too busy talking to each other in the car and do not look out for dogs or other animals in built up areas, or cattle and kangaroos in others.
In this week of road safety awareness we ask everyone to take stock of that. I encourage any parents listening to take their kids to road safety facilities in the Territory.
I paid for an advanced driver training course for my kids. There are a number of people in the Territory who run them. They put people on wet areas and skidpans and people learn how to control a car. They slide on wet roads and are taught about sliding on gravel. We do not want kids to learn how to hoon around the streets, but this is about showing them how easy it is to lose control of a car. Young people, if they accidentally lose control, can then recover from that and understand what has happened.
Drive to conditions. Do your kids and relatives a favour, if you are looking for a good birthday or Christmas present give them an advanced driver training course. Hopefully that will help keep them alive so you can enjoy them and they can enjoy the rest of their lives.
I commend the amendments to this legislation. I ask people to take note of what I have said in reply to the member for Barkly. I agree with him. Many of the issues he raised are valid and I hope we have answered them. Thank you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was not falling asleep; there was an involuntary relaxation of my neck muscles and eyelids due to the dulcet tones of the minister over the last 40 minutes.
I support the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Amendment Bill. There are a couple of areas …
Mr Tollner: Who would have thought?
Mr WOOD: It is unfortunate we have a one-eyed Treasurer stuck in a time warp caused by indoctrination from his own party. People do not have to belong to either party to agree to things in the parliament. I support this legislation; there are some excellent things in it. One excellent thing the member for Barkly and I discovered in our briefing is the improvement in the carers’ allowance.
Many people in the Northern Territory care for disabled people. I have often heard about the inadequate pay they receive looking after our most vulnerable – those who are either permanently or partially incapacitated – so it is good to see this coming forward.
I am sure if I make a mistake the minister will correct me. Presently, attendant care hours are 32 hours per week. The prescribed rate is 2% of average weekly earnings, which currently works out at $28.18 an hour. The new rate will be set by gazettal to allow services to be reasonably acquired. The price is yet to be set, but is estimated at an average of $50 per hour. That, as is explained, will vary according to the role of the helper.
For instance, if someone comes to mow the lawn it is a little different than somebody who has to care for the person in the house – shower them, do the housework, feed them, etcetera. Also where they live – if they live in the Barkly a long way from the regional town, it will obviously cost more to care for that person. It is good that not only have we changed the rate, but we have varied it according to the circumstances and the type of work the person is doing.
I congratulate the government. Obviously it is bringing it in line with the national scheme. However, regardless of that it is a good thing. We sometimes forget carers; we take them for granted, and by paying them a decent amount the carer will be better looked after, and we are showing we care for the carers by giving them a proper income for the work they do. That is a very important part of this bill.
The explanatory statement says:
- The primary purpose of this Bill is to amend the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act (MACA) to align it with National Injury Insurance Scheme NIIS minimum benchmarks for motor vehicle accidents in the Northern Territory, to provide no fault lifetime care and support for people who are catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident.
- In addition to making the necessary changes … the full range of existing MACA benefits was examined to ensure that they remain fair to claimants and motorists and to address any anomalies and inequities while maintaining the scheme’s financial viability.
As a result, other changes have been made that primarily relate to eligibility for MACA benefits that include:
removing exposure of the MACA scheme to motor racing events, high speed vehicle testing and acts of terrorism, to align with NIIS minimum benchmarks;
I noticed in the documents given to us at the briefing the issue of unregisterable vehicles – I am interested in that – but also unregistered vehicles in the case of quad bikes.
I have had concerns for a long time about misuse of quad bikes and regularly receive complaints about them. Most are unregistered. It takes a fair bit to register a quad bike. Usually the more popular models, such as Honda, are easier to register. Many of the cheaper models sold at Coolalinga – the Chinese brands – are good for kids and they love running them around the back yard. Even some of the farm vehicle types are difficult to get registered. People do not bother or they are not registered.
I have photos I sent to the Chief Minister of people driving down Gunn Point Road standing on the bike, no helmet and unregistered. I have had many complaints about people driving them there. The nature strip – if you can call it that on a rural road – is dangerous because someone will come out of their driveway – and that happened – besides the issues of noise and dust. We are not dealing with that at the moment.
I wonder how many who drive quad bikes realise under this scheme – some of this may have applied before – if they have an accident and are permanently or partially injured – my understanding is they will receive medical benefits but not employment benefits. I wonder if they understand that. If they have an accident, yes, people who do not have a registered vehicle will receive medical help. However, if a 35-year old man has a prang on his quad bike – by the way, your quad bike has to be registered for Crown land.
Police have booked people on Gunn Point beach for having an unregistered quad bike. It is either the Traffic Act or the Road Act. I am not sure which one says that. I am not sure if we publicise this enough. Not only do you need to be registered, but publicising the fact if you are not registered – quad bikes are the biggest killer of people on farm-type machinery, bigger than tractors.
I do not have the figures in front of me, but in the Queensland Country Life last weekend there was a section on quad bikes and a debate around whether they should have roll bars of some description. Some companies refuse to do it saying, for whatever reason, it would not work. Others say it is a necessity.
Whilst it is good the government brings in this legislation, how does it get the message to people that it is not just a matter of me being upset if someone goes down the road on an unregistered vehicle without a helmet? According to this legislation, you have broken about three rules. They are driving on the road unregistered, driving an unregistered vehicle, do not have a helmet on and, in many cases, would have a child in the front or back seat. You are not supposed to carry two people on a quad bike, yet we see it time and time again. I have driven on a road where the bloke on the quad bike was going faster than me, not wearing a helmet, not registered and was on the dirt side of the road ...
Mr Elferink: I apologised to you for that.
Mr WOOD: You should not do it on the Mitchell Street footpath.
How can we show the community the penalty if people do not do the right thing? I hope the government, TIO as well, runs a publicity campaign telling people if they do this they will lose benefits.
Any sensible person would say, ‘It’s a pretty big risk to take. If I end up with a quad bike on top of me and am a paraplegic for the rest of my life my family will not have an income from me.’ That needs to come out and people need to understand.
You also have the issue of unregistered vehicles. The Chief Magistrate, who was looking at a car accident in Central Australia recently, criticised the government for not acting on unregistered vehicles. I have spoken in parliament before about impounding unregistered vehicles. You are not taking the vehicle away in the sense they have to purchase it again. You are saying. ‘Until it’s registered you can’t have it’. It takes it off the road.
I understand there is three months’ grace in the legislation, but we should tell people if they drive an unregistered vehicle there is a chance, if they have an accident, they will only receive medical benefits not employment benefits. That is one penalty. The other penalty can be the government legislating that if a vehicle has not been registered twice in a row, the car is forfeited and can be returned when the registration is paid. It is a double whammy.
There are difficulties in the bush, especially with unregistered cars, and that was raised at our briefing. Access to registration can be difficult; sometimes the cars might be pushing to be registered, but you need to – when making rules about registration – be flexible, because sometimes it is not as simple as me going from Howard Springs to Palmerston. People living at Canteen Creek may have to travel to – I am not sure if Avon Downs still does registrations – otherwise they might have to go to Tennant Creek, but they have a fair way to travel. There is some leniency in this legislation. The member for Barkly and I discussed the three month period and the cover you would lose if you were not insured.
The other area mentioned in the explanatory note was speed vehicle testing. For me, there is an anomaly. A company has professional drivers and vehicles and wants to race a car at unlimited speed, yet is not allowed insurance because that is regarded as similar to racing. However, a person gets on a KTM bike, flies down the road and is not part of a speed trial and that is allowed. It seems a bit anomalous. One is formal, but I am not sure which one is more dangerous.
Most of the time testing is operating under high temperatures to see how cars last under high road and air temperatures. This would be done under fairly tight control by motor vehicle companies at pretty low risk, compared to the bloke who bought a super duper bike and put his foot down.
Minister for Transport, we can argue the case for open speed limits. It is annoying when people say, ‘You supported the no speed limit zone before’, but fail to understand I did not support the government changing it because I did not see evidence of it being a good thing to change …
Mr Tollner: Then you flip-flopped.
Mr WOOD: Hang on. The member who has been indoctrinated by his party to think one way forgets when I argue that way then say to the minister, ‘Now you’re changing it, show me the scientific evidence’. ‘No, these reports are top secret’. They have nothing on the KGB, ASIO or the CIA. ‘These are Cabinet documents, not to be looked at by folk out there. They are secret; they could damage a normal person’s hearing and ability to analyse things.’
This government is so open and transparent it had reports done by a company and delivered to Cabinet. It is not necessarily a Cabinet document. It is when it ends up there, but it was previously a plain, ordinary report on whether our roads were suitable for the speed limit.
Minister, are these documents so secret? Will the …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Calm down, my argument is worthy. If you want to change things show us the scientific evidence. You can read Hansard, but when I asked to see the evidence you did not show me. Do not let fly with clichs and smart comments not based on facts. ‘If we tell people often enough Gerry said that they will believe it, even if it is not true.’
I digress. The point is the government has changed the speed limit and we have not been given reasons why or seen the reports. If the reports say it is safe, let us live with that.
The first thing your government did was drop speed limits on the Arnhem and Stuart Highways. Why? Is the document so secret you cannot tell us what …
Mr Tollner: Labor did not put money into roads.
Mr WOOD: Yes, the Commonwealth government probably did not put money into roads because – let us be realistic, when all sides of parliament talk about how much money is put into roads, be real. Around 90% comes from the Commonwealth, but we put it on our badge and say, ‘Look what we did’. You know about Tiger Brennan Drive, you were in federal parliament. Most of that money came from the Commonwealth. There would have been some …
Mr Tollner: Absolutely.
Mr WOOD: That is right, but you say, ‘Look what we did for Territorians. We put it together out of Australia’s GST, which we get a fair bit of.’ Again, I digress.
I am concerned it is all right to allow a person to drive at a very high speed and be covered by this legislation, yet someone who is testing a vehicle – which I imagine would happen under controlled conditions – is not covered. That is an anomaly.
I have concerns. The minister spoke about an autobahn. An autobahn is separated by a concrete wall and all traffic travels in the same direction. If a motorcycle is going 200 km/h and a car doing 150 km/h and they collide, you have a 350 km/h disaster.
In this debate we have not taken into account other road users and the person who might want to travel at 130 km/h. Are they at risk because someone can drive faster down the road? That has not come up in this debate. It has all been about being able to drive fast, but what about the person who is enjoying the road not to have a speed thrill, but just getting from A to B like most people do? Although I have digressed, I was wondering why that group of people is exempt, considering they are probably a much safer bet than people driving their KTM down the Stuart Highway.
I saw a few KTMs at the Kamfari on the weekend so they have a good range of motorbikes. They had the tent up, and I am not sure if a KTM won the Kamfari. The Kamfari is not covered by this. I presume they must take out their own insurance because you could drown. If you looked at what they had to travel through, you could have been eaten by a crocodile. Compared to last year it was some Kamfari. It is a wonder people did not die from exhaustion. It was a very difficult course. I presume motorsports are not covered by this. MotorSports NT, I presume, would raise its own insurance to cover things like that. People pay to belong to those associations and insurance cover would be provided.
If you want to get a close photograph of people in a Kamfari do not wear your nice shirt and black trousers because you will come back covered in mud.
I thank the minister for the legislation. It is excellent, especially because the carer rate has increased. That is important. I have no problem with some of the changes, but if you make changes which penalise people who are doing the wrong thing, then it is the government or TIO’s job to make sure people understand there is a real problem by them not abiding by the law – wearing a helmet, wearing a seatbelt or having a registered vehicle.
It would be really good to show people, even if it was an advertising campaign, if they do not do the right thing they will not be covered. It would be worthwhile the government doing that.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all members who have spoken on this bill. It is a very important bill because it provides a safety net for people who suffer catastrophic accidents involving motor vehicles.
The members for Barkly and Nelson raised concerns about dangerous driving in open speed limit areas. My friend and colleague, the Attorney-General, did a good job of explaining the definition of dangerous driving and how it is dealt with. Determination of dangerous driving is made by police as to what constitutes dangerous or reckless driving in an open speed limit area.
The member for Nelson put on the record his thanks that carers were being looked after. I have enormous respect for people who care for people with disabilities, the aged and the like; not enough can be done in the area of carers.
I was fortunate to be part of the implementation of the national carer’s roundtable when I was the federal member and have had quite a bit to do with Carers NT over the years; it is a wonderful organisation providing a valuable service. In the mid-2000s it was estimated that carers in the Northern Territory saved the government around $60m a year with the valuable work they provide. That is an enormous amount of money the government would have to find if carers were not around, so it is great to see support being given to them.
The quixotic member for Nelson has done it again. He has banged on about his phobia and hatred for quad bikes and quad bike riders. He must have lived near a beach where people were tearing up and down on quad bikes. He is not a fan of people enjoying themselves on quad bikes. Quad bikes are clearly dangerous. He said they are hard to register. It is hard to register a quad bike. I had to register one when the Country Liberals were last in government and I was seeking election as an independent in the electorate of Nelson and it was difficult to register the quad bike. I eventually got it and doorknocked the electorate on a quad bike. I have had quad bikes for years and, admittedly, they can be dangerous if you do silly things, but they are also quite valuable.
The member for Nelson seems to think quad bikes are more dangerous than tractors on farms. That may well be the case, but I do not think he is advocating to get rid of tractors; he just has a real issue with quad bikes.
Concerns I have about the member for Nelson and speed limits – another area he banged on about – he went to an election campaign on speed limits. I remember when we copied the stickers he had to campaign for open speed limits, and how affronted he was that the Country Liberals would steal his idea and use his stickers to support open speed limits.
Typical of the member for Nelson, he decided he no longer supported open speed limits even though he had gone to an election saying he did and then backflipped. My guess is he backflipped because he became invaluable to the Henderson Labor government and, for that reason, felt he had to give up something in order to get something. That something was obviously a swimming pool in the rural area. He did not do a very good job because they did not get around to digging a hole, let alone installing a swimming pool.
At the end of the term they pointed to a block of land and said, ‘Maybe we can put the swimming pool there’. It was too little too late, and the member for Nelson failed on his swimming pool even though he traded off open speed limits in the Northern Territory.
Good on him. He might think that was a good outcome. Scientific testing and the like, you have to wonder what an election commitment is worth to the member for Nelson when he can so blatantly campaign for open speed limits then roll over so easily when he finds he has the ability to do something about it. That is for him to deal with.
This is important legislation. In August 2011, as part of a national disability strategy, the Productivity Commission released a report into disability care and support in Australia which found the sector was underfunded, unfair, fragmented and a lottery based on the type of disability and which jurisdiction the patient was living in. Things had to change.
The then federal Labor government established two schemes, both supported in the Northern Territory by the former Territory Labor government and this Country Liberal government. The National Disability Insurance Scheme was supported by us and we accepted a trial to occur in the Tennant Creek region, and the National Injury Insurance Scheme.
The National Injury Insurance Scheme is to be phased in over several years and has been established to provide nationally consistent, no-fault lifetime care to support catastrophic injuries caused by a range of accidents, four types in particular: motor vehicle accidents; workplace accidents; medical accidents; and general accidents.
The first stage of the NIIS centres on the standardisation of statutory attendant care provided under state and territory mandatory motor accident compensation schemes, which is why this bill is being put forward today. The Territory is required to implement the first stage of the National Injury Insurance Scheme by fulfilling nationally consistent benchmarks for motor vehicle accidents.
The fact is ...
Mr Wood: I am here.
Mr TOLLNER: You are back; you missed my slurring your good name. Do you want me to go over it again? I just explained how you flip-flopped on speed limits and election commitments mean nothing to you, but that is the Labor way. Member for Nelson, I am glad you support this legislation.
This legislation provides a better safety net for people injured in catastrophic motor vehicle accidents. It reduces the types of claims our insurance company or Motor Accident Compensation Scheme will pay out on. However, it increases benefits for claims that are accepted. For those that are not and fall through the cracks – a number of areas will no longer be covered under the Motor Accident Compensation Scheme – they will be picked up and supported by the National Disability Insurance Scheme as well as the National Injury Insurance Scheme. There is quite a good safety net there, with some of it provided by the Commonwealth government and other parts underwritten by the Northern Territory government through the Motor Accident Compensation Scheme. This is largely funded by people’s registrations.
As a government we encourage people to act safely when they are using motor vehicles, whether they are registered or unregistered. When people are driving on Northern Territory government roads we expect them to have registered and well-operating motor vehicles on those roads. We expect people to drive to the conditions of the road and not drive dangerously, but the fundamental difference is people on this side of the Chamber believe in the individual and the individual’s ability to be responsible. Those on the other side – I say all of them – do not have that faith in individuals. They would rather regulate everybody’s lives and actions as much as possible to the point of outlawing quad bikes for certain people, certain locations and all that type of stuff …
Mr Wood: Who said that?
Mr TOLLNER: I got the impression the member for Nelson was not very keen on quad bikes, just like he is not keen on open speed limits …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I gave you a plug for thinking of the carers. We understand the Independent Labor member for Nelson will always support his socialist mates who want to limit and restrict people’s lives as much as possible. Fundamentally, he does not have much faith in people.
I thank those on the other side of the Chamber for supporting this legislation. It is important legislation and will give people greater peace of mind and benefit those injured in catastrophic motor vehicles. It is retrospective so will cost the motor accident compensation fund significant money initially, but I am informed by the actuaries there are more than adequate reserves in that fund.
I will not waste any more time apart from thanking very much all who support the legislation. In particular, I thank Treasury and TIO staff who pulled a lot of this together and have done the lion’s share of the work in making sure it is workable.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer) (by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I could not let the minister get away with talking rubbish. He introduced a few things in the debate, and in the third reading I will not introduce anything new.
I want to say something about his knocking of people on this side for not believing in the individual. I believe in the individual, but I also believe in community, and there is a balance to be looked after. A classic example is the balance between someone who is disabled – an individual – and someone who cares for them. That is community. We need individuality to give us enterprise and new ideas, but we are also part of a community. We are part of the human race. No man is an island, and if you say the individual is the only thing you need to worry about you are very self-centred ...
Mr Tollner: Goodness me.
Mr WOOD: You raised it. You put everyone in a bucket and said, ‘You are a bunch of socialists, you do not care about the individual. You just regulate because you like regulating.’ Sometimes you should be taken to task for those silly ideas.
The individual should be able to show their character and individual traits, but I also believe people have a responsibility in what they do, and that they do not impinge on the greater community in a way that could be harmful.
If someone drives down the road at 300 km/h because that is a great thing for your individual beliefs, I would be concerned the community is affected by someone else on the road, the cost of that person being injured and the effect on the community. I take exception to what you say as a blanket statement of the way I feel about individuals and the community. You are well off the mark.
I also take exception to your saying I dislike quad bikes. I have a quad bike in my back yard, but it does not work anymore. My grandson, who was a bit heavier than the quad bike, drove it into the ground. I regularly go to the Territory Quad Association. If you want to see a group of people who do the right thing with quad bikes, visit the Territory Quad Association at Knuckey Lagoon and see its races being well run. If you had been to the Kamfari, you would have seen blokes who nearly died from exhaustion, crocodiles and drowning on their quad bikes last weekend ...
Mr Giles: Gerry, where is the quad bike club?
Mr WOOD: The Territory Quad Association is on the road to the shooting range at Mickett Creek, on the left hand side. It has a one-year licence and have to move after that. I try to go regularly. It is a great group of people that uses quad bikes responsibly.
If I criticise people for driving down the road without helmets, without registration, why does that make me anti-quad bike? I thought you would support me saying it is an illegal practice, or are you close to your old mate Peter Maley? He wanted to have registration for quad bikes – one you could drive everywhere with cheap registration. You have not brought that in. He wanted that in parliament; you were probably not here when that was debated.
You twist the facts. There is only so much you can take. Sometimes I need to fire back at you because you make unfair statements.
I supported open speed limit ...
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Hang on, I have not finished. Are you saying because I am now not a great fan of the speed limit I am not allowed to change my mind?
Mr Tollner: You went to an election …
Mr WOOD: Hang on, let me finish. The original change to the speed limit was to 110 km/h. That was in the reports we did not see from the Labor Party. The government conducted some trials and came up with the average speed most people travel on the open highway. It was about 10% give or take, around 140 km/h or 130 km/h. That was the speed it found most people drove at and it picked 130 km/h.
Some people love the open speed limit, but if you ask me how many people complain the speed limit is too low – most people are quite happy with 130 km/h. They think that is reasonable. What you say presumes a person cannot say, ‘I think that is not a bad speed limit and I accept it’.
You can be a stick in the mud and quote what I said 20 years ago, what I should say today and that I do not have the right to change my mind. You harp on; you are a professional harper. You go on regardless of the truth, and I have been here long enough to see you do that. There should be something in the standing orders restricting people who go on and on.
I wanted to straighten the record. I am an individual. He does not quite get that; he puts me in the Labor Party. Who just supported passage of the bill and suspension of standing orders to bring on the poppy legislation? I did. Who supported this legislation? If I use your logic, am I an Independent CLP person? That is dreadful logic for a minister ...
Mr Tollner: If you were an Independent CLP I would be backing you, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: If I believed every piece of your legislation was worth supporting I would support it. Bits of your legislation are sometimes not worth the paper they are written on.
I wanted to straighten some things the minister mentioned in his summary of the debate today. To be honest, I hope Hansard has a section which says, ‘Not worth writing about.’ Most of your second reading would fit that category quite well. Thank you.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (BEVERAGE CONTAINERS AND PLASTIC BAGS) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 76)
(Serial 76)
Continued from 27 March 2014.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, it was interesting listening to our colleague, the member for Nelson, taking the opportunity in the third reading debate to put a few things straight. My, what short memories they have on that side, given the crisis of a few weeks ago when three of their members walked out. Who was the first to be across the floor talking to the member for Nelson? It was senior figures from the CLP because they will rely on his vote in the event their numbers drop by just one more or in something crucial, yet they treat him abominably. It is incredibly good-humoured the way the member for Nelson responds to members opposite.
We have before us today the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Amendment Bill 2014. I thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House. The government’s claimed purpose of the bill is to ensure effect is given to the original intent of the act by improving clarity and functionality of existing provisions, and introducing new provisions to improve efficiencies of the scheme’s operation and administration, and this is a good thing.
In the second reading of the original bill the minister for Environment, who was the former member for Stuart, Karl Hampton – a good minister he was too – outlined the purpose of the bill he brought to the House. It is worth reiterating for the record a number of things he said during the second reading debate on 25 November 2010, because these things stand true:
- The Territory community has long supported the introduction of a container deposit scheme. Over the years, we have seen a number of voluntary schemes implemented, including that now operating in Alice Springs.
…Through the Territory 2030 strategic plan, this government is committed to reducing the amount of waste being taken to rubbish dumps by 50% by 2020. The container deposit scheme and plastic bag ban proposed in this bill are two key measures which will assist in reaching this target. These measures will take millions of bottles, cans, and plastic bags out of landfill, our waterways, parks, and streets. The container deposit scheme and plastic bag ban are also important strategies identified in the Territory government’s Climate Change Policy.
Territorians use approximately 40 million plastic bags and over 100 million drink containers each year and consumption is on the rise. These plastic bags and drink containers fill our landfills with products that do not really break down, and many of them cause highly visible litter problems or find their way into our oceans. In the 2009-10 Keep Australia Beautiful National Litter Index, plastic litter items contributed the highest amount of volume to the litter total in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory’s container litter represents 10% of all container litter recorded across Australia. This is unacceptably high considering the Northern Territory represents just 1% of the country’s population.
Plastic bags and beverage container create litter in our street, kill wildlife and, through their production, deplete natural resources and increase greenhouse gas emissions. This bill will reduce beverage container and plastic bag litter and increase resource recovery in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory currently has a limited collection system for recyclables. The opportunity to expand collection systems and services is an exciting opportunity and a great challenge. The Territory government has started to build new working relationships with established industries and businesses and wants to develop opportunities for new partnerships locally.
Not only will the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Bill work to minimise environmental pollution, but the container deposit scheme will be a great opportunity for individuals, community groups, sporting groups, and schools to raise money. During the drafting of the bill, the Territory government has been consulting with key stakeholders in the beverage industry, retail industry, waste industry, local councils, as well as community groups. The majority of stakeholders in the retail and waste industry consulted either accept or support the container deposit scheme.
- No doubt, the beverage industry as a whole would prefer government to not go down this path, but constructive discussions have occurred. A number of companies have indicated their acceptance, and I believe more will do so as we work through the detail. All community groups consulted were supportive, and strong feedback from the public indicates that most in the community agree the container deposit scheme would help to reduce litter in the Northern Territory.
I make no apology for quoting at length from the original second reading speech from the former minister for the Environment because this was landmark legislation. The commitment he undertook, the intent, the vision and the purpose he outlined remains today. I do not think much has changed, if anything, in the original intent he outlined. We can say today, a few years down the road from when the bill was introduced, the rationale behind the cash for containers scheme has stood the test of time.
The most recent quarterly report on the scheme found during the October to December 2013 quarter over 40 million approved containers were sold in the Northern Territory and 15.5 million of those containers were returned to CDS coordinators. This equates to a return rate of 38.83% across all material types. That is, 38.83% of all containers sold in the Northern Territory were recycled or reused through the container deposit scheme or CDS. That is a considerable increase on where it was before this legislation came into being. Quite clearly the scheme has been taken up by Territorians. In some communities we see reduced litter and cleaner streets and waterways.
The opposition remains the same in supporting the intent of our original legislation when we were in government, along with today’s amendments to make this legislation work, particularly with regard to container deposit legislation.
In my own community I note the change in people’s behaviour when shopping in that the vast majority take bags they have generally had stored in their cars. On more than one occasion I have sent one my kids racing to the car to get a couple of extra bags. I have reached the point where I cannot bare to use plastic bags; I would rather go back to the car and grab the bags. I am not the only one. Quite clearly, people have changed their behaviour around how they utilise plastic bags.
However, it is clear the view of the CLP on the Territory’s container deposit scheme has evolved from opposing it – some of them – in opposition, to today, in government, supporting this legislation.
The amendments in this bill codify many of the relationships between scheme participants. It takes a regulatory rather than a market-based approach to managing the scheme. It represents an evolution of the scheme.
The former Labor government introduced the container deposit scheme into the Northern Territory because Territorians could not keep waiting. The CLP failed to introduce the scheme when it was in power for more than two decades, even though it may have talked about it. If we had not enacted the scheme when we did, we would still be waiting, with further delays happening at the national level.
The Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment claims to be a supporter of the container deposit scheme, but his track record is not an entirely good one. Hansard from 23 February 2011 captures the second and third reading debates when the original bill had passage through this House. It was quite a lengthy debate, as the Hansard record will reveal, but, interestingly, it did not go to the committee stage. Clearly the shadow minister at the time, now the minister, had no questions to drill into the detail of the bill before the House. What was interesting about his contribution during that debate was a shift in the CLP’s commitment from having given clear support for a legislated container deposit legislation scheme, CDL, to wavering support following a visit to New Zealand a couple of weeks before the bill came before the House for the second reading debate. It was a leaning towards what is known as a product stewardship program, which was what the now minister – then shadow minister – was touting.
During the member for Brennan’s contribution in 2011, which was full of facts and figures, he claimed to have uncovered, during hours of research including a fact-finding mission to New Zealand – he was at pains to point out he had paid for the trip and was not a guest of any industry group. During his contribution to debate and as a result of this new research, he queried the viability of a legislated and regulatory scheme through CDL. It seemed his head had been turned by some of the messages the Australian Food and Grocery Council, known supporters of product stewardship programs for recycling and strong vocal opponents of regulated schemes such as CDL – it actively drove a scare campaign in the Northern Territory with full page advertisements in the NT News and regional newspapers, as well as media releases and plenty of commentary.
It was a curious shift of position by the CLP. Whilst the member for Brennan ultimately supported the bill – we are pleased he did – he touted – I quote from the second reading debate of 23 February 2011:
- … CDL only offers half of the wheel and, perhaps, a stewardship program provides the other half.
There we have it; it was a bob each way from the member for Brennan when push came to shove in supporting CDL. However, support from numerous members within the then CLP opposition is on the record. In fact, then Chief Minister Paul Henderson listed them and their comments in support for CDL during the debate in 2011.
Let us see what the Chief Minister at the time quoted in support of CDL. On 30 April 2009, in the Parliamentary Record, the member for Brennan said:
- The Country Liberals’ own policy supports CDL; the policy is to reduce the amount of landfill and encourage active recycling of glass, plastic and aluminium beverage containers by providing a financial incentive offset by increased price.
… we support moving forward with Container Deposit Legislation.
- Let us go back to the basic issue. The community wants CDL, and they want a government to apply the will and make it work ...
…The position of the CLP on CDL is that we will find a way to sort out this issue.
The member for Fong Lim – not known for his green credentials – in his September 2004 newsletter said he was all for it to help clean up, to recycle and to put some money in the pockets of responsible people.
The member for Port Darwin, on 26 November 2003, said the CLP supported CDL.
Some clear support for CDL. However, it was strange during the second reading debate where the shadow minister – now minister – seemed not to be entirely sold on CDL and looked for a bob each way, potentially with a mix of CDL and a product stewardship scheme.
I cannot help but think that in opposition – and I am not the only one – the CLP’s continual carping and complaining about the scheme, when it had become legislation, gave the green light to suppliers to challenge the scheme. They were the naysayers determined to find fault with it and see it fall over. Some with a vested interest in the industry group got on board. Some would say the lack of support from the minister, when in opposition, may have contributed to undermining the scheme. Now he is positioning himself as the saviour and champion of the scheme. Well, good on him!
More recently, the communique from the meeting of Environment ministers on 28 April, the first since the 2013 federal election and change of government, informs that ministers failed to back a national container deposit scheme. The Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment told the ABC on 1 May 2014 it will be better to have a national scheme because it will be more efficient. Did the minister representing the Territory, and Territorians, argue in favour of a national scheme at the meeting? Did he put it to the meeting of Environment ministers from jurisdictions around the country? Did he make the point the Northern Territory scheme continues to grow and has strong support from Territorians? Did he argue that the other states should join the Northern Territory and South Australia, which has had a scheme in place for more than three decades, and extend our container deposit schemes to their jurisdictions?
If not, why? If he did, why he was not able to convince his Liberal Party colleagues from other states of the benefits he believes there would be for a national scheme? I look forward, as he wraps this debate, to his response to these questions.
On 30 January 2014, the minister’s media release said the Environment Protection Authority would conduct a:
- … targeted industry consultation campaign over a two week period ...
It is important to put on the record who was consulted and why it was such a small industry focus group. Why were no other stakeholders, such as users – those who use container depots – afforded the opportunity to provide advice into the consultation? Maybe I am wrong and they were involved. I ask you to address the consultation campaign you talked about with industry.
It would be remiss of me not to touch on mutual recognition during my contribution to this debate. The minister referred to a declaration by the federal court that components of the act were inconsistent with the Mutual Recognition Act 1992.
At the time of the legal challenge the opposition offered full support to continue the fight to keep Cash for Containers going in the Territory. The former shadow minister for the environment, my colleague the member for Nightcliff, said in a media release on 4 March 2013:
- It is disappointing to see that the big beverage industries have prevailed today.
This decision is sadly a victory for big corporations over the community and has significant implications for our environment – especially our waterways and national parks.
Today’s decision would also adversely impact on Territory schools and community groups who will no longer be able to raise much needed funds by collecting cans and bottles.
Resolving the mutual recognition matter was relatively straightforward. It is clear a mutual recognition exemption for the scheme was required and why a temporary exemption was put in place. In his media release of 11 April 2013, the minister said he was out to score one last signature from all Australian jurisdictions for the Territory’s bid to get a Commonwealth exemption to keep the popular container recycling scheme going. In that media release he said:
- I tapped Tasmania on the shoulder and gave a gentle reminder that we were anxiously awaiting Tasmanian support for our Container Deposit Scheme.
They were only too happy to help out and obliged immediately sending an email to Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings’ office to fast-track the paperwork.
The question the minister needs to answer is why contact had not been made with Tasmania earlier so arrangements could be put in place before the end of the temporary exemption.
I will quote from the Northern Territory Container Deposit Scheme Decision Regulation Impact Statement which was required as part of the process to seek permanent mutual recognition exemption. It found:
- Communications to date with other jurisdictions around the issue strongly indicate that there will be unanimous agreement by State and Territory Heads of Governments for the NT CDS being granted permanent exception.
Given this, it is likely that the usual approval process can be significantly expedited.
The amendments in the bill introduced to parliament are not related to the mutual recognition matter but are strongly focused on splits, sorts and arrangements between co-ordinators and depots.
Prior to the introduction of Cash for Containers the Territory had a particularly low rate of recycling by national standards in the municipal, that is domestic and at home sector, and the commercial, that is hospitality, and institutional sectors, which is away from home. The Territory’s recycling rate was approximately 3.5% while the national rate was approximately 48%. As I said in my opening, the rate for the October/December 2013 quarter was 38.83%. That is an incredible increase and clear indication of the popularity of the scheme and the number of Territorians wanting to take it up. It is not only to recycle containers to get 10 c back in their pocket, but recognising the main beverage manufacturers should be responsible for the containers and taking them back, all the while reducing the impact of litter on our environment, parks, waterways and so on.
Poor recycling leads to environmental impacts such as litter and high clean-up costs, the loss of finite resources, elevated landfill costs and elevated environmental impacts in general. For these reasons it is our intention to support the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Amendment Bill and ask further questions about the provisions of the bill when we get to the committee stage.
I thank the minister’s office for providing a briefing on the bill, and I also thank staff of the NT Environment Protection Authority who attended the briefing and provided background as well as answering questions.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her contribution and support of the legislation.
A few things in your debate were more focused on politics than cleaning up rubbish in our community. I was gobsmacked you went anywhere near the mutual recognition process this side worked tirelessly on. Had that been dealt with earlier, as it should have, we would not have had to do anything.
I will answer a few of the questions you raised. Firstly, for the record, I will go over the purpose of the bill and the key features and benefits of this legislation. I am mindful of the time, and suggest we finish at 5.30 pm for General Business Day and continue afterwards.
The member for Nhulunbuy raised a couple of things in regard to the original intent and went to the trouble of reading the Parliamentary Record from the then Environment minister, minister Hampton. She is right; there is no difference in this legislation. The intent is the same as the original bill. However, I put to the Labor opposition that had the legislation not been rushed originally, we probably would not be in the mess we are and not had to do much of the work we have over the last 18 months.
You also mentioned my track record. That is pretty irrelevant, but for the record needs to be unpacked a little. The Country Liberals have a long relationship with and support for CDL. You failed to mention my trip to New Zealand and the depths I went to to uncover what was wrong with the legislation put forward. At no stage was I against CDL being a concept, I was against the model put forward by the Labor government. The model we are trying to fix today was what we complained about, not the concept of CDL and not the intent of the legislation.
To insinuate we had changed our mind about CDL or were pushing for other methods is disingenuous. The fact I travelled to New Zealand – I am sure the member for Nelson will back me up on this – the beverage company at the time – I think it was Lion Nathan and a number of others offered to pay for both the member for Nelson and me to travel to New Zealand to investigate their product stewardship program. They had spoken to me, and then Opposition Leader Terry Mills, about their programs. I spoke to the member for Nelson afterwards and he reminded me they had been talking about this process for years but never got around to introducing it. Anything they tried to do was seen as stall tactics.
However, I went to New Zealand to look at the product stewardship program. Some coordination was done by Lion Nathan and a committee to get me in front of the New Zealand Environment minister, also the secretary to the Environment, and Nicky Wagner, member for Christchurch, who was also deeply involved in the environment and the product stewardship program. For the first time I saw a concept working in New Zealand.
In opposition, our job is to investigate and hold government to account, which is what I was doing and why I travelled to New Zealand. The one thing I did not want to get caught up in was the company paying for my visit and the perception that my decision was based on them supporting that travel. I did not allow them to pay for it; I paid for the trip. This was to ensure there was no perception I was influenced in any way.
The model proposed for the Northern Territory, which I saw working in New Zealand, changed my view not on CDL, but on a model of recycling which could possibly work in the Northern Territory. What was I to do? Was I to come back to Darwin and not suggest alternative measures and programs? There are alternative programs and I still believe the product stewardship program has a place in recycling in Australia. Suggesting we have flipped, flopped and changed is not true.
It is a bit like the Ford or Holden model; they are both cars. CDL is a particular model. I did not think the model – and proven correct – you put forward would deliver everything you hoped it would or the intent you hoped.
No one denies CDL is a good concept and a good idea, but, as I have learnt since coming into government, had NRETAS had a bit more time to develop the model we would not be in the predicament we are today. I doubt we would have had problems with the Mutual Recognition Act had NRETAS had time to complete the process of negotiating with every state and territory, as well as the Commonwealth, to ensure they would not be in breach of legislation.
No, the government of the day rushed through the legislation and today history demonstrates it was clunky, and when tested in the courts it failed. This government and staff of the EPA worked damn hard chasing their tails trying to fix what was a mess in the first place.
The member for Nhulunbuy has a hide as thick as a buffalo to question our motives and support for CDL. It is trying to re-write history. The Country Liberals have always supported CDL; it was the model you put forward we had concerns with. Those concerns were correct because of what happened with the Mutual Recognition Act and the big beverage companies having too much control in operating the scheme. That caused many Territorians to not have faith in the program when it seemed to fail at every turn.
Debate suspended.
NOMINATION OF DEPUTY CHAIR
OF COMMITTEES
Mr Gerry Wood and Mr Nathan Barrett
OF COMMITTEES
Mr Gerry Wood and Mr Nathan Barrett
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we start General Business Day, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 12, I hereby nominate the following members to act as Deputy Chairs of Committees: Mr Gerry Wood and Mr Nathan Barrett.
MOTION
Investigation into a Gas Pipeline
Investigation into a Gas Pipeline
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I move that this House expresses its support for the investigation into the feasibility of a gas pipeline which connects the Northern Territory with the Australian eastern seaboard.
The Australian domestic gas market is characterised by three separate pipeline systems, the smallest of which is in the Northern Territory. The major pipeline traversing the Northern Territory is the Amadeus gas pipeline. This valuable piece of infrastructure is 1640 km-odd in length with a capacity of approximately 30 PJ per month. There are spurs from this pipeline going to Wadeye, McArthur River and Alice Springs. This pipeline enables a supply of gas-generated electricity to Territory regional centres, such as Tennant Creek, and Katherine along the route of the haulage pipeline.
I was in the Territory when establishment of this pipeline was taking place. I found an article by Barry Wood and will read part of that to give people some history on this:
- The fast-track process to build this pipeline started when the then Northern Territory Minister of Mines and Energy Ian Tuxworth announced in April 1984 that the Northern Territory Government had accepted an offer from a consortium, headed by Westpac Banking Corporation, to examine the feasibility of a natural gas pipeline from the Amadeus Basin near Alice Springs, to Darwin.
…As a result of the study, the Northern Territory Government deferred a decision to build a coal-fired power station near Darwin.
Those who were around at the time remember the old diesel power station at Stokes Hill. If we think our recent blackout was bad, they should have been around then. Further:
- If the feasibility study confirmed the gas pipeline as a viable proposition, the seven companies said that they would be interested in having ongoing roles in implementing the construction, ownership and operation of the pipeline and development of a Northern Territory gas industry.
- Gas will also be used to generate power in the larger intermediate regional centres. This concept was not a new one by any means. A study in 1981 looked at the feasibility using Amadeus natural gas, but the level of proven reserves and the pipeline costs ruled the option out at that time.
…Tubemakers of Australia and Shaw Industries, both Australian companies based in Port Kembla, were awarded the contracts for the manufacture of the steel pipe and high density polyethylene coating pipe for the project.
…In the early hours of Sunday 9 November 1986, gas reached the Darwin City Gate. Electricity from natural gas was produced for the first time at the Channel Island Power Station on 15 December 1986 when the first of five gas turbines was connected into Darwin’s electricity system.
The pipeline transports gas from the offshore Blacktip gas field to Darwin. The Blacktip field goes from Wadeye, Alice Springs and the regional centres of Katherine and Tennant Creek, principally to fuel power generation in the Northern Territory. Gas is delivered in the Amadeus pipeline via the Bonaparte gas pipeline, into the infrastructure investment at Ban Ban Springs, and flows north to Darwin and south to Alice Springs.
I mentioned APA purchased that on 17 June 2011, and remind members the Treasurer issued a media release on 26 March 2014 saying how the Labor government could have bought this pipeline for $57.8m. However, they rejected the opportunity to secure the infrastructure asset despite the purchase price being only three years’ worth of payments to lease the asset.
The west and east coast markets have also been served by markets which were structurally separated. Today there have been some plans to connect these networks. I did some digging around – Epic Energy was the hint – and found a media release dated 23 June 1997 by the then Minister for Mines and Energy, Hon Daryl Manzie. In that media release he said the potential demand for natural gas supplied from the Timor Sea into northern and eastern Australia would be assessed in a study conducted by the Northern Territory government and Epic Energy.
Announcing the study, the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy, Hon Daryl Manzie, said the Territory was set to enter a new and exciting era in the development of gas and energy infrastructure and marketing – I am going back to 1997 here.
Hon Daryl Manzie said it was the Northern Territory government’s vision that Timor Sea gas would increasingly be used in northern Australia in the short term, and throughout southern and eastern Australia in the longer term. It was a vision way back in 1997.
Mr Manzie also said that as Australia’s demand for natural gas was expected to triple by 2013, the study would be important in building on recent studies and in mapping the early market opportunities for the Timor Sea gas. He also stated Australian demand for gas was expected to rise from 784 PJ in 1995-96 to around 2100 PJ in 2029-30.
At that time, Opposition Leader Maggie Hickey said, if feasible, the proposed open access pipeline development would require an investment of around $1.2bn to $2bn. That shows this was not a small visionary project.
In the more recent past, plans for a transcontinental pipeline from gas-rich Western Australia to the east coast have been mooted on occasions. However, these have been discounted on the basis of development over the past 10 years of a vast quantity of coal seam gas in Queensland.
This gas is different to what we are looking at in the NT, which is shale gas. In the current economic climate a number of companies are exploring the notion of connecting gas reserves in the Northern Territory to the country’s eastern seaboard.
The idea to connect the Territory to the east coast network has been in the public domain for some time now – as far back as 1997 – and it is anticipated the benefits of a connection would flow in both directions. The rationale to connect has been driven by the dynamic space for gas supply on the east coast. This infrastructure will potentially stimulate investment in gas production in and around the Territory which can be transported east.
In particular, New South Wales is currently 95% dependent upon its neighbours for its gas supplies. Existing long-term gas contracts are coming to an end so the state is facing a potential supply shortage. Companies and government agencies are both concerned New South Wales could face a gas supply shortage around 2015-17. There is no shortage of gas in the ground, but there is a concern about getting it to the New South Wales market on a peak day of gas demand.
The Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future was advised the potential amount of gas in the Northern Territory is enough to power a city of one million people for a period of 50 years; there is a fair bit around.
Overall, the current domestic demand in eastern Australia is set to triple by 2017. Unfortunately I do not have figures to compare that to what Hon Daryl Manzie said in 1997. As a result, gas prices are steadily rising from their historic levels of approximately $4 per gigajoule to oil-linked export parity levels.
Recently the Australian Industry Group surveyed gas users in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia on the experience of obtaining gas contracts in the current market. Sixty-two responded. Of the respondents to the survey, the average price for existing gas contracts was around $4.80 per gigajoule. Twenty nine respondents were seeking to renew or add to existing gas contracts – all those offered contracts received offers at prices above the current average. Of particular note, customers who wanted long-term contracts – more than two years – or contracts commencing after 2013 were quoted an average price of $8.70 per gigajoule – almost double. The price is much higher than the average price of $5.10 per gigajoule for short-term contracts – less than two years from 2013.
To some extent the higher price for gas contracts beyond 2015 reflects the broader state of the gas market – a shortage. Having established there is a buoyant market, the next challenge surrounding the feasibility of a proposed pipeline connecting the Territory to the east coast grid is to deliver gas at a competitive price in the market. There has been a strong indicative interest in creating such a link across the board from producers, customers and government.
The Country Liberal government of the Northern Territory has advocated its support for a connection into the east coast gas grid for some time. In 2013, the Territory government held talks on the proposal with ENI, CDF Suez, Santos and INPEX, all of which are significant gas resource holders in the Northern Territory. To date, a number of proposals have been put forward by various proponents to connect the Territory to the east coast. One proposal is to build an entirely new pipeline with considerable capacity to connect the existing Amadeus gas pipeline. Connecting a new or existing pipeline would provide the backbone for additional security of supply.
One company which has publicly announced plans is the APA group, the owner of the Amadeus gas pipeline – could have been the Northern Territory government. The APA group has launched a feasibility study for a $1bn gas pipeline which would connect fields in Australia’s Northern Territory with markets on the eastern seaboard.
APA is Australia’s largest gas infrastructure owner. It has committed almost $2m to studying two options to connect its existing Amadeus gas pipeline in the Northern Territory with its east coast network. The APA group has identified two potential routes: a northern route and a southern route. The northern route would involve a 700 km connection from the Amadeus pipeline to the Carpentaria pipeline in Queensland at a cost of approximately $900m.
The alternative southern route would run 111 km from Amadeus to the Moomba gas-producing hub, which currently supplies the eastern markets in New South Wales and Victoria through existing infrastructure owned by APA. The cost of the southern route is approximately $1.3bn. The proposed connection will expand APA’s network and, potentially, provide customers in eastern Australia, southern Australia and the Northern Territory with gas from any source between the Timor Sea and the Bass Strait. According to APA, they are positioning themselves to negotiate commercial terms with gas shippers and make a financial investment decision on the project some time in the next two years.
Naturally, as with all APA’s existing pipelines, the proposed connection would be an open access pipeline that would be used by any producer, retailer or gas consumer consistent with the regulatory framework. The regulatory framework governing Australia’s gas market is set out in the natural gas law, NGL, and associated national gas rules, NGR. The NGL is underpinned by the national gas objective, which is to promote the efficient investment in, and efficient operation and use of, natural gas services for the long-term interest of consumers of natural gas with respect to price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply of natural gas.
Support for investigation into the feasibility of a gas pipeline which connects the Northern Territory with Australia’s eastern seaboard is in the interest of all Territorians. Just as the above investment in the Amadeus Basin gas pipeline in the mid-1980s drove development of the Territory’s gas reserves, reduced the cost of electricity to Territorians and created new jobs, not least of which allowed mines such as Woodcutters at McArthur to go ahead, connecting the Territory to the eastern seaboard will provide further investment economic opportunities.
Therefore, I move that this House supports my motion to express support to investigate the feasibility of such a pipeline. Thank you.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, people will expect me, as a member of the opposition, to spend the next 30 minutes rubbishing this proposal and saying why it cannot be done, should not be done and why it is wrong. I support this sensible motion.
It is about time we explore any option to expand the gas network from the Territory to the rest of Australia, or the rest of Australia to the Territory. I agree that natural gas is the future of the Territory for many reasons, not only as liquefied natural gas but also as potential for a chemical industry in the Northern Territory.
I support the idea of connecting to the eastern seaboard or to the south. However, my prediction is if there is a gas pipeline it will be from the Amadeus gas fields to the south because Moomba is currently run by Santos. Santos has invested a significant amount of money in Central Petroleum to explore in the Amadeus Basin south of Alice Springs. Central Petroleum, in one exploration well a few years ago, discovered oil and had 400 barrels a day coming out of it. With the money provided by Santos, exploration has been accelerated and they recently discovered more oil of a higher quantity than expected, and soon they expect to find gas.
As the member opposite said, infrastructure from Moomba to the eastern seaboard – Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia – already exists, and it is in Santos’ financial interests to explore the Amadeus Basin and bring gas to Moomba.
The option to bring gas to or from Queensland to the Territory – with a pipeline you can have gas here – is an alternative. Queensland currently uses a lot of gas for power generation, together with coal, or for export as LNG. We have a clear pipeline from Alice Springs to Darwin with a 100 m corridor providing options to anyone wanting to construct more pipelines in that corridor to provide gas for industry, and for liquefied natural gas to be exported to other countries.
You might ask why it was not done previously. No government 10 or 20 years ago could have imagined the demand for liquefied natural gas from Japan or China and exploration techniques were not as advanced as today. Companies can now explore in significant depths underwater, or in significant depths into solid earth like they have in the past.
I will not waste your time or mine rubbishing this proposal. It is a good and sensible motion and the opposition supports it. This House needs to support the exploration opportunities to link the Territory to the gas networks in the eastern or southern seaboards of Australia.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I welcome support from the members opposite. Frankly, I would have been surprised if it had been otherwise because, whilst I am highly critical of many Labor policies, during the period they were the government I welcomed the work they did in gas exploration. I acknowledge the former Labor government, especially the former Chief Minister Clare Martin, in taking advantage of a slight opportunity and turning it into the deal struck with INPEX, and managing to steal, for lack of better words, access to the Ichthys field and perhaps the whole of the Browse Basin. Ichthys and the Browse Basin, whilst located in the same place, are two different things. Ichthys is a single development by INPEX, which we all know about.
There is no point talking about that today, but the Browse Basin is substantially larger than just the Ichthys field and, I understand, highly prospective. A number of fields have been firmed up in that area. That being the case, I look forward to more gas coming to Darwin because – I will not speak for INPEX, but who knows what it will do with its 42 inch pipe travelling the 900 km from that field into Darwin. That gas is spoken for; what is mooted to come down that pipeline will go to Japan. This motion contemplates another concept entirely, and that is onshore gas.
I was never critical of the Labor government for not insisting on what the Western Australia government did: gas reservation. Whilst it was not quite what people know gas reservation to be, it was enough to create INPEX sufficient concern to make it the straw that broke the camel’s back. This saw INPEX come to the Northern Territory and is something I am grateful for. An industry in the form of ConocoPhillips and the Bayu-Undan field had now substantially expanded.
Both ConocoPhillips and INPEX have offshore customers so we do not yet, under these arrangements, have a cigarette lighter’s worth of gas coming onshore. That has been a matter of public comment and debate and has created the catalyst to use gas for future development of the industry in the Northern Territory. I recall Roger Vale, the driving force behind building the Amadeus pipeline from Central Australia to Darwin, having screaming matches in Cabinet trying to convince his colleagues we should not go to coal or oil when they moved from Stokes Hill, but convert to gas.
It turns out, God rest Roger Vale’s soul, he was a lot more insightful than people gave him credit for. In the process of satisfying Darwin’s energy needs he created an environment which today sees us in a position to take advantage of his legacy and make overtures into other areas in Australia based on the existing pipeline. This is because of his foresight at that time.
I remember seeing the gas fields for the first time as a young police officer working out of Hermannsburg. I went to the Palm Valley well heads to watch State of Origin rugby on the hill. It was unique technology in those days to receive a TV program broadcast so remotely. It was something else – I sound like a dinosaur – but it reminds me that gas was developed by both governments over the years. We now have, for domestic reasons alone, one of the greatest opportunities before us, tantalisingly close but out of reach – unification with the gas matrix of the rest of the nation.
The member for Casuarina mentioned Santos and further exploration, and I understand they are producing oil from those fields. I remember the Mereenie fields were producing crude oil of such a grade they were pouring it straight into their diesel trucks and driving around because it was so light. That will be the nature of much of the oil they pull out of wells in Central Australia. If there is oil in them thar hills – we know there is gas in them thar hills – we are a short distance away from substantial markets.
Those markets are – as described by the members for Daly and Casuarina – close by and there are two options. We either go south or east to get our gas into those marketplaces. Understanding we have enough gas in particular fields to produce sufficient energy to satisfy the demands of a city of one million people for 50 years means we have a substantial resource close by. However, that is the existing demand in other places.
One thing I would like to see in the Northern Territory is creation of a local demand for gas. I am not necessarily talking about reticulation of gas into individual households, but the use of gas for a manufacturing industry.
One of the great shortcomings of the Territory economy is it has been resource-based, tourism-based and welfare-based for such a long time. The time has come for the Northern Territory to broaden its economic footprint, and by doing so it must turn its eye to manufacturing. We heard comments from the member for Casuarina today about chemical industries. That is a reference to Dow, which was recently looking at potential establishment into the future. Dow continues to keep one eye firmly fixed on the Northern Territory, but has a requirement for particular types of gas, or material cracked out of that gas, which is not immediately available through ConocoPhillips and INPEX because of the market share and market structure they have in place. If we could create a domestic gas demand which could satisfy companies like Dow Chemical Company I would welcome it.
The Territory’s economic history is a predictable roller coaster in that we have a boom-bust cycle which goes back as long as I have lived here. You see expansion, a slight contraction, greater expansion then a slighter contraction, and each period of expansion is larger than the period of contraction. Historically, that has caused a great deal of pain. During the recession we had to have the then Northern Territory government was forced to pump-prime the Territory economy in a serious way, particularly in Darwin because businesses were really hurting. The decision was taken during that period to build the building we stand in today. This building remains a testimony to the boom-bust cycle of the Territory economy.
If, however, we had an economy based not only on income derived from resource exportation, the tourist dollar and, sadly, a welfare dollar, but a manufacturing basis, we would have an economy much more resilient to the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune when it comes to positioning the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory needs a manufacturing sector. If we want to compete with places like Sydney and Melbourne, we must do so on their terms. If we want an entre into the Southeast Asia environment we must do so on the basis we have a broad enough based economy to successfully compete. If we do not we will expose ourselves to a continuing boom-bust cycle depending on the different factors that drive growth and contraction in the Northern Territory. Those things are often driven by factors well beyond our borders, including the manufacturing and infrastructure demands of other jurisdictions, including other countries.
Nevertheless, it remains a great truism that people still need to eat, and to eat they have to cook food. If other jurisdictions want to turn air conditioners on in summer or heaters in winter, they will need energy to change their domestic environment. These are constants, the stuff of life. Like bread, gas and electricity are what people in other jurisdictions are used to.
Creating access to those markets would create an environment in which exploration in the Territory would be stimulated substantially. On the back of that, our manufacturing industry could be born. Gas export interstate is something we should all strive to achieve. This is a commonsense suggestion by the member for Daly and I welcome him bringing it into this House.
I also welcome the comments from the member for Casuarina, as brief as they were, to support a straightforward and commonsense motion. The Northern Territory needs to grow up and set its terms more effectively then is historically has.
Gas, particularly along a pipeline like the Amadeus, offers opportunity for communities close to the pipeline. What those opportunities might look like I cannot be certain. However, with the future demand on land, particularly land being expensive in major cities, there may be opportunities for people or organisations living along a corridor, where cheap transport in the form of a railway, cheap energy in the form of gas and cheap land in the form of a large environment like the Northern Territory with a population of 250 000 people – there is a capacity in that environment to offer a commercial operator something not readily available in larger cities: cheap land, cheap gas and cheap transport.
I hope places like Ti Tree look at the potential of an energy sector in their part of the world, particularly with the horticultural and agricultural products coming from Ti Tree. Whilst the grape and other farms in that area have struggled from time to time financially, one of the great factors for them has been the cost of running diesel or purchasing electricity at commercial rates.
That could change if gas was readily available. It would be even better if they could value-add their product on site by canning or processing the raw produce into a much more manageable size. If you value-add the produce you put much less on the train and the product is worth much more in the marketplace. If you can do it in Ti Tree, you can do it in Tennant Creek and places where cheap energy could be the difference between being economically viable or not.
For those reasons, and many more I could discuss at length, this motion needs to be supported and explored. It is indicative it has been brought forward by a private member on this side of a government which says it is open for business because it is. This government is open for business and proudly so.
This party has supported business in the Northern Territory in the past and will continue to do so in the future. The members opposite accuse us of having it writ large in our DNA – guilty as charged. We believe in the value-adding that business can bring to communities as well as people. The Territory I moved to in the late 1960s is a fundamentally different place today.
By the time I pass from this life I predict the Territory will be unrecognisable compared to today. I will be proud to have been part of a government which took steps in that direction. I am sure members of the Labor Party will be proud of what they did with the INPEX development on the back of the Bayu-Undan ConocoPhillips development, which was built on the back of the original pipeline from the Amadeus Basin when gas was first discovered. This will grow. If you want a sense of the change this will bring to Darwin and the Northern Territory as a whole, look at Bass Strait in the 1960s and 1970s and the production which occurred at the time. You will get a clear picture of what the Northern Territory will undergo in the not-so-distant future.
Let us not be afraid, startled or overwhelmed by it, let us embrace it. Make sure we manage it effectively for the people of the Northern Territory, but embrace it nevertheless. Every time I look at my daughters, I wonder what their life will be like. If I can make sure an environment exists where through their skills, talents, passion and drive they have a future because of the economic legacy I leave behind, I will be grateful and proud. Whilst I talk about economic issues, I see them as the extension of the human condition as a way to fulfil human ambition, which is why we need to be careful with money. We also need to understand we have to generate wealth so human ambitions and desires can be realised.
You cannot legislate for a passion for life. You cannot, by a whole-of-government policy, generate a desire to achieve. It has to be driven from within and the rewards need to be available to people so they may enjoy the benefits of their labours, and their families, children and grandchildren will enjoy the benefits of their labours in an environment they can build upon.
We are not in the business of merely reaching an end point. We want to protect our part of the continuum which sees the human endeavour step forward every generation and makes sure the generation succeeding the one before enjoys a better standard of living, better quality of health, and better life all round.
This is an important step forward and I am grateful to the member for bringing it to this House. It is a small part of a much larger picture.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, you have to read this motion carefully. It says this House expresses its support for investigation into the feasibility of connecting the gas pipeline to the eastern seaboard, and I support it. Feasibility would raise many questions from when the study was done. We are a long way from the eastern seaboard. Probably the closest manufacturing area is Mt Isa, which runs its own private power grid. It supplies power to Cloncurry and the town of Mt Isa. I imagine it would be the most logical place for a pipeline to go through to connect to the eastern seaboard.
The member for Port Darwin raised some interesting things about the manufacturing industry. Manufacturing requires energy. I asked a question today about the abattoir at Livingstone. Its intention is to use gas from Santos and run its own power unit. Gas enables us to operate and expand manufacturing, especially in the Darwin region.
Theoretically, if you look at feasibility of a gas pipeline, look at the feasibility of what it would cost to run gas to communities like Gove. Unfortunately the pipeline did not happen but it should be looked at. The Alcoa plant still exists and some operations will occur at Gove; it has not closed down altogether. If a gas pipeline was extended to Gove, what opportunities are there for extending branches to some of the communities, many of which are totally reliant on diesel? Expand the notion of a gas pipeline not just to the eastern seaboard, but the possibility of it going to remote communities.
It also opens up the question of whether we should send gas to the eastern seaboard. Do they need gas? That is something you need to look at because PNG is just coming on board. I think LNG is produced there, and I understand some gas may be coming into Queensland from PNG. Part of your feasibility study could be to see if there is a demand. Is plenty of gas available without building a pipeline? You do not want a white elephant. You need to make sure there is a demand for gas. Is gas the right product? The Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future has a lot of work to do.
Many years ago, the leader of the Labor government, Clare Martin, announced – I will always remember it – when INPEX was coming, that gas was clean. Gas is not clean; it is just less dirty than coal. It still puts quite a bit of carbon into the atmosphere. I am concerned we live in a comfort zone in the Territory. A lot of shale gas in the Northern Territory can be extracted through fracking.
We have had reports from the Beetaloo area near Borroloola that there is enough gas to supply some of our cities for a long period. However, if we do not ask if we should promote use of gas and what result that will have on the environment we are living in a cocoon. We send a lot of gas to Japan; however, the Northern Territory takes up all the carbon dioxide from that gas beforehand. The question is: do we look at using gas for other alternatives?
I have just returned from a tour of Europe and know natural gas is sometimes mixed with hydrogen to produce a cleaner fuel. It is cleaner than using gas on its own.
Also, should we be looking at other fuels completely? One of the main reasons I went to Germany was to look at the possible development of hydrogen and fuel cells as alternative sources of electricity for small communities. For some, that might sound theoretical, but we are working down that path at present. I do not want to go into that debate too much, except to say I believe hydrogen energy will be the fuel of the future because it is clean. I am concerned we do not lock ourselves into a position where gas, because we have plenty of it, is the only alternative we worry about. Do we put alternative possibilities out for discussion or do we shut down discussion about innovation? Do we put ourselves in the too-easy basket, with open for business as the member for Port Darwin said? However, are we open for sustainable business?
It is a bit like competition. Are we open for competition or open for ethical competition? There are downsides to both those statements. If we think this is the way to go ahead, we are open for business, we have plenty of it, it is a cheap way to provide energy and we do not look any further, we do ourselves disfavour.
In the short term gas is probably our best alternative because some of the other alternatives, whilst promising and can help, still have a fair way to go to replace a cheaper and more efficient energy source which, at the present time, is gas.
We have many remote communities and some of us have heard a few ideas. One is that some remote communities may be able to run their own gas plant from shale gas nearby. Some companies have said they may be able to produce small gas plants close to communities so there is no need to bring gas in via pipeline or truck; they produce their own gas for the community. An interesting part of a feasibility study would be to see if that is economical.
We knocked the idea of bringing diesel into a community, but most vehicles out bush run on diesel. Diesel has to come into the community anyway. Do we look at other sources of energy for vehicles? At the moment most vehicles are run on diesel or petrol. If you want to bring gas into the community would you be better to run vehicles on gas?
I go back to the other alternative of looking at hydrogen and fuel cells. Hydrogen could be produced on site.
I raise those issues in a general way because the member for Daly raised a good point: the possibility of moving gas to the rest of Australia. However, broader questions need to be asked and I do not want to, in discussions about where the Territory is going in relation to energy – whether it is for us or for export – put aside some of the longer-term questions we have to look at.
Gas is not clean; gas is a dirty form of energy. It is just not as dirty as some other forms of energy.
I thank the member for Daly for bringing this on. Will the government, in supporting the member’s motion, do something about it?
These are nice words. Will the government put some money into an investigation? Will it expand the role of the body undertaking the investigation? It is a fairly narrow investigation; it just talks about taking gas to the eastern states. If we have an investigation it should be broadened. It may not take up the issues I raised, but it could see if we need gas in the Northern Territory for manufacturing and what manufacturing options could be available in various parts of the Territory. What options are there for gas in communities – if we build a pipeline down the centre and to the east – which may piggyback off a gas pipeline?
It is good to have this idea put forward by the member for Daly. If the government supports it when will it move ahead with this motion, what will the framework of the investigation be, who will do it and what will it cost? That would be worth discussing in this debate. Thank you.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly, Gary Higgins, for bringing this extremely important motion on.
I am surprised the opposition is not speaking on this. This is a fundamental opportunity to broadly develop and build the Northern Territory economy. I make lots of speeches on a range of things promoting the Northern Territory, seeking foreign investment – foreign to the Northern Territory – to help build our economy and create jobs. It is not just jobs for today, but jobs for our kids in the future.
When we look at the size and scale of the INPEX project in the Northern Territory, something like $36bn – albeit not all that money has come to the Territory, most is spent overseas or interstate, but a fairly large sum in the Northern Territory – and we look at how we classify that project. I classify it as the largest project in the Northern Territory and very important to our industry sector.
Of course, it is built on the back of Darwin LNG and Bayu-Undan, when wise men and women in the CLP in the 1980s and 1990s set the Northern Territory and Darwin as a gas hub. I remember hearing about the INPEX lease being granted, I think it was 1996. It has taken all this time to come to fruition and we still do not have gas coming out, but today INPEX is the number one economic project in the Northern Territory. A potential gas pipeline opportunity could be the number two project in the Northern Territory to support our economy.
We know how the economy works in the Northern Territory. As at today, Darwin is bubbling along quite well, albeit a few small businesses are not doing as well as others. However, our employment rate is ranging between 1.3% and 1.9% depending on which trend analysis you use. In the greater Darwin area it is so low you can identify the number of people without a job and pinpoint them to help get them jobs. It is a fundamental issue we have from an employment perspective, but it shows the significance of the growth opportunities and the economic diversity within the Northern Territory.
When you look outside what is happening in Darwin and the future growth prospects, you see how things are operating in Katherine. Katherine’s economy is bubbling along quite well. Alice Springs has had a significant downturn in the level of crime and is now restabilising itself and creating new direction from an economic point. You will see substantial change in the Central Australian economy in years to come, particularly around tourism, but also mining and other opportunities within the transport sector.
Tennant Creek has not been well supported for the last decade. It had a $36.5m investment into NPARIH – the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. That injected some money for a short period time, but the $36.5m, much to the surprise of everyone in the nation, did not produce another bedroom in Tennant Creek and has left it reeling, from an economic point of view. We need to work out how to drive economic stimulus in places like Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, then look at beyond the borders or the Stuart Highway.
Putting Uluru to the side and acknowledging the issues Gove has with Rio Tinto’s decision around the alumina refinery, we see a poor level of private sector jobs. We need to create jobs in those areas.
This is where the pipeline can come in. We also need to look at where the gas industry is in Australia. Fundamentally, there is no domestic wholesale market of gas in Australia, which presents an issue. For example, if a factory, house or small business wants to connect to electricity they plug the cord into the power point, to keep it simple. However, if a factory wanted gas to create power for its business it cannot just sign up and receive it. You have to enter into a long-term contract with a gas provider. The gas provider needs to identify that gas, because, on most occasions, gas companies do not have a reserve where people can just tap in and get gas.
The prime example was what happened in Gove where the innuendo was that the refinery needed gas. To identify where that gas would come from was a challenge because there were no developed gas fields ready to go. If it was just building a pipeline to connect gas from the deposit straight into Gove it would have been a much simpler argument because the market would have resolved itself. However, quite simply, the gas was not there.
We looked at ERA at Jabiru and its desire to move towards gas powered stations. That was a challenge for them because we were holding back the gas for Gove.
The idea of alternate power generation providers presenting themselves in the Top End had to be put on hold while we held all the gas for Gove. Many suspected the refinery would not go ahead under a gas powered electricity supply arrangement.
With that not going ahead, some gas is available from Santos down south and other gas is available around the Northern Territory. It shows that without a domestic gas market there is a challenge. Whether there will be a domestic gas wholesale market people can tap into remains to be seen.
I will not go into technical details, but the way it works around the world at the moment is there is a high enough demand for gas at the international level to drive prices to levels much higher than domestic gas usage in Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory. Japan will pay a higher price than Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria or any other jurisdiction in the country for gas to fire up their power stations.
If you put that into the context of what is happening in Gladstone, gas trains are being built to take much of the shale and coal seam gas out through the Port of Gladstone. Those trains require gas to fill their capacity and companies are working feverishly to do that.
There is an argument in Australia around whether we should be reserving our gas for Australians or selling it at market conditions. There is a balance there. We should be selling it to the market – that is what the free market is all about – but we need to make sure we do not jeopardise the future of Australia from an economic point of view – how we get cheap enough power – and look after the environment. Do we keep burning coal or do we work towards a greener fuel provider to make electricity in regard to gas?
We need to do that, but to reach that point we have to open sufficient gas opportunities in Australia to have a supply versus demand equation which will keep downward pressures on the supply and price of gas.
We know to our north there is an abundance of gas deposits waiting to be developed. I would be happy to speak more about those quite soon. The member uses a range of figures, but I use the figure of approximately 260 trillion cubic feet of gas in shale gas reserves available in the Northern Territory. To put that into a broader perspective, one trillion cubic feet of gas is estimated to power a population of around one million people for 20 years. If we have an estimated 260 trillion cubic feet of gas within shale gas reserves in the Northern Territory we must look at facilitating its exploration and development. That is where the idea of the pipeline comes in, and we have promoted this for quite a while.
It was something we promoted to the federal government. Ian Macfarlane, federal minister for Resources, took to the federal election campaign, as shadow minister, a $1m commitment going towards Infrastructure Australia to investigate the feasibility of a pipeline connecting the Northern Territory to the rest of Australia. I am not sure if the $1m and Infrastructure Australia will be required, because we are now setting market conditions to enable the private sector to get involved.
I will explain a little about the pipeline infrastructure in Australia in broad terms. A pipeline runs from Alice Springs to Darwin, and there is a side pipeline across to Borroloola for McArthur River mine. The Alice Springs to Darwin pipeline is known as the Amadeus pipeline, and, if we set Western Australia aside, pipeline network infrastructure runs between Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. The skeletal system of a gas pipeline provides the opportunity to distribute gas around the country. It also provides the opportunity to get into areas where there are gas deposits, whether that is coal seam, shale or conventional gas, to get that to market.
In some cases you might have a gas deposit in one part of the country where the pipeline network is and you want to get it where the customer is. There does not have to be the same gas flow from one point to the other. There is swap gas, where the pipeline operator can move gas around so there is less transportation cost. This can keep the price of gas down.
On the domestic power supply front we see New South Wales – I will not go into too much technical detail – will run out of 90% of its gas supply in the next three years, limiting its ability to produce electricity for the state. Victoria is not in as dire a situation as New South Wales. It is looking at future gas supplies at the end of its contract with power generation suppliers.
At the moment in New South Wales there is a big debate about coal seam gas, and some companies have deposits over coal seam gas opportunities. A growing debate in NSW is putting pressure on the government about whether it will proceed with coal seam gas or look for alternative options. Some of those alternate options would definitely be coal which, from a Northern Territory point of view, we do not want. We would like to see New South Wales remain with gas and acknowledge if it is not moving forward – politically or otherwise – with the exploration and development of coal seam gas deposits it may have, any gas it procures from overseas or interstate may have to compete on the international price market. That would cause concern about power prices in New South Wales increasing.
We have lobbied to link the Northern Territory to the eastern seaboard pipeline network. Initially we produced some design concepts, with a range of people looking at those opportunities. One goes from Tennant Creek to Mt Isa, around 740 km in length. One goes from Wauchope to an area near Longreach in Queensland and is slightly longer than the 740 km. My preferred model goes from Alice Springs to Moomba in South Australia.
Moomba is somewhat of a transaction point where pipelines come together. Moomba links into New South Wales and distributes throughout the eastern seaboard network. I prefer Alice Springs to Moomba over Tennant Creek to Mt Isa as it would serve two purposes, and I do not want to put any at jeopardy. Tennant Creek to Mt Isa could distribute gas into Queensland to support the exploration of gas and the international market to Gladstone. Supporting the free market is a good thing, but if we want to support New South Wales, and potentially Victoria into the future, the distribution of gas through to Moomba presents greater opportunities for the Northern Territory to open up our gas. It would also support the domestic front and keep prices down in New South Wales and Victoria. The price pressures through Gladstone would probably go towards the international market, albeit creating many jobs for the Northern Territory but not presenting solutions for the domestic gas requirements of Australia.
There could be an opportunity where three pipeline networks become viable into the future. However, at this stage we should be working on one model. The APA Group is looking at a $2m feasibility study on some pipelines. The APA Group owns and operates around 80% of Australia’s gas pipelines. The other company is Enbridge, a Canadian company and the world’s second-largest pipeline operator. I do not believe it has assets in Australia and is looking at how they can come into Australia. No matter which company gets involved – at this stage the government is not involved, apart from lobbying for this investment, because we believe it will be good for the Territory and the country. We are not involved in the process just in lobbying and trying to facilitate development.
This is important to this motion because if you connect the pipeline between Tennant Creek and Mt Isa, or my preference of Alice Springs to Moomba, it has the opportunity to connect us to the rest of the country. That makes some of the fields there at the moment – the basins, the leases, the deposits known and unknown – more viable for development and exploration.
While promoting the pipeline operation and potential building of that pipeline, we are also looking at what we can do to facilitate the development and exploration of the leases we have in the Northern Territory. My colleague, the minister for mining and resources, will go into detail about the percentage of the Northern Territory under development and exploration right now.
There are plenty of opportunities and the number of leases being issued or under negotiation for issue is substantial. Leases have been issued for many years for some companies and we have recently released a policy called ‘use it or lose it’. This means if you have an exploration lease for a gas deposit we expect in the tenure of that lease, whether it be a five-year tenure or otherwise, you to develop a work program of what you are doing to explore that potential deposit and how you can move that exploration into development phase. The ‘use it or lose it’ policy, from a philosophical and a regulatory point of view, says after your tenure there is an opportunity for the Northern Territory government to take back 50% of the lease and issue it to somebody else with a new work schedule we believe can move that exploration to a development phase.
We have recently moved through the first process of our ‘use it or lose it’ policy. One company has had to relinquish some title and we are just about to re-offer the remaining title to other companies. We are talking about sizeable pieces of land in the Northern Territory on which we want to see infrastructure development.
As the pipeline reaches a point where it can be built and builds a market case for itself, we believe companies will be not just motivated by the ‘use it or lose it’ policy, not just motivated by our no domestic gas reservation policy, but also motivated by the potential to earn a dollar from developing that deposit.
Of the six basins in the Northern Territory and some of the quite exciting deposits, we are trying to facilitate movement from companies warehousing their leases to a point where they will start developing their leases. When they develop their leases it will create jobs. The work schedules over the five-year programs for some of the leases are hundreds of millions of dollars.
There was an announcement recently by Falcon Energy, which has a lease in the Beetaloo Basin and has negotiated a farming agreement with Sasol and Origin Energy, who many would know – you would not know Sasol, a big company on the international stage. There is a farming agreement and …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: Thank you, member for Sanderson and Minister for Transport and also Infrastructure. I know you are keen to hear this. Was that a 20 or 30-minute extension I received?
Madam SPEAKER: It was 10.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am sure the member for Wanguri would like me to keep talking because I like talking about this subject.
There was an announcement recently about Falcon having a farming agreement with both Sasol and Origin Energy. Within the agreement will be a work schedule. I will not go into the details of that work schedule for confidentiality reasons. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars in the work schedule. We want that to reach a point where, in five years’ time, they move into a development phase. When hundreds of millions of dollars is spent on exploration, albeit these deposits near Beetaloo Basin are close to the Stuart Highway and infrastructure, they spend money on drill rigs, personnel, workers’ camps, fuel, maintenance and food, and it builds into our economy.
The pipeline which could potentially be built will see a greater level of energy put towards the forward works programs – the amount of money spent. As you reach the point where you need that gas to come out of the ground, many jobs will be created. Look at what is happening in Darwin with INPEX. Imagine large gas projects around the Northern Territory, not just in our capital city but the regional and remote areas that are starting to build infrastructure, build jobs to build that infrastructure and build jobs for the ongoing operation and servicing of that infrastructure. That is exciting.
If anyone has the opportunity to visit the US, during their parliamentary career in this Chamber or afterwards, I encourage them to go to North Dakota. Do some research before you go and discover what was in North Dakota before the emergence of the shale gas industry in the US. Look at what is there now. You will see a brand new level of economic energy in North Dakota, driving populations, stimulus, growth and driving families. It is quite exciting to see a cold desert barren environment become one that still might be a cold desert, but has economic activity which produces a vibrancy that is growing the state and, in many ways, growing the nation. Look at what changed in North Dakota and how it got to where it is now.
The US has a huge skeletal network of gas pipelines across the country which enabled North Dakota to get up and running. In the Northern Territory, or Australia, we do not have a huge skeletal network. We have part in the eastern seaboard through Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. They are not connected to Western Australia, and the Northern Territory is not connected to either. In the Northern Territory, which is much larger than North Dakota, we have one 1500 km pipeline plus the other one out to Borroloola. We need to enable development of a skeletal system of pipeline infrastructure which will see the shale gas network start to grow.
I get back to the point of where New South Wales is from a gas point of view. I had conversed briefly with – both in conversation and written material – the former Premier of New South Wales, Mr Barry O’Farrell. Now there has been a change in leadership in New South Wales I had an opportunity to catch up with some senior officials, also the new Premier of New South Wales Mike Baird, during my visit to Canberra last week for COAG. We had the opportunity, at an official level, to talk about what a pipeline between the Northern Territory and South Australia, or Tennant and Mt Isa – our conversation was particularly around Alice to Moomba – could do for New South Wales. I will not go to the exact conversation, but the Premier of New South Wales was quite excited by it. In the coming weeks I will be back in New South Wales and our officials – and at the Chief Minister to Premier level – will be talking about what we can do.
Building a pipeline 910 km from Alice Springs to Moomba for $1.3bn, doing all the exploration to make sure you know where the gas is – getting the gas into the pipeline and into New South Wales in three years would be unheard of. I think we can do it; we are up to the challenge. If the need and demand is there we can make supply happen.
That is why this motion is important. It gives the member for Daly an opportunity to learn about some of the things we are doing. It gives me an opportunity to talk to the Chamber and the Northern Territory about what we are doing and how we see it developing.
Fundamentally, this is not about New South Wales, Victoria or the rest of the country; this is about building jobs in the Northern Territory and regional remote areas. That is exciting. At the start of this debate I said INPEX is the number one project. If we can get the green light on the pipeline between Alice to Moomba, even Tennant Creek to Mt Isa, it would be the second most important project in the Northern Territory. It would drive jobs and growth for decades to come and would position us to look at a whole new industry for the Northern Territory.
I have not spoken about offshore gas. There is a potential opportunity for offshore gas into the pipeline network from Darwin to Alice and then through to Moomba. We need to look at some of the opportunities. We know about the Ichthys gas field and what is happening with INPEX and Total coming onshore, but we also know there are other opportunities. We talk about Prelude with Shell and the floating gas facility. We have other companies in that region. Woodside has an operating interest and operational role in other gas deposits. There is also Crown, Poseidon, Cronus, Tarosa, Brecknock and Calliance.
There is a high level of gas available now. ConocoPhillips and Bayu-Undan are operating. We also know the gas field firing up Darwin LNG can present itself for another eight or nine years, but what happens after that? We have to look at other gas deposits. This is being looked at now and, without wanting to go into confidential information, we need to look at where the pipeline skeletal structure is to the north of the Northern Territory. One pipeline is being built to Ichthys and we also have the Bayu-Undan opportunity. However, Blackwood, Heron and Evans Shoal have you thinking about what we can do with those gas deposits. Will these gas deposits go to the international market? Is there an opportunity to bring the gas onshore? If it comes onshore, can it go through the pipeline network to the rest of the country? I think it can.
This is why people like me in my role, and minister Westra Van Holthe, in the role of minister for Resources and Energy, attend functions such as APPEA in Perth a few weeks ago and lobby for companies to come onshore. We lobbied for supply bases and what we can do for New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria. We have promoted these things and are getting a long way. We have an announcement concerning Shell and its supply base being built here. Around $200m per annum will be spent in the Top End for the next 25 years, a fantastic investment. We will further lobby for the Woodside – whether it is onshore or supply base – facilitation works to be conducted from the Territory. There are significant opportunities.
Returning to the heart of this motion, it is about a pipeline and the Northern Territory. To me, it talks about jobs and a future. This is an important motion which presents opportunities for jobs into the future. I hope that can be realised and this debate could be part of bringing Territorians – all our colleagues – along the journey of what can be a fantastic new industry for the Northern Territory. This can create jobs for Territorians in our urban locations of Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine, and in our regional and remote locations, employing Territorians wherever they live.
Member for Daly, thank you. I support this motion. I am disappointed in the lack of Labor engagement. The shadow minister spoke for four or five minutes; he used to be minister for Resources. I thought he would have more commitment to a project which could drive the Northern Territory in the future.
I expect a number on this side of the Chamber to speak on this because it is so important to the future of the Northern Territory. The member for Wanguri is the only person from Labor here. Perhaps she might like to speak about how important this is for the future of the Northern Territory. I look forward to other people’s contributions, the wrap, and I hope to see more jobs in regional and remote areas of the Territory.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I was waiting for members opposite, but it appears they will not speak on this very important motion ...
Mr Giles: They do not want to create jobs.
Mr STYLES: Yes, we are about jobs. This is not at the expense of the environment, but is a structured and planned way to generate wealth in the Northern Territory to secure our children’s future.
I came to the Northern Territory in May 1981. In a few weeks I will have been here 33 years. I was a young person when I arrived ...
A member: I saw you looking at your watch.
Mr STYLES: I was looking at the date, and it is only 11 days from being 33 years. I came from Perth, looked around and saw nothing happening. I had left a business and my wife wondered what we would do. She said, ‘Let’s go to the Northern Territory’. She had worked here for two years prior to meeting me in Western Australia. She said, ‘It’s a fantastic place, great fun, the people are terrific and it is the land of opportunity’.
I applied for a job in the Northern Territory police force, was accepted and we moved here. For a place known as the land of opportunity, it has been just that. Sadly, my wife passed away 25 years ago. The kids and I could have left the Territory but had been here for eight years, had settled and had friends here.
I had well and truly seen the previous CLP government demonstrate it was a ‘can do’ government. The legacy we see today is what that government set up from the early days of self-government in 1978, and the work done by others. I said yesterday, we stand on the shoulders of the people who came before us. I thank the previous CLP government for its vision, and the Chief Ministers and ministers, during its various terms of parliament. They set it up for us. You had leadership in so many different things, as well as the exploration and geotechnical work that was done. It was all started by the previous CLP government.
I faced the decision of staying in the Territory or going back to family. I chose to stay here. I see my children’s future as secure. On Monday night I told a group of business people how I am so glad I am here and my children and grandchildren are here. I wound not want to be anywhere else in Australia.
Their future is secure because of what is happening now. I see ConocoPhillips in the gas industry, and I support my colleague, the member for Daly, on this important motion about planning for pipelines and the future.
I previously used the six Ps. I will not use the first word but it is: proper planning prevents pathetic poor performance. There are six basics to the forward planning we need to ensure our children’s future is secure. We did that in the 1980s and 1990s, and I watched ConocoPhillips come to fruition and saw the benefits that brought. Although I recall …
Mr Chandler: Who attracted them to Darwin?
Mr STYLES: The former CLP government did that deal and set us up …
Mr Chandler: They paved the way.
Mr STYLES: Yes, they paved the way. I acknowledge the previous Chief Minister did some work in that area, but we already had a gas industry courtesy of the former CLP government and the hard work it did.
Talking about the gas industry, ConocoPhillips led the way and when INPEX was looking for a place, in conversations I had with INPEX – granted the previous government was in power when this deal was signed – it saw benefits in being here. One benefit was native title issues. Another was being a capital city, so their workers could enjoy the facilities of a capital city. They chose Darwin and that was a good thing for us.
That then secured two onshore gas processing plants. That brought many jobs and jobs in the future for our youth. These projects, and the requirement for a pipeline, are not to be underestimated. Charles Darwin University has a magnificent new oil and gas facility for people wanting to get into that industry – into the engineering and chemistry side of it. It is a centre of excellence located at Charles Darwin University. About 12 or 18 months ago I had the privilege of attending the opening and listening to prominent people from Australia and overseas speak. We are fortunate to have that facility on our Darwin campus.
If we are to have sufficient gas for Australian industry we need to get on with it. To make it available to industry we need gas pipelines, and they do not happen overnight. For those who remember back to 1984, Ian Tuxworth announced we would look at a pipeline to bring gas to Darwin. The decision to make Channel Island a gas-fired power station was a vision of the former CLP government. People often ask why Channel Island is on Channel Island? When that was first mooted they were looking at burning coal. Getting ships into the harbour to offload directly at a power station – it was built at Channel Island so there could be an offloading facility and coal could be brought directly to shore.
Coal, at that stage, was a cheap option. I believe the previous CLP government made an excellent decision in ensuring it was gas fired.
When we look at a case for Australia to develop its energy resources, internal energy infrastructure has never been more evident and more important.
Eastern Australia, New South Wales in particular, will plunge into a gas shortage from around 2017. If I was in New South Wales I would be worried. In fact, if I was in New South Wales I would be ringing someone in the Territory asking for a pipeline from our gas reserves to New South Wales so they can enjoy what most people – perhaps not the member for Nelson – call clean energy. As the member for Nelson pointed out earlier, it is still fossil fuel, still burns, but it is cleaner than coal or other alternatives ...
Mr Chandler: It is renewable, it just takes a while.
Mr STYLES: As my colleague, the member for Brennan, said, it is renewable it just takes a while to form. Science is looking at a range of initiatives to produce cheaper power. In the meantime, we need base power loads.
When I look at figures and think of my children and their future, and my grandchildren’s future and those after them, I think we are well positioned in the Territory and I am glad I made the decision to stay.
Some of the figures I am about to quote substantiate what people have said about the Territory and what the government is saying to not only the local, national and international community about being open for business, but being here to look after you. The Northern Territory’s potential reserves – this goes to the crux of what we are talking about and why we need to support this motion to ensure plans for a pipeline get under way sooner rather than later.
The potential reserves of unconventional gas total about 205 trillion cubic feet. That goes across six basins including the Beetaloo sub-basin, which is approximately 157 trillion cubic feet, the McArthur Basin, with a possible 22 trillion cubic feet, and the Amadeus basis with a possible 26 trillion cubic feet.
Before I go any further, I acknowledge the excellent briefings from my colleague, the Minister for Mines and Energy, the member for Katherine. For the briefing papers and the notes, thank you very much, 10 out of 10.
I am happy to be corrected, but my information is the Ichthys project is about eight to 12 trillion cubic feet and they reckon it will take 40 years to get it out. How much is 205 trillion cubic feet? When you look at the infrastructure investment – I am Minister for Infrastructure and love seeing investment in infrastructure – that is a lot of gas. Anyone who wants to do the numbers on that – the industry rule of thumb, from my information, is one trillion cubic feet of gas is enough to power a city of one million people for 20 years.
To put this in perspective, the Northern Territory has the potential to power a population of 22 million people – recently we hit 23 million in Australia – for the next 200 years
That is an enormous supply of gas and one would say the Northern Territory has hit the jackpot. Why would you want to be anywhere else? When people are looking to invest in places – I said in the House yesterday, people with hundreds of millions of dollars are looking for somewhere to invest in a safe option where the sovereign risk is zero. We say, ‘Come to the Territory’. We have potential to invest so if you have $400bn or $800bn to invest, put it in pipelines. If we connect this system people will find gas and then we can join the national grid and look after our friends in New South Wales, Victoria and anyone else running a bit short on gas. We can continue to make Australia a good place to invest.
There needs to be a pipeline between here and cities on the eastern seaboard. To do that requires planning.
Another interesting aspect is a book I read recently about what is happening in the United States of America, where they are renewing their manufacturing base. It is written by the CEO of Dow Chemical Company, Mr Andrew N Liveris, who most people in this House would know is a Darwin boy. He grew up here, attended university in Australia, went to work for Dow Chemical Company in Melbourne as a chemical engineer, and 30 years later is CEO of the world’s biggest chemical company. I was fortunate to attend a dinner where he spoke for about an hour-and-a-half on how he saw the future. He spoke about his book. I was so moved I bought the book and have read it; it is called Make it in America.
When we talk about jobs for our kids and locking in the future for them, this book espouses the view if you send manufacturing offshore many related jobs go as well. There is packaging, packing, shifting the product from the factory to containers to export or shift it, delivery, the inventory, warehousing – all those jobs go when you move manufacturing offshore. One point he made was if you want to reinvigorate your economic future do not discount manufacturing, and do not say manufacturing cannot be done in a First World country or that we have to send it somewhere things are cheaper.
The United States of America has an overwhelming supply of gas these days and virtually supplies all its domestic needs. It will have an excess of gas in a very short space of time. They have shale gas and are undertaking hydraulic leveraging – commonly known as fracturing – to get gas out. Gas is very cheap, which makes energy production cheaper. In the Territory we have to get more gas out of the ground and encourage companies to drill for gas, but they need a market. The market has to be all of Australia.
If we have a gas pipeline connecting us with Western Australia and the eastern seaboard and can sell gas we have a competitive market. This happened in the US, where there is a very competitive market. They have reached the point where energy supplies are down and companies are bringing manufacturing back to the United States. Dow Chemical Company has built a massive chemical plant in Michigan where it manufactures everything. It exports and is still competitive. It is important for us to do this.
I spoke with Andrew N Liveris at the end of his presentation and he said, ‘What you need to do, because you can, given the gas you have in reserve, is create this activity and change the name of my book to Make it in Australia’. When I read his book I understood what he said. We can secure our future and have manufacturing jobs in this country. We can make it profitable for companies to make things in Australia. It is important we have the pipelines the member for Daly speaks about in his motion. It is critical to our future and we do not want to leave it too long. Infrastructure of this nature takes a lot of planning. There is an old saying, ‘Build it and they will come’.
Companies with tenements in the Northern Territory need to undertake exploration and get a move on ...
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask that the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker and member for Brennan, a fine job. We need to ensure, for our children’s future, we start planning for the pipeline as soon as possible. As we all know, energy is the life blood of our modern economy and underpins our way of life.
Let us look at power generation, transport and shipping. Shipping is starting to run on gas and bunkering facilities are being built at a number of ports around the world. I receive information from friends of mine saying in this country we need to get on board with LNG as a fuel source for ships. How will we get it there? We need pipelines, so we need to undertake infrastructure planning for that.
Australia needs to take immediate steps to secure its own energy future, not worry about shipping it offshore like ConocoPhillips and INPEX do. We need to ensure Australia has sufficient energy to meet the needs of our nation building infrastructure project, and the eastern seaboard gas market needs natural gas. If we do that we start to look at our future.
Imagine the jobs it will create. Pipelines and gas reticulation across Australia will need an enormous amount of infrastructure. It will power Australia and give us a competitive advantage over others who may not have access to the gas we do. The 200 years of gas we have in the Territory to power Australia is incredibly exciting. I can say to my kids, when I have finished my service to the people of the Northern Territory, ‘I was part of making all of this happen. I was part of a government that was open for business, and part of a government that had to, sadly, reduce a $5.5bn debt. I was part of a government that made things happen.’ That is what drives me. I need to leave a legacy not only to my children, but to my constituents and the people of the Northern Territory. It is the same for my colleagues on this side of the House.
It saddens me to see what those opposite did during 11 years in government. The biggest project was the gaol. The projected inmates – it was going up, a bit like the debt. However, we have a plan to secure our children’s future and will get on with that plan. It will include many things, like the significant offshore gas fields on the Northern Territory’s doorstep. The massive onshore gas and oil potential means the Northern Territory can secure Australia’s domestic energy security with the development of a natural gas grid connecting to the eastern and southern states as well as to the west.
Natural gas supply and transmission projects take years to plan, secure approvals and construct. Ordering pipe for this takes time because you have to put orders in to steel manufacturers. We cannot wait; we need to be a part of that.
Let us look at the Northern Territory’s role and the role of the government. The Northern Territory continues to play an increasing role in growing the offshore gas industry off the Northern Territory and Western Australia coastlines, the subsequent onshore LNG developments in the Darwin region and the emerging unconventional oil and gas sector onshore. That will provide much needed gas for the eastern seaboard and will hopefully provide the stimulus to get this gas pipe built sooner rather than later.
Shale gas has the potential to be a game-changer in Australia. It will cut our missions and boost our economy. Again, 205 trillion cubic feet is a large resource and we need to ensure that whatever comes out of the ground has a market. We need to be part of facilitating that and that will be, hopefully, by private enterprise, which will see the benefits of being involved in this. Connecting to the east coast gas grid would create a level of energy security for Australia that would be the envy of the world. When you look at those basins in the middle of Australia and in the Territory, we are the envy of the world. We will have security for our kids, jobs, technology and technological developments with Charles Darwin University contributing to much of that with its research and practical teaching of engineering required by the oil and gas industry.
Territory onshore gas has the potential means to supply expanding global LNG markets and supply resource projects across northern Australia. The development of north Australia means we will need energy. If we have energy at the right price we can bring manufacturing back to this country.
Andrew Liveris’ book is great. People might say it will not happen. If you read the book you will see it is possible to bring some of those jobs back onshore, and the results will be further jobs for people. The exploration area and the survey works – the building of it – not to mention the infrastructure required for roads and bridges to service all these gas pipelines, will benefit not only the economy of the Northern Territory, but Australia in general.
Looking at the economy of regional, rural and remote communities involved with Western Desert Resources and Sherwin Iron, a number of local Aboriginal people work at the mine sites. They spend five days at the mine site and go home for the weekend and think it is terrific. An ever increasing number of people in those communities are getting around in high-vis gear and it is great. It is a huge step forward for some communities to have people working who are role models for the kids. Once the kids see positive role models, as in any community, we will see a change in the way communities think and operate.
We need to get the national pipeline grid on the drawing board sooner rather than later. Looking at a map of the existing national energy grid it is relatively simple to solve the gas needs of the eastern states. A 940 km gas pipeline from Alice Springs to Moomba in South Australia, or a 700 km gas pipeline from Tennant Creek to Mt Isa in Queensland, would connect the vast gas fields I referred to in the Northern Territory to Australia’s existing national energy grid, particularly the more densely populated eastern seaboard. That is not much. We have one to Darwin that is over 1600 km long and are looking at half that. It will cost, yes, but it is an investment in our future, the future of the Territory, the future of Australia and the future of our children.
Australia has a proud history of nation building projects: the Snowy River Scheme; Ord River Irrigation Scheme; the railway line connecting Adelaide to Darwin; and major infrastructure projects that have made Australia a better place to live and played a key role in developing our economy.
A natural gas pipeline connecting the Territory to the eastern seaboard is the next big nationa building project. This pipeline must be built to ensure energy security for all Australians. Of course, now is the time to undertake the detailed planning, commence securing the necessary approvals to construct, order the pipe and other bits, get people in regional and rural remote Australia trained and ready, get the companies here, get people drilling and get started so we can secure our future.
I thank the member for Daly for bringing this motion forward and commend it to the House. Thank you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Mr Deputy Speaker, as Minister for Mines and Energy I am delighted to support the member for Daly’s motion regarding connection of the Northern Territory’s Amadeus gas pipeline to the eastern grid. I am disappointed, dismayed at best, and extremely surprised that members of the opposition, largely, have chosen not to speak on this motion. The member for Casuarina spoke on this motion earlier and I commend him for that ...
Mr Tollner: What would he know about mines and energy?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up the interjection from the Deputy Chief Minister saying, ‘What would he know about mines and energy?’ The member for Casuarina was a former Minister for Mines and Energy; however, under his stewardship we saw a serious decline in the mining sector. Sometimes I have lauded the member for Casuarina for the work he did, but the more I look into it the more I realise how he and his government took their hands off the tiller, resulting in the new government having to play catch up in the human resources area and some of the activities the department was undertaking and funding. Anyway, I digress. I find it reprehensible that only one member from the opposition has chosen to speak on this important motion.
That tells me the opposition has no interest whatsoever in the strategic direction of the Northern Territory and the importance such infrastructure could play in development of the Northern Territory for decades to come. It is no wonder they were soundly removed from office in 2012. Let us hope it is a long time before they are entrusted by the Northern Territory electorate to govern again. If that were to occur we would see more of the same in the 11 years of their government.
Having noted that only one speaker from the other side spoke, even more surprising is the shadow minister for Mines and Energy has not spoken yet. I will make it my business to point out to mining and oil and gas sector stakeholders in the Northern Territory that the shadow minister did not speak on this motion. I will also let them know they should note his disinterest in this area when they consider supporting anything the opposition does.
The opposition is clearly only interested in making political mileage out of the serious issues which present themselves to the Northern Territory. I am referring, in many ways, to the gas to Gove issue. We constantly hear from member opposite, particularly the member for Nhulunbuy, about the horrible failings of this government in not securing gas for Gove. Yes, it would have been nice to get gas to Gove and for that to become a solution to the problem Rio Tinto faced with its processing of bauxite in Gove.
Unfortunately, that was not the reality and no amount of telling the truth from this side of the House will be enough to convince the member for Nhulunbuy or any of those opposite that gas to Gove was never the solution. Yet, what we see from the opposition is that issue being constantly pounded out as a political football around this Chamber and elsewhere. We hear nothing but whining and carping from the opposition. At no point do we see anyone from the opposition offering to be part of, or assist with, the transition from where Gove sits to where it will be once the refinery closes down.
Therefore, you have an opposition not interested in the strategic direction of the Northern Territory, particularly in the context of gas and energy and the mineral sector. We see them hell-bent on creating political issues and using big important issues as political footballs. That is disgraceful.
Recently the Chief Minister spoke about having a sensible and mature debate. I do not think the opposition is up to a sensible and mature debate about anything. We would love to hear their views on policy issues. We would love to see them being part of the solution. Even today, talking in the motion to pass the poppy regulation bill on urgency, we saw them politicising this issue and whining and carping just for the sake of it – to be anti-government. They could not understand we are trying to drive economic growth. Clearly, they do not get the economic growth potential sitting behind the pipeline connection from our Amadeus gas pipeline to the eastern grid.
The Northern Territory has abundant unexplored gas resources which will play a critical and increasing role in meeting Australia’s future energy needs and driving economic development, particularly investment and employment opportunities in our regions. However, in order to help deliver energy securely for Australians, gas must first be delivered to the east coast gas grid in a price competitive manner. The Australian energy sector is undergoing significant transformation, with traditional energy sources of coal, gas and liquids continuing to be a key driver in the national economy for energy consumption as well as export.
In the Northern Territory we have two world-class LNG projects, Ichyths and Darwin LNG, both of which have been referred to tonight. We have domestic gas demands serviced by the ENI Blacktip offshore gas fields, and onshore conventional gas fields in Central Australia. We also have a combination of exciting new discoveries, in particular, potential shale gas reserves. The Northern Territory’s potential reserves of unconventional gas total around – many figures have been bandied around, but it is somewhere in the order of 240 trillion cubic feet spread across six basins, including the Beetaloo sub-basin, with a possible 164 trillion cubic feet; the McArthur Basin, with a possible 40 trillion cubic feet; the Bonaparte, with a possible 10 trillion cubic feet; and the Amadeus Basin, with a possible 25 trillion cubic feet
It is clear that Northern Territory gas exploration is significant. I heard the member for Sanderson describe in some detail what those figures mean. He was quite right when he said one trillion cubic feet of gas will provide power generation to a city of one million people for 20 years. That is a lot of gas. Ichthys knows of around 11 trillion cubic feet so far, but we expect there to be more in that gas field and fields nearby. A commercial quantity of shale gas has shown in the United States to be about one – you can get about one to one-and-a-half trillion cubic feet. Gas companies are looking closely at that reserve and consider it to be viable.
Let us look at 240 trillion cubic feet, or 240 of those one trillion cubic feet commercial quantities. A rule of thumb often applied in the gas sector – not a hard and fast rule, but one considered by industry to be a reasonable estimate – is that approximately 10% of known reserves are considered to be commercially recoverable. If we have suspected reserves of 240 trillion cubic feet we could reasonably and conservatively expect one tenth of that. Twenty four trillion cubic feet could be commercially recoverable. I hope that is the case or maybe more, but it is an enormous amount of gas.
The Ichthys project, as the member for Sanderson rightly pointed out, it is a 40-year project. What we are potentially looking at in recoverable reserves we know of in the Northern Territory is more than twice that. Even looking at a conservative estimate of one tenth of the reserves we still have abundant gas in the Northern Territory. While Northern Territory potential gas reserves are largely unproven with significant work required to demonstrate their existence, recoverability and economic viability – I have referred to some of that – our huge onshore potential has captured the imagination and interest of significant international exploration companies over the past two years
This is demonstrated in the significant investment companies are making in exploration activities in the Northern Territory. A clear indication of the high level of confidence companies have in the results of survey findings across the Northern Territory is that current work programs show no fewer than 25 exploration wells could be drilled in the next 12 months.
The Northern Territory’s onshore gas potential means we have a significant future in supplying the expanding global LNG markets, supplying gas to resource projects across northern Australia, supplying gas to hungry interstate markets such as New South Wales, and supplying gas to gas processing industries. All these issues were canvassed by previous speakers.
The Northern Territory government is firmly convinced that the future development of the Australian energy sector will require the provision of connecting gas pipelines from these emerging Northern Territory onshore resources to Australia’s existing national energy grid.
Currently there is speculation of potential pipeline connections, and a few have been mooted. Tennant Creek to Mt Isa is one, Wauchope to Longreach in Queensland is another, and the one currently attracting most attention is the Alice Springs to Moomba pipeline connection.
As Minister for Mines and Energy I was delighted when, earlier this year, the APA Group, the Territory’s major pipeline licensee, announced to the Australian Stock Exchange that the company was investing $2m into a study to determine the feasibility of a gas pipeline connecting the Northern Territory to the east coast.
The Northern Territory can and is playing a significant role in addressing energy security for Australia and our northern neighbours. The APA Group is not the only company looking to be engaged in this process, and the Northern Territory government is talking with several other proponents who are strongly considering connection to the eastern grid using the Alice Springs to Moomba model.
The member for Sanderson was also right about needing to consider what the markets will look like. Let us face it, the vast majority of Australia’s population is in the eastern states. Let us drill down into that a little further. Victoria – I will cover hydraulic fracturing later – currently has a moratorium on fracking. That means they are reliant on other sources of energy or other sources of gas to provide energy for their generation requirements.
New South Wales is in limbo at the moment. They have faced increased pressure from lobby groups over hydraulic fracturing, particularly in the coal seam gas area, and the environment for developing gas resources in New South Wales is quite difficult.
Queensland, on the other hand, is powering ahead. They have enormous developments in gas processing happening right now and the gas industry is booming. Where we see the opportunity is connecting our gas pipeline to the eastern grid to provide energy security to New South Wales and Victoria. Queensland will largely be self-sufficient and is looking at quite significant export facilities to meet the growing global demand for gas and energy.
If we can establish a market for gas that might be developed in the Northern Territory, that will provide the impetus for further exploration and development of the gas industry in the NT.
Going back to Gove, I want to speak positively about that for a moment. To be honest, I was genuinely disappointed the gas to Gove proposal did not get up. We know why – the opposition will continue to carp about it – it did not happen. I was disappointed because, apart from Power and Water, there are very few enterprises in the Northern Territory you could call users of gas. A refinery such as the one at Gove would have been a pretty good place to start a market beyond the Power and Water Corporation ...
Mr HIGGINS: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask for an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and thank you, member for Daly.
That would have provided a market within the Northern Territory for gas, which would have provided the impetus for further development of our gas sector. Now that is not happening we have to look for other markets for our gas. With Ichthys online and Darwin LNG and ConocoPhillips, they have offshore markets nailed down and there is potential for us to provide gas into the eastern grid to create another market. Should that occur we will most definitely see more gas development in the Northern Territory.
For the Territory that will mean a strong boost to the economy. You will see jobs created in regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory as gas companies look at those prospects and see the economics looking rosier. That is why it is critical we, in a physical sense, provide a mechanism for delivering gas to the eastern grid. It benefits the east coast, and we want to be good Australian neighbours and part of the energy solution for our interstate cousins, but we also want to provide an environment where we will grow the economy in the Northern Territory. That is critical.
In February this year I was pleased to grant a production licence to Central Petroleum for the development of its Surprise oil field in the western Amadeus basin. This is the first new onshore production licence to be granted in the Northern Territory in more than 32 years. An application for a production licence has also been submitted over the Dingo gas field for development of the field and construction of a pipeline to Alice Springs.
These new developments, along with Santos’ current drilling project to further appraise and develop its conventional oil reserves in the Mereenie fields, suggest increasing production from Central Australian petroleum fields over the coming years.
Exploration for unconventional gas and oil continues to gain momentum, particularly in the McArthur and Beetaloo Basins, with a number of significant exploration programs under way, progressing from seismic acquisition to the drilling of exploration wells.
As regulators, the government continues to work with industries to address community concerns around issues such as hydraulic fracturing of wells, or fracking. The Department of Mines and Energy is engaging industry, the public and stakeholders, and providing information on the unconventional oil and gas sector and the leading practice regulatory regime this government requires for these activities. The recent announcement of a public inquiry into fracking in the Territory is designed to provide certainty to the public and industry so it can proceed under a leading practice regulatory environment.
The Northern Territory government is committed to creating an attractive investment climate that provides certainty and a regulatory framework to meet the needs of investors and increase gas exploration and development. However, establishing energy security for the Northern Territory and contributing to Australia’s energy security needs is an issue the Northern Territory government is also tackling. The key issue for industry players is energy availability and, of course, cost.
In recognising this, the Northern Territory government has established a new Energy Directorate within my Department of Mines and Energy to bring a long-term strategic approach to developing the Northern Territory’s energy industry and meet our future energy needs. The Energy Directorate is constantly surveying the horizon for opportunities in the energy sector, not only for gas, but also for renewable energy.
There have been suggestions a gas reservation policy similar to that employed by Western Australia is the solution to energy security issues. The Northern Territory government disagrees. Unlike Western Australia’s more mature gas sector, our gas industry is young and we want to encourage investment. To increase domestic gas supply more work is required to make gas available from existing and new discoveries which requires more capital investment. A blanket gas reservation policy would, more than likely, put both the quantum and timing of further capital investment at risk at a time when it is imperative the Northern Territory continues to attract investment in oil and gas exploration and development.
The Northern Territory government’s strong focus is to continue to ensure the Northern Territory is an attractive place to invest in gas exploration and development. Another key to encouraging gas development is our policy of encouraging aggressive exploration within tenements for onshore gas development. Over recent years there has been a substantial increase in the number of exploration leases issued to companies to explore for onshore gas. Currently something like 90% or 95% of the Territory’s land mass is either under application or granted tenure for petroleum exploration, which is a very encouraging sign. While the Northern Territory government is supportive of such exploration occurring, we are also conscious that leases are not to be issued for purely speculative purposes, where companies land bank the leases without undertaking the requisite exploration work. As such, the Department of Mines and Energy is finalising a policy to ensure the exploration imperative is pursued within a reasonable commercial framework.
The Northern Territory has abundant unexplored gas resources which will play a critical and increasing role in meeting our future energy needs and driving economic development, particularly investment and employment opportunities in our regions. The Northern Territory can and is playing a significant role in addressing energy security for Australia and our northern neighbours. The next step in establishing energy security for Australia is the establishment of a gas pipeline connecting the Northern Territory to the east coast. To me it makes sense.
The other point to make about connecting to the east coast is gas flows both ways. While we are talking about a gas pipeline in the context of development of the Northern Territory’s gas sector and then exporting the gas through a pipeline interstate, if a pipeline was in place, gas from the eastern states, if available, could flow back into the Northern Territory.
The member for Sanderson mentioned the manufacturing sector. Would it not be wonderful if we could have a manufacturing sector in the Northern Territory around the oil and gas industry? About 14 months ago I visited Texas in the United States to look at gas field developments there. I was briefed on the benefits the gas industry brought to that state. I was also briefed on the lack of benefits available to states which chose not to pursue a gas industry. The differences in economies between those two jurisdictions – Texas might be one example and, from memory, in Washington State they do not explore for gas – was stark. Unemployment rates in the states without a gas industry were much higher than in states with a gas industry. Standards of living were much higher where there was a gas industry. People were happier being more engaged in the economy and growth of the economy in their state.
I see that as the future for the Northern Territory. Imagine Dow Chemical coming to the Territory. Something like 80 side businesses would sit around a chemical plant, such as the one we saw at Freeport in the United States. Imagine the opportunities, the employment, the economic growth, the boom and sustainability of the Territory’s economy should we achieve those dizzying heights.
I am delighted to support the member for Daly’s motion. It is very important and I reiterate how disappointed I am that the opposition has not spoken.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is thrilling to see you in the chair on your second day in this House. I tell you what …
Ms Walker: He will not be so thrilled when I raise a couple of points of order. No, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would not do it to you.
Mr TOLLNER: That is true, throw him straight in at the deep end. I urge you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, to use your book of standing orders because the member for Nhulunbuy is coming after you.
I support this motion brought by the member for Daly. It is timely and shows the member for Daly is interested in more than just his electorate. In fact, he has the interests of the entire Northern Territory and nation at heart. I pay tribute to the member for Daly for his vision in bringing forward this very good motion.
The Minister for Mines and Energy made some wonderful points at the end of his contribution about the experience in the USA and how gas has affected the livelihoods of the residents in states and jurisdictions that have allowed active development of the gas industry, and the importance of it to their communities. I will talk a bit more about the USA, but will leave it until later in the discussion.
There are many reasons why the Northern Territory needs to get cracking on its gas exploration, investigation into pipelines, selling gas both overseas and interstate, and the point raised by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, to see the development of advanced manufacturing in the Northern Territory. It is true that manufacturing is dying in Australia.
We tend to be outdone by countries with lower cost workforces and access to cheaper capital, and it is disappointing to see manufacturing jobs going overseas. However, I note people are stepping into other employment. What you lose on the swing you pick up on the roundabout, but we have some wonderful opportunities in the Northern Territory if we are prepared to embrace a gas future.
One would expect we are sitting on a sea of gas. When you look at offshore resources around the Northern Territory, we are blessed with the amount of proven fields to our north, west and east. There is no reason why those fields would not extend onshore to the point there are great opportunities. The need for gas in Australia is undisputed. Last week I was in Brisbane at the Energy ministers’ conference and, without a doubt, there is an enormous demand for gas in Australia.
Queensland has strongly growing fracking industry. It is raising concerns because they have coal seam methane in the main, and coal seam gas tends to be closer to the surface than the gas we have in the Northern Territory, which is shale gas. Coal seam methane has really enlivened Queensland. There has been construction of the LNG plants in Gladstone where there is now enormous demand for gas.
I have to question whether Queensland can deliver the amount of gas required to fill those LNG plants at Gladstone given the enormous amount of gas required. In Queensland, with a strong politically-tuned agricultural sector, it will be difficult for governments and resource companies to find an adequate supply of gas to meet the requirements of the facilities constructed.
In Queensland the agrarian socialists, the National Party, are still very much to the fore; they are a very powerful political lobby group in their own right. With an LNP government in place it is inevitable those voices of concern will be heard because the objections from farmers about coal seam gas and fracking will only become more heated. Queensland is by far the most progressive state when it comes to exploration for onshore gas through the hydraulic fracturing methods, much more progressed than New South Wales, which almost has an outright ban on it, and Victoria, which bans it completely.
I was talking to the New South Wales Energy minister who suggests they are paying upwards of $16 a petajoule for gas. That is an enormous price for natural gas and quite unsustainable. He is keen to see fracturing but, politically, he believes it will be too difficult in New South Wales to see any movement on that in the near future.
There is enormous desperation for gas in New South Wales; a similar situation would present itself in Victoria. Obviously Tasmania is not too fussed one way or the other as they have enormous amounts of hydroelectricity. They do not really need much gas as they have the subsea high-voltage DC power line going through Bass Strait powering whatever they need to that hydroelectricity does not power. Tasmania is reasonably self-sufficient.
South Australia is keen to progress more hydraulic fracturing. It does not have a lot of coal seam gas but does have shale gas. The politics around shale gas are not quite as heated; it is only a fraction compared to coal seam gas. South Australia is keen to start exploring for more gas.
Goodness knows what is happening in Western Australia, which seems to be surrounded by gas. They have a reserving policy which has done nothing to reduce the cost of gas in Western Australia, but they are not as focused on it because their energy needs are easily met from current resources.
In the Northern Territory we have an interesting situation. We probably have more gas than we currently require. We purchase more gas than we currently require, but the irony is it is not enough to warrant, at this stage, a pipeline anywhere …
Ms Walker interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I notice the member for Nhulunbuy is alarmed to know we have more gas than we require, but I can assure her there is nowhere near enough gas to suffice the Gove operations if they were interested in keeping the refinery going.
There is a desire to see more exploration in the Northern Territory for gas resources. The construction of pipelines, which is what the member for Daly’s motion is about, is integral to that. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport was dead right; there are a few things. You need to find a supplier and a market. We know the markets are in the eastern states and we need to connect to the national gas grid.
To do that, we need the Australian Energy Regulator operating in the Northern Territory. The Power and Water reforms the government is undertaking are about trying to get the Australian Energy Regulator to regulate our electricity and gas industries, or gas pipelines, in the Northern Territory. We are keen to see that occur because we want to adopt national laws as that provides certainty and security to investors and gives them confidence they are operating in a safe environment.
The markets are in the eastern states but how do we speed up the exploration of gas? We can build pipelines; however, rarely are pipelines built unless there is gas to go into them. Pipeline operators tend to be relatively conservative. Like other business people, they like to know when they spend many millions of dollars they will get a return on that money. It is difficult to build a pipeline if there is no certainty of a product going into it. Obviously, the product is in high demand in the eastern states, we all know that, but as yet we do not have proven gas fields in the Northern Territory so we need to speed up exploration.
I recently read a book called The Frackers. It was published late last year and looks at what changed the US situation. Fundamentally, the wildcatters in the United States really drove exploration. Wildcatters are generally small companies run and managed by people with serious enterprising spirit, serious ambitions, and people who are prepared to go out on a limb, have a real crack and see if they can strike large amounts of gas. They are serious speculators. In the US, the environment is a little different than Australia. In the US, people who own the land own what is under the land. Wildcatters were trying to get access to the land and had to talk to landowners, not governments and the like as you do in Australia. They were talking to farmers; there are well-known stories about farmers and cattlemen who became millionaires overnight when gas was found on their properties because the wildcatters would go in, do deals and offer to share the proceeds.
One or two characters did the same thing in cities. They would knock on people’s door in the cities saying, ‘Do you mind if I put a drilling rig in your backyard on your quarter acre block in the city?’ Surprisingly, this happened in an enormous number of cities across the US where small households saw the opportunity to cash in on the gas boom. We now see gas prices there, in some cases, below $3 a petajoule. I remind people in New South Wales they are paying $16 and above a petajoule. It is believed the international price for gas is somewhere between $9 and $12 a petajoule. The US, at $3 a petajoule, is getting remarkably cheap gas because they literally have a glut.
There is glut of gas in the US, and when there is more supply than demand, gas prices drop, which is what happened in the Northern Territory. The converse applies in NSW, where there is no gas to meet demand. Prices go through the roof, to the point where people are paying some unholy rates for gas to provide what most of us call an essential service.
The Frackers was an interesting book to read and explained how these guys were so enterprising. One fellow was working on drilling fluids and made a mistake in a well he was drilling. He failed to put any guar in the mixture; it was almost water and sand alone. Guar is generally used to thicken the mix and assist in the fracturing process, but in this case he left it out and, lo and behold, the well flowed at the same rate as other wells he had used guar in. In wells where they used guar over a short period of time the flows would reduce, but in this well the flows kept going and it was discovered guar was becoming an inhibitor to getting the gas flowing. This was a breakthrough. He drilled three other wells to test it and, sure enough, they started using only sand and water as their fracking fluid. It was not only a saving for the company, but it worked better than the more traditional and established drilling fluids people were using.
Another group of people were experimenting with horizontal drilling. They drilled down 600 m to 1 km and slowly turned the drill bit in a horizontal fashion; they were starting to release gas from shale structures with that horizontal fracking method. It was not until those two processes were combined that the whole industry went off to the point where the US now is self-sufficient in energy; it does not rely on imports.
This will have major connotations for the geopolitical environment of the globe. The US does not need Middle Eastern countries’ oil, it does not need energy resources from other parts of the world, and this is expected to impact on how the US funds its defence forces and how it treats its foreign policy. It is expected to have some rather profound impacts ...
Mr BARRETT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask that the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Blain steps up again. He has been doing it all night. He represented you very well in that chair, Madam Speaker. With all credit to the member for Nhulunbuy, who threatened to pull him to bits like a clock, he has come away unscathed. In a rare moment of sympathy the member for Nhulunbuy let him off in deference to new members.
The global environment has changed and will do so enormously because of the incredible gas breakthroughs in the US. Bringing that back to the Northern Territory, the lesson to be learnt is we need to free up regulations around drilling for gas. We need to encourage creative thinking in the industry. I spoke to CSIRO representatives last night, and they told me the shale rock in the Northern Territory is vastly different to the shale in the US. Fracturing methods used in the US will not necessarily work well in the Northern Territory so some work needs to be done.
In the US, the experience was the big established companies were not responsible for the gas boom. It was the small guys, the wildcatters, the people living on the edge. These people were having a go and pushing the boundaries.
It is interesting when you compare gas and mineral exploration. Madam Speaker, you have a long history in mineral exploration with the Minerals Council. You, along with others here, would understand the vast majority of big operating mines in Australia and around the world are not discovered by major mining companies. It is the small guys, the scratchers who make the discoveries that are later proven up by middle tier companies and taken over by big mining majors. If, in the Northern Territory, we intend to wait for major oil and gas companies to discover gas for us we could be waiting for a long time.
We need an environment conducive to people who are prepared to have a go, push the boundaries and prepared to risk their livelihood in order to make a big find. Those people will ultimately make the big onshore discoveries we are hoping for.
We need to encourage this, and those guys, to do this. What happened in the US was that big glittering prize of lots of money and riches got so many wildcatters having a go. A few were first in and grabbed a big chunk of that glittering prize. Many made discoveries after the price of gas had tanked and, eventually, there was a glut of gas. The first ones in made the big discoveries and the big money. After that, many had cracked it right across the country to the point they created a glut in natural gas. That is what we need in the Northern Territory because the future of Australia is so dependent on it.
Not only do we need to provide energy to the urban eastern parts of Australia, but we also want to see a massive reduction in the price of gas to facilitate things like advance manufacturing and production of plastics and fertilisers. That is all dependent on rock-bottom prices for natural gas. Ultimately, as a government, that is where we want to see the Northern Territory going. I think that is what is driving the Chief Minister and the Minister for Mines and Energy, who are both doing a remarkably good job in drumming up interest in the Northern Territory.
I am thrilled the Minister for Mines and Energy and the minister for the Environment have embarked on this study into hydraulic fracturing in the Northern Territory. If we can get that right and remove big chunks of red tape required in environmental approvals, it can only help speed up the process and create an environment where we get the little guys who are prepared to risk their lifestyles and their wealth to have a crack and make those big discoveries.
Madam Speaker, again I want to thank the member for Daly for bringing this motion to the parliament. It is worthwhile discussing and now is the right time. I am happy to support the recommendations of this motion.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for bringing this to the table. I support this motion because I believe in the future of the Northern Territory. Having spent a lot of time working in the finance industry looking at many smaller companies that undertake a lot of exploration in the Northern Territory, often they do not have a lot of funding, access or the ability to undertake large scale drilling programs. I hope development of this pipeline will open up prospects for them to get gas out of the Northern Territory so their feasibility studies take that into consideration and they can move forward knowing they have the ability to make a profit and, therefore, develop those fields.
I believe in what the Giles government and the federal government is doing to develop northern Australia. I see this tying in beautifully with the whole development of northern Australia project. I am also glad private funding is doing this, because it obviously helps our fiscal position.
I am also very excited about this because, as a member of parliament, I am possibly one of a few people who have worked reasonably directly with the oil and gas industry. Working at East Arm Wharf, we did a lot of work with rig tenders and oil rigs coming in to be supplied and fitted out then go back to their drilling programs.
The history of the Northern Territory is a history of isolation. We had the road through the centre, then the telegraph line through the centre and then the rail line through the centre. We are now looking at a pipeline to complete the picture and connect us to the southern and eastern states of Australia.
The development of possible onshore reserves is fantastic because it will create employment and revenue streams for the Northern Territory. From a finance perspective it is important we diversify our income streams because that makes you less susceptible to the swings and roundabouts of the business cycle.
With that in mind, I see our offshore industry leading beautifully into this pipeline project, which should lead to an onshore progression of opening up gas fields in the Northern Territory. I am also excited that bringing all this together creates off-shooting opportunities which centre on the pipeline.
Mining and pastoral industries have been the mainstay of the Northern Territory economy for a long time. One of the first industries to open up here was gold mining, and it is very strong today. However, we need to develop other industries to diversify and create a more stable employment base for the Territory. Things mentioned by other people, including the large-scale manufacturing sector, we hope would create employment in the Northern Territory.
I am excited about education and will talk about a university in Geelong I heard about. When car projects were closing down in Geelong, the university had to re-focus and researchers at the university looked at carbon fibre and how they could change the way it was put together. This is important because it shows us that through innovation and forward thinking we can change our industries.
I am pleased Charles Darwin University has set up an oil and gas unit, giving young people in the Northern Territory the opportunity to develop the industries we would like to grow, particularly the oil and gas sector.
A university in Edinburgh specialises in shipping – everything from getting a deckhand ticket to a coxswain ticket, a captain’s ticket, through to a pilot’s ticket. Working at Darwin port, where much of the oil and gas industry of the Northern Territory is centred, we had a hard time sourcing pilots. I have often thought we could have a world-class higher education system here where people all over the world know about Charles Darwin University and the maritime oil and gas faculties at the university. That would be fantastic to see.
We have incredibly intelligent people in the Northern Territory who use what is around them to make something from nothing. I am particularly thoughtful of the people I spoke about in my maiden speech, Dr Ben Hoffmann, who I went to school with, and the solar car team from the Northern Territory University which came up with a brushless electric motor that was so efficient it competed with the millions of dollars the Honda team put into the same project. That was just a little team from the Northern Territory. It shows where we have the ability we should encourage it, and where we develop industries we should not sit on the back of them but develop the education sector around those industries so we can become world leaders in that area.
I see this pipeline as a linchpin between offshore and onshore development and the capacity to branch into other areas. The possible area, looking at the whole drilling scenario – drill rig engineering is an amazing thing. When I worked at East Arm Wharf we knew the re-tenders that came from old rigs and new rigs, because often they would come back and the cargo loaded on the back of the rig tenders was a disastrous mess because they were in high seas. When you try to load 40 foot containers from one moving object to another moving object by crane which might be 30 m to 40 m in the air, it is not an easy job to land it in a perfect location.
People around the world came up with the idea of wave-correcting cranes which move in tandem with what is happening around them, which makes for a smoother transition. Ideas like this, which are ground breaking, would be fantastic to see through the industry sector, all working through our education system to make them our own. We have the intelligence and ability to do it.
Drilling improvement and drilling operators – you might remember the mine disaster in Chile where about 29 miners were trapped at the bottom of a mine. An Australian drill rig funded by BHP – Australian drillers – drilled down and saved those guys. For me, one of the prouder moments of being an Australian was seeing what the company did; how it hit the needle in a haystack with an incredibly good piece of machinery and great operators.
We make great operators because we have good systems and a good education to do it. That can be done out of the Northern Territory using our onshore, offshore and pipeline networks as a basis to give them real life experience in these sectors.
Drill chemistry, and the chemicals which go into drilling, is complex. We loaded brine and drill mud at the wharf. Brine might sound like salt water, but the chemistry relates to specific densities and specific gravities of the materials within the solution so they create seals on the bottom of the sea floor. Looking at the chemistry of it, I do not know why we could not have parts of our education sector focused around it.
Submersible technology sea floor research – these are high paying jobs – underwater welders – incredibly specialised professions. Loading these submersibles onto the back of rig tenders when we were mobilising them – these guys are flown all around the world to do these jobs, much like our pilots in Darwin Harbour coming from all over the world. It would be nice to see people working in the oil and gas industry, experts in the oil and gas industry, coming from the Territory.
We often talk about the innovative ability of Australians. We need to be the innovators owning the patents, and I see this as a pathway toward developing our education sector.
In the development of marine supply and logistics, we have seen an expansion of East Arm Wharf. I believe the Marine Supply Base will open in a few weeks. We can then service more rigs in the ocean and supply them in a more efficient manner.
Darwin has its issues, but it is important to know people prefer to come here because the turnaround time is fast. They know they can get a drill rig into the Port of Darwin and back out – often two in one day – which is fantastic. We want this to continue and jobs to develop and, as the offshore industry grows, we want to see the infrastructure around it grow as we develop northern Australia.
Thinking about those things, I look at the pipeline from the Ichthys project onshore and am excited to know when they were laying that pipe they put five tee pieces in which do not go anywhere. They know there are gas fields out there and were factoring in possible future finds in the area based on magnetic resonance and other subsea floor exploration. That means more gas can come onshore in Darwin and be processed.
Looking at the 11 trillion cubic feet project Ichthys is, I wonder what the possibility for Darwin as a starting location for a pipeline is, given there might be five more gas fields found between there and the coast. It is an exciting thing to be a part of and I am happy with the project.
In relation to onshore issues, the potential reserves of 240 trillion cubic feet in the Northern Territory are possible reserves. I remember analysing companies and looking at possible reserves as pie in the sky. Investors feel the same. These are often penny stocks and not well supported. However, the ability to open up this network connecting the north to the south and east is important, because it enables them to attract investors to projects which will move from possible to probable. Once we have probable reserves you are switching to a new type of business, a new company with more respect around the market and a better quality investor which is not just trading it. They would like to see the company develop in order to get large stakeholders and shareholders, which will be a long-term part of developing the Northern Territory.
That is often the basis of foreign investment, or investment from outside the Northern Territory. They will attract the more risky sections of super funds and things like that, which hold trillions of dollars globally. We would like some of that money here as private investment to develop these things. This pipeline is a good way of helping that happen and of bringing investment into the Northern Territory to develop reserves.
Once we move from the probable, more studies, testing and drilling is done, and we end up with a proven resource. That is what we see with the 11 trillion cubic feet from the Ichthys project. Moving to a proven resource is where you want to be. Even though it might not be drilled, it is, effectively, money in the bank for a company. It is then an incredibly saleable and developable asset. We will see a high-quality investor come in and possibly even buy-outs happen. We then have a calibre of companies which can not only develop that process and field, but connect that field to the pipeline we are discussing tonight.
That can have nothing but great benefits for the Northern Territory, particularly in regional areas where many areas are unexplored and have possible reserves. These areas are in the middle of nowhere. They will attract regional employment, and unemployment rates in those areas are high. This creates an opportunity to correct that.
The industries created around that are not short-term jobs to build a piece of pipe, commission a new drilling facility or commission a new facility to extract gas from the ground. We are looking at long-term jobs with meaning which last for many years. They would be cross-generational, where people know they are a mainstay. There is a solid point, an anchor to their community and they can embed that industry in their community. It can create excellent lasting effects and raise the standard of living in regional areas.
For those of us who have travelled across the Northern Territory, the standard of living in some places concerns us. It would put more money in, not rely on federal or Territory government funding and create smaller industries in those areas. It would be great to see some long-lasting, quality industries in those areas providing jobs to build schools and medical facilities.
Looking at it from an economics perspective, one thing that has concerned me for a long time about the Northern Territory economy – and listening to the budget handed down by previous Northern Territory governments – is the incredibly similar income streams coming to the Northern Territory.
I remember one budget breakfast with my colleagues from RBS Morgans listening to Delia Lawrie hand down the Treasurer’s report. One of the largest areas of funding coming in, and one they were hoping would fund their future, was stamp duty. Stamp duty is not a good industry to bank on. Royalties from onshore oil and gas and associated industries is the income stream this government needs to access as a whole. As part of developing northern Australia, Australia needs it so the Northern Territory is not such a mendicant state relying on federal funding for so much of its income; it can start to give back. It is important, looking forward, that people can start giving back and that we are looked at as leaders in this country, not just the poor brother who always has his hand out asking for money. I am fiercely proud of the Northern Territory, which is why I am excited about this pipeline and seeing it come to fruition.
The other thing about diversity and having a …
Mr HIGGINS: Madam Speaker, I seek an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standard Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BARRETT: The diversity which can be created by having separate income streams into the Northern Territory also provides stability for business cycles. They are an issue when we look at the two-speed economy things happening in the rest of Australia. When we do not have diversified income streams we are subject to the ebbs and flows of an individual market. I am excited by this because it is an industry we are not involved in and one that can stabilise us in a business cycle because people in the southern states will always need the energy provided by gas. The blue chip companies existing on the Australian Stock Exchange – the stocks which frequent most superannuation funds are ones like APA because they know the gas is in the pipeline and will be delivered because people need electricity.
The demand for electricity is incredibly inelastic. That means it does not matter whether people are having good times or bad, they tend to use the same amount of electricity. The price does not affect consumption. That is why we call it inelastic. I would like this business stabilised. I would like to see diversity in the income streams of the Northern Territory. I would like us to prove we can be what the federal government hopes for in the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia and the vision the Giles’ government has for the Northern Territory. I hope we can prove ourselves and match their faith in us and that we contribute to the rest of Australia.
I am a member of the LCAC committee, and it is interesting to look at that and statehood. We cannot justify becoming a state until we can stand on our own two feet. Fiscally, if we can stand on our own two feet it places us in a strong position to move towards statehood.
This offshore pipeline onshore development that can happen in the oil and gas industry in the Northern Territory has the capacity for long-term jobs and excellent revenue streams we currently do not have. It will correct many of the fiscal problems we have and our capacity to pay down debt and fund major infrastructure projects. I am particularly mindful of social infrastructure projects like the hospital in Gerry Wood’s electorate. I am excited about that and about development of northern Australia. I am excited about this pipeline and what it can bring.
There are short-term gains to be made from this in immediate employment. People can be employed in the industry, and building pipelines will be a major project. Getting the equipment in will provide projects through our port facilities and, obviously, will create employment in regional areas. As those pipelines work their way down through the heart of our Territory, they will attract employment, income and revenue to Indigenous communities.
I see long-term goals in this for local and regional employment, giving us something we can really hang our hat on and say we have a solid industry here. We will see improvements in the standard of living and in health and education outcomes because people will be working.
I often have great discussions with my colleague, Mr Elferink, about self-pity being a really negative force in people’s lives. If people can gain employment in a meaningful job and take control of their lives, it will go a long way to creating the change in culture we need across the Northern Territory, particularly in regional areas. People will be proud of what they are doing and excel in their workplace.
I also see huge gains for our education sector in developments in drill rig engineering, drilling improvement, drill chemistry technology, submersible technology, sea floor research and subsea floor research. These areas are moving towards deeper and more complex fields to access energy reserves, and it will be fantastic for people in the Northern Territory to create work and jobs through education and creating patents for fantastic improvements in this technology. It hits the whole gamut of employment capacity of individuals in the Territory. If someone wants to drive a truck or work on a drill rig, that is fantastic, good on them, go for it. If someone wants to be a high-end industrial chemist and work on better brine for better drill results from the sea floor, that is fantastic.
Not too many people in the world understand how they mix things with different specific gravities and specific densities so one fluid can create a seal for many other fluids. It isamazing to see that, and this pipeline will enable those things in the Northern Territory.
I also look at the manufacturing sectors that can exist in the Northern Territory. Obviously, as we improve our ties with Timor and countries around us, we can be seen for our high-end manufacturing products. We will never be able to compete with other nations in lower-end manufacturing. I do not think the Northern Territory will have a fantastic clothing manufacturing industry; it does not work to our advantage. However, we have the ability to develop high-quality steel or pipe work which can work under huge depths of water and incredibly harsh conditions. That is where a manufacturing industry in the Northern Territory could start. It is industry specific, highly specific in the qualifications and technical knowhow needed to produce these pipes, types of steel and alloys necessary in exact quantities to ensure these things work in harsh environments.
I think we can reinvent ourselves with high-end manufacturing products. Why can we not make submersibles here, the intricate pieces of machinery which are at the bottom of the sea floor all across the world, welding or changing valves 1 km under the water? The Australian ability to make something out of nothing we have seen throughout our history; many great inventions have come from this country.
I want to see this offshore pipeline onshore conglomerate work to ensure the Northern Territory’s future is not one dimensional, but multidimensional and multifaceted. I want it to take in all people in the Northern Territory, from Indigenous people at Ali Curung, people studying doctorates at Charles Darwin University and people who want a normal job from 9 am to 5 pm. Industries like that can support this, and I see industries being able to take the Northern Territory to the next level. It is a strong and integral part of the developing north Australia program the Giles government has put together.
With something as important as this, it is depressing to see my colleague, the member for Casuarina, is the only member of the opposition here …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, do not refer to people who are not in the Chamber.
Mr BARRETT: I apologise, I take that back.
I am not sure why they do not want input into this issue.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, when I knew the member for Daly was bringing this motion forward I was excited because I know the potential gas can and will bring the Northern Territory. I am proud to be a member of a Country Liberals government, and Minister for Education.
I want kids in schools in the Northern Territory to have jobs. Gas can provide the biggest opportunity the Northern Territory has ever had. When the member for Daly mentioned gas, all I could think about was if the pipelines could be connected to the eastern and southern states. As the Chief Minister said, the potential is there because it is where the customer base is. A network of pipes and gas could connect us with the rest of Australia and allow the Northern Territory to be the battery of this country and provide jobs. As Minister for Education, my goal in getting kids into employment. Why the hell educate children if we do not have jobs for them?
Gas is a commodity which is growing around the world. People see the potential in gas, and there is something about this which will take us to places we never thought possible. As Minister for Education and Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, to understand the gravity of what gas can deliver for the Northern Territory and future workers of the Northern Territory – children being educated in our schools today will have a completely different environment in five, 10 and 20 years from now because of gas.
Resources in the Northern Territory – the positive impact we can have on the rest of the country and the children we are educating today shows we are on the right track.
This is the right pipeline to follow. I thank the member for Daly for bringing this motion on. Everybody in this House should be very supportive. Thank you.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, being a man of few words, it is amazing how many words from my brief speech we have heard tonight. I found it very stimulating. It is probably the best …
Ms Walker: You do not want to talk about racial vilification.
Mr HIGGINS: … debate I have heard in this House for a long time.
The teacher from Nhulunbuy would know the saying, ‘Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them and tell them what you told them’. I am at the third phase, ‘Tell them what you told them’.
Before you open your mouth, you should always know what you want to say, what you want to achieve, and be guaranteed you will achieve it. During my speech I made a slight mistake. I said the potential gas we have is enough to run a power station for one million people for 50 years. That should have been 5000 years. If you do your multiplication that matches what the member for Sanderson said: 23 million people for 200 years. It would also match what the Mines and Energy minister said. He also took a conservative estimate at about 10%, which would be enough energy to run a power station for one million people for 500 years.
I thank all members for their contributions tonight, especially the member for Casuarina. His knowledge in this area is vast. He is very good on the energy futures committee. He mentioned the chemical industry, and it reminded me of the discussion I had with the Attorney-General when he returned from his visit to Dow Chemical in the United States. A by-product comes from gas processing and we have missed that potential – manufacturing comes from having all this available gas.
The member for Blain mentioned ancillary industries to come out of this new development. The other issue is it is not just gas. When you have manufacturing you need to power plants, which requires electricity, which leads to the reason for splitting Power and Water. We want competition to keep prices down, plus we want to build power stations we do not have the money for. We want to induce private enterprise into that field as well.
The Chief Minister mentioned development of a pipeline and development of gas exploration. In the Territory, that will be the next big project after INPEX. It needs to be reiterated that INPEX is a $35bn project and this is never ending. From now on we will see projects like this come up. It will not be a matter of saying this project cost so much, this one cost so much more. It will be about how much is being invested in this area each year.
The member for Nelson raised the issue, which I completely agree with, that gas is not clean energy, just a bit cleaner than coal. We need to bear in mind that while there is so much coal available in Australia, very few people will go away from it if the price of gas keeps increasing the way it is. We need to ensure we expand in the exploration area.
It is also interesting that gas – which was pointed out by the Chief Minister – is not like electricity. You do not simply plug into it, you need to run pipelines. An example of that was in Question Time yesterday regarding the power plant at the AACo abattoir at Acacia. Part of the problem was putting a spur into the gas pipeline. The cost of putting that in was prohibitive and alternative forms of energy worked out not to be cost effective. They are building their own power station.
We need to bear in mind we have discussed exploration and the market, and what I have learnt on the energy futures committee is many of the smaller development companies the member for Blain mentioned will not undertake any exploration unless they know there is a market and a mechanism to get their product to market. The market is in the eastern and southern states, so we have to get our Territory gas to those locations. The way to do that is with a pipeline.
The other interesting thing the Chief Minister mentioned was the swap of gas. That reminded me of when Internet shopping became available and we bought a Christmas basket for relatives in the UK. I was surprised when it arrived three days later. I wondered how they did it. They ship all the wine and other things from Australia to England and you ring up and it happens.
I was reminded of that tonight, as well as when we were in Western Australia talking to ENI about gas swaps. One of the examples they gave was if we wanted gas from ENI that was not available we could end up with INPEX gas. INPEX is shipping all its gas to Japan as LNG, and ENI had a plant off the coast of Africa which was also shipping LNG to Japan.
They said if we purchased gas from ENI out of the plant in South Africa they would do a deal with INPEX. INPEX would give us the gas out of their pipe and then the LNG which ENI had would be shipped directly to Japan. That is an example, in practical terms, of what the Chief Minister was talking about with LNG.
There is a difference between LNG and CNG. An option for our remote communities would be if we had a pipeline we would have the potential to truck CNG to power stations in Indigenous communities and remote towns, and that is a hell of a lot cheaper than using diesel. I know the Indigenous Essential Service administrator would not like to change his turbines to gas, but there is potential there.
The Chief Minister mentioned the Moomba gas hub. People need to remember if you have a gas pipeline and get gas out of one field which does not match the other you cannot mix them. Connecting into a hub has its advantages.
While the member for Casuarina was out the Chief Minister mentioned North Dakota as a good place to look at gas. We need consideration of that by the energy futures committee. These gas networks or pipelines are similar to power networks, and super funds have an interest in them.
When we went to Western Australia we spoke to many mining companies about reservation policies. The feedback we received is that they inhibit investment.
I reiterate, and the Treasurer mentioned it, in the Territory we have shale gas, not coal seam gas. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Debate Notice No 2 – General Business
– Local Government Choices
Debate Notice No 2 – General Business
– Local Government Choices
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Assembly debating and voting on General Business Notice Number 2, Local Government Choices.
Tonight we have seen a total abuse of the system for General Business Day. We have had people playing the fool with this important part of the parliamentary process. I know what is going on; I have been around a long time. The members for Sanderson and Fong Lim, and the Chief Minister, knew time was running out and were laughing about it. This was a deliberate tactic to abuse the system of General Business Day.
You have plenty of time, as a government, to debate many issues. I am not knocking the member for Daly for bringing his motion forward, he is entitled to, but you have debated one item for three-and-a-half hours.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the question is put now the government will agree to the motion.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I am putting the motion that I be allowed to debate this bill. My argument is …
Madam SPEAKER: No, you are moving suspension of standing orders.
Mr WOOD: Yes, suspension of standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK: If you put the question now, we will agree to the suspension of standing orders so you can get through your topic.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, as long as they understand I am totally disgusted with what happened today. I have watched the laughing and sneering and watching the clock. I am no fool when it comes to tactics and think it is disgraceful.
I move the suspension of standing orders to allow me to do something that is important.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Local Government Choices
Local Government Choices
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker and member for Port Darwin. At least there is some sensibility in allowing me to do this.
Madam Speaker, I move that local government councils in the Northern Territory be given the choice of appointing a person to run their own elections.
It should not have reached this stage. You are the government and have an opportunity to debate many issues through statements. You can have as many statements as you like in parliament every day of the week. On this side we have three-and-a-half hours to discuss issues we would like brought before this parliament, and today you have deliberately stymied that opportunity.
That is abuse of the parliamentary process. I am bringing this forward because although it is a small issue and the member for Fong Lim says he supports it, it is the one opportunity I have to bring forth things I consider important. I would have been able to debate this issue in the normal time if that side of parliament had not abused the process.
Of course the pipeline is important, I agree. It could have also come up as a statement from the Minister for Mines and Energy, the Treasurer, or the Chief Minister and you could have all spoken about it.
How many people spoke on the container deposit legislation? None apart from the minister – one on this side and one over there …
Mr Chandler: We have not finished.
Mr WOOD: We have finished that debate. We were hoping more people on your side would debate it. You are supporting this bill. No one else supported it on your side, and you know the reason I could not be here. We are trying to get briefings and do other things. One person on your side spoke on the container deposit legislation.
Madam Speaker, today I am bringing forward a simple item asking the government to reverse legislation passed in 2011 which was part of a series of amendments to the Electoral Act, the Local Government Act and the Local Government (Electoral) Regulations. The second reading said the change was to establish the Electoral Commissioner as a sole provider for all local government elections.
I am asking that local government councils in the Northern Territory be given the choice of appointing a person to run their own elections because, especially with by-elections, it has cost local government a lot of money. There may be some discussion about whether they can run full elections, but I know from letters I have received it has been costing local councils a considerable amount of money to run relatively small elections.
A letter from Craig Catchlove, Director Corporate and Community Services at Alice Springs Town Council, says the cost of their last by-election was $83 219. Whether Alice Springs wants to – we are not saying they have to do it; we are giving them the choice to run a by-election instead of the Electoral Commissioner.
Cathryn Hutton, Chief Executive Officer Central Desert Regional Council, said the council had a by-election in – the member for Barkly will know. I cannot pronounce language written by linguists, but I think it is Atitjere ward following the most recent general election. The cost of this by-election was $15 600. As a matter of perspective, that $15 600 allowed 953 people who are enrolled to vote, and 331 actually voted. That is a very big expense. I am not saying democracy is not important, but I am sure that expense would be a lot smaller if the council had been able to look at it.
Katherine Town Council recently quoted a $95 000 fee structure for a by-election. Dave Laugher, the CEO of Katherine, was not sure if he would save anything doing it himself. That is fair enough. I am not telling councils they have to go down this path; I am recommending councils have a choice.
It is a simple motion. It is important we realise many of our councils are suffering financial stress and suffering from by-elections, somebody dying, resigning, moving away or getting sick of the job. Many councils have had to put up with multiple by-elections which have cost them a lot of money. It is not money they have to throw around. They would rather spend that money on essential services in their community.
The option I am bringing forward would allow councils the choice. That has to be made clear, because I am not telling councils they have to do it themselves; we just allow them the freedom they had before these changes.
I do not know if there was pressure from the Electoral Commissioner who wanted a monopoly over it, or whether councils felt it was better only the Electoral Commissioner did it. Looking back, I do not think that was the right move. It has cost councils a lot of money.
Many of these councils do not have a high rate base, as we know. Some councils only get 2% or 3% of their total revenue from rates, so a figure of $19 000 for a by-election is a fair bump in their budget.
This is important. It can reduce the cost to the council and give them some choice. I am sure councillors could get some training on how to run elections from the Electoral Commissioner. Obviously you will need a returning officer, which would more than likely be the CEO.
It would be a good opportunity for local people to participate in the voting process. It would be educational for local people to see and officiate in the process of the by-election. Perhaps, because they are running it themselves, more people would take an interest in voting. As you can see, there were 900 people on the roll for that ward and only 330 voted. That is a very low number of people taking an interest in local government. Maybe there are other reasons people are not taking an interest, but it could be if it was run from a local perspective more people may be encouraged to vote.
Obviously you would need the normal format and voting must be secret. I believe it is proportional representation if more than one person is running in a ward, otherwise it is a preferential vote. The things that normally apply in an election run by the Electoral Commissioner would still happen. I am putting it forward as a simple motion.
We should not be speaking at 9.10 pm. We should have used our heads, not abused the process and shared the time. The member for Daly has every right to introduce his interesting motion, one I took part in. However, I knew people were running the clock down. You could see eyes looking at the clock and hear the snide remarks and the laughs. People were making sure they ran the full 40 minutes. We often do not get that when a minister gives a statement. Usually, the minister makes the statement, some on this side respond and that is it. Those tactics are okay when the government is running the show, but we have one opportunity a week to discuss matters important to our electorates and other people in the Northern Territory.
I find it disheartening that people think it is a laughing matter. I thought we took our parliamentary responsibilities more seriously than that. To some extent I feel ashamed that senior people in the government think it is funny. I put the motion forward and am sad I had to ask for a suspension of standing orders. Sometimes we should be ashamed of the way we run this parliament.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, clearly the member for Nelson should be ashamed of himself. The Chief Minister approached him prior to this debate and asked if he would like to bring his motion on first. As I understand it, the Chief Minister told the member for Nelson a number of people on this side of the Chamber were interested in the gas pipeline motion and would like to talk about it.
For the member for Nelson to rant and rave that he has missed out is appalling, and he should rightfully feel ashamed of himself ...
Mr Wood: I will correct that at the end.
Mr TOLLNER: You have a right to reply.
Ms Walker: Get on with it, Dave.
Mr TOLLNER: ‘Get on with it’. Now we now have a bunch of people interested in being in the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw that comment. You do not reference people coming in and out of the Chamber.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw.
A number of us are keen to speak on the local government motion put by the member for Nelson. I had a conversation with the member for Nelson to say the government would be happy to adopt his motion when the local government reforms are debated next week.
I do not know what you have to do for this guy. You bend over backwards to accommodate him and he still feels the need to have a self-righteous rant about the processes of parliament. To somehow belittle the gas pipeline industry and our desire to see development and energy in the Northern Territory is highly inappropriate. It is an important subject.
The points the member for Nelson makes in relation to local government elections are valid. The Northern Territory Electoral Commission is quite an expensive service. There are other ways of conducting by-elections, particularly if you look at some of the regional councils around the Territory. It seems we are having by-elections on a regular basis, as people resign or leave their jobs for one reason or another ...
Ms Walker: Or the higher mortality rates in remote communities.
Mr TOLLNER: As I said, for one reason or another. Some people, unfortunately, pass away in office. Some, for some reason or other, do not bother turning up. Whatever the reason, there are regular by-elections in our regional councils and local government sector. Having spoken to LGANT, this is also an issue for local government. As minister, I have heard their calls for more options in the way they run council by-elections. They are expensive, they drain local government funds and, in many cases, the election can be run far more cheaply and effectively by the local government bodies and people they employ to do the work, rather than using the Northern Territory Electoral Commission. There is a range of reasons.
The Department of Local Government and Regions has been consulting with the local government sector on the recommendations made by the Electoral Commission in its 2012 NT Council Elections Report which was tabled on 4 December 2013. Submissions were received in that review from the City of Darwin, the City of Palmerston and many other councils via LGANT. A committee was formed with representatives from the department, the Electoral Commission and LGANT to consider the results of those consultations and to determine which recommendations to adopt. One of the proposals under consideration includes reviewing the timing of local government general elections so they do not fall in the same year as elections for the Legislative Assembly.
The Electoral Commission faced logistic and administrative difficulties when holding elections for both local government and the Legislative Assembly in 2012. Both elections are currently scheduled to be held in 2016, and every four years thereafter, to give the Electoral Commission sufficient time and resources to plan adequately for both elections. Consideration is being given to ensure future Northern Territory and local government elections do not fall in the same year and to reduce the frequency of by-elections by allowing more vacancies to be filled by appointment. Currently, if a council member ceases to be a member within 12 months of the next general election, the council can appoint a person to act in that office until the election occurs.
Councils have stated that frequently occurring by-elections have placed significant strain on their resources, particularly by-elections occurring in regional and other municipal councils. To assist councils to address this issue, the committee is considering whether the 12-month period should be longer, which would reduce the frequency of by-elections occurring and relieve some of the strain councils have faced, giving councils more flexibility in conducting by-elections.
Another option being considered by the committee to address the significant strain on council resources caused from by-elections is to allow councils to run their own by-elections or, as I said earlier, engage a private election service provider. Work is being done on the availability of service providers. Other considerations are the role the Electoral Commissioner will play where councils choose to run by-elections on their own, and allowing municipal councils to conduct by-elections by postal voting only.
One of the submissions from councils was to conduct elections by postal voting only and get rid of polling booths. At present this will not work for all councils as the regions do not have adequate infrastructure or postal services. However, it may be possible to trial such a proposal by giving the municipals the option to conduct elections by way of postal vote only.
This already occurs during local government general elections in South Australia and Tasmania. Victoria is also reviewing the feasibility of this option. The committee is considering whether the electoral roll data is of sufficient quality to facilitate this proposal. Other measures seeking to improve administration and reduce costs of local government elections include: expanding the availability of early postal voting services to all constituents to improve voter participation, which is in line with Commonwealth elections practice; allowing the Electoral Commissioner to determine reasonable hours during which a polling booth for by-elections must be open based on expected voter turnout; reviewing the roll the Electoral Commission plays in revising council boundaries to assist councils in meeting their statutory obligations; increasing education to the public and councils on the preferential voting system used for local government elections in the Northern Territory; improving maintenance of the electoral roll by facilitating councils to play a more active role in the lead-up to major elections; and improving voter participation by encouraging the Electoral Commission to take a more active role in pursuing fines from electors who fail to vote.
The member for Nelson’s motion that councils be given the choice of election service providers is being considered by the committee as part of this process. Any legislative amendments which result from the committee’s recommendations are expected to be introduced later this year or early 2015 to allow enough time for implementation and preparation for the 2016 general elections, if that is when we choose to hold them.
The government has been doing an enormous job in reforming local government. Members are aware the Country Liberals did an enormous amount of work in the lead-up to the election around local government. We recognised the toxic shires had to go and Labor had failed Territorians by taking away their voice.
Members opposite may recall that a key issue raised during the 2012 election was that people felt shire councils were unrepresentative and unresponsive to their community, and they were described by most as having lost their voice. Before embarking on its local government reforms, our government consulted widely.
There was widespread dissatisfaction, particularly in the bush, with Labor’s super shire model, and many bush communities felt they had lost their voice and local control of their communities had disappeared. There are four key planks of the government’s local government reforms and I will go through them quickly: the modification and realignment from the super shires model into a network of regional councils and local authorities; the creation of a new regional council in the west Daly region, which I think has been well supported by the member for Daly and I understand that process is going well. Of course, the old super shire was too vast and the communities of interest were too diverse. Other key planks are the continual striving to increase local government’s ability to raise funds and the handing back of power and responsibility from the Territory government to the local government sector.
In relation to the creation of local authorities, since February 2014 regional councils have been establishing local authorities in 63 rural and remote communities and towns, all of which will be up and running by 1 July this year. It is vital for Territorians living in regional and remote communities to have a say on local government matters and other government services and programs delivered in their communities.
Each local authority is made up of community nominees and elected members. A council employee has now been assigned to each local authority to undertake secretariat functions and to ensure good communication between regional councils and their local authorities. The local authorities will play an important role in the business of their council and will represent their community’s interests in important council decision-making, such as in the development of annual plans and the budget, assessing service standards, providing input into council policies and contributing to the council’s annual report.
Eligible members of local authorities will now be paid an allowance, which for the first time acknowledges, in a concrete manner, that residents’ contributions to local planning and governance are critical and invaluable. In addition, the $5m I announced at the last LGANT meeting in Katherine will be paid to regional councils to distribute to local authorities. They will make recommendations to their councils on how this money can be best directed to meet community priorities. Local authorities will receive regular financial reports about council expenditure in their community so they are able to track how funds are being spent in their area and make recommendations about future allocations. In addition, local authorities will be able to provide a representative on employment selection panels in relation to managerial positions in their local authority areas.
These initiatives will strengthen the voice of people living in regional and remote areas and ensure they have a strong voice in local government and other government services.
Rural and remote communities have embraced the introduction of local authorities. Recently, the community of Nyirripi was the first community of the central desert region to conduct local authority elections. I congratulate the newly appointed members. I am sure they will provide a strong voice to the Central Desert Regional Council.
In relation to the new West Daly Regional Council, a well-attended meeting with representative clan groups from the west Daly region made it clear to the Chief Minister, me and the member for Daly they wanted a stronger voice and greater control over services in their local area. The new council for the Wadeye, Peppimenarti and Palumpa region was announced in November 2013.
The Northern Territory government appointed a transition committee in December 2013, including representatives from the new council area. The continuing council area, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory and Australian governments and the member for Nelson have been providing me with advice across a range of transition issues. The transition committee meetings to date have included discussion on the new council name – the West Daly Regional Council, council boundaries, staffing matters, service deliveries, assets and liabilities, transfer methodology, council offices, organisational structure and governance arrangements. A prospective council or transitional body was established via a restructuring order in April this year to assist in the preparations necessary for staff, assets and service delivery arrangements to be ready for commencement on 1 July this year. For example, this week the new prospective council was granted an ABN.
In addition to the full range of local government services, a number of agency and commercial services funded by external organisations will also transfer from day one. Based on decisions of the transition committee, all service delivery operations will continue to be provided from within the new council area, while head office activities will initially be based in Darwin to assist the new council to settle progressively over the first 12 months of operation.
The final stages of council planning, budgets, administrative systems and, importantly, council staff and asset transfers are now well advanced. From 1 July 2014 the new council will initially comprise the formal body corporate councillors and service delivery staff transferring from the Victoria Daly Regional Council. Council staff and the broader community will continue to be fully consulted throughout this transition process.
The transition is being progressed over a six-month period to ensure continuous service delivery and a smooth transition process for both the new and continuing councils. Members of the transition committee should be applauded – I say this from the bottom of my heart – on their deliberations to date, which have been well considered and approached very cooperatively by all involved. I thank the member for Nelson – because he is in the room – for his participation in the transition committee.
The Country Liberals government told people in remote and regional areas we would return their voices, and that is exactly what we are delivering.
The biggest criticism we have received is in relation to financial stability. Upon winning government the Country Liberals moved quickly to strengthen the financial viability of local government, especially in the bush. We increased the operational subsidy to bush councils by $5m, which is a 25% increase in the subsidy paid to provide local government services in the bush.
I recently announced a contribution of $5m for use by local authorities to allow communities to undertake small projects in their areas. How bush councils raise more of their own funding will always be an issue. It is important to note that, on average, regional councils raise approximately 5.3% of their income through rates. That compares to an Australian average for councils of between 60% and 70%.
In relation to increasing local government independence, I have offered to hand back certain functions from the Northern Territory government to the local government sector …
Ms Walker: How many jobs?
Mr TOLLNER: The move to hand back autonomy to the local government sector will provide the opportunity for greater self-management. This will be developed through a proposed new agreement with LGANT.
I take up the interjection from the member of Nhulunbuy, who asked, ‘How many jobs?’ It is abundantly clear maintaining government positions is far more important to the Labor Party than greater self-management of local government. Those opposite are not interested in better management practices, only in maintaining the status quo.
You would think, after the last election, they would have learnt their lesson and understood people in the bush were not happy with the toxic shires. They felt disillusioned and betrayed, and voted with their feet.
The CLP is keen to enable local government to, essentially, manage itself. This is a big departure from the way the previous government operated.
In particular, the government is offering LGANT the opportunity to taken on greater responsibilities in recognition that local government does not need the Territory government constantly looking over its shoulder. We want to strengthen the role played by LGANT by allowing it to assume a number of functions currently carried out by the Department of Local Government and Regions. Why people opposite think people will lose their jobs under this new regime is beyond me. LGANT will require people to maintain those functions. I encourage people currently working in the Northern Territory government to seriously consider the opportunities LGANT offers. While the department will still take a lead in policy development and high level compliance matters, the proposal allows local government to set its own agenda and have more control over issues that affect its ability to deliver value for its ratepayers.
Mr Damien Ryan, Chairman of LGANT and Mayor of Alice Springs, and I signed a statement of intent at the meeting in Katherine, paving the way for detailed negotiations to identify functions and appropriate funding that could be transferred to LGANT through a service delivery agreement. This innovative approach will create an environment where local government can operate with maximum efficiency. I can, without a doubt, say LGANT and the Department of Local Government and Regions are working together constructively on that service delivery agreement.
In relation to Indigenous jobs, local councils are a key source of employment in many regional and remote communities throughout the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government supports local government in its efforts to continue employing local people to provide local services. An example of this can be seen with the very successful Indigenous jobs package, another great partnership between the Territory government and the local government sector.
The Australian and Northern Territory governments introduced a three-year funding package to support real and sustainable jobs in delivering core local government services. The program began in 2011 to replace the former CDEP, which had supported Aboriginal employment over the previous 34 years. The Indigenous jobs package provides $6m of funding annually on a matching dollar-for-dollar basis. Included in the package was $500 000 for local area traffic management improvements with the focus on road safety initiatives. An additional $4.8m over three years was provided by the Australian government to fund Indigenous role models or mentors. This initiative has supported up to 30 positions, with retention strategies and capacity building for hundreds of other Indigenous employees. It allows employment of an additional 530 people each year and aims to give certainty in funding local governments so they can better support long-term employment and skills development.
The program supports core local government services and provides employment for civil work crews, road construction and maintenance, parks and gardens, grass and weed management, waste collection and dump management teams, front desk and back office customer services and council building maintenance and plant maintenance staff. The Indigenous employment grant program has been well received by regional councils, has made significant improvements in overall Indigenous employment in local government and has improved outcomes of local government service delivery.
The government is doing an enormous amount in the area of local government, an area we value and a genuine tier of government. At times I am stunned at the way the previous government treated the local government sector. It was as if it was meant to be a puppet doing what it was told and not bucking the system. However, to have a viable local government system you need buy-in by local people, and you cannot do that by running everything with a top-down approach. This government has been keen to devolve responsibility, as much as possible, from large toxic super shires into the regions through local authorities, to resource local authorities and give them a genuine say in their communities – devolve responsibility from the Northern Territory government to the local government sector through its representative body, LGANT. We constantly show faith in the local government sector and things are turning around.
There was not a high level of support for the Northern Territory government from the local government sector prior to us coming to office. Almost two years into government we are starting to see a change in outlook from people on the ground. At the last LGANT meeting I attended we were well received. The announcements made were well received, and the local government sector is starting to see the government is demonstrating genuine faith in the sector.
In that regard, I support the member for Nelson’s motion tonight. He might think he is being targeted, but we had no problem agreeing to set aside standing orders to debate his motion, and we are happy to support it. It fits in quite neatly with what the government is doing. We can easily oppose it as we have the numbers. When someone puts up a good idea we are more than happy to support it no matter how victimised the member may feel. It will be interesting to see what our Labor colleagues think about this with their top-down approach. It is good to see some of them listening to this debate. Thank you.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for getting a suspension of standing orders to debate the motion on the General Business Day Notice Paper. I agree with him; we have seen a gross abuse of government power this evening. General Business is, by convention, intended to be the business of opposition and Independents of the House. We get three-and-a-half hours one day a week for opposition and Independent members.
Madam Speaker, prior to commencement of the May sittings of parliament I met with you and the Clerk to discuss provision in the standing orders to deal with the new dynamic of the parliament: the crossbenches. I raised concerns about the government’s behaviour where we saw a breach of convention with members of the government leading General Business Day motions that could be dealt with by government and did not require motions. I have no issue, as Leader of the Opposition, with government members wanting to deal with private members’ bills through GBD. That has been the convention of the parliament. What has not been the convention is for General Business Day, not Government Business Day, to be consumed by motions from government members.
We have no issue whatsoever with looking at the feasibility of a gas pipeline to the eastern seaboard. The opposition contribution to the debate made that very clear up front. Stop talking about things; do it.
We see a government steeped in arrogance to the point it trashes across the convention and the wisdom of parliamentary process and procedures, to its shame. There is a need to genuinely look at standing orders for General Business Day.
Be honest and up front with parliamentary procedure. If you intend to consume General Business Day with government motions, say so and let us have an open, accountable and honest debate, because that is what you have done tonight.
Members witnessed government members talking, literally, to the clock. Members witnessed the joking and carrying on. You are patting yourselves on the back because you talked to the clock, consumed General Business Day and did not get the important issue of racial vilification up for debate. You would not want to touch it. I understand, politically, why not, because your position is somewhat untenable to date. I hope you read the discussion paper.
I seek to table the discussion paper tackling racial vilification in the Northern Territory.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE: I have written to all members of the parliament asking for bipartisan support. I knew the government would do whatever it could to talk to the clock and avoid a debate on racial vilification tonight. I will not seek to abuse parliamentary processes and procedures in the foolish manner the government has this evening. This is a debate on the local government motion from the member for Nelson and I will honour and respect it. However, I place on the record the deep reservations the opposition has concerning the government breaching convention and the gross misuse and abuse of parliamentary procedures in consuming General Business Day with a government matter. That could, frankly, have been sorted out in a conversation within the parliamentary wing and by getting on with the business of government.
Look at the feasibility, do your job. You are trapped in the psyche of an opposition. People of the Northern Territory need a government; they have not witnessed actions of a government. You are pathetic. Get on with government and allow General Business Day to be the domain of the opposition, the Independent and the crossbenchers of the minority party.
You do your business in Government Business and we will get on with our business on General Business Day. That would be the decent, respectful and honest thing to do. The challenge to you, Leader of Government Business, is to get your rabble to understand that.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I add my disgust to the way General Business Day has been treated by the government. Members opposite seem to think the three-and-a-half hours once a week during a sitting week is theirs for the taking. What a great joke it is to steal the time away from the opposition, the Independent and the three new members who have joined us. It is disgraceful. Clearly, talking the clock down to see who could get through their time was the source of much mirth on that side.
Whilst the matter discussed is important – around gas pipelines – I am ambivalent about gas pipelines at the moment. I chose not to contribute to the discussion because I have said an awful lot about a gas pipeline which never made it to Gove. Seeing members opposite pat themselves on the back about drumming up business in the Northern Territory and speeding up the gas market when there was an opportunity more than a year ago – that was lost thanks to the current Chief Minister.
I thank the member for Nelson for bringing his motion before the House because it is an important subject for discussion. GBD is an opportunity to put forward ideas and be constructive – not just for government but also Territorians – about how things might work better. In this case it is in the area of local government.
Members of the Labor opposition support the intent of the motion from the member for Nelson that councils have the choice of who oversees and conducts local government elections, particularly council by-elections. We support the motion, but note there is a body of work required on the extent of change to local government election arrangements, and how change inferred by this motion may be given effect.
In this debate about change and the way local government elections may be conducted, we need to stay focused on one core foundation of effective local government – the democratic election of councillors, that electors can exercise choice in who represents them, and that elections are conducted in a fair, transparent and proper way. We also recognise in the bush the cultural authority and voice of cultural leaders should be heard as part of an effective local government. We see that as the way local government needs to work in the context of regional councils.
Our regional councils are made up of elected representatives, often local councillors with strong cultural authority – men and women. We always envisaged they would stay strongly connected to their local boards and authorities, as well as being local cultural leaders in local issues and local government priorities.
On Aboriginal land, traditional owners can also exercise their rights as landowners through conditions attached to land leasing and the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.
Returning to the core purpose of the debate, I understand the driver for this motion is the view of some in the local government sector that there needs to be more choice available to councils regarding who conducts their elections, particularly their by-elections. I have had a discussion with the President of LGANT, Mayor Damien Ryan, about the costing impost that comes with elections, particularly by-elections. This is a key issue for councils because under current arrangements they have to budget and pay for the cost of elections. Councils are under continued pressure to reduce costs, including the cost of elections. At the same time, operating costs increase, no more so since the change of government.
The new government, far from delivering its commitment to reduce the cost of living, has increased the cost of living for not only families of the Northern Territory, but also service providers like councils and regional councils. They are currently grappling with the expected increased cost of street lighting, a core expense for our municipal councils. In the past, councils paid a fixed price for lighting, but Power and Water is now negotiating new service agreements with individual councils built around energy use, operations and maintenance, and what is described as a capital charge. In effect, this is a charge to cover the cost of asset depreciation of lights owned by Power and Water.
LGANT’s most recent estimate is costs to municipal councils will likely increase from the current $2.6m to $6.2m, an incredible increase in costs associated with street lighting for municipal councils. It is small wonder Mayor Ian Abbott, City of Palmerston, issued a media release on 17 March slamming the government for doing that. For them, the charge for maintaining assets owned by Power and Water equates to $575 906 annually. It was a very angry media release and I mentioned it in debate yesterday. Clearly, that sector of government and municipal councils is not happy.
I also know regional councils are not happy with the additional costs they have to wear with power increases. Again, I spoke yesterday about the impact on councils. This is perhaps illustrated no better than MacDonnell Shire Council, with three swimming pools and, at the hottest time of the year, insufficient funds to operate the pools until eventually the federal government was shamed into providing funds to allow the pools to operate for the benefit of families, particularly children.
The advice from LGANT is the sector wants to reduce the cost of by-elections in particular, potentially by appointing their own suitably qualified returning officer to oversee elections. They would also like to reintroduce choice in who conducts the elections, and to see a market opened for the supply of election services to local government in the Territory.
In 2008, our reform of the Local Government Act included choice. It allowed councils to decide the service provider through appointment of their CEO or another person as returning officer to conduct their elections.
The 10 new councils and the Litchfield Shire Council chose to use the services of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission for the 2008 election. The NTEC has the skills and experience to conduct elections, which is its core business. It also, importantly, maintains the electoral rolls that election and voter lists are built on.
Expenditure on that election by the NTEC was $995 056, of which $900 000 was funded by councils and the then Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services.
In line with usual practice, the NT Electoral Commissioner provided a detailed report on that election. The Commissioner’s report made a number of recommendations on opportunities for further development of arrangements for local government elections, including a review to find ways to increase the participation rate of enrolled electors, ways to reduce the level of informal votes and more involvement of the NTEC in local government boundary reviews as they occur in each term of the local government.
I wonder if the NTEC has been involved in the review of boundaries associated with the new West Daly Regional Council. I do not think so.
The report also recommended ways to clarify the role of various bodies involved in local government elections, and a range of administrative changes.
In particular, the NTEC recommended the Local Government Act be amended …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, can you take the drink outside please.
Ms WALKER: … to provide that the NTEC be appointed as a sole provider for local government elections, at least in respect to general elections.
There was consultation at the time with the local government sector about the recommendations made by the NTEC. One consequence was the Local Government Act was amended to remove reference to a returning officer, leaving the NT Electoral Commissioner as sole service provider for local government elections, effective May 2012.
Also, in late 2011 there were amendments to the regulation setting out how council elections were to conducted, including Regulation 4, which provides for the Electoral Commissioner to be the authorised officer referred to in the regulations who conducts elections, although the Electoral Commissioner can authorise a person to exercise powers or perform specific functions of an authorised officer.
The council elections on 24 March 2012 were the first for all NT local government authorities on the same date and under common legislation. It was a significant undertaking, with 21 mobile teams and 57 static booths. An additional 411 staff were employed by the NTEC, mostly for election day, and the total cost was $2.3m, with the NTEC meeting $700 000 of that.
We support the return of choice in the appointment of a suitable person to conduct elections, but we also call on the government, if it supports this motion, to work with local government on the development of appropriate legislation and regulation amendments.
It is important that changes do not degrade the quality of elections or the transparency and proper conduct of elections, but we support more choice in who provides election services, particularly for by-elections.
It is critically important that in developing any new arrangements the government fully considers the recommendations and views of the NTEC expressed in the detailed reports put out – the one from 2008 into shire and regional councils. These reports inform government about the best way to see this become a reality. That could include a solution where the government provides funding to the NTEC for elections, or other ways to reduce the cost burden on councils for general elections, particularly the burden on smaller councils and regional councils. We must ensure any new arrangements do not see a degrading in the conduct of elections.
It is fundamental we have fair and open elections in accordance with law, and elections which maximise the informed vote of electors. I am reminded of the words of the Electoral Commissioner last year, where he reminded us how notorious bush elections have been in the past in putting pressure on election staff and the opportunity for election shenanigans. Being a bush member and having spent a number of election campaigns, both Territory and federal, at polling booths, I know how true those words are.
There is still an action before the courts in relation to improper conduct at one booth in the seat of Daly during the last NT elections. Having gone through the federal election in September, I saw wide-ranging conduct at booths, from some booths where the support offered to voters was pretty ordinary, to where voters were clearly being influenced by people working in booths, particularly around the use of language. The use of language is a critical issue given we have so many people for whom English is not their first language, or even second, third or fourth.
This makes it very difficult, but one of the best run booths I saw was at Elcho Island where there was a genuine commitment from people working there. Working with officers from Centrelink was a smart move – to second Centrelink officers from the local area to the mobile polling booths because they work with the constituency and are culturally aware. At Elcho Island I could see they knew the voters and could pronounce names properly. Getting your tongue around the name of some of our Indigenous constituents can be a challenge. I give a gold star to the efforts of the people working for the NTEC at Elcho Island.
I was very taken with Captain Booth, and was also keen to work with scrutineers who, of course, are members of political parties. Their ultimate aim was to make sure everybody worked together with a clear understanding that the objective was to see every voter cast a valid vote. People were given the assistance needed to make sure every box was filled and numbered, and they had voted in accordance with their wishes and were given the right support, despite their, perhaps, lack of English language.
I mentioned Centrelink staff and how valuable they were in remote booths. However, there is an influx of people into the Territory specifically to fill that job. The member for Barkly observed that we get people who are perhaps on a holiday, retirees, good people who take the opportunity to make a bit of money working on the booths. We need to make sure we have the right people, especially in our remote Indigenous communities, who know how to deal with constituents and be sensitive to language and cultural barriers. I was pleased to see – it might seem insignificant to some – women working for the NTEC were not wearing short shorts but, appropriately, skirts to their knees.
A reform we introduced when in government was replacing an exhaustive preferential vote count system with a proportional representation system. Under the vote, old system groups of candidates from larger towns which cross-preferenced were advantaged so such a group could take available positions, even though candidates from smaller towns in the ward received a significant amount of first preference votes. This change was introduced after release of a discussion paper on the subject and extensive consultation. The reform had support in the bush, especially in Central Australia with its many dispersed smaller communities.
The change helped ensure significant first preference support candidates in smaller communities had their support recognised and smaller communities were not disadvantaged and under-represented in local government. It was, and remains, an important reform to providing an equitable and fair process for local voices to be heard. The vote count system also helps ensure a fairer count of votes in multimember wards, as we have in many of our local government bodies. This vote counting system requires some expertise and capacity to properly count and allocate preferences.
We support the intention of this motion in increasing choice for councils on who conducts elections they are required to pay for. We also support change which reduces the cost of relatively simple by-elections to fill casual vacancies for our councils, for example, by resignation, retirement or, sadly as I know too well in Arnhem Land, where elected councillors pass away. This happens with much greater frequency than our municipal councils. Given the level of chronic disease in our communities, good people pass well before their time.
The quality of and confidence in local government elections is at stake here. The changes sought need to be explored in more detail and in consultation with the local government sector, and the detailed and thoughtful reports of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission in relation to past local government elections and how they might inform future processes.
I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion before the House. With the qualifiers mentioned, I commend this motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Fong Lim and Nhulunbuy, and the Opposition Leader for their comments. I thank the member for Fong Lim for trying to work through this issue earlier today. I understand if you change a part of an act other parts of the act will be affected. Your department handed me about six pages of changes which would have to occur, with detailed reasons why.
This motion asks the government to start a process which would have to come back to parliament as legislation drafted by Parliamentary Counsel to ensure the changes fitted in with other parts of the act.
I thank the minister for his summary of what is happening in local government. I will not debate those issues now, but it would be good from a ministerial statement point of view. Some of the things you mentioned I spoke about many years ago, because some of the changes have occurred in municipal councils down south, especially postal voting, and matters would need to be thoroughly discussed before you go down that path. In many cases, the voter turnout can be extremely low as well. I support the Tasmanian system of local government, especially proportional voting, and I supported the previous government introducing that. It is a fairer way of representation, and where we have multimember wards is probably the only way you can get a fair outcome. Other people may disagree, but I have always supported that process.
The minister raised many issues. Is there a paper the public can look at, because local government is not just about those who are elected? It affects ratepayers or voters within local government, and they need to be consulted because there may be changes which affect them that they have not been consulted on. Councils may have been consulted, but whether people at the end of the line have been is another matter. If there is a paper it should not only go to LGANT and its members, but also the broader community for discussion.
I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her contribution. I fully understand other matters need to be looked at. NTEC will, naturally, be trying to keep its business. The member for Nhulunbuy said if the government gives it more money it may be able to reduce the cost. It still comes from one basket, so the option of by-elections being run locally is a way around extra subsidies and a practical way to reduce cost, which is what this is all about.
I thank all members for their support. I want to clarify a few things the member for Fong Lim said. He said the Chief Minister said I would be up first. I do not want to verbal anyone, but the Chief Minister spoke to me informally about that. I did not think so, because the Notice Paper said I was second. I spoke to the member for Daly, who said he was speaking first.
This is important because you cannot do that; even I cannot make that change. Standing Order 93A is the order and precedence of General Business, 93 is the order and precedence of Government Business. Standing Order 93 says:
- Order and Precedence of Government Business
The Chief Minister, or another Minister acting on behalf of the Chief Minister, may arrange the order of Government Business, Notices and Orders of the Day on the Notice Paper as required; and unless otherwise ordered, Government Business shall, on each sitting day, have precedence of General Business, except that, General Business shall have precedence of Government Business on each Wednesday of a sitting week from 5:30 pm to 9:00 pm.
- Order and Precedence of General Business
Opposition and Independent members are able to re-order Opposition and Independent Notices and Orders of the Day and postpone Notices and Orders of the Day provided the ranking of Opposition and Independents’ Notices and Orders of the Day remain in the same position on the Notice Paper.
Notification of re-arrangement of Notices or Orders of the Day to be advised by Opposition Whip and/or Independent Member to Opposition Whip, Clerk, Government Whip, Independent Members by the close of sittings on the Tuesday immediately preceding the General Business day.
Mr Gunner: Also, you cannot …
Mr WOOD: That is right. There is a clear distinction between what can be done by the government on its day and what can be done by the opposition and Independent members on their day. Reading those two sections, it is clear there is a section set out for the opposition and Independent members. It is there; the government has its time and we have our time. I expect the government to put forward something very occasionally, because we do not have other opportunities.
Minister, the Chief Minister could not change things. I checked with the member for Daly, who said he was speaking first, and that was the order of the day.
As for being victimised, member for Fong Lim, I am over it. My skin is thick. I have been kicked by the CLP for many years, even when in local government. I know what it is like, I am over it. My concern is my electorate is being victimised because you are stopping me, as the elected member for Nelson, from representing people in this parliament. I am not being victimised, my electorate is being victimised.
It disappoints me when you say that. It also disappoints me that you won an election by about 124 votes. You had a loss of 10% in voting patterns, and only about 50% of people turned out. It took another 50% of that, which is 52%; it was not a great win. One of the problems I have with the government is that it is arrogant. I do not mind having a good debate, but do not rub my nose in it all the time. I will lose the debate; the only number I have is me.
I do not mind that, but sometimes the way you deal with issues makes me think, ‘Put your foot in reality’. You have a one seat majority. You had more and it has still not sunk in. If something happened to one of your side you would not have a majority. I will not teach you how to suck eggs; it is your business how you run your side. However, the feeling out there is the government is arrogant. Let us take the people forward.
I said to the Minister for Education regarding the Education Act, ‘Take people forward, don’t just tell them to look up the website’. If you want to change the Planning Act or have plans for the greater Darwin area do not say, ‘Here is a sheet of A4 paper’, or ‘Look on the website’. Talk to people about the issues. If you think your policies are good and important allow them to be debated in open forums, do not preach to people – you may say I am preaching to you – discuss things in a proper manner because they are important to people. Regardless of who is on that side of politics I would say the same things anyway. The process I had when I was with the council was to talk to people.
I was and probably still am upset, but I have calmed down, member for Fong Lim. Obviously when you brought that can into parliament a minute ago you intended to speak on the container deposit scheme and were looking for a depot, is that right? Madam Speaker, you totally misunderstood the reason the member for Fong Lim brought a can of Coca-Cola in. It must have been empty and he was looking for 10c. Great promotion, member for Fong Lim. I realise …
Mr Tollner: You were disappointed with which manufacturer it was.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the support. It is getting late and is a pity we had to go this far to get a straightforward motion before parliament. I have said enough about how the government acted tonight. I appreciate the support.
Motion agreed to.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (BEVERAGE CONTAINERS AND PLASTIC BAGS) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 76)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I want to cover off on a few things before we move the motion and answer some questions the member for Nhulunbuy raised. She asked why I had not debated long and hard with my interstate colleagues. It is certainly on the agenda as two of the largest states in Australia are seriously looking at container deposit legislation. In fact, one of their Environment ministers, after lobbying from this government and understanding what we were doing, sent a delegation to the Northern Territory, and the EPA worked very hard with them in the time they were here. They were seriously looking at our legislation. The premier of that state is very interested in CDL.
The continued lobbying and work we have done is starting to pay dividends. It will not be too long before we see at least three states and one territory with CDL, perhaps two territories. To say I have not done my job – we worked really hard and there is a lot of interest, member for Nhulunbuy.
In regard to consultation, more than enough has been done on CDL. Even under your government there was a level of consultation, which led to a clunky old system that was not legal and not right for the Territory. Through the hard work of this government we finally have a system Territorians can get behind.
You mentioned Tasmania and the fact I was in New Zealand. You referred to me tapping Tasmania on the shoulder. Work had been done earlier in Tasmania but not just by me. If memory serves me correctly, there had been negotiations between the premier and their equivalent EPA in Tasmania. It had just fallen through the cracks; that is the only reason. The reminder I gave them in Wellington sped the process up a little. We do not want to rewrite history, member for Nhulunbuy.
It is very important we go through the legislation summary in brief and advise the purpose of this bill. This quick summary might cover off some of the questions you may have if your will is it goes to the committee stage.
The purpose of the bill is to improve the efficiency of the scheme, the operations and administration, and to enhance the functionality of CDS; strengthen enforcement potential; remedy systematic discrepancies experienced by participants of the CBS; and remedy, where possible, the difficulties currently being experienced by CDS participants.
The key features of the bill are that CDS coordinators must accept all approved containers from collection depots which have been sorted by material type only, for example aluminium, plastic, glass, cardboard, etcetera; removal of the CDS principles and introduction of key components of the principles directly into the bill in areas such as the need for a dispute resolution process and minimising the handling and sorting of containers; the requirement for all CDS participants to have a waste management arrangement approved by the NT EPA; the requirement that a collection depot must be open to the public in accordance with its waste management agreement; the validation of existing approvals despite any deficiencies in the granting of the approval to enable action to be taken against a breach of approval, and allow for existing participants to operate effectively whilst working towards implementation of the new provisions; and transitional arrangements to allow CDS participants the time to align their operations with the new requirements.
External consultation has been ongoing during the two years the CDS has been in operation. Extensive feedback has been received from the community and industry stakeholders. The bill addresses a number of operational issues identified by CDS participants and access issues raised by the community.
Targeted consultation was conducted on the consultation draft bill with all suppliers, collection depots and CDS coordinator approval holders and industry associations in January, February and March 2014.
The community will benefit from improved access to the CDS through the removal of some barriers to the urban and remote roll-out of the CDS. CDS participants will see a more stable framework for negotiating handling fees and improved facilitation of the development of effective waste management arrangements.
The NT EPA will have an improved and more flexible regulatory framework to work within and there will be improved efficiencies at collection depots.
Much has been said about the CDS over the last few years in this Chamber. I will not shy away from the fact I investigated other methods of recycling. In my position of opposition spokesperson at the time, that was my job and what I should have done. It was my job to bring alternatives to parliament and I did. The Country Liberals have always supported container deposit legislation; we did not support the model introduced by the former Labor government because – and it has proven to be correct – it was wrong. The legislation turned out to be illegal and it has taken the Country Liberals government, working with the staff of the EPA, to get the model right and as close to the South Australian model as we can, and to ensure it becomes so efficient that more collection depots will open across the Territory, giving more Territorians access to collection depots. We will then truly deliver on the original intent of the former Labor government.
No one is against the intent of the legislation, but we will now see legislation which is far less clunky, more efficient and everyone will win. Thank you.
Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Chair, I have some questions in relation to the second reading.
Unfortunately, minister, I was not here for the earlier debate; however, I have some questions in relation to the second reading ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Chair! I do not want to appear pedantic, but the committee stages are essentially an examination of specific sections of the bill as they come up. This would not be strictly in accordance with standing orders. I seek your guidance.
Mr CHAIR: Leader of Government Business, the advice I have is it does not have to be a qualified clause; it can be general discussion.
Mr WOOD: We asked Madam Speaker recently, when there was a bill where we discussed the second reading. You were chairing at that stage, Mr Deputy Chair, and it was permitted.
Minister, in relation to your statement that improving efficiencies within the container deposit scheme will be the key to its success in the future, what discussions have you had with South Australia – the only other state with this scheme – about improving the types of containers? As you know, wine bottles, milk bottles and certain fruit containers are not included in the scheme. Some people, when getting their 10c for bottles and cans, wonder why they are not accounted for.
For instance, fruit juice drinks give 10c, but real fruit juice does not. Milk has not, but iced coffee has. Has the department done any work in line with the EPA in South Australia, to see whether we could get better and more efficient coverage of all containers?
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you, member for Nelson. There are two things, and what comes to mind is Yakult – the little containers. That is the first thing I thought of when container deposit legislation was introduced; we had these small containers incurring the fee. The issue is twofold. Firstly, we have a commitment with South Australia that we will remain consistent with its containers. Secondly, I am mindful of the changes to our legislation. This is not legal fact, but if we push the boundaries too far and change our system too quickly – particularly out of step with another jurisdiction – we could find ourselves back in the courts. I want to prevent that and if, over the years, South Australia looks to change its containers and we have other states on board – it is something we should always be mindful of and prepared to do
Ms WALKER: I am conscious of the hour and that we have had hard-working public servants here for several hours – perhaps they have had an opportunity to have a bite to eat. It is not my intention to keep people going for hours, but I have some questions and will work through them from the beginning of the bill to the end.
My first question is about clause 2 and commencement of the act. The act commences on the day fixed by the Administrator by Gazette notice, but can you give an indication as to the proposed start date of the scheme? You must have a target in mind. Is it a year or two years?
Mr CHANDLER: The first thing is to get it through parliament. We will get the administration side of it done as soon as possible. You must remember there will also be a transition arrangement from the old system to the new system. We have to give operators and the beverage industry the opportunity to amend. The transition time is six to 14 months to get this bedded down, but the legislation will go through normal channels. We will get it approved as soon as we can, but it is important we get the transition arrangements right.
Ms WALKER: When we get to the part of the bill about specific transition arrangements I might have more questions. Through this transition phase, the six to 14 months, how will information be provided to scheme participants to ensure appropriate waste management arrangements are finalised in a timely fashion?
Mr CHANDLER: There are ongoing discussions between the EPA and operators at the moment, as well as the coordinators. Detailed guidelines are being produced for them to follow.
Ms WALKER: When will the guidelines be available? Would those guidelines be available for public scrutiny?
Mr CHANDER: I am advised that when the legislation passes the EPA becomes the authorised body. The guidelines can be created and it should not take too long. I cannot give you an actual date.
Ms WALKER: My next question is in relation to clause 7, Part 2. Division 2 has been replaced. This is where we go to the establishment of a container deposit scheme and waste management arrangements. What legal advice has the Northern Territory government received about contestability of the amendment, and will you release that legal advice?
Mr CHANDLER: First, Division 2 will be replaced to better reflect the need to establish the CDS and develop waste management agreements that are consistent with achieving the object of the act. Reference to the waste management agreements giving effect to the CDS principles will be removed, as the CDS principles are no longer a separate document. However, the relevant component will be incorporated into the act. As far as legal advice goes, this is where a lot of work – why I would argue the process has taken a considerable amount of time because every change we suggested be made to the legislation we had tested and legal advice has been given to the EPA. Again, we want to be careful we do not push the boundaries too far and turn a pear into an apple.
Ms WALKER: Minister, would you release the legal advice? We know the original bill was carefully drafted to minimise a constitutional challenge. How confident are you the regulatory changes in the bill do not open the scheme up to challenge?
On the strength of that, what legal advice do you have to support that and will you table it?
Mr CHANDLER: I suspect it would not be wise to table the legal advice given you would, potentially, be giving the operators or the beverage industry information. I would not want to give them that information.
Ms WALKER: Minister, surely we need to know what aspects have been considered to ensure the scheme is not being put at risk. In your media release of 7 March 2013 you said:
- A prominent and respected barrister warned the former labor Government in advice commissioned in 2010 that the Container Deposit Legislation might be struck down if challenged in court.
In that media release you quoted Graham R Nicholson and advice to the Solicitor for the Northern Territory on the 27 September 2010. Given you have released legal advice previously, why would you not release legal advice now in relation to the risks to the scheme from these amendments?
Mr CHANDLER: I do not think we released the advice; I said we had advice.
Ms WALKER: You quoted.
Mr CHANDLER: I could again quote that we have legal advice. There has been a very methodical approach to this legislation. Every step of the way we have had legal advice to ensure we do not overstep the mark. We are still not 100% sure a beverage industry will not challenge this legislation again.
The advice we have is, in their opinion, we have taken it about as far as we can. It is not our job to set this up to fail; we want this to work but we want to be careful not to take it too far.
Ms WALKER: In the second reading speech you said:
- While we can never be assured of preventing all legal action, we have sought advice from private sector Queen’s Counsel experienced in competition and consumer law during the drafting of the relevant components of the bill to reduce the potential for successful challenges. Queen’s Counsel has advised, the proposed legislative amendments are expected to meet the requirements of authorisation under section 51(1)(d) of the Commonwealth Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
Minister, how confident are you the authorisation under the Competition and Consumer Act will not open the scheme up to challenge? What aspects have been considered by the government to ensure the scheme is not put at risk?
Mr CHANDLER: Member for Nhulunbuy, I am as confident as I can be.
Ms WALKER: In the same way the previous government was as confident as it could be and not wanting to see a bill fail.
Minister, the amendment bill repeals existing section 12 about coordinator arrangements, which require the development of principles for ensuring effective, efficient and equitable waste management arrangements. Some of those requirements have been moved into this bill – the principles. Why was the decision made to do this? What are the major differences between existing CDS principles and the new provisions in the bill?
Mr CHANDLER: Member for Nhulunbuy, the reason it was moved into the legislation was to strengthen it. They are nearly identical. Being taken from a guideline or regulation into the act itself gives us more power to enforce the legislation.
Ms WALKER: Minister, the CDS principles were in the original act. In the amendment to section 12, the CDS principles per se have been removed, including the heading of CDS principles, although some have been retained. Why did that change? What are the differences between the existing act and the provisions in the new bill?
Mr CHANDLER: You will find under the previous legislation the principles were required to be developed under the act but were not in the act. We have moved them into the act.
Ms WALKER: I will take your word for it, minister. My next question is around proposed section 12, Coordinator arrangement. Proposed section 12(1) of clause 7 requires:
- Each CDS coordinator must make a waste management arrangement with each other CDS coordinator.
Can you please outline the operation of this proposed section should a CDS coordinator decide not to, or is not able to, complete waste management arrangements with all other CDS coordinators? If one does not negotiate in good faith, all CDS coordinators would find themselves in breach of the provision, would they not?
Mr CHANDLER: In that case, I would suggest arbitration.
Ms WALKER: I will come to arbitration a little later because there is no guarantee of a result from arbitration and therefore …
Mr CHANDLER: As similar today.
Ms WALKER: What improvements are you making in this bill, knowing this is one of the sticking points in the current legislation?
Mr CHANDLER: It is a good point, but under the current legislation collection depots could have up to nine waste management arrangements in place. Under this legislation we require one. I argue that it would be far easier to get one management agreement in place than nine.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, minister. My next question, still within the coordinator arrangement in proposed section 12 – does the declaration by the Federal Court that components of the act were inconsistent with the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 apply to Division 2 of the original act?
Mr CHANDLER: I am advised we have an exemption that applies to the existing act and the new act. From my reading of the exemption, we were given enough scope within the exemption to allow us to develop this new act.
In that decision, scope was given realising there would need to be changes to the act. I am very confident we are covered by both the original act and this act.
Ms WALKER: Noting your confidence, will the declaration by the federal court that components of the act were inconsistent with the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 apply to Division 2 of the amended act – the amendments today? The new provisions have a different character to the existing act.
Mr CHANDLER: My advice is the federal court decision is not relevant anymore because we have an exemption.
Ms WALKER: That exemption is permanent? There is no time frame on that? Thanks, minister.
My next question pertains to labelling and regulation 13(1) of the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Regulations which says:
- For the definition approved refund marking in section 4 of the Act, the following approved refund marking under Part 8, Division 2 of the Environment Protection Act 1993 (SA) for a container is taken to be an approved refund marking for a regulated container of the same type until 30 June 2014.
That is the bit that says a 10c refund at SA/NT collection depots in the state/territory of purchase.
However, the date set in the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Amendment Regulations No 2 of 2011 for transition was 31 December 2013. Why has the government extended the transition period by six months?
Mr CHANDLER: I am advised it covers off on the period the government was running the scheme.
Ms WALKER: Minister, what assurances have you received from industry that it will now meet the delayed time line for all labels to be updated? Not all companies have done it yet.
Mr CHANDLER: I am advised negotiations have been ongoing and it is looking good at the moment. If I was a betting man I would say some companies questioned whether we would continue in the Northern Territory, therefore, they have not changed their labels. Now we have the exemption and they know it is here for the long term, I suggest they will move in that direction pretty soon.
Ms WALKER: Moving in that direction is a little different from receiving assurances from beverage producers in the industry. The date of 30 June 2014 is only about six weeks away, so what assurances have you had and what are the implications for industry that do not meet that time frame?
Mr CHANDLER: The only reason they would go past the date in the legislation is if stores bought products prior to the date. Depending on the turnover of stock – if it was a big supermarket I expect it would only be weeks. For some smaller stores it could be months
Ms WALKER: Given the date is 30 June 2014, what latitude are you prepared to give industry in flexibility beyond that time frame? When would you say enough is enough? What actions would you take to ensure compliance?
Mr CHANDLER: To be fair, the scheme has been running for well over two years and there are still companies that never listened to you. I am hoping they listen to us, and we need to work with them. They know it is here for the long term; we have sustained the legal challenges. The legislation is more efficient for everyone involved. We are not walking away from this, and I will be calling on the big beverage companies in particular to get on board. We are not going away.
Ms WALKER: I sincerely hope you are right, minister.
Could you explain further Part 2 Division 2 clause 12(5), Coordinator Arrangement, which has the effect that anything mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) done by a CDS coordinator is not to be regarded in deciding whether the coordinator has contravened Part IV of the Commonwealth Competition and Consumer Act.
Mr CHANDLER: My advice is it has been written broadly enough to ensure we do not face a legal challenge. It was written incorrectly the first time, or not in accordance with the Competition and Consumer Act.
Ms WALKER: Clause 12(5)(a) to (c) is the exposure point for challenge. You say compared to the existing legislation this has strengthened it. On what occasion would a decision need to be made in relation to Commonwealth competition law?
Mr CHANDLER: It would depend whether it was challenged.
Ms WALKER: Section 51AD of the Commonwealth Competition and Consumer Act, Contravention of industry codes requires:
A corporation must not, in trade or commerce, contravene an applicable industry code.
When do you expect regulations prescribing an industry code or specified provisions of an industry code for the purposes of Part 4 to be made? What assurances have you received from the Commonwealth of a willingness to make such a regulation?
Mr CHANDLER: Within a month of this legislation passing we must write to the ACCC advising of the section – it has never happened before – then they will then make the regulation.
Ms WALKER: Can you indicate what the contents of the industry code will be?
Mr CHANDLER: I am advised it would be a code to say this regulation exists within legislation.
Ms WALKER: Has there been consultation with the industry code? Is it stock standard code which is simply developed and does not require consultation?
Mr CHANDLER: Our understanding is there is no industry code relevant to this. The ACCC would make a regulation acknowledging this exists within our legislation.
Ms WALKER: The industry would be aware of this code and have been consulted about it?
Mr CHANDLER: We are not aware of any industry code, but we are aware that the industry itself is aware of this clause.
Ms WALKER: Minister, I will move to Part 2 Division 2(9) which sees sections 18 to 20 replaced. The amendments generally make it a more complicated scheme insofar as there is more waste management arrangement required between parties with an interest in disrupting the process, for example, between the coordinators as opposed to the depot operators who previously had to deal with a number of coordinators. The coordinators now need to make the arrangements. What assurances have you received from the coordinators that they will work expeditiously to agree on new arrangements amongst themselves, given their record?
Mr CHANDLER: To better achieve the purpose of the act, proposed section 18 will clearly state it is an offence of strict liability for a collection depot to not accept all containers, providing they are approved and purchased in the Territory, or corresponding jurisdiction, after the start of the CDS.
Further protection for the collection depot will be built into the proposed section in that a collection depot will not be required to accept an empty container if they are unable to verify that a supply approval is in force or if they are unable to identify the approved refund marking. However, if a waste management act stipulates otherwise, a collection depot will be required to accept those containers. Such a stipulation may be provided, for example, if agreements are made for the acceptance of materials that have been crushed prior to receipt and the approved refund marking cannot be identified as a result of this. Before accepting containers, the operator of a collection depot may require the person delivering the containers to sort them by material type. This will allow for increased efficiencies at the depot with less waiting time for the community.
Ms WALKER: Minister, I know it is late and perhaps I am getting confused, but I was seeking an understanding of how these coordinators will work together cooperatively and expeditiously to agree to these new arrangements. What will bind them to reach agreement?
Mr CHANDLER: They have indicated discussions will start once the legislation has been passed. If they did beforehand, they are in breach of the legislation.
Ms WALKER: Thanks minister, that is interesting. Are there sufficient powers within the bill to compel coordinators to have arrangements with each other if they cannot agree upon the details?
Mr CHANDLER: They would be forced into arbitration.
Ms WALKER: Can you force someone into arbitration?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes.
Ms WALKER: Can it force a result?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes.
Ms WALKER: People can be compelled into arbitration, and arbitration by nature of what it …
Mr CHANDLER: Within the legislation, arbitration is a legally binding decision. They can choose to remove themselves from the scheme altogether.
Ms WALKER: Thanks, minister. One of the issues the last time was going through an arbitration process to get a resolution. With the scheme itself, a depot coordinator would not be disadvantaged if a coordinator walked away from the scheme? Another coordinator would step in?
Mr CHANDLER: With five coordinators, you would expect a collection depot to form an agreement with at least one of them.
Ms WALKER: Let us hope so, minister. I now refer to Part 2 Division 2 clause 18(6). There is a new requirement that:
- … the person delivering the containers to sort them by material type.
Mr CHANDLER: I think they would still accept them. There are no changes from the original act. This is what people are used to; this is what people do today in sorting materials.
Ms WALKER: I accept there has been a certain level of education for people who have been utilising depots and have, helpfully, sorted their containers. However, many places, especially in remote areas, have not had the experience, sadly, of having a depot to return containers to. We will have communities – I hope a number of our remote Indigenous communities – where consumers are not English literate. How will we educate these people and will depots be able to turn people away? You have suggested they would not be, but I am looking for an assurance on that.
Mr CHANDLER: Lately we have seen a lot of collection depots doing their own advertising, which is fantastic. In that advertising is a level of community education. The former government put quite a bit of money into community education. That is being carried on very effectively by the collection depots and I suspect it will continue. We can talk about what kind of advertising or community engagement will happen after the legislation passes.
Ms WALKER: Minister, people’s memories are such that two years down the road they may not recall the campaign, the importance of recycling and how helpful it would be to separate containers.
I will move to my next question.
Mr WOOD: Because there is another part further along I am not sure if I am jumping the gun, but when people come in with cans – people do not have to show each can, they are weighed. Should I be debating that further on? Part 2 Division 2 clause 20 talks about acceptance and payment for empty approved containers? Am I in the right spot? My question relates to an anomaly. People will bring in a bag full of cans and weigh them but not count them. Someone in Borroloola asked me to inquire into a bale of crushed cans. I felt there was an anomaly because they would only accept them as weight based on the value of the aluminium not the number of cans. I have seen cans being weighed.
Theoretically, they have to identify the cans with barcodes and that they were sold in the Northern Territory. However, at depots they do not check every can, they just weigh them. Are people penalised if they crush their cans and deliver them to the depot?
Mr CHANDLER: Potentially it is up to the depot, because it will ultimately take on the liability of a bag full of crushed cans. They have to get them back to the coordinator. I am aware certain depots will accept crushed cans; however, strictly speaking, they have to identify them so the depot would take on the liability not the customer if there was a risk.
Ms WALKER: Member for Nelson, out my way we have had lots of discussion about that prospect.
Minister, I have a few more questions. I am trying to trim them back and I apologise for keeping people here late.
There is a new requirement for each depot to accept all approved containers. How do you see this working where mobile or smaller depots may not be open every day? How do you see it operating for small depots, such as those in Alice Springs or Tennant Creek, or mobile ones? What assurances would a consumer have, if it is not open five days a week or is a mobile depot, they will be open when they say they will as opposed to full-time depots?
Mr CHANDLER: The nature of a mobile depot is just that: it is mobile. I assume, wherever it goes, the business operator would want it open. Wherever they take it, it would be open. I doubt they would take a mobile facility to a community and not open it.
The legislation is clear this time. Where under the previous legislation operators could operate within the scheme but only open to commercial operators, this legislation stipulates they must be open to the public. If they want to operate in the scheme, they have to be open to the public.
Ms WALKER: That is good, thank you.
How will the amendments in your bill make it easier for a depot to be established in places like Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt or Elcho Island? These are places where the tyranny of distance is a challenge and, with that, the challenge of containers. We do not want to transport large volumes of lightweight material carrying air.
What work will your department do with interested parties in remote communities, such as those I represent in Arnhem Land, to provide more options to people to drop off their recyclables and get their refund?
Mr CHANDLER: This is the beauty of the new legislation. There would be far more opportunity for collection depots to open for a number of reasons. You hit the nail on the head when it comes to why cash for cans would always be difficult in the Northern Territory – the tyranny of distance. We know the further products go the harder it is to have collection depots.
The difference between the old legislation, where collection depots needed a number of waste management agreements in place and now they require one – where collection depots had to split items up to 24 – it is reduced considerably. The operation is simpler. For that reason alone, it is easier to operate the business with fewer administrative requirements where it only needs an agreement with one coordinator. If you make the process to operate a business cheaper and easier administratively, you open up the potential for far more collection depots to operate. Under the old system they were expensive to operate. This will be a cheaper way to operate with far less requirement to have as many agreements in place. It will be simpler and should open the door for more operators.
Ms WALKER: We will see about that, minister. I recognise it as being simpler and more accessible, but the logistics, transport costs and tyranny of distance do not change.
I move to Part 2 Division 2 clause 20, Acceptance of and payment for empty approved containers by CDS coordinator. In relation to acceptance and payment for empty approved containers by a CDS coordinator, proposed section 20(1)(c) says:
- The operator claims from the coordinator a refund amount for the containers and other amounts payable in accordance with the approved operator arrangement (related amounts).
How is ‘related amounts’ defined?
Mr CHANDLER: The related amount is the handling fee negotiated in the agreement.
Ms WALKER: Does that include the handling fee? For instance, would the handling fee include transportation costs, which will be greater in northeast Arnhem Land or Wadeye, compared to Darwin?
Mr CHANDLER: There is no change between the previous legislation and this legislation in that regard. Coordinators wear the cost of transport, not collection depots.
Ms WALKER: That being the case – I recognise the dilemma it presents – it would still make it more difficult to negotiate coordinator arrangements for depots to operate in remote areas. Does this bill make that any simpler than current legislation?
Mr CHANDLER: Again, there is nothing we can do about the tyranny of distance and this system. That argument will never change. I brought it to the House when the previous government introduced the legislation. The tyranny of distance will always be difficult. I maintain there will be difficulties in operating depots in any of our island communities.
I know there was good grace where barge operators would sometimes bring back cans from Groote Eylandt and other places. When the legislation was introduced the good grace disappeared because there was money involved. They brought them in for the Scouts, community groups, schools and others. However, when the legislation was introduced that stopped, which was disappointing. We will never have a CDL program where we can, 100%, address the tyranny of distance. However, this legislation will make it easier for operators to set up.
The less splitting and fewer management agreements in place with coordinators – we have made it simpler, and that is probably all we can do to make it as efficient as possible. I hope more operators will open up. Will they open up in every part of the Territory? I cannot guarantee that. I would like this to operate across the Territory, but the tyranny of distance will prevent it from happening in some places
Mr WOOD: Minister, one thing left out of this debate is Coca-Cola and Lion Nathan make a considerable amount of money from unreturned deposits. Would I be right in saying, ‘Don’t feel sad for them when they pay for transport because they are getting free bucks?’ That is how this system was meant to operate in South Australia – the money not returned would help the system operate. When I did the figures for a 10c deposit and 10c handling fee they showed those companies are making around $20m. Not all cans are returned. Do you feel sad about it?
The tyranny of distance can be well covered by unreturned deposits. Would you agree with that?
Mr CHANDLER: I do not feel sad. Member for Nelson, you are right Whilst I would argue the previous legislation was clunky, I was still gobsmacked that these companies would challenge the previous government with a threat – which was realised when we came to government – given they were making money out of the scheme. That was disappointing.
I can remember the debates in this House when the legislation went through. These companies can get the product to shops across the Northern Territory; there is no reason not to get them back.
Ms WALKER: To harp on about transport costs, I want to put to you an arrangement between people dropping off their approved containers to the depot coordinator then having arrangements with the coordinator to transport them out. We all agree it makes sense to crush the containers to compact the load then upload in Darwin, Katherine or Alice Springs.
Surely coordinators would be seeking an agreement that they are taking back approved containers. Do you envisage there might be some containers not eligible, yet, when crushed, you would not know what was in a particular pallet? I am looking at, potentially, the trigger where the coordinator might say, ‘We don’t know what’s in there’. Is it a case of having an arrangement, through regulation with an authorised inspection officer? I have, to a degree, experienced this when trying to establish a scheme in Nhulunbuy.
Mr CHANDLER: I am not sure I understand the question. Are you saying if a Scouts group goes to a collection depot with crushed cans they might not get their money back, or …
Ms WALKER: I hope everybody would trust Scouts. It is being assured what is crushed and presented to the coordinator is what it is. The depot coordinator needs that assurance in accepting recyclables. I am suggesting the depot might be doing the crushing. I have seen aluminium cans crushed into a flat pallet for the Lions Club in Nhulunbuy. How do the coordinators – knowing some coordinators and some industry members can be a bit recalcitrant and may take any opportunity to step away from their responsibilities to take back beverage containers …
Mr CHANDLER: My advice is the arrangements would be between the depots and the coordinator within that arrangement, and they would have the details of how the cans and bottles would be presented. I answered the question earlier for the member for Nelson. Some depots take crushed cans based on weight, but the collection depot takes the risk. If they do not have a strong agreement with the coordinator it is up to them to accept or not accept the cans. The legislation is cans are not crushed, they are identifiable so the collection depots knows, but we know some collection depots accept crushed cans.
At the end of the day, it comes down to the weight of aluminium and they know what a can weighs. Cans are crushed, obviously, before being taken interstate. It would be silly to take uncrushed cans all that way; it would be a light truck.
Mr WOOD: I was wondering if we have to get to the schedule in the bill titled Agreements for coordinator arrangement provisions, which has a section about weighing, counting and accepting containers. That is depot to coordinator, I imagine.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes.
Mr WOOD: The issue we have not covered is customer to depot, which is the issue the gentleman from Borroloola had. I presume at depots, if they are good, the coordinator will trust there are not half-a-dozen lead sinkers amongst the cans and they are getting what is expected.
When dealing with transport by barge – I am out of touch with barges now, although I had a lot to do with them at Bathurst Island – they charge per cubic metre. The issue of crushing cans, from a transport point of view – although if transport costs are not an issue because Coca-Cola makes a lot of money and is paying for it – it could be more convenient for people out bush to crush the cans so they fit in whatever vehicle they have rather than have them stacked up in bags blowing onto the road. As we develop this legislation we can speak more about that to find some ground in that area.
Mr CHANDLER: I will take that as a comment.
Ms WALKER: Minister, moving to proposed section 91A, which is all about acquisition on just terms, what is the rationale for insertion of this proposed section?
Mr CHANDLER: Proposed section 91A is a new provision titled Acquisition on just terms. This standard provision states if the operation of the act results in an acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms, the person is entitled to receive from the Territory the necessary compensation. A court may decide the amount of compensation or make the order to ensure the acquisition is on just terms.
Ms WALKER: Minister, you might have just answered it, but in what circumstances would proposed section 91A be activated in relation to a property being acquired on other than just terms?
Mr ELFERINK: If I may assist, member for Nhulunbuy, acquisition on just terms is in the Australian Constitution and has also found its way into the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. Whenever a government acquires property – property can mean any number of things – the acquisition has to be paid for so the property is properly settled. It comes from an old principle deep in common law.
The seminal case on this issue is Dalziel v Commonwealth, and I cannot give you the citation off the top of my head, but basically the presiding judge quoted Shakespeare from the Merchant of Venice where Shylock laments:
- You take my house when you do take the prop that doth sustaineth my house;
That means if a government, by any action, acquires property, either tangible or intangible, and a person feels aggrieved by that, the law in Australia is well established that the government must pay compensation as a result of the rules it establishes.
The case of Dalziel is interesting because it dates back to World War II where the Commonwealth commandeered a car park and, whilst it did not acquire the property itself, it acquired the capacity of the property to generate income for Mr Dalziel and his family. Mr Dalziel argued quite successfully in the High Court of Australia that the acquisition of property included an acquisition by action or by implication rather than an acquisition by title.
This would be a standardised cover-all clause to cover those type of circumstances so any aggrieved person feeling they had, by this legislation – wants to take an action in a court in the Northern Territory, this merely cements in the provisions inside the Australian Constitution and in the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, and reaffirms a stated principle which is at the very core of property rights of citizens against the claims against those property rights by governments.
Mr CHANDLER: Can I give an example? Let us say we decided to cancel somebody’s approval. Approval to operate in the Territory has been removed and they may then want just terms – they may want compensation – but due process would need to be followed before we reached that point, of course. If we reached that point there could be a challenge.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, minister. I also thank the Attorney-General for the mini-lecture in law, complete with a bit of Shakespeare thrown in.
Mr ELFERINK: Do not blame me, blame the High Court. They said it.
Ms WALKER: Minister, what is the estimated liability that accrues to the Northern Territory government as a result of just terms? Surely the Territory government would not agree to a blank cheque in a possible unknown liability …
Mr ELFERINK: That is not how it works.
Ms WALKER: Does an estimated liability accrue to the Northern Territory government as a result?
Mr CHANDLER: It would depend on what the case involved, what was being determined, and it would be by the court, I imagine …
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, they would determine the quantum of damages.
Ms WALKER: I will take your word on that one.
I am nearly done, minister. Proposed section 92, the annual report – I understand the EPA must prepare a report for each financial year about administration of the act. A curious point is the existing provision allows three months for tabling the annual report. Why has it been extended to four months in this bill?
Mr CHANDLER: I am glad you asked. This will be amended to say the NT EPA, as opposed to the minister, must prepare a report about administration of the act and the minister must table the annual report in the Legislative Assembly within four months, as opposed to three, after the end of the financial year. This is to maintain consistency with other similar reporting requirements of the NT EPA.
Ms WALKER: Thanks for clearing that up, minister. I was going to lose sleep over that.
I would like to go to Part 7, which is about transitional matters.
Can you explain the transitional provisions, in the hypothetical case of an existing coordinator with real employees in a real business, and address my concern that transitional arrangements may have four coordinator arrangements but are now only required to deal with one?
How will this affect the depot operator? What assistance will the government provide to get the new approvals in place without depots having to temporarily close?
Mr CHANDLER: I am advised the existing arrangements remain in place until the new arrangement begins. They have two months to make those arrangements. In your case they have four back to one, and they have two months. The original agreement stays in place until that has been arranged.
Ms WALKER: I do not have any more questions in relation to the bill. Thank you for answering my questions with the support of your staff.
Mr WOOD: I have a question in relation to the Schedule referred to in proposed section 12(3). It is a minor detail which talks about weighing, counting and accepting containers. It says:
- (1) An agreement about the method to be used by a secondary coordinator for the following:
(a) weighing accepted containers;
(b) counting accepted containers;
(c) recording the weight or numbers of the accepted containers.
Mr CHANDLER: They can do either or both. It will be in their agreement.
Mr WOOD: It is the way it is worded with the word ‘or’. It is not and/or, just ‘or’. I thought they must be able to say whether they want to weigh or count them. I did not know if that meant they were stuck and had to agree on weighing or counting them rather than using both means.
I do not want to argue with Parliamentary Counsel, but I thought it might be a loophole.
I thank the EPA for its recent briefing; I appreciated it. I did not find it easy. It has never been the easiest bill to read, especially when you do algebra with transportation costs. I appreciate a lot of hard work has gone into this bill and I hope it overcomes some of the problems. I was a critic when it was first introduced. It was not followed up as it should have been. Let us hope this makes it easier, especially for people in remote areas. You can say well done if we get containers from out bush.
Mr ELFERINK: You can be comfortable about the and/or provision. The provision requires something to actively occur. The way it has been drafted says you have to do this or that. In these circumstances if a contested matter ever ended up in court it would ask the purpose of the legislation.
The court would be satisfied that, if both things had been done, it would not be in contravention of the legislation because of the intent of this House. It would be an exercise of literalist interpretation to an absurd degree where a court would not entertain such an interpretation of legislation.
The legislation wants one of two things done. If both things are done, it will satisfy the needs of the law. That is my take on it.
Bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Travel Report – Member for Johnston
Travel Report – Member for Johnston
Madam Speaker: Honourable members, in accordance with clause 4.12 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination I table a travel report for the member for Johnston for a trip in March and April.
TABLED PAPER
Public Accounts Committee Report on the Inquiry into the Structural Separation of the Power and Water Corporation
Public Accounts Committee Report on the Inquiry into the Structural Separation of the Power and Water Corporation
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I table the Public Accounts Committee Report on the Inquiry into the Structural Separation of the Power and Water Corporation.
This is the committee’s first report under its new powers to consider anything under the Northern Territory’s administration. The committee resolved to undertake this inquiry on 26 March, received submissions on 25 April and held hearings on 28 April. This gave an opportunity for stakeholders to raise any concerns about the proposal to separate the Power and Water Corporation and for the committee to ask questions of the agencies promoting and implementing the changes.
This report highlights the key issues raised with the committee. Two key themes arose from the evidence before the committee. The first was concern that the bills before the Assembly allowed, or were a precursor to, privatisation. The second was whether there was adequate analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed structural separation.
Regarding privatisation, the committee heard fears from the Electrical Trades Union and the NT Council of Social Services that the transfer provisions in Part 5A of the Government Owned Corporations Act allowed Power and Water Corporation assets to be sold. The committee could find no basis for these fears. It is clear the intention of these provisions is to allow the transfer of assets to the new corporations, and the bill only allows for the transfer of assets to entities owned by the government.
Regardless of whether the bills allowed privatisation, concerns were also raised that the separation was part of a process to sell Power and Water. Again, the committee found no evidence to support the belief that the purpose of the reform was to privatise Power and Water.
The express purpose of the reforms is to remove barriers to competition in the electricity market and improve the efficiency of the government owned corporation. Further, the Treasurer has assured the Assembly the government has no interest in privatising Power and Water Corporation this term and will not seek to do so without a mandate from the people.
The committee also received advice showing there was no real possibility of privatising PWC without the Assembly passing a bill enabling this to occur. Privatisation cannot be done by stealth. Should a future government wish to privatise Power and Water, they would need to first get the agreement of the Assembly.
The second key theme was whether sufficient analysis had been done to ensure the benefits of separating Power and Water Corporation were greater than the costs. It was explained to the committee that the structural separation was essential for facilitating competition and providing more effective and accountable management of Power and Water Corporation’s businesses. The separation is informed by similar reforms that have been made in all other Australian jurisdictions and by some 14 years of working to improve the efficiency of the Power and Water Corporation. The committee could not find any modelling quantifying the costs and benefits of the process. The committee was informed that the analysis done by Treasury formed part of Cabinet’s deliberations and was, therefore, not available to the committee.
The committee heard explanations of how these reforms would drive improved efficiency, but was not provided with figures on what the impacts would be. This led some members of the committee to question whether the hoped-for benefits would be realised in the market and geographical circumstances of the Northern Territory. This is a point on which the committee did not come to a consensus. However, the report sets out the key arguments presented to the committee, and the members who disagreed with the majority view have included a dissenting report.
The committee also heard evidence on the cost of the separation process, the impact on taxpayers, write-downs of government generation assets resulting from competition and the impact of the separation on Power and Water staff.
Having heard the evidence for the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation, the majority of the committee agreed to recommend the Assembly pass three bills to enable the separation to occur.
MOTION
Print Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report into
Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation
Print Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report into
Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report into
Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report into
Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave granted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I would like to recognise the new member for Blain and respectfully acknowledge his maiden speech yesterday.
On ABC news tonight, Mr Graeme Lewis, director of a company called Foundation 51, was quoted as follows, ‘Foundation 51’s contribution to the Blain by-election was research only and that any financial contribution was unsustainable’, or words to that effect.
Member for Blain, did you receive the sum of $10 000 for consultancy work paid to you by Foundation 51, either directly or indirectly, or a sum of money thereabouts? Are you aware, member for Blain, of any polling done by Foundation 51, either before or during the Blain by-election? Are you aware, member for Blain, that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory was advising others you had been preselected prior to preselection occurring the following day? Are you aware, member for Blain, of the whispering campaign which took place against you from within the ranks of the Country Liberal Party during the Blain by-election? Member for Blain, are you aware of the rules and regulations which make up the Northern Territory Electoral Commission in relation to financial disclosure? Member for Blain, are you aware of the penalties associated with non-disclosure …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! These questions should be put through the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Namatjira, could you direct your comments through the Chair.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Member for Blain, are you aware of the penalties associated with …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She remains in breach. She is using the second person accusative rather than the third person, referencing her comments through the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Namatjira, could you please reference your speech in such a way that it is in the third person.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Member for Blain, are you aware …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She is in breach of the standing order relating to all comments not being directed to a member but should go through the Chair.
Mr GUNNER: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker! She is directing her comments through the Chair and is talking about another member of the Chamber. I have talked about the member for Port Darwin in this Chamber in the past. Other members reference members in this Chamber when they are talking. The point of that standing order is comments need to be directed to you as the Chair not across the Chamber at another person. She is not directing her comments across the Chamber; she is directing them through you as the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Namatjira, continue but talk to me as the Speaker through the Chair.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Member for Blain, are you aware of the penalties associated with ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I refer to the standing order relating to direct references to other members across the Chamber. She should be directing her questions as follows, ‘Is the member for Blain aware’, in the third person. She is now directing her comments directly to the member. That is inappropriate and in breach of standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Namatjira, if you could phrase your statements – I think you get the general feeling.
Ms ANDERSON: Is the member for Blain aware of the penalties associated with non-disclosure regarding contributions, whether in kind or otherwise, or cash for an amount of $1500 or more? Is the member for Blain aware of the Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation taking place in New South Wales? Is the member for Blain prepared to go on the record and state he, members of his family, friends or others, including associated entities, did not receive any contributions, whether cash, research of any kind or donations from Foundation 51?
Is the member for Blain – are you aware that, upon a change of government there may be an opportunity for an inquiry into matters concerning the same? We call on the Northern Territory Electoral Commission to undertake an investigation into Foundation 51 and its apparent associated activities with the Country Liberal Party.
This is about transparency and honesty, and is a mantra this government preaches in the House all the time. Member for Blain, as you said so well in your maiden speech – do you want to represent the constituents of Blain with honesty and integrity or forever have your reputation tarnished? Would you like to come clean now or later? Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I cannot let that go without a response. I am desperately saddened that members opposite, particularly the members for Namatjira, Arnhem and Arafura, claimed to have gone their way because they are looking after the interests of people in remote communities. Unfortunately, all we have heard from day one is smear, innuendo and deceit. The only thing the member for Namatjira is interested in is engaging in the lowest and most base form of politics, using the Chamber to make inferences about the integrity of a person. If she has a shred of courage, I ask her to make those inferences outside this Chamber and suffer the consequences.
I do know what the member for Namatjira is referring to, but she is not looking after the interests of the people of the Northern Territory. The cowardice displayed is monumental and does nothing for people living in Papunya, the Tiwi Islands, Maningrida, Groote Eylandt or Beswick. This seems to be some bitterly motivated vitriol against the government. If that is what they want to do fine, but it is not a legitimate position to take when representing the people they claim to. How does this type of smear campaign and attack on people’s personal integrity help people in the bush?
All we have heard from the member for Namatjira are claims against the taxpayer. ‘You owe us money, you have to give us all this stuff. You have to give us staff. This is how we will represent people.’ There has been nothing more than self-interest from the member for Namatjira, and this is another example. This is puerile nonsense. It has no foundation and is information she is relying upon from disgruntled former CLP members. She has been on radio saying people have been calling them most outrageous names, and the only allegation they can attribute to an individual is from me. The allegation is of such a facile nature as to not warrant a response, and I will not respond to it. The things they claim to have been called are highly inflammatory, so the time has come for them to put up or shut up.
I have not seen the put up from any of these members. Let us hear the names of the people saying these awful things from the member for Namatjira, because what she has related on radio is lies.
The number of times I heard the former Leader of Government Business, Dr Chris Burns, say, ‘You guys can cuddle up to her to your peril’. In hindsight, I agree with Dr Burns. You rely on what the member for Namatjira says to your peril because it is not true.
She is prepared to use third party hearsay, if that is what she is hearing, as a way of slandering people and engaging in the most spiteful conduct. Spite does not produce better results for the people of Papunya, Nyirripi, the Tiwi Islands or Groote Eylandt.
It is always easy to destroy and tear down. It is difficult to build, create and strive to create something against the natural forces of the world. It takes time, dedication and focus.
The member for Namatjira has, as president and CEO of Papunya council, as an ATSIC commissioner, a Labor minister and a CLP minister, had opportunities to build. On each of those occasions, for whatever reason, she has stepped away from that opportunity and preferred to destroy. She has taken the easy step, which is what she is doing now. She is true to form. I am desperately disappointed that someone with the intellectual grunt of the member for Namatjira uses it for such nefarious purposes. From the get-go she has not been telling the truth. She has lied to me on a number of occasions and continues to do so.
I am like the member for Nelson in relation to this; it does not bother me as my skin is thick, but it does not serve the people of the Territory well, especially those who need representation the most.
Where are the impassioned pleas one would expect to hear from newly independent members for the things they perceive to need in remote communities? We hear none of it. We hear a leader of a small group of independents lashing out and trying to break things, rather than trying to lift things up. What she read out in the House was a ghastly abandonment of our sacred duty as parliamentarians, and I am deeply disappointed she has taken the coward’s response.
This is facile beyond all imagination. She must start stumping up evidence for these outrageous allegations. Of course she will not, because she cannot. She is left with nothing other than the hollow noise she will make in an empty vessel. The problem is people, en masse, have begun to see her as a person who cannot be trusted with the truth. She posed a bunch of thinly-veiled accusations as questions which, if she made them outside, would not stack up as non-actionable, despite the low level of protection afforded politicians for defamation actions.
The member for Namatjira has introduced into the public domain a series of allegations. Let us see the evidence and what she can build around this.
I ask the media to turn a critical eye to the motivations and actions of the member for Namatjira if they choose to report on them. I am concerned that whilst they give the member for Namatjira oxygen she will continue thriving on that oxygen. That is the problem we face.
I do not doubt the member for Namatjira’s comments will be reported, but I ask journalists to ask her, ‘Where is your evidence? Let’s see the paperwork.’ Until the member for Namatjira stumps up, this is just her, apparently, making stuff up or, worse still, somebody else is making stuff up and she is uncritically repeating it in this House at the expense of reputations of members of this House.
I am also starting to suspect an element of collusion between her and the Leader of the Opposition, particularly in the area of racial vilification, as one says they are the subject of racial vilification and the other wants to ride into the environment as the champion against racial vilification. Surely the Labor Party is not trying to drink from that well for the political ends of the Northern Territory Labor Party.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, this evening I congratulate local schools in the Wanguri electorate for the amazing work they did in commemorating Anzac Day.
Within the Wanguri electorate we have a growing population of Defence families: a strong population in Lyons; a growing population in Muirhead; and Defence housing throughout Leanyer and Wanguri.
It was wonderful, and it was a privilege to attend the assembly at Wanguri Primary School organised by the very hard-working Defence School Transition Aide, Rachel Dolan. She did an amazing job, and it was wonderful to see so many men and women in Defence uniforms commemorating Anzac Day with their children.
The assembly started with a welcome by student Samuel Everington. A catafalque party attended with Defence members and students from Wanguri Primary School. They stood at the front of the assembly for the entire time, and it was wonderful to see the Defence traditions passed on to the next generation of children, commemorating what is a very important day to all of us.
A welcome to country was made by Ms Bilwara Lee, which was great. We had an introduction by Adam McMillan, then a special commemorative address delivered by Squadron Leader Darren Dolan. Student Hannah Gulrichvoot then delivered the Ode. Warrant Officer Rod Fry was a very busy gentleman that morning because he played The Last Post then went to Leanyer Primary School. The next day I saw him on TV at the Anzac Day commemoration at the cenotaph, so he was very busy.
We saw the raising of the Australian flag by Mr Darrick Robinson, and then one of the more special parts of the assembly when Corporal Jason Stoddart and his daughter, Tahlie Stoddart, stood together in front of the school community and delivered their thoughts on Anzac Day, about being part of a Defence family and the sacrifices they make. It was lovely to see father and daughter delivering such a beautiful, heartfelt address.
Thank you again, Mrs Rachel Dolan for doing such a magnificent job. It was a wonderful, heartfelt commemorative assembly. Mrs Gail Quigley, the new principal at Wanguri Primary School, said it was the most amazing Anzac Day assembly she has ever taken part in. Being new to the Wanguri school community and getting to know all the Defence families was a lovely occasion for her.
Well done to all involved with the Wanguri Primary School Anzac Day assembly, you did a terrific job. Thank you to Captain Matthew Cooper, who was there to present the Military Kids Recognition medallions after the assembly.
After that I attended Leanyer Primary School where the Defence transition aide, Greg Grace, had organised the special Anzac Day commemoration assembly. It was another wonderful assembly where we saw Defence families attending with their children to commemorate Anzac Day. The commemorative address was delivered by Captain Brendan Sullivan from the Australian Army. As was mentioned before, bugler Warrant Officer Rod Fry delivered The Last Post, which was terrific. Chaplin Barry Porter delivered a prayer for the assembly, and the Ode was delivered by Sergeant Stephen Wilson.
Thank you to Mr Grace for all his hard work. It was a very well-attended assembly and it was wonderful to see the children learning more about Anzac Day and paying tribute to the ADF families within the community for the sacrifice they continue to make today.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, tonight I mention Anzac Day ceremonies that occurred in my electorate and just out of my electorate. On 24 April, the day before Anzac Day, I was fortunate to be invited to two schools to address assemblies. The first was Anula Primary School, where they had a beautiful wreath laying service and acknowledged the sacrifice of Australian soldiers, both men and women, who have died in all wars, from World War I through to the current theatre engagements throughout the world.
In my time working in schools as a community police officer and school-based police officer I attended many assemblies. The Anzac Day commemoration assembly at Anula this year would have to be one of the best, most respectful assemblies I have ever been to. Normally toddlers in Transition find it a bit hard to keep quiet and stop fidgeting, but every student in that school, and the parents, seemed to understand what a solemn day it was and how important it was to sit quietly and take in what was happening. I was very impressed.
I addressed those students on the meaning of Anzac Day and explained some of the tradition and ceremonial stuff that occurs on Anzac Day. I was so impressed l thought I would like to put on the public record what a wonder job every student at Anula Primary School in 2014 did.
To rival Anula, at lunchtime I was invited to another school in my electorate, Sanderson Middle School, for its assembly and to deliver a similar speech. It was a little more complicated in relation to what happened, what occurred, why we should acknowledge the ultimate sacrifice some made, as well as the mental and physical sacrifices people who fought for our country and freedom went through.
I told them freedom is a very fragile thing. As many a great person has said, ‘Freedom has no worth if you are not prepared to fight for it’. Bishop Eugene Hurley, from the Catholic Church, tells of a person he was talking to in a detention camp. The bishop was asked, ‘Do you understand freedom?’ He replied that he did. The man said, ‘I beg to differ with you. You do not understand real freedom because you have never lost it. You have had it all your life.’ The bishop had to agree with him. He relayed the conversation, but I will not repeat it all here. This young man said, ‘I understand what freedom is because for years I lost it’. Even though he is in a refugee camp he said, ‘I have freedom’, and he knows what it is like.
People in this country will fight for our freedom. They make a commitment many people do not understand and we have to admire and respect them. As someone whose father and grandfather fought in World War I and World War II respectively, it is an honour to carry their medals on Anzac Day. It is an honour to carry their medals in schools, as well as some of mine for service in the police force.
Moving on, I would like to thank Bev Newton, manager of the Darwin North RSL Club on Batten Road. The club has been struggling recently; however, through the hard work of Bev, her committee, and some volunteers, they have turned that around.
Anzac Day is their biggest day’s trading, and they have done a superb job of making the facility family friendly and a great place to go. I was fortunate enough to be invited to speak at their Dawn Service. I was able to repeat some of the things I said at the schools the day before.
As always, I was ably supported by my good friend John Moyle, a 95-year old World War II veteran. He is still raising money for charity in the northern suburbs. He turned up in a World War II uniform he has access to, along with a slouch hat with the Rising Sun badge on the side.
He is a very proud ex-serviceman who, until two years ago, marched. He believes they march a little too quick for him these days so he rides in Ron Baker’s old Willys jeep from World War II, along with the old World War II trailer. He gets to ride in the march these days. John and I both spoke to a large crowd at the Dawn Service. I have watched that crowd grow over the years. As it is just outside my electorate, for the last few years I have attended that service rather than the one in town.
Once breakfast finished people moved into town for the march. I was fortunate to be at the dais for the march, the largest one I have seen in Darwin. I spoke to some Army people, who said last year they were a bit light on for people. This year they thought they would put effort into getting as many military personnel there as possible. It was terrific.
I was told by some Australian Defence Force people they believe, with a few more people, they will probably have the biggest Defence Force contingent in Australia marching here. As we all know, we have a large contingent of Army, Air Force and Navy along with the Marines. It was great to see the US Marines marching with our troops in recognition of comrades in arms who have fought side by side in most conflicts in the 20th and 21st centuries.
A very moving service was held at the Catholic cathedral, one held in capital cities on Anzac Day, where an honour guard is guarding the altar. It is the only time of year the church allows weapons on military personnel guarding the altar during the service. I was able to pay my respects in a number of ways, but when the march concluded it was an honour to mingle with veterans at Darwin North RSL. It was fantastic to see many families attend and pay their respects, not only at the club but at the march.
I was able to tell a number of young children my first march was when I was two, not long before my third birthday. I stood on my father’s shoulders and walked up Kings Park Road. I was a little frightened; it was probably one of the first times I had been out in the dark and could not understand why people were walking around in the dark in Kings Park. As time went by, my father did a great job of telling me why he got up every Anzac Day and reflected on his father – a veteran who was shot at Gallipoli – and his own memories of losing so many friends in World War II.
It is a tradition I carry on and have taught my kids and grandkids. I was fortunate at the Dawn Service to have my grandson, Dakota Brown, carrying his great grandfather’s and great-great-grandfather’s medals.
I would like to say more about Anzac Day. It was an honour to speak at the functions and lead people in remembering our fallen and those who have come back wounded or injured.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016